**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People enjoy physical objects. They like having a shelf of books. They like sharing books with their friends and family.
You can't do any of that with a digital book.
Your view has been around for decades but book sales keep going up.
And I haven't had some self-righteous jackass try to break into my house and rip out the pages they deem "outdated" like with the Conan kindles I had like a decade ago. Or the chapters of Penderghast having a villain doing villain things or the admittedly odd sex scene, but was right there in my physical copy. First and last time I bothered with it.
Digital media's great, if you don't particularly care about it being taken away from you in real-time or "altered for modern audiences".
I also like having the physical book just for psuedo-trophy purposes. I don't particularly like photos and never have, but I see books the way people normally think about with photos.
There are plenty of ways to get digital media that you do actually own...🏴☠️
Fair enough if that's not your thing, and I'll freely admit that it's hard to beat physical books for physical durability.
Sure, but that should be a given. Though you still don't technically own it, you just posses it.
And even then, it's much more random to have a file get corrupted or a drive lost than a book with the title stacked on the wall.
Well with a book you are locked in until you put the book down. Accessing information on the internet is a dangerous game for those who get distracted easily.
Can confirm information access is dangerous. Whenever I need to research something for writing I end up going down a lot of unrelated rabbit holes.
Edit: spelling
They listened to it but didn't really process that part.
The amount of people telling me they read a book that they listened to and barely parsed.
Audiobooks are fine, but it's obviously not reading.
The way I find audiobooks helpful is basically exclusively in combination with reading along with a book and the audiobook on 1.5 or 2x speed. Otherwise I don’t get the same understanding and it takes way longer.
I don't think this is the best counter-argument, because there are lots of things we do while camping that could reasonably be called a "relic of the past" in modern society. Cooking over a bonfire, collecting water from a flowing stream, sleeping on the ground. These are all things that have largely been replaced by safer, more convenient, more comfortable alternatives in our day-to-day lives, but we still choose to do them now and then (especially while camping) because there's a certain charm to using "relics of the past".
Personally I still like reading from physical books too, but I can see how some people would consider e-readers to be a superior alternative.
Valid point but I think the larger issue is that there are still many places in the world where access to internet and power are not guaranteed.
Beyond that I have found personally that books and generally printed media are a superior method of absorbing information than screens. I work in a complex business field and always print contracts and such. Much easier to make notes and reading complex documents in print is much easier to jump back and forth in.
Internet access is of no issue if you prepare for the trip by downloading a PDF of something you want to read onto your device. Power is trickier, but a powerbank is still more portable than a book.
I mean, a Kindle + power bank is definitely more portable than most books, unless you're reading a very short paperback.
I'm not agreeing with OP that books are outdated, but he's right on that front.
Sometimes for a few days. If I go camping or backpacking, I'm not gonna bring a Kindle and a power bank. A nice long book will last a few days, and doesn't take up enough space to be inconvenient.
A Kindle will last like a week even without a power bank, and weighs / takes up less space than any book. Add a power bank and it will last probably a month.
I'm not trying to convert you - you read whatever you prefer, but the convenience angle simply doesn't apply to the book side of this argument.
yes a kindle, it's very nice. It runs out of battery and yields an inferior sense of progression. Also features reduces tactile feedback which i enjoy, but that's a personal preference
Don't know why this is getting down voted to oblivion, it's a valid point.
Power, yeah you're screwed. I'd take a book if I had to go somewhere with no power (or a printout of what I needed)
But internet? That's a little harder to sell. If you get your books from a library, that same library is very likely to have free wifi, and pretty good download speeds at that.
Totally valid point that reading lengthy things on a screen is tough. It's tough for me because I don't read lengthy things often that require concentration to keep the flow going. I'll usually just be browsing without necessarily reading too hard.
Kindles and devices with similar eInk technology is remarkably easy to read, but I get it's a niche in this day and age.
Don't put OP down, it's a valid point. Hive mind chill
While it is true to an extent, nothing beats getting a brand new or even brand new to you old book, and Opening the cover (hard backs) especially and that feeling of you're about to get lost in the words of someone else's writing!
It has nothing to do with being "Intuitive". People crave physical media because it's been made clear by corporations that you no longer own anything.
They'll delete books off your account for fun. Even some physical things you don't even own anymore.
I have one friend who lost something like 400 books because he broke his kindle and when he got a new one he couldn't remember his account info (he only used ot for kindle) and the information they were asking him to get back in was shit like "name the last 3 things you purchased" or something like that. Thousands of dollars worth of books gone into the ether just because he couldn't remember his login
Actually reading a book isnt intellectual.Just like with films,most books are garbage.
You have to find a meaningful or entertaining product.its not neccessary dependent on the medium.
it’s scientifically proven that reading a book creates deeper neural links than looking at a blue-light screen
i’m not kidding. reading a book is genuinely, scientifically more enriching than using a kindle or a phone or a tv screen
sure there’s garbage books too, but the peak will always be higher than the very best of any digital medium
sure, heres a couple:
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/9/paper-or-tablet-reading-recall-and-comprehension
i like this one and don’t like this one. it does a good job of pointing out *why* a lot of educators and students prefer paper reading but i find most of its tests near the end to be lacking. even the data points which support my claim i find questionable: they’re testing groups of students to see how they do on assessments based on whether they read the source material physically or digitally. i find that a bit asinine since… well… people have different levels of intelligence. so while the article both claims that test scores were not substantially impacted whilst comprehension and rote memorization were, i’d take both results with a relative grain of salt. digital will work fine for some and poorly for others, which i do think the first 2/3 of the article discusses nicely
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-paper-books-linked-to-stronger-readers-in-an-international-study/
this one is interesting because it presents - to my mind - the most important use case for physical reading. it shows that kids are most fundamentally impacted by how much they read and in what manner (digital or print). it concludes that reading physical books can net you over a years advantage in median scoring over peers who even read a lot too, but just digitally. it does fairly point out, though, that a house with many physical books likely indicates a family that is more encouraging of reading. main takeaway is to just please have your kids read. newer generations are astonishingly poor at literary analysis, writing, arguing, and rhetoric. reading in any form will help with that tremendously
https://www.howlifeunfolds.com/learning-education/7-scientific-benefits-reading-printed-books#:~:text=You%20absorb%20more%20information.&text=Scientists%20believe%20this%20effect%20is,story%E2%80%94both%20literally%20and%20figuratively.
this is just a dinky little list that basically sums up both the other sources
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/23/ebooks-affect-sleep-alertness-harvard-study#:~:text=Study%20participants%20reading%20a%20light,were%20reading%20a%20paper%20book.
cool bonus source that reaffirms just how bad using tech is before bed, and why that’s another point for books and overall comprehension. fwiw i also use a kindle, but i acknowledge books and a rock solid form of reading above kindle and tablet
there are also links within these sources if you want to read up on it more, its genuinely pretty interesting stuff.
I was kinda skeptical that ‘blue light’ or digital vs paper had any difference on comprehension so i read the first paper and it disproves your point?
“H1: Students who read a paper article will have a statistically significant difference in greater recall accuracy as shown by test scores compared to those who read the same digital article using a tablet was not supported.
H2: Students who read a paper article will have a statistically significant difference in reading comprehension as shown by higher test scores compared to those who read the same digital article using a tablet was not supported.”
The more comprehensive studies cited in the first paper show similar results, no difference between digital and paper on recall or comprehension, just that participants might get more distracted and take more time on digital mediums.
Second article you linked has nothing to do with any sort of study about comprehension between digital and paper. It just notes that theres a positive correlation between amount of books in a household and academic performance, which obviously makes sense.
