5 ms·

Object Lesson: Why we need physical books

22 points by samclemens 12y ago

zzalpha 12y ago
Halfway through and still not a single useful insight. It's just the same cloying nostalgia that caused "bibliophiles" to panic when the Kindle first hit the streets, and apparently still causes them immense anxiety today. This despite the fact that the Kindle has caused more new people to read, and more new people to write, than any technology since, not to be hyperbolic, but... perhaps the printing press? Now, if you want to talk real issues, let's talk about the challenges of archival, or the danger of making the written word inaccessible to the poor, or the fact that you can't give away or resell an eBook, or lend it to a friend. Those are genuine concerns we should all be thinking about as more and more data goes digital. But, of course, none of that seems to matter to folks like this... they're far more focused on what's happening to them, personally. It's a surprisingly egocentric perspective. As a random aside, I have little interest in someone who owns many books. Now, someone who's read many books... those folks are worth talking to.
- cafard 12y ago
  Upvoted for the owned/read distinction.
- harshreality 12y ago
  I'm not sure about the archival issue. The only problem with archival that would make physical books superior is after civilization collapse that destroys the supply chain for computing devices. Assuming DRM can be stripped, which it can be for most of the major ebook sellers including Amazon, ebooks can then be converted to epub which are just dialects of html with some xml metadata. Even if html becomes deprecated in the future, there will be converters for html to new better formats. Unencrypted ebooks can be backed up off-site, to cloud storage, to m-disc dvds or blu-rays stored in safe deposit boxes. Physical libraries can be destroyed in fire or natural disaster almost as easily as an ebook collection on a computer. Physical books take up space and cost more, and cannot be cheaply backed up. There's a conflict between securing physical books against wear & tear and destruction, and allowing access to them. It's worth distinguishing the sharing/lending issue as a legal problem, not an inherent deficiency of ebooks. Ebooks are better for sharing/lending in many ways... there's no need to spend time or money physically transporting them, and no need to worry about a friend accidentally spilling coffee on your favorite book.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    A book stored on a shelf in a relatively temperate climate can last hundreds of years without issue. For an optical disc to last that long and still be readable, you'll need: 1) Archival-quality discs (e.g. http://www.mdisc.com http://www.mdisc.com). Normal writable discs will delaminate. 2) A drive capable of reading the disc, and capable of interfacing with your computer. Optical drives have a limited lifespan -- the drives used in Sega's Dreamcast, for example, are beginning to fail. Likewise, interconnection standards have a limited lifespan. 3) A file format that can still be read using existing technology. Will converters be likely in 50 years? Maybe. 100? Less likely. 200? Extremely unlikely. That's just optical discs. You're also talking about live archival, for example, to "cloud storage" -- this costs a lot more money than a book sitting on a shelf, uses a lot more power, is locked to a specific set of authentication credentials, must be paid for if the data is not to be lost. That's before factoring in DRM and advances therein. Sure, you can strip Kindle DRM, with extra effort, but how many people will do so and then accidentally store the result in a place where it will keep for 50 years? What about when DRM gets better? Ultimately, we suck at digital archival, and ultimately, there's only so much we can do with a medium that requires a great deal of complexity just to extract any amount of meaningful data whatsoever. There is a huge archival and preservation advantage to simple mechanisms that have fewer failure points.
    - ralmidani 12y ago
