Digital vs Physical Books – I'm joining in the debate

Digital vs Physical Books

We all know that this subject has been done to death, but I didn't know what else to write about and I want to write something (also, I have three ideas for full length novels that I'm putting off starting).

I have no clear opinion, but I will write my viewpoints on the pros and cons of each, and who knows – I may change my mind and come to a final conclusion!

DIGITAL PROS

• You can have so many more books without taking up any more space in your house.

• Books are cheaper – you can get so many more.

• So convenient – going on a trip? Pull our your eReader and get reading. No more finishing one book and not having another to read.

DIGITAL CONS

• No nice book smell.

• Harder to hide behind, as it's generally only half the size of an open book.

• You can't show off a bookcase full of books.

• No excitement when a parcel with books in it arrives.

• Can't read properly if sat in the sun – glare on the screen.

• Charge runs out (and I always forget to put things on charge).

PHYSICAL PROS

• Display of pretty covers.

• Smell (it's a very important contributing factor, okay?!)

• You get to hold a book in your hands.

• Generally easier to know how much is left to read.

• Bookshelves – no need to say more.

• Don't worry about charging – a book can't run out of charge.

PHYSICAL CONS

• Space – can't have tons of books without taking up loads of room.

• Expensive – you can get some cheap second hand, but new books are generally quite pricy. (Don't get me started on hardback prices).

• Easy to damage. If there's a fire, you're losing them all. If there's a flood, good luck drying them out on the radiator.

• They break – pages rip, or fall out. There are people who will fold down the corners (which I don't mind, but I have a friend who would murder me if I did it to one of her books). My Mum's bookshelf has some books that are so old the covers have fallen off.

• Losing your place – an eReader generally saves your place automatically. If you close a book, without checking the page number or marking the page, you have to flick through until you see something you recognise, then try and figure out where exactly you were.

So, as it turns out, there are quite a few cons to both. Personally, if I want to buy a book, I will buy a paperback. Usually, they're about £7.99. I probably could get the digital version for about £2.99, at most.

However, I think the physical version of books is more of a lifestyle thing, and I am definitely lead that type of lifestyle. I have an eReader (which I bought at least six years ago, when it was on offer... I got 50% off!) and it is old, slow and takes forever to load. That might be because I used to download as many free books as possible. I have at least 80 on there that I have never read. However, if I need to go on a really long train journey or something, it would be wonderful, as I would never run out of new books to read before the journey is over.

There is a certain glamour to physical books. Reading by fairy lights is so much more aesthetic than reading from a bright screen (although both are probably bad for your eyes... read in appropriate lighting, kids. Don't strain your eyes.) Pulling a book out of your bag is so much more appealing than pulling out an eReader. Likewise, a book is only a good present if it's a physical copy.

And I'm never going to let someone borrow a digital copy of a book. (Not that I'd happily let them borrow a physical copy... I did once and I didn't get it back for about four months. I practically stole it back, because I was at the house of the friend that had borrowed it and I saw it. It went into my bag and home with me. I knew she had finished reading it because she had told me over text a couple of weeks earlier.)

Okay, I think I came to a conclusion – while I am happy to read from an eReader, and they are so much more convenient, my preference is a physical copy (although, I much prefer paperbacks to hardbacks. I'm not sure why, I think it's because paperbacks are so much easier to hold and read from different angels, such as when laying down.)

So that rounds it off. Are you more of a physical fellow or a digital delight? (I can't come up with alliterative sentences very well).

Also, the formatting for this was a nightmare, I'm not sure if the font is smaller than it usually is, but I can't be bothered to do anything more to try and make it look better.

For now, then...

Bye!

Books are unrealistic and here's why you disagree with me - trying to start arguments again

 Books are unrealistic and here's why you disagree with me

Don't pretend that title didn't anger you ever so slightly (or more than that) as you immediately started trying to come up with arguments as to why I am wrong and trying to think up any book you've ever read that could be an exception. First off, I know, I wish I could disagree as well. Secondly, don't try and argue with me, I will either win or ignore you, so either way, you will lose.

If you've ever picked up any book ever, you might already have an idea of where I'm going with this.

Friendships, relationships. All of it. Books are an idealistic version of reality and you can't argue that. People are thrown into situations that they are unfamiliar with and they step up to the occasion. People make friends, or have friends who know them so well they can read the tone of their messages. This is all incorrect.

I have a best friend, I've been friends with her since I was seven years old. Yet, I have no idea what she's going on about half the time and we do not like the same things. Most books I've read, ones where the main character has a best friend that they've known forever, know every little thing about them, like that obscure conversation they once had that led to them being embarrassed, so the friend never brings it up again. I don't know about you, but I go out of my way to annoy my friend.

Take the shy main character, the one that has never had any friends or been in a relationship. Suddenly, the have a best friend who won't leave them alone and their crush likes them back. I will openly admit, I've never been in a romantic relationship before, I'm much too awkward to ever talk to people I even remotely like. This is why I don't believe that shy character can suddenly lead a completely different life and not feel strange about it, or feel out of place, insecure about whether these people actually like them or not.

Siblings. Need I say more. I would love to write a book where there are siblings who act like me and my siblings act, but somehow I don't think people would like it. We purposefully annoy each other by leaving doors open, just a little bit. Sometimes we get along famously, but other times we're arguing about who gets to sit where. There is no 'best seat', we just all want the one that the other ones want. We have full on fights, with balled fists, but stop the punches before they hit. We then act as if we have been punched and fall accordingly, pretending to be hurt while the other person may or may not start fake kicking us. These fights are also often in slow motion. I have never read a book where there are siblings who act like we do. If you have any good recommendations of books that have realistic sibling portrayals, please let me know.

