E-Books or Paper Books??

[HaventGotALife]

How do you generally read? I cannot get used to e-books, kindles, tablets, or whatever else we are using that requires electricity. I cannot adjust to reading on anything other than ink and tree. And I mean 400 page books. I can read news articles online, that's fine. And I can give instant feedback in the comments section or on Facebook.

I want a book that will travel with me, that I can read when there's nothing else but me in the world. I use books to unplug from the digital world. No email. No Trekbbs. No Facebook. Just me and the words on the page. I don't multitask read. I sit down and give my full attention to the book. One book with me (at max, 2) is good when I am leisure reading. I want a book where I don't have to worry if it's shoved into a bag and everything falls on it. Dents and folded pages, bent bindings and yellow pages tell me the story of the book in my hands, not just the story written in ink. I remember where and why I read it for the first time. My books speak to me. They make me slow down and spend time with them, like a patient friend just sitting there, waiting for our next conversation. Just call me a stick-in-the-mud.

What do you think???

 

[Relayer1]

I buy anything that I consider a collection as a paper copy. I only tend to buy cheap 'deal of the day' stuff for my Kindle.

Having said that, I've got Game of Thrones and its sequels on both. It's a damned site easier to read on Kindle and the ebooks were only £0.99 each...

 

[Amaris]

I have a Kindle 4, and I also have a fair collection of paper books. I prefer to use my Kindle, as it's easier on my wrists, and I can carry it with me and have 2,000+ books at my disposal.

I love paper books, but the Kindle is just far more convenient. Plus, e-ink reads just like paper and ink, so my eyes don't notice any difference.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The e-ink devices do a pretty good job approximating a paperback book. The tablets, not so much. E-books are incredibly convenient ... but I've found the experience of reading a paper book to be much better (for me) than an e-book (maybe it's because I didn't grow up with them). Also, there's no substitute for holding a first edition of, say, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or Where The Wild Things Are. E-books won't ever replace that. So while e-books are here to stay (and will grow in popularity - as they should, I think), I really do believe that the paper books won't go away.

What they need to do (and will probably get to, eventually) is bundle an e-book with a paper copy.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

I now tend to buy things only on the iPad. My dream would be that you could buy a Hardcover/Paperback and get a download code to have it on your Tablet/e-Reader of choice. I prefer to read on my iPad now, because I can read at any given moment anything that would strike my fancy. I have several Star Trek books on it, some historical fiction, several biographies, standard Science Fiction fare and just a mishmash of different stuff. I can jump back and forth and read what ever I choose.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I think I pretty equally divide my time and money between paper books, ebooks and audio books. It depends very much on the book.

The most important criteria with paper books is font size, and physical size of the books. I hate reading a paper book if the font is too small, or if the book is too large to comfortably hold. If a book has a lot of pictures, diagrams etc I prefer it as a paper book.

With audiobooks the most important things is the narrator. I often buy both a printed copy (either paper book or ebook) and an audio version and swap between reading and listening, or do both at the same time.

 

[Spot's Meow]

Both. They each have their benefits. I don't like reading on tablets because it is hard on my eyes, but I enjoy reading on my Kindle. It is a 2nd generation Kindle and has a wifi connection but the internet browser isn't very reliable, so I never feel a need to multitask on it. It is really only used for reading. It is very convenient to have so many books at any given moment, it allows me to choose what fits my mood better.

Paper books can also be good, especially for browsing. I have this issue with textbooks for school. Some I prefer to buy on Kindle because you can then keyword search them, which is amazing and wonderful when you can't remember where you read a specific passage or are looking for a quote you read. For other classes, the book is better to have in paper because I want the ability to flip back and forth through the pages easily.

So like I said, my answer is both. They are both good for different reasons and at different times.

 

[C. Cole-Chakotay]

I prefer paper books. I like to read hardback books.

 

[Relayer1]

I have a Kindle 4, and I also have a fair collection of paper books. I prefer to use my Kindle, as it's easier on my wrists, and I can carry it with me and have 2,000+ books at my disposal.

I love paper books, but the Kindle is just far more convenient. Plus, e-ink reads just like paper and ink, so my eyes don't notice any difference.

That's crucial - ereaders are hugely superior to tablets for reading ebooks. I truly find my Kindle as comfortable to read as a book. Moreso with large books, and more convenient. I may never have read my paperbacks of Game of Thrones.

I like to read hardback books.

I'm exactly the opposite - I try to avoid hardbacks.

 

[CorporalClegg]

These days I probably read more using a e-reader. I have two and am probably going to trade up soon.

However, I will always prefer reading real books.

