Oxford English Dictionary 'will not be printed again'

[Inziladun]

I don't understand why "reading becoming an expanding pastime" must go hand in hand with "books are about to vanish".
There's such a charm about holding a book, especially an old book by a well-loved author; you have the story itself, but you also have the knowledge that people before you have held that same tome, thinking their own thoughts as they read. No batteries, no power supply. Just peace, and a different life between the covers to lose oneself in.
I don't have an IPAD, and I have no intention of getting one. Nor an e-reader, for that matter.

I really hate the fact that modern society puts all its energies into "bigger, better, faster". It's the sort of thing Saruman was after.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Well, I own both books and an iPad, and I use both. I very much doubt that hardcopy books will ever entirely disappear, just as the invention of the typewriter did not do away with pens, pencils, and paper. But this is certainly another change of medium — and it seems that every time it changes, there are people around predicting the complete death of the older media. How it will turn out in the long term, only time will tell.

I do see one upside to the massive OED becoming electronic: people will no longer be able to claim they didn't have access to a decent dictionary as an excuse for chronic misspelling due to laziness.

[skip spence]

I don't give much for this talk about the imminent demise of the printed book you keep hearing about. As far as I'm aware, more books than ever are being sold (at least where I'm at) and most people, me included, would never consider replacing physical books with an I-Pad or something similar, something I think is evident in how book publishers haven't suffered nearly as much as the record-companies because of illegal downloading.

A dictionary however is different. In this instance I'd much prefer the E-format to a bulky hardback, since it's a million times more convenient, and what you want from a dictionary is information, not a pleasurable reading experience by the fireside.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Sam: What we need is a few good ipads.
[Gollum makes a noise of disgust while sticking his tongue out]
Sam: Even you couldn't say no to that.
Gollum: Oh yes we could. The mean hobbit spoils nice books. Give stories to us with nice paper and print so we can hold it and see about the preciouss; you keep nasty ipads.
Sam: You're hopeless.
Frodo: Actually, I gotta go along with Smeagol on this one.

[Morthoron]

This talk of the book's demise is silly. Books are indispensible as door stops, for propping up uneven tables. holding down piles of papers and for filling empty bookcases. I have heard that some folks even read books!

Books: the duct tape of the literary world.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

I think there is a place for both and would hate to see the printed versions go entirely extinct. I'm way too impatient to wait for Windows to boot up every time I need to look something up!

On a more serious note, I think if I were told I had to give up my hard back copy, I'd put up a good fight. It would be like having something very valuable and being told to give it to someone else for safe keeping. There is always that chance that something might happen and you would never get it back when you want it.

[davem]

The real significance for me in this story is that a book which Tolkien himself worked on may be reaching the end of its real life & about to take on a virtual one. Wonder what his thoughts would be?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

The real significance for me in this story is that a book which Tolkien himself worked on may be reaching the end of its real life & about to take on a virtual one. Wonder what his thoughts would be?

Not being much of a fan of 'technology' and 'progress', I doubt he would have approved. I don't think he would have cared for the Digital Age in general.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Having translated older works, I can't help but think he would see value in a tangible printed page over the more transient, virtual one.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

The notion that books will completely disappear is completely ridiculous! They've been around for how long exactly? They are not going to be done away with, especially this quickly. Electronics lose their shine and novelty quickly. Computers and electronic media are great, but it's not going to stop people from buying books and using technology that is as old as writing itself. I agree that it is true that dictionaries are easier to use when you don't have to search through two thousand pages of words you don't want, but there's a sort of satisfaction that goes with looking through a real dictionary and finding the word you want. I, at least, look forward to owning every single volume of the Oxford English Dictionary some day.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Ah, and when browsing through those hundreds of thousands of words you're likely to meet a few new ones! Can't do that nearly as easily on line.

[Bêthberry]

I'm also of the opinion that books won't vanish. Has anyone ever tried to track down an address or telephone number when the power is out or connection is lost? Also, I never curl up with my monitor while reading in bed.

Originally Posted by skip spence

A dictionary however is different. In this instance I'd much prefer the E-format to a bulky hardback, since it's a million times more convenient, and what you want from a dictionary is information, not a pleasurable reading experience by the fireside.

There's definitely a value in an E-format OED but I have to admit that, word-nerd that I am, I do take out my hard copy OED and wander amongst the words sometimes (magnifying glass in hand, as I have the micro-reduced one), seeking the pleasure of reading the history of meanings and their changes. (I don't do this with any other dictionary.)

