Robbins Library Notes

Good afternoon, readers!

I’m posting Thursday afternoon, rather than Friday morning, this week as I will be out tomorrow.

Today’s offering is an editorial on the vook that appeared in a recent edition of The Crimson.  While I think the author, James McAuley, raises some interesting points, his claims for the imminent demise of the “traditional reader” and the printed book are, I think, a bit exaggerated.

There’s no doubt that electronic media and books will reshape the way we read and interact with words and text.  There’s no doubt that certain things will fall by the wayside and be lost.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, either.  Admittedly, the change will be difficult at time, but, then, when is change otherwise?

Nonetheless, I still fail to understand why there must be a simplistic either/or when it comes to the future of books and print media — i.e., it’s either print/or electronic, nothing else, or so the message seems to be.  Why?   Isn’t the vook a blending of print text with multimedia?  Why can’t hybrids such as the vook exist comfortably along print-only and electronic-only texts?  Why can’t different forms of reading exist without one “having” to vanish?  For a good counterpoint along these lines, see Lane Wallace’s recent piece in TheAtlantic.com.

And “must” the “traditional reader” vanish completely?  Seems more like marketing hype to me.  (Indeed, the second comment makes the interesting claim that the piece is merely an advertisement for the vook masquerading as an editorial.  I’m inclined myself to agree.)

While I’m no longer a Luddite, I still must repeat — caveat lector.  Don’t mistake marketing hype, propaganda, and advertising spin for the way things “must” be.  And don’t throw out print texts simply to ride the wave of mere novelty for novelty’s sake.

What are your thoughts on this, readers?