Oxford English Dictionary 'will not be printed again'

[davem]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...ted-again.html


Can't help wonder what Tolkien would make of this, given his time working on the OED.

Simon Winchester, author of ‘The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary’, said the switch towards online formats was “prescient”.

He said: “Until six months ago I was clinging to the idea that printed books would likely last for ever. Since the arrival of the iPad I am now wholly convinced otherwise.

“The printed book is about to vanish at extraordinary speed. ...

“Books are about to vanish; reading is about to expand as a pastime; these are inescapable realities.”

"and you will read text off your ipad, and keep alive the memory of the age that is gone,".....

[Inziladun]

I don't understand why "reading becoming an expanding pastime" must go hand in hand with "books are about to vanish".
There's such a charm about holding a book, especially an old book by a well-loved author; you have the story itself, but you also have the knowledge that people before you have held that same tome, thinking their own thoughts as they read. No batteries, no power supply. Just peace, and a different life between the covers to lose oneself in.
I don't have an IPAD, and I have no intention of getting one. Nor an e-reader, for that matter.

I really hate the fact that modern society puts all its energies into "bigger, better, faster". It's the sort of thing Saruman was after.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Well, I own both books and an iPad, and I use both. I very much doubt that hardcopy books will ever entirely disappear, just as the invention of the typewriter did not do away with pens, pencils, and paper. But this is certainly another change of medium — and it seems that every time it changes, there are people around predicting the complete death of the older media. How it will turn out in the long term, only time will tell.

I do see one upside to the massive OED becoming electronic: people will no longer be able to claim they didn't have access to a decent dictionary as an excuse for chronic misspelling due to laziness.

[skip spence]

I don't give much for this talk about the imminent demise of the printed book you keep hearing about. As far as I'm aware, more books than ever are being sold (at least where I'm at) and most people, me included, would never consider replacing physical books with an I-Pad or something similar, something I think is evident in how book publishers haven't suffered nearly as much as the record-companies because of illegal downloading.

A dictionary however is different. In this instance I'd much prefer the E-format to a bulky hardback, since it's a million times more convenient, and what you want from a dictionary is information, not a pleasurable reading experience by the fireside.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Sam: What we need is a few good ipads.
[Gollum makes a noise of disgust while sticking his tongue out]
Sam: Even you couldn't say no to that.
Gollum: Oh yes we could. The mean hobbit spoils nice books. Give stories to us with nice paper and print so we can hold it and see about the preciouss; you keep nasty ipads.
Sam: You're hopeless.
Frodo: Actually, I gotta go along with Smeagol on this one.

[Morthoron]

This talk of the book's demise is silly. Books are indispensible as door stops, for propping up uneven tables. holding down piles of papers and for filling empty bookcases. I have heard that some folks even read books!

Books: the duct tape of the literary world.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

I think there is a place for both and would hate to see the printed versions go entirely extinct. I'm way too impatient to wait for Windows to boot up every time I need to look something up!

On a more serious note, I think if I were told I had to give up my hard back copy, I'd put up a good fight. It would be like having something very valuable and being told to give it to someone else for safe keeping. There is always that chance that something might happen and you would never get it back when you want it.

[davem]

The real significance for me in this story is that a book which Tolkien himself worked on may be reaching the end of its real life & about to take on a virtual one. Wonder what his thoughts would be?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

The real significance for me in this story is that a book which Tolkien himself worked on may be reaching the end of its real life & about to take on a virtual one. Wonder what his thoughts would be?

Not being much of a fan of 'technology' and 'progress', I doubt he would have approved. I don't think he would have cared for the Digital Age in general.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Having translated older works, I can't help but think he would see value in a tangible printed page over the more transient, virtual one.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

The notion that books will completely disappear is completely ridiculous! They've been around for how long exactly? They are not going to be done away with, especially this quickly. Electronics lose their shine and novelty quickly. Computers and electronic media are great, but it's not going to stop people from buying books and using technology that is as old as writing itself. I agree that it is true that dictionaries are easier to use when you don't have to search through two thousand pages of words you don't want, but there's a sort of satisfaction that goes with looking through a real dictionary and finding the word you want. I, at least, look forward to owning every single volume of the Oxford English Dictionary some day.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Ah, and when browsing through those hundreds of thousands of words you're likely to meet a few new ones! Can't do that nearly as easily on line.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Hilde Bracegirdle

Ah, and when browsing through those hundreds of thousands of words you're likely to meet a few new ones! Can't do that nearly as easily on line.

