Why Kindle is No Good for Kids

JF Ptak Science Books  Post 1277

Words without Books–Kindle et al as a Dim Shadow in the History of Reading to Children The Kindle and its relatives may be a poor choice for reading to children–it’s a book and not a book, a collection of words without a wrapping, a constant reminder for what it isn’t, a cold remedy for warm memories.

There have been a number of books “written” now that have no words.  Elbert Hubbard charmingly put one together in 1898 (called Essay on Silence).  More recently, there was The Nothing Book (1970), which was precisely that, and which found its way into the NYTimes book review section (“we have nothing to add”). Elsewhere in the arts John Cage produced a four and a half minute piece on nothing, while Samuel Beckett takes far less time to produce his ode to nothing in his play Breathing–all fine examples of nothing.

There are more-lesser examples of nothing in literature, with books produced using nothing but the letter “I”, or commas, or periods/dots, or plus/minus signs.  They soberly add a little something to nothing and somehow come up with less than “something” and more than “nothing”, floating in a briney failed no-man’s-land of not-nothingness. Others have taken a different route around nothingness by simply dropping the use of a single letter in the formation of their novel–the lipogram isn’t even a stutter to nothingness, just a hollow something. 

And that’s where the Kindle comes in, in the hollow somethingness. 

Dick and Jane are something.  Or at least the physicality of reading them to children is something. The stories aren’t important, really–the handling of the book, the feel of the pages, the jumbling of position, the steadying of the text, the turning of the pages, trying to navigate the swirl of motions, the feel of the whole thing as a voice deciphers the tracks along the pages.  

It’s the act of reading that might be the most mportant thing in getting children to appreciate the whole idea of reading. 

Reading from a Kindle just won’t do, it can’t accommodate the range of differences, the cascade of varying stimuli, that comes from holding a book.  Books are always the same size inside a Kindle–I know t hat my own children love some books because of their shape, or they just like feeling something different in their own hands as they skip from title to title.  

You also can’t give your kids the book that you had when you were little, seeing the way your name changes in your books as you grew older.  You won’t have a Kindle with your kid-scrawl on the flyleaf identifying the child-you in 1962.  The kindle has no personality of its own–which may be fine for people already reading, but not so for people just starting out.  

You also can’t press a much-loved, hard-read copy of a favorite Kindle into your kid’s hands and expect some sort of response to it. There’s just too much missing from the reading experience with a not-a-book–you just don’t want to institute a sameness when what is needed is difference

Comments

[Darwinsbulldog]

I agree with you on this, John. Nothing can replace the feel of a book in your hand. And I've heard said that one reason books will not go away is that they will remain because children will learn to read with them, not devices.

[Intuitivebridge]

Also, how in the heck are we supposed to Pat the Bunny on a kindle?

[Terry Hartley]

I love my Kindle. But make no mistake, it will never take the place of a book. It is merely a convenience-not so much a pleasure as books always are. I would have to be holding a book in my hand when reading to a child--how else would I use my thumb to hold a page while we flipped back to take another look at a picture several pages ago? That would never be possible or desirable on a Kindle.

[Ptak]

Michael--I guess that means that over collapsed time the book industry will cater to the <8 set. That's fine by me.

[Ptak]

Intuitive--you've probably given the Kindle et alia folks a new marketing bit for developing FLUFFY SKINZ for their devices, making them happy for little fingers. Just like a nice, cuddly wire monkey.

[Ptak]

Terry--good points, esp the convenience v pleasure part. Flipping back to see the picture from the previous page would be tough, especially with chubby fingers. All in all, what would happen if there were kindles for kids and not books?

[E B]

I agree the tactile nature of the material itself is part of the reading experience, but I fear books will go the way of record albums. They'll be relics of a bygone era when trees and resources were more expendable and there was a lot more space to store it all.

[Terry Hartley]

To answer your question, John, I think a great deal of pleasure would be lost. And sadly, eventually, kids would not even know what they were missing. I do like the idea of fluffy skinz as an inadequate consolation prize.

[Jeff Donlan]

And don't forget National Security. We're already behind because we don't use chopsticks. If future generations can't even turn a page, God help us. We already have generations that can't read a clock face. How will they tell each other where the MIGs are? Books are such a well-evolved technology for us humans. There has to be some neurological benefit to thumbing backwards through a text to find the place you remember, to spotting a phrase exactly where you remember it in the upper third of the right hand page with many paragraph breaks.

[Theresthatbear]

I can't believe that this has not been shouted from the rooftops, but Amazon sold E-copies that SOMEHOW (I don't even care how) infringed copyrights of the 1984 and after the fact rescinded the copies from the purchasers' Kindles, etc. (refunding them electronically, of course). This is akin to breaking into people's houses and stealing their books! And, not just Amazon, but many e-retailers are revising e-books AFTER they have been download and of course, read! This is totally unacceptable. Call me old-fashioned and unadaptable to technology but you would be sorely mistaken. I am 43 and 100% dependent on my iPhone. But I will always be loyal to the printed page. Technology be damned!