e-books, hardbacks or paperbacks our thoughts.

[Stephen Palmer]

Originally Posted by Daisy-Boo

Dornish, you mentioned something that I think is a major plus with dedicated e-readers, viz. the lack of distractions. When I read on my phone, I'm often sidetracked by hyperlinks to related content. When I read on my Kindle, that's all I do - read. And I like that.

John Jarrold gives the same advice to authors - don't write on a computer that's linked to the internet.

(Mind you, that's probably quite difficult these days...)

[Metryq]

Originally Posted by Stephen Palmer

John Jarrold gives the same advice to authors - don't write on a computer that's linked to the internet.

That's right—don't blame one's own undisciplined behavior, blame the device and the technology. If an author is so bored by his own work, why expect anyone else to read it? And if a book can't hold one's attention from narcissistically checking one's Facebook page, why pretend to read the book?

[Dornish First Sword]

I recall Stephen King one time referred to a fountain pen as "the worlds best word processor".

[Stephen Palmer]

Originally Posted by Metryq

That's right—don't blame one's own undisciplined behavior, blame the device and the technology. If an author is so bored by his own work, why expect anyone else to read it? And if a book can't hold one's attention from narcissistically checking one's Facebook page, why pretend to read the book?

I think John was more meaning the temptation of the internet. You'd have to ask him.

[Metryq]

Originally Posted by Stephen Palmer

I think John was more meaning the temptation of the internet. You'd have to ask him.

I understood it as the temptation. Those that are tempted will just get up and walk over to the computer that is connected. Writers write. Ditherers dither. This is no different than people who want to pass more and more gun laws to combat violent crime—it's treating the symptom, not the disease, and nothing gets any better.

And while the Stephen King quote may look good on a bumper sticker, it strikes me as more luddite fetishism, as someone else remarked above concerning a preference for the "feel" and smell of paper books. I use both paper books and ebooks. My dad fought against the computer, but instantly fell in love with the word processing functions of a cantankerous old workstation given to him as a gift. (Too primitive even for Web connection, but that didn't stop him from upgrading later.) Despite being an English teacher, his spelling was atrocious, and he was a hunt-and-peck, two-finger typist. Yet he could write much faster that way than by pen. And correcting typos, or other editing was much faster (and neater) than re-typing an entire page, or resorting to "white out."

Still, this discussion is fitting for a sci-fi forum, as some sci-fi speculates on new technologies and how society reacts to them. I don't believe those who can be easily distracted can blame the technology, although the technology may emphasize a latent behavior. In other words, the technology helps productive people be even more productive and makes the ditherers more efficient at wasting time.

[Ian Whates]

Originally Posted by Metryq

I understood it as the temptation. Those that are tempted will just get up and walk over to the computer that is connected. Writers write. Ditherers dither. This is no different than people who want to pass more and more gun laws to combat violent crime—it's treating the symptom, not the disease, and nothing gets any better.

We'll have to agree to differ on this. I know a number of highly successful novelists, with a string of published novels to their credit and ongoing deals with major publishing houses, who habitually remove themselves from their homes and go elsewhere to write, specifically to avoid the distractions of everyday life. They tend to do so with laptops not linked to the net for the same reason. This doesn't make them ditherers, just realists who are determined to finish their book and hit a deadline.

[Metryq]

Originally Posted by Ian Whates

realists who are determined to finish their book and hit a deadline.

This means they understand their own behavior and how to deal with it.

[Hypnos164]

Originally Posted by Metryq

This means they understand their own behavior and how to deal with it.

Which is apparently by far the most effective approach to procrastination - see the excellent http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/10/27/procrastination/

[Metryq]

Thanks, Hypnos. I'll read it tomorrow.

[Hypnos164]

Originally Posted by Metryq

Thanks, Hypnos. I'll read it tomorrow.

Groan

[LadyLara]

Well it looks like mayyyybe I jumped on the Kindle bandwagon at just the right point (albeit the first point I could jump on in the UK (I think)). It seems the Kindle 3 was the best refinement of the original idea, and now the newly unvelied models seem to be going down the touchscreen/keyboarless/ipad route, which is not a route I'd really be interested in going down.

[Vertigo]

I have to say that I initially wasn't too keen on the touchscreen approach and only went for a Sony as I disapproved of Amazon going down the proprietary format instead of the public ePub format that everyone else uses. However, having got used to the touchscreen, I now find it a right royal pain using my mum's non-touchscreen Kindle. Things like dictionary lookups are easy and almost instantaneous and page turning without having to actually click a button is so much nicer. So I was surprised that I actually liked the touchscreen for usability.

[LadyLara]

Having not used a touch screen ereader I can't really compare, but I can't see how page turning with a touch screen could be better than just clicking a button. I don't have to drag my finger across the screen or do anything weird, I just click a little button where my thumb is more often that not resting anyway as I hold it in one hand. A tiny little flex of a muscle (or tendon, or however thumbs work) and it's done. Aside from having a direct mental link with the device I don't see how it could be any easier. You say "without having to actually click a button" as if that's some sort of chore

[Vertigo]

I guess the difference is that I don't generally hold my reader I have it propped up on my lap or table or whatever and if you're not actually holding it then clicking a button is a bit of a pain. Whereas lightly flicking my finger across the screen doesn't tend to knock it over or anything. So just down to me being a lazy reader who can't be bothered to hold his book . Actually that's one of the things I love; not having to hold the pages open!

[Metryq]

I haven't used every reader on the market, but all the apps* I've used on touch screen devices support both a swipe "gesture" as well as a touch.

*(The different apps might be readers for different book sellers, like a Kindle app, Nook, etc., or they might be digital comic book readers, PDF and other media readers, and so on. All support a swipe, or a touch. Some even support a pinch-to-zoom function for images and diagrams.)