Paper versus Pixel: Nicholas Carr on the Technologies of Reading

Are print media becoming obsolete? Many people think so, with tablets and phones and e-readers all vying for our attention nowadays. Best-selling technology writer Nicholas Carr weighs in on the topic in this August 2013 article from Nautilus.

Read it here: Carr, "Paper versus Pixel"

 

1. 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?
2. The majority of articles about the history and future of printed texts (of which there are many) focus on the technology of printing itself. Why does Carr choose to focus on the invention of Cai Lun? What point is Carr making with his emphasis on paper? Point to examples in the text to support your conclusions.
3. Carr presents a wide assortment of evidence to support his argument, from historical accounts to recent scientific and market research. What structure does he employ to keep his ideas flowing smoothly from one section to the next? Is the sequence of evidence effective? Why or why not?
4. Carr cites surveys showing that U.S. college students “prefer printed textbooks to electronic ones by an overwhelming margin.” Which do you prefer? Does your preference vary by subject matter or course level? Is a foreign language text, for example, different from one for a biology or economics course? Does print or pixel better facilitate your comprehension? Retention? Attention span? Using Carr as your They Say, write an essay in which you express your textbook preferences, considering these variables as well as any others you find relevant.

 

Comments

[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.

[Matthew]

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.

[ginessa]

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.

[Cheyenne Acker]

I believe that print media are becoming obsolete. In a world where innovators develop new technologies every day, the necessity of print media is a thing of the past. Electronic media, rather than print media, is exceedingly cheaper. As tablets become cheaper and more accessible, more and more people turn away from print books. For a one time investment of usually less than one hundred dollars, people gain the ability to purchase and read books for a price less than the print. Over time, this saved money adds up. This is not only true for books, but also newspapers. Instead of purchasing a newspaper, almost six dollars at times, we can access thousands of reputable news sources online for free. As people gain better access to these news sources, they inevitably find information on environmental degradation. According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), each year, we lose about seven million hectares of our world's forest (13 million hectares disappearing from deforestation, with eight million added back from afforestation efforts). This leaves only about 22 percent of all forests intact. If we, people who benefit from oxygenated air from our forests' trees, become even more dependent on electronic media, we will only be at an advantage. Thus, print media are becoming and will further become obsolete.

[Nazli Islam]

I believe that although digital forms of media are important, having print still has a significant impact in people's lives. Having physical contact with the work and having more interactions with the layout improves memory of the work. It has been studied and proven that using print has greater memorization and general understanding than digital. Not only that, but having the physical connection appeals to our senses of sight, touch, and even smell. I know that I personally prefer having physical books to read, even though they may not be as convenient. Something about touching the book and especially the new book smell is more entertaining and intriguing to me. It encourages reading, for me, in a way that digital forms cannot. It is also simpler to interact with the text, such as annotating and highlighting, with print texts. Therefore, despite advantages to using digital forms of things like convenience and conservation, print forms also have invaluable uses, even in these modern times.

[Tanner Ropp]

Some argue that electronic forms of media are taking over the industry and replacing printed media, but physical texts still overshadow the importance of digital media in people's lives. Not only is printed text simpler, more versatile, and more beneficial than digital media, but it is also more readily and easily made available to society. Yes, digital texts can be convenient due to the vast memory on many devices, bu with digital media comes issues of finding internet and maintaining battery life, both of which are non existent with physical texts. Paper books can be read anywhere at anytime, and even if internet is available, the human mind makes a connection between physical pages and knowledge we read that helps retain the ideas of the text better than reading from a screen. Because of its simplicity and the tangible experience that comes with it, printed books still remain an important part of our everyday lives. Now even if digital media was more effective and interesting than physical text, the devices used to read them still cost quite a chunk of change that many cannot afford. To those people it would be so much easier to borrow a book or spend a few cents on a newspaper. Even though the digital industry has grown greatly in recent years, it has yet to overcome the power of paper.

[Beverly Oates]

Mr.Carr begins his article by bestowing accolades on Cai Lun and his creation of paper. He continues his debate on the longevity of paper books versus e-books, claiming that as society becomes more technologically driven, so will our books be electronic,to the detriment of physical, books of paper. Responses to his article claim that the ability to carry many books, or even an entire library in the palm of your hand, via an e-reader is our future. The e-reader proponents argue that an e-reader can contain a light, the reader can “turn” the pages, the cost is less. The pro-list continues with textbooks and technical books which are typically quite thick and expensive. The e-reader can contain this entire book, allowing someone the ability to carry it anywhere, and use it, is a more favorable option.
However the creation of hand-made paper has not gone out of style, but is still considered a specialty and an honored gift. The talent of making paper has involved to include fibers from sources other than wood, including jeans. Generally someone that reads because they love to read has many factors to consider; reading involves at least 4 of the 5 senses. Books come with a smell, whether it is from the publisher, the store, or from storage, the pages smell wonderful. Reading is obviously a very visual thing to do physically, but it also involves the ability to visualize in your mind, in your imagination. Hearing is involved by using your ears to hear the pages being turned. When sitting down to read, usually a person will place himself away from distractions and other noises, in order to hear the words, to hear the author, and to concentrate on the story at hand. Lastly the sense of touch is involved. Touching the book, picking it off the shelf, feeling the spine and cover in your hands is so very special. Once the book is being held, the touch of turning a page is very tactile. Some argue the ability to turn the page of an e-reader, but there is no sense of touch involved whatsoever with an e-page. Only with a book of print can a person run his/her fingers over the words and feel the impressions on the page.
Most readers could care less for storing an entire library of books in one small, hand-held device. Those of us that love to read, want to hold a book. Usually we have not only shelves of books, but stacks of books in each room. We read them, and re-read them. We cherish our treasured books. These volumes are a part of our very existence, and we would not, no, could not, part with them.

