Is that destroying the planet, too? And for the record, I only read print. I prefer to put art on my walls, much of it on paper. I read 2-4 books a week, but in my home I keep only the ones that mean something to me or are awaiting my attention. On the book lover." Becky Dayton, owner of the Vermont Book Shop, Middlebury, disagreed with Bliss's "suggestion that we 'book lovers' read paper books so that we can, 'display them all on bookshelves for everyone to see' I think not. "If you buy a book that’s already been read once, then probably your footprint is zero," he said, adding that his best advice for preserving paper was to "buy somebody a library card." In a subsequent letter to the editor, Harry Bliss, a cartoonist and editor of children's books, took vehement exception to Ingenthron's claim: "The bottom line, in my expert opinion, is that traditional books are worse for the planet than reading devices, and if I hear one more 'book lover' tell me how much they 'love the feel of a book,' I’m going to throw up. In addition, Robin Ingenthron, owner of Good Point Recycling, which processes and recycles discarded electronics, expressed skepticism about claims that e-readers are a better environmental option. Wouldn’t it be cleaner and greener just to download all those books in digital format?" The answer is, of course, complicated, as could be seen from the opinions voiced by several Vermonters in the book trade, including authors, booksellers, a librarian and publisher. In an article for Seven Days ("Vermont's Independent Voice"), Margot Harrison explored the challenge of being "confronted with the huge waste that paper books can represent. The print book versus e-book debate has caused some rumbling and grumbling in the Green Mountain State recently.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |