The interactive Web site, Project Gutenberg, attempts to compile an electronic library of great literary works, making them available without charge to anyone who has access to the Internet. Although initial reaction to this effort might be totally supportive, it is necessary to look more closely at the precepts and effects of such a project from the perspective of political, social, economic and intellectual consequences on a culture. As a relatively new medium, the Internet presents new inherent biases. Project Gutenberg typifies these biases and provides a model of examination.

In Derek Baker’s article "Project Gutenberg" (Yahoo Internet Life, January 1998), the web site is revealed as an attempt to digitize and archive works of great thinkers, liberating them to all. The article is written from the viewpoint and with the assumption that most readers have access to the Internet. This rather pretentious premise is obviously not the case. The reality of the "network" situation is that only a very select few have the privilege of being able to get online, with the United States leading the world in numbers of people able to connect. Thus, Mr. Baker really means to address an elite audience when he states "Michael Hart has been diligently posting some of the greatest thoughts from the greatest writers of all time on the Internet for anyone to read." [italics added] The accessibility of information on the Project Gutenberg web site is indeed restricted, with access only being available to those fortunate enough to own or have access to a computer, telephone line and the Internet. Even then, it must compete with millions of other sites that can be accessed just as easily once connectivity is established. Given these circumstances, the impact of Project Gutenberg still holds importance and is worthy of being considered as a powerful (global) cultural force. Although the article touts the wonders of this great undertaking, it neglects to point out some of the more profound advantages and disadvantages that both enhance and hamper those with and without access to the Internet.

One of the most fundamental and important aspects of Project Gutenberg (and information on the Internet in general) is its lack of physical embodiment. In other words, whereas an individual copy of Dante’s Divine Comedy or Clinton’s State of the Union transcripts can only be in a single place at any given time, data on the Internet can be "possessed" simultaneously by a nearly unlimited number of users. If I have a copy of Divine Comedy and give it to you, I no longer have the copy. Only one person can physically possess it in a given instance. Aside from the previously mentioned necessities of getting connected (computer, telephone, network access), physical ownership of tangible material is not necessary to enjoy content on the Internet. Data remains static and is impartial to whom, how or how many times it is accessed.

Politically, this poses a problem to those who want to control exposure to certain information. Burning books is only effective when there is something that can be burned. Some governments have attempted to curb the proliferation of censored material by imposing "firewalls" to prevent access. A firewall is the digital equivalent of a fence. As Michael Hart is quoted in the article as saying, however, "there are 214 countries on the Internet right now you’ll have a rough time finding one that didn’t have our stuff." In short, he recognizes the reality that the Internet knows no geographic boundaries and, aside from inhibiting technological factors that are rapidly becoming rectified, can deliver information to anyone with access. The scrutiny normally placed on importation of physical wares (books, magazines, and videos) through cultural purity tests is rendered useless as digital incarnations of censored material zip across borders unseen and unheard.

For those in less "literary-restrictive" environments, Project Gutenberg presents more of a social dilemma: Will electronic texts eventually replace the traditional book? Given the seemingly great advantages over physical hard copy, it seems inevitable that they might. The saving grace will most likely be in the way digital literature is consumed. The delivery mechanism of digital copy is not the most comfortable or convenient. Staring at a monitor for the length of time required to read Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield would prove irritating and perhaps unhealthy. Computer monitors, laptops, PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants) and any other electronic display that might deliver one of the many great works of Project Gutenberg lack a "consumer friendly" interface conducive to digesting large amounts of written text. This could be countered by a determined individual who might venture to print an entire piece from the site, rendering it in hard "paper" form that’s easier to digest (and, at the current time, transport). Advancements in "text to speech" technology might prove useful as well, allowing one to hear the information that would normally be read. Even with these awkward alternatives, the problem of inundation of information still proves to be a contender in preventing total "assimilation" to digital invariance.

Economic considerations in digitizing literature effect parties that both create and consume. For authors who are responsible for manifesting works that might be digitized, collecting revenues becomes difficult. Mr. Baker’s article (and the Project Gutenberg site itself) ignores this detrimental possibility. With their livelihood depending on sale of their work, sites like Project Gutenberg pose a problem since they freely distribute what would otherwise be a profit for the creator. For the economically disadvantaged, Project Gutenberg might allow access to books that would otherwise be impossible to afford. Surprisingly, technology and the tools to deliver the Internet are often more abundant than printed, approved copies of books in some regions of the world. Most public and school libraries in America have access to at least one computer (and most likely connectivity to the Internet as well) but would rarely have a copy of every classic work (Gutenberg’s goal). An answer that may suit both parties is government subsidization of Project Gutenberg. Since libraries readily "rent" out books to the public, a similar convention could be imposed to the vast library online.

Project Gutenberg serves best as an archiving and research tool. The aforementioned "interface" issues hinder serving as a primary source of reading literature. The intellectual act of pouring through hand-held tomes of information will not be readily replaced by sole reliance on the Internet. Instead, an online resource such as Project Gutenberg may serve better as an accompanying enhancement to "the real thing" much as Cliff’s Notes are intended to serve as a scholarly companion to many books and not a total replacement. Search capability is possibly one of the greatest advantages to digitized literature, allowing a researcher to quickly locate passages of text by using keywords to search the file format of a book or series of books. A similar task performed on a stack of books would be quite cumbersome if not nearly impossible.

Project Gutenberg is a cutting edge example of Internet developments presenting new issues to society today. As the Internet itself is global, so is the impact of new channels it presents. The computerized global network is definitely in its infancy, churning and revealing effects that have never been dealt with. Although it tends to combine media (and thus combine the ramifications of media), an interface dilemma still exists that prevents an outlet like Project Gutenberg from being an immediate replacement for the very human act of leafing through the yellowed pages of an old book. Rather than totally upheave and supplant the familiar hard copy, it more likely acts as an enhancement of the currently existing medium. The method of delivery is both the most stifling factor of Project Gutenberg as well as its greatest strength. The onslaught of valuable information requires a careful dissection of what is actually needed by the user. This very onslaught in turn presents a quandary for control devices ordinarily used to maintain cultural standards of access for institutions that desire to do so. Although it liberates literature for those who might not normally have access, it also liberates potential profits for those that rely on writing to pay the bills. As the Internet continues to develop and more books and information are archived and made available online, perhaps one recourse will be in the increasing value and nostalgia of "real" books.