« The Stroke of his Pen: George and George on Cursive Writing | Main | The Right to Write: Abigail Walthausen on Learning Cursive »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Rejuvenated Eskimo

In my opinion the print media has only 10 years until it becomes obsolete.

Lisa Chaves

For me paperback is still the absolute and most reliable resource you can refer to. I still value reading books than having fun scrolling with tablet and not learning at all.

Damon Bradford

The argument of paper reading material being taken over or overruled by electronic sources has been a constant topic ever since the radio was invented. Years ago people said the paper book, newspapers, and even magazines would be replaced by modern technology. And the time has come when we are now closer than ever to that being the case. We see it happening all around us, new technology has brought us e-reading and various types of e-readers that can download and read everything from new books to old book, magazines, and the daily papers even periodicals from around the world. Even more so these e-readers are being placed on types of electronic devices from mp3 players, cell phones, and even portable tablet computers. But even though e-reading has become more readily accessible paperback and hard cover books have remained resilient and are keeping up in sales. And I could not agree more, even though almost everyone in California has a smartphone or some sort of smart device like the newest tablet computer that has e- reading capabilities paper books and printed text are still more popular even among the tech savvy youth crowds. For example, college students have the choice now thanks to technology, to choose between e-books and printed paperback books for classes. But the rate of students who buy paperback and hard cover books is staying the same. Also the same goes for adult readers, the article states that even adult readers prefer paperback and printed text over the latest e-reader software even after E-book sales, which grew exponentially after the launch of Amazon’s Kindle in late 2007. So after reading this article I can agree the paperback books and printed text will never cease to exist nor there ever be a more popular style of reading text.


1. Carr prefer the book to the e-reader. "We were probably mistaken to think of words on screens as substitutes for words on paper."

2. Because Carr know how in portend paper is to everyone.

3. He likes to agree and then disagree with the people who say paper is a thing of the past.

4. I prefer hard copies or books to e-books because the e-books you need to ether have a computer or an e- readers. Because it’s easier to reach for the book then to wait for a machine to power up and the book won’t cash if it runs out of power.


Reading this article, and learning about television in pop culture, has reminded me of one of my favorite books that I read long ago, called "Fahrenheit 451". The book is set in the future, where books are no longer allowed. Fire fighters start fires, instead of putting them out, to destroy books. The people in this future do not read books, watch excessive television, do not think for themselves, or hold meaningful conversations. This is how I picture our world without paper books. Yes, using e-books is still reading, but as the author, Carr, points out in studies, reading from an actual print has more benefits. He says "The physical presence of the printed pages, and the ability to flip back and forth through them, turns out to be important to the mind’s ability to navigate written works, particularly lengthy and complicated ones." Actual print helps with spatial mental representation and reading comprehension. A reader can absorb more of the information and focus, unlike with reading something on a flat screen. He also says most college students prefer textbooks instead of online books, as do I, I find it more helpful that I can flip through the pages, memorizing where things are and the information. Although, e-books do have its perks. A reader can have easy access to thousands of books, no matter where they are, in a light weight device. I believe print is important in so many ways, and will not become obsolete, as it shouldn't, but e-books are great as well. Readers shouldn't have to choose, both should be available.

Daniel Souder

In this essay, Carr uses a two sided argument of the pros and cons to reading through paper or printed versions of text. He seemed to take the side of printed literature, but he stated valid arguments against himself for technology. He said that reading a physical copy helps interpret and retain the information verses the electronic copies. He believes electronic copies would be best for short articles that can be found through online databases. Electronic copies can be updated frequently. Carr added the history of paper to emphasize why humans find it so natural to pick a book up and see why we read rather than talk. When our language was put on paper, it changed everything having to do with communication. He incorporated a timeline structure in the beginning. Later on in the essay, he began to use compare and contrast from the point where paper and print began to compete. However, by Carr supporting paper in reminding us of how much history there is to it puts his argument in a very good position. Generally, there might not ever be a time where paper will not exist. This country has buildings upon buildings of documentation. This historical documentation can not be scanned onto a thumb drive and accessed by the country to view. Paper material will always have the privacy. However, computer draftings and paper draftings have shifted within the last 10 years, I believe for anyone who is getting into drafting, they will rarely hand draft their material. Carr has made a great point that we have the ability to update our material through the computers. Therefore, the more recent material on computers may be updated and accurate. This argument of paper verses pixel will continue for a while before one will be truly superior to the other.

Amy Uhlar

Paper vs Pixel by Nicholas Carr

Paper books, letters, magazines, etc. are, in my opinion, much easier to read than an electronic version. While I do see some pros to electronic text, such as convince and versatility, there really isn’t a comparison to holding and turning the pages of text on paper. I agree with Carr when he explains that scientist have concluded that reading is a “bodily activity”. There is nothing quite like holding a book or magazine and flipping the pages. For me paper text is much more effective for learning. I can highlight sentences and page numbers, and easily flip back and forth to answer questions. Whereas electronically I would have to scroll or search page numbers. I’m not sure what the future holds, regarding paper text versus pixel text, but I do hope that print text is always apart of our society and world.

