/lit/ - Literature

ereaders are handy as shit but they're kind of annoying to use for long stretches, something about not being able to adjust the way you're holding it or something

also really fucking annoying if you're using it for research or you need to be skipping around the book for whatever reason. if i ever need to read something other than straightforward literary fiction i get it from the library.

>>5084962
Everyone I've ever seen using an e-reader has been old, or female, or rich.
I am none of those things. Using an e-reader wouldn't be v. harmonious with my self-image. I also maintain it's cheaper to buy used books.

>>5084962
After using my ereader for a week, I threw all books I had but could find digital versions of into the trash.

My e-reader broke, so I threw all technology out of the house.

I'm typing this at the library.

>>5084962
I'm slowly moving towards e-readers. I never had any prejudice against them, but it's much more comfortable.
There are still things they handle badly, like pictures and footnotes.
I'll still buy a book everytime I have the chance though.

i read slower on an ereader so no. but great for reading other langs

>>5084967
>ereaders are handy as shit but they're kind of annoying to use for long stretches, something about not being able to adjust the way you're holding it or something
What?

>>5084975
>I also maintain it's cheaper to buy used books.
Where do you get books for 0.001 cent a piece?

>>5085041
Utility ?
Have u read all of them ?

>>5085039
i don't know, maybe it's just me. i read for like 10+ hours a day sometimes if i'm doing research, and it's tedious as shit to have to do all of it through this tiny 'window' i can't adjust.

i get the same thing when i'm using a very small laptop/screen to do a lot of shit. it feels cramped and confined.

I just read on my laptop

>>5085091
get out

>>5085095
w-why?

>>5084975
>my self image

Oh fuck right off

OP, e-readers are great as you'll read more quickly (as you have adjusted to read text on screens from being online so much)

But I worry that when I finish a book I retain less of it than if I used a physical book.

I recently got one and its pretty awesome! I recently moved to a new city and haven't found a decent bookstore yet, I tried to get Italo Calvinho's "If on a winters night a traveller", and had to get an imported copy online which would've taken like two months to get here. Instant (pretty much) on an ereader. Still prefer physical books though.

>>5085104
Might be due to not getting the kinestic experience of reading a real book

AKA as you get to the end of the book, the end of the book feels lighter, you sense that in your mind and know it will end soon

All of that works to create spatial memory of the book or some shit

My kindle paperwhite should arrive in the mail tomorrow. How do graphic novels/comics look on it?

>>5084975
>I also maintain it's cheaper to buy used books.

This is so patently false that it seems downright idiotic that someone would hold this view, because no matter what used book you buy you always have to pay something, whereas e-books rarely cost anything.

i have over 400 books on my Kindle, none of which I bought. Even if each of those 400 books were a quarter each (which is being very, very, very, very generous with the pricing--I'm sure you'll agree), a Kindle is STILL cheaper.

Kobo masterrace

I have Kobo glo. It's a bit slow, and uploading torrented books isn't as easy as I hoped, but overall it cost me 120€ and I have already read 50 books on it, so that evens out.

Also loving the backlight, the fact that it weighs nothing,...

most important reason to buy an e-reader though:
laying on your side and propping it up against something. With an actual book you always have one arm that gets tired. I know this probably sounds incredibly lazy and stupid, but for me this was a whole new level of comfortness when reading in bed.

>>5085237

My nigga

I've read 32 books in the six months since my gf gifted me a Kobo Touch and my previous average was like, eight or ten books a year.

I'll never touch a paper book again, they have zero advantages over this.

>2014
>not having the top tier Kobo Aura HD, 7 inch master race
>not having a stylus, so you can tap on the screen while you quickly read the pages
>not downloading all the free books you want in the world

Do you niggers even read?

>>5086041
>forgot pic

>>5086041
What makes the Kobo better than a kindle?

>>5084962
I used to be heavily critical of ereaders, but I've become more lanient
They have their shortfallings; one being that quickly skimming is difficult. I have research books that I can never buy on my ereader, even though it comes with the notes and highlights feature. I just use a notepad and a regular book because it's much easier to skim and write. However, in terms of pure recreational reading, the ereader beats the book at a lot of turns. You can carry as many as you like, no need for earmarking, little chance of it being damaged [I mean the pages or cover becoming wrinkled. Obviously you can break an ereader]. What's more, you can back up all your ebooks. Ereaders are what, 90 bucks? That's like 4-5 books at best. It's pretty cheap to keep them all on a few external flash drives and buy a new one if it breaks.

>>5085041
Library Dumps.

>>5085122
>The Kindle itself costs 0.00$

>>5086211
Heh

On a literature board and you do not know how to read.

>>5086187
>18-22 dollars per book.
>at best

I went full e-reader about 2 years ago.

I regret nothing.

My entire personal library in my hand and I don't have to moves cases of books when I have to move every few years.

>>5086277
Even if the books were five dollars each, that is only 18 books. It is still a bad deal to buy paper books.