Precisely! I had to look up a word in the OED in our school library once because the dictionaries in my lit teacher's room just didn't have it (the word in question, I found out was not actually English in origin, which is why it wasn't in other dictionaries). I stumbled upon some other interesting words that day too.

[LadyBrooke]

Unless they plan on making the electronic readers cheaper they're not going to be able to get rid of paper bound books. I currently live in a relatively poor area of the country and while I am fortunate enough to be able to buy books, I know many people who are solely dependent on the public and school libraries for books. There is simply no way that the people in this area would be able to buy a Kindle or iPad. What are the publishers going to do, subsidize electronic readers for everybody.

Dealing with the OED specifically the rate to subscribe for one year is $295USD, the price for the OED Print Version on Amazon is $995USD. Assuming that a person who bought the OED P.V. would take care of it and make it last for longer than four years they would actually come out ahead because the by the end of four years online subscribers would have paid $1180USD.

It looks like I've found another soapbox. Anyways if anybody is interested in a good book about the beginnings of the OED there's one called The Surgeon of Crowthorne by Simon Winchester. The U.S. title is The Professor and the Madman.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Unless they plan on making the electronic readers cheaper they're not going to be able to get rid of paper bound books. I currently live in a relatively poor area of the country and while I am fortunate enough to be able to buy books, I know many people who are solely dependent on the public and school libraries for books. There is simply no way that the people in this area would be able to buy a Kindle or iPad. What are the publishers going to do, subsidize electronic readers for everybody.

Not wanting to come across as some kind of loony socialist, but I suspect that publishers don't think very much about those too poor to be able to afford an e-reader (let alone an ipad). They're producing the devices for those with the funds to buy them - they aren't in the business of social care.

It looks like I've found another soapbox. Anyways if anybody is interested in a good book about the beginnings of the OED there's one called The Surgeon of Crowthorne by Simon Winchester. The U.S. title is The Professor and the Madman.

There's a book specificall about Tolkien's time on the OED - Ring of Words http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/...f_words_pb.php

I can see the argument that language changes so fast now, that life generally is so fast, that on line access is preferable - & I can't really put the other side of the case because I tend to go on-line for that kind of stuff, but I just like the idea of having the physical books around somewhere.

E-books are far more desired by publishers than readers, I think - they cost nothing to produce(no raw materials costs, no manufacturing costs, no transport cost, no storage costs - & can be sold for close on the price of the physical book. And that's after you've paid out a small fortune for your e-reader....

The way things seem to be going is a combination of e-texts & print on demand (cf http://www.tolkien.co.uk/PrintonDema...sdt=1&sort=son ) which will all mean that fairly soon we would start to see an end to the book except as luxury item, or as sellable item - the e-books are mostly restricted to use on one or two devices so can't be sold on or lent.

Do we need physical books though? Or if we do, will our kids & grandkids? For myself, I can see how reference books can be replaced by on-line access, but not novels - Lord of the Rings on an ipad just seems wrong, a denial of the essential nature & message of the work itself - which at its heart is the story of a physical book of history & its transmission down the ages.

[LadyBrooke]

I can't imagine growing up without books, but if they truly become a luxury item I guess a lot of people will grow up with the privilege of reading books. Which rather scares me, seeing as the literacy rate is bad enough without denying access to people who want to read.

Also the idea of being completely dependent on an electronic device for my books scares me. Electronics don't work half the time.

I work in the Middle School Library this year. I also read to some of the kindergartners and first graders on the bus. I can tell you that for some of these kids there is nothing compared to a physical book. So I don't think that today's kids necessarily want book publishers to stop publishing physical books.

[Morthoron]

A thought came to me. It's not really epiphanic, but if publishers shift to e-readers completely, doesn't that then make their jobs obsolete in many cases? As an author, what exactly do I need a publisher for, if I can self-publish on the internet? All one really needs is a generic e-reader that will accept a file off the 'net and voila! I no longer have to share the profits of a book with a publisher or, rather, the publisher won't be doling out scant percentages of my profits to me.

