Conversation

Hmm... I rather disagree with the underlying hypothesis that there is something inherently wrong with the medium that is the book. I fall in the more traditionalist camp that we must engage with books in multiple modalities.
1
4
Building on that, is it a book's responsibility to communicate in all those modalities? I argue no. With the invention of modern technology, we may see a restructuring of what we call a book to address those modalities which would be great (sight, hearing, dialogue, etc.)
1
4
One quote I fundamentally disagree with is, "Books are static. ... [P]rose can’t behave or respond to those thoughts as they unfold in each reader’s head. The reader must plan and steer their own feedback loops."
1
1
The reason for this disagreement is that though prose is static as a symbol on paper, the sign that it represents can morph or change throughout a person's life. I have read countless works that have entirely different sentiments in later parts of my life due to conceptual shifts
2
6
If we consider dyslexics, they are fighting the tool - a book - as it is presented rather than gaining the utility of the tool. For them, and others who have neurological complications, books absolutely fail. Wouldn't it be amazing to have books like this that engage everything?
1
1
Show replies