Thursday, June 17, 2010

Some thoughts on format

Lots of folks are beginning to discover the awesomeness that is the ebook, where before they were convinced they couldn't enjoy an ebook as much as a paper book. I've been reading books electronically since about 200...4? Yes, 2004. And I do love them. However, something occurred to me today as I answered someone about sending me a book for review. I told this person that I prefer to read thrillers in paper, rather than electronically. And requested a hard copy of the book.

Depending on genre, I've noticed that there are formats I prefer. I'd rather read really substantive books, thrillers, rom suspense, and historicals in paper. (Note, these are not mutually exclusive, and I realize that "substantial" books occur in all genres). I think it's because I frequently look back for details I may have missed, or to reread a passage, and it's more difficult to do that in an ebook. Or perhaps it's that since I can no longer "see" the book once I've finished it, the details fly out of my head. And as I grow older, that is a distinct possibility.

Other genres I don't really care if I read e or paper. Not to say that a contemporary isn't substantial, but usually I don't feel the same need to go back as I'm reading to fact-check or re-read a passage that may help clarify a current passage. I find that I prefer reading paranormals on my ereader. Not that I read a ton of them, but still... And I actually like to read contemporaries on there as well.

I know that Wendy now reads her Harlequins almost exclusively electronically. I can read them either way. In that one instance, I truly have no preference.

How about you? Are there genres that you prefer to read in paper? Or electronically? Or am I just a freak? (And the answer better be no.)


  1. This blog post makes me feel a little less like a freak, so thank you for that.

    I still prefer paper for pretty much all single titles, regardless of genre (ARCs being the exception to the rule). I love reading digitally, but yeah - for "longer" books I still like having the paper. Just do. And I suspect it's for reasons you stated. It's just "easier" to flip back, reread a passage etc.

    Yes digital-only people, I know I can bookmark using my Sony Reader, but most of the time I don't "know" I want to reread a passage until I do. It's easier to flip through a physical book and skim. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

    But for shorter reads? Oh man, digital all the way. Novellas, short stories, and pretty much all my Harlequin category reading. I still read category romance in paper, but usually it's "old" stuff that's been kickin' around my TBR for years....

  2. If a book is by an author that I consider a keeper like Kleypas, I would want it in print.

    Also the longer the book the more likely I'll want it in print. I get tired of advancing the screen on the nook. It sounds stupid but hey, I'm lazy.

    Price also helps decide. Trade paperbacks like Lorelei James' books are much less as ebooks.

    As far as genres go, I prefer erotica in ebook format. I've found I get a kick out of reading hot sex scenes in public and no one knows what I'm grinning about. LOL

  3. Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention. If it's a book I think I'm going to pass on (to JenniferB or to the SoCal Bloggers, mostly), I buy it in print. For obvious reasons.

  4. Lori: OMG, that one is HUGE! I love swapping, sharing and trading books. I think most readers do. And for that reason alone I just don't see print going anywhere (at all) any time soon.

    Oooh, and I have some Harlequins to swap on Saturday. There's a couple that I think you'd really dig :)

  5. I have to say that it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Of course saying that I realize that I read most of my m/f in paperback and my m/m in ebook. It's not that I prefer it, it's just how it is! lol


Have you read it? What do you think?

Related Posts with Thumbnails