Poll: 3 out of 4 Americans prefer paper books

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Sure you can change your copy of a book for whatever reason, only reason I use is formatting. But can someone else? And can they change all copies of your book if you have backups without tremendous effort? I find it mindboggling to think of the effort involved in changing all copies that everyone has. This has been done fairly effectively with paper by rounding up all known physical copies and destroying them and reprinting a politically correct version. I'm not talking Nancy Drew, but rather those books that disagree with a dictators actions or ideology for example.

I think it can be done digitally a lot more easily than it could be done with physical copies. Amazon can tell you that the publisher is fixing formatting errors, for example, and maybe that new copy you happily download has revised text as well. What's in the cloud can be altered. Do you really think every reader religiously makes myriad backup copies of every book?

If even one physical copy of a book survives with the original text, it's pretty much absolute proof of what the original text was. If I claim to have a digital copy with the original text, and the publisher or the government tells me no, that's not the real text, our version is the real text, how can I really prove it, when I myself could have changed the file, or someone I got it from could have changed it?

Unlikely? Maybe. But unlikely things sometimes do happen.

What is perhaps scarier is that we are being led into a false sense of complaisance by companies scanning and storing digital copies of vast amounts works. Will our reliance be such that scanning errors could in time change part or all of the content. And all books lose something in translation. Could massive translation engines someday replace individual translators whose individual damage is limited?

Again, this is why you need a physical copy to check against, because it is a tangible, actual thing. It's far too risky to rely on digital files. Alterations can be innocent errors, attempts at "improvement," or the result of malicious intent. Regardless, they corrupt the original work.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think it can be done digitally a lot more easily than it could be done with physical copies. Amazon can tell you that the publisher is fixing formatting errors, for example, and maybe that new copy you happily download has revised text as well. What's in the cloud can be altered. Do you really think every reader religiously makes myriad backup copies of every book?

If even one physical copy of a book survives with the original text, it's pretty much absolute proof of what the original text was. If I claim to have a digital copy with the original text, and the publisher or the government tells me no, that's not the real text, our version is the real text, how can I really prove it, when I myself could have changed the file, or someone I got it from could have changed it?

Unlikely? Maybe. But unlikely things sometimes do happen.



Again, this is why you need a physical copy to check against, because it is a tangible, actual thing. It's far too risky to rely on digital files. Alterations can be innocent errors, attempts at "improvement," or the result of malicious intent. Regardless, they corrupt the original work.

Agreed. But if you went against a powerful entity intent on their version of the book being the real one with the only physical copy of the real original clutched in your hot little hands, what chance do you realistically think it has of surviving the encounter? Or yourself for that matter. 50,000 people with a copy of an original ebook, and various internet archives to back it up, would not be any more or less correct, but possibly more of them would survive.

Helen

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Got me thinking in a whole new way. Is it right that these works be bowdlerized? Many things should never have happened, but altering books to imply that they didn't just seems wrong. According to Wikipedia in the 1960's the Nancy Drew character was made more feminine and less assertive, as well as eliminating racial stereotype with limited success. Does not one cancel out the other, and to what purpose? To change our perception of history or to make money?

Think of the children... Too many people have sensitivities that they think the rest of the world should have too.

The recent plan to remove the n-word from Huck Finn has many supporters. They point out that many High Schools can't use the book in their classes and if it was edited, it would become more useful.

I disagree. The whole point of the story is the racial prejudice of the period. It becomes a teaching point and a history lesson.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Agreed. But if you went against a powerful entity intent on their version of the book being the real one with the only physical copy of the real original clutched in your hot little hands, what chance do you realistically think it has of surviving the encounter? Or yourself for that matter. 50,000 people with a copy of an original ebook, and various internet archives to back it up, would not be any more or less correct, but possibly more of them would survive.

Those 50,000 copies could be altered to 50,000 different versions; the backup copies could all easily be falsified so that the truth would be unknowable. But a single physical copy of the book would be absolute evidence of the truth. Whether it could survive is a different question, but if it did, it couldn't be dismissed the way a digital file could.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Got me thinking in a whole new way. Is it right that these works be bowdlerized? Many things should never have happened, but altering books to imply that they didn't just seems wrong. According to Wikipedia in the 1960's the Nancy Drew character was made more feminine and less assertive, as well as eliminating racial stereotype with limited success. Does not one cancel out the other, and to what purpose? To change our perception of history or to make money?

I think it's safe to say that the Stratemeyer Syndicate's purpose was to make money by continuing to sell a series in which the early books had become quite outdated.

I would disagree with Wikipedia that Nancy is became more feminine and less assertive in the revisions. It's been a while since I read the originals and the revisions, but I just don't recall that. She is, however, more respectful of laws, authority in general, and the rights of suspects in the revisions.

She's also a lot more boring.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Those 50,000 copies could be altered to 50,000 different versions; the backup copies could all easily be falsified so that the truth would be unknowable. But a single physical copy of the book would be absolute evidence of the truth. Whether it could survive is a different question, but if it did, it couldn't be dismissed the way a digital file could.

Ahh, a conspiracy theorist, or an anti conspiracy theorist perhaps. I have to admire your faith that truth and justice will prevail. 50,000 to one is long odds to buck if any of the 50,000 have a vested interest. If I was the greatest expert in the world, which I think we both know I am not, and in possession of the first written copy of one Shakespeare's (or was it Roger Bacon) plays I would not bet on being able to prove it, no more than if it was an electronic copy of the original. So while I might believe I was right, what good would that do me.

A paper book that you hold in your hands is indeed unchangeable while you have complete control over it. But is it the original version? Has it come unedited, unchanged and unexpurgated, completely as the author intended. Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't see how being on paper makes it any more inherently truthful or better. Sure it is what you bought and hasn't changed since you bought it. But if you lost it could you say for sure that a replacement copy was exactly the same. If you bought one of the same print run you probably could, but if it was not how could you know without relying on memory.

You acquire a copy PD book a hundred years old, you can bet dollars to doughnuts it has been bowdlerized at some time. Sure your copy never changes, but is your copy the absolute real original as it was written and do you know that for a fact. Doubtful. An ebook copy of James Patterson's latest is more likely to be as the original. If not there would be feathers flying.

I think it was much more possible to change books in the public consciousness in print in bygone days before there were ebooks and widespread distribution of them. Just let anyone try and readjust the story of a modern thriller and see what a hue and cry would arise. There are those who object to typos being removed in newer editions because it destroys the authenticity.

Bowdlerization may be scary, but nothing new.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Think of the children... Too many people have sensitivities that they think the rest of the world should have too.

The recent plan to remove the n-word from Huck Finn has many supporters. They point out that many High Schools can't use the book in their classes and if it was edited, it would become more useful.

I disagree. The whole point of the story is the racial prejudice of the period. It becomes a teaching point and a history lesson.

Pretty much my opinion right or wrong. Not saying it should be taught as a history lesson, and not saying I liked the books as a child. I remember being a tad confused, but no idea why. But they did not in any way affect my awareness of racial prejudice. I was too stupid to realize that anyone was racially prejudiced until I was 13. (small town, few nationalities, dirt poor, no TV) Totally unaware of even the concept, till my father told me I could not be friends with certain people. Perhaps you can guess how that turned out

Still that is how they were written and hailed overall as literary art. And far worse books in all respects are still being published.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think it's safe to say that the Stratemeyer Syndicate's purpose was to make money by continuing to sell a series in which the early books had become quite outdated.

I would disagree with Wikipedia that Nancy is became more feminine and less assertive in the revisions. It's been a while since I read the originals and the revisions, but I just don't recall that. She is, however, more respectful of laws, authority in general, and the rights of suspects in the revisions.

She's also a lot more boring.

A long time since I read Nancy Drew and am more thanwilling to take your word for it.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Think of the children... Too many people have sensitivities that they think the rest of the world should have too.

The recent plan to remove the n-word from Huck Finn has many supporters. They point out that many High Schools can't use the book in their classes and if it was edited, it would become more useful.

I disagree. The whole point of the story is the racial prejudice of the period. It becomes a teaching point and a history lesson.

This book was published two years ago. Despite all the publicity is got, it only ranks #662,063 on Amazon. It doesn't seem to have made any impact.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1588382672

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Ahh, a conspiracy theorist, or an anti conspiracy theorist perhaps. I have to admire your faith that truth and justice will prevail. 50,000 to one is long odds to buck if any of the 50,000 have a vested interest. If I was the greatest expert in the world, which I think we both know I am not, and in possession of the first written copy of one Shakespeare's (or was it Roger Bacon) plays I would not bet on being able to prove it, no more than if it was an electronic copy of the original. So while I might believe I was right, what good would that do me.

A paper book that you hold in your hands is indeed unchangeable while you have complete control over it. But is it the original version? Has it come unedited, unchanged and unexpurgated, completely as the author intended. Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't see how being on paper makes it any more inherently truthful or better. Sure it is what you bought and hasn't changed since you bought it. But if you lost it could you say for sure that a replacement copy was exactly the same. If you bought one of the same print run you probably could, but if it was not how could you know without relying on memory.

You acquire a copy PD book a hundred years old, you can bet dollars to doughnuts it has been bowdlerized at some time. Sure your copy never changes, but is your copy the absolute real original as it was written and do you know that for a fact. Doubtful. An ebook copy of James Patterson's latest is more likely to be as the original. If not there would be feathers flying.

I think it was much more possible to change books in the public consciousness in print in bygone days before there were ebooks and widespread distribution of them. Just let anyone try and readjust the story of a modern thriller and see what a hue and cry would arise. There are those who object to typos being removed in newer editions because it destroys the authenticity.

Bowdlerization may be scary, but nothing new.

OK, I shouldn't have said "original," necessarily, but a paper copy would mean that as of whatever date that edition was issued, this was the exact text being published. Changes to paper books can't be made in the blink of an eye as they can with digital files.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

All of which are not needed to read a book. I already mentioned storage of paper books. People have been reading paper books for years and gotten along fine with none of the things you have listed.

Well, yes, but people rode horses for years and don't need any of the advantages of these new fangled auto-mo-beeles.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Those 50,000 copies could be altered to 50,000 different versions; the backup copies could all easily be falsified so that the truth would be unknowable. But a single physical copy of the book would be absolute evidence of the truth. Whether it could survive is a different question, but if it did, it couldn't be dismissed the way a digital file could.

Unless they say you used a POD service to produce that book with a fake copyright date and it definately isn't the original (That's the general "they" of course, not the bloke who changed his name to "they", I don't think anyone cares what he says).

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Unless they say you used a POD service to produce that book with a fake copyright date and it definately isn't the original (That's the general "they" of course, not the bloke who changed his name to "they", I don't think anyone cares what he says).

Yeah, sure, but it's a lot more difficult and less likely than spending a few minutes altering a digital file.

Just like photographs could certainly be doctored in the past, but it's a whole lot easier for anyone to alter a digital photo now with a few mouse clicks.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think it's safe to say that the Stratemeyer Syndicate's purpose was to make money by continuing to sell a series in which the early books had become quite outdated.

I would disagree with Wikipedia that Nancy is became more feminine and less assertive in the revisions. It's been a while since I read the originals and the revisions, but I just don't recall that. She is, however, more respectful of laws, authority in general, and the rights of suspects in the revisions.

She's also a lot more boring.

She was way more boring in the changed versions. They took an adventure and turned it into Miss Manners.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

In contrast to this, I have several ladies I know who have e-readers and end up doing most of their reading via paper books. Both who come to mind right away are big library patrons. They got out of the habit briefly when they first got their readers, but soon reverted to library books and paperback sales. The one uses her reader if a book is free or really cheap; the other barely uses it at all. It sits unused most of the time. There's another lady in the same reading group who has mentioned she doesn't use hers but I don't know the details.

For some there is habit involved and perhaps a bit of social reasons (library is familiar, gets them out...they know the librarian...) My neighbor has a Kindle Fire. She never uses it. She's afraid she'll break it (I kid you not.) She won't take it anywhere because "it's expensive and I might lose it or it will get stolen." She does a lot of word games. I've sent her links to those same games (freebies) and books and so on. She has them all loaded faithfully and still buys the paper books with the word games. It just doesn't catch on with some people. She doesn't use her good china either. "It's worth a lot of money. I'm not taking a chance on losing a piece because it gets broken."

There you have it. The human hoarding mind.

This describes me. I borrow most of the books I read. Since the library usually has more paper copies of books, the waiting list is usually shorter on paper copies of popular books and the library often doesn't have ebook versions of certain books or gets the ebook version much later, I still read more paper books than ebooks. Also, I prefer to read non-fiction in paper format since I find it easier to highlight, bookmark and flip back and forth in paper books. I used my e-reader often when I first bought it. However, the novelty has worn off since then and I rarely use it.