The Death of Print

reply to post by Liquesence

Now, i grew up an avid reader. I studied journalism. I prefer to read, even though I LOVE Movies/film (and work in the industry). But i HATE watching videos on the computer/web, and i loathe video stories.

I think we (I share in the loathe) dislike video because we can't quickly evaluate the relevancy of the content, even skim it without risking missing something. Then some of the presentations do not require the visuals (they do not add to the message) and in some cases in not only chocks our expectations or robs us of gilling the context with our own powerful imagination.

reply to post by Grifter42


I agree with you that changes are uncomfortable, I also dislike the trend but have no issue with it in the right context. The message is what is important not the format, if the message is still transmitted then the format becomes irrelevant as anyone can alter it.

Originally posted by tetra50

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by Grifter42
Sure, but WHAT people are reading these days has gone down hill. And just because it's convenient doesn't mean it isn't a butchering of the English language.

Well, it is, but it's a text message. Text messages have character limits, breaching character limits has financial implications. There's nothing wrong with using txt spk, I'd argue that it's logical by every measure. If text speak is used only for texting, I don't see an argument against it, other than one rooted in snobbery.

People have been texting for a good decade, yet we're still having this conversation in English. Words today are the same as they were in the late 90's and throughout the noughties, ditto for punctuation. The English language hasn't been brought to its knees because of teenagers dropping letters in text messages, or, more recently, Twitter.

Whether teenagers are reading books of lesser quality, or just generally more thick than they once were, I couldn't really say

It is sad you play the snob card here. This is a deflection argument, one employed to engender an emotional rather than logical response in one reading so as to disregard the importance of a point.

Deflecting what? I've addressed and, as far as I'm concerned, argued quite concisely why I think text speak is valid, and why I think the posters criticisms of it aren't. If you want to pick up one small remark, and pretend that I'm disregarding the importance of his points, despite the fact I addressed his points in detail, then that's on you.

Who is disregarding who? From where I'm sat you've just disregarded 98% of what I've said, opting instead to call into question my character and dirty my posts. I have no idea why.

Me and Grifter were having a reasonable discussion and you come flying in out of nowhere putting nonsense accusations to me.

Deflecting what? I've addressed and, as far as I'm concerned, argued quite concisely why I think text speak is valid, and why I think the posters criticisms of it aren't. If you want to pick up one small remark, and pretend that I'm disregarding the importance of his points, despite the fact I addressed his points in detail, then that's on you.

Who is disregarding who? From where I'm sat you've just disregarded 98% of what I've said, opting instead to call into question my character and dirty my posts. I have no idea why.

Me and Grifter were having a reasonable discussion and you come flying in out of nowhere putting nonsense accusations to me.

reply to post by

GrandStrategy

Sorry, really didn't mean you to take that much offense at what I replied. Certainly, I have no knowledge of your character with which to "call it into question." Nothing I said reflected on your character. As for dirtying your posts, I wasn't intending that, either. I simply alluded to the snob comment about English and texting and its own language. I have used no such perjorative, nor word in speaking to your posts, or certainly, about you, personally. And no, I didn't come flying in out of nowhere. I've been posting on this thread early on, just as you have. Apologies to you, if you perceive me as attacking you personally, as I intend nothing of the sort.

As for your concise arguments about text speak, I don't really disagree here. But in relation to the OP, I found the subject far broader than text speak, or even texting. My dissemination of the OP was a discussion of the disappearance of printed, written material, how that may relate to literacy and what may be behind a "goal," of this happening. I took the references to texting, really, as an example, not really as the main point. If I am inaccurate, I apologize, once again.

I went back and read every one of your posts before continuing in this reply to you, so as not to dismiss 98% of what you replied to the OP. I saw that you asserted the cost of books to be the problem with reading them. Actually, they can be had used for a pittance. You referenced the Kindle. Did you know that you cannot easily page back to review what you've already read, once past it? And, of course, you are totally dependent upon the upload of material....if pages are skipped, information left out, again you are at a disadvantage you would not be with the material physically in hand.

Next, I see you mention literacy levels being at an all time high. All this means is that more people can read. It does not mean that they do.
At this point, the texting discussion began in earnest.
Again, I have no problem, per se, with either texting or the abbreviated language. My point about it is larger. My point about this whole issue is larger. And I highlighted the snob thing simply because if someone were reading this who texted a lot and identified more with their cellphone than a book and felt defensive, they might totally shut off the larger point of what others were saying here about language, intellect, thought, reading, and why there may be a very real endeavor to keep us "dumbed down," unattentive, not knowledgeable, and therefore, shut the whole thing down in their own thought processes with the thought these folks are just intellectual snobs.
Or they just dislike technology. And then someone like that might miss the bigger point of how there might be a whole movement (some call TPTB) wishing to stop the potential of their mind.

