/lit/ - Literature

>>15877244
>hang art on the walls instead
It looks neat having a lot of books, but unless they're reference books, I don't see the benefit.

>>15877244
World's a-changerino, anon. Gotta go, with the flow! Hecc, do I like the musty smell of an old book? Abso-bloomin-lutely! But let's think about our little friendos for a second, the children.

>>15877244
Just replace the bookshelves with paintings, busts, pots of plants, or even wine/liquor shelves if you're into that.
There are plenty of things that are more aesthetically appealing than books.

E-readers don't produce much light, so you'd better replace the candles with an actual lamp.

>>15877244
Does anyone actually use e-readers?

>>15877299
I read on my phone

>>15877244
Only poorfags and retards don't value a physical library. It's a banquet for all senses and many of the most valuable books will never get digitalized due to their rarety (and nobody owning them desireing to break their spines for plebs).

As someone who binds memories to books, it's like looking through a photographic album. I know where the birch bark in Years of Decision comes from, which book waited at home at the day of our marriage and which I took with me when firstborn died.

They also symbolize ones personal growth and roots, which will be able to be enjoyed even when all light available becomes candle light and an important legacy for my progeny to be epanded with each generation.

People without personal libraries will never make it.

>>15877299
Me and your mom are reading Shades of Grey from a kindle before we fuck.

>>15877299
Yes.

Pros:
-Comfy to hold
-Light (physically) for when not at a desk
-Have a front light on them (note that this is different to a backlight)
-Can still display text extremely well; e-ink is more like iron filings being manipulated by magnets than pixels

Cons:
-A good sized e-reader is expensive as shit; small ones are about $120, but big ones are like 300+
-Many books have conversion errors, especially around punctuation marks, that leads to garbage text
-Slow refresh makes them wildly impractical for reference books; iPad/physical books are still better for text books
-Bad at displaying images

They're basically fiction machines, which is largely fine.

>>15877299
>not epubing on your labtop.

>>15877244
It makes me quite sad. I have a lot more appreciation for physical copies of books. With e-books I feel less of a connection to the author. I guess this is similar to the transition from CDs/vinyl to Spotify and whatnot. Kind of sucks. But it is a lot more convenient and almost always less expensive.

>>15877310
This. If I want convenience, I just take my phone with me, it is barely worse than readers. If I want to get traditional and fetishy, I get a paper book.

>>15877314
>only poorfags and retards

don't forget ascetics

>>15877256
This

also if I had a big house with tons of free space then yes, I would get my favorite books in physical format but as I am now, poor, living in rented apartment, there is no point, and ereaders are comfy and books cheap or free.

>>15877244
Ah yes. Remember when CDs replaced live concerts? Or when television replaced movies?

I have both. Batteries run out, and bookshelves aren’t so portable. A pdf is an audition for the real thing, but again, how many times will you go back to any of the books you’ve read?

>>15877770
I'm not in the mood for you today, please come back next month.

The future is grim.

>>15877818
>organising books by colour
I do this too, but all of my books with black authors go in the bin.

>>15877825
why do you have these books to begin with?

>>15877770
I don't even hate you, I just think this is such a weak analogy that I'm shocked you could be so stupid when posting here's your dayjob.

>>15877244
There's still a lot of stuff that either hasn't been digitized, or only exists as unoptimized PDFs that don't play nice with 99% of e-readers. Print media also has a much longer archival shelf life than any digital file format.
Even if you ignore the sentimental/aesthetic/fetishistic reasons for preferring physical books, there's still reason to believe they're not going anywhere.

>>15877841
I like to read comedy.

I retain information better with physical books, and associate the information with specific locations in the book. If I want to refer back to something I remember reading, it’s much less of a pain in the ass to open the book and find it vs going through my bloated collection of “Snippests” on Kindle. Sometimes I want to be able to refer back to something I read years ago, and owning a physical copy of the book is better.

