Funny, I've flipped to thinking of my electronic copies of books as the permanent ones and the hard copies as just convenient printouts. With a few sentimental exceptions. Damaging a physical book is for me becoming less taboo than failing to properly backup my book drive. Every spare corner of my house is crammed with books but every year they feel more anachronous. Like an 8 track collection.
The last time I moved I had to throw out a large collection of books. I tried to give them all to numerous organizations and nobody would take them, including a public library that didn't want them (for free). They were all in pristine condition. I love physical books and I just can't stand to lug them around with me when I move. So now it's all Kindle, for better and worse.
My books are increasingly decoration and a statement of identity that utility objects. I buy hard-copies of books I might like to have on display, mostly, and mainly care about keeping those books I have a sentimental attachment to because of where and when I read them rather than for the sake of maybe one day re-reading it. It's increasingly rare for me to pick them up to read.
But one thing that has made me think about this for years is that part of the reason I have read the books I have was growing up surrounded by my dads book-collection, and parts of the music I listen to are down to exploring my parents record collection. And even the books I never got around to reading but were aware of were part of what connected me to my parents, and by extension to the previous generation.
The more the media we consume gets siloed into apps, the more it alters how the transmission of culture happens. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something we ought to be aware of and consider the effects of, because it makes it seem likely to me at least that the generational gaps are going to get bigger as filter bubbles contribute to make it less likely for children to explore and learn to understand previous generations (and vice versa) - e.g. I see how vastly different my sons Netflix account looks like vs. mine. Of course part of that is natural - he's presented material suited for younger viewers (though not using a "childrens profile" as that excludes a lot of his favourite anime), but because it also so strongly skews towards the interests he has demonstrated, it exclude a lot of child friendly material he probably would like, based on my experience showing things to him, but that doesn't match what he's watched on there so far, and so the bubble self-reinforces.
And unlike the physical environment of the past there isn't the same strong presence of alternative suggestions in the form of seeing passively what parents like - countering that with recommendations is not easy.
I'm not particularly sentimental about this, but I do wonder what the long term effects on society will be as those ties are increasingly loosened, and it also places those who control those recommendation systems in an incredibly powerful position to shape culture and identity, and I'm not sure whether we should be more concerned of the risk of that being consciously abused by someone at some point vs. the unintended consequences of not consciously managing it.
It feels like we're sleepwalking into something. It could very well turn out amazingly well, but it could also turn out badly, and we don't seem to understand what the impacts may be.
> “Books are not holy relics,' Trefusis had said. 'Words may be my religion, but when it comes to worship, I am very low church. The temples and the graven images are of no interest to me. The superstitious mammetry of a bourgeois obsession for books is severely annoying. Think how many children are put off reading by prissy little people ticking them off whenever they turn a page carelessly. The world is so fond of saying that book s should be "treated with respect". But when are we told that _words_ should be treated with respect? From our earliest years we are taught to revere only the outward and visible. Ghastly literary types maundering on about books as "objects"...”
The original 2001 edition of Fantastic Beasts and where to find them (JK Rowling) was presented as a copy of the book that Harry borrowed from the Hogwarts Library. As such, it had notes and scribbles (and a hangman game) from the trio.
The publisher made a lot of changes with the 2017 re-release, mainly new illustrations, and content changes to get it in line with the new canon of the movies. A few original (but really terribly) illustrations from Rowling were dropped or made better.
The scribbles and comments were left out as well. So I decided to scribble in those myself. Was quite fun to scribble on the contents page of the book and write "==chudley cannons==".
Contemporary (and most older) paperbacks, I'd say go ahead. I'd feel very differently if they were out of print and nicely bound (or not, but scarce).
But paperbacks? Yeah, the 'Twitter outrage' is a gross over-reaction: what do they think is going to happen to these copies otherwise? At best they're probably mostly eventually unwanted inheritances, donated to a charity shop; poor condition ones discarded, some sold, rest eventually discarded when they don't sell too.
You're cutting your books' bindings at between "signatures." Those are the 16-page little booklets bound together to make the big book. Each signature is made by folding and cutting a single large sheet of paper coming off the press, if it's a page press and not a warp (paper roll) press. Those 16-page signatures used to be called "octavo" or "8vo" in the early days of printing.
This is a time-honored practice in bookmaking. Why shouldn't a very long book be published in multiple volumes? Before modern very- thin and very- cheap paper this was common practice. J. R. R. Tolkien wrote and published the Lord of the Rings as a trilogy because his publisher didn't want to make his work too expensive or heavy for the mass market of post WWII Britain.
Go for it. You're not disrespecting the author, the editor, or the printer. And, modern bindings don't really command much respect anyway.
(Not books you've borrowed from libraries or other people, duh. That could rile up a librarian or your friends big time.)
If a paperback is sufficiently old, it might just break apart on you. I can think of at least two that have come apart in my hands during the last few years.
