[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 35 KB, 380x481, 10257415-large[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7363669 No.7363669 [Reply] [Original]

People who read digitally like to read.

People who read paper like the image of reading.

Prove me wrong.

>> No.7363677

>>7363669
People who read and like it like to read and certain people have certain preferences for what they read upon.

>> No.7363680

Nah senpai, burden of proof is on you, innit.

>> No.7363683

Here is another one:

People who read novels, short stories and poems like to read.

People who read exclusively novels like the image of reading.

>> No.7363686

People like to read and are limited to the resources they have.

>> No.7363688

in my opinion, people like to read

>> No.7363690

>>7363686
Everyone has a computer, some people go out of their way to buy books. It is the same thing with buying records. It is the image that draws people, not the activity.

>> No.7363733

They're both books. Also many of the e-books I've pirated have had shitty mistakes, might as well buy a 99 cent used book.

>> No.7363740

People who like to read like to read.
That's pretty much it..

>> No.7363743

>>7363669
That's all personal, i can't read concentrated on a computer or smartphone.

>> No.7363754

>implying you can find everything online

>> No.7363760

>>7363690
How can staring a computer screen for more than a couple hours not hurt your eyes?

>> No.7363763

>physical book readers: ~99% of collection read
>digital book readers: ~99% of collection unread

>> No.7363765

>>7363690
I disagree with this. While yes, a majority of people do have a computer, some don't. Others aren't allowed anywhere near it ( I wasn't until I was 14). I have friends who actually need to go to the local library to type up an essay for school because they don't have one. It may sound very uncommon but it's not as uncommon as people make it seem. Some people do have perferves tho. I have both a kindle and books. Whatever is cheaper and free.

>> No.7363770

>>7363690
>the similarity of the experience of digital vs physical reading is equivalent to the similarity of the experience of mp3 vs vinyl

>> No.7363775

>>7363669
Pages are comfier to look at than screens.

>> No.7363777

>>7363760
It hurts your eyes more to stare at a book for an equivalent amount of time actually. Computer screens are relatively good on your eyes, the part that fucks you up is how close it is. You can put a monitor further away than a book on average.

>> No.7363780

>>7363777
Maybe your eyes, but definitely not mine.

>> No.7363782

If you don't see any difference in the reading experience given by a digital medium and a physical medium, you probably don't read at all.

>>7363777
>inb4 a single citation that can't draw a conclusion

>> No.7363785

I don't like to carry around an expensive electronic device with me whenever I want to read.

>> No.7363789

>>7363785
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses aren't we?

>> No.7363797

>>7363789
not him, but I've never sat on a book and made all its text illegible. just sayin

>> No.7363798

>>7363785
Even if you read a physical book you'd most likely already be doing this.

>> No.7363801

>>7363789
>excuse

You should look that word up.

Also, a lot of the books I read were never published in electronic form.

>> No.7363805

>>7363798
...? if you mean smartphones or laptops, why the fuck would you bring them with you to read a physical book?

>> No.7363807

People who care whether or not they fit the image of someone who likes to read like the image of reading.

>> No.7363816

>>7363669 I have the ambition of building a gigantic library in my home so that's why I like to buy books on paper

>> No.7363818

>>7363805
Either you're at your house where expensive electronic devices are present, or you're outside where most people would have a smart phone with you.

>> No.7363823

>>7363816
Yes, just like it says in the OP.

>> No.7363827

>>7363818
>all these assumptions
k, tell me more about my life

>> No.7363829

>>7363818
Five days out of seven I don't have my cellphone with me when leaving my house. I do, however, almost always carry at least one book with me.

>> No.7363833

>>7363829
Why do you not want to carry an expensive electronic device with you?

>> No.7363836

>>7363833
who are you waiting to call you and why are they more important than books?

>> No.7363844

>>7363833
Because I have my books and my notebook to keep me busy. I don't need the internet everywhere I go. Also, it sucks when people know they can always reach you on your cellphone. I will usually tell people WHEN I have my cellphone with me instead of informing them when I'm NOT carrying it.