This generation is gonna see the movie, instead of the book. It's gonna watch "The Great Gatsby", starring Leonardo Dicaprio, scored by Jay-Z. Why go to the library and get the book for free when we can shell out cash for a vapid retelling of an American classic? I mean, the advertisements said to watch the movie.

Too many people think like this. It scares me to look towards the future.

Originally posted by tetra50

Deflecting what? I've addressed and, as far as I'm concerned, argued quite concisely why I think text speak is valid, and why I think the posters criticisms of it aren't. If you want to pick up one small remark, and pretend that I'm disregarding the importance of his points, despite the fact I addressed his points in detail, then that's on you.

Who is disregarding who? From where I'm sat you've just disregarded 98% of what I've said, opting instead to call into question my character and dirty my posts. I have no idea why.

Me and Grifter were having a reasonable discussion and you come flying in out of nowhere putting nonsense accusations to me.

reply to post by

GrandStrategy

Sorry, really didn't mean you to take that much offense at what I replied. Certainly, I have no knowledge of your character with which to "call it into question." Nothing I said reflected on your character. As for dirtying your posts, I wasn't intending that, either. I simply alluded to the snob comment about English and texting and its own language. I have used no such perjorative, nor word in speaking to your posts, or certainly, about you, personally. And no, I didn't come flying in out of nowhere. I've been posting on this thread early on, just as you have. Apologies to you, if you perceive me as attacking you personally, as I intend nothing of the sort.

As for your concise arguments about text speak, I don't really disagree here. But in relation to the OP, I found the subject far broader than text speak, or even texting. My dissemination of the OP was a discussion of the disappearance of printed, written material, how that may relate to literacy and what may be behind a "goal," of this happening. I took the references to texting, really, as an example, not really as the main point. If I am inaccurate, I apologize, once again.

I went back and read every one of your posts before continuing in this reply to you, so as not to dismiss 98% of what you replied to the OP. I saw that you asserted the cost of books to be the problem with reading them. Actually, they can be had used for a pittance. You referenced the Kindle. Did you know that you cannot easily page back to review what you've already read, once past it? And, of course, you are totally dependent upon the upload of material....if pages are skipped, information left out, again you are at a disadvantage you would not be with the material physically in hand.

Next, I see you mention literacy levels being at an all time high. All this means is that more people can read. It does not mean that they do.
At this point, the texting discussion began in earnest.
Again, I have no problem, per se, with either texting or the abbreviated language. My point about it is larger. My point about this whole issue is larger. And I highlighted the snob thing simply because if someone were reading this who texted a lot and identified more with their cellphone than a book and felt defensive, they might totally shut off the larger point of what others were saying here about language, intellect, thought, reading, and why there may be a very real endeavor to keep us "dumbed down," unattentive, not knowledgeable, and therefore, shut the whole thing down in their own thought processes with the thought these folks are just intellectual snobs.
Or they just dislike technology. And then someone like that might miss the bigger point of how there might be a whole movement (some call TPTB) wishing to stop the potential of their mind.

Okay good post. I'm actually in favour and hate Kindles, and as I said I don't use text speak.

I still think books are too expensive, though. I read books, but I buy most second hand because I can't afford to buy new, and don't think about buying hardbacks because that'd bankrupt me!

I can see why, with the price difference, people are turning away from books.

reply to post by GrandStrategy


Thanks for your reply. Hope we made peace. Never like to offend anyone.

I had a family member that owned a kindle once. It broke within a week. Planned obsolescence. They need to make a tub-proof version before these e-readers are remotely plausible.

Originally posted by Grifter42
This generation is gonna see the movie, instead of the book. It's gonna watch "The Great Gatsby", starring Leonardo Dicaprio, scored by Jay-Z. Why go to the library and get the book for free when we can shell out cash for a vapid retelling of an American classic? I mean, the advertisements said to watch the movie.

Too many people think like this. It scares me to look towards the future.

Have you considered that it goes the other way though? Life of Pi, Cloud Atlas, Jack Reacher, The Hobbit, etc. All movies out in the last month that I bet have driven book sales through the roof.

Maybe sad that people need movies to wake them up to the books, but I bet when The Great Gatsby comes out that hordes of people go out and buy the book, so it's not all doom and gloom.

Do we have any statistics on who's reading and what compared to in yesteryear. I would have thought that more people are reading great literature now than ever.

Reading still has a big place even in a more superficial and materialistic, tv-dominated society, don't you think?

reply to post by GrandStrategy


I'd say that since the advent and encroaching kudzu-like spread of television that books have been marginalized, and pushed to the sidelines. More often then not, if an adaptation of a book is made, it's a shameful cash grab of a movie. There are exceptions to this, but the exceptions prove the rule.

Print is not going to die.

"Futurists" said the same thing when radio came along. Then when television came along they said radio was dead. Then when cable tv came along they said network tv was dead. Then also said movie theaters were dead when television came along. Next they said snail mail was dead when email came along. Then they said email was dead when texting came along. And of course the internet was supposed to kill television, movies, and radio.

