Reading on paper or screen

[Edward]

How is the Kindlefire? I wouldn't want to move away from the e. Ink of my Kindle for reading books, but the Fire sounds like it is more of an all round tablet?

 

[Touchofevil]

I really like the Kindlefire. It's not an iPad, but it's size makes it more portable. Some may lament the fact that it does not have the 3G of the standard Kindle or the ATT plan offered by the iPad, but that has not bothered me one bit as it is wi-fi friendly. It's priced rather cheaply too!

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

I don't know about the Kindle fire, but the wife has the Barnes and Nobel version, colored tablet. The battery life of the color systems is substantially less than the black and white versions. Color = 8 hours (wife's experience), black and white = a month supposedly...

I read something a few years back that kind of startled me. The statement was made that if the Declaration of Independence had been written in the 1990's or later, the original would NOT be here anymore (or in 50 years, I've slept since then). The paper used in today's printers doesn't last that long, digital versions become obsolete quickly etc. My new Dell can't read the *.jpg's from my original computer. Don't know why, but it's just not there anymore...

later

 

[Pompidou]

I think you miss my point: Is there going to be any MONEY to actually pay a writer? Sure, the likes of Tom Clancy, bestseller authors will probably always have employment.

What about the paperback writers just trying to get a start, eek out a living, pay the rent?



It's hard to be a good writer when it's just a "hobby" and you have to work 80 hours a week at a McJob to actually pay the bills.

A counterpoint to this is that, digitally, a writer can actually get published. Look no further than the writer's thread to see that getting published traditionally is an uphill battle. It's just as hard to make a living as a writer in a world where nobody wants to sell your book as it is in a world where nobody wants to buy it. Electronic media leveled the playing field, so that a handful of elitists could no longer control the minds of the literate world. Now anybody can be a published author, or journalist, musician, filmmaker, or the like. I think that's a good thing. The world needs less gatekeepers. Let the will of the people decide if a writer is good, not a bean-counter only looking at the bottom line.

 

[MisterCairo]

Hi


I read something a few years back that kind of startled me. The statement was made that if the Declaration of Independence had been written in the 1990's or later, the original would NOT be here anymore (or in 50 years, I've slept since then). The paper used in today's printers doesn't last that long, digital versions become obsolete quickly etc. My new Dell can't read the *.jpg's from my original computer. Don't know why, but it's just not there anymore...

later

This is precisely why I buy books and why my camera uses film!

 

[Derek Cavin]

Besides loving books in general and having a printing degree - I work for America's largest printing company. So I'm in a good place with books. I want to read a physical book, not a file.

 

[Edward]

Hi

I don't know about the Kindle fire, but the wife has the Barnes and Nobel version, colored tablet. The battery life of the color systems is substantially less than the black and white versions. Color = 8 hours (wife's experience), black and white = a month supposedly...

I read something a few years back that kind of startled me. The statement was made that if the Declaration of Independence had been written in the 1990's or later, the original would NOT be here anymore (or in 50 years, I've slept since then). The paper used in today's printers doesn't last that long, digital versions become obsolete quickly etc. My new Dell can't read the *.jpg's from my original computer. Don't know why, but it's just not there anymore...

later

There is certainly an issue with developing technolgoy and keeping things up to date in terms of formats. I think that's slowing down: one of the really nice things I found about buying a BluRay player is that they also play regular DVDs. The market is now much more savvy about being pushed into a new format in order to resell the old content, and the producers are responding to that.

The colour tablet would be a lot more demanding on the battery, yes. They're backlit, colour, and increasingly headed in the direction of the likes of the iPad, i.e. they are a different beast with more functionality and more demands on power than the likes of a regular Kindle which draws power only when the page is being changed. Different tools for different applications, really. The Kindle is, in the last instance, an iPod for books, the tablets are more akin to a smartphone. I'm a fan of both, in their place.

 

[Touchofevil]

My Ipad, Kindles, Kindlefire, books, and even my Ipod all have a place in my world. I read a lot. I read whatever piques my curiosity. The Ipad is great for reading whatever I want wherever I am. The other electronic devices are great for just reading a story as they are even more portable. The Kindlefire is great in that I can play a game or do a crossword as well. My books I tend to read at home as I try to keep them in as pristine condition as possible. So yesterday, while waiting for a root canal, I took my Kindlefire with me as it afforded me plenty of options to keep me entertained while I waited.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Here's a question for e-reader users: do you read on screen the same way you read a book? To me, a book -- the tangible artifact of a book -- invites contemplation. You read a chapter, you go back and reread a page that's particularly significant, you sit with the book in your lap thinking about what you read, etc. Do you do this with a gadget, or do you just flick quickly thru the page images on the screen?

I heartily agree that nothing can replace the tangibility of an actual book. Even though one of the books that I'm presently looking for can be viewed in it's entirety online (in fact I'm looking at it in another tab while I'm writing this) I would still much rather have an original copy.

 

[Touchofevil]

I agree that the sensory experiences of possessing a book cannot be replaced by an e-reader. Amazon cannot replace the euphoria I feel finding a new bookstore or browsing throughout one, but unfortunately many of my favorite authors are extremely hard to find and usually they are in poor condition. E-readers allow me to read those hard to find books that I so crave.

 

[Bluebird Marsha]

I agree that the sensory experiences of possessing a book cannot be replaced by an e-reader. Amazon cannot replace the euphoria I feel finding a new bookstore or browsing throughout one, but unfortunately many of my favorite authors are extremely hard to find and usually they are in poor condition. E-readers allow me to read those hard to find books that I so crave.

