E-readers: a boon to reading or a destroyer of books?

Do you know that books smell like nutmeg or some spice from a foreign land? I loved to smell them when I was a boy. Lord, there were a lot of lovely books once, before we let them go." --Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury

The strange cell-phone-like metal tablet sat in its leather case on my dresser for a week. My 8-year-old son was curious about it, since it looked a lot like his GameBoy or Nintendo DS. He wanted to use it more than I did.

Although only 7 percent of Americans read e-books, I felt like one of the few holdouts of the digital reading revolution sweeping the country. E-book sales have more than doubled in each of the last three years, and Amazon.com is selling more Kindle books than paperbacks now. The price alone is enticing enough, with e-books roughly half the price of hardback books. Access, availability and portability are all benefits, and users can also read their Kindle books on other electronic devices.

E-reading is supposed to be the wave of the future, and some say the shift to e-books is inevitable. Pundits cite the rise of e-books as a major contributor to the demise of traditional brick-and-mortar bookstores like Borders. Even libraries are changing their circulations by offering more e-books and audiovisual items and fewer print books. Digital publishing is altering both readers and writers’ habits, and traditional print book sales are on the decline. But as an author and longtime book-lover, I’ve been holding out on this future by refusing to read complete books on anything but hard and soft-cover bindings stitched together from dead trees. I like the feel of a book – the ability to manually flip ahead or back to any page I wish. I even like the smell of books. If it’s new I imagine the printing process that went into the careful selection of typography and the binding and stitching; if it’s old I like to imagine the owner who had it last. The pages connect me both to the author and past readers in a surreal, vicarious way that makes the printed book a special and valued possession. I view books not as convenient reading vehicles or as collectible pieces, but as John Milton did, as the “precious lifeblood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on a purpose to a life beyond life.”

I could not think of this electronic device on loan from the local library as a book or even a reading device to books. So when I had time to read, I would pick up a “real” book from my bookshelf and take it with me, leaving the Kindle in its purse-like holder. But with just a few days to go before the Kindle was due to be returned, I took the plunge. I slowly unzipped the case and looked at this thin, black tablet with a screen the size of an average printed photograph (which may also be doomed for extinction). An image of Agatha Christie stared at me from the screen, imploring me to explore.

“Slide and release the power switch to view” the laminated page of instructions read. As I did Agatha disappeared and a list of titles instantly popped up on screen – 72 titles to be exact – that the local library had already uploaded for me. Sarah Palin’s America by Heart; The Autobiography of Mark Twain; John Grisham’s new novel, The Confession; Tom Clancy’s Dead or Alive; Ken Follett’s Fall of Giants; even Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein was on the list. I scrolled down the list and highlighted one called Less Is More, a book about graphics and presentations. After discovering that I could ‘turn’ pages by clicking on the forward arrow key, I started reading. Scanning through the screen pages, I was surprised to see some blank pages with a note that said “These page notes require the use of PowerPoint.” Evidently this software wasn’t installed on this particular Kindle, so I couldn’t view all pages in this book.

Scanning the list of books again, I chose a Stephen Hawking book to peruse next. Reading a book on a small screen was not as uncomfortable as I imagined – the screen was bright and the words clear and legible. It took just a few minutes to get used to the page “blink” that happens each time you press the ‘Next Page’ button. While the words were easy to read, the graphics were not; cartoons and other images reproduced from the book did not appear as clear as the text. What did prove uncomfortable was not the process of reading, but the physical feel of the device. Holding the Kindle proved to be problematic for me, at least at first. Do I hold it up on my knees? Prop it up in front of my face? Straddle it on my chest? Hold it with both palms? When I placed my fingers on the device, I sometimes accidentally hit the wrong button and lost my place in the book. Once it slid off my lap while reading.

Since I had already started reading The Autobiography of Mark Twain: Vol. I, a 737-page, 2-inch thick hardback book given to me as a Christmas present, I decided to try and pick it up on the Kindle, to compare reading experiences. I had dog-eared page 144 on Twain’s book, the place where he had recalled meeting American newspaper publisher Horace Greeley. How would I find this place on the Kindle version?

