Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age

Last week The Economist published an article entitled “Not bound by anything,” which deals with the future of books and asks the question, “Now that books are being digitised, how will people read?” The digitization in question is of course Google’s book program, already written about (and maligned) in plenty of other places. In fact, the open line of the Economist story makes this sound all very clandestine (“In secret locations and using secret methods, human beings are scanning lots and lots of books for Google, the world’s largest web-search company”; I love that the writer makes it clear that “human beings” are doing the work, lest we think Google has invented their own kind of Umpa Lumpa). By the fourth paragraph, however, the Google-hysteria ends and the article moves on to more important questions, the very ones that form the foundation of the future of the book movement and the “print is dead” argument: “As books go digital, new questions, both philosophical and commercial, arise. How, physically, will people read books in future? Will technology ‘unbind’ books, as it has unbundled other media, such as music albums? Will reading habits change as a result? What happens when books are interlinked? And what is a book anyway?”

The article then goes on to talk about eBooks (including the new Sony device), the new paradigm of wikis, the popularity of iPods, and what all of this could mean for non-fiction (hyperlinks galore) not to mention all of the material (such as novellas) that have never really fit within the business of traditional publishing. But just when you think that someone’s really getting it, the writer trots out the old “the book is perfect” argument: “Most stories, however, will never find a better medium than the paper-bound novel. That is because readers immersed in a storyline want above all not to be interrupted, and all online media teem with distractions (even a hyperlink is an interruption).”

The same way that, just a week ago, Cory Doctorow seemed to classify all novels as the same, so now does the Economist classify all readers as similar, noting that the most important thing to them is to not be interrupted while they’re reading. This is a silly if not insane notion. Readers are changing just as much as novels are, and have been for generations now. When Less Than Zero first appeared, more than twenty years ago, it was noted that its brief scenes, short chapters, and stream-lined prose made it a novel for the MTV Generation whose attention had been shattered and for whom slow narratives had been banished in order to make way for the three minute fix of rock videos. Well, it’s now a quarter of a century later, and society has only increased speed; we have not slowed down. Music and films reflect this, and the rise of reality television shows that audiences no longer have the patience for storylines, characters or plot. Today’s readers (not to mention tomorrow’s) are used to e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, podcasts, and a dozen other inventions that didn’t exist a decade ago. Because of all this, they will be able to intelligently absorb text on a screen (even within the form of a novel) alongside a myriad of other digital distractions, and it’s an insult to them to say that they won’t and to assume that readers are like squirrels (as if any sudden movement will scare them away). Not to mention that novels of the future will reflect and celebrate these changes, not provide an antidote to them. Yes, some people will continue to hug novels in bay windows on autumn days, basking in the warm glow of a fireplace with a cup of Chamomile at their side. But many more will embrace the convenience and advanced usability that digital technology and digital reading provides, and for them nothing will be lost in the equation.

The Economist: Not Bound By Anything