Spinoff from Kindle: Are electronic books putting history at risk?

[Tazlima]

So easily lost:

I have an i-pod my husband gave me.  I have a couple of movies, and several cds worth of music on it, but I don't use it all that much.  I know someday it will break, and I will probably not bother to get another one and re-download all that content, even though I've paid for it and have every right to do so.  In other words, those movies I have on there will never enter into my real movie collection.  When I'm skimming the shelf deciding what to watch, I forget I even have the i-pod stuff.

On the other hand, I have books and records that belonged to my Grandfather.  I never knew him personally, but I can look at what he liked to read and get to know him that way.  I have CDs and movies that I've had since I was a kid.  They're part of my history, and if I didn't have physical copies, I would have forgotten all about most of them.  Instead I can pick them up and watch them as easily as I could 20 years ago.

That is the first thing having  a Kindle would make me fear.  I've lost names and numbers of old friends because my cell-phone broke, how much would it suck to lose my library because one device broke?

Revisionism:

Data in an electronic format is frighteningly easy to change.  Probably everyone here has heard about the new version of Huckleberry Finn in which the publisher decided to change Nigger Jim's name to Slave Jim.  Personally, I take tremendous offense at changing a classic piece of literature to save reader's delicate sensibilities, far more then any offense from a vocabulary word chosen by an author in the 1800s.  How are we supposed to learn from the past if they just revise everything to make it more palatable to modern readers?  Some stories should be read BECAUSE they display a point of view we don't want to see repeated.

  At one time, I believed that if an editor took it upon him/herself to change a classic text, they at least had to state somewhere that changes had been made, call it an abridged version or something.  Imagine my surprise when I was working on my senior thesis, and had three quotations from a first edition of a book which I borrowed from a library.  For ease of citation several months later, I decided to look up the same section in the book in a recent reprinting, which I had purchased in the meantime.  Imagine my shock when I discovered that two key sections had been entirely removed.  Nowhere was it written on the reprinting that the original text had been changed.  Believe me, I looked.

What about the news story that reported a pit bull attack accompanied by a picture of the dog in question.  When the newspaper was informed that the dog was actually not a pit bull, did they change the breed named in their article?  Nope, they got a stock photo of a pit bull and replaced the picture.

This is some 1984 stuff here guys.  Change all the historical documents, and history itself is changed.

I love to read, and really have no problem reading stuff online or on a kindle, but there is no staying power to electronic information.  If I want to read it again in 20 years, I'll go for paper every time.

[Abreo]

Having something physical is nice but if you'd forget about it otherwise then its probably not worth remembering. I would prefer to just find something new than revisit something that meant so little to me.

I enjoy books all the same whether it is or its physical or paper because the experience is essentially the same. I will buy C.Ds and L.Ps though because mp3s sucks and anything better takes up too much room. I do have a lot of mp3s though but personally I would never pay for one since the quality is so cheap. Doesn't matter though, the wonderful thing about electronic media is that so many people are willing to put it up for free so I can discover new things that I never would have found before because its free and readily availible. Some of it grows on me and I forget about the rest. I've even begun listening to people I knew about but never would have thought I'd enjoy such as Johnny Cash, Mississippi John Hurt and Woody Guthrie.  

Not sure what you're other two points had to do with this; they seem to pertain more to integrity rather than the staying power of electronic media. The act of changing historical documents has also been going on since forever so I'm not sure its a good reason to experience paranoia. I just assume it's always going on and it always will be as long as people are fighting for power.

[Latch33570]

Its always been that way. Now its just at an accelerated pace. Yeah books have a history with them but the kindle isn't a book. Its a library. I have a few hundred books on mine. Amazon has my books in storage. I asked what would happen if I brake my kindle. They said that I would be able to redownload my books for free. Anyway my favorite nephew works on a tug boat. When he goes out he can take a library with him rather than a book or two. You do loose something with advancing tech but you gain also.

[Fake Crowley]

Ironically, Mark Twain was quite obviously not a racist, and never used the word, "Nigger," in his various letters outside of his fictional works--implying quite strongly that the word was something his obviously racist (Albeit sympathetic) character Huck Finn was deliberately being written to use the word. Remember, the novel is entirely in Huck's POV, meaning that every word was chosen by Huck--none of it is third person.

 

That said...you don't have to worry about history books being changed. Less because people are nice and decent or anything, or because I'm naive enough to believe that people wouldn't change it if given the chance, but because it's damn hard to put referrence books on an ereader. The whole point of referrence books is that you can make notes, flip around, make bookmarks, go through the appendixes, and generally read at your own pace. Ereaders are not reference book friendly--even if they give you the option of doing that stuff, it's a hassle, and most people would prefer the hard copies anyways.

