The Atlantic: Ebooks Are an Abomination

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I still have nostalgia for the Narnia books I've held onto since childhood. There's a few other books like that. But were I to decide I wanted to reread them, I'd read them on my Kobo.

I have my original boxed 1965 set. But I reread a newer set some years ago as they are fragile. I just re-read "The Silver Chair" on my Kobo Libra.

One advantage of ebooks is being able to increase the font size late at night when your eyes are tired.

[ps67]

15 days ago I went to the bookstore and bought a book. I liked it a lot but as I read it I thought I would have preferred the ebook. To the point that I would almost buy the ebook too. I know, I would spend another 12 euros in addition to the 35 already spent and it would not make sense, but really in that book I lacked the pop up notes, the possibility to choose the font, to enlarge it if I am slightly more tired and so on. There is nothing to do, I have never had the fetish of the book (except if it is really old, 1800 or early 1900 at the most) as a physical object, only the love for the information that is inside. Of course, there are books for which the printed book is important, such as those of art, but it is different.

[binaryhermit]

To me, this article reads like "Back when I was a kid, I had to walk 15 miles to school, uphill both ways"

[ZodWallop]

I enjoy reading in bed at night and the light from any of my ereaders, all the way back to my Nook STwG that I bought 10 years ago, is less intrusive on a sleeping partner than any bedside lamp. And the addition of amber lights makes that more true.

Also, the frontlight lights the entire page no matter what angle I'm holding the reader at, unlike the bedside lamp and a paperback.

[cvkemp]

I found ebooks about 12 years ago and I do my best not to waste paper and trees anymore with paper books. I am always reading on as many as 5 books in any one day and it is easy to only carry one device around, and not have to carry the physical books. I can also pick up anyone of my devices and continue one, they are always synced.

[rem736]

incendiary headlines like "Ebooks Are an Abomination" deserve an equally incendiary headline in return - "Paper Books Are Killing the Planet".

cutting trees takes away a resource to store carbon. cutting trees require equipment that releases carbon. transportation of said trees releases carbon. manufacturing of paper from trees releases carbon. production of books releases carbon. shipping of books to warehouses and stores releases carbon. consumers driving to stores to buy books releases carbon.

ergo, paper books are killing the planet.

they also cause health issues (think back problems from lifting heavy books and paper cuts). they unnecessarily take up space (think new york studio apartments)

[j.p.s]

In addition, the monocultural tree farms, AKA biological deserts, that provide the raw material for paper are wreaking havoc on ecology, including changing the local soils into mere dirt, eliminating habitat for many species and amplifying the spread of tree pathogens.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

Why Are Ebooks So Terrible?

2010 called, it wants its anti-ebook rant back.

Maybe someone will enjoy this. I found it an incredibly tedious pedantic diatribe by someone who can't seem to separate content from physical form, and thinks it novel (no pun intended) to point out that books on art, architecture, and design aren't well suited to ebook readers.

Can't argue with any of your points. I think the writer's second sentence... "Maybe it's snobbery." ...pretty much sums up his attitude towards eBooks. And the whole article felt like someone trying to meet the minimum requirement for the number of words in their essay, especially the "history" of the printed book. Mostly just "filler."

That said, I've got nothing against those who like printed books (my daughter is one who won't read eBooks). That part of this rant (and most of the article) could have been summed up in one sentence. "I don't like eBooks because I like the way a printed book feels in my hands." That's understandable and direct. I also like the way a printed book feels in my hands, the heft of it, even the smell of ink and paper — but not enough to reject the convenience of eReaders.

What's really pathetic about this article is that it was published under the heading "Technology." But it was obvious that the writer had an extremely superficial knowledge of the subject. For him, it appears, there's only the Kindle and the iPad — nothing else seems to exist in this "technology writer's" world of eBook readers. What's more, it appears that he's only familiar with the Kindle DX. In his last paragraph he writes, "If you like ebooks, great. Enjoy your grey, dim screen in peace." And so he ends up cementing his own self-analysis, "maybe it's snobbery." It definitely looks like that's the case.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I had a feeling that the author had maybe held an ereader in his hand once and done so at least 10 years ago. ...

Yep. Basically it looked liked eInk eReaders meant "Kindle DX" to him. That's why it was absurd that this was printed under the heading "technology."

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

eBooks are terrible because publishers treat them as 2nd class citizens while simultaneously pricing them higher than the paper versions. ...

About a month ago I bought the 7 Chronicles of Narnia books in one eBook for $4.99. There are thousands of "out of print" eBooks available for free. There a thousands of eBooks for sale cheaply that would have never been reprinted on paper because it would have too expensive for a limited market. And, in opposition to the article, a lot of the books I've bought cheaply are non-fiction written in the late 1800s or early 1900s. These simply would not have been available at a cost I could afford if not for eReaders.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Me, I like my books to be in cuneiform on fired clay tablets. Don't go along with this ephemeral paper stuff.

---

[E'lir]

I'm of the opinion that the value of a book lies in its content rather than its form. What matters are the stories and the knowledge one can gain from reading, regardless of the platform or the format. Physical, digital, audio. It's all the same as long as you are actually learning or experiencing something.

IMO, obsessing only over the aesthetics physical books to the point of gatekeeping (in what i've come to describe as "Bookishness fetish") is more about the looks and the percieved status they give than about the actual books andtheir messages.

And I say this as someone who devoured physical books growing up.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In his last paragraph he writes, "If you like ebooks, great. Enjoy your grey, dim screen in peace." And so he ends up cementing his own self-analysis, "maybe it's snobbery." It definitely looks like that's the case.

Yeah, it was the condescending, passive-aggressive tone in which the entire article was written that rubbed me the wrong way. Why can't people just stop at "I prefer physical books"? Why the need to pretend that bashing ebooks/ereaders is some sort of high-brow sport?

[joblack]

I couldn't care less about an opinion of an uninformed snob ...

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yeah, it was the condescending, passive-aggressive tone in which the entire article was written that rubbed me the wrong way. Why can't people just stop at "I prefer physical books"? Why the need to pretend that bashing ebooks/ereaders is some sort of high-brow sport?

They want to feel high-brow, of course. How else would they feel that way if not labeling others low-brow?

Perhaps we should feel sorry for the guy. Obviously he's suffering from some kind of an inferiority complex because of his love of paper books.