Posts filed under 'Reading'
I have one model of all three major ereaders now, the Sony Daily Edition, the Kindle 1, and the nook. If you want an unbiased comparison, here it is.
For the Sony the strengths include touch screen, larger screen (at least the Daily edition has a 7″ screen), built-in case, and two memory slots.
For Kindle the strengths include two newly introduced word games, the most intuitive interface, best annotation, fastest page turn, clearest screen, Audible compatibility, read to me, and best battery life.
For nook the strengths include the games (sudoku and chess), the ability to read stuff in the store, the in store technical support, and all the promotion stuff. You get free books once a week. You get articles and short stories downloaded in the store. You get cafe stuff.
Looking at the key features, first is content. Kindle wins half credit because Amazon has the best selection at the lowest prices. It loses half credit because it’s the only one without library support.
If library support is a major point, and you want to maximize your flexibility, your best best is to buy the Nook, but never buy books from B&N. Use Borders instead. Even though they all use ePub, B&N uses a proprietary DRM scheme, so it’s not cross compatible. You can read Borders books on the Kobo, the Sony, and the nook, but you can only read B&N books on the nook. I’m only discussing dedicated devices, not apps. So get the nook and then fill it up with books from Borders.
For annotations, the Kindle is the best. Sony doesn’t let you tie a note to a particular paragraph, only to a page. Nook doesn’t let you put a bookmark on a particular screen (just the top of a page, and pages can run multiple screens), some books can’t accept annotation (you can’t know which until you try), and the interface is clunky. Kindle lets you highlight, bookmark a screen, and tie notes to a particular line. Rather than having the gray background that Sony and nook uses for highlighting, Kindle surrounds the text with a box.
For page turns, I ran them side by side, and the speed, in order from fastest to slowest, is Kindle, Sony, nook. Nook will actually post a wait message if you try to flip too many pages at once. Neither Sony nor Kindle will do that. Nook is far slower than either of the others on opening a book as well.
For interface, it’s a toss up between Kindle and Sony. Kindle has an intuitive interface, and buttons large enough to be invisible while reading. When you want to dog ear a page, you click the corner. Sony can get a bit odd with highlighting, and I find I overdo a few times. Stop one character shy of where you want to be and your fine. Dog earring is hidden in a menu option. But you can stroke your finger across the page to turn it and you can choose which gesture –> or <– turns the next page. Nook is a touch screen…kind of. The actual content area isn’t a touch screen, the bottom little screen that keeps turning off is. So you’re navigating like you would with the Kindle controller while dealing with the decreased accuracy of the touch screen. You can configure how long the thing should stay on, but that’s a trade off between battery life and convenience.
When buying an item in the store, Kindle buys it and that’s it. If it’s a mistake, just click a button for a refund. Sony asks you to log in to your account. Nook goes through this confirmation thing and then has a little OK you have to hit, and if you don’t notice it, the screen it’s hiding on turns off.
For clarity, the best is Kindle. Nook just doesn’t look quite as crisp, but it comes in second. Sony has the problem of the glare caused by the touch screen.
For storage, Sony wins. You can put an SD card and a Pro Duo card in, both at the same time, and it allows you to organize your books into collections. Nook allows for a mini SD card (smaller, but more expensive than a regular SD). It does not allow for organizing the content into folders. If you’re good at keeping track, or if you use a service like Goodreads, this is the second. Kindle has discontinued the use of a storage card, so it comes in third. It does allow you to organize your content. For built-in memory, it’s Kindle, nook, Sony.
For the fun factor nook wins. It has the games. It has the bright color display. It lets you easily customize your screen saver and background. Kindle comes in second with the word games and social networking capabilities. Sony doesn’t even have speakers.
To me, the Kindle is the best of breed.
August 17th, 2010
I receive a lot of requests to review books for The Writing Cast. Some are appropriate for the show, but others just aren’t of general interest to writers. Still, they are excellent books and I wanted to do the reviews and provide some exposure for these authors.
Thus, I’m launching For Love of Reading, a general book review website with a bit of a twist. I’m going to link every book to at least one more related book, not through some computer aggregate trick (you know, the ones that say “since you liked Twilight, you might also like motor oil”) but links put together with human intelligence and with the reason for the link explained. The goal is to help recreate the serendipity of finding, not just the great book that happens to bubble up in the aggregate matches, but the one that might not hit that radar.
I’ve got a team of reviewers lined up. The first review is up on the site. Please check out this new website and enjoy.
June 9th, 2010
For those who don’t follow publishing news, Macmillan and Amazon entered a bit of a book war. Macmillan wants to price their Kindle books higher than Amazon’s normal price point. Amazon, in retaliation, pulled all Macmillan titles from their catalog. It looks like Macmillan might win themselves a delicious Pyrrhic victory.
