Daily Archives: September 4, 2010
Print vs. digital, addendum
| September 4, 2010 | Posted by annathepiper under Publishing |
|
Two different people have brought up to me in the comments on my last post a point which I wished to call out and separately address. To wit, that part of the question of print vs. digital is a question of privilege.
It absolutely is, I agree. That I am able to own not one, not two, but three different devices capable of reading ebooks (my nook, my iPhone, and my computer, and yes, the computer counts) is absolutely a question of my privilege of having enough income to do so. This is me acknowledging that. Since I grew up in a family environment that had quite limited income, I daresay this went a long way towards books being the one big indulgence I generally allow myself. (I apparently lack the usual girly genes involving clothes, shoes, purses, makeup, etc. All my disposable income goes to books, electronic devices, and music.)
I very, very much respect and acknowledge the fact that even though prices on ereaders are dropping regularly, they are still very much luxury devices. Many will not be able to afford better than secondhand prices for books in general, which counts them out of buying most if not all ebooks, and never mind the expense of a device to actually read them on. This is one of the biggest reasons that people who like to read digitally really, really should never snark on people who prefer to read in print.
At the same time though let me point out that the question of privilege is not entirely one-sided here. There’s also the question of health and age privilege; consider for example the oft-quoted scenario of a nearsighted person who finds that reading on an ereading device, and therefore being able to adjust the font size to something comfortable for them, means they can suddenly read a lot more easily than they can a print book. I’ve seen countless people testify to this on various blogs and on Twitter, and a couple of people have talked about it directly to me.
This though was the point of my original post: i.e., that both print and digital readers have very good reasons for preferring to read in the formats they do, and to express the hope that each side will refrain from snarking about the other. As I said in the comments on that post, publishing is going through massive upheaval over not only the formats of books to be published in, but over its ongoing ability to make money in general. Nobody knows how things are going to shake out in ten, fifteen, or twenty years down on the line, although predictions abound. It’s very scary, all around!
One thing though I’m pretty sure we can all agree on: books will survive, in one form or another, and as long as that is the case, there will be people to read them.
P.S. Sorry about comments being disabled on the LJ and DW mirrored versions of that last post. I’d forgotten I turned those off for a previous poll post, and never turned ‘em back on! You may now comment on the original WP post as well as its LJ and DW mirrors.
The print vs. digital divide
| September 4, 2010 | Posted by annathepiper under Publishing |
Y’all want to know the fastest way to get an epubbed author’s blood pressure spiking? Refer to printed books as “real” books.
This got shoved into the front of my brain yesterday when one of my favorite local bookstores linked off to an opinion article written by a twenty-something who was stridently against electronic readers–to the point that they’d confessed to having irrational hatred for seeing other people reading them. One of their primary objections to them appeared to be that they could no longer sneak peeks at what those other people are reading, if they’re reading electronically! They proceeded to wax eloquent for several following paragraphs about why they would never stoop so low as to acquire an e-reader, because they loved “real” books too much. Snarky commentary was made about how e-reader enthusiasts got on this person’s case about “what are you, a Mennonite?” And even the bookstore in question, in their linking to this article, dropped a cute little remark about how they “don’t have anything against e-readers, no wait, maybe a little”.
This makes me sad.
Part of it is of course that as an epubbed author, I’m really tired of hearing the print books getting referred to as the “real” books. This carries the automatic implication that digital books are “not real”. Imaginary. Lesser in value than books that were fortunate enough to get put into print. Which is an awfully cruel thing to say to somebody who labored just as hard to get her epubbed book written as the authors who are in print. I guarantee you, people, that to us epubbed authors, our stories are every bit as real to us as the ones that are put down on paper.
Part of it though is the bigger question of the print vs. digital argument. It’s yet another variation of the “this thing vs. that thing” debate that crops up in every single aspect of our daily lives: Coke vs. Pepsi. PC vs. Mac vs. Linux. Emacs vs. vi. Etc., etc., on and on, with each side espousing the virtues of whatever they’ve committed to and often sneering at the other side, who are clearly not clever enough or intelligent enough to realize the virtues of the Right Choice.
Don’t get me wrong. I get that the digital book is a threat to traditional bookstores, and that indie bookstores in particular, who have been struggling for ages against the bigger chains, are going to hunker down and cling to their print books for as long as possible. But I’m really tired of the print side sneering at the digital side, and vice versa. For me as both a writer and a reader, this loses sight of the most important thing: the story.
You tell me a good enough story, I’ll read it in whatever format is available–print, digital, on the back of a cereal box, in fortune cookies, in tweets, in skywriting, whatever. Seriously, I do not care about the format. I care about the story. Print has its virtues for me, such as the art of a beautifully designed book–Tolkien’s The Children of Hurin comes immediately to mind. It’s also lovely for reading if the power is out, or if you’ve left your Nook or iPhone at home and/or uncharged. And although this makes me sad too with my writer hat on, truth be told, writers still are compensated better for print than they are for digital. I’d love to see that change, but I’m not expecting it to do so quickly.
In the meantime, though, digital also has its virtues. Many folks like how a well-used book will have crinkled corners and bent pages and such, and this to them is a sign of how much the book is loved. For me, though, that’s an irritant. Because I love my books, I don’t want to damage them. And if I carry them around in my backpack on a daily basis, they will get damaged. Therefore, for me as a reading choice, a reader makes more sense because in its protective case, it’ll take a lot more abuse than a paperback or trade will. Never mind a hardback, which is often going to be too bulky to carry around easily anyway.
You tell me a good enough story, though? I will buy you in print and digital. Print to keep the archive copy around, and digital for day to day reading. I am living proof that you don’t have to choose one or the other. I long for the day that publishers will start offering sales of both print and digital for one nice premium price, because I will totally put down money for that.
In the meantime, though, print enthusiasts, I beg you, please don’t look down your noses at the digital fans. Digital fans, same goes for you in reverse. Let’s just all just agree that yeah, each of us will have our personal preferences as to how we like to read, and get back to the important thing that we all have in common: i.e., reading. Thank you!
Recent Comments