The directions read: ‘Press Menu while inside the book to activate search functions.” I typed in “Greeley” and pressed location number 4136 – success! Now I could curl up in bed with a cozy machine to read my favorite American author.

The experiment surprised me. Unlike the large printed book, the Kindle version of Twain’s autobiography was obviously lighter to hold and actually easier to read. Although the printer of Twain’s autobiography used a readable font (Adobe Garamond) for the text, the typeface was too small for my taste. The Kindle version, on the other hand, had a font size that could be changed to suit your taste. If you wanted the text bigger, you could easily make it bigger. You could even change your preferred words per line. One minor difference in the Kindle version of Twain’s work irritated me: the Kindle did not italicize the editor’s notes, often used as a preface to Twain’s entries, which left me momentarily confused as to who was writing – Twain or one of the editors.

One strong advantage of the Kindle or the other e-readers like the Nook is the ability to make annotations – bookmarks, highlights, and notes. You can take notes on the mini-keyboard at the bottom of the e-reader, or you can highlight text by pressing the Menu button and selecting “My Notes and Marks,” then electronically highlight the text (which appears with a gray underline). You can also import your notes and highlights into a Microsoft Word document. Privacy advocates have criticized Amazon for collecting this information, however, and a new Kindle feature now lets users choose to make their notes and highlights available for others to see.

After becoming accustomed to holding the Kindle, I read Twain’s work swiftly: Indeed, it seemed more swiftly than I would have read in the hardback book, although this was probably due to the smaller font in the printed autobiography. I never had to adjust the screen brightness, which was crystal clear in daylight or in artificial light. I trained myself to read differently with the Kindle, which eschews the tactile sensation one has reading a printed book in favor of the visual sensation. After reading for awhile, my fingers wanted to “leaf through” pages that weren’t there. I have a habit of leafing back in a book’s prior pages to review; but with a Kindle, I would have to do a computer-like search. Sure, I could search like I do on Google for specific references, but I couldn’t manually review or preview pages like I do through a book or newspaper. But after about one hour of reading, I became accustomed to reading on the screen, and could easily press a button called “Bookmark” to leave the e-book for a lunch break. When I returned, I began where I left off, and read easily and speedily. I began to like reading this way.

When I had to return the Kindle, I did not want to part with it. I actually preferred reading Twain’s book on the Kindle, because the hardback was too bulky and heavy to read comfortably. My experiment with Kindle left me ambivalent towards the device. I wanted to buy one now, but I also felt I have too many older books in my library waiting to be read. I also felt guilty that I liked reading a book on a Kindle.

My reasons for not liking the Kindle were more philosophical than practical. The news of the Borders bankruptcy made me feel like anyone who buys a Kindle or a Nook e-reader is contributing to the disappearance of bookstores. The printed word maintains an enduring value that e-books don’t possess. When my own nonfiction book was published, I felt as sense of accomplishment and permanence that could never be replaced by online publishing. Printed books are part of history that online books can never be. Are book signings also doomed for extinction? (For one author’s hilarious take on this, see this You Tube video at http://youtu.be/v24BqTv8v5U .

I also object to Amazon’s push to “connect” the Kindle to the Internet. An Internet-connected Kindle would destroy the book reading experience, which is designed to be a deliberative, reflective process of quiet solitude. Connecting a book to the sporadic whims of Google searches and the bombardment of online games and social media plug-ins would not be book-reading, but would be a kind of Web-reading that encourages scanning and online distractions that a real book takes us away from. It also left me wondering whether I actually read faster on the Kindle, or did I read like I do on the Web, non-linearly and less focused, favoring browsing and scanning over sustained deep reading? I wonder how much information e-readers comprehend versus book readers. Do book readers process more or less than e-readers?

