I was going to write something about the Civil War yesterday, but opted for another direction. The in-process Civil War related post remains in the hopper, and will see the light of day… or rather… the back-lit screen, soon enough.
What seems to catch my attention even more, however, are recent developments in the book industry. Not at all boasting, but I saw it coming, especially after having gone through my more recent graduate program. Yet, it seems to be progressing much faster than I anticipated. Certainly, there would come a day when we would begin to see the decline of the traditional book, and see the e-book grow in leaps and bounds. Still, others saw it coming much earlier. John Tolva, sixteen years ago, wrote about it in his article, “The Heresy of Hypertext”. There are also others who saw it coming as well, especially those who wrapped their minds around hypertext theory, and the concept of the electronic writing space.
But then, it’s not just the gradual disappearance of the traditional book that is significant. It’s also the way it impacts the way we read… and I don’t just mean whether that be by an external light source (as in the case of reading a book), or an internal light source (the example of the e-book). It changes much, much more.
In fact, whether one wishes to admit it or not, if they are already familiar with navigating the Web, they have already gone through a significant phase in reader evolution… the first phase of being re-trained for the e-book. That’s right, the machine is training you. I won’t give a guess at how many picked-up on the concept of Web navigation without having taken a course, but suspect the number is higher than that for those who took courses to learn about Web navigation, and this is why I say the machine is training you. You may feel that you learned the system, rather than having been trained by it. But, like an electronic tool of Pavlov’s, has it not conditioned you? You do one thing, and you learn that you are rewarded; you do another, and you may find no reward at all… or worse. With each depression of a key, or click on a hyperlink, you began to find rewards and benefits that appeal to you, and, over time, you became better skilled in maintaining the system of rewards, and satisfaction. In some ways, it’s a matter of survivability, and essential that you conform to the machine’s systems, as new explorers in a new frontier, on your personal quest for… something… many things.
Of course, in the process of doing so, did you ever realize the potential threat this caused to the traditional process of reading? Well, not only reading, but writing. Indeed, if you write, did you ever consider this new process a threat to the manner in which you write for the reader?
What Halio and Adler fear is not that future writers will revert to pictograms but rather that the traditional modes of textual composition that stress linearity, closure, and containment are being eroded from the inside out by the visually-based compositional aids themselves.
Yet, what does that mean, really? Are we at the end of linear presentations; will there no longer be closure in the works that we read? What impact upon the manner in which one reads? How have the expectations of the reader changed, with the electronic platform?
Yes, expectations.
In the electronic space, do you not expect certain things that you do not, otherwise, with traditional books? Of course you do.
What does this mean to the writer? Is it not time to revamp our thinking about how we write… for the space in front of us… for the audience that reads within that same space? Do you still write for print, even when you are writing in the electronic space? (… and I’ll add here, while important, adding mere hyperlinks isn’t the end-all in writing for the electronic space…).
So, where does this lead to? What about historians? Have you, as a historian, become too comfortable in the traditional presentation of history, for print? Are you still writing for ink on paper, alone?
There are, indeed, programs that introduce historians to the digital world, but are they enough?
It’s ironic, but as prone as we are, now, to read in the electronic space, English undergraduate programs have yet to reach the point where they teach the masses how to present in the electronic environment, and only a limited number of English graduate students are introduced to it (and usually, only because they select a particular path). Then how, as historians, can we expect to be prepared to meet the change… to take advantage of the change?
We stand on an interesting, fascinating threshold, but I’m afraid the machine is moving faster than our preparations. It is time to master the machine… the electronic space… as opposed to allowing it to master us.
Merely a toe back in the water, but… ahhhh, I’ve missed writing about this stuff…
Cenantua's Blog 
Richard
July 25, 2011
Fascinating topic. I’ll admit that my attention span when reading electronically seems to be shorter than when I read a traditional book – even some longer essays on various blogs end up going on and on and on – yet I don’t feel that I can simply put a book marker there and come back later. There’s no reason I can’t leave it on the screen, or temporarily place the page in my favorites, but I just have not convinced myself to do so.
