Reading on paper or screen

[TidiousTed]

The ultimate in hipster irony: reading Fahrenheit 451 on a Kindle.

:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The ultimate in hipster irony: reading Fahrenheit 451 on a Kindle.

Ray Bradbury, to his credit, has refused to allow Fahrenheit 451 to be released on Kindle.

 

[Edward]

Ray Bradbury, to his credit, has refused to allow Fahrenheit 451 to be released on Kindle.

Seems a little short-sighted to me, but fair enough if that's what he wants. [huh]

 

[ButteMT61]

Seems a little short-sighted to me, but fair enough if that's what he wants. [huh]

Yeah, it was like The Beatles not allowing their content on iTunes (now of course they do)
Cutting off one's nose to spite their face never seems a good plan...but that sort of arrogance sometimes creeps into the lives of the highly successful - until they need more money

 

[Pompidou]

Yeah, it was like The Beatles not allowing their content on iTunes (now of course they do)
Cutting off one's nose to spite their face never seems a good plan...but that sort of arrogance sometimes creeps into the lives of the highly successful - until they need more money

I have to agree. Sure, there's some irony in reading the book on an e-reader, but pragmatically, the most important goal should be to have people reading works of substance. If a person is reading Fahrenheit 451 on an e-reader, at least s/he's reading it. Get the message out. That's what counts.

 

[Connery]

Although I've been working on PCs since I bought my first production unit in 1987 and have worked on computers ever since I would never consider reading a book on a screen of any sort. Books should be read printed on paper sitting in a comfortable easy chair preferably accompanied by a cup of decent assam and a glass of old port.

Depends on the reason why and the material that I am reading. For technical material there is nothing like E-type readers as I am required to look at several sources at once and quick hits on an e-page beats juggling several books at once. For pleasure there is nothing like a real book. The feel and the smell of the page and comfort in holding the book and the atmosphere that surrounds a good read.

 

[Undertow]

Didn't realize this thread was meant to convince people to go either way.
Just a discussion on differing opinions.
Do as you like and enjoy it.

Oh good, thank you for your permission.

Did I touch a nerve?

 

[Tatum]

Depends on the reason why and the material that I am reading. For technical material there is nothing like E-type readers as I am required to look at several sources at once and quick hits on an e-page beats juggling several books at once.

That is much how I feel about it, comparisons are quick and easy.

There are also some things easily available for e-reading I might not have been able to read otherwise, such as some turn of the century beekeeping books that the local library doesn't have for some reason, but are available as ebooks.

 

[Nanny Ogg]

Two years ago I thought nothing could make me replace real books with electronic books. As a gift for my birthday I received a reader and fell in love with this widget. Not tired eyes and I have many books in one place.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Problem is many of the books I read will, in all likelihood, never be on Kindle.

 

[Undertow]

...Sure, there's some irony in reading the book on an e-reader, but pragmatically, the most important goal should be to have people reading works of substance. If a person is reading Fahrenheit 451 on an e-reader, at least s/he's reading it. Get the message out. That's what counts.

Here's where I disagree.

When a story specifically decries the decline and destruction of a beloved medium, and when the author himself is so devoutly "old-fashioned" in his particular habits of writing and storytelling, it would only seem natural that he shouldn't place that specific title in e-form.

Sometimes the "most important goal" is not selling a book, or getting a book into the hands of the public, or even aknowledging the existence of a work.

I truly do not believe Bradbury was placing his tongue firmly in his cheek.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've just been rereading Nicholas Baker's "Double Fold," a study of the mass destruction of books and, especially, newspapers by libraries and institutions, in favor of microfilm replacements. Baker points out that, in the case of newspapers, there are many 20th Century papers of great historical importance of which no full runs of original copies are known to survive anywhere in the world.

So what? Well, if you've ever tried to do serious research in newspapers using microfilm copies, you know So What -- much of what exists in this format is poorly photographed, incomplete and illegible. Color plates and rotogravure sections exist, if at all, in badly-duplicated distorted black-and-white. Regular photos often show up only as impenetrable black blobs. Multiple editions of the same day's paper are rarely, if ever, microfilmed so vitally important stories are lost -- Baker cites coverage of a major news development involving the Nixon administration from 1972 which no longer exists in any form because it appeared in an early edition of a Chicago paper and was deleted from subsequent editions because of Administration protests. The "final" was the edition of that paper microfilmed, and no hard copies are known to exist of the earlier editions. So that article has, in a very real and meaningful sense, disappeared down Orwell's memory hole. It once existed in tangible form. Now, it doesn't.

