This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Tess_W
Thought this was a very balanced article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/
2RidgewayGirl
Interesting to read that article in precisely the way the author posits reduces the amount of information retained!
I've heard these arguments several times, now. I'm mostly a paper book reader, mostly to do with the reasons given at the end of the article. I can't loan an ebook to a friend (well, now I might be able to once) or, more importantly, give it away. And an ebook feels like less a part of my library than a physical book -- I have a kindle and I like reading on it. It's fine for books I won't want to keep, but how do I know that beforehand? So my kindle is used only for old, hard to find classics, long books I would like to read on the train (also usually copyright free) and library books. Everything else is paper.
I don't feel I get less out of a book read on an ereader (I doubt I would have been able to concentrate as fully on Moby Dick as I did if I'd had those many, many pages of unbroken text in tiny print, rather than on those smaller pages that were easier to concentrate on), but do agree with the author's view that things read on a computer screen are retained less. In reading an online article, unless I have a reason to need to retain the information in a meaningful way, I am much more likely to skim, than I am with a book.
There's a lot of discussion about how the way we are reading is changing. Even as a committed physical book reader, I'm not sure that the medium is important -- what's important is that people are reading.
I've heard these arguments several times, now. I'm mostly a paper book reader, mostly to do with the reasons given at the end of the article. I can't loan an ebook to a friend (well, now I might be able to once) or, more importantly, give it away. And an ebook feels like less a part of my library than a physical book -- I have a kindle and I like reading on it. It's fine for books I won't want to keep, but how do I know that beforehand? So my kindle is used only for old, hard to find classics, long books I would like to read on the train (also usually copyright free) and library books. Everything else is paper.
I don't feel I get less out of a book read on an ereader (I doubt I would have been able to concentrate as fully on Moby Dick as I did if I'd had those many, many pages of unbroken text in tiny print, rather than on those smaller pages that were easier to concentrate on), but do agree with the author's view that things read on a computer screen are retained less. In reading an online article, unless I have a reason to need to retain the information in a meaningful way, I am much more likely to skim, than I am with a book.
There's a lot of discussion about how the way we are reading is changing. Even as a committed physical book reader, I'm not sure that the medium is important -- what's important is that people are reading.
4RickHarsch
3 ditto
5nathanielcampbell
>3 theoria:-4: Indeed!
6asm198
Interesting article. I've had my ereader for less than a year, but spent about 2 years wavering back and forth about purchasing one. I had no desire to buy ebooks, but wanted the ability to check out ebooks from my local library. I ended up going with a Kindle Paperwhite, mainly because I already use amazon frequently.
In the 10 months or so I've had my Kindle, I've bought more paper books than ebooks (probably about 5 to 1), because of what the article mentioned; I don't really feel like I "own" the ebooks like I own the physical books.
I love my Kindle for reading library books in bed, but am much more likely to buy a paper copy of a book if it's something I want to add to my collection.
In the 10 months or so I've had my Kindle, I've bought more paper books than ebooks (probably about 5 to 1), because of what the article mentioned; I don't really feel like I "own" the ebooks like I own the physical books.
I love my Kindle for reading library books in bed, but am much more likely to buy a paper copy of a book if it's something I want to add to my collection.
7Tess_W
I have noticed, after reading almost exclusively on my Kindle for 3 years, when I picked up a real book, I could not concentrate! Exactly what the article is saying. I actually went to my eye doctor thinking I needed new reading glasses. Now, since I'm aware, I go back and forth between my Kindle and a book to exercise both lobes of the brain!
8ALWINN
I have a Kindle and love it. Since I mostly read the classic I can get alot of my books either for free or under $2. And if I love the book then I will go get a paper copy.
9theretiredlibrarian
I read both paper and Kindle books. I haven't had much problem with reading either. I like the Kindle b/c I have little room for paper books. If I ever get my own house again, I intend to have a library.
10faceinbook
Something to think about :
E-readers are the future....especially for students as text books are so costly to publish and purchase. However, if the demand for paper dips too much, less books will be published, which will make them more costly to print and distribute. If this happens, paper and ink books will become cost prohibitive for many individuals.
Books are already expensive and e-readers have made purchasing reading material very inexpensive..however, one must OWN something on which to read the book, must have internet hookup and a credit card.
What will happen when the competition is nearly eliminated ? When paper books require far too much overhead to produce ? How long can publishing houses stay in business ?
It is my belief that they will disappear eventually....all but a few elite publishers as there will always be bibliophiles who will be willing to pay the price to have book in hand.
Authors will find it easy to publish but harder to earn much at publishing their works. We will be sifting through many more "books" than ever before, which can be good or bad depending on how you look at it......quality will be easier to put out there but much harder to find. Technology is pushing the literary field much the same as the televised world. So much more to watch on television......tons of channels, lots of crap in there and some gems but NOT cheaper....not at all. In the end, I don't think e-readers will remain cheaper...just haven't turned the corner yet with the competition.
My opinion on this doesn't change the fact that e-readers are our future but I am not so sure everyone realizes what we will be losing when the e-reader becomes the primary source of the written word.
It will never be cheaper.....never. There are few if any technological advancements that have remained "cheaper". It doesn't happen.
E-readers are the future....especially for students as text books are so costly to publish and purchase. However, if the demand for paper dips too much, less books will be published, which will make them more costly to print and distribute. If this happens, paper and ink books will become cost prohibitive for many individuals.
Books are already expensive and e-readers have made purchasing reading material very inexpensive..however, one must OWN something on which to read the book, must have internet hookup and a credit card.
What will happen when the competition is nearly eliminated ? When paper books require far too much overhead to produce ? How long can publishing houses stay in business ?
It is my belief that they will disappear eventually....all but a few elite publishers as there will always be bibliophiles who will be willing to pay the price to have book in hand.
Authors will find it easy to publish but harder to earn much at publishing their works. We will be sifting through many more "books" than ever before, which can be good or bad depending on how you look at it......quality will be easier to put out there but much harder to find. Technology is pushing the literary field much the same as the televised world. So much more to watch on television......tons of channels, lots of crap in there and some gems but NOT cheaper....not at all. In the end, I don't think e-readers will remain cheaper...just haven't turned the corner yet with the competition.
My opinion on this doesn't change the fact that e-readers are our future but I am not so sure everyone realizes what we will be losing when the e-reader becomes the primary source of the written word.
It will never be cheaper.....never. There are few if any technological advancements that have remained "cheaper". It doesn't happen.
11RidgewayGirl
There are few if any technological advancements that have remained "cheaper". It doesn't happen.
That's not actually true. Computers are smaller, more powerful and so much cheaper then they used to be, likewise televisions, microwaves and most electronic items. Even paper books became affordable to more than the very wealthy with the development of the printing press.
That's not actually true. Computers are smaller, more powerful and so much cheaper then they used to be, likewise televisions, microwaves and most electronic items. Even paper books became affordable to more than the very wealthy with the development of the printing press.
