Reading on paper or screen

[LizzieMaine]

I read Double Fold a few years ago and was somewhat astonished to discover that librarians--at least the ones in administrative positions in big libraries--aren't really into books, per se, but cataloging systems. They are apparently in a panic about the notion of paper copies deteriorating (probably the funniest part of the book, in a ghastly way, is detailing an attempt at deacidifying volumes using dangerous amounts of explosive chemicals).

As Baker points out, the rumors of paper's coming extinction are greatly exaggerated. The bound newspaper volumes I own -- which clearly haven't been stored optimally since their "liberation" from the LOC -- are still perfectly solid and readable. The paper is tanned, but not browned or brittle. As long as you keep newsprint out of sunlight and in a cool environment, it will last for a very long time. Instead of panicking over the impending disintegration of paper, the library industry would be better served by coming up with non-invasive, non-destructive methods of scanning them in such detail that no information is lost and the originals can be kept for future use.

Of course, nothing can be done to retrieve what's already been lost. Great swaths of our printed history have already been willfully destroyed because they didn't suit the agenda of those responsible for preservation. And it's not just the *great* newspapers that are lost -- most journalism students have heard of Bernarr MacFadden's New York Evening Graphic, the outlandish 1920's tabloid that nonetheless gave the world Walter Winchell. Well, nowhere in the world -- nowhere -- does a complete run of that paper survive in any format, bound volume, microfilm, or scan. And how many small-town country weeklies are completely, irrevocably lost?

We like to think that we live in a time where history is permanent, that we can never forget the past, that the records we leave be hind will survive forever. And yet much of our history hasn't even survived the generation that created it.

 

[ButteMT61]

Well, let's see -- repositories of human knowledge. Wouldn't that be the responsibility of, say, our universities? Or is their money better spent on football teams and trendy MBA programs? Or perhaps it's our own responsibility, as taxpayers.

Baker makes the point that a century's worth of complete runs of major city newspapers could be easily and comfortably stored in a warehouse building the size of a Home Depot. So where are our priorities?

Hmm, if not for those "football teams" you so obviously despise, many schools would have no:
Bands.
Women's sports teams.
Athletics facilities.
And many other things.

That's a pretty awful statement for someone defending the printed word/picture dontcha think?
As for taxpayers - well - bad timing on that one I suppose, being the worst economy in decades. I am a huge history buff. I love books, newspapers and magazines. I however don't know how/who is going to maintain such things moving forward. I live in a relatively historic place where they (at least now) respect old buildings and I myself own and live in a 105 year old house.
Newpapers are going broke. You'll have a tough time convincing them to spend their money on huge properties and staff to manage archives when the digital realm allows such a thing for a fraction of the time/space/money. It's not the same, I get it. But reality is an eye-opener.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The reality is that the digital realm isn't going to be the godsend its advocates project it to be if all it has to "preserve" are blurry, distorted, illegible microfilms. The real crimes were committed decades ago by bean-counters and "future thinkers" who embraced microfilm as the be-all, end-all of technology -- just as the digital advocates are doing now. Every original destroyed is an original gone forever. You can't go back and re-scan something that no longer exists.

We have a responsibility to the future to preserve a true record of who we were and what we once accomplished. We aren't doing that, and frankly, all the college bands and stadiums and illiterate sports-scholarship graduates and point-shaving scandals in the world aren't worth the loss of that record. That's the reality.

As far as storage space goes, I did some calculating based on the volumes I own and figured that an entire year of the New York Tribune/Herald Tribune could be easily and comfortably stacked in a corner of my bedroom. The entire decade of the 1930s could fit in that room, with plenty of room for the bed, the dresser, and the cat. The entire 65-year 20th-century run of the paper could fit in a space about the size of my house, with plenty of room left for a reading desk and a card catalog. As Baker pointed out, you could store the major papers of many cities in a building the size of a typical big-box store -- a space smaller, in fact, than the average college football stadium. The "we have no rooooooooooooooom" lament is the purest unadulterated bunk. "We don't waaaaaaaaaaant to have the room" would be more accurate.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

As Baker points out, the rumors of paper's coming extinction are greatly exaggerated. The bound newspaper volumes I own -- which clearly haven't been stored optimally since their "liberation" from the LOC -- are still perfectly solid and readable. The paper is tanned, but not browned or brittle. As long as you keep newsprint out of sunlight and in a cool environment, it will last for a very long time.

I remember seeing a pic of a landfill showing a newspaper from 1952 that had been there for God knows how long, and it still looked quite readable.

