Books have always been part of my fondest memories. I still remember coming home from grade school and reading “Nancy Drew” with my mother. I remember being one of many fans awaiting the midnight release of the final chapter in Harry Potter’s story at Walmart. Books captivated me and allowed me to escape my life – no matter how I felt at the particular moment.
I like how the weight of the novel shifts as I get closer to the climax. As the years pass, I’m able to go back and remember when I first read a book or how I cried so much at a certain part I stained the pages. Books are personal and universal at the same time; the individual can personalize his or her perspective of a story, but the same story can affect millions of people. I can’t imagine a world without physical pages.
So I’m admittedly biased against electronic reading devices like the Kindle and now the-soon-to-be-released iPad. I’ve complained to anyone half-willing to listen that print books will die if we all buy iPads because Apple will destroy the already fragile publishing market, just like its iPod caused CD sales to dip. I don’t want physical books to go – turning the pages, the new book smell and the creative covers are part of the experience. Besides, reading electronic books for long periods of time gives me a headache.
Recently, however, people who have heard my speech have pointed out that the iPad could do great things without destroying the print book market, and I think – despite hating to admit that I’m wrong – they’re right.
Aside from 11th grade when I read my AP U.S. History textbook cover to cover, I have yet to read every page of every textbook at any level of schooling. If textbooks were put on devices like the iPad, it would save a lot of trees – editions could be easily updated without having to print another round of copies. These changes alone could reduce costs of textbooks for college students, and due to the capabilities iPads have, learning could be enhanced through ways a paper textbook could not.
For example, when a biology textbook covers the electron transport chain, an animation could be made available to visually explain it. And because students don’t have to read the textbook cover to cover in one day (usually), the eye hurting problem is moot.
Newspaper applications like the one The New York Times created for the iPad could help increase circulation. As fewer people subscribe to the paper, the application’s fee could perhaps cover some costs. People may be more willing to pay for newspaper applications than online subscriptions because web articles have been used free of charge for years.
Apple has been able to create simulated page flips for books, so those who enjoy newspaper layouts and page turns wouldn’t have to lose it; it would simply be different. The difference between newspapers and books are simply that most people only read a paper once whereas books are revisited over periods of months or years. Books are passed on from friend to friend or a family member. Newspapers, for the most part, are recycled and replaced the next day or week. Though I don’t want print journalism to die, this technology could help reintegrate it instead of killing it.
So, even though I am still slightly irrationally prejudiced against iPads because I fear they may one day kill print books, I realize they could truly be useful. I’m not going to rush out to buy one, but this technology could be used to our advantage.
Hannah Rogers is the entertainment editor of The Reflector. She can be contacted at [email protected].