# How would you feel if/when ebooks completely overtake traditional books?



## Hunter56 (Aug 10, 2013)

Do you think ebooks will one day _completely_ overtake traditional  hardback and paperback books? And if they somehow did, how would you feel  about it?

I wouldn't like it, but with the rise of ePublishing and tablets it's a possibility albeit a very gradual one. A big reason I got into reading was because it got me away from staring at a computer/TV/smartphone screen for awhile, I wouldn't really want to stare at one while I'm reading also...


----------



## Tiamat (Aug 10, 2013)

I don't think they will, but I could be wrong. Ironically, the book I'm working on is set in the future where books (and even pen and paper) is obsolete.  

But if, hypothetically, it really did happen, I'd be upset about it.  I love the feel and smell of books, especially old ones. I've passed many an afternoon in a library reading while sitting on the floor between a row of shelves.

I like the convenience of ebooks.  I like it's cheaper, I like that I can pack a whole library with me when I'm going on a trip, and I like the accessibility of them.  But I also like going to a book store and impulse-buying.  And I own all of my favorites in hardcover, and I have no intention of changing that routine.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 10, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Do you think ebooks will one day _completely_ overtake traditional  hardback and paperback books? And if they somehow did, how would you feel  about it?



Suicidal.


----------



## John_O (Aug 10, 2013)

This day and age, never say never. But for me it would be a sad day indeed! Heck, sometimes when there is a lot to read on a website, I'll print it out! I get tried of staring at a computer screen.


----------



## philistine (Aug 10, 2013)

I wouldn't care, as I don't read e-books anyway. Never have, never will. They are inferior in almost every single way.

Luddite, checking in.


----------



## Myers (Aug 10, 2013)

When it happens, I’m not going to curl up in a fetal position and cry. I'll read regardless of whatever format is available. I can already see that my kids don't have the same kind of attachment to books that I do, so it could happen sooner than later. Could be too that there will always be a small market for books, much like there is now for vinyl records. I don't see that I'll ever get rid of my books, so if I'm feeling nostalgic, I’ll just pull one off the shelf. Otherwise, life will go on.


----------



## Sam (Aug 10, 2013)

Ebooks have outsold paperbacks for the last two years. They've already overtaken them. 

That doesn't mean books will become obsolete. There'll always be books.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 10, 2013)

Call me old fashioned, but even if Ebooks have taken over, I will always buy paperback books instead.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 10, 2013)

Maybe I'm just odd, but I like the feel of a hardback or paperback in my hands much better than a tablet or e-reader. I think hard copies will be around for a while yet, but I'm sure they'll be slowly phased out. Hopefully not in my lifetime, as I would be disappointed.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 10, 2013)

Tiamat said:


> I don't think they will, but I could be wrong. Ironically, the book I'm working on is set in the future where books (and even pen and paper) is obsolete.
> 
> But if, hypothetically, it really did happen, I'd be upset about it.  I love the feel and smell of books, especially old ones. I've passed many an afternoon in a library reading while sitting on the floor between a row of shelves.
> 
> I like the convenience of ebooks.  I like it's cheaper, I like that I can pack a whole library with me when I'm going on a trip, and I like the accessibility of them.  But I also like going to a book store and impulse-buying.  And I own all of my favorites in hardcover, and I have no intention of changing that routine.



My opinions are identical.
The only lingering doubt I have is some sci-fi alternatives I have seen on TV and read about in books that actually seemed like a method I could live with.
For Star-Trek , with their pre-predicted Ipads and Touch-screen E-books ; I wasn't too keen on the idea...
AfterEarth (film) had another version of the same thing which looked cool, but would not compare to a book....

However...

In a story where the need for trees and the devastation of their lack of, meant books were illegal to make - the holographic design to replace them seemed worthy. It held and felt like a book, but in reality, it was like opening straight to the middle. When you turned the page, (slide finger from right page to left page) a holographic page would seem to turn over in a 3D effect just like turning the page of a real book. 

Due to circumstance and the idealistic replacement that provided a technological version of what we have, I found the idea an acceptible replacement. Especially considering that:

A) Turning over the first pages of a new book results in its stubborn, unbroken ways (like that of a horse) to fight and kick back - throwing the book shut in your face.
B) The technological replacement was as closely replicated to feel like paper (even on the screens) as their technological advancements could possibly allow.
and:
C) The need for tree's far outweighs my personal preference of holding a real book. (Tree hugger?)


----------



## Hunter56 (Aug 10, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> Call me old fashioned, but even if Ebooks have taken over, I will always buy paperback books instead.



Yeah but I'm talking about when they _completely _overtake traditional books -- as in they won't even bother making new ones anymore and they'll be in ebook format only.

I do understand the convenience of eBooks, I agree though that I'd really miss the feeling of having a new book.

It's the same exact thing I have with purchasing music. It's very convenient to buy music off itunes, but I will always prefer going to the music store and buying the cd.


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 10, 2013)

I've given up on print books almost entirely. I go to the bookstore (my son sill insists on print copies) and if I see a book I like, I'll whip out my iPad and buy it online. I like the instant gratification. I like being able to read in any position and not have to have at least one hand free to hold the book. I like not having to buy two or more copies of the same book because I get the urge to read it when I'm not in the same state as my books. I like that I don't kill people when they help me move. While I love print books, I move a lot (seven times one year), and print books are heavy and they take up space. If I could figure out a way to put my movie collection on my iPad, I'd have it made.

The next generation, I think, will be an electronic one. It's so much cheaper to distribute this way, that it's soon going to be difficult to find books, music, or movies NOT in electronic form.


----------



## philistine (Aug 10, 2013)

Shadoe said:


> The next generation, I think, will be an electronic one. It's so much cheaper to distribute this way, that it's soon going to be difficult to find books, music, or movies NOT in electronic form.



I don't think this'll happen, mainly due to the sheer volume of books out there in retail stores, garage sales, charity/thrift stores, fayres, car-boot sales, used book warehouses, private and public used book dealers, et al. There are simply too many out there for them to suddenly be confined to obsoletion. Far too many people still buy new books, and likely ten times that number, if not a hundred times, still buy books used- chiefly due to the rock-bottom prices one can find virtually any title for.

I have dozens of books that don't show up even on the largest used book websites, Wikipedia, Amazon, and all those other places. If they don't have several physical editions floating around, it'd be foolish to think an electronic version would soon come about. 

When the shift occurs, and it almost certainly will, it'll be a hell of a long time away.


----------



## Ghosts of the Maze (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't think that I would care much. I use my kindle exclusively, and I'll say that I already miss book stores, but I don't have any sentimental attachment to the actual product. I like being able to download a book instantly, for less money, and know that I'm not killing a tree when I don't have to. It uses less space, and I'm not adding to the books that have cluttered my living room. I think a lot of that is ego anyway. People want to show the books they are supposed to have read and enjoyed. I don't know why this has to be the death of the novel either. I've bought more books with my kindle than I did whenever I had to go to the bookstore. And I won't miss Borders. And it seems weird that the music industry is worried about people sharing mp3s while books have for years been fine with people sharing the same book, which will only be read once and then tossed aside. Let's not forget that nothing depreciates in value the way a novel will. You spend $20 on one in the store, and 2 years later at a garage sale you'll see somebody selling a box of them for $2. With e-books people are at least buying them. They could steal the e-book version, but I don't bother with that. Maybe I'm naive. I feel bad about stealing from book publishers and writers in a way that I don't with music and movies. 

But I'm not dismissing anybody's preference. Whenever I'm doing a review and rewrite of my own work, I prefer to have it on paper. Though I think that is so I can write all over it in pen before I decide to make actual changes.


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

Ghosts of the Maze said:


> I like being able to download a book instantly, for less money, and know that *I'm not killing a tree when I don't have to*.



I daresay if your taste was selective, then any trees directly responsible for the creation of the books chosen would be glad for their martyrdom.


----------



## Odd Greg (Aug 11, 2013)

I think it would be generally a bad idea not to have physical books in one form or another, at least in the perspective of posterity. Who knows how long our technological society will persevere. One day, the technology to read ebooks may not exist. I don't know, and I'm not good at reading the future.

However, I would probably not be terribly affected by it. Even though I far prefer a physical page-turning book, I find that ebook readers are just fine. When will they overtake physical books? I don't think they ever will, not completely. There is more going on in the world outside of technologically dependent nations, and there will likely always be people who prefer and produce physical books in one form or another. Maybe not on paper from trees, or maybe the paper will contain the book itself, recharged by the sun. That would be cool.

Did I mention that I can't read the future?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Aug 11, 2013)

Not 6 miles from me, in more than one library, are books 1,000 years old which require no software to read them- My Kindle aint going to last that long...


----------



## Dictarium (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't think e-books are nearly as popular as people who use e-books think they are. The ability to pick something up and have it immediately be the book I want rather than having to go through a series of menus to get there is a leg-up on e-books that physical books have that really will never go away until we get mind-reading technology.

How would I feel if it DID happen though? Pretty sad. Regular books, in my opinion, are just so much more fun to read with the physical turning of pages, the feel of the book in your hand, the print of the words on the page, and the smell of a new one freshly made. Yeah. It'd suck.


----------



## Myers (Aug 11, 2013)

philistine said:


> I don't think this'll happen, mainly due to the sheer volume of books out there in retail stores, garage sales, charity/thrift stores, fayres, car-boot sales, used book warehouses, private and public used book dealers, et al. There are simply too many out there for them to suddenly be confined to obsoletion. Far too many people still buy new books, and likely ten times that number, if not a hundred times, still buy books used- chiefly due to the rock-bottom prices one can find virtually any title for.
> 
> I have dozens of books that don't show up even on the largest used book websites, Wikipedia, Amazon, and all those other places. If they don't have several physical editions floating around, it'd be foolish to think an electronic version would soon come about.
> 
> When the shift occurs, and it almost certainly will, it'll be a hell of a long time away.



There isn’t going to be a book rapture where all the books suddenly disappear at once. But it's a good bet that at some point the majority of new and older titles will only be published electronically.

If you want to read something new, you might not have a choice. And while there will be a lot of older books around, I don’t think it will take long for the number of available books to decrease to the point that when you want a specific title, you might have a really hard time finding it. I think we’re potentially years away from that as opposed to decades.

As someone said, there will always be books. The problem is going to be getting the particular book that you want. I think at some point even the staunchest adherents to the printed book will be forced to throw in the towel, perhaps sooner than later.


----------



## JEvershen (Aug 11, 2013)

I just HAVE to add my opinion to this discussion. Don't get me wrong, I do think there will come a time when books will not be printed, where they will only be in electronic format, however I'm hoping this won't last.
I remeber talk of computers and how it would mean no one would write using pens and paper any more, this isn't true, well not for me anyway, everything I write is first done on paper and will always be done that way. During certain periods of history certain books have been burned and forbidden etc and yet people found a way, you know, someone in their basement with an old printing press. If nessecary that will be me!!
Don't get me wrong, I have a kindle and an older version of an ebook that sits on my bookshelf with everything else but I don't feel the affection for them that I do for my old, beaten books that have been read hundreds of times.  On my kindle you will find copies of some books that I actually possess in paper or hardback, an example of this would be Stephen King's hardback copy of Under the Dome, the reason I find I have this in both formats is because I waited patiently for it to come out and quickly bought a copy. However this is a heavy and large book so I bought the kindle copy so I could read it wherever. I'm orignally from Scotland and often travel the 500 odd miles back to visit with family on the train. With my kindle I can take hundreds of books, not just a couple.
However, seeing as I'm merely rambling now, I want to point out a situation that concerns the next generation and why we may just be lucky enougth to continue to receive books in their original paper version. A few years ago when one of my younger sisters was still just a teenager I received a rather desperate phone call begging that she be allowed to spend the night, as I lived in a one bed flat I refused, only to have her in tears as a book she really wanted was released that night at midnight and my mother and step-father just refused to take her out at midnight, this left my sister wailing in the way that young teenagers do. Here was what I did, to her delight at eleven pm I showed up on her doorstep, which I should add is two miles from my home and I don't drive, I told her to get dressed and we walked into town to purchase this must have book. Arriving at about 11.45pm we were suprised to see dozens and dozens of people littering our dark main street, all qued up and waiting for the release of this sought after book. Speaking with people in the line I asked why no one bought it on ebook and was pleasantly suprised to find that almost all of them were horrified by the thought.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The point I am trying to make is that while there is always a small group of people lining the streets in the middle of the night waiting for a books release authors will continue to release them this way. It is a business and like most business as long as there is demand they won't refuse the money.
Yes I can see the time when books are harder and harder to come by in their paper form but perhaps that's when you're favourite little book store will become your most favourite place in the world (mine already is and I have to travel an hour on the train there and then a twenty minute walk just to reach it, but it is worth it to find treasures tucked into pages, and I've found books there that I've never heard of but instantly fall in love with! He is also a second hand book seller.)
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Being here on this site must give away the fact that I long to be a writer and whilst I admit that it would be easier to publish on amazon for the kindle and I don't disrespect this in any way, my longed for dream is to hold a book in my hands that is mine. You can't beat a book, the smell, the feel. Also a dream of mine (once I can find enougth money) is to own a book shop. Perhaps I'd have to sell other things aswell to make a profit to live on(like coffee or something similar) but I dream it would be primarily a bookshop.
As I've rambled quite a lot here it is in summary. I can imagine a future where this will happen but I'm hoping that people like my younger sister will continue to persuade the market to release books in written format. or like I said, I'll have a printing press in my house and I'll be printing mine myself.


