Oxford English Dictionary 'will not be printed again'

[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..."

[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.

[lindil]

I see old-style books becoming 2 things.

1]Boutique items like records [LP's].
2] Quaint leftovers to send to the 'pooer folks', who just can't afford a kindle/ipad.

Libraries may become largely banks of computer terminals. That trend is already starting in my libraries.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by lindil

I see old-style books becoming 2 things.

1]Boutique items like records [LP's].
2] Quaint leftovers to send to the 'pooer folks', who just can't afford a kindle/ipad.

Libraries may become largely banks of computer terminals. That trend is already starting in my libraries.

I'll be happy to take the "quaint leftovers". Send them to me!

And the last is an unwelcome "advancement". What's the point of a library if you can get the same information in your home?

By the way, it's great to see you posting again, lindil!

this is sad