A tale of two media: Despite the iPad, traditional books aren't going anywhere.

A few days ago I was in London having drinks with a novelist and a literary agent. We discussed the pros and cons of the iPad as a book reader and how the iPad as a medium and its iBookstore affects the reading public. The novelist and agent gave me their impressions of the device and how it will, if at all, change the way readers consume books. We also spoke about Penguin's ideas to reinvent books as apps and discussed my previous article on the subject along with the notion that some people in the tech world think that the iPad and iBookstore will kill traditional books.

Our conversation got me thinking: I normally read about 50-60 books a year in paperback format, but I had owned my iPad for a week already and had yet to try my favorite pastime on it. So I decided to compare how reading the same book in paperback would compare with reading it on the iPad. In order not to bias the medium I was reading it on by already having discovered the story on another device (and thus being a little bored with it on a second reading that so closely followed the first), I decided to read one novel -- every other of its chapters on the iPad and then in paperback.

The novel I read was the paperback edition of Julie Myerson's Something Might Happen (iBooks/paperback links). I decided to let random chance choose if I should start chapter one on the iPad or on the paperback. The coin landed on heads: iPad won. In order to conduct a fairly thorough reading experiment, I chose to read the novel on each of its mediums in locations where people normally read novels: their home, on their commute (trains and planes), and in parks and cafés.

The chapters I read in paperback (in all locations) was an experience one would expect from reading in that medium: comfortable, easy to use, immersive (immersive in how books should be -- by using your brain power, not by throwing audio and video in your face). The iPad however, was another story.

In my flat, I enjoyed reading the novel on the iPad more than in any other location (why, I'll get to in a moment). One thing I love about ebooks on the iPad is the in-text dictionary look-up feature. This is something the iPad will always have as an advantage over traditional paperbacks. I sometimes come across a word I don't know while reading a book. It's much handier to be able to look up the word on the same screen as the text as opposed to having to grab a dictionary or my iPhone to look it up while I'm reading a paperback. I also like the bookmarking feature. Though bookmarking has long existed in paperbacks (when you dog-ear a page), bookmarks excel on the iPad's ebooks because they allow you to do two useful things: highlight a word or block of words (much like you might highlight or underline text in a paperback), but the iPad also displays a bookmarks Table of Contents that list all your bookmarks and the date you bookmarked them.

However, when it came to actually reading the ebook, the iPad's advantages as a medium to consume literature began to pale. The iPad was relatively heavy and large (compared to a paperback) in my hands and the swiping and tapping to turn a page soon became tedious. A normal paperback edition of a book is roughly half the size of the iPad and slips snugly into a pocket while traveling. Even when the book is opened, it's still smaller than the flat and hard surface of the iPad. Though resting the iPad my lap resolved the weight issues, most people do not read books by lying them on their laps. Most people read books lightly grasped in their hands, or even laying down in bed. There is no way to "lightly grasp" the iPad and when you hold it for an hour while reading, your hands feel the strain.

Another big issue I had with reading the ebook chapters was that, since they were on the iPad, I was always tempted to navigate away to check an email, browse the web, or look for another book on the iBookstore. This short attention span of mine only existed while I was reading on the iPad and not from the paperback, which means it wasn't the story's fault that I was so tempted to navigate away. The iPad is a wonderful device that cries "touch me", and that's what I constantly wanted to do while holding the iPad -- touch, swipe, IM, check email. Push notifications from different apps didn't help the reading experience either.

Let's leave home and move on to another place where people read books: on their commute. Being in London, I did what most commuters do: I rode the tube. Forget about resting your iPad on your lap to read, your knees get bumped too much from the constant flow of commuters entering and leaving the train. Your only option is to hold your iPad in your hands, like you would a paperback. Now when I say "hold" what I really mean is "grip." This is where a huge drawback of the iPad becomes apparent. That drawback is called fear.

When I read the paperback on the tube, not once did I worry about hanging on to my paperback for dear life. A $7 paperback book is a pretty low target for a thief. A $500 iPad out in the open on a crowed train, on the other hand, is prime theft material. The reading experience goes down dramatically when you need to keep an eye on the people walking past you. Think I'm being paranoid? The New York Times reported in April that smartphone theft increased 70% year over year in Boston and 65% year over year in Washington DC. Those aren't pickpocket thefts either -- they're snatched-out-of-your-hands thefts. The iPad is a larger and easier-to-snatch device than a small smartphone, especially when you're reading it on a crowded city train, and the constant awareness that you must keep an eye out for potential theft detracts from the reading experience.

So, we've left home, taken the train, and walked a few blocks to the park or café. Again, with a paperback, it slips nicely into my back pocket while walking -- something the iPad cannot do. Previous issues I noticed with the iPad as a book replacement also apply here. Like at home, in a café you will be holding the iPad in your hands, which gets tiring, and like the train, you feel a need to keep one eye on your surroundings, though, admittedly, there is much less fear of theft when you're in a café than on a packed commuter train. Should fear of theft keep you from using your iPad in public? Of course not. But it is an extra strain that you don't have to worry about while reading a paperback or while reading your iPad at home (which is one of the reasons why reading an ebook in my flat was more enjoyable than reading it on the train or in the café).

I want to address another point. I've had people tell me that they've "read more books than they ever have before" since they got their iPad (to them, I would like to point out that reading the free Winnie-the-Pooh book that comes with the iBooks app doesn't really count). They also say they love carrying their entire book library around with them. Their last point is something I discussed with the novelist and literary agent. Similarly, the agent loved his Sony Reader because he could throw the twenty manuscripts he needs to read over the weekend on it and take them anywhere with little effort -- quite a space saver. My point of contention when other people say this library-in-your-hands feature will destroy paperbacks is that, unlike the agent who will commonly read sections from twenty different novels in a weekend, your average reader reads one book at a time.

There's a reason books are primarily sold as stand alone editions and do not bind the first four chapters from five different novels into a single volume -- because most people will not read two or more stories at once. Novels typically involve multiple story lines, characters, and settings; at best, reading more than one novel at once will distract from the stories of the novels, at worst, doing so will confuse the reader outright. So while carrying your entire library with you is nice, once you begin a book, chances are you'll see it trough to the end and not flit from one novel to the next. Besides, the average person takes two weeks to read one book. Books are not like music, movies, and magazines -- they take much longer to consume. Unless you're on a round the world trip, there's really no reason to have your entire library with you because you won't be using it.

After finishing my read of the novel on both mediums -- the iPad and the paperback -- I am more convinced than ever that the iPad and its iBookstore will not usurp traditional print editions. A paperback is just a too versatile and easy device to read from. It's cheap and replaceable and takes a very low level of care to keep it in working order. It's much lighter and the page turns flow more naturally in your hands than page swipes do on the iPad. Also, a paperback offers no distractions from the printed words. Despite my love for the traditional medium, I do want to say that I love the iBookstore. I use it now to browse for books I think would be interesting and use the "Get Sample" feature to explore the first few chapters. If I like what I read, I'll purchase the print edition from Amazon or at my local bookseller.

Now, before I get any angry emails, let me state emphatically that I love my iPad (I'm currently writing this article on it on my flight back to Portugal). It's an awesome leisure device. I love browsing the web on it and even love reading magazines and comics on it. But I can do those things comfortably because reading a website, a comic book, or a magazine article does not take the length of time and the concentration commitment that reading a book does.

People will read books on the iPad, and I'm glad for that. The more people who read, the better. But digital books will not put paperbacks out of circulation. There's room for both mediums. But, unlike MP3s that replaced CDs, the original medium for the novel is still the superior one in both form and function.

View Tags

Categories

iPad

A few days ago I was in London having drinks with a novelist and a literary agent. We discussed the pros and cons of the iPad as a book...

Add a Comment

Sign in »

80 Comments

Filter by:

Nick

i agree with what you say here. I wish ebooks were better if only because if find it hard to get comfortable holding a paper back because of having almost pry the pages open near the beginning or end. However even on a dedicated ereader without all the ipad distractions i still find it hard to concentrate on the reading when compared with a real book.

June 20 2010 at 4:28 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Raffael Erhart

I don't think the iPad will ever replace paperbacks. However, there are chances for eReaders like those from Amazon or Sony (my favorite) to do that, simply because they offer the same distraction-free reading experience.

