I have a "First Edition" of Pilgrims Progress that I picked up at a garage sale. It was published in the late 1890's. I put first edition in quotes as the book was the first edition made by that particular publisher, and not the original date of publication. In any event

That's not a modern book. Paper used to be made with significantly less acid content than modern paper is made with. This allowed the paper to last longer.

Paper used to be something valuable. Literacy used to be much more rare. As these things have commoditized, the paper industry needed to commoditize too, and so would cut corners in order to improve profit margins on the paper they manufacturered. Equipment became able to withstand greater acid content, so the need for reducing acid content in paper was reduced, allowing the industry to get away with making paper with higher acid contents than what were before possible and save money in the process.

I've seen medieval bibles in better shape than books I've left on the shelf for ten years. Modern books won't stand the test of time due to the manufacturing process and materials used.

Edit-ok that point has been made. Been skimming the thread.

As much as I didn't like the idea of eBooks to begin with, I'd have to say eBooks, provided it's on something like a Kindle. I just find to be so much more convenient, at least after the first couple of weeks. Before that I'd occasionally finish a page then look across for the next one.

Plus having a pad with all your favourite books on is like Star Trek.

Alright thanks. I like when I get sources on things, good times.

Something of an exaggeration there. I've plenty of books that date back to the seventies and eighties and the great majority haven't faded or fallen apart at all. Very cheaply made paperbacks will fall apart of course. Does annoy when paper that yellows quickly is used.

I vastly prefer paper books but then I only buy non-fiction such as history, art and photography books - usually hard backed. An e-reader would be cool for print only books as my eyesight isn't what it was. Have tried one belonging to a friend and it's easier to read but really miss the physicality of paper and am too aware that a small accident and you no longer have access to those books. E-books feel very evanescent - as does everything else that depends on electricity IMO.

I specifically defined that as being after 4-7 decades for non-premium books; books from the 70s are just barely reaching that time frame. Admittedly, hardcover books are usually a little bit better off, but will still fall apart quite easily.

Rather, short of a global calamity which will most likely rob you of your physical books too, e-books are more persistant. You can redownload the books from anywhere with an Internet connection, so they aren't going anywhere. The only reason they may seem transient is a fallacy resulting from how people think about intangible goods.

An e-book is much more likely to last throughout your life than a real book is. Though an e-book looks horrible on a bookshelf

There are countless books form the 30s for which barely any copies survive, purely because they were poorly made. It's not much of a stretch to think your average paperback today has a limited livespan.

I prefer having the tangible feel of a book although I do also maintain a collection of eBooks as well.

Lol no ones angry i thought people would notice the part about planet gleep gloop or the lightning hiting your ebook wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Its whatever man you like ebooks i like regular books at least we are still reading in this day and age!

Real books.

That being said, I have an app on my phone/ipad that gives me access to a vast amount of books that I would not have otherwise read, and it is fascinating what is considered free literature.

I love real books but unfortunately I just don't have space for them in my little house anymore so I usually wind up buying ebooks instead.

http://popcultureworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/capitol-hill-books-shelves-of-books-washington-dc.jpg

Peak oil doomer here - don't get me started on the viability of our current level of civilization

Just dug out some old paperbacks printed circa 1983. 'The Name of the Rose' was in very good condition, very sturdy. Likewise 'Drawing on the Right Hand Side of the Brain'. My copy of 'The Hobbit' however kind of reminded me of that scene in the film version of 'The Time Machine' where Rod Taylor is shown a shelf of old books - and they crumble to dust at his touch.

No e-reader can really do justice to a good art or photography book and it's lovely having shelves of books that you can browse, pick up a book and just turn to a page in just a few seconds.

Ahhh...heaven!

Just needs a chair and a few cats snoozing in a corner.

Can't do e-books. The ink screens are nice, but the navigation throws me. I can find my way around a paperback much more quickly and easily.

How did you get a picture of my closet?

Public domain is a wonderful thing. We really need to scale back our copyright laws to be more like they originally were.

Exactly how I feel.

The old bookstore in town had a comfy chair and a fat old cat, and they didn't care if you sat there and read for hours, so long as you eventually bought something. I miss that place so much.

The way I look at it that's not what e-readers are for. Some books are just pretty objects and won't be replaced by technology until we can simulate that experience. E-readers aren't intended to replace art books, book collections, etc. I use mine for portability (again, I can bring hundreds of books with me in a 7 oz. package...a library only does you any good when you're standing in it) and for books I'm reading from beginning to end. I can lie in bed holding a tiny, light device and just tap or click a button (that my thumb is already conveniently resting on) to turn the page. It's the ultimate in literary laziness.

Just out of curiosity, how often does one need to flip through a novel? Alternatively, can your paper book search for words and phrases in its content?

There are also two sides to all of these points. When I turn on my Kindle I'm looking at the page where I left off. If I switch to a different book, it remembers where I was. I can also puts marks anywhere in the book that are then indexed for later use, highlight passages (also indexed), search for mentions of characters and places (wait...who was that again? *search for name* Ahh...right.), get statistics about the author's writing style based on volume and frequency of word use, tap a word and see a dictionary entry for it, etc. Sure, there are no pages to flip through, but there are a lot of other related advantages.

Of course, it's all a matter of preference. For me, books are great for admiring and poring over, and e-books are great for the actual act of reading.

I wish Amazon would give me free e-books when I buy a physical book, though. When you buy an audio CD from them a lot of them come with free MP3 downloads (they call it AutoRip), but when I buy a physical book I don't get a free copy of the e-book. That would be fantastic.

It doesn't look too far from that as it is.

Hard cover books are the best or if you really want to be fancy then the leather bound are purty to own. I understand the convenience and ease of eBooks on tablets but I personally cannot read a book or anything longer then a page or so on any type of screen, it bothers my eyes and doesn't have the same enthralling effect that a real book does. The feel of a real book just feels right while tablets feel fake to me, like I should be reading posts from here instead of a real piece of literature
I compare it to seeing a work of art in person versus seeing it on google images, it can be seen the same but can only be truly experienced as it was intended.
I envy your amount of free time

Have you used an e-ink screen? Totally different than the LCD screen on a tablet.

I do quite often. Something in one book will remind me of another, so I grab it and re-read the relevant parts. And for most of those books, I do have an electronic searching device. It is called my brain. I can usually pick a book up and flip it open pretty close to the passage I want.

I see some of those things as drawbacks. You can do all those things on your own, they just require more effort and mental involvement.... which is part of the benefit of reading in the first place.

How are they drawbacks? The only one I can think of that I might consider mentally-lazy (as opposed to just convenient) is remembering characters. Admittedly, that's only been really useful in a couple of situations (in books/series with a LOT of characters), but are you really saying that you've never lost track of anything in a book that a text search could probably find for you? Isn't that a bit like refusing to use e-mail because you don't want the postman to get lazy?

I do not care as long as it is a good read.

@Softnerd:

I can see e-readers being OK for novels etc but not for image laden reference books or music/art/photography books.

I choose reading, whenever, however, and wherever I can get it.

Oh, and at a cheap price.