Paper books still have an advantage

[gmw]

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.

Talking about a book on MR, sure, trying to claim "book means pbook" is like pushing manure uphill in a shopping trolley. You're going to end up with it all over you.

But outside MR? There are a lot of people that read exclusively paper books. For them the new clauses beneath the still evolving definition of "book", with the ink still wet, has no particular relevance. The original definition still feels quite enough.

[JSWolf]

An ebook, or electronic book, is a digital version of a book that can be read on electronic devices such as e-readers, tablets, smartphones, or computers. Unlike traditional books, ebooks do not require physical printing or binding, and they can be easily downloaded or transmitted over the internet.

Ebooks typically come in various file formats such as EPUB, MOBI, or AZW, which can be read on different devices and software applications. They may include text, images, and sometimes multimedia elements such as audio or video.

Ebooks offer several advantages over traditional books, such as portability, convenience, and the ability to carry and access multiple books on a single device. They also offer features such as adjustable font size, text search, and annotation, which can enhance the reading experience.

However, some readers still prefer the tactile experience of reading a physical book, and there are certain types of books, such as art books or coffee table books, that may not translate well into an ebook format.

[JSWolf]

You're correct, PDF is not a dedicated ebook format. While it is possible to read PDF files on many e-readers and mobile devices, PDFs were originally designed for printing and sharing digital documents in a fixed layout that preserves the formatting, fonts, and images.

EPUB (Electronic Publication) is currently the most widely used format for ebooks. It is an open standard format that can be read on various devices and software applications, and it allows for text reflow, adjustable font size, and other features that enhance the reading experience. Other popular ebook formats include MOBI, AZW, and KF8.

It's worth noting that some publishers and authors choose to distribute their ebooks in PDF format, particularly for books with a lot of graphics or formatting that may not translate well into other ebook formats. However, as you correctly pointed out, PDF is not a dedicated ebook format.

[John F]

Originally Posted by gmw

...

But outside MR? There are a lot of people that read exclusively paper books. For them the new clauses beneath the still evolving definition of "book", with the ink still wet, has no particular relevance. The original definition still feels quite enough.

Which definition, a paper bound work or a published work?

I would say context comes into play.

"Did you pick up any good books at the library book sale today."
I would say yes or no.

"Have you read a good book lately?"
I would answer "yes", and leave out the original definition answer of " no, but I read a good ebook on an ereader"

[gmw]

Originally Posted by John F

[...] "Have you read a good book lately?"
I would answer "yes", and leave out the original definition answer of " no, but I read a good ebook on an ereader"

Skipping to what I understand to be the context of interest here and totally agreeing that context is important. Thus, if someone who exclusively reads paper books says they read a good book they're unlikely to even consider qualifying the phrase. It only becomes a possible consideration where the edition becomes relevant.

I've discovered that ebook can become a relevant qualifier (or more likely "electronic book" for the audience in question), because some of the the books I would like to recommend to certain people I cannot, because the books have only come out as ebooks and these people don't have an ereader (and are highly unlikely to attempt to read a novel on their phone).

This emphasises what rcentros about paper books being considered "real" - in the sense of being tangible - because as long as you've got the paper book you can read it, you don't need anything else. (This isn't trying to argue that paper books are better, just that there are actual functional differences. Different doesn't necessarily mean better or worse.)

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by gmw

This emphasises what rcentros about paper books being considered "real" - in the sense of being tangible - because as long as you've got the paper book you can read it, you don't need anything else.

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.

[Asawi]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

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

That is so true! And also hand/shoulder/dexterity problems.

[issybird]

The word "run" famously has 645 definitions. "Real" can't compete, but yes, one of the definitions of real is physical. No one can make you use it, but objecting to this correct usage is, I dunno, silly? Pointless?

I admit I have my own issues, but they tend in the opposite direction where definitions become more encompassing and less precise. Nauseous doesn't mean nauseated, decimate doesn't mean devastate or destroy, in my lexicon -- but I know it's a lost battle. I'm still holding out on noisome, though.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

The word "run" famously has 645 definitions. "Real" can't compete, but yes, one of the definitions of real is physical. No one can make you use it, but objecting to this correct usage is, I dunno, silly? Pointless?

I admit I have my own issues, but they tend in the opposite direction where definitions become more encompassing and less precise. Nauseous doesn't mean nauseated, decimate doesn't mean devastate or destroy, in my lexicon -- but I know it's a lost battle. I'm still holding out on noisome, though.

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

[theducks]

To me 'real' means I have physical possession of the media. I don't rely on an outside (my possession) 'connection' to view that content. It still works if the Internet is down.

I can use my media if I have a source of energy.
A candle or sun provides light to read paper media.
A battery or generator can run a media player-display.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

I don't know that.

But if you choose to be offended by the legitimate use of a word, carry on.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

Not only that, people using "real book" as opposed to ebook usually mean that an ebook is not a book at all. Because, you know, a book means a physical construct made of paper.

By that definition, if you write, publish or read ebooks without any paper construct involved and talk about writing, publishing and reading books, you're delusional. You've been writing, publishing and reading something that (as defined by several posters here) doesn't exist, because there's no paper involved.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

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

So? My statement did not say that everyone could read it, only that it didn't need anything else in order to be read. ("can" also has the sense of possibility, it doesn't have to insist on ability) There are all sorts of caveats about reading any sort of text (ability to read, language, eyesight, etc. etc. etc.), however presented, but they were irrelevant to the context. The only reason to bring them up is to distract from the point.

Originally Posted by Sirtel

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.

I was explicit about the sense I was using specifically to try and save you having to repeat your prior objection.

If you insist on taking insult from the phrase "real book" then that's your prerogative. You certainly wouldn't be the first person that prefers to take insult rather than try to understand.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by theducks

To me 'real' means I have physical possession of the media. I don't rely on an outside (my possession) 'connection' to view that content. It still works if the Internet is down.

I can use my media if I have a source of energy.
A candle or sun provides light to read paper media.
A battery or generator can run a media player-display.

With a pBook, you have to either go to a bookstore to buy the pBook or order it online and have it shipped.

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

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by gmw

I was explicit about the sense I was using specifically to try and save you having to repeat your prior objection.

If you insist on taking insult from the phrase "real book" then that's your prerogative. You certainly wouldn't be the first person that prefers to take insult rather than try to understand.

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