/lit/ - Literature

physical books if you're not a manchild

e-books if you're a manchild and/or oprah winfrey

>>1873472
confirmed for too poor to buy an e-reader

how does it feel knowing i can get all the books you read for free and bring all of them with me wherever i go?

>>1873472
i'm both of those

nothing is like holding a book. smelling the pages, feeling the paper.

but when im reading something like war and peace or bullfinch's mythology... free and light is great.

I enjoy reading physical books but I like the convenience that an e-reader offers. I also enjoy getting free books.

>>1873490
This is your average e-reader. This is the kind of mind an e-reader device attracts.

Physical books are superior.

I rest my case.

>>1873501
>>1873505

These. Only idiots and pretentious jackasses refuse to see the good of e-readers.

>>1873506
>claim superiority
>no way to back it up
>spew insults towards the e-reader master race
you never had a case

DID SOMEBODY MENTION E-READER!?

a good argument could prob be made for e-books being better but i prefer physical books and im'a stick with them, rationality's for chumps

Ebooks are great!

Particularly the textbook ones.

>>1873461
I disagree. I would suggest that an e-reader, (I have the Kindle 3 Wifi) is better for your eyesight.

You can easily adjust the font size, so those with bad vision don't strain their eyes trying to read small text.

And the screen looks identical to paper, I think you must have used a backlit LCD display like the iPad. That shit will wreck your eyes.

>mfw people thought e-readers (specifically the Kindle) were going to revolutionize books the same way mp3 players (specifically the iPod) revolutionized music.

>mfw the vast majority of people still use physical books and will continue to do so for years to come

I just use ebooks as a way to read textboks. Anything else I have a physical book.

And another thing. I live in Australia where books are expensive. In the year before I bought my Kindle I spent almost $250 importing them from the UK, where they are much cheaper. Since I bought my Kindle last October I have read 43 books on it.

It cost me ~$230 to buy and mail my Kindle from Amazon. The average book cost me $13. In less than a year I have saved (559-230) $329.

A great investment for those with little disposable income but a love for reading.

>I can't read an eBook as long as a normal book without tiring my eyes out.

Confirmed for never having used an eReader.

I also tried one in Waterstones and didn't really like it that much. Printed books are better tbh. Also I don't like change.

Wait...

>>1873490

>confirmed for too poor to buy an e-reader

>>1873574

>A great investment for those with little disposable income

I'm confused.
Are you a poorfag if you have a kindle, or a poorfag if you don't?

>>1873552
Maybe e-readers are the in-between product. Like the MiniDisc player.

>>1873552
But that's a given, all analog mediums are timeless.

I just got a Kobo Touch the other day, it's pretty cool and the Calibre utility is incredible (thank you mods for that sticky).

I still have a backlog of library books I need to finish before I actually start reading what I dumped onto my ereader.

>>1873552
>mfw the vast majority of people still use physical books and will continue to do so for years to come
>the vast majority of people still use physical books and will continue
>for years to come
>for years

I enjoy the look and feel when reading a book, but an ebook is more convenient than lugging a 5 pound book into a sushi bar to read while I wait for my food.

I don't see what the problem is if it helps and gets more people to read and want to read.

I actually feel guilty about pirating books, whereas I have few qualms with pirating music or games.

>>1873588
>>1873588

>thanking mods for the sticky i made

>>1873592
I feel guilty pirating all art. The more you study each field (Music, Film, Literature, etc.) The more you realise how difficult they really are. It's funny you should say music, since they are usually the worst off. Sleeping on floors, eating shit, vans breaking down, very little profit.

>>1873599

ARE YOU GOING TO CRY, LITTLE BEAR?

>>1873592

I always feel worse about pirating music - I usually end up buying the record out of guilt. I know the record company gets most of the bread, but fuck it.

>>1873610
>>1873610


er...no...

Books are the one format i dont think electronics will ever completely overrun. Books are important.
They have a feeling, they have a smell and a texture. You put them on your bookshelf and display them - even if you never expect anyone else to even look at it, whihc means the display is entirely for yourself.

Ereaders are useful and convenient, say if youre reading on holiday or on public transport or whatever. but people are willing to put up with inconvenience for books.

as an aside, i think putting books in electronic format is a massive mistake for publishers because it opens them up to being pirated. books are difficult things to pirate because you have a hard time putting them into an electronic format and sharing them. you have to scan every page - and even then thats just pictures of text, not loaded text. ereaders have opened the way for easy piracy of books.

