Apples and Orangutans

There's an interesting opinion piece in today's NY Times about the relative environmental impact of a "book" and an "e-reader."  It brings to bear something I think is crucial in the ongoing debate about the future of books, particularly when the issue is taken up in the popular press: we're still asking the wrong questions.  In "How Green Is My iPad," Goleman and Norris replicate one of the fundamental analogic problems that plague discussions of digital texts, namely the assumption that there is sufficient similarity between "analog" and "digital" documents to perform a one to one comparison.

In order to make the (relatively useless) comparison, digital documents are generally concretized in some fashion.  In the case of the above op-ed piece, digital texts are represented by their access technology with particular emphasis on Amazon's Kindle and Apple's iPad.  My first objection to the inclusion of the iPad is wisely accounted for by the authors; they only focus on those aspects of the technology related to digital text and largely ignore its other, broader functions.  The article then goes through and details the environmental impact of of a generic "book" and a generic "e-reader" in five key categories (materials, manufacture, transportation, reading, and disposal) two of which (transportation and reading) are so widely variable as to render the analysis all but moot.  It also fails to acknowledge the nature of the impact costs of the two objects.  With a "book," whatever that may be, the costs are largely determined and sunk by the time the object reaches your possession.  Its only ongoing costs are storage and, perhaps, patience.  But the costs of maintaining and using an "e-reader," whatever that may be, are theoretically infinite and persist long after the device in question finds its way to your hands.  I'm also somewhat baffled by the assertion that "[i]f you like to read a book in bed at night for an hour or two, the light bulb will use more energy than it takes to charge an e-reader, which has a highly energy-efficient screen."  E-ink displays are not backlit.  In fact, they're designed not to be backlit so as to reduce eyestrain.  In other words, the "light on before bed" applies even to the high-efficiency display.

Which brings me to what I think is the fundamental myopia of this type of analog-digital comparison: we're not talking about commensurable things.  I've said this in so many different ways before, but let me be clear.  A digital text is of a different kind.  Digital objects (files, web environments, self-perpetuating algorithms, etc.) are a different kind of thing, one which challenges what it is we mean by a thing when we use that word.  My suspicion is that in popular discourse, things remain woefully concrete, much to the detriment of those of us (i.e. nearly everyone) who must negotiate the veil between our analog and digital pasts and our analog and digital futures.  What this means for the present discussion is the false (and all too common) assumption of the null impact of the digital text itself, the so-called e-book, when, in fact, an elaborate, expensive, and fragile technological infrastructure is required merely to make digital objects persist in a way the "book" takes for granted simply by virtue of being a physical object.  That environmental impact goes largely ignored, and it is the ignorant valorization of the "digital future" by the political and economic powers that be that blinds popular discourses to the very real problems that plague digital information itself (portability, backwards compatibility, access, etc.).

It is the very same ignorance that leads Goleman and Norris to conclude, "[a]ll in all, the most ecologically virtuous way to read a book starts by walking to your local library."  I wonder if they are even aware of what is happening to the coffee sho--I mean public libraries (both collegiate and municipal) whose stacks are being gutted in favor of a more services-oriented system where libraries function less as book warehouses and more as study spaces, access points, reference assistance, and so forth.  The "virtuous reader" may very well be surprised by what she finds in a public library even five years from now.  I wonder if she will be surpised to find that our libraries are in fact the vanguard of those who perpetuate the ignorance enumerated above and not bulwarks guarding the lingering presence of the past against the imagined dictates of the future.

[now that I've made my over-the-top, sweeping generalization]

It amazes me how often people are removed from these discussions: the people who staff libraries, the people who maintain servers (and server farms), the people who design access software and devices with the noblest of intentions, the people who write, and the people who read.  We've become so obsessed with objects that perhaps for awhile we should set objects aside and think about the impact on ourselves physically, emotionally, intellectually, and so forth.  After all, what are we doing this for if not for ourselves?

