In today’s Salon.com there’s a great article by Emma Silvers, E-reader-revolt: I’m leaving youth culture behind. Subtitles “At 26, I’m part of a generation raised on gadgets, but actual books are something I just refuse to give up” I couldn’t resist reading it several times.
Here’s the core of the argument:
And yet, I know what having an iPod has done to my attention span and ability to sit through an entire album, in order, by one artist — even an artist I love — and I’ll be damned if I let the same thing happen to the way I read. Out of every argument I’ve heard in favor of e-readers — no dead trees, portable research, "it’s the future," etc. — my least favorite might be the central point of the thing: the fact that it allows you to choose from thousands of books at any given time. I simply don’t want that kind of potential for distraction. Would I have ever made it through any book by Herman Hesse if I’d had the choice, with a press of a button, to lighten the mood with a little Tom Robbins? Will anyone ever finish "Infinite Jest" on a device that constantly presents other options?
I’ll admit that locking me in a room and not letting me out until I’ve finished Infinite Jest still wouldn’t get me to finish it I will say that having something to distract me from it would make it much easier to ignore.
Now please excuse me while I go back to playing the Angry Birds beta on my Driod.
About Michael
I don’t see myself getting into e-books. I’ll admit that it is appealing from the point where I might take a long trip and packing a reader would work nicer than packing multiple books, as well as not worrying about messing up a paperback book. And not running out of room on my shelves. But I don’t want to have to worry about running out of battery power. And I like the feel of a physical book. I can probably go back to a previous page that is far back faster with a book than a reader. And I can get used books for pretty cheap (for when I want to own a book instead of just going to the library).