>>1873617
You don't watch bands live? I buy the records/shirts directly off them at the Merch tables and hand money to them, which goes straight in their pockets.

A nice rule of thumb is, if you can't talk to the band, they're famous/rich enough for you to be able to download their music without any problems.

>>1873599

GAAAH. I MAED TEH STICKIE, PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PAY ATTENTION TO ME, I WILL SUCK YOUR COCK.

The sticky is a fucking waste of time, any sixth former could have come up with it

Since when are physical books inconvienient?

I swear this is pure marketing and stupid kids are eating this shit up.

OMG ITS SO HEAVY
OMG I GOTTA LUG IT AROUND
OMG I CANT BRING 9000 BOOKS WITH ME WHEN I TRAVEL THAT I'LL NEVER READ ANYWAY BECAUSE IM TRAVELLING BUT THATS BESIDES THE POINT
OMG LIBRARIES ARE SO BAD
OMG I GOTTA SPEND MONEY

I don't like spending money on things I care about. This is why I'll buy a 250$ gadget.

>>1873631
>>1873631

>that feel when my favourite artist ever has never been to England so i'll never see him so i sent him a message on FB telling him i stole all his albums but think he deserves the money and he was totally cool about it and said i could donate some money to a charity of my choice however much i thought his music was worth.

what a cool guy

>>1873644

I've got more than 3000 books, and two houses in two different countries, and now I'm giving them away because they're just such a total annoyance - I have to move house in a month, and I've got something like 500 books in this flat alone, it's so fucking annoying. When it comes to shit books and genre fiction, I can't see the point in keeping that stuff on physical paper anymore.

I still can't stop cuying fucking paper books though - it's like I've got a problem.

>>1873642
>>1873642

>jealous because he didn't make the sticky and doesn't realise it stopped the influx of 'hurr durr what e-reader should i get' threads
>claims i want attention then gives it to me

I like physical books because they don't run out of batteries.

i have no experience with ereaders, but i am perfectly content with books. i enjoy reading out of books, i enjoy the feel of a book, and i like the look of a well-stocked bookshelf. when i've read ebooks off my computer, i don't feel as engaged and don't like staring at screens for long periods of time.

Physical books I guess, I'm just old fashioned.

Don't like to carry around that stupid e-reader, go around with it in public. It looks stupid as fuck, and isn't worth using.

I just read off my laptop if I HAVE TO read and there's no way of getting the book. Also don't give me that bullshit that LCD screens fuck up your eyes.

Why would I want to use an e-reader? What's the point of spending money to buy a book if you can't be smug and show people what an avid reader you are?

>>1873665
>It looks stupid as fuck

Really? Are you actually saying you don't like ereaders because of how they look?

>>1873663
>when i've read ebooks off my computer

Completely different. I've never read anything longer than a newspaper article on computers (always had to print a hard copy for journals and books) but on ePaper I can read whole novels.

>>1873653

>stopped the influx of 'hurr durr what e-reader should i get' threads

Leaving more room for hurr I are brownbear, luk at meeeeeeee durr threads.

Yeah, nice trade off.

>>1873690

not to mention the still-constant flood of what e-reader should I get threads.

but this is Brownbear, lit's Abatap, so our replies are pointless

I like both. E-readers are better for the NYC subway, bookshelves at home are good too. The people who are most vocal about this shit are the same ones who haven't owned more than twenty books in any format in their lives. Can you even picture a grown, well-read adult getting upset about something so banal?

It's the only way I can read Mein Kampf in public without feeling awkward.

>>1873712
Grown, well-read adults get upset about all sorts of things. Especially if it's something like the creeping of new technology in areas of their lives where they don't want it - after a certain age, adults get a sort of phobia of new tech, and e-readers are just the type of thing that would get them to freak out and be upset about. This is true for even scholars.

>>1873724

Maybe crotchitty old fucks, which you seemed destined to become, but not anyone with a stable, healthy personality.

>>1873731
You're wrong, it happens to everyone, and it has nothing to do with healthy personalities. Hell, even the suggestion that a dislike of a certain type of technology should be considered an unhealthy aspect of one's personality is ridiculous.

