Paper books still have an advantage

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

You certainly wouldn't be the first person that prefers to take insult rather than try to understand.

Isn't the converse true as well? Just because one may have been lucky enough to never have encountered anyone who intends "real book" as an insult, doesn't mean that person's experience is par for the course. Saying "get over it" (or even suggesting trying to understand someone who's ranting on a bully-pulpit against ebooks) is not quite fair to those whose experiences in this regard clearly differ from their own. Those people wouldn't be the first to prefer to be dismissive rather than try to understand.

We all know that there's many people who use "real book" innocently (or at the very least ignorantly). Context is everything. But some in this argument would have us believe that insult is so rarely intended by "real book" as to be completely negligible. That those who take offense are doing so when no offense is intended. That's not been the experience of many. I know when I'm being insulted by someone who's espousing a haughty opinion of ebooks. It's not a lack of understanding.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Oh, I understand perfectly. That's why I choose to take insult.

Well, it seems to me that you can choose to be insulted or choose to feel superior to a gross display of both ignorance and incivility.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

[...]

We all know that there's many people who use "real book" innocently (or at the very least ignorantly). Context is everything. [...]

Which is how these conversations sometimes get so convoluted. The post you quoted was responding to the comment "That's insulting, no matter the context."

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Isn't the converse true as well?

And to come back to your initial question. No, in my opinion the converse is not true. Firstly, nothing I've said denies the existence of people people who may intend "real book" in a "real" vs "fake" sense, but whether I should feel insulted by such intention is an entirely different matter anyway.

Being primed to receive insult means raising argument where there may not be any need. It means possibly misconstruing perfectly innocent sentences and derailing entire conversations all because of some need to exert one particular view of the world, some particular way of phrasing oneself.

Whereas failing to recognise an intended insult (if it was truly intended) typically just annoys the one sending the insult, the person on the receiving end continues in the bliss of ignorance. I don't see anything wrong with offering the benefit-of-the-doubt and interpreting "real book" in the sense that I might use it myself, it does me no harm.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by gmw

Being primed to receive insult means raising argument where there may not be any need. It means possibly misconstruing perfectly innocent sentences and derailing entire conversations all because of some need to exert one particular view of the world, some particular way of phrasing oneself.

Whereas failing to recognise an intended insult (if it was truly intended) typically just annoys the one sending the insult, the person on the receiving end continues in the bliss of ignorance. I don't see anything wrong with offering the benefit-of-the-doubt and interpreting "real book" in the sense that I might use it myself, it does me no harm.

I did not say I would always act on being insulted. If my hypothetical 90-year-old grandauntie mentioned "real" books, I would ignore it, because chances are she'd be ignorant in such matters, so no point in arguing with her. Anyone under 70 and of sound mind, now... Yes, I quarrel with people all the time about things that matter to me. I don't particularly care about good relationships and getting along, or about relationships at all actually. When I don't agree with someone, I won't keep mum about it. YMMV.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I did not say I would always act on being insulted. If my hypothetical 90-year-old grandauntie mentioned "real" books, I would ignore it, because chances are she'd be ignorant in such matters, so no point in arguing with her. [...]

Ah, so context does matter to you. There are situations where you would decide that there is "no point in arguing", and that ignorance can be an excuse. So we're not really that far apart, we just draw the line in different places.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by gmw

Ah, so context does matter to you. There are situations where you would decide that there is "no point in arguing", and that ignorance can be an excuse. So we're not really that far apart, we just draw the line in different places.

It doesn't matter in the sense that I would still feel insulted (that I can't avoid), but yes, it does matter in the sense whether I act on it or not. Total ignorance is an excuse, but very few people are totally ignorant in digital matters these days.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

With an eBook, I can go online, buy it and have it now.

I was talking about the ones you can only read with a special app while connected to their servers.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by John F

No, an ebook is a book (and remains an book until it isn't, file is erased or storage is destroyed).

I don't see how this differs from an ebook.

Except it's not a book on its own. It needs an additional component — a computer — to simulate a book. There is a reason why "eBooks" are called eBooks instead of simply "books" — it's because they are different. Nobody can receive an eBook on a thumb drive and read it without some kind of computer. Books, on the other hand, are complete. I can lend a book to someone without a computer or eReader and they can read it. Not so with an eBook.

Originally Posted by John F

So if I give someone an ereader with a single ebook on it, then you have a book.

At that point you're giving me an eReader AND an eBook, which together simulate a book. You'll notice that eBook readers also simulate turning pages (they're even numbered) but you aren't actually turning pages. A simulation is not the same as reality.

Originally Posted by John F

Why does that matter I thought part of your argument is:

A book doesn't have words either. It has strokes that are interpreted as glyphs. Or has dots of ink that are interpreted as glyphs. Or toner that is interpreted as glyphs, ...

