The printer’s devil—and the promise of e-books
Many thanks to Lancelot Kirby, a writer from Portmouth, Ohio, for the essay below. I wonder what Trithemius would have thought of E Ink. - D.R.
At the start of the Renaissance, the abbot and occultist Johannes Trithemius wrote a book entitled In Praise of Scribes. In it he attacked the recent invention of printing and celebrates the superior qualities of the pen. How did he get the word out? In print, of course. Even Trithemius could see the writing, uh, printing, on the wall.
Trithemius also wrote another book, this one about the use of spirits to communicate over long distances. He would have been amazed by the magic of the Internet. Like Gutenberg preceding it, the Internet threatens the previous technology just as startlingly as the press did the scribe, and just like the press it came seemingly out of the air to change everything that came before. This very abruptness has caught so many off guard it is no wonder the e-book is under a hail of derision.
The book as an ongoing project
To the unconverted let me remind you, the book is an ongoing project, a largely technology driven enterprise. If the medium in which it has evolved has remained relatively static for the past five centuries, it is not for lack of trying. Gutenberg had applied the available equipment of his age so well there would be no real advancements in printing until the Industrial Revolution and the power of the steam engine.
Unlike Antony, I come not to bury the e-book, but to praise it, and I say this with all the passion of a true book lover. Confirmed bibliophiles will raise their hand’s in unison when asked what part of the book stands out the most—the smell. The olfactory experience of a library is like that of incense in a sacred space. Beyond its tactile properties the scent of a favorite title can instantly launch one into the time and place it was first read. Of lazy summer days by the pool, or quiet winter evenings in an armchair. This, for lack of a better word, “presence†of a book is the first thing the true bibliophile loses when the beloved is consigned to the digital world. Yet this heavenly scent, so tied to our conception of the traditional book, is relatively recent.
Before the Civil War, books were printed with the higher quality, thus more costly rag paper, as it had been for centuries. It is due to its higher quality and durability that the government still uses it to print money.
Few of us have been privileged to take in the atmosphere of the Bodleian in Oxford, or to taste with Poggio the treasures of St. Gall. And no man lives that has stood among the numberless scrolls of fabled Alexandria. We can only guess what delicious bouquet a million volumes of papyrus, coated with cedar oil, may have consisted of. And so the familiar friend in the guise of bound paper and ink is not as eternal and unchanging as we might wish to think.
The first task of a book
However, we must not forget the first task of a book, to convey knowledge, and to do so as conveniently as possible. For those who have been paying attention, it is obvious how convenient obtaining information is online compared with a trudge to the local library. The supremacy of the computer is testified to by the role those public libraries are taking in computer training and literacy. What library still uses that arcane relic, the card catalogue?
Many booklovers are fearful of hypertext, the idea of imbedding links in the text to related information and perhaps even changing the text its self. For a world so long accustomed to the seeming permanence of print, we have forgotten the age before it when all books were hand written. It was common to include glosses on words that were unusual and annotations or alternative readings in the margins that, sometimes, in later copying were incorporated into the body of the text as though it had been there all along. This occurred in stunning and unexpected ways. Those familiar with biblical scholarship are well aware of the variant readings of the New Testament that would shock many of those who believe the Bible was delivered from Heaven as an uncorrupted vessel of God’s word.
Hypertext as the next logical step
Even print has not been totally immune from these practices. The footnote and endnote are less personal yet similar attempts to squeeze the most out of a text for the benefit of the reader. Hypertext is the next logical step beyond the limitations of the page.
However, as with most new tools, the world is often slow to adapt. A paperback can be bought for pennies, the e-book technology is still cost prohibitive. Much like Gutenberg’s bibles, they are not for a mass audience. The market and technology has still to develop and find its way but, as the computer has become as ubiquitous as air, so its companion the e-book will doubtless compose much of the atmosphere of this new world.
The e-book is awkward, ugly and plain. Four centuries ago the same was said of print. Duke Federico da Montefeltro, who had assembled one of the finest manuscript libraries of the Renaissance, was heard to remark he would have been ashamed to own a printed book. In the end, we got used to the aesthetics in exchange for convenience. Unlike the Duke, I am fond of that old adage, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.â€
Image: Found at Johannes Trithemius Main Page, part of Christopher Warnock’s astrology site, and added by me. - D.R.