>>1873731
>but not anyone with a stable, healthy personality.

Still have to meet one of those mythological creatures.

>>1873690
>>1873690

which thread was that? feel free to show me on greenoval.

>>1873706
>>1873706

actually if you ere here before i got the sticky you'd understand the number of threads have been cut down CONSIDERABLY

also i'm nothing like abatap, and you can just filter/ignore me, get over yourself

>>1873740

Oh they exist, millions of them in fact, but you're not likely to find them on this site. E-readers suck! Real books don't run out of batteries LULZ!

>>1873742

>tripfag telling an Anonymous poster to get over themselves.

now I've seen it all.

Also, as someone who's been here much longer than you, the e-reader questions peaked in the months leading up to Xmas and then slowed down after that. The Sticky may have had a slight impact, but it's minimal at best, and certainly nothing you should take credit for, as many, many Anonymous posters helped you compose its content when you were putting it together.

e-reader user here. i love the convenience, and i find myself reading much more than before.

Op here, just found my old ereader
I started the thread talking about reading on my computer, but I like to read ebooks on my ereader.

>>1873752
>>1873752

>Also, as someone who's been here much longer than you
stopped reading there,
i've been browsing /lit/ since it started

>>1873763

typical Abatap response...ignore pertinent points and give nonsense reply.

>>1873763

not with that faggy trip, you haven't

>>1873776
>>1873776

no i started using this in September i think

>>1873769
>>1873769

typical Anonymous response, ignores my superior intellect to bathe in his own debauchery

I gotta say, even though I don't have an e-reader yet, I can see how they're a great investment. Hell, I could download classics and read for ages without worrying about the physical copies of the books. I could carry several books anywhere so I can read whatever I feel like, whenever I feel like - more freedom is never a bad thing, after all.

Besides, I could read on the bed while holding the book with just one hand (I'm Peter Parker- weak).

Prefer books, I like the feel of holding a book and the pages. Plus I look at screens all day so its nice to get away from them.

>>1873809
I don't know about you kids, but when I read I usually read one book at a time and then move on the next one when I'm done.

I don't read my books on shuffle.

Enjoy your attention deficit disorder.

>>1873817
Yeah but what if you're reading short stories and don't know which one to read next?

Also why are people on /lit/ so mean? I thought since this is a board for well-read scholars, people would think twice before randomly insulting someone.

I don't get the whole 'physical books are superiour because smell/texture/display' shtick. If you read books for the joy of reading books, and not so you can look like a pretentious dipshit, the most logical choice is an e-book reader like the Nook or Kindle (not iPad or anything with backlit screens, shit sucks). I just got the new Kindle today, after having my old one stolen, and I already have 12 books on it. On a slim, lightweight, easy to read device I can carry in my pocket or laptop bag.
Basically the choice is- if you like books, buy physical copies- if you like what's inside books, buy an e-reader.

>>1873817
>I don't know about you kids, but when I read I usually read one book at a time and then move on the next one when I'm done.
Wow, you're really slow.

If I had the money, I'd definitely buy a Kindle. Til that day never comes, I'll stick with my public/uni library.

>>1873817
>can't read more than one book at once
Sure is 12 in here. Do you need to read aloud too kiddie?

>>1873832
>if you like what's inside books, buy an e-reader.

Reading? What are you talking about? I just love smelling them books.

So what's the best ereader for you guys?

>>1873850
It's a sexual thing, really.

e-readers are the slap chop of literature

>>1873851
Kindle, I'd say. Perfect size, somewhat limited file choice but there's plenty of converters out there, free wifi, long battery life and lots of options for text/font choices.
Then again, I'm a bit biased, because I've only ever owned a Kindle. So take it with a grain of salt.

Aren't e-readers somewhat of a doomed technology? Everything they do can already be done by a smart phone.

>>1873832
People have preferences on how they consume their literature dipshit.
Some people like listening to their music on speakers, some headphones. There isn't one logical choice. Just preferences and choices.

Holy shit /lit/

>>1873863
> There isn't one logical choice
The best speaker system doesn't even come anywhere close to the best pair of headphones. The logical choice is headphones, because they perform better and let you enjoy your music more.
There is no topic that can only be decided by preference. Everything can be decided by science.

>>1873871
>Everything can be decided by science.

Except for the existence of things that are by definition beyond science.

