I personally welcome this change, but I have also heard from others that say that the devices can't compare to "traditional" books. Which do you think is better: a reading device, or a "traditional" book? Why?
Francisco Rivera
Thank you for letting me blog, Mrs. Powers :)!
Hey, Sisco, the link doesn't work. That doesn't matter though because I had already read this article last week! :D
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm going to keep this short so as to let a quick, conversational debate flow. I personally prefer books over electronic book reader thingies. Call me old-fashioned, but I like my books in the traditional paper and ink sense. There's just something nice about being able to crack open a book and smelling either the musty old-book-smell or the crisp new-book-smell. Also, if you have an e-reader (or whatever they are called), then you don't need to go to a library. I have always loved the feeling of being completely surrounded by books, hence the library being one of my favorite places on earth. An e-reader (?) just takes away all that.
I don't know; maybe I'm not as modern as I should be, but give me a real book made from real trees and real ink over a dumb semi-computer any day.
Caterina Golner
Period 2
Sorry about the link, though I'm pretty sure it was fine. Anyway, here's one I'm sure works tinyurl.com/readingdevices37
ReplyDeleteFrancisco Rivera
Pd. 5
I fixed the link; it should work now. :)
ReplyDeleteI was a big proponent of books until I ordered my first Kindle. It was love at first feel and read. I suppose I sorta miss the sound of a fresh book crackling open, and the smell of a newly printed text. However, the Kindle allows portability, and I have my entire library at my fingertips. When I'm finished with one book, I can easily get another one within seconds. This convenience is what I love about technology. For students, the Kindle offers an easily accessible dictionary. Personally, I find my daughter's vocabulary and reading level have soared since she inherited my Kindle 2. I also see a new found love for reading that had faded away.
Bottom line: I'm an e-reader convert.
I enjoy reading with both a book and a e-reader, but personally, I think e-readers are better for many reasons. First of all, you can hold thousands of books on an e-reader. I only have about 20 on my nook, and it only takes up a fraction of 1% of my memory. Furthermore, it is easier to read because it only takes one hand to hold up an e-reader, while for an actual book you need to hold it up with two hands if you don't want to damage the book. In addition, you don't waste paper with e-readers. Think. A good book has at least 500 pages. And
ReplyDeleteif your a reaLly avid reader, you probably buy an average of about two books a week. That's around 5000 pages a month. Just imagine how many trees would be cut down just so that you can read a book. The books cost a lot of money when you buy them at a book store. On an e-reader it costs a lot less. For example, last week I bought a book on my nook that cost 99 cents, and at Barnes and Noble it cost 8 dollars. Most e-readers are also music players and mini computers, which is also another reason why they rare better than books. You can download music and listen to it while you read, or you can surf the web and send emails. But that's not all! E-readers also have a feature in which the e-reader reads the book to you. If you are tired at night and want to go to sleep, but the book you are reading is very good and you want to continue reading, you can set the e-reader to read to you. I bet your ordinary book can"t do that.
I like regular books and all, but I prefer e-readers.
Yuval S.
Period 3
@ Cat - I totally understand the whole atmosphere with the library. You could take the eReader to the library with you. Actually, I believe that you can check out books from the library with a Nook. (Nook owners?)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I almost forgot the benefit to the environment...
Yes, you can check out e-books from the library with the nook, and I believe also with the kindle.
ReplyDeleteI prefer e-readers to traditional books. I have had my Kindle for over a year now, and I feel I have expanded my vocabulary much more than when I read "traditional" books. The Kindle has a built-in dictionary feature so that the definition of the word appears when the cursor is moved next to it. It is also nice because I have a dictionary with me at all times without the extra 20 pounds of weight. Also, I read the Harry Potter series over the summer, and, as many people know, J.K. Rowling has not made them available e-books. I hated having to wait to go buy the next book, and then I had to carry around giant books with me. With the Kindle, most books are available immediately.
ReplyDeleteWill F.
