# The Kindle: Not a Good Tool for Reading?



## crazyguy510 (Jan 21, 2010)

I found a paper written by a college professor who teaches at Grove City Pennsylvania. The paper he wrote was specifically on e-Readers and how they fall short as a good tool for reading. I know I'm talking to a biased group, but I thought you all might enjoy reading his complaints. I believe he gets a lot of things right, but I don't think its enough to convince me to completely move off the Amazon Kindle. However, I will consider continuing to buy more physical books rather than an electronic copy.

Here's the link to his page. Just scroll through and you'll see the Word Document marked "The Kindle."

http://www.tdgordon.net/media_ecology/


----------



## SusanCassidy (Nov 9, 2008)

Personally, I disagree with most of his conclusions.  I don't think most Kindle owners are non-readers, to start with.

Second, his example of Great Books of the Western World is a truly bad example of expensive ebooks, as most of them (if not all) are available free, as they are public domain books.

He never mentions the factors like being able to adjust the font, and the ease of carrying multiple books with you, which are big points, to me.

I rarely annotate books (I'm not reading material for class, just novels for pleasure), and the annotation feature of the Kindle is completely adequate for my needs.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I think it's a total bogus conclusion, based on his sample of people he knows, non of whom have Kindles.

Betsy


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I don't know what he's smoking but he writes: 

"Indeed, the first individual I personally knew to own one had not, prior to receiving the Kindle as a gift, read a book in three years.  The only people I know who own these devices are non-readers."  

The good professor needs to get out more.  He then goes on to say that people who read e-readers don't really read, they just scan info.  They're not the "literary types."  Or something.  I stopped reading his Word document; didn't even bother scanning the rest.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

Wow, I found that essay really unfounded. I would describe myself as his "literary type," and I NEVER write in books, and hate it when someone else has. One of the advantages of the Kindle to me, in fact, is that if I do want to mark something I can do it without defacing the book. The books he cites as being inexpensive to buy as a paper book -- Dover editions, and Barnes and Nobles reprints -- are public-domain classics, which are generally free or very inexpensive on Kindle. Furthermore, he's concerned about what kinds of books will be available to e-reader customers in the future -- will it all be junk marketed to nonreaders? But the ereader market is already rich in exactly the kinds of books his literary type is seeking, and will only become richer as Project Gutenberg and similar services get around to more and more obscure public-domain books. The supply of mid-century classics and foreign books in translation is admittedly poorer, but even those are becoming more available as publishers work out rights issues. Eudora Welty, Faulkner, Nabokov, Nancy Mitford, Rebecca West, and many more have been Kindleized in the last two years since I got my Kindle, although not always at prices I'm willing to pay.

I do think he's right about lending and trading books (although I'd hate to lend or trade with HIM, and get scribbled-up copies full of someone else's notes). However, I do/did most of my book-trading with my parents, and they recently bought a Kindle and registered it to my account. When they want a book they send it to my account as a gift, which is easy to do, and I send all my purchases to both machines. It works beautifully and we are back to sharing books. Wouldn't work with anyone you can't trust with access to your credit card, though!


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

He obviously has never met someone like me then.  I have been a huge lover of reading since I was in the 3rd grade; my parents tell me I use cost them $2000+ each year on books even while checking out multiple books from the library each week.  

Since owning a Kindle the amount of books I read has only gone up; when I finish a book I can immediately start up a new one rather than wait to go to the store or library. Unfortunately, the amount I spend each year on books has gone up as well


----------



## crazyguy510 (Jan 21, 2010)

All the people I know who own a Kindle tend to be very literate people. Nevertheless, I thought his main reason for bringing that up was because for many people, the Kindle will tends to be a niche product. The non-readers will buy a kindle, but it doesn't really help them appreciate books or literature. Eventually it becomes dusty piece of plastic on the shelf that didn't really "kindle" the desire to read, or give them an appreciation of books. Americans are drowning in information. We tend to begin taking these things for granted and don't really appreciate the full value that books have had on our society and the world.

The Kindle is a great tool, but I don't think it should ever replace physical books.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

crazyguy510 said:


> All the people I know who own a Kindle tend to be very literate people. Nevertheless, I thought his main reason for bringing that up was because for many people, the Kindle will tends to be a niche product. The non-readers will buy a kindle, but it doesn't really help them appreciate books or literature. Eventually it becomes dusty piece of plastic on the shelf that didn't really "kindle" the desire to read, or give them an appreciation of books. Americans are drowning in information. We tend to begin taking these things for granted and don't really appreciate the full value that books have had on our society and the world.
> 
> The Kindle is a great tool, but I don't think it should ever replace physical books.


I'm not convinced that people who don't read will buy/have bought a Kindle anymore than they've bought the collected works of William Shakespeare in a cheap paperback.


----------



## Stormy (May 24, 2010)

I've loved reading as long as I can remember. All the kindle did was help me to not break my back lugging around a ton of books.


----------



## NanD (May 4, 2011)

This looks to be a fairly old article since he says
"Most e readers cost approximately $300 or more.."


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I read the article, hunted down his e-mail address, looked up the college where he teaches...

Wrote the following email:

_I was recently directed to read your paper on ereaders "The Kindle". I find your conclusions both offensive and dismissive. Only non-readers own Kindles? Preposterous. Are you saying someone like me who reads HUNDREDS of books ANNUALLY on my Kindle is a non-reader? You sir, are small minded.

I have owned my Kindle for almost three years; ereaders are one of the best things to happen to reading. Books can be found at reasonable prices once again, adjustable fonts allow those who gave up reading because of failing eyesight to enjoy reading again, sharing books with family memebers in other states has become easy, and people living in remote areas without decent bookstores can find books to read, no matter what time it is day or night.

For those of us who really are readers, when we go on vacation we now have one physical item that weighs less than a pound in our bag instead of half a suitcase and 30 lbs of books. Ever avoided reading a book simply because of it's sheer weight? Afraid it will hurt your wrists? Many people have and do. Yet now with ereaders, they can read any e-book in comfort.

Like to borrow books from a library? If you are lucky enough to live in an area with a decent library (and many don't) have you ever wondered who read the book before you? What if it was someone sick and they sneezed on some of the pages?

I have nine family members all sharing my Kindle account, all enjoying books on their repective Kindles, and all reading between 100 and 300 books a year. Readers read. We adapt with the times. Books are fine, but they should be about what is written IN them, not the format you read them in. Otherwise, go back to reading scrolls.
_

then deleted the email without sending it.. he's just not worth it.


----------



## crazyguy510 (Jan 21, 2010)

It's probably about the K2 era. He does mention the Nook and the Sony reader.

On a side note I love physical books, but I the books I read for my Influential Books class tend to be in the public domain, so I would have to say it has made reading the older classics and ancient writings much more convenient. Old authors like Livy, Herodotus, and Edwards are easier to find on Google Books and inkmesh than in any typical brick and mortar bookstore.


----------



## Sherlock (Dec 17, 2008)

IMO -- Arrogant.  He needs to get over himself and reallize the high road he's on is the same one everybody else is using.  He acts as though reading words on paper is somehow more erudite and sacred, when they're the exact same words used on an e-reader screen.  What makes ink on paper more illuminating?

