J cannot stand any more paper books

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by DreamWriter

I have no desire to scan paper books in order to read them electronically. It wouldn't be worth the time and effort for me. I don't re-read books, so I feel no particular need to keep them once read.

The first one I scanned & converted for myself, rather than as part of my job, was Starhawk's The Spiral Dance; I wanted a searchable copy to check for specific words & phrases. I've converted a lot more nonfiction than fiction.

[DreamWriter]

Originally Posted by DreamWriter

I have no desire to scan paper books in order to read them electronically. It wouldn't be worth the time and effort for me. I don't re-read books, so I feel no particular need to keep them once read.

I was thinking of fiction books when I wrote the above. Nonfiction reference books I do prefer to have as paper books. I could see maybe scanning some of those to read electronically on an iPad or something similar (which I don't have), but I don't read those types of books on my Kindle.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Better my books be ripped, scanned, and backed up for perpetuity on my many computer backups and cloud sites than lose my entire library when my house burns down. I'll never understand why preserving a book is seen as destroying it.

Hidden secret words

[Caltsar]

I still do read reference books in paper form, and those coffee table books work great in paper. I also do, on occasion, buy paper books but it is a very rare thing. The last one I bought was Fuzzy Nation... purely to have it signed.

eBooks are just far too convenient!

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Its not. Destroying a book is seen as destroying it. If it can be scanned without destruction, then more power to whoever chooses to do it.

But rip-and-scan doesn't destroy a book. It destroys some paper, sure. But the book still exists -- and in a much better (for preservation) format than before.

This is the pov of rippers.

[CherilNClarke]

I still prefer paper books for non-fiction titles. It's easier to flip through the pages for highlighted/underlined sections (to me) than to sit there searching an ereader.

For fiction, however, I want an ebook. The only time I break that rule is if I really enjoy the author and I want my book signed by him or her.

[Skip Wyona]

I agree that fiction seems better for the e-book format. Non-fiction on an e-book reader is difficult for me. I wondered about that for a while until I came across some research studies that concluded that the tactile process of turning pages, going back over pages, marking text with your finger as you read, etc, of paper based books are all memory retention aids. The conclusions were that you remember more of what you read if you use a paper-based book, or, alternately, take notes while you read using any other reading format. I understand that retention is not necessarily all that important for fiction unless you need to review, analyze or report about what you have read. I also assume that reading modalities vary from individual to individual. Personally, I am a visual learning and I have observed that I get more out of paper-based books than other formats. I am worst at retention of material presented in audio such as audiobooks. Similar research has confirmed these differences in retention between textbook learning and computer learning. This is why I will always prefer paper-based material. I am a big user of electronically formatted material but I consider it a supplement, not a substitute, for paper-based books.

[mkeyth]

I also hate paperbooks, I focus more when I am reading from the computer screen than from a paper.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

But rip-and-scan doesn't destroy a book. It destroys some paper, sure. But the book still exists -- and in a much better (for preservation) format than before.

I disagree. Not only on the distinction of the physicality from the content (eg, a scan of a valuable first edition is not worth as much as the first edition) but also as to whether the digital copy is inherently better for preservation. We have paper and scrolls that are hundreds or thousands of years old. We don't know how long our digital media will last...one good EMP and it's all gone, baby!
Ideally, I'd like to preserve both forms...if there's room. We'll need the paper copies of text books to re-learn how to build the machines to read the digital copies after civilization falls (or after the Butlerian Jihad).

Oh, BTW, I pleasure-read almost exclusively on my Kindle now. And with a broken hand, I'm glad I didn't have to stand on the PATH train, hold on, and try to turn the pages of a DTB the other day!

ApK

[Salgueiros]

Originally Posted by Skip Wyona

I agree that fiction seems better for the e-book format. Non-fiction on an e-book reader is difficult for me. I wondered about that for a while until I came across some research studies that concluded that the tactile process of turning pages, going back over pages, marking text with your finger as you read, etc, of paper based books are all memory retention aids. The conclusions were that you remember more of what you read if you use a paper-based book, or, alternately, take notes while you read using any other reading format. I understand that retention is not necessarily all that important for fiction unless you need to review, analyze or report about what you have read. I also assume that reading modalities vary from individual to individual. Personally, I am a visual learning and I have observed that I get more out of paper-based books than other formats. I am worst at retention of material presented in audio such as audiobooks. Similar research has confirmed these differences in retention between textbook learning and computer learning. This is why I will always prefer paper-based material. I am a big user of electronically formatted material but I consider it a supplement, not a substitute, for paper-based books.

I agree. I never remember as much of what i read of a ebook than from a paperbook. Probably it is those memory aids you refer to. And going back and forth on a pbook is way more simpler than on a ebook at the current state of technology.

I have substituted pbooks for ebooks in some of my activities, but not completely. Maybe one day, but for me that day is not close yet.

[anamardoll]

But the "value" of a first edition varies from person to person. I attach no value whatsoever to a first edition of a book, and I'm not the only one.

A digital edition of a book is still superior to a paper book for archival/saving purposes because a paper backup can be easily printed out at any time. Much harder, I think, to duplicate a paper book.

And if an earth-wide EMP hits, we've got more problems on our hands than all the lost copies of Deathlands...

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by Skip Wyona

I agree that fiction seems better for the e-book format. Non-fiction on an e-book reader is difficult for me. I wondered about that for a while until I came across some research studies that concluded that the tactile process of turning pages, going back over pages, marking text with your finger as you read, etc, of paper based books are all memory retention aids. The conclusions were that you remember more of what you read if you use a paper-based book, or, alternately, take notes while you read using any other reading format. I understand that retention is not necessarily all that important for fiction unless you need to review, analyze or report about what you have read. I also assume that reading modalities vary from individual to individual. Personally, I am a visual learning and I have observed that I get more out of paper-based books than other formats. I am worst at retention of material presented in audio such as audiobooks. Similar research has confirmed these differences in retention between textbook learning and computer learning. This is why I will always prefer paper-based material. I am a big user of electronically formatted material but I consider it a supplement, not a substitute, for paper-based books.

ITA with this post. For non-fiction, it's just better for me to have a paper book because of the memory retention aids you mentioned. I have read some non-fiction on an e-reader and the experience just isn't the same. I like to mark up my book and flip back and forth between pages. That's just very hard to do on an e-reader at the moment.

Now for fiction and maybe some non-fiction that doesn't engage me too much, e-books work very well for me. In fact, I prefer e-books for my fiction.

[KC Hughes]

I'm am with you on that!

~KC

[speakingtohe]

Glad to hear about the memory retention. I thought my arteries were hardening at a faster than usual rate
Helen

[Frida Fantastic]

I still like paper books on occasion, but it depends much on their text size. If the text is too small, I groan and wished I had the ebook instead.