E-reading isn't reading?

[PainMike]

Thanks for sharing this, excellent stuff and great discussion. As I'm still without e-reading device and still wading through tech sections of this forum, I have not so much to declare but give my five cents:

First, I would have limited the St. Augustine part to a couple of sentences. With tech generation it does not help much describing Biblical sections when telling about the breaktrough and change of habits within book revolution versus scrolls.

Second, I feel for this guy. According the Amazon page of his book, he has been with computers relatively early. Yet he has verbalized the wonderment about the change of something he considers sacred and goes into resistance that carries likeness to an army general of the 20th century beginning seeing an aeroplane. Also I have seen this resistance in tens if not hundreds of current articles denying the press changing all electronic, yet printing houses are declining regardless of trade cycle(correct?).

One of writer's main problems seems to be the losing of grasp of the Good Olde Book. I have no single doubt that Piper would have any lack of controlling new gadgets, he merely describes the difficult change of habit and does it in physical level, which tech generation does not have worries about. In the spirit of earlier computer generation he describes the same idea I have
---------------
Faust reminds us of the way books are totems against ceaseless activity
---------------
...and the sanctuary, for Piper and, I admit, for me, when I'm tired of the screen; perhaps very archaic nonsense for all who contest at coffee break with gadgets. But Piper submits
---------------
But Faust also reminds us not to hold on too tightly. He shows us the risks of grasping. He reminds me that the meaning of reading lies in the oscillatory rhythms of the opening and closing hand.
---------------
World's changing, and doing it fast.But this is still '0's and '1's for me, maintained by the current from the sockets and batteries dependent on it. Yet e-readers' mobility, clarity and huge storage capability are 'the aeroplane' of the book world. Not to talk about needless bedside lamp

[QuantumIguana]

I can't feel for the author. The Saint Augustine section was simply irrelevant to whether or not reading from an e-book is real reading. But the real reason I can't feel for him is that he spits in the face of people who use e-readers. He's absolutely free to prefer paper books, absolutely free to not read e-books, I won't criticize people for their preferences. But he can't imagine that other people might have different preferences, can't imagine that people can get just as much out of a book in an e-book format that he gets out of it in paper format.

[crich70]

One thing that just occurred to me that makes any arguments he has with ebook moot is the fact that he posted the article to a computer based webpage. If anything other than pbook reading isn't reading then none of us have read his argument against ebooks yet. Guess he'll just have to print up a couple million paper copies and distribute them by hand.

[Ripplinger]

I think one commenter got it right when he referred to the author as a troll. All I can say is what a crock, especially given the fact that he published it electronically.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

I think one commenter got it right when he referred to the author as a troll. All I can say is what a crock, especially given the fact that he published it electronically.

Perhaps someone can recommend a good psychiatrist to that poor man? Or could it be a brain tumor?

[DiapDealer]

My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The article can be summed up as "I prefer reading paper books, therefore, reading e-books isn't real reading!" It's like saying that dark meat isn't real turkey because you prefer white meat. The tactile experience of a great classic is identical to the tactile experience of a poor book, which seems to weaken the central importance of the feel of the book. If a hardcover gives a better tactile experience than reading a paperback, does it mean that reading a paperback isn't real reading? Or how about reading a very high quality hardcover book with an embossed book cover with gold leaf? Surely that must be the ultimate in reading. That fancy hardcover with the gold leaf may look nice on the shelf, but reading from it is no more real reading than is reading from an ordinary hardcover, a paperback... or from an e-reader. By dog eared paperbacks that are nearly falling apart are no less books than any other.

His Augustine example is strange. In his example, Augustine is engaging in bibliomancy, flipping a book open at random as if that gives you some insight. It's sort of like using a magic 8-ball, but in any case, there's no reason you can't flip to a random passage in an e-book.

Too many people just can't imagine that someone else might not like the same things they do. My wife likes ginger, I do not. She's not wrong to do so. And this person isn't wrong to prefer e-books, but is wrong in asserting that reading from an e-book isn't real reading. E-readers are physical objects, and thus have a tactical experience too - the words aren't disembodied things floating in front of our eyes. There is more to the reading experience than just the medium. There's the chair you sit in - if you use a chair at all. There's the lighting. There's the sound - some prefer music, I prefer silence. Some people like to have their favorite beverage at their side while reading. If he's going to insist that only with the tactile experience of paper is it real e-reading, then what of the other sensory aspects? Must I sit in a chair to read, or is it still real reading if I lie in bed? If I am reading a paper book, but lie the book in front of me and only touch it when I turn the pages, is that real reading?