OK, rant over.  Just my 2 cents, but the guy's superior attitude really irritated me.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Oh, B....send it.
Now that you have inspired me, I will also do the lookup and send him  a piece of my mind.  He is not right in the head.  Bad research. Gives college professors a bad name.


----------



## crazyguy510 (Jan 21, 2010)

BTackitt said:


> I read the article, hunted down his e-mail address, looked up the college where he teaches...
> 
> Wrote the following email:
> 
> ...


I don't think he would have read that email. Did you see his paper on Email etiquette? 

All jokes aside, I wouldn't take his paper as a personal insult. He's merely stating that in his experience all the Kindle owners that he personally knows were not avid readers before they owned a Kindle. He's probably correct in some cases and wrong in others. I think he may be correct in saying that the Kindle does not foster an appreciation of books as much as a physical copy that took longer than sixty seconds to acquire.

If you read his summary, that says


> An abbreviated discussion of some of the liabilities of e readers, and how/why (for business reasons) the true potential of this technology has not been realized and probably will not be realized.


 It sounds like he's not totally against the kindle, he just believes it's not perfect.

Edit: I don't know when the paper was written but since it seems that it was probably written a couple years ago, I wouldn't be too hard on the guy. So what if he doesn't like the Kindle? Just because he hates the Kindle doesn't mean he's off his rocker. He just has an opinion and decided it was important enough to share it. Just respect his opinion and please don't send hateful mail. I don't really want to be responsible for flooding his inbox with angry Kindle owners.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

This is an incredible example of a college teaching employee.
This person knows people who would buy a Kindle but who have not read a book of any kind for three years.....wow.
And he is living under a rock if he can say that the potential of this technology probably will not be realized.  What planet is he on?

Just sayin.......


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Seriously, folks, let's not form a lynch mob.  Shrug and move past it.  Vent here if you must, but otherwise, a passel of angry emails from Kindle owners isn't really likely to accomplish anything.  (If anything, I think a simple list of your Kindle "have read" list would suffice to make the point.)

Betsy


----------



## NightGoat (Feb 2, 2011)

I'm a Kindle owner and I don't read, I lick the pages. The Kindle tastes better than paper but not as good as a window.


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

This is an older study.  But I also have to generalize because he is from Grove City College.  It is a small liberal arts school in a very rural area.  There is not a Best Buy or Target within 45 minutes or an hour.  So just because of the geography, I think it would be unlikely to have lots of ereaders in the area.  My family lives in the area and almost no one in the area has broadband.  Just doesn't seem like it is a reasonable selection.


----------



## tnt (Aug 17, 2010)

I'm kind of baffled by the article... on one hand, it's not really reading if you don't write all over the book, while on the other hand, it's not really reading if you don't lend the book four or five times.  I don't think I'd really want a book that four people have noted, underlined, squiggled and whatever else one does.  I'd really rather not even be the second reader.

Even in college when I did underline, it was always on the second pass.  Microreading the first time around usually led to huge amounts of de-underlining, when, "...now the reader can fully appreciate why most modern scientists reject the ideas stated in the first section of this essay."

As others have stated, the idea of classics costing too much is a non-starter in today's digital world.

PS:  I'm writing in the forums after a long way away.  Can you tell I'm catching the (Kindle) fire?


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

I didn't get past the first paragraph. Just a bunch of snobbery. E-readers are not for everyone and that's okay but when you make universal statements as though they are facts when really, they are just based on your own personal feelings and experiences, you tend to forget that there is a big world outside your own and that's rather sad. If the guy was just outlining the drawbacks to ereaders, fair enough. But this is just plain snobbery based on personal observation, not research or statistics or anything concrete:



> One semi-curious thing I have observed is that, despite the enormous commercial success of the Kindle, not one of my acquaintances who love reading has purchased one. Indeed, the first individual I personally knew to own one had not, prior to receiving the Kindle as a gift, read a book in three years. The only people I know who own these devices are non-readers. These non-readers are not entire non-readers, but people who read in a mercenary fashion, to find information or solve some problem. Non-readers seem to love the Kindle, and Nicholas Carr's commment about the iPad is similarly true for the Kindle: "Jobs is no dummy. As a text delivery system, the iPad is perfectly suited to readers who don't read anymore."


Furthermore, tablets aren't dedicated ereaders and therefore aren't really comparable in this context.


----------



## Clydelyng (Nov 7, 2011)

Im abit confused. Personally I have allways read books. But the Kindle allows me to carry lots of books in one simple device. 
Also the build in dictionary helps me read english books. I am a Danish man and thus english is not my native language. 

However, what confuses me is that he says that alot of Kindle readers did not read books before. How can it be a bad thing that the Kindle has helped people to start reading more? 
I believe that getting more people to read is far more important and constructive then debating wether a screen is not as good as a piece of paper....


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I think he's arguing that the people who weren't reading before who have gotten Kindles aren't going to be really reading now, either -- just skimming for information in self-help and reference books.


----------



## RDaneel54 (Sep 10, 2010)

The current Kindle experience is much better than when he wrote this: 

1. We can share highlights with a large group of people, including the author of the book.  
2. We can lend to others.  
3. We can borrow books from libraries.  
4. We have access to 100s of thousands more books.
5. The Kindle, and other ereaders, are substantially cheaper.

What actual Kindle users experience in the wide world today is totally different from the experience of this professor in his world of the past.

I think that sums up my thoughts.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

RDaneel54 said:


> The current Kindle experience is much better than when he wrote this:
> 
> 1. We can share highlights with a large group of people, including the author of the book.
> 2. We can lend to others.
> ...


I don't know RDaneel...I don't think the experience (from my point of view) is that much different. I don't use any of those features as much as I simply read books I've bought. Which I've been able to do since I bought my Kindle 1.

I can't imagine 1&2 would cause people to actually read more...and I would think the fact that the Kindle was more expensive when he wrote his article would indicate people who really wanted to read were buying the Kindle; the fact that it's cheaper now I think would result in more nonreaders trying out the device. 3 & 4 might cause people to use it more for reading, but I don't think they would actually cause people to become readers.

Betsy


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

crazyguy510 said:


> I think he may be correct in saying that the Kindle does not foster an appreciation of books as much as a physical copy that took longer than sixty seconds to acquire.


I am baffled by this statement.


----------



## RDaneel54 (Sep 10, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I don't know RDaneel...I don't think the experience (from my point of view) is that much different. I don't use any of those features as much as I simply read books I've bought. Which I've been able to do since I bought my Kindle 1.
> 
> I can't imagine 1&2 would cause people to actually read more...and I would think the fact that the Kindle was more expensive when he wrote his article would indicate people who really wanted to read were buying the Kindle; the fact that it's cheaper now I think would result in more nonreaders trying out the device. 3 & 4 might cause people to use it more for reading, but I don't think they would actually cause people to become readers.
> 
> Betsy


Good points.

He does base his argument, partially admittedly, on making notes, price of the Kindle and lending books. All of what he identifies as part of his reading experience.

I'm with you that the Kindle has been and is a great device for reading.


----------



## PhillyGuy (Dec 18, 2010)

BTackitt said:


> then deleted the email without sending it.. he's just not worth it.


Aside from any questions of civility, good move.

While I'm open to the general idea that society is going to hell in a handbasket, this particular effort to prove it is unusually weak. The entire last third of the article is based on lack of knowledge of the existence of Project Gutenberg. While this is an understandable error, he surely now knows that the older eBooks are free, and yet saw no reason to go back into his web site and correct himself.



history_lover said:


> I didn't get past the first paragraph.


The question then becomes, did you read that paragraph on the Kindle?

If there was a way to turn this into a poll, here would be my questions: Did you read the whole article? And did you read it on a Kindle? I'm betting that the people like myself, who read it on a Kindle, were more likely to read it all. Although I could be wrong. It's happenned.


----------



## crazyguy510 (Jan 21, 2010)

sherylb said:


> I am baffled by this statement.


If it was grammatically confusing I apologize. So let me try again.

People who lived before the printing press definitely had a harder time acquiring book The amount of books in the world were fewer, so the price of a single book would be much great (a years wages?). Even if they could get a book, from what I've been taught many were not able to read. If you fast forward to the twenty-first century, we have a wealth of books sold a ridiculously low prices. On top of that, most everyone is able to read or has the ability to learn if they desired.

So I'll ask a rhetorical question. Who values a book more? The one who spent a years wages, or the one who spent five minutes choosing a title from store that gives access to over one million books?

I don't mean to insult anyone by saying because you own a kindle, you don't really care about books. I'm just saying that if you've always had easy access to books, then there may be a tendency to value that book less than its really worth.



> If there was a way to turn this into a poll, here would be my questions: Did you read the whole article? And did you read it on a Kindle? I'm betting that the people like myself, who read it on a Kindle, were more likely to read it all. Although I could be wrong. It's happenned.


I know I am. I usually "instapaper" most of the articles that require heavy concentration and thought. I get more out them that way.


----------



## Rainha (Sep 20, 2010)

crazyguy510 said:


> I'm just saying that if you've always had easy access to books, then there may be a tendency to value that book less than its really worth.


It's possible that it works that way for some people, but I think it would be the exact opposite for most avid readers. How can you truly learn to appreciate something you've barely experienced? By living every day with easy access to my books, I think I've come to value them more. I have a deeper appreciation a friend that I see regularly than I do for a random person who occasionally waits at the same bus stop, because I've had the opportunity to see, on a continuous basis, the benefit that a good friend can bring to my life. It's the same with my books. Constant exposure makes the heart grow fonder


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

crazyguy510 said:


> So I'll ask a rhetorical question. Who values a book more? The one who spent a years wages, or the one who spent five minutes choosing a title from store that gives access to over one million books?
> 
> I don't mean to insult anyone by saying because you own a kindle, you don't really care about books. I'm just saying that if you've always had easy access to books, then there may be a tendency to value that book less than its really worth.


The physical book is just a means to convey the story. You are putting "books" on a pedestal where they don't belong. Just because a book may have cost a years wages, does not mean the story is good or the person who spent that money ever even read the book and/or enjoyed it. The emphasis should be on the story being told not how it was read.


----------



## crazyguy510 (Jan 21, 2010)

sherylb said:


> The physical book is just a means to convey the story. You are putting "books" on a pedestal where they don't belong. Just because a book may have cost a years wages, does not mean the story is good or the person who spent that money ever even read the book and/or enjoyed it. The emphasis should be on the story being told not how it was read.


Maybe I am. I can't help but have that nostalgic attitude when it comes to physical books. I love my kindle, but I love physical books as well. I can't argue with your last sentence. The whole point of a book is that we learn from it and gain some new insight into life. Who knows what we'll be reading with in the next twenty years. In the long run it doesn't matter, as long as we keep reading and appreciate what we're reading.


----------



## shalym (Sep 1, 2010)

crazyguy510 said:


> The whole point of a book is that we learn from it and gain some new insight into life.


Not for me...some books I do learn from, and some books give me new insights into life. Most books, though, I read for sheer pleasure, and for escape. When I was a child, books were a way for me to get away from a loud, crowded, tiny little house--I used to go climb a tree with a book and an apple and hide for hours. I'm not saying that I haven't learned a lot through the years from reading, but I mostly haven't set out to learn anything...and generally authors who are trying to teach a lesson are not authors I read. I read for pleasure. I do read for work, and for educational purposes, but I don't consider that "reading" I consider that "research"


> Who knows what we'll be reading with in the next twenty years. In the long run it doesn't matter, as long as we keep reading and appreciate what we're reading.


YES!

Shari


----------



## Joe Chiappetta (May 20, 2010)

Another article by someone who doesn't get it.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Came across to me as a bunch of pseudo-academic claptrap. FWIW. I wouldn't even consider bothering to respond to him.


----------



## metal134 (Sep 2, 2010)

I think I would answer his snobbery with some of my own.  This dude is obsessed with the absolute necessesity of annotating.  Well, I never have and never will annotate.  I don't need to. I'm good enough to comprehend and remember without the need to write crap down.  And I'm not talking about easy pulp, like Stephen King or Stephanie Meyer.  I mean heavy literary stuff like Nietzche, Kafka, Pynchon, Joyce, etc. etc.


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

The articled seems dated.  If it's as old as I think it is (K2), the reality is that at that time most people would have known maybe one person (if any) who owned an e-reader.  They were pricy ($300+) and a new tech.  When I got my K2 I was the only person in my hospital who owned ANY ereader.  Now a few of us own them, but I'm still known as the Kindle girl to hunt down if you are considering buying one.  So I have a feeling his "real readers don't buy e-readers" were also "college employees who are hesitant to buy because of cost/unfamiliar with the tech."  

I'd love to see him write a follow-up piece and see if he eats any crow.

P.S. I would have killed anyone who wrote in my books.  I wrapped my dust-jackets in mylar covers and took off the dust-jackets and put the book in a protective case when reading.  I had a friend put a book I lent him face-down on the table and I refused to lend him any more books.


----------



## EvaCole (Nov 7, 2011)

So long as he didn't make this required reading for any of his English 101 courses, I'm fine with him being as wrong as he wants.

Don't take it too personally, though.  He's against library books, too.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

My take on this article is that it is, as Douglas Adams put it, a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. He should know better that to base things off what his friends do. That is an exceedingly poor sample. People's friends tend to be rather like themselves, and thus aren't a representative sample. It's like saying "All my friends drink Bud Light, therefore, few people must drink Miller Lite." He happens to be among a circle of friends who are not Kindle users.

His claim that the Kindle users that he knows are not readers is peculiar, and looks like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. He claims that they are non-readers because they only use the Kindle to scan for technical information, which is dubious at best, I don't think the Kindle is primarily used for scanning of technical manuals. If devices are perfect for readers who don't read anymore, then he misunderstands it. This gets them back into reading.

He says "_Lewis's literary type of individual does not really care whether his device can hold a thousand books, because his literary type, as I myself, only reads one book at a time."_ Nonsense. A Kindle is my bookshelf. By his reasoning, his mythical "literary type" would have only one book on his bookshelf at a time. No evidence is presented that Kindle users merely scan for technical data.

