Am I the only one who has a problem reading Mass Market Paperback?

[Al]

BTW, solar chargers don't work very well here in the Pacific Northwest where we live under a perpetual cloud laced with rain.

[Trike]

Al wrote: "My Kindle can be scaled to fit my eyes, so that's my preferred method. However, when camping I have to take paper along because even Kindle batteries don't last forever. "

How long do you go camping? My Kindle lasts for two weeks, including using the little light attachment on the cover.

Or is it one of the iPad types? Those probably don't last too long. My iPad will only last a couple days.

[YouKneeK]

Kenneth wrote: "And even on an extended trip, can anyone honestly say they read more than 5-10 books a week? Do you really NEED access to 1000+ books at once?"

As I said, having access to my entire library (not to mention the entire Kindle store) isn’t my primary reason for enjoying e-books. However, the word “need” isn’t appropriate. Books are not a necessity of living in the first place. Do you need any books with you when you travel? Do you really need pretty hardback books lining your bookshelves? Of course not. Just because we don’t need something doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy it, and we all enjoy different things.

I’ve only read 46.5 books so far this year. That averages out to about a book a week. I often start a new book in the middle of a business trip, but I rarely read from more than two books over the course of a standard one-week trip. So no, I don’t “need” access to my entire library. I usually decide in advance what book I’ll read next, and I follow that plan more often than not. However, sometimes I change my mind and decide I want to read something entirely different than what I had planned. I enjoy having access to a wider variety when the mood strikes.

Kenneth wrote: "What I said before about e-books (was that in this thread?) having no intrinsic value, only sentimental, utility value, is still a truth though. Every reasonable argument defending e-books is one of practicality. And that's just fine, so long as it's recognized as such."

Why would anybody need to “defend” e-books unless somebody is attacking them? What would be the point in attacking them? E-books are just another option for book lovers to choose from. Not everybody values the same things you do. If I were to list out the top ten things that I believe contribute to my good quality of life, physical possessions probably wouldn’t even make the list.

People who prefer physical formats don’t all prefer them for the same reasons, and people who prefer e-readers also have a variety of reasons for their preference. I think it's fun to read people's different reasons for preferring one format over another, but I don't see the point in trying to argue with somebody that their subjective reasons are less valid than my subjective reasons.

[Ken]

That's all fine and good, but I must say, I felt your earlier post necessitated my defense of my subjective opinion.

[Erin *Proud Book Hoarder*]

Graham wrote: ""Bibliophile" doesn't mean you like paper, it means you like books. The word is technology neutral. I'm happy to say I love books but I find paper books clumsy and limiting. We clearly need a word that means "lover of paper books" for those who favour that particular presentation technique. "

I was referring to the classic definition, which is lover of books. There are many who are big book collectors but surprisingly not big readers, and many who love to read but care nothing at all about having the book format to read on or in their house. Nothing wrong with that, but being a bibliophile, I feel awful not collecting books and not having them around. Like Kenneth, I don't see the need to have 1000s of books on a device with me at all times and don't find that a benefit for me.

Graham wrote: "I think you may be a special case, Erin. Anyone who has to read PDFs all day on a computer screen is bound to develop a certain antipathy to the technology. I used to love driving until I had a job that involved a two-hour-each-way commute every day. Now I don't.

I can definitely understand getting tired of driving if forced to do it for work! I think you misunderstand what I wrote though - I don't have an antipathy to technology. I do own a kindle. I just prefer books and mainly read them over electronic reading.

[Erin *Proud Book Hoarder*]

Al wrote: "BTW, solar chargers don't work very well here in the Pacific Northwest where we live under a perpetual cloud laced with rain."

Despite living in Florida, I think that may be the case for a lot of summers here. This June and July it rained every day. Very rainy summers, while the rest of the year feels like summer should (sigh). I'm still waiting for a decent "fall"

[Erin *Proud Book Hoarder*]

CS wrote: " As I see it, the basic definition of "bibliophile" simply means someone who loves books. The expansive definition of "bibliophile," according to Webster, means someone who loves books not only for their content, but for their quality as a physical object, i.e., fine printing, illustrations, quality of paper and bindings, etc.
"

As dopey as it sounds, I completely get this - when I was a kid, I'd do a hobby when I was bored of laying all my books on the floor just to stare at them. I had a series where I was worried about fingerprint smudges on the pages so would 'buff' them with a moist washrag. Sadly I found out the hard way not to do this! :) I was into bookplates and bookplate designs just to mark the inside of the book. My favorite job as a teenager was the bookstore because of touching the new books and lining them in the bags just right. I'd spend hours playing "library" with the books. When I walk into a person's house, the first thing I look for are books. It's a draw to the book, even if you have no intention of reading it right away, or if it's already read. Some people are similar with technology - they like to own objects they may not necessarily use much because they are the new "in" thing, or any other collectible items - hard to define. You can be a big reader without being a bibliophile, as so many have shown.