E-readers are good for fictionheads, casual readers, or people who don’t really want to seriously engage with what they read. I mostly read non-fiction and find having a physical library to be more convenient.

It is also a flex to have hundreds of books that you’ve read on a shelf, any of which you can speak to. God tier conversation piece as well. Kindlers will never understand.

>>15877244
Seems bretty gud. Less chance of a house fire, and it's easier to pack up and move if you want a change of location.

>>15877934
Moving books is the fucking pits

>>15877244
Good, this is décadence bourgeoise.

I dislike e-readers for several reasons.

1. You don't actually own the texts you buy on it. It's some sort of leasing contract with Amazon or some other dystopian company. Microsoft had a e-reader that went out of business, and guess what? Everybody who owned it lost access to "their" books.

2. They have a battery charge. Books don't run out of battery. When I notice a wireless electronic is about to run out of battery it distracts and annoys me

3. It makes concentrating on a single text difficult. Much like the internet, it's too "dense" with possible experiences, making it harder to focus. You want to jump from one thing to the next.

4. I resent the relentless march of digital technology into every facet of life. Old fashioned printed books feel like a dying bastion of a lost way of life.

5. There is a tactile feel to printed books in the hand and a texture that's natural to the eye.

>>15877310
>have a library wherever you go
I really don't see a downside. I hardly ever waste time on my phone anymore

>>15877733
The later only cope due to being one of the former.

>>15877818
I hate when people organize by color. The only true way to organize is by printing labels with the Dewey decimal system.

>>15877863
Nothing at all weak about the analogies. One medium didn’t end the other. The quality of the live concert is considered more precious than the CD, no matter how much more there are pressed. Television has some qualities to it, but people still want to go out to a public screening on a giant screen and spill popcorn all over the place. Some prefer the live theatre, which, as diminished in popularity as it is, is still going.
You’re just being a pissy toad.
Ereaders do not replace books

>>15877988
1. I agree, which is why I pirate all of mine.
2. It's true, but ebook readers have a ton of battery life due to how they work
3. ??????
4. Why..? I understand the love of a really old text, but most modern/new prints are the type of garbage quality you'd expect anyway.
5. Are you autistic?

>>15877770
>Remember when CDs replaced live concerts? Or when television replaced movies?
Compared to the times when there were no cds/records or television, they pretty much did.

>>15877988
1. Don't register your kindle with Amazon, keep it in airplane mode, and pirate your books. If you want to support the author, go out and buy the book from your local book store and put it on your shelf. I really wish there was a good open source alternative to kindles though.

2. Agreed, but thankfully portable phone chargers work for ereaders. Still annoying, but an acceptable tradeoff compared to carrying around a giant tome with you everywhere you go.

3. I had this problem at first, and it turned out I just needed to change the font. It made it feel like more of a real book.

4. This a good point, but technology isn't all bad. Books won't go extinct, at least not for a long time, and there are advantages that ebooks have over real books. They're portable, copyable, amd arn't damaged as easily. They're great for commuting or times when you're on the go.

5. Personal preference that's understandable.

>>15877770
>>15878055
Remember when a vagina replaced a penis? Me neither.

>>15877770
I remember when Spotify replaced CDs

>>15878218
The problem is, butterfly's argument was kind of dumb. A greater analogy for live concert to music, is having a discussion or reading of the book from the author themselves.

Tapes replaced vinyl, CDs replaced tapes, and spotify CDs; they are all second hand incarnations of the artist, whereas a live concert is a sort of first hand relationship with the musician.

>>15878030

When I was first taught the Dewey Decimal system in school, my teacher spoke of alternate schemes. Organizing books by height was singled out for strong derision. Who could have guessed that a primitive sorting system would re-emerge?

>>15877818
That's disgusting

>>15877244
Why would you want digital books which can be altered at will?

>>15878030
Imagine this in your home.

When I was 14 I got really into Phillip K Dick, but I didn't live in a country with a lot of access to english-language pulp science fiction.

