Today in class my group talked a little bit about how the Googlization of everything started even to include books with Google’s plan to scan thousands of volumes into their Google Book program. We didn’t have a lot of time to finish this discussion so I thought I would carry it over to the forum. Even though I will quickly say that I am against the digitization of books, I will admit that there are some pluses to the situation—but only in certain circumstances. First of all, I can see how having material scanned into an online format might make it easier to find information. There is no “search” function in a textbook, you simply have to read the information. However, do you all think that this could also be a negative trait? Is the availability of textbook information right at our fingertips going to hinder the learning process rather than aid it? Might this easy availability encourage students to not read information that they are given in order to learn? Another aspect to consider is how this might affect the reading skills of children in general. Imagine a world with no books where children learn to read on computer screens. Does curling up with a computer sound as appealing as curling up with a book while learning to read? I think that digitizing only textbooks and journals is a better approach to the idea than attempting to digitize all forms of literature. I’m also including an interesting link to an article I found by the New York Review of Books detailing 6 reasons why the Google Books project failed.
I think there are two sides to the argument. We've discussed before the movement from deep, hard-earned knowledge to the more superficial. I think the argument for the digitization of books has roots in that transition. We don't necessarily care (in general, not absolutely) to know the deep, complex opinions of a single author as much as we want to know what the world knows on a surface level. The collective knowledge that I think Google Books was trying to get at appealed more to the idea that knowledge is collected through many people, as opposed to handed from one person to another.
I agree pretty completely with that sentiment…in certain contexts. The idea is that a bunch of content providers can contribute to one person’s knowledge, who can then go on to contribute to someone else, and so on. Funneling lots of knowledge of different topics into one brain can be more beneficial in today’s demanding society than learning one subject through and through. In things I really have passion for, print books have more value because the knowledge I already have surpasses what I’d find in a google search.
Both sides make sense. My biggest argument in favor of something like Google Books is that the print books would still be available, but for those who wanted to vastly increase the availability of collective knowledge, the tools would likewise be available.
I'm with Hailey on this and agree that the digitization of books isn't my ideal. I would much rather read from a hardbound stack of papers than to stare at a glowing computer screen and scroll. Even though books themselves are a technology, there is something very high-tech and stark to a book being transformed into a digital electronic. Yet, I know from past research that my wandering mind would much rather hit the 'command' 'f' keys on my Mac and type in the exact word I am looking for in a thousand page digital text piece instead of diligently scan the entire text to find what I am looking for. It falls back on the convenience and quickness that humans have come to recognize in technology. And this allows shortcuts for otherwise daunting and lengthy tasks.
But, I have yet to read a book from a glowing computer screen and can just about guarantee that it is not a hobby I will pick up. So I am not aware of any pros to doing so; I only have my experience as the basis for my thoughts. I am cognizant that there are many advantages to online literature. The availability of many texts and the option to search for desired content is a huge component of online literature. Even the fact that a vast amount of information is being shared with the population, when previously such was not the case, is a success when it comes to digitizing books. But there are many disadvantages and besides the obvious reasons why books should remain in hard-copy, there are other rational reasonings as to why a digitization of all books should be banned or at least kept under control.
So again, I would have to agree with the sentiment that journals and textbooks be the limit to what is digitized and leave the other literature alone. And for those pieces of work that are put into an electronic version, it's hard copy edition should be just as easily available as well.
I am with Astleigh and Hailey in the idea that digitizing books is not something I'd like to see happen. While there are many technologies I appreciate and advancements are always leading towards a better direction, I don't feel like creating a web copy of every book is necessary. I understand, as Kyle pointed out, that society could benefit from having many people contribute to another person's knowledge leading them to more and more information. However, I feel that digitizing books is taking a great social aspect out of owning paper bound books (assuming that with more and more books going to the web, less paper copy books will be produced, bought, read, traded, etc.). I used to be an avid reader in middle school. I, unfortunately, found myself a lot busier in high school and college that pleasure reading found itself at the bottom of my list. Regardless, I remember how excited I was when I would get a new book. I would carry it everywhere with me, reading it at every chance I got. There was a social quality that I gained by carrying around my book; people would ask how my book was, how far along I was into it, if they could borrow it after me, and so on. It was fun to pass along books or trade with someone who had a book you really wanted. My books had personalities. If it was a sad one it would have crinkled pages from the tears that I cried into it. If it was one I really enjoyed, the binding would be worn. If it was a really long one or a book that was difficult for me to finish, the corners of the pages were folded down. Each book had character. I have a Nook now. I got it because I thought it would be nice to carry around and have all of my books in one central place - and honestly I just thought it was cool. I only have 4 books on my Nook. I haven't picked it up to read anything since the summer. It doesn't have any character besides a pink case. I don't feel like there is any pressure to read from my Nook. It will always be there and have the current book I'm reading. I won't have anyone asking me to borrow it. There isn't really any chance that I would lose it or misplace it so I really don't read as often as I did when I had paper books. All of the excitement is gone. I feel that by digitizing books we are missing out on an important social aspect that is shared among all book readers.
