The Question of E-Readers...

[oaki]

Someone said that they loved how light their Kindle was.
I used to eb totally against e-readers, but once I started getting my own money and realised how expensive books were [though on my country they are way cheaper than in other countries], I realised there are tons of websites online with free e-books, but I hated reading them on the computer screen. So when I sat down and tought it through, I arranged my priorities: first, I want to read books, get information and knowledge. No matter the method [there was someone some pages ago saying that stories have been told since forever, no matter the format - I agree]. Of course I adore having the book in my hands, but at times it can get heavy, and also it is a luxury, considering books are indeed expensive.
So I decided to give the Kindle a try. I had to make all these efforts to ask dad's friend from America to bring me one when she comes here, because in my country the price is double [as opposed to the one on Amazon], and when it finnaly arrived I started getting all the books I wanted to read on it [for example, Beauvoir's the Second Sex was not published in romanian, but I found a rough translation as a .doc ; so I can read that now]. At the moment I have 182 items on it and counting.
So yes, e-readers are useful.
Just do the math: an e-reader can hold up to 3500 books. Imagine a library full of e-readers. Imagine the possibilities.

[WhatIf]

I don't have one yet, but I will.

I am always going to prefer physical books, but e-readers allow you to carry an entire library around with you. They also save trees. I don't understand how you can hate that.

[kg41390]

I will always hate e-readers on principle. Apart from the whole romanticized aesthetic experience of reading (touch/sight/smell, etc.), it just seems very impractical. What if, for the purpose of inter-textual analysis, I want to compare two books side by side? Or three or four? What about marginal annotations and dog-earing? Whatever system they come up with, I like for my notes to exist in the physical world (this is why I don't type notes in class).

The "save the environment" argument doesn't hold any weight for me either, because my personal library is mainly made up of books I inherited from family members, bought at a used book store, or got secondhand in some other fashion.

The only people I ever see using kindles are the obnoxious hipster English majors whom I already can't stand-- bragging about how they have 14,000 books in their pockets or whatever. For them, books aren't a necessity-- they're just another fashionable accessory they can flaunt to the world, like iPods.

[onlyaworkingtitle]

I appreciate e-readers -- they allow people to read who are limited by eyesight or suitcase volume -- and agree that they have their uses.

What pisses me off about them, though, is what they're doing to the publishing industry. E-books are being sold for fractions of the cost of their hard copy counterparts, and while that's easier on the consumer, that's less money in the pockets of the publishing house (who needs money in order to continue to publish books of the quality we've come to expect), less money in the pockets of the writers, editors, publicists, and other individuals (who put so much work into producing the final piece), and less money stimulating the economy (at this time when we really need to be spending more, not less[/i]).

I will keep myself from elaborating to the point of a rant, but the main issue with e-readers isn't that it's a different medium -- that is a matter of preference, and harms no one -- but that it's unbalancing an already imbalanced market, and we really don't need that right now.

[devilishlybookish]

I agree with you to an extent, but the books that are published electronically still have to be edited and published. So we've gone from a world where maybe the copyeditor is sitting with a glue and paper proof of a novel they get to mark with red pen to a computer screen. And maybe after the publisher sends the final work to some uploading company instead of a paper and ink printing one. If anyone, the people losing money are the ones turning trees into hardcopy books.

Also, I think it's important to mention that e-books are sold ALONGSIDE paper books. I know of many people who pre-order an e-book so they get it as soon as it's released and then go and buy the more tangible book later for shelving or book signing purposes. If even one person were to do that, the publishing company made an extra $9-10 off of a single book. Before e-books publishers and authors complained of used book stores- no one makes a profit off a twice told book except the used bookstore owner.

As I think I mentioned before, when book stores were invented people thought that it was going to drive libraries into oblivion. As we all know, both co-exist peacefully enough. I think this is a similar situation. Yes the industry is going to change, but no it's not going to be destroyed.

IMHO, I think that books evoke such passion in people (and why shouldn't they?) that issues of tradition and romantic aesthetics bring about the thought of the end of the publishing world. But I can still say that I buy at least two books for every e-book. Now Amazon AND the bookstore are getting my money.

[onlyaworkingtitle]

Jun 24, 2011 17:39:45 GMT -5 devilishlybookish said:

I agree with you to an extent, but the books that are published electronically still have to be edited and published. So we've gone from a world where maybe the copyeditor is sitting with a glue and paper proof of a novel they get to mark with red pen to a computer screen. And maybe after the publisher sends the final work to some uploading company instead of a paper and ink printing one. If anyone, the people losing money are the ones turning trees into hardcopy books.[/quote

[/i]
I didn't say the editors &c. were going to be out of work, but that there is less money for them in the business now (not that there was much to begin with -- it's a largely thankless job). They (and the authors) get paid a percentage of each book sale. A percentage of a $5 e-book is far less than the same percentage of 1 $10 traditional copy.

