The Lindy Effect and the Printed Book: A Durable Medium in a Digital Age
Interior of Johannes Gutenberg's printing house, Auguste Ledoux, after Frédéric-Désiré Hillemacher, 1863
Summary
In the age of technology, the question of whether printed books can stand the test of time is a valid one. On one hand, printed books have been used for centuries as a way to preserve information and are durable if stored properly. However, the cost of preserving printed books can be high and they can be damaged or lost due to unforeseen events. On the other hand, digital books are easily stored and replicated, reducing preservation costs but they are also subject to obsolescence and data loss. The Lindy effect, a theory coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, suggests that an item with a long history of survival, such as a printed book, has a longer future life expectancy than something new. Despite the competition from digital media, printed books continue to be popular and important due to their physicality and tactile qualities, cultural significance and historical value. The book industry is constantly evolving, and it's possible that printed books may continue to coexist with digital media.
In the Age of Technology, Can Printed Books Stand the Test of Time?
Printed books have been used for centuries as a way to preserve information for future generations. They are durable and can last for hundreds of years if stored properly in a cool, dry place, away from direct sunlight and moisture. However, the cost of storing and preserving printed books can be high. Libraries and archives must invest in climate-controlled storage facilities and staff to maintain the books. Additionally, physical books can be damaged or lost due to natural disasters or other unforeseen events.
On the other hand, digital books have the advantage of being easily stored and replicated, thus reducing the cost of preservation. Digital books can be stored on servers or in the cloud, and multiple copies can be made to ensure that the information is not lost if the original file is damaged. Additionally, digital books can be easily accessed from anywhere with an internet connection, making them more accessible to a wider audience. However, digital books have their own set of preservation concerns. They may become obsolete if the software or devices used to read them are no longer in use. Digital files can also be lost or corrupted due to hardware failure or hacking.
In conclusion, both printed and digital books have their own advantages and disadvantages when it comes to long-term archiving and preservation. Printed books are durable but can be costly to store and maintain. Digital books are easy to store and replicate but may become obsolete or lost due to technology changes. A combination of both, like digitizing books and having physical copies as backup, can ensure the preservation of information for future generations.
The Lindy Effect: How Printed Books Continue to Stand the Test of Time
Given the benefits and drawbacks of both printed and digital books, it's important to adopt a preservation strategy that considers the Lindy effect.
The Lindy effect, a term coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book "The Black Swan," suggests that an item with a long history of survival, such as a technology or an idea, has a longer future life expectancy than something new. When it comes to printed books, this means that an older book that has stood the test of time is likely to continue being relevant and in print for many years to come, whereas a new book may not have as much of a guaranteed future.
The Lindy effect is a theory that suggests that the longer something has been around, the longer it will continue to be around. This applies to printed books, which have been a durable and reliable medium for the dissemination of information for centuries. The fact that printed books have been around for so long is a testament to their utility and value.
However, printed books are facing increasing competition from digital media such as e-books and audiobooks. This has led some to question the long-term viability of the printed book, but even with the rise of digital media, printed books continue to be a popular and important medium.
One reason for this is that printed books have a certain physicality and tactile quality that many people find appealing. Holding a book in your hands, flipping through its pages, and marking your place with a bookmark are experiences that are difficult to replicate digitally. Additionally, many people find that reading a printed book is a more immersive and enjoyable experience than reading from a screen.
Another reason is that printed books have a certain cultural significance that digital media can't match. Books have been an integral part of human civilization for centuries, and printed books are a tangible representation of that history and tradition.
It's worth noting that the printed book has faced competition from new technologies before, such as the rise of e-books, yet it continues to be a popular and important medium. The book industry is dynamic and constantly evolving, so it's hard to predict the future with certainty. It's possible that printed books may continue to coexist with digital media, rather than being replaced entirely.
In conclusion, the Lindy effect suggests that since printed books have been around for centuries, they will likely continue to be around for some time. However, it's hard to determine for how long as the book industry is constantly evolving. Printed books have a certain physicality, tactile quality, and cultural significance that many people find appealing and valuable, and it may continue to coexist with digital media.
In the context of the half-life of books and the Lindy effect, reference should be made to the article by the historian of science Michael Hager in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
As per Michael Hagner's article in the NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) , geisteswissenschaftliche books have recently been challenged by the Open Access strategy of the Swiss National Science Foundation, despite the fact that there are many reasons to favour the medium of paper.
The argument in favour of digital reading devices and open access is familiar: they offer more convenient reading conditions, free and fast text availability on the internet, efficient digital storage solutions, and the possibility of overcoming the outdated fetishization of printed books. However, this argument is based on a mixture of technological optimism, neoliberal acceleration fantasies and anti-intellectual populism, which have led to a phobia of printed books and a belief that the printed book is near extinction.
On the other hand, there are equally valid reasons to believe that the printed book is far from dead, especially in the German-speaking book market, where many good and challenging books, including geisteswissenschaftliche, are still published by traditional publishers. In my fields of expertise, I have not come across a single digital publication of book length that I would consider "worth reading". Until proven otherwise, I believe that most authors and readers still prefer a carefully crafted, printed book that they can hold, read, study, recommend and give as a gift, over a digital file. Therefore, it seems absurd to question the value of printed geisteswissenschaftliche books. Moreover, there is no need to exclude digital versions of these books, as they can be useful for quick searches of specific terms. In the case of a monograph, the maxim should be: print first, online second.
Of course, the world of printed books is not perfect either. Some publishers print books solely based on the financial incentive, regardless of the quality of the content. There are many dissertations, anthologies and editions that would be better suited to university servers. Indeed, there is too much printed material, but this is less the fault of the publishers than of a research culture that tends to hurry from one project to the next, believing that good research can be done quickly and with shortcuts. This can lead to plagiarism at worst and bad books at best. However, despite overproduction, with some practice and experience, it is still possible to distinguish good books from bad - including some mistakes, of course.
My argument is that academic publishing in the field of geisteswissenschaftliche books needs improvement, but it is not out of control. This is in stark contrast to the current state of natural science publishing, which has become financially unsustainable over the past two decades. Therefore, Open Access is rightly gaining popularity among scientists, librarians, funding agencies and politicians. However, it remains to be seen whether Open Access can be established without the global science publishers, who have damaged the natural science journal system beyond repair with their pricing policies. Nonetheless, if Open Access is good for natural science articles, it should also be beneficial for geisteswissenschaftliche monographs, right? Not necessarily. Articles and books are two different genres of scholarly communication. Natural science articles are usually most interesting at the time of publication and often even before, as they circulate within the scientific community. It is crucial that they are freely available, even for scientists in parts of the world who cannot afford journal subscriptions. After this initial hot phase, the article has a short shelf life. Although this may vary by discipline, most articles fall out of the citation cycle within five years.
With a book, it's a different story. Its impact cycle is much longer. Instead of rapid circulation, it is about slow dissemination. Natural scientists spend about thirty minutes on an article on average. This is usually not enough for books. Precise reading, highlighting, marginal comments, excerpts, reviews, contextual discussions, and rebellious reading.
Hagner 2014
Michael Hagner, »Gute Bücher benötigen Zeit und Papier«, in: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2014, Bd. 235, H. 118, S. 46–46.