Period 5
Ok, well while I have never read on an e-reader, I feel there are many pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteHaving an e-reader is great due to the potability, books at your fingertips, and saving trees due to not processing paper.
On the other hand, I, personally, love the smell and feel of bookstores and I adore opening a brand-new book and carrying around with me. Also, one con I feel about an e-reader is that I like bringing books to the beach or pool to read but I think I would feel uncomfortable bringing my expensive electronic device with me to these places where it could potentially get ruined. Also, another place where I enjoy and spend a lot of time reading is on planes. During take-off, you are not allowed to use electronic device so, if you have an e-reader, no reading for you.
Overall, I would have to say that I'm "Team Traditional Books" Who's with me?
Lauren White
Period 5
I usually use books because I enjoy going to the library and I always borrow books. I think that I have only bought like two books in my life; and I don't remember buying either of them. However, according to Mrs. Powers and Yuval, I can check out an e-book from the library. This puts a whole new perspective on things. With the library and book-borrowing issue out of the way, I think an e-reader has more benefits. It is usually lighter because one can take all of their books with them in a small tablet. In addition, like Will said, some e-readers have built in dictionaries, thesaurus, etc. Thus, this can improve vocabulary. Of course, e-readers also save paper, and they are beneficial to the environment. As a result, using an e-reader seems to have more benefits. However, like Cat had said, some people enjoy holding a bock in their hand, and flipping through physical pages. Different people have different preferences.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Cat and Lauren, but I don't really know why I prefer real books to all of the new technology. I just do. Books are so traditional. Although I wish I took more time to read than I do, I don't feel like a Kindle or a Nook would change that.
ReplyDeleteI understand the whole thing about how e-books are easy to carry and they save paper, but I still love the feeling of opening a new book. Also, I agree with Lauren about how you don't want an expensive, electronic device to be ruined when you take it places.
The world is becoming more and more advanced with technology every day--in music, social networking websites, etc. I think that reading paper books is one thing to do that isn't caught up in all of today's technology and can just feel natural!
~Jen Schonberger period 3 :)
I would also like to add on what Lawrence said. He said he likes to borrow books from people. Now, Amazon has added a new feature to the Kindle, borrowing. If the publisher has sharing turned on, then you can email a book to anyone for a fourteen day period. With all of Amazon's Kindle apps for all devices, anyone can read Kindle books and share them with others.
ReplyDeleteWill F.
Period 5
But a shared electronic book is so impersonal! Also, Yuval, yes, trees ARE cut down. But I am not one of those people who buys all of the books that they read.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I think of technology, and I picture fast, efficient, calculating, dead pieces of metal. I picture books and I think of a cozy situation, be it in front of a fireplace or in a beanbag in a corner. Also, there are some books that I just would not feel right reading on a computer, an e-reader, or any other electronic device. I am obviously referring to classics. It may sound weird, but I would feel kind of like a traitor reading something by Dickens on an e-reader, as if some things are meant to be done in an old-fashioned way.
I really do not have much personla expirience with these extravagant and new machines because i like the classic book u carry for everyday like already explained in the text. However, I have been told that this technology is amazing and outstandingly effective. I have not thought about getting one of thse but I certainly will have to think about it before my birthday in a monthe to see if I ask for one. Also, I have been told that these books are cheaper online and as already stated by Will, you can share them for a while. Furthermore, it is good for keeping the environment as Yuval already stated.
ReplyDeleteJuan Morin P#1
sorry i ment to spell personal no 'personla'
ReplyDeleteSorry guys, but I just love curling up to a good... screen.
ReplyDeleteI was perfectly fine, just flipping through my Verne and Bronte, minding my own business, when suddenly I found myself unwrapping a Nook on Chrismannukah. One thing led to another, and I was swept up in a whirlwind, sordid love affair with my little E-Reader. I just have no idea how to break it to my books, especially my little paperbacks, they've always been so soft...
