e-book or paper book?

[mal4mac]

I don’t think I shall use the e-book because:
- the paper book is not only an object, it is a living object that has a smell...

Yup, a ten year old Penguin smells like a Penguin that has been dead for ten years.

Paperback publishers only have themselves to blame for the Kindle taking over - they should have ploughed some of their excess profits into publishing on acid free paper -and they shouldn't be charging top prices for authors that are in the public domain.

- the library is part of your history; for a well-read person, it is even the most precious part of the house; for that, you always find a place, otherwise that would mean your books have no value;

Easy for rich American to say. Neely and myself are Brits., our houses are tiny 'cause Brit. developers are especially greedy, our wages are small, and the climate is cold. 'Our library' can't usually stretch to more than two bookcases.

The average paperback is no better formatted than a newspaper. I have read excellent hardbacks and didn't feel any important difference between that experience and reading a (new) Wordsworth classic - it's the words that count not typeface or particular brand of dead wood (unless the paper isn't acid free and has been lying around for a few years...)

I'm not more attached to what I paid for - I'm as happy reading Dickens from the library as paying for a Wordsworth classic version.

The Kindle users in this thread aren't idiots. I can't see them downloading tons of free books for the sake of seeing long lists of titles. The complete works of Chekov, Maupassant, Dickens, Hardy, Voltaire, Balzac, are listed on Amazon and the library database. Does that mean you don't know here to start?

[Emil Miller]

I don't think that there was a dearth of books 50 years ago, in fact there were public libraries throughout the cities in the UK, and small towns were often served by commercial libraries run by chain stores and bookshops where it was possible to borrow a book for a nominal fee. There were hardly any books in my childhood home but I had access to a great quantity in the two public libraries that were equidistant from where I lived and I read literally hundreds of books during that time.
As an adult, I began to buy books that had become relatively cheap and kept those that had some literary value: storing them in bookcases while dispensing with the rest. I never bought a book on the strength that it formed part of a collection. It was simply that I wanted to read it and, if it were worth keeping, it went into a bookcase as a matter of course.
For all their obvious advantages, E-readers cannot replicate the sight and physical presence of books. If I go into someones home and see rows of books I can look at them and learn something about the character of the occupant. Whereas a small metal slab tells me nothing except that its owner might be as interested in gadgetry as in the literature that remains hidden within.

[mal4mac]

I agree, I think things were *better* forty/fifty years ago. I also didn't have access to many books at home, but the public library I visited as a child was built into an old manor house, with a reading room that wouldn't have been out of place in Downton Abbey. The books on loan were, mostly, pristine hardbacks - none of the tatty paperbacks that are now omnipresent in libraries. The librarians kept the place silent, and only let me use the adult section after an interview that determined I was ready to read at an adult level, and to use the facilities quietly and with respect. Now libraries are full of mobile phone users, screaming kids, and nosiy librarians (!) The council turned that wonderful library into a cash-cow tourist museum, placed the lending library over a supermarket, ditched the large number of hardbacks for a smaller number of rotting paperbacks, and didn't bother to provide a reading room. The old library was better than a Kindle , but I wouldn't now dismiss buying a Kindle, you have to move with the times, don't you?

[Scheherazade]

This reminds me of the debate we used to have on emails 15 years ago. Many felt that emails lacked the personal touch of hand-written snail mail and joy of receiving through the post and ladeeda. However, today all of us communicate through emails: who has the time and patience to wait, right?

Having an e-reader does not mean that we should burn our printed books or start making paper planes out of them. Just because ready-made frozen meals are available at the supermarkets, we do not give up cooking, do we? I love cooking and having a cooked meal but always keep couple of ready-made meals in the freezer for "emergencies" and I know that, on more than one occassion, I was grateful that they were there.

It is possible to enjoy both and e-readers are undeniably convenient and clever. Embrace the novelty while still cherishing the tradional.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don’t think I shall use the e-book because:
- the paper book is not only an object, it is a living object that has a smell, a distinct form, a body made of pages and a skin that is the cover; an object that grows old, with pages that become yellow, that are sometimes torn and stained, between which it happens you find a hair or a dead bug; an object that has an history, that you bought one time – and generally you remember when –, that you read in order to appropriate the content for your own use, and thus you are the proprietor of the book, not simply of an indistinct product, even if it is mass-produced; and being proprietor, you can make notes on it, you give a supplement of life; and being proprietor, you can hand down your books to your friends and heirs;
- the library is part of your history; for a well-read person, it is even the most precious part of the house; for that, you always find a place, otherwise that would mean your books have no value;
- with a tool such as the Kindle, you can read in the same format, in the same conditions, a masterpiece, a newspaper and a trashy book: this tool of non-differentiation is a great danger for the idea of singularity of the work and of the author;
- with a tool such as the Kindle, you have access to tons of free books, but one is always more attached to what one paid;
- with a tool such as the Kindle, it is inevitable that you will download tons of free books, the complete works of Chekov, Maupassant, Dickens, Hardy, Voltaire, Balzac, etc., but will you read them? not sure, because when you have too many choices, you do not know how to start, and eventually you read nothing or almost, at least you will not read the books entirely and profoundly; because a good reader does not know what he will read in a month or in a year; he does not know what he will discover, nor what he will want to reread: it is absurd to make long lists of books you plan to read, as absurd as if you want to fix your future life;
- with those technologies, which are fast and changing, you will not have the patience to build a library one book after another, you will not have the concentration necessary to slowly absorb the content, you cannot help using all the possibilities of these technologies hic et nunc and acquiring many books in a short time; but have you ever read a thousand books in… let’s say five years? no, of course, rare are those who read over a hundred books a year;
- therefore, the readers of e-books are or will become superficial, philistines, slaves of the technologies, whereas the book is ideally an instrument of liberty.

Here is a photograph of one of my bookcases.




All of these are mine, minus half the pile on the left-hand side, which belongs to Mrs Neely. My other bookcase is smaller but just as crammed, in fact more so, with easily about a hundred of my kids’ books in front of rows of other books (more classics and about 50+ Agatha Christie novels).

Of these books there are a handful that I have not read and some that I have only partially read, but I would say that I have read about 95% of them, and some of them more than once (particularly the likes of Shakespeare and Wilde and of course poetry that you dip into from time to time).

Now, of these books I would say that they represent about 10% of what I have read over the last 16 years (I say 16 years because I only started reading at 17 and I am now 33). This is because I have bin bags of books in the loft (most of which are trashy novels from my late teen years and deserve to be in there) but also of course this doesn’t count the hundreds of library books I have read, the books I have given or thrown away, it doesn’t include the secondary literature that I have selectively ploughed through during my university years or the books now hidden on my other bookcase, nor the books on top of my wardrobe, nor the books I have placed on my dad’s smaller bookcase as a “loan”, nor the books that I have lost, or have sat under the chair of this computer, nor the pile downstairs by the sofa, nor on the fridge, nor hidden in stacks of other places etc, etc, you see the point. Now the Kindle, which came yesterday, has the potential to fit all of those in my coat pocket!

I don’t go on about this at all to try and boast in some adolescent manner about how much I have read or have at all, in any way, (in fact the more you have read the less you feel you have read), but rather to try and demonstrate the gravity of my situation when I say that I just don’t have space in my small, two bedroom, terraced council property of which four of us share. I just don’t. I cannot “make space”.

Now with luck I have about another 40 years of reading left in me, so the ereader wins hands down. It’s not even a contest, not even close. I can understand the nostalgia attached to books I really can, but in terms of practicality at least, it’s just not a contest on any level.

[T]herefore, the readers of e-books are or will become superficial, philistines, slaves of the technologies, whereas the book is ideally an instrument of liberty.

This I strongly disagree with. Technology, like everything else, is a tool in the hands of the user, to used correctly or abused either way. That same technology that you speak of is the same technology which allows us to express our opinions on here via the internet, (in my opinion one of the greatest achievements of mankind). Why not go back to the typewriter? Tap tap tap ding ding. Or the ink pot? The new technologies are the same instruments of power which allow people, right now, organise things like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...london-assange

If there is anything the elites fear to keep their grip on power and wealth it is the new technologies...but back to books.

Seriously, in my opinion paying £8.99 for a rehash of a classic work, with a new front cover and mini introduction, where the author might have been dead more than 150 years, is nothing but a disgrace. There is not liberty there. The liberty comes with the reader being able to access thousands of out of copyright material as and when for free.

This doesn't mean that I'm going to get rid of my books of course (though Mrs Neely would love that). It doesn't mean that I'm not going to return to them again and again, I will, (I will primarily be reading them in the bath) but the Kindle/ereader, is absolutely the future and what a marvellous piece of technology it is too.

[Emil Miller]

I agree, I think things were *better* forty/fifty years ago. I also didn't have access to many books at home, but the public library I visited as a child was built into an old manor house, with a reading room that wouldn't have been out of place in Downton Abbey. The books on loan were, mostly, pristine hardbacks - none of the tatty paperbacks that are now omnipresent in libraries. The librarians kept the place silent, and only let me use the adult section after an interview that determined I was ready to read at an adult level, and to use the facilities quietly and with respect. Now libraries are full of mobile phone users, screaming kids, and nosiy librarians (!) The council turned that wonderful library into a cash-cow tourist museum, placed the lending library over a supermarket, ditched the large number of hardbacks for a smaller number of rotting paperbacks, and didn't bother to provide a reading room. The old library was better than a Kindle , but I wouldn't now dismiss buying a Kindle, you have to move with the times, don't you?

Yes we have to move with the times, even when they are not propitious, but I will abstain from buying a Kindle as I have just about read enough for my own requirements. I totally agree with the comment about the debasement of public libraries, which now resemble one-stop social help points as much as places for selecting and reading books. The one closest to where I live is housed in a very nice Victorian building which was due to be demolished and replaced with an absolute monstrosity, ironically to include a section for new technology. The current economic crisis has put paid to that thankfully but many libraries are being closed as local authority money begins to dry up and will probably be sold to property developers.



[QUOTE=Neely;1080660] The new technologies are the same instruments of power which allow people, right now, organise things like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...london-assange

Or this.
http://youtu.be/grYliexnm0w

As you say, it can be used correctly or abused either way. Let's hope that we never have to go through this again although, the way things are shaping up, it doesn't look too good right now.

[Alexander III]

I have a kindle, and I love it. I am one of those strange people who needs all their books with them at all times - since I travel a lot this with real books is impossible but with a kindle it is the simplest thing.

As to Libraries, in my parents house we have a a library room full of books and with soft couches and armchairs as my mother reads quite a lot, but to be honest I have started to see books as only deco. When I was younger I would buy beautifully bound books with special papers and each page scented. I never actually read them, I only wanted them as objects of beauty in my room like all the statues and flowers and posters which I had in there. With a kindle a book is a book. You read for the book - it is rawer and purer, as with beautiful books I always find myself more interested in the actual physical book than the words. With a kindle I am not distracted by the book and thus can enjoy the literature calmly.

[B. Laumness]

Neely, I have understood your lack of space, and that the Kindle should resolve this problem. But after having bought it, you said: “What have I done?” You felt there was something wrong. You guessed it was not just a matter of place, but that it would change many things.

You are perfectly right to say it is a shame to pay 10 € a classic work in paperback of an author dead 150 years ago.

You said that having access to thousands of books for free was liberty. I don’t speak of that liberty of the consumer, by which one can choose between several goods and possess them; I speak of the liberty by which an individual tries to understand, to evaluate and to act without prejudices, without being influenced by the powers, whether they be economical, political, ideological… Do you think you will be more able to have a critical mind towards the technologies with a Kindle? Will you be in the best disposition to read Jacques Ellul or Theodore Kaczynski if you read them on your screen?

You said the technologies can be used correctly or abused depending on the user. But there are inventions that are intrinsically bad, like the nuclear bomb. That’s not new: Ariosto wanted to throw the firearm in the abyss; for him, this diabolical invention was the ruin of values such as physical courage. Some will reply that you cannot stop the progress. Indeed, the technological society has its own rules that prevent it from reflecting upon the moral impacts of the technologies.

You said the Internet was possibly one the greatest achievements of mankind. I’m not so enthusiastic, although I appreciate many of its possibilities. If I were cynic, I would say the Internet makes the Earth smaller, spreads uniformity and destroys diversity; that it leads to an atomization of the society, each person staying behind his computer; that you find there much garbage and not much gold; that for many people it is a marvellous tool to write crap, to make silly things, to lose time stupidly for instance with video games; that finally, with the Internet, the human beings are shown more than ever in their ugliness and their absurdity.

[Calidore]

My main problem with e-readers is the need for power. Another is the apparent lack of proofreading of e-books; Amazon's comments are loaded with complaints about the huge number of typos in the electronic versions of books.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely, I have understood your lack of space, and that the Kindle should resolve this problem. But after having bought it, you said: “What have I done?” You felt there was something wrong. You guessed it was not just a matter of place, but that it would change many things.

You are perfectly right to say it is a shame to pay 10 € a classic work in paperback of an author dead 150 years ago.

You said that having access to thousands of books for free was liberty. I don’t speak of that liberty of the consumer, by which one can choose between several goods and possess them; I speak of the liberty by which an individual tries to understand, to evaluate and to act without prejudices, without being influenced by the powers, whether they be economical, political, ideological… Do you think you will be more able to have a critical mind towards the technologies with a Kindle? Will you be in the best disposition to read Jacques Ellul or Theodore Kaczynski if you read them on your screen?