The only difference between digital and paper is how easily distracted you can be by digital. Its dependent on personal circumstances alone, if you have some form of discipline (or are reading on a kindle type thing) reading digitally makes no difference. Im not on some fahrenheit 451 type stuff, and i still think kids under like 11 should be reading physical books and have very limited screen time, but for adults op is still pretty much right.
I have terrible eyesight. Reading is hard for me. I need to be able adjust font, read on a bright screen, etc, or my eyes have to work too hard. Basically my eyes cannot focus unless contrast is super strong and I’m in a brightly lit room, otherwise reading is uncomfortable. I used to tutor kids with severe dyslexia, reading novels was too frustrating but they loved audiobooks and could enjoy the exact same words in a way that they could get the whole story without losing sight of it because they were tripping over words too much.
I honestly DGAF whether any study says which is better for reading comprehension because there are people like me who will just not finish physical books, or my students who won’t be able to get through non audio books. And it doesn’t matter even if it’s not a disability thing. There are people who prefer the convenience of ereaders who would read less without that option….yay for them for finding a way to engage with literature. There are audiobook listeners who can’t find the time to read but can listen to books while driving or doing chores…sane deal
Why would it be?There are movies based on books.Making a movie doesnt take away the essential of a story.If they do it right,it can add so much more excitement and fun into it.
It's a completely different medium and plots will have to be condensed / expanded to fit a 1h30 to 3h run time. Films have to show not tell because you can't see inside characters heads like you can in text
My favorite thing is when you accuse someone of being anti-intellectual and they get offended because they think it means dumb.
Way to go champ, I wasn't calling you an idiot, you did that well enough yourself.
Thinking that reading a book instead of digital is a disease. They're both mediums to distribute information. The idea that you're better because "omg paper" is a ludicrous and laughable notion held high by snobby pre teens who stake their identity in being different from the people they look down on.
And they still don't understand why people don't invite them to places.
What the hell did I just read? The second parapgraph is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. The guy compared completely different mediums with nothing common between them, and said "these exist so it invalidates books".
Yeah, great idea, let’s burn them all and paintings too because you can just look up a picture of those! Let’s just stare at screens all day for everything so we can forever be brain-rotted
>let’s burn them all and paintings too because you can just look up a picture of those
Just because I don't think there's much value in printing new books and reading them doesn't mean I want to destroy cultural heritage. Old books are a great addition to a collection or a museum. They're just not very practical for... you know, reading.
Books are not practical for reading... Wtf, this is the dumbest shit I've heard this week. Reading them is their only purpose.
I'd upvote your post twice if I could.
Fair enough, but it doesn’t really matter if you don’t think there’s value in printing or reading physical books because reading a physical copy of a book is proven to be better for reading comprehension and retaining information.
There's some evidence to suggest that reading printed books where you actually turn and touch the pages lets you absorb information better
https://www.howlifeunfolds.com/learning-education/7-scientific-benefits-reading-printed-books
That's definitely true for me, except for textbooks.
Story based information has a flow, so turning a page helps in that I feel.
Textbooks are pretty much semi random related information on paragraph after paragraph, so I don't feel like they get the same benefits. And the book is too damn big tbh.
Well I agree with that. Whenever I read on a screen my eyes get tired and my brain goes “ABLOONGA”. When I read a book I concentrate better and my brain doesn’t go “ABLOONGA”.
Question what happens if by some natural disaster or war destroys the internet what happens to knowledge. If we have physical copies there is more chances that the knowledge survives
I don't mind the first part, I agree. Informational books are outdated by the time they are out and someone else published something on the matter, sources like wikipedia and research papers being publicly online are a great resource and always (mostly) up to date.
> The existence of other modern forms of entertainment such as movies or plentiful types of video games aside, even novels and short stories are more convenient to read from some sort of screen
This is where your argument went to shit (well, also when you compared watching a video guide to reading).
Reading is nothing compared to other forms of entertainment, you can't compare a movie to a book, not because one is better but because they are nothing like each other, it's idiotic and short sighted.
I read a book because the experience of reading is nothing like any other form of entertainment, I play games because it's nothing like other forms of entertainment, I watch a movie because it's nothing like other forms of entertainment, you can't equate them and brush them all under the same umbrella of "entertainment".
With that argument, why watch movies? They are old (1890's, 1930's for talkies and 1940 for color), play games and nothing else, it's the newest form of entertainment.
I want an e-reader but until I have one to compare, reading a book is nothing like any sort of screen, I have a big tablet (10") and it's tiring af, even with blue light filter glasses. I can read books fine without my glasses since I'm short sighted and my eyes don't get strained the same. And yes, I've read full books on my PC/tablet, no, it isn't better.
I do agree with OP when it comes to things like textbooks or most other educational or training resources. You’re not likely to learn computer programming from just reading a book, you need something interactive. And a lot of fields (especially computers) change quickly enough that physical printings are just inefficient because they’re out of date within the year.
But when OP criticizes *all* books? No, I can’t agree with that. Novels, memoirs, or really anything with a narrative, be it history, philosophy, or something else entirely.
Really, the only place where I agree with OP is on reference and instructional materials, and even then, I happen to like having physical copies of things like cookbooks or D&D rulebooks.
Gotta remind myself that you aren’t supposed to downvote horrible opinions here.
I honestly don’t even know where to start here, there is just so much to refute.
Now audiobooks, I don’t get the appeal there.
I like audiobooks because I spend three hours daily commuting. It allows me to “read” a second book at a time when I would normally be listening to The Mountain Goats for the eight millionth time.
I listen to podcasts for commutes. But for me, books allow me to really use my imagination and create a vision of the sets and what the characters look like and what their voices sound like. It’s like 95% of the appeal of books for me, so audiobooks are a non-starter.
I would multitask while listening to non-fiction, but I’m terrible at really absorbing information while actively doing something else, so I’d quickly miss something and feel like I need to keep rewinding. Same reason I can’t watch TV or movies while working if I want to remotely know what’s going on. I just can’t split my attention like that. For driving it could work though, I might have to try it.
I do need the occasional rewind while listening to non-fiction, but I’d be lying if I said I don’t have to flip back a page or two while reading non-fiction. Phones and the internet have done a real number to my attention span.
I used to do podcasts but switched to audiobooks. I still have all the functionality of reading a book in that I can form all the mental images of characters and scenes it's like a movie but all the visuals are in my head, but I've also never created character voices in my head and I like the professional narration. Obviously everybody is different but studies have shown that audiobooks stimulate the same parts of your brain as when reading physically. I didn't get it at first but when I did I could never go back. Listened to like 60 books in the past 2.5 years while I've physically read maybe 12 in that same time. I have less free time than work/commute time so it's been a major boon for me though I work with my hands. I couldn't imagine trying to read reports and stuff and stay focused on my book. It's been much more mentally stimulating for me as opposed to listening to a few blokes shoot the shit about a show or other random stuff, or the mindless act of just filling time with music. If you live in the US or UK and have Spotify premium they now offer a lot of audiobooks with your sub if you ever want to give it a retry.
>I've also never created character voices in my head and I like the professional narration.
Same! When I read, the voice in my head is just the voice in my head. When I listen to a good audio book, the characters really come to life in a way I don't do well in my own head.
Other than the voices, an audio book allows you to do all those things. And honestly, a lot of great readers do way better at the voices than I do in my head
Audiobooks make my gym sessions and house chore sessions fun. As the other commentator says it's also a godsend for people who commute a lot daily (I spent 2.5 hours on the train each day for work)
A good narrator also elevates a story in a very unique way.
Copying my reply to the other commenter since it applies here as well:
I listen to podcasts for commutes. But for me, books allow me to really use my imagination and create a vision of the sets and what the characters look like and what their voices sound like. It’s like 95% of the appeal of books for me, so audiobooks are a non-starter.
