That's why I have a Kindle Touch, not a Kindle Fire. I think Pogue said that trying to read a book on an iPad is like trying to cook dinner with two kids tugging at your pant legs. Without Youtube, IM, email and every other distractor pulling away at you, you can actually read something.
I read three books I've yet to take the kindle plunge. Honestly, I'm not sure I ever will. We have them, I don't use them.
It's funny how much that trophy means to me. I'm sure we've had this conversation before, and I don't mean Hubski, but literally me and you, but don't you miss the physicality and individual nature of the "book?" Does the Kindle Touch compensate for this? I know we could go back and forth on the virtues of books, the sensory advantages of the nostalgic etc. But as someone that hasn't taken the plunge, do the advantages far outweigh the loss of what can seem like such an old familiar friend?
Hmmm. 1) I'm a big font snob. It astounds my friends but I can recognize a dozen fonts by sight (not bad for an engineer who has never mastered Photoshop and opened InDesign once). I'm used to screenplays, which require Courier New of you; there's no such requirement in publishing. Yet we invariably get some form of Times New Roman. The one example that's different that I can think of is Douglas Coupland's Generation X which was done in OCR-A, and it really made a big difference... so it's not like people don't do this because it doesn't matter, they don't do this because they're lazy. 2) I love paper. There are so many different weights, so many different textures. Yet books are always on thin-ass copy paper. Not bond. Not vellum. Not anything interesting. 3) I love layout. Yet books are always laid out the same. It comes down to this - authors are putting words out there and everyone else is doing it exactly.thesame.fucking.way for every goddamn book ever made. You hardly even get any size variation - paperbacks are this big. Hardcovers are that big. Uniformity. Inanity. Forever and ever amen. So when you talk about the "physicality" and "individual nature" of the book, I reply "what physicality? What individual nature?" They're all the same font on the same paper in the same size and if it's a paperback, if they don't sell it they only want the covers back. On the other hand, my kindle is fucking beautiful. It smells amazing. I love the suppleness of that thing so much that I had a chat with Oberon about what leather conditioner they used and I bought enough of it to hit my couch. And my boots. And my jacket. And my other jacket. And my other jacket. So to you, a book is a magical paper thing of nostalgia and memories and a kindle is a technological trifle that runs out of juice. But to me, a book is a static assembly-line component of mass production and a kindle is a lovely-smelling blue thing that survived even when the electronics were destroyed. (yes, that's my story and photos). The words inside are the same. For me, the choice is "awesome leather thing that happens to plug into USB" or "generic paper thing that breaks a little more every time you open it." Lengthy essay, I know. But yeah. Fuck books, unless they're supadope. One of these days I'll own all twelve volumes.
Dave Eggers recently published a hardcover A Hologram for the King which was of such quality, I had to buy it. Interestingly, it was printed here in Dexter, MI, at Thompson Shore, and b_b's dad had something to do with it, which I didn't know that until I told b_b how awesome my new book was. Textured cover, gold inlay, velvety cover pages, and quality paper. It's nice that someone can still make a book like this. (Fun fact: Dexter is also home to Slashdot.)
I'm curious why you hate the fuck out of him. My first encounter was skimming through A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, and it rubbed me the wrong way. I recall feeling it read like David Sedaris, whom I think is very overrated. Years later, I picked up You Shall Know Our Velocity in an effort to keep up with some current literature. I found it touching and effective. That, and because the book was so pretty, is why I read A Hologram For The King. I thought it was very good, great in some parts. Besides that he runs McSweeny's, I don't know a thing about him.
1) I hate everything in McSweeney's. 2) A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius is a magnum opus of self-fellating glad-handing. In it, we learn that any excuse to celebrate your own smugness is a good excuse. 3) The preamble in HWSG is all about how you shouldn't care that massive corporations run your life and that screenwriters are fucking idiots who deserve to be scoffed at. 4) I had to mix an episode written by Toph Eggers. 5) And then the fucker wrote the screenplay for Where the Wild Things Are. 6) The asshole tried out for Real World San Francisco and then when he didn't get in bitched about MTV in the magazine that he started and ran into the ground. Dave Eggers is why everyone hates Gen X literature. It's self-satisfied, empty, self-aware to the point of irony, ironic to the point of self-aware and completely fucking unreadable. And with McSweeney's, he's created an organ that celebrates that shit. Fuck Dave Eggers.
I'm almost certain of it. On a positive note, I picked it up at a new bookstore that just opened up in my town. I'm starting to change my thinking about the fate of paper books. I have a Kindle, but rarely use it. Unless I am traveling, I prefer a paper book. Also, ebooks are priced too high considering the much lower costs of distribution and reproduction. Finally, DRM fucking sucks. I want to be able to give my books to friends, and I don't want to be locked into a AmazonLibraryTM forever.
It seems to me that books may move into a more luxurious niche. The image of a book is too strong to fade away completely as a symbol of learning. A similar process might be seen if we consider tanning, as in, getting some sun. Fashion is of course, dictated by economics. Largely, this has to do with outwardly displaying the fact that one does not have to labor. Thus, impractical cuts of clothing. In Victorian England especially, this meant avoiding the sun and so, pale skin was desirable. Now, having a tan means that one can afford to travel, or spend leisure time outdoors. Obviously, the parallel isn't perfect, but if the trend in electronic books continues, eventually I think physical books may come to signify that one has the means to purchase and enjoy an environmentally destructive form of media and/or one that takes up a lot of physical space.
I wonder how much less destructive ebook readers are. I assume they are, but I wonder how often people replace their readers, and how the figures work out. I would guess that one reader is more destructive than one book.I think physical books may come to signify that one has the means to purchase and enjoy an environmentally destructive form of media and/or one that takes up a lot of physical space.
Hmm. That's a good point. I would expect that right now it's low since there's only so much an e-reader can do. But if it goes the way of the mp3 player and becomes better integrated with something more replaceable, like tablets or phones then that certainly might change.
A kind of sad irony that ebooks effectively attack the few remaining strengths paperback books have. Can't sell the high-end without the showroom. Funny, I'm the opposite here. I'm about to head to Mexico and my criteria for travel reading is the following: 1. Is it pool/beach friendly? tablets don't like direct blazing sunlight for hours a a time, get hard to read (depending on model), don't like water sand and oil, etc. 2. Can I shove it anywhere at any time and not care if the integrity of it is disturbed? 3. How bummed will I be if I leave it on the plane? For me, a nice paperback beats tablets traveling across the board. You can sit on them, leave them wherever, forget them, abuse them, -doesn't really matter, and I've yet to find a tablet that is as legible as a book in the Caribbean sun at high noon.I'm almost certain of it.
Unless I am traveling, I prefer a paper book.
I'm not too familiar with McSweeny's but I've enjoyed a few Believer Magazines in the past. My friend Jim once interviewed Bjork and wrote a piece about it for The Believer. He once played me the audio from his interview and its a really funny listen. As the interview progresses you can hear Jim's voice getting progressively higher pitched and more child-like, just like Bjorks. -It was completely unintentional but really obvious upon listening. By the end of him playing it I was crying and could hardly breath I was laughing so hard.