You may hate reading books on screen, but kids don’t

Glenn Hauman

Glenn is VP of Production at ComicMix. He has written Star Trek and X-Men stories and worked for DC Comics, Simon & Schuster, Random House, arrogant/MGMS and Apple Comics. He's also what happens when a Young Turk of publishing gets old.

34 Responses

  1. mike weber says:

    Paper has (sort of) permanence. e-readers don’t.

    • Jason M. Bryant says:

      Permanence isn’t always a good thing. Many, many more people read magazines than comic books, yet those get thrown away all the time. Back when comic books got started in the 30s and 40s, they were treated much more like magazines and had a massively bigger circulation.

      The reputation that comic book readers have for keeping all their books has some bad connotations. It implies that to read comic books as an adult, you have to be fully into it, not just casually. I think the collector mentality that goes with comics is a mixed blessing.

      Many other entertainment mediums don’t require permanence. For TV and movies you can watch something once and then forget it, but you also have the option of buying them on DVDs. I think comics could work well that way, where a digital service like Marvel’s lets you do lots of sampling and read all you want every month, but there’s also the option to buy trade paperbacks for those who find that more appealing.

      • mike weber says:

        I wasn’t, actually, talking about comics. (Or, rather, neither primarily or specifically.)The quoted article doesn’t mention comics, they’re only mentioned in the final sentence added by Glenn, which has no specific relevance to the quoted article.I was talking about reading materials in general.Do you read every book you buy just once and trash it?I still have books i bought fifty years ago.

        • Jason M. Bryant says:

          “Do you read every book you buy just once and trash it?”

          No, and I don’t buy the DVD of every TV show I watch, either. That’s why I said that comics (and this applies to books too) could work well with a blended system, where there’s a digital version that isn’t so permanent and a paperback version for people who prefer that.

  2. Brandon Barrows says:

    I plan to live forever, and buy comics as long as they exist.

  3. mike weber says:

    Paper has (sort of) permanence. e-readers don't.

    • Jason M. Bryant says:

      Permanence isn't always a good thing. Many, many more people read magazines than comic books, yet those get thrown away all the time. Back when comic books got started in the 30s and 40s, they were treated much more like magazines and had a massively bigger circulation.The reputation that comic book readers have for keeping all their books has some bad connotations. It implies that to read comic books as an adult, you have to be fully into it, not just casually. I think the collector mentality that goes with comics is a mixed blessing.Many other entertainment mediums don't require permanence. For TV and movies you can watch something once and then forget it, but you also have the option of buying them on DVDs. I think comics could work well that way, where a digital service like Marvel's lets you do lots of sampling and read all you want every month, but there's also the option to buy trade paperbacks for those who find that more appealing.

      • mike weber says:

        I wasn't, actually, talking about comics. (Or, rather, neither primarily or specifically.)The quoted article doesn't mention comics, they're only mentioned in the final sentence added by Glenn, which has no specific relevance to the quoted article.I was talking about reading materials in general.Do you read every book you buy just once and trash it?I still have books i bought fifty years ago.

        • Jason M. Bryant says:

          "Do you read every book you buy just once and trash it?"No, and I don't buy the DVD of every TV show I watch, either. That's why I said that comics (and this applies to books too) could work well with a blended system, where there's a digital version that isn't so permanent and a paperback version for people who prefer that.

  4. Brandon Barrows says:

    I plan to live forever, and buy comics as long as they exist.

  5. Michael Davis says:

    ‘J.K. Rowling has said she prefers her work to be read on paper”

    WTF?

    Really? This is what happens when you get mega rich, you start assuming you can dictate the way of the world. FUCK J.K. Rowlings and the Rolls Royce she drove in with.

    • mike weber says:

      That is so thoroughly off-base that i wonder whether you need your meds adjusted.

      I don’t particularly like the Harry Potter books (though i stopped after the second), and i consider Rowling a mediocre writer at best, but i don’t react that way to her (or to most other authors).

      Back under your bridge.

      • Michael Davis says:

        Mike,

        I actually LIKE all the Harry Potter books. I’ve never read any of them. I’ve listened to all of them on Audio Books. Yes, I say Fuck J.K. Rowlings or ANY writer who thinks that they can dictate how I ‘read’ their work.

        It seems to me that audio books would be an even bigger affront than an E-reader and movies even bigger than that considering that there is NO reading involved.

        If J.K. would rather people read her work on paper then maybe she should make a stance and give back some of the money that non paper content has produced.

        No?

        What?

        I can’t hear you!

        I’m going to let the ‘meds’ and ‘under the bridge’ comment go, because I thought they were funny.

        • mike weber says:

          Sorry. I was feeling cranky. Had just been reading some lovely little turds of right wingnutism on the Yahoo News comments…

          As to “give back the money that non paper content has produced” – she may be being inconsistent, but hypocritical doesn’t seem to enter into it – please note that, in this article about e-books, it specifically says that there are no e-book editions because she has refused to allow it. So there is no money from editions she disapproves of to any real extent, apparently.

          While i consider audio books to be a plague and a scourge – if only because i can read a real book a lot faster than i can listen to someone else reading it – i have no objection to others getting their fixes that way.

          Apparently Rowling has no objection, either … or had to let the audio books be produced under contracts she signed back when she had less clout. And, if the latter, i can see her deciding to rare back and flatly forbid editions in other formats just to make a point.

          Some authors, apparently, don’t want electronic versions of their books sold because they make less per copy… A dumb idea, i have to say, unless you’re one of that small number of authors who are going to sell a million copies of their next book, even if they’re graven on stone tablets, since every sale you don’t make to someone with a Kindle or whatever is quite possibly a sale you won’t make at all, in any format, and every sale you do make in an electronic format may very well be one you wouldn’t have otherwise made.

          I won’t buy audio books, and it’s going to take a lot to convince me that e-books are better than paper books (though, since i’d actually be reading them, i’m a little more likely to accept them).

          I think i may not be making a lot of sense here… But, i guess, my main thrust is that i don’t give a hang how you get your books, so long as i can still get mine on paper, and that i really don’t see the point of being cranky about an author’s decision to publish or not publish her work in one format or another.

          BTW: Over at the “Comments” section of Brooke McEldowney’s comic Pibgorn, due to an encounter Pibgorn had with a troll in an early strip, we tend to refer to trolls as CCBSS – Cuisine-Challenged Bridge-Substructure Symbionts”…

          • Glenn Hauman says:

            “Sorry. I was feeling cranky. Had just been reading some lovely little turds of right wingnutism on the Yahoo News comments…”

            Dear God, why? Do YouTube comment threads not kill brain cells fast enough? Those comment sections are septic.

          • Michael Davis says:

            Mike,

            I’m a fan of J.K. just not her attitude on certain things. All that said, I respect every point you made and I DO like REAL books that you can HOLD and feel. There’s nothing better (to me) than curling up with a good book in bed at the end of a long day. In fact when I do take vacations ( rarely) I read 90% of the time regardless of where in the world I am.

            I LOVE audio books but I can only listen in my car. I can read a real book anywhere. You do make a lot of sense, my point (made a bit harshly I’ll admit) is don’t tell me you won’t release your ‘work’ on E-books because you prefer paper when the vast majority of the planet knows your ‘work’ as a 2 plus hour movie which is as close to a 600 page book as I am to the moon.

            If she’s going to make it about the ‘work’ then you can’t dismiss the non-print media which has helped make her a household name. Ignoring the films, audio books and damning e-books which ARE reading when the other two media outlets feature NO reading is like a porn actress saying she does not like her ‘work’ being seen on video.

            On another note, was not DC’s ‘Books Of Magic’ long before Harry Potter?

          • mike weber says:

            Hell, Diana Wynne Jones was long before Rowling. And a lot better.

  6. Michael Davis says:

    'J.K. Rowling has said she prefers her work to be read on paper" WTF? Really? This is what happens when you get mega rich, you start assuming you can dictate the way of the world. FUCK J.K. Rowlings and the Rolls Royce she drove in with.

    • mike weber says:

      That is so thoroughly off-base that i wonder whether you need your meds adjusted.I don't particularly like the Harry Potter books (though i stopped after the second), and i consider Rowling a mediocre writer at best, but i don't react that way to her (or to most other authors).Back under your bridge.

      • Michael Davis says:

        Mike,I actually LIKE all the Harry Potter books. I've never read any of them. I've listened to all of them on Audio Books. Yes, I say Fuck J.K. Rowlings or ANY writer who thinks that they can dictate how I 'read' their work. It seems to me that audio books would be an even bigger affront than an E-reader and movies even bigger than that considering that there is NO reading involved. If J.K. would rather people read her work on paper then maybe she should make a stance and give back some of the money that non paper content has produced. No? What?I can't hear you!I'm going to let the 'meds' and 'under the bridge' comment go, because I thought they were funny.

        • mike weber says:

          Sorry. I was feeling cranky. Had just been reading some lovely little turds of right wingnutism on the Yahoo News comments…As to "give back the money that non paper content has produced" – she may be being inconsistent, but hypocritical doesn't seem to enter into it – please note that, in this article about e-books, it specifically says that there are no e-book editions because she has refused to allow it. So there is no money from editions she disapproves of to any real extent, apparently.While i consider audio books to be a plague and a scourge – if only because i can read a real book a lot faster than i can listen to someone else reading it – i have no objection to others getting their fixes that way. Apparently Rowling has no objection, either … or had to let the audio books be produced under contracts she signed back when she had less clout. And, if the latter, i can see her deciding to rare back and flatly forbid editions in other formats just to make a point.Some authors, apparently, don't want electronic versions of their books sold because they make less per copy… A dumb idea, i have to say, unless you're one of that small number of authors who are going to sell a million copies of their next book, even if they're graven on stone tablets, since every sale you don't make to someone with a Kindle or whatever is quite possibly a sale you won't make at all, in any format, and every sale you do make in an electronic format may very well be one you wouldn't have otherwise made. I won't buy audio books, and it's going to take a lot to convince me that e-books are better than paper books (though, since i'd actually be reading them, i'm a little more likely to accept them).I think i may not be making a lot of sense here… But, i guess, my main thrust is that i don't give a hang how you get your books, so long as i can still get mine on paper, and that i really don't see the point of being cranky about an author's decision to publish or not publish her work in one format or another.BTW: Over at the "Comments" section of Brooke McEldowney's comic Pibgorn, due to an encounter Pibgorn had with a troll in an early strip, we tend to refer to trolls as CCBSS – Cuisine-Challenged Bridge-Substructure Symbionts"…

          • Glenn Hauman says:

            "Sorry. I was feeling cranky. Had just been reading some lovely little turds of right wingnutism on the Yahoo News comments…"Dear God, why? Do YouTube comment threads not kill brain cells fast enough? Those comment sections are septic.

          • Michael Davis says:

            Mike, I'm a fan of J.K. just not her attitude on certain things. All that said, I respect every point you made and I DO like REAL books that you can HOLD and feel. There's nothing better (to me) than curling up with a good book in bed at the end of a long day. In fact when I do take vacations ( rarely) I read 90% of the time regardless of where in the world I am. I LOVE audio books but I can only listen in my car. I can read a real book anywhere. You do make a lot of sense, my point (made a bit harshly I'll admit) is don't tell me you won't release your 'work' on E-books because you prefer paper when the vast majority of the planet knows your 'work' as a 2 plus hour movie which is as close to a 600 page book as I am to the moon. If she's going to make it about the 'work' then you can't dismiss the non-print media which has helped make her a household name. Ignoring the films, audio books and damning e-books which ARE reading when the other two media outlets feature NO reading is like a porn actress saying she does not like her 'work' being seen on video. On another note, was not DC's 'Books Of Magic' long before Harry Potter?

          • mike weber says:

            Hell, Diana Wynne Jones was long before Rowling. And a lot better.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Just to hop onto a side issue, you’re often missing something magical by avoiding audiobooks, Mike. I adore paper books, have instilled a love of books and reading in my children, and encourage everyone to appreciate the printed word. Nevertheless, I’ve had some remarkable experiences listenting to audiobooks, especially if the reader was very good or was the author. Neil Gaiman’s reading of his work is always cozy and captivating. Harlan Ellison’s reading of anything is compelling. Dylan Thomas’ reading of his work changed the way I perceive that work (although not in an entirely positive way). Additionally, the experience of listening to audiobooks has informed and helped develop my skill when I read to others. I would never want audiobooks to replace printed words (in part because “radio” is something different from “reading”), but I do love having that extra option and that richer experience.
    –Hollie (who can’t remember the blasted password and doesn’t have time to chase it down)

    • mike weber says:

      Well, that’s a tad different from what i mostly mean when i say “audiobook” – an author reading his own work is always welcome.

      But audio books are *slow*. I can read two or three books in the time it would take me to listen to one. (I read faster than anyone can talk intelligibly. I read faster than *i* can talk – and those who know me will say that’s pretty fast.)

      But i can also go *slow*, myself – slower than an audiobook would go – and hop around from passage to passage a lot more easily, if i want to look back at more than one place to clarify story points.

      And a dramatisation – a “radio play”, if you will – version is yet another thing, which (if done well) i may enjoy.

      But in almost all cases, i find audiobooks to be pretty much one-time things, and pring books … not.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Just to hop onto a side issue, you're often missing something magical by avoiding audiobooks, Mike. I adore paper books, have instilled a love of books and reading in my children, and encourage everyone to appreciate the printed word. Nevertheless, I've had some remarkable experiences listenting to audiobooks, especially if the reader was very good or was the author. Neil Gaiman's reading of his work is always cozy and captivating. Harlan Ellison's reading of anything is compelling. Dylan Thomas' reading of his work changed the way I perceive that work (although not in an entirely positive way). Additionally, the experience of listening to audiobooks has informed and helped develop my skill when I read to others. I would never want audiobooks to replace printed words (in part because "radio" is something different from "reading"), but I do love having that extra option and that richer experience.–Hollie (who can't remember the blasted password and doesn't have time to chase it down)

    • mike weber says:

      Well, that's a tad different from what i mostly mean when i say "audiobook" – an author reading his own work is always welcome.But audio books are *slow*. I can read two or three books in the time it would take me to listen to one. (I read faster than anyone can talk intelligibly. I read faster than *i* can talk – and those who know me will say that's pretty fast.)But i can also go *slow*, myself – slower than an audiobook would go – and hop around from passage to passage a lot more easily, if i want to look back at more than one place to clarify story points.And a dramatisation – a "radio play", if you will – version is yet another thing, which (if done well) i may enjoy.But in almost all cases, i find audiobooks to be pretty much one-time things, and pring books … not.

  9. Raphael Sutton says:

    I personally have two main issues currently that make me not want to see print completely replaced with digital (I have no problems with it becoming a extra format, like audiobooks are).

    My first issue is with the devices available. I’ve tried a couple of Kindle models and the iPad and I found that the weight distribution in them just feels wrong. They might not be heavier than a hardcover, but their center of gravity is “off” when I use them, making them very uncomfortable to read for more than 15-20 minutes at a time. This is an issue that might disappear eventually as new designs are introduced. I heard for instance about some upcoming dual-screen readers that might solve it.

    The second issue worries me more and is related to this AP article I read a few days ago:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_en_ot/us_endangere

    It basically says that digital recordings are much more vulnerable than physical copies and if something isn’t backed-up properly and then transferred to new devices every few years it can easily be lost. So if books or comics were to ever become digital only, who’s to say a particular novel or issue won’t just disappear someday. Particularly at risk would be marginally popular works or things that might fall in disfavor with Society. Book burnings are bad but usually at least one copy manages to survive somewhere to be discovered and re-disseminated again later; a digital purge (especially a government sanctioned one) would likely be much more thorough.

  10. Raphael Sutton says:

    I personally have two main issues currently that make me not want to see print completely replaced with digital (I have no problems with it becoming a extra format, like audiobooks are).My first issue is with the devices available. I've tried a couple of Kindle models and the iPad and I found that the weight distribution in them just feels wrong. They might not be heavier than a hardcover, but their center of gravity is "off" when I use them, making them very uncomfortable to read for more than 15-20 minutes at a time. This is an issue that might disappear eventually as new designs are introduced. I heard for instance about some upcoming dual-screen readers that might solve it.The second issue worries me more and is related to this AP article I read a few days ago:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_en_ot/us_e…It basically says that digital recordings are much more vulnerable than physical copies and if something isn't backed-up properly and then transferred to new devices every few years it can easily be lost. So if books or comics were to ever become digital only, who's to say a particular novel or issue won't just disappear someday. Particularly at risk would be marginally popular works or things that might fall in disfavor with Society. Book burnings are bad but usually at least one copy manages to survive somewhere to be discovered and re-disseminated again later; a digital purge (especially a government sanctioned one) would likely be much more thorough.