Even if the books were a dollar each, that is still only 90 books, which is still a bad deal. You faggots don't realize the price of a Kindle (which is actually closer to 70 dollars) allows you to have THOUSANDS of books, free.

>>5086293
Feels good bro.

>tfw reading at Starbucks on your kobo like a smart nigger
>tfw carrying thousands of books in your hand
>tfw not having to carry a big ass 1,000 page book and trying to read it
>tfw you're not longer pretentious enough to have a big book shelve, so you can show off "muh books!" to your friends
>tfw started reading on the e-reader in 2011, read over 120 books since then
>tfw it all started with buying a kobo with the physical button, back in 2011 (lol!)

>>5086187
>Not going to Barnes and Noble, stuffing your backpack full of books and buying a $5 title to remove suspicion.

>>5086847
You stop stealing once you finish high school and stop being a poor pleb.

I still feel that ebooks don't offer me the freedom that paper does, I'll wait a little more.

So /g/

Kobo Glo or Kindle Paperwhite?

>>5086864
e-reader /g/ thread this way:

>>>/g/42782614

>>5086860
>the freedom that paper does

What "freedom" might that be? I'm trying to think of anything at all that might be called "freedom" that paper books supply and I'm not coming up with a thing.

Can you elaborate?

>>5086869
ops
thanks

>>5085118
Pretty good, although I'd recommend using the Kindle Comic Converter before uploading them to the kindle, improves the reading experience greatly.

>>5084962
I prefer physical books, except when dealing with exceptionally bulky books. An example would be the ASoIaF, which I read on a kindle.

>>5086187
>Ereaders are what, 90 bucks? That's like 4-5 books at best.
Try 10-30 books.

>>5086901
still a lot less than what you can download free

thanks for weighing in

>>5086904
You can get physical books for free too.

>>5086855
Okay, sure. I'm 24 and worked as a retail manager for two years before going to university. So long as you don't get caught, stealing from large stores can only have a positive outcome. You get the thing you want, and the company doesn't lose anything except the opportunity to sell the book to another person. They have insurance. Inventories are generally done once or twice a year, so you don't have to worry about employees getting in shit and losing their positions due to theft.

But really, the main reason I do it (get that edge ready), is that I am not a fan of the capitalist ideology, and I believe that philosophies and beliefs should inform the way that you live your life. It's not enough to just believe at the theoretical level, you get a better understanding if you put it into action.

>>5086916

>>5086910
There's a habitat for humanity warehouse thrift store up the highway from where I live, and they have these huge wooden bins out back filled with free books.
Last time I was there some old lady told me about them as she saw I had a bunch of books.
Found a decent copy of Sons and Lovers and a Viking Portable Library of Emerson's works. I was tempted to climb in the bins so I could dig through them better.
there's always next time.

>>5086928
I love the absolute excess of books in developed countries. They're pouring out of everything and they can be had for nothing.

>>5086934
Exactly. Most of the books I buy don't cost more than a dollar or two. Some like I said were free. It's when I want or need something specific and don't want to dig through piles of garbage books that I pay more.

>>5086928
>>5086910
I'm sure the variety of the books are amazing. I don't know a single person who doesn't want 16 copies of Grisham's "Pelican Brief".

>>5086957
If it's free it must be shit because your point doesn't stand otherwise, right?

>>5086966
No, you don't understand the point.

The point is that no matter what bargain bin or free bin of books exists out there, there will undoubtedly be thousands of more books that are free on-line.

You don't seem to be all that great at reading comprehension, so I'll detail this further:

Paper book free bin: a few hundred books nobody wanted, (98% of which aren't even worth the having, but you can ignore that and this argument will still stand) highly limited in titles and number. What you read is now mandated by what is available in said bin.

Books on-line: tens if not hundreds of thousands of books, whichever book you like. One doesn't have to paw through a big bin of "The Joys of Cooking" and "The Ugly American" to find anything (anything at all!) worth taking home. You choose the book/author you want to read and you get it, easily. Your reading is now mandated by YOU.

>>5084962
You are fucking faggots for using e-readers
faggots
all of you

>>5086994
>The point is that no matter what bargain bin or free bin of books exists out there, there will undoubtedly be thousands of more books that are free on-line.
Don't forget the thousands of libraries and the fact that all books are not available online.
>You don't seem to be all that great at reading comprehension, so I'll detail this further:
You don't seem to be that intellectually honest. You're pushing points as reality for the sole reason that they support your argument.
>Paper book free bin: a few hundred books nobody wanted, (98% of which aren't even worth the having, but you can ignore that and this argument will still stand) highly limited in titles and number. What you read is now mandated by what is available in said bin.
An abundance of shit does not diminish an abundance of quality. Have you taken a look at the ebook torrent scene? It's fucking abominable. There are great free books and no amount of of garbage free books changes this. It is a symptom of garbage mainstream taste and is not exclusive to physical books.
>Books on-line: tens if not hundreds of thousands of books, whichever book you like. One doesn't have to paw through a big bin of "The Joys of Cooking" and "The Ugly American" to find anything (anything at all!) worth taking home. You choose the book/author you want to read and you get it, easily. Your reading is now mandated by YOU.
The same shit rises to the top as with physical. If your argument is that it is easier to sift through, then make that your argument. Don't claim that free physical books are non-existent and then backpedal into them not being good and then backpedal again into this.

>>5086966
If it's free it must be shit because of the implausibility of a garbage dump of old books having anywhere near what you went there looking for. I recently found and bought a small collection of Harvard Classics for under a dollar, but it would be a longshot to say any of them were filling exactly some book-buying desire on my part

It's just improbable that you'll be able to fill your shelves with quality books from a library book sale. You might leave with two dozen books for $5, but I bet you'll be stuffing these in an empty drawer pretty quick. Alternatively, you can find nigh every written work for free online, some of them legally

>>5087013
>all books are not available online.
lol
far more than at any library, bro

I can flip through pages much easily, write notes easily, make drawings if need be. A physical copy allows me to be much more flexible. I can easily use it as a reference too.

>>5087013
>An abundance of shit does not diminish an abundance of quality. Have you taken a look at the ebook torrent scene? It's fucking abominable. There are great free books and no amount of of garbage free books changes this. It is a symptom of garbage mainstream taste and is not exclusive to physical books.

You're avoiding the obvious point, a stack of free books from the library is limited to what was donated where ebooks have no such constraint, you immediately get everything you want. There being shitty self-published books in existence has no place in this argument, you don't at any point have to "browse" everything you are specifically searching for is free and readily available

>>5087017
>It's just improbable that you'll be able to fill your shelves with quality books from a library book sale.
Why not? My college has a book vendor that sets up in a common area periodically. Every time he comes, I get something for a couple of dollars. The last time he came I got a very nice hardcover copy of the Curiosity Shop by Dickens for $4. The time before that I got a very desirable hardcover edition of the Hobbit, also for $4.

You say that finding cheap or free physical books is imprecise. I'd wager that it's both an advantage and a disadvantage. Perusing through stacks can lead you to something you may have never otherwise considered. I'm sure we all have a story of finding some book on a shelf or in a box that we wouldn't have read otherwise.

Additionally, if you're going to argue that you may get free books illegally online then you have to consider that you may get free physical books illegally as well.

>>5087020
I bet you would think to compare all websites to a single library, as if it's equivalent.

>>5086901
I dunno what fucking books you're buying that are 3-9 dollars
Even on amazon books I want are usually 10-20 dollars. I mean, unless you;'re buying second hand. At which point, apply the second hand purchase to the kindle and argument still applies

>>5087043
Ebooks have constraints as well, they are limited to what the relatively tech savvy deemed worthy of putting online.

Your rejection of my argument that ebook websites have filth is tantamount to a rejection of your own argument that free book stacks have filth. It's the same argument.

Your argument circles back around, again, to the fact that it's easier to sort and sift and catalog. This was never up for debate in the first place.

>>5086860
>freedom
You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Sounds like a cop-out bullshit excuse to me.

>>5087044
Has anyone ever went into a store looking specifically for The Curiosity Shop by Dickens? I think this brings up the commonly referenced point in this sort of debate: Physical book owners are Collectors, Ebook owners are Readers. Simply harnessing vast quantities of seldom occasionally valuable books is objectively worse than harnessing quantities of things you actually set out to read.

Pirating ebooks is also stupidly easy with no real risk; stealing books either involves hitting up B&N every weekend (which is fairly lacking in more obscure texts and especially 2nd-hand sources) or robbing Libraries

>>5087042
If you're interested in making copious citations, I would strongly recommend an ereader. Having ctrl+F type mechanics are so stupidly helpful, as opposed to wading through an entire chapter

>>5087058
Amazon, local book stores (I'm fortunate enough to live near the best one), thrift stores, yard sales, bazaars, and any number of other places. Books are so ubiquitous that the means of acquiring them is limitless.

>>5086957
It depends on where you're looking and how much effort you're willing to expend looking for quality books. Those bins I was talking about were filled with a lot of shit, but there were definitely books in there that were worth taking out.
I'm lucky that my town has multiple used book shops and tons of thrift stores. People give away good books around here and you can get them for next to nothing.

>>5087071
>Physical book owners are Collectors
I'm happy with that label. I enjoy the discovery and the search.

>>5087071
>ctrl+F.
Are you saying that the citations you write in are put in a sort of table of contents where you can see where you put the citations and then just click there and go to the page?

>>5087066
>Your rejection of my argument that ebook websites have filth is tantamount to a rejection of your own argument that free book stacks have filth. It's the same argument.

Used book drops having valueless books isn't the issue, it's the massive shit:quality ratio that you have no way of avoiding. You can't directly seek anything out, you're forced to be "thrifty" and find something tangentially relevant to your purposes.

