Poll: 3 out of 4 Americans prefer paper books

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Look I like ereaders but it is still less time consuming to operate and maintain a paper book over the long term. Except for storage space I cannot see the advantage of having an ereader over a paper book for the general reader. Its probably also more expensive in the long run as well, at least for those readers who like to own the newest books.

Ereader: Change font size, builtin dictionary, carry entire library onboard, highlight, write notes, read

Paper: Highlight (if I can find that highlighter), read

Yes, I can see the advantage to paper books

[jmilica]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ereader: Change font size, builtin dictionary, carry entire library onboard, highlight, write notes, read

Paper: Highlight (if I can find that highlighter), read

Yes, I can see the advantage to paper books

Yes, I completely forgot the dictionary - English is not my mother tongue, but I've been reading in English before ereaders. I even studied another language via English. When I first time used Kindle and English-English dictionary my reaction was - Wow, I wish I had this much earlier! Lucky are the children of today!

And going for holidays of 3 weeks and carrying with me 6-7 books...now I carry all I want on my ereader including dictionary. And I can buy a book from wherever if I have wifi...

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ereader: Change font size, builtin dictionary, carry entire library onboard, highlight, write notes, read

Paper: Highlight (if I can find that highlighter), read

Yes, I can see the advantage to paper books

All of which are not needed to read a book. I already mentioned storage of paper books. People have been reading paper books for years and gotten along fine with none of the things you have listed. Again I am not saying ereaders are bad, but I can totally understand most general readers not wanting one. I mostly read for pleasure and I can tell you I never needed any of the perks an ereader supplies except maybe for the occasional word I didn't know I would pick up my dictionary. Highlighters and notes I have only used for texts books in high school and college. I don't need either of those for reading a novel.

Again I am just trying to illustrate why someone may not want or need an ereader. I have one and enjoy it.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Look I like ereaders but it is still less time consuming to operate and maintain a paper book over the long term. Except for storage space I cannot see the advantage of having an ereader over a paper book for the general reader. Its probably also more expensive in the long run as well, at least for those readers who like to own the newest books.

I just moved at the beginning of this month. Moving my ereaders was easy, as was moving my library. There was no effort involved at all.

We downsized by over a thousand volumes, but moving the remaining print books was still a huge headache, not to mention backache.

*eBooks are quicker and easier to buy.
*I don't have to shelve them, so I don't have to buy more bookshelves.
*It's easier to find the book you want on an ereader, than if you have a large paper collection. I've spent hours looking for paper volumes that I can find in seconds in electronic format.
*eBooks are often released simultaneously with the hardcover and usually cost less. The price savings with print is often minimal if it exists at all.

Buying an ereader is like buying a bookshelf and a bookstore in one.

Many people simply don't like ereaders, and that's fine. But there are definite advantages to having an ereader, just as there are advantages to print. The real question is which advantages, or drawbacks, matter most to any given reader.

Just because you haven't seen them, does not mean there aren't advantages to the general reader.

[Catlady]

There's a permanence and immutability to a print book that you don't have with a digital file. A paper book is what it is; the words don't change. A digital file, though, can be changed on a whim--by me or by someone else. That is ultimately very scary.

[jbcohen]

In the real world I have a masters of arts in experimental psychology and from that training we know that who asked the question(s) is often times more important then the questions or the results. Who is this rasmussen and what are their qualifiactions for asking these questions(s)? This is a study properly conducted by CBS/Times. These folkes do polls all the time and how to conduct them right.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

All of which are not needed to read a book. I already mentioned storage of paper books. People have been reading paper books for years and gotten along fine with none of the things you have listed. Again I am not saying ereaders are bad, but I can totally understand most general readers not wanting one. I mostly read for pleasure and I can tell you I never needed any of the perks an ereader supplies except maybe for the occasional word I didn't know I would pick up my dictionary. Highlighters and notes I have only used for texts books in high school and college. I don't need either of those for reading a novel.

Again I am just trying to illustrate why someone may not want or need an ereader. I have one and enjoy it.

In a similar vein ereaders are good for switching books and/or selecting and starting a new one when you don't want to get out of bed. And if you eat in bed while reading it is easier to get those dratted ketchup marks of the pages

And I've never been able to operate a paper book one handed. With an ereader I can read and sip a beer on the patio or pet the dog at the same time. The dog thinks ereaders are pretty neat.

Helen

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by medard

If something is important, you send it via snail mail. If your thoughts are worth it, you'll spend some Cents for a stamp.

Originally Posted by medard

E-Mails are just spam. Because of economics. Pressing "Send" doesn't cost anything, and nobody reads this stuff.

It's pretty clear to me we must live in different worlds. It's extremely rare that I get personal correspondence via snail mail. I'd say probably twice a year, on my birthday I may get a birthday card or two, and on my wedding anniversary there's usually a card or two as well. All other correspondence, including letters to my retired parents, I do via e-mail.

As for bills, it's only the government that haven't yet caught on, as I do get papers via the mail regarding both income and property taxes. All other bills I get electronically. The same thing is true for my bank statements, all of them come via e-mail as well.

So yeah, I can safely say that while I do get a lot of spam via e-mail, the percentage of all received mail that is spam, is vastly higher with my snail mail than with my e-mail. I mean, it's near 100% on snail mail.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

There's a permanence and immutability to a print book that you don't have with a digital file. A paper book is what it is; the words don't change. A digital file, though, can be changed on a whim--by me or by someone else. That is ultimately very scary.

A single copy of a book cannot be changed except by such methods as scissors, pens and/or whiteout. I believe that many books have been reprinted differently because of social issues (Nancy Drew?) or to reflect government policy in some countries. Even the bible has changed quite a bit over time.

I agree with you that changing someone else's work is akin to vandalism and censorship and both are scary prospects but I also cringe every time I see a book, especially a library book, that is scribbled on or whole lines have been blacked out, or obscenities written on a margin. I wouldn't write on my own copy of a textbook. Post it notes for me

Nice use of the word immutability BTW.

Helen

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

A single copy of a book cannot be changed except by such methods as scissors, pens and/or whiteout. I believe that many books have been reprinted differently because of social issues (Nancy Drew?) or to reflect government policy in some countries. Even the bible has changed quite a bit over time.

Yes, but a new edition will have new copyright information. The revised Nancy Drews have a different copyright date, for example. And the older versions still exist. Sure, it would be theoretically possible to obliterate them, but it is a lot easier to change or obliterate a digital file, and there'd be no real way for someone to know which is the original and which the revision.

I agree with you that changing someone else's work is akin to vandalism and censorship and both are scary prospects but I also cringe every time I see a book, especially a library book, that is scribbled on or whole lines have been blacked out, or obscenities written on a margin. I wouldn't write on my own copy of a textbook. Post it notes for me

Sure, but at least those sorts of markings are apparent--changes can be made to a digital file without anyone knowing. When I first got my e-reader, I downloaded some public domain books from sites other than Project Gutenberg, and later learned that they had been bowdlerized, without that being indicated anywhere. That's scary.

Nice use of the word immutability BTW.

I thought so!

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yes, but a new edition will have new copyright information. The revised Nancy Drews have a different copyright date, for example. And the older versions still exist. Sure, it would be theoretically possible to obliterate them, but it is a lot easier to change or obliterate a digital file, and there'd be no real way for someone to know which is the original and which the revision.


Sure, but at least those sorts of markings are apparent--changes can be made to a digital file without anyone knowing. When I first got my e-reader, I downloaded some public domain books from sites other than Project Gutenberg, and later learned that they had been bowdlerized, without that being indicated anywhere. That's scary.

I thought so!

Sure you can change your copy of a book for whatever reason, only reason I use is formatting. But can someone else? And can they change all copies of your book if you have backups without tremendous effort? I find it mindboggling to think of the effort involved in changing all copies that everyone has. This has been done fairly effectively with paper by rounding up all known physical copies and destroying them and reprinting a politically correct version. I'm not talking Nancy Drew, but rather those books that disagree with a dictators actions or ideology for example.

What is perhaps scarier is that we are being led into a false sense of complaisance by companies scanning and storing digital copies of vast amounts works. Will our reliance be such that scanning errors could in time change part or all of the content. And all books lose something in translation. Could massive translation engines someday replace individual translators whose individual damage is limited?

I would not notice a change of copyright or accept it as sufficient notice that the book had been changed. But overall you are again right, if they burn all of our paper books we would probably notice.

Oh well, off to look up bowdlerized

Helen

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Oh well, off to look up bowdlerized

Helen

Print books have been bowdlerized for centuries. The word comes from Thomas Bowdler who created The Family Shakespeare in which he rewrote the Shakespeare plays to remove all the words he thought women and children shouldn't be reading.

Recently a publisher reported that they were publishing a copy of Mark Twain's Huck Finn with all the n-words removed.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Print books have been bowdlerized for centuries. The word comes from Thomas Bowdler who created The Family Shakespeare in which he rewrote the Shakespeare plays to remove all the words he thought women and children shouldn't be reading.

Recently a publisher reported that they were publishing a copy of Mark Twain's Huck Finn with all the n-words removed.

I remember hearing someone was going to try something similar with C.S. Lewis's Narnia books. They objected to the Christian Allegory in the tales and wanted to re-write them. Of course if they do that they destroy the books as the Christian elements are as much a part of the Narnia books as they are part of Pilgrim's Progress. Whenever someone else tries to re-write an author's words I get nervous. After all who are they to decide what is fit for me to read?

[HansTWN]

Another advantage of ereaders over pbooks. In our hot and humid climate pbooks get sticky and smelly very quickly. So unless you have a special climate controlled room pbooks don't stay nice for too long.

Besides, I can't believe that the ability to fiddle with layout, fonts, and font sizes (something a pbook totally lacks) is supposed to be a disadvantage. You don't have to, I rarely do, I just start to read. But having options is bad?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Print books have been bowdlerized for centuries. The word comes from Thomas Bowdler who created The Family Shakespeare in which he rewrote the Shakespeare plays to remove all the words he thought women and children shouldn't be reading.

Recently a publisher reported that they were publishing a copy of Mark Twain's Huck Finn with all the n-words removed.

And changing the copyright date as catlady stated no doubt

Got me thinking in a whole new way. Is it right that these works be bowdlerized? Many things should never have happened, but altering books to imply that they didn't just seems wrong. According to Wikipedia in the 1960's the Nancy Drew character was made more feminine and less assertive, as well as eliminating racial stereotype with limited success. Does not one cancel out the other, and to what purpose? To change our perception of history or to make money?

Sorry for straying so far off topic.

Helen

PS thanks for explaining bowdlerized.