One of the biggest themes we have discussed in class is that the “new” will always imitate the “old” aesthetically and stylistically to make the consumer more comfortable and familiar with the product. A great example of this occurs on page 92 of “The Book” by Amaranth Borsuk: “The first Italian printers based their types on this humanist hand, producing ‘roman’ letterforms named for their purported connection to ancient Rome. (Borsuk, 92)” It is fascinating that the “Roman” font comes from the Roman humanist hand. It’s endearing that the Italians decided to base their font on the human hand, thus giving it a human quality, and making it more familiar to its readers. This is just one of the many examples of this occurring. Another example of this is the fact that Kindles perfectly replicate a book’s form by having a cover and the exact pages inside. A Kindle could have taken any shape and had more exciting features, but it decided to exactly replicate a book. This is because the inventors of the Kindle wanted it to be recognizable and relatable to book lovers. Im excited to learn more about this phenomenon and dive deeper into this book.

As seen in our first special collection workshop, it can be challenging to categorize what a book is. A few people in class even expressed that they feel they have a too literal definition of the book, and it stops them from accepting that books come in many forms. This phenomenon stems from our learned behaviors and what we grew up seeing. We all know what a book looks like and how we use it, but reading Amaranth Borsuk’s book, The Book, is changing all of our learned notions of what a book is and how we read it. For instance, “Our own codex book has been normalized to such a degree that we question the ‘bookness’ of anything that challenges our expected reading experience, with little regard for the fact that reading in one direction rather than another, scanning text silently, and putting a title and an author’s name on a book cover are all learned behaviors (Borsuk, 18).” This quote describes that we have been taught to think that our reading behaviors are the right and only way to read, which is not true. Borsuk gives us a well-needed history lesson on the fact that reading used to be a social activity where people would read challenging works together, out loud, to create discussion. Whereas in today’s world, reading is more often than not a solo endeavor, where a singular person seeks knowledge, not a group. Just like how reading used to be a group activity, it used to come in all shapes in sizes, like the tablet, the papyrus scroll, and then the book we all know today. At the end of the day, Bosuk argues that there was an evolution that brought us the book as we know it today, thus arguing that all these forms can be considered books.

I really enjoyed reading the work of Dr. Pressman in her Johns Hopkins Guide to Digital Media and Textuality essay, “Old Media/New Media.” The mindset portrayed in this text was incredibly encouraging of the new, while never forgetting the old. As stated in the text, “New media inspires new ways of thinking about older media. The impact of new media not only promotes studies of individual old mediums but also inspires the emergence of new modes of scholarship.” This quote does a great job of stating that new media doesn’t erase the old, but allows us a new way to study what came before it. New modes of scholarship are created every day with technology, creating new ways to spread information and tell stories online. The new wouldn’t exist without the old, so we study the inspirations that led to the new creation. Everything evolves: people, technology, the way we take in our information. It is up to us not to take in the new, or else we will never evolve. It’s like a two-way street; old media helps us understand the new, but new media also allows us to reinterpret the old