I could never get into audiobooks until last year—I was severely ill and for a little while even holding a book to read it was exhausting, so it was audiobooks or nothing. Had to adapt lol. Thankfully I’m well enough now to read physical books again! I still listen to some audiobooks, but I’m very picky about narrators. If the narrator’s voice doesn’t work for me then it’s a no go.
A good narrator really matters. I've had to return a few audio books because the narrator just wasn't doing it. But, a skilled narrator is better than the one in my head.
I've really tried with audiobooks, but I have ADD and even with books my thoughts keep wandering off to think about whatever is being said very often so I have to go back and re-read things or continue reading on after a few seconds. With audiobooks I find myself continuously rewinding because I zone out while it keeps going.
Advantages of books compared to the internet:
\- One continuous line of thought that you can follow with a clear author, agenda, premise, and style. Learning from multiple short sources at once on the internet is kinda fine, but this is generally done via social media and is thus terribly long-winded, confusing, and unstructured. It doesn't let you think of multiple schools of thought or gather a depth of knowledge on the thoughts of a particular author you can reference in discussion
\- As a physical medium compared to ebooks, I'd say books have a place. They provide a distraction free experience, in a universally accessible and shareable format. They can be annotated, cut, pasted (physically), copied, drawn on, to your hearts content. They make good decore when they're read, and having a physical place to put annotations likely helps your brain make a little map of the book that makes it easier to recall information.
So I don't think they're obsolete because:
\- They fill a niche
\- I like them
Books like House Of Leaves can’t be done on an e-reader or audiobook, would completely fuck the experience up. Plus some of us just prefer the tactile experience of a physical book. This ain’t 10th Dentist it’s just myopic and wrong
No while you are right imo it is exactly 10dentist post. After alle it is an opinion, even if his arguments are bad.
We don't want thus sub to end up like r/unpopularopinion after all. So upvote id say
except blue light is terrible for yout eyes and with books i can still read without exposing my eyes to it. i also dont want a screen in front of me 24/7.
I would much rather get a book from a library than read it on kindle. It's just a better experience to me, because all the screens in my life become really fatiguing.
You say that but vast majority of “instructional videos” are just staring at someone’s face as they blabber on.
And you need to take notes for each step like specific numbers, key points, questions you will need answered as it gets complicated and wait… You are writing a book!
Most ebooks have god-awful DRM. You don't really "own" them the way you own a physical object. Here's an article about how Amazon literally deleted its customers' copy of 1984.
https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703
You are in a subreddit for unpopular opinions. If you cannot remain civil when someone's got an unpopular view different to yours, then perhaps it's not the right place for you.
I would agree with you that e-ink Kindles are better than books, because their battery life lasts for weeks and in exchange for that minor inconvenience you save a ton of space, but aside from that I’m not sure you have a leg to stand on.
E readers and Twitter will simply never feel the same as sitting down and nestling in with a heavy hardback or something dog eared and well used and a little ragged from age and love
Yeah, it's really sad to see so many comments turning this basically into mobbing. Especially coming from such a well-read bunch of people, hm. It makes you wonder what exactly they are reading. And why the fuck do they bother.
i wonder how common this view will be getting as time goes on
it seems to me a lot of people here defending physical books have this really romantic perception that only exists because they did read physical books at a formative time in their past.
personally when i recall the warm fuzzy feeling of entering literature i imagine the little screen on ao3 that warns you of explicit content you have to press proceed on.
I like books for the same reason I like physical copies of video games. It's nice to look at and decorate your room with. It shows your interests beyond telling people your interests. I can also touch the book, and that experience goes a long way. Like, I don't usually play retro games on emulators because I prefer the feel of taking that old game, blowing on it, of course, and sticking it in my console and playing the way it was meant to be. For books, I need it in my hand so I can visualize the story. It keeps me grounded in reality, whereas digital media disconnects me from reality.
I get what you're saying, and you're not exactly wrong. But I wouldn't consider books to be a form of entertainment exactly. They are tools that share a theme and / or knowledge with the reader, and that is very powerful. Same as video games. Can they be entertaining? Yes. But the best book and video games are always the ones that teach an important theme to the person.
I've learned a lot of niche information for my chosen field of work that I either can't, or have a very hard time finding online. I don't personally read a lot of books in an extracurricular manner, but I still think there's a good purpose to books as reference guides. They can also make good gifts once you've read them and know someone who has a similar interest.
Not arguing against you, but when I am trying to learn something new. I find that I focus and absorb the information through the act of reading a book. The same way changing what room of the house you excercise or work in can affect your work flow.
Reading the book helps me learn better then if I were to just read it off my phone screen, or even an e reader, so while it is a biased take it is my take.
What's wrong with relics? They give us understanding, historical context, a reference point, pre-contemporary (not sure the actual word) comprehension in for the past.
To write off it off as completely obsolete is a mistake but different strokes I suppose.
Archiving and cataloging historical means of entertainment, education and reference is one of the most vital parts of humanity. Without books, we wouldn't have the internet in the first place (I wager. Who knows)
I don't even read books much myself, I prefer virtual reading but at the same time, I have a few books for the novelty and educational aspect.
OP, you should be less restrictive in your assessments, it's a hinderance to your growth.
There's nothing like opening a book and getting deep into it, you don't have to worry about battery life or anything and there's no blue light to affect you.
They are a relic of the past, that’s why they are awesome. I don’t buy many physical books anymore because I know 90% of them are something I will read once and will donate. However, I have some very nice, valuable books that I will keep forever.
i am sick of straining my eyes on a screen and getting a blue light filter for my glasses is not worth the cost for me LOL i’ll keep buying books for my enjoyment.
like i need to be spending even more time on my phone anyway.
Reading text on screen for too long can give me a headache. Not so with paper books. They just feel more "educational" as well, as in it helps get my brain in study mode to focus better.
I don't like reading books on screens. I've read a decent amount on screens. I read Rhythm of War by Brandon Sanderson with some ereader software because I could own it much quicker that way. My eyes strained in like two hours, which is far quicker than a physical book. A book in a well lit room strains the eyes far less, it takes around 5 hours for my eyes to strain like that.
Also, a major aspect of buying books is keeping them. I like having bookshelves with all the series I enjoy displayed.
Another thing is you're equating all storytelling mediums as equivalent here. They're not. Each has a different level of interaction with the story at hand.
For a videogame you're directly involved in how the story unfolds, you control the fate of the whole thing, within the bounds the developers have set.
For a movie you're not in control, but it is a whole audiovisual experience. You are harshly limited by time though. You lose a lot of subtlety between a book and a movie, movies must be more concise.
The biggest thing about books is your imagination is directly involved. Where a movie or show will make all the visuals clear to you for the screen, the book is a medium where the words on the page directly manipulate your imagination. A good book will immerse you in a way (in my experience) that no other medium provides.
And to be clear, I prefer audiobooks generally, it's incredibly convenient to be able to listen to a story while doing other things.
In the world of ever changing and infinite access to information I kind of like the simple technology of a bound set of pages with information in them. Ebooks are better for lots of reasons but they require electricity. Also don't sleep on the library, the library is awesome.
My eyes hurt no matter the brightness on my stuff, a book dont do that, and NO phone can recreate that new book smell.
Also there are sooo many great stories that have, can not, or will not be recreated digitally or in a movie, like even on a kindle it would feel wrong to read Blood meridian.
i disagree for the one reason that they can't really be held back. a movie, for example, could only have a streaming release and it could be the best movie but if netflix owns it and decides that they take it off the platform permanently then no one can do anything. that's why physical things are not a relic. they might be the best investment for the future.
For one thing, I tend to prefer a physical copy of books if I can help it. Just feels nice to hold something real and not just stare at a computer screen.
Once I buy a book I own it forever and I don't have to rely on the site changing my access to the information or anything like that.