 

[ButteMT61]

If it were that easy, it'd be done. That doesn't adress cataloging, insurance, buildings, etc. etc. etc. Look at how the Vatican stores it's works. It's more complex that storing papers in someone's garage with IKEA bins.
And that's one paper. Who decides what papers we keep? NY Times? Not on my tax dollars.
I'm not arguing it shouldn't be done - only why it isn't, and likely won't be. You're right - we don't want to. Well, this seems like a good cause, and this being America and all, you're free to raise money and awareness to try and do it.
We can all debate the merits of one vs the other (ebook vs paperbook) and what to keep vs not keep, or how to keep it, but I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind or argue over it. I don't make the rules. Just my observations.

 

[ButteMT61]

I remember seeing a pic of a landfill showing a newspaper from 1952 that had been there for God knows how long, and it still looked quite readable.

And my great aunt smoked and lived to 102. Doesn't have any bearing on how to properly store documents.
And doesn't make me feel safe to smoke!

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's not for you or me to judge. Our descendents will judge us. And they won't judge us charitably, if they're even aware we ever existed.

 

[Pompidou]

It's not for you or me to judge. Our descendents will judge us. And they won't judge us charitably, if they're even aware we ever existed.

You're probably right. Even if you're not, I hope you are. Every era looks back on their ancestors like they were barbarians, often with some justification, and I can only hope that there's sufficient progress to make us look like neanderthals as well.

 

[ButteMT61]

It's not for you or me to judge. Our descendents will judge us. And they won't judge us charitably, if they're even aware we ever existed.

Hindsight is 20-20. Nobody ever looks back with realistic eyes as we "weren't there" It's simply not fair nor reasonable for me to understand why we put Japanese into concentration camps. Or turn down a black man his dinner at my restaurant. We'd all LOVE to think we'd be different, but I suspect it's not that simple.
We can only improve with time. Let's hope we do. Even after we've departed.

 

[sheeplady]

I've worked with acidic books that were horrifically damaged. When I say worked, I mean gingerly picked up the pieces of what was left on the floor after having removed it from it's case. The fact that books printed on acidic paper can last years with proper care doesn't undo the fact that many of those books have not received the basic care which is so important.

Not all digitalization results in destruction of the original source material. I also see nothing wrong with digitalizing materials in order to provide greater access, easier retrieval, and better preservation of the source material (by reducing circulation and human contact with the original material).

I strongly believe that one of the best ways to teach history is through the use of primary sources. Digital copies can promote primary source material use.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The other problem is that at some point our present digital technology will become obsolete and then comes the laborious task of transferring everything to the new medium that replaces it. You have to figure that something is going to be left out.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The problem is, most of the damage has already been done. The originals of most important newspapers were destroyed over forty years ago -- and all we have left for digitization are corrupted, incomplete microfilms. In the case of newspapers, the process of microfilming was done in such a way that the edges of the bound pages were guillotined off -- often resulting in nearly half a column of print being sliced away and destroyed even before the pages could be photographed. Entire volumes were often missed in the digitization, but were thrown away with the rest of the collection -- and microfilming of any particular paper was only done once. If you consult microfilm, anywhere in the world, of a given paper, you'll be seeing the same images no matter where you are. And if that microfilming job was done badly, as most of them were, you're not getting an accurate representation of the primary source material. And because the originals were pulped long ago, you're never going to have access to that material again.

I've spent a lot of time over the years dealing with microfilm in my own researches, and I've run into these problems over and over again. But it wasn't until I read Baker's book for the first time that I really understood the scope of what had happened and what we've lost.

 

[Pompidou]

I've worked with acidic books that were horrifically damaged. When I say worked, I mean gingerly picked up the pieces of what was left on the floor after having removed it from it's case. The fact that books printed on acidic paper can last years with proper care doesn't undo the fact that many of those books have not received the basic care which is so important.

Not all digitalization results in destruction of the original source material. I also see nothing wrong with digitalizing materials in order to provide greater access, easier retrieval, and better preservation of the source material (by reducing circulation and human contact with the original material).

I strongly believe that one of the best ways to teach history is through the use of primary sources. Digital copies can promote primary source material use.

I think your middle paragraph is the most important part. Back in the day, I'd always make a backup copy of any software I got for my computer (can't really do that so much these days), and I'd stow the original away. The only use the original got was making a new working copy if the older one became unusable. The same should be done with print, too. There should never come a time when there's only one copy left of something. Digitize everything. I think everyone here agrees that destroying the originals for no good reason shouldn't be done. I was on the opposite side on the repurposing argument a while ago, but am on the same side on this senseless destruction argument.

 

[rue]

In the case of newspapers, the process of microfilming was done in such a way that the edges of the bound pages were guillotined off -- often resulting in nearly half a column of print being sliced away and destroyed even before the pages could be photographed.

Try researching your family history! I'm glad that they've made it easier to trace, but sometimes they've mutilated the page so badly you can't tell what it says and half of it is cut off. After 5 years of research I gave up. There has to be a better way!