Amazon’s push to make reading a social occasion is also disturbing because the company collects data on every reader’s habits. Not only does Amazon know what books you download, they know what passages of the books most interest you. Readers can “rate” the book and share messages with their online social networks. Amazon also lets you see how many others have highlighted specific passages in a book. What’s next? Stop what you’re reading to have instant chats about a passage you’ve just marked? Ben Vershbow of the Institute for the Future of the Book thinks so. “Soon, books will literally have discussions inside of them, both live chats and asynchronous exchanges through comments and social annotation. You will be able to see who else out there is reading the book and open up a dialog with them." See http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6332156.html

As writers, we are told we have to adapt to this new erratic, interrupted form of reading, that we have to tailor our works to new websites and social media networks to be relevant, but I hope that’s not the future of books. Books remain books because of the solitary enjoyment they provide us; not because of the shared experience by the distracted consumer culture on the World Wide Web – a culture that values impatience, disruptions, and ever-more fast information retrieval over the focused, contemplative literary culture. The process of solitary reading requires sustained, focused attention where individuals read for the sake of personal fulfillment and enlightenment, and I fear the e-readers are changing that process.

Perhaps my refusal to buy an e-reader has more to do with principles than convenience and simplicity. If I bought an e-reader, am I buying another nail in the coffin for the brick-and-mortar bookstore? Is it a coincidence that Amazon.com named its e-reader the “kindle," a word that means ignite or set ablaze? Is the Kindle starting a fire to burn the printed word of books, like the firefighters of the future did in Fahrenheit 451? Or is the Kindle a boon to reading, enncouraging people to read more, not less? That’s the question book lovers are grappling with today, and the debate is just beginning.


###

Does Sarah Palin have blood on her hands?

By Michael Burton

The reaction of ultra-conservative pundits to the terrible tragedy in Arizona is sadly predictable. Since they already control talk radio and the bulk of the broadcast news market (with Fox News, conservatives are now attempting to re-frame the debate over the causes to the tragedy, portraying themselves as the victims of this bloody massacre, instead of the innocents who got shot with a semiautomatic weapon.

Already, Sarah Palin has invoked a little known anti-Semitic phrase (“blood libel”), to position herself as a victim of the “liberal media.” In her carefully crafted Internet message more than four days after the shooting, she said: “Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.” Uhh? So incendiary language espousing violence against the government didn’t incite the hatred, but criticism of ultra-conservatives did? There’s a nonsequitur. Rush Limbaugh even jokingly suggested the Democrats had arranged a mass murder for their own political benefit, and seriously opined that liberal Democrats are “doing everything in their power to aid and help" Loughner (see http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/limbaugh_sigh ).

To be fair, the mainstream media is partly to blame for allowing commentators like Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck to control the debate. Progressives have been concerned about the toxic political atmosphere that has led to an increase in both threats and gun violence against government officials during the last two years. So when they pleaded for some restoration of sanity and civil discourse in our political debate, the media rushed to frame the story with headlines such as “Is politics to blame for Arizona shootings?”

In the revelations that followed the killings, it’s pretty clear that Jared Loughner didn’t follow any clear political ideology. Still, his assassination attempt of a Democratic congresswoman is, by very definition, a political assassination attempt, and the gunman himself defined his act as such. He didn’t target a musician or actor, he targeted a United States representative who had already been threatened for her healthcare reform vote and opposition to Arizona’s immigration law. She wasn’t just a supporter of then healthcare bill, she favored a public option in health insurance reform (http://giffords.house.gov/2010/03/us-rep-gabrielle-giffords-statement-on-health-insurance-reform.shtml ).

While journalists and the FBI are still trying to make sense of Loughner’s extreme views, it’s clear the 22-year-old loner had much more in common with right-wing hate groups than he did with the radical left ( see http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/01/09/who-is-jared-lee-loughner/ ). Loughner, like many elements in the Tea Party, were extremely angry against the federal government. Like the Tea Party Patriot Movement and the anti-New World Order movements, Loughner saw the federal government as the enemy. He also reportedly espoused extreme anti-abortion sentiments. And, according to Fox News, the Department of Homeland Security suspects Loughner had ties to a pro-Tea Party white supremacist, anti-immigrant organization called American Renaissance.