Glyphs form letters, letters form words. Toner does not "interpret" glyphs, or anything at all. It has no ability to reason. I think you're reaching here.

Originally Posted by John F

I have no problem with the dictionary definition of book. Here is another one:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...y/english/book

Published maybe, but it still doesn't stand on its own. In other words an eBook is different than a paper book.

Originally Posted by John F

But if you are talking about a book on MR, or in a modern context, "a book is a pbook" seems like an archaic definition.

Except no one in the "real" world refers to a book as a "pbook." They refer to a paper book as a book and an electronic book as an ebook.

Again, I'm not trying to denigrate eBooks. I almost exclusively read eBooks now. I'm just trying to explain why a lot of people consider a book (a paper book) a "real" book. There is a difference. Playing with the terminology doesn't change that fact.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

In my experience, it's almost always been meant to be snarky when brought up. I' m not exaggerating. When people go all "real book" on me in conversation, it's nearly always in conjunction with the opinion that I'm somehow "wrong" for favoring ebooks. They then proceed to defend their position with completely non-readery reasons. I'd take absolutely no issue with people sharing their personal preference for pbooks with me. I don't care what they prefer themselves. It's when they cross the line from "I don't care for ebooks myself" to taking issue with me because I do that I feel justified in getting a little cranky with them. And that's happened to me more than a little. Often enough to not be able to be explained away by misunderstandings over a definition of terms.

Never been the case for me. Mostly it's my extended family I talk to, and they're usually apologetic for preferring paper books to eBooks, because I've tried to foist eReaders on them several times. They feel bad about not being interested in them. I quit bugging them about eReaders because they're just not interested.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

An ebook, or electronic book, is a digital version ...

Someone needs to remove that chat AI thingy from you, wherever/whatever it is.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Never been the case for me. Mostly it's my extended family I talk to, and they're usually apologetic for preferring paper books to eBooks, because I've tried to foist eReaders on them several times. They feel bad about not being interested in them. I quit bugging them about eReaders because they're just not interested.

I've never met a single person in my life who has been apologetic about preferring paper books. I've met more than one person who has made me feel like I should be apologetic for preferring ebooks. "Book racism" is very alive and well where I live. That's probably why I'm so vehement about the "real book" definition. I'm sick and tired of it. Book=paper is long outdated and its place is in the trash can of history.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

There are plenty of people for whom that statement is not true. People with vision problems, for example.

Moreover, "real" and "tangible" or "physical" are by no means the same thing. I would not take offense when someone said they only read physical books or paper books. I do take offense when someone says they read real books (in a conversation involving ebooks), implying that ebooks are somehow not real. That's insulting, no matter the context. There are plenty of nonphysical things in the world that are considered real nevertheless. But for some reason ebooks are not real, because they're not physical? Sorry, but that's totally illogical to me.

It's not that people don't think eBooks are real, the reason they use "real books" is that they are differentiating between books ("real," or something tangible they can hold in their hands) and eBooks, a book that (to them) is not "real," and not something they can hold in their hands. It's specifically because they understand that there is a difference between the two that qualify "book" with "real." "Paper book" is a term people don't normally use because "paper book" brings to mind "paperback books," and they want to include both hardback books and paperback books when they differentiate between "real" books and eBooks.

I immediately understand that when people refer to "real books," they mean books that are not eBooks (or audio books).

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But we all know that "real book" when referring to a pBook is saying that an eBook is fake.

It's not how I understand it. Most people just refer to books as books unless they want to differentiate them from eBooks. They may not be interested in eBooks (as members of my extended family are not) but they don't think they're fake.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by rcentros

It's not that people don't think eBooks are real, the reason they use "real books" is that they are differentiating between books ("real," or something tangible they can hold in their hands) and eBooks, a book that (to them) is not "real," and not something they can hold in their hands. It's specifically because they understand that there is a difference between the two that qualify "book" with "real." "Paper book" is a term people don't normally use because "paper book" brings to mind "paperback books," and they want to include both hardback books and paperback books when they differentiate between "real" books and eBooks.

I immediately understand that when people refer to "real books," they mean books that are not eBooks (or audio books).

I guess you and I have interacted with a pretty different crowd. Most people who use the phrase "real book" here (after ebooks have been mentioned) specifically mean "something that is a book, as opposed to something that is not a book". I'm willing to believe that's different in your corner of the world, as ebooks generally seem to be vastly more popular in the US than in Europe. In my country there is a real snobbish attitude toward ebooks, that possibly no longer exists in the US.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

There are plenty of people for whom that statement is not true. People with vision problems, for example.

People with vision problems aren't going to be reading eBooks either. Fortunately there are still audio books.

But "plenty" is not most and words are defined by what is common, not by the exceptions.