With the advent of Gutenberg’s printing press in the 15th century the place books would hold in society changed drastically. The printing press allowed for the reproduction of books in an economically viable way and for the dissemination of knowledge at a faster rate and to more people. Since this time, books have held a special place in society and were treated with a certain reverence especially being viewed as an authority on all knowledge. The textbook, for example, is seen as the supreme authority in classrooms, even above the teacher. Many of us, as teachers have had the experience of trying to combat misinformation printed in a textbook and have recognised the difficulties in trying to do so. There are good reasons for the value placed on books because the permanence of the information, the edited nature of information and the writer is usually an authority on the subject matter.
However, the role of printed books has changed with the introduction of the electronic devices and the internet. When digital books came into production many believed that this was a fad that would not last because of the size and immobility of the devices that were being used at the time. Ong (2002) even noted that “electronic devices are not eliminating printed books but are actually producing more of them” (p. 132). The technology has surpassed the expectations of that time and has even moved faster than we imagined. In the early days of e-books and other digital media there was much distrust about the validity of the content but that has changed and even academics are favouring electronic journals (Dewan, 2012). I remember in my earlier college days including references from online sources was frowned upon, now these resources are treated as commonplace. Bolter (2001) notes that “electronic technology provides a range of new possibilities, whereas the possibilities of print have been played out” (p.10). It therefore begs the question are we seeing the end of books and print media?
The technological advances we have witnessed so far, have already started to change the way we approach reading and how we process information. Carr (2008) in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notes that he has difficulties sitting down to read a book hundreds of pages long because his use of online resources has changed his reading pattern. He further supports his personal experience by citing a study of visitors to two popular research sites in the United Kingdom which found that visitors were more likely to read one or two pages of a book before moving on to the next source. Others have noted that as the technology changes we are likely to see a more dynamic reading experience that connects writer, text and reader – which is a connection the printing press disrupted (Assmann, 2006).
This brings us back to the question of whether books and print media are dying. While the golden age of books maybe over I would not be quick pronounce last rites over books. There are many persons who still love the feel of a book and there are many of us who have had the embarrassing experience of trying to read a text from an electronic device only for it to go blank. The permanent nature of books will also be a feature that is sought after. Technology may have changed the importance of books and how we interact with them, but I would argue that it has not sounded the death knell.
References
Assmann, A. (2006). The printing press and the internet: From a culture of memory to a
culture of attention. In N. Gentz & S. Kramer (Eds.), Globalization, cultural identities, and media representations,
(pp.11-23). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Bolter, D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext and the remediation of print. London:
Routledge.
Carr, N. (2008). Is Google making us stupid? Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, 107(2), 89-94.
Dewan, P. (2012). Are books becoming extinct in academic libraries? New Library
World, 113(1/2), 27-37.
Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
david nelson
July 4, 2018 — 4:36 pm
Hi Kamille,
“Technology may have changed the importance of books and how we interact with them, but I would argue that it has not sounded the death knell.”
I totally agree with you on this point! While I was writing my second post and thinking about how digital texts have pretty much replaced books I opened my backpack to the multitude of readings and journals that I had printed off and thought…has it really? Bagdikian (2014) mentions that a new technology does not usually replace an old one all at once, but rather they coexist for years. I wonder when and if this will ever be the case for books? Scroll writing was a technology that eventually was replaced due to the fact that it could not be massed produced enough for the growing number of literate people in the world as well as the fact that books were a “random access medium” whereas scrolls had to be unrolled fully (Bagdikian, 2014). Will there be a time where books won’t exist, I doubt it, but if I had to step out and say how might this happen, I will give my case for it.
As many people have said previously, they enjoy marking up their pages, the ability to find the information very quickly and prefer the feel of a physical book. While I cannot argue these points, I can argue the fact that these opinions may only talk about academic books, and journals, not stories and novels. I can make a prediction; Stories and novels could be the first to make the full transfer over to digital platforms. Reading for pleasure, rather than for work/school in my reality is very different and marking up pages, and finding information might not be as important? Could I read Harry Potter on a Kindle without the need for the book, absolutely, but I do not think I could ready Ong. Just my one or two cents.
