Can we afford to lose the value of the book as a symbol?

I’ve been following an interesting discussion thread on the Tools of Change for Publishing LinkedIn page. The topic, Losing the book as a symbol, was started by Paris-based Francois Joseph de Kermadec, a self-described “professional word-wrestler.”

The gist of his post is this: with the advent of digital technologies, books have changed from a “tangible, brick-shaped presence” to something fluid that can be poured into any device fit for reading. That much is obvious—when we now say “the book” we usually mean the text, not the physical object.

In doing so, argues de Kermadec, “this convenience comes at the cost of a grave loss: that of the book as symbol, as an artifact of leaning, wisdom and moral fortitude” – and yes, he does really write like that. Books, he says, have “talismanic” value and by losing them we lose a way to encapsulate and convey such things as status and “a reassuring promise of humanity.”

“A portrait of a man with his iPhone may evoke digital literacy or modernity, but it hardly conveys knowledge. Nor do we pile up Kindle Fires on our occasional tables to subtly hint at our learned civility.”

Hyperbole aside, he does have a point, and others agree that new symbols are needed, symbols adapted to the digital age.

Just as scrolls made way for the book (see the great video in my earlier post), so the book is disappearing. But need it? Surely old-time books are ideal formats for art books and other subjects where the feel – texture, weight, etc.-- of the object is almost as important as what is on the page. Many books are works of art in and of themselves .

I am particularly fond of pop-up books that unfold entire worlds on their pages. And while 3-D graphics can do much the same (and probably more), they fail to amaze me by their artistry, by what can be rendered in a fragile medium.

What do you think?