Whose Text is it Anyway?

Welcome!  There are two of us creating Libral Thinking and so with a second voice, the second post commences. I, Colleen, am currently a graduate student in the School of Information, and I am working "in the field" as it were, both sitting at a reference desk, and answering patrons' questions through a chat program on the internet.  I hope to be able to add some insights into the practical and professional side of the messy nature of working in collections at this uneasy "transition" time.  (Is it a transition?  Will we keep the books?  --questions for another time.)  For today I take up the topic of the uneasy relationship for the text and the institution created in the space between the physical book on the shelf in a collection and a digitized version (copy?) on the web with access provided through Google Books.

To use Google Books, a person must type "Google" into a browser of some sort.  Each page of the book scanned by Google bears their mark, seen to the left.  It is fairly clear that it is a document scanned and provided by Google, presented by Google through their interface (and their copyright settlement).

Yet, there is a tricky problem:  The same text is marked very clearly with the institution where a physical copy (at one point?) was housed.  In the case of Essays of an Ex-Librarian by Richard Garnett, 1901, it bears a large bookplate identifying the University of Michigan. 

As a "remote reference librarian" I sit in my living room answering questions that pop-up through chat programs from patrons typing on the library website. I have already fielded multiple questions from patrons around the world asking questions resembling the following:

Patron:  Page 193 is blurry, can you scan it for me and e-mail it?
Me:  There is a button in Google's interface to report the page unreadable.
Patron: Come on...It's just a page. Can't you go get it?  At least read it to me?
Me:   No.
Patron:  Pretty please?
Me:  No, but you can request the book through Inter-Library Loan.
Patron:  But, it's just a page, and I'm in Poland.  That would take a month and I'd have to pay.
Me:  No.

Okay, okay, some of that is a lie already.  In fact, I have, on my own time, requested books to be brought over from the Buhr storage library on my own account, and I have photographed the requested page with my own digital camera and e-mailed the photo to the patron.  There is no policy for handling such requests since they are not frequent enough as of yet to be a problem.  In general, our affiliated patrons come first, but with any time left I can choose to help.

What should the response be to these types of questions?  Whose text is it when the digital scan belongs to a company providing access, but yet it never loses its association with its referent, physically housed in another place, but containing the same content?  The combination creates a lot of assumptions.  The person typing usually assumes that I am in the library, that the book still exists in the library, that it is a few feet away from me, and that it will "just take a minute."  They also assume that it is our (my) responsibility to help them, and not Google.  Maybe that is a good thing?  The library is seen as more available, and helpful than Google. The physical item in this case is more accessible since a bad scan cannot be re-scanned.

But, what do I do though when there are three other chat windows open simultaneously and it's the second Google verification request of my shift?  As the face of a "public" research university, who is my patron?  Should I have levels?  Shouldn't the students come first?  How does a local or state institution fund reference services for a public that through those bookplates and our availability on the web becomes a global audience?    Does the whole library become a reference for the digital in that we should make plans duplication charges like for a closed-stack special library?  Are physical books now a "Special Collection" in relation to the digital?

These questions cannot just remain fuzzy since the digitized texts constitute the memory of our culture.  In some sense we all own them since the memories in the texts lie in the spaces between people, sustained by references to the texts each time we read one, think about it, and add it to our store of knowledge that we share with others as we live and chat over coffee.  For now (most of) the physical books that Google references remain in the libraries, but many people unable to see the blurry details behind "the cloud" call for the practical destruction or selling-off of the books and their pricy buildings and air-conditioning as a practical necessity, not seeing the physical servers, fiber optic cable, and software with quick obsolescence upon which a digitized collection such as Google Books collection relies.  We must define our relationship, and take ownership and responsibility for it, or just like the stack of corroded 51/4 inch floppy disks that hold the games my father programmed for me that sit next to a failed Commodore PET disk drive in my closet, the entirety of our cultural memory could become inaccessible while we pay attention to shinier things.