      Does the archive have to remain frozen in time? When the storage medium gets older, the files can be written to newer, cheaper, faster, denser devices. If a standard becomes old, convert to its successor while converters still exist.
      - teacup50 12y ago
        That requires an attentive, active, and costly effort to maintain an archive, as opposed to a medium that survives even when forgotten.
        ralmidani 12y ago
- teacup50 12y ago
  I think it's unfortunate that this article was written by a collector, and that this collector equates himself with "bibliophiles". I like to read. I have filled my house with books not because I fetishize books, but because I've read them, find value in continuing to consult them, and plan for our children to have access to a well curated library of books that I've loved -- without them having to rent access or my having to maintain digital copies forever. I also like ebooks, and have a Kindle, but there are usability problems that real books solve very well, and digital books not at all -- and vis versa.
  - zzalpha 12y ago
    Yeah, totally agreed there. The reality is I still take pleasure in browsing and I still occasionally buy physical books. There's enjoyment in that discovery process, particularly in those old, unique bookstores that are so few and far between these days. But I find the digital reading experience, with a good epaper reader, infinitely superior... resizable text, built in lighting, far lighter and more portable... for me, personally, there's really no comparison. To me, and I've said this since the Kindle first hit the street, the perfect compromise would be if I could buy physical books and get a free digital copy as part of the deal. But, of course, that's anathema to the publisher view that I should pay for every medium in which I consume their content.
    - tjl 12y ago
      I don't have built-in lighting, but I bought my e-reader before that was a common feature. I'd like to buy a physical book and get the e-book as part of the deal. This was something that Baen did, but I'm not sure if they still do. As things stand, I now usually buy the e-book (or audiobook) and if I love the book, I'll buy the physical book. The only physical books I buy are for series where I've already been buying them as physical books before I got my e-reader (and cookbooks). The most recent physical books I've bought are Jo Walton's Among Others and Nicole Krauss' The History of Love. I'm planning to pick up The Rook at some point too (although I think it's best as an audiobook).
- cartoonfoxes 12y ago
  > Halfway through and still not a single useful insight. It's just the same cloying nostalgia that caused "bibliophiles" to panic when the Kindle first hit the streets, and apparently still causes them immense anxiety today. This was my reaction as well. "The Myth of the Paperless Office" (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/myth-paperless-office https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/myth-paperless-office) is a much better treatise on the utility and relevance of treeware.
devty 12y ago
so the author is saying that we 'need' physical books because the physical presence of books adds an aesthetic dimension to reading? wouldn't the value of that dimension decline over time? for the next generation of readers, the majority of reading will be done in digital formats, and the the level of emotional attachment to physical books will be significantly less.
- falcolas 12y ago
  We've already seen that this is not the case, as the current generation of readers is favoring the physical book over the ebook. So there's obviously some value to the experience of reading from a physical artifact, and the younger generations are also obviously able to identify this value.
  - zzalpha 12y ago
    Huh, I hadn't heard that anywhere. Got a citation? Sounds like an interesting cultural phenomenon, assuming it's supported by the data.
    - falcolas 12y ago
      Sure, here you go. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/25/young-adult-readers-prefer-printed-ebooks http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/25/young-adult-rea... http://www.publishingtechnology.com/research/ http://www.publishingtechnology.com/research/