I looked around the internet for his work and I ended up reading The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch as a .txt whenever my dad let me use his work laptop.

This is another way to read your books

>>15878351
The thought gives me a massive errection.

>>15878409
>got into dick at 14
heh

>>15878409
>When I was 14
See >>15876956

>>15878241
That’s not even a proper analogy
None of them replaced any of the other. Vinyl is just an fussy inferior technology, but they’re still pressed.
>>15878218
They still make CDs. I don’t use spotify.

>>15877256
>big dummy doesn't know about r-values
ok, your story checks out.

>>15878448
no better time, if you ask me

>>15878494
>None of them replaced any of the other
Except they did, hipster.

>>15877244
Books are more than the words inside them: they are their weight, their scent, the sensation of their paper against skin; books are their history -- your own, any previous reader's, and of itself. E-reader lack this character. Real books also have a feeling of permanence, like they truly exist, taking up physical space and not pertaining behind electricity and cyberspace. The books I own will succeed me and the history I've imbued in them will remain -- for they do not exist in some compact malleable ether on a screen like any other. Besides, who the hell wants to look at a screen more than they currently do.
>>15877314
Your post is both rich in truth and tragedy.

>>15878840
>No one owns a single record, there are no new CDs or DVDs made. No opera, not live theatre is ever performed. The printing industry has stopped completely.
Clearly not, dipster.

>ITT: People who like the idea of reading more than actually reading

>>15879028
>still comparing crystalised forms of the artist's expression to live performances
It's dumb and you know it.

Books are as crystalised as e-books. The most convenient form will continually win in these cases. Few people buy CDs anymore, and the people that do, do so because they are too limited to access new media; that means, people buying CDs for their cars/work radio, or prisoners having tapes instead of CDs because they can't be trusted not to turn discs into shivs.

How should we feel about pic related being replaced by >>15877244?

>>15879374
This is literally the sign of the times. Everything is a brand, fad, trend or aesthetic. Nobody is actually authentic, because authenticity is itself just a brand.

>>15877244
>e-readers deteriorate understanding of plot
>taking notes on e-readers doesn't commit the notes and understanding to your memory as well as it would if you were taking notes in a physical book, as it lacks in both tactile and visual sensation
>the amount of physical books in a household generally determines how much children read as they grow
>aesthetics
I have never once been able to finish a book I started reading online, ever. I have finished almost every book I read physically, unless I make the active choice to no longer read it.
t. zoomer

>>15879450
>I can incorrectly parrot information regarding typing versus written note taking!
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

>>15879405
>I still don’t get it. I refuse to get it. The differences are too great to wrap my head around!
>Diminished sales of an old technology = DEAD! Completely REPLACED! WINNER TAKES ALL! NO EXCEPTIONS

Men are so cancerous. Go play golf by yourself or something.

>>15877932
This is a good point. Remembering a book can be aided by remembering the specific qualities that make up the physical book. The page feel, the smell, the length and width, the way the sun hit it, etc
E-readers kind of streamline everything into being the exact same experience

>>15879464
Ah yes, the wax tablet market is fucking thriving amongst paper sales.

>Men are so cancerous.
Aren't they just - you are a man, no matter how convincingly they tuck it up inside of you.

>>15879463
How was anything I said incorrect? Humans evolved through tens of thousands of years to determine memory through visual and tactile sensation. Reading physical books increases the visual and tactile sensation, as does physical note taking.
There's also the fact that physical note taking generally correlates to taking notes only on the most important subjects in a text, as opposed to noting more particular details in e-readers and computers.
Just because you misunderstand the meaning of studies doesn't mean everyone does, anon.

>>15877244
An economic boon in many ways, however e-books are much more restrictive, as I'm now dependent on electricity. And if you've been reading the right books, you would know that this is disastrous. The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>15879479
You are literally conflating a study conducted based around hand-writing and typing notes, and one about reading on LCDs vs paper. You have drawn a conclusion by combining these two things together. It is a dumb conclusion, and unfounded by anything other than your anecdotal stupidity.

