I'll start with the clinical: according to the dictionary (and Wikipedia), poverty is "the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions." So if you don't have as much as everyone around you, you're poor.
I'll move on to the personal. Poverty is the state of waking up freezing in the middle of the night because it's a waste of money to run the heat when everyone is sleeping anyway, and you need that money to buy lunch meat from the "eat it tomorrow or it will kill you" clearance bin. Poverty is the state of making that lunch meat last a week and a half, even after the edges have started turning green. Poverty is sending your little sisters to beg staples off the people in the crap-ass apartments surrounding yours, because everyone is poor, and everyone is hungry, and cute little girls stand a better chance of success than anybody else. That's poverty.
The U.S. Census Bureau said that 43.6 million (14.3%) Americans were living in absolute poverty in 2009. According to the report they released this past Tuesday, the national poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010...and we still don't know what 2011 is going to look like.
This is the "official" poverty level, by the way; there are a lot of sociologists who think that the actual poverty level is much higher, since we calculate using a "socially acceptable miniumum standard of living" that was last updated in 1955. To quote Wikipedia again: "The current poverty line only takes goods into account that were common more than 50 years ago, updating their cost using the Consumer Price Index. Mollie Orshansky, who devised the original goods basket and methodology to measure poverty, used by the U.S. government, in 1963-65, updated the goods basket in 2000, finding that the actual poverty threshold, i.e. the point where a person is excluded from the nation's prevailing consumption patterns, is at roughly 170% of the official poverty threshold."
Things that did not exist in 1955: home computers. The internet. Ebook readers.
It is sometimes difficult for me to truly articulate my reaction to people saying that print is dead. I don't want to be labeled a luddite, or anti-ebook; I love my computer, I love my smartphone, and I love the fact that I have the internet in my pocket. The existence of ebooks means that people who can't store physical books can have more to read. It means that hard-to-find and out of print material is becoming accessible again. I means that people who have arthritis, or weak wrists, or other physical disabilities that make reading physical books difficult, can read again, without worrying about physical pain. I love that ebooks exist.
This doesn't change the part where, every time a discussion of ebooks turns, seemingly inevitably, to "Print is dead, traditional publishing is dead, all smart authors should be bailing to the brave new electronic frontier," what I hear, however unintentionally, is "Poor people don't deserve to read."
I don't think this is malicious, and I don't think it's something we're doing on purpose. I just think it's difficult for us, on this side of the digital divide, to remember that there are people standing on the other side of what can seem like an impassable gorge, wondering if they're going to be left behind. Right now, more than 20% of Americans do not have access to the internet. In case that seems like a low number, consider this: That's one person in five. One person in five doesn't have access to the internet. Of those who do have access, many have it via shared computers, or via public places like libraries, which allow public use of their machines. Not all of these people are living below the poverty line; some have voluntarily simplified their lives, and don't see the need to add internet into the mix. But those people are not likely to be the majority.
Now. How many of these people do you think have access to an ebook reader?
I grew up so far below the poverty line that you couldn't see it from my window, no matter how clear the day was. My bedroom was an ocean of books. Almost all of them were acquired second-hand, through used bookstores, garage sales, flea markets, and library booksales, which I viewed as being just this side of Heaven itself. There are still used book dealers in the Bay Area who remember me patiently paying off a tattered paperback a nickel at a time, because that was what I could afford. If books had required having access to a piece of technology—even a "cheap" piece of technology—I would never have been able to get them. That up-front cost would have put them out of my reach forever.
Some people have proposed a free reader program aimed at low-income families, to try to get the technology out there. Unfortunately, this doesn't account for the secondary costs. Can you guarantee reliable internet? Can you find a way to let people afford what will always be, essentially, brand new books, rather that second- or even third-hand books, reduced in price after being worn to the point of nearly falling apart? And can you find a way to completely destroy—I mean, destroy—the resale market for those devices?
Do I sound pessimistic? That's because I am. When I was a kid with nothing, any nice thing I had the audacity to have would be quickly stolen, either by people just as poor as I was, or by richer kids who wanted me to know that I wasn't allowed to put on airs like that. If my books had been virtual, then those people would have been stealing my entire world. They would have been stealing my exit. And I don't think I would have survived.
We need paper books to endure. Every one of us, if we can log onto this site and look at this entry, is a "have" from the perspective of a kid living in an apartment with cockroaches in the walls and junkies in the unit beneath them. A lot of the time, the arguments about the coming ebook revolution forget that the "have nots" also exist, and that we need to take care of them, even if it means we can't force our technological advancement as fast as we might want to. I need to take care of them, because I was a little girl who only grew up to be me through the narrowest of circumstances...and most of those circumstances were words on paper.