May 10 2010 at 6:50 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

J.C. Hendee

Another point that no one is talking about are the increasing reports of eye-strain up to and including migraines. Unlike some other eReaders, the iPad uses a backlighting based on a standard now common among notebooks. It was terrible choice. The number of vision related ailments and deterioration has also risen because of this. The human eye is forced to try to compensate between ambient / environmental light and light coming out of the screen. And the human eye... or any biological eye... isn't built for that. The iPad needs to have a way to turn off backlighting on the fly and still adjust contrast on the fly at the same time. Maybe it does and I've just missed it. If it does exists in the current OS, then it needs to be more obvious and quick to use. Turning off the backlighting and ramping up the contrast and or screen brightness for long periods of textual reading would be a step in the right direction. The hardware needs to be as versatile as the software.

May 10 2010 at 12:36 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Chicago Gal

I thought this was a nice article, but have a few points of contention.

1. The fact that "most" people take 2 weeks to read a novel and only 1 at a time isn't a fair comparison because people are just now getting into ereaders. I read books more quickly since I started using a Kindle because it's with me all the time and as soon as I'm done with 1 books I more easily move onto the next ASAP. I also find myself book-switching more. I'm not in the mood to read the long dark heavy novel I've been working on, I'll take a break and switch to a shorter, lighter read to break it up because I can easily. To say that people's habits/time reading paperbacks are the same with the iPad as a way to argue that the iPad doesn't add value doesn't make sense. It's like if someone had said cellphone wasn't all that useful because beforehand most people only made calls in their house.

2. "unlike MP3s that replaced CDs, the original medium for the novel is still the superior one in both form and function."......to YOU. I know plenty of audiophiles who would whole-heartedly disagree with you about the MP3/CD thing and plenty of people who would disagree about the book argument. It depends where you're coming from. If you're not a huge literature person and don't love that smell of old books and sitting in a library, I'm guessing you won't necessarily see ebooks as an inferior version of books.

May 10 2010 at 12:25 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Rob E.

There are some good points made, but it is certainly a matter of opinion and preference, and I suspect that many people will come to an opposite conclusion. I don't think paper books are going away, but I do think that many people will find them less convenient than digital.

Multiple books: It's certainly true that many people only read one book at a time. It might be true that most people do. But I certainly know people who are comfortable juggling multiple novels at a time. Personally, I am often working on two novels at once: One print and one audio. The audio gets "read" when my eyes are otherwise occupied (driving/riding/working/cooking/walking the dogs). It's less frequent that I get to focus on the print, but it's nice that, with my iPod Touch, I read both books on the same device, and that that device fits easily in my pocket, much moreso than a paperback. In that scenario, this the paperback that is extra weight and bulk, because the iPod would be with me regardless. And in addition to novels, I also like to have reference books on hand: dictionaries and atlases make great companions to a lot of novels, but are not terribly portable unless you have them electronically, but I also like to have other, non-reading-related reference materials on hand. It's simply not practical to take your physical reference library around with you, no matter how nice it would be to have access to it at any given moment. Also I, and many other avid readers I know, hate to be without a book. Nothing is more pleasant that realizing that you suddenly have an unexpected hour or two to read, and nothing is less pleasant than finding you've finished your book in half the available time. Now, unless you've taken to carrying two books with you, you may find yourself with prime reading time and no reading material. That's why my iPod not only contains the book I'm currently working, but also my next two planned books as well. And recently I came to realize how little room my eBook library takes up compared to every other media file type on my iPod. After that realization, I will probably begin carrying my entire eBook library with me rather than just my current and next few books.

And vacation--ugh. If I'm out of town for a week of leisure, I want to have my current book and a selection of other books, so that I can pick up whatever I'm in the mood for. When flying, this turns out to be impractical. Some books have to be shed to keep my luggage under the weight limit. And it's not terribly efficient whether I'm flying or not. Unless the weather or other circumstances conspire to keep me inside, many of my books will be making the round trip unread. But I just got back from vacation a week ago, and for the first time I didn't have the book dilemma. I took two paperbacks with me for take off and landing. Everything else was on my iPod.