If you, say were looking for something even as common as Crime & Punishment, it could take months of thrifting to find a free/near-free copy. You just don't have the list of options

>>5087013
>thousands of libraries and the fact that all books are not available online.

See: >>5087020
Not only that, but libraries only loan the books to you. You don't keep them and you don't have access to them at a later date unless you re-check it out from the library. Also, they found herpes on library books, bro. That's just nasty.

>>5087013
>intellectually honest.

This means nothing, especially in direct regard to this discussion, because:

>You're pushing points as reality for the sole reason that they support your argument.

This is what anyone does in an argument, and it's also what you are doing. I think your bulb is pretty dim, so you're resorting to barfing out meaningless phrases like "intellectually dishonest" in order to keep your nostrils above the waterline.

But, it is the reality that people as a general rule don't hand out books that they could sell for profit. If there's a free bin of books somewhere, 99 times out of 100, it's because they used to be up for sale and not one fucking person wanted them.

>An abundance of shit does not diminish an abundance of quality.
Agreed, but the "quality" has far less opportunity to be there than on-line.

You don't seem to acknowledge or understand the fact that a bin of free books has limited space. In this regard, the quality books have to compete for space with the crap, and there is no guarantee that it isn't FULL OF CRAP.

>If your argument is that it is easier to sift through, then make that your argument.

Although it is true that it is easier to "sift through", that isn't my argument because this is immaterial. Most cases, there is NOTHING TO SIFT THROUGH. That is, if I want Conrad's "Nostromo", I literally just type in "Nostromo" on google and get it in a few seconds.

It seems like you're pretending to be retarded or playing the devil's advocate by not understanding this simple principle. Go to your free bin with a specific title in mind and come back with it. Just try. We both know you'll come back empty-handed.

Nobody's backpedalled into anything. I've presented a coherent, multi-tiered argument for why e-books are superior in just about every regard.

>>5087098
If your argument is ease of discovery, then just say it. I have been arguing that free good books exist and are numerous. If this is not your argument, then leave it.

>>5087047
>I bet you would think to compare all websites to a single library, as if it's equivalent.

I bet that argument sounded relevant in your head.

>>5087091
When you're writing a paper and want to use a quote

>book owner scours chapter for this specific passage
>ebook owner types in "metempsychosis" and instantly goes to all iterations of this word

It's an impassable convenience on the ereader's side

>>5084962

I prefer e-readers

>dictionary built in. Don't have to go through the hassle of bringing a dictionary
>e-reader(the one I have anyway) is lighter than any book
>e-reader tells you the percentage of what you read which gives you more motivation to read more.
>you can get mobis, pdfs, epubs, are free


The only people who prefer books over e-readers are people who never had an e-reader.

>>5087113
lol
The only thing you ever learned from Ulysses
and it's the most drawn out explanation of anything in the book you fucking e-reader faggot

>>5087115
Don't forget tin foil freaks who think the government is watching what you read.

>>5084962

While an e-reader fag like me gets books for free, you book fags will have to pay fortunes for books that are otherwise free on the internet

I had a kindle in the first year or so they were out
Just stopped using it and just read physical books. It really is just down to preference or psychological bs which you pick.

Here is some pysch bs:
1) Classics on e-readers are often free. Free translates to disposable in my brain. Paying for a book is an investment that gets me to read them.

2) Being able to carry around hundreds of books is choice overload and I was unable to stick with one book before hopping to another one, let alone with bigbad literary works.

then again my reading habits have improved since then.

>>5087115
>The only people who prefer books over e-readers are people who never had an e-reader.

yeah. i don't know how much longer they can hold onto the "but books smell!" retardation

>>5087132
Based off 1 and 2, it sounds like you don't even really like reading all that much.

You seriously need the incentive that you paid for it just to read a book? What kind of argument is this?

>>5087129

Why should you give a fuck if people know what you are reading?

>>5087152
Hence, why I called them tin foil freaks because they are batshit insane.

If you can find absolutely everything that you want in e-book then you're probably too pleb to even be posting here.

You summerpeasants take your e-readers and kindly leave. This board clearly isn't for you.

>>5087149
If you'd like to believe that your reading experience, which is somehow miraculously free of any outside factor or interest because you've attained patriciandom, is the same for everyone else - feel free.

It's also the argument of "preference," but its easier to think of preference as just founded on "muh old book smell" arguments than simple preference or habit, isn't it.

>>5087165
You're just not convincing, that's all.

>>5085122
Hey I've recently gotten a kindle myself. How did you get books for free? I've been using scribd.

>>5087170
I'm not even trying to convince you that there's any hard logic behind picking e-readers over physical books or the other way around.

I'm just saying you can make the choice however you want. And that I made that choice based on my frazzled attention span.

nerd.

>>5087171
most of the time you can just type in the book title in google

>>5087171
http://www.gutenberg.org/

>>5087182
>I'm just saying you can make the choice however you want.

