Books vs Ebooks or, What is a Book?

I often see things on Pinterest, and various writing or book websites, that bring up the infamous "debate" over the books-versus-e-readers.

I put "debate" in quotation marks, because I have rarely seen what could be called a fair debate. Most people approach the the issue from the standpoint that "Real books are better than Kindle/ebooks. Period. Exclamation mark." Then they might be really clever and have a list of all the "good things" about a Kindle. And then say that despite all that, "real books" are infinitely better than ebooks because they look, feel, and smell like books.

Now, I approach this issue as a person who has read countless "real books" and few electronic books. I don't own a Kindle, but I do have a couple of friends who have. So I believe that I can be a fair judge of the issue.

In this post, I'm not really going to do a pros and cons list, like so many websites have already done. Rather, I have one question? What is a book? Does the word "book" mean a "real book", on paper, or does it mean the story that is contained either with ink or electronic pictures of letters? It is a real question.

If someone asked me, "Have you read Corgi Critter's Conquests?" I would know right away that that means, "Have you read this certain book?" And if I had read it in a "real book", or on a Kindle, or online as long as I had read those words, I could truthfully say that I had read it.

This is a love of books for the sole reason that they are not electronic. Or that is at least how I see it.

Maybe these same purists would say that writing should be done on typewriters, or by hand. These days, that is probably not practical. I sometimes struggle to understand this whole hatred of technology that some people seem to have. I mean, take video games, for example. Many parents love to hate on video games. But if a kid is playing an intellectually-stimulating online game, then why is that worse than play any other non-active game? And if the video game is pointless and ridiculous,  that is no worse than playing Candy Land  or Sorry or Trouble, right? Or any other roll-the-dice or draw-the-cards game.

OK, that doesn't have much to do with books. I just hate games of pure chance.

But back to books. You know, I have been reading a book and thought "Ohhhh, this smells so good!" Maybe I'm just not observant of such things, or many it's because I've had little contact with books that are either especially new or old. But I have reveled in the smell of many a DVD case. Sad, when I think about it.

And I don't love the feel of a book. I mean, it's a book. It's just like the way things are. Paper with words on it.

I've seen a lot of PBS documentaries in my life time. If there is ever a topic like "What is the smartest animal?" or "Is there life on another planet?" then there is usually fifty minutes talking about that question. And then a disappointing ending saying, basically "we don't know" or "maybe, maybe not." That's kind of how this blog post feels to me.

So my opinion is that it is not the medium that counts in books, but the content. A good story is good whether there is paper or electronics behind the words. It's just words.

Note: I also don't sympathize with the people who literally use the word "murder" to describe ruining a book. Comments on Pinterest are commonly in this direction. A lamp made with old books is "senseless murder." A hollowed-out Harry Potter, used to hide small objects, is a horrible thing! And any picture or art project with a written-on book is evil.

Books are just books.