----------



## escorial (Aug 11, 2013)

A world without books..horrible thought...well I did bin me Lp's and buy cd's but 20 yers later I'm enjoying trying to find those lost albums and you no what...the sound is better...books will always be in my life.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

philistine said:


> I wouldn't care...



How can you not care? You wouldn't have any new books to read if what the OP is suggesting happened.

E-books make me want to vomit and I hope someone releases a virus that frazzles all their processors for good.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2013)

How wouldn't you? 

I can get a new book on my Kindle in five seconds -- for half the price of its paperback counterpart.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> I can get a new book on my Kindle in five seconds -- for half the price of its paperback counterpart.



Who cares about a couple of extra quid? You're talking about the difference between a crappy, badly formatted piece of typo-riddled software, and a beautiful, solid piece of literature.  It's more than worth it.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 11, 2013)

I can just hear the conversation on the street outside of Johannes Gutenberg's printing house in 1468 Mainz.  _Mass produced books???_ _What a terrible thing! People reading stories?  It'll never replace a story actually spoken at the tavern._

The biggest single issue I have with contemporary technology (almost anything computer-related) is that it makes me think of what it must have been like a couple of hundred years ago, to be on the wrong side of the industrial revolution.

Statistics I've seen suggest that e-books are overwhelming mass market paperbacks, which used to be purchased as a read-and-toss for inexpensive entertainment and are less expensive and more convenient with e-books.  Hardcover and the close cousin trade paper still seem to be holding their own for better books _for the moment_ but this may well be a generational thing, as is, I suspect, the entire concept of how we are entertained. Think film, video, gaming, ever so briefer snippets often self-produced, a running flow of personalized information so intense that it's anyone's guess where variety, democratization, and shattered attention span will take us.  

The recent sale of The Washington Post to the Jeff Bezos of Amazon is a case in point -- there's a lot of speculation about the future of a print legend, but print ain't among 'em.  Will the Big Six succumb to e-media?  Not likely.  They'll be leading the charge once they figure out the battle plan.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Who cares about a couple of extra quid? You're talking about the difference between a crappy, badly formatted piece of typo-riddled software, and a beautiful, solid piece of literature.  It's more than worth it.



I have not read a 'crappy, badly formatted piece of typo-riddled software' on Kindle _ever. _​And I've read _quite _a lot of them.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> How wouldn't you?
> 
> I can get a new book on my Kindle in five seconds -- for half the price of its paperback counterpart.



I am constantly surprised by how many books are actually_ *more*_ expensive on Kindle than in paperback, and on occasion, hardback!


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> How wouldn't you?
> 
> I can get a new book on my Kindle in five seconds -- for half the price of its paperback counterpart.



Something I don't get is when there ISN"T a price difference. I like the idea of getting an e-book for 3.99, but when the paperback is 8.99 and the nook/kindle version is also 8.99 that doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't own an e-reader and have no intention of buying one. I don't like reading off a screen of any sort, and do so only for research, never for pleasure (unless it's a very short read - say under 15 minutes). I'm not going to jump on the 'dead tree' bandwagon, since so much paper is recycled anyway and guess what? Trees are renewable resources - they can actually be planted and grown! But I don't think ebooks are going to overtake/destroy/otherwise do away with paper books - after all, we've been waiting for that 'paperless society' for how many years now? :scratch:


----------



## gmehl (Aug 11, 2013)

I suspect prices are what the market will bear against total cost of production, including advances to authors that need to be recouped and marketing, but I also think a lot of it is still in the best-guess stage.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2013)

Ebooks _have _overtaken printed books. For the last two years, in fact, and that trend is set to continue.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> Ebooks _have _overtaken printed books. For the last two years, in fact, and that trend is set to continue.



I very much doubt it. They may have overtaken printed books because of their initial popularity and the fact that they became the 'fashionable' thing to own, but the trend for them is dying off now. People are growing bored of the novelty and are returning to the printed format.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't know specific numbers/percentages but would be inclined to agree with Sam -- the numbers are enormous.  I think book sales generally have slowed a bit because of the economy, but there are an awful lot of pads, Kindles and Nooks out there stuffed with books.  Again, I think the biggest impact is on mass-market paperbacks in genre fiction.  

I also think the appeal for the publishing industry, long term, is that there's much less upfront risk.  You can pop a book into market in less than a day for virtually nothing other than pre-press editing, while print production is expensive and time-consuming -- not to mention the risk of remainders, the waning numbers of brick-and-mortar book stores, the aging and expensive libraries.   Hence, I think the industry itself is probably going for it.

I'm thinning out a library of print books, mostly reference, because the information is obsolete, or it's more easily accessible electronically, or those rows of quaint old books have quite literally become wall decoration.  There may be some charm to rare, old, musty books, but it's the content that counts to me.  A good story is a good story; it doesn't have to be on parchment bound in leather to gain validity beyond the intrigue of an artifact or relic.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I very much doubt it. They may have overtaken printed books because of their initial popularity and the fact that they became the 'fashionable' thing to own, but the trend for them is dying off now. People are growing bored of the novelty and are returning to the printed format.



Really? So that's why the Kindle Fire HD is Amazon's best-selling piece of hardware?


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> Really? So that's why the Kindle Fire HD is Amazon's best-selling piece of hardware?



Says who?


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Says who?



Kindle Fire HD is Amazon's best-selling product - GeekWire


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Aug 11, 2013)

You know what I like? Bookstores. Used books, especially, because they're cheap, but also because there's such a great variety. I like going in and browsing, picking up books and flipping through, just wandering the aisles looking at stuff. It's relaxing, it's interesting, it's out of the house/office and not staring at a computer. Although I don't go to readings or book groups or whatever, I think it's nice that they serve those purposes, too. They're a communal place devoted to books and reading, and I like that.

So my main gripe about ebooks, other than I don't like reading on a screen, is they're not good for bookstores.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 11, 2013)

gmehl said:


> I don't know specific numbers/percentages but would be inclined to agree with Sam -- the numbers are enormous.  I think book sales generally have slowed a bit because of the economy, but there are an awful lot of pads, Kindles and Nooks out there stuffed with books.  Again, I think the biggest impact is on mass-market paperbacks in genre fiction.
> 
> I also think the appeal for the publishing industry, long term, is that there's much less upfront risk.  You can pop a book into market in less than a day for virtually nothing other than pre-press editing, while print production is expensive and time-consuming -- not to mention the risk of remainders, the waning numbers of brick-and-mortar book stores, the aging and expensive libraries.   Hence, I think the industry itself is probably going for it.
> 
> I'm thinning out a library of print books, mostly reference, because the information is obsolete, or it's more easily accessible electronically, or those rows of quaint old books have quite literally become wall decoration.  There may be some charm to rare, old, musty books, but it's the content that counts to me.  A good story is a good story; it doesn't have to be on parchment bound in leather to gain validity beyond the intrigue of an artifact or relic.



And that is why big publishers are hanging themselves, and why I think paperback books will survive. 
By simply sticking it on a Kindle makes it a lot easier to and cheaper for self publishing... meaning that if Ebooks and Kindles take over, the publishing companies would have built the plank on their own ships.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> Kindle Fire HD is Amazon's best-selling product - GeekWire



What does that prove? The two aren't even comparable in my book. Saying e-readers outsell books is like saying the motor car outsells books.

E-books are just not real books, and there's no two ways about it. They're a fad... a fad for materialistic people who have no real love for the written word.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2013)

What am I, prescient? I can't tell the future. What I do know is that the Kindle is Amazon's best-selling product and e-books have outsold print books for two years running. I said that they've already over-taken print books. That's patently obviously from the statistics. 

It's the end of books as you knew them: E-books out-sell hardbound | ZDNet

Whether the trend continues is anyone's guess.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 11, 2013)

lasm said:


> You know what I like? Bookstores. Used books, especially, because they're cheap, but also because there's such a great variety. I like going in and browsing, picking up books and flipping through, just wandering the aisles looking at stuff. It's relaxing, it's interesting, it's out of the house/office and not staring at a computer. Although I don't go to readings or book groups or whatever, I think it's nice that they serve those purposes, too. They're a communal place devoted to books and reading, and I like that.
> 
> So my main gripe about ebooks, other than I don't like reading on a screen, is they're not good for bookstores.


 They're shutting down the big chain brick and mortars out here. And the ones that are left have a lesser selection on shelves. This is a big city and the used book stores are struggling hard. They're still around...for now.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

Kevin said:


> They're shutting down the big chain brick and mortars out here. And the ones that are left have a lesser selection on shelves. This is a big city and the used book stores are struggling hard. They're still around...for now.



It disgusts me!

_Fahrenheit 451_


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 11, 2013)

gmehl said:


> I also think the appeal for the publishing industry, long term, is that there's much less upfront risk.  You can pop a book into market in less than a day for virtually nothing other than pre-press editing, while print production is expensive and time-consuming -- not to mention the risk of remainders, the waning numbers of brick-and-mortar book stores, the aging and expensive libraries.   Hence, I think the industry itself is probably going for it.



What makes you think there's less risk? They still have to put the same time and money into a book regardless of format. The only difference to the publishing company is in the printing/distribution, and that (from many many sources) is approximately 10% of the total cost. It's not like they don't pay out advances, don't edit, don't format, don't do covers, don't market - the format really doesn't change costs (or risk) that much. There's still a lot of money out of pocket for publishing companies before they get one red cent in return.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2013)

Publishers don't put _near _the same amount of money into an e-book. The formatting is child's play, the cover is electronic, the marketing is electronic (you can't book-sign a Kindle) and the time spent is minimal. The only thing that costs money is the edit. No pages, no typesetting, no font choice, no extra page between chapters; just an electronic book that is remarkably easy to create. 

It's less risk because they can ready an e-book in three months minimum. No worrying about print runs or whether it will sell. It's virtually zero risk.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> It's less risk because they can ready an e-book in three months minimum. No worrying about print runs or whether it will sell. It's virtually zero risk.



Which is precisely why, if e-books ever did kill off the real thing, finding something decent to read would be nigh on impossible. The e-book market is already flooded with self-published crap.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2013)

You know, Amazon has this thing called 'ratings'. You might want to check it from time to time.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> You know, Amazon has this thing called 'ratings'. You might want to check it from time to time.



You mean the ratings to which the friends and family of the people who self-publish these atrocities automatically award five stars?


----------



## PiP (Aug 11, 2013)

OurJud said:


> You mean the ratings to which the friends and family of the people who self-publish these atrocities automatically award five stars?



It's embarrassing when a fellow writer asks you to give a good review and rate their book.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> Publishers don't put _near _the same amount of money into an e-book. <snip>  No worrying about print runs or whether it will sell. It's virtually zero risk.



I've never seen stats, but the "remainder" facet of the business must be substantial because there's a whole sub-industry that picks up books that don't sell in stores for a song and sells at deep discounts.  Between production and shipping, it's got to be a burden and certainly an up-front gamble for the publishers.  There are no remainder issues with e-books, hence no risk, and that alone has to be attractive.

A secondary strength of the e-book market are writers who regain rights after the print splurge is done, then market the backlist themselves.  I've read how a number of them find new life in work that's no longer on the shelves of fading brick-and-mortar shops, taking 70 percent of the list with virtually zero investment.

And I also suspect one of the enticements of e-books is democratization of the trade; the big houses settled into promoting mega-stars and allowing midlist to dissipate; now writers are taking measures into their own hands and good, bad or indifferent, new voices are being heard.  It's such a new industry that it's certainly rough around the edges, but my own sense is that it is likely to grow.

Twenty percent of the population buys more than 80 percent of the units sold.  I read somewhere that 300,000 titles hit the market last year.  It's going to be interesting to see how this shakes out, but I frankly don't see a revival of The Little Shop Around the Corner.  I do see tablets coming down in price, standardizing, and becoming as commonplace as phones.  Don't think so?  Back in 1992, I saw a demo and sensed change -- but virtually everyone else said the Internet was a passing fad.  People said the same thing about television, radio, telephones and horseless carriages.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 11, 2013)

Well it will be a sad day indeed, because it will be the day I stop reading anything new.


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Well it will be a sad day indeed, because it will be the day I stop reading anything new.



This. Call me histrionic, though the prospect of having no new hardback/paperback releases makes me physically wobble. I don't know why the idea of using an e-reader is so invariably abhorrent, but for me, it is. It always has been, and will likely never change.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 11, 2013)

If it gives any comfort to the Luddites in the group, I should note that I do not own a Kindle, a tablet, or cellular phone with a screen you can tap on (and the one I have I probably use less than five minutes a month).  I'm not excited about change, but do suspect that if I reject it out of hand, I will become increasingly isolated and so must eventually adapt.  But if technology is so utterly distressing, there is, of course, the option of turning off, disconnecting and discarding your computer, purchasing a restored typewriter, and sticking with ink on paper, taking solace in your study or library that you are living defenses of tradition.


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

gmehl said:


> If it gives any comfort to the Luddites in the group, I should note that I do not own a Kindle, a tablet, or cellular phone with a screen you can tap on (and the one I have I probably use less than five minutes a month).  I'm not excited about change, but do suspect that if I reject it out of hand, I will become increasingly isolated and so must eventually adapt.  But if technology is so utterly distressing, there is, of course, the option of turning off, disconnecting and discarding your computer, purchasing a restored typewriter, and sticking with ink on paper, taking solace in your study or library that you are living defenses of tradition.