No, seriously, I was once felt that the rustle of paper and ink was simply too sacred too be upstaged by buttons and plug-ins, but once Snooki and I became aqcuainted (bonus feature of a nook: you can name them!) I realized that its not the presentation of the book, its the content that matters. And that is our Disney lesson of the day.
The Nook isn't a "fast, cheap,calculating, dead piece of metal" (especially not the cheap part), as aforementioned. All E-Readers are personalized, be it with decorations or names or, most of all, the books/music stored inside. More so than signing a card to have a book for a week.
Sorry to recycle the arguments above, but I'm always on the move, and I need a book (or the Economist) at my side 24/7. I can't lug my entire bookshelf with me, and Snooki's 100 (and still growing) books are more than enough to suit this bibliophile's literary appetite.
Not to say that I want to completely remove the dying institution of print. I continue to read books, but Snooki is just... absolutely, rivitingly amazing. The way we eat (and how much), the way we talk, the way we write- all are being revoultionized every day - and now the way we read has to evolve, too. Sorry guys, I'm team Yuval and Lawrence.
P.S. Anyone who has a Nook, add me as a contact!
Lisa B.
Period 4
Wow, after reading Lisa's description of "Snooki", I'm kinda tempted to try one of those e-readers. I don't know. I still believe that traditional books are great, but e-readers may just be the new things of the future. Now, I am torn and undecided. Hmm...
ReplyDeleteLauren White
Period 5
Well I definitely prefer the old fashioned books. My mom is a big reader and she has a kindle, but it doesn't really appeal to me as much as the books on my shelf. (1)Old fashioned hard cover books always have cool cover pages while on the kindle or nook, you don't really see the cover. (2)I hate reading off of computers. I cannot read off a computer for more than an hour. I have no idea why it is that way but it is. Even when we have to summarize an article or read something online, if the page is long with a lot of context I normally end up printing it and then highlighting.
ReplyDeleteI understand that kindles, nooks, and other electronic readers are good for the environment. I am a huge advocate for cleaning up the planet and saving it one tree at a time. However, can't we save paper on other things like homework! Also, in our textbooks for school. I mean honestly probably half of the pages in our school textbooks are unnecessary. Well at least in my point of view. Also, there are environment friendly alternatives to paper. I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that nothing beats a old fashioned paper back book. I mean I'm the person who brings three large books to camp and reads them all even if it means schlepping an extra couple of pounds.
Rachel Newman
pd3
I personally think that the e book is better. If you look at the facts, the ebook is expensive, but it is also a good purchase in the long run. After the down price on the e-reader, all the books are inexpensive. The e-reader is light weight so even if you are reading a big book it wouldn't be too heavy. E-readers can go to the library and check out e-books.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the e-reader has most all of the advantages of the traditional book, and it has a lot more.
Kevin Scott Period 5
Francisco, congratulations on your first blog judge officiator/other titles I can't find words for. I read this article earlier, and I personally hate e-books. It seems that people think we are wasting paper. That is why you go to the LIBRARY (it's walking distance from the school). There is no need to buy books when there is a library. To me, E-books always seemed artificial. They kill the term "book." The fun of a big book is that accomplishment that, "I read THAT thing!" once you finish it. A piece of cheap plastic that displays words in the order os books seems so out of the normal. There are too many people too lazy to do the work.
ReplyDeleteE-books are a metaphor for society. Society is getting lazy in actually working. The e-book tries to make things easier, but it really displays laziness. The thought is, "Why go to the library or to Borders when I can just click buy and download the book on my plastic book?" If that is too much work, then people are not showing strength and determination in actually getting off the sofa or the computer.
All in all, E-books will never find a place in my heart (or in my pelvis as a matter of fact). Go regular paper novels!
Jake Ukleja (but you can call me Jake)
Period 6
It's a little off topic, but for those in Science Bowl, how did we even get on thIs discussion? I seriously cannot remember. And I'm amazed that so many people have so many things to say On whether they believe that e-readers or traditional books are better.
ReplyDeleteYuval S.