We know, bro. Thanks for clogging up the board with this crap.

>>5087182

>nerd.

not that anon but m8 let's be honest here. you are hardly in a position to use that word without irony

I get that everyone likes their gadgets tiny and portable but I honestly wish my e-reader were actually as thick as a book rather than this puny wafer that would make a travel brochure look like a tome.

>>5087189
The board is too crap clogged with "you either think this way or you're illiterate scum" to begin with, why not crap clog with different flavors of crap.

>>5087190
I'm gonna pretend you're ironically thinking I wasn't ironic. Because I was joking when I said "nerd."

>>5087211

>I'm gonna pretend you're ironically thinking I wasn't ironic. Because I was joking when I said "nerd."

stop being such a fucking nerd for real

>>5084975
I'm 18, male, and poor, and use a kobo.

Where is your god now?

I'm sorry man.

e-readers are too fucking future and I don't really like that. I know all the hip people are getting sex changes erry weekend and listening to vapourstep and doing Technopagan crystal meth orgies on Skype. Good on them, that's their hobby. Mine is living in the past a little, too much change makes me queasy. I'm a simple man, I'm not some jet-setting multi-racial creative tech specialist, nor do I aspire to be.

Material books associate me with a time before 9/11, before all-anal squirting creampie gangbangs, before drones, before crystal meth, before my dad died, before I knew about the world, when I lived in a time of innocence. I cannot reclaim that era, but I can have little pieces of it.

If I was really obsessed with financial optimization I'd dispense with my vestigal Judeo-Christian morals and spend all my spare time whoring instead of posting on /lit/.

Books are a material extravagance, I'll acknowledge that. They have no inherent superiority. Their appeal is entirely aesthetic and tactile. Arguing against someone's personal taste is pointless and stupid. When they come out with an e-reader that transmits happy nostalgia right into yer skull, gimme a call, until then, get yer newfangled contraption out of my face, it is a reminder of an age of fear and uncertainty, I (and I speak only for myself) will not be able to read with confidence.

There's a reason I eat actual food instead of going Soylent. There is a reason I live in a house instead of a tube. It's because fuck you that's why.

>>5087430
Man. Now, people are copypastaing BORING things.

This is like when Hollywood started remaking BAD movies.

>>5087430
le patrician face

I prefer books for many of the reasons posted above. The only experience I have to relate it too would be using my computer screen to read. Which I fucking hate. My dad has a kindle though and really likes it and he used to be dedicated to traditional books so maybe it's different.

first reads are always on my e-reader. However, I also maintain space for a physical bookshelf for my favorites. i always go back and buy my favorites in traditional form. This is the collection that i would toss in a plastic tote if i lost it all or society collapsed and I had to skip town and start over.

>>5087441
>It is long, therefore it must be copypasta.
>I am everyone and everyone is me.
>Feels comfy

I think I'd miss the serendipity of wandering into a bookstore, browsing the shelf, and finding something I might have otherwise missed on a computer. That being said, I've never used an e-reader so I really can't say whether or not I'm pro e-reader. I might love it. I might not. I really do love bookstores though. I've always felt at home in them.

>>5087528
it's banal and has a regurgitated feel

if it's not pasta it might as well be

not that guy, btw

I don't need another gizmo in my life and I don't see any real benefit to get a e-reader. I was roped into reading a couple books on a kindle and I wasn't amazed.

Books are just easier. I just throw one in my backpack and go. I don't need to worry about accidently hitting something hard and breaking it or anything else I have to worry about when dealing with electronics.

I only purchase books as a means to fill my bookshelf with sophisticated literature, like Tolkien and Robert Fagles translations. Reading for pleasure, I'm happy with an ebook.

>>5084962
After getting one for free, I've grown to like them. As >>5084967 said though they're fucking awful for things like textbooks because you can't jump about them.

Good thing textbooks aren't often given in ebook form anyway and instead are only available in massive form with way too many pages and marked up prices.

;_;

>>5085101
Not that guy, but I used to read on my laptop and since I got an e-reader I can't go back.

Mainly because reading it on a laptop is a fucking ridiculous overuse of technology for such a simple thing, and it fucks up formatting, etc.

Sitting back in a comfy chair or on your bed, with a nice drink and no sound master race.

>>5086916
>not a fan of the capitalist ideology

>man buys a whole bunch of books
>takes them to another city
>sells them at a higher price to account for him having spent the time and effort delivering them there
>24 year old retail manager pushes him aside, steals his caravan and says fuck capitalism

That's what you're doing. Businesses are owned by people too.

>>5086994
I'm a fan of e-readers, but that last argument doesn't really stand up.

>whichever book you like

It actually ends up being the top most popular books that have e-book conversions at the ready, mainly because those are the ones that publishers felt were potentially profitable. What you don't get most of the time are textbooks, books from authors that aren't too well known, etc.

Case in point, when I make a list of books to download about once a month, only about half of them have ready ebook conversions over at bookz, even some that are on /lit/'s recommended wiki.

>e-readers
>that one gigantic, continuous page

>>5088243
>Case in point, when I make a list of books to download about once a month, only about half of them have ready ebook conversions over at bookz, even some that are on /lit/'s recommended wiki.

And when you do find a mobi or epub of a rare book it's more often than not a really crappy OCR scan where the guy who made it didn't bother to proof-read. I'm currently reading a pirated Cultural Amnesia and it's got "Anschlufi" instead of "Anschluß" everywhere. Going to buy the book instead, book-scans are sometimes so terrible that it makes you think the publisher is spreading these copies on purpose.

Is there a real benefit of using a E-reader like a AURA HD over a simple tablet like a Ipad 2?
Dunno if its worth the price for the aura hd

>>5088290
An e-reader is easier on your eyes, allegedly.

>>5088300
Well I guess I can just download the epub versions off my google play account and just transfer it to the Aura HD. Do E-readers ever go on sale, seems pretty pricey for $170 usd

>>5088321
I've seen people on here get pretty good deals on them. Sometimes up to 75% off, depends on what you want to buy and where.
Of course older models are cheaper. If you are willing to wait that new one will be cheaper in under a year, and the model from a year ago should be cheap now.

>people actually defending paper books

toppest of keks

The new always replaces the old, take a good look at history. You're just like those people who defended horse carriages against cars, guess how that ended up.

>>5084962
Books.

>>5087977
>I don't need to worry about accidently hitting something hard

Sounds like you need to learn how to walk.

Ebooks. They're easier to carry around (except for small paperbacks), take up much less space in an apartment, and aren't made from paper that turns shitty in a couple of years.

It's pointless to argue, people attached to the old ways will be simply left behind having failed to advance with the rest of the species. Just like the people who refused to buy smartphones are now isolated because no one really uses text messages anymore and they can't use stuff like Whatsapp or Telegram.

As the great contemporary philosopher Edward Louis Severson put it : It's evolution, baby.

>>5088422
>implying a majority of people care about books (either physical or electronic) anymore
In another two decades there will be less readers than there are now. Literature is slowly turning into an "ironic" joke.

>>5088438

Market figures for digital books sales say otherwise. They will have completely replaced paper in a matter of years, and a good thing too.

>>5088438
>less readers

* fewer readers

I have an e-reader and I also enjoy physical books. (Vidkun Quisling is not available in epub I'm pretty sure, lel)

I always use the e-reader first if possible, if I enjoy a book I buy it physically and read it once more.

Physical books have the advantage of being able to rent them out to your buddy or grandmother.
"H-hey, this book is really good, go home and d-download it" Is not as effective.

Books can also be inherited, and this way you can reccomend books even when you are dead. They also have history. One old book I have has the signature of my great grandfather. That's more than you can say with ebooks.

I don't understand what's wrong with being both a reader and a collector. Pretty fun if you ask me.
Both ebooks and books are good. Books are generally the best, but ebooks are best for practicallity.

What's this about e-books being somehow "free" online? That's called stealing. I do it as much as the next guy but at least I don't pretend they're free. Using the same logic you could say that books from bookstores are also free if you just shoplift them.

I used to prefer real paper books over insubstantial files on my reader but now I don't care for that much. I can carry my entire library around on my phone, which I find awesome. The medium is not the message, and McLuhan was just being a fag.

>>5088568
I hear that in most towns there's this place that allows thieves to come and steal books with impunity, as long as they return it after a few weeks.

>>5088576
Having fun isn't hard when you've got a library card.

>>5084962
Books. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Because I have the power and not the device when reading them. Let that sink in!

>>5085118
the screen's too small for a lot of comics,

>>5088568
>The medium is not the message, and McLuhan was just being a fag.

The fact that you're reading books via the same medium that you use to watch videos and text/speak with your friends pretty much validates McLuhan's ideas. He argued that the content of a new medium will be the mediums of the past.

Hell, 4chan seems kind of like a perverse realization of some of his more outlandish predictions regarding individualism in the electronic age.

I like to have books. I like the feel.

>>5088568
>What's this about e-books being somehow "free" online? That's called stealing.

No. I don't think you know anything about e-books and e-readers. There are literally tens of thousands of free books--and it's not pirating. That is their price: free.

Don't believe me?

Check out:
https://archive.org/details/texts - 2.5 million free e-books.

www.gutenberg.org - Project Gutenberg offers over 45,000 free ebooks.

www.amazon.com - Unknown, but a whole host of free e-books. Just go to amazon and search the Kindle store in "prices: lowest to highest"

https://openlibrary.org/ - Over 1 million free e-books.

Your argument is invalid.

I wish my e-reader allowed me to customize the books I'm reading. For example I'd love to add pictures to a page.

>>5086836
>claims he's not pretentious
>reads at Starbucks

>tfw editing epubs and deleting random sentences from the text
>tfw upload to bookz
>tfw you don't know whether or not your epub is corrupted or not
Check mate, e-readerfags

I've never actually held an e-reader in my hands

>>5089388
>Holding your e-reader with your feet.

>>5089380
Fuck, this would be terrible. ;_;

>>5086041
Have you had problem with random numbers (my guess is they indicate where the page is supposed to change) on top of words?

>>5089380
>tfw splicing comments from youporn videos into classic literature and re-upping the epub:

Mr. Darcy had at first scarcely allowed her to be pretty; he had looked at her without admiration at the ball; and when they next met, he looked at her only to criticize. But no sooner had he made it clear to himself and his friends that I would give anything to fuck that shemale ass, than he began to find it was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her dark eyes.

>>5089405

I have a corrupted version of The Protestant Ethic by Weber and it's fucked for entire sections.

Eg. T2^ G*he ca>> < ,,!} sat on th 4 !23f $!>> ma% t

>>5089421
For me they appear in every file, otherwise have had no problems.

>>5089419
kek

>>5089405

I've had a problem with recurring numbers if you check em

>>5088379
Sounds like you need to stop being a fag.

The key word in that sentence was accidently. E-readers are 100 times more fragile then a book. So I don't need to be out of money and reading material because it was accidently dropped or banged against something when its in my bag.

People who tout e-readers have never came up with any advantage that they have over books that wins me over. Its usually gushing over how you can carry thousands of books with you, which doesn't matter to me because I don't need to carry that much or how you can get so many free books online, which I don't give a shit because I already have enough options to get as many cheap books as I would want.

Everything else is just degrades into bullshitting about anyone who doesn't except e-readers are just idiot luddites who can't keep up with the times.

I just don't need to deal with another electric gizmo and the companies that make them. Seeing how much legalese these companies make you agree to before using it that can brick the damn thing for whatever reason they want. So forgive me if I don't want to deal with that bullshit.

I pirate books on my Kobo and read them there. If I like a work, I'll buy a physical copy and put on my shelf.

>>5089488

>tfw e-reading plebs are literal book burners who hate freedom and want to destroy all physical libraries because it's "trendy"

You people make me sick.

whynotboth.jpg

>>5089380
>>5089419
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARy1PR1VAkg
Real books win.

>>5089596
also /thread

>>5089488
Gotta admit, that was a good one.

>>5087058

buy your books of thriftbooks.com. they rarely cost more than 7 bucks on that site.

University has embedded in me the habit of writing in my books and highlighting my favorite passages that I can easily find by scrolling through the page. It feels more like active engagement and my retention has only increased since the habit began a few years ago.

Showing off is pretty dumb, but collecting isn't inherently bad.

You can rent the books out to friends and family. You can return to a book after 20 years and feel nostalgia for the physical book.

And if a book is good-quality hard cover it can last for generations.

My biggest problem with free ebooks is their inconsistent quality. For the classics, you can easily find quality, mostly error free ebooks on Gutenberg. However, for newer books, I sometimes find the format horrible. Finished Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance recently. The ebook I downloaded at first was missing one and a half chapter. I had to downloaded from several sites which had the same copy. Only until I found general-ebooks.cok did I find a complete copy of the book.

paper, damn ebooks and those who use them!

>>5084962
I use an e-reader at home, because I pirate lots of books ;)
When in public, I carry a physical book to let people know what kind of person I want them to think I am X-DDD

>99 bucks
>Near infinite amount of books

At this point, unless it's a picture book for children or a reference book you need to flip flop around in, you are an idiot for refusing e-readers.

Get fucked, hipsters.
nb4
>MAH BOOKSHALF!
>MAH AESTHETICS!
>THE SMELL OF DEAD TREES AND BINDING GLUE!

retards.

>>5089823
Ladies and gentlemen, behold the average trendy hipster transhumanist technophile.

>>5089345
You can do that via calibre
.

>>5089526
>mfw I'm sitting on crates filled with about 150 books that I don't really want to throw away but don't know what else to do with
>tfw I will end up getting 3€ for them at the recycling plant

>>5089823
Question from someone who sincerely knows shit about ereaders: how does highlighting passages work? I read with a pencil/highlighter because I really enjoy writing little notes or colouring passages that I consider significant or worthy to revisit in the future, and I just don't know if that works on an e reader.

>>5089955
Used book stores? Give some away to friends?

>>5089969
>Used book stores?
Never seen any anywhere. Google doesn't find one either.

>Give some away to friends?
No friends.

>>5089904
>average trendy hipster transhumanist technophile.

So many buzzwords and zero arguments.

>>5089963
On my paperwhite you highlight by dragging your finger and then a menu pops up allowing you to highlight it and to add a comment if you wish, via another popup that allows tying

There are too many "hooray no more bookshelves I'm no longer pretentious" comments in here, which pretty much means people still care about their image when using an ereader, just in the sense that its showing off your efficiency as opposed to showing off your collection.

plus all the self-satisfaction and superiority complexes going on in here don't help

>>5090009
>tying
Of course you knew I meant typing

>>5089998
Meanwhile you did the same by humorously greentexting the opposition.

>Muh illegal piracy
>Muh 100$ machine that uses electricity and will eventually break
>Muh awkward half-functional marking and search functions

>His ereader is always connected to the internet
>Thinks this is good

>>5089998
That's fine, just admit that you hate humanity, want to see us enslaved, and want to merge with machines.

I can't wait for the whole world to start illegally pirating books so publishing industries just go "fuck it" and dramatically decrease the amount of products they're putting out, because 16-20 year olds can't afford to fucking buy books.

Same goes for comics (which you freeloaders should support even more so than books) but that might be for a different thread.

>but I pirate music therefore i pirate books!

>>5090032
>His ereader is always connected to the internet
This is false. Step up.

>>5090071
Pirating is no different from checking out a book from the library, which I did before I pirated. Pirating save gas, thus saving the planet. Why do you hate the planet? Under no case would I buy books as long as libraries exist.

>>5088530
/thread

>>5090032
>illegal
>being this much of a pussy

>uses electricity
Yes welcome to the 21st century you fucking retard
>HAHA HAVE FUN WITH THOSE CARS WHAT ABOUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE GAS I'LL STICK TO MY HORSE THANK YOU VERY MUCH

>half-functional marking and search
ironic because marking and search are colossal advantages of ereaders. all my underlined text is kept neatly in a txt file that I can manage and organize from my computer, and the search just works fine

>always connected to the internet
have not connected it once

>>5090084
>>5090124
It was my own experience, and it was posted to prove a point, but yet again ebook users prove they can barely even read in the first place.

It was a response to the simplification:
>Muh bookshelf

>>5087716
Of course it's regurgitated, it's the only legitimate argument for books there is.
Of course it's banal, it's obvious.

Yet these threads are still perennial.

I prefer reading on my kindle. Its lighter and easier to hold and I can go to the next page with the tap of a finger. If I had to choose between the two, I'd go with an ebook, but I don't really care what form it takes. Its the content that matters.

>>5090156
Things like tapping isn't exactly friendly. It's RSI inducing for me. Especially touchpads are terrible.

An ereader with buttons for turning the page is much more ergonomic.

>>5090167
If tapping lightly with your finger every 30 seconds wrecks your body you should consider suicide.

>>5090124
I take it you're a fan of EA and Blizzard?

>I love being plugged in 24/7 fuck luddites who don't enjoy being dependent on someone else for something as simple as reading I love big brother

>>5090156
>It's the content that matters not the format
If you like books, read books.
If you like e-books, read e-books.
/thread

>>5090174
No? I can easily avoid it.

You realize small short taps/clicks/motions are what causes RSI, right?

>>5085237
What kobo do you have?

>>5090187
If you get RSI from tipping a touch screen like that, holding a book will probably kill you, and overcoming the resistance of a button will probably cripple you before long, so should thank the designers on your knees, that is, if you can get down and up again without wrecking your joints forever.

I don't mind people who use e-readers. What I do mind is people who use e-readers who try to infringe on my freedom to enjoy physical books by trying to ban the medium and shutting down physical libraries.

Also, I guarantee you the people who exclusively use e-readers only read fiction and other casual shit that doesn't require extensive notetaking.

>>5090193
>If you get RSI from tipping a touch screen like that, holding a book will probably kill yo

That's not how it works at all.

Small rapid motions are the problem and the cause.
Long controlled motions like turning a page or pressing a button once do not do anything.

RSI has increased rapidly with new technology, most commonly associated with keyboards.
I'm just pointing out buttons are friendlier than taps on a touchscreen for your fingers, no reason to be mad bro.

>>5090220
What is the difference between pressing a button and tipping a touchscreen, the tipping using less force aside?
Kindles also allow you to sweep to turn a page.

The main issue is, that the page turning is such a rare and minor event, that I don't believe that it causes bodily harm.
You are saying that since blows to the head can cause brain damage, going outside while it snows causes brain damage.

>>5090231
> the tipping using less force aside?
But that is the difference, by requiring a press, the motion becomes longer and more ergonomic, while a tap is a rapid short motion where the finger returns to it's original position.

>that the page turning is such a rare and minor event
Ereaders often split the pages for better readability, which means you need to turn the page 2-3 times to actually be done with a page.

It just seems silly to deny RSI on touchscreens, when there's plenty to read about it if you search for it.

Also, if you actually care: A swipe is better.

>>5090260
>It just seems silly to deny RSI on touchscreens, when there's plenty to read about it if you search for it.
All that is intensive use, not one slight tap every 30 seconds, get real.

>>5090183
>I take it you're a fan of EA and Blizzard?
back to >>>/v/ with your embarrassingly dumb ad homs

I am not dependent on anybody for reading.