Question 3

The following statement, “since everything is on the internet, I don’t need books… right?” I would beg to differ. Books are significant because they are published, and not everyone can publish a book. Whereas, on the internet just about anybody could publish a piece of work, therefore books have a better sense of respect than works that can be found on the internet. Even though the internet is more accessible because of the quick and easy access, does not mean that what a person could gain from the internet is as the same as someone who is reading a book. Books are simply more enjoyable because you could hold them in your hands and physically flip the pages as well as write comments on the sides of the pages. However, on the internet you don’t have that option. Also, books have a variety of information put together under one bind, compared to a site where there is more than likely just one topic or an article about a very concentrated subject which limits what could have been read. If books were not needed, the atmosphere of a library would change. For instance, libraries would only consist of computers. Computers are not necessarily the best choice for research or getting information on a topic because being on the computer is very distracting especially in this day in age with social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. Without books, the simple joy of reading a novel or a story for pleasure would not exist. Most people on their free time don’t read research articles but they read books and stories. If books were exempt then there would be less reading activity in the world we live in and I believe that to be a good writer, you must also be a good reader as well, and good writing is essential to get our ideas across successfully. Therefore, eliminating books because we have the internet is irrelevant because the internet does not fulfill what books have to offer us.