Period 3
I'd have to say that I'm definitely more for Old-fashioned books. E-books just don't appeal to me. Sure, they might be good for the environment and all, but hello? LIBRARIES? Places where you check out books and return them? Not chop down a tree every time you want to read a book.
ReplyDeleteThere's just nothing like the feel of gazing at a new book, intrigued by the cover (Yes, unfortunately, I am one of those people who partially judges books based on their cover), or the inside flap, thinking, "I can't wait to check this out and start reading..." And walking into a bookstore? Don't even get me started. Especially places like Barnes and Noble (where you can read and have one of their awesome frappucinos at the same time... hehe). I've been known to spend over $57 on one trip to Barnes and Noble (it takes about 2 weeks to earn that much money babysitting, but only about 3 hours to blow it all off.)
Plus, there's the fact that, for some reason, I cannot stand the screens. Why, I have no idea, but there's just something about that whole 'electronic' idea that just takes away from the whole BOOK part. I mean, to me, books are supposed to be paper, not just on one tiny little screen.
I also agree completely with what Lauren said. Places like beaches are great for reading, but I wouldn't quite feel comfortable with taking my expensive Kindle/Nook there, knowing that 1) If I go into the water, it will be left unguarded and 2) That at any moment, some careless beachgoer could either drip water on it or spray sand all over it. Plus of course, the airport scenario. All the electronic signals somehow interfere with the plane taking off (I think), so it has to be turned off. Wouldn't it just be nice to be able to read whenever and wherever you want???
One last thing, this might seem kinda weird, but in printed books, you can get author signatures... :)
Well, all in all, after all these arguments, I would be willing to give e-books a try, but I'm definitely always going to be a traditional book girl. :)
Mira Merchant
Period 3
By the way, which do you guys like more: the Kindle or the Nook?
ReplyDeleteNook vs. book. Interesting. I think it is a classic example of technology taking over(or is trying to) what is considered a classic. I personally prefer a book. There is just a simple pleasure in being able to sit down with a copy of Eragon or Harry Potter, with my dog on my lap, and read. I think a certain element is just lost when you read from a nook or kindle. I like readable electronics and I think that people who love to read but don't have the space or room to to carry there favorite novels can really get a lot out of them. Simply put, I'll just stick with my beat up books.
ReplyDeleteCamilo B.
Period 3
Ryan G
ReplyDeleteI have never used an e-reader before and I am not planning on it. Sure, it is a portable device that stores many books. But what about going to he library-for free? Also, I agree with many that opening up a fresh book, text and all is much more satisfying than reading words on a screen. Plus, not all books are available online. Sometimes, no matter how good technology may seem, the old fashioned way is better...
There's no comparison! No piece of technology can replace the sensation of holding a new book. Yes, the nook/kindle is great for storage and getting books fast. But I think it completely defeats the purpose of a book. I tried out the kindle for a couple weeks, and I didn't like it. Although technology can be very convenient, sometimes the ever-growing technology unnerves me. I feel like it prevents people from enjoying the simple life. The less people appreciate, the greedier our society will become. This is for all technology. Sometimes, "old-fashioned" is better.
ReplyDelete-Ciurtney E. pd 3
@ Will - I did not know that Kindle allowed sharing. New?
ReplyDelete@ book lovers who do not like to read off computers - The eReaders are actually not the same type of screen as a computer which is why you need a light to read in the dark. Because of that, it really does feel the same as reading words from a page in a book and less like reading off a computer.
I'm a Kindle. What are you?
First off, after working at a day camp over winter break I earned enough money to by a Kindle as a birthday present to myself and I did so. I personally prefer the eReaders (I don't know how it should be spelled)are far superior to actual books. The text size can change, you can get instant definitions, and you can search for the first mention of something in the book (i.e. if you could not remember who a character is then it can be searched. I just don't know what to call the file. I call it a book, but my father refuses to do so and calls it an eBook. Another plus on the eReader is the lower prices. While at borders this weekend I saw a book on Teddy Roosevelt that I was interested in, the only problem was that the price was $35. When I arrived at home I looked it up on my Kindle and the price was $12. THAT IS $23 DOLLARS LOWER. With a couple more books like that the eReaders pay for themselves. One thing I do prefer about actual books is the smell of them, that and the smell of cookies are two of my favorite things. But, that is one small thing; eReaders are superior to books in every other way.
