Skip to main content

Physical books vs e-books

I recently conducted informal surveys about e-books on two readers' forums, and realised that while there is a generation of readers out there who grew up with computers and feel perfectly at ease around them, even they still prefer to read a physical book rather than an e-book. Various reasons were cited: you can take a book anywhere, books are cheap, it hurts the eyes and causes headaches to read off a computer screen, etc. etc. When I looked at the responses in-depth and asked a couple of more pointed questions, what became apparent was that the real reason for preferring physical books to e-books was that books are personal and computers are not. These readers preferred books because they loved all the different textures, smells, paper, typefaces and bindings and the sensation of turning the pages. You can never get as close to a laptop, PDA or e-book reader as you can to a book because the computers render each book identically and require you to push buttons to turn a page, and they don't give off the heady scent of ink, paper and glue (and sometimes age) that physical books do.

While I do read e-books (I even sometimes take my laptop to bed with me to read) I tend to agree with these opinions. There is something infinitely more exciting about opening a new book than opening a new computer document. For starters, computers have no discernible odour, except when they overheat, and a smell of newness which quickly disappears. I love the scent of books, and while (as I said) I do read e-books, I only do it if it's impossible for me to get the book in physical form.

Which do you prefer?

Comments

Lee said…
I have to admit that though I read online, I tend to print out what I really want to read more 'sensuously'. But I'm keeping an open mind, waiting to see what developments in new generations of ereaders will bring. It's really too early to assess their influence, likewise the changes in publishing and reading that the internet is effecting. Probably, however, it will be less of an either/or choice, but different 'devices' for different purposes, different situations.
Bibliophile said…
Thank you, Archana. If it made you want to read more, then its purpose is achieved.

Popular posts from this blog

How to make a simple origami bookmark

Here are some instructions on how to make a simple origami (paper folding) bookmark: Take a square of paper. It can be patterned origami paper, gift paper or even office paper, just as long as it’s easy to fold. The square should not be much bigger than 10 cm/4 inches across, unless you intend to use the mark for a big book. The images show what the paper should look like after you follow each step of the instructions. The two sides of the paper are shown in different colours to make things easier, and the edges and fold lines are shown as black lines. Fold the paper in half diagonally (corner to corner), and then unfold. Repeat with the other two corners. This is to find the middle and to make the rest of the folding easier. If the paper is thick or stiff it can help to reverse the folds. Fold three of the corners in so that they meet in the middle. You now have a piece of paper resembling an open envelope. For the next two steps, ignore the flap. Fold the square diagonally in two. Yo...

Book 40: The Martian by Andy Weir, audiobook read by Wil Wheaton

Note : This will be a general scattershot discussion about my thoughts on the book and the movie, and not a cohesive review. When movies are based on books I am interested in reading but haven't yet read, I generally wait to read the book until I have seen the movie, but when a movie is made based on a book I have already read, I try to abstain from rereading the book until I have seen the movie. The reason is simple: I am one of those people who can be reduced to near-incoherent rage when a movie severely alters the perfectly good story line of a beloved book, changes the ending beyond recognition or adds unnecessarily to the story ( The Hobbit , anyone?) without any apparent reason. I don't mind omissions of unnecessary parts so much (I did not, for example, become enraged to find Tom Bombadil missing from The Lord of the Rings ), because one expects that - movies based on books would be TV-series long if they tried to include everything, so the material must be pared down ...

Bibliophile discusses Van Dine’s rules for writing detective stories

Writers have been putting down advice for wannabe writers for centuries, about everything from how to captivate readers to how to build a story and write believable characters to getting published. The mystery genre has had its fair share, and one of the best known advisory essays is mystery writer’s S.S. Van Dine’s 1928 piece “Twenty rules for writing detective stories.” I mentioned in one of my reviews that I might write about these rules. Well, I finally gave myself the time to do it. First comes the rule (condensed), then what I think about it. Here are the Rules as Van Dine wrote them . (Incidentally, check out the rest of this excellent mystery reader’s resource: Gaslight ) The rules are meant to apply to whodunnit amateur detective fiction, but the main ones can be applied to police and P.I. fiction as well. I will discuss them mostly in this context, but will also mention genres where the rules don’t apply and authors who have successfully and unsuccessfully broken the rules. 1...