Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Hard copy vs soft copy

I was reading and walking (a fond bad habit I am doomed to repeat with reads I consider engrossing enough, to the detriment of my eyesight) when I bumped,  not literally,  into an acquaintance.

"You're reading a book. How retro," was the dry comment.

At first I did not comprehend his remark. Was the act of reading retro? Or did he mean my reading something in paper format and not electronic format was retro?

My query answered:  the latter.

I don't think I have a specific preference for either format. My preferences when it comes to reading are limited to 2 specific criteria; (1) is it free (library copy or online copy)? (2) Romance/Travel/living in a new country or culture /wwii / cooking (there was a recent expansion into gardening related books)?

I.e., I will read a book if it is free. Even if it is a super heavy tome.

Nowadays most people prefer to read books in electronic format, e.g. kindle or handphone. I totally understand the attraction, its portable and takes up less bulk in the bag.  And we are all used to reading our friends' getups and great walls of text in measy font via Facebook already so what's reading a 1000pg book in equally tiny font, right?

Yet there is something soothing about flipping a page (less so for the odd smell of old stationery glue between the pages or what the previous reader was eating/ drinking when he /she was reading). The act of reading a physical book is a quintessential complement to a hot cup of cocoa on a rainy /wintry afternoon. And that is something that an electronic copy cannot replace.

PLUS, come on, lets face it, we look more intellectual with books on the shelves,  right?

No comments:

Post a Comment


Related Posts with Thumbnails