ReplyDeleteTyler Levinson Period 6
To be honest, I don't know where I stand in this debate. The last time I read outside of class was... I can't remember. I also never used a kindle or a "Snookie" a day in my life. So I guess I prefer an E-Reader only because it's convenient and cooler looking than a book. Also from Craig/Tyler's description, the E-Reader seems much better to use than a book because of the many features it has.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I forgot to put my name and period.
ReplyDeleteHere you go
Brett Bailey Period 6
@Lauren - Thank you! Snooki and I are flattered. :)
ReplyDelete@Jake... Um, Pole, what you call laziness I call efficiency. I didn't get a Nook just so I wouldn't have to walk to the library. And the point of a book - any book - is not to strengthen your muscles by walking to the library, but to excercise the mind. Sorry.
Whether you prefer traditional books or eReaders, that's your prerogative.But some Nook/Kindle bashers say that Nooks "defeat the purpose of a book." What does that mean? Some people find the ambiance is somewhat lost, which may be true, although the screen of a Nook is specifically designed to preserve the crispness and clarity of a sheet of a paper, not a computer screen. The purpose of a book, once again, is to express ideas through written word - a Nook does not compromise that by any means.
I just realized I'm totally a Mac person. Can anyone tell me why?
ReplyDeleteBecause Macs are awesome!
ReplyDeleteFrancisco Rivera
Pd. 5
Uh, does it have anything to do with Mac's "Power"book?
ReplyDeleteLisa B.
Pd. 4
period 1 nathalia b.
ReplyDeletewell... i really don't have a favorite, i mean both kindles and textbooks have pros and cons. form example, a kindle is a very neat thing it has all coool stuff that you can use that a textbook doesn't have. it might have games activities read out loud to you etc. also the kindle is very portale and you can take it any where. if you hve homework and you need to go somewhere like a soccer game etc. and your homework requires a textbook,you can just bring your kindle and you're ready to go. the cons about the kindle is that if it breaks, it cost an immense amount of money to buy a nrewone instead of a textbook that costs 80 dollars. a pro of the textbook is that it costs less money, it is better for your eye sight instead of being stuck in the computer studying for houra and hours. the cons is that the textbook wastes a lot of ink and paper which means cutting down a lot of trees especially since the textbooks are so big. well i really don't have a favorite, i mean both the kindle and the textbooks have pros and cons.
I am a very picky reader. I really enjoy the, "Pretty Little Liars Series," written by Sara Shepard. I don't really know the difference between and E-reader and a Kindle or a Nook and aparently there is a Snooki now? Well, i never realized the difference between any of them, but I would rather read out of a real paper back book. It just doesn't have the same effect when you are reading off a screen. I have never used a Kindle or whatever other ones there are; also I don't see myself reading off of one in the future. I do read, but it isn't one of my favorite things to do, so i wouldn't spend a lot of money on a Ereader or electronic book of some sort. They sound really cool because they can hold over 1,000 books, they are portable, and small, and they are handheld. But, I don't feel that it has the same effect as reading from a real printed copy of a book. I think that these type of handheld electronic readers are to be purchased by someone who is dedicated to reading and can read really fast, this way one doesn't have to take several trips to the library or the book store.
ReplyDeleteThankss for sharing the article. I liked to see everyone's opinions about this because I have always wondered what everyone enjoyed to use better. I have seen people with Kindles and Nooks and just regular books, and I never really understood the purpose, but now I can see which is prefered and why. (:
Meredith Sheldon
Period 3
Hello. Obviously, this can be extremely controversial. It all depends on how technological you are. If your me, you wouldn't even know what an e reader is, let alone work it.(Which I didn't and don't) But some people are completely technology based. I guess books can be not as portable or as fun as kindles or nooks, but call me old fashioned, I like books better. I never have to figure out have to control and work my book. The closest i actually got to an e reader is getting an IPod app called Stanza. I never got into it and ended up reading about 5 pages in each of the books i got. I guess I would rather play Pocket God or go on YouTube than read while on my IPod.