Loughner’s obsession with currency not being backed by gold and silver is a core idea of the militia, or Patriot, movement. Also, his rambling Internet missives come from well known online sources of the radical right. His theory on grammar, especially, comes from the writings of the Milwaukee-based, far right activist David Wynn Miller (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/10/jared-lee-loughner-s-mental-state.html). These insights into Loughner’s views are not assigning blame to any political party; they are reasonable and justifiable investigations into his motives and state of mind. He may indeed be mentally insane (which I’m sure his defense will argue, although no doctor has made that evaluation), but to think that his actions stand in a vacuum from the current political climate is naïve. “He was all about less government and less America,” one of Loughner's senior high school classmates said to the New York Times, adding, “He thought it was full of conspiracies."

Loughner’s anti-government views and far right-wing conspiracy theories have witnessed a big resurgence since President Obama was inaugurated.

If anyone thinks these conspiracy theories are just the ramblings of one man or a few nutcases, think again. Many of the far-right conspiracy theories found mainstream acceptance after Barack Obama was elected, thanks to talk commentators like G. Gordon Liddy and even Lou Dobbs. Last year, more than 60 percent of registered Republicans said they were either unsure or disbelieved the president was born in this country (see January 2009 post in this blog that details the mainstream media’s failure to expose or discredit these conspiracy groups). While radical left conspiracy groups also exist, they pale in comparison to the rise and level of violence associated with extremist right-wing organizations (from 2009 to 2010 the number of anti-government ‘Patriot’ and militia groups has jumped 244 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center).

Since the last presidential election, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in gun violence from right-wing groups, including the neo-Nazi assailant who killed the security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. to the Knoxville, Tennessee man who killed two people at a progressive church (he said he really “wanted to kill every Democrat in the Senate and House”). For an eye-opening account of violent threats and acts against the government, read http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline. Much of this violence from neo-Nazi and white supremacy groups has gone under-reported by the mainstream media. And, as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence reports, some of the calls to take up arms against government officials have come from talk show hosts.

Underlying all of this is the violent rhetoric of popular conservative commentators and Tea Party politicians. Fox commentator Glenn Beck has fantasized about “citizen militias in the South and West taking up arms against the U.S. government" and advocated violent actions against a "tryannical" government. Left-leaning commentators didn’t incite violence against the government when Bush was president.

When Fox viewers hear Glen Beck say things like “There is a coup going on...grab a torch...the war is just beginning,” and Tea Party leader Sharron Angle talking about using “second amendment remedies” to “take back our country,” this rhetoric doesn’t fall on deaf ears. Palin’s infamous map using crosshairs from a gun scope to target Democrats in Congress should be troubling to most people. Yes, some Democratic members have used targets in other maps, but they didn’t use gun crosshairs or gun metaphors that directly aim at individual congressional representatives and senators. Palin's fellow Republican colleague who ran against Giffords posted a message about a campaign event that read: "Get on target for victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." Will Palin apologize for using language like “Don’t retreat – instead, reload!” on her map targeting Giffords? Will she take a pledge to renounce the use of violent shooting images against her political opponents? (http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/palin_violence/index2.html). Of course she won’t, and she never will, because people like Palin and Beck see no correlation between words that incite violence and violent acts, and they see no problem with language that feed the lunatic fringe that is partly their base. Palin and Beck take their playbook right out of Joe McCarthy’s, who, when challenged, attacked his critics personally by questioning their patriotism. It’s the stock and trade of fear-mongers.

In light of the assassination attempt, Rep. Gifford’s own words in an MSNBC interview about Palin’s inflammatory language proves to be eerily prophetic:

“Community leaders, figures in our community, need to say: ‘Look, we can’t stand for this. This is a situation where – people don’t – they really need to realize that the rhetoric, and the firing people up and you know, even things for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we’re in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there are consequences to that action.”

No apologies will come from the Palins, Becks, Limbaughs and Liddys of this world who stoke the fears and angers of the far right. Their only recourse is to pretend to be victims and falsely claim their opponents want to take away their First Amendment rights. President Obama’s call for more civility in our political discourse will not be heeded by those who only to stand to gain from inciting fear and hate.

At the end of the day, we are again left with the flaming political diatribes between the two reigning parties, instead of an open, honest, and sensitive dialogue about the roots and causes of violence that will only claim more victims.




###