4 ms·

The constant references to 'dead paper' belie the denials that Mr. Godin is not anti-book. Of course he is. And with that blind spot in his perspective he misse

by hsmyers 15y ago

The constant references to 'dead paper' belie the denials that Mr. Godin is not anti-book. Of course he is. And with that blind spot in his perspective he misses a number of advantages found only in a library. I've been wandering up and down the aisles of libraries since just after I learned to read. The number of things that I read that were not on any particular list is countless. Bit hard to do with a search engine. And there is no point in even trying to describe the problem of the enormous number of books not yet digitized. Does anyone seriously think that just because a book is 'old' that it's contents have no value? Most of the necessary and important books on both chess and weaving (to name to disparate subjects) are 'old' and for the most part are not available in digital versions. I guess in Mr. Godin's universe we throw all of that away and start over. Small aside---did you know that there is a library with over a 100k volumes on chess? These are just some of the holes in his arguments that occur to me as a book-lover and library-fan...

GavinB 15y ago
A book is not defined by being made of paper. Godin is pro-book but recognizes that the future of the book is as a digital file. I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a continuing role for librarians who act as archivists of valuable paper books. But that number of librarians is vastly less than the number currently in existence. Librarians who refuse to give up paper books are like record shops who refused to give up vinyl. Sure, a few will stick around--but the vast majority will have to move on.
- atacrawl 15y ago
  Librarians who refuse to give up paper books are like record shops who refused to give up vinyl. You write this as though the "physical vs. digital" battle has long been fought and won. The reality is that the landscape has barely begun to be fleshed out among libraries, and despite that, libraries are already adjusting their budgets to accommodate the inevitable sea change. The stereotype of the stubborn librarian in sensible shoes and tweed, clutching her Emily Bronte and refusing to acknowledge the existence of digital books, just doesn't represent the mainstream position among librarians.
  - adeaver 15y ago
    Nor does that view generally represent reality. Quite a few libraries are fighting for digital version of books to be allowed for lending and the publishers are pushing back. In some cases if a library has a digital copy they can only lend it out to a single person at at time, and are only allowed to purchase a single copy.
adeaver 15y ago
No one is suggesting that old books be thrown away. When you take into account the shear number of books being published each year (and the number is growing) it's physically impossible to have even a single copy of every book ever published available, even via a network of libraries. Then take into account that not every book that get published has a digital copy, and every digital copy doesn't have a physical copy the situation gets even more complicated. Not to mention VHS movie, DVD's, CD's, books on tape, books on CD, the list is endless. When we stop looking at the library as a warehouse and more as a resource for more than just physical copies of things, the options increase exponentially.
JoelSutherland 15y ago
I might be doing this wrong, but Google Books appears to have well over 100k books with "Chess" in the title and Google has only been at it for a few years: http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=intitle:chess&tbs=,bkt:b&num=10#q=intitle:chess&hl=en&tbs=bkt:b&tbm=bks&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=nkXRTZGyK8GEtgf1ofjwDQ&ved=0CC8QpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7fef4e9b38da45a4 http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=intitle... But this is hardly the key point. The traditional library will always have advantages over the inevitable library of the future. It won't get replaced when all of those advantages have been overcome, it will be when enough of those advantages have been overcome for enough people. Godin isn't anti-book, he just believes ebooks will win. Given how he has made his money, it's probably not something he would prefer.

by hsmyers 15y ago

GavinB 15y ago

A book is not defined by being made of paper. Godin is pro-book but recognizes that the future of the book is as a digital file. I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a continuing role for librarians who act as archivists of valuable paper books. But that number of librarians is vastly less than the number currently in existence. Librarians who refuse to give up paper books are like record shops who refused to give up vinyl. Sure, a few will stick around--but the vast majority will have to move on.

atacrawl 15y ago
Librarians who refuse to give up paper books are like record shops who refused to give up vinyl. You write this as though the "physical vs. digital" battle has long been fought and won. The reality is that the landscape has barely begun to be fleshed out among libraries, and despite that, libraries are already adjusting their budgets to accommodate the inevitable sea change. The stereotype of the stubborn librarian in sensible shoes and tweed, clutching her Emily Bronte and refusing to acknowledge the existence of digital books, just doesn't represent the mainstream position among librarians.
- adeaver 15y ago
  Nor does that view generally represent reality. Quite a few libraries are fighting for digital version of books to be allowed for lending and the publishers are pushing back. In some cases if a library has a digital copy they can only lend it out to a single person at at time, and are only allowed to purchase a single copy.

adeaver 15y ago

No one is suggesting that old books be thrown away. When you take into account the shear number of books being published each year (and the number is growing) it's physically impossible to have even a single copy of every book ever published available, even via a network of libraries. Then take into account that not every book that get published has a digital copy, and every digital copy doesn't have a physical copy the situation gets even more complicated. Not to mention VHS movie, DVD's, CD's, books on tape, books on CD, the list is endless. When we stop looking at the library as a warehouse and more as a resource for more than just physical copies of things, the options increase exponentially.

JoelSutherland 15y ago

I might be doing this wrong, but Google Books appears to have well over 100k books with "Chess" in the title and Google has only been at it for a few years: http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=intitle:chess&tbs=,bkt:b&num=10#q=intitle:chess&hl=en&tbs=bkt:b&tbm=bks&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=nkXRTZGyK8GEtgf1ofjwDQ&ved=0CC8QpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7fef4e9b38da45a4 http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=intitle... But this is hardly the key point. The traditional library will always have advantages over the inevitable library of the future. It won't get replaced when all of those advantages have been overcome, it will be when enough of those advantages have been overcome for enough people. Godin isn't anti-book, he just believes ebooks will win. Given how he has made his money, it's probably not something he would prefer.