As I think I mentioned before, when book stores were invented people thought that it was going to drive libraries into oblivion. As we all know, both co-exist peacefully enough. I think this is a similar situation. Yes the industry is going to change, but no it's not going to be destroyed.

Have you seen the budget cuts facing public libraries these days? $40 million from the New York Public Library alone!

I'm not saying that book stores are driving them into oblivion, just that the argument that libraries are doing a decent job of holding their own doesn't hold up well in the current climate. Book stores are failing, too -- Borders is crashing and burning (a train wreck we can't look away from!), and Barnes and Noble is trying to pull up their nosedive with the Nook, but who knows how long that will last? Not to mention the tentative grasp independent bookstores have on making rent each month.

I can't complain -- I'm as guilty as anyone of buying the cheapest used edition on the Amazon marketplace rather than the more expensive from a physical store -- but I need to point out that the book business is currently undergoing an involuntary revolution, and whether or not e-books are one of the many causes, they are certainly an interesting coincidence.

[devilishlybookish]

I'll admit that I don't know much about libraries, coming from a town that only has has an RV sized library with Danielle Steel still on the new release shelf. I think it's terrible that your (?) library has lost money, because libraries are important things.

Similarly, the closest bookstore to me would cost my paycheck in gas to drive to, forget being able to afford books when I got there.

I think the real issue is convenience. I'll agree with you - and I like the involuntary revolution analogy- that perhaps e-readers have something to contribute to it. But the economy sucks everywhere and it could also have something to do with that. We've all grown up with books to the point that I think some may forget they're a luxury. Luxury spending goes down when we're in a depression. E-readers provided books for cheaper and suddenly people could have that luxury again. To use Borders as the example: I know that they made a lot of poor investment decisions, decisions that forced TokyoPop to close their doors because of the money Borders owed to them. Perhaps e-readers played a part in that as well, who knows, but Borders is still operating as an online store so it certainly didn't end them.

The way I see it, when author's start to complain (and I'm a fan of them) I won't buy THEIR book on Kindle and I'll get the hard copy. John Green himself (admittedly only one author with one opinion) said he didn't care how people read as long as they did. Also, I'm pretty sure authors can refuse e-printing of their books. You can't get Cornelia Funke's Inkheart books on Kindle, and Rowling held off on okaying e-copies of her books until after her weird Pottermore brain-child is launched.

Maybe it's a really bad stance to take, but I haven't seen any of this affect my backyard. Never having a bookstore, what does it matter to me if the Borders 90 miles away goes down? Complacency is always a bad thing, but I'll hold off tossing away my Kindle until I see protest from the industry.

[onlyaworkingtitle]

Jun 24, 2011 18:30:40 GMT -5 devilishlybookish said:

I'll admit that I don't know much about libraries, coming from a town that only has has an RV sized library with Danielle Steel still on the new release shelf. I think it's terrible that your (?) library has lost money, because libraries are important things.

Similarly, the closest bookstore to me would cost my paycheck in gas to drive to, forget being able to afford books when I got there.

I think the real issue is convenience. I'll agree with you - and I like the involuntary revolution analogy- that perhaps e-readers have something to contribute to it. But the economy sucks everywhere and it could also have something to do with that. We've all grown up with books to the point that I think some may forget they're a luxury. Luxury spending goes down when we're in a depression. E-readers provided books for cheaper and suddenly people could have that luxury again. To use Borders as the example: I know that they made a lot of poor investment decisions, decisions that forced TokyoPop to close their doors because of the money Borders owed to them. Perhaps e-readers played a part in that as well, who knows, but Borders is still operating as an online store so it certainly didn't end them.

The way I see it, when author's start to complain (and I'm a fan of them) I won't buy THEIR book on Kindle and I'll get the hard copy. John Green himself (admittedly only one author with one opinion) said he didn't care how people read as long as they did. Also, I'm pretty sure authors can refuse e-printing of their books. You can't get Cornelia Funke's Inkheart books on Kindle, and Rowling held off on okaying e-copies of her books until after her weird Pottermore brain-child is launched.

Maybe it's a really bad stance to take, but I haven't seen any of this affect my backyard. Never having a bookstore, what does it matter to me if the Borders 90 miles away goes down? Complacency is always a bad thing, but I'll hold off tossing away my Kindle until I see protest from the industry.