Macmillian is being greedy, and it will destroy them. First, Macmillan reduced author royalties for e-books below industry standard. Then they raised prices above industry standards. Let me put on my precognition hat and see if I can predict the future here.
Their best-selling authors will want a fair deal and either take their next books to another publisher or refuse to sell e-book rights and just put the e-books out themselves. That takes about a half a day’s work total. Those with a first refusal rights clause in their contract with submit drivel that will be refused, thus terminating that clause. The midlist authors may be nervous about jumping ship, but the big fish, the ones who bring in the big bucks, will have no such compulsions to stay.
If the authors decide to sell their e-books on their own, Amazon will gladly link the version exactly the same way they do now. They’ll say they’re helping authors. They’ll say their being customer-centric. They’ll just make more money that way.
E-book readers won’t decide to buy Macmillan hardcovers if Macmillan e-books are too expensive; they’ll decide to buy someone else’s e-books instead. Publishers already have a tremendous amount to compete with. There are not only other publishers, there is television, movies, the Internet, podcasts, podiobooks, video games…the list goes on. Publishers can either put out a great product, priced to sell, or watch their business crumple.
Macmillan is being sadly future-phobic and I fear what it will do to them, and to their excellent stable of authors. I only hope the rest of the industry can pick up the talented writers when Macmillan falls.
February 3rd, 2010
I was reading Player VS Player (it’s really good) and trying to catch up. I’ve started at the beginning, so it’s a kind of fun time machine. It talks about when the PS2 first came out, and when each of the second/earlier trilogy of Star Wars movies came out. Fun stuff.
The thing that interests me is the way time almost seems to dilate. In this strip in March 2007 the characters talk about the death of Captain America. When I read it, I was amazed that he was dead for so long. It feels like that just happened. This was right this strip in January 2007 about the introduction of the iPhone and it feels like that device has been around forever.
It’s amazing how our memories play these games with us, in spacing things out in time. If you haven’t, definitely check the strip out if for no other reason than to take a fun stroll down pop culture memory lane.
January 20th, 2010
Batman and Philosophy
is the first book in the Blackwell Pop Culture and Philosophy series that I’ve read. It’s a collaborative effort between several authors, each tackling a different element.
Part 1 focuses on ethics, discussing deontological vs utilitarian ethics. The short form is deontological ethics holds that the ends don’t justify the means. Utilitarian ethics holds that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So if you could save 100 people by shooting one plague victim, deontologists say not to, and utilitarians say to do it. The discussion on ethics moves on to Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics.
In part 2 we learn about Hobbes state of nature and how and why we cede certain individual liberties to just authority in exchange for peace and security. For example, we agree to chip in for a police force, with the understanding the police force will work to protect us. We learn about just and unjust uses of power, which is interesting with Batman as he is legitimate in so far as he is a member of the JLA and they are authorized by several governments to use coercive force in the name of law and justice, similar to the authority granted the military or police, but that authority is not recognized in Gotham, where he is a vigilante.
In part 3 we get the ethics of becoming Batman, and I’ve already written a blog post about that section.
Part 4 is metaphysics and identity. Who is Batman? What makes him Batman? What does it it mean to be or not be Batman, or anyone else? The best section here, and in the entire book, is Ron Novy’s treatment on what it’s like to be Batman. He provides an excellent overview of situational freedom, and then makes, and supports, the claim that the person who best understands Batman, is the Joker, and the person who best understands the Joker, is Batman.
Part 5 discusses existentialism as it relates to both Batman and Alfred. Here we get a discussion of how Batman represents one kind of knight, the knight of infinite resignation–this is the more dramatic, the more flamboyant, the more commanding sort of knight. Alfred is said to represent a different kind of knight, the knight of faith, and his is a higher, more noble calling. There is a lot of love for Alfred in this book. This section also talks about the deep inner conscious that is more than the imposed “they mind” conscious, and how Wayne faces his moment of Angst, which is a term used here to refer to the admission of his own eventual death, and the responsibility it imposes to make meaning of his life.
In Part 6 we learn about the roles Batman plays as friend, as father figure, as rival, and as guide. This section is about value ethics, Aristotle’s work is discussed in greater detail here, and my favorite section for this part is Gales Foresman’s on why Batman is better than Superman. Politicians take note: he does this while talking about why Batman is desirable and good, not why Superman is undesirable and bad. Read this. Learn from this. We end with the very amusing The Tao of the Bat.
This book was written by philosophers well-acquainted with Batman, not only from the movies and TV shows, but from the comics, which offer a richer trove of stories and a deeper development of character. The works sited most often are Batman: Year One, Arkham Asylum (the book, not the game), and The Dark Knight Returns. I was surprised at how approachable and enjoyable this work was. I give it 5 stars out of 5.
