The Daily Rag
Steven Heller wrote in today's Daily Heller about the redesign of the International Herald Tribune, and asked, "Who among you read printed newspapers or has the online experience became your method of getting the news?"
My response: There's nothing like the paper and coffee in the morning.
As someone who prides himself on trying to "go green," I find my greatest difficulty is in letting go of print. I just can't do it. Try as I might to read books on my iTouch, I still have a home library that seems to spread like glitter on a two-year-old.
Likewise, I must read The Oregonian in the morning in its printed form. OregonLive (the corresponding website) has never come close to providing the same experience (or readability, or layout, or organization, or simplicity of design, etc.) as the daily rag.
Call me a tree-killer, but I can't go without print.
Labels: newspaper, print, Steven Heller
posted by b.buerkle at
11:00 AM
3 Comments:
I read an article just a few weeks ago about the fact that Americans waste tens of millions of tons of lumber (or was it tens of billions?) because only freshly cut trees give wood pulp that makes toilet paper as soft as Americans like toilet paper to be. We waste far more paper than we use well.
But I think there are defenses of writing paper (both for hand-writing and for print). Firstly, it's possible to make both out of recycled materials.
Secondly, a book is--though literature majors hate to admit this--a five-senses experience, and a special one. The physical act of reading a book is, in fact, one of the few holy ceremonies that is meaningful, uncompromised, and available to me personally and, more, *privately.*
My books do not have ads for weight loss or mortgage refinancing in them, nor do they have poorly spelled comments about the main character's penis size (except those I bought used at the university bookstore).
The paper that makes books is a resource like all other resources, and it needs to be cared for well and with respect and a healthy sense of self-interest.
You're absolutely right that we need to be more vigilant and active in our efforts to make sure that book paper is produced in an ethically and environmentally sound manner--writing publishing houses would probably be a good first step. But I don't think that means the making of paper is a sinful thing that must be eliminated or felt guilty about if preserved. It means we have a historically unique opportunity to make books even better things than they already are. We're almost unimaginably lucky in that respect.
Wow. That was long. Sorry.
No, that wasn't too long! That was great! Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate a sober and realistic view of our responsibility to the planet as well as our need for the book for all it is worth. We can have printed materials without the guilt, as long as we acknowledge (and act on) the need to produce them in a responsible manner.
Bravo.
Post a Comment
<< Home