 

[Wally_Hood]

This is an excellent thread. The original question has blossomed (or erupted, some might say) into a powerful debate about the ever-advancing worldview of 'what's the most cost-effective?' versus 'we are not products or economic units, we are humans who lose some of our humanity with the physical destruction of our heritage.' I tend to fall into the latter camp.

I bought my wife, who is not an enthusiastic reader, an iPad, and with a week or so she had read about three books. I prefer books, and have not read much of anything on her iPad. Reading a book is a wonderful combination of the intellectual, emotional, and tactile. Holding a book, turning the pages, feeling the texture of the pages, all adds up to reading a book.

Now, if techology enables us to read books we couldn't otherwise read, I say that's great. Having hundreds of titles on a digital device is good in that in does, in its own way, give us access to books in virtually seconds. I would hope that ebooks, et al, promote reading, but that they don't replace books.

 

[ButteMT61]

One knock I have on digital archives - and for the record, there are lossless files of high quality - is this: I work in the music industry at the largest company in the world. We had archives placed on DVD of album artwork, photos, etc. from the late 90's/early Y2k days. Some of them are no longer readable - even though they're stored in controlled rooms vertically, in cases, etc. It's not the computers or hardware - something happened to those earlier disks. New archival DVD/CD disks are meant to last over 100 years. But - the fact remains, we don't stay static in our technologies. How many here have turntables, 8-tracks, cassettes, floppy disks, etc? (for the record, no pun intended, I do have turntables and tube amps) and we likely won't have CD/DVD's in 10, 15 years. It's a tough one. I think about it all the time. You look at people that have family photos, awards, etc. on paper, and a flood, fire, earthquake destroys them. At least my digital stuff is backed up elsewhere so I won't lose that, barring nuclear war or Armageddon.

 

[HadleyH]

Welcome to the digital age!!!!!!!!:Cry:hwell:

 

[Nobert]

Hindsight is 20-20. Nobody ever looks back with realistic eyes as we "weren't there" It's simply not fair nor reasonable for me to understand why we put Japanese into concentration camps. Or turn down a black man his dinner at my restaurant. We'd all LOVE to think we'd be different, but I suspect it's not that simple.
We can only improve with time. Let's hope we do. Even after we've departed.

That's a pretty good argument right there for the preservation of as much as possible. It's a very elightened attitude to say "I like to think I'd have been different, but I probably wouldn't have," and I laud you for saying as much. But how to come by that attitude? It's not the thing that most of us are liable to get from the watered-down version of history that we're spoon fed in high school, but to know, for example, that Dr. Suess did political cartoons that more or less condoned the internment of Japanese Americans puts it in a different light. Or to have the tanglible evidence that a century ago, ethnic jokes accounted for about 60-70% of American humor (that's a conservative estimate). Or to see some of the horrifying caricatures that adorned to sheet music covers of "coon songs." That's the sort of thing that tends to get swept under the rug, and if there's an issue with trying to store everything, there's also one with trying to scan everything.

As they say, journalism is the first draft of history, but for the full view and understanding, you probably want more than what makes the final edit, and saving the notes may be the best way to do that.

Not that I'm totally knocking digital technology or that anyone could on this forum. I'm not exactly tapping out this post in Morse code on a crystal radio set.

 

[TidiousTed]

My grandmother on my father’s side collected newspapers with important front pages, so I got papers from when Henrik Ibsen died, the first world war started, when it ended and so on. But the problem with these papers are that they have become very brittle over the years and almost fall apart when you try to page through them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

How many here have turntables, 8-tracks, cassettes, floppy disks, etc? (for the record, no pun intended, I do have turntables and tube amps) and we likely won't have CD/DVD's in 10, 15 years. It's a tough one. I think about it all the time. You look at people that have family photos, awards, etc. on paper, and a flood, fire, earthquake destroys them. At least my digital stuff is backed up elsewhere so I won't lose that, barring nuclear war or Armageddon.

Most of my stuff is and remains analog -- I have over 8000 hours of radio material, mostly on cassettes and reels, along with a closet full of radio transcriptions and another closet full of 78rpm records. I digitize some of it for convenience -- I run iTunes on my desktop computer and feed it to a small AM radio transmitter, and that's how I do much of my daily listening. But I've never disposed of the originals, and of those 8000 hours of tape, accumulated over forty years time, I've had exactly two cassettes go bad. Pretty good ratio, I think.

Digitally, I've lost two hard drives in the past five years, each containing several hundred hours of material. If I'd disposed of the original material, I'd be up the creek. But I didn't, so I'm not. I'm convinced digitization is fine as a convenience medium, but I don't consider it archival at all. Dispose of your originals at your own risk.