Just when I begin to think that things are settling down in the print v. digital battle of the books an article like that at The Washington Post shows up and declares that online reading is making it harder for people to read books. Then there is the ensuing back and forth kerfuffle. I roll my eyes and vow to not read any of it but I am like a moth to the flame and can’t help myself.

I always find myself wondering who are these people who suddenly find they can’t read books any longer? And why do they always blame the internet? Good gracious people, it’s not the internet, it’s you. We all have a choice in what we read. If a person spends so much time online clicking and skimming and doesn’t devote much time to actually reading books, well, yeah, I can see how one could find it difficult to reorient one’s habits to take in a book. But if a person spends regular time reading books or other long-form writing I can imagine they don’t have any problems. But of course the media makes a fuss about those other people, the ones who suddenly can no longer read a novel.

See what this does to me? Someone snuff the candle so poor little moth-me can get away!

Now Wired of all places has a long article summing up the whole tennis match to date and comes pretty close to awarding the winner’s trophy to print. Who’d a thunk it? An online tech magazine declaring that paper books just might be superior after all. Of course, don’t read the comments on the article, those will just get you stirred up. I managed to stop before I got too upset.

I really must figure out a way to avoid seeing articles about the print/digital debate. I wonder if I can somehow hack one of those adult content blockers to work on these kinds of articles?