To e-read or not to e-read? That is the question.

One of my favourite bloggers once mentioned that they no longer read “tree books” because not only do they prefer the convenience of their e-reader, but their concern for the environment had lead them to start building an electronic library instead. At 1889, we love our e-books- they’re instantly available to readers all over the world in a fraction of a second- no mess, no fuss, no trees. But how do we choose? For some people, including myself, having a physical book in my possession means much more than simply it’s contents.

The weight, the feel, and even the smell of a book can sometimes be the most comforting thing in the world. It’s reassuring, tangible, and enduring. Having a library of books isn’t just about the inside, but the way they fill a room with memories- happy, exciting, and at times, even heartbreaking.

Ms. Calendar: Well, it was your book that started all the trouble, not a computer. Honestly, what is it about them that bothers you so much?
Giles: The smell.
Ms. Calendar: Computers don’t smell, Rupert.
Giles: I know! Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a, a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences… long forgotten. Books smell. Musty, and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer, it… it has no texture, no context. It’s, it’s there and then it’s gone. If it’s to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um… smelly.

-Buffy the Vampire Slayer, “I, Robot… You, Jane”

Books create a form of permanence that e-books simply don’t. In the film industry, the move from analogue to digital is great concern as well. The issue with fully digital media is that it is so easily lost, corrupted, and ultimately, fallible. While they may seem to last, hard drives fail, and information can be lost forever. If there is no physical copy of something, there will likely come a time where it is irretrievable. This may be much more of a concern for filmmakers. However, the same concepts apply not only to literature, but the wealth of information made digital today. We may be able to read physical works from thousands of years ago, but how will future generations read our works if they are corroded away so easily?

On the other hand, the thrive in digital literature has made information more accessible than ever before. Instant, worldwide distribution platforms at a fraction of the cost of traditional publishing means great things- not only for readers, but for authors as well. More authors than ever before have the chance to not only publish their work, but find and distribute it to their audiences, niche or mainstream. Authors who may have never been published by a traditional publisher can (and do) find success through indie publishers and self-publishing. As for readers? A world of books that would have never been available before finally do, catering to niche markets and specific genres that otherwise would have never been made available. While digital publishing and distributions increases the number of sub-standard books on the market, it also happens to increase the number of well-written, thoughtful, and entertaining titles as well. You cannot have an increase in one without the other- and an increase in literature I may not like does not decrease the amount of literature that I do.

When it comes down to it, the reading world as we know it is in a transition period. Both the book store and the library have yet to become obsolete. Will we ever go fully digital? Should we?