New technology rarely kills old technology. It stacks on top of it.

Yes, but as technology stacks, it crushes and compresses the technologies that came before it. You don't see many radio shows these days. "Who knows what evil lies within the hearts of men? The SHADOW knows..."... Sure, you hear music, but honestly I'd say radio is more of an advertising medium these days. The music is just the lure to make you or I tune in.

I opened a magazine the other day. It must have been half advertisements, and about a quarter print.

Most of the folks who say (I said most, not all) they hate e-readers and prefer "real," i.e., dead-tree books, probably do not own ereaders. Ever since I got my Kindle I have not gone back to dead-tree books every again. You will feel the same, too, unless you read only for the idea of reading, or only because of some romantic notion tied to dead-tree books. If, like me, you read because of pure reading pleasure, because of the content, purely for the content, then you will love ebooks and the Kindle and other ebook readers.

This is the primary reason print is dead. Almost all the geeks and true lovers of reading are flocking to ebooks. The Kindle, at least, is very convenient. You can bring your entire library with you wherever you go. You do not need to build a huge library to house your collection. You do not have to deal with dust and with falling-off pages and with too-small print.

I am the type who would read a book -- purely for the content -- even if it was singed all around the edges, as long as it is readable. I love the content, not the cover or the romantic feel of paper in my hands. I can appreciate the nostalgia, but we also really have to think of all those dead trees. For folks who have an immediate dislike of ereaders, I say, try it out first.

reply to post by topquark


Sure, let's shell out hundreds of dollars for a single piece of electronics that has to be charged, maintained, and will in all probability break within a year or two. Or you can get hundreds of used books for the same price. That's a real dilemma.

You know, if I drop a book in a tub, I'll put it out to dry in the sun. If I drop a book, there's no problem, books are tough. They don't shatter on impact. If I'm out in the middle of nowhere with no electricity, I don't have to worry about charging it.

The Kindle is a subjugated form of literature. It's sole purpose is not to further the cause of literacy, but to further the cause of consumerism.

I have seen a huge decline in print in my life, but mainly newspapers and magazines. I used to work for a magazine printing company until they shut the factory down because of a decline in magazine production.
But as long as my generation exists a good old fashioned paper book will never die.
Unfortunately younger people these days have rarely read a real book. They are fairly easy to spot on here because they have pretty bad writing skills and frequently use letters instead of words. (like lol)
They are maybe into eBooks, but more importantly video games, netflix, and the social sites on the internet.

There is nothing like a good fiction book if you ask me. I am fortunate to have a local library that is phenomenal. you can - for free - (gasp) borrow anything from history, cooking, fiction, etc. It is superb to check out a book on local history or even Stephen King. After all my land taxes pay for it and I take full advantage of it.
p.s. I still have the entire collection of Nancy Drew books. I think there are 98 of them? Read them all as a kid at least once. Black Beauty was another favorite, must have read that one 20 or 30 times. Naturally I grew up and bought a black horse, go figure...

reply to post by horseplay


All the more better, another reader, but something tells me you're in your thirties to early forties. The way you write, maybe. And although Black Beauty is a classic, horses are still incredibly creepy with their bulging eyes and huge teeth and the fact they could kick you to death in an instant if they decided on it... But I digress...

It's the modern generation that there's a problem with. My generation. I'm 20, and nobody I know reads unless they're forced into it, and that's no way to learn about books. TPTB have had to have considered it. B.F. Skinner wrote about positive and negative reinforcement. There's no positive reinforcement in place to teach kids how to read.

Originally posted by Grifter42
I had a family member that owned a kindle once. It broke within a week. Planned obsolescence. They need to make a tub-proof version before these e-readers are remotely plausible.

The same could be said for dropping a book in the tub too!

Planned obsolescence has been part of the design process for decades. In-fact, it is integral to consumerism.

reply to post by LarryLove


Hey, man. I'd like to see you try and dry off a Kindle above a space heater. A book's got a much better prognosis after a tub dunking or other mishap. And don't tell me you don't read in the bathroom. Everyone reads in the bathroom. But I digress. Books can be salvaged when they're water damaged, e-readers can be scrapped. You drop your fancy electric gizmo in the tub, it's farewell, electric-y book thing. Water and electronics don't mix.

my gf likes to read and her daughter.. books that is.. I like reading but not books i like being able to adjust the font and stuff so if I read anything I prefer it be on my computer to read it, but mostly I don't like reading fiction i prefer to read articles like posted on this site and other sites, I read about survival stuff, i like reading instructables and learning how to build things or do things and reading about new computers and stuff since im in that biz.

reply to post by dc4lifeskater


Don't get me wrong, I love to read on the computer, I wouldn't be here if I didn't, but it's not a book. You can't earmark it and carry it into the john. You can't bring it with you in the car. You cart around an E-book and you make yourself a target, man. A book's a book. Nobody getting mugged by crackheads over a book. Very few of them can read.