Paper books still have an advantage

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Asawi

I have yet to meet (IRL or online) anyone acting "superior" because they read paper books vs ebooks.

I haven't met anyone like that either, but even if I did — so what? Aren't they entitled to their opinion?

Nobody else in my extended family uses an eReader, except my dad (who, if he likes the book on the Kindle, will buy the "real" book). That's fine, I've given up trying to "convert" them to eReaders. They're just not interested. My daughter (who reads about five time faster than me) and father read constantly, the rest of the family have more intermittent reading habits.

I'm guessing there really are those who feel superior because they read "real" books. But I'm also guessing there are those who feel superior for using eBooks readers instead. No skin off my nose either way.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by issybird

Essentially force the conversation so that the opposite of "real" is "virtual" or "digital" and not "fake" or "phony". You define the terms, not the paperite.

Why do you want to force anyone into your specific definition of the terms? Why not just let it go?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I can't speak for others but here's why I normally use the term "real books" for paper books — because they're "real" in the sense that you actually hold them. With an eBook you hold a device that allows to read a book in electronic form. Break the device and you have nothing (until you can replace it). I'm not implying one is superior to the other (I almost exclusively read eBooks), it's just a distinction between the two.

For me, a book means primarily its content. The form or shape that content has been put in is just a shell, not the book itself. To me, a paper book is no more or less real than an ebook, an audiobook or a clay tablet. I find it utterly weird to call a paper book "real" simply because the content is encased in paper instead of some other medium. But I guess everyone has their own way of thinking.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Why do you want to force anyone into your specific definition of the terms? Why not just let it go?

^Largely this.^

The vast majority of the times I've heard or read "real book" it was used to distinguish between paper editions and electronic editions. Yes, there may have been times when it was uttered with a certain tone, but generally this is someone less than enthused with turning their life over to electronics. I've spent much of my career interfacing between technophiles and technophobes (or, at least, those less geeky than myself), as such, to take as an insult a comment from someone that knows no better seems to me to be overly defensive and naïve, not to mention usually quite counter-productive.

Of course, then there's the argument that language can and does instil prejudice. Without wanting to venture onto P&R ground, let's just say that there are more important battle grounds than how we describe different editions of the same [bleep] book.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

For me, a book means primarily its content. The form or shape that content has been put in is just a shell, not the book itself. To me, a paper book is no more or less real than an ebook, an audiobook or a clay tablet. I find it utterly weird to call a paper book "real" simply because the content is encased in paper instead of some other medium. But I guess everyone has their own way of thinking.

"Real" as in "it exists independently of any other medium." Without eReaders or other computers, or storage devices, or electricity, an eBook does not exist — the words themselves don't exist. If you go on an extended camping trip without electricity, you're not going to have a "real" book on your eReader. You have a "potential" book but one that requires the eReader be recharged. Not so with a "real" (paper) book. Until the pages rot away, it's always "on" and always "charged." It's never a "potential" book, it exists independently of the conditions necessary for the existence of an eBook. So, in that sense, a paper book is always "real," as opposed to the potential "reality" of an eBook when certain conditions are not met.

[Calenorn]

One great thing ereaders have done for me is open the door to thousands of books that are out of print in paper, but available in public domain as ebooks. It's like finding a hidden library floor that I never knew existed!

[issybird]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Why do you want to force anyone into your specific definition of the terms? Why not just let it go?

I agree with this, but I was responding to those who are offended by the use of "real". However, why not? As a general rule, why let someone else dictate the terms if they bother you?

This is akin to the (occasionally heated) discussion of whether or not people read audiobooks!

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by issybird

I agree with this, but I was responding to those who are offended by the use of "real". However, why not? As a general rule, why let someone else dictate the terms if they bother you?

This is akin to the (occasionally heated) discussion of whether or not people read audiobooks!

I guess I just don't get why any argument about how you enjoy a book should get heated. Listening to an audio book kind of goes against the grain for me. I don't why, but I equate reading with quiet time (which is why I mostly read at night). That said, I know people who almost exclusive listen to audio books and completely enjoy "reading" books that way. Which is great. Where I live I don't have to drive much, but if I did drive a lot I'd probably (at least) try listening to audio books in the car.