>>15879485
You know that books are made using electricity right? This isn't the 1400s where people manually copied books by candlelight or where manually operated printing presses exist. You also probably use electric lights to see the books to read them. If you want to be against industrialization you shouldn't stop with just saying ebook bad.

>>15879502
>You are literally conflating a study conducted based around hand-writing and typing notes, and one about reading on LCDs vs paper.
No, I'm not, midwit. We know for a fact that memory is stronger when combined with as many senses as possible; visual, tactile, etc. Reading a physical book means you have the feeling of the book itself and the visual differences that >>15879468 ennumerates, as opposed to the same exact visual and tactile stimulus you get with an e-reader. This alone shows physical books are superior, without factoring in cost.

>>15879575
>the tactility of feeling a book is the same as the tactility of writing
Are you retarded?

>>15879586
The tactility is still raised in each case as opposed to an e-reader you fucking retard, what is wrong with you?

>>15879374

>>15879601
>t-the tactility is still raised
Fucking hell, I'm not surprised you struggle to finish books, you're a bit of an idiot aren't you? Look, you came in, conflated two studies, and now you're doubling down on your stupid. Just accept it.

>>15879732
>I'm not surprised you struggle to finish books
When did I say I struggle to finish books?
>Look, you came in, conflated two studies
I never cited any studies?
>and now you're doubling down on your stupid.
No, you're just too deep into your already dogmatic position to even consider arguing in good faith, let alone changing your opinion.

>>15879758
>When did I say I struggle to finish books?
>I have never once been able to finish a book I started reading online, ever. I have finished almost every book I read physically, unless I make the active choice to no longer read it.

>I never cited any studies?
>Just because you misunderstand the meaning of studies doesn't mean everyone does, anon.

Got anything else, retard?

>>15877970
Even just having them is kind of burden. They take up space that they no longer need to. In that sense, they're clutter.

>>15879778
>first point
Didn't I say, actually in the phrase you quoted, that I have finished just about every physical book I've read? Where did I imply that I struggle to finish books? Every book that I wanted to read that I couldn't finish on an e-book (because e-books are nigger monkey shit) I bought and finished physically.
>second point
You claimed that what I said was from two studies. I never claimed this, I never cited studies, I never did anything of the sort except say that there are, in fact, studies which show these things. You somehow took this as me citing two specific studies that you then attributed to my claims.
>reddit spacing
Go back.

>>15879818
>Where did I imply that I struggle to finish books?
>I can't finish books if they're digital
>Where did I imply I struggle?
It sounds like you were a retard that bought a TABLET OR PHONE for reading on, rather than an e-reader, which this thread is about.

> I never did anything of the sort except say that there are, in fact, studies which show these things.
Show me those studies.
All you'll find are:
-Studies on eye strain between books and LCDs
-Improved retention from the tactility of writing and typing
Trouble is, e-books aren't about writing or type, and they don't use LCDs.

>reddit spacing
>zoomer telling anyone to 'go back'
11 years on 4chan, people have typed like this for a long, long time, zoomer.

>>15879844
Anon... the adjective "digital" modifies the noun "book" so that that phrase means I can't finish digital books, not books in general...
>All you'll find are:
-Improved retention from the tactility of writing and typing
Wait a minute, so you're telling me the studies I'll find all support my claims that increased tactility from note taking and reading physically will improve memory?
>11 years on 4chan, people have typed like this for a long, long time, zoomer.
Wow, you're a big guy!

>>15877882
How does a physical book have a longer shelf life? Just back up your files.