      - zzalpha 12y ago
        Huh, so this covered 16-24 year olds. So, a bit of history, recall the Kindle was first released in late 2007 (hard to believe it was both that long ago and yet only that long ago...). The youngest in that age bracket would've been 8 at that point, and the oldest 16. By the time ebooks really took off they probably would've been ten and 18 respectively, which means more or less growing up exposed to paper books before mass market electronic alternatives were available. Given that, I wonder if we're still in a generational swing here. It's possible that's not the case. But I'm not convinced this study absolutely proves that "there's obviously some value to the experience of reading from a physical artifact, and the younger generations are also obviously able to identify this value." It could simply be that people prefer what they grew up with. shrug
cmiles74 12y ago
I suspect you need to achieve a certain level of fiscal security before you can start to worry about the difference between the "experience" of a book as opposed to simply being able to read it.
nextos 12y ago
A point not much discussed in the essay is that of technical books. In this area, physical books are somehow better. Has anyone had any success with big e-ink devices? I'd love to switch, but they are a bit expensive, slow and lack good format support. Moving around the world with tons of books is sadly very inconvenient.
- zzalpha 12y ago
  Yeah, right now it seems tablets are the "best" option, but I actually think, for technical materials, where you're jumping around, marking pages, etc, more frequently, physical paper is still superior. Well, save for the fact that technical books are rarely coil bound. At least a digital book stays open when I set it down on my damn desk!
bcbrown 12y ago
"Many years ago," Gaspar said, taking out a copy of Moravia's The Adolescents and thumbing it as he spoke, "I had a library of books, oh, thousands of books -- never could bear to toss one out, not even the bad ones -- and when folks would come to the house to visit they'd look around at all the nooks and crannies stuffed with books; and if they were the sort of folks who don't snuggle with books, they'd always ask the same dumb question." He waited a moment for a response and when none was forthcoming (the sound of china cups on sink tile), he said, "Guess what the question was." From the kitchen, without much interest: "No idea." "They'd always ask it with the kind of voice people use in the presence of large sculptures in museums. They'd ask me, 'Have you read all these books?'" He waited again, but Billy Kinetta was not playing the game. "Well, young fella, after a while the same dumb question gets asked a million times, you get sorta snappish about it. And it came to annoy me more than a little bit. Till I finally figured out the right answer. "And you know what that answer was? Go ahead, take a guess." Billy appeared in the kitchenette doorway. "I suppose you told them you'd read a lot of them but not all of them." Gaspar waved the guess away with a flapping hand. "Now what good would that have done? They wouldn't know they'd asked a dumb question, but I didn't want to insult them, either. So when they'd ask if I'd read all those books, I'd say, 'Hell, no. Who wants a library full of books you've already read?'" http://harlanellison.com/iwrite/paladin.htm http://harlanellison.com/iwrite/paladin.htm
kzhahou 12y ago
When e-books have completely taken over, and the last dead-tree is tossed in the trash, one will remain: "Gödel, Escher, Bach", with its spine thoroughly cracked (though almost entirely unread) sitting proudly on every techie's shelf.
twirlip 12y ago
I read from screens all day: phone, tablet, desktop. I just finished reading The Martian on my phone. The only time I find I absolutely must have text on paper is when I'm memorizing lines from a script for a play. I've even tried using flashcard software as well as audio I've recorded for my lines and cues; it doesn't work for me.

