E-reading isn't reading?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Disgusting drivel. I couldn't even finish the article, since the premise is so flawed. Come on, tactile experience is the point of reading? Then go read in Braille.

He's completely missing the point. Everyone knows that it's the smell of paper books that's the main flaw of eBooks.

[NickyWithNook]

I actually prefer the tactile experience of the ereader. No musty smell, no paper cuts. Yay for technology.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^^I could solve that with a couple of scratch 'n sniff stickers stuck to my Kindle.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^^I could solve that with a couple of scratch 'n sniff stickers stuck to my Kindle.

This is a lot better!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by banjobama

Wut.

I didn't read the whole article. I stopped here:



The guy says he owns "an e-reader or two." I always feel that once I get engrossed in a book, I don't really "see" the pages any more, whether it's a paper book or on my Sony. Once you're into it, you just read, right?

I didn't know I was in such danger of carpal tunnel syndrome from occasionally pushing a couple of tiny, responsive buttons.

Danger Will Robinson! Run Away! Run Away!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Just another old fart bitchin about change.

Smelly one too!

[Ti-Ron]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I almost clicked the link. Then I remembered I frankly don't care what others might think e-reading isn't.

Did the same thing! :P

I seriously don't understand the rant about something you don't like or don't want to use. If it's not your thing, do something else and keep your energy focused on other interests, right?

[crich70]

I can imagine someone way back when complaining about stories being written down on clay tablets rather than being passed on by word of mouth like they were supposed to be. And of course then someone complained about things being written on scrolls rather than clay tablets, and in manuscript form rather than scrolls. Each development seems to enable the text to become more accessible and easier to transcribe. Not so long ago you had to physically go to a bookshop to find your book, and if they didn't have it in stock you either had to special order it or hope you could find a copy at a second hand bookstore. Now you can go on a site like Amazon or Smashwords, find your book and have it in hand within a few seconds, and though there are sometimes geographical restrictions you can be just about anywhere and find at least something to read. So I don't see e-reading as making a negative impact myself. The media changes but books like Dracula, Treasure Island, The Time Machine etc. are still the same in content, and you still read them one word at a time whether on an eink screen or on paper. You can't stop progress.

[kennyc]

Well I think MP3s are not music, so there!

[OtterBooks]

I respect the notion that paper book reading has a unique tactile quality (and sense of ownership) that contributes to the experience, but I think it's only due to several hundred years of conditioning and association. IMO the fellow just needs to relax and stick to paper books. They're gonna be around a good long while.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He's completely missing the point. Everyone knows that it's the smell of paper books that's the main flaw of eBooks.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Smelly one too!

Thank somebody that my e-readers don't give back smelly feedback.

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Disgusting drivel. I couldn't even finish the article, since the premise is so flawed. Come on, tactile experience is the point of reading? Then go read in Braille.

Be sure to get it on paper, don't get a fancy electronic braille-display.

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

Originally Posted by dakini

according to his argument, reading a tabloid that is physically printed on paper is "more like reading" than reading war and peace on my Kobo ... just because the book is "tactile" and my ereader supposedly isn't.

ok, sure dude ...

That is why I got a Kindle TOUCH, or did I fall for another marketing trick of Amazon? It is real, I can touch it and it gives feedback back to me - unlike that black ship in Restaurant at the end of the Universe where you can try touching it, but it is too slick.

Originally Posted by red_phoenix

I tried to read the article but got bored half way through. If he is so against e-books then why is his book available as a Kindle edition?

There is no option to print out a Kindle book? How are we supposed to read it?

[Tarana]

This author lost me as a reader the moment he quoted 'Saint' Augustine. Why would I give crap one about a man who hated women?

[Quexos]

This begs the question, according to that person what is e-reading then ?
So all those e-books, what have I been doing with those ?

[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.

[Penforhire]

Cranky hard cover (stone-tablet?) reader is cranky. Get off my lawn. Move along, nothing to see here. Probably thinks paperbacks are abominations.