Ultimately, it just depends on what you grew up with, and subsequently are comfortable with. I've been using computers since I was six years old or so (75% or so of my life thus far) and the thought of abandoning them in favour of a typewriter or forever consigning myself to longhand is unthinkable. I both write and use a typewriter, primarily for the fun of it, though I doubt I'd have the patience to make the switch indefinitely- doubly so for the former of the two. 

For me, and I suspect many others, dropping paper/hardbacks for an electronic tablet is just too out there and alien. We're creatures of habit, after all. I may be postulating a little further than is wise, though those who easily managed to dump their book collection and switch to the Kindle, or whatever, likely didn't get so much enjoyment out of them in the first place.


----------



## Myers (Aug 11, 2013)

Oh yeah. There's often an implication that if you use an e-reader, you somehow don't love literature and appreciate reading as much as people who are determined to stick to printed books. That's somewhat presumptions and a little annoying. 

I still prefer printed books, but I also use an e-reader. While I appreciate the tactile experience of reading from books and have some sentimental attachment to them, I love the words first and foremost, and they are the same regardless of format.


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

Myers said:


> Oh yeah. There's often an implication that if you use an e-reader, you somehow don't love literature and appreciate reading as much as people who are determined to stick to printed books. That's somewhat presumptions and a little annoying.
> 
> I still prefer printed books, but I also use an e-reader. While I appreciate the tactile experience of reading from books and have some sentimental attachment to them, I love the words first and foremost, and they are the same regardless of format.



I should have elaborated, as I wasn't quite alluding to what you said. I was referring more to the bibliophiles who really get revved up when they see a dusty old tome with gilt arabesques over it in the corner of a bookstore; those who run their hands over a page before pillaging the spine with their nostrils to get some of that old book whiff, and those who often just admire an old book as it's just as much a feat of aesthetic design as it is a holder for a great work of literature. Those guys couldn't make the switch so easily, or at all, as it's essentially giving up their love for books- actual books- and instead looking at a series of blank simulacra. As Sam said, an e-book usually has no illustrations, is just text, has no cover, no history, no provenance, no nice binding, no old book smell, it brings no joy from its ownership, nor does it outlast the media which allows it to be utilised.


----------



## Myers (Aug 11, 2013)

I can absolutely appreciate all that, but I’ve always loved books more for the content. I grew up surrounded by books, literally. There was a book on nearly every available service, with more on shelves and in boxes. Many were library books or otherwise borrowed. Of course we had our favorites and a somewhat permanent library, but many were to be enjoyed then exchanged, shared, and lent out. Sometimes they came back, sometimes not. That’s more or less how I see books now.

So while I love books and I have some that I cherish, it’s not so much about the physical thing, it’s more about the associations I have with reading them, and how_ t_he stories made me feel. So, no, in that respect, the partial transition to e-books has not been particularly wrenching, and I see your point. But what I can’t imagine is denying myself the chance to read something that might be wonderful because it’s not available as a printed book. That seems a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face. But you know; to each his own.


----------



## Travers (Aug 11, 2013)

I personally couldn't care less where the words I'm reading are. Screen or paper, it matters not. 
For convenience, I nearly always ready on my iPad. It saves my place, I can add notes at will without defacing anything and if I want to read something I don't currently own, I can get it in less than 5 minutes. 
I don't think they'll stop making books completely, much like they haven't stopped releasing records despite digital music's dominance. There'll be a market for them for some time.


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

Myers said:


> But what I can’t imagine is denying myself the chance to read something that might be wonderful because it’s not available as a printed book. That seems a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face. But you know; to each his own.



You could see it that way, though in my case, it's entirely inapplicable. For every good piece of literature that exists today only in electronic format, there are certainly a hundred titles of old that are just as good, if not superior. At the risk of stating the obvious, there is too much out there for one person to read in their lifetime, even if you were to quite literally live in books. That in mind, and considering the above approach (which I personally adopt), I'm not losing out at all.


----------



## Myers (Aug 11, 2013)

philistine said:


> For every good piece of literature that exists today only in electronic format, there are certainly a hundred titles of old that are just as good, if not superior.



I think there are very few pieces of good literature today that are only available in e-book format. I'm talking about some point in the future when new titles are primarily available only as e-books. Even if the percentage of quality books is relatively small compared to older titles, I can't imagine rejecting something good based solely on format; but as long as you're convinced you won't be missing anything, then good for you.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 11, 2013)

Sam said:


> Publishers don't put _near _the same amount of money into an e-book. The formatting is child's play, the cover is electronic, the marketing is electronic (you can't book-sign a Kindle) and the time spent is minimal. The only thing that costs money is the edit. No pages, no typesetting, no font choice, no extra page between chapters; just an electronic book that is remarkably easy to create.
> 
> It's less risk because they can ready an e-book in three months minimum. No worrying about print runs or whether it will sell. It's virtually zero risk.



I'll have to respectfully disagree. The advance to the author is the same; the editing cost _and time_ is the same; marketing is not book-signing - it's getting the people who sell the books to carry it. There is _no difference in cost_ until that point where the book is either printed or formatted for epublishing - and again, the cost for going print is about 10% of total cost. Any publisher who would shortcut the process just because it's going to be an ebook is not a publisher I would want handling my book.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 11, 2013)

Remember when DVD first came around, and VHS lovers hated it?


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 11, 2013)

For me, this has less to do with a change of media than a wholesale change of lifestyle. Personally, I don't enjoy the thought of every book I own having to be unlocked by a device which must be hooked up to wifi, logged into an account on a site housing my personal information, paid for with a credit card tied to my identity and finances, and powered by industry. Books must be printed, but then they exist. 

I have yet to bathtub-test my kindle, but I have a few "soaker" books stuffed in between others on my shelf. They still work fine.


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

Myers said:


> I think there are very few pieces of good literature today that are only available in e-book format. I'm talking about some point in the future when new titles are primarily available only as e-books. Even if the percentage of quality books is relatively small compared to older titles, I can't imagine rejecting something good based solely on format; but as long as you're convinced you won't be missing anything, then good for you.



There are numerous other individuals on this website and I'm sure others who dismiss huge swathes of literature by equally, if not more absurd criteria. I recall one chap on here (I forget the name) who refused to read anything that was essentially older than the latest _fin de siècle. _The difference being, rejecting what is empirically and historically brilliant on such grounds is infinitely more obdurate than being unwilling to sift through the serried turds of the self-published masses. 

To humour that situation though, my missing out on an e-book which might tickle my fancy- it still wouldn't matter much. I could find hundreds of other books which would hit the same spot, all the while pacifying my need for the criterion mentioned previously. There's no downside. 

However, I do see where you're coming from.



Pluralized said:


> For me, this has less to do with a change of media than a wholesale change of lifestyle. Personally, I don't enjoy the thought of every book I own having to be unlocked by a device which must be hooked up to wifi, logged into an account on a site housing my personal information, paid for with a credit card tied to my identity and finances, and powered by industry. Books must be printed, but then they exist.
> 
> I have yet to bathtub-test my kindle, but I have a few "soaker" books stuffed in between others on my shelf. They still work fine.



This. Imagine dropping your 'library' and then having nothing. No thanks.



KyleColorado said:


> Remember when DVD first came around, and VHS lovers hated it?



Tongue-in-cheek as I'm sure your post is, it's something of a strawman. Home entertainment is held in a surfdom to ever-developing technological advancement. Betamax was outdone by VHS, VHS by DVD, DVD, although still prevalent, is fast fading to Blu-ray. No doubt it will continue ad infinitum.

Books, in essence, have changed little in fifteen hundred years or so. For the two thousand years preceding that, the differences were again, minimal. Text on a flat surface, not much else. Nothing can trump the enduring lifespan of a good, quality book, as evidenced by the many perfect examples held in collections around the world. I doubt we'll be seeing Kindles functioning with just the same resilience in a hundred-and-fifty years from now, technological improvements all considered.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 11, 2013)

They have waterproof cases for Kindle and iPad now. If you wanted to, you could submerge your tablet and read _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea _​underwater.


----------



## Stormyknight1976 (Aug 11, 2013)

Hello everyone, I'm new here and I agree that I would like to read from a book then to read a book on a electronic device. The art cover draws me to the book and then I read the sypnosis on both side pages of the cover and reading the back face of the cover. Then I decide if the book to me is interesting to buy or not. Thats just me.


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 11, 2013)

philistine said:


> I don't think this'll happen, mainly due to the sheer volume of books out there in retail stores, garage sales, charity/thrift stores, fayres, car-boot sales, used book warehouses, private and public used book dealers, et al. There are simply too many out there for them to suddenly be confined to obsoletion. Far too many people still buy new books, and likely ten times that number, if not a hundred times, still buy books used- chiefly due to the rock-bottom prices one can find virtually any title for.


Ya think? How many records have you seen in the last five years?


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

Shadoe said:


> Ya think? How many records have you seen in the last five years?



An immense amount, actually, as I actively seek them out.


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 11, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Who cares about a couple of extra quid? You're talking about the difference between a crappy, badly formatted piece of typo-riddled software, and a beautiful, solid piece of literature.  It's more than worth it.


Where-- what?? The last badly formatted piece of typo-riddled e-book I read was a self-published book about a year ago. As a general rule, e-books are formatted the same as the print version and with the same typos.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 11, 2013)

Well. We have numerous fans of printed books, and a considerable number who find some measure of convenience in electronic formats.  Statistics suggest a substantial market for both, with perhaps an apparent trend toward e-formats.  As those who have written, edited and eventually completed manuscripts -- with covers -- by a variety of digital means and often transferred in electronic formats, perhaps we can recognize the value of both.  A book, exquisitely produced digitally on paper, glued up and bound in paper, or a book exquisitely produced digitally on a screen, stored in a microchip: the sale of each produces income and the means to enjoy the luxury of such conversations, eh?


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

Shadoe said:


> Where-- what?? The last badly formatted piece of typo-riddled e-book I read was a self-published book about a year ago. As a general rule, e-books are formatted the same as the print version and with the same typos.



I'm in no position to comment as I've never actually read an e-book before, though the many friends and acquaintances I have who use them have complained of the same thing. Whether that comes down to where one purchases the book is anyone's guess, though many e-books which come up on Amazon do give the impression of being thrown together quite slapdash.


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 11, 2013)

I'm finishing up a delightful book right now, The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana by Umberto Eco. It's an incredible book, presented with hundreds of illustrations and prints from the 1940's, et al. In switching back to my kindle, I'm finding it hard to get the same visceral sensation that I got from _Queen._

I love the kindle; its usefulness is apparent every time I fly or go out of town for long stretches. Reading at night is nice too, as it's backlit. 

I'm certain we are headed for a world where all new printed media exists only on some sort of device. It's just a shame that we're all tethered to a system under which we have so little control over what we're fed and allowed to think about. I'll hang on to the paper books I have, and probably download stuff too. So for now, it's a pretty convenient state of affairs....


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 11, 2013)

OurJud said:


> E-books are just not real books, and there's no two ways about it. They're a fad... a fad for materialistic people who have no real love for the written word.


I'm going to have to point out that you're dead wrong there. You sound rather like the old codgers who said automobiles were just a fad.  

I have a love for the written word. So much so that I own at least two thousand written word books. That's because I thinned out my library and gave about a third of them away. I still have enough to fill up a storage building. I love books. But I still won't go back to printed books. There's no reason to. I miss viewing the cover art and the blurbs on the back, but not enough to give up the convenience. The kids raised on electronic media wouldn't even consider books as a viable alternative to what they have now.


----------



## WackedWes (Aug 11, 2013)

Looks like most everyone here likes a physical book to read.. I agree, I like to feel the pages and write in the margins. Books carry character, the older they get the more there is.


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 11, 2013)

philistine said:


> An immense amount, actually, as I actively seek them out.


But you DO have to actively seek them out. And you're still not guaranteed that the latest release is going to be on vinyl. Can't even have that guarantee for CDs these days. I've got four or five CDs I want that I'm going to have to buy electronically because they're not available anywhere.

The world is changing.


----------



## midnightpoet (Aug 11, 2013)

I'd probably miss the mom/pop used book store, with a cat on the counter and a writing club upstairs, and browsing the dusty isles for an intriguing cover that catches my eye (although as long as there are frayed copies somewhere i doubt that would happen).  The books themselves, i simply don't have room for them.  I remember the local writing group i used to belong to, and one of the members had a house full of books.  Bookshelves as far as the eye could see, in every room.  Man, they had some great parties! 

Anyway, i like my Kindle fire, like to check out books - they give you sample chapters to see if you want to buy.  I can turn on Pandora and listen to music as i read.  The best part, i don't have to worry about lighting.  I can read in bed. with the lights out, and not disturb the Queen.


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 11, 2013)

WackedWes said:


> Looks like most everyone here likes a physical book to read.. I agree, I like to feel the pages and write in the margins. Books carry character, the older they get the more there is.


You... write...IN a BOOK? I feel faint...


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 11, 2013)

Ghosts of the Maze said:


> I like being able to download a book instantly, for less money, and know that I'm not killing a tree when I don't have to.



Where do you think electricity comes from? And the crude oil used to make plastic?


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

Shadoe said:


> But you DO have to actively seek them out. And you're still not guaranteed that the latest release is going to be on vinyl. Can't even have that guarantee for CDs these days. I've got four or five CDs I want that I'm going to have to buy electronically because they're not available anywhere.
> 
> The world is changing.