Jessica Holanda

With his title, Carr frames a two-sided conflict: paper vs. pixel. On which side does Carr himself stand? Where does he state his position most clearly? What, exactly, does he say?

Carr clearly stands with paper being the superior in the article. "About the obsolescence of the printed page, however, he was entirely wrong. Books, magazines, and newspapers would go on being published and read in ever greater quantities."(Carr paragraph 6) This is just one the things Carr mentions to support his side, he also references research studies, which show repeated results of success when reading print among young adults. He also emphasizes the benefits of reading a book in print rather than in an e-book. He states that mental maps are quickly developed when individuals become familiar with sections that involve certain topics they need to study or just enjoy reading about. We can share what we read and store information better due to the interaction with books. Even though computers have their convenience and role, books will always rival electronics because humans tend to be physical beings. Electronics do serve as a better tool however,when it comes to sharing information internationally. Personally I prefer print due to it's flexibility (not literally) when it comes to school and traveling. Computer screens are also an inferior quality.

Michelle Hochgenug

I like Nicholas Carr's 2 sided argument of his work Paper Versus Pixel. He goes over his views of how we are affected by them and leans more towards printed work for everyone than pixel.
Although technology has evolved and has became more favored over the years i believe paper will always be around. Paper text has been in our lives for so long it would take long period of time for it to disappear. A lot of us have been brought up with printed text and schools do their best to encourage us to use them. Which is why we grew very comfortable and more familiar with it. Electronic text is 'new' yet seems to be more popular because our generation now is surrounded by it. Articles, essays, Journals, or emails are a lot easier to find or receive on the web. Since it is still 'new' to us we like to use it, for it is something different yet handy. Although it does depend on the person; one might prefer e-text than print or vise versa.
I myself, like both ways. I like paper because i can highlight and flip through pages and 'feel' what i am learning. Nicholas Carr even states that students (through surveys) retain information better through printed text because it is more "flexible" and easier to handle. And it is a "bodily activity" which is why we tend understand printed text easier. Although, With e-text i can find papers a lot faster and more up-to-date. Also, E-text can be edited,created quicker and there is a larger variety of readings than print.
I do not believe there should be a winner in this argument for both (print or e-text) are useful in their own ways and both should be available for us all.

Ashley Hemstreet

I believe that print media is becoming obsolete. We have so many cool new ways of viewing content, that paper isn't the most convenient option anymore. There are still the few people who like to have actual paper in their hands, but they seem to be among the older crowd. And the younger generations are growing up in the era of technology where at some point, we won't use paper media at all.

Jason Risberg

I think Nicholas Carr addresses all the possible points, and arguments regarding paper vs. pixel. Right now I find myself using paper books about the same amount as electronic books. While electronic text is more abundant and easier to access(many times free)there is something about reading on real paper that is more satisfying. Perhaps it is that staring at a screen of black text on a white back light can start to do hurt the eyes, or the instant gratification of flipping a page is too much to pass up. But as of right now I don't see e-text taking over completely, at least not in my generation.

Allison Broschart

Amy Hemstreet is right that print media is becoming obsolete, but I disagree that electronic media is the most convenient option. From personal experience, I have found that it is much more convenient to pick up a paper book than it is to read on any form of technology. Computers can sometimes be too large to carry with us, and if they are not, we run into the problem of finding an outlet once it starts to die. Tablets, e-readers, etc. are wonderful for reading books, but again, they eventually die and we are stuck with the problem of finding a way to charge them when we are out. I think that Carr brings up a good point when he says, “sales of hardcovers and trade paperbacks have remained surprisingly resilient.” Print media is becoming obsolete, but, according to Carr’s information, the general population still finds it to be the most convenient option for reading.

fletcher coard

Nicholas Car was asked to write for the Nautilus Quarterly in 2013 to look at how the influence of electronic and physical mediums affected perceptions: he wrote Paper Versus Pixel. Despite Carr not specifically mentioning his position within his article one could interpret that he is personally in favor of the rise of electronic media. One could draw that conclusion by how he makes statements in the middle of the article about how people perceive paper Carr writes “It’s hard to respect something that you’re forever throwing in the trash or flushing down the john or blowing your nose into” this statement clearly states his opposition for paper.

Reuben R.

Carr understands that that when he was writing this article that it was not to persuade a side to pick paper or digital, but to clarify that they both are needed. 2 sides to an argument does a wonderful job at getting the point across that both paper and digital have there place when it comes to reading. The beginning starting off with the rise of technology, but towards the end, the studies on paper books vs. digital.

fletcher coard

Nicholas Carr was asked to write for the Nautilus Quarterly in 2013 to look at how the influence of electronic and physical mediums affects people’s perceptions: he expressed varying perspectives within Paper Versus Pixel. Within his article he does a great job provides an unbiased opinion by providing information for both sides of the never ending debate into which medium would prevail. Also within his article Carr integrates very well a history, quotes and facts and figures, this inclusion allows you to shape your own opinion .Which one do you think will prevail paper or pixel.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)