Charles Petzold on writing books, reading books, and exercising the internal UTM

Recent Entries
< PreviousBrowse the ArchivesNext >
Subscribe to the RSS Feed

Looking Forward to “Print is Dead”

October 24, 2007
New York, N.Y.

One of the blogs I read regularly is Jeff Gomez's Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age. He recently wrote a book identically entitled; it'll be published next month and I've pre-ordered it from Amazon.

I am perfectly aware that I can start reading excerpts from the book online, but I'd rather not. I want a broad, lengthy, coherent argument about why I should be rejoicing about the transition from printed books to electronic books, and I'm trusting that Jeff Gomez's book in its entirety will give me precisely that. Traditionally, that's what books are good at. Books excel at delivering a sustained argument that can't be handled adequately in 1,000 or 5,000 or even 10,000 words. I want the 100,000-word version with the depth and detailed analysis possible only in a book.

I'm looking forward to Jeff Gomez's book so much because I sometimes find his blog entries somewhat baffling. I always expect there to be another paragraph or two that provides a bit more clarification. One of the benefits of book-writing over blog-writing is that there's usually an editor involved who will spot deficiencies in the prose and persuade the author to flesh out the sketchy stuff. This is what I'm looking forward to in Jeff Gomez's book.

Meanwhile, let me give you a few examples of spots in his recent blog entries where I became confused.

In a blog entry entitled "Living the Life Electronic: Farhad Manjoo on life without newsprint" Jeff Gomez discusses an article in Salon about the pains involved in giving up the printed newspaper, and writes "But the fact that people will and do miss print has nothing to do with the efficacy of digital reading (not to mention to the inevitability of digital reading)." I think I want a better explanation of exactly what "efficacy" we're talking about, and also the "inevitability" of the process.

If most people who really like to read books reject digital books, why should this transition still be "inevitable"? Are new technologies better for us simply because they're "new"? Do we not as a society have a choice in rejecting certain technologies if we judge them to be dangerous or even unnecessary?

Here's one that really annoyed me: "What Hath Jobs Wrought: 'They need to stop with the iPods'" where Jeff Gomez mocks a women who makes the perfectly reasonable statement that “Just because it’s new doesn’t make it better.” (I didn't watch the video; I trust it's hilarious.) This woman isn't saying that "Everything old is better than everything new." However, mocking that woman implicitly contradicts her and says "Just because it's new does make it better," which is a frightfully myopic sentiment, and simply not true.

Jeff Gomez adds "I bet that — a hundred years ago — you would have received the same reactions in terms of people talking about horseless carriages and the telephone." I hope no sentences in his book begin with "I bet that...." Stuff like that need to be researched! (And yes, people who lived on quiet roads in the country didn't react kindly when some ugly, deafening, smoke-belching contraption first rolled by their homes.)

Of course, early reactions to now-common technologies are always good for a few laughs. (Weren't people stupid back then! Aren't we so intelligent now!) We've become so adapted to certain technologies that we can no longer imagine life without them, and hence we think they're inevitable, and hence questioning those technologies seems positively perverse. If someone points out "The world would have been better off had the internal combustion engine never been invented," you can bet that instead of thoughtfully pondering this concept, people will start screaming "Are you nuts??? How would I get to the mall?????"

But back to the blog entry. Jeff Gomez attributes a hostility to technology as "a general fear of the new, and a desire to always have things remain the same. However, as we all know, the only thing that remains the same is the fact that things will indeed always change. So, like it or not, technology is here to stay."

This scares me, because as I mentioned above, it implies that we as a society are powerless to reject technologies that may be bad for us. Apparently, anything technology that can do, that's what we must embrace. It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad. It's coming down the road, so you better learn to live with it. Moreover, if you question that technology, it's not because of any insights you may have about technology and society. It's because you're a geezer and you're afraid.

In a blog entry entitled "Excerpt Marks the Spot: “Us and Them” audio excerpt now available", Jeff Gomez has a link to the first chapter of his book and an except that contains the sentence:

Banned? Banned? Who said anything about books being banned? What is the word even doing in that sentence? It's like a politician suddenly saying "I assure you we have no intention of euthanizing everyone above the age of 75." It starts to make you wonder, does it not?

A recent article by Jeff Gomez entitled "Left on the Shelf" is somewhat disorienting. Although it's on a web site entitled "Publishing News" the opening paragraphs are mangled with a chunk of repeated text.

In this article Jeff Gomez cites statistics that show how few people actually read books. But similar statistics were quoted long before the personal computer age. A couple decades ago, television was blamed for people's abysmal reading habits! He talks about newspapers shrinking and laying off staffs. But decades ago people complained about the very many newspapers that were once published, and how now most cities are down to one, or two, or three. But again, that was long before the personal computer was invented.

He points out that people are reading a lot of stuff online and "all of it consists of the taking in and processing of words." But then he says something truly baffling: "Whether or not the words were first printed in a book or magazine or newspaper shouldn’t matter (after all, the printed page is a display device, and thus is no different to an iPhone)."

Really? It doesn't matter where the words were first printed? I don't know about you, but I read an email, a blog entry, a Wikipedia article, a newspaper, a magazine article, and a book quite differently. A different mind-set is required for each, and that's part of the beauty of the printed word. The medium is (at least a significant part of) the message. We know if what we're reading is a magazine, or a pamphlet, or a book, and we adjust our "reading minds" accordingly.

