Seven things you should never buy online

[carld]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I was just responding to the person who said that the idea that someone would read an old book instead of buying a new one was a fallacy.

The fallacy is that old books are somehow an equal substitute for current literature. Which is what the article seems to claim. Why buy a new book when you can get an old book for free?

Just because a old book is available for free doesn't mean it's going to interest to me personally. I like to read urban fantasy and hard science-fiction. Those either don't exist in classic literature or are so incredibly out of date that they're laughable.

Really the only way free classic literature works is if you already like classic literature.

[Worldwalker]

There's also the requirement for "a book you no longer want" to swap. As anyone who helped move our stuff could tell, that doesn't apply to very many books in my case!

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by carld

I like to read urban fantasy and hard science-fiction. Those either don't exist in classic literature or are so incredibly out of date that they're laughable.

Hey, don't be dissing my classic sci-fi

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by carld

Really the only way free classic literature works is if you already like classic literature.

Which is my preference.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Also, I read books about elves. A woman a hundred years ago is still a lot more human than any elf.

(elves who are just humans with stick-on Spock ears don't count)

I read quite a bit of fantasy too, but the elves still have human characteristics, or are likable (or unlikable) in their own way

[queentess]

Originally Posted by carld

The fallacy is that old books are somehow an equal substitute for current literature. Which is what the article seems to claim. Why buy a new book when you can get an old book for free?

Just because a old book is available for free doesn't mean it's going to interest to me personally. I like to read urban fantasy and hard science-fiction. Those either don't exist in classic literature or are so incredibly out of date that they're laughable.

Really the only way free classic literature works is if you already like classic literature.

I think we're all talking about two different things. There's old and new in the article, which is referring (aside from the mention of PG) to used books versus buying brand new. And then there's the whole contemporary versus classic argument.

I have no problem with used books (well, only insofar as I prefer to read ebooks instead of pbooks), but I don't read many classics because I prefer contemporary fiction. Price doesn't come into play because (for me) they're not substitutable items. The free books on Smashwords also don't appeal to me (though for a different reason) and are also not just cheaper substitutes for contemporary fiction. That opinion will obviously vary from person to person.

[carld]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Which is my preference.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not true of most people, which is what makes the article's claim a fallacy.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by carld

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not true of most people, which is what makes the article's claim a fallacy.

Not really. The article says "why buy a classic when you can have it for free?" Which is not the same as saying "why buy contemporary when you can read a classic instead?"

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by carld

The fallacy is that old books are somehow an equal substitute for current literature. Which is what the article seems to claim. Why buy a new book when you can get an old book for free?

So at what point do books become irrelevant?

And why don't those of us who have this apparently mistaken idea that we actually like Tom Sawyer or Hour of the Dragon know that?

[Anthem]

Seems like a sorta worthless list...

(People should have their computers taken from them if they don't know a couple of those thanks to Common Sense.)

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

There's also the requirement for "a book you no longer want" to swap. As anyone who helped move our stuff could tell, that doesn't apply to very many books in my case!

While I have a problem letting go of books, too (and I'm a huge fantasy fan), Goodreads is a great place to do a bookswap. I've gotten a couple of "new" books this way: The Man with the Golden Torc, HB copy of Kushiel's Dart, etc.

The amount of room I have for new DTB is limited, however. I'm almost required to buy only ebooks or my husband says I have to start getting rid of 1 book for every 2 new ones I bring in the house.

[Worldwalker]

It's one of those things normal people can't understand. They think there's a need for all sorts of furniture that isn't bookcases, and they find moving books in order to sit down to be onerous. Hey, if I had more bookcases (and more space to put bookcases) they wouldn't have to move books, right?

[carld]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

So at what point do books become irrelevant?

And why don't those of us who have this apparently mistaken idea that we actually like Tom Sawyer or Hour of the Dragon know that?

I didn't say they were irrelevant. Please don't put words in my mouth.

The original article says that we shouldn't buy books online, but ...

if you've got an ebook reader, head over to Project Gutenberg and download thousands of works of literature for free.

I agreed that this is a fallacy. Just because a book is free doesn't mean it's something that most people are going to be interested in. Free classics are not a drop-in replacement for current literature.

[carld]

Originally Posted by queentess

Not really. The article says "why buy a classic when you can have it for free?" Which is not the same as saying "why buy contemporary when you can read a classic instead?"

Actually it says

why buy a book at all when you can swap one you no longer want and get it for free instead?

And then he points out Project Gutenberg for ereaders, which is basically the same thing as saying "why buy contemporary when you can read a classic instead?"

His book entry boils down to -- don't buy books online, swap them for free (who pays postage btw?), or download a classic.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

It's one of those things normal people can't understand. They think there's a need for all sorts of furniture that isn't bookcases, and they find moving books in order to sit down to be onerous. Hey, if I had more bookcases (and more space to put bookcases) they wouldn't have to move books, right?

Exactly! I’ve found replacing certain furniture with bookcases and using pillows for seating only works for a small period of time. I don't understand why people want to complain about sitting on the floor when they are surrounded by books?

*but honestly, my first apt out of college was nothing but pillows and bookcases. I had to get those pesky chairs later.