22 points by samclemens 12y ago

Halfway through and still not a single useful insight. It's just the same cloying nostalgia that caused "bibliophiles" to panic when the Kindle first hit the streets, and apparently still causes them immense anxiety today. This despite the fact that the Kindle has caused more new people to read, and more new people to write, than any technology since, not to be hyperbolic, but... perhaps the printing press? Now, if you want to talk real issues, let's talk about the challenges of archival, or the danger of making the written word inaccessible to the poor, or the fact that you can't give away or resell an eBook, or lend it to a friend. Those are genuine concerns we should all be thinking about as more and more data goes digital. But, of course, none of that seems to matter to folks like this... they're far more focused on what's happening to them, personally. It's a surprisingly egocentric perspective. As a random aside, I have little interest in someone who owns many books. Now, someone who's read many books... those folks are worth talking to.

cafard 12y ago
Upvoted for the owned/read distinction.
harshreality 12y ago
I'm not sure about the archival issue. The only problem with archival that would make physical books superior is after civilization collapse that destroys the supply chain for computing devices. Assuming DRM can be stripped, which it can be for most of the major ebook sellers including Amazon, ebooks can then be converted to epub which are just dialects of html with some xml metadata. Even if html becomes deprecated in the future, there will be converters for html to new better formats. Unencrypted ebooks can be backed up off-site, to cloud storage, to m-disc dvds or blu-rays stored in safe deposit boxes. Physical libraries can be destroyed in fire or natural disaster almost as easily as an ebook collection on a computer. Physical books take up space and cost more, and cannot be cheaply backed up. There's a conflict between securing physical books against wear & tear and destruction, and allowing access to them. It's worth distinguishing the sharing/lending issue as a legal problem, not an inherent deficiency of ebooks. Ebooks are better for sharing/lending in many ways... there's no need to spend time or money physically transporting them, and no need to worry about a friend accidentally spilling coffee on your favorite book.
- teacup50 12y ago
  A book stored on a shelf in a relatively temperate climate can last hundreds of years without issue. For an optical disc to last that long and still be readable, you'll need: 1) Archival-quality discs (e.g. http://www.mdisc.com http://www.mdisc.com). Normal writable discs will delaminate. 2) A drive capable of reading the disc, and capable of interfacing with your computer. Optical drives have a limited lifespan -- the drives used in Sega's Dreamcast, for example, are beginning to fail. Likewise, interconnection standards have a limited lifespan. 3) A file format that can still be read using existing technology. Will converters be likely in 50 years? Maybe. 100? Less likely. 200? Extremely unlikely. That's just optical discs. You're also talking about live archival, for example, to "cloud storage" -- this costs a lot more money than a book sitting on a shelf, uses a lot more power, is locked to a specific set of authentication credentials, must be paid for if the data is not to be lost. That's before factoring in DRM and advances therein. Sure, you can strip Kindle DRM, with extra effort, but how many people will do so and then accidentally store the result in a place where it will keep for 50 years? What about when DRM gets better? Ultimately, we suck at digital archival, and ultimately, there's only so much we can do with a medium that requires a great deal of complexity just to extract any amount of meaningful data whatsoever. There is a huge archival and preservation advantage to simple mechanisms that have fewer failure points.
  - ralmidani 12y ago
    Does the archive have to remain frozen in time? When the storage medium gets older, the files can be written to newer, cheaper, faster, denser devices. If a standard becomes old, convert to its successor while converters still exist.
    - teacup50 12y ago
      That requires an attentive, active, and costly effort to maintain an archive, as opposed to a medium that survives even when forgotten.
      - ralmidani 12y ago
teacup50 12y ago
I think it's unfortunate that this article was written by a collector, and that this collector equates himself with "bibliophiles". I like to read. I have filled my house with books not because I fetishize books, but because I've read them, find value in continuing to consult them, and plan for our children to have access to a well curated library of books that I've loved -- without them having to rent access or my having to maintain digital copies forever. I also like ebooks, and have a Kindle, but there are usability problems that real books solve very well, and digital books not at all -- and vis versa.
- zzalpha 12y ago
  Yeah, totally agreed there. The reality is I still take pleasure in browsing and I still occasionally buy physical books. There's enjoyment in that discovery process, particularly in those old, unique bookstores that are so few and far between these days. But I find the digital reading experience, with a good epaper reader, infinitely superior... resizable text, built in lighting, far lighter and more portable... for me, personally, there's really no comparison. To me, and I've said this since the Kindle first hit the street, the perfect compromise would be if I could buy physical books and get a free digital copy as part of the deal. But, of course, that's anathema to the publisher view that I should pay for every medium in which I consume their content.
  - tjl 12y ago
    I don't have built-in lighting, but I bought my e-reader before that was a common feature. I'd like to buy a physical book and get the e-book as part of the deal. This was something that Baen did, but I'm not sure if they still do. As things stand, I now usually buy the e-book (or audiobook) and if I love the book, I'll buy the physical book. The only physical books I buy are for series where I've already been buying them as physical books before I got my e-reader (and cookbooks). The most recent physical books I've bought are Jo Walton's Among Others and Nicole Krauss' The History of Love. I'm planning to pick up The Rook at some point too (although I think it's best as an audiobook).
cartoonfoxes 12y ago
> Halfway through and still not a single useful insight. It's just the same cloying nostalgia that caused "bibliophiles" to panic when the Kindle first hit the streets, and apparently still causes them immense anxiety today. This was my reaction as well. "The Myth of the Paperless Office" (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/myth-paperless-office https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/myth-paperless-office) is a much better treatise on the utility and relevance of treeware.

devty 12y ago

so the author is saying that we 'need' physical books because the physical presence of books adds an aesthetic dimension to reading? wouldn't the value of that dimension decline over time? for the next generation of readers, the majority of reading will be done in digital formats, and the the level of emotional attachment to physical books will be significantly less.

