10 reasons why "real" books are better than e-books, supposedly

[Grace Elliot]

Having just returned from holiday I'm living proof that ebooks are better for your health. I didn't have to take the holdall of DTB's that I usually pack (taking books from all genres to suite whatever mood I might be in). Instead my eReader fitted in my handbag and I was never short of a good book.
I'm a convert!

Rather than tearing apart a list that seems silly to me, I'm going to try to come up with a list of 10 reasons why pbooks are better:

1. Print books can be cheaper. Thrift stores, library sales, used book stores, remainders, curbside discards are all great ways to obtain cheap reads.

2. Print books are sharable. Family, friends, and colleagues can easily lend a book to you or borrow a book from you.

3. Print books are universally compatible. All you need is a functional set of peepers and an understanding of the language the book is written in. No frets about compatible file formats or DRM schemes.

4. Print books are more flexible and reliable. Anything that can be represented visually and that is static can be reproduced reliably in print. No frets about your reader software mangling it due to compatability or screen size/aspect ratio.

5. Print books don't become obsolete or break down. You can stick a book in a box and pick it up 50 years later and it will be in almost the same condition. In theory, ebooks can last longer but only if you do regular backups and have a way to deal with shifting formats (easy for open standards, hard for closed standards or DRMed books).

6. Print books strike up more conversations about books with strangers. Some like this, some don't. For those who do, it is virtually always easier to identify print books from the covers and page headers than it is from the limited information on an ereader's screen. When strangers do strike up conversations with people using ereaders, it tends to be about the ereader itself.

7. ... now I'm stumped ...

Okay, so I couldn't come up with ten. On the other hand, I think that these are better reasons than the one in the article. It should also be noted that ebooks have their own advantages and the choice between ebook and pbook will depend upon what an individual is looking for. The choice is by no means universal and, as a few people have noted, a given person may be comfortable with both.

[Elfwreck]

7. Print books allow high-resolution images, often up to 2400dpi; art and text can be combined on a page in a way that allows both enjoyment of the design layout, and easy zooming-in to read the text.

8. Print books allow tactile and visual features that don't work on screens: cutout, popout and textured sections in children's books, metallic inks, tilted or varied-sized text (House of Leaves would never have been written in a digital-only book world).

9. Print books can carry memorabilia: not just annotations, but a specific person's annotations; not just "a bookmark," but "the concert ticket from our first date, at the chapter where the hero proposes to the heroine."

10. Print books let you know at a glance how much more there is to read; you can tell if you're a third of the way through or almost done without thinking about it.

There are more advantages. Print and ebooks serve different needs; I don't want print to vanish. But I'd really like "compare the two!" blog and news posts to compare *real* features, not "since I don't know how ebooks actually work, I'm going to claim that pbooks do that thing better."

[crich70]

Ten rebuttals to ten Reaons paper books are better.
You can read books in the bath.
You can read ebooks in the bath if you use a ziplock bag on the reader
No need to turn off your book on a plane!
That's what airplane mode is for
You can read in the sun.
Eink reads very well in direct sunlight
They fill your shelves.
you can fit 1000 ebooks in the space where one paper book goes
Antique books are amazing.
They are also slowly decomposing due to acid in the paper
You can’t get an e-book signed.
True for now
Libraries and bookstores!
Both sell or loan ebooks now
Finishing a long book is more rewarding this way.
Why? Doesn't it take the same time to read either one?
They inspire tattoos!
That's a good thing?
Books don’t die.
I wasn't aware they were alive in the 1st place.

[twowheels]

To be fair... I bought a paper book at the used bookstore the other day.. for carrying on my bike while riding into the wilderness for multiple days where I didn't want to risk losing or breaking my Kindle. :-)

[Apache]

Ebooks are better if you travel for a living. I would have killed for one back in the 1980's. I would have a suitcase full of books back then. Every so often I would box up the ones I had read and ship them home.
Apache

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Well, a new house and my other half clearing out the local Louis Vuitton would wipe out 1 million leaving me skint again

A million just doesn't go as far as it used to, I could probably stretch a couple of million out to retire on.

According to this site http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-...age-us-income/ the median household income is a shade over $50k so a million is only 20 years worth, sure you will gain some on not paying tax and some more on interest, but you will lose on inflation, sure you could spend a chunk of it on some really good body armour and tell your other half that they will have to keep working but I wouldn't recommend it

So, yes, I stand by my answer, 2 million is better for the average Joe than 1 million.

We would all take the two million given a choice. But most of us would experience the same exhilaration with one million as with two, unless our bud won the two at the same time

Helen.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by crich70

Ten rebuttals to ten Reaons paper books are better. ... snip

Antique books are amazing.
They are also slowly decomposing due to acid in the paper... snip

Depends upon your definition of Antique as cheaper acid containing papers are more from the 20th century... 19th and earlier are usually not the same cheaper pulp and, decomposition from any acid, is virtually non-existent since the paper is predominantly rag-based... so Antique books continue to be amazing...

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Apache

Ebooks are better if you travel for a living. I would have killed for one back in the 1980's. I would have a suitcase full of books back then. Every so often I would box up the ones I had read and ship them home.
Apache

If you don't mind the question, where were you traveling to back then Apache?

Originally Posted by crich70

Books don’t die.
I wasn't aware they were alive in the 1st place.

Books started out as living things. Those living things were then cold-heartedly murdered, brutally mashed into a pulp (frequently involving a chemical mixture that would make a mad scientist cackle with glee), then pressed into fiberous substraights using machines that would make medieval instruments of torture look humane. The rest of the process is slightly less sadistic, but it still isn't the sort of thing that you'd show a sensitive child.

So I assure you that books are dead things, rather than non-living things.

[bbqncigars]

As a former sometime country boy, I'm shocked that a crucial advantage of pbooks over ebooks has not been mentioned. Torn pages can rescue you in a critical time of need in the small room. The use of an ebook in this situation would be both ineffectual and disgusting. :-)

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'd really like "compare the two!" blog and news posts to compare *real* features

I'd go further: I'd like them to compare real features and consider the value of those features in different circumstances. To use examples from this thread: ebooks clearly have a lot of value to travellers, while print books have a lot of value to budget conscious consumers. Unfortunately, arguments that are that "nuanced" seem to be regarded as suspicious in our society.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I'd go further: I'd like them to compare real features and consider the value of those features in different circumstances. To use examples from this thread: ebooks clearly have a lot of value to travellers, while print books have a lot of value to budget conscious consumers. Unfortunately, arguments that are that "nuanced" seem to be regarded as suspicious in our society.

Nuanced is not the concern of those who compiled the list we are discussing here. It is a desperate (and pathetic) attempt to turn back the clock and turn people off to ebooks.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Nuanced is not the concern of those who compiled the list we are discussing here. It is a desperate (and pathetic) attempt to turn back the clock and turn people off to ebooks.

Like I said once before, I am an old salt.

I have loved books a long time. I still love books.

I much prefer to read books on computers be they eReaders, tablets, phones, laptops, or desktops.

I still have boxes of pBooks to turn in to the GoodWill who will sell them in the store for a dollar or online on Amazon for $4.00. (I wish the books, GoodWill, and hopefully new readers, well.)

JUST DON'T SEND THEM BACK. PLEASE!

[alicepattinson]

It's always better to start reading a book when you're a child. It's really different when they start with real books then ebooks afterwards. IMO. hehe