January 11th, 2010
I encountered the works of philosopher Peter Singer in Batman and Philosophy.
The question raised was, should Bruce Wayne have become Batman? To answer this, authors Masesh and Ben Dixon cite the work of Singer, in particular his “Famine, Affluence, and Mortality“. According to their understanding of Singer, Wayne was not justified in become Batman, because he had the opportunity to do even more good with his vast fortune.
They quote Singer as saying ” we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility–that is, the level at which, by gibing more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift. This would mean, of course, that one would reduce oneself to very near the material circumstances of [the starving poor]” (p. 105)
They conclude that “Wayne must give away most of his income–including both his inheritance and his existing income from Wayne Enterprises–to those in dire need, unless he can show that what happens after he becomes Batman is of comparable worth. A utilitarian such as Singer can acknowledge that if Wayne is successful as Batman–and that’s a very big if–he can provide a considerable amount of crime-fighting support for Gotham City, which likely will result in a reduction of some suffering. But such help likely pales in comparison to the benefits he can immediately bring to the masses of poor and needy around the world, especially considering the probability of his fortune’s being put to good use by a reputable aid organization.” (P. 106)
They neglect that Singer adds:
“If everyone does this, however, there will be more than can be used for the benefit of [the starving poor], and some of the sacrifice will have been unnecessary. Thus, if everyone does what he ought to do, the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than he ought to do, or if only some do all that they ought to do.
The paradox here arises only if we assume that the actions in question – sending money to the relief funds – are performed more or less simultaneously, and are also unexpected. For if it is to be expected that everyone is going to contribute something, then clearly each is not obliged to give as much as he would have been obliged to had others not been giving too. And if everyone is not acting more or less simultaneously, then those giving later will know how much more is needed, and will have no obligation to give more than is necessary to reach this amount.” (Famine, Affluence, and Mortality) This is similar to the idea put forth by Judaism of giving 10% of one’s income to charity. If everyone contributes some, there won’t be an onerous burden on any.
If everyone, or even most people, did as Singer proposed, there would be ample resources to help the starving poor, even absent the Wayne fortune. Therefore Wayne if helping the otherwise unaided population of Gotham by becoming Batman and is therefore doing more good than would have been possible by simply donating the Wayne fortune.
Singer seeks to bring a world where charitable organizations are fully supported by routine small donations from the majority of the world’s affluent population (defining affluent as people with disposable income for even small luxuries, like DVDs and philosophy books). Batman seeks to bring a world where Gotham is no longer corrupt and crime can be kept under control by normal law enforcement efforts, such as the police and judicial system.
I would argue their intents are in alignment, and that Singer, rather than decrying Wayne’s becoming Batman, would laud him for his Herculean efforts “to prevent something very bad from happening”.
January 5th, 2010
I knit like a maniac last week, first to finish some last minute gifts. All done, and the only photo I have that I haven’t shown is of the Unoriginal Hat.
(click to see larger)
This thing works up in just a few hours. I think I could knock two off in a good day.
The other is Entwined, which everyone said looked like an S&M toy, but the photo didn’t come out right. It’s also a super-fast pattern and I think I’ll knit one for myself, once I finish my current project which is Lizard Ridge. I got into the groove of the pattern and I just couldn’t stop. I have a basket of Kureyon and I knocked off 6 squares in 2 days. Way too much knitting.
Partway through square number 7 my wrist started sending up shooting pains. I was maybe four stitches from the end of the row so I finished the row, shaking out my arm between stitches, and put the knitting down and haven’t touched it since.
Common wisdom on Ravelry holds that a week is the appropriate time to pick the knitting back up again…carefully…and if things aren’t right by then to see a doctor. I’m going to abide this, which means I can start up again Sunday. In the meantime I’m reading way too much and trying to figure out how to watch TV–I don’t think it’s possible without having something to do. Oh, and playing with my new iTouch. Sharron gave me one for Hannukah, and I’m hooked. She says I’m biologically attached to the thing, like some kind of human/iPod cyborg monster, which just might be true.
December 30th, 2009
Last week I was with a group of friends discussing modern media, newspapers and the like, and Jocelyn commented that even biographies of figures long dead are presented according to the slant of the author. My first thought was of Japonius Tyrranus, which bills itself as an alternate history of Oda Nobunaga. Then yesterday, I ran into a prime example.
It is nearly impossible to write a biography of any relevant figure who lived in Greece, or much of that part of the world, around the beginning of the Hellenistic Age without mentioning one man. Worse if we narrow the scope to Macedonia, and inconceivable if the subject of the biography was in direct contact with the court of Macedonia, which is much to the dismay of Paul Strathern, who probably hates Alexander the Great nearly as much as King Darius once did.
