"Real" Books? Wrong Terminology?

Status
Not open for further replies.

stormie

storm central
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
7,162
Location
Still three blocks from the Atlantic Ocean
Website
www.anneskal.wordpress.com
juniper said:
OP: Do you think people value e-books less than "real" books?
I'm not considering that in this thread. There is , as you know, another thread along those lines. (Right now I'm typing this on my Kindle.)
I have a book published in print, and now one that was pubbed as an ebook.

As I've said, I've read the term "real" associated w/ books in print. And that just didnt make sense to me.

Good discussion here. Thank you :)
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
People who post in comments sections of online newspapers or news sites, keep referring to hardcopy books as real books, and actually give thumbs down if someone says that ebooks are real books.

Am I missing something here?
I think you're missing something if by 'people who post in comments sections' you mean 'the non-writing public'. Yes, in the book and writing related areas of life, it would be nice if people recognised the sensitivity of others, but, in general, people don't know any writers or publishers, and really don't care about the specifics. They just want to be clear. 'Paper book' is too close to 'paper back' for general use.
As others have said, times change, in a generation 'book' will possibly mean an e-book, and 'paper book' or some such will mean a physical copy, in the same way that we now specify 'acoustic guitar'.
For now, this is more of an industry debate, more than one that most of the public are interested in.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I can see how the term "real" book might sound dismissive or judgemental to people who are published only in e-format, or who prefer e-books. Ebooks are the new kids on the block. I suppose there was a time when books printed on paper instead of vellum, or books created by printing presses, rather than hand copying, would have been the "fake" books.

And when paperbacks were invented, maybe some people thought only of hardcovers as "real books."

Of course, back at ya with the judginess when people who prefer e-readers call paper books "dead tree" books.
 
Last edited:

stephenf

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
335
Personal I don't understand the conversation . I have read most of my favourite books, printed on paper. I have reread some of them on my Sony e-reader , they seem to be, just as good.
 
Last edited:

bearilou

DenturePunk writer
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
6,004
Reaction score
1,233
Location
yawping barbarically over the roofs of the world
I can see how the term "real" book might sound dismissive or judgemental to people who are published only in e-format, or who prefer e-books. Ebooks are the new kids on the block. I suppose there was a time when books printed on paper instead of vellum, or books created by printing presses, rather than hand copying, would have been the "fake" books.

And when paperbacks were invented, maybe some people thought only of hardcovers as "real books."

Of course, back at ya with the judginess when people who prefer e-readers call paper books "dead tree" books.

:Thumbs:
 

stormie

storm central
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
7,162
Location
Still three blocks from the Atlantic Ocean
Website
www.anneskal.wordpress.com
Stephenf, in my original post, I'm not talking about the pros and cons or "readability" between printed books and ebooks. This is more about people calling printed books, "real" books, and I was wondering others' take on that terminology.

Yes, it's mostly the non-writing community where I've seen the word "real" books bandied about, but I have also seen the term "real" books used among writers when referring to printed copies as opposed to ebooks.
 
Last edited:

juniper

Always curious.
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
4,129
Reaction score
675
Location
Forever on the island
kuwisdelu said:
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).

So what's the difference between "book" and "manuscript" then? Would "manuscript" be used for work in progress, while "book" is finished, either published or shelved?

Or maybe they're interchangeable. In posts here some people will say "I finished the first draft of my book" while others say "I finished the first draft of my manuscript." :Shrug:

A writer sends a manuscript to agent or publisher, not a book. Hmm. I'm just puzzling this out in my head.

I'm not considering that in this thread. There is , as you know, another thread along those lines.

I only asked because you said in the OP that "real" book references bother you. It seemed an important distinction to you.

I'm not aware of the other thread - or if I posted in it, I've forgotten. ;) Is the thread worth a read?

in general, people don't know any writers or publishers, and really don't care about the specifics. They just want to be clear. 'Paper book' is too close to 'paper back' for general use.

Yeah, paper book sounds odd. Perhaps printed book is more accurate, but also sounds odd. Not sure if there's an answer.

People will say what they're going to say - what we commonly call "Chinese food" is funny to my pharmacist, whose wife is Chinese and a traditional style cook. He says it bugs her a bit.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
So what's the difference between "book" and "manuscript" then? Would "manuscript" be used for work in progress, while "book" is finished, either published or shelved?

Or maybe they're interchangeable. In posts here some people will say "I finished the first draft of my book" while others say "I finished the first draft of my manuscript." :Shrug:

The word "book" can and is used multiple ways.

Manuscript is the text itself. "Book" implies a method of organization.

You could send the manuscript of just the first few chapters. Sending the book implies a level of organization and cohesion above that.

Many older novels are arranged into multiple books. Most novels today are one book.

If you buy The Lord of the Rings as three physical books, each physical book contains two "books" as per how Tolkien arranged it. The physical book corresponds to a volume.

If you buy it as one physical book, the physical book contains six "books" which together make up the novel. The physical book corresponds to the novel.

If someone says a "book of poems," I assume they mean a collection specifically organized by the author as a book, rather than collected works or pieces selected by an editor.

(A poet I recently heard give a reading said he writes books rather than individual poems.)
 
Last edited:

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
The terminology may be off, but I think it's still valid, at least for now. In a generation or three, e-books may be considered real, and something else consider ephemeral, but, for me, the terminology sums up how I feel about books, if nothing else.

E-books are certainly real, but to me, while they are stories, they are not books.
 

JustSarah

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
1,980
Reaction score
35
Website
about.me
It gets even more confusing when you try to distinguish between poetry chapbooks, and full books. A chapbook being 24-32 pages.

As someone who hand writes their poetry books, before transfering to computer.
 

Cathy C

Ooo! Shiny new cover!
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
9,907
Reaction score
1,834
Location
Hiding in my writing cave
Website
www.cathyclamp.com
Stephenf, in my original post, I'm not talking about the pros and cons or "readability" between printed books and ebooks. This is more about people calling printed books, "real" books, and I was wondering others' take on that terminology.

Yes, it's mostly the non-writing community where I've seen the word "real" books bandied about, but I have also seen the term "real" books used among writers when referring to printed copies as opposed to ebooks.

In an interesting twist on this topic, I was in Walmart the other day and happened upon a family in the electronics section. A mom and several children in teen, tween and under 10 variety. The youngest was asking mom if they could buy a movie from the discount bin. She replied that they could watch something on TV or pick one out at the RedBox on the way out. The little one stomped his foot and said "No! I want a real movie!" and held it out with both hands. Mom sighed and put it in the cart.

I thought it was very interesting and it goes to show that Tactile is still a big thing with a lot of people, yet doesn't matter at all to others. To Mom, a movie is a movie. To that particular child, a movie is only a "real" movie if it comes in a physical package with a colorful glossy cover and wrapper that can be opened.

If you ask the actors or the director, I doubt the package matters. But to the person wanting it, it very well might be part of the overall experience and without that one aspect, it's somehow less real.

:Shrug: I don't know that you would ever convince one of the other's POV
 

cmi0616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
141
Location
In the aeroplane over the sea
Not that I support this viewpoint, but non-writers especially seem to have the idea that e-books are exclusively published by vanity presses, so that might have something to do with it.

A less interesting answer might be that people very often aren't that articulate, and "real" is easier to say than "paperback/hardcover."
 

LeslieB

Geek Unique
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
95
Location
Florida - A sunny place for shady people
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.

This. I think part of it is the mental adjustment that people are making to adapt to a world that is more and more digital. It goes along with the mentality that was around for years, and still is to a certain extent, that what happens online 'doesn't count'. I used to work in law enforcement, and you would be surprised how many people would post or email things like, "I'm going to come to your house and chop you into bits," then be absolutely astonished when the cops showed up. To them, the ones on the other end of that communication weren't real people who would feel threatened, they were just part of that big fantasy world called the internet.
 

Maxx B

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
515
Reaction score
48
Location
England
What I think has really happened is that language is evolving as it always does. As there is a number of terms for e-books, kindle books etc, people are adding prefix real to mean physical, as previous posters mentioned. Most people define real as: Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact and it's use as a prefix in this sense is justified, if a little lazy. I don't think the word is used in general to imply that e-books are less worthy than printed books.

I do however think that there is some residual 'snobbery' in some circles, that having a printed book is somehow a greater achievement.

I think however that as print media will never die out, the mass adoption of digital, could possibly marginalise print fans the same way vinyl fans have been with music.

Personally I like to read on a kindle / tablet, but I like to own physical copies of certain books from my favorite authors. Currently for financial reasons, I'm limited to my local library. Kind of like my music consumption, I like to buy CDs to support my favorite musicians, I tend to listen to music I own as mp3s but as of late I listen to more radio as it's free.
 

Maxx B

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
515
Reaction score
48
Location
England
Not that I support this viewpoint, but non-writers especially seem to have the idea that e-books are exclusively published by vanity presses, so that might have something to do with it.

I spent a year teaching computer sciences to several classes of 16-19 year old students a couple of years ago. These kids have grown up with computers, the Internet, digital music and digital cameras. When discussing consumption of digital media as opposed to conventional media, they saw no difference. A CD was no less real than an mp3, a jpeg of their friends was no less real than a print etc... They just saw the digital version as more compatible with their lifestyle. It was alarming however to hear how many of them did not consider piracy as being stealing, but that is a whole different conversation.
 

Hapax Legomenon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
22,289
Reaction score
1,491
I do however think that there is some residual 'snobbery' in some circles, that having a printed book is somehow a greater achievement.

A mass-produced paperback book will reach a much wider audience than an ebook or a POD book. By making a mass-produced paperback rather than strictly ebooks or POD books means that your publisher believes your book will sell to a large amount of people, which I guess can be considered an achievement.

However if I were to get published I would consider the pinnacle to be a professionally-produced audiobook despite not a lot of people listening to them, so maybe my priorities are a bit skewed.
 

alexaherself

Wordsmith and shoechick
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
5,874
Reaction score
418
The word "manuscript" ought to refer to something hand-written (as opposed to "typescript", perhaps), but it just doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.