He puts in a lot of quotes that mean little, only gushing about how certain people are "real readers". The bit about not being a real reader unless you write in the book is nonsense. I highlight far more on the Kindle then I ever did with paper books, because with paper books, I didn't want to deface them. I highlighted paper books that I used for school, but not books that I read for pleasure. Which seems the opposite of his claim, I highlighted the books that I read for the extraction of information, but not those I read for pleasure!

As was noted, he had a good point with the price of the Kindle a couple years ago, but utterly missed the boat on free e-books. I'm not so charitable to think that he was simply ignorant of this fact, it seems more that he chose not to see information which ran counter to his premise.

_"The e reader, as every new technology, will be hailed by many as the clichéd "wave of the future" (why must the future always ride a wave?); but real readers know otherwise." _The phrase "real readers know otherwise" is a very old trick, flattering the reader. The person reading the paper will doubtless want to be in the camp of "real readers", and this have an inclination to agree. It is like saying "Real men prefer Beer X".

It is interesting that he doesn't say it IS hailed as the wave of the future, he says it will be. Thus he sets up a straw man to knock it down, by calling it clichéd. Of course whether that phrase is clichéd or not has nothing to do with whether e-readers will be how we read in the future.

_"The only advantage the e book has to traditional books is that one could put many books in one device. But this is only an asset for those individuals who perceive books merely as information storage devices."_ Utter nonsense. It is an advantage, but far from the only one. The e-reader is lighter, and the font can be changed to suit the reader's needs. But even of the number of books was the only advantage, it is nonsense to say that this is only of interest to people who use books as mere reference books. With a e-reader, thousands of books are available at a moment's notice. It is no different than a bookshelf. That bookshelf can hold reference materials, or it can have the great classics. So can the Kindle.

_"And, of course, this is part of the problem with all of the e readers: the consumer has utterly no way of knowing which books, in the future, will become available. Others (presumably businessmen) will make the decision; and their decision will likely be influenced by anticipated sales. Popularity will drive the market, and I anticipate that the books available on the e readers will be precisely the books that Lewis's literary type has little interest in reading." _Ah, now we come to it! He's not really claiming that Kindle users are only reading for technical reference, that was a mere smokescreen. He's really claiming that Kindle users won't read "literature" (but really, anything with words is literature), but that the unwashed masses with their Kindles will be reading the popular books that he turns his nose up at. He gets readers to agree with him by dividing up people into real readers and non-readers, in other words those who read for pleasure, and those who read for technical data, but then he takes people down the primrose path, and divides the readers instead into those who read the "right" books for pleasure, and those who read the "wrong" books for pleasure. But even if we were to buy into this snobbery, he fails to notice that these evil popular books dominate the paper book market and always have.

_"At the end of the day, then, I suspect Kindle will have nothing but a commercial effect; somebody is going to make a significant amount of profit. But those who now merely read informationally will still do the same, only at greater over-all expense; the Kindle will be an expensive luxury for them. Those who read for enlargement, on the other hand, will continue to read as they do now; slowly and attentively, pencil in hand, one loan-able book at a time."_ I note he uses the phrase "at the end of the day". He derides the use of a cliche earlier in the paper, but then turns around and uses one himself. But both e-books and paper books are commercial efforts. Of course, even at $300, you can easily recoup that cost with free e-books. People who read for pleasure might read slowly and attentively, or they might devour the book, whether it is on paper or on an e-reader. People will read, as they always have, however they _feel_ like reading, whether on paper or on an e-reader.


----------



## Larry45 (Feb 7, 2011)

Wow...I can't believe that article created so much discussion!  It's a total bunch of hooey to me, but then I'm not one of those readers that reads a book "to learn from it and gain some new insight into life."  I don't read to learn anything; I had enough of that in high school, college and 30 years of work.  These days I read strictly for entertainment - I read mystery and suspense novels, and the Kindle makes that so much easier than lugging around hard covers and paperbacks.

Even if I was the scholarly type that reads to gain knowledge, I can't imagine why the Kindle would not be a good reading tool.  To me the Kindle is a great way to read, regardless of your interests or the content of your books.  I don't know what planet that professor is from, but it's sure not the same one I live on...


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

LaraAmber said:


> The articled seems dated. If it's as old as I think it is (K2), the reality is that at that time most people would have known maybe one person (if any) who owned an e-reader. They were pricy ($300+) and a new tech. When I got my K2 I was the only person in my hospital who owned ANY ereader. Now a few of us own them, but I'm still known as the Kindle girl to hunt down if you are considering buying one. So I have a feeling his "real readers don't buy e-readers" were also "college employees who are hesitant to buy because of cost/unfamiliar with the tech."
> 
> I'd love to see him write a follow-up piece and see if he eats any crow.
> 
> P.S. I would have killed anyone who wrote in my books. I wrapped my dust-jackets in mylar covers and took off the dust-jackets and put the book in a protective case when reading. I had a friend put a book I lent him face-down on the table and I refused to lend him any more books.


Even if the article is dated (which I think it is somewhat) what kind of person would spend $300+ for an e-reader if they don't read in the first place?

The non-readers I know have absolutely no interest in spending money on a gadget that they would have no use for and they think I'm absolutely nuts to have spend $260 on mine.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

> It's a total bunch of hooey to me, but then I'm not one of those readers that reads a book "to learn from it and gain some new insight into life."


I read fiction and non-fiction. I learn and gain insight from both. The author of the article is disdainful of people who read non-fiction, because they only learn from it, which is peculiar, given that the author claims that we should learn and gain insight from book. The author seems to reflect an attitude that certain works are sent from the mountain by the wise masters to us peasants so that we can be dragged out of our squalor. This is usually said by someone who has written one of these books. And the fact that nobody reads them only proves how full of wisdom they are.



> Even if the article is dated (which I think it is somewhat) what kind of person would spend $300+ for an e-reader if they don't read in the first place?


That's one of the big things that sinks the paper. People who buy e-readers tend not only to be readers, but be voracious readers. That was especially true when they were $300. I'll defend paper books at times, and there are a couple good points, such as the fact that being able to give away books is a plus on the paper book side, but he recognizes no advantages to e-readers at all, and the paper is just plain ridiculous.


----------



## Shetlander (Mar 10, 2009)

crazyguy510 said:


> I don't mean to insult anyone by saying because you own a kindle, you don't really care about books. I'm just saying that if you've always had easy access to books, then there may be a tendency to value that book less than its really worth.


First, those ARE books on my Kindle, just in a different format. 

Second, I have loved and valued books since before I could read. I can remember looking at my parents and older brothers reading and wishing I knew how. Before I gained that much desired skill, I unintentionally stole a library book after Story Hour, informed my surprised mother I had "taken it out," learned I had in fact stolen the book, returned to the scene of the crime and subsequently was issued my first library card. I now love and value books on my Kindle and almost exclusively read eBooks. I read for pleasure, not looking to learn much, just enjoying the entertainment books provide me every day. Reading is my favorite "hobby" and has been greatly enhanced by the Kindle since its release 4 years ago.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I agree, easy access to books makes people more inclined to love books. Who is more likely to love sailing, someone who lived on the coast, or someone who lives in the middle of the desert. When I grew up, there were books all over the house. I could read any time I wanted, and did. Some people's houses are deserts, without books. This doesn't make them eager readers, who appreciate books because they didn't have them, it tends to make them non-readers.


