<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do libraries need books?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.parenthetical.net/2010/02/11/do-libraries-need-books/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2010/02/11/do-libraries-need-books/</link>
	<description>YA reviews and book geekery</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:38:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: More on books in libraries</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2010/02/11/do-libraries-need-books/comment-page-1/#comment-53748</link>
		<dc:creator>More on books in libraries</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/?p=909#comment-53748</guid>
		<description>[...] up on last week&#8217;s post about books in libraries&#8230; the NYTimes Room for Debate blog posted some of the comments from students. Most [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] up on last week&#8217;s post about books in libraries&#8230; the NYTimes Room for Debate blog posted some of the comments from students. Most [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2010/02/11/do-libraries-need-books/comment-page-1/#comment-53742</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:11:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/?p=909#comment-53742</guid>
		<description>And Sachi, I love your sword analogy.  I&#039;ll have to think about that more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And Sachi, I love your sword analogy.  I&#8217;ll have to think about that more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2010/02/11/do-libraries-need-books/comment-page-1/#comment-53741</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/?p=909#comment-53741</guid>
		<description>I agree -- books aren&#039;t going to be around forever.  But they ain&#039;t done yet, and I would argue that&#039;s going to be true for pleasure reading a lot longer than it&#039;s going to be true for looking stuff up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree &#8212; books aren&#8217;t going to be around forever.  But they ain&#8217;t done yet, and I would argue that&#8217;s going to be true for pleasure reading a lot longer than it&#8217;s going to be true for looking stuff up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sachi</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2010/02/11/do-libraries-need-books/comment-page-1/#comment-53738</link>
		<dc:creator>Sachi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/?p=909#comment-53738</guid>
		<description>This is a great, great post. :)

Quite honestly, eventually?  Books will probably be something antiquated and treasured by enthusiasts and collectors, like... I don&#039;t know, swords.  However, we&#039;re still a ways away from there, and intelligent humans still need to learn both systems academically, and should *enjoy* both systems personally while we still have the chance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a great, great post. :)</p>
<p>Quite honestly, eventually?  Books will probably be something antiquated and treasured by enthusiasts and collectors, like&#8230; I don&#8217;t know, swords.  However, we&#8217;re still a ways away from there, and intelligent humans still need to learn both systems academically, and should *enjoy* both systems personally while we still have the chance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jfpbookworm</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2010/02/11/do-libraries-need-books/comment-page-1/#comment-53733</link>
		<dc:creator>jfpbookworm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/?p=909#comment-53733</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a very technical boy, but I still like browsing bookshelves, whether they&#039;re in libraries, bookstores, or people&#039;s private collections (the last being more of a voyeuristic pleasure which I&#039;d admittedly lose if people&#039;s collections were stored digitally).  But that&#039;s because that&#039;s what I grew up and am familiar with, and because it&#039;s more convenient for that particular (secondary) purpose, not because there&#039;s something magical about wood pulp over e-ink.  

That said, I don&#039;t think we&#039;re at a point yet where it makes sense to abandon or even reduce print collections in favor of digital ones, except in a few specific cases where the digital version really has made the print equivalent obsolete (e.g., legal cite checking).  But I don&#039;t think that it&#039;s impossible to reach a point where we decide the optimum collection is a hybrid that&#039;s much less print-heavy.  I don&#039;t think we&#039;ll ever go all the way to digital-only, and might not even get much more digital than we are now unless publishers decide it&#039;s worthwhile for them (or unless authors decide that traditional publishers are no longer necessary).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a very technical boy, but I still like browsing bookshelves, whether they&#8217;re in libraries, bookstores, or people&#8217;s private collections (the last being more of a voyeuristic pleasure which I&#8217;d admittedly lose if people&#8217;s collections were stored digitally).  But that&#8217;s because that&#8217;s what I grew up and am familiar with, and because it&#8217;s more convenient for that particular (secondary) purpose, not because there&#8217;s something magical about wood pulp over e-ink.  </p>
<p>That said, I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;re at a point yet where it makes sense to abandon or even reduce print collections in favor of digital ones, except in a few specific cases where the digital version really has made the print equivalent obsolete (e.g., legal cite checking).  But I don&#8217;t think that it&#8217;s impossible to reach a point where we decide the optimum collection is a hybrid that&#8217;s much less print-heavy.  I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;ll ever go all the way to digital-only, and might not even get much more digital than we are now unless publishers decide it&#8217;s worthwhile for them (or unless authors decide that traditional publishers are no longer necessary).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

