Hacker News Reader

Because books always meant the physical books. ebooks are something else. Don't make it weird.

To quote Wikipedia:

> A book is a medium for recording information in the form of writing or images, typically composed of many pages (made of papyrus, parchment, vellum, or paper) bound together and protected by a cover.[1] The technical term for this physical arrangement is codex (plural, codices). In the history of hand-held physical supports for extended written compositions or records, the codex replaces its predecessor, the scroll. A single sheet in a codex is a leaf and each side of a leaf is a page.

...so the book is the medium, not the abstract work of literature. A novel can be available as a book or an eBook (or, if you feel really "retro", as a scroll) the same way as a music album can be available as a vinyl record, a CD or via streaming.

Because that is what a book is - a physical item. You’re using the wrong word.

Literature is to music as a book is to vinyl or CD.

Alternatively, if you know the type of literature, you can call it a novel or a poetry collection.

Eh, "book" is widely used as the unit of literature. If someone says "I wrote a book!", you don't assume that they created exactly one physical item by writing on a lot of pages and tying them together or anything.

sure, often the medium is confused for the content. Watching a film usually doesn't involve any physicals film.

> Eh, "book" is widely used as the unit of literature.

This is orthogonal. A glass can either be the physical item, or used as unit of literature. In the current context, nobody cares about the unit.

So? That's the same as saying "I made a record". They probably didn't just make one. But it doesn't change the underlying definitions or the misuse of comparing them incorrectly.

> a physical item

Not really. More like, "a container". It goes in the direction of "physical" (as opposed to the content), but it is not necessarily physical. For example, a file already is a "book".

see also synechdoche [0] as a figure of speech, or "container for the thing contained" as james thurber's english teacher explained...

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

> I am having some cognitive dissonance here.

> Yes, of course I realize that many people prefer those creamy pages and beetle-black fonts.

> But for the most part, [me me me]

So is your confusion about semantics, or that some people prefer physical books, which you seem to understand anyway?

How is your preference for digital books in conflict with line you quoted?

The drawbacks and upsides of both medium types are obvious, as is the fact that a medium isn't synonymous with it's content but not irrelevant.

> Why is the idea of a "book" tied so closely to the physical medium it is printed on?

Maybe because until some 15 years ago, physical books/magazines/newspapers have been _the_ medium that people had been using to consume the vast majority of written texts over centuries, from their very childhood to old age.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

This is just vapid sophistry.

> Why is the idea of a "book" tied so closely to the physical medium it is printed on?

Well, terminologically (which is not the exact focus), because 'book' is the «medium»: 'book' comes from "bark" ("beech") and as such intends the container; the content could be called 'text' ("the weaving of ideas").

So, on the actual point:

-- the distinction involving "vinyl" and "opticals", "music" and "movies" on the one hand, and books on the other, is simply that relatively little option for the "storage of words" has fused the ideas of "books" and "texts" more closely.

-- and going towards the point of the quote, there is an actual experience of the object, an appreciation, which is important to some. You have a parallel in "music and movies", but more than in the container, it is in the "reproduction equipment" - theater vs mobile vs television vs projector etc.

I don't understand the confusion here whatsoever. People still associate records with a certain warnth and unintended sounds like scratching. Further, no one who reads significsntly considers books to be just physical books. It's a srrawman. The distinction is that the lower bar for books that exist /only/ as ebooks (due to cheaper publishing costs) results in a noticeable drop in quality that leads to a prejudice against ebook‐only texts amongst consumers.

Ultimately, I use a Kindle and an iPad because it's more convenient, but with a book I can, afterwards (sometimes many months or years afterwards), remember parts of the book by the section they were in and frequently take only a couple of skips to get to the sentence I want.

That's a pretty neat feeling when you don't remember the words but the idea and the rough location so there's some distinct utility. But perhaps AI fuzzy search will suffice in the years to come.

Really good post that makes you think about Platonic ideals.

I think you have it backward? Although to a certain extent, books have lasted so long as a technology that the two meanings have become intertwined.

Movies used to come on VHS tapes, now they come on DVDs or via streaming.

Music used to come on 8-tracks, then cassette tapes, then CDs, now streaming.

Novels once came as scrolls, perhaps, but still mostly come as books, although now often ebooks.

Non-fiction writing also mostly comes as books, and I suspect non-fiction ebooks are a smaller percentage of overall non-fiction sales than that of novels.