A fan of printed books, I was hesitant to introduce a Kindle into my life, but since that fateful day, I've noticed a few distinct advantages of the gadget over a traditional book. For one, I can read books that would otherwise be a little bit embarrassing to read in public. (Yes, I'm talking about you, Twilight saga.) Besides being incognito with my guilty reading pleasure, not lugging around a giant hardcover was certainly appealing.
The New York Times touches on the cover-less phenomenon, but takes a different approach, wondering if readers miss beautiful cover art when they choose an ebook over a traditional book. To hear my feelings, and to share your thoughts, just read more.
My feelings are mixed: on one hand, ebooks are good for travel, storage, moving, and general accessibility, but there's something to be said about the aesthetic of a shelf full of well-designed books. "You can’t tell a book by its cover if it doesn’t have one," the article says. And it's true — if I'm going to tackle an ambitious, intellectual book, I'd probably think twice about buying it in ebook form. "There's something about having a beautiful book that looks intellectually weighty and yummy,” said one woman quoted in the story. As someone who has tackled a tough and lengthy read like Anna Karenina, I'd have to agree.
What about you? Does a cover make the book? And do you miss the cover when you buy an ebook?
Source: Flickr User oldcockatoo