Thursday, September 25, 2008

Haven't we ...

... heard this before: Jeanette Winterson on her preference for real rather than e-books.

See also E-Lit Dead, Film at 11.


  1. You're right, Frank; however, Ms. W.'s obviously fond of repetition, as the second 'graph of her screed demonstrates:

    Am I just an old-fashioned book lover who can't understand that the e-book is progress, like the presses of Gutenberg and Caxton? Am I just an old-fashioned writer who can't understand that spelling and grammar are elitist and that a move towards phonetic variants and free-style spelling is democratic?

    Yep, you am (or, not to put to fine a point on this from-the-tip lip-schtick, you am a genuine one-of-a-kind democrit). Ain't no two sways about it.

  2. I fail to see what all the fuss is about. There was a time when taking book in hand was a sensual experience––fine leather bindings, gorgeous illustrations. Most of what's printed today in book form is not meant to last, so why waste the trees?

    I have not yet found a device that I am physically comfortable reading when reclining in bed or on my sofa, however I do now take my laptop down to breakfast having finally given up on the erratic schedule of my newspaper delivery person. I can envision a time when my library will be totally digital––like my music collection––no longer taking up so much space and easily packed up when I move from place to place.

    It's the words, not the medium, that count after all.

  3. Yes, yes, Nannette, BINGO, several many BINGO, a veritable uniformed army of 'em, under the "eye" (since vision's always a problem when it comes to the new versus the tired-but-true blue).

    You hit the nail on the overblown hammerin' yammerin' wail of a galehead currently picking up hot-air-forced steam while simultaneously causing peeps such as JW to get all hot-and-blathered for gawd know's what reason.

    I sure as hello? don't get it, either. Think that explains Frank's bemusement bordering upon increduliciousness it continues to rear its uglies.

    It most assuredly involves the medium and its message which, as you know, some Canadian prophet made a career (nay, a vocation) out of exposing :). It always surprises me when I read comments like JW's, for precisely the reason you give.

    We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future. "March," indeedly; good soldiers all (whether we like it or not).

    McLuhan said we only understand the virtues, values, and effects of an old medium once a new one replaces it. March? For him, then, yes; but, now? I'd say, more and more, stumblebumble blindly, backwards into the future, only seeing it, in his terms, in the rear-view mirror (with intransigence, ill-founded trepidation, and baseless fear).