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
David R.
I am definitely on the side of e-readers. My kindle can get books anywhere so when I finish a book in school, I don't have to wait days for the library to get it. This is the biggest upside. Also, who wants to carry a 700 page book around. An e-reader is much more portable. Although they are more expensive than simply getting books from the public library, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. I recently got my kindle and I just love it.
ReplyDeleteMax Brenner P.6
P.S A Midsummers Night Dream comes free on the kindle. I have already bought it.
First off, @Francisco: PCs are so much more awesome than Macs (FYI).
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely in favor of eReaders. I've had two Kindles (I use the latest version and the rest of my family uses the older version), and I feel like it was love at first sight with this device. It's super portable and lightweight, it doesn't tire your vision, it's connected to the web, and best of all- I can download books instantly! Also, in order to convince my dad to buy me a Kindle, I researched and calculated whether buying the Kindle actually saved money. I found that it does, especially if you’re an avid reader. I also love how you can look up the meaning of a word, search a term on Wikipedia or Google, and even search for a text within the book with just a few clicks. Also, for those readers who like to be able to write and highlight in their books, the Kindle allows you to do this, too. Also, I really don't miss the crinkle of the pages or the "new book smell" as some people might. I actually think that the Kindle is a lot more comfortable to read from than a book. You can adjust the font size and decide whether you want to read in landscape mode or portrait mode. Another pro to the Kindle is (as Mira mentioned) that you’re having a positive impact on the environment because you’re not using up paper. Another cool feature of the Kindle is that you can register an Amazon/Kindle account on up to five devices (other Kindles, computers, smart phones, iPads, etc.). This way, if someone in your family wants to read the same book, newspaper, or magazine, you don't have to wait for them to finish. You can be reading at the same time.
I think I have made my point clear: Kindles are the best thing that has ever happened to the literary world!
Andrea De Abreu
P.5
@Andrea In what world?! Macs are superior in every way.
ReplyDeleteFrancisco Rivera
First of all the Kindles and these easy readers are helpful for the environment, imagine now instead of having to print the 700 pages of Harry Potter now all online. Also, now how much easier is it to walk around a small light weight electronic than to lug a novel around.
ReplyDeleteOn the down side, it takes away from being able to go to the store and start reading the book there to see what the book is about before you buy it. Also there is no library with the Kindle because even after you play for the Kindle the books still cost.
I think for those people who feel like buying the books and cant weight to get them the Kindle is right for you but if you have an over hall of books to read and you can weight for the books at the library, then don’t get the Kindle.
Evan Harber p5
@Andrea
ReplyDeleteDon't exaggerate, Kindles are not the best thing that has ever happened to the literary world. The best thing would be the invention of an alphabet, or if you want to talk technology, the Gutenberg Press.
Another thing, you people are all saying that e-readers save money. May I remind you all that libraries lend books out for FREE? Don't even say the whole, "Yeah, well now I can reread my books whenever I want." argument because most people do not reread books. If so, then check out the book again. It costs you NOTHING.
Another thing, I wouldn't be preaching the whole "e-readers help the environment" thing because when people are reading off of Kindles and Nooks, they aren't exactly thinking, "Oh goody! I just saved a fourth of a tree by downloading these two books!"
@Cat- You are absolutely right about the libraries, though with a Nook, books are maintained in tip-top quality, and my library books are in various degrees of disrepair. Just last week I checked out a book for Journalism class and found- ew!- a Cadbury Cream Egg, carfeully flattened between two pages. Besides, on a Nook (and I believe a Kindle, too) it is possible to check out books from the local library for two weeks, without paying a single cent.