Oh, and sorry for missing your point. I do that too much.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

One great thing ereaders have done for me is open the door to thousands of books that are out of print in paper, but available in public domain as ebooks. It's like finding a hidden library floor that I never knew existed!

Absolutely agree there. A big chunk of the books I've bought from Amazon have been "cleaned up" out of print, public domain books. I would have never found most of these if they hadn't been "reprinted" as eBooks.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

As I've mentioned in several other threads, dropping an eReader containing 300 books on your foot is a lot less painful than dropping 300 paper books on your foot.

Not if the screen cracks.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

For me, a book means primarily its content. The form or shape that content has been put in is just a shell, not the book itself. To me, a paper book is no more or less real than an ebook, an audiobook or a clay tablet. I find it utterly weird to call a paper book "real" simply because the content is encased in paper instead of some other medium. But I guess everyone has their own way of thinking.

Exactly. If someone sees me reading on my device and tells me how much they prefer "real" books, I just smile and tell them that I do, as well. The book is the content, not the container, in my world.

Shari

[shalym]

Originally Posted by rcentros

"Real" as in "it exists independently of any other medium." Without eReaders or other computers, or storage devices, or electricity, an eBook does not exist — the words themselves don't exist. If you go on an extended camping trip without electricity, you're not going to have a "real" book on your eReader. You have a "potential" book but one that requires the eReader be recharged. Not so with a "real" (paper) book. Until the pages rot away, it's always "on" and always "charged." It's never a "potential" book, it exists independently of the conditions necessary for the existence of an eBook. So, in that sense, a paper book is always "real," as opposed to the potential "reality" of an eBook when certain conditions are not met.

...until you drop your paper book into the lake. My e-reader is waterproof. What do you do when you finish that one paper book? How many do you bring with you on vacation? I just got back from a weekend in Northern New England, and I read 3 books on my device. It was a lot easier for me to bring two small, light, e-readers than it would have been to bring 3 books with me. Of course, I would have had to bring more than 3, just in case I finished the first 3 and needed another, or I decided that I wanted to read in a different genre (something I do regularly)

Besides, if I'm going on vacation, I always bring a spare reader with me, both loaded with all of the same books. (and of course, I always have my phone if something were to happen to both readers). If I'm going camping, I always bring my solar charger.

Shari

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I can't speak for others but here's why I normally use the term "real books" for paper books — because they're "real" in the sense that you actually hold them. With an eBook you hold a device that allows to read a book in electronic form. Break the device and you have nothing (until you can replace it). I'm not implying one is superior to the other (I almost exclusively read eBooks), it's just a distinction between the two.

Backups.

If the paper book is damaged (fire, flood, worms, slugs, dogs etc) or stolen, or not returned from loan, or somehow lost, then it's gone. You might not be able to buy a new copy.

All my ebooks are backed up in multiple ways. I have several ereaders. If an ereader is lost, stolen or broken I still have those books.

DRM removal is a necessity.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by rcentros

"Real" as in "it exists independently of any other medium." Without eReaders or other computers, or storage devices, or electricity, an eBook does not exist — the words themselves don't exist. If you go on an extended camping trip without electricity, you're not going to have a "real" book on your eReader. You have a "potential" book but one that requires the eReader be recharged. Not so with a "real" (paper) book. Until the pages rot away, it's always "on" and always "charged." It's never a "potential" book, it exists independently of the conditions necessary for the existence of an eBook. So, in that sense, a paper book is always "real," as opposed to the potential "reality" of an eBook when certain conditions are not met.

Sorry, no. Nothing is always real. All things can be destroyed, get lost, stolen and so on. Including paper books and even clay or stone tablets.

[Calenorn]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Absolutely agree there. A big chunk of the books I've bought from Amazon have been "cleaned up" out of print, public domain books. I would have never found most of these if they hadn't been "reprinted" as eBooks.

Ebooks are preserving literature in a wholesale way that would be very difficult if one had to collect the original paper books.

And even if the books are still available in paper, ebooks take up so much less space!