There have been several cases of publishing houses taking a stand against dramatically cheaper e-books, in cases where they were simply being cheated out of too much money. The first case, a year or two ago, was when Macmillan (a major publisher) told Amazon that they would sell their e-books at a comparable price to the traditionals or not at all. There were about 24 hours where all of Macmillan's stock was removed from Amazon's site, but they caved pretty quickly -- there was simply too much demand for their books for Amazon to stop carrying them. They gambled and won, and a few other publishers have tried the same shtick, to varying degrees of success.

[devilishlybookish]

That's really interesting, I hadn't been aware. I do know that, at least now, it says "Price Set By The Publisher" whenever I look at an amazon listing for a Kindle version of a book.

[andy]

May 29, 2011 18:32:09 GMT -5 alyoshka said:

May 29, 2011 18:23:01 GMT -5 embonpoint said:

Oh god, I definitely wouldn't want one for school books! That'd be a nightmare.

I already had three e-text books . D: I hated it because I would have to print the pages out every time I came to class.

I never had any printing credits last year because every week I had to print out 7-10 pages for my creative writing workshops, 5-7 pages of poems for my English lit lectures and tutorials (because the anthology was simply too heavy to carry around all day) plus (depending on my luck) several handouts. Never again. Next year, I'll just bring my light and pretty Kindle with me to lectures and tutorials.

Edit, also:

Jun 24, 2011 18:47:18 GMT -5 onlyaworkingtitle said:

There have been several cases of publishing houses taking a stand against dramatically cheaper e-books, in cases where they were simply being cheated out of too much money. The first case, a year or two ago, was when Macmillan (a major publisher) told Amazon that they would sell their e-books at a comparable price to the traditionals or not at all. There were about 24 hours where all of Macmillan's stock was removed from Amazon's site, but they caved pretty quickly -- there was simply too much demand for their books for Amazon to stop carrying them. They gambled and won, and a few other publishers have tried the same shtick, to varying degrees of success.

I don't think Macmillan gambled and won at all. More than half of Macmillan's stock is made up of textbooks and other educational/academic books - how many people do you know who buy most or all of their textbooks new? I personally know very few because especially at university level, you have a lot of books to buy every term and for most students (who are already not the most financially independent of people) buying them new is too much of a strain on their finances. But buying a book second hand does nothing for the publisher or the author, on the contrary, they lose money because they lose a potential customer. They could have won back a fair few customers they lose to second hand bookshops by lowering the prices of their ebooks to make them more accessible. But they didn't have the guts to try it out so they just sticked to their current sales model.

[onlyaworkingtitle]

Jun 25, 2011 3:37:52 GMT -5 andy said:

Jun 24, 2011 18:47:18 GMT -5 onlyaworkingtitle said:

There have been several cases of publishing houses taking a stand against dramatically cheaper e-books, in cases where they were simply being cheated out of too much money. The first case, a year or two ago, was when Macmillan (a major publisher) told Amazon that they would sell their e-books at a comparable price to the traditionals or not at all. There were about 24 hours where all of Macmillan's stock was removed from Amazon's site, but they caved pretty quickly -- there was simply too much demand for their books for Amazon to stop carrying them. They gambled and won, and a few other publishers have tried the same shtick, to varying degrees of success.

I don't think Macmillan gambled and won at all. More than half of Macmillan's stock is made up of textbooks and other educational/academic books - how many people do you know who buy most or all of their textbooks new? I personally know very few because especially at university level, you have a lot of books to buy every term and for most students (who are already not the most financially independent of people) buying them new is too much of a strain on their finances. But buying a book second hand does nothing for the publisher or the author, on the contrary, they lose money because they lose a potential customer. They could have won back a fair few customers they lose to second hand bookshops by lowering the prices of their ebooks to make them more accessible. But they didn't have the guts to try it out so they just sticked to their current sales model.

Okay, first:

More than half of Macmillan's stock is made up of textbooks and other educational/academic books

Where are you getting this fact? To start, a vocab lesson: each major publishing house (Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, etc) consists of a collection of "publishers," which act as departments within the overarching company that is the house. When those publishers have more stock than they, as a single department, can handle, they break into even more departments called "imprints."

Now, the specifics: Macmillan has seven publishers of adult trade books -- Farrar, Straus & Giroux (which in turn has several imprints of its own); First Second; Henry Holt (which, again, has several of its own imprints); Macmillan Audio; Picador; St. Martin's Press (again, several additional imprints); and Tor/Forge (with even more imprints). That, in total, is 24 imprints of adult trade books. It also has eight publishers of children's books, two of magazines and journals, and six distributed publishers. This gives us forty publishers of non-textbook publications.

It has six college and academic publishers.

