Book lovers have emotional bond with paper

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by kfarmer

I, too, tend to be reading several things at once (when I get the opportunity to read). Yet I've never found the stack of books to be a problem. I've actually found them charming.

That's fine. Please understand that there are plenty of who don't and aren't any less feeling or inspired than you are. I don't have a problem with you liking paper books. I have a problem with you insulting those of us that don't share your preferences.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by kfarmer

Hate to say it, but anonymous, clean, lightweight, and disposable are just one noun away from being any number of catered fetishes.

Disposable = fetish? A fetish is an object someone finds necessary to derive pleasure. It is by no means disposable. I don't find my reader necessary. I find it improves my experience and increases convenience. It's a tool. I am not emotionally attached to it. I can still enjoy reading a paper book. I just prefer live trees, an uncluttered house, and having my books conveniently indexed.

[kfarmer]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Actually I think legibility is a bit of a requirement for the content. Trying to overstate his position to the point it's ludicrous doesn't make yours any better. It's a cheap tactic.

Odd that there are published works that have exactly those characteristics, intentionally.

It's not a cheap tactic. It's your own predjudices.

Originally Posted by Alisa

I don't think you can equate a mass-produced printed copy of a book to an original hand-written document or a painting. They have the hand of the artist on them. The vast majority of smudgy old books, don't. They were designed by a print house to carry the content. That's like worshiping a shipping crate someone packaged the precious Van Gogh in. It doesn't get you any closer to the painting.

It's helluva a lot closer to the hand of the artist than the reader is. Having just completed a stint in editting of a mass-produced printed book, I hate to inform you that the author does have say in the book itself. Sometimes limited by standardized templates, and perhaps sometimes the author doesn't care, or perhaps the particular printing house doesn't let the author meddle in things.

But you are indeed mistaken.

[kfarmer]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I have a problem with you insulting those of us that don't share your preferences.

Likewise, I'm sure. It's the sole reason I jumped into this thread to begin with -- the attitude dripping off it was unbearable.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by kfarmer

It's helluva a lot closer to the hand of the artist than the reader is. Having just completed a stint in editting of a mass-produced printed book, I hate to inform you that the author does have say in the book itself. Sometimes limited by standardized templates, and perhaps sometimes the author doesn't care, or perhaps the particular printing house doesn't let the author meddle in things.

It depends on the author. Most modern authors are typing their books on a computer so the reader is actually closer to their writing experience than the paper. Is a typeset paperback novel any closer to the quill pen of Jane Austen than the reader? They're both so far away that I don't see myself any closer to her either way. It's going to be the words that draw me in. Her words in her original manuscript may feel more like the brushstrokes of the Van Gogh in person, but I'm not going to have that. I'm going to have pulp, cardboard and a regular font set down by a machine. I actually do have a reproduction of one of her hand-written stories. It's one of the few books I value because you can see something of her in the physical object. I've been through more regular print copies of her novels than I can recall. I lend them out and don't get them back. I don't care. Someone else is enjoying them. Now I have them all on my reader whenever I want them.

[kfarmer]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Disposable = fetish? A fetish is an object someone finds necessary to derive pleasure. It is by no means disposable. I don't find my reader necessary. I find it improves my experience and increases convenience. It's a tool. I am not emotionally attached to it. I can still enjoy reading a paper book. I just prefer live trees, an uncluttered house, and having my books conveniently indexed.

Limited definition of fetish on your part.

Fetishes include objects, certainly, and not just to derive pleasure. Fetishes are, more widely, anything (noun, verb, adjective, etc) used as a nigh-required part of some ritual or practice -- religion (chalices, holy books, etc), pleasure (name it, there's a fetish of it somewhere), everyday tasks (compulsive behaviors especially), etc all have their fetishes associated with them.

Disposability and convenience are also fetishes for some people, as are permanence and labor.

(Incidentally, I like live trees as well: I've got an acre of 100-foot-or-more in my yard.. thankfully these are the ones that survived the windstorm before we bought. )

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by kfarmer

Likewise, I'm sure. It's the sole reason I jumped into this thread to begin with -- the attitude dripping off it was unbearable.

Sadly you decided to insult everyone regardless of whether they insulted you.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by kfarmer

Fetishes are, more widely, anything (noun, verb, adjective, etc) used as a nigh-required part of some ritual or practice -- religion (chalices, holy books, etc), pleasure (name it, there's a fetish of it somewhere), everyday tasks (compulsive behaviors especially), etc all have their fetishes associated with them.

Right. My point is my reader is not required but preferred.

[NatCh]

In any case, I think the claim that at least some readers have an emotional attachment to paper has been amply substantiated.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Then maybe we should dispense with the attitude. KFarmer, if you jumped in just to trash people's opinions that paper isn't the be-all-and-end-all of books, I'm not sure why you even bothered. (Read the website's name... it's not like you're going to convert anyone to paper.) We've had enough cross-ridiculing for today.

