Book lovers have emotional bond with paper - Page 3

Cthulhu · 03-07-2008, 10:54 PM

Am all for diminishing UPS's profit margin. They prevented me from enjoying bacon-flavoured chocolate as an Xmas present. Plus they have lost of number of items I've had shipped over the years.

As for this emotional bond, I am with europas_ice; I enjoy reading, and find little problem divorcing that from the medium.
Yea, verily, searching through the sweet, mouldering piles of old books in quaint bookstores was a nice memory. However, I would invariably be overwhelmed by the poverty of abundance, my weak memory (now aided by a smartphone), and leave having purchased a book marked up 400% from its original price. Nothing stings more than buying a 50 cent book for $5.00.

When I worked on a schooner, used book store shopping was fun, and the only means I had to purchase reading material. Then the books would get wet, or dirty, or both, and I would leave my inflated price book behind as I had precious little room in my duffel.
Have lived on boats off and on for ten years now. Still have precious little space, but I have more money and better internet access. Would gladly trade the small bookcase that I have for more open space.

Am very proud that I can turn pretty squiggles into words, thoughts, and ideas. Need no pretty trophies to prove this to myself or anyone else.

Alisa · 03-09-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've never had mold on any pBook I've owned. And I have just kept them in open shelves or bookcases. Nothing special have I done to preserve them.

In my experience many people don't smell it. I've rarely come across a book that was a few years old or more that didn't smell. I live in a dry climate, too.

sebastien · 03-10-2008, 08:33 AM

I have two young children (2 and 5). I wouldn't dream to lend then my PRS-505 to get them interested books. Instead, I rely on the good old paper book, some with flaps, others with textures like fur and sand paper, other in strong cardboard, plastic, and all with a lot of colors and pictures. The goal is to get them interested and curious about the information within. About life, nature, science... These, lets call them physical book for lack of a better description, are essential to spark their interest in knowledge.

But as they grow, I'm convince that they will jump on the electronic band-wagon. Already, this week-end, my oldest son was intrigued by my (new) PRS. When I showed him that it was an electronic 'pocket' book, he sat next to me and God forbid that I should flip a page, that was his job for a good 1h. Made for slow reading, but a great afternoon.

The new generation are addicted to electronic devices. In this particular case, I'm kind of glad. If getting them an electronic 'pocket' reader will keep them interested in reading, then by all mean read away.

As you might have notice, I call my PRS-505 an electronic 'pocket' reader, because that is what it's suppose to be replacing; pocket book. I would never use the device to read a news paper or a scientific article. The device is ill equip to preserve the required formatting and display it's message with the same effect. On the other hand, the Iliad might be too big to use as a pocket book reader, but to me it would be the perfect size for a scientific article...

Also, my PRS would never replace the reading experience I get from one of these 'Pléiade' edition book (http://www.gallimard.fr/collections/pleiade.htm), ie, printed on 'Bible paper' with a gold siding. The content might be the same, but as many as pointed out before, the added sensory aspect is second to none. Then again, I would not take these books with me during my daily commute. They are safely stored on a shelve, behind glass, and are taken out only when the house is dead quiet while sitting in my favorite chair, with a tea next to me... See the difference?

What my PRS provides me is a chance to read tons of 'no longer available in print' books. That in itself is reason enough for me to by the device. Where else could I have read the adventure of Captain Blood?

This said, I believe that both format, print and ePaper, both fill a niche that the other are ill equip to maintained. Small eReaders will take over the pocket book and comics audience, while the hard cover will continue to thrive with it's horde of followers. The Iliad, once they drop a bit in price, will storm through the scientific community. And the news paper will continue to darken it's audience's finger for years to come.

The world as never be black and white. Why should this be any different?

radleyp · 03-10-2008, 01:06 PM

Interesting that you mention the La Pleiade books, of which I have many, and the idea for which was the brainchild of an old friend of my parents. The Library of America, a recent creation, is an American attempt to duplicate it. Frankly I find the way the books are produced unsatisfactory: the paper is too thin and easily seen through, the margins are too small and the typeface not as distinct as it could be. So mostly (except for Proust whose works we just went over in my book club) they sit on a shelf looking very nice.

bookbinder · 03-11-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJohnNewton

Are people highly attached to a bunch of bound paper with ink smudges on it or to engaging intellectually with the CONTENTS of a book? I'm putting my money on the latter.

I couldn't agree more. The binding of the book is its clothes, but the mind of the author, and the soul of the book, is in the contents. Looking back at the best most influential books I've read, they owe none of their influence whatsoever to the binding (legibility assumed, of course), and ALL of it to the contents. I'm not concerned about cover art or embedded pictures or color displays. Give me the communication of the author, make it readable, and the job is done!

Steven Lyle Jordan · 03-11-2008, 12:41 PM

From the article:

Quote:

According to the research, sponsored by UK media lawyers Wiggin, survey data shows books have the highest "attachment" rating of any leisure media activity. People are more attached to their books than they are to their satellite television, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, social networks, video games, blogs, DVDs, and P2P file-swapping.

Interesting data about a pastime that some say is dying... isn't it?

kfarmer · 03-12-2008, 02:09 AM

Don't get me wrong -- I love my reader. It has a great convenience factor for travelling or bed.

But it lacks the intimacy of a bound ream of smelly, smudgey paper (as others have alluded books are). If reading were all about content, I would have disposed of every book I owned back in the 80s, once I got my first computer. Obviously, I haven't done that.

I happen to like the feel of paper, the sound as the pages turn, the smell of it all. When I re-read a particular copy, I can remember what it was like reading it the first time, which is different from reading a different copy of the same text. This is something the reader cannot give me.