>> No.7363848

>>7363823 it is have true. But I mostly feel guilty if I read on PC or derivatives.. I mean, I love books so much, they mean a lot to me and to me a book you read for pleasure or knowledge should be on paper.. Always were and I always should be

>> No.7363859

For me it's whatever is more convenient. If the library has the book okay I'll read it. If there's a book for free online okay I download it. I read slaughter house 5 on my phone during my TA period. Honestly some people just don't fucking care. Others have preferences.

>> No.7363864

>>7363848
They weren't always on paper though, people have been writing since before paper. They moved to paper because it's a better material to use than what was available. Now we can store text digitally and there is no downside. I understand your nostalgia, but please don't pretend that it's better if everything was still on paper.

>> No.7363866

>>7363864
>implying I wouldn't exclusively read folios if they'd still be handwritten on parchment

>> No.7363869

>>7363864
>not wanting a hardcopy
what fucked up shit are you reading you need it to be able to destruct so fast?

>> No.7363872

>>7363866
You do realize you're using digital text right now to convey your arguments against it right?

>> No.7363876

>>7363872
I'd write you a letter if I could, anon. :^)

>> No.7363881

>>7363869
Why are you reading that you need it to be more flammable?

Your argument doesn't make any sense, I do not read digitally because I can get rid of it easier (which isn't even necessarily true anyway).

>> No.7363886

>>7363881
paper doesn't burn that well when it's in book form, you need to crumple it to get enough oxygen in. though i think i'll bring an electromagnet with me when i go out next to see what all this expensive electronic device hype is about.

>> No.7363890

>>7363886
You must not know how comparatives work.

>> No.7363892
File: 195 KB, 497x496, 1368278278846.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7363892

>>7363669

If every book that you have read or want to read is available in ebook then you are too casual to even be here.

>> No.7363899
File: 21 KB, 220x294, 220px-KueheinHalbtrauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7363899

>>7363892
This.

I could only find ONE Arno Schmidt e-book. Yet right next to me his books fill a whole shelf.

>> No.7363908

>>7363890
it's much easier to kill someone's electronic collection of books than a physical library. cheaper and faster too. what did i get wrong about the three I just used?

>> No.7363911

>>7363908
>>7363890
>>7363886
>>7363881
>>7363869

Maybe it's not an essential point?

>> No.7363915

>>7363908
Yeah but its far fucking simpler to replace a digital collection than it is to replace hard copies

>> No.7363916

>>7363911
being able to read the book is pretty fundamental and a cracked screen destroys that capacity for more books than a dog eared cover can

>> No.7363920

>>7363915
>says someone who owns not one out of print book

>> No.7363923
File: 9 KB, 160x177, 1430859850479.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7363923

I don't have anyone to bring over and try to impress with my fat stack of books, so I just buy a new kindle every few years when they inevitably FUCKING KEEP ON BREAKING

>> No.7363948

>>7363923
If I was a girl, I'd never fuck a guy before confirming he has great books in his room.

>> No.7363966

>>7363777
wtf are you on about?
http://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/caring-for-your-vision/protecting-your-vision/computer-vision-syndrome?sso=y


i mean, sure, you can get eyestrain from paper, but not nearly as quick as with a computer.

>> No.7364026

>>7363966
poor lighting
More common with paper.

glare on a digital screen
More common with digital.

improper viewing distances
More common with paper.

poor seating posture
More common with paper.

uncorrected vision problems
Irrelevant.

a combination of these factors
Irrelevant.

>> No.7364031

Is there a reason you cannot like to read and also like collecting books?

>> No.7364045
File: 258 KB, 1628x1248, Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 00.50.56.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7364045

>>7363899
>Arno Schmidt

There are like 19 more results and most of them are written by himself. Don't be dumb.

>> No.7364050

>>7364045
Those aren't him nor his work.

>> No.7364057

>>7364045
That's not him. Please educate yourself with this English Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Schmidt

"Arno Schmidt (born c. 1935 in Salzburg) is an Austrian chef and food critic and writer. Between 2008 and 2011 he was the Big Apple Chapter President for the American Culinary Federation." lel

>> No.7364074

>>7364045
Also, why would you think someone on /lit/ was interested in cook books?

>> No.7365342
File: 1.83 MB, 200x200, 1436686908379.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7365342

>>7363677
This guy.

>> No.7365355

>>7363669
That's stupid.
I read digitally only because I have no other option (shitty third world country yadda yadda). E-readers hurt my eyes and I can read for a max of an hour. With paper, I could read for more than 4 hours continuously.

>> No.7365359

>>7364031
because OP needs us to validate his faggotry as the one true way, otherwise he might feel bad about his kobo

>> No.7365374

>>7364026
>poor seating posture more common with paper.
What? How retarded are you?

>> No.7365380

>>7363669
People who like the image of reading like to read breh

>> No.7365382

>>7363777
This is some very good trolling. 9/10.

>> No.7365389

>>7363683
This is better than OP, though that's not saying much.

>> No.7365390

>>7363669
I only read paper books in my house. My e-reader is what I bring to read for when I'm in public (a doctor's office, relatives house I don't want to be in, etc.).

>> No.7365397

>>7363683
Why not include non-fiction?

>> No.7365443

People who read books like to read.

People who read /lit/ like the image of reading.

>> No.7365447

People who make threads like this like to appear like they like to read.

>> No.7365456

>>7363669
This is what two people had to say about me buying a kindle.
Pretentious blowhard friend: Only pretentious people like using e-books, analog is the only way to read and there is no point to a kindle (was silenced when I pointed out that I was reading 2666 on my 200g kindle).
Friend that refuses to read: I think it just means you really like to read.
Me personally: I like reading and I can read on a Kindle.

>> No.7365459

>>7363669
People who are white like civilization.

People who are brown like the image of civilization.*

Prove me wrong.

1. That is not entirely true.

>> No.7365461

>>7365443
/thread

>> No.7365472

>>7363669
All of your statements are contingent.
We don't know if the digital reader enjoys reading. We only know that he reads digital content. The same goes for the paper reader.

You aren't necessarily wrong, you're just doing unfounded statements.

Please try again.

>> No.7365478

>>7363669
>Nobody before the invention of e-books liked to read

>> No.7365479

>>7365459
Nice end note

>> No.7365523

>>7365478
If you can't understand that it's an observation about modern readers you are probably need to read more.

>> No.7365787

>>7363669
>>7363683
I don't like to read, I just like knowledge I gain from it. Mostly non-fiction.

>> No.7365822

Am I the only one who reads mostly to say that I've read the book? I think some people don't want to admit it, but one of the greatest joys of reading is the feeling of finishing a book, regardless of what the content of the book was.

>> No.7365942

>>7363669
What are nonessential advancements in technology which we haves done without for 100s of years?

You stupid fucking faggot, 2/10 for making me type this out.

>> No.7365980

Or they both like to read because they are both reading

>> No.7366030

>>7363669
Careful there. Your age is showing.

>> No.7366036

>>7365822
...wat?
Do you actually do this, or are you just trolling? Fuck it, if you're just trolling, let's see your full crafting on this. Who are you telling that your finished a book? Do they read, or not read? Do you read it so you can't be caught out by follow up questions on the content? How long have you been doing this, and is it for the same group of people? Is your impression other people do this from the people you brag to, and what about their behaviour makes you think they are doing the same thing?

It's practically some French satire if there's really a group of people who are all reading books just to impress the other people who also dislike reading books except for the assumed acclaim of having read it. Oh, another series of questions about their behaviour arises from this: do they value that you have read the book or that you have formed an opinion on it more? Do they question your opinion on it or present opposing ones? I guess that last question might be phrased as Is having read the book enough justification to any opinion for the group, or does whose opinion is "better" come into your discussions? Why do you have friends and is it just to brag?

>> No.7366062

>>7366036
What are you referring to when you write “French satire”?

>> No.7366138

>>7366062
A lot of them, but things like Bouvard et Pecuchet by Flaubert, or Les Precieuses-riducules by Moliere (or to a lesser extent his Les Femmes Savantes). I guess there are others beyond French satire, but the idea of being bowled over by having read a book alone seemed like the type of thing one should write in French or Greek :P for best effect.

>> No.7366183

>>7366036
When I wrote "to say that I've read the book" I didn't mean it literally. I've been a hiki neet for almost a decade now and I don't talk to people about reading books ever. What I meant was to just have the accomplishment of reading it. I like that feeling, probably because I have autism or something. I used to do the same thing with movies. I would watch 3-4 movies a day and just make a list of the ones I watched. Not even especially notable works. There were also meta-achievements like watching an entire filmography of someone for example.

>> No.7366197

>>7366183
Oh, like completing a collection. That makes way more sense than what I thought you meant.

>> No.7366201

>>7363669
Personally, I just cant trust myself to read very much on an internet capable device. Also the glow of the screen is fairly annoying at night as opposed to reading on paper with a table lamp. Also I like to read in the bath. Book has more friction but is also easier to replace than a tablet.

>> No.7366203

I just don't want to look like a phonefag.

>> No.7366208

>>7366203
Read on a desktop computer. It is underrated. You can actually keep good posture and don't have to hold the book.

>> No.7366216

>>7363763
/thread

>> No.7366234

>>7365787
tai lopez?

>> No.7366255

>>7366234
I said knowledge, not NALEDGE

>> No.7366266

>>7363948
>if

>> No.7366415

>>7366216
That's not even true though. People often buy books because they like the image and never get around to reading them. Have you seen statistics on what percentage of books bought actually get read? And having a 99% unread digital collection entails clicking download on a 3gb ebook torrent and waiting 10 minutes.

>> No.7366419

Here is the proof: I am not a fucking total loser-ass NEET, actually study in a nice uni and work half period, basically where I read the most is in the bus going to places. Also don't say tablet, can buy literally 100+ books in an old book store with the cost of a tablet.

>> No.7366423

>>7366419
Yes you are the type of person that likes the image of reading. A "loser-ass NEET" that reads probably has a higher appreciation for the actual text than the average hipster who goes to an old book store.

>> No.7366436
File: 40 KB, 600x399, 1438079199395.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7366436

So people who read both digital and paper enjoy reading and the image of it?
I'm okay with this

>> No.7366471

>>7366423
Ha yeah, right. I go to an old book store because I literally find the same books as in normal stores for 1/3 its price. Plus, even if I'm home I'd rather read a real book instead of in my PC. Plus I like to have nice collection.

>> No.7366494

>>7363669
The screen hurts my eyes after awhile

>> No.7366498

>>7366423
>>7366471
Also, I don't want the image of it, I always let it in my bag, unlike many other people around me that always carries their book in their hands/left them in everyone's sight.

>> No.7366511

>>7365523
But its a bullshit observation that nobody with any sense would agree with.

The fact you people keep responding to this obvious troll thread over and over again baffles me.

>> No.7366518

>>7366415
I've read greater than 99% of my books because who would pay that much money to not read them? You would need to have some mental disability to engage in that behavior tbqh.

I know a lot more people who have downloaded thousands of books they'll never read because it's free than I know people who bought hundreds of books to never read them. How are you hanging out with more compulsives who spend money than compulsive downloaders? Seeders blow your "not even true" out of the water.

>> No.7366520

>>7366518
>what are statistics

>> No.7366521

>>7366520
>what is libgen and how are we saving it

>> No.7366523

>>7366511
What does that have to do with my comment?

>> No.7366810

>>7363669
Prove yourself right first, idiot. Not everyone's mommy bought them nice things.

>> No.7366867

>>7363669
>People steal Ipads, not books.
>Books don't shatter when you drop them.
>this>>7366810

>> No.7367208

>>7366867
>this

but also yeah, books have a greater value, my godfather commited suicide when i was a kid and i got few of his books and they have a special value to me. So what you intend to pass to your children/grandsons when you get old? your tablet?

>> No.7367235

>>7367208
How does this not fit in to what the OP was saying though? The content of the book would stay the same whether it was a good or a digital copy. The book might have sentimental value and that's fine, but that has nothing to do with the actual literature.

>> No.7367240

>>7367235
i think he this'd >>7366867 because the point that came after "but also" was about the added benefits of sentimentality, not the sole benefit of sentimentality.

>> No.7367378

People who only read digitally don't perceive books as real things. Thus, they are generally more superfluous readers who don't dive into and dedicate themselves to a physical book but simply read a valueless, pirated epub like they're fucking a whore, leaving it and forgetting about it after they finish.

>> No.7367419

>>7366498
>aways carries their book in their hands

I do this sometimes when I don't carry a bag. Too much hassle to take one only in order to carry book. Also criminals are notorious for taking away your whole fucking bag when they mug you, I always carry notebook and book in hand when it's very late or streets too empty.

I know this is 4chan but thinking THEY ONLY WANT TO SHOW OFF whenever someone does something for which you can't quickly identify the reason is silly as fuck. It shows a great degree of projection too, if that's the first thing that comes to mind when you see it. Means you'd like to get those stares and that image too, but can't because you'd feel bad if you did.

>> No.7367593 [DELETED] 
File: 13 KB, 236x202, 1430408572754.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7367593

>reading epic poetry on a shitty little ereader

No thanks, pleb.

>> No.7367601
File: 13 KB, 236x202, 1430408572754.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7367601

>reading poetry on a shitty little e-reader

No thanks, pleb.

>> No.7367604

People who prefer physical books are fetishists.

>> No.7367606

People who prefer physical books care less about the content and more about feeling comfy.

>> No.7367610

>>7367604
see
>>7363892

As shit as this board is you are still too shit to even be here.

>> No.7367614

>>7363948
I am a girl, and I don't fuck a guy unless he has great books in his room

>> No.7367625

>>7367610
There is such a thing as trying to hard to keep up appearances.

It's often referred to as The Emperor's New Clothes.

That's how you appear to us.

>> No.7367630

>>7367610
Also, another example of you trying too hard, a preference does not exclude the other choice.

Your lack of comprehension makes your literary claims even more dubious than what was previously thought possible.

>> No.7367639 [DELETED] 

>>7366520

Can you link me to these statistics? I didn't know bibliomania was so prevalent.

>> No.7367644

A whole range of people of quality can be reading the same book, so the "facts" of what a person reads are not a good indicator of the person.

The binary person thinks so, however.

>> No.7367657

>>7367625

>It's often referred to as The Emperor's New Clothes.

What? How is that tale analogous to the very real and provable fact that there are vast amounts of literature that aren't available in ebook?

..You're underage, aren't you?

>> No.7367669

who cares dude the important thing is what it come inside

>> No.7367671

>>7367657
>>7367630

>> No.7367690

>>7367671

I knew I was dealing with an underage. You can tell by their posting because the thought behind it always seems slightly disparate and off by degrees.

Defend the use of your goofy little tale or stop posting: how is it analogous to the provable fact that some literature still isn't in ebook?

>> No.7367692

>>7367690

You mean desperate.

>> No.7367699

>>7367692

Just hide thread.

It's time.

>> No.7367702

>>7367690
You do meme very well.

My original post was about preference, not facts. I never argued your point, silly.

>> No.7367704

>>7367699
Did you win?

>> No.7367711

>prove me wrong
this is the easiest way to spot a shit thread. Everyone who responded is a retard.

>> No.7367714

>>7367711
You responded.

>> No.7367728

>>7367702

>My original post was about preference

It still doesn't fit. You're an underage who tried to sound highfalutin and had nothing when he got called out for it. Just learn and stop that.

>> No.7367740

>>7367728
I didn't get called out about my comment about preferences at all. It was never discussed.

>> No.7367750

>>7367740

At least some underage kids have decent bant game but these little pseudo ones are so fucking boring holy shit.

>> No.7367753

>>7367750
Be sure to file this under 'ad hominem'.

Congrats

>> No.7367759

>>7367753
insults != ad hominem

go back to reddit

>> No.7367764

>>7367753

I'm openly fucking mocking you, idiot.

Of course it is.

>> No.7367765

>>7367759
Whatever it was, this post got filtered for being too meme-heavy. So, I didn't see it.

>> No.7367767

>>7367764
It's frustrating when I won't play back, isn't it.

>> No.7367771 [DELETED] 

>>7367765

You can filter for amount of memes per post? Do you have it set by number or are they weighted?

>> No.7367772

>>7367771
The attempt at humor is appreciated.

>> No.7367779 [DELETED] 

>>7367772

I was actually serious. You said meme heavy. But I don't use the filters because they are indiscriminate.

>> No.7367782

>>7367779
Indiscriminate means the opposite of how you used it.

>> No.7367785

The people that actually read don't give a shit

>> No.7367786 [DELETED] 

>>7367782

Hate to be a doubles advocate but mistakes like that are a diamond dozen. Thanks tho.

>> No.7367787

>>7367767

It's not that you won't. It's that you can't.

You are getting so rekt that this is nearing prolapse territory so I think it's pretty much played out now.

>> No.7367790

>>7367785
This is an empirically true fact. I've surveyed them all.

>>7367786
Cute meme use.

>>7367787
>think

>> No.7367793 [DELETED] 

>>7367787

I don't know pal it's just you and the kid at this point.
>>7367790

Yes that was joke at the point. My original question was serious but I take it you can't set a threshold for memes in a post. A real shame.

>> No.7367795

>>7367793
Memes are great.

>> No.7368124

>ITT hipsters rationalizing their idiotic behavior

>> No.7368131

>>7363669
I love reading, and I read on paper because, yes, it's more aesthetic, and I have a fetish with books; i love being surrounded by them, I love libraries, I love the smell, and I love getting spanked with an ilustrated edition of the divine comedy.

>> No.7368155

>>7368131
Finally somebody admits it.

Thank you, kind sir/madame.

>> No.7368161

>>7363669
The feeling and smell of the paper and glue adds an extra sensory dimension to my reading that makes me feels more focused and receptive to what I'm reading. I can actually take in more information from a paperback than I can from a screen because there's more stimulation. This is why I hope books don't go extinct because it enhances the experience in such an irreplaceable way.

>> No.7369086

>>7368131
Yes this is the main reason, anyone who argues for convenience is just being an idiot. The only real argument is if the book isn't available digitally.

>> No.7369397
File: 344 KB, 838x678, 1315.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7369397

>>7367644
The vast majority of 4channers are largely incapable of any sort of nuance. It's basically what's "in" right now in order to make themselves feel more powerful, because it's just flat out easier to be an asshole whenever you can just claim that the other side of the fence is full of evil.

Personally, I have no issue with being an asshole with the knowledge that people are rather complicated. So it all comes down to cowardice than stupidity really.

>> No.7369459

>>7363763
Not true, a lot of people buy paperbacks and never read them. In my case it's almost an obsession. I buy books and I don't even read them, I stroke them. And I have a lot of books, some of them I have never read and that I will never read, but I buy them and every now and then I flip their pages. And I like having them nearby.

>> No.7369509

>>7365479
That's a footnote you fucking retard

>> No.7369560
File: 235 KB, 450x695, 1443825483117.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7369560

>>7363669
>falling for bait this hard

>> No.7369575

>>7369459
Your mental illness doesn't apply to the question, as it regards people who actually read in either format. It would be like saying people who use salt shakers are insane hoarders because of the crazy old cat lady who hoards salt shakers of all kinds to never use them is a hoarder. The category is physical book *readers* vs digital book *readers*, not those who just hoard either kind without reading.

Even if it were, those who hoard digital books without reading would have a greater number of books than you could probably afford.

As a side note, please give your books to someone who will love them for more than stroking. It hurts me to think of them going unloved like this.

>> No.7369824

>>7369575
The claim about 99% of paper books being read is complete nonsense. The majority of books that are purchased do not get read in either medium. Most books are purchased with the intention of reading them, sure, but never end up actually getting read. When I say majority I mean literally more than 50% of books that are bought.

The other claim is sort of irrelevant, quite a few people here probably have a 99% unread digital collection as well because the files are so small and people make batch torrents. It takes a couple minutes to obtain a 99.9% digital collection. Also everyone has access to Project Gutenberg so as long as you have an internet connection you have access to thousands of unread books. The only thing this point does it show that it's much easier to obtain books digitally.

>> No.7369838

>>7365374
I suppose he means home computers that you can't flap around like you would a e-book or a book.

>> No.7370928

>>7369824
>most books purchased
Oh right, you're talking about non-readers and that aunt who gives everyone books at Christmas. I'm still talking about those who read their own collections, who have a backlog of their own choosing.

Hopefully you're the guy I was responding to with >>7369575 because otherwise you're invested enough in showing digital book readers don't make their backlog impossible to read, when even those in the smallest ranges of backlogs, it would be abnormal for them to have less unread than those who buy physical books, that you'll actually ignore someone who does as >>7369459 with physical books can easily be seen as mentally ill but with digital books would be the average user.