And I'm not talking about the content (which can be considered as such)

Thanks to reading the blog of Joe Konrath, I have to agree with him that this concept that physical books are superior to electronic books is, to put it politely, nonsense. When you are "lost in the story", unless you're the man with two brains, you're not going to be stopping every now and then just to admire the physical form of the book, smell it, lick it, or whatever. No, you're going to be lost in the story. That's the point of books, to transport the reader into other worlds, or as in the case of nonfiction, to inform them of this world.

Of course, people will continue to argue that the physical book is superior anyway. Perhaps they'd be satisfied with an idea for an electronic book a friend told me about years ago, created by MIT's Media Lab. As I recall, it was a physical book in form, but the pages were electronic. They were still of a substance like paper, could be turned from page to page and so forth (probably not dog-eared, for those thinking of that!) There's no technological reason why this can't be done today, and with the same exact technology used in the Kindle. That is, e-Ink. (There are probably plenty of marketing reasons why it hasn't been done, though...)

Personally, I'm glad I don't have to fight any more with a paper book, trying to keep it open while I eat or type if I'm using something in it for reference. Sure, I could break the spine, bend it backwards like we've all seen plenty of people doing when reading the latest consumable "best-seller." Can't do that with hardbacks and I've never liked doing that anyway, mostly because years later, pages start to fall out. I don't have any of those problems with my Kindle, and, I can make the print bigger if I don't want to use my reading glasses

Bilgewater.

Sorely, the poor student lifted his twelfth box of books. So heavy, so awkward. He tilted the box laterally, the better to fit it through the doorway — narrow and obstructed. Knuckles to jamb, scraping every finger, he squeezed his way through — and dropped the box.

I don't know what you were thinking about, but I was talking about over 300 books. 300 really heavy books.

The Kindle and its ilk are just gizmos with pixilated screens that you can carry in your pocket when you find yourself moving for the third time in a year. Hit the off button and its portability shines. A genuine book has a weight of its own. It is heavy, bulky, voluminous. Not only do its contents rarely weigh less than one Nook or Kindle, it along with 299 others is a hassle. That rare copy of Sir Isaac Newton's "Principia" — did his own august eyes behold it? Of course not! And that first edition of "Pride and Prejudice" — whose ladylike hands held it, turned its pages by candlelight? Not the fucking queen; so why pay so much for books that will inflame your sinuses? The old copy of "The Cat in the Hat" is just as beloved without the crayoned personalization that forces you to buy a new copy for each of the family's children.

Do you move books at least once? Wise up. Remember the 8-track tape that was supposed to be the dernier cri? Vanished into the recycling bin of history. The DVD gets supplanted byBlu-ray, which will soon be made obsolete by something else. And that something else is weightless, near-infinite digital storage.

Oswego "I love books for the reading bits, not the collecting/fetish bits" Atheist

Twice now I've given many boxes of books to people planning to open used bookstores. The first one got about 30 boxes, the second only about 12. When I moved halfway across the country to my current location four years ago, I had at least twenty boxes of books. Just can't recall the exact number.

This last move, after a divorce, my criteria for keeping a book was, was it a book I'd want to reread, or was it a book not easily found at the library.

Since the move, and because of more reduced financial circumstances, about 90% or more of my reading is books from the library. Real books.

The biggest pleasure in returning to the library is re-discovering a very different mix of books from what I'd find in a bookstore. Plus, I can reserve and renew books on-line, and almost everything I want is available at the public library.

Oh. And when 8 track tape came out I thought it was a pretty dumb thing. Imagine, songs interrupted in the middle because of the idiotic formatting. Me, I never bought 8-track. I did buy cassette tapes for a reasonable period of time.

The genuine down side of digital storage is that over time it degrades, and over time the ability to replay is lost. I understand that the Library of Congress has all sorts of audio recordings that cannot be played, because no one has any clue just how they need to be played.

At least with real books, they can be read as is, and don't need any kind of special equipment to do so.

If I leave a book on the bus, I lose a book; I don't lose all my books and an expensive piece of hardware. Books don't need batteries charged, have file formats, don't have a screen that can crack, can't be deleted, and don't give me the opportunity of wandering shelves at a bookstore for hours with others who are doing the same who may have valuable insights into a good read or two. If people have Kindles and are satisfied, great! But for me, paper will always reign supreme.

I think it's a matter of taste and circumstance. The point, in my mind, is that it is not correct that one is a substitute for the other, that one is going to replace the other. I'm not giving up my books, but I can see circumstances where a eReader might be useful, worth it. But I've always been a "late-adopter", esp. when it's my money being spent.

You do indeed appear to be fearless.

And thanks!

you can have lots and lots of reading material in a very small space.

But, and this is a huge but as far as I'm concerned, if you lose power you can no longer read. If the formatting changes in any way, you can no longer read. Think 8 track and beta just for starters. Even old records -- which my own sons, the oldest of whom is 29, have almost never heard played. I have a small stash of DVDs. I suppose BluRay or whatever that is will replace them, and then at some point it will be something else. Fortunately, I have Netlix and Hulu and watch a lot of stuff online.

Remember the scene in the first Men In Black when the character played by Rip Torn complains he's going to have to buy the White Album yet again?

Personally, I love real books. I do not own a digital reader, and at present have no intention to purchase one. If I were to go off on a long space trip, then I'd probably get one. But for now, I have the public library. Everything you can read on a digital player I can get at the library. Plus, if there are large pictures, trust me, I can see them better in a real book than on a small screen, no matter what kind of definition you might have.

A couple of years ago here on DU someone mentioned that Life Magazine had made all back issues available on line. I was thrilled, because I used to read old Life magazines. Unfortunately, a LOT of photographs in life will span both pages, and in the on-line version you can look at one half, and then the other. Not at all the same as having the open magazine in front of you. One half of a picture. And then the other half. You don't actually get the whole picture, to be redundant here.