12southernbooklady
>10 faceinbook: There are few if any technological advancements that have remained "cheaper"
As @RidgewayGirl notes, this is not true. My dad spent a whopping $4K on his first computer back in the 80s--I remember it had a staggering 2MB of hard drive space. Now computers are less than $500, and exponentially better.
The problem with technology is not that it doesn't get cheaper, it's that it goes obsolete with increasing speed, requiring people to constantly re-invest. No one buys a computer "that will last" because there is no point.
As @RidgewayGirl notes, this is not true. My dad spent a whopping $4K on his first computer back in the 80s--I remember it had a staggering 2MB of hard drive space. Now computers are less than $500, and exponentially better.
The problem with technology is not that it doesn't get cheaper, it's that it goes obsolete with increasing speed, requiring people to constantly re-invest. No one buys a computer "that will last" because there is no point.
13ALWINN
Well I love both my ereader and my paperbooks. Im on my 4th Kindle and the bad thing is unless you have the money right then and there you are SOL for a while. In away its great to have a small little device with over 300 books on it for every mood, but there is nothing that makes me happier then to look at my book cases and remember each and every book and when someone new comes into the house its always a good converstation starter.
14faceinbook
>11 RidgewayGirl: and 12
"Even paper books became affordable to more than the very wealthy with the development of the printing press."
Point taken.
"The problem with technology is not that it doesn't get cheaper, it's that it goes obsolete with increasing speed, requiring people to constantly re-invest. No one buys a computer "that will last" because there is no point."
The item is cheaper but it costs more to USE it. Internet......apps.....all adds up. Used to buy a TV and plug it in.....other than one's electric bill, that was the end of the spending, now you need a cable hook up AND a box or a streaming thing which requires that you have internet access. My sister just invested in a new laptop as her old one died (five years old)....because it would have cost her an extra $100 to have Windows 7 over the new and improved nightmare that is Window's 8 she took the 8......NIGHTMARE ! messed up her system so badly that she has to wait for Windows to make an app so she can work from home, which saved her job when she was ill. ( a good thing) I just don't think it is always easier and better...just different and faster.
I would also argue that the some older items lasted longer because they did not contain a computer program. Washing machines are a good example......wasn't unusual to stretch out the use of a washing machine for 15 to 20 years, now they are computerized and last maybe half that.
I just do not see that our life style has become less expensive because of technology. We have more, we do things faster but we do not live more cheaply.
Off subject a bit but still in relation to what we lose due to technology......has anyone listened to an old stereo system lately ? My son picked up an old system at a rummage sale...huge coffee table size speakers , an 8 track player and a record deck. He needed an album so I took some of my old ones from the basement. The sound that came from those speakers was a thing of the past.......most young people today will never know the awesomeness of a real sound system. Little ear buds and thousands of tunes in a little plastic tube like thing. Sacrificing quantity for quality.
Things change they always will but there is always the ying and yang.......a trade off, not sure we are aware of that in the quest for the newer better way to do things.
>13 ALWINN:
A fine balance.
"Even paper books became affordable to more than the very wealthy with the development of the printing press."
Point taken.
"The problem with technology is not that it doesn't get cheaper, it's that it goes obsolete with increasing speed, requiring people to constantly re-invest. No one buys a computer "that will last" because there is no point."
The item is cheaper but it costs more to USE it. Internet......apps.....all adds up. Used to buy a TV and plug it in.....other than one's electric bill, that was the end of the spending, now you need a cable hook up AND a box or a streaming thing which requires that you have internet access. My sister just invested in a new laptop as her old one died (five years old)....because it would have cost her an extra $100 to have Windows 7 over the new and improved nightmare that is Window's 8 she took the 8......NIGHTMARE ! messed up her system so badly that she has to wait for Windows to make an app so she can work from home, which saved her job when she was ill. ( a good thing) I just don't think it is always easier and better...just different and faster.
I would also argue that the some older items lasted longer because they did not contain a computer program. Washing machines are a good example......wasn't unusual to stretch out the use of a washing machine for 15 to 20 years, now they are computerized and last maybe half that.
I just do not see that our life style has become less expensive because of technology. We have more, we do things faster but we do not live more cheaply.
Off subject a bit but still in relation to what we lose due to technology......has anyone listened to an old stereo system lately ? My son picked up an old system at a rummage sale...huge coffee table size speakers , an 8 track player and a record deck. He needed an album so I took some of my old ones from the basement. The sound that came from those speakers was a thing of the past.......most young people today will never know the awesomeness of a real sound system. Little ear buds and thousands of tunes in a little plastic tube like thing. Sacrificing quantity for quality.
Things change they always will but there is always the ying and yang.......a trade off, not sure we are aware of that in the quest for the newer better way to do things.
>13 ALWINN:
A fine balance.
15southernbooklady
>14 faceinbook: The item is cheaper but it costs more to USE it. Internet......apps.....all adds up. Used to buy a TV and plug it in.....other than one's electric bill, that was the end of the spending, now you need a cable hook up AND a box or a streaming thing which requires that you have internet access
I don't agree with this. At least, not the way you present it. It costs more to use a laptop than a typewriter, but less to get things done because the laptop handles things that the typewriter doesn't, and that you'd otherwise have to pay somebody else to do for you. Thus, your overall productivity is far more efficient and cheaper.
Whether or not we live more cheaply is a different question. Things are cheaper so we buy more stuff, certainly. But we can live more comfortably more cheaply, if we guard against such materialistic inclinations and only buy what we'll really use or need. When I moved to my current house I got rid of every gadget in the kitchen that had only one use. I eat very well armed with a good knife, a good skillet, and a good stew pot. I think I'm the last person in the country who doesn't have--and doesn't feel the need for-- a microwave. Even my mom thinks that's a bit nuts.
Sacrificing quantity for quality.
Photography suffers from the same problem...if you can call it a problem. We are drowning in bad photos taken on our iPhones, in poor resolution and rarely carefully labelled, recorded or archived. A good quality photographic print is a thing of beauty.
But this is a case where cheap is also good....because photographs, far from being rare or special, are now passed around with ease electronically, making it all the more easy to stay in touch with people you might otherwise rarely see.
I don't agree with this. At least, not the way you present it. It costs more to use a laptop than a typewriter, but less to get things done because the laptop handles things that the typewriter doesn't, and that you'd otherwise have to pay somebody else to do for you. Thus, your overall productivity is far more efficient and cheaper.
Whether or not we live more cheaply is a different question. Things are cheaper so we buy more stuff, certainly. But we can live more comfortably more cheaply, if we guard against such materialistic inclinations and only buy what we'll really use or need. When I moved to my current house I got rid of every gadget in the kitchen that had only one use. I eat very well armed with a good knife, a good skillet, and a good stew pot. I think I'm the last person in the country who doesn't have--and doesn't feel the need for-- a microwave. Even my mom thinks that's a bit nuts.
Sacrificing quantity for quality.
Photography suffers from the same problem...if you can call it a problem. We are drowning in bad photos taken on our iPhones, in poor resolution and rarely carefully labelled, recorded or archived. A good quality photographic print is a thing of beauty.
But this is a case where cheap is also good....because photographs, far from being rare or special, are now passed around with ease electronically, making it all the more easy to stay in touch with people you might otherwise rarely see.
16nathanielcampbell
>15 southernbooklady:: "But we can live more comfortably more cheaply, if we guard against such materialistic inclinations and only buy what we'll really use or need. "
Thus one of the reasons I haven't bought asmartdumb phone, an iPad or other tablet, a Kindle, etc. We don't have a DVR, or a Netflix streaming whatchamacallit,* or any of the other "devices" for which Time Warner's ever-so-helpful customer service folks keep trying to convince us we need more bandwidth. Our Sony television is literally older than I am (though sadly, the color in the tube is starting to flicker occasionally into a sickening green tone, so it may not see 2015...).
"I think I'm the last person in the country who doesn't have--and doesn't feel the need for-- a microwave."
My grandmother only consented in the last year of her life to have a microwave in the house because she had become too weak to cook without it. As it was, I think the home healthcare aid was the only person who actually used it.
-------------
*Interestingly, Firefox's spellcheck put squiggles under "iPad," "DVR," "Netflix," and "spellcheck," but not under "whatchamacallit.
Thus one of the reasons I haven't bought a
"I think I'm the last person in the country who doesn't have--and doesn't feel the need for-- a microwave."
My grandmother only consented in the last year of her life to have a microwave in the house because she had become too weak to cook without it. As it was, I think the home healthcare aid was the only person who actually used it.
-------------
*Interestingly, Firefox's spellcheck put squiggles under "iPad," "DVR," "Netflix," and "spellcheck," but not under "whatchamacallit.
17southernbooklady
>16 nathanielcampbell: Thus one of the reasons I haven't bought a smartdumb phone
Well, I'm not against technology in principle. And I don't think it's particularly virtuous to avoid it on principle. I just think technology is there to serve your needs and not the other way around. So I do have an iPod, an iPad, a smartphone, etc. (no Kindle, though). I just don't get them unless I have a reason to need them.
Well, I'm not against technology in principle. And I don't think it's particularly virtuous to avoid it on principle. I just think technology is there to serve your needs and not the other way around. So I do have an iPod, an iPad, a smartphone, etc. (no Kindle, though). I just don't get them unless I have a reason to need them.
18nathanielcampbell
>17 southernbooklady:: "I have a reason to need them."
I've not yet discovered a reason to have a cellphone that can do anything more than make phone calls.
I've not yet discovered a reason to have a cellphone that can do anything more than make phone calls.
19RidgewayGirl
Having recently moved to a big city not laid out in a grid pattern, I can attest to the usefulness of the map function on an iPhone. And my children can keep in touch with their friends and I can speak to my parents easily and for free with FaceTime. Those are new technologies and they have enhanced my life quite a bit.
I have nothing against being a Luddite, although I wish it were simply a personal choice and less of a reason to feel better than other people. My family does not have a television. That does not make us one lick better than the family with one in every room. We just have made different life choices.
I have nothing against being a Luddite, although I wish it were simply a personal choice and less of a reason to feel better than other people. My family does not have a television. That does not make us one lick better than the family with one in every room. We just have made different life choices.
20southernbooklady
>18 nathanielcampbell: Perhaps not. But I use mine for a myriad of things, phone calls being the least common.
A smartphone is a tool. A useful tool for me, an unneeded one for you. But they are not bad or good within themselves.
A smartphone is a tool. A useful tool for me, an unneeded one for you. But they are not bad or good within themselves.
21faceinbook
>15 southernbooklady:
"I don't agree with this. At least, not the way you present it. It costs more to use a laptop than a typewriter, but less to get things done because the laptop handles things that the typewriter doesn't, and that you'd otherwise have to pay somebody else to do for you. Thus, your overall productivity is far more efficient and cheaper."
Perhaps I haven't been the best at presenting. Productivity is important and one can argue that a laptop increases productivity. But, if you are using computers in businesses you are constantly upgrading and/or avoiding "hacking" issues.....this is a huge cost to consumers. Kind of creates a wash when it comes to savings realized by raised productivity. My sister claims that in a big business technology is constantly chasing it's own tail. Not to mention the up and coming security issues. She works in a health care clinic and she just gave a presentation on patient privacy. The old time patient chart was only available to those who were involved in that patients care.....today, everything is on line....all of the patients info at the doctors finger tips. Very efficient for patient care but not so good for patient privacy. All employees had to attend my sister's presentation which was one hour of pay per person, she claims to have fired at least 15 people last year for snooping around in the system where they did not belong, this means employee turn over which is costly. They also just had a breech in their payroll system which directly deposited everyone's checks. 20 Checks were stolen....5 of them physicians pay which adds up to a lot of money. Insurance covered this but insurance rates will go up. I believe that what we see as efficient has just as many problems as the systems we grew up with only they are entirely different in nature.
" I think I'm the last person in the country who doesn't have--and doesn't feel the need for-- a microwave. "
You must know how to cook. I am venturing to guess that the further we stray from my generation, the less young people are going to acquire that skill......it is much faster and easier to "nuke" something. Not saying that there is anything wrong with this but again, it will be a loss of a type of skill.
"But this is a case where cheap is also good....because photographs, far from being rare or special, are now passed around with ease electronically, making it all the more easy to stay in touch with people you might otherwise rarely see."
Well, there it is....you made my point perfectly. It is a trade off. My kids will have a much smaller box of photos to pour over, when I bite the dust, than I did when I found my mom's box. I can print a lot of the pictures off of my computer but they fade, they do not stand up to time like the old one's that were developed from film. I have pics of my mom and dad on their honeymoon ....black and white. pictures taken with my first camera, a Brownie, that are the same today as they were when I picked them up from the corner drug store. Today's pictures are not the same. I love my camera's, own two very nice digital camera's (not old but outdated already,not enough pixels, they are still pretty big and heavy) Take pictures all of the time I can send mine anywhere...share with anyone...I love it...but I do wonder what will happen to the pictorial recording of my life. I down loaded all of my pics onto CDs and my son asked me how on earth they were going to access them when CD's were out of date. Hadn't even thought of that. Who on earth is going to care enough to keep updating them ? My grandkids are fascinated by my mom's picture box.....but it is a dying thing.
Great subject by the way...photography...the computer has made us all great photographers......we can touch up anything but it somehow diminishes the art of photography. Not for you or me cause we understand how photography has evolved but it will be different for my grandkids. Whether this is good or bad I don't venture to guess.....my only point is that for everything we gain, we will also lose something. (redundant ? :0)
"I don't agree with this. At least, not the way you present it. It costs more to use a laptop than a typewriter, but less to get things done because the laptop handles things that the typewriter doesn't, and that you'd otherwise have to pay somebody else to do for you. Thus, your overall productivity is far more efficient and cheaper."