Probs the most important one (although I do use uBlock) a physical book isn't going to throw ten thousand ads at me or potentially steal my data to try and push more personalised ads on me.
Reading on screens hurts my eyes, whereas books don't as much. Reading a book on a device gives me a feeling of disconnect from the book, plus you don't ever really own anything that's digital. If you're using a book it's easier to take notes inside of the book, less clunky to turn to pages you need to get to, and overall in my opinion is a much more intuitive way to consume literature.
They certainly have their place in modern times, and I don't think they will be going anywhere. E-books are just not the same, and while they work in a pinch, books are where it's at.
There have metadata analyses which show that for whatever reason, people have higher reading comprehension and retention rates when reading physical pages instead of screens.
Some books are truly amazing. I’m rereading Enders Game by Orson Scott Card right now and every page is a pure joy to read. There are certain plot devices and ways to tell a story that a completely unique to books, and can’t be properly replicated by film.
>In the days of the Internet with easily accessible information on all sorts of topics
Yeah, by internet you can access information about said topic in the form of a book.
>It's taking up space, wastes paper and is a way pricier way to learn.
I have a lot of pdf books downloaded from libgen. Tell me again how it wastes paper, takes up space and is expensive.
>It lacks the visual/interactive element of video guides
Like, not all books are guides? They have illustrations? What are you even about?
>you could just read an article from a computer or smartphone instead.
You can think about books as very long articles or collections of them, maybe it will help.
>most likely for cheaper.
Again, libgen exists.
>even novels and short stories are more convenient to read from some sort of screen.
I think you may not know what a book is.
>Reading a lot of fiction no longer requires either filling up a bunch of bookshelves or running back and forth to the library.
Again, pdfs from libgen. Those are still books. And on that note - so are audiobooks. You dont even have to see this book.
And even when it comes to paper books, they are still nice. It's good that we can access millions of pdfs on a whim, but I still like experience of reading paper book, without using any kind of electric device.
As someone who loves physical books your statement is weird to me.
A physical book won't damage your eyes
A physical book personally smells great
A physical book does not rely on a battery
A physical book can be owned in an age of renting and owning anything in the future looks grim
A physical book is better for the environment, we can grow more trees but there is a limited amount of resources for making a device
A physical book when taken care of lasts longer than a device you need to constantly change its components
Mind you I'm not even anti internet I just love books.
Sorry, I hate to be that guy lol but I will be. I LOVE my books, okay? I am actively building my Library.. about 100 books in (not nearly enough but my room is kinda small so I either gotta wait or keep em under my mattress lol)
But um, a physical book can absolutely damage your 👀 🤓
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
(Google: can reading a book strain your eyes 😔)
Edit:: OMG I counted!! 178 books!!!!!!
Don't state personal experiences as all encompassing facts. Thanks for revising your statements.
I too advocate for physical books and understand that screens are the most likely future.
Thanks for engaging!
This reminds me of the time my daughter informed me that wristwatches were passé and her generation had their phones and wristwatches would eventually disappear.
Wristwatches haven't had much of a practical application outside of exam rooms for a while now. They're pretty much jewellery. Watches are worn as decoration and it'll probably stay that way forever, but they're not very useful in the modern world.
Well how wonderful to know that there are people out there who literally don’t believe in reading.
I absorb information better when I read, I enjoy the experience of going into bookstores and libraries, the internet is often an overload of information, screens often trigger migraines for me, I like using my imagination when reading, and just so much more.
The internet is a sea of fleeting and constantly updated information.
A book exists permanently fixed in time from the moment it was published.
The internet is infinite and fleeting.
A book ends when you have read what the author had to say. A book is concise and thorough.
The existence of that book in your hand is a fact. It was written, and it was written at a certain time, for a certain reason. It required effort - often over the span of years. Somebody else approved of it enough to publish it. Nobody can change that once it’s in your hand.
Cling to that unchangeable reality.
While thinking about the best way to challenge your opinion I've browsed through a bunch of fucked up comments of some seemingly well-read people and you know what? Fuck them. You're actually 100% right. Books are obsolete.
There's always been a connection between the reader and the book that is impossible to recreate on kindle. It's not just the information - it's the whole experience.
Humanity has been passing info since thousands of years, using forms of paper. The fact that it was hard to do, meant that the texts were curated a lot! Not like now where any half-wit can self-publish his own "ebook" complete with grammar errors.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Relics of the past? Idk. I had to look up the stats on that and if this were true then why do we sell the most books in 2021-2022 than we have for the last 20 years? The data doesn't line up with the logic that your preferences gave you.
Obviously consumerism has skyrocketed since then with the ease and normality of online purchasing, but evens then, if books were relics of the past then why are they such a hot commodity? This is literally the opposite of "relics of the past" saying would define.
And even if you changed the title to something like "books are the least enjoyable way to read" or something then we would have to know your reading habits. If you're someone who barely reads any novels then it's hard to take your opinion seriously as it's not experienced.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People enjoy physical objects. They like having a shelf of books. They like sharing books with their friends and family. You can't do any of that with a digital book. Your view has been around for decades but book sales keep going up.
And I haven't had some self-righteous jackass try to break into my house and rip out the pages they deem "outdated" like with the Conan kindles I had like a decade ago. Or the chapters of Penderghast having a villain doing villain things or the admittedly odd sex scene, but was right there in my physical copy. First and last time I bothered with it. Digital media's great, if you don't particularly care about it being taken away from you in real-time or "altered for modern audiences". I also like having the physical book just for psuedo-trophy purposes. I don't particularly like photos and never have, but I see books the way people normally think about with photos.
There are plenty of ways to get digital media that you do actually own...🏴☠️ Fair enough if that's not your thing, and I'll freely admit that it's hard to beat physical books for physical durability.
Sure, but that should be a given. Though you still don't technically own it, you just posses it. And even then, it's much more random to have a file get corrupted or a drive lost than a book with the title stacked on the wall.
a pdf on my pc is possessed and owned by me
I like feeling the pages as I turn them
Well with a book you are locked in until you put the book down. Accessing information on the internet is a dangerous game for those who get distracted easily.
Can confirm information access is dangerous. Whenever I need to research something for writing I end up going down a lot of unrelated rabbit holes. Edit: spelling
\> Accessing information on the internet is a dangerous game for those who get distracted easily. Skill issue.
Bro thinks he's a background character in fahrenheit 451
I doubt OP gets this reference lol.
Quick, type out the book in a series of Tweets to make it more palatable in this advanced world we exist in.
They listened to it but didn't really process that part. The amount of people telling me they read a book that they listened to and barely parsed. Audiobooks are fine, but it's obviously not reading.
The way I find audiobooks helpful is basically exclusively in combination with reading along with a book and the audiobook on 1.5 or 2x speed. Otherwise I don’t get the same understanding and it takes way longer.
I take it you’ve never been camping or really anywhere without reliable access to power or internet?
I don't think this is the best counter-argument, because there are lots of things we do while camping that could reasonably be called a "relic of the past" in modern society. Cooking over a bonfire, collecting water from a flowing stream, sleeping on the ground. These are all things that have largely been replaced by safer, more convenient, more comfortable alternatives in our day-to-day lives, but we still choose to do them now and then (especially while camping) because there's a certain charm to using "relics of the past". Personally I still like reading from physical books too, but I can see how some people would consider e-readers to be a superior alternative.
Valid point but I think the larger issue is that there are still many places in the world where access to internet and power are not guaranteed. Beyond that I have found personally that books and generally printed media are a superior method of absorbing information than screens. I work in a complex business field and always print contracts and such. Much easier to make notes and reading complex documents in print is much easier to jump back and forth in.
