The Publishing in the 21st Century blog has recently posted an article about Oprah Winfrey’s current Oprah Book of the Month, a twin Edition of Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, and Great Expectations, available as e-books for a price on Amazon, sold at bookstores, and available for free (for the kindle only) at the publisher’s website.
There has been a lot of back and forth about why books are priced as they are. Penguin, the publisher of this edition, claims the e-book is enhanced from the free versions offered directly from them. This seems to be a reasonable assertion considering how much effort goes into designing and editing the additional contents of an e-book, and editing the source material for the new format to begin with.
For physical editions, the cover price has to pay for, in addition to the editing costs of the new supplementary materials, printing, binding, shipping, and the labor of the folks at the bookstore in displaying and handling the books. In this case, the bookseller also has to deal with getting additional signage up and promoting the new edition in newsletters and advertisements.
But why a physical edition of this book? From my own personal perspective, e-readers have now matured sufficiently to allow markups, i.e., taking notes, directly in the text and those notes are effortlessly synchronized to the computer, so papers can be researched entirely electronically without paper and pencil. The only other reason for owning a physical copy, in my mind, is to get the author’s autograph.
But with this edition of Cities/Expectations there is one other factor. Oprah will be leaving the airwaves shortly, which means that her impact on the industry by selecting a pick of the month will also disappear (although she may continue this in her magazine). For the sake of continuity, or perhaps for the sake of collecting, many readers will purchase a physical copy for the sake of completing their Oprah Book Club Library.
Assuming you owned a current e-reader model, is there a reason you would want the physical book instead of the e-book?
The physical copy gives me the ability to quickly compare two separate passages in same book, necessary in murder mysteries and detective fiction.
The physical copy is the most efficient way to track my progress while reading. Numbers are inferior to a physical representation.
The physical copy is flexible and organic. This seems to make it timeless. Imagine amish literature on Kindle lol.
Comment by The Storm — December 8, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Here’s a link to a great article on yet another reason to own a physical book: Collecting Literary Treasures, from The Wall Street Journal..
Comment by Brian Triber — December 10, 2010 @ 9:21 am
I love having hard-copy book. However, I spent much of the last two years overseas. Hard-copy books would have cost 2-3-4 times as much than in the U.S. It might have cost me hundreds of dollars to carry them with me. Most books I get are just to read. I might reread them. I do not, however, need to have every mystery as a hard cover. Books for research, work, or reference I love to have as hard copies — but I find myself hopping over to Wikipedia more often than not for a quick refresher on the order of Shakespeare’s plays or the dates for Patton’s promotions. e-books will, eventually, win. Moveable type had an impact; paperbacks had an impact. Now it is the e-book. I wish they were airtight so I could feel safe at the beack or in the tub. And if someone walks off with my copy of “Battlefield Earth” (please, steal it!), I’m only out ten bucks.
Comment by Edward eaton — December 13, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
For me it’s simply the romance of the paper book. I love going to bookstores and libraries, the smells, the hushed ambience. I love browsing through the stacks, waiting for a title or a spine to jump out at me and lead me on my next adventure. I know logically that, eventually, e-books will by and large replace paper books, but I know that I’ll miss the tactile sensations associated with the physical books.
Love,
R
Comment by Mr. E. Hyde — December 13, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
I just spoke to someone at the bookstore today, and her reasoning was that she just didn’t want sand or mud to get into the device and muck it up. Another person said she liked the idea of carrying her whole library around with her, but wouldn’t get an e-reader because they still don’t do illustrations very well. Which is another really good point when it comes to books like John Stewart’s Earth, which is printed on glossy stock with many illustrations and color graphs.
And, even when e-readers can handle color graphics, there’s still a big disconnect between the color profiles possible on an electronic screen, and the color profile available with some printing inks. That might make it unfeasible for books like monographs, especially of something like Picasso’s blue period, since there are many blue hues that simply cannot be reproduced on screen.
Comment by Brian Triber — December 13, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
Another followup. According to The Wall Street Journal, advertisers are experimenting with putting advertisements into e-books! Have they lost their minds? Now the biggest reason to purchase a physical book will be “so I don’t have to be interrupted with advertising”!
Comment by Brian Triber — December 13, 2010 @ 9:30 pm