"Real" Books? Wrong Terminology?

They're using the term as physical. Like I have many "real" movies on my entertainment center, but I own a few movies on Amazon as well.

If I own a print book, with proper care I and my descendants can own it for decades, even longer. If I own an ebook, it's gone as soon as the hardware dies or the cloud owner goes out of business. That's the fundamental difference to me. An ebook is more of a long-term loan. Amazon may not be around for my grandkids, but my childhood copy of Goodnight Moon probably will be.

In the accounting world, they are not known as real accounting records, but hardcopies. The electronic version is the softcopy. Hardcopies are a requirement for legal procedures.

Xelebes said:

In the accounting world, they are not known as real accounting records, but hardcopies. The electronic version is the softcopy. Hardcopies are a requirement for legal procedures.

Click to expand...

Yup.

MM

Real books look like this.

IMO, "real" means that the person speaking can relate to it as being that way. Lots of people haven't experienced ebooks, so that's not a real format to them. Lots of people (I daresay everyone, but that's too inclusive for the entire world) have experienced printed paper books, and those have been standard for centuries.

Give it another 10 years or so. I remember when cell phones and home computers weren't real to most folks. I can even remember when calculators weren't, so it's just a matter of time for the perceptions to change.

There's also a related issue; they're identifying the container as the "book," not the contents. Books have been written on stone/clay, bark, silk, vellum/parchment, and paper. They've been "contained" in tablets, scrolls, gathered leaves, and codices.

A file and silicon aren't all that different.

I can imagine "book" as referring exclusively to physical books. But then there's no such thing as "fake" books, just books and not books. Either way what you have in an ereader is a "real" novel or a "real" anthology or a "real" biography, because those are terms based on content, not physical form.

"Physical" or "hardcopy" would be less judgy terms.

veinglory said:

"Physical" or "hardcopy" would be less judgy terms.

Click to expand...

I'm liking "hardcopy." "Real," no.

In my opinion, "real" books are ones you read and enjoy.

It doesn't matter what format they're in so long as you read them and enjoy them.

But I do understand why people call print editions "real" books: it's what they're used to. It's wrong, but it's what they're used to.

veinglory said:

"Physical" or "hardcopy" would be less judgy terms.

Click to expand...

What's funny is that I wouldn't have considered real book to be a judgement to get upset about. The reason is in what Hapax Legomenon said:

Hapax Legomenon said:

I can imagine "book" as referring exclusively to physical books. But then there's no such thing as "fake" books, just books and not books. Either way what you have in an ereader is a "real" novel or a "real" anthology or a "real" biography, because those are terms based on content, not physical form.

Click to expand...

To me, the term book has usually referred to the format. I don't know if I do consider ebooks to be real books. They're electronic files. They contain real content, yes, but are they real books? That's harder to say. They're real ebooks because ebook is another format. I'm kind of divided on this one. No doubt in the future the term book will mean ebook as well, but right now I still think of a book and an ebook as different forms. No value judgement. Just different formats.

I think it is not unreasonable to be sensitive to the reverse of the meaning.

I guess the thing is that I listen to a significant amount of audiobooks, and would probably NOT consider those to be "real books", even though it's like reading a book. I mean I think the problem isn't whether it's linguistically a "book" or not but we put so much of a value judgement on "books" as opposed to all other formats and that's not helping anyone.

kenpochick said:

They're using the term as physical. Like I have many "real" movies on my entertainment center, but I own a few movies on Amazon as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I have Real Life friends and I have Online friends. "Real Life" is often used to distinguish from electronic goings on.

OP: Do you think people value e-books less than "real" books?

Medievalist said:

There's also a related issue; they're identifying the container as the "book," not the contents. Books have been written on stone/clay, bark, silk, vellum/parchment, and paper. They've been "contained" in tablets, scrolls, gathered leaves, and codices.

A file and silicon aren't all that different.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you mentioned that, because it's a concept I first encountered here at AW and have puzzled over.

I'd never heard "book" used in that way before. I guess I would have referred to the contents as text, or manuscript, or writings, or something similar.

I grew up with "book" being the container. And the various types, being descriptors. I remember in school being told to call a long story a novel, not a book. That "book" was a generic term for anything bound and printed (excluding magazines, newspapers etc.). An anthology was a book of short stories.

I wonder if "book" in the vernacular means one thing and to scholars it means another. ?

I have been over this time and again with friends and family. I now refer to versions of a book when I am asked it I have got this or that book.

People are just using the word "real" to mean "physical" or "not digital". It's probably a careless use of words, really, but understandable enough?

There's already a specific name for what many mean by a "real" book:

Codex.

Codex describes the binding; leaves, gathered together at the spine.

If you want to specify printed (rather than hand-lettered) you can say printed codex book, or even printed book.

Writers have been using the term book to describe content rather than the packaging for a long time.

For example, The Lord of the Rings is a single novel made up of three volumes each containing two books (it is six books total).

I agree with the driving pup (and btw, is that really a good idea? Is he licensed?). We use 'real' to denote 'not virtual/electronic' in a number of areas. I don't think it's judgmental or book-specific.

Friends in rl as opposed to friends online doesn't denigrate the online.

If you wrote your grandmother a letter and specified 'a real letter,' I'd know you meant a physical letter, on paper, sent by snail mail. I think real is interchangeable with physical for people in that kind of context.

Before spouting out an opinion, e.g. "only paper books are real," people need to ask themselves a question. Will this make others, "people who write and read digital books," feel rotten and crummy? If so then plz stop a moment and consider not saying what you have planned. Is it really necessary? Is your opinion really worth making others feel bad? (My 2 cents.)

No, I don't think that "real" is actually a distinguisher to digital. Note, when you refer to fleshspace friends, you say real-life friends, not "real" friends. Your online friends would probably be offended if you called only your real-life friends your real friends.

The friends you find
In the wild world
are fleshspace friends.
The liaisons on-line
you talk to with type
are electric eclectic,
wonderful wits
you spar or spare
but part each parry
with laughs and gags
and love and gifts --
or so we hope.