'Or Dead Tree form' 'dead tree edition' etc
do you use it, does it annoy you, or you just don't care?
do you use it, does it annoy you, or you just don't care?
The term 'Dead Tree Book'
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
Wha---? Never heard that in my life.
The term does annoy me a bit (it smacks of overzealous environmentalism) but in the end it's no big deal.
*shrug*
never noticed.
No, the term doesn't bother me. There are much more important things these days to bother me rather than some silly phrase.
never noticed.
No, the term doesn't bother me. There are much more important things these days to bother me rather than some silly phrase.
I guess some people might use it that way but as I buy many, many dead tree books I can't really be considered a overzealous environmentalist. I actually do like printed books more but alas, the font is often too small for me to read.
I don't recall ever using it, but I can't say it specifically bothers me, either.
If I have to differentiate a paper book from an eBook, I'll usually refer to it as either a pBook or a hardcopy book.
This is the first time I've heard it.
It just sounds like a cute way of acknowledging that books have very different forms now.
It just sounds like a cute way of acknowledging that books have very different forms now.
Very commonplace for me also. I tend to 'read' audiobooks, e-books and dead tree books so I use the term, affectionately I must add, to differentiate it from those other formats.
I have also used it when I have said such things as 'I haven't read a dead tree newspaper for years'.
I just don't care, I refer to hard copy when talking about a physical book.
I've heard it many times and it's fine with me. While I prefer dead tree books for nostalgic reasons, the term acknowledges that we don't really need to deforest the world to make books anymore.
I've long heard the term "Dead Tree Media" in the context of the gutting of the publishing industry by the internet's "New Media". Self-publishing revolution, death of journalism, toppling the gatekeepers of the literati, that sort of thing.
Kind of weird hearing it applied to...a hardback, paperback or trade publication, though. Seems a bit much to say you have to kill an entire tree for a book's worth of paper. Had a sociology professor once we called "The Tree Killer", for all the papers we had to turn in. I'll never forget her - she looked at me once during class and said "You're going to be my A for this semester, aren't you." And I was.
Kind of weird hearing it applied to...a hardback, paperback or trade publication, though. Seems a bit much to say you have to kill an entire tree for a book's worth of paper. Had a sociology professor once we called "The Tree Killer", for all the papers we had to turn in. I'll never forget her - she looked at me once during class and said "You're going to be my A for this semester, aren't you." And I was.
I'd never heard of it and I can't say it bothers me.
I prefer hardcopy anyway, the more tactile the experience/sensation the greater connection I have to it.
I prefer hardcopy anyway, the more tactile the experience/sensation the greater connection I have to it.
I haven't heard that one before. Over here, when you say "book", it's a matter of course that you mean one made of paper. A digital one is called an e-book.
I love old books. Modern printers use an inferior sort of paper which often is unpleasant to touch and which gets yellow and brittle very soon. Also, on modern Paperbacks, if you have sweaty hands, the salts react with the paper and you leave dark yellow stains.
Old books, on the other hand, were mostly printed on a woodless paper made from rags. It's non acidic and therefore ages very slowly. Such books look better preserved at 200 years than a modern paperback at 10 years. Also, the paper is softer and somewhat velvety. Very nice on the touch =)
I love old books. Modern printers use an inferior sort of paper which often is unpleasant to touch and which gets yellow and brittle very soon. Also, on modern Paperbacks, if you have sweaty hands, the salts react with the paper and you leave dark yellow stains.
Old books, on the other hand, were mostly printed on a woodless paper made from rags. It's non acidic and therefore ages very slowly. Such books look better preserved at 200 years than a modern paperback at 10 years. Also, the paper is softer and somewhat velvety. Very nice on the touch =)
Similar threads
- Poll
