I love the idea of streamlining, eliminating clutter, and living lightweight and seemingly care-free. Electronic media most definitely aids this. But my reality is quite the opposite: I have stuff, and lots of it. Some I need, some I don't, but there it is. I cram it in closets and squeeze it onto shelves. Books are a large part of this equation.
So why haven't I converted my Billy bookcases and cardboard boxes of books into one lithe little Kindle? I love the look, feel, and variety of books. Blame my publishing background, but I think it goes back much further than that. The outward design of each book foretells the mood of what's inside. Sure, the e-readers have images of all that stuff, but it's just not the the same. You can't display it in your home. I think of my books as a gallery of sorts: a text and pictorial display of all that interests me. It's out there in full view to everyone who enters my home. Such would not be the case if my library were neatly contained in a Kindle. That's also why I have some mixed feelings about e-music. People can take a look at my CD rack and see, "Oh, she likes indie, classical, jazz, hip hop, but NO COUNTRY." It tells people something about me. But maybe a CD selection isn't quite as revealing as a book collection, and that's why I was less resistant to e-music. A CD is a CD, whereas a book is determined not just by its content, but also its edition--hardback, softcover, antique, or contemporary. Maybe I don't want to just read George Eliot, I want to read George Eliot from an edition actually printed and bound in the 19th century. Choice of edition, as well as choice of content says something about the reader.
So, in spite of environmentally-friendly and clutter-eliminating reasons, I cling to old fashioned, crack-open-the-pages books. Why?
Because I'm vain.