Hopefully, this opens up some debate and personal opinions!
References
Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press.
Carri-Ann Scott
July 6, 2018 — 11:21 am
Hello, Kamile.
I enjoyed your post and your interpretations resonated with me.
Our use of the printed word has certainly changed. I too recall a time, less than 10 years ago in fact, when a professor told the class that any use of an “Internet” source would render their research invalid. We were indoctrinated to the idea that credible sources would take the time to publish and peer-review while anything published on the web was akin to the snake-oil salesmen of the wild west.
Old habits die hard. I still turn to the peer-reviewed articles which are duplicated on my library’s website. Last semester I was tasked with contributing to a Wiki page and had to do a great deal of soul-searching to assure myself that the source itself could have become a valid receptacle of knowledge, Wikipedia being the Satan of my former professor’s research world.
I still print out many of the articles I am targeting to read. Something about having a piece of paper in my hand tells others around me that I am engaged in a worthwhile activity. Simply reading on my iPad seems to invite conversation and interruptions from my children. Perhaps they still see the electronic world as a source of entertainment instead of toil? Yet, when push comes to shove, it is usually opening a pdf on my computer screen that contributes most to my research efforts.
To address your post more specifically, I would agree that they are not on their final march out of this realm, however, the value of a printed tome may be increasing. There is something special about holding a good piece of literature in your hands. As I progress through the academic world, I am learning the value of e-text and weighing it against that of the traditional version. If I were to meet my professor again, perhaps we could have a conversation about the increasing merit of the electronic world’s publications, but we might come to the conclusion that the most valuable documents are those which can be held in one’s hands? That is not to undervalue the electronic version, but perhaps in the future, careful consideration as to the value of a work and its contribution to the physical world will be undertaken before it is set to paper. I can see the environmentalists among us rejoicing.
sara segovia rocha
July 6, 2018 — 12:54 pm
Hi Kamille,
You emphasized here some very interesting thoughts about the uncertain future of the books and the transition to electronic texts, which is very useful to understand more about the current relation between digital writing and books and the qualities that these two impose.
There is something about the physicality in reading on a book that makes us remain the idea that looking at the printed books is related to authority of knowledge. As it was noted by Bolter “in the heyday of print, we came to regard the written text as an unchanging artifact a monument to its author and its age” (Bolter, 2001). On these days of “Late Printed Age” as Bolter refers to our current transition toward the Digital Age, even though some of us still associate book with “authority of knowledge” as you said, this is changing progressively. For example, the outlook for print in academic libraries is highly considering the future usage of the academic ebook. Dewan Pauline´s research (Dewan, 2012) explores the idea of what will happen if libraries abolish most of their books and the current and future academic ebook usage, based on wide range of studies and comments on this topic. According to her findings, “the disparity between the reception of e‐books in the general population and the adoption of them in the academic world suggests that print is still important to faculty and students”; also her findings proposed that given the advances in writing technologies like e‐books are “expected increasingly to replace print volumes in academic libraries” (Dewan, 2012).
In this sense, the ongoing change in reading and writing forms to digital texts have not abruptly taken over the printed book, perhaps we are just changing the idea around it; but in the next years or decades, we might go way further than that.
References:
Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Routledge.
Dewan, P. (2012). Are books becoming extinct in academic libraries?. New library world, 113(1/2), 27-37.
Jamie
July 6, 2018 — 10:59 pm
Hi Kamille,
Does anyone remember the song, “Video killed the radio star!” by The Buggles’ on their 1979 album The Age of Plastic? I had that song in my head this entire week as I worked on my video assignment and I was scouring the internet for digital resources. I think we can all agree that although radio is not extinct it has evolved into something the neither DJ’s nor VJ’s of the 70’s or 80’s would recognize. For that matter, the “video” we knew in the 80’s (MTV etc) was nothing like the media goliaths (YouTube, DailyMotion, and Vimeo) we know today. Actually, I will argue that video is a bigger threat to printed text than digital text or audio.