Part of that is because I still rely on my desktop computer to do my e-reading. I just recently picked up a smaller tablet that may allow me to try e-books in different areas, so perhaps that will help me “learn” to read again.
Of course, I acknowledge also that I was late in trading in my cassettes for CDs and I still have not gone fully into the world of downloading music, and I’m still stuck on a flip-phone instead of one the many “smart phones” available, so part of the slowness in adapting to e-reading is rather natural to me, I suppose.
I just recently received via email a .pdf of a book and I want to read it, but haven’t started yet. (And, no, printing out the 200 pages is not an option I’ll consider.) I just need to get over the hump of expecting e-writing to be shorter or less in-depth than traditional books or magazine articles.
In terms of writing, I don’t know if I write any differently than I would for traditional pen and paper setting. I really have not done any of that writing since I left college in 95 (other than some personal journals), but unlike reading, I’ve found writing online easier. I guess it’s because it is easier to share with others and that I have control over my content – I risk the wrath of some who may disagree with me, but I don’t have teachers grading me and I feel more in control. That’s pretty weird that I feel so differently about two so seemingly closely-related topics, and I’ve never really thought about it until now.
Robert Moore
July 26, 2011
“I’ll admit that my attention span when reading electronically seems to be shorter than when I read a traditional book – even some longer essays on various blogs end up going on and on and on – yet I don’t feel that I can simply put a book marker there and come back later. There’s no reason I can’t leave it on the screen, or temporarily place the page in my favorites, but I just have not convinced myself to do so.”
I need to check on recent trending (if there’s any new data out there, but, from what I recall, 5-6 minutes is about average), but Web reading is generally a short-term plunge, with transitions (moving along to another Web page… and the randomization in that is interesting as well) sure to follow in a measurable (generally) amount of time. I think, when reading the Web, the majority prefer data in chunks. That also seems to mesh well with the general trend in society (I call it a microwave society… wanting it as soon as possible, with minimal effort). The question I have, is if the retention rate is there. Considering what I’ve heard recently, it may not be there much at all, as search engines are becoming our reference points for random call-ups as necessary (thank you, smart phones), and we have less of a need to retain certain facts. Point is… how many actually spend the time, now, reading lengthy academic pieces? Even in grad school, we learned to skim and get to the summaries in order to keep up with the massive amount of reading. That was an essential part of survival. I don’t think the lengthy works are defunct, but their effectiveness, especially as we continue on the spiral course of electronic reading, seems to be questionable, and minimized. Get to the point, and support it with the necessary information.
“In terms of writing, I don’t know if I write any differently than I would for traditional pen and paper setting. I really have not done any of that writing since I left college in 95 (other than some personal journals), but unlike reading, I’ve found writing online easier.”
There’s a lot to wrap one’s head around, when it comes to writing for the electronic space. In terms of writing history… does one want to follow the conventional, traditional, linear course, or do they want to enhance it with the tools at hand? (if they are actually aware of all the tools at hand). One of the things that has interested me most, in terms of writing history for the Web, is how to utilize certain features available to give the reader an opportunity, for just a little while, to see what I see. This leads to an interesting conversation about objectivity… and will be a topic for an upcoming post… a different look at historical objectivity through the electronic writing space.
Kevin
July 26, 2011
Excellent post, Robert, but I am not convinced in the steady and gradual decline of print sources. I will say that we are at least experiencing a shift in reading tendencies, but I don’t know if I would characterize it as a process of retraining. As for historians it seems to me that the most dramatic shift has been within the context of researching and preparing monographs for print. Here I am thinking of a number of programs such as Zotero that allow the historian to more effectively manage the digital world. Thanks again.
Robert Moore
July 26, 2011
Thanks for commenting, Kevin.
