Critics of Read an E-Book Week may be missing the point a little. Why assume that “E. vs. P” is an “either or” scenario?
Everyone I know who buys e-books buys p-books, too, and lots of them. There are simply times they might favor one format over the other. For instance. I prefer p-books for cookbooks, health and wellness titles and beloved favorites that I may want to read again. But I would happily take an e-format—if the price is right and the DRM is not unreasonable—for a paperback bestseller I may read once and then get rid of. I also will buy print books when the title is intended as a gift for someone.
I’m not the only one who loves both E and P:
- My sister buys a lot of short stories on Fictionwise. This type of reading is often not available in print bookstores except in anthologies or collections. She likes being able to buy just one story if it catches her interest. Novels or longer works, however, she tends to get in p-form. Additionally, she has a child and gets all her kiddie books in print.
- A friend buys magazines such as Analog and Ellery Queen in e-form. These are not the type of magazine that employs fancy layouts or elaborate photo spreads, so they’re very well-suited to an e-format, and it is a cinch to backup his past issues without needing a second bookcase. There is potential here for more literary magazines (where the bulk of their items are just text) to go online!
- A lot of the stuff I read in university as a literature major is online now. Too bad it wasn’t then! I would have needed to buy or borrow the modern authors, of course, and I would have needed access to print versions for essay-writing since you need page numbers and line references for that. But if you have to read Oroonoko or Dombey and Son or Dr. Faustus for a course and don’t plan to write on it, you can save a ton by reading it in free e-book form.
That said, there are two arguments the anti-e folks make which, I think, fail to address the bigger picture:
- E-books are not better for the environment because waste is still produced with the devices that read them. I disagree. Most e-books right now are read on devices that people already own for other purposes—computers, cell phones, PDA devices etc. People aren’t spending $1500 on a MacBook just to read Great Expectations. They already have it for other purposes. And if, already having it for these purposes, they choose to read Great Expectations online instead of buying it at the bookstore, that does help the environment.
- Free e-books aren’t anything special because one can get all the classics they need at the library. That, to me, completely misses the boat on the lifestyle factor. Just because people can get something at the library, it doesn’t mean they always want to. My library is a good 15-minute hike from my house. I live in a suburb now, so most things are. In the rain, in the snow, it’s quite nice to just hop online and find something new to read. Also, there are things on Gutenberg that you can’t get at very public library, including audio book versions, Victorian-era literary magazines and pulp fiction collections. So, my overall verdict? Print books aren’t dead. E-books aren’t dead either. And there is room for growth in both areas from smart, savvy publishers who get on board with where the market is going.
Hi Ficbot–
Absolutely agree that the library argument is silly. It’s like saying nobody will buy any books because they can check them out of the library.
The environmental argument is wrong, too. As you say, many eBooks are being read on devices people have for other purposes. I also believe that people underestimate the true environmental cost of paper. Sure, much paper is produced using fast-growing trees grown specifically for that purpose. But much isn’t–especially with the move of paper publishing to China. As the sustainable publishing movement shows, there are severe environmental consequences of this move. Also, few people consider the economic consequences of loading up their Suburban for a fifteen minute drive to the nearest Barnes and Noble where they buy a couple of paperbacks. How much gas did you just use to purchase a book shipped from China, put on a train in LA, stored in air conditioned warehouses, and then stored in the fancy air conditioned Barnes and Noble.
The thing that really gets me is that people are objecting to Read an eBook Week. I mean, all we’re saying is give “E” a chance. I truly believe that most people, if they just give it a try, will like it.
Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com
I agree that it’s not an “either or” battle. I’m relatively new to the e-book world, but I am looking forward to the day where a publisher will offer a p-book (I’m thinking of a hard cover I will want to display on my book shelf) with a license code with which I could download the e-version from the publisher’s website. I would be willing to pay 5-10 dollars more (over the p-book price) for this bundled version. Is this being discussed or offered anywhere?
As much as I encourage the use of ebooks, I have a lot of print books I need to take care of–and I expect a lot of print books not to be digitalized anytime soon. Even if they are digitalized, the base price won’t be as cheap as bargain basement price for print ebooks today.
That said, I cannot imagine being a student in literature or history and not owning some kind of ebook reader.
Ficbot’s defense of ebooks agrees with the facts. Just 52 issues of the Sunday edition of the New York Times newspaper consumes how many trees? … The people who doubt the environmental benefits of ebooks hardly have a clue: they never cite evidence. We should all be reading the Times — and other newspapers — on our laptops. How many trees are destroyed to produce 52 issues of the New York Times? … Almost 4 million.