One unfortunate by product of cheaper, mass produced books was the introduction of wood pulp paper instead of linen/cotton rag paper. Since it wasn't recognized until the 1930s as a problem, there's a big chunk of books that deteriorate badly from those eras (mid-1800's-1950s and later). The books made today are generally produced on acid-free paper, but if your favorite author's work was published on the "bad" paper, finding a good copy is going to be difficult/pricey.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Other than the obvious problem with paperbacks, the books you most often have to worry about are the "drugstore reprints" that came out in the thirties and forties -- mostly hardcover reissues of popular fiction published to sell for a dollar. These were printed on common newsprint, and are often browned when you find them today -- but original printings by the original publishers of the very same books are fine. My shelf of Ellery Queen first editions have perfectly supple, cream-colored pages, while the Triangle Books reissues of the same books -- which are ten to fifteen years newer -- are uniformly browned. I expect the first editions to outlive me, which is all I'm particularly concerned about, but I wouldn't spend a nickel to collect the reprints.

Not all paperbacks come on shoddy newsprint -- the early Pocket Books used a very high grade of paper that's still white and supple going on eighty years later. Even the wartime editions of Pocket Books don't use the cheap newsprint of 50s-era paperbacks.

 

[Miss Stella]

I will always be on the lookout for old books for my bookshelf....but I like my kindle fire for reading the classics (many are free) as well as for reading the vintage internet sites I adore. I just am careful that I use my kindle to MY advantage and not let it take advantage of me

 

[TraditionalFrog]

I'm in total agreement with Lizzie Maine on the matter of ebooks. When I receive a lengthy email or need to read a large article online I always print it out to read. On rare occasion I have been known to print off an ebook that I couldn't find used. As a bibliophle, ebooks (Kindles, Nooks, etc) are a nightmare come true. I'm always told that it's cheaper than buying hard copy books. I always say that it really isn't. I get most of my books from Alibris or Half Price Books (there are three here in the Indy area), and when I get a new book I always make use of bookstore coupons, plus I have a Barnes & Noble's member card. I really, really, miss Borders and their 30 and 40% off coupons. I purchased a WWII book that retailed at $50.00 for $9.99 brand new at Half Price books just recently. So regarding ebooks, thanks but no thanks, I'll pass!

I also subscribe to the local daily paper and Time Magazine. The eEditions just don't make the cut in my book.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

One unfortunate by product of cheaper, mass produced books was the introduction of wood pulp paper instead of linen/cotton rag paper. Since it wasn't recognized until the 1930s as a problem, there's a big chunk of books that deteriorate badly from those eras (mid-1800's-1950s and later). The books made today are generally produced on acid-free paper, but if your favorite author's work was published on the "bad" paper, finding a good copy is going to be difficult/pricey.

I've had paperbacks printed on this cheap paper from the '50s that were in near-mint condition totally disintegrate when opened.

 

[Touchofevil]

Unfortunately, most of what I have found tends to be in subpar condition. Sadly, not everyone is as particular about maintaining their books as I am.

 

[Pompidou]

I'm in total agreement with Lizzie Maine on the matter of ebooks. When I receive a lengthy email or need to read a large article online I always print it out to read. On rare occasion I have been known to print off an ebook that I couldn't find used. As a bibliophle, ebooks (Kindles, Nooks, etc) are a nightmare come true. I'm always told that it's cheaper than buying hard copy books. I always say that it really isn't. I get most of my books from Alibris or Half Price Books (there are three here in the Indy area), and when I get a new book I always make use of bookstore coupons, plus I have a Barnes & Noble's member card. I really, really, miss Borders and their 30 and 40% off coupons. I purchased a WWII book that retailed at $50.00 for $9.99 brand new at Half Price books just recently. So regarding ebooks, thanks but no thanks, I'll pass!

I also subscribe to the local daily paper and Time Magazine. The eEditions just don't make the cut in my book.

The biggest benefit to eLibraries is probably archival. If you keep every newspaper for example, people label you a crazy hoarder. You're just like a "cat lady". If you save every ePaper, there's no such stigma. That, and you've got the benefit of every book at your disposal in your pocket. I don't know how I ever made it without mobile Internet. Apple turned me into Asimov's iRobot.

 

[TraditionalFrog]

I have a small but decent sized library that occupied several walls of an apartment I had. Being a bibliophile however, I love the look of books! Anyway, twice a year I go through and thin out my collection a bit. I'd put the unwanted books out in the laundry room for others to take. Now that I live in a house, I trade them for a few dollars at Half Price Books. I only save newspapers and magazines from major historical events like 9/11 or presidential inaugurations, etc. True, eLibraraies reduce the clutter and free up space, but so far this hasn't really been an issue. To be honest, I get carried away purchasing as it is at bookstores, the last thing I need is the fingertip access of an eReader.

The one benefit perhaps I'll concede to eReaders is they likely have opened up the world of books and literature to those who otherwise would never have likely picked up a book. That said, I'll still pass. Also, is the issue of screens everywhere at every angle you look. Sadly it seems many people under 30 have a hard time unless it is on a screen, they're literally attached to the things. It always strikes me as odd to observe people walking down the street, head slightly bowed staring a screen, just like people talking to apparently no one (really on a Bluetooth) at a restaurant. Sigh!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, the filp side of the equation is that if it wasn't for those "hoarders," we wouldn't have a lot of the material we have access to today. About thirty years ago I lucked onto a large stash of the New York Daily News from 1933-38, many copies still in their original mailing wrappers. The survival rate of 1930s tabloid newspapers in their original form -- not microfilm, but actual papers -- is extremely low, and for a lot of reasons the original paper is preferable to a microfilm version.

 

[MisterCairo]

Here's a great way to reduce your library and share books:

http://www.bookcrossing.com/

I have a couple out there floating around....