Romantic Fiction Online

Social networking for romance readers

Why I think Jonathan Frazen is wrong about ebooks

Author Jonathan Frazen has got me thinking today after a talk he gave at a literary festival that has been widely reported in the broadsheets. He says that ebooks are a bad thing for society because of their "impermanence". He argues that text - i.e. on paper - is permanent and that authors and readers need the security of knowing that.

Here's Franzen's talk reported in the Telegraph.

To some degree, he has a point about the digital age - there is just so much "content" out there and so much of it can't be preserved forever. Yet his argument reminded me of old saying: "today's newsprint is tomorrow's chip paper". Surely this remains the case whether books are made of paper or delivered electronically? Some will endure, most won't.

I would bet that the internet has caused an explosion of the written word rather than anything else. Back in the olden days, avid readers like me used to scour cornflake packets. No need now, words to read everywhere.

So I don't really buy his argument and it just sounds a bit luddite to me. As a writer text is text, no matter the medium. And language is no less amazing for being on screen. And ebooks might just make more people read books and more readers read more books.

Tags: books, chip, ebooks, frazen, newspapers, paper

0 members like this

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Romantic Fiction Online to add comments!

Join Romantic Fiction Online

Comment by Rhoda Baxter on February 1, 2012 at 14:08: I confess I wasn't convinced about ebook readers. How could anything possibly replace the convenience, feel and smell of a real book? The answer is, it can't. It's not every trying to.

I tried an ereader app, just to see what the fuss was about and, you know what? I love it. It means that I can finish one book and buy another almost instantly. Even better than that - they don't take up any precious shelf space.

I barely notice the difference in 'reading experience' anymore.

E-books are books. Just as paperbacks and hardbacks are books. They take just as much effort to write, edit and turn into a product.

I do agree with the issue of permanence though. Digital archives are not very secure, mainly because the technology to read them is evolving so fast that no one can keep up. Hopefully, someone will crack that particular problem fairly soon.

Comment by Linda Gillard on January 31, 2012 at 18:36: Well said, Kate!

E-books are making people read more - and making more people read. Almost everyone who has a Kindle says they're reading more and in some cases more quickly. (Larger font probably.) Schools are saying that finally the e-reader might finally crack the "boys don't read" nut, now that they can do it on a gadget. We know also (because they've confessed!) that some men are reading romance now that they can read it anonymously. Most Kindle owners are prepared to step outside their genre comfort zone if the book is free, very cheap & they can read a sample beforehand.

This is all wonderful and I think Franzen is a publicity-seeking curmudgeon to try and find a downside to such heartening developments. He is also woefully out of touch with the real world. The e-book is the most exciting and positive thing to happen to books since Allen Lane introduced the Penguin pb.

Comment by Francine Howarth on January 31, 2012 at 15:36: So agree on this point: As a writer text is text, no matter the medium. And language is no less amazing for being on screen. And ebooks might just make more people read books and more readers read more books.

They say children of today are far more visually minded than children of pre-fifty era, and it may prove beneficial to have text on screen instead of paper. Damn it all, kids post-fifties were tuned to TVs and post eighties computer screens, while post-nineties have laptops, I-pods, smart phones etc., and let's hope kids might read something that otherwise would not be a cool thing to do. To read a novella on a smart phone is real cool, so I've been informed by my grandsons. I dread to think what they're reading, though... ;) And yet, smut in text is probably less harmful than downloaded images, which young lads of the fifties and before rarely saw. Later on sixties kids would loiter near magazine racks eyes scanning top-shelf material, and crane their necks to get a better view of cheesecake girlie poses. So yeah, if kids are reading text on screens that's gotta be good for e-books in general.