Perhaps I haven't been the best at presenting. Productivity is important and one can argue that a laptop increases productivity. But, if you are using computers in businesses you are constantly upgrading and/or avoiding "hacking" issues.....this is a huge cost to consumers. Kind of creates a wash when it comes to savings realized by raised productivity. My sister claims that in a big business technology is constantly chasing it's own tail. Not to mention the up and coming security issues. She works in a health care clinic and she just gave a presentation on patient privacy. The old time patient chart was only available to those who were involved in that patients care.....today, everything is on line....all of the patients info at the doctors finger tips. Very efficient for patient care but not so good for patient privacy. All employees had to attend my sister's presentation which was one hour of pay per person, she claims to have fired at least 15 people last year for snooping around in the system where they did not belong, this means employee turn over which is costly. They also just had a breech in their payroll system which directly deposited everyone's checks. 20 Checks were stolen....5 of them physicians pay which adds up to a lot of money. Insurance covered this but insurance rates will go up. I believe that what we see as efficient has just as many problems as the systems we grew up with only they are entirely different in nature.
" I think I'm the last person in the country who doesn't have--and doesn't feel the need for-- a microwave. "
You must know how to cook. I am venturing to guess that the further we stray from my generation, the less young people are going to acquire that skill......it is much faster and easier to "nuke" something. Not saying that there is anything wrong with this but again, it will be a loss of a type of skill.
"But this is a case where cheap is also good....because photographs, far from being rare or special, are now passed around with ease electronically, making it all the more easy to stay in touch with people you might otherwise rarely see."
Well, there it is....you made my point perfectly. It is a trade off. My kids will have a much smaller box of photos to pour over, when I bite the dust, than I did when I found my mom's box. I can print a lot of the pictures off of my computer but they fade, they do not stand up to time like the old one's that were developed from film. I have pics of my mom and dad on their honeymoon ....black and white. pictures taken with my first camera, a Brownie, that are the same today as they were when I picked them up from the corner drug store. Today's pictures are not the same. I love my camera's, own two very nice digital camera's (not old but outdated already,not enough pixels, they are still pretty big and heavy) Take pictures all of the time I can send mine anywhere...share with anyone...I love it...but I do wonder what will happen to the pictorial recording of my life. I down loaded all of my pics onto CDs and my son asked me how on earth they were going to access them when CD's were out of date. Hadn't even thought of that. Who on earth is going to care enough to keep updating them ? My grandkids are fascinated by my mom's picture box.....but it is a dying thing.
Great subject by the way...photography...the computer has made us all great photographers......we can touch up anything but it somehow diminishes the art of photography. Not for you or me cause we understand how photography has evolved but it will be different for my grandkids. Whether this is good or bad I don't venture to guess.....my only point is that for everything we gain, we will also lose something. (redundant ? :0)
22faceinbook
>19 RidgewayGirl:
We had no television either......I read and I listened to my parents records. Today, I love to read....and I love almost any kind of music. Could not tell you what is on television this evening. I don't think that this makes me "better", as you said, it just has allowed me to make different choices.
I am not saying that technology is "bad", although I think it has heightened our feeling of invincibility, the idea that we don't need anyone cause we are so connected. I think studies have been done on this and they show that though we have all these ways to be in touch....many individuals are feeling more isolated. ( Will have to google around and see what I can find.)
People do not have to get along in their surroundings....they can escape via the phone or the IPad or what ever. Less adept at social skills of one kind and using more of another. Again with the trade off.
>20 southernbooklady:
"A smartphone is a tool. A useful tool for me, an unneeded one for you. But they are not bad or good within themselves."
Exactly.
We had no television either......I read and I listened to my parents records. Today, I love to read....and I love almost any kind of music. Could not tell you what is on television this evening. I don't think that this makes me "better", as you said, it just has allowed me to make different choices.
I am not saying that technology is "bad", although I think it has heightened our feeling of invincibility, the idea that we don't need anyone cause we are so connected. I think studies have been done on this and they show that though we have all these ways to be in touch....many individuals are feeling more isolated. ( Will have to google around and see what I can find.)
People do not have to get along in their surroundings....they can escape via the phone or the IPad or what ever. Less adept at social skills of one kind and using more of another. Again with the trade off.
>20 southernbooklady:
"A smartphone is a tool. A useful tool for me, an unneeded one for you. But they are not bad or good within themselves."
Exactly.
23southernbooklady
>21 faceinbook: I do like to cook. More to the point, I work at home and thus I have time to cook.
the computer has made us all great photographers......we can touch up anything but it somehow diminishes the art of photography.
Teaching everyone to read and write does not "diminish" great writing. Nor does giving everyone a camera (and no, that did not make us all great photographers) diminish a great photograph. They are entirely different orders of communication.
Another example would be email. Surely "cheaper" than the US Postal service--it's absolutely free even if you don't own a computer. People bemoan the effect that the casual nature of email (and texting) has had on our communication skills. The dearth of real letters in our lives.
And yet, we stay more closely in touch with friends and family thanks to email, so is it really a "bad" thing?
In any case, it's not the technology that is good or bad, it's what we do with it in our lives. The only "bad" thing about how we deal with technology on a daily basis that I've noticed is that we allow it to trick us into thinking we should always be doing more, in less time. We get into a kind of vicious circle about that, and thus we constantly feel like we wont ever get caught up. All those facebook photos to be downloaded and labelled! All those bookmarked websites to be read!
It's deceptive, illusory, all this stuff we can apparently do if we would just make the time for it.
That's what I mean about remembering that technology should work for you, not the other way around.
And for what it is worth, I'm not against e-books because they are digital--I just don't the the technology is very good yet, so I only use them in cases where having a physical book would be unimportant. My digital camera manual is an ebook.
I am against the pressure to keep ebooks licensed, instead of owned, because I think that seriously interferes with the ability of ideas to disseminate-- it attempts to corral the "you've got to read this" factor--the enthusiasm that inspires each book lover to pass books on to their friends. That one-to-one recommendation among friends and colleagues is still the most powerful way for a book to take hold, and I don't like the idea of mechanisms designed to interfere or obstruct that impulse.
the computer has made us all great photographers......we can touch up anything but it somehow diminishes the art of photography.
Teaching everyone to read and write does not "diminish" great writing. Nor does giving everyone a camera (and no, that did not make us all great photographers) diminish a great photograph. They are entirely different orders of communication.
Another example would be email. Surely "cheaper" than the US Postal service--it's absolutely free even if you don't own a computer. People bemoan the effect that the casual nature of email (and texting) has had on our communication skills. The dearth of real letters in our lives.
And yet, we stay more closely in touch with friends and family thanks to email, so is it really a "bad" thing?
In any case, it's not the technology that is good or bad, it's what we do with it in our lives. The only "bad" thing about how we deal with technology on a daily basis that I've noticed is that we allow it to trick us into thinking we should always be doing more, in less time. We get into a kind of vicious circle about that, and thus we constantly feel like we wont ever get caught up. All those facebook photos to be downloaded and labelled! All those bookmarked websites to be read!
It's deceptive, illusory, all this stuff we can apparently do if we would just make the time for it.
That's what I mean about remembering that technology should work for you, not the other way around.
And for what it is worth, I'm not against e-books because they are digital--I just don't the the technology is very good yet, so I only use them in cases where having a physical book would be unimportant. My digital camera manual is an ebook.
