Essay at NPR
Am I the only person whose books don’t smell like anything?
My. Books. Do. Not. Smell. Like. Anything.
There are exceptions, yes. If they accidentally were in the back of my closet when it rained really hard and the back part of the closet got wet because sometimes basement apartments are like that, then yes, they might smell vaguely the same way sheets smell if you leave them damp in the washer for three days at the conclusion of the spin cycle. It’s not wisdom — it’s mildew. If you leave stuffed animals in the same box with books, they will develop some — not all, but some — of the same smells. The box my Operation game came in would smell not entirely dissimilar to my copy of Sounder.
The author states
…that “collectors and readers are very different populations” and I don’t think that’s necessarily so. Just because I own books does not make me a book collector. I have a lots of dishes (that I eat off) but I’m not a plate collector. I have many pairs of earrings, but I’m not an earring collector.
I love walking into my living room and seeing two tall bookcases filled with books that I’ve read and befriended over the years. If she’s happy walking into a living room with a chair and sofa, then hey, whatever makes her happy.
And books do have a smell…she must have deficient powers of scent.
“Since I got a Kindle…”
The dead giveaway. I have to say, I’ve seen a lot more denunciation of all of those book-loving fools who talk about the great smell of books–all of the denunciation coming from people who’re pushing for ebooks–than I have, well, actual claims by people who like print books that smell is the primary or even a significant reason. (I’ve rarely seen someone who doesn’t care for ebooks give the smell of print books as their primary reason; “rarely” may be an overstatement.)
I see a straw man, and I’ve been seeing a lot of it. The writer–and many more like her–are belittling those who prefer print books (which, so far, seems to be the vast majority of book readers) by making us all out to be book-smellers. Because, you know, we couldn’t have legitimate reasons to prefer print books…
I’m no book collector (who has room?)–and most of the books I actually buy are mass-market paperbacks (sometimes used), which are rarely Physical Objects of Great Beauty and Scent. Most of the books I read, of course, are hardbounds…from the library. That’s my preference, and it has nothing to do with smell.
If she loves ebooks, more power to her. She seems strong on individual choice; could she honor those of us who read print books by granting that we’re not all booksmellers?
Balanced
I think the article as a whole is balanced. Her article is in response, at least in part, to an article called “Books are more than just text” and has the subtitle “Helen Simonson on the memories, smells and heft an e-book will never be able to absorb and retransmit”
You state that her article is “belittling those who prefer print books”. I see her article as a response to an article that is belittling ebooks.
The last paragraph of the article would seem to best make your point Walt in that she has two camps “readers” and “collectors”
I think it’s great that there are people who love the physical possession of books. They are collectors; they should be happy collectors. But collectors and readers are very different populations, and the fact that e-Books don’t work for collectors doesn’t mean they can’t work for readers, because earnest, serious reading does not always coincide with a desire for collecting, and the accumulation of memory and myth does not always come from smelling and fondling your books.
But I think when you look at the article as a whole and include lines like this: Everything can and should have fans. There are people who love egg cups, there are people who love owning albums on vinyl, and there are people who love to physically possess a lot of books.
I think that the idea that she is separating collectors form readers is not so strong.
In that part she is not saying you have to be a collector she is just saying you like to physically possess books. So whatever your reasons for having the printed book is fine.
Maybe, maybe not
OK, so Helen Simonson did mention smell–as one of several attributes of physical books. That’s one–maybe. But that does not make all those who prefer print books into collectors (as you say).
I can’t escape the feeling from the article that readers do, or at least should, prefer ebooks. And that’s nonsense. Readers should prefer what they prefer. And, for that matter, suggesting that people who prefer the sound of vinyl (which I don’t) are people who “love owning” vinyl, that is, collectors, is also a slight–to some extent, these are all variants of egg-cup collectors, “fans.”
Sorry, but I still smell a straw man.
[Incidentally, particularly if you’re a friend of David “Teleread” Rothman, do read the third sentence in the second paragraph again: Readers should prefer what they prefer. If readers prefer ebooks (which, so far, evidence suggests they mostly don’t), that’s just fine with me. I just don’t care for people being belittled for not having that preference.)
Comments to article
In the comments to the article the author says this:
But the definition of reading does not require that you have paper in your hands — you should have paper in your hands if that’s what you prefer. I don’t mind personal loyalties to print; I just don’t like the implication that if it’s not a paper book, it’s not really reading.
readers and collectors
My main thoughts are of those who frequent libraries and are voracious readers. Many prefer print, and many simply don’t have the alternative or cannot afford the alternative. Are they collectors? They don’t ‘own’ or ‘collect’ the books they read; they borrow them for a short period of time. Are they readers? This article seems to slant in that they are not readers simply because they don’t use ebooks. You can’t break it down into readers and collectors based on preference of format, lack of affordability or access, or even whether they purchase their books or borrow them.
whine whine whine
It’s a new world, get over it. Lol
The autoresponse generator’s working just fine.
Let’s see:
Anonymous: Check.
Four-word meaningless statement that can apply to any discussion involving any change whatsoever: Check
Three-word cliche that’s perhaps the dumbest way on record of ending any discussion (“Get over it”): Check
A bit of pointless textlish to finish it all off: Check. (So you’re a little old lady? Who knew?)
Making zero contribution to the discussion: Check, check, and mate.
“whine whine whine” FTW! Clearly The Comment Of The Day.
I bow to the superiority of your response…
And this is why I suggest using Disqus
Disqus is a nice commenting system that also removes the need for the Anonymous Patron as you have a wide choice of log-in method be it
Facebook ConnectopenID or even your Twitter credentials…________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, MSLS
PGP KeyID: DC5A625B
Also
Also, I think she misses the point that there are differences in the way people read and that (at least with the current technology) reading a book on an ereader and reading a paper book foster a different type of engagement with the text. I can footnote, dogear, highlight, and write all over the margins on my paper books. From my understanding some of this is available on the ereaders, but not to the same extent. So, yeah, you can read a million books on your ereader and never return to them again (which is what she seemed to be talking about regarding herself), but if you like to write all over the margins and return and return again to a particular text I’m not sure the ereader is currently on par. I enjoy the smell of books, sure, but that is not my main reason for not using an ereader.