I don't buy new music, so like in books, this is not an issue I have to contend with.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 11, 2013)

I always hear this 'OH BUT I LOVE THE CHARACTER' argument and wonder what on earth people are talking about. Books smell like books. You drive a car don't you? Or ride a bus? Both of those things stink. Both of those things generally lack character. Yet I don't see many such people advocating horseback as being a better method. Because it just isn't. Sorry.

But I do get the nostalgic ties to books. I worked in a bookstore for four years - my favorite job ever -  so I get it. I really get it. But come on, a story is a story. As much as I fondly remember books I can't see that there's anymore rational reason to clutch at them and forsake ebooks than to clutch at steam power or cloth diapers or just about anything that becomes obselete.

I would suggest most people who hate ebooks have never tried them. An ebook can make for a far richer reading experience than a book ever could. For one thing you can carry a whole library with you! That on its own is something a writer should cherish. What else? You can read in the dark without a stupid clip light. You can highlight, look up words and favorite chapters and pages and store excerpts. You can buy books immediately and download free copies of old novels and licensed 'free-fiction' This is all wonderful, wonderful stuff and as readers and writers we should embrace it with open arms.

Personally, my only worry with ebooks is for the industry as a whole. I dread it going the same way as the music industry where musicians no longer make money to support themselves through their work. The industrial aspect is, I feel, very much in the balance. But the technology itself is fantastic.


----------



## philistine (Aug 11, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> I always hear this 'OH BUT I LOVE THE CHARACTER' argument and wonder what on earth people are talking about. Books smell like books. You drive a car don't you? Or ride a bus? Both of those things stink. Both of those things generally lack character. Yet I don't see many such people advocating horseback as being a better method. Because it just isn't. Sorry.



Ridiculous argument. It's been said that those who develop connoisseurial behaviour have always had it in them, that it just needs bringing out with a certain habit, passion or interest. It's no surprise that people can put such importance on the character of books, as you say, especially when there are infinitely stranger displays of enthusiasm for more uncommon objects. 

Sniffing books, I grant you, is erring on the side of delightful eccentricity; but sticking your face into a glass of Beaujolais and claiming you can smell a nineteenth century orchard is another thing altogether.

People develop ties to objects they are fond of- why is that so hard to understand?

EDIT: I'd just like to add that one doesn't have to have tried something to show a dislike for it- at least on the matter at hand, anyway. Things like food, drink, certain outdoor activities etc, you'd be quite right that you'd have to try to gauge whether you enjoyed it or not. Reading an electronic book is like reading an actual book, with much of the finer attributes removed. In this instance, it could be said less is most certainly not more. Less is only more if more is no good, and more is most definitely better!

I share your feelings in regards to the potential for piracy. Many bloggers turned authors have released their content in books, only to have their once loyal fanbase rip the book into a digital medium, then paste it around the internet. That must stink.


----------



## Hunter56 (Aug 12, 2013)

As I think about it a little more, it does seem like an even greater possibility that traditional books are on their way out. I commend you philistine for sticking by them, but eventually there might be no choice really unless you want to be completely alienated from the literary world. When the last big bookstore chain (Barnes and Noble) goes out of business that will probably mark the beginning of the end. We still got some time until that happens -- a few years probably -- so enjoy them now!

I don't think I'll have too much of a problem conforming, especially if it could become easier to get published (I won't self-publish unless there's no choice) The only thing that would really suck is when people will start pirating books.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 12, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Remember when DVD first came around, and VHS lovers hated it?



Yes, and I welcomed DVD with open arms as I was sick of watching films on a format that began deteriorating from the very first time you watched it, not to mention the countless times my machine chewed up the tape and ruined the contents for good. There's no such comparison to be made with e-books and real books.

Personally, I don't even see where the whole 'convenient' argument comes from. In a standing start race, I could be half way down the page of my latest book before an e-reader user had even got their thing switched on. I could also switch between books in a fraction of the time... so someone tell me how an e-book is more convenient.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 12, 2013)

I just don't like reading off a screen. And, having had a few electronic gadget disasters over the years, I just don't trust the idea of having all my books on a device that may or may not function as promised, or that could get stolen/lost/damaged and there goes my entire library - until I purchase another device and then try to get it all back again. I mean, short of a household disaster (in which the loss of my library would be the least of my troubles), my print books are always there, always readable, and don't need recharging.


----------



## Origen (Aug 12, 2013)

According to some of our top minds, this will not be a concern to anyone at all because we will all be digitized in the future.  If anyone thinks this is merely the plot to the Matrix, check out Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near.  Or the book of Revelation--Mark of the Beast and all that.  Even money's going away.  As for me, I'll miss the feel of a book--especially old books.  And I will also miss having hands to feel them with. :hopelessness:


----------



## gmehl (Aug 12, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> I just don't like reading off a screen. And, having had a few electronic gadget disasters over the years, I just don't trust the idea of having all my books on a device that may or may not function as promised, or that could get stolen/lost/damaged and there goes my entire library - until I purchase another device and then try to get it all back again. I mean, short of a household disaster (in which the loss of my library would be the least of my troubles), my print books are always there, always readable, and don't need recharging.



Well reasoned, well expressed case for The Real Thing.  I've heard many express the difficulty of extended reading from screens and several studies suggesting that people tend to skim rather than read close.  The other pro-print argument by any number of people is the ability to physically turn pages, to move back and forth with greater ease than using a scrollbar.  Not sure if that's generational, but it's there.

I produced something of a reference book in both print and e-book format, the former for those who hate reading on screens and want the actual text with margins one could scribble in.  The latter was for those using the material in a portable sense.  I sell far more units in print, but then it's horticultural material and the readership is probably older and more traditionally oriented.

On the other hand, I am unabashed in accepting royalties from both formats.  The money is the same color, either way.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 12, 2013)

All the arguments against tablets could also be applied to your personal computer, thought I don't see people here complaining about their computers. Why is that? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious).

Why use your computer and like it, but dislike a tablet? What's the difference? You're reading text right now, these very words, in this very post, on an electronic format. You're using an e-reader right now. Is it really so bad?


----------



## philistine (Aug 12, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> All the arguments against tablets could also be applied to your personal computer, thought I don't see people here complaining about their computers. Why is that? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious).
> 
> Why use your computer and like it, but dislike a tablet? What's the difference? You're reading text right now, these very words, in this very post, on an electronic format. You're using an e-reader right now. Is it really so bad?



Probably because there's no real predecessor to the personal computer. For an invention, its still in its relative youth in comparison to many other facets of modern technology. The radio, television, telephone, etc are all several decades older. 

Also, one must factor in efficiency. It's much easier for us to write using a word processor, make use of a printer, seek advice online, etc, that it would be to do all of those things the old-fashioned way. Books, on the other hand, as has already been mentioned by both myself and others, trump tablets in almost every way save ergonomic portability.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 12, 2013)

philistine said:


> Ridiculous argument. It's been said that those who develop connoisseurial behaviour have always had it in them, that it just needs bringing out with a certain habit, passion or interest. It's no surprise that people can put such importance on the character of books, as you say, especially when there are infinitely stranger displays of enthusiasm for more uncommon objects.



I didn't 'say' anything of the sort. Most people do not display enthusiasm for uncommon objects. Some people do express enthusiasm for some uncommon objects. I'm afraid that, however more widespread in number and more heartfelt the reason, any argument which says a book is superior to an ebook is as nonsensical as one that says a horse is superior to a car - for the reasons I already said. 



> People develop ties to objects they are fond of- why is that so hard to understand?



You're entirely missing my point. As I stated quite clearly I DO understand nostalgia and attachment to objects. However I strongly disagree that just because some people like the smell or feel of a piece of ink-stamped pulp it somehow makes them better than an ebook, a piece of technology that clearly has so many advantages designed to enrich the reader (and, by extension, the writer).  You can't name me one single thing a book has that an ebook does not that does not come from your own nostalgic attachment. That is a problem because myself and others may or may not share it (personally I do like the 'feel' of books also, but am converted to ebooks simply because they are more practical and I tend to get attached to stories, not objects)

You know, I hate to go back to banging the same drum, but again its a car vs horse argument. There are a handful of people who actually think horses are superior to cars, like the Amish, but they are a tiny minority and usually their reasons are biased by culture, religion or nostalgia. They are NOT based on objective comparison. It's an attachment to what an object represents, not how it actually performs. All well and good, but don't try to tell me it's based in reality.




> I'd just like to add that one doesn't have to have tried something to show a dislike for it- at least on the matter at hand, anyway. Things like food, drink, certain outdoor activities etc, you'd be quite right that you'd have to try to gauge whether you enjoyed it or not. Reading an electronic book is like reading an actual book, with much of the finer attributes removed



If you never tried one how would you know?


----------



## philistine (Aug 12, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> I didn't 'say' anything of the sort. Most people do not display enthusiasm for uncommon objects. Some people do express enthusiasm for some uncommon objects. I'm afraid that, however more widespread in number and more heartfelt the reason, any argument which says a book is superior to an ebook is as nonsensical as one that says a horse is superior to a car - for the reasons I already said.
> 
> You're entirely missing my point. As I stated quite clearly I DO understand nostalgia and attachment to objects. However I strongly disagree that just because some people like the smell or feel of a piece of ink-stamped pulp it somehow makes them better than an ebook, a piece of technology that clearly has so many advantages designed to enrich the reader (and, by extension, the writer).  You can't name me one single thing a book has that an ebook does not that does not come from your own nostalgic attachment. That is a problem because myself and others may or may not share it (personally I do like the 'feel' of books also, but am converted to ebooks simply because they are more practical and I tend to get attached to stories, not objects)
> 
> ...



You still haven't explained your first point. E-books lack several things already illuminated upon in this thread that actual books have, and always will have. 

The car versus horse argument is invalid, as the car is superior to the horse in virtually every way. One can only read one book at a time, and insofar as that truth goes, an e-book only loses in comparison (again, for the reasons already stated). 

Also, I don't have to... for the reasons already stated. An actual book will always be superior to an electronic facsimile, just as a filing cabinet is to a compact disc, etc.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 12, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> All the arguments against tablets could also be applied to your personal computer, thought I don't see people here complaining about their computers. Why is that? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious).
> 
> Why use your computer and like it, but dislike a tablet? What's the difference? You're reading text right now, these very words, in this very post, on an electronic format. You're using an e-reader right now. Is it really so bad?



The PC is a tool that I use to be more efficient in a number of areas. It also has non-reading applications that make it easier (and yes, in some cases, more fun) than not using it.


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 12, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Where do you think electricity comes from?


Atoms.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 12, 2013)

I read so much on my computer already - news articles, sports results, forums, documentation - that I want the feeling of a book to be distinct.  I like being able to pick up a book, jump into my bed, and flip actual pages.  I like being able to SEE how far I am in a book, rather than just knowing I'm on page X of Y.  I like physical bookmarks.  And yes, I like the smell.

EBooks will never replace physical books for me.


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 12, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Yes, and I welcomed DVD with open arms as I was sick of watching films on a format that began deteriorating from the very first time you watched it, not to mention the countless times my machine chewed up the tape and ruined the contents for good. There's no such comparison to be made with e-books and real books.


One could point out that a paper book starts deteriorating upon first use. The new smell goes away, the pages get wrinkled, the spine gets broken (not on my books, but I understand this happens to other people), and so forth. The more a book is read, the closer it comes to complete deterioration. This doesn't happen with e-books.



> Personally, I don't even see where the whole 'convenient' argument comes from. In a standing start race, I could be half way down the page of my latest book before an e-reader user had even got their thing switched on. I could also switch between books in a fraction of the time... so someone tell me how an e-book is more convenient.


In a standing start race, the paper book loses. You either have to go to a shop to buy it (if they have it), or the book must be purchased, shipped, and opened, and that process can take weeks. With an ebook, I can have a book purchased, shipped, and opened in less than a minute - all without changing position on the couch, in my robe, at midnight. If the book is already purchased, I still win - all I have to do is open the cover and begin to read. At most, I might have to tap an icon. Switching between books is even easier - just two or three taps on the screen. 

The e-book is much more convenient. It isn't for everyone, I get that. But let's judge those e-books on what they are.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 12, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Remember when DVD first came around, and VHS lovers hated it?



No?


----------



## OurJud (Aug 12, 2013)

Shadoe said:


> The new smell goes away, the pages get wrinkled, the spine gets broken (not on my books, but I understand this happens to other people), and so forth.



I know, it's wonderful, isn't it?



Shadoe said:


> In a standing start race, the paper book loses. You either have to go to a shop to buy it (if they have it), or the book must be purchased, shipped, and opened, and that process can take weeks. With an ebook, I can have a book purchased, shipped, and opened in less than a minute - all without changing position on the couch, in my robe, at midnight. If the book is already purchased, I still win - all I have to do is open the cover and begin to read. At most, I might have to tap an icon. Switching between books is even easier - just two or three taps on the screen.



Okay, so you win on the 'purchasing a book' front, but that isn't what I was talking about. With a book that is already there, on the table in front of me, there isn't a cat in hell's chance you could have your machine switched on, find your page and start reading before I could.

Nor is an e-reader more convenient or quicker for switching between books. My coffee table has, at any one time, about half a dozen books that I'm currently interested in. I never have more than one book on the go at the same time, but if I need to grab another book for some reference or a little inspiration from an opening line, I can do so in a fraction of the time you could with your tablet.