I am against the pressure to keep ebooks licensed, instead of owned, because I think that seriously interferes with the ability of ideas to disseminate-- it attempts to corral the "you've got to read this" factor--the enthusiasm that inspires each book lover to pass books on to their friends. That one-to-one recommendation among friends and colleagues is still the most powerful way for a book to take hold, and I don't like the idea of mechanisms designed to interfere or obstruct that impulse.
24faceinbook
>23 southernbooklady:
" Nor does giving everyone a camera (and no, that did not make us all great photographers) diminish a great photograph."
But, digital photography has changed photography as I knew it when I was young. The computer can "fix" a lot of mistakes, alter perception and make a so so picture pretty dang good. On the other hand, some of the things artists do with digital photos are awesome.
In so far as the art of "seeing" a good photograph....you are correct....that is a talent not everyone will possess no matter what kind of camera or computer they possess.
"And yet, we stay more closely in touch with friends and family thanks to email, so is it really a "bad" thing?"
No just a trade off. Our children's children will not know how to write in cursive. bad ? good ? probably neither just different.
I do not own an e-reader, have trouble reading on a screen and I have an obsession...... have to own the book. I love the feel, smell and weight of a book. I sometimes buy books because of the cover art and/or the format. Own more books than I can possibly read....it is one of my vices. So....I can not pass judgment on e-readers or those who enjoy them. It remains to be seen what the e-reader is going to do to the publishing business and the art of literature in general.....my speculations on this were only that.....speculations.
"That one-to-one recommendation among friends and colleagues is still the most powerful way for a book to take hold"
So too were booksellers an important component in making or breaking a piece of literature..... When I worked in a bookstore, every month we were mailed a box of ARC editions to read before publication. We then would "hand sell" the one's we thought were really good...matched customers with the different types of books. I know that reviewing them online is supposed to take the place of this but I don't think it quite does it. People tend to go back to trusted booksellers for suggestions and conversation face to face can not be replicated. It would seem that there is a different level of trust involved.
I think we got off the point.....I don't think technology is "bad" or "good".....just a different way of living. The premise I started on was that I do not believe that technology has made things "cheaper" and that for every "good" we are enjoying today, we have sacrificed something. (These sacrifices can also be viewed both ways...good and bad depending on one's value system.) Looking at the small picture technology has made things cheaper but in a bigger perspective I do not believe it has and while it solves problems and frees us up in many ways it also creates problems of it's own. One has only to drive behind a car that is being driven by someone who is texting to understand that a problem has been created by cell phones. So it is great that we can get in touch with anyone, anytime from anyplace...but....is it "always" great ? Probably not making myself very clear......going to quit before I get egg on my face.....something I am very familiar with.
" Nor does giving everyone a camera (and no, that did not make us all great photographers) diminish a great photograph."
But, digital photography has changed photography as I knew it when I was young. The computer can "fix" a lot of mistakes, alter perception and make a so so picture pretty dang good. On the other hand, some of the things artists do with digital photos are awesome.
In so far as the art of "seeing" a good photograph....you are correct....that is a talent not everyone will possess no matter what kind of camera or computer they possess.
"And yet, we stay more closely in touch with friends and family thanks to email, so is it really a "bad" thing?"
No just a trade off. Our children's children will not know how to write in cursive. bad ? good ? probably neither just different.
I do not own an e-reader, have trouble reading on a screen and I have an obsession...... have to own the book. I love the feel, smell and weight of a book. I sometimes buy books because of the cover art and/or the format. Own more books than I can possibly read....it is one of my vices. So....I can not pass judgment on e-readers or those who enjoy them. It remains to be seen what the e-reader is going to do to the publishing business and the art of literature in general.....my speculations on this were only that.....speculations.
"That one-to-one recommendation among friends and colleagues is still the most powerful way for a book to take hold"
So too were booksellers an important component in making or breaking a piece of literature..... When I worked in a bookstore, every month we were mailed a box of ARC editions to read before publication. We then would "hand sell" the one's we thought were really good...matched customers with the different types of books. I know that reviewing them online is supposed to take the place of this but I don't think it quite does it. People tend to go back to trusted booksellers for suggestions and conversation face to face can not be replicated. It would seem that there is a different level of trust involved.
I think we got off the point.....I don't think technology is "bad" or "good".....just a different way of living. The premise I started on was that I do not believe that technology has made things "cheaper" and that for every "good" we are enjoying today, we have sacrificed something. (These sacrifices can also be viewed both ways...good and bad depending on one's value system.) Looking at the small picture technology has made things cheaper but in a bigger perspective I do not believe it has and while it solves problems and frees us up in many ways it also creates problems of it's own. One has only to drive behind a car that is being driven by someone who is texting to understand that a problem has been created by cell phones. So it is great that we can get in touch with anyone, anytime from anyplace...but....is it "always" great ? Probably not making myself very clear......going to quit before I get egg on my face.....something I am very familiar with.
25southernbooklady
The premise I started on was that I do not believe that technology has made things "cheaper" and that for every "good" we are enjoying today, we have sacrificed something.
Well in that case you are using "cheaper" in an idiosyncratic way. Almost as in "life is cheap." -- ei, "worth less"
I was using it to mean "things are less expensive." They are. But I don't' think this has made life "worth less." As you say, there are many trade offs.
Well in that case you are using "cheaper" in an idiosyncratic way. Almost as in "life is cheap." -- ei, "worth less"
I was using it to mean "things are less expensive." They are. But I don't' think this has made life "worth less." As you say, there are many trade offs.
26faceinbook
>25 southernbooklady:
Well there were actually two premises ...... I meant cheaper in so far as monetary expense. By, sacrifice I meant just exactly what I said.
Obviously I am having a problem here.
I do not think of technology as "good" or "bad".....I see the value and I see the problems..... at times I wonder if the problems are worth the convenience but then something happens....I have a grandson born weighing less than 2 pounds , he survives and I have to rethink things. It is what it is......life in the 21st century.
I think the COST we pay for technology is pretty high in dollars and cents.....I do not think it has saved us money. Most business' are investing a lot of money in IT departments or they contract out for computer people. A cost that is reflected in what ever it is that business provides. The next and perhaps our biggest expense will be security. Any place where one uses a credit card is going to need to take new measures to stay secure......it will cost money...the cost will be passed on. While technology has enhanced the quality of our health care it has also raised the cost. The cost of living has not dropped due to technology.
According to what you've posted you do not allow technology to be the boss......I am not so sure you are in the majority. I would guess that more people feel the NEED for the newest and the latest.
Well there were actually two premises ...... I meant cheaper in so far as monetary expense. By, sacrifice I meant just exactly what I said.
Obviously I am having a problem here.
I do not think of technology as "good" or "bad".....I see the value and I see the problems..... at times I wonder if the problems are worth the convenience but then something happens....I have a grandson born weighing less than 2 pounds , he survives and I have to rethink things. It is what it is......life in the 21st century.