I recycled them. A book once severed is going to keep shedding pages. It's fine to read once, but probably will not stand up to a second or subsequent reading. On the whole, I'd just as soon not buy books that I'm not going to look into again after the first reading.
Having said that, Crime and Punishment is not really a scarce resource, nor I suppose Infinite Jest or Middlesex. I'd bet that I could buy all three at a used bookstore for less than $30. The author may be stepping up the recycling date for the books, but by how much?
Throwing books away is surprisingly hard, even for completely useless ones (manuals for software that doesn't exist anymore, or really bad novels). I threw a few of those in the bid a few weeks ago, and it felt really weird.
The picture I saw must have been a joke, it showed Infinite Jest divided in half, but that's ridiculous, as you don't read it front to back, you read it jumping from text to notes to text to notes (and, when you're lucky, from notes to notes to the notes).
[+] [-] hirundo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wbl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidarh|6 years ago|reply
But one thing that has made me think about this for years is that part of the reason I have read the books I have was growing up surrounded by my dads book-collection, and parts of the music I listen to are down to exploring my parents record collection. And even the books I never got around to reading but were aware of were part of what connected me to my parents, and by extension to the previous generation.
The more the media we consume gets siloed into apps, the more it alters how the transmission of culture happens. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something we ought to be aware of and consider the effects of, because it makes it seem likely to me at least that the generational gaps are going to get bigger as filter bubbles contribute to make it less likely for children to explore and learn to understand previous generations (and vice versa) - e.g. I see how vastly different my sons Netflix account looks like vs. mine. Of course part of that is natural - he's presented material suited for younger viewers (though not using a "childrens profile" as that excludes a lot of his favourite anime), but because it also so strongly skews towards the interests he has demonstrated, it exclude a lot of child friendly material he probably would like, based on my experience showing things to him, but that doesn't match what he's watched on there so far, and so the bubble self-reinforces.
And unlike the physical environment of the past there isn't the same strong presence of alternative suggestions in the form of seeing passively what parents like - countering that with recommendations is not easy.
I'm not particularly sentimental about this, but I do wonder what the long term effects on society will be as those ties are increasingly loosened, and it also places those who control those recommendation systems in an incredibly powerful position to shape culture and identity, and I'm not sure whether we should be more concerned of the risk of that being consciously abused by someone at some point vs. the unintended consequences of not consciously managing it.
It feels like we're sleepwalking into something. It could very well turn out amazingly well, but it could also turn out badly, and we don't seem to understand what the impacts may be.
[+] [-] peapicker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarcScott|6 years ago|reply
Stephen Fry, The Liar
[+] [-] post_below|6 years ago|reply
But I like the author's point: It's cool that people still care so much about books in the digital age.
Long live books, in any increment.
[+] [-] james-imitative|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] captn3m0|6 years ago|reply
The original 2001 edition of Fantastic Beasts and where to find them (JK Rowling) was presented as a copy of the book that Harry borrowed from the Hogwarts Library. As such, it had notes and scribbles (and a hangman game) from the trio.
The publisher made a lot of changes with the 2017 re-release, mainly new illustrations, and content changes to get it in line with the new canon of the movies. A few original (but really terribly) illustrations from Rowling were dropped or made better.
The scribbles and comments were left out as well. So I decided to scribble in those myself. Was quite fun to scribble on the contents page of the book and write "==chudley cannons==".
The wiki has a list of comments: https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Fantastic_Beasts_and_Whe... if you'd like a chuckle.
[+] [-] OJFord|6 years ago|reply
But paperbacks? Yeah, the 'Twitter outrage' is a gross over-reaction: what do they think is going to happen to these copies otherwise? At best they're probably mostly eventually unwanted inheritances, donated to a charity shop; poor condition ones discarded, some sold, rest eventually discarded when they don't sell too.
[+] [-] OliverJones|6 years ago|reply
This is a time-honored practice in bookmaking. Why shouldn't a very long book be published in multiple volumes? Before modern very- thin and very- cheap paper this was common practice. J. R. R. Tolkien wrote and published the Lord of the Rings as a trilogy because his publisher didn't want to make his work too expensive or heavy for the mass market of post WWII Britain.
Go for it. You're not disrespecting the author, the editor, or the printer. And, modern bindings don't really command much respect anyway.
(Not books you've borrowed from libraries or other people, duh. That could rile up a librarian or your friends big time.)
[+] [-] cafard|6 years ago|reply
I recycled them. A book once severed is going to keep shedding pages. It's fine to read once, but probably will not stand up to a second or subsequent reading. On the whole, I'd just as soon not buy books that I'm not going to look into again after the first reading.
Having said that, Crime and Punishment is not really a scarce resource, nor I suppose Infinite Jest or Middlesex. I'd bet that I could buy all three at a used bookstore for less than $30. The author may be stepping up the recycling date for the books, but by how much?
[+] [-] arkades|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] okaleniuk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corecoder|6 years ago|reply