The Best of Both Worlds?

I want an e-Reader. I want one real bad. I love technology, I love shiny new pieces of technology that do essentially the same things as my old pieces of technology, only faster or in a sleeker package. I want my phone to check my email and my email to check my phone. And I want it all wireless.

So I'll probably own an e-Reader soon. And now, it would seem, is the time to buy. The companies are making e-Readers that function like a tablet, offering all the possibilities of Internet access alongside a vast, affordable library of books and magazines. And these machines are themselves cheap enough that a dedicated reader will have no problem justifying the cost.



E-Readers, like all the gadgets we are inundated with these days, are likely to become a necessary part of the American toolbox of technology. The practical uses of these small, light readers, especially for students, is too great to ignore. Simply imagine the number of texts that are available to a teacher if each student were reading on an e-Reader? Imagine the money schools could save by digitizing their text books.

This is but one of many strong arguments in favor of widespread e-Reader proliferation. I could go on for pages about how great the e-Reader is, how amazing having so much information at hand is, how easy to read on they are and so on. I almost start to feel sorry for the books; they don't seem to having anything in their favor.

And of course, that last thought is horribly, disgustingly wrong. Books have everything in their favor!

Because books are more than just bound paper marked up with ink. They are the stories they contain. It maybe possible to put the same words on a computer screen, but in that undefinable way, it's not the same as reading from a book or a newspaper or magazine. The turning of the page is as much a part of reading as the words themselves. Sitting down with my favorite books are like revisiting old friends. That sensation doesn't transfer to the e-Books in quite the same way.

I don't mind reading on a screen. Especially for things like news. Other than Seven Days I don't touch real papers. It's a matter of efficiency for me. When I buy a book, it's because I want it to be part of my collection, I want to be able to re-read it, or even just see it on the shelve and remember what reading it was like. Newspapers and magazines have a disposable feeling; after a little time, a newspaper isn't really worth much. But in the compact form of a computer screen or e-Reader, the news has just as much relevance as ever. Maybe even more.

Perhaps it is unfair to the printed word to hold any sort of comparison. We live in a digital culture, we are bombarded with technology every day; it's just a way of life for us to use machines. Books are becoming a relic, a piece of ancient technology that we are quickly moving away from. Disregarding the arguments for or against e-Readers and accepting that they will become a major part of our technology package, it's worth noting that there is still space in the marketplace for books.


Because a book is something unique, a singular story or cataloging of information that was painstakingly assembled for the reader's pleasure. Digital text lacks the permanence of a physical books because the digital copy can easily be edited or altered at any time, from nearly any place. Books are immutable; once they exist, the writer would have to either write an addition edition or a follow up book to amend the content, otherwise the book remains as it is when printed forever.

Don't be fooled into thinking that flexibility is always a good thing. I bring the thought back to the difference between a printed novel and a newspaper. The newspaper is meant to be an informative, useful tool; it is printed on paper simply because this was the easiest method of delivery at the time. A better method has developed and it is logical that news would move to the digital realm. But the same cannot be said for books, stories and literature.

They are different in a subtly important way. For one thing, books are not tools in the same way that news is. Books, especially stories, are a physical manifestation of a story, something the author wants to get out of their head and share with the world. The medium for sharing this story may not be critical, but I doubt that books will disappear in the face of e-Readers.

Or I should perhaps say I hope books don't disappear. Through all the research and considering I have done on the topic in the last month, I find it harder and harder to argue in favor of books: e-Readers and digital media in general seem to have so much versatility and usefulness, it appears impractical not to make use of them.


Still, I wouldn't give up my collection of books for anything; of all the possessions I own (and there aren't many) my books are my most prized. Staggering data may point to digital mediums as the way of the future and the logical part of my brain understands and agrees. But there is a lingering doubt that I imagine most readers feel, a doubt that they will ever stop reading from physical books. Because the sensation, the immersion that one experiences upon cracking open a book is so unique that we will gravitate back to it.