Of course, there is the marketing aspect of publishers, and I suppose that will remain an effective tool for many years, but national book chains are already suffering in the U.S. (Barnes & Noble is still healthy, but Borders is hovering near bankruptcy), and if books are eventually going the way of the dodo, what would be the point of going to a book store at all?

Naturally, trade books and dictionaries may still require publishers, but it seems that encyclopedias are already becoming irrelevent, what with the ease of finding information on the internet. I have a copy of the OED sitting on an antique lectern, and it looks very smart -- literally -- but I do not go to it as often as I used to. Seeking out words on the internet is far easier. But I do not like e-readers, personally, in regards to simply reading a book. I skip around and backtrack too much -- the cursed thing hurts my eyes. I also still read a newspaper every morning, even though the publishers have the exact same info on the 'net. But I am probably one of the last generation to find solace in a paper and a cup of coffee to start my day. Besides, I don't believe they have found an adequate internet solution for crossword puzzles.

As far as Tolkien's view on the matter? I think he would be appalled. But this is a man who deeply distrusted automobiles and other forms of technology, which made him old-fashioned even 50 years ago.

[Nerwen]

Winchester's just using hyperbole when he says books are "about" to vanish. Or maybe he's thinking in terms of a slightly different time-scale from most of us. He's quite old, you know, and he was trained as geologist.

I don't think we'll see printed novels phased out for while to come, at least– and then it'll be because e-readers of the future will come to match printed books in ease of reading, aesthetic appeal, cheapness etc. You know, so it'll be just like reading a book (only with a search function and everything). What we have now is the very first, expensive, primitive version of the technology– it won't stay like that.

Reference books are another matter. As someone already pointed out, they're already more convenient in digital format. Also OED, Encyclopaedia Brittanica and similar works have always been beyond the means of most people anyway, so it's not like anyone is going to be suddenly deprived of them through not being able to afford an i-pad.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

As both my husband and I have been involved in the publishing industry at some point in our lives, and have known many professional authors, we've been following this debate with interest for quite a while. There are a lot of people stirring up fears that books will disappear because of the threat posed by electronic devices, but in more careful analysis, it becomes clear that the people doing the stirring tend to fall into one of two camps: bibliophiles or publishers. The actual writers know that they will continue to have a market regardless of how the "book" is delivered to the consumer; many, in fact, view the change as something good, because they're hoping it won't be long before the publishers, who take the lion's share of profits but would have nothing to produce without the authors, will go the way of the dinosaur. Many of them are also bibliophiles and would hate to see physical books disappear, so you wind up with something of a conundrum. To top it off, I know many bibliophiles (aging ones in particular) who have been decrying ebooks at the same time they admit that those physical books they love so dearly have become a millstone around their necks, because of their sheer numbers and the difficulty of keeping them clean and moving them around. The minute they get their hands on any kind of book reader, they see the potential benefits, but still don't want to get rid of their books. Such is the way of the world.

I imagine Tolkien would likely have been much the same as they. As I recall, he wasn't too keen on the idea of using a typewriter, but after being forced to use it to get his manuscripts published, grudgingly saw its benefits. If one dropped him into the middle of today's debate without benefit of living through the changes that have occurred since his death, I daresay he would be appalled. I myself was appalled when my husband brought home our first computer back in the early '80s. I had been writing novels for over a decade by then, and had been dragged kicking and screaming into the world of composing at the typewriter only a few years before. Even so, within a few months of the Commodore 64 becoming a part of our household, I was using it, tape drive not withstanding, to write another novel. The benefit of being able to do editing without the need for hours of retyping was a powerful draw, and has been to many writers I've known who were extremely leery of the depredations of technology upon the art and society. I don't know if Tolkien would have ever used a computer himself, but I imagine he would've had little against having his son, for instance, use it for him. The computer has a lot to offer in the management of drafts, notes, and multiple versions, especially for someone with such a large and complex amount of such things to keep straight. So perhaps if he had lived through the intervening years and the dawn of the computer age, Tolkien may not have been quite so horrified as folks imagine. He would, I think, have mourned the changes of the world, but he had already lived through many world changes which left him philosophical rather than militantly opposed. It's all speculation, regardless.