falcolas 12y ago
We've already seen that this is not the case, as the current generation of readers is favoring the physical book over the ebook. So there's obviously some value to the experience of reading from a physical artifact, and the younger generations are also obviously able to identify this value.
- zzalpha 12y ago
  Huh, I hadn't heard that anywhere. Got a citation? Sounds like an interesting cultural phenomenon, assuming it's supported by the data.
  - falcolas 12y ago
    Sure, here you go. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/25/young-adult-readers-prefer-printed-ebooks http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/25/young-adult-rea... http://www.publishingtechnology.com/research/ http://www.publishingtechnology.com/research/
    - zzalpha 12y ago
      Huh, so this covered 16-24 year olds. So, a bit of history, recall the Kindle was first released in late 2007 (hard to believe it was both that long ago and yet only that long ago...). The youngest in that age bracket would've been 8 at that point, and the oldest 16. By the time ebooks really took off they probably would've been ten and 18 respectively, which means more or less growing up exposed to paper books before mass market electronic alternatives were available. Given that, I wonder if we're still in a generational swing here. It's possible that's not the case. But I'm not convinced this study absolutely proves that "there's obviously some value to the experience of reading from a physical artifact, and the younger generations are also obviously able to identify this value." It could simply be that people prefer what they grew up with. shrug

cmiles74 12y ago

I suspect you need to achieve a certain level of fiscal security before you can start to worry about the difference between the "experience" of a book as opposed to simply being able to read it.

nextos 12y ago

A point not much discussed in the essay is that of technical books. In this area, physical books are somehow better. Has anyone had any success with big e-ink devices? I'd love to switch, but they are a bit expensive, slow and lack good format support. Moving around the world with tons of books is sadly very inconvenient.

zzalpha 12y ago
Yeah, right now it seems tablets are the "best" option, but I actually think, for technical materials, where you're jumping around, marking pages, etc, more frequently, physical paper is still superior. Well, save for the fact that technical books are rarely coil bound. At least a digital book stays open when I set it down on my damn desk!

bcbrown 12y ago

"Many years ago," Gaspar said, taking out a copy of Moravia's The Adolescents and thumbing it as he spoke, "I had a library of books, oh, thousands of books -- never could bear to toss one out, not even the bad ones -- and when folks would come to the house to visit they'd look around at all the nooks and crannies stuffed with books; and if they were the sort of folks who don't snuggle with books, they'd always ask the same dumb question." He waited a moment for a response and when none was forthcoming (the sound of china cups on sink tile), he said, "Guess what the question was." From the kitchen, without much interest: "No idea." "They'd always ask it with the kind of voice people use in the presence of large sculptures in museums. They'd ask me, 'Have you read all these books?'" He waited again, but Billy Kinetta was not playing the game. "Well, young fella, after a while the same dumb question gets asked a million times, you get sorta snappish about it. And it came to annoy me more than a little bit. Till I finally figured out the right answer. "And you know what that answer was? Go ahead, take a guess." Billy appeared in the kitchenette doorway. "I suppose you told them you'd read a lot of them but not all of them." Gaspar waved the guess away with a flapping hand. "Now what good would that have done? They wouldn't know they'd asked a dumb question, but I didn't want to insult them, either. So when they'd ask if I'd read all those books, I'd say, 'Hell, no. Who wants a library full of books you've already read?'" http://harlanellison.com/iwrite/paladin.htm http://harlanellison.com/iwrite/paladin.htm

kzhahou 12y ago

When e-books have completely taken over, and the last dead-tree is tossed in the trash, one will remain: "Gödel, Escher, Bach", with its spine thoroughly cracked (though almost entirely unread) sitting proudly on every techie's shelf.

twirlip 12y ago

I read from screens all day: phone, tablet, desktop. I just finished reading The Martian on my phone. The only time I find I absolutely must have text on paper is when I'm memorizing lines from a script for a play. I've even tried using flashcard software as well as audio I've recorded for my lines and cues; it doesn't work for me.