>>15879876
>Anon... the adjective "digital" modifies the noun "book" so that that phrase means I can't finish digital books, not books in general...
You know what this sounds like? Sounds like you came in to argue about a subject you know nothing about. Sounds like you don't know what an e-reader is, have never used one, and don't know why it's different from a tablet. So now, you're going to try and claim 'oh I was talking about other online books', rather than about e-readers; here's a tip, both of those arguments make you look fucking dumb.

>Wait a minute, so you're telling me the studies I'll find all support my claims that increased tactility from note taking and reading physically will improve memory?
No, because books don't require you to write or type.

>>15879895
>Just back up your files
onto what?
i have books that are over 150 years old. no digital storage format will last that long. in the computer industry, microsoft are ancient at 45 years old. google and amazon, the other two largest cloud storage providers, are both less than 30 years old. none of them will survive another 100 years in their current form.

>>15879951
>You know what this sounds like? Sounds like you came in to argue about a subject you know nothing about.
Wait, you not understanding how to read sentences properly and drawing false conclusions from my statements means I don't know anything about the subject?
>So now, you're going to try and claim 'oh I was talking about other online books', rather than about e-readers; here's a tip, both of those arguments make you look fucking dumb.
e-readers have the exact same problems as tablets.
>No, because books don't require you to write or type.
Maybe if you're a brainlet this is true.

>>15879976
>e-readers have the exact same problems as tablets.
He doesn't even know what an e-reader is, holy shit. Fuck off kid, you really don't know what the thread is about; sounds like you wanted to chime in about your experiences reading books off of a second hand laptop or your Samsung's shitty AMOLED screen.

>>15879988
>He doesn't even know what an e-reader is, holy shit.
How did you come to this conclusion?
>Fuck off kid, you really don't know what the thread is about
What?
>sounds like you wanted to chime in about your experiences reading books off of a second hand laptop or your Samsung's shitty AMOLED screen.
What?

>>15880003
You think tablets and e-readers have the same problems, when they just don't. You clearly don't know what an e-reader is. Stop posting.

>>15880011
>You think tablets and e-readers have the same problems, when they just don't.
Yes, they do.
>You clearly don't know what an e-reader is.
Yes, I do.
>Stop posting.
You need to go back. Stop trying to be "le ebin olfagerino!! xD" please.

>>15880025
I don't think you do know what an e-reader is, but it is interesting you would rather double down on your poorly formed opinions irrelevant to the topic by virtue of their misinformation than just stop posting. Zoomers are as bad as boomers, fucking hell.

>>15880188
>I don't think you do know what an e-reader is
Would you be surprised then to hear that my sister owns an e-reader and I've tried reading from it multiple times?
>but it is interesting you would rather double down on your poorly formed opinions irrelevant to the topic by virtue of their misinformation than just stop posting.
How is the fact that the strength of human memories are inherently tied to the amount of tactile and visual stimulation of said memories my 'opinion'?
>Zoomers are as bad as boomers, fucking hell.
haha zoomk zoom boomer zoomie go zoomei! cringre bringe cringe haha boom zoomer based!!!

>>15880218
Kindle Fire HD?

>>15880256
I don't know, faggot.

>>15878060
>3. ??????
I don't have time to explain it in detail, but it has to do with the affordances of an e-reader. A single book gives you one option for use, which is read it. An e-reader is sort of like a library in your pocket. Also the last time I interacted with one it came with an internet browser, which just made it another tablet. I want to be able to take a single book with me knowing that that's the only thing I have to read, reinforcing the likelihood I will read it through no other immediately presented options.

>4. Why..? I understand the love of a really old text, but most modern/new prints are the type of garbage quality you'd expect anyway.

This is a whole can of worms. There are several political, economic and practical reasons why I oppose the idea that "software will eat the world." Suffice it to say i'd prefer not to have precisely everything I do cross-analyzed and collated in a giant big-data predictive advertisement nexus.

I don't like having all these extra peripherals and overhead involved in reading something.

>5. Are you autistic?
It's not uncommon for book lovers to favor printed texts because of their physicality.