 

Will people who buy text books be potentially at risk, now that they're buying them on their ereaders? Perhaps, but that's always been the case--just look at texas. The only difference with what you're talking about is that deception is slightly easier on an ereader.

 

When I buy something hard copy, it's because I want to keep it. When I buy it or rent it on my nook or ipod or whatever, it's because I want to be entertained.

 

I'm just saying.

[Tazlima]

I wrote the opening post late at night, and I guess it came off as appearing paranoid or hating on kindles.  Actually, I'm all for anything that opens doors to reading.  Kindles provide a great service, and all the good things people have said about them are true.  Still I had reservations about these two particular issues.  The examples I gave were just ones that I had witnessed personally.  Many more go undetected.

I would consider any piece of literature to be a fragment of history, some more significant then others, but all opening windows into the minds of people from different times and places.  Textbooks are just one tiny portion of the world's body of literature.  Even when you're reading pure fiction, the characters and setting reflect something about the author's social expectations and norms.  Changes to those works are effectively an attempt to change history, even when it's well-intentioned, as in the case of the "Slave Jim" edition of "Huckleberry Finn."  The editor who had this idea was trying to make the book more palatable to a modern audience in the hopes it would appear in more classrooms.

This is an exaggeration, but consider this.  Mark Twain addressed and condemned the idea of slavery in this book.  Therefore he has to depict it as something nasty and insidious within the mentality of the culture.  If a modern editor, in an attempt to make the work more PC or more acceptable in a classroom setting, essentially glosses over the nastier parts of how the characters think about slavery and perceive black characters, then it doesn't seem quite as terrible, and could leave someone who didn't know better to wonder, "Well what's the big deal?  Why is this worth fighting against?"

This apart from the fact that the original author of the work wrote it how he wanted it written.

Should we rewrite the Merchant of Venice to represent Jews in a kinder light?  Should we rewrite the works of C.S. Lewis to remove the Christian references?  The stories are what they are, and that is as it should be.  If someone wants to re-write a book, let them genuinely re-write the story, with whatever modern twist their little heart desires, and put their own name on it (In the manner that "Wicked" revamped "The Wizard of Oz").  Don't let them meddle with someone else's work, justify their actions with, "This is what the author REALLY meant to say," and pass it off as the original.

If these authors were alive today, they wouldn't allow their works to be altered in this manner.  How would Rowling react if someone changed portions of the Harry Potter series, then published it under her name without even mentioning on the cover that changes were made?  Anyone who did that would be sued so fast their head would spin. But Mark Twain?  Well, he's dead.  He can't sue anyone.

Once an author's works are old enough to become public domain, generally long after the author is dead, the only advocate left to them are the readers.

While I agree with Latch that it's always been this way, electronic formats make it far easier then in the past.  With the printed word, it would be nearly impossible to round up every physical copy of a book, or even a magazine or newspaper, and replace it with a revised version.  With information found only electronically, it's as easy as cutting, pasting, and uploading.  Unless people had read the original and knew what to look for, most would never realize anything had been changed.

When I buy something hard copy, it's because I want to keep it.

Same here.  I want to keep it, AND I want it to be the same story when I return to re-read it in the future.

The other issue, the one about losing your library totally should the Kindle or whatever be rendered useless, probably won't be a major problem unless there's a zombie apocalypse and there's no source of electricity, but it's still a valid point.

[Mr. Anderson]

but there is no staying power to electronic information.

Here's my problem with what you're saying: at this point in history, more people are literate, more people are informed and especially more people have access to history, information and media. At no other point have people been so engulfed  with information. Take a look at this forum, for example, anyone - with an access to the internet - can come on here and have a conversation with someone on the other side of the world. We're incredibly well-off.

We're incredibly well off because of electronic media and technological advances such as the internet or computers. These things put an enormous amount of accessibility and control into the users hand, and you don't even have to be rich! Thanks to personal computers, ipods and even devices like kindles people have unfettered access to a massive amount of history, culture and information! 

To recognize this, would also be to recognize the objective and progressive superiority to something like the Kindle, or other electronic devices that put so much information into people's hands. You have to keep past the initial xenophobia and personal preference to recognize that overall betterness of digital format.

While I agree with Latch that it's always been this way, electronic formats make it far easier then in the past.  With the printed word, it would be nearly impossible to round up every physical copy of a book, or even a magazine or newspaper, and replace it with a revised version.  With information found only electronically, it's as easy as cutting, pasting, and uploading.  Unless people had read the original and knew what to look for, most would never realize anything had been changed.

Sure, that's right. But without digital media, even more people would be underinformed and misinformed. Digital media is inherently greater at dissemination, that also means there's a lot more critical eyes. If there wasn't digital, people would be at a lot worse in terms of understanding and reasoning. 

