5 ms·

I'll bring in another perspective. I'm in a huge dilemma. I love books. I also like paper books, but I believe that in the long run we're better off without th

I'll bring in another perspective. I'm in a huge dilemma. I love books. I also like paper books, but I believe that in the long run we're better off without them for economic and environmental reasons, and e-books are a pretty darned good alternative. I think that the inherent value of a book is its contents. Whether it is tangible or not doesn't matter as much. Because of this, I think book romanticism is pretty stupid. However, I can't help but feel captivated by it. I have a few theories on why this may be so: I do like that my books are tangible possessions, that I can look back at the notes my father made into them in college, that I can find an old train pass I used as a bookmark that brings back memories. Or I know that that mark is from when I spilled coffee all over my theory of computation book when I fell asleep studying for the final. I associate my books with other things, thoughts. Currently this doesn't quite work this way with e-books. That's why they don't feel "personal". This can be remedied, but I don't know to what extent. I don't give a damn about big box stores, but I care very much about my local stores. The difference is in experience. When I'm buying a book, I don't want to feel like I'm a standardized entity there to benefit a company whose sole purpose is to maximize profits. The alternative to this what I can only describe as "intellectual flirtation". Example: Today I happened to have some free time and I wandered into my favorite bookstore. I looked around, grabbed a book about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and sat in a corner reading for an hour. No one nagged me to buy anything. The book was well written but it wasn't as comprehensive as I hoped, so I moved to the fiction section, and onto mathematics, dipping into books as I wished. Finally, I found a book about the role of Tea in Japanese culture and decided to buy it. While I was paying, the cashier struck up a conversation with me about the book itself and we had a small debate about the topic and he also recommended another author to me. Now, as you can see the act of going to a bookstore is not a thing I do just to buy books. I do it so I can have a change of scenery and pace, relax, learn and have some personal time to just think (when do we do that, seriously?). I also do it because it's profoundly social (i.e. not web 2.0 style "me too" social). I like conversing about the things I find interesting, and it seems bookstores gather people like me, whether they work there or just visit to buy. Finally, the cost of all this is a possible few extra dollars on my book. It's a tough choice for me.

lhnn 15y ago
Romanticism is just that: a love for something because of what you believe it to be about: every nuance that makes an experience or thing what it is. Thus, romanticism is quite opinionated. To call it 'stupid' is a little harsh, but I won't rip you up about it like I wanted to (as someone who likes books). To say books are an environmental detriment is incorrect; wood (paper) is one of the most renewable of resources, and when harvested responsibly (as is done in the US on the whole), it actually creates a net of more trees planted than would otherwise exist in our modern society. Arguably, the plastics and battery chemicals of ebook readers is more damaging to our planet. Not that I think it's a particular concern. To your last three paragraphs, I agree.
- rapind 15y ago
  It's definitely an environmental detriment and I think you're overstating how responsibly it's being done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper In the grand scheme of things though, you're definitely better off trading in the SUV than worrying about the environmental footprint of your personal library.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I agree paper is a significant problem, but books are a really small portion of it, because they tend to be fairly durable goods. The vast majority of paper waste is in disposable things like newspapers, magazines, toilet paper, paper towels, advertisement circulars, etc. Every week I probably throw out* a half-kilo of ads stuffed into my mailbox, one circular every week from every major grocery and department-store chain in the area. It would only take a few months to accumulate as much paper in grocery-store ads as all the books I've bought in my life. * Well, I recycle it, but afaik the recyclability of glossy/coated paper is fairly poor/inefficient.
    - rapind 15y ago
      Something you might be interested is what happens with our recycling once it hits the curb. I was completely blown away when I heard about this (Toronto specific article, but I imagine you have a similar process south of the border). http://www.thestar.com/article/584523 http://www.thestar.com/article/584523 I agree though, my common sense tells me that books are probably not a real contributor, but I couldn't say for sure without researching it a bit (I've been surprised before).

lhnn 15y ago

Romanticism is just that: a love for something because of what you believe it to be about: every nuance that makes an experience or thing what it is. Thus, romanticism is quite opinionated. To call it 'stupid' is a little harsh, but I won't rip you up about it like I wanted to (as someone who likes books). To say books are an environmental detriment is incorrect; wood (paper) is one of the most renewable of resources, and when harvested responsibly (as is done in the US on the whole), it actually creates a net of more trees planted than would otherwise exist in our modern society. Arguably, the plastics and battery chemicals of ebook readers is more damaging to our planet. Not that I think it's a particular concern. To your last three paragraphs, I agree.

rapind 15y ago
It's definitely an environmental detriment and I think you're overstating how responsibly it's being done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper In the grand scheme of things though, you're definitely better off trading in the SUV than worrying about the environmental footprint of your personal library.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I agree paper is a significant problem, but books are a really small portion of it, because they tend to be fairly durable goods. The vast majority of paper waste is in disposable things like newspapers, magazines, toilet paper, paper towels, advertisement circulars, etc. Every week I probably throw out* a half-kilo of ads stuffed into my mailbox, one circular every week from every major grocery and department-store chain in the area. It would only take a few months to accumulate as much paper in grocery-store ads as all the books I've bought in my life. * Well, I recycle it, but afaik the recyclability of glossy/coated paper is fairly poor/inefficient.
  - rapind 15y ago
    Something you might be interested is what happens with our recycling once it hits the curb. I was completely blown away when I heard about this (Toronto specific article, but I imagine you have a similar process south of the border). http://www.thestar.com/article/584523 http://www.thestar.com/article/584523 I agree though, my common sense tells me that books are probably not a real contributor, but I couldn't say for sure without researching it a bit (I've been surprised before).