As to the issue of availability to those of lower income, I don't believe the OED was ever available to the poor, except via libraries — and despite the gloomy forecast from some doomsayers, I don't see them going away any time in the foreseeable future. They serve a strong and positive benefit to communities as more than repositories for books, and even though the people who view them as parasites to their profits would like for them to go away, it's not likely to happen, IMHO.

It's funny, in the circles in which I have moved for much of my life, I've been branded as someone who is resistant to technology and its changes. Here, I'm beginning to feel quite the opposite. It's a strange, strange world....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

The computer has a lot to offer in the management of drafts, notes, and multiple versions, especially for someone with such a large and complex amount of such things to keep straight.

Exactly - & in Tolkien's case that would have meant no HoM-e - in fact, no Sil as we have it at all - there would have been no multiple drafts for him to play around with, return to, amend, switching around different versions. We'll never see anything like HoM-e in the future, because writers no longer work that way, & that's because the computer has made it unnecessary - & as a nasty by product has bequeathed us the dreaded 'Extruded Fantasy Product':

That was a sign of things to come. Publishers began to discover the selling-power of big books and multi-volume novels, and after the disappearance of the dollar paperback, made them the mainstay of their business. The loose and sloppy prose of the word-processor generation was perfectly suited to their needs. They were publishing books in greater numbers and at greater length than ever before, with editorial staffs constantly shrinking; one hears of cases where a single editor is expected to acquire and publish a hundred books per year. Meanwhile print runs were shrinking, advances and royalties remaining static at best; so that a mid-list author, to survive, had to become a hack, churning out vast quantities of work and sending them to press only half revised. The result: countless acres of what in our especial field is called, with a perfectly justified sneer, ‘Extruded Fantasy Product’. (The more general term ‘Extruded Book Product’ is occasionally used as well. I Googled that phrase and found to my chagrin that my own LiveJournal profile topped the list.) http://superversive.livejournal.com/49083.html

I think its perfectly possible to argue that Tolkien's entire legendarium is as much a product of the 'limitations' he faced in terms of producing the work as anything else. He produced the work in the same way as his characters created the Red Book - by writing it with a pen & paper at a desk. In other words, I don't think the means he used were simply incidental to the creative process involved.

And yet I'm not using a pen & paper to produce this text.....

But... I think its important to recognise that computers/websites are not merely a 'different' form of the book - they are something entirely different & the approach to producing & telling the story is entirely different. A generation (maybe two or three away) brought up entirely on e-texts/websites will not 'get' a book like LotR in the way we do, because 'books' will not carry the same meaning or relevance to them.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by davem

in Tolkien's case that would have meant no HoM-e - in fact, no Sil as we have it at all - there would have been no multiple drafts for him to play around with, return to, amend, switching around different versions. We'll never see anything like HoM-e in the future, because writers no longer work that way, & that's because the computer has made it unnecessary

That's not entirely true. I began writing in a time when the basic electric typewriter was the pinnacle of a sophisticated writer's tool, but I mentor a number of young writers who weren't even born before the first affordable home computers came into being. Because computer files have virtually no physical space needed to be kept, they keep all the various drafts and notes and ideas, on their computers, and backed up on other storage media, just in case the computer dies, or in case they might want to use in a later project what they're editing out of the current one. And they keep drafts so they can compare versions, decide which really is better, and what was just an interesting idea that they aren't using, but don't want to throw away forever. Certainly, there are some who always destroy everything but the finished product, but that's true even if a person uses no electronic media at all. Tolkien was a pack rat, and would've been that way regardless, I think. I'm much the same way creatively, and I know young people who are, too.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Because computer files have virtually no physical space needed to be kept, they keep all the various drafts and notes and ideas, on their computers, and backed up on other storage media, just in case the computer dies, or in case they might want to use in a later project what they're editing out of the current one. And they keep drafts so they can compare versions, decide which really is better, and what was just an interesting idea that they aren't using, but don't want to throw away forever. Certainly, there are some who always destroy everything but the finished product, but that's true even if a person uses no electronic media at all. Tolkien was a pack rat, and would've been that way regardless, I think. I'm much the same way creatively, and I know young people who are, too.