At no other point in history have we been as smart as we are now. We can credit this to modern technology. Xenophobia is lame.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

That is the first thing having  a Kindle would make me fear.  I've lost names and numbers of old friends because my cell-phone broke, how much would it suck to lose my library because one device broke?

You are aware that that wouldn't happen? Amazon keeps a record of everything you've downloaded, and once you've downloaded it, you can re-download it again later. You can also put it on more than on device. It isn;t that complicated. Seriously, they do a great deal to ensure that you don't loose something that important.

[Tazlima]

 Amazon keeps a record of everything you've downloaded, and once you've downloaded it, you can re-download it again later. You can also put it on more than on device. It isn't that complicated. Seriously, they do a great deal to ensure that you don't loose something that important.

Ok. So as long as Amazon as a company exists, and the internet is up and running properly, you can access your books.  That's great.  Except companies can go out of business.  How many people have gotten "lifetime" guarantees for products from companies that later go under?  Voila!  No more guarantee, no more replacement of broken parts.  Amazon is a solid, successful company, but solid companies have died before. 

Or maybe 5 or 10 years from now you decide to go with a different, better e-reader, that has no agreements with Amazon (who, no matter how great the are now, will someday be outdated), and you have to either start your library from scratch or buy a second separate reader to continue downloading Amazon's content.  (Anyone out there with a VHS or vinyl or original Nintendo library knows what I'm talking about).

You have to keep past the initial xenophobia and personal preference to recognize that overall betterness of digital format.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT ELECTRONIC MEDIA IS BAD.  I'm not even saying that books are better.  Sheesh.  I love the internet.  I love that when I want to know how to do something or where to go for something, or just learn something new, my information is just a click away.

Can you equally acknowledge that it's not perfect?  That a nutjob with an agenda can pay for top search engine billing and disseminate blatantly false information with a sufficient veneer of plausibility to mislead the neophyte?  That in an extreme scenario, if the lights go out, it might be a good idea to have a hard copy for a backup?  Can you honestly tell me you've NEVER lost a document, or a picture, or some important information due to a hard drive crash?  That you've never found an awesome video online and gone to show it to someone only to find it was no longer available?  If so, congratulations, you're the one person in the world who backs up everything, all the time, without fail.

Electronic media is great but it's not perfect, and it does have vulnerabilities.

Similarly, while I like cars and the opportunities they open up for travel, I can acknowledge that even today horses have some advantages over cars.  Are they outdated as a mode of travel?  Of course.  But their fuel is cheap, plentiful, and renewable, and if you fall asleep on the road and head toward a cliff, a horse will stop.  Heck, they even replicate themselves.  How awesome would it be if all you had to do was buy two cars, breed them, and never have to buy another car again?

Xenophobia is lame.

Yes, xenophobia is lame, almost as lame as blind faith that things will always work because they work now, or dismissing something as useless or unnecessary simply because it's not the newest thing out there.

[Abreo]

Say there's a fire and your whole library burns because you only had time to grab a single book or a e-book reader, say someone maliciously tears out a single page of your book while they're in the bookstore, or at your home, say some kid used it as a coloring book. Books aren't exactly less prone to damage then electronic media. If you want to ensure the survival of both for future generations you can fare much better by burying E-Books in Time Capsules with all the written works of our generation on them than you will by trying to actually preserve those books. 

You can back up all of your e-reader files on your laptop, computer or external hard drive or you just download them for free off pirate bay if you find that you need to. The Kindle actually kind of sucks in regards to their business model but other companies, such as Sony, are selling their books DRM free. The good news is that there's evidence out there to suggest that while piracy increases for DRM free items, sales also increase quite a bit. This may be the future and it makes me happy.

There's a chance that one day modern luxuries like the internet will go away but if that happens then you're going to have bigger problems to worry about then what happen to your copy of Huckleberry Finn.

Electronic media is great but it's not perfect, and it does have vulnerabilities.

Fewer than pieces of paper I'd say, especially when its DRM free. Then it has none, at least no shortcomings that paper doesn't have.

[Eystein,]

But when they audit old books to cleanse them of all offensiveness, something I'm strongly against and which should be illegal, they will republish the physical ones too, contaminating the overall stock. You have to dig up pretty old books if you want to read them pure. I suppose old books are easier to come by than old digital files, but digital content as you say can easily be changed, but not just one way. It can just as easily be reversed. Sooner or later enthusiasts will begin to upload these books the way they were written. Heck, they probably do that already, only it's illegal and probably not compatible with Kindle yet because of it's illicit nature, I don't know. I don't have Kindle yet, so I don't know how strictly they control their devices.

[Cori]

So... I like kindles. I think they're pretty. There is nothing wrong with a kindle. It's just preference. Plus everything is destructible, in some way. But the thing is... I can't. I just can't. I am very attached to my books. I take perfect care of them. I really am a collector. I can't do that with a kindle, therefore I will stay with my books.