I was never a technophobe, in fact, I had the opposite “phase”
in high school which peaked when a network administrator confronted me
regarding irregularities in the network structure of the school. Apparently, I
was a suspect and I wasn’t entirely innocent. However, when the e-readers came
around, I was extremely skeptical. I only got a Kindle recently and let me tell
you exactly how terrifying the “migration” is for someone belonging to this
liminal generation.
I’ve always been comfortable reading physical books. Even
though our elementary library was very selective and utopian (it would condemn
anything with an expletive), it was easy for me find a shelf I really liked. It
was a good thrill waiting for the next installment of The Magic Tree House book
to be returned by a fellow reader. The library I was subscribed to then decided
it only gets one copy of each installment and it was always a race; the winner
was awarded the top cell on the borrower’s card housed in a pocket at the back
of the book.
Physical books, apart from the written material in them, is
an object. It was something that existed in a specific place at a specific
point in time. Tangible and highly limited, only one kid can read it at a time.
I decided to get my Kindle because I am almost sure that I am
a classical reader. The Project Gutenberg website that houses free digitized
versions of relatively older (but genius) books is paradise for me. The Kindle
isn’t the first time I’m reading digital. I have used my Macbook and my iPod to
read whole books I couldn’t find in libraries or stores.
The first book I’ve read on the Kindle is Mary Shelley’s
brilliant novel “Frankenstein”. It is highly thought-provoking, forcing me to
consider the importance and the dynamics of the relationships between the
created and the creator. The Kindle was an entirely different experience from
reading off a laptop or a music device. Apart from the paper-like screen (e-Ink,
Pearl, whatever its name), it was a device supposed to replace books. I can’t
acknowledge the notion that it is made to be used as a supplementary with the
book. It is a proud device! It is light, can store a crazy amount of books, and
reads like a book (except for the seizure-trigger every flip of a page)!
The Kindle is brilliant. It was easy to read using it, it is
conducive to the development of bad habits such reading while walking because
it is very convenient to lag around. The weight and the size is divine. I
personally think that everyone who loves literature must get a Kindle. It is a
cheaper, more earth-friendly way of devouring the classics. However, it does
not provide the threat of a paper cut, a feeling that adds a thrill to the book.
The Kindle does not set fire to the paper, rather it heats up
an argument in my head.
Of course, there is that purist, highly conservative part of
me that dismisses the digital as a destruction of the production of good books.
Digital production is way cheaper than printing. You just convert a file into
an e-book and boom, you have a “book”. This wasn’t the case when Dickens
emerged. A physical book can’t be (easily) duplicated. The copy-paste is
probably the murder of the library. Yes, there are online systems that allow
only one person to access a book at a time but the physical existence of a
library is lost. Again, a murder!
There is also the practical (or lazy) side which chooses
convenience. The Kindle allows obtaining of free e-books. New titles are on
illicit sources I do not suggest but it is possible to get new books for free. Apart
from being selfish, literature becomes a public domain. The internet becomes
EDSA where people just have to look up to read Austen, Shelley, Camus, Freud,
etc!
Of the millions of people transferring into e-books from books,
please do not do so blindly. Reading is a wonderful thing; change however, is
dubious.
No comments:
Post a Comment