I also find it much easier to compare definitions from different dictionaries in hard copy. It's quite interesting to see how often the OED had been cribbed by other "respectable" dictionaries.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Content is far more important than the medium in which it's delivered– especially when we're dealing with text in each case. So, um... I'm afraid I think you're quite wrong. (Sorry if I'm starting to look like The Downer Who Always Contradicts Davem; I don't have a vendetta against you, mate, it's just the way the topics have been going at the moment.)

Here's one for davem: To quote Marshal McLuhan, "the medium is the message."

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm also of the opinion that books won't vanish. Has anyone ever tried to track down an address or telephone number when the power is out or connection is lost? Also, I never curl up with my monitor while reading in bed.

Well, how about I change that when to "if"? And I'm thinking of some future descendent of an e-reader that would have none of the current drawbacks.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Here's one for davem: To quote Marshal McLuhan, "the medium is the message."

Just so you know, I actually thought about beginning, "Contrary to what Marshall McLuhan may claim..."

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Just so you know, I actually thought about beginning, "Contrary to what Marshall McLuhan may claim..."

Avoiding or ignoring evidence to the contrary (while a common habit in court cases) is not a way to influence discussion and win debates.

As the points which both Hilde and Ibrin raise make clear, the medium does influence content. It could well be that certain stories/information/text will be relegated to e-texts while a different line of story and graphic and information will be treated to paper.

Originally Posted by davem

But... I think its important to recognise that computers/websites are not merely a 'different' form of the book - they are something entirely different & the approach to producing & telling the story is entirely different. A generation (maybe two or three away) brought up entirely on e-texts/websites will not 'get' a book like LotR in the way we do, because 'books' will not carry the same meaning or relevance to them.

And when the oral stories of the scops and bards came to be written down, they changed also, as many of the devices for enhancing memory no longer were needed. LotR is as different from an oral mythology or legend as future ebooks may be from our current best selling novels. Tolkien learnt a great deal from ancient stories about the art of story telling and pleasing an audience, but I doubt LotR in its entirety would be a successful oral story, no matter how many passages are perfectly suited to recitation. The medium does change the story.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Avoiding or ignoring evidence to the contrary (while a common habit in court cases) is not a way to influence discussion and win debates.

I wasn't trying to avoid or ignore anything– I just don't agree that "the medium is the message". That was the point. (Also, I thought it would sound pretentious )

Originally Posted by Bethberry

As the points which both Hilde and Ibrin raise make clear, the medium does influence content. It could well be that certain stories/information/text will be relegated to e-texts while a different line of story and graphic and information will be treated to paper.

I didn't say it doesn't influence content, I said content is more important– "especially when we're dealing with text in each case". The difference between oral and written language is much greater. I don't think it matters that much whether text is written/displayed on paper or on a screen. Recall that the claim is that novels as we know them will cease to exist:

Originally Posted by davem

A generation (maybe two or three away) brought up entirely on e-texts/websites will not 'get' a book like LotR in the way we do, because 'books' will not carry the same meaning or relevance to them

I'm just saying, I think that's unfounded.

It is of course, hard to predict how technology will develop– I mean, if at some point in the futire everything goes holographic, or is beamed directly into our brains, or [insert sci-fi scenario here], now that would make a difference.

[Nerwen]

Just for comparision– I work in the fields of animation, multimedia, and film, which of course are vastly different mediums from the written word. (I'm talking about interactive multimedia, not the static display of text.) So from here whatever difference may exist between a novel created and displayed on a computer, and one written by hand, typed and printed, doesn't look very significant.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I didn't say it doesn't influence content, I said content is more important– "especially when we're dealing with text in each case". The difference between oral and written language is much greater. I don't think it matters that much whether text is written/displayed on paper or on a screen. Recall that the claim is that novels as we know them will cease to exist:

One page of screen/paper or 1,137? What matters is the willingness of readers to scroll down alot and the ability to hold two pages (or more) of text in their hands for comparison at the same time. Reading a novel is not necessarily a sequential activity.

Novels aren't sacrosanct and they aren't the only form of narrative. They came into this world under conditions relevant to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They may well leave this world when conditions change adequately to make them no longer meaningful/relevant/important/pleasurable/significant.

It is of course, hard to predict how technology will develop– I mean, if at some point in the futire everything goes holographic, or is beamed directly into our brains, or [insert sci-fi scenario here], now that would make a difference.

Reading is not a passive activity. Ask any teacher if she or he thinks they can merely pour education into pupils' heads.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

This talk of the book's demise is silly. Books are indispensible as door stops, for propping up uneven tables. holding down piles of papers and for filling empty bookcases. I have heard that some folks even read books!

Books: the duct tape of the literary world.

Very apt analogy, but I think you left out one other essential function of books: collectors of dust, yeah, even more successful than Swiffer products.