I think the COST we pay for technology is pretty high in dollars and cents.....I do not think it has saved us money. Most business' are investing a lot of money in IT departments or they contract out for computer people. A cost that is reflected in what ever it is that business provides. The next and perhaps our biggest expense will be security. Any place where one uses a credit card is going to need to take new measures to stay secure......it will cost money...the cost will be passed on. While technology has enhanced the quality of our health care it has also raised the cost. The cost of living has not dropped due to technology.
According to what you've posted you do not allow technology to be the boss......I am not so sure you are in the majority. I would guess that more people feel the NEED for the newest and the latest.
27rrp
#3
I could not get used to my Nook. After a while, I'd written on it so much I couldn't see the text. And then I read something that made me want to throw the book across the room. The outcome wasn't good.
No, give me paper any day.
I could not get used to my Nook. After a while, I'd written on it so much I couldn't see the text. And then I read something that made me want to throw the book across the room. The outcome wasn't good.
No, give me paper any day.
28southernbooklady
>26 faceinbook: I think the COST we pay for technology is pretty high in dollars and cents.....I do not think it has saved us money.
Well, I suppose I have a problem with statements like these because they aren't backed up by anything except personal impression. I work for a trade organization that represents small businesses....independent bookstores, actually. I know for a fact, because we've participated in studies, that these stores would not be able to do business profitably if the costs of technology hadn't plummeted to within their budget range.
I don't know where that washes out in your idea of "what we pay for technology" but I do know that they do business more profitably and efficiently because of it.
As you say, technology is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is. But if our notion of a "good life" includes this steady pulse of connection via the Internet (including nattering away on discussion forums on book cataloging websites) I'm not really worried about that.
Well, I suppose I have a problem with statements like these because they aren't backed up by anything except personal impression. I work for a trade organization that represents small businesses....independent bookstores, actually. I know for a fact, because we've participated in studies, that these stores would not be able to do business profitably if the costs of technology hadn't plummeted to within their budget range.
I don't know where that washes out in your idea of "what we pay for technology" but I do know that they do business more profitably and efficiently because of it.
As you say, technology is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is. But if our notion of a "good life" includes this steady pulse of connection via the Internet (including nattering away on discussion forums on book cataloging websites) I'm not really worried about that.
29Helcura
Oddly enough, I use a microwave every day, but never use my stovetop. I use the oven, but have never wanted/needed to cook anything on a burner. I'd just as soon have the extra counter space.
30razzamajazz
Books will exist for another 100 years for sure since the invention of modern printing .
In the digital age of reading, now available in many other formats besides on paper, books will still be treasured and on demand as long paper can be manufactured, and keeping the price of books affordable to an average reader.
I still prefer reading materials printed on paper, it is easy on your eyes.
In the digital age of reading, now available in many other formats besides on paper, books will still be treasured and on demand as long paper can be manufactured, and keeping the price of books affordable to an average reader.
I still prefer reading materials printed on paper, it is easy on your eyes.
31galacticus
Because of print on demand two trends I see developing: 1 print on demand will allow people to print whatever book they choose with options for hardcover or softcover, font size, etc. This shifts most of the cost on the consumer but in a good way. 2 publishers in the past looked for blockbuster prints of 500,000 or more. This meant that they took few chances with unknown authors. They preferred poor books by known authors than good books by unknown authors. Because of ereaders and print on demand what publishers should be pushing is variety. Publishers will eventually be able to risk a small print of good works by unknown authors. If the product gains traction because of print on demand the product becomes profitable over a long period of time. People on this thread have said if they like the book on the ereader they buy the hardcopy. What if you could choose the cover, font size, etc. for the same price?
32southernbooklady
>31 galacticus: Because of print on demand two trends I see developing
Actually the biggest "trend" the technology has instituted is doing away with the "publisher" altogether.
Actually the biggest "trend" the technology has instituted is doing away with the "publisher" altogether.
33razzamajazz
I do not believe Expresso Book Machine is well received.
If you need the book fast,an expresso book machine is of a great help.It cost roughly the same as the copy to purchase from a regular bookstore.
http://www.ondemandbooks.com
If you need the book fast,an expresso book machine is of a great help.It cost roughly the same as the copy to purchase from a regular bookstore.
http://www.ondemandbooks.com
34faceinbook
Some interesting links regarding technology in our lives.....touching on the cost both monetary and socially. My guess is that we can not know any definitive answers on many of these things as the answer lies in a perspective that can only be viewed from a futuristic point in time. We are able however, to have an awareness of the fact that when we gain, we also lose. It is a price we are able to see if we stay in tune to what is happening.
http://keystoneisit.blogspot.com/2007/01/hidden-costs-of-information-technology....
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-does-technology-affect-society.html
(interesting thoughts)
http://pragcap.com/the-cost-of-technology
http://keystoneisit.blogspot.com/2007/01/hidden-costs-of-information-technology....
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-does-technology-affect-society.html
(interesting thoughts)
http://pragcap.com/the-cost-of-technology
35Jarandel
I've owned a tablet since last summer. Right price point vs features and quality of display on a device usable in a pinch as a lightweight computer.
It's great for general reading, not so sure for content I need to actively commit to memory. For some reason the physicality of the paper brick, the smell, the precise and unchanging layout on the pages, vs the fluidity and transient nature of the text on screen seems to have some effect there.
I don't believe physical books will become insanely expensive. Mass-market paperbacks may suffer in countries where steep discounts on ebooks are allowed and expected, but POD manages to deliver trade paperbacks and hardcovers at relatively reasonable prices vs their traditionally published equivalents' cover tags.
I think even the digital natives won't be immune to the lure of holding a copy of their own works as a memento of personal accomplishment of sorts. Admittedly, the care and uniqueness that can be put in the purely physical aspect of a *nice* trad book won't be there, and that may mean lots of dross out there, but also that the tools and channels will be there for the authors you do care about.
>2 RidgewayGirl: Digitized text is among the types of data any computing device can handle with most astonishing speed and efficiency, be it for purposes of making copies, displaying it, converting it between formats, storing or transferring and redistributing it across networks, etc...
DRMs used to (try and) make ebooks into a strictly personal, non-transferable licence to read the book in the format it was sold in and no other, aren't an intrinsic feature of ebooks. They're how major publishers are trying to handle them at the moment.
I suspect many users just have a quiet laugh and work around the format/devices limitations as they need to in their private environment, even if they agree with the general premise that a copyrighted book isn't theirs to indiscriminately recirculate further.
It's great for general reading, not so sure for content I need to actively commit to memory. For some reason the physicality of the paper brick, the smell, the precise and unchanging layout on the pages, vs the fluidity and transient nature of the text on screen seems to have some effect there.
I don't believe physical books will become insanely expensive. Mass-market paperbacks may suffer in countries where steep discounts on ebooks are allowed and expected, but POD manages to deliver trade paperbacks and hardcovers at relatively reasonable prices vs their traditionally published equivalents' cover tags.
I think even the digital natives won't be immune to the lure of holding a copy of their own works as a memento of personal accomplishment of sorts. Admittedly, the care and uniqueness that can be put in the purely physical aspect of a *nice* trad book won't be there, and that may mean lots of dross out there, but also that the tools and channels will be there for the authors you do care about.
