In 2001, Nicholson Baker penned Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper in response to the microfilming craze in libraries and the resulting exodus of printed publications. During the 80s and 90s, prominent institutions such as the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, and the British Library routinely destroyed printed resources in the process of converting holdings to microfilm format. Rather than supporting the efforts of libraries to combat paper decay, reduce physical bulk, and embrace emerging technological trends, Baker maintains that such practices are wasteful, barbaric treatment of precious historical artifacts.
Baker also criticizes the librarian profession, asserting that many well-known figures in the field have acted rashly by spouting inconclusive data on the rate of paper disintegration; supposedly a means of saving data printed on paper that may or may not be subject to imminent decay, Baker believes this is simply an excuse to free up shelf space. (Several librarians have since published journal articles disputing Baker's accusations.)
On page 67 of his book, Baker poses the question, "Why can't we have the benefits of the new and extravagantly expensive digital copy and keep the convenience and beauty and historical testimony of the original books resting on the shelves, where they've always been, thanks to the sweat and equity of our prescient predecessors?"
Admittedly a biased account of information conservation in today's libraries, Baker nevertheless brings up a valid concern faced in this age of increased digitization: to what extent should libraries preserve physical resources while making the information contained in these documents readily accessible and sustainable? By sacrificing print materials are libraries simultaneously obliterating the intangible benefits and delights only honest-to-goodness books can bring? To what extent are libraries even responsible for maintaining physical artifacts?
Please feel free to post your own responses in the comments section below.
For further reading:
Association of Research Libraries: Q and A in Response to Nicholson Baker's Double Fold
ALA Annual Conference (2001): Nicholson Baker's Preservation Plea
"By sacrificing print materials are libraries simultaneously obliterating the intangible benefits and delights only honest-to-goodness books can bring?"
ReplyDeleteTwo issues come to mind when I see this statement. The first is what is a book. When I see statements like "only honest-to-goodness books", I think it equates "real" books with paper books. However, I think a book in any format is a book.
The second issue or rather question is what are the intangible benefits and delights that paper books bring? I don't mind paper books but I see a lot of people who prefer paper books saying similar things about them. Yet, I don't know if this is really an argument for making painstaking efforts to preserve and maintain paper books, especially if space is at a premium and the cost of maintaining paper books is very high. A lot of paper books ultimately get sold or destroyed by libraries because they're dated, are too fragile to remain in circulation or some other reason. So even though a lot of people may romanticize paper books, it still doesn't address the practical issues of maintaining a library full of them. It just isn't possible or feasible to keep physical copies of all the books, journals, newspapers, etc. that a library purchases in the library's lifetime.
I think that physical children's books are irreplaceable, especially in regard to the important role they play in the development of early literacy skills. The window to early literacy skills opens in the first three years of a child's life. It is paramount that a child be given the opportunity to handle and interact with physical books in order to develop these early literacy skills. One particular early literacy behavior that cannot be replicated with an E-book is the book handling behavior of page turning. E-books cannot replicate the physical interaction that takes place when a child handles and interacts with a tactile book and especially not a pop-up book!
ReplyDeleteNot all children's authors have embraced the E-book interactive applications phenomenon. Popular children's author Julia Donaldson refused to allow her popular book The Gruffalo to be made into an E-book "because she thinks interactive book apps for children are a bad idea" (Rustin, 2011). Here is an intersting quote from Donaldson (2011) regarding E-books.
I think it would be good if a few people
like me spiked the future, punctured it a
bit, so that people could say that with
all their advantages, you couldn't get
every single book there is as an ebook and
that would encourage people to buy proper
books.
In this article, Donaldson acknowledges the pros and cons of E-books but is adamant that not all books should be available as E-books.
In my opinion, the impending mass takeover by E-books will not be able to infiltrate the magic and value found in the physical form of a children's book. Could you imagine your childhood or even your life as an adult without the physical book?
Reference:
Rustin, S. Gruffalo author julia donaldson tells why she vetoed ebook. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/mar/25/gruffalo-author-julia-donaldson-ebook
Allison - Very interesting post! And it provides more thoughts for the digital versus physical debate. Notwithstanding bibliophiles, are there reasons to preserve printed books after they have been digitized.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the answer is clear: we must continue to provide books, in the traditional sense, for patrons and research. It is true that digitization has brought more resources online for people to access, which is good. However, I keep referring back to the fact that a digital book, for the most part, is a copy of an original printed volume. Viewed from that standpoint, a printed volume becomes a primary source and the digital edition a secondary source.