I want an e-Reader and I'm sure once I get one I will use it daily. But I also know that it will not stop me in the least from rushing to a book store to buy a copy of my favorite author's new book, nor will it keep me from browsing the used bookstore for gems. I may be in favor of the digital revolution, but I will never leave behind my books.

Looking to the Future: Putting Pen to … Screen?

By Paul Hobday

We live in interesting times. So much is changing and so quickly, it's easy to get swept up by this ever evolving world we live in and easy to lose track of the path that has brought us to this juncture. Technology is constantly changing and growing, becoming more powerful and pervasive seemingly every day.

There are, of course, positive and negative impacts of this cultural shift toward technological dependence. Computers, a thing of science fiction fifty years ago, are a mainstay of human culture today. The gadgets and tools of technology demand that the individual adapt or risk being left in the dust.

Burlington Vermont, the little city of arts and culture, is not immune to the creeping invasion of technology. Our cafes, still adorned with ancient oak beams and hand carved tables, also feature wi-fi and additional outlets to plug our devices into. No, this humble, creative city, so much in love with it's own uniqueness, cannot hope to keep the great surge of technology at bay.

It begs a distinct question: where to draw the line? When is technology a boon and when is it a hindrance? How much technology is too much; how can the individual take advantage of all that technology can offer without losing themselves?

No where is this question more important to consider than in the realm of digital books, or e-Books. The recent boom of hand-held devices, I-phones, tablets and e-Readers has ushered in a new, paperless age. This is a major turning point, a moment in human history when things are guaranteed to change and we must decide how to approach these changes, how to mold ourselves to take advantage of them.

A recent study by AdMob (a Google company) found that tablet use is replacing TV and desktop usage, especially in the home and during the week. While the study also points out that the vast majority of time on tablets is spent gaming, it also contained a staggering static: nearly 3 out of 5 individuals spend more time on their tablets than they do with a physical book.


This wave of the future is not without negative impacts though, as all things come with their downsides. E-Readers are not books, a distinction that is crucial to make when considering their impact on society. The written word, the physical act of putting pen to paper, is a mainstay of the cultured, civilized world. E-Readers break this norm, redefining books as bits and bytes.

Ben Aleshire, of The Salon (a poetry publication), points out one of the hidden dangers in technology: the need for the machines. “They [the product makers] are manufacturing necessity through planned obsolescence, making us upgrade products that are all essentially the same”. This is the danger of new, constantly evolving technology; it becomes easy to be left behind, the slightest lapse in product upgrading can result in a severely outdated machine, a lamentable state for the dedicated consumer.

And there are those who feel that e-Readers and digital books are not a positive or useful direction for technology to take. An article in PCWorld.com last year listed five reasons the e-Reader is unnecessary. The fourth reason listed in this piece mentions the environmental impact of e-Readers versus books. It's easy to assume that e-Readers would be more environmentally friendly, but that idea is not entirely accurate.

A study by Cleantech, commented on in a Cnet.com article, found that an e-Reader becomes more environmentally friendly if the user consumes more than 22 books a year. This does not account for the number of newspaper and magazine subscriptions that can be routed through e-Readers. From an environmental stand-point, this study proves that e-Readers can be more environmentally friendly, but they do pose certain risks. The issue turns on how much use a consumer gets out of the e-Reader.

But how many people actually read 22 or more books a year? A study by the National Endowment for the Arts found that the average American in 2007 watched two hours of TV a day, while they read for only an average of seven minutes. While this study is dated, the increase in technology usage in the past four years is obvious, so it is safe to assume that this trend is continuing.

E-Readers are not the end of reading, though. In fact, according to a study by Harris Interactive, people “who have e-Readers do, in fact, read more”. The study also found that “e-Reader users are also more likely to buy books”. A staggering 32% of Americans say they haven't purchased any books in the last year, while only 6% of e-Reader users say the same.

