POST#2

To me a book is an item used to store data. There are textbook and story books, but they are only important because of the content that is in them. I believe that books are like computers, they are only as useful as the software that is in them not the outside layer. When Nancy Jo Sales says that there is something special about books and their physicality I think she is the type of person that would judge a book by its cover since she is only interested on what is the layer of the book rather than the information in it. When I read a book on my e-reader vs a book, I can’t tell the difference. The only variation the e-reader has that a book doesn’t is that I can carry thousands of book everywhere I go. For a book though, it can get lost, stolen, and destroyed due to overuse unlike the e-reader which will have the books backed up into the computer even if it does get misplaced.

When Tom Piazza asks himself the question “Why is it important whether you get your information from a computer of some sort or from a physical book?” the bias is very clear. I would first start off saying that an e-reader is not a computer, and that it is rather a device used to carry information. When he talks about keeping tradition by reading physical books it doesn’t make sense. Just like how  e-readers are replacing books to make it easier for someone to read, people invented paper creating books that replaced stone tablet writing 1000 years ago because they wanted to make it easier for the reader, and since they got tired of etching words on walls. So, keeping tradition? You don’t see us writing everything on stone tablets, so we should accept technology as it changes.