I think this is a very interesting question that I believe requires many different factors to answer. However, I think one of the main factors that needs to be addressed is basic connection between people. We can all remember a time when we were kids and we would curl up listen to our parents read us a book. We got to turn the pages, look at the pictures, and interact with our parents. I just don't feel reading from a computer could provide that same level of connection. I know a lot of people like their Kindles because they are small and easy to carry, but I can't help but think that we are giving up something for that ease. We have touched on it a couple times, but the easier thing necessarily the better thing?
Another factor that I think is crucial to whether books should be digitalized is how people learn. I am personally a kinesthetic and visual learner. I do better when I can write in things and highlight things. I have tried the same with computers, but it is not the same. Writing and highlighting in a book, to me, is significantly different than highlighting in a kindle. I think if you are an audio learner than the digitalization of books could be good because you would have the potential to use software that could read you the book.
Those are just a few factors that could contribute to why books would be good or bad to digitalize. Personally, I like having the printed books. Reading on a computer too long gives me a headache and, like I said above, I will retain more of the information if I read it from the book. At the same time, I can see where it would be easier for someone else to use a computer. Like most things in this class, I feel it all comes down to personal preferences and just how your grew up in general.
I believe that since we are all English majors we do not want to see books become completely digital. But I am in support of more books becoming available through Amazon or any other Ereader publishers. Since I came to Tech I always thought that books were going to become digital and with the way technology is moving I am glad I thought that way. For anyone who wants to go into publishing they should really think that way. My friend recently tweeted about one of her favorite magazines going completely digital and how her mom was right about print going this way.
It is convenient having a kindle because if I accidentally leave it at home I can just open the app on my phone and the book is right there. Also I can put all my pdf readings on my kindle as well so then I am not wasting paper or ink. The money I have saved with books becoming digital has been insane. This semester I spent $50 dollars on all my books. Regardless of wanting to take notes or highlight in the book you can do that with the kindle and then it saves it separately so I don’t have to go flipping through it to find where that note was.
As for reading a book to kids I think it is only going to get better for them. At one point I feel that a kindle or iPad will be just as common as owning a tv in any house. With the way technology is moving I think children’s books are only going to be become more fun by animation of pictures, pronunciation of words, and being able to change font sizes.
I will embrace these changes, but I will definitely appreciate my old paperbacks as technology continues to grow.
This topic seems to have created quite a response on the forum!
I'm reading a lot of responses that suggest that the digitization of books is not something they prefer. And that's fine—everyone is entitled to an opinion. Or in this case, they are entitled to a choice. I think that's what Google is trying to offer: a choice. I honestly don't have a problem with books going digital. There are a lot of benefits to e-books and e-reader devices. I think Hailey pointed out the important benefit of having a "search" feature that is quicker and more convenient than an index. That being said, I would never advocate for books becoming completely digital. I believe that there is still something valuable in having and holding a book. So, sure, digitize books, but allow consumers to choose between the traditional and the technological. As an industry, I think it would be stupid for publishers to alienate a group of consumers by only sticking with physical or digital books. Appeal to the masses by appealing to both sides. After all, I think people appreciate choices.
Juliane Preisser 11/15
I don't know, I don't mind digital books. I want to say I've talked about this before in a previous post, but I'm unsure. There are a few books that I own that aren't digital, mostly if they're series. For example: Harry Potter. I like how Lexi said her books have personality, because mine do too. My Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is basically ruined. I used to read it in the pool so the pages are all crinkled and smudged from the wetness, and the binding is slowly coming off. I've probably read that book just short of 100 times, and the best part is every time I learn something new. However, that's something for a whole different topic.
My kindle makes it easier for me to find books and buy them. I am fairly lazy, and paroozing bookstores doesn't appeal to me as much as it once did, although sometimes I'll stumble across a book that looks intriguing to me. What I will say though, it my kindle makes me want to read. I'm not sure if it's because of the money that was put into it when it was bought, or becomes I just want to use the technology, but I genuinely feel badly that I haven't picked it up since September. I've made it a point to bring it home with me this break and read at least one book - just for fun. I've always thought reading is important, it's part of the reason I'm an English major. So, in my opinion, if a kindle will make it so people read more often (no matter the book, as long as there are words on the page I consider it reading!) than I am all for the digitization of books. This doesn't mean I won't always have a trusty hardback by my side, but I think e-readers are just the beginning of more interesting things to come.
I dont know what side to choose. My heart tells me to pull for physical books because there is just something about having the ability to pull one off the shelf and read. On the other hand, my brain knows that there is an inevitable shift from print to online. E-books are not something that i am totally against, but I think that there is an equilibrium waiting to be met. My views may be one sided since i do not own an e-reader and frankly I don't ever plan on it. It has nothing to do with the technology or the fight between print vs. electronic, my value for physical books is just a personal preference. I do not think that my preference is the right one because I think the issue is rather rhetorical. Do you feel the same way?
Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I hope there will be a market for both in the future. I wish this because there are hardworking people out there that benefit from both. This may sound like i am throwing up a white flag, but it is true. There are always going to be people that prefer one over the other, but who cares as long as people are reading what they want to read. I am much more likely to question what someone is reading rather than question what they are reading it on, paper or screen.
From earlier replies I get the feeling that people just want to read in a certain way and I think that is the important thing. No matter what people are reading from they are reading none the less. As long as people are still buying books, magazines, newspapers and journals then we may all find jobs. Keep your fingers crossed.