According to a Pew Research study, e-Reader ownership has gone up 12% since 2009, while tablets have similarly grown by 8%. People are starting to pick up on the tablet/e-Reader trend, making use of the compact and powerful technology to perform many of the functions of a household computer, news papers, magazines, books and more.

This is not likely the end for print media, though. A Pew Internet study found that people still rely on a variety of sources. Of the sixteen topics of regional importance that Pew surveyed, the majority of respondents claimed they fulfilled the needs of eleven of these topics through newspapers, primarily print editions. Americans who do follow local matters get the most out of print papers. The study also found a decrease in interest: fewer and fewer Americans follow topics like government on a regular basis.

While there is a certain amount of resistance to a movement toward a digital world, there is much to be gained from digital media. The ease and convenience, the simplified delivery methods and the sheer volume of literature that can be stored in a tiny device is staggering. Like all things, there has to be a middle ground, a place where e-Readers and books meet happily, with the consumer benefiting.

Ben Aleshire, again expressing his concern over American's addiction to media says, "the Internet is swallowing all of American life. It's a way of paying for information without [the consumer] realizing it". Without moderation and balance, there is not likely to be any middle ground on this issue. People can get a great deal out of this technology, so long as they don't become consumed by it.

For a city like Burlington, the question becomes one of aesthetic taste and relative usefulness. It's hard to argue with how useful an e-Reader or tablet can be. But it's equally difficult to argue with the sensation of turning a page, of holding a book in hand. Especially in a place like Vermont, where people take pride in the environment and can see the forest for the trees, this question of ease versus nostalgia becomes a major point between digital and physical reading material.

For a city that resides on the edge between a holistic, natural setting and the burgeoning potential of the digital world, this influx of technology is undeniable, important and still a cause for some concern. Burlington recently lost one of it's two major booksellers, as Borders closed its doors for good this summer. It seems unlikely that this source for literature will be replaced in any meaningful way. That factor alone could give rise to an increased use in e-Readers. The Fletcher Free Library features an extensive selection of e-Books.

Even Burlington College, a very small school with only a humble little library, is considering the possibilities of featuring digital reading material.

“I'd love to have a catalog of e-Books” says Jessica Allard, Burlington College's Librarian. “I could see having a couple of e-Readers in the library, if the money were there to support it. I think we could eventually save money by using them.”

This sentiment is easy to appreciate: in difficult economic times, people and organizations have to weigh the cost against the benefit of buying and maintaining an e-Reader. In that area though, e-Readers may have an edge on books. An article in The New York Times suggests that the average cost of a book is $26.00, while e-Books range from $9.99 to $12.99. If, in order to be environmentally sound, the e-Reader user has to read 22 books a year, the difference is more than $250.00. That amount easily covers the initial cost of the e-Reader.

See Chart.

If e-Readers continue to prove to be cheaper and more friendly to environment, using e-Readers may turn out to be the logical direction for consumption of literature and news. They can do all that a book can and more, even if they lack the physical impact some get from reading an actual book.

For those concerned about the demise of books and newspapers, this chart, by the Pew Research Center, shows just how important the local paper is to the individual. And there is always the actual touch of a book. For some, there is a value in turning the page, of smelling the fresh ink or simply holding a book.

It is also worth noting that e-Books and printed books, while identical in content at the moment, could very well lead to a knew style of writing. As Nicholas Carr points out in his book, The Shallows, "a printed book is a finished object". There is a finality to printing a book that boarders on the eternal. And this is something writers are aware when they write; they want their words to become a part of the cultural forever.

Digital text, on the other hand, demands none of this finality. Carr once again observes that "the pressure to achieve perfection will diminish" as more texts become digital, simply because of how easy it will be to edit these digital texts. This shift toward a more fluid form of writing is likely to take even greater hold if e-Books continue to supplant the printed word.