[Erin *Proud Book Hoarder*]

Graham wrote: "No, I don't think so. I think the people who compiled this dictionary have reworked the definition to fit their paper book prejudice :-) I learned the definition of bibliophile in an age before there were electronic devices with which to display books. Let's face it, a book written on papyrus scrolls is still a book. Do bibliophiles not like papyrus scrolls? Or the walls of ancient tombs?

Unfortunately, books have been recorded in bound heaps of paper for so long that the technology has become synonymous with the content. The fact that You could present To Kill a Mockingbird electronically (or on papyrus, or on clay tablets) does not change its nature. As I suggested earlier, we need an expanded lexicon to cope with the new technologies and the need to clarify our concepts.

And, yes, I am also a logophile - because I love words, not just written words, or printed words, or spoken words, but words, however they are presented.
"

I remember that being the definition when I was in school as well, I looked up all I could regarding books. It's been the definition. The definition of 'reader' fits more what I think you're describing, someone who enjoys reading but doesn't care much about the format they use.

And I'd call words on a tablet a tablet, or words on a scroll a scroll. Sure biblophiles, readers, and non-readers can like them. They're..intriguing. You could hate reading and love scrolls.

And you're right the nature of the story has not changed - to read To Kill a Mockingbird as an electronic file, versus a book, versus listening to it, you are still getting the same story. The experience may be a little different, but it's still the same tale. I prefer reading it as a book more for many reasons, one of the main being I happen to be a lover of books as well, but I'd read it on the kindle if need be.

[Al]

Trike wrote: "How long do you go camping? My Kindle lasts for two weeks, including using the little light attachment on the cover.

Or is it one of the iPad types? Those probably don't last too long. My iPad will only last a couple days. "

It is a B&W Kindle reader, not a tablet. The battery has a life measured in reading-hours. Since I read a lot when camping, that translates into a few days before the battery would fail. Hence the need for some dead-tree books to back me up. We occasionally went out for 2 weeks at a time. Figure 3 - 5 hours of reading a day and the battery would be dead at the end of the first week.

If I have the problem, I'm sure others do too.

Don't get me wrong, I love my eReader and the ability to scale the text and hold a lot of books. I just think there's a place for both MMPB and eBooks in my life.

After all, its the WORDS that I'm after, not the medium.

[CS]

Erin (Paperback stash) *is juggle-reading* wrote: "I remember that being the definition when I was in school as well, I looked up all I could regarding books..."

Have you seen this article?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-...

I suppose I qualify as a bookworm but I dislike being called a worm of any kind. There must be a better word for someone who loves reading.

[Papaphilly]

CS wrote: "Erin (Paperback stash) *is juggle-reading* wrote: "I remember that being the definition when I was in school as well, I looked up all I could regarding books..."

Have you seen this article?
http:..."

You can choose Reader and that covers all mediums. You can also choose Logophile, but that is the technical definition of a lover of words. Bibliophile is a lover of books (physical, not metaphorical). Instead of bookworm, you can be a bookish person.

[Erin *Proud Book Hoarder*]

CS wrote: "Erin (Paperback stash) *is juggle-reading* wrote: "I remember that being the definition when I was in school as well, I looked up all I could regarding books..."

Have you seen this article?
http:..."

No, I hadn't seen it before, interesting reading.

"BIBLIOPHAGIST -- literally, a devourer of books" - yep, I'm thankful not to be that one.

[Lara Amber]

I hated Mass Market Paperback for several reasons: cheap paper, cheap ink, and cheap bindings.

I hear from people who dislike ereaders because of the smell & touch of books. I prefer the Kindle to get away from those things. Ink wearing off on my fingers, rough pages against my fingertips, finding a badly cut page or having the binding start to separate, those were all distractions that take away from my reading experience. By having the same experience every single time, I get more immersed in the story since RL stimuli is reduced.