You said the technologies can be used correctly or abused depending on the user. But there are inventions that are intrinsically bad, like the nuclear bomb. That’s not new: Ariosto wanted to throw the firearm in the abyss; for him, this diabolical invention was the ruin of values such as physical courage. Some will reply that you cannot stop the progress. Indeed, the technological society has its own rules that prevent it from reflecting upon the moral impacts of the technologies.

You said the Internet was possibly one the greatest achievements of mankind. I’m not so enthusiastic, although I appreciate many of its possibilities. If I were cynic, I would say the Internet makes the Earth smaller, spreads uniformity and destroys diversity; that it leads to an atomization of the society, each person staying behind his computer; that you find there much garbage and not much gold; that for many people it is a marvellous tool to write crap, to make silly things, to lose time stupidly for instance with video games; that finally, with the Internet, the human beings are shown more than ever in their ugliness and their absurdity.

Yes my initial shock after placing the order is a clear testimony to just how much we cling on to old habits and misplaced nostalgia. It seems so silly. When first placed the order did I feel like I had had an affair or ate at McDonald's. When it arrived however, and now after 24 hours with it, I am very much a Kindle/ereader convert and only wish I had bought it sooner. It’s absolutely one the best items I have ever bought.

It terms of being able read critically free from prejudice, I say no more, no less. It makes no difference. It is completely immaterial to me whether the print is traditional or e-ink. It’s pretty impossible as it is, and always has been, for the individual to live in a social vacuum free from political, economic or ideological prejudices. The ereader and the technology behind it does nothing to change that. There is also nothing in the Amazon mission statement of wanting to get every book ever written downloadable within 60 seconds, to suggest that they want to force you to read Harry Potter!

Yes absolutely, technology is a tool in the hands of the user. Intrinsically it is neither good nor bad – it is just a tool. The user of the ereader can, as you said earlier, download thousands of books and not properly read any of them. Or, the careful and dedicated reader can use the Kindle, or other device, to gain access to those same books and read and study them with fervour. The device is just the medium. As ever, it is human nature and the individual, which makes that choice. It is not technology that makes human beings ugly or absurd, as you say, but human beings themselves. By the same standard, people are using technology to do beautiful and noble things.

My main problem with e-readers is the need for power. Another is the apparent lack of proofreading of e-books; Amazon's comments are loaded with complaints about the huge number of typos in the electronic versions of books.

Well I’m not sure how long a full charge is going to last. Anywhere from a week to a month I’ve read. But the process of charging seems to take about 2 hours and you just plug it into the back of your computer using the USB provided and job done. You can even buy a standard plug adaptor if you wish. In terms of typos I suspect that some will be better than others, but I’m sure overall they will improve rapidly as the demand for ereaders inevitably increase.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Another is the apparent lack of proofreading of e-books; Amazon's comments are loaded with complaints about the huge number of typos in the electronic versions of books.

This really is a problem, and gets quite annoying. Not only are there typos, but missing indentations for paragraphs and other formatting errors.

[mal4mac]

The "typo problem" is a real problem.

You can find properly edited paperback classics new for £1.99, and you can buy 44 of those for the price of a Kindle!

It's difficult to see which Kindle editions are properly edited, or just thrown together by some geek.

[B. Laumness]

As long as there will not professional sub-editors for these electronic editions, this will be another good reason not to buy a Kindle or a device of that kind.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I usually read the reviews of the Kindle editions, many reviewers will mention bad editing or formatting.

Usually though, if it's a free edition I don't mind giving it a try if it doesn't have any reviews yet. If it's really terrible I just delete it. It's not like I lose any money and I can then write a review warning others.

[mal4mac]

I usually read the reviews of the Kindle editions, many reviewers will mention bad editing or formatting.

Usually though, if it's a free edition I don't mind giving it a try if it doesn't have any reviews yet. If it's really terrible I just delete it. It's not like I lose any money and I can then write a review warning others.

Are Amazon reviewers trustworthy? The geek uploaders might be reviewing themselves - or a competitor might be giving them an undeserved trashy review.

What if it's not obviously terrible? For instance you might download Oscar Wilde's "complete letters" with many letters missing, or some not involving Oscar Wilde at all!

There needs to be someone with a job & reputation to lose doing the quality control, that is an editor an established publishing house. And that means you have to pay for it - and don't good editors deserve to be paid?

By downloading books for free you are putting good editors & publishers out of a job.