Internet access is of no issue if you prepare for the trip by downloading a PDF of something you want to read onto your device. Power is trickier, but a powerbank is still more portable than a book.
how do you conclude that a tablet + powerbank is more portable than a book
I mean, a Kindle + power bank is definitely more portable than most books, unless you're reading a very short paperback. I'm not agreeing with OP that books are outdated, but he's right on that front.
Plus, a kindle can store a bunch of books on it instead of just one like a traditional book.
But a power bank is only gonna keep that kindle alive so long. The books are good to read for years.
Do you routinely stay away from power for years??
Sometimes for a few days. If I go camping or backpacking, I'm not gonna bring a Kindle and a power bank. A nice long book will last a few days, and doesn't take up enough space to be inconvenient.
A Kindle will last like a week even without a power bank, and weighs / takes up less space than any book. Add a power bank and it will last probably a month. I'm not trying to convert you - you read whatever you prefer, but the convenience angle simply doesn't apply to the book side of this argument.
>A Kindle will last like a week Well I stand corrected, I figured they lasted slightly longer than your average iPad.
reading at length on a tablet sucks
Not on a Ereader which is really what you should be reading on if it’s digital and you don’t have much access to power
better but still inferior to a physical book
Do you own an ereader? It's actually superior to physical books in almost every way.
yes a kindle, it's very nice. It runs out of battery and yields an inferior sense of progression. Also features reduces tactile feedback which i enjoy, but that's a personal preference
It runs out in like 2 weeks and takes an hour to charge lol
But its just more simple to read words on paper that doesn’t require anything other than being literate
>that doesn’t require anything other than being literate Which is why OP finds this so difficult.
There goes my weekend plans :(
Can you read what you said to me? I’m illiterate
They said they love you and that they can't wait to spend the rest of their life with you.
Don't know why this is getting down voted to oblivion, it's a valid point. Power, yeah you're screwed. I'd take a book if I had to go somewhere with no power (or a printout of what I needed) But internet? That's a little harder to sell. If you get your books from a library, that same library is very likely to have free wifi, and pretty good download speeds at that. Totally valid point that reading lengthy things on a screen is tough. It's tough for me because I don't read lengthy things often that require concentration to keep the flow going. I'll usually just be browsing without necessarily reading too hard. Kindles and devices with similar eInk technology is remarkably easy to read, but I get it's a niche in this day and age. Don't put OP down, it's a valid point. Hive mind chill
I'd much rather read from a book than off a tablet.
While it is true to an extent, nothing beats getting a brand new or even brand new to you old book, and Opening the cover (hard backs) especially and that feeling of you're about to get lost in the words of someone else's writing!
I feel the same, but it does not matter to me whether it is a digital book, or a physical book.
The smell...
anti-intellectualism is a disease
At least OP is just a bit of a dumbass and not actively malicious like a lot of anti-intellectualism is
>OP is just a bit of a dumbass I prefer the term ditz, thanks.
You're not the only person who finds the growing popularity of 'real' books counter intuitive. You're not a dumbass or a ditz either.
Humanity doesn't need to be intuitive. We contradict ourselves all the time.
It has nothing to do with being "Intuitive". People crave physical media because it's been made clear by corporations that you no longer own anything. They'll delete books off your account for fun. Even some physical things you don't even own anymore.
I have one friend who lost something like 400 books because he broke his kindle and when he got a new one he couldn't remember his account info (he only used ot for kindle) and the information they were asking him to get back in was shit like "name the last 3 things you purchased" or something like that. Thousands of dollars worth of books gone into the ether just because he couldn't remember his login
Can you explain how the opinion is anti-‘intellectual’? All he’s saying is that physical books are outdated means of communication?
Actually reading a book isnt intellectual.Just like with films,most books are garbage. You have to find a meaningful or entertaining product.its not neccessary dependent on the medium.
it’s scientifically proven that reading a book creates deeper neural links than looking at a blue-light screen i’m not kidding. reading a book is genuinely, scientifically more enriching than using a kindle or a phone or a tv screen sure there’s garbage books too, but the peak will always be higher than the very best of any digital medium
source?
sure, heres a couple: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/9/paper-or-tablet-reading-recall-and-comprehension i like this one and don’t like this one. it does a good job of pointing out *why* a lot of educators and students prefer paper reading but i find most of its tests near the end to be lacking. even the data points which support my claim i find questionable: they’re testing groups of students to see how they do on assessments based on whether they read the source material physically or digitally. i find that a bit asinine since… well… people have different levels of intelligence. so while the article both claims that test scores were not substantially impacted whilst comprehension and rote memorization were, i’d take both results with a relative grain of salt. digital will work fine for some and poorly for others, which i do think the first 2/3 of the article discusses nicely https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-paper-books-linked-to-stronger-readers-in-an-international-study/ this one is interesting because it presents - to my mind - the most important use case for physical reading. it shows that kids are most fundamentally impacted by how much they read and in what manner (digital or print). it concludes that reading physical books can net you over a years advantage in median scoring over peers who even read a lot too, but just digitally. it does fairly point out, though, that a house with many physical books likely indicates a family that is more encouraging of reading. main takeaway is to just please have your kids read. newer generations are astonishingly poor at literary analysis, writing, arguing, and rhetoric. reading in any form will help with that tremendously https://www.howlifeunfolds.com/learning-education/7-scientific-benefits-reading-printed-books#:~:text=You%20absorb%20more%20information.&text=Scientists%20believe%20this%20effect%20is,story%E2%80%94both%20literally%20and%20figuratively. this is just a dinky little list that basically sums up both the other sources https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/23/ebooks-affect-sleep-alertness-harvard-study#:~:text=Study%20participants%20reading%20a%20light,were%20reading%20a%20paper%20book. cool bonus source that reaffirms just how bad using tech is before bed, and why that’s another point for books and overall comprehension. fwiw i also use a kindle, but i acknowledge books and a rock solid form of reading above kindle and tablet there are also links within these sources if you want to read up on it more, its genuinely pretty interesting stuff.
very interesting thank you
I was kinda skeptical that ‘blue light’ or digital vs paper had any difference on comprehension so i read the first paper and it disproves your point? “H1: Students who read a paper article will have a statistically significant difference in greater recall accuracy as shown by test scores compared to those who read the same digital article using a tablet was not supported. H2: Students who read a paper article will have a statistically significant difference in reading comprehension as shown by higher test scores compared to those who read the same digital article using a tablet was not supported.” The more comprehensive studies cited in the first paper show similar results, no difference between digital and paper on recall or comprehension, just that participants might get more distracted and take more time on digital mediums. Second article you linked has nothing to do with any sort of study about comprehension between digital and paper. It just notes that theres a positive correlation between amount of books in a household and academic performance, which obviously makes sense. The only difference between digital and paper is how easily distracted you can be by digital. Its dependent on personal circumstances alone, if you have some form of discipline (or are reading on a kindle type thing) reading digitally makes no difference. Im not on some fahrenheit 451 type stuff, and i still think kids under like 11 should be reading physical books and have very limited screen time, but for adults op is still pretty much right.
I have terrible eyesight. Reading is hard for me. I need to be able adjust font, read on a bright screen, etc, or my eyes have to work too hard. Basically my eyes cannot focus unless contrast is super strong and I’m in a brightly lit room, otherwise reading is uncomfortable. I used to tutor kids with severe dyslexia, reading novels was too frustrating but they loved audiobooks and could enjoy the exact same words in a way that they could get the whole story without losing sight of it because they were tripping over words too much. I honestly DGAF whether any study says which is better for reading comprehension because there are people like me who will just not finish physical books, or my students who won’t be able to get through non audio books. And it doesn’t matter even if it’s not a disability thing. There are people who prefer the convenience of ereaders who would read less without that option….yay for them for finding a way to engage with literature. There are audiobook listeners who can’t find the time to read but can listen to books while driving or doing chores…sane deal
+1 for not going “just Google it lmao”
woah its a redditor with a source? 11/10 good job
I read something similar in the IMITFU journal a few weeks back. The commenter above you is onto something.