----------



## Myers (Aug 12, 2013)

Well, this is getting boring. 

Sooner or later, people will have to make the transition to some kind of e-reader for at least some of their reading. The alternative will be cutting yourself off from content that is worthwhile or enjoyable or even great. If that's the choice people want to make, so be it. It makes no difference to me.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 12, 2013)

Second the motion. My only anxiety with moving ahead on technology that's evolving so fast is trying to catch the best wave.  And as a writer, I welcome royalties from ebooks and print with equal pleasure.


----------



## MaeyMaeyCute (Aug 12, 2013)

I would cry.


----------



## Hunter56 (Aug 12, 2013)

A question for all the ebook readers, when you first started to use yours how smooth or awkward was the transition?


----------



## Blade (Aug 12, 2013)

Myers said:


> Well, this is getting boring.
> 
> Sooner or later, people will have to make the transition to some kind of e-reader for at least some of their reading. The alternative will be cutting yourself off from content that is worthwhile or enjoyable or even great. If that's the choice people want to make, so be it. It makes no difference to me.



I don't think of it as boring really but more just a matter of it being a rather speculative and unpredictable sort of transition zone. I personally do not have an e-reader or e-books and actually don't have any reader friends that do but I can see a future for the medium.

For many readers there is not any great incentive to make the jump and many will be happy 'stuck in their ways'. Among older readers there is bound to be an "Oh God, enough already" reaction as one's life is already being harassed by adaptation to all sorts of change that no one particularly asked for.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 12, 2013)

I find it easy to transition back and forth. I do love my Nook; it affords me many options that a regular book does not. Such as telling me the number of pages left in the book, chapter, or section. It also gives me a digital clock in the corner of the device; making sure I don't go into crazy hours of the night. It also gives nifty options such as define this word, or show me the structure of this word. I really like the options.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 13, 2013)

philistine said:


> You still haven't explained your first point. E-books lack several things already illuminated upon in this thread that actual books have, and always will have.



Again, whatever ebooks supposedly lack in comparison to 'real books' is down to your subjective attachment and nostalgic preferences, not to reality. If there is something I'm missing there feel free to point it out, but so far it doesn't appear you can. You simply defend tradition because it's, well, traditional. I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

Or lets put it this way: Let us suppose an alien (or perhaps an Amazonian indian with no prior knowledge of books) is taught to read. They are then given the option of an ebook, on which they have 1000 of the world's greatest poems, novels and short stories on a device lighter than a pack of cigarettes and which also functions as a dictionary, notebook and personal library; or one dusty paperback of a single book they may or may not like and will have to pay ten bucks a time for. Which do you think they'll go for? Sorry, but this is a no-brainer.

See how that works? It's called technology. It's called progress. Nobody is forcing anybody's preferences on it. Of course if you prefer books that is fine. But please don't delude yourself into thinking they have anything an ebook does not (again, your personal nostalgia is not relevant to this point). As I said, I like paperbacks too. Like them a whole lot. To this day, my shelves at home are full of them. I loved selling them, I loved renting them from the library, lending them and borrowing them. I was an 80's kid and remember the days when that was all there was besides four channels of TV and VHS. I have that same nostalgia. Difference is I do not suffer from the delusion that because things are older they are somehow better. You have to be open minded about these things. Private libraries used to be the domain of the rich, now all you need is a kindle and amazon account and you can own everything from Tolstoy to Kerouac (many of which for free). That is something to be celebrated and embraced.



> The car versus horse argument is invalid, as the car is superior to the horse in virtually every way.



No, actually it's completely valid. Again, you're dragging your own biases into it. There are quite a few people who prefer horses (the Amish) and do not think cars superior. Of course I agree they are wrong, but I'm surprised you take that position, since many of their reasons for liking horses over cars are undoubtedly quite similar to your reasons for liking books over ebooks. Double standard.



> One can only read one book at a time



Nonsense. Oscar Wilde was well known for reading as many as three books at the same time. In any case, that really isn't the point. You read one book, then begin another, with thousands to choose from, at the touch of a button...



Also, I don't have to... for the reasons already stated. An actual book will always be superior to an electronic facsimile, just as a filing cabinet is to a compact disc, etc.[/QUOTE]


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 13, 2013)

Shadoe said:


> Atoms.



Actually, it's energy. Which predominantly comes from plants.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 13, 2013)

The most important thing is that the word is passed on, no matter what form it is in.  Some of the greatest stories ever told were word of mouth and memory only.  Some things like that still exist today.  The only sad thing about books becoming predominately electronic, is how easily they can be lost, and they can't really be traded or resold like regular books can.


----------



## philistine (Aug 13, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Again, whatever ebooks supposedly lack in comparison to 'real books' is down to your subjective attachment and nostalgic preferences, not to reality. If there is something I'm missing there feel free to point it out, but so far it doesn't appear you can. You simply defend tradition because it's, well, traditional. I don't think that makes a lot of sense.



I'm beginning to think you have some sort of ocular malady, as you've repeatedly glossed over what I've said and alluded to several times. There are many advantages, including, but not limited to:

- Lifetime of the book. A Kindle will not last several centuries, and will most likely be dropped, cease functioning from its parts failing (all electronic components have a typical lifetime before failure), or suffer from electronic errors. All of which frequently happen to similar handheld devices
- Illustrations, prints and engravings. They often have a tangible identity to them, in addition to being infinitely clearer when not viewed from a computer screen. No further explanation necessary. Arguing against that is like arguing that the world's greatest paintings would be better viewed through the medium of television than they would in person. 
- Permanence. A physical copy isn't going anywhere. You can throw it across the room, write all kinds of crap in it, bend the spine, dog-ear the pages, and it'll keep on going. There's a certain rigidity electronic readers afford that a physical book simply doesn't.

Not to mention your insistence on carrying thousands of books at once is completely inconsequential. You can, as I have already said, only read one thing at a time. 



> See how that works? It's called technology. It's called progress. Nobody is forcing anybody's preferences on it. Of course if you prefer books that is fine. But please don't delude yourself into thinking they have anything an ebook does not (again, your personal nostalgia is not relevant to this point). As I said, I like paperbacks too. Like them a whole lot. To this day, my shelves at home are full of them. I loved selling them, I loved renting them from the library, lending them and borrowing them. I was an 80's kid and remember the days when that was all there was besides four channels of TV and VHS. I have that same nostalgia. Difference is I do not suffer from the delusion that because things are older they are somehow better. You have to be open minded about these things. Private libraries used to be the domain of the rich, now all you need is a kindle and amazon account and you can own everything from Tolstoy to Kerouac (many of which for free). That is something to be celebrated and embraced.



You're applying my preference to old versus new on the topic of literature all across the board, which is profoundly presumptive of you. There are many things which I believe have only improved with time and technological advancement, this just happens to be one that hasn't (yet).



> No, actually it's completely valid. Again, you're dragging your own biases into it. There are quite a few people who prefer horses (the Amish) and do not think cars superior. Of course I agree they are wrong, but I'm surprised you take that position, since many of their reasons for liking horses over cars are undoubtedly quite similar to your reasons for liking books over ebooks. Double standard.



Using a group of people who take Ludditism to the extreme doesn't serve your point well. I'm merely displaying a common enthusiasm for a much enjoyed traditional aspect of entertainment. Living in a dusty shack with no electricity, no electronic gadgets to speak of and the staunch refusal to use, let alone own an automobile is quite different. 



> Nonsense. Oscar Wilde was well known for reading as many as three books at the same time. In any case, that really isn't the point. You read one book, then begin another, with thousands to choose from, at the touch of a button...



That's well known to be an exaggeration, as was illustrated in the biopic with the delightful Stephen Fry. 

I'd also be willing to bet I could put down my book and pick up another before you could reload your next, or however it is you change books on a Kindle. When reading, I'm quite literally in arm's reach of my various bookcases, and it takes a matter of seconds to choose another title.

Furthermore, I'm not trying to force my opinions down anyone's throat- I'm simply stating the irrefutable advantages to physical, held-in-your-hand books versus their virtual counterpart, just as you are doing the precise opposite. Like you, I am entitled to my opinion, whether you like hearing it or not.

I think this discussion should be put to bed now, as it's becoming tiresome.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 13, 2013)

I wonder if this isn't something similar to the rancor over Windows 8.  A friend of mine, who writes about and pays close attention to such trends, observed that those who "grew up" with PC formats -- generally XP through Windows 7 -- have a very difficult time with it and some recoil in genuine horror (so much so that it's forcing Microsoft to back up a bit).  But, he continued, those who are new to computers, especially children, have no concerns whatever and just intuitively use it.  

I'll confess to being an XP user and have a strong resistance to change, but I also recall an old proverb, Chinese I think, that counsels: That which you cannot change, embrace.   Touch screens in computers, ebooks in the marketplace: times of change.  Not necessarily happy, not necessarily welcome, not necessarily comfortable.  But inevitable.

As I said earlier, I'm just old enough to realize what it must have been like to be on the wrong side of the industrial revolution a couple of centuries ago and, yes, it's unsettling.  Yes, I admire old standards of craftsmanship and style.  Yes, I recognize that all I grew up with is now considered quaint, obsolete, artifact, even trivial.  But sometimes adaptation is not a bad thing.  Sometimes it's better, less expensive, more convenient, easier to use.  

And always I can find solace in knowing I have the best of both worlds - old, treasured standards and perspectives, and new, exciting, interesting trends.


----------



## Myers (Aug 13, 2013)

Blade said:


> I don't think of it as boring really but more just a matter of it being a rather speculative and unpredictable sort of transition zone. I personally do not have an e-reader or e-books and actually don't have any reader friends that do but I can see a future for the medium.
> 
> For many readers there is not any great incentive to make the jump and many will be happy 'stuck in their ways'. Among older readers there is bound to be an "Oh God, enough already" reaction as one's life is already being harassed by adaptation to all sorts of change that no one particularly asked for.



It makes sense to make a case for printed books based on your love for them and perceived value etc. A case can also be made based on permanence, and the pitfalls of changing technology etc. I also understand why some people just don’t want to look at another kind of screen after looking at a computer all day.

What’s boring is arguing about convenience or the features and benefits of an e-reader or the overall reading experience with someone who hasn’t even picked one up. People are often won over once they try an e-reader. There’s a reason for that.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 13, 2013)

Can a person sell their Kindle account?  I mean if a person has an account full of novels they have bought, does it accrue a value?


----------



## philistine (Aug 13, 2013)

gmehl said:


> I wonder if this isn't something similar to the rancor over Windows 8.  A friend of mine, who writes about and pays close attention to such trends, observed that those who "grew up" with PC formats -- generally XP through Windows 7 -- have a very difficult time with it and some recoil in genuine horror (so much so that it's forcing Microsoft to back up a bit).  But, he continued, those who are new to computers, especially children, have no concerns whatever and just intuitively use it.



That was my first experience with Windows 8 (the OS I'm currently running), though I've since adapted to it. 

The general consensus on it isn't so much that it's completely alien to its predecessors (even though it is), but that many of the features which worked swimmingly in previous versions were either removed, or heavily changed to the point of people asking, 'well, if it wasn't broke, why did they change it?'

There are many facets of it that I still dislike even now, though I've learned to use it almost the same finesse and efficiency as I have with older platforms. 

I think it goes without saying that those who didn't grow up with the older operating systems are naturally going to take to it with ease, as they have no previous source of experience with anything else. The same applied to a young me when first being let loose upon a Windows 95 machine.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 13, 2013)

philistine said:


> That was my first experience with Windows 8 (the OS I'm currently running), though I've since adapted to it.
> 
> The general consensus on it isn't so much that it's completely alien to its predecessors (even though it is), but that many of the features which worked swimmingly in previous versions were either removed, or heavily changed to the point of people asking, 'well, if it wasn't broke, why did they change it?'
> 
> ...



The only OS's that I liked were Windows 94, Windows XP (which I have been told is the most stable system Microsoft has created, but the problem is software developers have quit making programs that work with it.  DirectX 10 is as high as you can go with it for example.), and Windows 7 Ultimate.  I switched from Windows XP to Windows 7 Ultimate just for the supporting programs and the ability to preview windows and the ease of viewing files.  So far I really like it, though it seems to eat a lot of RAM.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 13, 2013)

philistine said:


> I'm beginning to think you have some sort of ocular malady, as you've repeatedly glossed over what I've said and alluded to several times. There are many advantages, including, but not limited to:
> 
> - Lifetime of the book. A Kindle will not last several centuries, and will most likely be dropped, cease functioning from its parts failing (all electronic components have a typical lifetime before failure), or suffer from electronic errors. All of which frequently happen to similar handheld devices



What nonsense. Lose your beloved paper copy of Moby Dick and it's gone. Lose an electronic copy of Moby Dick and all that is necessary is to buy a new device and transfer the file back, exactly as it was. This is kind of the problem here I think. You seem to think the medium matters, I don't. I don't have any personal attachment to my kindle. I have an attachment to what's ON the kindle, which short of a nuclear apocalypse is actually far better preserved than a print copy would be. Again, there's no point in arguing about the medium because that is not my point. Attachment to books is a superficial concern, attachment to stories is what counts.



> - Illustrations, prints and engravings. They often have a tangible identity to them, in addition to being infinitely clearer when not viewed from a computer screen. No further explanation necessary. Arguing against that is like arguing that the world's greatest paintings would be better viewed through the medium of television than they would in person.