>2 RidgewayGirl: Digitized text is among the types of data any computing device can handle with most astonishing speed and efficiency, be it for purposes of making copies, displaying it, converting it between formats, storing or transferring and redistributing it across networks, etc...
DRMs used to (try and) make ebooks into a strictly personal, non-transferable licence to read the book in the format it was sold in and no other, aren't an intrinsic feature of ebooks. They're how major publishers are trying to handle them at the moment.
I suspect many users just have a quiet laugh and work around the format/devices limitations as they need to in their private environment, even if they agree with the general premise that a copyrighted book isn't theirs to indiscriminately recirculate further.
36theoria
Academic books are expensive, yet this the market segment that will likely be most resistant to digitization.
37Bretzky1
Beyond treating individual letters as physical objects, the human brain may also perceive a text in its entirety as a kind of physical landscape. When we read, we construct a mental representation of the text in which meaning is anchored to structure. The exact nature of such representations remains unclear, but they are likely similar to the mental maps we create of terrain—such as mountains and trails—and of man-made physical spaces, such as apartments and offices. Both anecdotally and in published studies, people report that when trying to locate a particular piece of written information they often remember where in the text it appeared. We might recall that we passed the red farmhouse near the start of the trail before we started climbing uphill through the forest; in a similar way, we remember that we read about Mr. Darcy rebuffing Elizabeth Bennett on the bottom of the left-hand page in one of the earlier chapters."
This is precisely why I have always preferred reading something in physical form to reading the same thing on a screen. There are numerous times during reading when I have to jump back to something I previously read in order to refresh my memory or to better explain something that I am currently reading. It's not as much of an issue with articles, but for a book-length work, I really have to be able to "page through" the text, which is far more difficult to do with an e-reader.
38faceinbook
And the elephant in the living room :
http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-how-changes-in-medical-technol...
We all pay for this even if we only see a doctor for a wellness check.
A bit off subject for e-reader vs hard copy but it is something to consider when a new device comes to hand and it seems like the best thing since sliced bread. It is nice, fast, convenient, efficient but comes at a cost.
http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-how-changes-in-medical-technol...
We all pay for this even if we only see a doctor for a wellness check.
A bit off subject for e-reader vs hard copy but it is something to consider when a new device comes to hand and it seems like the best thing since sliced bread. It is nice, fast, convenient, efficient but comes at a cost.
39southernbooklady
>37 Bretzky1: Beyond treating individual letters as physical objects, the human brain may also perceive a text in its entirety as a kind of physical landscape.
In other words, layout is important. Book designers and typesetters know this. :)
What's less understood is how we deal with information in a "landscape" that is fluid, like a screen. A lot of my memory retention is spatial--I can't name all the biographies I own in alphabetical order. But I can picture where one is on the bookshelf, and from there I can build out until I've named every book on the shelf and in the case.
But I have no idea if this is just a result of personal habit and training. I have know idea if another person, raised in an environment of, say, "tags" wouldn't be able to rattle off all the books he/she has tagged in the same way I rattle them off the way I have them shelved.
In other words, layout is important. Book designers and typesetters know this. :)
What's less understood is how we deal with information in a "landscape" that is fluid, like a screen. A lot of my memory retention is spatial--I can't name all the biographies I own in alphabetical order. But I can picture where one is on the bookshelf, and from there I can build out until I've named every book on the shelf and in the case.
But I have no idea if this is just a result of personal habit and training. I have know idea if another person, raised in an environment of, say, "tags" wouldn't be able to rattle off all the books he/she has tagged in the same way I rattle them off the way I have them shelved.
40faceinbook
>37 Bretzky1:
I facilitate two reading groups. The number of members with e-readers are about half. I have noticed that they have issues finding passages that they want to read from, although I think the newer e-readers allow you to "mark" passages, I'm not all that certain it helps when someone else brings up a passage and it's not one the reader thought to mark.
Most often the person with the e-reader will grab one of the books and page through rather than scroll.
Having said that, I also noticed that some members have a much easier time moving around on their Kindles than others and it isn't necessarily related to the amount of time the member has used the device. It may simply be a motivational issue ?
I am not all that good on the computer....my sister is worse than I am....neither of us actually has a desire to become proficient at manipulating our way around on one. The same may be true for the e-reader device.....the reading part is only one part of using it....if you go beyond that into discussing the book or studying the material it probably requires a different set of skill levels that have more to do with electronics than just reading.
I facilitate two reading groups. The number of members with e-readers are about half. I have noticed that they have issues finding passages that they want to read from, although I think the newer e-readers allow you to "mark" passages, I'm not all that certain it helps when someone else brings up a passage and it's not one the reader thought to mark.
Most often the person with the e-reader will grab one of the books and page through rather than scroll.
Having said that, I also noticed that some members have a much easier time moving around on their Kindles than others and it isn't necessarily related to the amount of time the member has used the device. It may simply be a motivational issue ?
I am not all that good on the computer....my sister is worse than I am....neither of us actually has a desire to become proficient at manipulating our way around on one. The same may be true for the e-reader device.....the reading part is only one part of using it....if you go beyond that into discussing the book or studying the material it probably requires a different set of skill levels that have more to do with electronics than just reading.
41faceinbook
>39 southernbooklady:
Right ! I can picture, in my mind, almost any book on my numerous book shelves, even if I can't tell you what the title may be. I remember the color and the surrounding books. It works the opposite as well, if one were to ask me to grab my copy of "Blue Highways", I can walk right up to it.
Signs are that one of my grandson's is the same....his mom organized his bookshelf one day....he had a little hissy fit cause he "knew just where every book was on the shelf" She defended herself by saying that they weren't in any kind of order. Obviously they were to him.
Maybe that is one of the satisfying things about an actual library ? Actually it is physically pleasant to look at.
My virtual shelves are nice but not at all the same. Don't need to remember where the books are as they can be brought up by typing in the title.
Right ! I can picture, in my mind, almost any book on my numerous book shelves, even if I can't tell you what the title may be. I remember the color and the surrounding books. It works the opposite as well, if one were to ask me to grab my copy of "Blue Highways", I can walk right up to it.
Signs are that one of my grandson's is the same....his mom organized his bookshelf one day....he had a little hissy fit cause he "knew just where every book was on the shelf" She defended herself by saying that they weren't in any kind of order. Obviously they were to him.
Maybe that is one of the satisfying things about an actual library ? Actually it is physically pleasant to look at.
My virtual shelves are nice but not at all the same. Don't need to remember where the books are as they can be brought up by typing in the title.
42razzamajazz
Hard copy book is still the best to hold and read, and it is portable to carry, read at places whenever you are free especially the paperback editions.
43ALWINN
Yes I look my hard copies of all my books except when Im moving then they are just a pain. But as far as on the go I perfer my kindle more portable.
44faceinbook
>43 ALWINN:
"except when Im moving then they are just a pain."
My family, my partner's and my friends have all told me numerous times, that moving my books was a job that would be done by me......thus far I have managed to schlep them around but I am getting older. The next move might prove to be the "great culling of the herd" so to speak.
