Angry Villagers Burn Books: E-book Zealots Versus Sentimental Booklovers

Earlier this week, Computerworld Blog posted an article entitled “Clueless book publishers miss huge opportunity,” which adamantly predicts that the growing convenience of e-books and development of e-reader technology like Kindle and the Sony Reader will soon render physical books obsolete.

Undoubtedly, e-books and e-readers have opened new areas of publishing and marketing for all genres of books, but does it necessarily follow that the printing of books is doomed to dust as a result of this digital boom?

For me, the question is not one of the merits and benefits of digital content. Of course online content has given us more convenience learning information and accessing entertainment. In fact, I found the Computerworld article online, but I could have easily read the content on an iPhone as well.

Instead, I believe the question concerns the value of the physical book, whether our hardcover or paperbacks will truly become obsolete, relics of an out-of-print past. In order to look deeper at this issue, however, we’ll need to address a few fundamental questions about the concept of the book itself and the publishing industry at large.

What’s the value of a book?
Of course there’s huge value in the content of books. Otherwise why would you search out and order particular books, by specific authors, talking about the topics or stories that interest you? And obviously, that content translates (and should translate) to a digital format. But is that the end of a book, its content? Why wouldn’t we dispose of them after reading then? Why would they decorate our house? Why would communities like BookCrossing exist if not for the demand and interest in the physical book?

The simple answer is: a book is more than its content.

For starters, a book’s design, especially when it comes to art books, children’s books and novels with nontraditional formatting like House of Leaves, can have unique, experimental layouts that are just as compelling as their content at times. Secondly, we do use them as a kind of furniture, adorning our bookshelves with classics, gorgeous collections and more. Unlike a digital book file, which is stored only in our computers or phones, flat and waiting to be deleted to make room for newer editions and literary fancies.

That said, there’s obvious convenience to digital books, since we can delete them, since we can easily download them at a fraction of a physical book’s cost. Convenience, however, is a concept that depends solely on the individual consumer. While some techies might find this digital medium convenient and easy to read, others might find the physical copy easier to follow, and perhaps even less worrisome, being unaffected by rain, snow and whatever other forces damage electronic devices.

Long story short, the value of books, whether printed or digital, is determined by the demand for their particular medium, and while both have unique value that outweighs the other, there’s no way of predicting which will win out in the end, if they’re even competing with each other in the first place.

Hasn’t online content put an end to printing?
The short answer, not really. As the Computerworld blog suggests, the music industry has adapted to MP3s and iPods (and now there’s even development in wireless cloud technology), but does this comparison hold water when it comes to books?

Many newspapers have started to limit (and even discontinue completely) their print pages, mainly because subscriptions are on the downfall due to digital convenience, speed and cost-effectiveness of online content. Does this mean that books will follow that same course? That their print medium will die because digital e-books will become cheaper and more convenience?

Far be it for me to predict the future, especially with some many variables within the publishing industry at large, but there is definitely an issue of cost and benefit at play with e-books. For example, authors have been using e-books for years, selling their first chapter to entice readers, or simply giving away the digital files to Internet surfers who subscribe to their blog, all to evidence the merit of their content and writing to booklovers around the world. In short, e-books are definitely valuable in themselves, as both marketing tools and quick, easy access to information, comparisons aside.

However, the value of the e-book doesn’t mean that printing is dead. While there’s no doubt that both established and emerging companies dealing with written content, whether newspapers, books, magazines, among others, will shift to digital representations of their content that can be downloaded via e-readers or phones, the fact remains that we still print, we own printers, we buy physical books and magazines, we used post-its and write notes on paper. Just because the world has made room for digital formats does not spell the end of printing.

Did the flashlight put an end to the candle after all?

True, the sentimental and tactile connection to pages of a physical book is strong, but one could easily agree that such affections could fade with time. How much time is the question? However one tries to attack the print industry (and its connection to book publishing and distribution), it seems we’ll always hit the same wall: there is still a real demand for content on paper.

Are publishers really missing a golden opportunity?
Who knows for sure? Of course publishers should be looking into methods of offering new books in digital files that are compatible with modern e-readers and phones. Of course they should also protect their tradition and primary source of revenue, namely printed books. Who can guess at the real internal affairs of traditional publishers, but I’m sure they’re considering their options, developing programs and technologies, weighing the costs against the potential long term benefits.

Leaving the issue of the physical books value for a moment, what publishers should be asking is not how to deliver these digital files — that much is obvious — but what the files themselves should do. There’s no doubt that the digital representation of content is different than printed content, and as a result, shouldn’t the information be displayed, designed and packaged differently, for a different audience?

Consider Cory McAbee’s (writer and direction of the indie film The American Astronaut) new short music film, Reno. To learn about the many ways individuals access video content on their phones, Sundance commissioned McAbee to create a film that could be easily viewed (and enjoyed) on a two-inch by two-inch screen, customized for handheld viewing devices. Experimenting with surveillance cameras, looping video and images you could find on any digital camera, he created an amazing video that captured countless viewers.

Essentially, this experience illustrates that e-books and digital content in general may need to differentiate itself even more so from its printed forefather, if e-book publishers and distributers plan on ever emerging from the shadow of the already-established value of the physical book.

But what do you think?
Personally, this blogger believes that the physical book isn’t really threatened by the advent and realization of the digital reading format, nor will it for years to come, especially with the acceptance of print-on-demand technology.

Obviously, both are different, appealing to different audiences for a multitude of different reason, some laid out there, some not. While it’s true that the perfect e-reader will inevitably exist one day, and even become the norm among readers, physical books will still exist, cluttering bookshelves, adorning coffee tables maybe. But if the printed book is to die, I say, let it die naturally then. Instead of comparing it to a radically different medium that’s equally as valuable (for different reasons), one that’s in demand to different individuals.

But how about you? What’s your opinion? What are your thoughts and feelings on the subject of the digital e-book industry compared to the current printing standard for books? Will the physical book go the way of the dodo? Or will it always have a home in our past, present and future?