----------



## PhillyGuy (Dec 18, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> When I grew up, there were books all over the house.


Statistically, you may be right.

The books around our house were classics that my parents wanted me to read. Forget that. I instead wanted to pick out my own choices at the public library.

About forty years later I did realize that my Dad was right about Dickens being good. And that my mother was similarly right about the Judy Garland Show.

The one thing that could perhaps change the OP author's mind about the current Kindle is the Fire. When he sees how instantly a child can switch over from reading text to viewing comic books and TV shows, he'll look back on eInk as a brief golden age.


----------



## Mollyb52 (Jan 4, 2009)

Poppycock!! ( I love that word and never get to use it...this time it is perfect)  I learned to read before I started school at 5.  I have been a voracious reader all my life...anything and everything.  I love to read on my Kindle. I love the idea that I carry around hundreds of books with me so I will never be without a new book. He just doesn't get it.  And I smell some fear in his words...weird issues with technology??


----------



## 2.5 (May 16, 2010)

Mollyb52 said:


> Poppycock!! ( I love that word and never get to use it...this time it is perfect) I learned to read before I started school at 5. I have been a voracious reader all my life...anything and everything. I love to read on my Kindle. I love the idea that I carry around hundreds of books with me so I will never be without a new book. He just doesn't get it. And I smell some fear in his words...weird issues with technology??


Poppycock indeed.

What's wrong with education today? Poppycock teachers like this T. David Gordon.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Only thing I agree with is that all e-ink devices currently suck for any documents you need to highlight, jot notes, flip through quickly for referencing while studying, teaching, writing something where you're citing that book/article etc.  IMHO anyway, I realize some like the Kindle's annotation features etc.

For me paper is always king on that front as it's just quicker and easier to do that stuff with paper than any type of gadget.  Tablets come second for me as it's easier to highlight, jot notes with a stylus (not sure if any e-book apps allow that, but can do it with PDFs in Goodreader and other apps) and the LCD screens are much quicker for flipping through documents.

But for simple leisure reading, e-ink e-readers are great.  I just don't like them at all for any work reading where I need to mark things up, flip through books/documents quickly etc.  They're meant for one page forward at a time reading, and excel at that.  Any other type of reading I stick with paper and/or my iPad 2.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

PhillyGuy said:


> Statistically, you may be right.
> 
> The books around our house were classics that my parents wanted me to read. Forget that. I instead wanted to pick out my own choices at the public library.
> 
> ...


One of the biggest influences in people being readers are parents who are readers. Not just having books around the house, not just parents who want you to read, but parents who read. Kids are sharp, they pick things up quickly. If you think that reading is creamed spinach, something distasteful that you do that is supposed to be good for you, kids pick that up. They learn that reading isn't something you enjoy. But if parents enjoy reading, kids pick that up too.

I don't think that the Fire would persuade him. He'd likely be _more_ appalled by the Fire, the kids reading comics and watching TV shows would appall him. After all, he sneers at people reading "popular fiction".


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

crazyguy510 said:


> I found a paper written by a college professor who teaches at Grove City Pennsylvania. The paper he wrote was specifically on e-Readers and how they fall short as a good tool for reading. I know I'm talking to a biased group, but I thought you all might enjoy reading his complaints. I believe he gets a lot of things right, but I don't think its enough to convince me to completely move off the Amazon Kindle. However, I will consider continuing to buy more physical books rather than an electronic copy.
> 
> Here's the link to his page. Just scroll through and you'll see the Word Document marked "The Kindle."
> 
> http://www.tdgordon.net/media_ecology/


I find his methodology very suspect, especially for a professor. He's basing his opinion of who buys a Kindle, readers vs. non-readers (those who only read when they have to to gain information) solely on the people he knows who own ereaders. Based on that methodology, I'd come to the exact opposite conclusion because everyone I know who loves to read, has an ereader and most were early adopters. I have a large family (I'm one of eight children). In my family, five of us, and my father, have always been avid readers. We all have at least one ereader. The three who aren't avid readers, and my mother (casual reader), do not have ereaders.

Of course, we both gave only anecdotal evidence, however, I would think my conclusion is closer to the truth than the professor's is simply because ebooks outsell dtb. Someone is buying them, and they must need a way to read them.


----------



## Rainha (Sep 20, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Only thing I agree with is that all e-ink devices currently suck for any documents you need to highlight, jot notes, flip through quickly for referencing while studying, teaching, writing something where you're citing that book/article etc. IMHO anyway, I realize some like the Kindle's annotation features etc.
> 
> For me paper is always king on that front as it's just quicker and easier to do that stuff with paper than any type of gadget. Tablets come second for me as it's easier to highlight, jot notes with a stylus (not sure if any e-book apps allow that, but can do it with PDFs in Goodreader and other apps) and the LCD screens are much quicker for flipping through documents.
> 
> But for simple leisure reading, e-ink e-readers are great. I just don't like them at all for any work reading where I need to mark things up, flip through books/documents quickly etc. They're meant for one page forward at a time reading, and excel at that. Any other type of reading I stick with paper and/or my iPad 2.


I'm the exact opposite when it comes to note taking. I HATE writing in books. I just can't do it. After years of being told it was practically akin to murder to write in a textbook, I can't pick up the habit. I had one professor who insisted we annotate because the bookstore wouldn't buy the books back anyway. She checked. I think I highlighted random sentences after I'd done my reading. I planned a vacation recently, though, and downloaded an ebook guide to Vegas, and it was wonderful being able to highlight all the restaurants and sites we wanted to see, and look at them in one list later, and just click to the appropriate page. If I wanted to do that with a real book, I'd have 100 post-it notes stuck in it, which would all fall out when I shoved it into my suitcase anyway  I think it all comes down to what kind of reader you are.

I do agree that it's much easier to flip through a DTB to find a specific passage, unless there's some distinctive phrase that you can search for.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah I don't care at all about marking up books personally. 

Another limitation of the kindle/eink is that I'm mainly reading scholarly journal articles and many of those are just too big for the kindle's screen and have tons of tables, figures, equationsnetc that can't be reflowed. 

Ahe DX would solve the screen size problem, but still has the clunky (IMO) annotation system and slow page turns making it harder to flip through to look something up when writing my own articles etc. 

SomI either read them in Goodreader on my ipadmwhich has a great set of annotation features, or just print them out if it's something like a letter sized document with 2 or 3 columns of text as those are still a bit big for the iPad's screen unless you're willing to read half page at a time in landscape (which stinks for big tables).


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Rainha said:


> I'm the exact opposite when it comes to note taking. I HATE writing in books. I just can't do it. After years of being told it was practically akin to murder to write in a textbook, I can't pick up the habit. I had one professor who insisted we annotate because the bookstore wouldn't buy the books back anyway. She checked. I think I highlighted random sentences after I'd done my reading. I planned a vacation recently, though, and downloaded an ebook guide to Vegas, and it was wonderful being able to highlight all the restaurants and sites we wanted to see, and look at them in one list later, and just click to the appropriate page. If I wanted to do that with a real book, I'd have 100 post-it notes stuck in it, which would all fall out when I shoved it into my suitcase anyway  I think it all comes down to what kind of reader you are.
> 
> I do agree that it's much easier to flip through a DTB to find a specific passage, unless there's some distinctive phrase that you can search for.


I'm the same way! It feels wrong to write in a book so I love to be able to highlight and make notes in my Kindle without feeling like I'm ruining the book. I've also had good success with searching for words or phrases to find a passage I did not highlight or bookmark to begin with.

Also, you may not be able to return textbooks but you CAN resell them and I imagine unmarked used books sell better than marked ones.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm always surprised so many on an e-book site are so against writing in books.

I'd have thought that people who treasured paper books so much would mostly be the type that frown on e-books as they prefer the feel, smell etc. of paper books! 

That said, I don't like to mark up any books I buy to read for personal use (fiction or non-fiction).  Couldn't care less about textbooks, research monograms, scholarly journals (for the couple I get print versions of rather than download the PDFs) etc. as those are just information for work/teaching rather than books I want to collect etc.

So maybe that's part of the difference since I'm not talking about marking up novels etc.

That aside, I do like marking up e-books/pdfs, I just don't think the Kindle or other e-ink devices have very good annotation systems.  I much prefer my ipad where i can just touch and drag to highlight, can write on the documents with a stylus, or use the on screen keyboard to type longer notes.  Add in needing to flip through documents quickly to look at my notes etc. later when writing or teaching, and tablets are just far superior to e-ink devices for my type of work related reading and annotating and referencing IMO.


----------



## Rainha (Sep 20, 2010)

history_lover said:


> I'm the same way! It feels wrong to write in a book so I love to be able to highlight and make notes in my Kindle without feeling like I'm ruining the book. I've also had good success with searching for words or phrases to find a passage I did not highlight or bookmark to begin with.
> 
> Also, you may not be able to return textbooks but you CAN resell them and I imagine unmarked used books sell better than marked ones.


In this case, she had a good point. There was a new edition being published, so the bookstore really wouldn't buy them back. I might have put up a fight, but I'm much too lazy to go sell textbooks on Ebay or Amazon.


----------



## Stormy (May 24, 2010)

history_lover said:


> I'm the same way! It feels wrong to write in a book so I love to be able to highlight and make notes in my Kindle without feeling like I'm ruining the book. I've also had good success with searching for words or phrases to find a passage I did not highlight or bookmark to begin with.
> 
> Also, you may not be able to return textbooks but you CAN resell them and I imagine unmarked used books sell better than marked ones.


actually most people I know prefer the ones already marked because less work they have to do.


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

mooshie78 said:


> I'm always surprised so many on an e-book site are so against writing in books.
> 
> I'd have thought that people who treasured paper books so much would mostly be the type that frown on e-books as they prefer the feel, smell etc. of paper books!


I think it's how you approach books. In my parent's house there are books that belonged to my great-great-grandfather. We are talking early editions of Mark Twain. Because my family didn't get rid of books, I got to read children/young adult books that were printed in the 1950s and 1960s that are no longer around (Mike Mars for instance, which was about going into space before we actually did it). So marking up a book, ruining the dustjacket, folding down pages, breaking the spine all those are verboten. It ruins the book for a reread or the next person in the family who might read it.

Now with ebooks, the worry of damage is gone. In theory with ebooks it is now impossible for a book to go "out of print" as long as it exists on a server or ereader somewhere. I can read at the kitchen table and not worry that I might damage a real book and shorten it's life.

Concerning marking for studying: I was taught to never mark in textbooks because it doesn't actually help. You're fooling your brain that "you will come back and learn this later." What I was taught instead is to sit down with a notebook and attempt to recreate the outline the author(s) used when writing the text. Not only is your brain actively engaged (and repeating the information several times as you write) but then you have a handy study guide for last minute review.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I had some of that too, as well as reading library books.

One can value and protect certain books while still using others as tools for school and work and not mind marking those up. 

Textbooks, research monograms, journal articles etc. aren't things to be collected and treasured.  They're just printed information and they're much more valuable to me if I can highlight and jot notes so in the future I can just glance through those when referencing them in my own articles or class lectures as I don't have time to be re-reading things.


----------



## crazyguy510 (Jan 21, 2010)

That is a plus too. I have the DX but I've never used it to read an actual textbook. Since you can't turn around and resell it or purchase a used copy of an ebook, I found that I couldn't bring myself to buy a textbook  on the kindle. Just didn't get as much out of it.


----------



## Snorkledorf (Oct 18, 2009)

I know it's ranty, but I wrote it before noticing there were 3 pages of comments already... Now that I've read them, many of my points have already been made. But hey, let's post!

It seems he's fallen prey to something that happens as often in the offline world as to the online: if "all my friends and I" agree on something, then a naïve jump is made to the position that "basically everybody" agrees with them. He and his friends (professorial, "literary types") don't like ebook readers, therefore nobody really likes them, therefore they're just a fad. He needs to broaden his off-campus social network.

He makes a second mistake when he uncritically assumes that the current state of the technology is the way things will always remain, and concludes that ebooks will never satisfy the higher strata of readers (e.g. the author and his friends) and so are ultimately doomed. The fact that technology keeps advancing shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone in this world. (And the fact that his website consists of .doc files to "conveniently" download strongly implies that he's not too comfortable using technology in the first place [or has some reason for making his readers jump through this sort of odd hoop].)

His points about lending books, and for me more importantly, annotating them, are quite true. Until the Kindle became my main reading machine, I used to mark my books up liberally. Those minority of books that I now read as PDFs on my iPad, I still mark up with iAnnotate PDF or PDF Expert. The Kindle's markup capabilities are primitive enough that I generally just don't bother: maybe some underlining, but rarely typed notes. That's the place where I feel his pain most keenly. (He doesn't mention my other big issue, that quick navigation within a book is far more clumsy than with paper)

But his jump from "Well, this is kind of inconvenient" to "The medium is forever doomed" is just completely unsound.


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

I didn't bother reading it based on some of your comments.  I'd get too pissed off.  LOL...

I'll just say that since I've owned a Kindle and iPad and now the Kindle Fire, later today the Kindle Touch, I've read so many more books that I have ever read in my 33 years of being on this earth.  I've also had the privilege of reading some of the great indie books that we find on here from the greatest nicest authors ever.  I may have never read these books were it not for the kindle.  

I will defend the Kindle and eReaders in general till my dying breath.


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

I'll also add that I get my school text books on my iPad.  I'd much rather highlight and annotate in digital form.


----------



## dbeman (Feb 23, 2011)

I think the only true conclusion in his paper is that there are different types of readers; however I disagree with his conclusion that you can differentiate between said types by the delivery method of their reading material.

My wife and I couldn't be more different in our reading styles. She follows more of a "speed reading" approach whereas I am one who immerses myself deeply into the story, painting a picture in my brain of the setting and the people who call that place home. Of course I read a lot of fantasy novels which is much more conducive to that type of reading than the novels my wife chooses to read.

But neither one us is reading incorrectly; and if you asked each of us to describe the books we have read it is clear that we have each comprehended what we have read. I may not have read so deeply as to have a standout mental note that Sir Barton The Brave chose the chalice with encrusted with yellow gemstones because yellow symbolizes hope; but then again I think those types of details are for each individual reader to interpret for themselves so I'm more likely to leave such things out.

In a nutshell this gentleman made observations based on those who walk in his circles of friends and acquaintances; and based on who he knows and associates with his conclusions may in fact be correct. I'm sure he considers a colleague of his who reads a hardback early edition copy of _For Whom The Bell Tolls_ to me "more of a reader" than his receptionist who is immersed in the latest Jen Lancaster novel. But his findings certainly will not hold up to scientific scrutiny insofar as being able to be applied to the general population.


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

dbeman said:


> In a nutshell this gentleman made observations based on those who walk in his circles of friends and acquaintances; and based on who he knows and associates with his conclusions may in fact be correct. I'm sure he considers a colleague of his who reads a hardback early edition copy of _For Whom The Bell Tolls_ to me "more of a reader" than his receptionist who is immersed in the latest Jen Lancaster novel. But his findings certainly will not hold up to scientific scrutiny insofar as being able to be applied to the general population.


Actually I think he believes his colleague with a hardback early edition of For Whom The Bell Tolls is more of a reader then his receptionist with the cheap paperback copy of the same book. It's not just the type of book read, he judges people on format.


----------



## Deneb (Nov 15, 2011)

I wholeheartedly disagree with the good professor. When you've got a device that puts the whole library in the palm of your hands, adjusts its font according to the eccentricities of your eyes, and saves millions of trees in the process, well, to me it's not just a 'good tool for reading' -- it's a gift from the literary gods!


----------



## B.C. Young (Aug 15, 2011)

crazyguy510 said:


> I found a paper written by a college professor who teaches at Grove City Pennsylvania. The paper he wrote was specifically on e-Readers and how they fall short as a good tool for reading. I know I'm talking to a biased group, but I thought you all might enjoy reading his complaints. I believe he gets a lot of things right, but I don't think its enough to convince me to completely move off the Amazon Kindle. However, I will consider continuing to buy more physical books rather than an electronic copy.
> 
> Here's the link to his page. Just scroll through and you'll see the Word Document marked "The Kindle."
> 
> http://www.tdgordon.net/media_ecology/


I'm sure there were similar arguments made when they transitioned from scrolls to the codex. People don't like change, so they will defend their way until they die. Then, everyone forgets what they said and uses the better product.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Paper books do have their advantages, but this paper is garbage. The author's assertion that Kindle users don't read, or they they do, they only use it for reference, is absurd.


----------



## RedGolum (Nov 2, 2011)

The author has a few good points.

E Readers have destroyed DTB stores. Borders is gone, and judging by the inventory at B&N they are seeing the hit also.  For someone who has a lot of fond memories of bookstores, this is not a good thing.

And while I love my Kindle, I can't help but wonder about the next generation.  I learned a lot about who my parents and grandparents are/were by the books they read.  My children will not have that experience of picking up an old book and finding their father's or grandfather's notes like I did.  E readers have turned  books into a much more disposable medium.  

But there are some very good sides to e books. I got to read old fiction novels that I lost years ago for cheap.  I have read three times the numbers of books on the Kindle, and have been able to download books that I could never find, let along buy, before.  

It has expanded my reading, but has turned into a more individual past time.  I can't send books to friends like I used to, but I can help them find less known authors easier. 

The other big danger, that wasn't mentioned, is that I do fear what would happen if the Kindle format dies.  All the books I have down loaded will be gone.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I don't think e-readers have destroyed bookstores. I think a combination of Internet purchasing and people not reading very much is destroying bookstores. I agree that passing down old books is wonderful and is something I will miss -- also, getting an older edition and seeing the original illustrations and book design, which I've always enjoyed. Books as artifacts are lovely things. My grandma's house had some editions with notices in the front that thinner paper had been used to conserve materials and support the war effort -- buy war bonds!


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

"Just as important, your brain has not been shaped by frequent exposure to sustained and nuanced reasoning."

Well, I certainly wasn't exposed to any from this article.

"Listen to complex music many times, and you can “hear” things in it you could not before.  Taste many different wines, and you begin to taste things you could not taste before (such as the limestone in a 2004 Peter Franus Cabernet, sadly less present in the 2005).  Read a substantial amount of a given author’s work, and you conform your sensibilities to the author’s diction, and can “hear” things you could not before."

Yes, we should all be listening to opera, and spend our time at wine tasting parties. And we should reprogram our brains to around the around the approved authors. Keep eating that creamed spinach, and eventually you'll like it. There are those who imagined that the in the past, people spent all their time reading the classics. They didn't. And even what are now classics were often sneered at in their time as mere "popular literature".

As far as bookstores, I didn't see any reference to bookstores in his paper, but perhaps I missed it. What I think has really happened with bookstores is that they got too big to be responsive to the market. The big box stores moved in, and the independent bookstores closed. But the market changed around the big box stores, and they couldn't adapt. A Borders in Minneapolis was pretty much the same as a Borders in Miami. Local bookstores could adapt to local markets.


----------



## Snorkledorf (Oct 18, 2009)

RedGolum said:


> The other big danger, that wasn't mentioned, is that I do fear what would happen if the Kindle format dies. All the books I have down loaded will be gone.


I'll buy one book in any format. I'll only buy a second in that format if I've since learned how to liberate the first, and from then on all my books have their futures assured.

I've only ever purchased one iBook, yet countless Kindle books. Odd how that works...


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

RedGolum said:


> The other big danger, that wasn't mentioned, is that I do fear what would happen if the Kindle format dies. All the books I have down loaded will be gone.


I'm not worried about this. I figure that the Kindle users are are a large enough group that even if Amazon went down in flames tomorrow it would be financially worth it to another company buy the rights to read/translate Kindle format files into their new product to attract former Kindle users to their new ereader over a competitor. That or a third party company will do the same (purchase the rights) and translate it into whatever version you want.


----------



## pomtroll (Oct 5, 2010)

*Why would a non-reader buy a Kindle or any other reader?  I've always been a reader. In the year & a half I have owned Nook, Kindle & Sony readers I have read well over 400 books. And I'm not just scanning (though I am a fast reader). I belong to book clubs & we discuss many of the books I've read on my e-readers.

I too dislike marking up books & like that I can do with with an e-reader. In the past I had notebook after notebook filled with info from books I have read. And I also think it is easier to re-find a place in a paper book. I never had to use bookmarks because I found it easy to remember where I was in the book. With an e-reader I find, like a cell phone, I don't need to stretch my memory as much. 

Oh & I have both fiction & non-fiction on my readers. Do I still buy paper books? Sure & I most likely always will. Some books just need to be read & enjoyed in paper.*


----------



## Jean E (Aug 29, 2011)

This article annoyed me. The professor spent nearly as much time telling us how superior he is as he did rubbishing other people's choices. The man is a snob. He is trying to claim reading as properly the domain of the minority who know how to do it properly. Smug nonsense. And the _he_ this, _he_ that, _he_ the other bugs me no end. The days of the masculine pronoun representing humanity are over, it never did an adequate job.


----------



## dbeman (Feb 23, 2011)

B.C. Young said:


> I'm sure there were similar arguments made when they transitioned from scrolls to the codex. People don't like change, so they will defend their way until they die. Then, everyone forgets what they said and uses the better product.


Real readers choose vellum!


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

dbeman said:


> Real readers choose vellum!


Papyrus!
Cuniform Tablets!


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

LaraAmber said:


> I think it's how you approach books. In my parent's house there are books that belonged to my great-great-grandfather. We are talking early editions of Mark Twain. Because my family didn't get rid of books, I got to read children/young adult books that were printed in the 1950s and 1960s that are no longer around (Mike Mars for instance, which was about going into space before we actually did it). So marking up a book, ruining the dustjacket, folding down pages, breaking the spine all those are verboten. It ruins the book for a reread or the next person in the family who might read it.
> 
> Now with ebooks, the worry of damage is gone. In theory with ebooks it is now impossible for a book to go "out of print" as long as it exists on a server or ereader somewhere. I can read at the kitchen table and not worry that I might damage a real book and shorten it's life.
> 
> Concerning marking for studying: I was taught to never mark in textbooks because it doesn't actually help. You're fooling your brain that "you will come back and learn this later." What I was taught instead is to sit down with a notebook and attempt to recreate the outline the author(s) used when writing the text. Not only is your brain actively engaged (and repeating the information several times as you write) but then you have a handy study guide for last minute review.


We also had a lot of older books that belonged to my grandfather, including a complete set of Mark Twain's books. They were printed in the very early 1900s (1902-1915ish). They obviously weren't early editions, probably some book club type collection, possibly from my great-great grandfather, as even my grandfather was too young to have bought them when they were printed. My dad still has the collection, unfortunately, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn were destroyed in a flood in my parents' basement.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

Articles like this are wonderful resources; they will be great sources for amusement in about ten years, when virtually everyone is reading on ereaders. It will be quoting the folks who said home computers will never catch on or planes are too heavy to fly.

Seriously, he wrote this at the beginning of the curve, when the first people to try the new tech were mostly...well, techies. Hence, not "readers." (You can tell the era because of the price of the ereaders and the fact they didn't have lending yet.) He compared the cost of an ereader to the price of 54 Classics of Western Literature, seemingly unaware that 1000s of Classics of Western Literature can be downloaded for absolutely free. (I have already downloaded the major works of 2000 years worth of philosophers, replicating a library's worth of physical books that once cost me thousands of dollars to buy in paperback.)

A number of innovations to ereaders haven't even been fully implemented yet. I do wish the highlighting features and notetaking features in ebooks were easier to use. I've never borrowed or lended an ebook, so I don't' know how well it works. (I have gifted books; I will gift a copy of any of my books to anyone who asks in exchange for a review). And I know that on the horizon is "social reading" where one can share one's favorite parts of a book directly with friends or other readers. There are several sites that facilitate this already.


----------



## caracara (May 23, 2010)

I'm guessing the person that wrote the article would be very upset to know that i just read his article on a Kindle.  

I think his definition of reading is very specific and is not in line with ereaders target audience. I disagree and love all my Kindles.


----------



## kaleissin (Jan 26, 2011)

Having skimmed some of his other texts, I don't think this guy lives in the same universe as the rest of us. Talk about being stuck in the ivory tower.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm not sure that e-readers HAVE a target audience, beyond "people who read things." I think they appeal to both people who are heavy consumers of pop fiction, and to the people he considers "readers," who read artistic and intellectual stimulation beyond entertainment.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

caracara said:


> I'm guessing the person that wrote the article would be very upset to know that i just read his article on a Kindle.


Bwahahaha!


----------



## ArtMayo (Sep 13, 2011)

Some of his conclusions have become invalidated by later developments (price drops etc), but I think generally one argument actually has some merit - in my experience, reading on the Kindle is a much more disposable experience than reading a well-put-together physical book. I love my Kindle 4. But those grey six inches, that unchanging font, the lack of artwork or dust jacket ... it is, on the whole, not as absorbing or complete an experience.

The words are the most important part of a book – but not the only part of a book. That's why no one would read the latest bestseller, for preference, from dog-eared, badly stapled letter paper covered in coffee stains. It's the quality and uniqueness of that extra 5% or so of the experience that *does* make a difference, and which eReaders, inevitably, lose completely. Readers perfectly content without that could be said to be more interested in *consuming* a book than in *experiencing* it -- not that one approach is inferior or superior to the other. Just different. My Kindle suits me fine when I'm only interested in the information, or the instant access. For my favourite authors, I go hardcover/paperback.

I really hope no one has been so insecure and uncivil as to actually contact him and complain. That wouldn't look great...


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

ArtMayo said:


> I love my Kindle 4. But those grey six inches, that unchanging font, the lack of artwork or dust jacket ... it is, on the whole, not as absorbing or complete an experience.
> 
> The words are the most important part of a book - but not the only part of a book. That's why no one would read the latest bestseller, for preference, from dog-eared, badly stapled letter paper covered in coffee stains. It's the quality and uniqueness of that extra 5% or so of the experience that *does* make a difference, and which eReaders, inevitably, lose completely. Readers perfectly content without that could be said to be more interested in *consuming* a book than in *experiencing* it -- not that one approach is inferior or superior to the other. Just different. My Kindle suits me fine when I'm only interested in the information, or the instant access. For my favourite authors, I go hardcover/paperback.


I get your point, but I think it is a personal thing.
I love books as art objects as well as 'vessels' for content, I'll never buy an art book or a color-illustrated book for Kindle, those are paper only.

But the fact is that for me the physical factor matters when I _look_ at a book, when I start reading (fiction or not, it doesn't matter), I am _in_ it and the physical object I'm reading on, book or e-reader, disappears, only the words stay (and when I'm really deep in I don't even consciously realize which language I'm reading in).
So, you might indeed say that I'm _consuming_ the books I read instead of _experiencing_ them, but in my way of reading, if I'm experiencing a book as an object...I'm out of it.


----------



## shalym (Sep 1, 2010)

To me, if the physical properties of a book are the most important thing to you (cover, smell, feel, whatever) then you're not a _reader_, you're a consumer. To me, the most important thing about a book is the information contained in it. If the information in a book isn't interesting enough for me to forget the container that is holding it, then I will find another book. This applies to stories, reference books, any book that is mainly text. For books that contain lots of pictures, graphs, etc, e-ink is not a good container--I may choose to read those in paper form, or on my tablet...if it's available in electronic form I'd rather have it in that form for portability purposes.

Shari


----------



## RobertKindle (Nov 22, 2011)

Whether I read online, on the Kindle, from a textbook it is still reading.  I still much prefer the idea of using traditional textbooks for academic purposes.  Having multiple books open where I must constantly flip back and forth would feel like a nuisance on the Kindle.  However for things like history, biographies, politics and other forms of nonfiction the Kindle feels great.  

This reminds me of various purists arguments where the "true fans/followers" do it the traditional way and the "secondary fans/followers" do it the way which is deemed impure.


----------