I wont argue with this except to say I tend to read books for the words, not the pictures (not a fan of graphic novels at all, though if that's what you're talking about I wont disagree...). I might suggest if you have to resort to saying that books are somehow superior because they offer prettier renditions of cover art and pictures that suggests a certain grasping at straws.



> - Permanence. A physical copy isn't going anywhere. You can throw it across the room, write all kinds of crap in it, bend the spine, dog-ear the pages, and it'll keep on going. There's a certain rigidity electronic readers afford that a physical book simply doesn't.



Again, nonsense. I can take your favorite novel and burn it. It's gone. You can drop it in the bathtub - it's ruined. And I imagine you'll probably be heartbroken and understandably so. I don't have that problem because I don't emotionally invest in the vessel, only in what it holds. And what it holds exists in the virtually infinite world of technology and my only concern if I lose my kindle will be 1) buying a new one and 2) having to take the time to upload the files. These kinds of arguments are not relevant because they are material concerns.




> Not to mention your insistence on carrying thousands of books at once is completely inconsequential. You can, as I have already said, only read one thing at a time.



...but many thousands of things across a lifetime.





> You're applying my preference to old versus new on the topic of literature all across the board



No I'm not. I didn't say a blessed thing about your liking old versus new across the board. That would be foolish since you're obviously quite a fan of the internet...





> Using a group of people who take Ludditism to the extreme doesn't serve your point well. I'm merely displaying a common enthusiasm for a much enjoyed traditional aspect of entertainment. Living in a dusty shack with no electricity, no electronic gadgets to speak of and the staunch refusal to use, let alone own an automobile is quite different.



No its not. I bring it up to demonstrate how an anti-technology attitude works if it is applied consistently. If you think ebooks are better than books on rational grounds (as opposed to emotional/nostalgic grounds, which is entirely reasonable) then either through ignorance or delusion you are simply not seeing things clearly, for all the reasons I mentioned. If that is the case, then you essentially share the same attitude as the Amish. The difference is the Amish are consistent, insofar as they apply this thinking to _everything_, whereas you are selective and apply it to only _certain_ things. That's where the double standard comes in. 

If you feel an ebook is worse than a book then why DONT you feel that a car is worse than a horse? A car is simply a horse which is more efficient, more versatile, more useful. Similarly, an ebook is also simply a book which is more efficient, more versatile, more useful, which is precisely why as somebody said, they are outselling print at this time. Neither of us was alive when the motorcar was in its infancy, but I'll bet you anything the attitude of some people towards the early cars was much the same as your attitude towards ebooks - "they aren't traditional!", "they lack character!" etc, etc. This is my only point with the car/horse argument - that history repeats itself when it comes to technology. Even I'm old enough to remember it was the same when computers started being used. Older people and 'traditional' types despised 'em. We were forbidden from using them for school papers. for chrissakes! There was no sense in any of it, of course, it was pure snobbery. That's all it was. And the only reason I care is because I see it as kind of tragic that we, as the human race, consistently react that way to new ideas and innovations to greater or lesser degrees. I'm not at all saying that's the case with you in regard to everything - but it's certainly the case here I think. And that's fine. You can stick to books if you like. But seriously, arguing that a book is better than an ebook in terms of pure performance is really following the exact same path.  And that's what's tiresome to me.

(I actually quite enjoy this debate, I'm sorry you don't)


----------



## philistine (Aug 13, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> What nonsense. Lose your beloved paper copy of Moby Dick and it's gone. Lose an electronic copy of Moby Dick and all that is necessary is to buy a new device and transfer the file back, exactly as it was. This is kind of the problem here I think. You seem to think the medium matters, I don't. I don't have any personal attachment to my kindle. I have an attachment to what's ON the kindle, which short of a nuclear apocalypse is actually far better preserved than a print copy would be. Again, there's no point in arguing about the medium because that is not my point. Attachment to books is a superficial concern, attachment to stories is what counts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's just agree to disagree. I frequently renew a promise to myself to not get bogged down with discussions (which is what it is, and not an argument) on the internet, as nothing ultimately comes from it. 

I do, however, respect your opinions on this matter and the next, and would be glad to get stuck into the discussion once more should we ever find ourselves in a pub with no beer. Either that, or I'll challenge you to a fight to the death; you with a Kindle, or Nook, or whatever, and I with a hardback edition of Matthew Henry's _Commentary_.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 13, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Can a person sell their Kindle account?  I mean if a person has an account full of novels they have bought, does it accrue a value?



Not likely, and that brings up a huge issue that's arisen with ebooks and libraries.  The culprit is DRM, or digital rights management which is an option when publishing an ebook.  If DRM is on, the ebook is single-user and cannot be transferred, kind of like single license.  If it's off, it can be endlessly shared.  

If I'm producing a book that, say, advocates something and I am looking more for getting the word out than monetary return, I'd leave DRM off and perhaps even distribute it for free via any website or go the minimum Kindle offers (I think 99 cents).  But if it's a royalty-earning issue, DRM enforces purchase.  

Where the controversy begins relates to library books.  Traditional model is that the library buys a copy of a book, loans it to you, and you return it when done; as Philistine notes, this can last for centuries (although why anyone would read Nora Roberts 500 years from now is beyond me).  But electronic files in libraries are a different matter altogether; without DRM, they can be passed along freely in the social networks.  With DRM, publishers can control the number of times they are viewed.  Sensing an opportunity (as I understand things), they want to cap lends and gain renewals for money.  Libraries, naturally underfunded are not thrilled, and collectively wonder if the publishers would be interested in the loss of trade for their entire line, print and ebook.

For those unfamiliar with ebook production, an excellent (and currently free) tool is an application called Calibre.  If you save a Word document as a web page (html), Calibre can very easily convert it to a variety of formats - notably mobi (Kindle) and epub (Nook, I-pad), as well as azw (Kindle fire) and pdf among others.  You have some controls (depending on the format), but always the addition of a cover, typically a relatively high-res jpg from original cover art.  No back cover, but that's become irrelevant.  Kindle offers both preview and "for PC" apps for free, and Apple a free preview application for epub. Thus you can test both formats and see if everything (notably bookmarks) are in good order.

Once it's mobi/epub, you have a _non-DRM_ book to distribute any way you like.  If DRM is important, then it's time for Kindle, et al.

Uploading to Kindle is easy -- all they need is the word document and the cover art -- and many find convenience in Smashwords.  I think Kindle is more user-friendly than Smashwords (personal preference), and the entire process of upload to on sale is about 24 hours.  You do get to review your work beforehand and they do a spell check.  Kindle, in exchange for exclusivity, allows e-books to be periodically sold for free (promotion) or borrowed (their own library), and you get royalties on both of those features.  Kindle books are all platforms.

A lot of people are discovering e-formats for short stories, previews, that sort of thing, as are media companies such as newspapers and magazines.

Hope that's not too far off topic and helpful to those who might have wondered about it.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 13, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> What nonsense. Lose your beloved paper copy of Moby Dick and it's gone. Lose an electronic copy of Moby Dick and all that is necessary is to buy a new device and transfer the file back, exactly as it was.
> 
> Again, nonsense. I can take your favorite novel and burn it. It's gone. You can drop it in the bathtub - it's ruined. And I imagine you'll probably be heartbroken and understandably so. I don't have that problem because I don't emotionally invest in the vessel, only in what it holds.



Well first off, books aren't known for spontaneously bursting into flames as far as I'm aware. And as for dropping them in the bathtub, no it isn't ruined.

But what I find incredible here, is that you're suggesting you're perfectly happy and willing to fork out £60/$90 whenever your devise malfunctions, simply because you're not 'emotionally attached' to it.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 13, 2013)

But what is to stop a person from just selling their log in information to someone else?  Then the new person can just change the password and other information.  Couldn't someone sell their account like that?


----------



## Myers (Aug 13, 2013)

OurJud said:


> But what I find incredible here, is that you're suggesting you're perfectly happy and willing to fork out £60/$90 whenever your devise malfunctions, simply because you're not 'emotionally attached' to it.



That’s the risk you take when you use technology. The same can be said for computers, phones, tablets and toasters. I’ve had my nook for three years. If I have to buy a new one, I would consider that a reasonable value for cost-in-use. But from everything I’ve seen, reliability really isn’t an issue with e-readers.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 13, 2013)

I could respond, but I'm not going to because, as others have already said, this has all become rather tedious now.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't think it will happen, or if it does, it will be after we are all gone. I love cracking open a new book. The smell, the feel of the pages beneath your hands, and don't get me started on the feeling I get when I walk into a library. There are just too many people who share these feelings, for the making of traditional books to fall by the wayside, any time soon.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 13, 2013)

Gumby, you scare me.  You should get a job at a paper mill.


----------



## Sintalion (Aug 13, 2013)

Just to add my two cents: 

Traditional books and ebooks may end up falling more along the lines of candles and light bulbs, rather than the total disappearance of the older model.


----------



## Myers (Aug 13, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I could respond, but I'm not going to because, as others have already said, this has all become rather tedious now.



Yeah, I know. It always gets tedious for me right after I've had my say too. Funny how that works.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 13, 2013)

> Lose your beloved paper copy of Moby Dick and it's gone. Lose an electronic copy of Moby Dick and all that is necessary is to buy a new device and transfer the file back, exactly as it was.



Which is why I will never buy an e-book. I want a book to feel precious to me, to the point where I don't want to lose it (else I will feel like I have lost a part of my life). I want to be careful not to spill my coffee on the pages or let them be crumpled in my bag. The reason I love real books is because they feel like individual vessels that bear a story. E-books are passengers on the vessel that ruins my life as much as it enriches it.

Whether you read e-books or real books will, I think, be down to what you read, why you read, how you read, where you read, et cetera. A market will always exist for both and one will never run the other out of business, so I don't think or worry about such a thing happening.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 13, 2013)

I, too, think the discussion is getting a little tedious, mainly because it seems to be dissolving into "tech is progressive" and "luddites". There is a clear difference in reading from a screen and reading from paper (otherwise why would so many editors - and writers - print out copies to do their editing?). But just because one prefers one format to another doesn't mean they are backwards, stubborn, or open to ridicule. It simply means they have a preference, just as one does for oven-baked versus microwave.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 13, 2013)

Myers said:


> Yeah, I know. It always gets tedious for me right after I've had my say too. Funny how that works.



Just look back through the thread. I didn't refrain from responding because I thought you'd made a point with which I couldn't argue. I didn't respond because I would have just been repeating myself.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 13, 2013)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

:cower:


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 13, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Actually, it's energy. Which predominantly comes from plants.



But the energy originates in atoms; it's the movement of the electrons within the atom.


----------



## Myers (Aug 13, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Just look back through the thread. I didn't refrain from responding because I thought you'd made a point with which I couldn't argue. I didn't respond because I would have just been repeating myself.



Maybe I'll add more smilies next time.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 13, 2013)

philistine said:


> I'm in no position to comment as I've never actually read an e-book before, though the many friends and acquaintances I have who use them have complained of the same thing. Whether that comes down to where one purchases the book is anyone's guess, though many e-books which come up on Amazon do give the impression of being thrown together quite slapdash.



I have read one chapter on the Kindle. It was a book I liked and had read previously, but I wanted to see it on the electro screen and see if i could still enjoy it.
The story felt empty to me and held no life. 
I tried the same story that is on my bookshelf in book form - I still enjoyed it and ended up reading it to the end, even though it hadn't been my intent.

My dad however was not a book reader. I think he got through a Stephen King or two (IT) being one of them if I remember right. With Kindle however, he liked it. He read short chaptered mystery novels by (erm, forgot - some famous author) ... the chapters were short and the stories interesting (etc...) but he also refered to the Kindle like reading text messages on a phone. Easy to do whilst waiting for a bus, train, the next job (he was a taxi driver at the time) or other. Easy to pick up, find last spot was up to and finish the chapters in a short amount of time. Perfect for him. 

So I do see the value in e-books. I just wont ever enjoy them, I don't think. Not like a good book in hand.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 13, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> But what is to stop a person from just selling their log in information to someone else?  Then the new person can just change the password and other information.  Couldn't someone sell their account like that?



I suppose not much different than sharing any of your other passwords with people, but I suspect the industry believes it would be a rare exception rather than the norm.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 13, 2013)

gmehl said:


> I suppose not much different than sharing any of your other passwords with people, but I suspect the industry believes it would be a rare exception rather than the norm.




The crazy thing is, some companies track where people log in from.  Take for example Blizzard and World of Warcraft.  If someone logs in from a place that is far away from the normal log in place, they will lock the account until you contact them and either explain why you logged in from somewhere different, or you find out, someone had hacked your account.  It can be a pain in the rear end for someone that travels.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 13, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> ... oven-baked versus microwave.



I like this analogy.



			
				Sintalion said:
			
		

> Traditional books and ebooks may end up falling more along the lines of candles and light bulbs, rather than the total disappearance of the older model.



I like that one, too.

I think the reason people are arguing in this thread is because some of the comments involve maligning the alternative method. "My format is better because _yours_ can't do this..." I can see why lovers of physical books would feel animosity toward eBooks. A new format has arrived that has, to some extent, placed physical books into the realm of antiquity.