Libraries are losing funding by the day. Schools are having their budgets slashed. Poor kids are getting poorer, and if we don't make those books available to them now, they won't know to want them tomorrow.
We cannot forget the digital divide. And we can't—we just can't—be so excited over something new and shiny that we walk away and knowingly leave people on the other side.
We can't.
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →
Deleted comment
September 20 2011, 01:17:34 UTC 5 years ago
Very apt.
Valid
September 19 2011, 20:03:48 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Valid
September 19 2011, 20:37:45 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2011, 20:17:20 UTC 5 years ago
One thing to further consider as to why libraries are so important is the disturbing trend of privatization going on around the world. Libraries may no longer be public, some are going private, which means running on a capitalistic business model. "Are you too poor to pay for the card? Get out of our library. Are you stinky, are you ill dressed? Then get out." Private libraries will have that power. And they'll have the power to limit what they provide based on their own ethics. A library run by groups like Chik-fil-A and more would be devastating.
So thank you! Thank you for sending your support and words and encouragement, because in these dark days, people need a ray of hope.
September 19 2011, 20:37:13 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2011, 20:22:16 UTC 5 years ago
It becomes the responsibility of the haves to ensure that the have-nots get a chance to grow their world and books are the first step in that metamorphosis. Books, in their many forms, are one of the keys to self/world improvement and to deny their primacy is to deprive the wold of every thinking mind possible.
That is why I feel that when the object printers come on-line en masse, is is manditory that the ability to print a book (or as much of the parts of one) is a core function. As text printers can produce single sheets of text and graphics, object printers should be able to print covers, binders, and all the hardware that helps preserve the information on those sheets.
I imagine the power of being able to marshall large numbers of private printers and makers to ensure that a school far off the grid/net can have science books will be one of the best examples of future crowdsourcing.
September 19 2011, 20:36:51 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
September 19 2011, 21:40:24 UTC 5 years ago
September 20 2011, 01:17:10 UTC 5 years ago
Deleted comment
September 20 2011, 01:16:56 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
September 19 2011, 22:01:28 UTC 5 years ago
September 20 2011, 00:40:06 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2011, 22:16:01 UTC 5 years ago
I work in an alternate formats library in Canada, so in my work I basically never deal with print books except to scan them, but I think you are right on! :)
September 20 2011, 00:39:53 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2011, 22:20:26 UTC 5 years ago
I'm a staunch defender of print anyway, and this is certainly something I'll be pointing out to people when I get into the 'print is not dead' argument.
September 20 2011, 00:40:24 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2011, 22:21:55 UTC 5 years ago
Thank you for saying so well what I struggle to explain to others.
September 20 2011, 00:39:35 UTC 5 years ago
I love your icon like I love my pumpkin socks.
September 19 2011, 22:41:03 UTC 5 years ago
However your post has give me an idea , i really don't see why libraries wouldn't be able to just start lending people e-readers if they went about in the right way. here's how I think it could work
it would have to be and e-reader designed just for libraries. a very simple very tough model that would designed to be mass produced as cheaply as possible.
if you could keep the cost to that say of a single hardcover book $45-$75 per unit it would not be impossible for a library to have a large stock of them to lend out with out it being anymore risky than lending out any given hardcover.
The trick would also be making to unit pretty much useless to anyone but the library and the intended user. This could be be done fairly easily in two ways one gave the reader a preparatory information port so only the library its itself can add and remove things from it and have an automatic deactivation program on it that would shout down all function after the lending period was over. having it only display please return to such and such library for reactivation after that time.
Imagen it every library could have a nearly endless inventory to lend out on top of whatever stock of actually books they have. not just books either add an head phone jack and it can just as easily be a audio video player too.
I'm sure their are flaws in the idea haven't seen yet but any extra tools to get books in to hands is wroth the the work to to find solutions to such flaws.
September 20 2011, 00:38:48 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
Yet another comment...
September 19 2011, 23:05:24 UTC 5 years ago
I'm pretty tame as an adult for someone who was 'deprived' (I use that term very loosely, I had a library card!) of amassing huge quantities of books like I wanted as a child.
I probably only have around 400 or so books on my shelves now (mainly because it gets a little tiresome when you move every two years boxing that all up). I still love the thrill of picking up a second-hand book for a bargain. This is despite thanks to the support of my Mother I'm tertiary educated, gainfully employed and well paid. Don't get me started on the decline of bookstores, they're my favourite place to lose a couple of hours or more.
I too love my technology, I have ebooks, but I find there is just NOTHING like curling with the written, printed word. Without second-hand books I wouldn't be the person I am today.