ReplyDeleteAlso, interestingly enough, it takes 17 trees to make a single page of paper for a book (this according to the Reading Benchmark we had to take in September, a fact which I just happen to remember). So downloading a Harry Potter book won't preserve a stump - it can save an entire forest!
Lisa B.
Pd. 4
Lisa B.
Pd. 4
@Lisa- While I agree that e-readers have more benefits than books, and that they save paper, it does not take 17 trees to make a single page of paper. According to this article- http://www.conservatree.org/learn/EnviroIssues/TreeStats.shtml it takes about 24 trees to make a TON of paper. Which is a lot more than one page of paper.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I have a PC and I can say that many Macs (with the exception of school Macs) are better. However, a PC does have some benefits as well.
Lawrence X.
Per. 3
Well, i have never read a book on an e-reader, but i would personally prefer reading in the traditional way. Like Francisco said, something about the smell and feel of a new book just excites me. I must agree though, it does have it's cons. In an e-reader, all you have to do is simply carry one small nook around. It can also carry hundreds of books where areas, a traditional book can be more expensive and be more inconvenient.
ReplyDeleteValeria Martinez
Period 1
@Lisa
ReplyDeleteI went on the website Lawrence talked about. You were right it does take 17 trees but not to make one paper. It takes about 17 trees to make a TON of paper. (Although it is newspaper quality.) So you were just off by four letters. :)
Oh boy, now someone is going to look up that books are killing our planet by roughly ___% or some other statistic like that.
LOL. I just read Meredith's comment, and it made me crack up. :)
ReplyDeleteJeez. I have a feeling I'm about to sound like a broken record, but here I go.
ReplyDeleteAs an avid reader, I know the merits of a book. Have any of you read Inkheart? It actually wasn't one of my favorite books, but I still remember the very beginning. The protagonist, Meggie, sleeps with a book under her pillow because she says it will whisper its story to her at night. That description stuck with me because I feel the same. I don't know if its just me, but each book seems to have its own personality where as the e-reader seems a little.... unfriendly? Maybe I'm only harsh toward this new technology because I've never read from an e-reader. I've heard from many a fan that they were unwilling to give up their books at first, but they have never regretted switching teams. I can definitely understand the perks. Environmentally friendly, portable, and there is fast access to books. That would be the one thing I wouldn't miss; the excruciating wait that you have to suffer through when you order a book from the library. Still, e-readers seem to be taking over, and I'm wary of the change. I'm addicted to the feel of a solid book in my hand, the sound of pages rustling, and even the smell. Everyday I carry my book with me. Without its comforting weight in my hand, I feel paranoid. My book is like my security blanket; an easy escape to another world, just waiting for me. I don't know that I'd feel the same way with an e-reader. Books have been around for so long. Do they really have to be changed?
Lauren Goboff
Period 3
Really, why /wouldn't/ you want a book? The e-readers are cool and all- I want to get one and paint it to look like something out of "Star Trek"- but you're sorta out of luck when the battery dies. I can understand the reasoning behind carrying the electronic books, after all, compared to the sixty billion books I want to read, it weighs less than a pound. But I sort of prefer an actual book, because I can take it anywhere and not need a wi-fi connection or an electrical socket.
ReplyDeletePersonally I like both the e-reader and a regular book. Although, I do have the Kindle I still adore opening a brand new book. I love the smell and texture of a traditional book as well. Nevertheless, a Kindle/Nook is great because you have your entire library with you at all times. I know many people have made this point but it is portable, small, etc. Also, you do not need a wi-fi connection to read on a e-reader for those that were confused above. Although I do not think e-readers sound very popular among avid readers. Referring to the comments above, it seems as if everyone likes reading traditional books rather then e-readers. Although I still and always will love reading a fresh new book I am a Kindle. What are you?