All that said I do think e-readers are good for reading magazines, articles, stuff like that.

>>15880390
Also I have no explanation for my turbo-reddit spacing here

>>15880287
based

>>15877244
E-readers won't survive the next collapse.

>>15880287
t. Doesn't know what an e-reader is.

>>15880390
>I don't have time to explain it in detail, but it has to do with the affordances of an e-reader.
So how do you cope with having a phone?

>"software will eat the world."
Ah ok, that makes more sense.

>It's not uncommon for book lovers to favor printed texts because of their physicality.
Wouldn't be shocked if they're autistic too; I've met lots of litfags that bury their heads in books because they're ill equipped to deal with the world. When talking to them, they're often very sharp and crude.

>>15877314
>can't even take care of his own kid
>takes care of a personal library

>>15880598
Ok schizo

>>15877299
Yeah I use a kindle

>>15880647
Okay retard
>>15880422
thx bro

>>15877244
The biggest advantage of physical book, is the transmission of knowledge, unironically. A book will still be perfectly readable in 500 years. Probably a thousand years if the paper is of good quality. See the Gutemberg bible. E-reader, not so much.
That's why i have physical books. Also, paper books cannot be tampered with virus, EMP, hardware backdoors etc....

>>15881086
Have you google what an e-reader is yet, ya dumb zoomer?

>>15881086
>thx bro
Np. Fuck e-niggerers
>>15881096
haha shut up faggot. This is a good time

>>15881134
>he still doesn't know what an e-reader is
Why do you opine?

>>15881141
Huh? I don't know what you're discussing but shup faggot. Haha lol. This is fun

>>15881173
Oh no, you're the same fag that made the adderall thread aren't you?

>>15877361
>reading a book is fetishy
The absolute state of this board

>>15877244
i like having the actual books in my hands, im not against E-readers just not my cup of tea. however i will say cause of the covid alot of books are getting digital releases so i guess there is that

>>15881190
It's funny how upset you're getting at such juvenile doggery. Speak volumes about your mental age. haha lmao faggot, you're mad. Cope seethe a dilate

>>15881206
You came into the thread, talking about all of the benefits and downsides, of something you don't know of or understand. You deserve to be dogged.

>>15880962
Mean post, anon.

>>15877244
Reading is my alone timemy isolation from the world and technology, i don't want to buy another device to read and i certainly don't want to read on my phone/laptop with all the distractions /notifications coming up.
Plus paper just feels better

>>15881216
Wrong. I called you a faggot and made you cry. And I laughed.

>>15881277
You got me, Charles.

I don't feel any difference between reading on my phone vs a kindle regarding eyestrain and retention. Only difference is that the kindle is a bit more comfortable to hold because of the size (the screen is actually slightly smaller than my phone but its wider and has massive bezels). Am I doing something wrong?

I stare at a screen all day long for work. Last thing I need to do is stare at another one, eink or otherwise, to read the 10 or so books a year I find the time to read.

>>15881255
A book is technology you insuferable hipster.

>>15877244
books will never die
vinyls came back, there will always be retarded people who like to spend their money on physical objects that serve primarily as decor.
that being said i'm one of them, i read library books and if i really like them i buy physical copies for my own bookshelf. if i bought everything i read i though i would be flat broke and i couldn't afford my other hobbies.

>>15877244
e-readers << books

>>15877818
color coding books has got to the most feminine shit

>>15877244
Pretty concerned desu. Although I have a Kindle, I'm wary of globohomo deleting material it deems 'dangerous' or otherwise controversial. Amazon deleted a documentary on 'fake news' and made it unavailable even if you had purchased it. It won't be long before old books start disappearing, especially old, esoteric ones. Best to have physical copies.

>>15877287
Hi Chuck Wendig

>>15877244
Anyone find that holding onto books you've already read helps you remember their contents better? As in, seeing the physical artefact of the book on your shelf forces a recall of the memory and knowledge present within it?