>>1873851
Love my Sony reader, the Kindle is annoying as fuck to navigate without a touchscreen.

I don't know how I ever lived without being able to double-tap a word to open the dictionary entry.

>>1873861
On a tiny screen. E-ink displays are much more comfortable to read as well.

-Robert McCloskey
-Shel Silverstein
-Jerome Bixby

>>1873878
E-ink displays are just LCD screens that aren't backlit, they actually don't look much different than old gameboy screens. Also, holding your phone sideways gives more than a wide enough space to read.

>>1873861
E-readers as they are today are a doomed technology, because flexible screens will be arriving soon.

>>1873874
>Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions
herp

>>1873885
Naw, they'll just issue the Nook Angleybend or something.

Well, I'm just curious, what precisely can be accomplished with an E-reader that couldn't be accomplished with a backlit LCD screen that has an option to turn the backlight off?

>>1873887
>builds and organizes knowledge
>knowledge
>not everything, just knowledge

>>1873885
>flexible screens
>consumer technology before 2020
hah, you're funny. you're a funny guy

>>1873887
Because human experience can be reduced to testable phenomenons.

>>1873893
You can't make an e-ink screen with a backlight, and e-ink is the thing that makes e-readers bearable.
>>1873895
What isn't knowledge?

> anybook I want whenever I want
> don't feel like paying money for books

Yeah, this mindset is going to ruin literature. It's going to be sweet knowing that from now on all the great writers will be Tao Lin knockoffs. No great author will ever use an e-reader.

/thread.

>>1873899
Yes, actually, yes it can.
This is a very simple concept, guys.

Got my Kindle after I moved. NEVER MOVING BOXES OF BOOKS EVER AGAIN!!!! HAHAHAHA! Kindle master race reporting in.

>>1873904
It's funny cause Plato said something equally apocalyptic about writing in one of his books. "Writing is shit. Remember when we had to memorize everything? Good times."

>>1873906

>thinks lifting a box of books is taxing
>gym bunnies ain't mirin
>no alan sex

>>1873902
>You can't make an e-ink screen with a backlight, and e-ink is the thing that makes e-readers bearable.

Well, what about e-ink is so much more bearable than conventional LCD? I don't remember my gameboy advance causing me any substantial eyestrain unless I turned on the backlight.

I prefer physical books, but I guess I wouldn't mind having an e-reader.

>>1873917
Moving dozens of boxes of books is taxing. Especially when you make the mistake of letting your parents help you pack and they put a million fucking books into a single giant box, that breaks halfway into or out of the moving van.

>>1873920
It's the difference between playing, say, an app on your iPhone, and reading lines of text on a screen for an hour or two at a time. It drains the battery, also, making battery life very short, which kind of defeats the purpose of having an ereader- can't read books on an empty battery.

I read ebooks on the computer.

Don't feel like spending money for an ereader.

>>1873905
A simple concept (reductionism) that has been proved wrong over and over. They don't even know how everyday language works, and the more they get near it the more unpredictable the systems to decode it become.

>>1873928
There are ways to prolong battery life. iPhones have shitty battery life because they're not designed with that in mind.

>>1873961
>They don't even know how everyday language works,
people needed to express concepts beyond 'tree' in order to evolve a more efficient society. they started making noises- the easiest thing you can do, and something that can be detected from a distance- and associating them with objects. then language was born. a-herp derp.

/lit/ children and oprah

birds of a feather...

they're both retarded

>>1873902
Things that are defined as unknowable.

>>1873983
as in?

>>1873989
I dunno.

(lol)

>>1873989
By some definitions, god.

I like having and reading normal books, but ebooks are just way more convenient.

>>1874000
>implying there's a god
See? Science.

>>1874003
>Implying science can prove there isn't a god.

>>1874006
>Implying science can prove there is a god.

>>1874006
>implying it needs to
the burden of proof lies on those who claim there is a god. science simply looks at the facts as we know it, say 'whelp, looks like there's no unexplained intervention here', then invents a new kind of oven.
besides, 'god' is a distinctly human idea.

>implying religion can prove there's a god

It's not like science is the only one with the problem

> IMPLYING E-READERS ARE GOOD AND NOT FOR DEGENERATES ONLY

>>1874012
The burden of proof lies on those who claim there is a god, because? The concept of God, just like any related concept of omnipotent entities, is unprovable. There are animals no one has ever seen, but they still do exist. Just as the existence of this animals is still an 'unkown' to science, doesn't mean the animals don't exist. Likewise, god and related concepts are animals that nobody can see, but that doesn't mean they're not real.