Learning things way too quickly in books annoys me to no end. I once read a book that involved a section about martial art training. I am learning Karate, I have been for about a year. There is no way you can get that good in three months, especially if you are about twelve years old, and then be able to take on full grown men. Also, languages. I have tried multiple times to learn German and French (and Swedish once), but I have not got the patience and I get frustrated when I don't have someone who speaks the language fluently to teach me. Therefore, it irks me when someone in a book learns a language in a matter of pages. Are either of these things realistic? I don't know, I've never dedicated that much time to learning something. But it annoys me, so I'm ranting about it.

Bookworm takes off glasses, puts on makeup and suddenly no one recognises her and she is drop-dead gorgeous. No, take the makeup off, you don't need it. Put the glasses back on, you do need them. Pick that book back up because if that boy only pays attention to you when you pretend to be someone you're not, he's not worth it.

There are probably a lot more things that I wanted to write about, but I abandoned this post halfway though and returned to it a couple of days later, so I don't actually remember what I was planning on writing about.

Do you disagree, or agree? Can you think of things that annoy you in books that I haven't listed, that you're sure I meant to write about but forgot? Probably. Please share these things, I do like conversation and causing arguments!

That's it from me for now then.

Bye!

Movies Verses Books - my attempt at starting arguments

Movies Vs. Books

So, my first post. Should be exciting. Should be something important and meaningful, right? Nope. I'm going to talk about a topic covered by the entire world so many times already that it's almost boring now. 

HOWEVER!

I love the idea that everyone has their own opinion and I love causing arguments so I'm going to talk about this over done topic and hopefully some people will either agree with me or will hate me with all their heart and will, therefore cause some drama to entertain me. Either way, I'm entertained, so I don't really care!

BOOKS ARE BETTER!

This is a very strong opinion and it is very popular amongst book lovers worldwide. This type of person is a hardcore supporter of their beliefs and will argue with practically everyone. (These are the type of people I want to start arguments with for the fun!)

This type of person knows who they are and are proud of it. More often than not, they have a book in their hand or bag. They own more books than they know what to do with. If anyone says that the movie was better than the book, they will start a fight. 

This type of person refuses to admit when a movie is better than a book. They might think a movie was brilliant, while the book was sub par, but they refuse to admit so, even to themselves. They will, instead, pretend that the movie was terrible and the book was amazing. This is a leading factor in the cause of arguments. 

MOVIES ARE BETTER!

The very worst thing you can say to a bookworm. They will disown you, block your number and shun you in the street. (These types of people are generally more laid back and don't start arguments about their preferences, unfortunately.)

This type of person believes that reading a book is a waste of time, for it might take you two hours to watch a movie, but it might take days to finish a book. Why waste the extra time when all the important bits are narrowed down into a movie that you can put on and then sit down and watch with a bowl of popcorn and a hot chocolate. You don't even need to turn a page!

This type of person may be socially rejected by anyone with a love for books. These people, however, are not nearly as vocal about their love for movies as the BOOKS ARE BETTER people are. They may or may not have a very large collection of DVDs, they may or may not be signed up to five different movie streaming platforms and they may or may not be using a fake name to stream movies illegally. 

This type of person also divides into many subcategories. Some will watch anything, some will only watch action movies and some will only watch movies with specific actors in, which were released in the 1980s and no one has ever actually heard of them. 

EITHER CAN BE BETTER!

Many of the previous two categories actually fall into this category, they just can't admit it to themselves. (These people may argue, but they will not argue that they fall into this category, but into one of the first two!)

This type of person doesn't believe that books or movies are automatically better because of the format, but save their opinion until after they have watched the movie and read the book. This may be done in either order, although a large majority prefer to read the book first. 

Some of these people find books because they have watched the movie (me!) They love a movie and then read the book because of their love for the movie. They may hate the book, but continue to love the movie, or they may have read the book first and watched the movie because of the book and found it to be a mockery of the book's excellence.

They will, of course, make their opinions as to whether the book or the movie is better known to the world and will argue their opinion until the other person gives up.

NEITHER ARE BETTER!

This type of person believes that neither movies or books are worth their time. If they have access to both of these things and continue to live this lie, they are an uncultured swine and you should avoid them at all costs. (I don't want to argue with these people, they scare me...)

However, if you have the time and patience, you may be able to educate them otherwise. Be gentle with these people, for they have not know the pure joy or heartbreak of a book, nor have they abandoned popcorn because of how engrossed they were in the movie. This means that they may become an emotional wreck when they experience these things for the first time. They are likely to take this out on you, for you were the one to introduce them to such things. It is your fault and you must take the blame.

They may either submit and become one of the first three categories, or they may remain this way forever, preferring to carry out activities like exercise rather than do something worthwhile.

Which one are you? I think I am a part of the EITHER CAN BE BETTER category. I love books, but sometimes you just want to sit down and watch as Brad Pitt fights zombies or Tom Holland swings between buildings with his spider webs, with a massive bowl of popcorn (which has to be at least two or more servings per person) and a hot drink that will inevitably be forgotten about and get cold. (A little bit of advice, you can microwave a cup of coffee at least twice before it no longer tastes like coffee!)

Bye for now!