In 2001 Jay Bolton provided passing warning that video media was going to be a force to reckon with when he questioned, “can printed picture books hope to compete effectively with broadcast television and interactive video?” My immediate thought in reading this was, why did Bolton limit his prediction to picture books? Then after a quick search, I realized YouTube was only switched on in 2005. If Bolton had written his book in say 2010 when YouTube started to hit its stride I suspect, he would have dedicated an additional chapter to the YouTube phenomenon.
Here are some interesting facts on YouTube, from their website.
• YouTube has over a billion users — almost one-third of all people on the Internet — and each day those users watch a billion hours of video, generating billions of views.
• YouTube overall and even YouTube on mobile alone reaches more 18-34 and 18-49 year-olds than any cable network in the US.
• More than half of YouTube views come from mobile devices.
• YouTube has launched local versions in more than 88 countries.
• You can navigate YouTube in a total of 76 different languages (covering 95% of the Internet population).
Amazon, in comparison, saw a 4% increase in printed books sales since 2013 but the overall industry is down.
In Mary Meeker’s 2018 internet trends report, published in online, Mary points out the obvious that smartphones are “better, faster and cheaper,” but she also notes that global Wifi network connections are up from essentially zero in 2001 to over 450 million in early 2018. She also points to an impressive trend in mobile video usage where daily mobile usage increased from an average of 5 minutes per day to over 30 minutes per day in 2018.
The greatest change in the last 18 years I see is access to quality information for the cost of connecting to the internet. In searching for academic articles for this topic I found these as the top hits on Google scholar.
I think they speak for themselves on the changing times:
• Video-Based Surgical Learning: Improving Trainee Education and Preparation for Surgery
• Youtube for millennial nursing students; using internet technology to support student engagement with bioscience
• Compulsive YouTube usage: A comparison of use motivation and personality effects
I agree that printed text has seen better days. I am afraid that in combination with digital text, and unforeseen future technologies I think the printed book might be heading the way of the radio – a novelty, a nostalgic pleasure but not your go-to source from information when you want to fix your broken old am radio.
Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bärtl, M. (2018). YouTube channels, uploads and views: A statistical analysis of the past 10 years. Convergence, 24(1), 16-32. 10.1177/1354856517736979 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736979
Friedman, J. (2017, February 16). 9 Statistics Writers Should Know About Amazon | Jane Friedman. Retrieved from https://www.janefriedman.com/9-statistics-writers-know-amazon/
Amazon. (2018, April 18). Amazon – Investor Relations – Annual Reports, Proxies and Shareholder Letters. Retrieved from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol-reportsannual
Alicia Lok-Malek
July 11, 2018 — 11:46 am
Hi Kamille et. al.,
I enjoyed your post(s) and agree with the views expressed thus far.
Given the high degree of change, I wondered whether the views of the generations growing up with the recent technology would have a similar view. I did an unscientific look around to see if things were consistent with the world around me.
My sixteen year-old niece confirmed for me that she loves to read physical books over e-books when reading for pleasure. She cited the ability to flip pages and the smell of books as what she “loved” about physical books.
My eight year-old nephew who grew up with tablet near by loves books as well. Currently, the reading of books is encouraged and allowed as part of his “non-device/non-electronic time”. In an age where so many functions have converged onto one-device, my observations and own parenting experience tell me that controlling screen time is a major challenge for parents. On a device, it is much more difficult to monitor and discern if a child is reading (good) or playing a video (not good for long periods of time). Maintaining focus on reading is difficult when the lure of the video game is one click away.
While the convergence of functions can be efficient, I propose the physical separation of functions and things still have their benefits.
A good abstract example of technologies co-existing is the automatic and standard car. The standard car still has a distinct purpose for those who want more control The automatic car is simpler and more accessible for everyone.
Differences in functional requirements and personal preference, I suggest, will see the book remain at least for a few more generations.