Skip to main content

The seductive touch of paper

As a writer, I've been fascinated by the idea of ebook readers for some time - I've had a sneaky go with the Sony Reader sample in Waterstones, but I couldn't imagine what it was like to use a lump of metal and plastic instead of the real thing. This made it doubly interesting to be asked to review ebook readers for a magazine.

I can't comment on the results - you'll have to wait until the magazine is out in November - but I can consider on the overall experience. As it happens I was re-reading the Sherlock Holmes stories, which made it easy to flip my bedtime reading between paper and the various electronic offerings.

The good news is that they were easy to read, and no problem to substitute for the paper. But I confess, I prefered a conventional book in every case. I'm not one of these 'it's the smell of a book, the tactile experience, etc., etc.' people. It was simply a more pleasant experience (and you don't have to turn the page so often).

Page turning is an important factor. Many ebooks turn the page using a button press - and this feels clumsy. This was one of the two huge advantages of using an ebook reader like Stanza on the iPhone. There, turning a page is a matter of a very natural flick of the finger. The other big advantage the iPhone has (shared by the Kindle in the US, but not by any UK ebook readers yet) is being able to summon up a book over the ether. When I was waiting in Bath the other day I was able to get myself something to read despite the shops being closed, and sat happily for around 45 minutes reading on the phone.

So, for me, ebook readers are great when they have the ability to produce a book over the airwaves to fill in some dead time, but as a simple (and still quite expensive) substitute for paper, they remain very much second best.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney7 September 2009 at 15:07

    I'm glad to read this. I feel like an ebook reader is an inevitability in my future. I don't automatically hate the idea of it, but it does feel strange. I suppose all new technology does, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Debi8 September 2009 at 10:31

    The environmental costs of producing, distributing and storing books means that this technology is the obvious way to go for the future. And it makes so much sense to be able to store and carry so many books with such ease as well as access new ones.

    But ... but ... Well, OK. I confess I'm one of the touchy feely brigade who loves the look and smell of Real Books.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg10 September 2009 at 09:20

    I think you are both right. I can't see it replacing paper books any time soon, but it will increasingly be useful, particularly I suspect to professional readers/researchers.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more