>>1873871
Are you stupid? Speakers > headphones pretty much always.
Well, I don't expect /lit/ to know anything about music

I LIKE BOTH

READING PHYSICAL BOOKS FROM TIME TO TIME IS NICE, BUT I DO THE MAJORITY OF MY READING WITH MY KINDLE.

THE ONLY DOWNSIDE TO IT IS IF I DROP IT, IT BREAKS. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S JUST OVER $100, STOP BEING STINGYFAGS AND SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS. I DROPPED ONE MONTHS AFTER GETTING IT, JUST BOUGHT ANOTHER.

>>1873974
>people needed to express concepts beyond 'tree' in order to evolve a more efficient society. they started making noises [...] and associating them with objects

I'm impressed. You have in fact developed an extremely sophisticated philosophy of language. How long have you been thinking about these things, 20 minutes?

And now, show me the objects the words "right", "good" or "identity" refer to.

>>1874022
How so? Headphones allow you to easily enjoy the fine details of the music, and they allow you to do so in total privacy. Speakers are better for social engagements, but for just personal listening, headphones > speakers.

>>1874022
This is most certainly not true. Say that on /mu/ and you would be crucified.

>>1874035
Headphones don't have subwoofers that I can use as a foot massager.

>>1874044
Interesting concept.

>>1874032
>"right", "good" or "identity"
human and societal concepts, but,
>right
the correct course of action to take in meeting the current moral criteria, which varies person to person.
also, a direction.
>good
see above- something that is acceptable according to moral criteria.
>identity
A being. or, more accurately, self-being, and related to introspection, so arguably, a human. but, the mindset and collected experiences of a certain person, seeing as how it's applied to humans.

>>1874059
>human and societal concepts

It's good that those concepts don't affect our lives at all, right?

>>1874088
Where did I say that they didn't?

>>1874089
What's the point of a theory of language that doesn't take them into account?

>>1874097
where did I say language didn't take them into account? i'm confused.

>>1874100
Theory of language. Yours in this case.

>>1874104
that it came to as a way of describing concepts. yeah, and those are concepts.

>>1874111
Your definitions are very interesting, though, look at this:

>>right
>the correct course of action to take in meeting the current moral criteria

Now define correct, action, moral

>which varies person to person.

Now tell me how something that vague could be the base for scientific testing and predictability.

>>1874022
You're sort of right, but in a far less nuanced way than actually reflects reality. There can be a best option for an individual person, but unless another person needs the exact same thing out of the product in question, their best option may be different. Headphones are always better FOR YOU. Now, let's take someone who has some kind of horrific ear injury that doesn't allow them to comfortably wear most high-quality pairs of headphones. For them, speakers would clearly be better because it wouldn't hurt to listen to music. In another example, let's say someone doesn't care about the details of music in the same way that you do, but does enjoy being able to play it at high volumes to the point where they can feel the vibrations. For him, headphones make less sense because it's a different listening experience than he prefers.

It follows that the same applies with e-books and paper books. There are perfectly logical ways to reach either conclusion depending on what the individual in question values most in the experience. For example, sometimes I prefer paper books because they're easier on my strain-prone eyes. However, when I haven't been experiencing much eyestrain, I prefer e-books because they're more convenient and I don't much care about the multisensory experience of reading a paper book.

>>1874125
My mistake, meant to quote
>>1873871

Op here, so glad that this thread is so successful :D

>>1874119
> correct,
The answer that is 'true', although this opens up a whole new can of worms. basically something that confirms with reality? the best possible outcome, I guess.
>action,
a movement or other verb- basically, doing something physically.
>moral
Ethically right thing to do- the 'right' thing to do by the group standards.
>Now tell me how something that vague could be the base for scientific testing and predictability.
Oh, no, I mean every person has different morals, but you can easily put 'em down on paper. As in, 'would rather save one life over many', 'respects women', etc.

>>1874140
You could regress to infinity with this understanding, though. And then there's the trouble defining moral in this age, nevermind when language was being developed.

>>1874147
>You could regress to infinity
Yup. And that's science.
Cave Johnson out.