[Natalie10614]

"People were flocking to the screen. Paper was toast." Carr quoted Morrison. Of course some might object that Paper isn't "toast", but growing rather obsolete. Although I concede that paper books are being over shadowed by electronic books, I still maintain that paper books can be more useful in some situations. Carr mentions Cai's invention of paper. This was obviously a very important invention, and shaped societies hundreds of years into the future. Without paper, it can be strongly argued that we'd never invent the internet and common technologies without the invention of paper; or, discover it at a much slower pace.

[dean]

I feel that paper reading is a better technology than electronic because it lasts longer and you can always get to it. There are always downsides to the internet, when something glitches, or is slow, of the technology simply becomes too outdated to be used. With books, it can really stand the test of time unlike e readers or computers. The advantage to electronic reading is simply the conveniency of owning the device where you can obtain the books.

[Donsk]

Carr tells a story about technology, reading, and writing to make a point that paperback books are better than e-books. My own experience with reading yields a point that is both similar and different. What I take away from my own experience with reading is that I prefer an e-book over a paperback when it comes to reading for my own entertainment. Although, if I am reading from a textbook, I'd rather not read it from a screen.

[Joanna B]

Paper vs. Pixel by Nicholas Carr
Carr begins the article "Paper vs. Pixel" by describing the evolution of paper. Cai Lun the original inventor of paper, which was invented approximately the year 105 AD, never gets recognized for his invention. We thoroughly rely on paper every day of our lives which brings us to the question; what would our lives be like without paper? A resource that we rely on and take for granted, would have a devastating effect if we were to be without it. Now we come to the argument of paper books versus e-books. In discussions of "Paper vs. Pixel," a controversial issue is whether paper books will outlive the use of electronics that have bombarded our society. While some argue that paperbacks are outdated and are going to be obsolete within a number of years, others contend that reading by paper books is far more enjoyable than reading books online. This is not to say that e-books have become popular and some people do prefer them over paper books. However, the sale of paper books outranks the number of e-books sold. Personally, I find that while reading paper books I am able to learn more information and retain it better, whereas when I have to read something online, I discover that I have difficulty concentrating and am easily distracted.

[Saltanat]

After reading Carr's article "Paper versus Pixel" I question Carr on how he came up with such idea to write this and what was his purpose. As I was reading his article and I pointed out his message to the readers was to try and and read as much more printed books because they benefit more than the screen pages because it completely destroys your critical thinking and it's not worth to read of off the screen pages. I also find it very interesting how more people would still choose and prefer printed books versus screen pages. From this article I've learned that people who prefer to read from the print books their brain works much better comparing to the people that prefer to read from the screen pages. Today the more and the newer technology becomes the more more people become addicted to technology.Every single year the percentage of internet users grows bigger which is unfortunately true. Back then people didn't have anything to write one and a guy named Cai invented paper for people to write on. Though he died right after he invented paper his product was very useful and it got famous throughout the entire world which benefited people a lot. I personally prefer to read off of the printed books because I find it more convenient and it feels more real, I don't find it interesting to read off of the screen page since I get too tired staring at the screen and it distracts me from getting my work done.

[EKATEPUHA]

After reading Nicholas Carr’s article on Paper versus Pixel, I learned that there are many reasons why people prefer one over the other. In discussions of paper books versus electronic books a controversial issue is whether printed books are better than reading screen pages. While some argue that using an e-book gives you the ability to read many books at one time and have them all in one place others contend that reading a printed version of the book gives you the ability to understand the material more. Studies have shown that students who read something in print have a better chance of understanding what they read, than students who have read the screen version. Having a physical copy of the book in front of you, will help the reader navigate through the pages more. Personally, when I read something on the Internet I get easily distracted and at the end, sometimes I don’t even remember what I have read. I like to have the book in my hand when reading it and it helps me to understand the material that I am reading more. Cai Lun’s invention of paper was very great at the time, so that it even made other products such as papyrus, and wooden tablets obsolete. Now others are saying that the internet, and kindles will replace paper in a matter of years. Fortunately, I don’t agree. When Kindles first came out the number of people buying books did not drop. Instead it either stayed the same or rose in some parts. Even though people have the electronic copy of a book, for the most part they still continue to prefer the printed version. So after reading this article, I continue to believe that paper will not be replaced anytime soon. There will still be those people that continue to use it even if others will have completely stopped.