Cheers to Ralph Nader for organizing a $10,000-a-table library benefit in Washington, D.C., and to Post columnist Marc Fisher for writing about it. And, yes, they are both right in saying that the Internet is no substitute for physical libraries–which, of course, help glue communities together and offer book-rich havens for children from low-income or troubled homes.
That said, they might want to reconsider a quote from Nader: “There is no substitute for flipping through books, for browsing shelves.” Fisher adds: “That’s where you find exactly what you weren’t looking for, and that’s where the magic lies.” Indeed it’s magic, but online libraries could actually offer more serendipity–for example, through hyperlinks to other books. A TeleRead-type approach could provide links more complete, stable and reliable than those from individual publishers. That’s one of the glories of the library model online. Books could more easily refer to other books and send you there with the click of a mouse. What’s more, TeleRead could pick up some wrinkles from Amazon.com–such as lists of books popular with the same people who read the title that you were enjoying. Too, how about other forms of online serendipity or semi-serendipity? If you cared about hotrods or roses or seaplanes, wouldn’t it be nice to get regular emails with new discoveries–not only on your pet topics but related ones?
As computer screens improve and type can be smaller, you’ll find it easier to cover more ground with computers and be able to enjoy yet more serendipity. In fact, when the era of electronic ink truly arrives, even e-books will have flippable pages.
Beyond the serendipity question, consider the advantages of e-libraries as equality-promoters if ways exist to drive down the costs of e-books and the right hardware (beyond reversing the anti-library copyright extension–to increase the choice of titles). Even the poorest household could have access to thousands of books, including those that precisely matched the interests of parents and children. What? Matched? Serendipity is nice, but hardly everything. We need a balance between structured and unstructured discovery.
