In his 2001 treatise, Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper, Nicholson Baker lamented the wholesale transfer of newspaper archives to microfilm and the subsequent destruction of the originals (A recent essay here at The Millions argued that this is still a big problem). But, according to an article in The Missourian newspaper, microfilm may at least be far more permanent than easily corrupted digital archives. As executive editor Tom Warhover notes: “How about those perfectly preserved newspaper pages that have been digitally fossilized? They’re usually stored on hard drives, which can wear out quicker than your grandmother’s underwear.”
The Economist digs into the stupid "debate" over Philip Roth's International Booker win.
The Economist gives a succinct explanation of "why books come out in hardback before paperback," but their answer feels almost too simple. For a fuller understanding of the paperback / hardback question, pair The Economist's article with Nichole Bernier's Millions piece on "The Point of the Paperback."