Easter was not the only big cultural event of this past weekend. Apple also began selling the long-awaited and heavily-hyped iPad. I have read myriad reviews of the latest must-have Apple product. From what I glean so far, the consensus seems to be that the iPad is an indulgence: it is not a device one needs (certainly not one likely to replace the personal computer anytime soon), but it would be fun to have one in any case. The iPad is mainly a smartly-designed entertainment and reading device with email capabilities. As a reading device, the iPad is surely to give the Amazon Kindle stiff competition.
I have wondered before on this website about the effects of electronic reading on our ways discerning information and thinking through ideas. Do devices such as the iPad and Kindle, as well as online reading on the computer, literally re-wire our brains? There are experts who think so. Perhaps we have only begun to questions the implications.
For all the benefits of electronic reading devices (and I own and enjoy one), a drawback I have identified as a personal matter is that I simply prefer to read books with text on paper. Put simply, I prefer holding an actual book in my hands rather than a technological device that displays various arrangements of lights on a screen. With others, I have used the term “disincarnate” to describe the sense of reading electronic imaging for long articles or books.
Thus, I was interested – and challenged – to read an article by S. M. Hutchens in the latest edition of Touchstone Magazine. Hutchens wisely notes that all conventional media have their benefits and drawbacks, and he seems to caution against any sweeping dismissal of e-reading based on the medium alone. To think through the meaning of any technology, it is necessary to weigh the attachments such devices hold over the user. The definition of an idol is not in the nature of the thing itself but in the person’s relationship to the thing:
“It seems to me the only cogent arguments against our age’s new media can be made by evaluating them not only within the context of the larger world of image-making of which they are a part, but also with a critical eye toward the human tendency to become morbidly preoccupied with any symbolic construct, whether delivered by bard, book, or byte.”