I didn't like reading electronic books at first. I, like most of us here, grew up loving books in their physical form--the rough _swish_ of a turned page, the glossy slide of the cover, the way the words tilt when you bend the page. Getting lost in a book is a unique experience that combines the mental exhilaration of reading a story with the physical sensation of actively participating in the immersion (you move your hand, you turn the page, the scent of pulp and paper wafts through the air, and the characters continue on with their journey, with your as their guest.)

For a long time I hated eBooks because they lacked those unique physical aspects that were intrinsically linked to my past experiences. But slowly, over time and reading, the electronic format became pleasurable to me in a similar way. The scents and feel and sounds are different (if not entirely gone), but story, oh the story takes a new energetic center-stage. Words are spotlighted in an effervescent window, as if the story itself is made of magic. Turning pages no longer is a physical swish of paper, but a gentle tap of the fingertip, as if I'm softly prodding the story to continue revealing itself to me. I can change the style of text to fit my mood, I can change the color of the paper to fit my lighting (black paper with light text is wonderfully immersive when reading at night. I feel like I'm in another world.) Having my entire library available at the tap of a finger is a blessing, too. A tap of the Library button and all my book covers are splayed out before me, eager to be read at a whim.

I can go on, back and forth, between the two mediums, but I don't want to bore any more than I already have. I understand why lovers of physical books dislike the arrival of the eBook, but it's not as bad as some seem to think. I've come to be grateful for it, and I get lost in my electronic stories right away, as the medium itself tends to disappear. I understand why lovers of eBooks consider physical books archaic and inferior, but they're not. They are romantic and sensational and nostalgic.

Consider them both a different type of reading experience, rather than enemies.


----------



## FantasyLeanne (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't like change :sad:

Personally speaking, I prefer reading a physical book. A nice shiny, maybe embossed and eye-catching cover! To feel those pages and turning every one.
Looking at my selves and proudly showing my whole collection that I have been collecting through the years.
Recently though, my fiance' mentioned that we can't have another unit, so I'm gutted! 
So maybe I'll have to buy an eBook...


----------



## gmehl (Aug 13, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> The crazy thing is, some companies track where people log in from. ....   It can be a pain in the rear end for someone that travels.



Hence books dwell on the device, but also in the proverbial Cloud, that mythical and magic place from whence come thunderbolts of brilliance and flashes of illumination, the home of the Gods, constantly at the ready to swoop to the rescue, _deus ex machina_, to save the stalwart traveler from post-peanut boredom on a 737.  You could probably log in from Mars and instantly get a book, but, at that distance, only if you have more than three bars on the connection.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 13, 2013)

Myers said:


> Maybe I'll add more smilies next time.



No good can come of threads like this... not when they've run their course, as this one has. I wasn't being shirty, Myers. I noticed your emoticon and was simply responding in a similar light-hearted way, although reading it back I can see it may not have come across as such.


----------



## spartan928 (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't think it's an issue of paper books disappearing as it is the model of publishing and distribution changing drastically. I just witnessed the closing of the third Harper Collins distribution center this year. Another three hundred out of work. What you will see in my opinion, is long print runs disappearing in favor of POD and the elimination as much as possible of book warehousing which eliminates a huge chunk of $ off the logistics chain. It won't totally go away, particularly for high demand stuff, but as long as there is demand for print books they will be sold. It's very simple economics really and I don't see the demand dying off totally for many decades, if ever. Now bookstores? That level of overhead can't be sustained because behemoths like Amazon can do it cheaper even by shipping books one at a time to your house from across the country. Bookstores are going to get squashed very tightly to do either very high volume or niche boutique markets. Your run of the mill bookstore in small cities are practically dead already are are going to keep dying off.


----------



## Hunter56 (Aug 13, 2013)

OurJud said:


> No good can come of threads like this... not when they've run their course, as this one has. I wasn't being shirty, Myers. I noticed your emoticon and was simply responding in a similar light-hearted way, although reading it back I can see it may not have come across as such.



Heyyy... don't diss my thread! :tongue2:


----------



## Myers (Aug 13, 2013)

OurJud said:


> No good can come of threads like this... not when  they've run their course, as this one has. I wasn't being shirty, Myers.  I noticed your emoticon and was simply responding in a similar  light-hearted way, although reading it back I can see it may not have  come across as such.



I'm not affected one way or the other  by what people have to say about any of this. I've made a decision  based on research and on my reading habits and preferences, and I'm  satisfied with the choices I've made. And it sounds like you are too. As far as I'm concerned, no bad can come of threads like this  either, even when they've run they're course. You just shrug and move on  to something more interesting.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 13, 2013)

Myers said:


> As far as I'm concerned, no bad can come of threads like this  either, even when they've run they're course. You just shrug and move on  to something more interesting.



Granted, but I just started to detect a little bit of needle in a few posts, and it was this to which I was referring.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 14, 2013)

I like both.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 14, 2013)

Terry D said:


> I like both.



Spoilsport! :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## Terry D (Aug 14, 2013)

I've found that I tend to gather anthologies and short story collections on my Kindle (as well as the free classics) while generally buying novels in print format. That's not 100% the case, but in general. I like the convenience of being able to read short fiction while I travel, and I like the flexibility of using either my phone, my laptop, my tablet, or my Kindle to read the same story.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 14, 2013)

> Which came first, the chicken or the egg?



The need for either.


----------



## Topper88 (Aug 14, 2013)

The same as when computers took the place of typewriters.

The stories and words have not changed. The only difference is that the method of obtaining, storing and navigating books will be different. I see no problem with virtual books whatsoever.

Unless of course your tablet NEEDS TO CHARGE AGAIN...


----------



## OurJud (Aug 14, 2013)

I promised myself I'd finished with this thread, but today I visited my parents and took the opportunity to have a play on my dad's Kindle, and have to say all it did was reinforce my hatred of them. First thing I noticed when I turned it on was that it loaded the book up on his current page. Good start. But then I told him I wanted to have a play around with the setting, change font size, etc, and asked him how I bookmark his page so that it wouldn't be lost when I navigated away. He's had it about two years now and didn't know how to do this. Eventually we found a 'bookmark' function and marked the page. I was interested to see how easy it would be to return to his page once I'd finished playing around, and discovered he had to open a menu, then scroll down to 'notes and marks', and then scroll to the bookmark before it returned us to his page.

And these things are supposed to be more convenient that real books? Yeah, right.


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 14, 2013)

I think Amazon's product is a bad example of the potential of e-readers. Mine crashes all the time, doesn't load quickly, and is overall a rather poorly-constructed piece of gear. I've been spoiled by the superiority of Apple products for way too long, and that is the most pretentious thing I have ever typed oh god someone take away my keyboard

Bought m'wife a Kindle Paperwhite and have been ogling it. Same glitchy operating system as mine, but it is sleek and seems well-built. It will sometimes blank out and restart itself. My previous model would completely freeze and stay that way for days at a time. I can say it certainly hampered my reading efforts, but did require me to pick up a paper book waiting for it to re-boot. Got a lot of my paper books read during that time.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 15, 2013)

I am somewhat done with this debate because it appears the point has been somewhat buried. But having finally had the time and energy to revisit this thread and read other people's replies it does strike me as odd that of all the reasons people have mentioned for liking books instead of ebooks, not a single one appears to have anything to do with what all this stuff is actually for - reading.

I see plenty of love for the object. Plenty of adoration for 'smells' and 'embossed covers' and 'walking into libraries'. I see plenty of abstract murmurings about 'the real thing' (whatever that means) and so forth. But, unless I missed it somehow, I have not seen a single argument in favor of books as *better tools for reading*, with the possible exception of a couple of folks who mentioned something about it being easier on the eye to read from a page and not a screen.

The page vs screen argument is tenuous, in my opinion, given how this issue doesn't seem to gel with a bunch of folks who are happy to gaze at internet forums. But, that said, I do understand it to some degree. I once attempted to read on my iphone using some app I downloaded and I agree it was difficult. The screen was too bright (even when I changed the settings), the words were too small, it was _a phone_. But, again, I think a lot of the confusion has to do with ignorance as to where this technology is going. Most of the best e-readers (kindle, for one) are as we speak pioneering technology that is able to mimic books to astounding similarity. I can certainly speak for the kindle here - reading on it is really nothing like reading on a screen, and certainly not an iphone. I don't know enough about the tech stuff to say how it works, only that you'd have to try it to see just how 'un-screenlike' it is.

Which segues nicely into the other thing I wanted to say: It is foolish to ignore the potential in inventions, regardless of how much you dislike their current form. What I mean is that just because ebooks might not work for you as they are now, doesn't mean you should write them off forever. In fact, you would be best advised not to. The overwhelming likelihood is that in twenty years what we now call an 'ebook' will in fact be a book in every sense of the word, except that it will offer so much more in terms of all the features I mentioned (and some that we can't comprehend right now). The pages will be made of a substance that feels and looks like paper. The words will appear as ink. Heck, maybe they'll even find a way to capture that 'smell' and stuff. It's all very much within technology's reach. Judging ebooks by the standards of today is like judging computers by the standards of what existed in 1985. There really is no logic to it. 

Now, if its the  fundamental concept  of an ebook you dislike, and dislike with such conviction that nothing will ever change your mind about them (which it seems may be the case for one or two people on here), then naturally the above point is obviously not going to change your mind, but here's the thing: That is your issue. Such a lack of open-mindedness is only valid inside the four walls of one's skull. It doesn't make ebooks lesser, nor books better, to think that way. You are entitled to think and act however you want, of course you are, but please understand that this kind of thing is not going to go away and you may well be shooting yourself in the foot to refuse to embrace it. For better or worse we no longer live in 1920 (and if we did, no doubt you'd be clucking about how vehemently you despise the typewriter and telephone and arguing that we should stick with the ink quill and carrier pigeon) so if you can't stomach change then that's all right. Your stomach won't be around to suffer forever.

Should point out I'm not directing any of this at anybody in particular...


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 15, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I promised myself I'd finished with this thread, but today I visited my parents and took the opportunity to have a play on my dad's Kindle, and have to say all it did was reinforce my hatred of them. First thing I noticed when I turned it on was that it loaded the book up on his current page. Good start. But then I told him I wanted to have a play around with the setting, change font size, etc, and asked him how I bookmark his page so that it wouldn't be lost when I navigated away. He's had it about two years now and didn't know how to do this. Eventually we found a 'bookmark' function and marked the page. I was interested to see how easy it would be to return to his page once I'd finished playing around, and discovered he had to open a menu, then scroll down to 'notes and marks', and then scroll to the bookmark before it returned us to his page.
> 
> And these things are supposed to be more convenient that real books? Yeah, right.



Yes, because every Penguin Classic comes with the option to change font size, doesn't it?

Last time I checked, the paperbacks at Barnes and Noble (or Waterstones in your case) contained one font option, one size option, zero 'settings', no 'bookmarks' and if you didn't like what they gave you in that department you had to find a copy from another printhouse, which may or may not exist, and which you may not like any better anyway.

Seriously. I am trying so hard not to blow a fuse reading this nonsense. Don't be absurd.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 15, 2013)

> Last time I checked, the paperbacks at Barnes and Noble (or Waterstones in your case) contained one font option, one size option, zero 'settings', no 'bookmarks' and if you didn't like what they gave you in that department you had to find a copy from another printhouse, which may or may not exist, and which you may not like any better anyway.



Exactly. Which is why I love books.

The key word here, for me at least, is _love._ Everything I love about reading is communicated through the wonderful package of a book. But I have no love for machines. They are always trying to make life 'easier' and will only therefore succeed in making the human race weaker, no matter how much more potential they unlock for us.

It's like saying 'why go to a gallery when you can view the paintings online?' Because galleries are _awesome*.
_
*except the one in Milton Keynes, which is _awful_.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Yes, because every Penguin Classic comes with the option to change font size, doesn't it?
> 
> Last time I checked, the paperbacks at Barnes and Noble (or Waterstones in your case) contained one font option, one size option, zero 'settings', no 'bookmarks' and if you didn't like what they gave you in that department you had to find a copy from another printhouse, which may or may not exist, and which you may not like any better anyway.
> 
> Seriously. I am trying so hard not to blow a fuse reading this nonsense. Don't be absurd.



What are you talking about? Not once have I picked up a book and wished I could change the font size/type. And _bookmarks_... you're seriously putting that forward as an argument _for_ ebooks?? I use a simple slip of card as a bookmark, and don't have to browse through three menus to access it.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 15, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Yes, because every Penguin Classic comes with the option to change font size, doesn't it?
> 
> Last time I checked, the paperbacks at Barnes and Noble (or Waterstones in your case) contained one font option, one size option, zero 'settings', no 'bookmarks' and if you didn't like what they gave you in that department you had to find a copy from another printhouse, which may or may not exist, and which you may not like any better anyway.
> 
> Seriously. I am trying so hard not to blow a fuse reading this nonsense. Don't be absurd.



That's what those plexi-glass magnifying things are for!  :deadhorse:


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 15, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Your stomach won't be around to suffer forever.



Luckyscars - Quite an eloquent post, well done. Don't know if rep points matter around here, but you just got some. 

I have a kindle and a paper book, and love them both. I just love the kindle less, and mostly because I enjoy cover designs and reading off paper, and because the electronic device is such a glitchy machine for me. Paper is easier on the eyes, for my eyeballs anyway.