Please do your research before pulling facts out of your ass -- particularly when those facts act as the hinge upon which the rest of your argument hangs.

Also, "sticked" is not a word. I believe you meant "stuck."

[Eternal Lobster]

Going to stick my head in an point out that libraries are buying e-readers and circulating them like books. It's a new-ish idea but it is interesting. They either come pre-loaded with books or the library is involved in an electronic book system, like Overdrive, where patrons can check out a book and download it to their e-reader. You still have to deal with idiot publishers like Harper Collins saying that you can only circulate an e-book 26 times before it is used up and a new one must be bought. While I understand that the publishing industry needs to be fed, I feel like this is unnecessarily taking money away from libraries. The thing is, some have tried to boycott it, but the house owns SO MUCH of popular titles that it is pointless; the libraries end up giving in.

[andy]

Jun 25, 2011 15:32:15 GMT -5 onlyaworkingtitle said:

Okay, first:

More than half of Macmillan's stock is made up of textbooks and other educational/academic books

Where are you getting this fact? To start, a vocab lesson: each major publishing house (Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, etc) consists of a collection of "publishers," which act as departments within the overarching company that is the house. When those publishers have more stock than they, as a single department, can handle, they break into even more departments called "imprints."

Now, the specifics: Macmillan has seven publishers of adult trade books -- Farrar, Straus & Giroux (which in turn has several imprints of its own); First Second; Henry Holt (which, again, has several of its own imprints); Macmillan Audio; Picador; St. Martin's Press (again, several additional imprints); and Tor/Forge (with even more imprints). That, in total, is 24 imprints of adult trade books. It also has eight publishers of children's books, two of magazines and journals, and six distributed publishers. This gives us forty publishers of non-textbook publications.

It has six college and academic publishers.

Please do your research before pulling facts out of your ass -- particularly when those facts act as the hinge upon which the rest of your argument hangs.

Publishers use different imprints because they allow them to target specific titles in their stock to a specific audience, not because they have too many stock titles in their existing imprints and they somehow can't manage them any more. That doesn't even make any sense. In the case of gigantic publishing companies like MacMillan, imprints are also often smaller companies they took over - until 1986, for example, Tor Books had no commercial ties with Macmillan.

Moreover, many imprints does not necessarily mean many stock titles because there's no set number of stock titles an imprint can carry. While I haven't managed to find a list of all Macmillan's stock titles online (they only seem to have lists with new titles), I did manage to get my hands on a report on the sales/total revenue different divisions of the von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group (which owns Macmillain) in 2006-2009, you can see it here. From them it's obvious that overall education and academic titles sell more than fiction and nonfiction ones. Except the German companies and the Scientific American, all British, American and Indian von Holtzbrinck companies/publishers seem to be part of the Macmillan group and there are only two German education and science companies (Spektrum der Wissenschaft and Verlag J.B. Metzler) plus the Scientific American - since the website also says that their education and science segment is 'headed up by Macmillan', I doubt those German companies or the Scientific American sell more than Macmillan. Besides, there are many German imprints which sell fiction and nonfiction books.

To conclude, data published by Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group suggests that at the very least Macmillan's education and academic imprints are among the most profitable imprints the publisher has - so, for lack of clearer and more detailed evidence, we can say that there's a very high probability that the education and academic imprints of Macmillan have a significant contribution to the sales of the Macmillan Publishers thus that the second hand market for textbooks and academic texts has a significant impact on Macmillan Publishers and it's an issue they should consider.

Maybe next time, you'll follow your own advice and instead of accusing me of pulling facts out of my backside for no reason, you'll do your research.

Also, "sticked" is not a word. I believe you meant "stuck."

No, no, I meant 'sticked', I believe the OED when they say that it's been a word since the 1330s. Since, you know, they have many documented uses to show as proof.

[embonpoint]

Jun 27, 2011 15:56:52 GMT -5 andy said:

Also, "sticked" is not a word. I believe you meant "stuck."

No, no, I meant 'sticked', I believe the OED when they say that it's been a word since the 1330s. Since, you know, they have many documented uses to show as proof.

Yeah, lots of words existed back then that don't now. I just checked the OED for 'sticked' and it came up with 'stuck' (unless you're talking about slaughtering pigs, apparently).

[Molly]

I have a Kindle out of convenience. I will be traveling abroad for college and being an English major I'll have a lot to read. I want to bring as many books with me as I can, and I will be able to do it with all of them in my nice little Kindle.
However, my problem with the Kindle is that not every book is available for me to buy for it. I still bought physical copies of all the books for my first English class as a college student. Not complaining, but I could have saved money. Also I am still waiting on Amazon to allow library e-book lending.