I think books have a lot in common with vinyl. Digital music is great (at least the stuff that doesn't end in dot-em-pee-three), but ultimately it's just a file that exists solely in the 1 and 0 either. There's nothing tangible. Vinyl invokes all the senses, well except taste. (Unless you lick it!) There's the beautiful artwork, the small the record as you pull it from the sleeve, and that tactile connection you feel as you lay it on the turntable and move the stylus.

Books are the same way. Most (especially antique books) have beautiful artwork inside and out. Some are even works of art themselves given the right cover material, binding and layout of the font. The paper has a wonderful smell to it that seems to improve with age. And they have weight and there's that special something you feel as you turn the pages.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

When I was away from home for five months a couple years ago (in hospital, etc.), I bought a few books for my iPad, and it was admittedly very convenient. But I haven't bought any since.

I like the way paper books feel and smell. I like the way shelves full of books add personality to my house. A few of my books have been inscribed by the author -- how do you sign an e-book?!

 

[Amaris]

I have a Kindle 4, and I also have a fair collection of paper books. I prefer to use my Kindle, as it's easier on my wrists, and I can carry it with me and have 2,000+ books at my disposal.

I love paper books, but the Kindle is just far more convenient. Plus, e-ink reads just like paper and ink, so my eyes don't notice any difference.

That's crucial - ereaders are hugely superior to tablets for reading ebooks. I truly find my Kindle as comfortable to read as a book. Moreso with large books, and more convenient. I may never have read my paperbacks of Game of Thrones.

I like to read hardback books.

I'm exactly the opposite - I try to avoid hardbacks.

Agreed. I own the Tolkien LOTR trilogy in hardback, and on my Kindle. Which one do you think I prefer to read? While the hardback book is wonderful, and even contains the original Elvish texts, it's massive, and holding it, or propping it on something can be painful after a while. I prefer to read it on my Kindle, where I can hold it in one hand, and a cup of tea in another, and just relax.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I hate paperbacks.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ There's still something to be said for an old, used, beat-up paperback that's been read over and over again that makes it like a comfortable old pair of jeans. My copies of The Hobbit and The Hound of the Baskervilles are like that.

 

[CorporalClegg]

See, to me, books should be treasured, not abused.

 

[Saga]

i have to have a really for reals paper book. i just can't read paragraph after paragraph of text on a computer or other device.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

See, to me, books should be treasured, not abused.

Sure ... I have a copy of the Annotated Hobbit that I've read twice and is in pristine condition. My used paperback copy, however, is about 15 years old and has been taken with me during subway commutes, travel, waiting on train platforms, and so on. I used it when I taught the book to my 7th graders. Nothing wrong with using one copy for all it's worth ... and treasuring another.

 

[HaventGotALife]

^ There's still something to be said for an old, used, beat-up paperback that's been read over and over again that makes it like a comfortable old pair of jeans. My copies of The Hobbit and The Hound of the Baskervilles are like that.

That's my favorite paperback. It's been everywhere with me, including in shelters and when I was on the street. I love it. I never get tired of it. The cover has a rip on it, the binding is worn with tears, it's got the date that I bought the book and my name on the inside, and five years ago I wrote what the book meant to me on the inside back cover. I underlined words that I didn't know and that stays as a permanent record, for better or worse, and a testimony to how my vocabulary has improved over the last 14-plus years. I marked passages that were especially important to me.

It's a relic from my life; a piece of HaventGotALife's journey through this world. If this sounds a bit romantic, I am not this way about DVDs and VHS copies I upgraded, or Blu-Rays replacing my DVDs. While I prefer an actual CD, because I like liner notes to look over and the experience of popping on a new album, when Jennifer Nettles released her debut album about a month ago, I enjoyed not having to buy it. I went to Spotify and listened to the whole thing. Sat at my computer, smoked, browsed online, and listened to the commentary with every song; didn't miss the CD a bit.

But books are a different purpose. They are a slow-burn. They are not interactive, overstimulating. It is used, by me, at quiet times when I turn off the music and the computer, the television and the phone. It is just me and my book. It is a huge investment in time. A CD jacket? Just a picture of the artist or some lyrics. Nothing big. A book--a whole world that requires the reader's attention. To read, to understand the characters and how they relate. To catch all the plot points because it turns on a sentence. It is a PhD in attention. If a movie is a stream, a book is the ocean. Which one requires you to concentrate, to be a better swimmer? And I bond with the pages in those moments.

I never want paper books to go away.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ Very romantic! And I agree with the sentiment. I should add that my heavily-used paperbacks are as treasured as my pristine, signed old and rare books.

 

[Kemaiku]

Both until recently, now I tend to use my iPad far more. The amount of room they took up was just getting to be too much.