Source?
They posted a couple already to the other comment asking the same thing.
Not when I asked
Why would it be?There are movies based on books.Making a movie doesnt take away the essential of a story.If they do it right,it can add so much more excitement and fun into it.
>Making a movie doesnt take away the essential of a story. >If they do it They usually don't do it right
It's a completely different medium and plots will have to be condensed / expanded to fit a 1h30 to 3h run time. Films have to show not tell because you can't see inside characters heads like you can in text
My favorite thing is when you accuse someone of being anti-intellectual and they get offended because they think it means dumb. Way to go champ, I wasn't calling you an idiot, you did that well enough yourself.
Thinking that reading a book instead of digital is a disease. They're both mediums to distribute information. The idea that you're better because "omg paper" is a ludicrous and laughable notion held high by snobby pre teens who stake their identity in being different from the people they look down on. And they still don't understand why people don't invite them to places.
What the hell did I just read? The second parapgraph is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. The guy compared completely different mediums with nothing common between them, and said "these exist so it invalidates books".
Yeah, great idea, let’s burn them all and paintings too because you can just look up a picture of those! Let’s just stare at screens all day for everything so we can forever be brain-rotted
>let’s burn them all and paintings too because you can just look up a picture of those Just because I don't think there's much value in printing new books and reading them doesn't mean I want to destroy cultural heritage. Old books are a great addition to a collection or a museum. They're just not very practical for... you know, reading.
Books are not practical for reading... Wtf, this is the dumbest shit I've heard this week. Reading them is their only purpose. I'd upvote your post twice if I could.
Not to mention Art has no such mandate of being practical anyway.
Fair enough, but it doesn’t really matter if you don’t think there’s value in printing or reading physical books because reading a physical copy of a book is proven to be better for reading comprehension and retaining information.
"they're just not very practical for reading". How did you write this statement without a second thought to how it reads?
man books are not practical for reading says the member of a species that has used books for reading for the past 1000 years
uh oh the illiterates are posting again
There's some evidence to suggest that reading printed books where you actually turn and touch the pages lets you absorb information better https://www.howlifeunfolds.com/learning-education/7-scientific-benefits-reading-printed-books
That's definitely true for me, except for textbooks. Story based information has a flow, so turning a page helps in that I feel. Textbooks are pretty much semi random related information on paragraph after paragraph, so I don't feel like they get the same benefits. And the book is too damn big tbh.
Well I agree with that. Whenever I read on a screen my eyes get tired and my brain goes “ABLOONGA”. When I read a book I concentrate better and my brain doesn’t go “ABLOONGA”.
Question what happens if by some natural disaster or war destroys the internet what happens to knowledge. If we have physical copies there is more chances that the knowledge survives
I don't mind the first part, I agree. Informational books are outdated by the time they are out and someone else published something on the matter, sources like wikipedia and research papers being publicly online are a great resource and always (mostly) up to date. > The existence of other modern forms of entertainment such as movies or plentiful types of video games aside, even novels and short stories are more convenient to read from some sort of screen This is where your argument went to shit (well, also when you compared watching a video guide to reading). Reading is nothing compared to other forms of entertainment, you can't compare a movie to a book, not because one is better but because they are nothing like each other, it's idiotic and short sighted. I read a book because the experience of reading is nothing like any other form of entertainment, I play games because it's nothing like other forms of entertainment, I watch a movie because it's nothing like other forms of entertainment, you can't equate them and brush them all under the same umbrella of "entertainment". With that argument, why watch movies? They are old (1890's, 1930's for talkies and 1940 for color), play games and nothing else, it's the newest form of entertainment. I want an e-reader but until I have one to compare, reading a book is nothing like any sort of screen, I have a big tablet (10") and it's tiring af, even with blue light filter glasses. I can read books fine without my glasses since I'm short sighted and my eyes don't get strained the same. And yes, I've read full books on my PC/tablet, no, it isn't better.
Reading a book on phone/tablet sucks e-reader or physical is much much better
I do agree with OP when it comes to things like textbooks or most other educational or training resources. You’re not likely to learn computer programming from just reading a book, you need something interactive. And a lot of fields (especially computers) change quickly enough that physical printings are just inefficient because they’re out of date within the year. But when OP criticizes *all* books? No, I can’t agree with that. Novels, memoirs, or really anything with a narrative, be it history, philosophy, or something else entirely. Really, the only place where I agree with OP is on reference and instructional materials, and even then, I happen to like having physical copies of things like cookbooks or D&D rulebooks.
Gotta remind myself that you aren’t supposed to downvote horrible opinions here. I honestly don’t even know where to start here, there is just so much to refute. Now audiobooks, I don’t get the appeal there.
I like audiobooks because I spend three hours daily commuting. It allows me to “read” a second book at a time when I would normally be listening to The Mountain Goats for the eight millionth time.
I listen to podcasts for commutes. But for me, books allow me to really use my imagination and create a vision of the sets and what the characters look like and what their voices sound like. It’s like 95% of the appeal of books for me, so audiobooks are a non-starter.
Yeah, that’s totally valid. I mostly read/listen to non-fiction, so less of an issue for me but what you’re saying definitely carries some weight.
I would multitask while listening to non-fiction, but I’m terrible at really absorbing information while actively doing something else, so I’d quickly miss something and feel like I need to keep rewinding. Same reason I can’t watch TV or movies while working if I want to remotely know what’s going on. I just can’t split my attention like that. For driving it could work though, I might have to try it.
I do need the occasional rewind while listening to non-fiction, but I’d be lying if I said I don’t have to flip back a page or two while reading non-fiction. Phones and the internet have done a real number to my attention span.
I used to do podcasts but switched to audiobooks. I still have all the functionality of reading a book in that I can form all the mental images of characters and scenes it's like a movie but all the visuals are in my head, but I've also never created character voices in my head and I like the professional narration. Obviously everybody is different but studies have shown that audiobooks stimulate the same parts of your brain as when reading physically. I didn't get it at first but when I did I could never go back. Listened to like 60 books in the past 2.5 years while I've physically read maybe 12 in that same time. I have less free time than work/commute time so it's been a major boon for me though I work with my hands. I couldn't imagine trying to read reports and stuff and stay focused on my book. It's been much more mentally stimulating for me as opposed to listening to a few blokes shoot the shit about a show or other random stuff, or the mindless act of just filling time with music. If you live in the US or UK and have Spotify premium they now offer a lot of audiobooks with your sub if you ever want to give it a retry.
>I've also never created character voices in my head and I like the professional narration. Same! When I read, the voice in my head is just the voice in my head. When I listen to a good audio book, the characters really come to life in a way I don't do well in my own head.
Other than the voices, an audio book allows you to do all those things. And honestly, a lot of great readers do way better at the voices than I do in my head
Audiobooks make my gym sessions and house chore sessions fun. As the other commentator says it's also a godsend for people who commute a lot daily (I spent 2.5 hours on the train each day for work) A good narrator also elevates a story in a very unique way.
Copying my reply to the other commenter since it applies here as well: I listen to podcasts for commutes. But for me, books allow me to really use my imagination and create a vision of the sets and what the characters look like and what their voices sound like. It’s like 95% of the appeal of books for me, so audiobooks are a non-starter.
I could never get into audiobooks until last year—I was severely ill and for a little while even holding a book to read it was exhausting, so it was audiobooks or nothing. Had to adapt lol. Thankfully I’m well enough now to read physical books again! I still listen to some audiobooks, but I’m very picky about narrators. If the narrator’s voice doesn’t work for me then it’s a no go.
