Ever since Amazon came out with the Kindle*, there’s been a war raging between reading types. It’s kind of silly if you ask me: are you reading because of the format? Or are you reading for the story/information/idea/words? I’ve been writing so much about philosophical topics or my site these last numerous days that I figured it was time to change things up with a different type of post.

“Dead Tree Books“ – commonly referred to by its advocates as “real books,” also known as “the printed word”

A lot of people like the smell of tree rot. For some people, petting paper or turning it has as much value as reading. Other people like writing and drawing on something they’ll never consult. Then again, if the world ever endures actual apocalypse, these people are absolutely confident they’ll want to while away their days reading instead of other life-protecting habits.

Dead Tree advocates swear by the printed word. To them, reading is about the experience as much as the story. For them, the smell of their book, the turn of each page and the ability to dog-ear pages sets the tone that drags them into a story. A visual demonstration of how far into a book they are excites the senses into continuing reading.

Perhaps most important, the ease of flipping from one part of a book to another reigns dominant with the dead tree books despite technological endeavors that strive to replicate the experience.

Many dead tree advocates (not all, I’m sure) insist that their way of reading is best, that technology and reading are no way to read. Without the passing of time, there’s no true way to prove them right or wrong except with the passing of time. Studies performed up to this point have obtained results all across the board. Our generations were raised to view reading as a non-technological hobby; future generations will see reading as a branch of technology.

Some might call them Luddites, might point out that hand-copied manuscripts from monks must be even further superior, then, because each monk’s handwriting would give the story its own personality.

“E-readers“ – made popular by Amazon’s Kindle*, e-readers use electronic ink to replicate printed pages; not to be confused or compared with tablets, laptops and smartphones

The world wants you to go green, and some people think e-readers are more environmentally friendly than dead tree books. Science doesn’t back them up. Some people don’t feel secure without a library of books bigger than they could read in two lifetimes. They can’t stand those who swear by paper for not realizing “it’s the story that matters, not the method;” then they turn around and diss reading on backlit devices.

E-reader readers love reading, but to them it’s all about convenience. E-readers can literally hold thousands of books, can be obtained within seconds, and put no strain on one’s eyes. They are small, lightweight and can even tell you how far through a book you are.

You can change e-reader font size so that, regardless of your vision (unless you’re completely blind, of course), you can read the same copy as anyone else. And you can look up words without hunting down a dictionary.

There are shortcomings to reading on any technological device, e-readers included. E-readers can last up to two months depending on one’s reading amounts, but unless you have a solar charger, an e-reader quickly becomes dead weight in the apocalyptic world. Dropped in water, the e-reader once again loses all value as well, its redeeming value being that a new e-reader will let you pick back up right where you stopped.

Oh, I almost forgot, public domain literature can be obtained for free as ebooks. Sales on other books are often pretty good too (currently found here*as “Kindle Book Deals”).

If you try to compare e-readers to backlit devices (the ones that scientifically inhibit sleeping and cause eye sore), the e-reader proponents will come after you with pitchforks; “How dare you insult e-readers! You’re so stupid you probably don’t even know what they are.”

“Mixers“ – I’m making the term up, but these are the people who read from dead tree books and e-readers

It’s the best of both worlds, what need I say more? Some books are easier to read on an e-reader, but some books you want to flip through a lot. E-readers are not terribly friendly for encyclopedias.

Last but most futuristic, we have the

“Techies“ – not really its own group, but these are the people who live by technology

They may be huge readers, they may not be, but their reading is bound to be on a backlit device. They don’t understand the difference between what they do and reading on an e-reader, but many of them (once again, not all) don’t care at all for dead tree books.

Techies don’t necessarily read “books;” they might simply be reading the written word: blogs, articles, Wikipedia entries, news, etc… if it’s written and it’s on the internet, that’s where you’re most likely to find them. Some do read novels, let’s not deny that, but they’re more likely to check a text or get onto Snapchat than your typical dead tree book-reader or e-reading reader.

Techies really are likely the wave of the future, but as all things technological go, techies are likely to give reading a renaissance like nothing we’d expect. “Children can’t learn to love reading from a device,” some argue, but we are not our children (well, I don’t have children, but you get the point).

So what are you?: a dead tree booker, an e-reading reader, a mixer or a techie? I didn’t even delve into audiobooks.

Future generations will know if dead tree books survive or go the way of monk-copied texts. They will know if reading really can be as enjoyable on a technological device as on a printed page. The long-term future is theirs to decide, not ours. Even if you fight it, remember that.

* See bottom of my site about Amazon links