A newspaper is still good for one thing: Protecting the finish on your new Kindle.
More than three years ago, I mocked Amazon’s Kindle in a manner that has become my trademark: with a smirking blog post that was not very timely, very funny or very smart.
It’s the “not very smart” thing that’s bothering me now, because I can see from looking at my groaning and chaotic bookshelves that most of this crap could reside on a single Kindle, and that would mean many fewer boxes to lug down to the truck when that inevitable day comes that I decamp from the Paris of the Plains. What can I say? I’ve been wrong before.
Of course, the Kindle did cost 400 bucks at the time, and looked like Mr. Spock’s tricorder. So there’s that. But now that the price is down to a C-note and change, and it’s actually smaller and lighter than most paperbacks, it’s fair to say that I didn’t think this through.
Because you can’t really throw out bound books, can you? I can’t. It seems wrong, something a Nazi would do. I sometimes take a box down to the library, but then I feel guilty foisting off titles nobody in their right mind would want to read, such as this mouldering copy of Stick and Rudder I’ve been hauling around for 30 years in the hope someone would confuse me with Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Or A Treasury of Royal Scandals, which the wife seems reluctant to dump. Or No More Masks!, a tiresome collection of 1970s feminist poetry. I can now see where his ‘n’ hers e-readers might be a wise investment. It’s not about all the books you can easily acquire, but the ones you can easily get rid of.
American dream: Next five exits
Stabilize those death videos
The best book I’ve read this year …
Oh, what can it mean?
I bought one back when they were tricorder-esque and much more expensive, and I LOVE IT. It’s a lifesaver when I travel. The battery lasts forever, I always have plenty to read, and I barely have to pack a thing. I know, I had my doubts when I bought it, too. I was worried that the tactile experience would be so unsatisfying that it would be just plain distracting. In the end, practicality won out, and I’m a true believer. At home, I mostly use it for newspapers as the nearby downtown library just can’t be beat. But it was worth the price EVEN THEN for that service, I think. Just get one. You’ll love it!
Yeah, there’s probably an e-reader in my future at some point. I’m just wondering if there’s any reason to get a 3G version. Instinct tells me no. Thoughts?
I used to be unable to throw out books, until I started to think of it as a public service. When I toss that 500-page, achingly dull, badly-written paperback in the recycling bin, I am sparing some other poor soul the misery of attempting to read it.
But I too am guilty of fobbing off stuff on the library that I’m pretty sure no one will ever want to read.
Manuals for obsolete software make good monitor stands.
Brian has a Kindle and I have a Sony ereader. There are advantages to both. I think there are more choices of books with the Kindle. I have an antique ereader which doesn’t have wifi, but I like having the books downloaded onto the PC first anyway. With our migratory lifestyle I think ereaders are the only way to go. It’s still not so easy to get books in English in Panama and a book can be downloaded in less than a minute. I still love the feel of paper in my hands when I read.
Hi Trish: I suppose the best way is to maintain a small library of treasured titles and only put new stuff on the e-reader. No way am I going to buy the same books over and over, the way I’ve done with music all these years …