Exactly I still files on my computer from when I was in Middle School of essays and stories and while some of them are very embarrassing, I rarely delete anything. They are the background to my current writings (and to some extent my political ideals.)

I just realized that some people may be getting the idea that I am against electronic readers and all that, which I'm not. In fact I'm trying to save money for one that I can take to college next year so I can fill it up with books instead of trying to pack all of mine into my suitcase.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Exactly I still files on my computer from when I was in Middle School of essays and stories and while some of them are very embarrassing, I rarely delete anything. They are the background to my current writings (and to some extent my political ideals.)

I think that all pack rats keep things like that. I have drafts and drafts of different things that I have done for school that are written out by hand. There were a lot of things that I stuffed in a drawer in my desk and at one time I couldn't even open it any more because it was so full. Though I like writing, and I like it even more now that I own a fountain pen. Of course, I don't just keep around papers that I've written on, I also horde things like cardboard boxes and envelopes and old, empty bags of sweets.

The thing is that no matter what happens and how far technology expands and grows, there are always going to be people who like writing things out by hand and there are those who want to keep around every little document.

Besides, what happens when all computers crash and all of that saved data is erased?

[Rumil]

I agree that books are still the best way to read,

but as for the Oxford English Dictionary, well, it consists of 21,000 pages in 20 volumes and costs over 650 pounds, so more of a consideration for the larger libraries and insitutions. I don't see any plan to discontinue the Shorter or Concise dictionaries.

I think Douglas Adams put it best-

In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, the Hitchhiker's Guide has already supplanted the great Encyclopaedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words DON'T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.

The reason why it was published in the form of a micro sub meson electronic component is that if it were printed in normal book form, an interstellar hitch hiker would require several inconveniently large buildings to carry it around in.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Rumil

but as for the Oxford English Dictionary, well, it consists of 21,000 pages in 20 volumes and costs over 650 pounds, so more of a consideration for the larger libraries and insitutions. I don't see any plan to discontinue the Shorter or Concise dictionaries.

But I'd bet it'd look pretty cool on the shelf of a law office... Even if I'd much rather just stock my future office with Tolkien books.

[Rumil]

Of course lawyers will simply need to write half-a-dozen extra letters to afford it LadyB ;-)

[LadyBrooke]

Of course, Rumil

Related to the ongoing electronic book debate I was just browsing Amazon as I updated my wish list. I decided to see which of Tolkien's books they offered for the Kindle. Strangely they have almost all of his books LotR, Silm, Hobbit, CoH, UT, even the Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun but not any of HOME. This perplexes me. Isn't HOME the exact type of book most publishers would want to put out electronically? It's a book with a relatively low demand.

[Galadriel]

No way are books going to vanish. An ipad simply does not have the charm or cosy feeling about curling up with a nice book. And heck, who could live without good ol' libraries? They're so lovely and calming.
I'd say whoever said that books are going to evaporate is completely off his rocker, and does not at ALL understand what people actually want.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

No way are books going to vanish. An ipad simply does not have the charm or cosy feeling about curling up with a nice book. And heck, who could live without good ol' libraries? They're so lovely and calming.
I'd say whoever said that books are going to evaporate is completely off his rocker, and does not at ALL understand what people actually want.

Like I said, it won't be overnight, and it'll only happen when e-readers become good enough to do everything a book can, and then some. So... they'll be books.

Originally Posted by davem

computers/websites are not merely a 'different' form of the book - they are something entirely different & the approach to producing & telling the story is entirely different. A generation (maybe two or three away) brought up entirely on e-texts/websites will not 'get' a book like LotR in the way we do, because 'books' will not carry the same meaning or relevance to them

Content is far more important than the medium in which it's delivered– especially when we're dealing with text in each case. So, um... I'm afraid I think you're quite wrong. (Sorry if I'm starting to look like The Downer Who Always Contradicts Davem; I don't have a vendetta against you, mate, it's just the way the topics have been going at the moment.)

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Like I said, it won't be overnight, and it'll only happen when e-readers become good enough to do everything a book can, and then some. So... they'll be books.



Content is far more important than the medium in which it's delivered– especially when we're dealing with text in each case. So, um... I'm afraid I think you're quite wrong. (Sorry if I'm starting to look like The Downer Who Always Contradicts Davem; I don't have a vendetta against you, mate, it's just the way the topics have been going at the moment.)

More like 'if' e-readers become good enough...which they definitely will not. There's a charm about collecting books. E-readers will never have that.

[Bêthberry]

I'm also of the opinion that books won't vanish. Has anyone ever tried to track down an address or telephone number when the power is out or connection is lost? Also, I never curl up with my monitor while reading in bed.

Originally Posted by skip spence

A dictionary however is different. In this instance I'd much prefer the E-format to a bulky hardback, since it's a million times more convenient, and what you want from a dictionary is information, not a pleasurable reading experience by the fireside.

There's definitely a value in an E-format OED but I have to admit that, word-nerd that I am, I do take out my hard copy OED and wander amongst the words sometimes (magnifying glass in hand, as I have the micro-reduced one), seeking the pleasure of reading the history of meanings and their changes. (I don't do this with any other dictionary.)

I also find it much easier to compare definitions from different dictionaries in hard copy. It's quite interesting to see how often the OED had been cribbed by other "respectable" dictionaries.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Content is far more important than the medium in which it's delivered– especially when we're dealing with text in each case. So, um... I'm afraid I think you're quite wrong. (Sorry if I'm starting to look like The Downer Who Always Contradicts Davem; I don't have a vendetta against you, mate, it's just the way the topics have been going at the moment.)

Here's one for davem: To quote Marshal McLuhan, "the medium is the message."

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm also of the opinion that books won't vanish. Has anyone ever tried to track down an address or telephone number when the power is out or connection is lost? Also, I never curl up with my monitor while reading in bed.

Well, how about I change that when to "if"? And I'm thinking of some future descendent of an e-reader that would have none of the current drawbacks.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Here's one for davem: To quote Marshal McLuhan, "the medium is the message."

Just so you know, I actually thought about beginning, "Contrary to what Marshall McLuhan may claim..."

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

I think there is a place for both forms, but wonder if in the future there will be enough of a market to support duel efforts. Personally, I do not care to read back lit text but enjoy toting around a paperback in my coat pocket. It is a more leisurely and intimate experience with no worries about battery levels or recharging. Nothing much to interfere between the reader and the author, beyond the odd typo or horrid cover.

I could see using an e-reader for books that I have no interest in ultimately keeping though. Realistically, from the writing and production side, it would seem electronic editions require less work (and workers) to deliver. Greener than printed material too. But this is not satifactory for well loved books. Nerd that I am, those are friends that I like to surround myself with.

I only hope that if the publishing world were to go strictly electronic, another line of business might crop up to print and bind the books at a reasonable rate, for people who want them that way. Both for individuals and libraries. In times like these with increasing population and technology decreasing need for human labor, we need all the employment oportunities we can muster.

Do e-readers hum?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Hilde Bracegirdle

Do e-readers hum?

Only if you don't teach them the words. (No, they don't. And they don't build up heat like a laptop, either.)

I believe both forms can and will peacefully coexist, if not in the ways some would like. There will always be a market for books to appeal to bibliophiles and collectors, and certain kinds of books — such as ones filled with large, full-color and high resolution pictures, the "coffee tables books" as some call them — are just not the same when viewed electronically, not even on the best and biggest high-def screen. But the ease of portability and storage cannot be denied with ebooks. At home, I will take one of my copies of LotR off the shelf to read it, but on the road, I'm glad I can carry it — and four other Tolkien books — on my iPad, along with a whole bunch of other favorites. Both forms have their place, IMHO.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Just so you know, I actually thought about beginning, "Contrary to what Marshall McLuhan may claim..."

Avoiding or ignoring evidence to the contrary (while a common habit in court cases) is not a way to influence discussion and win debates.

As the points which both Hilde and Ibrin raise make clear, the medium does influence content. It could well be that certain stories/information/text will be relegated to e-texts while a different line of story and graphic and information will be treated to paper.

Originally Posted by davem

But... I think its important to recognise that computers/websites are not merely a 'different' form of the book - they are something entirely different & the approach to producing & telling the story is entirely different. A generation (maybe two or three away) brought up entirely on e-texts/websites will not 'get' a book like LotR in the way we do, because 'books' will not carry the same meaning or relevance to them.

And when the oral stories of the scops and bards came to be written down, they changed also, as many of the devices for enhancing memory no longer were needed. LotR is as different from an oral mythology or legend as future ebooks may be from our current best selling novels. Tolkien learnt a great deal from ancient stories about the art of story telling and pleasing an audience, but I doubt LotR in its entirety would be a successful oral story, no matter how many passages are perfectly suited to recitation. The medium does change the story.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Avoiding or ignoring evidence to the contrary (while a common habit in court cases) is not a way to influence discussion and win debates.

I wasn't trying to avoid or ignore anything– I just don't agree that "the medium is the message". That was the point. (Also, I thought it would sound pretentious )

Originally Posted by Bethberry

As the points which both Hilde and Ibrin raise make clear, the medium does influence content. It could well be that certain stories/information/text will be relegated to e-texts while a different line of story and graphic and information will be treated to paper.

I didn't say it doesn't influence content, I said content is more important– "especially when we're dealing with text in each case". The difference between oral and written language is much greater. I don't think it matters that much whether text is written/displayed on paper or on a screen. Recall that the claim is that novels as we know them will cease to exist:

Originally Posted by davem

A generation (maybe two or three away) brought up entirely on e-texts/websites will not 'get' a book like LotR in the way we do, because 'books' will not carry the same meaning or relevance to them

I'm just saying, I think that's unfounded.

It is of course, hard to predict how technology will develop– I mean, if at some point in the futire everything goes holographic, or is beamed directly into our brains, or [insert sci-fi scenario here], now that would make a difference.

[Nerwen]

Just for comparision– I work in the fields of animation, multimedia, and film, which of course are vastly different mediums from the written word. (I'm talking about interactive multimedia, not the static display of text.) So from here whatever difference may exist between a novel created and displayed on a computer, and one written by hand, typed and printed, doesn't look very significant.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I didn't say it doesn't influence content, I said content is more important– "especially when we're dealing with text in each case". The difference between oral and written language is much greater. I don't think it matters that much whether text is written/displayed on paper or on a screen. Recall that the claim is that novels as we know them will cease to exist:

One page of screen/paper or 1,137? What matters is the willingness of readers to scroll down alot and the ability to hold two pages (or more) of text in their hands for comparison at the same time. Reading a novel is not necessarily a sequential activity.

Novels aren't sacrosanct and they aren't the only form of narrative. They came into this world under conditions relevant to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They may well leave this world when conditions change adequately to make them no longer meaningful/relevant/important/pleasurable/significant.

It is of course, hard to predict how technology will develop– I mean, if at some point in the futire everything goes holographic, or is beamed directly into our brains, or [insert sci-fi scenario here], now that would make a difference.

Reading is not a passive activity. Ask any teacher if she or he thinks they can merely pour education into pupils' heads.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

This talk of the book's demise is silly. Books are indispensible as door stops, for propping up uneven tables. holding down piles of papers and for filling empty bookcases. I have heard that some folks even read books!

Books: the duct tape of the literary world.

Very apt analogy, but I think you left out one other essential function of books: collectors of dust, yeah, even more successful than Swiffer products.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Very apt analogy, but I think you left out one other essential function of books: collectors of dust, yeah, even more successful than Swiffer products.

Other uses for books:

Safety deposit box -- handy for losing bills, envelopes and letters when you forget which book out of the 500 you stashed it in.

Compression weight -- pile 8 or so books upon something you're gluing together when you don't want to sit for an hour and apply pressure yourself.

Pot deseeder/joint rolling tray -- for when you have no double album cover laying about. Sorry for the 1970's drug reference.

Glass coaster -- for when the $1000 coffee table matters more than the $10 paperback.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Novels aren't sacrosanct and they aren't the only form of narrative. They came into this world under conditions relevant to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They may well leave this world when conditions change adequately to make them no longer meaningful/relevant/important/pleasurable/significant.

Of course– and anyway, language may– no doubt will, eventually– alter so much that no one except a few scholars will be able to read the novels of the present. But that's a completely different reason, and it's unlikely to come about in the time-frame we're discussing.