Yeah, invisible people are generally more impressive than kindles
Whoever made that can kiss my ass. Not everybody can afford or have space for lots of books. They might not want a lot of physical books either. The point of owning books - be they paper or electronic - is to read. The format is irrelevant. Do you think Neil Gaiman, John Green, J.K. Rowling, George R. R. Martin, or other writers really give more than two shits about what format you buy their books in? They get paid either way and in the end, you’re reading their works and that’s all that matters.
I love books but I don’t fetishize them because I don’t have room for them because real estate is expensive and I can’t afford to have a place to sleep and a place to store physical media. I can store thousands of books digitally and still have constant access to the information they contain. Same goes for music. My depth of knowledge is not lessened just because I don’t put the things I know out on display. P.S. Why are digital images okay? Shouldn’t the original poster have mailed me a print of this photo?
Yes, that giant bookshelf IS more impressive. And Buckingham Palace is more impressive than my one-bedroom apartment in Santa Monica.
But it’s not a contest.
I wish people would start fetishizing reading like they fetishsize books.
See that bookshelf? That’s an impressive bookshelf. That bookshelf costs a bunch of money. The room that contains that bookshelf cost a lot of money. So the structure/house that contains that bookshelf cost a lot of money.
Space = money.
We don’t all have a lot of money.
Not to mention, if you have to move, those books will have to packed in boxes that will have ot be loaded on some sort of conveyance by some person or persons. That will cost a lot more money than simply moving a Kindle/e-reader.
What’s the point of a book? Is the point to read a story, absorb a different point of view, learn something? Or is to prove to someone that you could do these things, by having a physical representation of the book in your home? After all, it’s way easier to judge someone when their books are on display rather than tucked away in digital form.
How about let’s stop judging people how they consume information. Books = eReaders. TV = Internet. Los Angeles = New York. (Just seeing if you’re paying attention.)
TL:DR? Stop being a classist dickhole.
I was gonna just “like” this but I wanted to highlight that I agree with my buddy Slackmistress on this whole space thing. In a practical sense, it’s just terribly inefficient.
Sure there are parts of the reading experience that are better on paper. But the E-Reader existence opens up a lot of elements that are just clunky with books. Reading in the dark, autobookmarking, highlighting, accessibility, and my personal favorite… SEARCH.
Every book I’ve read in the past 3 years has been on an e-reader. Sure I actually go and buy physical copies of my favorite books just to keep as mementos but it’s just way more efficient to have an e-reader.
If I want to find a passage or a topic or phrase in a great book well guess what, I can search it. If I’m waiting around for something (DMV, Plane, Whatever) and I want to re-read something real quick for inspiration well guess what, it’s with me and I can type a few words and swipe right to the passage.
I’m become a pretty minimalist person, so I try to keep my life lean and efficient. So if I couldn’t read on my devices, I wouldn’t be reading books. And that may sound weird to many people but it’s the truth and I’m sure I’m not alone in it.
So yeah, I may agree with parts of that photo. It does look more impressive but it’s not more efficient.