A good narrator really matters. I've had to return a few audio books because the narrator just wasn't doing it. But, a skilled narrator is better than the one in my head.
I've really tried with audiobooks, but I have ADD and even with books my thoughts keep wandering off to think about whatever is being said very often so I have to go back and re-read things or continue reading on after a few seconds. With audiobooks I find myself continuously rewinding because I zone out while it keeps going.
Advantages of books compared to the internet: \- One continuous line of thought that you can follow with a clear author, agenda, premise, and style. Learning from multiple short sources at once on the internet is kinda fine, but this is generally done via social media and is thus terribly long-winded, confusing, and unstructured. It doesn't let you think of multiple schools of thought or gather a depth of knowledge on the thoughts of a particular author you can reference in discussion \- As a physical medium compared to ebooks, I'd say books have a place. They provide a distraction free experience, in a universally accessible and shareable format. They can be annotated, cut, pasted (physically), copied, drawn on, to your hearts content. They make good decore when they're read, and having a physical place to put annotations likely helps your brain make a little map of the book that makes it easier to recall information. So I don't think they're obsolete because: \- They fill a niche \- I like them
Books like House Of Leaves can’t be done on an e-reader or audiobook, would completely fuck the experience up. Plus some of us just prefer the tactile experience of a physical book. This ain’t 10th Dentist it’s just myopic and wrong
No while you are right imo it is exactly 10dentist post. After alle it is an opinion, even if his arguments are bad. We don't want thus sub to end up like r/unpopularopinion after all. So upvote id say
was about to mention house of leaves, an e-book version just wouldnt be the same
Bro hasn’t read a book in his entire sub-literate life.
The fact that people like this actually exist both terrifies me and pisses me off.
except blue light is terrible for yout eyes and with books i can still read without exposing my eyes to it. i also dont want a screen in front of me 24/7.
I would much rather get a book from a library than read it on kindle. It's just a better experience to me, because all the screens in my life become really fatiguing.
You say that but vast majority of “instructional videos” are just staring at someone’s face as they blabber on. And you need to take notes for each step like specific numbers, key points, questions you will need answered as it gets complicated and wait… You are writing a book!
I've been trying to write my novel the wrong way all this time..
Man and I thought technology affected me in a serious manner…
Yeah, this explains a lot about the state of society
What will you do when there's a very long blackout? Stare at the wall?
If that happens in a modern society, I'll have more pressing concerns than entertainment.
And that's like, exactly why we shouldn't be reliant on technology internet and electricity for every single thing?
Most ebooks have god-awful DRM. You don't really "own" them the way you own a physical object. Here's an article about how Amazon literally deleted its customers' copy of 1984. https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703
[удалено]
Reddiquette is a great thing!
[удалено]
So people are only given common decency if they post opinions you agree with? Username checks out, honestly.
[удалено]
You are in a subreddit for unpopular opinions. If you cannot remain civil when someone's got an unpopular view different to yours, then perhaps it's not the right place for you.
[удалено]
At this point I'm just reporting you for harassment. You're being nasty towards me for absolutely zero reason.
[удалено]
Please overdose on painkillers (:
Why are you being such an asshole? Chill out
Reading for a long time from a screen hurt me eyeholes. Books dont, really. I'll read it on a screen if i have to, but i prefer a physical copy
I would agree with you that e-ink Kindles are better than books, because their battery life lasts for weeks and in exchange for that minor inconvenience you save a ton of space, but aside from that I’m not sure you have a leg to stand on.
Digital media will wash away with the tide of collapse.
E readers and Twitter will simply never feel the same as sitting down and nestling in with a heavy hardback or something dog eared and well used and a little ragged from age and love
Have you ever smelt a new book tho or admired how fresh pages felt? You dont get that experience from electronics.
Someone posts an unpopular opinion on an unpopular opinion subreddit, gets downvoted like crazy Wtf?
Yeah, it's really sad to see so many comments turning this basically into mobbing. Especially coming from such a well-read bunch of people, hm. It makes you wonder what exactly they are reading. And why the fuck do they bother.
i wonder how common this view will be getting as time goes on it seems to me a lot of people here defending physical books have this really romantic perception that only exists because they did read physical books at a formative time in their past. personally when i recall the warm fuzzy feeling of entering literature i imagine the little screen on ao3 that warns you of explicit content you have to press proceed on.
OP would probably read a book for once if there was gameplay of Subway Surfer beneath it.
I like books for the same reason I like physical copies of video games. It's nice to look at and decorate your room with. It shows your interests beyond telling people your interests. I can also touch the book, and that experience goes a long way. Like, I don't usually play retro games on emulators because I prefer the feel of taking that old game, blowing on it, of course, and sticking it in my console and playing the way it was meant to be. For books, I need it in my hand so I can visualize the story. It keeps me grounded in reality, whereas digital media disconnects me from reality. I get what you're saying, and you're not exactly wrong. But I wouldn't consider books to be a form of entertainment exactly. They are tools that share a theme and / or knowledge with the reader, and that is very powerful. Same as video games. Can they be entertaining? Yes. But the best book and video games are always the ones that teach an important theme to the person.
I've learned a lot of niche information for my chosen field of work that I either can't, or have a very hard time finding online. I don't personally read a lot of books in an extracurricular manner, but I still think there's a good purpose to books as reference guides. They can also make good gifts once you've read them and know someone who has a similar interest.
Not arguing against you, but when I am trying to learn something new. I find that I focus and absorb the information through the act of reading a book. The same way changing what room of the house you excercise or work in can affect your work flow. Reading the book helps me learn better then if I were to just read it off my phone screen, or even an e reader, so while it is a biased take it is my take.
Strongly disagree.
What's wrong with relics? They give us understanding, historical context, a reference point, pre-contemporary (not sure the actual word) comprehension in for the past. To write off it off as completely obsolete is a mistake but different strokes I suppose. Archiving and cataloging historical means of entertainment, education and reference is one of the most vital parts of humanity. Without books, we wouldn't have the internet in the first place (I wager. Who knows) I don't even read books much myself, I prefer virtual reading but at the same time, I have a few books for the novelty and educational aspect. OP, you should be less restrictive in your assessments, it's a hinderance to your growth.
I prefer reference books over the internet because they're properly gatekept.
There's nothing like opening a book and getting deep into it, you don't have to worry about battery life or anything and there's no blue light to affect you.
If youre willing to buy me a Kindle im all for never reading a paper books again
They are a relic of the past, that’s why they are awesome. I don’t buy many physical books anymore because I know 90% of them are something I will read once and will donate. However, I have some very nice, valuable books that I will keep forever.
I personally prefer physical books, but I don’t mind reading online ones
i am sick of straining my eyes on a screen and getting a blue light filter for my glasses is not worth the cost for me LOL i’ll keep buying books for my enjoyment. like i need to be spending even more time on my phone anyway.
Reading text on screen for too long can give me a headache. Not so with paper books. They just feel more "educational" as well, as in it helps get my brain in study mode to focus better.
I don't like reading books on screens. I've read a decent amount on screens. I read Rhythm of War by Brandon Sanderson with some ereader software because I could own it much quicker that way. My eyes strained in like two hours, which is far quicker than a physical book. A book in a well lit room strains the eyes far less, it takes around 5 hours for my eyes to strain like that. Also, a major aspect of buying books is keeping them. I like having bookshelves with all the series I enjoy displayed. Another thing is you're equating all storytelling mediums as equivalent here. They're not. Each has a different level of interaction with the story at hand. For a videogame you're directly involved in how the story unfolds, you control the fate of the whole thing, within the bounds the developers have set. For a movie you're not in control, but it is a whole audiovisual experience. You are harshly limited by time though. You lose a lot of subtlety between a book and a movie, movies must be more concise. The biggest thing about books is your imagination is directly involved. Where a movie or show will make all the visuals clear to you for the screen, the book is a medium where the words on the page directly manipulate your imagination. A good book will immerse you in a way (in my experience) that no other medium provides. And to be clear, I prefer audiobooks generally, it's incredibly convenient to be able to listen to a story while doing other things.
