/lit/ - Literature

Nothing like the smell of a new book.

An ebook is much superior to shitty pocket editions, in my opinion. But yes, I agree.

I much much prefer ebooks:
- I can turn pages far more easily
- I can read more easily with doing stuff with my hands: eating, etc.
- I have a frontlit reader to don't worry about where I read in terms of light
- Can get text just how I like...

I could go on and on and on. Was forced to go back to books for a while when my last ereader broke. It was shit.

There really is no difference, except the creepy fetishists who sniff and stick their dicks between the pages of paper books.

I read both, because I care more about content than some sort of mentally disturbed smell fetish.

>>3319446

What e-reader broke and which one do you have now?

>>3319452
I had a Kobo Touch for around six months. Really liked it but screen stopped working mysteriously. Got a Kobo Glo which is super nice: you actually end up using the light 100 percent of the time because it makes the screen look so much better. Just hope it lasts longer...

>>3319449

Fine. Next you see someone buying an good perfume, you go up to her, and you laugh in her face.

You can't smell plastic. It's an aroma that permeates the area you're reading in. It's as if you can feel intimate with the things you've earned with you're cold, hard cash..but I guess you're a communist neckbeard living in his mother's basement, downloading pdfs off soulseek.

I never buy air fresheners.

>>3319461

>perfume

Hahahahahahaahaha

>>3319461
>Next you see someone buying an good perfume, you go up to her, and you laugh in her face.

I do laugh at people who buy perfume. What could be more funny than a bunch of people spending way too much for scents that allow them to pretend they don't smell human? 80 dollar vials the size of a thumbnail of junk that washes off in the bath?

It's hilarious, if you think about it.

I can't enjoy reading unless I have time and space to sit down and take my time, without interruptions. So I see no reason to get an ebook, which is merely more convenient on the fly, and therefore not at all.

>>3319435
I do. I don't have to keep them from snapping shut and an e-reader is lighter and more easy in the hands. I also dislike owning many things, so I only have a small collection of physical books.

>>3319461
>with you're cold, hard cash
>you're

Get out. Come back when you care more about reading than you do about being seen reading.

>>3319461
Smell is one of the best ways to trigger a memory, too. I find that most print runs have their own unique smells; if I can't remember much about a book then picking it up and leafing through it reminds me quite powerfully of a great deal of it, particularly when it's a certain scent.
Obviously that only helps if I'm looking at the copy I read originally.

I can't enjoy my books unless people can see what i'm reading and i can show them my large bookcase stacked to the brim with original editions.Also, i need to explain in great detail how my humidifier protects my books condition.

>>3319478
>you can't take your time while reading an e-reader
>you get interrupted more while reading an e-reader

Get a load of this mental midget.

>>3319476

You may be right, but what if the smell comes with reading material. I only pay five dollars for my scents.

Of all the books i've bought, the best smell came from the new edition of 'Gravity's Rainbow'; the one with the black-and-white drawing of a nuke on the cover. The ends of the pages were ruffed and thick: I wave the book around my face and it smells like some kind of prestige notebook. You can't beat that.

>>3319485

>>3319481

No, you're the idiot this time. It was a sly way of implying the person actually being the cold, hard cash--a Marxist proletarian slave.

You're move Grammar Nazi. I got a Ph.D in English and thesaurus.com in an open window.

I can't enjoy my books unless people can see I've spent money on an expensive digital device and i can show them my large server stacked to the brim with badly scanned editions.Also, i need to explain in great detail how my use of an ebook reader means I'm better than everyone else. I'm never more than 8 hours away from an electrical outlet and have trouble concentrating on anything over my starbucks coffee when I'm not looking at a screen. I would much rather have fragile, non-recyclable technology that makes use of rare earth materials and has content entirely subject to the whim of the providers.

>>3319476
>>3319491

take shit like this to r9k or b

>>3319507

Hey man, do you reckon you could help me with this problem I have? I always head over to starbucks with my Macbook and my E-book reader, but people never come over to ask me what I'm reading. I never had this problem with physical books, because then people would look at me in awe as soon as they saw the cover of my Obscure Literature.... But that doesn't happen anymore. What do?