Most biographies of Alexander will include Alexander’s remark that King Phillip gave him life, but Aristotle taught him how to live. As an aside, yes this belies his tale of being the son of Zeus when the god came to Olympius in the guise of a snake, but that was just PR anyway–if you wanted a following back then, you said your daddy was a god, much like if you want a following today, you appear on Oprah.
In Strathern’s Aristotle in 90 Minutes (oddly, this is 1 hr and 15 minutes long in audiobook) he claims that when “the greatest meglomaniac the world has ever known” studied under “the greatest mind the world has ever known” Alexander won, and pig-headedly refused to learn anything from Aristotle. His further treatment of Alexander seems to exist only to mock him, claiming he wanted to execute Aristotle, but decided to invade India instead.
I find it amazing how even today Alexander garners such strong reactions, both positive (on the front page this site reads “This project is dedicated to the most charismatic and heroic king of all times”) and negative (“There is little that is commendable in both Alexander’s personality or his exploits.”)
December 29th, 2009
There has been a lot of talk in the e-book community about the decision of various publishers to delay the release of major works in e-book until four months after the hardcover hits the shelves.
There is a well-thought out blog entry here and a USA Today article here. They raise some good point. I read primarily on the Kindle these days, so delaying the book four months means waiting four months to accept my money. That’s also anecdotal evidence, and if the industry professionals even care when they get their money, they will need to conduct formal market research to see if this holds true over a sufficiently significant percentage of consumers, and then decide what to do about that.
The book industry has done staggered delivery for decades. First the hardcover comes out, then the paperback, sometimes with two paperback releases with trade paperback and then mass market paperback.
This is just fitting the new technology into a successful model. Look at the publishing path of The Girl Who Played with Fire
. First the hardcover, then the e-book, then the paperback, and next year the mass market paperback. It is no more rational to insist Under the Dome come out on the Kindle simultaneously to the hardcover release as it is to insist it come out in paperback that day as well. I’m thrill the difference between hardcover and Kindle was only 6 weeks.
This is not a decision set in stone. If publishers find that they could make more money by releasing e-books coincidental with hardcovers, with a variable pricing structure and extras as suggested here, or in any other configuration, they’ll switch.
It’s a rough economy. It’s a shake up of an already fragile industry. There are a lot of factors to consider, and I can’t say I blame publishers for taking their time and approaching the situation with caution.
December 15th, 2009
I’ll start by saying this is a self-help/life counseling book, and I can’t stand self-help/life counseling books except to mock them. I was very surprised at how intelligent and informative this one is.
If you already know what path you want the major aspects of your life to take, and you’re already working on that, you probably don’t want to read this book. If you’re searching for those paths, this book will be somewhat helpful. If you’re drifting through the years hoping life throws a path at you, as far too many of us are, read this book immediately. This is a powerful analysis of the difference between people who are driven by life and people who drive their lives.
This book offers useful tools to begin the process of taking control and steering yourself towards fulfillment. You don’t want to stop here, but it’s a good place to start.
First he talks about why women are statistically less happy then men. I find this odd, as it is written by a man. He misses some uniquely female issues. As an example, he looks at why middle aged women aren’t as happy as middle aged men and doesn’t even give a nod to the hormonal nightmare that is menopause. This book would be well directed to a general audience, without concern for gender. The issues he discusses applies equally well to both men and women.
His idea is that we don’t create or seek out moments when we are fulfilling our deepest purpose. That some of us don’t know what our deepest purpose is, some of us sacrifice our deepest purpose, and most of us don’t know how to create events that let us fulfill that purpose. This book, without gimmicks, without nonsense, teaches us how.
For showing us how to find out what our strong life is he starts with an online test. That was a total bomb for me. I scored motivator for my lead role (so I’m a painfully shy introvert, but I should be playing cheerleader) and equalizer for my supporting role (so I’m supposed to stand up for people who have been wronged–note the painfully shy introvert problem). Neither fits me at all. After the test he shows how to narrow down the role into specific activities, and I found that very interesting and helpful. I keep going through my day thinking, “That was a strong moment. Let me try to get another assignment like that.”
He then goes on to provide guidance on how to achieve a life that supports that role , and it’s the most realistic and reasonable guidance I’ve seen in a book of this type. It’s rational. It doesn’t require the people around you to fall into the games the book proposes. It’s simple and sensible and it works.
Students will find this book especially helpful. If you find yourself even considering a trip to the career counseling office (and taking advantage of that resource is a good idea) consider this book as well.
October 5th, 2009
Previous Posts