Three Arguments against the Kindle: Other than perhaps the third reason, I find this to be pretty convincing.
Three Arguments against the Kindle
– April 24, 2009
About the Author
Richard H. Clark (Co-Founder/Editor-in-Chief) has spent his entire life writing, reading, listening, and playing. He has a Bachelors in Theology from the Baptist College of Florida and has a Master of Arts in Theology and the Arts from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is fascinated with the extent to which popular culture influences real people. He and his wife currently live in Louisville, KY where he is the classroom technology manager at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Email: deadyetliving [at] gmail [dot] com. Twitter: @christandpc. Xbox Live: deadyetliving 
The Kindle is wonderful for those who serve overseas and do not otherwise have ready access to English-language books. Yes, the Kindle is expensive and there are drawbacks to not having the physical book in one’s hands, but for some people, the Kindle is a great piece of equipment. I have lived and plan to live again soon in a country where English-language materials are not readily available. I have purchased a Kindle in anticipation of this.
No.
(Tell me you didn’t see that coming.)
Of all the bad reasons for not liking the Kindle (or other e-Ink readers), these are some of the worst I’ve seen. Okay, there are some legitimacies to the second point, but I’ll hit those in a minute. Let’s take them one by one shall we?
1) By removing the author’s text from the unique physical imprint of the book, we destroy the mystical transmission of the author’s involvement in the text and thereby lose something important the author was saying.
We can chalk this one up under the illustrious heading: Patently False. Okay, so that book you’re holding? That first edition Ishiguro or Twain or Salinger? You know whose imprint is transmitted to you through the book’s cover, text-type, kerning, etc? Yep, you guess it. The publisher’s.
Apart from the actual text itself, nothing of the book belongs to the author. That’s why I can say that when I read a 2006 edition of The Count of Monte Cristo, I am reading Dumas, despite the fact that the particular kind of binding and printing process of my copy didn’t exist when he wrote the book. If anything serves to divorce me from the author here, it’s the fact that I’m reading a translation.
If White wanted to go this direction with his argument but still keep in the Realm of Sane Critique, he might have said something like Argument one: The Kindle, through presenting all texts through a uniform package, strips the reading experience of many of those physical landmarks that mnemonically aid our memory of the books we read. See? A sensible argument that doesn’t have any of that ridiculous author-trace mumbo jumbo that’s not based on a world that doesn’t exist—a world in which authors influence a publisher’s printing standards.
2) The Kindle destroys the community of readers that books forge and strengthen.
While not making its home in the realm of Patently False like its predecessor, this argument does overstate things a bit. I’m reading on a Kindle these days and tonight, I’m bringing it over to someone’s house where I and seven others will be discussing Steve Toltz’ A Fraction of the Whole. Which I read on the Kindle. And which I am excited to discuss using the tools the Kindle offers me.
See? Community. And a thriving one. Just not the same as before.
The strength in this point revolves wholly around the DRM issues that are such a relevant topic as they continue to plague the music and gaming industries as well. I can’t loan my Half-Life 2 (purchased via Steam) to anyone and the same goes for my copy of Castaways and Cutouts (if I bought it from iTunes). I think this is a valid issue and though its partially resolved through the ability of linking family member’s accounts, it still has a ways to evolve. I think the future will probably see some sort of lending options made available through Kindle management systems.
So yeah, DRM is an issue and one of the few honest dings against the device. White’s community lament is kind of hooey though.
3) Because the Kindle facilitates reading through technology, it necessarily positions itself as an enemy to reflection and reflective spaces. And then society collapses.
White’s writing parody, right? Please?
I probably don’t need to go into this as the site has pretty consistently argued that technology doesn’t necessarily obliterate the ability for thought, reflection, contemplation. Intentionality, as with the printed word is still key to maintaining a thoughtful life.
White says:
See, the thing is: it’s not the book jacket or the binding or even the text-type that draws a reader in so thoroughly. It is, as it has always been, the author’s power as an author. The Kindle doesn’t change this anymore than paperback or hardbound do. If anything, I think the Kindle helps the package disappear more completely than the bound page does, allowing the reader to more easily fall into the world of a book if the author merits it.
For this reason, I’m disappointed that my Kindle doesn’t allow me to display the time at, well, at all times. It’s too easy to get sucked into a book and lose track of the time.
As far as special places to read? They still exist! And they exist as much for Kindle readers as they do for the paper-bound. You see, the Kindle doesn’t make read some sort of automatic process that happens while you’re doing other stuff. Shockingly, perhaps, the Kindle is a book—and as such, demands the proper atmosphere to be enjoyed. I’ve never been fond of reading in libraries, so that’s never been an option for me. But parks or cafés? Excellent, sign me up. That’s the thing: books don’t create reading spaces, readers do.
____________________________
In the end, just like every format, there are pros and cons to the Kindle. From my personal experience thus far, for most reading the Kindle easily justifies itself. Despite my problems with its DRM and some small complaints about its UI.
The need for unique pages to be able to find something is almost entirely solved by the fact that you can word search your books. I was demonstrating this to a friend recently and wanted to find a favourite passage from A Fraction of the Whole. All I remembered was that it had something to do with loyaties to dirt. So I search loyalties and even though the passage used the term loyalty instead, I still found it straight off. See?
And the reason I could print that out so easily? I copy/pasted. Because while I was reading the book, I used the underlining feature to mark passages I thought were worth remembering and after I finished the nearly 600 pages, I unloaded the highlights and any notes I made to my computer and printed them off. How many times have you underlined a section in a big book and spent minutes looking for that one particular underline six months or more after finishing? And I’m bringing my notes and highlights with me to my discussion group tonight, so hey: value added.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
Look what you did. You made me type up 1100 words. Boo to you Rich.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
Now, Seth. Regarding #1, aren’t you being at least a little silly? You might as well say that a piece of paper doesn’t bear the author’s imprint, because after all, it’s the pen that does the writing.