Perhaps there is room in the world for both options: variety is good. E-Readers appear likely to merge more with tablets like the I-pad, presenting a multi-function tool for reading, surfing the web, viewing video, listening to music and, of course, running apps. Books are a singular experience, a unique piece of human history.

After reading a great deal about this subject and talking to many enthusiastic readers, it seems safe to say that the best course for all of us is a variety of sources of media, from online to newspapers to books to word of mouth.

Benjamin Aleshire on Print vs. The Net

Benjamin Aleshire is the editor and publisher of The Salon, a biannual poetry magazine published by the Honey Bee Press. He lives and works out of Burlington VT; writing poetry, singing and producing The Salon, amongst other contributions to the arts.




I sat down with Ben to ask him a few questions about The Salon's success, direction and the pros and cons of working in print when the world is slowly inching toward digital.


Paul: Is there an appeal to working in a non-digital medium?

Ben: The appeal is that you don't have to stare at a screen and that you can work directly with your hands. Machines make things less human and there's a value to human things.


Paul: Do you have any interest in transitioning The Salon to digital in any form?

Ben: No. We are trying to make The Salon less digital. It is important to avoid the herd mentality that the Internet fosters. Newspapers and other online media use things like Facebook and Twitter to galvanize a story, but the idea that Internet opens up a larger market in poetry is a misconception. Just because it can be found online doesn't mean people will, they value information less.


Paul: Is there a unique value to producing a product that people actually pick up and read, that they hold in their hands rather than on a screen?

Ben: Yes, there is something special about holding a book in hand. As long as it stays affordable, we'll incorporate the web only so far as it helps to promote The Salon through things like sample readings, videos of authors reading at festivals or bookstores and guidelines for submissions.


Paul: Do you think technology is removing people from the arts, creating a gap between the people who produce works of art and the people who enjoy them?

Ben: The Internet is swallowing all of American life: it's a way of paying for information without realizing it. There's a false concept that the Internet is free, but it forces people to pay for services and forces people to buy gadgets. They are manufacturing necessity through planned obsolescence, making us upgrade products that are all essentially the same.


Paul: Does The Salon meet with success because it is a VT company? Would a literary magazine of this sort have success in a different part of the country?

Ben: We tried to tap into the Vermont brand while rejecting the pastoral fetish of cows and maple syrup. Vermont is special in that it has one of the most fertile writing communities, geographically small, but progressive and interested. But really, anyone could do what The Salon does, it just takes a lot of determination and time. You have to love it enough to be a non-profit.


Paul: Where do you see The Salon going in the future?

Ben: Eventually I would like to find a stable source of funding, grants are good, but they can come and go and are highly competitive. Maybe in the future we will get hooked up with a school to absorb some of the costs, but the problem with college journals is that they have funding but no motivation to sell the magazine. They can simply plop a stack of their magazine on a table in the library and make it available. Without distribution concerns, there is the fear that publishers could get lazy, the motivation deteriorates and everyone suffers.


Related links: Vermont Joy Parade, Burlington City Arts, Sample from the latest Salon, Image courtesy of The Salon

What is Common Sense?

Hello World! My name is Paul Hobday and I'm a 28 year old Burlington College student. This blog is part of the Civic Journalism course offered at Burlington.
For this introductory post, I'd like to examine the concept of common sense, it's origin and why it's a misleading idea. To begin with, there is Thomas Paine, the author of a pamphlet appropriately title Common Sense, which sought to break down tough issues in a way everyone, even the common people could understand and make use of.
This is the basic concept of what common sense is. Dictionary.com defines common sense as "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence". Anyone that can reason out an answer to a complex problem is applying common sense.
But that does not mean that everyone can solve every problem through common sense. Nor does it mean that common sense can be substituted as an answer to problems that have actual solutions. Applying common knowledge to reach reasonable conclusions is a dangerous endeavor, one that should be taken with greater care than it often is. In this blog, I hope to explore the idea of common sense, how it can be used, should be used and when it is best to leave the reasoning to more able thinkers.