This isn't fictive speculation -- this is really happening, right now. And with the push to digitize digitize digitize, it's only going to get worse -- because in many if not most cases, all that's left to digitize are these corrupt microfilm versions. And that means the big question isn't whether our history is subject to editing -- it's *who gets to do the editing? And what's their agenda?*

Think about that the next time you consult Google News to research some topic on your iPad.

 

[TidiousTed]

Books are not the only thing that has been subject of distruction in the name of faith of so many shades

 

[Nathan Dodge]

I have "fond memories" of Amazon deleting Orwell's--it had to be Orwell--Animal Farm from its Kindle device a couple of years ago.

 

[ButteMT61]

Where do we store all this paper?
Who pays for it?
Who manages and maintains it?
I love and have a house full of it - from magazines to newspapers to books, but at some point we can't keep hard copy of everything. It's just not plausible.
I was saddened by the closing of our best newsstand two years back, but what can you do? Felt the same about record stores and real department stores. Life changes. We change.

I've just been rereading Nicholas Baker's "Double Fold," a study of the mass destruction of books and, especially, newspapers by libraries and institutions, in favor of microfilm replacements. Baker points out that, in the case of newspapers, there are many 20th Century papers of great historical importance of which no full runs of original copies are known to survive anywhere in the world.

So what? Well, if you've ever tried to do serious research in newspapers using microfilm copies, you know So What -- much of what exists in this format is poorly photographed, incomplete and illegible. Color plates and rotogravure sections exist, if at all, in badly-duplicated distorted black-and-white. Regular photos often show up only as impenetrable black blobs. Multiple editions of the same day's paper are rarely, if ever, microfilmed so vitally important stories are lost -- Baker cites coverage of a major news development involving the Nixon administration from 1972 which no longer exists in any form because it appeared in an early edition of a Chicago paper and was deleted from subsequent editions because of Administration protests. The "final" was the edition of that paper microfilmed, and no hard copies are known to exist of the earlier editions. So that article has, in a very real and meaningful sense, disappeared down Orwell's memory hole. It once existed in tangible form. Now, it doesn't.

This isn't fictive speculation -- this is really happening, right now. And with the push to digitize digitize digitize, it's only going to get worse -- because in many if not most cases, all that's left to digitize are these corrupt microfilm versions. And that means the big question isn't whether our history is subject to editing -- it's *who gets to do the editing? And what's their agenda?*

Think about that the next time you consult Google News to research some topic on your iPad.

 

[rue]

Books on screens make my eyes hurt.
Books on paper don't.

Books on paper smell good.
Books on screens don't.

Books on screens disappear when the battery runs out.
Books on paper don't.

Books on paper insulate the living room.
Books on screens don't.

I couldn't have said it better!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Where do we store all this paper?
Who pays for it?
Who manages and maintains it?

Well, let's see -- repositories of human knowledge. Wouldn't that be the responsibility of, say, our universities? Or is their money better spent on football teams and trendy MBA programs? Or perhaps it's our own responsibility, as taxpayers. The Library of Congress used to be such a repository, until it leaped on the less-is-more bandwagon. I have two bound volumes of the New York Herald Tribune, from 1930, under my bed at this very moment -- volumes once held by the Library of Congress and since discarded -- why should this be the case? Shouldn't one of the most important newspapers of the 20th Century be preserved in its complete original form for future generations? Or is a blurry duplicate enough?

Baker makes the point that a century's worth of complete runs of major city newspapers could be easily and comfortably stored in a warehouse building the size of a Home Depot. So where are our priorities?

 

[Undertow]

Well, let's see -- repositories of human knowledge. Wouldn't that be the responsibility of, say, our universities? Or is their money better spent on football teams and trendy MBA programs? ...

:eusa_clap :arated:

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Don't get me going about the Library of Congress. I once considered having the Library of Congress make me a photocopy of a book that I had spent years looking for. At their rates it would have cost me $85.00! I eventually found an original copy on eBay for $65.

 

[Nobert]

I read Double Fold a few years ago and was somewhat astonished to discover that librarians--at least the ones in administrative positions in big libraries--aren't really into books, per se, but cataloging systems. They are apparently in a panic about the notion of paper copies deteriorating (probably the funniest part of the book, in a ghastly way, is detailing an attempt at deacidifying volumes using dangerous amounts of explosive chemicals).

I was rather disappointed when The American Newapaper Repository (which Baker saved), moved from within 50 miles of where I live to Duke Universtity. I had to abandon my daydreams of finagling some way to volunteer there. As consolation, I did get The World on Sunday, a compendium that shows by comparison just what is lost in the transfer to microfilm.

As far as paper storage, etc., one could offer the counter argument that micro-electronics used in things like cell phones and tablets require the use of rare metals, some of which are found mostly on Gorilla preserves in Africa. If we're worried about running out of space, shouldn't we also be worried about running out of scarce minerals?