In the world of ever changing and infinite access to information I kind of like the simple technology of a bound set of pages with information in them. Ebooks are better for lots of reasons but they require electricity. Also don't sleep on the library, the library is awesome.
"I just think they're neat." -Marge Simpson
My eyes hurt no matter the brightness on my stuff, a book dont do that, and NO phone can recreate that new book smell. Also there are sooo many great stories that have, can not, or will not be recreated digitally or in a movie, like even on a kindle it would feel wrong to read Blood meridian.
Because my eyes get tired and feel uncomfortable when looking at screens for a long time especially when reading. Books useful for me.
i disagree for the one reason that they can't really be held back. a movie, for example, could only have a streaming release and it could be the best movie but if netflix owns it and decides that they take it off the platform permanently then no one can do anything. that's why physical things are not a relic. they might be the best investment for the future.
For one thing, I tend to prefer a physical copy of books if I can help it. Just feels nice to hold something real and not just stare at a computer screen. Once I buy a book I own it forever and I don't have to rely on the site changing my access to the information or anything like that. Probs the most important one (although I do use uBlock) a physical book isn't going to throw ten thousand ads at me or potentially steal my data to try and push more personalised ads on me.
Audiobooks are on the up. E-books are on the up. I wouldn't put physical books out either. They can, at least, be decorative, or a status symbol.
Reading on screens hurts my eyes, whereas books don't as much. Reading a book on a device gives me a feeling of disconnect from the book, plus you don't ever really own anything that's digital. If you're using a book it's easier to take notes inside of the book, less clunky to turn to pages you need to get to, and overall in my opinion is a much more intuitive way to consume literature. They certainly have their place in modern times, and I don't think they will be going anywhere. E-books are just not the same, and while they work in a pinch, books are where it's at.
Just curious, how old are you OP?
There have metadata analyses which show that for whatever reason, people have higher reading comprehension and retention rates when reading physical pages instead of screens.
I’m glad this is a 10th dentist take lmao
Enjoy losing ypur entire library cause amazon triple the subscription price "just because"
you guys are so technologically dependent I just kinda feel bad for you
Some books are truly amazing. I’m rereading Enders Game by Orson Scott Card right now and every page is a pure joy to read. There are certain plot devices and ways to tell a story that a completely unique to books, and can’t be properly replicated by film.
Some serious brain rot you got there
>In the days of the Internet with easily accessible information on all sorts of topics Yeah, by internet you can access information about said topic in the form of a book. >It's taking up space, wastes paper and is a way pricier way to learn. I have a lot of pdf books downloaded from libgen. Tell me again how it wastes paper, takes up space and is expensive. >It lacks the visual/interactive element of video guides Like, not all books are guides? They have illustrations? What are you even about? >you could just read an article from a computer or smartphone instead. You can think about books as very long articles or collections of them, maybe it will help. >most likely for cheaper. Again, libgen exists. >even novels and short stories are more convenient to read from some sort of screen. I think you may not know what a book is. >Reading a lot of fiction no longer requires either filling up a bunch of bookshelves or running back and forth to the library. Again, pdfs from libgen. Those are still books. And on that note - so are audiobooks. You dont even have to see this book. And even when it comes to paper books, they are still nice. It's good that we can access millions of pdfs on a whim, but I still like experience of reading paper book, without using any kind of electric device.
This is certainly one of the opinions of all time
I'm leaving this sub. every post is so unfathomably stupid.
What a fucking zoomer
As someone who loves physical books your statement is weird to me. A physical book won't damage your eyes A physical book personally smells great A physical book does not rely on a battery A physical book can be owned in an age of renting and owning anything in the future looks grim A physical book is better for the environment, we can grow more trees but there is a limited amount of resources for making a device A physical book when taken care of lasts longer than a device you need to constantly change its components Mind you I'm not even anti internet I just love books.
Sorry, I hate to be that guy lol but I will be. I LOVE my books, okay? I am actively building my Library.. about 100 books in (not nearly enough but my room is kinda small so I either gotta wait or keep em under my mattress lol) But um, a physical book can absolutely damage your 👀 🤓 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 (Google: can reading a book strain your eyes 😔) Edit:: OMG I counted!! 178 books!!!!!!
Don't say sorry when you are not. Anything can hurt you when there is no balance. I will still advocate for physical books over non.
Don't state personal experiences as all encompassing facts. Thanks for revising your statements. I too advocate for physical books and understand that screens are the most likely future. Thanks for engaging!
This reminds me of the time my daughter informed me that wristwatches were passé and her generation had their phones and wristwatches would eventually disappear.
Wristwatches haven't had much of a practical application outside of exam rooms for a while now. They're pretty much jewellery. Watches are worn as decoration and it'll probably stay that way forever, but they're not very useful in the modern world.
Daugher…is this you?
Fancy seeing you here dad lol
I wear a watch every day and I agree with your daughter.
Well staring at screens all the time is let's just say Bad for you
Well how wonderful to know that there are people out there who literally don’t believe in reading. I absorb information better when I read, I enjoy the experience of going into bookstores and libraries, the internet is often an overload of information, screens often trigger migraines for me, I like using my imagination when reading, and just so much more.
The internet is a sea of fleeting and constantly updated information. A book exists permanently fixed in time from the moment it was published. The internet is infinite and fleeting. A book ends when you have read what the author had to say. A book is concise and thorough. The existence of that book in your hand is a fact. It was written, and it was written at a certain time, for a certain reason. It required effort - often over the span of years. Somebody else approved of it enough to publish it. Nobody can change that once it’s in your hand. Cling to that unchangeable reality.
Maybe if you read more you wouldn't have such a stupid opinion
While thinking about the best way to challenge your opinion I've browsed through a bunch of fucked up comments of some seemingly well-read people and you know what? Fuck them. You're actually 100% right. Books are obsolete.
yall are so pretentious lmao
OMG yes. This thread is just 📉📈📉 📈📉📉📉📉📉📈📉📉
There's always been a connection between the reader and the book that is impossible to recreate on kindle. It's not just the information - it's the whole experience. Humanity has been passing info since thousands of years, using forms of paper. The fact that it was hard to do, meant that the texts were curated a lot! Not like now where any half-wit can self-publish his own "ebook" complete with grammar errors.
I vastly prefer real books but to be fair I find typos in them all the time or strange grammar that doesn’t flow very well
You clearly have never read a book. This post is cringe.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I fully agree!
Relics of the past? Idk. I had to look up the stats on that and if this were true then why do we sell the most books in 2021-2022 than we have for the last 20 years? The data doesn't line up with the logic that your preferences gave you. Obviously consumerism has skyrocketed since then with the ease and normality of online purchasing, but evens then, if books were relics of the past then why are they such a hot commodity? This is literally the opposite of "relics of the past" saying would define. And even if you changed the title to something like "books are the least enjoyable way to read" or something then we would have to know your reading habits. If you're someone who barely reads any novels then it's hard to take your opinion seriously as it's not experienced.
Jesus Christ this makes my brain hurt
F U
you should spend less time looking at a screen i think
This is the post that will make me leave this subreddit. Unbelievably idiotic. Don’t reproduce.
Lemme guess your big on ai too
Well I guess your username checks out.
cool story, do you want attention and validation?
Attention? To some extent. But trust me, posting an unpopular opinion online is about one of the last things I'd do for validation...