The final two paragraphs of the article are these:

I've actually never heard anybody say that "if books go away then surely reading will follow." That's obviously ridiculous. But if books go away then book reading will likely go away, if by "book reading" we mean "devoting sustained stretches of time to reading and assimilating a 100,000+ word fiction or non-fiction narrative." Because on the screen, everything's the same, except that the 100,000+ word narratives are longer and more tedious, and therefore to be avoided except for the particular page the Google Book Search landed you on.

So "why not let it begin with a screen?" Because we spend way too many hours of the day looking at screens already? Because book reading requires a quiet mind and reduced distractions? Because hyperlinking isn't reading? Because books deserve better than to be dumped into the same digital soup as YouTube videos and this week's insipid pop hits? Because nobody cherishes bits?

As you can see, I'm confused. I thought technology was supposed to solve problems, and yet I don't see a problem with paper-and-ink books. (I almost wrote "flesh-and-blood books" so perhaps you can better understand where I'm coming from!)

That's why I'm looking forward to Jeff Gomez's soon-to-be-available book Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age, because speaking as a person who actually reads books: I just don't get it, and I want to understand.


Don't you love people who claim to be experts about something they know so little about. If Jeff doesn't like to read books then he should stay out of libraries, but get off the world back about it.

— Anthony, Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:15:54 -0400 (EDT)

As the bio on his blog indicates, Jeff Gomez is an author and currenly works for a publishing company. I don't question his credentials, expertise, or love of books, and like I said, I'm looking forward to reading his latest. — Charles

Interesting article. When I am reading a non-fiction book for the first time I like to have a physical copy (I hate reading books on the computer), but when I am referring back to a book I have already read once, I wish I had an electronic copy so I could quickly search it for the bit I want. So I think that a great idea would be some kind of book rental scheme where you could read and return a book, and optionally pay extra to get a digital copy to keep (or maybe get a login to a website where you can read and search your books online).

— Mark H, Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:43:45 -0400 (EDT)

When I'm trying to find something I once read in a book, I can usually visualize whether it was on a recto or verso, and where it was on the page. In recent years I've made generous use of 3M Post-it Flags to mark passages I might want to reference later. Here's Deirdre's blog entry where she shows what my copy of Clarissa looked like after I finished it this past summer.

For quick text searches of classic works of English and American literature, I make liberal use of Project Gutenberg. It's great to get the whole novel (or whatever) in one simple text file and perform searches from there.

I'm also looking forward to the promises of Google Book Search, but in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 blog entries, I've indicated a few failings in the current system. You would think that Google would hire some Computer Science majors to help with this project, but if so, their influence is nowhere to be seen. (No one at Google has even acknowledged these blog entries, by the way. I've come to the sad conclusion that I'm way too old to be on the radar of anyone who works there!)

Yes, electronic book searches are great. But that's searching. It's not reading, as you note. If the publishing industry wanted to promote book reading (something like a "Got Books?" ad campaign), they might want to emphasize how different book reading is from using the computer. Something like "Reading a Book: One of the two best things you can without a computer." — Charles

Print is dead, and I'm publishing a book about it... Er, what?

Doogal, Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:46:11 -0400 (EDT)

I think you're wasting too much intellectual energy on this Gomez guy. The arguments are ridiculous. He's obviously a digital hipster who slavishly follows technology fashion. Probably uses a mac.

Printed media will exist forever along side digital media. There simply are always places and times when reading something that doesn't require a power source or network connection make the most technological sense!

chesterbestertester, Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:06:27 -0400 (EDT)

I haven't heard of anything that worried me about the printed word until hearing a new idea on the This Week in Tech podcast. One of the panel members mentioned that he felt the biggest threat to printed media will come from a place like the ipod/iphone. It'll be a device that people will already have that will allow for convenient purchase and viewing of electronic books.

Avery, Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:13:35 -0400 (EDT)

What I often see missed by old-timers (I guess at 40 I'm one of them) when they assert that electronic books could never actually replace books as we know them today, is that they underestimate the potential for real advancement in form factor. Given enough time, say 100-200 years to be very generous, electronic paper could be delivered in a package that very closely mimics the books we love today. This could include small details such as pages with the flexibility of typical paper pages, a 'rough' surface, imperfect type outlines to simulate a mechanical press, and a musty smell. Pages could absorb environmental impurities to achieve a 'natural' look such as grease marks from fingers and yellowing due to weathering (of course this effect could be reversed). The control electronics for these could easily be accommodated in the spine of the book and within the page thickness itself given the pace of miniaturization.

If such details are the things that would keep the general population reading books, these ergonomic enhancements could be and will be implemented.

The problem, IMO, is that this view misses the bigger picture and the real cause of the decline in book reading. An info glut and general overconnected lifestyle is what taxes our attention span to such a degree that the brain's best attempts at coping result in the trends evidenced now and, unfortunately, but likely, those that we'll see in the future.

Stopping and reversing these trends requires a better understanding of how we become addicted to the stimulus provided by all the noise (this stimulus is so powerful that sometimes it actually numbs us) and successfully blocking this natural physiological response. This we would want to do if we can affirm that our personal development would benefit from a limiting sensory input rather than overloading it. I'm sure many would argue strongly that it's all a matter of managing the information flow that we're exposed to, but looking at the current situation and extrapolating I'm not too optimistic. When it comes to knowledge, there's a subconscious "keeping up with the Joneses" and I'm not sure how we'll counter this and allow ourselves the mental room to breathe and process more deeply.

I guess the first step to healing is to admit to the addiction. I know I am.

Adrian, Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:30:13 -0400 (EDT)

Recent Entries
< PreviousBrowse the ArchivesNext >
Subscribe to the RSS Feed

(c) Copyright Charles Petzold