That said, we're discussing, even debating, but we shouldn't be beating up on each other. The issue here is the article and its statement, and whether it has more of a basis in fact, supposition, propaganda, or myth.

The point is, everyone's different. Yes, I've been to the National Gallery, thank you very much. But I am not without an appreciation for fine art just because I am not in a museum. Some of the finest art in the world resides in my computer, right where I want it, and can view it at any time. I don't have to wait for the local museums to open. Likewise for concert halls, movie theaters and strip bars.

With books, all I need are the words. (Punctuation helps.) I don't need them in fancy paper bindings to enjoy them, and I don't need them on a park bench surrounded by cooing doves to appreciate them. That's me. That's obviously not you, KFarmer. So, why don't we move on?

(And by the way: To paraphrase Dizzy Gillespie, an e-book is NOT a fetish. It's an affectation!)

[kfarmer]

Originally Posted by Alisa

It depends on the author. Most modern authors are typing their books on a computer so the reader is actually closer to their writing experience than the paper. Is a typeset paperback novel any closer to the quill pen of Jane Austen than the reader? They're both so far away that I don't see myself any closer to her either way.

Actually, I do believe it is closer, if they're using the old(er) plates. If it were a new typesetting, with new, clean plates, not as much.

And if you don't see yourself any closer using the reader, then the argument that the reader someone provides a "better" (purer?) form of the content is greatly reduced. You're now left with convenience and other factors on either side.

Originally Posted by Alisa

It's going to be the words that draw me in. Her words in her original manuscript may feel more like the brushstrokes of the Van Gogh in person, but I'm not going to have that.

Her words, but whose story? Even the Van Gogh's story was interpreted by the curator via placement among other works, the lighting, the color of the wall, etc. Even the frame changes it.

Did I read a different "Dragonriders of Pern" on the reader than in either the single-volume or omnibus editions? Yes. It did read differently. I think the reader didn't tell it as well at all -- it just told it in such a way that my arm didn't fall off as quickly.

Originally Posted by Alisa

I'm going to have pulp, cardboard and a regular font set down by a machine.

If the author is writing pulp, I'll agree that what you-the-reader get is pulp.

I don't read pulp. (Much, and "pulp" depends on the reader, anyway.)

[kfarmer]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Then maybe we should dispense with the attitude. KFarmer, if you jumped in just to trash people's opinions that paper isn't the be-all-and-end-all of books, I'm not sure why you even bothered. (Read the website's name... it's not like you're going to convert anyone to paper.) We've had enough cross-ridiculing for today.

That said, we're discussing, even debating, but we shouldn't be beating up on each other. The issue here is the article and its statement, and whether it has more of a basis in fact, supposition, propaganda, or myth.

Except the opinion was showing itself (between, say, you and bookbinder) to be that the be-all-and-end-all of reading were ordered glyphs, and nothing more, and that those who somehow felt something more for their common, smudgey cardboard and pulp were less for it, particularly in the imagination department.

Excuse me for feeling not a little insulted about that.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

With books, all I need are the words. (Punctuation helps.) I don't need them in fancy paper bindings to enjoy them, and I don't need them on a park bench surrounded by cooing doves to appreciate them. That's me. That's obviously not you, KFarmer. So, why don't we move on?

I don't care for cooing doves, but I do recommend being surrounded by trees when you read Tolkien.

[kfarmer]

Originally Posted by NatCh

In any case, I think the claim that at least some readers have an emotional attachment to paper has been amply substantiated.

Indeed.

Did I ever tell you -- I love your sig line

[bookbinder]

Originally Posted by kfarmer

Except the opinion was showing itself (between, say, you and bookbinder) to be that the be-all-and-end-all of reading were ordered glyphs, and nothing more, and that those who somehow felt something more for their common, smudgey cardboard and pulp were less for it, particularly in the imagination department.

Excuse me for feeling not a little insulted about that.



I don't care for cooing doves, but I do recommend being surrounded by trees when you read Tolkien.

Kfarmer, perhaps I didn't express myself very well. I certainly didn't mean to communicate what you received, namely that this is the be-all-and-end-all of reading and that other viewpoints were less for it. That's not what I meant! Come, let me buy you an eBeer.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kfarmer

Except the opinion was showing itself (between, say, you and bookbinder) to be that the be-all-and-end-all of reading were ordered glyphs, and nothing more, and that those who somehow felt something more for their common, smudgey cardboard and pulp were less for it, particularly in the imagination department.

Excuse me for feeling not a little insulted about that.

Well, after suggesting that reading anything on a reader is tantamount to reading porn...