----------



## Myers (Aug 15, 2013)

Cadence said:


> It's like saying 'why go to a gallery when you can view the paintings online?' Because galleries are _awesome*._



A painting cannot be adequately represented in any format; pigments and texture simply can’t be reproduced digitally or in print. And of course, there’s no sense of scale. With literature, the words are the art form, and conveying meaning isn’t necessarily dependent on the medium or the format. It’s apples and oranges.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> For better or worse we no longer live in 1920 (and if we did, no doubt you'd be clucking about how vehemently you despise the typewriter and telephone and arguing that we should stick with the ink quill and carrier pigeon) so if you can't stomach change then that's all right.



No! No! _No!_ How many times does it need pointing out!? All those things you just listed made achieving the same thing as their older method, quicker and easier - _that_ is why they're a good thing. It has been pointed out using countless examples, why reading a book on an e-reader is NOT easier or quicker. In fact quite the reverse - _that_ is why they're _not_ a good thing.


----------



## Sam (Aug 15, 2013)

How is it not easier or quicker? I have every book written by Robert Ludlum, Tom Clancy, Frederick Forsyth, Jack Higgins, Matthew Reilly, Vince Flynn, and Brad Thor on my Kindle. Not to mention hundreds more. How quickly can you get your hands on them? 

My Kindle is never powered off. It takes one swipe of my finger to unlock it, one press to access the books, and another one to select my book of choice. If I've started reading that book already, the Kindle takes me to the _exact _page I left off. No book-markers, no memorising page numbers, just a quick and seamless transition. I can read anywhere, at any time, and in any light. If I don't understand a word, I press my finger on it and the dictionary loads the definition. If I want to highlight a section to make a note, I drag my finger along it. 

Vis-a-vis your earlier comment about having a book opened quicker than an E-reader: Your book-marker can slip out of the book when you lift it; a page can come loose with wear and tear; someone may have scrawled across your book (if it's second-hand). If my Kindle is powered on (which I've stated it always is) I guarantee you that not only would I get to my page before you, I'd have it read before you as well.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

Sam said:


> If my Kindle is powered on (which I've stated it always is) I guarantee you that not only would I get to my page before you, I'd have it read before you as well.



No you wouldn't. You may well catch me up and even take over and finish the page before me, but that's because I'm a slow reader - nothing to do with your machine. Getting to the starting point, i.e our current page, I'd leave you standing.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 15, 2013)

If you get somewhere that you can't recharge your Kindle, or if you forget your charger, you'll be wishing you had a book that didn't need electricity!  :lol:


----------



## Sam (Aug 15, 2013)

OurJud said:
			
		

> No you wouldn't




You're not interested in generating dialogue on this matter, but instead on formulating an argument one might use in high school.

I'm done.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 15, 2013)

A Kindle user doesn't even have to have the device with them to read their book. The same book with the same place markings is available on any device equipped with the free Kindle application.

This is all a matter of preference. Neither format is intrinsically "better" than the other. As I said, I use both and my head hasn't exploded yet.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Aug 15, 2013)

As long as there are students, there will be published textbooks. Trust me, I've tried reading a textbook via my Android device, not a good idea. It wasn't because I was easily distracted by games or surfing the net. Indeed, I bought a low-end device specifically so that I won't have the luxury of having a large memory on it or a fast internet capability. 

It's just that when you have that textbook with you, you can put notes on it, you can highlight it, you are free to fold it, mark it anyway you please. With a tablet, you might be able to do such things, but it's not as flexible, unless you buy a high-end one, then those distractions I've mentioned earlier will come to play. Plus, studying with a tablet PC while riding public transport here in the Phillippines? No, sir.

If its novels, sure, I won't mind having them all in electronic format. I'm not a stickler of "tradition" or anything, but when it comes to textbooks, especially for a medical student like me, pen and paper is the best way to go.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

Sam said:


> You're not interested in generating dialogue on this matter, but instead on formulating an argument one might use in high school.
> 
> I'm done.



I've since elaborated on my reply, but I still think my initial response was adequate and not in the slightest bit childish. I was merely pointing out that you were incorrect in saying you could get to the current page of your book using your e-reader, quicker than I could with a real book.

This simply isn't true, so I said as much.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 15, 2013)

I have stated my reasons for not liking ereaders - that certainly doesn't mean I hate technology or new inventions. Some new technology I love - others, not so much; still others, I hate. I definitely don't see any reason to insult each other over this. _*It's just personal preference*_. Good grief, people...


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 15, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> I have stated my reasons for not liking ereaders - that certainly doesn't mean I hate technology or new inventions. Some new technology I love - others, not so much; still others, I hate. I definitely don't see any reason to insult each other over this. _*It's just personal preference*_. Good grief, people...



My book is thicker than your book! Neener!  Neener!  :lol:


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 15, 2013)

OurJud said:


> What are you talking about? Not once have I picked up a book and wished I could change the font size/type. And _bookmarks_... you're seriously putting that forward as an argument _for_ ebooks?? I use a simple slip of card as a bookmark, and don't have to browse through three menus to access it.



no i'm not. but one dumb argument deserves another.

If you never pick up a book and want to change the font settings, then why on earth would you suddenly decide the settings on your dad's kindle MUST be changed? why would you even care if you had to go through three menus? at least its POSSIBLE to make those changes with an ebook. it is not possible with a real book, you are stuck with what you have. you can't hold the perceived inadequacy of something against an ebook when the alternative doesn't even exist in a real book.

basically your point is about as valid as somebody who spends their whole life complaining that manual typewriters are better than computers, and then when they finally try a computer, complains that the spell-check isn't fast enough. if you still don't understand the problem and why that is flawed logic then i am sorry.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 15, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I use a simple slip of card as a bookmark, and don't have to browse through three menus to access it.



I don't know how it is on the Amazon Kindle, but on iPad Kindle, bookmarks are very easy to access. I tap the Book icon and a hover menu appears. I tap "My Notes & Marks" and all my bookmarks and notes appear. Takes two seconds total, one second per tap. Closing a book is fine because whenever you open it again, you're back on the page you left on (which is especially useful when toggling between different books). No need for a bookmark ever, if all you're using it for is to save the page you are on.

I use the bookmark feature to highlight and comment on passages, usually dozens per book. I do this with paper books, too, but I find it more of a hassle (I use Post-It notes and fill the pages with them, jutting out on the tops, bottoms, and sides). For me, multi-bookmarking is infinitely easier electronically.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 15, 2013)

OurJud said:


> It has been pointed out using countless examples, why reading a book on an e-reader is NOT easier or quicker. In fact quite the reverse - _that_ is why they're _not_ a good thing.



Funny. I have yet to read a single one of these 'countless examples' (again, with the only exceptions being ones to do with personal preference). 

Cite me one objective, rational argument as to why a book makes for easier or quicker reading than a properly maintained ebook. Just one is all I ask for.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> If you never pick up a book and want to change the font settings, then why on earth would you suddenly decide the settings on your dad's kindle MUST be changed?



Because he had his font set very big and I wanted to make sure there was an option to change it before I complained on here that the font on e-readers was too big.



luckyscars said:


> basically your point is about as valid as somebody who spends their whole life complaining that manual typewriters are better than computers, and then when they finally try a computer, complains that the spell-check isn't fast enough. if you still don't understand the problem and why that is flawed logic then i am sorry.



Ooh, for god's sake! You obviously missed/chose to ignore it last time, so I'll save my fingers and just quote myself



			
				OurJud said:
			
		

> No! No! _No!_ How many times does it need pointing out!? All those  things you just listed made achieving the same thing as their older  method, quicker and easier - _that_ is why they're a good thing. It  has been pointed out using countless examples, why reading a book on an  e-reader is NOT easier or quicker. In fact quite the reverse - _that_ is why they're _not_ a good thing.





luckyscars said:


> Cite me one objective, rational argument as to why a book makes for easier or quicker reading than a properly maintained ebook. Just one is all I ask for.



Must I... again?

Okay. A real book is there and ready to go whenever I need it. I pick it up, open it at the bookmark and begin reading. I don't have to switch it on. I don't have to navigate a series of menus to find my place or switch between books. I simply put down the one I'm reading and pick up the other.

You asked for one, I gave you three.

Until e-readers are hologramatic, hands-free and voice controlled, they'll never be easier or quicker than the real thing.


----------



## Sam (Aug 15, 2013)

This is getting personal. Tone it down. Now.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 15, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Exactly. Which is why I love books.
> 
> The key word here, for me at least, is _love._ Everything I love about reading is communicated through the wonderful package of a book. But I have no love for machines. They are always trying to make life 'easier' and will only therefore succeed in making the human race weaker, no matter how much more potential they unlock for us.
> 
> ...



See I see it differently. 

I could care less about probably 99.9 percent of the books I own, with the exception of those that were gifts or whatever. But books in and of themselves? No way. To me they are just a tool - a vessel for words that may or may not matter, depending on who wrote them. To me, calling a book 'beautiful' or 'wonderful' without having specific, personal reasons for feeling that way is strange. You might as well get attached to your television set - also a vessel for things that may or may not matter.

You may see a distinction between books and machines but I'm not buying it. Both are _tools: _that is, both are objects of use. Suddenly turning your nose up at one thing because it dares to require electricity and, worst of all, a screen seems pretty senseless. Why stop there? Books are made by machines. There is no intrinsic romanticism, save that which you imagine for yourself. If you've ever been to a commercial printing house you'll see quite quickly how commercially published books are really no different to kindles or frozen pizzas or just about anything else. They are made from pulp, type set by computerized machines, and then reproduced by the thousands and millions.

So if there is a missing ingredient there that somehow separates a book from an ebook, and both of these things from anything else, it's beyond me. Way I see it, the only thing different between a book and a plastic bottle is what ends up going inside them.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

Sam said:


> This is getting personal. Tone it down. Now.



Sounds like a tagline from a Steven Seagal film.


----------



## bezidentita (Aug 15, 2013)

Though ebooks will probably one day sell more than printed books, I don't think printed books will ever disappear, and there will always be a market for them. Many people under age 25 report loving printed books, the feel, the smell, the accessibility that ebooks can't offer (think: no power outlets around). While both mediums offer advantages and disadvantages, technology is a strange thing. Many times advances in technology are either completely ignored or not utilized, and older technology sticks around. Ex.- what we call Skype was a technology introduced in 1964 as a picture-phone. People loved it, but it was dropped. That was 49 years ago. Also, there is apparently a surge of people wanting vintage cars from 40, 50, 60 or more years ago. Better built, easier to maintain. So events are all over the place, and no one can really say what will happen.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 15, 2013)

> See I see it differently.



Cool. End of discussion.


----------



## Hunter56 (Aug 15, 2013)

I will be getting an ebook sooner or later and experience the best of both worlds, can somebody tell me which ereaders are the best?

I've seen a lot of nooks in my nearest Barnes and Noble and they seemed fine, but a lot of people say the kindles are better.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

Don't do it, man! DOOOOOOOOOON'T DO IT!!


----------



## Skodt (Aug 15, 2013)

I love my nook color.


----------



## Hunter56 (Aug 15, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Don't do it, man! DOOOOOOOOOON'T DO IT!!



Heh, it's not like I'm completely abandoning traditional books. Just gonna make sure I'm prepared for the worst! Some of the nooks I saw were only about 80 bucks or so which ain't a bad price.


----------



## LiquidAnubis (Aug 15, 2013)

I believe that someday they will. I'll be extremely depressed. I love the way a book feels. The way the pages feel. eBooks just aren't the same. It's not the same experience. Not for me. It's more economical. Saves more trees. But still...


----------



## Orchidia (Aug 15, 2013)

I like to write in my books. Some e-readers allow you to do this, but dealing with a stylus always seems to be an awkward ordeal for me. I have a hard enough time reading my handwriting as it is, as opposed to reading my stylus handwriting. But I suppose if I was determined to use an e-reader, I'd practice writing with them and would probably improve. It comes down to me just being lazy.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

[video=youtube;EJLQNcwlo6U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJLQNcwlo6U[/video]


----------



## Orchidia (Aug 15, 2013)

Well of course we're going around in circles. Whether you like e-readers or paper books isn't a right or wrong question, it's an opinion. This whole thread is based on opinion because none of us know when/if e-books will take over. So what's your point?


----------



## Blade (Aug 15, 2013)

Orchidia said:


> I like to write in my books. Some e-readers allow you to do this, but dealing with a stylus always seems to be an awkward ordeal for me. I have a hard enough time reading my handwriting as it is, as opposed to reading my stylus handwriting. But I suppose if I was determined to use an e-reader, I'd practice writing with them and would probably improve. It comes down to me just being lazy.



My own experience with a stylus is pretty limited but I found that they were 'slippery' There did not seem to be the normal friction between pen and paper so you would have to develop a 'finer' touch to maintain control.:thumbl:


----------



## OurJud (Aug 16, 2013)

Orchidia said:


> So what's your point?



That we're going around in circles. The clue is in the song's chorus.


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 16, 2013)

OurJud said:


> That we're going around in circles. The clue is in the song's chorus.



Circles? I prefer triangles.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 16, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> Circles? I prefer triangles.




You bring up some interesting points.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 16, 2013)

*slaps forehead*


----------



## OurJud (Aug 16, 2013)

Why has this thread been allowed to stay in here for so long anyway? It has nothing to do with writing. It should be in General, in The Writers' Lounge.


----------



## Myers (Aug 16, 2013)

Probably because it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.


----------



## Sam (Aug 16, 2013)

This has become a debate about e-readers versus books, and not the originally intended discussion. 

Closed.


----------

