Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our Bookless Future

claremontreviewofbooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Our Bookless Future

#71

Post by DennisP »

stevenkkim wrote: post #38
robin_reala wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But aren’t you talking about an ebook reader like a Kobo or a Kindle then? They exist already.

I have both, and they are just too slow. I think if I were reading fiction page by page, it would be fine. When I read non-fiction for learning, it's very difficult to skip forward/back, re-read sections, highlight/annotate, flip to the footnotes and back, jump to the table of contents and back, etc. All of these actions are frustratingly slow on the Kindle or Kobo. The iPad is fast enough to make a good reading expe…

Annotating on the Kindle is a real pain but looking up footnotes is quicker than a book with end notes. Highlighting is a bit slower but has the advantage that you can export all your highlights in a pdf or spreadsheet.

Re: Our Bookless Future

#72

Post by andrepd »

romwell wrote: post #55

Eh, cry me a river. To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, had a literacy rate of about 24% overall; and at that, less than 13% of women were literate[1]. The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbe…

> Eh, cry me a river.

Such substance.

> To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, had a literacy rate of about 24% overall

Like another poster commented, Russia had serfdom until well into the 19th century. Look at central and western Europe, if you want to see a literate society in that time.

Also, what is your point with this? Poor societies had bad literacy levels? Illiterate peasants don't care for books? I struggle to see the point with that observation.

> The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century.

Not dying of diharrea before the age of 5 has also never been the pasttime of the masses until a hundred years ago. What the hell does that mean? If people start dying of preventable diseases again that we should not worry?? If indices of progress start stagnating, or in this case, regressing, then we must wonder how on earth we are doing so badly.

Re: Our Bookless Future

#73

Post by [deleted] »

tzs wrote: post #18
mrr54 wrote: post #4

>In these later letters, Wolf sounds like the kind of alarmist digital enthusiasts often deride. After all, they say, reading is not dying; it’s thriving. Wolf herself quotes a study from the University of California, San Diego, showing that an average user consumes 34 gigabytes of data per day—the equivalent of nearly 100,000 words. How is that the equivalent of nearly 100,000 words? I appreciate people read a lot o…

> How is that the equivalent of nearly 100,000 words? It was probably meant to say 100,000 books. That would be 0.34 MB per book which is reasonable. For comparison, the first Harry Potter book as a text file is 0.4 MB.

[deleted]

Re: Our Bookless Future

#75

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

osobo wrote: post #42
burlesona wrote: post #28

A lot of comments are debating the important of physical reading versus screen reading. I think that’s actually missing the point. > “Behind our screens, at work and at home, we have sutured the temporal segments of our days so as to switch our attention from one task or one source of stimulation to another. We cannot but be changed.” This part rings true for me. Last summer I read Cal Newport’s “Deep Work” and then…

Thing thing about committing stuff to memory is that it results in a fragmented install base across the 'user base' that may not get updated regularly. Even just double-checking Google before you act on existing knowledge may prove that new insights have caught up with what you held to be true, and you need to update your knowledge. I'm fairly certain that this "knowledge in the cloud" aspect of Google actually makes…

I disagree. I think this "trivia based" knowledge is leading to a decline in overall ability and innovation. I've noticed it in myself.

The problems we are starting to face are not google-able problems. Despite this wealth of information, people still struggle in math class, physics is still hard, engineering students still drop out, etc. Analytical, problem solving activities are getting harder to do. Sure, I can look up the date of X, but so what?

Now that there is absolutely no barrier to entry, I'd wager much of what you google isn't even truth. Look at anti-vaccination, holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, survivorship bias self help not based on anything. There is no inherent curation built into the internet - on one hand, this is good - but I think we are now seeing the negative effects grow exponentially.

Re: Our Bookless Future

#76

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

lenkite wrote: post #33
sq_ wrote: post #9

This line from the article really caught my attention: > In sum, Wolf says, the paper reading brain has better memory, more imagination, immersion, and patience, and more knowledge than the screen reading brain. I've been torn for years about how to feel about my reading and writing habits. I love reading physical books, especially when I'm trying to develop a deep understanding of some topic, and I have, at times, m…

I believe this is simple conditioning. There are many people like me who learn better from ebooks, online-papers and pdf's rather than dead-tree books. We can annotate, attach notes, add/remove highlights and most importantly: search without needing a painful index and simultaneously study 2 or more books on the same subject with little trouble in shifting context. With paper books, all this is very painful - too muc…

I've found all of these things to be unhelpful compared to just having a notebook next to my book, the added writing down of information helps me retain information better.

I question the benefit of search beyond finding a sentence or two. Most large ideas require more than a sentence or two to explain something, and ignoring the context before and after could limit my understanding.

Re: Our Bookless Future

#77

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #36
chewz wrote: post #16

> Just a few years ago, the Kindle was being blamed for the death of the traditional book. But the latest figures show a dramatic reversal of fortunes, with sales of ebooks plunging. So what’s behind this resurgence? https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/27/how-ebooks-los...

There's a thriving independent self-published Kindle market which isn't included in the sales of the mainstream publishers. So there is no "dramatic reversal of fortunes."

Also ebooks are so freaking expensive when I can get used copies for pennies on the dollar.

Re: Our Bookless Future

#78

Post by habosa »

I strongly agree with this quote from the article: "What bibliophiles really fear isn’t the disappearance of books but the elimination of the time and space needed to enjoy them."

I absolutely love reading books but it takes a really conscious effort to carve out time and space in the day to to it. I need quiet and I need my other interruptions to pause.

I own a ton of paper books but I've recently switched to Kindle. I find that having a small and self-illuminating reading device makes me way more able to take advantage of reading time when I find it.

Re: Our Bookless Future

#79

Post by keiferski »

romwell wrote: post #55

Eh, cry me a river. To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, had a literacy rate of about 24% overall; and at that, less than 13% of women were literate[1]. The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbe…

> The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century.

Nor has widespread participation in the political process, yet the benefits of democratic society seem worth preserving/enlarging.

Re: Our Bookless Future

#80

Post by GarrisonPrime »

greggman3 wrote: post #67
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #41

This is really missing the point, IMO. The difference between paper print vs digital "print" is not the issue. The problem is more that TV, movies, social media and YT have created a post-literate culture where the primary model of communication is visual and emotional, not textual and abstracted. That culture is extroverted rather than introverted, geared towards triggering simplistic emotional responses rather than…

TV series might not be as long as books but all the multi-year long series people put however many hours into them as the series was long. Breaking Bad had 62 episodes, average 45 mins each = 46hrs of watching that show. That feels like more time than most novels.

I don’t think the length of time one pays attention to something is a good indicator of its quality.
Post reply on HN