1. Nikohl Vandel Friday, January 18, 2013

    Reblogged this on NikiVallwaysMyway and commented:
    a wonderful way of questioning it! personally, i love the books.

  2. Nice writeup Mathew. I think the “if ever” should be emphasized.

  3. Nice writeup Mathew. I think the “if ever” should be emphasized.

    A personal joke of mine is to end a conversation with “No, your opinion is wrong.”

    Just try it sometime next time you are in a disagreement about taste. It feels very empowering ;)

    1. Thanks, Dave — that’s a good one :-)

  4. In general, I hate when people stop by and drop links into comments, but I just wrote about this very topic at Mashable on Wednesday.

    http://mashable.com/2013/01/16/e-books-vs-print/

    In general, my view probably aligns more with Carr’s — I think there is still value in the printed format beyond just as a cultural artifact.

    My conclusion, though, ultimately backs up both Carr and Shirky, to an extent. I feel that e-books and printed books might end up being more divergent as mediums than one replacing the other. There have yet to be many artists who have truly explored what is possible with digital storytelling. Instead, we’re mostly just given facsimiles of the printed format, which lacks much value over convenience and portability.

    Shirky is right that the web will ultimately allow artists to tell stories in ways that don’t match our current conceptions of what makes a “book” or a “novel” (though it doesn’t matter if we call these things e-books or shmoobies — that’s just a name, so it’s a mistake to say that e-books are a transition to something else… they could just be a transition to something else we still call e-books ;)).

    Where I think he is wrong, is that you don’t have to discard one art form to make way for another. If that were the case, no one would ever go to the theater. We’d all just watch movies. Those are two different art forms, though they share common genetics. The same will be true of the novel — which won’t die — and whatever new methods of storytelling artists develop.

    1. Thanks, Josh — some good points in there. Thanks for pointing it out. Links that are of value to our readers are always welcome :-)

    2. I totally agree, and I will add that many readers I know value books in all forms. Pursuing and creating books and artefacts in as many forms as possible is just another tribute to the story itself. Digital encyclopedias have seen tremendous improvements and I will never go back to it in its ridiculous paper volumes. As far as fiction goes, I still lug my giant Tolstoy novel around all day next to my laptop. I also love pop-up books, which is a great medium in itself.

      I think Mathew should check out Ben Popper’s great insight on the Verve about how animated gif teaches teens the art of silent film – I think we haven’t seen the last of anything just yet.

  5. Reblogged this on Things I grab, motley collection and commented:
    a container for sure, like any other format for that matter, the outdating depends upon how long what it contains remains true and valid.

  6. What killed the epic poem? A number of factors, obviously. But print, with its requirement of a minimum number of copies per run, was surely one of them. Digital distribution is liberating. If you are able to create an epic poem, write it and put it up on Smashwords. Put an audio version on Podiobooks. Will it be identical to the oral epic poems of past centuries? Of course not. And perhaps only 100 people will read it. But if they are the right 100 people a lost artform can be revived, free from commercial restraints.

  7. This discourse seems to neglect the aesthetic of a book. The feel of the book in your hand, the physical turning of the pages and, especially in reference books, the ability to visually reference related content easily by flipping back or forth in the book. Bookmarks in e-books do not provide this visual and tactile ability. So I think that both have their place and will continue to do so.

    1. I agree, Larry — even if that place is with a declining group of older folks, like the people who collect pocket watches :-)

    2. Ebook reader clients provide the ability to bookmark, and also to highlight with notes and aggregate those automatically for instant access, and even share these socially with other readers, so i don’t follow your point about physical books having an advantage in that regard.

  8. Civilization is about more choices, not about replacement. What is ending is the monopoly of the book, not its existence. Digital creation and display add a quasi infinite series of possibilities for storytelling with words, images, sound, video, from Twitter to 3D immersion. Great. The paper book and the book as digital format will stay, only marginalized among 1000 other choices. The book is dead. Long live the book.

  9. Were you born yesterday! The Dead Sea Scrolls may just be written on old paper….but with out that paper…the Dead Sea would be…well just the Dead Sea.

  10. Storytelling existed for thousand of years (since the caveman probably). It survived many transitions including the movable type. I can’t see why it can’t survive the digital transition.

    Whether “book” will survive, it really depends on how narrowly “book” is defined. Encyclopedia still exists in the form of Wikipedia, but this net-native version of encyclopedia killed both the paper and digital version of the old (Britannica and Microsoft Encarte).

    The net-native version of “book” is still in its infancy. I believe it will kill paper books and e-books (in its current form) in similar fashion.

Comments have been disabled for this post