Reading another essay in Roberto Manguel’s A Reader on Reading, he discusses ebooks in “Saint Augustine’s Computer.” Manguel notes that one of the major changing aspects of books is the idea of books as property. He suggests that the idea of the book as an object of “pure value” (a phrase that belongs to Maurice Blanchot) existed since the days of scrolls but that it wasn’t until the rise of a literate bourgeois class in the 14th century that owning books became a mark of social standing and book production actually became profitable.

Enter the digital age and all the complications it brings up about ownership in addition to the notion of “pure value.” One does not own an ebook but, Manguel asks, does that make an ebook worth less than the same book in print? The text of a book does not stay on the page when we read, nor does the text of an ebook stay on the screen. A text is always, essentially interactive. Reading is not a passive experience, or it shouldn’t be.

Manguel’s concern is not with a book’s format, but how, in these technological times,

will we succeed in still being able to invent, to remember, to learn, to record, to reject, to wonder, to exult, to subvert, to rejoice? By what means will we continue to be creative readers instead of passive viewers?

While Manguel might boil ebook and physical book down to something like, it’s the text and how we read that matters, there are other important things to consider. Like the role of libraries.

There are those in the library world who believe that libraries are screwed. Hellman (the author of the blog at the above link), includes video from a recent presentation by Eli Neiburger at the Library Journal eBook Summit.

In the arguments presented, the reason libraries are screwed is because content is moving away from being ownable and sharable (shades of Manguel’s discussion of pure value). The value of a library’s collection is rooted in the worth of having a local copy, but the internet makes that obsolete when you can get a copy of a book off a server half the world away in less than thirty seconds.

Also a problem is the fact that ebooks are licensed so libraries can’t actually own ebooks and circulate them like they can physical books (fair use copyright law when it comes to ebooks screws us all). Yes, libraries are “lending” ebooks, but they are forced to create an artificial scarcity. There is no reason a digital book cannot be read by more than one person at a time but licensing often will not allow it. So the question becomes, how can libraries survive with this model? Would you willingly wait a year to read a digital copy of a popular book like you might for a physical one?

What are libraries to do? Their current status as a temple for books must change. Neiburger suggests libraries become platforms and publishers, a place/ space where members of the community can be creative and preserve their work. The library should protect and ensure access to unique items of the community that don’t really matter anywhere else.

The prediction is that the decline in library circulation will be slow. The warning is that libraries shouldn’t wait until too late to morph into something else that will still be viable when book circulation bottoms out.

Do I agree with Neiburger and Hellman and, to an extent, Manguel? A little bit. While I love the experience of reading a physical book, I must say I agree with Manguel that it really is about the text. I can be, and have been, just as transported reading an ebook as I have reading physical books. But I still think there is value in physical books. Are libraries screwed? At the moment, when it comes to ebooks, yes, yes they are. Does that mean the library as an institution is screwed? I wouldn’t toll the death knell yet. I think libraries are working hard to meet the needs of their communities and every community needs different things. The libraries that are nimble and don’t fear change will be able to meet their communities’ needs best. The ones who follow business as usual and are slow or afraid to meet the changing needs of their communities might not fair as well. I don’t think it is an all or nothing proposition. Some libraries will survive and thrive and others, sadly, won’t.

We live in interesting times, a curse or a blessing? I imagine those who look into the future will be right about some things and wrong about others. Unfortunately there is no way to know on which visions we should place our bets.