Reading on paper or screen

[Bluebird Marsha]

I agree that the sensory experiences of possessing a book cannot be replaced by an e-reader. Amazon cannot replace the euphoria I feel finding a new bookstore or browsing throughout one, but unfortunately many of my favorite authors are extremely hard to find and usually they are in poor condition. E-readers allow me to read those hard to find books that I so crave.

One unfortunate by product of cheaper, mass produced books was the introduction of wood pulp paper instead of linen/cotton rag paper. Since it wasn't recognized until the 1930s as a problem, there's a big chunk of books that deteriorate badly from those eras (mid-1800's-1950s and later). The books made today are generally produced on acid-free paper, but if your favorite author's work was published on the "bad" paper, finding a good copy is going to be difficult/pricey.

[LizzieMaine]

Other than the obvious problem with paperbacks, the books you most often have to worry about are the "drugstore reprints" that came out in the thirties and forties -- mostly hardcover reissues of popular fiction published to sell for a dollar. These were printed on common newsprint, and are often browned when you find them today -- but original printings by the original publishers of the very same books are fine. My shelf of Ellery Queen first editions have perfectly supple, cream-colored pages, while the Triangle Books reissues of the same books -- which are ten to fifteen years newer -- are uniformly browned. I expect the first editions to outlive me, which is all I'm particularly concerned about, but I wouldn't spend a nickel to collect the reprints.

Not all paperbacks come on shoddy newsprint -- the early Pocket Books used a very high grade of paper that's still white and supple going on eighty years later. Even the wartime editions of Pocket Books don't use the cheap newsprint of 50s-era paperbacks.

[Miss Stella]

I will always be on the lookout for old books for my bookshelf....but I like my kindle fire for reading the classics (many are free) as well as for reading the vintage internet sites I adore. I just am careful that I use my kindle to MY advantage and not let it take advantage of me

[TraditionalFrog]

I'm in total agreement with Lizzie Maine on the matter of ebooks. When I receive a lengthy email or need to read a large article online I always print it out to read. On rare occasion I have been known to print off an ebook that I couldn't find used. As a bibliophle, ebooks (Kindles, Nooks, etc) are a nightmare come true. I'm always told that it's cheaper than buying hard copy books. I always say that it really isn't. I get most of my books from Alibris or Half Price Books (there are three here in the Indy area), and when I get a new book I always make use of bookstore coupons, plus I have a Barnes & Noble's member card. I really, really, miss Borders and their 30 and 40% off coupons. I purchased a WWII book that retailed at $50.00 for $9.99 brand new at Half Price books just recently. So regarding ebooks, thanks but no thanks, I'll pass!

I also subscribe to the local daily paper and Time Magazine. The eEditions just don't make the cut in my book.

[V.C. Brunswick]

One unfortunate by product of cheaper, mass produced books was the introduction of wood pulp paper instead of linen/cotton rag paper. Since it wasn't recognized until the 1930s as a problem, there's a big chunk of books that deteriorate badly from those eras (mid-1800's-1950s and later). The books made today are generally produced on acid-free paper, but if your favorite author's work was published on the "bad" paper, finding a good copy is going to be difficult/pricey.

I've had paperbacks printed on this cheap paper from the '50s that were in near-mint condition totally disintegrate when opened.

[Touchofevil]

Unfortunately, most of what I have found tends to be in subpar condition. Sadly, not everyone is as particular about maintaining their books as I am.

[Pompidou]

I'm in total agreement with Lizzie Maine on the matter of ebooks. When I receive a lengthy email or need to read a large article online I always print it out to read. On rare occasion I have been known to print off an ebook that I couldn't find used. As a bibliophle, ebooks (Kindles, Nooks, etc) are a nightmare come true. I'm always told that it's cheaper than buying hard copy books. I always say that it really isn't. I get most of my books from Alibris or Half Price Books (there are three here in the Indy area), and when I get a new book I always make use of bookstore coupons, plus I have a Barnes & Noble's member card. I really, really, miss Borders and their 30 and 40% off coupons. I purchased a WWII book that retailed at $50.00 for $9.99 brand new at Half Price books just recently. So regarding ebooks, thanks but no thanks, I'll pass!

I also subscribe to the local daily paper and Time Magazine. The eEditions just don't make the cut in my book.

The biggest benefit to eLibraries is probably archival. If you keep every newspaper for example, people label you a crazy hoarder. You're just like a "cat lady". If you save every ePaper, there's no such stigma. That, and you've got the benefit of every book at your disposal in your pocket. I don't know how I ever made it without mobile Internet. Apple turned me into Asimov's iRobot.

[TraditionalFrog]

I have a small but decent sized library that occupied several walls of an apartment I had. Being a bibliophile however, I love the look of books! Anyway, twice a year I go through and thin out my collection a bit. I'd put the unwanted books out in the laundry room for others to take. Now that I live in a house, I trade them for a few dollars at Half Price Books. I only save newspapers and magazines from major historical events like 9/11 or presidential inaugurations, etc. True, eLibraraies reduce the clutter and free up space, but so far this hasn't really been an issue. To be honest, I get carried away purchasing as it is at bookstores, the last thing I need is the fingertip access of an eReader.

The one benefit perhaps I'll concede to eReaders is they likely have opened up the world of books and literature to those who otherwise would never have likely picked up a book. That said, I'll still pass. Also, is the issue of screens everywhere at every angle you look. Sadly it seems many people under 30 have a hard time unless it is on a screen, they're literally attached to the things. It always strikes me as odd to observe people walking down the street, head slightly bowed staring a screen, just like people talking to apparently no one (really on a Bluetooth) at a restaurant. Sigh!

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, the filp side of the equation is that if it wasn't for those "hoarders," we wouldn't have a lot of the material we have access to today. About thirty years ago I lucked onto a large stash of the New York Daily News from 1933-38, many copies still in their original mailing wrappers. The survival rate of 1930s tabloid newspapers in their original form -- not microfilm, but actual papers -- is extremely low, and for a lot of reasons the original paper is preferable to a microfilm version.

[MisterCairo]

Here's a great way to reduce your library and share books:

http://www.bookcrossing.com/

I have a couple out there floating around....