Skip navigation

“About a decade ago, some publishers were predicting that books would soon be a thing of the past, and that we would all be reading downloadable texts on portable hand-held screens. Wishful thinking, it turns out.”

fromCan’t Judge an E-Book by Its Screen? Well, Maybe You Canby Charles McGrath, New York Times 24 November 2006

When I began researching e-books in the late 1990s statements on e-books were balanced, but from 2001 onward, with the crash, McGrath’s kind of commentary rapidly grew more prominent. In The Myth of the Paperless Office (2002) Sellen and Harper made the claim that current e-books are way off the mark when it comes to offering the kinds of tools that people need in the workplace (p162).

What are the tools we need in the workplace? Do we need computers? It seems we do. Offices have been transformed by them, whether we like it or not. Hypertext onscreen organisation of documents lost out to a print-based pdf style of documents, which required a photocopier. Was this necessary?

Now I wouldn’t accuse McGrath (or anyone) of being a pawn or pimp in the pay of big publishing or other print-based interests, but if big publishing et al were paying McGrath to ‘write down’ the prospects of the e-book, then he couldn’t, in my opinion, do a better job.

I don’t underestimate how e-books threaten traditional publishing practices. As David Dorman wrote in 1999: “The increasing separation of the physical book from its information content is unsettling our traditional laws and practices regarding intellectual-property rights” American Libraries 30/2. But the discourse in the organised media against the e-book is now so well developed it is disabling consumer freedoms—against the e-reader in this case, but why should we quibble over a small distinction between an e-book and an e-reader, if The New York Times can’t be bothered with it (as McGrath writes: “Sony has introduced its new version of the e-book”).

McGrath claims: “…the various book-replacement devices available back then have mostly been dumped on the recycling heap. They were too hard to read, people complained, and also too heavy, guzzling so much battery power that they quickly grew hot in the hand.”

Who complained? Perhaps he could spare a line to tell us. What McGrath tells us isn’t what I found ‘back then’ when I ran a usability test in London with the two Gemstar e-readers (2001). It isn’t what another tester from, Laura Miller, found when she tested an e-reader in 2000. McGrath sums up his position in his final line telling us that exasperated with the Sony Reader, he felt like tossing it “out on the driveway” and running “over it with the car.”

Now, who really cares what McGrath, personally, thinks of these technologies and I certainly don’t want to sell anyone an e-book or e-reader. But unbiased commentary on e-books etc. from the organised media could be useful. If organised publishing and ‘the help’ would cease drumming up fears by masquerading prejudice as rational thought, readers and book consumers would be able to see that the e-book and e-reader are no match, threat or rival to the print book. They are simply different reading tools.



  1. PS. Whenever the opponents of e-books etc. argue, they point to the need to vigorously defend copyright, as if consumers only want to steal copyrighted material, as if copyright was there as a protection itself. In sum, it never was so and isn’t now. Copyright benefits corporate rights holders more than any other group by a long way. The great bogey, piracy, statistically, is a low occurrence. It is more likely to be carried out, in the form of plagiarism of the works of disempowered authors (as happens in Hollywood), by those who traffic in copyright – the corporate owners of most rights, who have most to gain. Most readers respect writers and want to see them survive. There is a special ‘virtual’ relationship between the two. Corporate ownership of rights mediates against this by placing a very select few (for often incomprehensible reasons) in the stratosphere of star writer/entertainer category. This group of star writers have almost no connection to the vast majority’s information needs, information which could and should be passed around for the benefit of research and knowledge in general. E-books have a purpose, to help distribute knowledge, to grow that knowledge, to educate and enlighten (and entertain), to empower, and this objective outweighs corporate motivation for controlling information provision by a long, long way. One researcher looking at what remains of all printed, recorded and filmed etc material 1930-1945 found that only 6% of it is left for viewing or use. Let us worry about providing more for the benefit of all and be less concerned with the worries generated in the generally misleading discourses splashed about by corporations via their media outlets – media conglomerates who cynically exploit information provision for profit. Let the e-book (and e-reader) develop naturally, let it become just another reading tool, which it is.

  2. Good site!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: