“Real” Books
13 November 2010
Something that mystifies me: there’s a perception floating around that ebooks are in some way not actual books, or that they’re not as good as “real” paper-copy books.
I disagree. It’s the message, not the medium. For the most part, ebooks are actually better — they have the same intricate plots, the same memorable characters, and they’re a lot better for the environment. So where does the perception come from?
I’m not sure. Maybe it’s just entrenched resistance to anything new? What do you think?
3 Comments
leave one →
47 Echo 
naw, I tend to think paper books are still better. Why? Barring fire or theft, they’ll always be there. And, to me, there is just something so tactile about a physical book, you know? eBooks don’t have that touch or smell that a good old book does. 😉 And I don’t need to remember my batteries for my hardbacks, lmao
I think it’s because people don’t have a tangible book in their hands, so they don’t take it as seriously and it feels less special. The same happens to music for me. I get music on the Internet. But recently I’ve been borrowing CDs, and it seems much better, because of cool stuff in the CD booklet and a physical disc.
It’s also because physical media has been becoming such a rarity these days, people think paper books are more unique.
I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction rooted in 2 assumptions: 1. Anyone can put out an ebook, whereas physical books go through a competitive approval and editing process, 2. they’re going to bring about the downfall of paper books.
I don’t agree with either, though the former is true to a certain extent. That’s just where I’ve always assumed the “real” books are better mentality comes from.