ReplyDelete- Gabbi Solovay Period 5
Although I am a Kindle lover, I found this article quite compelling. It adds a twist to the debate. Check it out: http://nyti.ms/ijTpm8
ReplyDeleteWell, now with a Kindle you can write comments and tag it to a word/phrase/sentence/paragraph/page so that other people can see it, right? That's like the electronic version of marginalia.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't think that marginalia is a good idea in books that are widely circulated (library books) and that many people will borrow. I mean, can you imagine all the hundreds of girls who would write, "OMG, Edward is so hot!!" in the margins of a library-owned Twilight book? The numbers are nauseating...
However, marginalia in a book that you personally own might be kind of cool. If you ever pick it up again, it might be like a way to see how you thought back in the day that you read the book. Also, if you ever lend the book to a friend, and they wrote all over the book, it's kind of like reading the book with them. :)
I have a Kindle and I LOVE it! First of all, some books are only 99 cents. That saves me a lot of money to buy more books. Also, it is portable and light weight. I carry it with me wherever I go just in case I have a chance to read. It saves a lot of paper, too. I have about 30 books on my kindle. If I were to buy a paper version of all those books, that would be roughly 9,000 pieces of paper for those books! To me that sounds like a really big waste of paper. Also, I don't have time to go to the library or the bookstore to get books, so it is so much more convenient for me to just grab my handy kindle, search for a book, and click buy. Then the book shows up in the home page in about five seconds. Also, you can share books with friends who own ereaders. If your friend has an ereader as well you can share books instead of purchasing them. With the Kindle you can highlight, make notes, and post reviews of books when you are done reading them. You can rate the book and read others' reviews. If you aren't sure you want to purchase a certain book. No problem. You can get a sample to try out the book and see if you like it. It also has a built in dictionary so you can always search words. Even if you are in the middle of reading a book and come across a word you don't know, you don't have to go to the home page, look for the dictionary, and search the word. You can just move the cursor next to the word and the definition shows up at the top or bottom of the screen. That is so much simpler. By far, ereaders are so much better than actual books. Don't get me wrong, I still wouldn't pass up a regular paper book, but I definitely perfer an ereader. By the way, Lauren Babitz, the Kindle is way better than the Nook! Haha! :)
ReplyDeleteOh, I almost forgot, The last post was from Emily L. Period 3.
ReplyDeleteTo start off, e readers are just an easier and more convenient way for people such as adults to carry many books with them and PDF's without the bulk.I personally enjoy reading books the old fashioned way and certainly enjoy reading the newspaper(on paper). I feel that with all the books already out we are not wasting paper at all but merely reusing it over, and over again. The books at a library can be checked out for free saving you even the least amount of money during these hard times. Also to state that you have to spend at least a hundred bucks just to purchase an e reader and then go off and spend more money to purchase books. I can understand the viewpoint of saving paper but your not using or wasting paper if you just rent a book and return it for someone else to read. A major factor of why I would rather read off of a traditional book than read off of an electronic e reader is because the e readers can be so fragile and break in an instant as towards where a book can undergo lots. For example if you were to go to a Starbucks, get a coffee, take out your kindle and star reading, if you were to spill the coffee on the kindle, the chances are that it wont survive appose to a book where you can just wipe it off and be good to go. Books overall suit my needs better than an e reader.
ReplyDeleteSam Friefeld
Personally, I prefer reading a book from...well, a book. There's a comfort I get from turning the pages and the smell of a new book. It's almost like an adult getting a new car. I treat my books with a certain respect and hate for anything to happen to them. Not to mention, if I really want to read a book on the go without carrying it with me, there's an app for that.
ReplyDeleteKatelynn Adams Period 3
One aspect that people seem to be bring up a lot is the environment. For someone who cares quite a bit about her books, I have no problem loaning them out. If I hear that someone is interested in reading a book that I have, I offer immediately for them to borrow it. Not only do they save their money, but they don't have to worry about finishing it in time to give it back to the library. Not to mention, regardless of how many people buy eReaders, there will always be those people like myself that prefers a real book, so publishers will continue to print copies of the books.
What I find extremely ironic is that my mother wants an eReader. It figures that the teenager prefers to stay traditional but the parent wants to flow with technology.