Link This |
Email this |
Blog This |
Comments (19)
Full of the Dickens: Kindle-ing More Debate
December 12, 2007
Last night I was chatting with a friend and mentioned that something I'd recently read was like "comfort food for the mind" (and you can be sure I'll be asking you in a future blog entry what your "comfort food reads" are), and it got me thinking about the many different ways I read: sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly; sometimes thoughtfully, sometimes hastily; sometimes with deliberate care, sometimes with page-flipping abandon.
Because, of course, there are
different kinds of books.
Just because it might not be comfortable, smart, or even proper to read
War and Peace on a Kindle, as Jason Epstein alludes to
in this LA Times article by David Sarno, doesn't mean it isn't all of the above to read a guide to St. Petersburg on a Kindle.
Confronted on his dislike of e-readers, Jonathan Franzen said "Am I fetishizing ink and paper? Sure, and I'm fetishizing truth and integrity too," also citing the "mutability and transience" of electronics.
Ooooooooooooooooookay, Mr. Franzen. Considering the "mutability and transience" of ink and paper (think silverfish, think woodworm, think crumbling paper, rotting sheepskin, and fading type), e-ink looks pretty good. Of course, I realize that what he and others are really afraid of is the chance that their deathless prose might be changed at a reader's whim (he says it's Kafka's deathless prose he's concerned about, but let's face it: all authors are thinking of their own words), but there are lots of ways to prevent this, and they're often more effective than simply printing something between clothbound covers. After all, anything that's printed, whether on a page or on a screen, can be copied somehow.
Meanwhile, Cynthia Ozick wrote in an email that "I absolutely repudiate and eschew the Kindle! Even if in its next version an olfactory element is introduced; even if in its next version a tactile element is introduced; even if in its next version it accepts cookie crumbs between the lines." Ms. Ozick, enough about your snacking habits; we need to discuss the more important question of whether we are going to allow books to become fetishized, precious objects, or whether we are going to consider books essential tools of living. Essential tools often change, and sometimes different versions -- gasp! -- coexist.
I don't really care that much about the Kindle as Kindle. It will change; there will be a Kindle 2.0 and a 6.0, or it will disappear. What I do care about is that we find as many ways as possible to get and keep people reading. We know that it's difficult to keep nine-year-olds who love books reading when they reach the teen years; we know that people buy fewer and fewer titles in indie bookstores; we know that other types of media, entertainment, and work take up our time.
Yes, to Jonathan Franzen and his ilk (which sometimes includes yours truly), an ideal reading scenario involves an Arden Shakespeare, a deep armchair, and unfettered, focused time (add some Mint Milanos and you have Ozick's ideal scenario, also sometimes that of yours truly -- but enough about my snacking habits). Ahhhh. Lovely.
Now, wake up, sir! Or madam! We are in a new era. Sometimes a book is just a book, and not a precious reminder of golden hours gone by. Ink and paper books are wonderful for the kind of literary fiction that Franzen and Ozick write, but e-ink and techno books are fantastic for faster and even mutable reads (guidebooks, cookbooks, and more). Since e-readers are well suited to receiving newspaper content, too, I daresay that some venerable authors might smile on the devices as ideal for serialized novels.
Posted by Bethanne Patrick on December 12, 2007 | Comments (19)