November 19th, 2008 at 4:28 am
I hope we don’t have to wait three or four centuries to have a good-looking e-book, though.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Not just good-looking, but good feeling… One of the undersung qualities of paper books is they absorb something from the reader (well, not so good for library books - c’mon people, use a napkin!). When you finish reading a paperback, it looks used - it can be kinda sexy. Computers, phones, PDAs - all screens - are prissy and impervious, and we keep wiping fingerprints off them like we’re clearing a crime scene. When there is an e-book you can (safely) toss across the room in rage, excitement, or whatever, that’ll be a keeper.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
A lot of this can be explained by generational inertia. For those of us who are in our late 30s or older, the association between reading and paper has been wired into us by the experience of of our youth. Over time however, a new generation, one that was as likely to read from their computer as from paper has grown up. These are the people who are already responsible for a number of magazines and papers switching to internet only editions. Thus younger generation takes it for granted that their computers (in any form from iPod to Desktop) will be their main method of entertainment, information and interacting with the world. We might be nostalgic for the paper book, they will just keep reading on their screens.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I’m hooked on ebooks, but I do think that the experience could be improved to recover some of the pleasures of print books, while adding some features only possible with ebooks.
Now that digital storage space is ridiculously cheap (I recently saw a Microcenter ad for an 8 GB SD card for less than 20.00), I can easily keep every ebook I own on my pocket pc. Currently, this makes looking through the libraries (ereader, mobipocket, and mslit) quite cumbersome. I’d like to have them set up in more of a database type of storage and to be able to browse through unread mysteries, newest acquisitions, all Miss Marple books in order of original publish date, mysteries set in England, or any combination of characteristics I can think of. When browsing through the libraries, or any subset of them, I’d also like to see the covers, jacket blurbs or brief descriptions, and even the first couple of pages, without opening the books.
Most ebooks/libraries look the same as they did several years ago when people were reading them on Palm Pilots with very little storage space. I think it’s time for an update.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
So many projections of the future of the book just toy with the contrast of the print book and the screen book. Popular discussions question which reading device is best at the beach, on the subway or in the tub. And there is endless evocation of the smell and feel of old books. Even the academic study of the “materialty” of the book appears self-referential and in quarantine from interactive functionality of such an attribute to screen based reading. Meanwhile, many other discussions are biased by presumptive projections of screen advocates where print advocates are cast as misguided and regressive. Trivialities are everywhere.
But notorious print constraints frequently reposition nicely as attributes. For example, the much remarked print limitations of onerous revision and fixed and link-less text actually afford the “performative space” needed for effervescent meaning and intuitive readings and re-readings. Perhaps a more effective approach is needed to distinguish print and screen books by weighing their different transmission attributes and by realizing their enlacing interactions.
The mediation of the print and screen book, getting from one to the other, is already efficient and pervasive as libraries have demonstrated for decades. Services of bibliographic utilities, smart search applications and screen delivery have transformed print libraries. So print attributes of fixity, navigational and haptic refinement, materiality, and reliable re-access across time, all pair nicely with screen attributes of immediacy, automated search, electronic delivery, and live content.
Another crucial pair of print and screen attributes is revealed by the self-authenticating nature of the print book contrasted with the self-indexing nature of the screen book. The print book carries with it layers of physical evidence, overt content and bibliographic codes that persistently reveal the source and intent of its production. Such features of self-authentication, confirmed with ease of re-readings across time and cultures, give the material book its special role in transmission. But print books resist indexing and have been compiled into libraries only with great effort or with the help of on-line cataloging and finding aids.
By contrast the screen book is self-indexing because the encoding or production process that renders books to the screen also enables their keyword search routines. This attribute is really amazing. It is as if printing ink on paper inherently tabulated the letters and remembered them. However, the effervescent screen books resist authentication. Screen books, like touch screen voting, remain vulnerable and un-trusted with ease of unmonitored deletions or revisions and uncertain provenance. And expectations are very different with screen based research. The content is served quickly while the reader is induced to consume quickly as well.
These are eerie counterpoints. It is as if the screen is filling a transmission void of print and as if print is founding its own more essential, less ramified, role. Simple competition between the print book and screen book is an illusion; each has different function, there are exclusive attributes of each and super-cession is a minor factor. Mirror attributes, rather than contrasts of advantages and disadvantages, have emerged and mutual redefinition is at work. The surge of advance and use of screen based reading confirms its complementary fulfillment in print and advance of print confirms its new dependence on digital technologies.