@Faith: I agree with you that it is next to impossible to keep physical copies of every single thing that ever enters the boundaries of the library. What is the point in holding on to something and dedicating precious space to a resource if no one ever needs or wants to use it? While I agree with Baker that it is important to keep select physical artifacts on hand as they may significantly enhance the scholarly experience, I think that the idea of holding on to everything confuses the mission of the library with perhaps the mission of a museum.
ReplyDelete@Karine Knopf: I am so glad to see someone who feels this way about the bond between children and physical books! I have yet to see an E-reader that can accurately duplicate the sensory experience of reading. Some of us need that weight of a hefty novel in hand to feel that they actually conquered the text. And call me crazy, but I still remember how some of my picture books smelled! I appreciate how you cited Donaldson's feelings on the subject as well. I think that early childhood researchers really should devote more study to how exactly children connect to electronic texts compared to physical copies. The recent popularity of iPads in elementary schools intensifies my concern on this matter.
ReplyDelete@Greg Hayes: I like the direction your thoughts took with how the printed resource is a primary source and the digital resource is secondary. At least in my undergrad studies for literature there was typically a preference for primary sources--they usually have the highest degree of accuracy. The almost disembodied nature of digital resources (at least to me) makes me view them as less stable and credible. Of course, my thoughts then drift to how Amazon a couple years ago broke in to Kindles and deleted copies of "1984" and "Animal Farm"... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
ReplyDeleteI remember when Kindle did that, the irony was so extreme one could almost choke on it. I feel this is one of many reasons why we won't be switching to e-books overnight. After all its tougher to go into someones house and take a book off the shelve but digital its quite easy with the right access. And another point like audio books, printed books etc e-books are just a different way to get information to people. Teachers have long accepted there are different styles of learning, visual, audio etc. So it only makes sense that information/books would come in multiple ways. e-books is a tool, often effective tool, but I don't see this happening for everyone overnight. My two cents, y
ReplyDeleteYou're mileage may vary.
Allison -
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. Part of the role of a librarian, in my opinion, is that of archivist and historian. The books, in paper form, represent a tangible link to history. For that reason alone, I think they should be preserved.
@Christina Doane: I'm glad that you mentioned how learning styles are unique to every person. When I got my first Kindle my junior year in college, I quickly realized that the reading experience of the Kindle does not correspond to how I enjoy reading, and I think it actually hurt me academically. I'm one of those people that need to guage my reading process by looking at the physical bulk of the pages I've already read and then comparing it to the thickness of the pages yet to finish. The lack of page numbers and the "percentage completed" at the bottom of the Kindle pages did not give me a sense of accomplishment. Not to mention I'm the sort of person who needs to page randomly through a book in order to brainstorm or make mental connections for a book report or something.
ReplyDelete@Greg Hayes: Here is a blog you might find of interest in regards to your comments about the importance of preserving paper resources:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.nyu.edu/projects/materialworld/2010/05/marked_for_deselection_materia.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is all very interesting to think about, and it makes me wonder about "new" technologies of the past and how they might have seemed to people of that time. When human knowledge was transferred from stone to paper (or papyrus or whatever) would that be losing a "tangible link to history"? When children's books began to be fairly common, was there worry about the loss of a human connection with a story teller?
ReplyDeleteIt also makes me think of the work of Marshall McLuhan, the "medium as the message", his tetrad of media effects, etc.
@Beth Fleischmann: Earlier this year I read a fantastic book called "Hamlet's Blackberry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age" by William Powers where he discusses how cultures responded to emerging technologies and what ramifications these technologies had on life today. I think that with every major innovation--paper, the printing press, now digital books--there were a large percentage of people responding to these changes with doubt and disdain. Perhaps because of this negativity associated with the unknown, I think an effort has been made to continue paying homage to the past (people still tell stories orally, many monuments are still carved in stone, we still take notes on pen and paper even though we have laptops, etc.)
ReplyDeleteI know I'd love the chance to hop in a time machine and travel 50 years into the future and see how everything turned out with the e-Book revolution. I have a hard time believing paper books would be eradicated by that point in the future. ;)
Allison,
ReplyDeleteYes just so in regards to learning styles. This is one big reason e-books won't entirely take over the market. For some its just not effective. Like you for me its easier to be able to flip back and forth easily for my learning process.
While I wouldn't mind using an e-reader in some cases, for others the flexibility of an actual book is too helpful when learning to avoid. Another reasons its a tool, it may not always work for all people in all situations just like how you might sometimes need a wrench verses a hammer. They are all ways to get information, personally I think the more bases covered the better, in my humble opinion :).
Read On,
Christina Doane
Btw Greg,
ReplyDeleteGreat point, there is value in preserving the past for the future. This is something that many fields, history etc would agree with.
Christina Doane