But I realize that I've been talking about the iPod, while this article focussed on the iPad. Still, I think the same issues will apply. There's nothing I don't like about reading my iPod except the size. Some books just don't work as well on that tiny screen. I have found footnote heavy books (or, worse yet, end notes) to be less than pleasant, and I have a couple of books that I put aside and saved for when I do have an iPad. I could have gone for the print version, but would that be more convenient? It never strikes me as convenient, and it breaks my reading concentration, when I have to track down a footnote or end note, and, with end notes, I always have to moving two bookmarks to keep track of where I am. The electronic version opens that all up with hyperlinks, which I think should function very well on a larger-screened device.

I realize that the iPad will weigh a fair amount more not fit in my pocket as well as my iPod or a paperback, but for me, paperbacks have already lost that battle to my iPod, so the real question is: will the iPad win out against the iPod? I expect in many situations it won't. My iPod is always in my pocket, something that's not likely to be the case with an iPad. But the place where my iPod fails is when I'm sitting in comfort at home, on the bus, on the plane (comfort may not be the right word for it), where the convenience of a pocketable device is not needed, and a larger, easier-to-read option would be appreciated. For me there's no question of ebooks vs. print. Ebooks have already won. Easy-reading novels have already been moved to my iPod, and I expect my hardcovers and reference works to be replaced by an iPad. I don't really believe that physical books will go away, but I don't expect to miss them if they do.

May 10 2010 at 12:21 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bob6stringer

I find this a very well thought-out piece. I would like to see technology advance for the flexible, color e-paper format medium. I think it could change how a piece like this shakes-out.

May 10 2010 at 10:46 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

J.C. Hendee

As an author, and one under contract to Penguin, I enjoyed this article very much. There were even details I hadn't heard of or considered (though not too many with how wide spread this topic has become). There is of course one detail that is missed herein.

How many people in this worldwide sliding economy who read books as a primary (or sometimes sole) source of entertainment can afford an iPad, the wireless connection, etc.? Most geeks and technophiles have no realistic idea of how elite they are compared to the majority of the world's population. eBooks have along way to go because eReaders are not truly affordable... not even the cheapest ones, once one considers all the costs required to use it.

Even if all you needed were the reader to borrow a book, there would need to be a non-proprietary kiosk in each library. (No, an online kiosk doesn't count because of the other costs in getting online.) In my younger days, I live well (way!) below the poverty line; my primary escape and entertainment was the library systems. And guess what... that hasn't changed worldwide. But we're a long way from eLibraries (the real true kind).

But I do appreciate you're brief comments concerning both the media-izing of ebooks and the media / information based distractions of the electronic environment. Even while reading your article at my desk, an email arrived and I just had to stop reading and check it. Sorry about that.

We really don't need eBooks - or eReaders - to be yet another way for commercial enterprise to punch our reptile brains.

May 10 2010 at 10:01 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

I spent the night before reading this article fighting to find a comfortable way to read a 500 page hardcover book at my sister's place. Trying to find a seat, light, and a comfortable way to handle the heavy book was nearly impossible, although it would have admittedly been easier at home. Anyway, reading this I thought how much easier it would have been to read that book on the iPad! Not to mention trying to find a suitable bookmark...

May 10 2010 at 9:53 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

kyote

!?!Aren't you guys getting tired of these lazy editorials?
MP3's will they destroy the music industry?
Commuter screens... do we need paper anymore?
come on!
this is just lazy journalism. of course books are not going the way of the dinosaur...

May 10 2010 at 7:17 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Andrew

I am so sick of people prescribing what they think a book should or shouldn't be. Michael is free to idealize his paperbacks, but that doesn't make him right in saying that a "book" should never have audio or video.

Might I point out that audio and video are not the only multimedia options in enhancing a book-reading experience. I can imagine an interactive map of Middle Earth for "Lord of the Rings," or perhaps a family tree for "Romeo and Juliet," or maybe a star map for an astronomy book.

Saying that these forms of multimedia are "detractions" is the same kind of small-minded thinking that keeps us from exploring what something is or isn't.

May 10 2010 at 12:16 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply