From: bathurst@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Bruce Bathurst)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Books that last
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:17:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

I'm not a member of Mensa, but I've thought a bit about your
important question of what to do with those books that are degrading.
I'll extend the question to include not only acid books, but all
books.  For books take valuable space, yet they are multiplying today
like rabbits.

Well, let me ramble about the hardest questions last.

The first is fairly easy.  How many people enjoy reading a book in 
microform?  Why would anyone (except a scholar who wants the help of
a computer in performing a textual analysis) want to read a book on
a computer screen, if a paper copy were available?  There are several
reasons each is painful.

First, a microform reader hurts the eyes because very high-contrast
white type is displayed on a black background, or black type on a
white background.  No book is black and white.  Next, a microfiche
reader in particular is a complicated mess to operate: just finding
the next page is an IQ test that I repeatedly fail. (I've seldom had
that problem with a book.)  Third, a microform reader is usually a
large, clumsy machine that one has to visit a library to use and
often queue for.

Last, most important, and no doubt thought silly by computer
fanatics: an unnatural appearing photograph, or a computer
reproduction of just the type of a page, lacks spirit. The medium in
which a book first appeared contributes greatly to the content: the
size, cover impressions, thickness, typographical design,
advertisements in the back, frayed corners, and scribbles by owners
make a book come alive in one's hand. Using the original medium makes
the reader a part of the long and respected history of the book; it
brings the scholar into his or her place as keeping the flame of
civilization alive in the year 1992.  It gives one a sense of deep
satisfaction to be a contributor to something very honorable and much
greater than oneself.  Reading a computer screen is a spiritless act.
Getting even a glimpse of what the page really looked like from a
microform is like asking to have the family photos posterized (for
you who know photography).

It is clear (to me at least) that the popularity of the the computer
increased tremendously not when it became small and inexpensive
enough to put on one's desk, but when IBM offered the
high-resolution, green, flickerless screen and a parallel interface
to the daisy-wheel printer.  This PC didn't replace the book, but the
typewriter.  The laptop PC is still not a book, but a portable,
cordless typewriter.  Notice that the PC is roughly the size and
shape of this venerable machine.  (One might also note that the word
processor is a very old-fashioned instrument, in that its principal
improvement upon the typewriter is the ease with which it allows
rewriting.)

No one has moved into the age of computers but those writing editorials
on this subject.

With this assumption in mind, one can envisage the first adequate
substitute for the book.  (Adequate only, because it doesn't improve
upon the book.)

It is light to carry, and roughly 10 inches long, 8 inches wide, and
1 or 2 inches thick.  It is of very high quality, but inexpensive,
and folds open in the center to two flat, extreme resolution,
flickerless screens that appear as illuminated paper when activated.
The color of the background is very-pale yellow, the type is very
dark blue, and the thin bordering rows are pastel green.  (This is
similar to a book with it's slightly oversized cover visible.)  It is
extremely simple to use, perhaps a button on each side for turning
pages forward and backward.  The type displayed comes with the little
CD ROM of the books itself, and is the original.  These are
inexpensive enough that one can own various sizes (octavo, and so
forth), so the page and type size displayed are that of the original.

Better, advances in microphotographic technology make this not an
electronic device--a bad choice from the beginning--but a very fine
microfiche reader, only microprocessor controlled.  One advantage of
the little electronic, or light, book is that it can be read just as
clearly in dim or no room light--this means outdoors on a starry
night.

My only suggestion, then, for making available that half of Harvard's
library that is falling apart is to (1) prepare for such a little
light book by photographing selected books at good resolution and
contrast--cracks, pencil notes, and all--then (2) find an institution
that will offer research grants for reducing the photographs of a
book to a single microfloppy-type disk, and offer research grants to
develop a coarse light book for its viewing.

This has been so long, that I shall (happily) skip the difficult
questions altogether.

The economic possibilities of the light book (assuming the world has
an economy by then) would seem to exceed those of the computerized
typewriter, or PC.  Scholars want it for obvious reasons, but everyone
else wants it to read in bed.

Bruce







-- 
Department of Geological and Geophysical Sciences
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
bathurst@phoenix.princeton.edu bathurst@pucc.bitnet !princeton!phoenix!bathurst
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa