"E-reading isn't reading"

I don't mind people preferring print books. I love print books. I do find it annoying when people decide to look down their noses about ebooks because they're Going To Destroy Civilization. *eyeroll*

I miss the sensation of a sun-warmed clay tablet, and the feel of the ridges and pocks left by the reed against my fingers.

swvaughn said:

I'm just waiting for that musty paper-scented Kindle.

Click to expand...

I'd like a set of book-paper scented candles.

Otherwise, meh about the article. If someone wants to judge me by what form I'm reading (or the actual books I'm reading), clearly they need to work something out in themselves because I can't believe that their judgment is really about me.

I couldn't read the article/essay/excerpt. There were a lot of words, densly packed in there, sounding all *hand-wavey*. I mean, not one vampire, werewolf, dead body, explosion, car chase, dream sequence, flashback, personal description, backstory...hell I would have taken a prologue at this point.

BORED NOW.

And breathing the artifical atmosphere on the ISS isn't breathing.

I don't like ebooks myself. But I would never claim they're not books, or that reading them isn't reading, or that elephants live on the moon.

Maybe Amazon can come up with a scratch and sniff app for the Kindle.

In all honesty, I purchased my first Kindle over two years ago, kicking and screaming as clicked to purchase. One Kindle and one iPad later, I have to admit I've read more over the last two years than the previous ten years combined. Do I miss the smell? Yes. But I like the fact that the Kindle is so light weight, I can read on any device. I can read several books at the same time, where ever I am. And, I can increase the font size when my eyes grow tired.

On a side note, my 86 year-old mother is on her second Kindle. She wore out her first one.

Buffysquirrel said:

I don't like ebooks myself. But I would never claim they're not books, or that reading them isn't reading, or that elephants live on the moon.

Click to expand...

willietheshakes said:

You know how uncomfortable it makes me when we agree, right?

Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. We need to corelate our responses better.

Bookewyrme said:

I stopped reading when he referenced Augustine, but one point bothers me. I'm fairly sure (though I could be wrong) that Augustine would not have been reading the Bible in book form as we think of it. After all, wasn't Augustine alive and writing before the advent of the printing press? Wouldn't he have been reading a scroll more likely?

As for the larger topic, everything I have to say has already been said by others before. Except I'm MORE likely to make notes/'mark-up' a book on my e-reader than a paper book. I have a hard time even making myself write in my academic books. I don't know why.

But really, all you people with your newfangled paper aren't REALLY experiencing reading properly. Clay tablets and papyrus are the only TRUE way to experience the written word! Duh.

Click to expand...

What we think of as books were around LONG before the printing press was invented. The printing press simply allowed books to be mass produced, rather than done by hand. But we did not jump straight from scrolls to books produced on a printing press.

Again, people seem to think this essay says all sorts of things that it doesn't. There are differences. There simply are. That's a fact, not opinion. We can argue whether the differences are good, bad, or indifferent, but they are real.

People always seem to be against technology. There was this stink that it isn't music when it's on an MP3 in my neck of the woods. Then people started claiming it wasn't dancing on things like Wii and Kinect.

Just ignore the ignorance.

swvaughn said:

This article on Slate...

Click to expand...

Reading Slate isn't really reading.

swvaughn said:

I'm curious to see if anyone here still thinks that ebooks are Teh Devil...

Click to expand...

They aren't. But he certainly had a hand in their development.

Jeff

Jamesaritchie said:

What we think of as books were around LONG before the printing press was invented. The printing press simply allowed books to be mass produced, rather than done by hand. But we did not jump straight from scrolls to books produced on a printing press.

Again, people seem to think this essay says all sorts of things that it doesn't. There are differences. There simply are. That's a fact, not opinion. We can argue whether the differences are good, bad, or indifferent, but they are real.

Click to expand...

In the end, this is what it comes down to.

Also, that a St. Augustine reference in just about anything other than a piece about St. Augustine is a reliable signal to stop reading.

When it comes to print vs digital, I am pro-print. That doesn't mean I'm anti-digital. I prefer to read books, but as an artist/writer, I am curious to use digital media to tell stories, even if I would prefer to have my own stories in my possession, printed on paper. The issue is layered, and I look at it from more than one angle.

1. Function.

For me personally, the technology of digital media is still primitive and the industry is still conflicted about how it sells books via digital media. When the tech can do what I want and the industry figures itself out, maybe it will be worth the money and effort on my part.

However, it will never replace print, for a couple of reasons. The first is that print and digital are different media, and one is not necessarily a replacement for the other.

If nothing else, print allows a reader to own a book. For me that is probably the primary consideration.

If the tech ever gets to where I consider it fully realized, then I can see myself using an e-reader or reading on a PC for what I consider throw-away books. Look, I do consider all writing to be real writing, and all books real books, and all writers real writers, but still, not everyone is a collector of everything. I would be sad to see the end of magazines, but it would probably be an improvement to the environment if periodicals went digital-only. How many of us keep articles, and for those of us who do, how many articles do we read on winning the clutter wars that tell us to stop saving magazines for a few articles? Likewise with books that I enjoy reading but which I'll never read more than once or refer back to for any reason -- this includes a lot of genre series, as well as topical non-fiction. If it's not a book I would pack for a move, then it's not a book I need to have in my house or hand. Finally, I see no reason to keep printing books that are updated frequently and cost a shit-ton of money. I'm talking about text books and professional reference books.

But if it is something I want to keep, to re-read, to reference, to add to a collection or a body of study, then yeah, I want it physically in my house and in my hand. I want it to function with the instinctual ease of the human brain. I want it to be analog, not requiring electricity to access, long-lasting (maybe I'm lucky in where I live, but I have never had silverfish in my books). I want to be able to annotate it, add inserts, etc. And I want it undeletable. Put that all together, it adds up to print.

So, if I could find an e-reader that didn't get on my nerves and/or give me migraines, and if, say, Bon Appetit or KnitPicks magazine and whatever is the hot new steampunk romance series, were equally available online, and if the price of subscription to the magazines included the right to print pdfs of recipes and instructions, then e-reading would have a place in my life.

But when it comes to building my collection of works in my genres, and of literary and non-fiction classics, and my favorite contemporary authors, and reference books I use over and over again, I want those on paper. Period. Because print works best for how I will keep and use those books.

2. Form.

Like Filigree, I am also an artist who makes books. My artist books are not sculptural objects, except to the extent that all books are sculptural objects. My works are more like graphic novels or stories, handmade, hand-bound, constructed in a style and with materials designed to also deliver the message of the work.

Technically, many of my books could be digitized. However, they cannot simply be transferred from one medium to another. They are designed to be physical books. If they are digitized, they will lose all of the interactive sensory input of a book object and, thus, lose much of their meaning and impact as an art object.

It has been said many times, that print and digital are merely the media, the delivery methods of the stories. But remember, to a great extent, the medium is the message. Just ask Marshall McLuhan.

Each medium offers forms that affect how the message is delivered, and it is my personal view that the effective storyteller should tailor the medium to best deliver their message. Print offers a variety of forms that allow the storyteller to shape the reader's experience. Digital offers a variety of different forms that give the same opportunity. To me, it is wasteful of a medium for the author not to exploit its unique possibilities.

Examples of what I mean: I am in the planning stages of an artist book that will be a wordless gothic melodrama of the downfall of a great family. Maybe a haunted house story. It's an ambitious project and will require on-location photography of surf and the destruction of a large sandcastle by waves.

I'm considering both a print version and an online version, but they will be two very different works. By using different media, I will have to tell the story in two different ways, and by doing that, I will end up telling two different stories.

Print media will allow me to manipulate the physical object so as enhance the message of tragedy and destruction in a personal and intimate way, which will emphasize the up-close emotional impact of being inside the doomed castle.

Digital media, on the other hand, will allow me to incorporate sound and video. I could actually include a film of the waves destroying the castle in the climactic chapter. This medium allows me to put greater emphasis on the external forces of destiny affecting the characters. This changes the nature of the story by changing its focus.

That's how medium affects message for me as an artist. As a writer, my consideration of medium is similar.

I have two kinds of stories I like to write: supernatural detective thrillers set in the real world with fantastical elements added, and epic fantasy adventures set in an alternate reality.

The supernatural detective stories are entirely word-focused. Basically, their full impact is in their words, and extra-textual elements would just be distractions. Whether print or digital, I should be considering media that will deliver a seamless, comfortable reading experience.

However, for my fantasy adventure, I want to celebrate the invented world, but not load the stories down with a lot of non-plot-related words. For that, I want extra-textual materials. In print, that might mean a binding in the style of the invented world, illustrations, pull-out sections, inserts, marginalia and addenda. In digital format, that might mean reader-controlled music and video clips, pop-up interactive maps, etc.

There is an argument to be made that, as writers, we should not be worried about such delivery mechanisms. We should just write and let publishers worry about format, so long as we get paid fairly. But while I see the sense of such an idea, I disagree with it.

For one, I think writers are artists of a kind. Words are their primary medium, but publication format is to the words as substrate is to paint. A work on canvas is different from the same work on wood or paper, etc. A story read on paper is different from the same story read on a screen because the medium does affect how the work of literary art is experienced and used.

Back in the day when there were no media options, then this question did not even exist for writers the way it has always existed for artists. But now that there are options, writers do have the ability to consider how the medium affects their message. As an artist, I personally feel that we should have a responsibility to consider whether and how we want to use various media to deliver our stories to readers.

It's not the same as when someone else buys the rights to adapt a book to different media. The writer does not retain control over how the story is changed by the filmmaker. However, in choosing a publication format, the writer is placing his/her own work over which he/she retains at least some measure of control. For myself personally, given that kind of option, I will explore it fully. Speaking only of media now, a digital book that is only words scrolling across my screen is as boring as hell to me, whereas a printed book which is only words lying on a series of pages sewn or glued together is exciting and pleasurable. Clearly, one is a full use of the medium and one is leaving the medium unrealized.

Bookewyrme said:

I stopped reading when he referenced Augustine, but one point bothers me. I'm fairly sure (though I could be wrong) that Augustine would not have been reading the Bible in book form as we think of it. After all, wasn't Augustine alive and writing before the advent of the printing press? Wouldn't he have been reading a scroll more likely?

Click to expand...

No, that part is accurate. The rise of the codex or codex book, that is a volume that is roughly rectangular, made of bound pages, is tied very closely in the West to the rise of Christianity. Think c. 100 C.E. roughly for the birth of the codex book.

The oldest complete NT and OT Bible is the Codex Sinaiticus; it's fourth century C.E. That means that it pre-dates the use of spaces between words, for instance.

muravyets said:

So, if I could find an e-reader that didn't get on my nerves and/or give me migraines, and if, say, Bon Appetit or KnitPicks magazine and whatever is the hot new steampunk romance series, were equally available online, and if the price of subscription to the magazines included the right to print pdfs of recipes and instructions, then e-reading would have a place in my life.

Click to expand...

You can do that now with Bon Appetit; not sure about KnitPicks.

In my ideal world, every print book I bought would have the e-book version come along with it.

And I think the real problem with e-books, and what I think this essay was trying to say, has nothing to do with the words, or with reading, it the e-book reader versus the paper and and cover of a print book.

The words, the meaning, the content are the same in both forms. So that essay did not say writers aren't writers, if they write e-books. Really, who writes e-books? Who writes print books? I don't. I write manuscripts. I write words. I write content. I do not write the form my words and content are released in.

My problem with e-books is the reader. I haven't found one I like at all. This will change.

Being able to store a thousand books is great, but this has nothing at all to do with reading just one of those books, Being able to search the book is great, too, but this applies to nonfiction more than fiction, and if I'm actually reading the book, I seldom have to search. And if I do, I find it no more difficult with a properly contented and indexed print book than with an e-book. But, again, this is not reading, and it is not form.

It simply isn't about the book, it's about the experience of holding paper, flipping pages, feel, weight, or holding a device and pushing buttons or touching a screen.

The real problem with the article and with the book is that it's all been said before, and better.

Lanham, Richard. The Electronic Word and the Democracy of the Arts. University of Chicago Press, 1993.

See excerpt: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo3661152.html

The other problem is that Andrew Piper's grasp of the history of the book is somewhat lacking.

Medievalist said:

I miss the sensation of a sun-warmed clay tablet, and the feel of the ridges and pocks left by the reed against my fingers.

Click to expand...

Those were the days.

In my day, we had to walk to our books! And it was uphill, both ways! In six feet of snow! With the sun blazing down on us and silverfish the size of buffalo and I once caught cholera from the card catalog and you had to defeat a librarian in single combat before you were allowed to check out a book with swear words or pie charts in it!

And we were grateful.

Kids today. I dunno. Soft, the lot of 'em.

Medievalist said:

You can do that now with Bon Appetit; not sure about KnitPicks.

Click to expand...

Knitpicks, too -- at least they have a lot of instructions available for download -- but I don't need an e-reader for it. It's from their websites. I'm imagining a melding of print and online services into one thing that would give a point to a Kindle.

I, personally, will never own an e-reader if I can help it. However, I don't look down on those who do use them, and anyone who does is a pretentious prick. I simply don't like e-readers because:

1) The Look and Feel
I like the feel of a book in my hand, of turning the pages, the smell of paper and ink. I like looking at my bookmark and knowing how far I am into it. I love putting them on the shelf, finding space for them when I'm running out of shelves, and looking at their covers and colorful spines.

2)The Cost
On the rare occasion that I ever think about getting a Kindle, I think to myself, "Is it worth it?" and always decide that, for me, it isn't. I never read on the bus or train, only in my own home, so the convenience factor is negligible for me. Yes Kindle copies cost less than paper copies, but in the short term I can't help but think, "I could buy so many books for a hundred dollars, so why would I ever spend that money on something that just allows me to read books and nothing else?"
It's like that cautionary tale of the boy who gets money, then goes to buy a wallet to put the money in, but spends all the money on the wallet and then just has an empty wallet. I just can't ever bring myself to do it. Maybe if I wasn't so poor.

3) The Inspiration
Just looking at all of my beloved books on their shelves inspires me to write. A cursory glance at a title on a spine brings all the memories of that book rushing back. Being surrounded by books is a writer stereotype that I'm not looking to break out of any time soon.

4) The Safety
I want all of my books to still be in my possession 10, 20, 30, even 50 years from now. Sure I could lose them all in a fire or a flood, but I don't think it's that likely. With stories of Amazon wiping people's entire Kindle library without explanation, and the way file formats, hardware, and even companies become obsolete faster than you can blink an eye, who's to say your gigantic kindle library will still be there for you in ten years? I honestly think that it probably won't be. Companies love to screw over the consumer these days, and you are, after all, technically buying the "license" to read the book, and don't own the book itself, as is the case with any digital media, and that's a terrifying thought to me. No thank you.

But hey, if you're one of those people who doesn't care about any of that and just wants the convenience of a Kindle, then more power to you. It's just not for me, and never will be.

My grandma has a Kindle, and she loves it, but she's not a writer, nor does she place much value on books themselves. She reads like 5 books a week, and they're all terrible, and she forgets them instantly. I've never heard her say a book is bad, or good, really. She just reads them passively to make the day go by. A Kindle is perfect for someone like her.

davidh219 said:

4) The Safety
I want all of my books to still be in my possession 10, 20, 30, even 50 years from now. Sure I could lose them all in a fire or a flood, but I don't think it's that likely. With stories of Amazon wiping people's entire Kindle library without explanation, and the way file formats, hardware, and even companies become obsolete faster than you can blink an eye, who's to say your gigantic kindle library will still be there for you in ten years? I honestly think that it probably won't be. Companies love to screw over the consumer these days, and you are, after all, technically buying the "license" to read the book, and don't own the book itself, as is the case with any digital media, and that's a terrifying thought to me. No thank you.

Click to expand...

1. Amazon is not the only place that sells ebooks.
2. DRM stripping is easy. Then what you've got is essentially a text file. (Yes, I'm simplifying.) File formats and hardware really don't become obselete "faster than you can blink an eye."

I won't argue with your other points, but a few precautions with your ebook library make it at least as durable, probably more so, than your physical library (which can be destroyed by fire or flood, etc.).

Okay, I lied. I'm also going to argue with this point:

davidh219 said:

But hey, if you're one of those people who doesn't care about any of that and just wants the convenience of a Kindle, then more power to you. It's just not for me, and never will be.

My grandma has a Kindle, and she loves it, but she's not a writer, nor does she place much value on books themselves. She reads like 5 books a week, and they're all terrible, and she forgets them instantly. I've never heard her say a book is bad, or good, really. She just reads them passively to make the day go by. A Kindle is perfect for someone like her.

Click to expand...

Wow, how patronizing is that? So ereaders are for people who don't actually value books or care about whether they're any good. Okay, then. I'm trying to reconcile that with this:

However, I don't look down on those who do use them, and anyone who does is a pretentious prick.

Click to expand...

Amadan said:

Wow, how patronizing is that? So ereaders are for people who don't actually value books or care about whether they're any good. Okay, then. I'm trying to reconcile that with this:

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it's only for people like that, I'm just saying that for her physical books are actually a huge hindrance, and always have been. It's not even about her preferences at that point, it's just the correct choice to use a Kindle. Defensive much?

Amadan said:

2. DRM stripping is easy. Then what you've got is essentially a text file. (Yes, I'm simplifying.) File formats and hardware really don't become obselete "faster than you can blink an eye."

I won't argue with your other points, but a few precautions with your ebook library make it at least as durable, probably more so, than your physical library (which can be destroyed by fire or flood, etc.).

Click to expand...

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Even removing the DRM, you have no guarantee. PDF may be ubiquitous now, but will it still be around in ten years? Who knows? Even if it is, will the e-readers of the future even allow it on their devices? Current trends suggest that they probably won't, as companies are moving more and more towards proprietary software and file formats.

All you're offering is speculation. You think that if you strip your books of DRM and store them on dropbox or something that they'll be safe, but there are so many things that could prove you wrong.

The oldest book I have is a high school physics textbook from 1912. It's a hundred years old now, and it's in perfect condition. The kind of technology that's going to be around a hundred years from today will be so different that neither of us can even guess as to what it will look like. I realize I won't be alive then, but what if I want to pass my collection on to my kids and grand-kids?

Digital media is so ephemeral and easy to forget about and misplace that I will bet anything you won't still have all your books in 40 years. Computers get corrupted, hard drives get replaced, cloud storage companies go out of business or the username/password to the account gets lost or forgotten, etc. I constantly forget the password to my dropbox account because I hardly ever need to log into the website itself and that, to me, is scary. Way more scary than a fire or flood that will, probably, never happen, and if it does I'll have way more to worry about than just my books anyway.

davidh219 said:

But hey, if you're one of those people who doesn't care about any of that and just wants the convenience of a Kindle, then more power to you. It's just not for me, and never will be.

Click to expand...

You really are sounding completely patronizing. Starting a sentence with "But hey" is not the way to let people know that you think all opinions are valid. Personally, I do not think the smell of a book is not the important part of reading. Plus, since you have never owned an e-reader, I wonder if you have even read ONE complete book on one. If not, how do you know you won't like?

I used to think I would never like ebooks as much as a physical book. Then I got a basic Kindle. You know what? I like it better. It's lightweight and easy to hold when I'm curled up on the couch, which hardcovers and thick paperbacks aren't. It's easy to read in any light.

I'm really curious if you've developed this opinion based on actual experience, or if you've just decided that you are right without checking out the alternatives.

Oh yeah, another benefit of Kindle - easier packing when you move. I hate packing up box after box of books that I read once and will never read again, so they all just end up getting donated when I've moved.

blueobsidian said:

You really are sounding completely patronizing. Starting a sentence with "But hey" is not the way to let people know that you think all opinions are valid. Personally, I do not think the smell of a book is not the important part of reading. Plus, since you have never owned an e-reader, I wonder if you have even read ONE complete book on one. If not, how do you know you won't like?

I used to think I would never like ebooks as much as a physical book. Then I got a basic Kindle. You know what? I like it better. It's lightweight and easy to hold when I'm curled up on the couch, which hardcovers and thick paperbacks aren't. It's easy to read in any light.

I'm really curious if you've developed this opinion based on actual experience, or if you've just decided that you are right without checking out the alternatives.

Oh yeah, another benefit of Kindle - easier packing when you move. I hate packing up box after box of books that I read once and will never read again, so they all just end up getting donated when I've moved.

Click to expand...

Notice my "but hey" was followed by "if you don't care about any of that" which includes the smell, which you said yourself you don't care about, proving my point... I don't see the problem here.

My girlfriend uses a Nook, and I read the time machine on it to test it out. Yes it's light, and yes that's nice. Again, not saying anybody is wrong for using one, it's just not for me. I use a fancy book stand when I read anyway and, more importantly, I want to keep my books for as long as possible. The fact that you donate your books because they're too big of a hassle to move proves that we are not of the same mind when it comes to this because I would never, ever do that. My books would be top priority