I've Stopped Comparing My Kindle to My Books
“Hearst Magazines and Verizon Media may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.”
I thought I'd never go tech. When I was a toddler, I loved sitting in my mom's lap as she read me copies of Dancing in the Wings and Where the Wild Things Are. My trips to the library were regular (yes, I still owe a substantial late fee), and I'd often get in trouble for keeping my bedroom light on until 4 a.m., completely lost in the pages of a YA novel. As a teen, I snuck around a borrowed copy of 50 Shades of Grey—one that's still hiding underneath my childhood mattress.
Books became a comforting constant in my life. I loved the smell and the feel of crisply-bound pages. Hours-long visits to Barnes and Noble were pure bliss. And I realize I wasn't alone. According to the Pew Research Center, old fashioned print books are still more popular than e-readers. In fact, 67 percent of Americans have read a paperback in the past year, and 39 percent of people only opt for print. Contrastingly, 29 percent of readers use both formats, and only 7 percent exclusively consume books digitally. Now that I'm older, I'm in that minority.
In high school, I discovered that Harry Potter fan-fiction was a thing, and quickly began absorbing it on my Android. The fact that I could easily access my favorite fictional hero with the touch of a button suddenly made digital reading not so bad. Meanwhile, I noticed that my aunt, a fellow book lover, had fallen victim to a Kindle. She loved it, and enjoyed having thousands of stories at her fingertips. I was intrigued.
And then, for Christmas 2016, my aunt bought me my first Kindle, the best gift I've ever received. I haven't been the same since. Regular books were always there for me, but once I finished one title, who knew when I'd get to start the next? My Kindle, however, makes the process of hunting for a book thrilling. On command, it allows me to navigate a curated list of thousands of authors and genres, making the journey feel endless. Plus, it's bigger than my smart phone, on which I'd have to squint to view the tiny text.
My Kindle Fire comes with me on road trips, to the bathroom, to lunch, and on rare excursions to the gym. It has a special place in my bed, tucked under my pillow every night. I'm mesmerized by the 7.5-by-4.7 inch screen, and let me tell you: the world of 99 cent smutty e-books is a dark, dangerous, and addicting place.
Yet as I was looking at my bookcase recently, I noticed it hasn't changed much since my high school days. Even though I've read 66 novels in the past two years (the average American reads 12 books in one), only four were print. This alarmed me.
As someone who used to willingly spend hours flipping through pages at a book store, I wondered, Have I betrayed bibliophiles everywhere? Should I sacrifice it all and chuck my Kindle? To answer these burning questions, I consulted some experts to assess the factors that contribute to the ultimate showdown: E-readers vs. real books. But unlike a proper bookworm, I'll go ahead and ruin the ending for you: There's no real winner here.
E-readers change the way you retain information.
According to Maryanne Wolf, director of UCLA's Center for Dyslexia, Diverse Learners,and Social Justice—and the author of Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in the Digital World—text in print slows your mind down, allowing time for critical thinking processes that cultivate empathy and perspective. Basically, these factors allow you to absorb details, a useful benefit for academics.
When it comes to reading digitally, the opposite occurs since you do so at a faster speed, which Wolf says provokes multitasking and skimming. This could come in handy if you're perusing emails, however, too much e-reader time can slightly affect whether or not you'll remember those crucial plot details. Admittedly, I've found myself swiping back several pages to reread passages. It's not that e-readers are bad for you—nuggets read via paperback just stay in your mind longer.
Because of this, it's important to take a break from the screen. Wolf's tip? Stowe away your laptop, phone, and other electronic devices before bed and read a paper book instead.
But both types of books affect your eye health.
American Optometric Association President Samuel Pierce, OD, says that neither e-readers or paperbacks are better for your vision. However, it's important to acknowledge the drawbacks of each. Not being able to adjust the font size in a print book can lead to eye strain, which causes headaches, dry eyes, and general discomfort. That's not to say that electronic devices can't do the same, but being able to zoom in or out is beneficial if, like me, you don't have 20-20 vision.
Pierce adds that after many years, digital devices expose us to "blue light," a relatively new phenomenon that's been linked to skin cancer and macular degeneration, an eye disease that causes severe vision loss with aging. In addition, a 2015 study found that the light emitted from screens can make falling asleep more difficult.
While this may sound frightening, Pierce says this is no reason to ax your electronics, as long as you take precautions. He suggests following the 20-20-20 rule, which is when you stare at something 20 feet away from your screen for 20 seconds after 20 minutes of face time. You can also take advantage of devices with blue light filters, or lenses that reduce it.
Plot twist: people also now read on their phones.
According to a 2016 report by the Pew Research Center, the 28 percent of Americans who read electronically are actually more likely to do so on a smart phone or tablet as opposed to a Kindle, Nook, or Kobo. This is a reflection of e-reader shipments, which dropped by 16 million units from 2011 to 2016.
Let's talk money.
One of the reasons I love my e-reader is because there are so many $1 books to choose from. But according to Jonathan Stolper, senior vice president of Nielsen Book Americas, e-book sales have decreased because of how expensive individual titles are. As he suggested last year, the average price of a digital book increased by $3 to $8 after the "Big Five" publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster) gained the ability to set their own prices in 2015.
What's confusing is that the New York Times Best Sellers list contradicts Stolper's findings. The paper version of James Patterson's Juror #3, for instance, is 60 cents cheaper than the digital one, while Clive Cussler's Shadow Tyrants costs $6 more in paperback. Meanwhile, Kevin Kwan's Crazy Rich Asians is 39 cents more expensive on a Kindle, and Dean Koontz's The Forbidden Door is $34.65 in paperback, $16.80 in hardcover, and $14.99 on a Kindle.
So what's the answer to the big money question? It's up to you. You can pay $99 to invest in a Nook and then shop for e-books that vary in price. Or you can go to bookstore and do the same. Another option is to head to the local library, which will cost you next to nothing.
And what about practicality?
Ask yourself this: Would you rather tote one 400-page book in your carry-on or access it via a .91 pound device? A 2017 Statista survey found that 27 percent of people, out of over 1,000 participants, find e-books more convenient. As someone who looks at my Kindle as a portable bookstore, I can get behind that sentiment. This preference is also reflected in bookstore sales, which saw a 3.6 percent drop in 2017 compared to the previous year, a puzzling statistic considering other studies say that Americans prefer to read paperbacks.
With this in mind, I reached a decision.
Determining whether e-readers are better than real books isn't so black and white. Yes, an e-book is easier to carry around, yet preferences for paperbacks remain strong. In the end, the decision is up to the person behind the book. It's your choice if you prefer to squint to read tiny printed text, or zoom in electronically, tap to finish a chapter quickly, or dog-ear pages to really let the story sink in.
Me? I'm choosing not to get rid of my Kindle. I was worried that, somehow, my switch to a screen diminished my love for literature. But if anything, it's intensified it. I haven't stopped reading, I'm just doing it differently—and much, much faster.
What I will do is make an effort to not solely read on a device. I'm already attached to a screen for eight hours at work, not to mention the hours I spend watching TV or texting. To me, reading is a way to take a break, so why wouldn't I make use of a tech-free alternative? As Wolf suggested, rekindling (no pun intended) my relationship with paperbacks will only help. I'll be able to slow down, take a deep breath, and escape. Because that's why I fell in love with books in the first place.
You Might Also Like