Saying reading is purely about content is tantamount to saying we should just digitize all the world's art and not bother with such frivolities as concerts or museums.

I'd hate to know what dating would be like it such a world.

bookbinder · 03-12-2008, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kfarmer

If reading were all about content, I would have disposed of every book I owned back in the 80s, once I got my first computer. Obviously, I haven't done that.

On account of legibility, of course. Eye-strain. Reading in an uncomfortable position. No portability. The analogy is weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kfarmer

Saying reading is purely about content is tantamount to saying we should just digitize all the world's art and not bother with such frivolities as concerts or museums.

How? Is reading a book just like looking at a work of art or listening to a concert or going to a museum? "Frivolities" is your word, not mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kfarmer

I'd hate to know what dating would be like it such a world.

Can you elaborate?

kfarmer · 03-12-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookbinder

On account of legibility, of course. Eye-strain. Reading in an uncomfortable position. No portability. The analogy is weak.

I didn't suffer eye-strain, nor discomfort, and I was porting my computer around in the early 80s just fine, thank you very much. By the late 80s I was carrying devices that could hold (small) books in my pocket, and did. I also spent days at a time (more than I should have -- there were a few > 24h sessions) in front of them reading endless streams of text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookbinder

How? Is reading a book just like looking at a work of art or listening to a concert or going to a museum? "Frivolities" is your word, not mine.

It most certainly is for me.

The setting of the (content/art/music) provides a frame for the entire experience. That setting helps form the character through which the story is told. A change of lighting can make the difference between Meat Loaf and Olivia Newton-John, just as a change in air temperature and humidity could make the difference between whether you experience this image:

http://pdnedu.blogs.com/photos/uncat...cture_1_11.jpg

as a horse in morning mist, or a horse in volcanic dust.

As with music and painting/photography, there are entire forms of writing that depend on the setting, particularly in poetry.

Books -- even cheap ones -- develop a character, almost a personality. I find the same with machines -- cars, computers, calculators, eventually my reader, probably. It's frequently the case that I'll pick up a book and carry it around, just feeling its weight, or the texture, or the creases I tried not to inflict. But the weight, even ungainliness of some omnibus editions help tell the story. I thin book reinforces a generally light story; a small book talks about small things at a time (sonnets, perhaps); a large tome feels as epic as the story it tells. The finer crafted books gives more of a sense of importance to the story, and prompts the mind to give more thought to it. Common paperbacks are stories not necessarily important -- Star Trek vs Dune, perhaps.

Keeping the books also provides a meta-memory. They act as mnemonics for my own life -- where I was, who I was, what I was doing even over the space of a few minutes. Trading the book in for a newer copy often disrupts that mnemonic. Reducing it to an ebook completely removes it, as I've experienced in the months I've have my reader.

I'll do the same with music, and I've spent years looking for particular performances just because of the familiar hisses or scratches present. Not even the best performances, but they're the ones I grew to love. I'll play a track or two and (often) remember reading, say, a Battlestar Galactica novel (Gun on Ice Planet Zero, I believe) to an old recording of Tchaikovsky, under a nightlight on an extension cord hanging in a cramped reading nook I made under my bunk. I'm not sure I would enjoy that story as much again without the music, come to think of it, just as reading something like Gnomes or The Hobbit, is something I enjoy best in the winter, at night, in bed with all the lights out.

So, if you'll forgive me, the generalization that the characters printed on the paper are the sole experience is pretty much rubbish. For myself, and certainly it seems for others, there's quite a bit more going on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookbinder

Can you elaborate?

In polite company? I'll try not to be graphic...

But reducing reading to a stream of words is like reducing a date to watching porn. Sure, it may get the job done, and they may even be some great times to be had. But, in the end, I'll be damned if I ever replace dating with gadgetry. After all, the package can be just as fun as the contents.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 03-12-2008, 07:05 AM

Or, you could just buy her dinner...

Steven Lyle Jordan · 03-12-2008, 10:23 AM

@kfarmer:

You remember the smell and feel of paper. You listen to favorite music to hear familiar pops and hisses. You only enjoy art when you're in a museum. You hear a piece of music, and remember something else you were doing when you listened to it before.

Sounds to me like you're getting something out of everything but the actual content in front of you!

I realize a lot of people seem to have an incredible amount of trouble concentrating on one thing at a time, shutting out distractions, or of multi-tasking, and all of these can affect how they experience and enjoy something. After all, the human body records multiple sensations at any one time, and it's understandable that you might link a particular book read to, say, the smell of a potroast your mother was cooking the first time you read it.

But if the content itself is good, it should not depend on the impact of other sensations to remain good.

When I was a kid, I used to use a cassette recorder to record episodes of Star Trek, so I could play back audio of my favorites whenever I wanted to. It didn't matter that I couldn't actually see Kirk and Spock outwitting an opponent, or the Doomsday Machine bearing down on Commodore Decker in a pathetic little shuttlecraft, because my imagination filled in the blanks and focused past the TV hum that was captured on the lousy recordings I'd made.

When I read, I don't think about the state of rot in the paper I'm holding, or in how many ounces and available RAM is contained in my PDA. I can read on a noisy train, and I'm not disturbed until it stops and I realize I have to get off. I can enjoy a quality piece of art in person, on paper, on a movie screen, or on my TV. I can listen to an old album, and when I get into the music, the pops and hisses fade into oblivion.

I've never needed a particular medium to make the content enjoyable. I just needed the content, let my imagination soak it all in, and the medium became incredibly unimportant.

I'm not saying it sucks to be you. Just saying that Content is King. Long Live the King, baby!

kfarmer · 03-12-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote: