The Merits of Reading Real Books to Your Children

[DiapDealer]

Besides ... the world produced scads of literate, intelligent people for centuries before book-shaped pacifiers and toys started being sold for children to slobber on. I'm simply not buying the premise of the article. Don't get me wrong; I think promoting literacy is a very admirable thing. I just don't think giving book-shaped toys to children too young to understand the concept of being read to (let alone reading) plays much of a "real" role in promoting literacy.

[pendragginp]

I too get so tired of this. The book is the content. Period. Whether it's rendered in paper form, audio form, electronic form. Harry Potter as audio is the same book as the paper version. Is anyone really going to argue differently? Certainly not Rowling. People will have their preference for the form, of course; but it's the same book.

Most books when written these days are written electronically, you know; but even when not they don't come into being already bound between two covers. The book is the expression of the writer's mind. The content.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The fact that our definitions of "book" differ is irrelevant to whether or not ebooks are "real." I stand by my assessment. Anyone who uses the the term "real book" is showing their disdain for (or ignorance of) "ebooks."

And seriously ... if someone asks you, "did you read this book?", are you really telling me that you're going to say, "no, but I did read the 'Electronic Representation' of it" ? That's just silly.

I'm not talking about whether ebooks are real (of course they are). I'm not even advocating that we stop calling them books, since it would be next to impossible to achieve. I just don't have a problem with using the term "real book" when talking about the physical form rather than the contents.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I'm not talking about whether ebooks are real (of course they are). I'm not even advocating that we stop calling them books, since it would be next to impossible to achieve. I just don't have a problem with using the term "real book" when talking about the physical form rather than the contents.

It is a PAPERBACK/hardback BOOK, not a snobbish 'Real Book'

[kennyc]

Yeah, the problem with using the term 'real' book for a printed book clearly carries the implication that any other form of book is 'unreal' - the spawn of the devil!

[theducks]

Audio books can be ether a Performance by one or more Narrators , who add color to the prose and help make it live
or
you get what happens with TTS, The Words and not even the (contextual) feeling behind them.

This may be why many of us are disappointed with books that have been made into movies . The director overly tampered with the visual created by the author. (Sometimes More is not...)

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by theducks

It is a PAPERBACK/hardback BOOK, not a snobbish 'Real Book'

I am trying to explain how I, who thinks a book is a bound collection of leaves by definition, can use the phrase "real book" without making any kind of value judgements on other forms of publications. That is my whole point, that you don't have to be offended when you see the phrase, for no offense is intended.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I am trying to explain how I, who thinks a book is a bound collection of leaves by definition, can use the phrase "real book" without making any kind of value judgements on other forms of publications. That is my whole point, that you don't have to be offended when you see the phrase, for no offense is intended.

Is an ebook also a "real" book?

Or what about a book on papyrus?

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Is an ebook also a "real" book?

Or what about a book on papyrus?

I would say that neither are books (i.e. leaves bound together). I realize that that is not the popular definition here. In my opinion, people are conflating the contents with the container. In most cases, it doesn't make any difference, since most books contain one novel each. However, there are exceptions. For example, I have a volume of four novels which were bound together. I call that bound thing a book, but it seems that some here would actually call it four books, and that I don't agree with. I prefer to call the contents something that is separate from the container, for example, novel, collection of poems or short stories, anthology, treatise,... "Book" is just what it is packaged in.

I'm saying this to make it clear that I can use the phrase "real book" without passing judgement on other forms of publications. I read epubs without wishing they were printed on paper, and appreciate the advantages reading on devices brings. I am not being snobbish about the containers.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I would say that neither are books (i.e. leaves bound together). I realize that that is not the popular definition here. In my opinion, people are conflating the contents with the container. In most cases, it doesn't make any difference, since most books contain one novel each. However, there are exceptions. For example, I have a volume of four novels which were bound together. I call that bound thing a book, but it seems that some here would actually call it four books, and that I don't agree with. I prefer to call the contents something that is separate from the container, for example, novel, collection of poems or short stories, anthology, treatise,... "Book" is just what it is packaged in.

I'm saying this to make it clear that I can use the phrase "real book" without passing judgement on other forms of publications. I read epubs without wishing they were printed on paper, and appreciate the advantages reading on devices brings. I am not being snobbish about the containers.

Next question if you do not think either ebooks or papyrus are books then what would you call them?
Strange since the ancients wrote books on papyrus.

Hold on.
I will be right back.
According to numerous dictionaries, book= written text that can be printed or in electronic form.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by kennyc

We are talking about very young children here, and we begin by giving out board books which are designed to be chewed and drooled on by babies who are still exploring the world orally, or thrown down (repeatedly) off the high chair by young children who are just figuring out object permanence and experimenting with ways to train their parents to fetch and retrieve. But the most essential attribute of those board books, beyond their durability, is that they pull in the parent, not only to pick them up, but to ask and answer questions, name the pictures, make the animal noises.

Having a physical printed book is better because mom and dad have to pick them up repeatedly when the little brat throws it across the room?!

I really hate this "children-as-gods" culture we have right now.

Moms and Dads can read to their little ones, "answering questions, naming the pictures, and making the animal noises" regardless of the format.

And I say this even as someone who actually prefers physical books for the littler kids. I still have enough nostalgia for sitting in my Mom or Dad's lap, "helping" by turning the pages, flipping back to look at a favorite picture again...to want that for my great-nieces and -nephews.

But if a kid's parents choose to read to their kids from a tablet screen, at least they're reading to their kids! That, to me, is the most important part.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Having a physical printed book is better because mom and dad have to pick them up repeatedly when the little brat throws it across the room?!

Casting is a normal stage of child development in the "social" arena, typically starting between the ages of 6-12 months, and stopping by about 18 months. It is not a child being a "little brat". You get worried about children if they never cast (among other things), not the other way around.

[darryl]

@rkomar. You seem to be using the dictionary definition of books. The Oxford dictionary, for example, even limits the method of binding of the pages to glueing or sewing. Terms must evolve not only with usage but also with technology. The usage of the word "book" was not appropriated. It "evolved" to encompass new technologies which simply did not exist when the term was defined. The use of the term "real books" carries the implication that ebooks and audiobooks are not "real". However, you apparently accept that the usage of the term "books" has in fact changed to encompass ebooks. Whether such change is by way of evolution or appropriation would not seem to be relevant. Under this changed usage bound paper books are no more "real" than ebooks or audiobooks.

[Luffy]

I started my reading experience by reading Indian comic books for free when at the age of 6 or maybe younger, I just don't remember. But it's my tuition teacher who inculcated the love of English books into me. A vividly remembered reading of Beauty and the Beast was the deciding factor with me going for English books, as opposed to French newspapers and magazines, that got printed daily where I live.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by darryl

@rkomar. You seem to be using the dictionary definition of books. The Oxford dictionary, for example, even limits the method of binding of the pages to glueing or sewing. Terms must evolve not only with usage but also with technology. The usage of the word "book" was not appropriated. It "evolved" to encompass new technologies which simply did not exist when the term was defined. The use of the term "real books" carries the implication that ebooks and audiobooks are not "real". However, you apparently accept that the usage of the term "books" has in fact changed to encompass ebooks. Whether such change is by way of evolution or appropriation would not seem to be relevant. Under this changed usage bound paper books are no more "real" than ebooks or audiobooks.

I can both acknowledge that the usage of the word "book" has changed while protesting that change itself. I don't like that the word has less meaning now than it used to; it seems to be a step backwards. Again, I'll bring up the example of a bound volume with four novels in it. Is it one book or four? It's hard to say with the new usage, but crystal clear with the old. Something has been lost.

I've also been trying hard to explain why saying that something isn't a "real book" isn't an insult, but it's falling on deaf ears. So be it, be insulted then. I'm giving up trying to keep you from that.