"except when Im moving then they are just a pain."
My family, my partner's and my friends have all told me numerous times, that moving my books was a job that would be done by me......thus far I have managed to schlep them around but I am getting older. The next move might prove to be the "great culling of the herd" so to speak.
45JaneAustenNut
I haven't gotten an e reader yet, I'm trying to stick to the ole school method of actually holding a physical book. I like the idea of having a real home library and going to real paper book libraries. I don't like the idea of having my books stored somewhere in the cloud computing world. At some point, cloud computing could come very expensive. You don't really own the digital book only the cloud version which could go away or cost you for storage at any time. I may still be convinced, but, I doubt it.
46ALWINN
44 Yes I will probably get to that point also or I will just have to save up and pay a couple of guys to move them for me.
47RidgewayGirl
My father has begun using an ereader because he can change the size of the font. That may be one technology driven by an aging population who choses not to restrict themselves to their library's large print section.
48faceinbook
>47 RidgewayGirl:
"That may be one technology driven by an aging population who choses not to restrict themselves to their library's large print section."
Without a doubt.....the e-readers took off when I still employed in a small used book store. The first section of the store that saw a drop off in sales was the large print section. Actually it did not drop off is simply died. The second one was the romance section. The large print books are expensive and the store didn't really suffer until the romance readers stopped buying. Actually, though it is some what sad to say, the romance readers were the stores main bread and butter. Many women would come in and buy stacks of paperbacks by a certain author. We bought used books to resell...the romance books were always coming in and going back out....until they weren't, we started getting in boxes and boxes of books cause the customer was able to download them all.
I believe that there are two kinds of readers......those who love stories and those who love "books". Those who love stories are not going to care what medium they get their stories from. Book people, on the other hand, have a different expectation when reading a story, the book is part of that experience. It sounds a bit odd but it is something I picked up while working in three different book stores. Counting and flipping about in the pages, looking repeatedly at the cover art, rereading the jacket flaps, the smell of ink on paper, are things "book" people enjoy while reading. I think perhaps this is why the readers of the smaller paperbacks were the first to switch over to an e-reader (along with those who needed large print editions)......certainly a Nora Roberts mass paperback is not a work of art, while some hardback publications are indeed beautiful to look at.
"That may be one technology driven by an aging population who choses not to restrict themselves to their library's large print section."
Without a doubt.....the e-readers took off when I still employed in a small used book store. The first section of the store that saw a drop off in sales was the large print section. Actually it did not drop off is simply died. The second one was the romance section. The large print books are expensive and the store didn't really suffer until the romance readers stopped buying. Actually, though it is some what sad to say, the romance readers were the stores main bread and butter. Many women would come in and buy stacks of paperbacks by a certain author. We bought used books to resell...the romance books were always coming in and going back out....until they weren't, we started getting in boxes and boxes of books cause the customer was able to download them all.
I believe that there are two kinds of readers......those who love stories and those who love "books". Those who love stories are not going to care what medium they get their stories from. Book people, on the other hand, have a different expectation when reading a story, the book is part of that experience. It sounds a bit odd but it is something I picked up while working in three different book stores. Counting and flipping about in the pages, looking repeatedly at the cover art, rereading the jacket flaps, the smell of ink on paper, are things "book" people enjoy while reading. I think perhaps this is why the readers of the smaller paperbacks were the first to switch over to an e-reader (along with those who needed large print editions)......certainly a Nora Roberts mass paperback is not a work of art, while some hardback publications are indeed beautiful to look at.
49RidgewayGirl
Which may be why romance novel readers were among the first to make the switch, there being nothing inherently valuable in a cheaply produced mass market paperback.
A well made hardcover, or even trade paperback, can be a physical as well as intellectual joy, but who wouldn't prefer reading a book on a nook or kindle to a physical book with rough, gray paper, stingy margins, badly chosen font and a cover chosen a seeming random?
A well made hardcover, or even trade paperback, can be a physical as well as intellectual joy, but who wouldn't prefer reading a book on a nook or kindle to a physical book with rough, gray paper, stingy margins, badly chosen font and a cover chosen a seeming random?
50ALWINN
I love my kindle but I have to admit there is nothing like finding an old book and the smell. My husband just thinks that Im crazy when I open a book and stick my nose it in. But my classic I may download them but if I find a paper copy then it goes on the book shelf.
51prosfilaes
>49 RidgewayGirl: A well made hardcover, or even trade paperback, can be a physical as well as intellectual joy, but who wouldn't prefer reading a book on a nook or kindle to a physical book with rough, gray paper, stingy margins, badly chosen font and a cover chosen a seeming random?
A physical joy? I can toss a paperback in my bag and read it on the run. I've got a couple 3-pound hardbacks that I want to read, but I can't read them on the run easily, especially without dinging it up.
A physical joy? I can toss a paperback in my bag and read it on the run. I've got a couple 3-pound hardbacks that I want to read, but I can't read them on the run easily, especially without dinging it up.
52faceinbook
>51 prosfilaes:
I think "physical" involves more than the weight of the book. Cover art is a huge medium that is going to go away.....much in the same manner as album cover art. Just a fact, but a fact that involves a physical/mental reaction based on the perception of that art. Fonts, paper quality and book boards are all part of the "physical" as well. I have some very old leather bound editions of Mark Twain's works.......gold lettering, they are physically beautiful.
There is nothing wrong with the e-reader......it is the future. The point is that I feel we often fail to recognize what is going away before we look back and wonders how it all got so cheap.
Take as an example Walmart vs. any little business in any little town most anywhere in the US of A, there was no stopping Walmart but, eventually, you get what you pay for....unfortunately so does everyone whether they buy into it or not. The way it's always been. Walmart can offer something little businesses are unable to provide, they offer convenience and more for one's money but they have, without a doubt, changed the dynamics of retail, employment and product quality in this country.
No right or wrong answers in this equation.....just different perspectives and the never ending march of progress.
I think "physical" involves more than the weight of the book. Cover art is a huge medium that is going to go away.....much in the same manner as album cover art. Just a fact, but a fact that involves a physical/mental reaction based on the perception of that art. Fonts, paper quality and book boards are all part of the "physical" as well. I have some very old leather bound editions of Mark Twain's works.......gold lettering, they are physically beautiful.
There is nothing wrong with the e-reader......it is the future. The point is that I feel we often fail to recognize what is going away before we look back and wonders how it all got so cheap.
Take as an example Walmart vs. any little business in any little town most anywhere in the US of A, there was no stopping Walmart but, eventually, you get what you pay for....unfortunately so does everyone whether they buy into it or not. The way it's always been. Walmart can offer something little businesses are unable to provide, they offer convenience and more for one's money but they have, without a doubt, changed the dynamics of retail, employment and product quality in this country.
No right or wrong answers in this equation.....just different perspectives and the never ending march of progress.
53RidgewayGirl
>51 prosfilaes: In the end, it's all about the words. And a battered paperback you don't feel bad about tossing in a bag to sit on the beach or taking camping is valuable, too, you're right.