The rate of decline may be debatable, and, I’m not entirely certain an accurate answer can be had at this time. Between the rate of digitization, and the general rate of of technological advances, both may give us an indication, but again, that is subject to debate. I also see people (in their willingness to make transitions…lots of folks still being firm in their love of a print pub in hand) and price/availability of e-platforms as major factors in how far and how fast things progress.
Regarding historians, I may not have been entirely clear in what I meant to convey. Zotero is a great item to have on-hand to develop the structure, but what I’m interested in is the manner in which we write to convince the reader of the merit of an argument… the rhetorical approach. In print, we have limitations on how we make the argument, and it is entirely structured in the wording, and, to some degree, in the use of imagery, and making the reader aware of resources used. My interest is in employing additional elements made possible (including digital rhetoric strategies) in the electronic environment, and how those elements might actually impact the amount of wording necessary. In that the e-reader (audience) seems to trend toward learning in chunks, can, for example, a more effective argument be made in the electronic environment than in print? In many ways, I think the traditional academic style of presentation needs to be revamped to 1) prove more effective in the electronic environment, and 2) reach a larger audience.
Robert Moore
July 26, 2011
Consider this as well… at what point can the historian employ strategies associated with narrative as virtual reality? Also, considering hypertext fiction, what about hypertext history? Could the the employment of the art of immersive writing become more effective than traditional academic articles?
James F. Epperson
July 26, 2011
Some years ago—when Kindle was in its infancy or maybe even just on the drawing boards—there was a lengthy thread about E-readers on the old newsgroup alt.war.civil.usa. I was one of the skeptics, arguing that the comfort fact of sitting down with a real book will be tough to overcome.
Well … times and circumstances change: I got a Nook for my birthday, and have been filling it up with out-of-copyright stuff as well as the occasional purchase. What factors changed my mind? Well, the fact that I can put a mountain of research material on the Nook is hard to overlook. Also, I have a progressive tremor disorder in one hand, which makes using a traditional book more and more problematic. While there is hope that this problem is something that can be resolved, it is a contributing issue.
The rise of E-readers opens up the reading experience, of course. As a text writer (mathematics) the possibility exists to embed video effects as part of the illustration of ideas. Think how a European history text could be enhanced by videos that animated the evolving boundaries of nations. (There are several on YouTube, including a wonderful one on Poland.)
Robert Moore
July 26, 2011
Absolutely. As far as reader experience goes, the possibilities of supplementing the simple traditional manner of reading are tremendous. It might be considered a double-edged sword, however. Enhanced experience, or distracted experience? At what point does supplemental material enhance/distract?
jgo
July 26, 2011
It seems to be regressing much faster than I anticipated. I’ve read several out-of-copyright pdf books, pdf books offered for free down-load by the authors, a number of book-length reports just because I’m poor and they’re all I can afford. At work I had access to a reference set for perl, and some other materials. The advantage is that the ones that have been converted to ASCII or Unicode text are searchable (but if they’re just scanned page images, they’re not). But they’re much more difficult to drag myself through, and my eyes invariably burn. And it’s like trying to examine a vast landscape by peering through a straw; context is nearly non-existent. I like to have at least half a dozen books open at various pages on a big table.
You mention illos vs. text. There was a time when authors avoided all illustrations, in part because they could only print crude ones except at great expense. Then they shifted to separate “color plates” clumped together in 1 or 2 sequences of pages.
But a well-designed book should have the illustrations on the same page on which they’re discussed, described, or analysed. When I’m reading STEM material, or histories, I really need diagrams and maps, and being able to read the description at the same time I’m looking at the d or m makes all the difference in readability.
e-books just don’t cut it. Maybe if we had at least a quadrupling of screen real estate AND at least a quadrupling of resolution (pixels per inch, so at least 16 times as many total pixels available for viewing at one time) it might reach the point of general usability.
Of course, since e-books are so much cheaper to release, the margins are huge, so we’re bound to be squeezed for a long time before things settle out at some compromise.