Well written and considered entry, thanks for sharing and providing me the opportunity to reflect.
Re: Yet another comment...
September 20 2011, 00:38:07 UTC 5 years ago
September 20 2011, 01:49:20 UTC 5 years ago
September 20 2011, 09:40:34 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
Deleted comment
September 21 2011, 15:17:56 UTC 5 years ago
I hope you're wrong
September 20 2011, 08:53:34 UTC 5 years ago
Consider this alternative scenario: Ebook readers are produced such that something akin to the current generation is priced around $5-$10. Still a high up-front cost, but one that could be borne by the state. This gives everyone access to all of project Gutenberg texts. That is many of the classics (including The Count of Monte Cristo - my personal favourite). It doesn't solve the issue you've highlighted with access to new literature.
To access new literature, we simply need some kind of regulatory change. A restriction of copyright to some reasonable term. Or the doctrine of first-sale must be propped up by stronger regulation. The alternative is to build channels of access to Creative Commons licenced works. This can be cheap. Imagine going to a library, plugging your $10 e-book reader into a USB port (for both charging it and downloading content) and receiving all of the previous month's CC-licenced publications.
In summary, cheap hardware, open-source software and creative commons licences content could make reading *more affordable* rather than less.
I hope you're wrong. But unless we take control of our culture, rather than leaving it to big business, we're taking the route you've suggested.
Re: I hope you're wrong
September 20 2011, 17:35:03 UTC 5 years ago
Re: I hope you're wrong
5 years ago
September 20 2011, 13:06:39 UTC 5 years ago
September 23 2011, 14:45:51 UTC 5 years ago
thank you
September 20 2011, 15:36:47 UTC 5 years ago
i'm reposting your post (and giving you credit/a link back) on my Tumblr and Wordpress as well.
Re: thank you
September 23 2011, 14:49:12 UTC 5 years ago
September 20 2011, 17:31:17 UTC 5 years ago
But paper books are always there. I participate in a program where we give collections of books to needy families and I've donated *massive* numbers of books to our local library for children. I've organized a children's book swap program and put a collection of free books at the local post office, grocery store, and pizza place so kids have access to books no matter what their situation is.
I couldn't do that with e-books.
September 27 2011, 19:27:05 UTC 5 years ago
It's scary.
September 20 2011, 18:40:57 UTC 5 years ago
Like many of your readers, the public library was a haven for me during childhood. My surviving grandparents & parents are old enough to have lived under racial segregation in the rural South, and were not allowed to use the "public" library when they were kids. Instead, the Black community used an informal lending system, sharing books and out-of-town newspapers brought into town by Pullman porters. Despite this, my parents are voracious readers, and they always made sure my brother and me had library cards and that our home was filled with books.
Today I work a couple of different jobs, as do many people. In my library job I assist people from a wide variety of ages and educational backgrounds.
Some of the patrons I work with (community college students, people in worker retraining programs) don't have home Internet service, and access to print books is valuable. Not everyone can handle a costly data fee for their phone each month (I didn't have one myself until recently).
I sincerely hope that print books will survive, despite rising publishing costs.
Thank you very much -- I'd like to post the link & share this with people, if I may.
September 27 2011, 19:28:46 UTC 5 years ago
Deleted comment
Re: Great thought provoking post
September 21 2011, 15:15:14 UTC 5 years ago
September 21 2011, 02:37:21 UTC 5 years ago
I'm going to print out copies of this and distribute it to all the naysayers I know -- the people who get surprised when I tell them yes, the library is a busy place, the people who think all we do is provide musty old tomes nobody wants anymore and shush anyone who speaks above a whisper.
Thank you.
September 21 2011, 15:14:46 UTC 5 years ago
Yes yes yes and yes
September 21 2011, 04:14:02 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Yes yes yes and yes
September 21 2011, 14:52:06 UTC 5 years ago
September 21 2011, 08:06:42 UTC 5 years ago
I do think e-readers are going to shake up the market a bit, I do think that some writers are going to find themselves breaking into the market with ebooks first and print editions second. I don't think print is going anywhere however.
I think there will always be books.
September 21 2011, 14:50:35 UTC 5 years ago
September 21 2011, 16:55:36 UTC 5 years ago
September 22 2011, 22:21:57 UTC 5 years ago
September 21 2011, 18:29:55 UTC 5 years ago
I'm working towards finishing writing a book myself, so my bias away from ebooks has always been partially because I wanted to be able to see my own book in print someday, but I had never thought of it quite in this light before, and it makes me want to do everything I can to make sure that books stay on pages that can be passed on someday. Thank you.
September 22 2011, 22:21:39 UTC 5 years ago
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →