Response!

Kim replied to my last post with:

This is an interesting argument, Eric, because if the only thing that separates the book from other media is its materiality, then we leave all of its content out in the cold. What we love about any given book is that it feels good and reminds us of something? Doesn’t that mean that it could be covers over blank pages? Your later point is more compelling to me: that there is a unique combination of the physical and the imaginary world that the book satisfies. Arguably, however, new technologies are all about making digital worlds tactile—look at the success of the Wii, wherein you can physically engage with a digital environment. So is there an additional engagement with the book that we can add to your formula here?

 ————————————————–

Since WordPress does not allow replies to individul comments, here’s my post to reply to Kim’s comment on my previous thoughts:

Ah, yes, this is indeed true, Kim. I should have pointed out that the physical nature of a book is one of the more beneficial qualities that separates it from a great deal of media, though not necessarily all of it. The Wii is an interactive entertainment system that also emphasizes physical movement, but we must remember that it’s only simulation. Indeed, the Wii is much more physically engaging than your average Nintendo or Sega (or insert brand here) gaming system. However, playing tennis (for example) on a Wii is not nearly as physically engaging as playing an actual game of tennis on the court, and, for a tennis player, is most likely not nearly as thrilling. I believe the same goes for reading: to read a text online does not evoke the same experience as reading a concrete text in your hands. A longtime book reader has certain memories associated with this type of entertainment, and is probably hesitant to dispose of them and welcome new mediums with open arms.

As far as content is concerned, generally books are regarded as more credible literature than what can be found through other mediums where more material (decent or not) is likely to be published. However, this is all subjective: the quality of “decent literature” is not the same in everyone’s “book” (okay, enough puns); as the old adage goes: what one man sees as gold, another man may see as garbage. I think the feelings we associate with books are special only to those who have been book readers for a great amount of time and have particular stories and emotions associated with these books; it is these people (ahem, English majors included) who are not looking forward to these new forms of technology invading their lives and trying to take over these memories. I don’t think in this case content is as important as what we associate the content with. There are very special experiences that we have with books, but there may also be new experiences with newer technologies. A person may read an author who exclusively publishes online and fall in love with the content, thereby falling in love with the medium, since he/she has no other choice. If we read a Shakespearean tragedy, the emotions we experience as a result are entirely different than when seeing it performed. We can’t say that one form is “better” than another, but we can (and often do) prefer one to another because it’s what we’re accustomed to and what we have fallen in love with already.

And I believe that this trend of refusing change will continue for generations to come. We, who were raised on books, will defend them to the end. Who knows? A person who has fallen in love with the internet may, a thousand years from now, defend this medium with the same kind of diligence that we defend the book with.

I hope this makes a better argument…