What you seem to ignore in all of the above complaints is the unavoidable fact that the Kindle abolishes all sorts of diversity and distinctness that might otherwise attend and frame texts published in real live books.
Now, I’m not saying Kindle is bad. I might like one one day (when the cost goes down). But it’s usefulness really shouldn’t be understood as a replacement for books. It’s something different. There are things it does better than books and things it is not as good at as books. In fact, I liked your earlier point that perhaps the Kindle will liberate book-craft from its present dullness, making way for a revival of craftsmanship and beauty in all things biblio.
In short, 1100 words is just too long.
Scotts last blog post..For Those Among Us Considering Moving To The Holy Isle
@Scott:
I don’t actually entirely ignore that. I make tacit mention of the fact RE point 1. I even state there’s some validity to the kernel of point 1, but that it has nothing to do with transmission of authorial purpose. And it doesn’t. I’ll be among the first to admit that packaging can affect one’s reading of a text for good or for ill.* I love when books are packaged really well and I consider it value-added to the book. And I plan to continue purchasing nice-looking editions of my favourite books due wholly to packaging.
I only objected to packaging of Argument One, which was so poor as to obfuscate any value in the line of reasoning.
And you’re right. I might as well say that the printed page doesn’t bear the author’s imprint any more than the electronic page does. In fact, I do pretty much say that.
Of course, in 1100 words, it’s easy to miss things like that.
*note: interestingly, I think the near-identicality of packaging for Kindle books will better allow readers to judge books on their merits instead of on the unfair preconceived notions that packaging sometimes engenders.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
Actually, you’re right. I re-read that section. Seems I skipped that entire third paragraph. My bads.
Scotts last blog post..For Those Among Us Considering Moving To The Holy Isle
Also, on a very related and less abstract note, I prefer to listen to CDs rather than listening to my iPod. Analogously, I loathe to read anthologies, and prefer instead reading single item volumes. In Scripture reading, I prefer to read Genesis from the Torah rather than from the whole canon. With Plato, I hate reading from collected works. If I want to read the Gorgias, then I pick up the Gorgias off my shelf. It’s because Kindle rages against this that I’m not giddy about it.
I don’t think this is arbitrary either. What I love about individuated published titles is that their format highlights their “thisness”, their utter particularity – a thing which I can too easily ignore by simply swallowing up the texts in prejudices and generalizations.
I don’t buy texts, I buy books. I love books and all their bookiness. Generic texts and information, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen on the ole Internet. I don’t go to the internet if I want to enjoy reading. Reading for me is never about “just the text.” It’s the book itself that I love, the way it feels in my hand, the ease with which it gives me its texts. Even the starts and stops of sentences, paragraphs, pages, and chapters shape and affect my pleasure. While Kindle obviously has pages, paragraphs and such, even the experience of page turning is altered/distorted.
Scotts last blog post..For Those Among Us Considering Moving To The Holy Isle
That’s fair insofar as that is your preference, so long as we recognize that your love of the experience of reading a book in single-volume book form is just a learned behaviour that you’ve become accustomed to and are comfortable with. I understand to an extent the this-ness of reading a paperbound book, but that experience of the book is not necessary. This-ness is a fabricated thing, a kind of mental construct, and as such can be transferred by simple act of will.
For me, the this-ness quite facilely transfers to the Kindle-bound text. When I go to the café to read for an hour or so, I’m not reading my Kindle. I’m reading Steve Toltz’ A Fraction of the Whole. Or, since I’ve finished that, I now take Yu Hua’s Brothers to the food court.
While I love books for their book-ness, when I’m in the act of reading, I don’t care about the form so long as I’m able to seamlessly enter the story. I like the aesthetic and the feel of books in my life, but given the opportunity to read the same text from a paperbound edition on my shelf or from my Kindle? I think the ease of entering into the reading experience on the Kindle might edge me toward preferring that. But then, again, my preference like yours is just a learned behaviour/preference and doesn’t have any necessary tie to anything greater than myself.
________________________________
Oh yeah, and since we own several thousand books, it’s become high time that we find a way to save space. Kindle was that solution for me. And now that we’re packing to move and I see how many boxes of books we have (and not enough shelves for them at our destination), I wish I had found it sooner.
________________________________
Oh yeah too, I don’t really notice any difference between listening to CDs and to my iPod (except that I’m afforded more options with my iPod). What do you think of mixtapes? Do they thwart your sensibilities too or do they pose a curious recalcitrance? For me, besides having whatever CD I want available, the ability to easily put together mixtapes for my mood is a great boon.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
I like “concept” mixtapes. I don’t like scattershot fun music mixes.
Scotts last blog post..Verily, verily…
I can’t even imagine a non-concept mixtape. That seems like it would destroy the entire purpose of the mixtape.
And maybe the world.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
I’m telling the truth: I’m not lying. A girl gave me one once.
Scotts last blog post..Verily, verily…
Dumped!!
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
Be honest. How would you feel if I told you I just finished purchasing a Kindle 2?
Scotts last blog post..Verily, verily…
I might feel a little happiness for you welling up in the pit of my soul. Did you know that souls, like arms, have pits?
Seth T. Hahnes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
Of course I knew that.
And I did. It’ll be here Wednesday. You had me at the bit about portability.
Of course, this might not make me a hypocrite. I have an iPod, too. I just use it for different things.
Scotts last blog post..Verily, verily…