>>3319476
Most hamfisted interpretation of an art form I've ever seen

>>3319523

>perfume
>art
>not just pure vanity

>>3319511
>I don't want to read opinions and worldviews that insult my fragile sensibilities

Do you even read?
Deal with it, nerd.

>>3319513
>They can't see the cover so they don't ask me what I'm reading
wut

>>3319530

No, I mean, back then it was obvious that I was reading real edgy obscure literature and now it's not. People could just as well assume I'm reading Harry Potter or some shit instead of Bulgakov and Pynchon.

>>3319523
You're a 4chan tripfaggot called "I'm Gay". You are the epitome of hamfisted.

>>3319539
I'm not really sure why it matters what people think you're reading. Can't you make your own coffee? I read on long-haul public transport but the book's in my lap so no-one can see the cover anyway.

>>3319527
>not just pure vanity


you have a lot of growing up to do

i don't even know where to begin from your two posts

i just hope you're just a kid

>>3319548

>I'm gay

The name suits you, faggot. And no, I'm 49 and I have a wife and kids, want to fight faggot?

>>3319548
You're just saying that because you obviously spend entirely too much to smell a certain way, and you're trying to justify that idiotic behaviour by painting it as some sort of storebought form of walking art. You're so full of yourself you can't even see (or are reluctant to see) that you've been bamboozled into doing highly stupid things with your money.

>>3319550

Oh no, Rocky's back for one last fight!

>>3319556
>you obviously spend entirely too much


yeah

this is something really embarassing you also spouted off in your first post


from your complete lack of empathy, bitterness and contrived world view I'm just going to assume you're a kid and not really a socially inept and intellectually malformed adult

for my sake

>>3319562

Elaborate your point regarding perfume instead, sir

>>3319558
>yfw the premise of the next Rocky movie is about an internet forum fight
>yfw it's even worse than Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

>>3319562
1. Not a kid, probably older than you, in fact.

2. lack of empathy -- toward what, perfume? Is this a malady toward which one needs to be empathetic, now?

The fact that you think my views on cologne are "socially inept and intellectually malformed" just shows how far down your throat the hook is. You can't even reason rationally about this, because you're too busy being indignant.

>>3319565
Fashion and fragrance are an art form with as much possibility for depth and shallowness as any other

They're simple more quickly as dismissed as one by 2 dime intellectuals with a limited world view because of their own personal heuristics


as for 'spending too much money'

i won't even touch that one with a 30ft pole

>>3319578

I see your point, but it's the equivalent of saying that Call of Duty is art - just because you don't see it doesn't mean others can't. You can't be objective when it comes to some things - it's simply impossible.

>>3319578
>Fashion and fragrance are an art form

Lesser art forms, let's be honest...

>>3319577
>2. lack of empathy -- toward what, perfume?

usually people with poor empathic capability at least have good reasoning skills

you're just dull and needlessly agressive

so this exchange is both unpleasant and uninteresting

sorry

>>3319583

etat libre d'orange's work has much more depth than the work of commonly lauded writers here like pynchon and dfw

>>3319584
You've yet to set forth some reasoning. Instead, you deflect like a madman "not going to touch this" "ugh, it is soooooo an art" "you're just dull, omg!"

The clothing you buy and the cologne you wear are made in huge vats and disbursed to the masses. If you are engaging in art, then it's a very tawdry and storebought form of art, on par with velvet Elvises.

>>3319591
0/10

>>3319594
>Instead, you deflect like a madman "not going to touch this"

you're

a) purposely needless agressive and resistant

b) still too dull to catch on to anything i let slip through the cracks without making you a drawing

>The clothing you buy and the cologne you wear are made in huge vats and disbursed to the masses


A) you really need to go learn so basic basics about fashion and fragrance

I mean, 'mass production and distribution = bad' fallacy aside, none of the work being discussed is either mass produced or mass distributed

This only shows how out of touch with the art forms you are, and what a miserable person you have to be to insult and argue about something you have absolutely no knowledge in

>>3319591
i lol'd

>>3319598
not that guy but you might get better reception to arguments if you dropped your trip.