He used braille as an example, but it doesn't work. He talks about the tactile experience of paper as being central to real reading, but people using braille are not doing so for the atmosphere of it, but to sense the words. You could just as easily argue that braille isn't real reading, because you aren't using your eyes. It would be an unreasonable argument, but that's the sort of argument he's making. And what about braille using an electronic device? Is that real reading.

Reading is reading, whether you read from clay tablets, stone, papyrus, paper or an e-reader.

Karma to you for well-reasoned argument in response to something that is not.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

But all sarcasm aside: is there a e-reader that instead of e-ink got a braille display? Now wouldn't that be neat?

There are portable Braille displays, but they are expensive (four figures), less luggable than e-ink readers, and they generally need to be teamed with a laptop, or, more recently, an iOS device. Although that device can take an SD card - you could read documents from that, but you've still only got a line at a time in the most compact devices, and the fragility, expense & battery life issues. Audiobooks tend to be the tipple of choice for portable reading among a few people I know.

Dedicated Braille e-readers exist in the concept design stage.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by meeera

There are portable Braille displays, but they are expensive (four figures), less luggable than e-ink readers, and they generally need to be teamed with a laptop, or, more recently, an iOS device. Although that device can take an SD card - you could read documents from that, but you've still only got a line at a time in the most compact devices, and the fragility, expense & battery life issues. Audiobooks tend to be the tipple of choice for portable reading among a few people I know.

Dedicated Braille e-readers exist in the concept design stage.

Thank you for the information, interesting read.
It is too bad that it might not happen due to limited demand and expensive production. Audiobooks and TTS might be viable options, but that is a restriction I would not like to have. IMO it is a too passive activity and you are forced to listen at a continious speed. If I pay close attention to my reading, I notice that my reading speed varies depending on the kind of scene (e.g. action scenes, dialogues, monologues) - and sometimes I stop for a few moments as I rearrange people and objects if they are completely out of whack. (wait a second, where did you come from? backup, redo)

[Marbles]

I did not read the article but just from the few post I have read here I am glad I did not. I read on an ereader because the printed page is to tiny form my old eyes. With an ereader I can make the font bigger so that it is easier for me to read. It sounds like this person just wanted to complain.

[LovesMacs]

I stand by my belief that the article was written as satire. I once wrote a similar piece asserting that the "huh huh" laugh in the 1990s cartoon "Beavis and Butthead" was not a mere giggle but rather a heartfelt attempt to express thoughts and feelings that go beyond words. I ended up writing several pages worth of musings on this, with appropriate references to various philosophers and footnotes. Sadly the essay is now lost in the past.

I wrote that purely to see if I could, not for any coursework. Who knows what the motivation of this writer is.

[alexxx]

I owned ereaders since their beginning. - and I'm posting this from my ipad.
Yet reading about the sarcasm everywhere in this thread, I'm a bit saddened... Nothing for me will ever surpass the pleasure of holding a real books in my hands, nor - laugh as much as you want - its texture, its smell.
Please, feel free to swim in the digital seas as much as you want - I'll remain convinced that the zealots among you have lost a lot.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by alexxx

Please, feel free to swim in the digital seas as much as you want - I'll remain convinced that the zealots among you have lost a lot.

But will you feel the need to wax philosophical about what we've lost on a public podium? Or will you just go about your own practices (which aren't really in any danger of disappearing) and allow us idiots to wallow in our own inferior, digital experiences in peace and quiet?

[alexxx]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But will you feel the need to wax philosophical about what we've lost on a public podium? Or will you just go about your own practices (which aren't really in any danger of disappearing) and allow us idiots to wallow in our own inferior, digital experiences in peace and quiet?

Please... As you said, the podium is public! I felt it necessary to express a minority position - was I wrong?
And let me add: I dont think I used the term <idiots> anywhere. Zealot means somethin else I guess...

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by alexxx

Please... As you said, the podium is public! I felt it necessary to express a minority position - was I wrong?
And let me add: I dont think I used the term <idiots> anywhere. Zealot means somethin else I guess...

My point is: why the urge to condemn/declaim something that frankly doesn't have to affect you if you don't want it to? No one is being forced to e-read. And I doubt highly they ever will be. Disliking it vocally is a waste of time--and borderline baiting. But you are correct. It's your time and the podium is public: waste away.