It was mentioned early about Kindles getting broken. I'm on my fourth and none of them have broken (I've upgraded and passed on my older ones to other users), even after all this time. They can take a drop pretty well in a case and minor spills can be just wiped up (unlike coffee on a book page). I read for hours every day and only have to charge my Voyage every few weeks.

I don't carry lots of books on my Kindle, but the instant access regardless of location is nice. I've borrowed library books from the park bench while watching my son play and bought books while sitting waiting for my plane to load.

[Malcolm]

My usual reading venue is within a hail storm, holding a piping fresh bucket of the greasiest KFC, with someone elses bifocals, and a generous dose of mephedrone.

So yeah, no Mass Market Paperbacks.

[L.G.]

This year is probably the first that I've read more books in electronic format than in paper format.

[Esther]

I prefer the feel of a paperback in my hands. I have read several old 1960s paperbacks that have collapsed as I read them. One time the paper actually disintegrated in my fingers as I attempted to turn the page. It doesn't bother me unless I loose a page I haven't yet read.
I carry books in my handbag so hardbacks are really tough on my shoulders. But trade paperbacks are OK.

Ereaders I just haven't used enough to get the feel of them. I can't find a comfortable way of holding them securely which is pretty important when I am standing in a crowded train.
On the other hand I am sure I would have loved to have one as a child when we went on 4-6 week trips and there was only room for half a dozen books in my luggage.

[Jason]

Esther wrote: "I prefer the feel of a paperback in my hands. I have read several old 1960s paperbacks that have collapsed as I read them. One time the paper actually disintegrated in my fingers as I attempted to ..."

I always thought that I could never get used to e-readers...until I actually used one. Now I only read e-books. Check out Kobo's touch 2.0. Very compact and fit easily in your hand. It's an e-ink reader so can be read in direct sunlight unlike a back lit tablet. It also uses e-pub technology so you can read books from a variety of sources.

[Lara Amber]

Esther wrote: "I can't find a comfortable way of holding them securely which is pretty important when I am standing in a crowded train."

It seems to me that when they were designing the Kindle they were assuming an Amazon case on it. When I hold mine without a case it seems too thin. When it's in the case, it's the perfect width and the interior fabric of the case keeps it from feeling slippery. I hold it one handed all the time (side grip). That's one of the nice thing about the Voyage, I can advance pages without moving my thumb from it's resting place.

[Patrick]

My preferance is MMPB or PB over HB. I love the smaller sizes - easy to hold in one hand while eating, feeding the kids or doing whatever. Plus cost too. I get lots of my copies off eBay for very little cost. Also, I kind of like reading a well-worn copy. Somehow it feels like a comfortable old pair of jeans - used, but loved.

[Grace]

I love hardcovers, but there's something awesome about a beat-up mass market paperback too. It's like reading some old dime novel adventure, and I like that aesthetic :)

[Christopher]

I tend to gravitate towards mass market paperbacks for some reason. There is something comforting in grimy low quality printing that is just familiar to me.

Lately I've pretty much gone all-in with a cheap older nook that I got from a friend. If there is one major advantage to moving to the ebook reader, it's being a bit more adventurous in what I read since no one on the bus or at work is going to see the cover...

[Trike]

Patrick wrote: "Also, I kind of like reading a well-worn copy. Somehow it feels like a comfortable old pair of jeans - used, but loved."

Especially by bedbugs and bookworms. :p

[Karen]

At this point they don't bother me. That's what my glasses are for. However, I find that certain titles only come in the MMPB format so I really wouldn't have a choice if I wanted to read it. I also find that these are the books I'll take on a trip and then leave behind when I'm done.

[Kevin]

I kind of hate hardcovers because for some of them, the format can look so boring and plain in my opinion.

[Kevin]

The biggest problem I have with mass paperbacks is that for most of them the spine is easily broken especially if you store your books in cold places like I do, which I don't think many do.

[Trike]

Kevin wrote: "The biggest problem I have with mass paperbacks is that for most of them the spine is easily broken especially if you store your books in cold places like I do, which I don't think many do."

You and Joey, peas in a pod.

https://youtu.be/wC-j-zm2Vh8

https://youtu.be/x_2ZW7rMXgc