IS THE BOOK DEAD?

I recently read two books, "The Tyranny of E-mail", by John Freeman and "The Case for Books: Past, Present and Future" by Robert Darnton. Both deal with the huge changes in how we share information currently, and how they affect the way we learn and connect. I have written previously about the influence of cell phones on the plots of movies and stories, but now would like to look at digitization and its effect on reading and libraries.

The book as we know it, or codex, has been pronounced "dead" many times. We all do a tremendous amount of reading on-line, so that looms as a possibility. However, even Bill Gates has said: "Reading off the screen is still vastly inferior to reading off paper. Even, I who have these expensive screens and fancy myself as a pioneer of this Web Lifestyle, when it comes to something over about four or five pages, I print it out and I like to have it to carry around with me and annotate....."

The much-talked-about project, potentially full of pitfalls, which the libraries and world in general are watching, is Google's mammoth digitization project. The claim to 100% of texts is exaggerated. As Darnton says, some very valuable writing could be in the percent not included for a variety of reasons. Materials from five great American libraries will be used, but this doesn't come close to the material in all such institutions.

Another crucial issue revolves around copyright infringement. It currently extends to the author's life plus seventy years. Google can display only part of the text for those still under copyright. Also likely is that Google may make mistakes, skip pages, blur images. There are no guarantees that the format will last forever either. Bits can deteriorate, hardware and software go out of date, as may even encoding.

Finally, even if the copy is totally accurate, there are characteristics of a book that cannot be captured. The very act of HOLDING a book has aspects that appeal to readers like: size, texture, smell, quality of printing, clarity of illustrations. These physical attributes reflect its history in a specific culture and place, not even mentioning fascinating notes left in the margins.

To be avoided, and librarians are in the forefront of this protest, is the "monopoly of access to information." According to Darnton, "Anyone who commands the portals to digital data can act as a toll collector, making you pay to enter the information highway." In Google's case it can charge whatever it wants in the future. A scary thought indeed.