This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"We're not yelling at you, Molly."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 31 October 2014




Tweet







May 11 2011

Sarah Michelle Gellar comments on the Buffy reboot. "To try to do a Buffy without Joss Whedon?... It's the dumbest idea I've ever heard".

Its like music to my ears. I should've known that Sarah would be against the idea but I had a little niggling doubt that she may be ok with it. How stupid I was!
I love this video more in that she expresses her love for reading and fear of the digital age taking away the joy of holding a real book in your hands - wanting children to inherit that legacy is wonderful. She is very kind and not snarky at all in expressing herself about that proposed Buffy film; her reaction comes off as befuddlement almost resulting in a loss of words. I felt the same way when I first read the news (the project seems to have sunk in the Marianas Trench, anyway...). :)
This was a really sweet if sort of oddly edited video. Showing her finishing "Green Eggs and Ham," in the middle of "Curious George," starting "Curious George," in the middle of "Green Eggs and Ham." Odd.

Anyway, it was great hearing her thoughts on the Joss-less reboot. And on the power of physical books. I actually saw her once at the bookstore where I work, so I can confirm that she does, in fact, seem to love to read.
How does she not age?
It's nice to finally hear Sarah's thoughts on the reboot. It was kind of odd to hear everybody else's opinion other than the main girl herself! I miss her on my TV :(
Havn't had a good laugh in awhile,I Love when Sarah says the word "Dumbest".(Or "Lame" a la 'Tabula Rasa')
So Glad she's against the remake,she's right a Buffy movie was made...We don't want/need another.Especially one WITHOUT Joss.
Good for her! Sometimes it seems there's a bit of contention in that particular relationship so I'm gratified to see her step up and specifically name Joss as the only person who should have anything to do with this.
That woman has serious reading aloud skills. She can come do a programme at my library anytime. She even shows the pictures!
Someone needs to make a gif of her face when the announcer says that he thought she was "totally onboard" with the reboot. HA! Love her.
I LOVE YOU, SMG.

That's pretty much my reaction to this video.
Love her sooo much. Can't wait for her new show!

My only complaint: Her name is Sarah Michelle Prinze people. She changed it as a 5 year anniversary present.
Love her. So awesome to see her doing more publicity again.
Tumnus, for her job she uses Sarah Michelle Gellar.
She does? Didn't know that part. I still think it was sweet that she changed her name...but I guess either way works then. My bad.
I love her reactions! Her face when he says "I thought you were on board with this"... Oh, that was PRICELESS! :D
Like others, I loved her facial expressions on the reboot.

I like the fact that both Nathan and Sarah are involved with children's reading.
Love her, and it's so nice that she's doing this. Also, do any of the Whedonverse actors actually age?!
Hehe. She sounds like Giles when she's talking about books and she sounds exactly like Buffy when she's talking about the Jossless travesty of a movie reboot.
She loves books? Forget Ben is Glory, Buffy is Giles?
FWIW, as far as I know the project is still in process. No idea where in that process it is, however. Still in script stage I imagine.
I absolutely love how she barely speaks about Buffy and then when she does? Man oh man, what a comment.

I could kiss her. Right on the mouth.

Also, do any of the Whedonverse actors actually age?!


I heard something about Joss having a series of portraits in his basement. :O)
I like her so much right now.
I heard something about Joss having a series of portraits in his basement.

Right next to where he has the tied-up Sean Maher.
Loved her reaction and thought her reading to the kids was cute.
Specifically, Sarah is a big fan of Children's books and a supporter of literacy among kids. She actually collects first edition Children's books.
Has anybody ever seen the video of "Forever Knight" actors Nigel Bennett and John Kapelos reading "Green Eggs and Ham" in character as LaCroix and Schanke? Pretty wonderful :) And yay SMG in every department for this reading/interview.
@The One True b!X: Pfft... Sean Maher is lounging in my loveseat.
Are you calling Joss a liar? ;)
I stole him after that. :)
Thanks so much, Shapenew. I had no idea that existed. Green Eggs and Ham. John was in 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been, so it's not even off topic.

I love Natsuko's reaction.
Right on, SMG.
Now, maybe you should go to the guys who want to make the Whedon-less Buffy movie, explain to them slowly why it's about as welcome as a sequel to Battllefield: Earth, and then tell them to just change the name of their slaying heroine. THAT would make things OK!
Wow, that was incredibly charming and I'm joining the chorus praising her genuinely surprised and appalled facial expression when the interview said he heard she was in favor of it.

I mean from one angle it would be a diplomatic thing to say, that considering how she was the second major Buffy that they might want to give yet another upstart actress a shot at the character and how often actors are expected to play the diplomatic PR person for the sake of passing the torch, yada yada yada.

But not only did she call back to Kristy Swanson, she also specifically named Joss as a driving force, having created the character and what not. I mean there were all sorts of other reasons she could have also protested a remake. The fact she is basically the definitive Buffy, how important the cast of characters her iteration became to the character, maybe the whole time/place zeitgeist, etc, but instead she stood up for Joss. I remember reading lots of rumors about how the two had a much more professional rather than inter-personal relationship so I immediately assumed it wouldn't be as tight.
@impalergeneral That was actually the original plan (a separate slayer story with all new characters), but people still threw rotten fruit at the idea. Why they've since decided to just reboot Buffy, I'll never understand. Well, I mean, I get it, I just don't care for it. But I'll check it out with an open mind. Just out of curiosity.
Oh it's so great to see Sarah make her moves back into the spotlight. I see how savvy she's being about her re-branding and it is amazing to witness (supporting children's lit/getting down with the gamer crowd) and she's so genuine as well. I'd love to chat with her over coffee one day. Let the new era of SMG begin!
Can't say how much I love her!!
Wait, kungfubear, the original plan was to make a movie about another Slayer, and it was rejected?
After this, maybe not.
Is it just me or does it seem like she's trying not to crack up at the line "Could you, would you, with a goat"? Methinks somebody's mind is struggling to stay out of the gutter a bit. To be fair, I have trouble believing that Seuss himself didn't see the double meaning in that question.
This was a great interview. I'm surprised so many people are surprised that SMG would be supportive of Joss, etc. She's never been one to put any negative press out there and has always been supportive and positive regarding Buffy and Joss' endeavors. While others have gone out of their way to be negative about her in the press, I've never seen her do the same.

Always good to see her, looking lovely, and being her wonderfully, articulate self. Seeing her read to the kids and talk about reading to her own was especially endearing.

ETA: Sorry, the part about her reading to her own daughter was the video in an earlier post. Seen way too many SMG videos these last two days (not complaining!). Got them confused.

[ edited by syd on 2011-05-12 00:06 ]
I could not love her more.
Yes, this video interview certainly puts the lie to all the negativity I've read over the years. So glad this came about.
I'm loving all the Sarah news lately, especially this video!
Well now that was just too sweet! And yes, the gif of her face would be amazing!
syd, who spoke ill of her in the press?
I'm going to laugh if the new Buffy movie ends up being awesome after all of the hate that has been thrown at it. I just find it funny that people are freaking out so much about it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that a fictional character has been taken over by different creative minds. Sometimes those things turn out well. Ronald Moore's Battlestar Galactica comes to mind. This sort of thing happends all the time with comic book characters. The fact that other people want to do something with Buffy actually elevates her status. It shows her becoming a proper pop culture icon in the same league as someone like Batman, a character who has changed hands and been reinvented countless times over the decades giving us great movies from Tim Burton, Christopher Nolan, and classic animated movies from Bruce Timm and his collaborators over at the WB. Then there is the classic Adam West show from the 60s

And besides, we still have OUR Buffy. I'll be following her in season 9
Me like Buffy. More Buffy? Me glad.
Real books are wonderful, organic, and undeniably original. Much, much love.

Yet I spent 4 hours with my (new to me) nook? Then went out and bought a purse to FIT IT. I will never not have it with me. 6000 books, any time, at a finger's touch while listening to my favorite music and oh, wait a minute, let me check my email.

Insane. Yes, please.
There's always outcry when something gets taken from the creator's hands. When Wes Craven stopped making the Nightmare on Elm Street series they just lost the plot. Same with John Carpenter and Halloween. The reboots were met with disdain and a lot of fan fracturing(I didn't mind Zombie's remake though, although I didn't care much for his Laurie in either film, too bratty). Even looking at the Batman films you have the Burtonites and the Nolan fans. I fall into the former category, Nolan's Batman is the same as Laurie for me; bratty and I could care less if they died horribly. So when the original cast and crew say it is ridiculous to make a film without the creator - I agree.

In fact the Batman analogy is completely out of context. That was a frnachise of interchangeable hands to begin with. Halloween and NOES had very recognisible creators and outside of their work the franchise sucked, fans were outraged and it killed off the great parts that we loved about the originals. Not saying that happens everytime, or that it will happen this time, but there is a history of bad attached to these kind of things.

On reading books vs electronics - I can no longer read a book or academic article online, have to print them. My aged eyes are beginning to fail me in my mid 20's! But there is something nice about holding a book, the smell and the feel of the pages. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist, but these new fangled contraptions are just too fancy for my sight.
I think I read somewhere that Dr. Seuss is a favorite of Ms. Sarah Michelle.
It's been months since one of the cast or crew of the TV series said the reboot is a bad thing. It's still completely unsurprising and uncompelling when they do, IMO. IThere is literally nothing else any of them would ever say no matter how they actually felt about it.

I adore Sarah Michelle Gellar, she's talented, beautiful, intelligent, and I have no reason to think she isn't sincere, but I also have no reason at all to believe she would actually say so if she supported a new take on Buffy, because it is too ungrateful to Joss, too impolitic with fans, etc. So what about this didn't go without saying?

Glad she's so literate and promoting it as well. And I really hope "Ringer" gets picked up, because it's just a complete joke that she isn't a television lead again.
Love Sarah Michelle!

[ edited by Effulgent on 2011-05-12 07:34 ]
So what about this didn't go without saying?


I was kinda of expecting her be diplomatic about it and make some vague non-committal remarks. Instead she stuck the boot in.
Earlier this week I had a little exchange with my boyfriend, about how books, newspapers and CDs are going to be obsolete pretty soon. Him and I love books -- I think I even quoted Giles on that -- but in the end we agreed that for every book there's a tree stump somewhere in the former jungles of Amazon... Ok, maybe this isn't exactly how it works, just a little silver lining thing.
Only about 10% of paper is made from non-renewable forests these days (that wasn't true in the past so older books will have used slow-growth trees but then that milk is spilt, no use crying over it). I realise we're "programmed" nowadays to think every tree cut down makes Baby Jesus cry but in fact trees are like most other plants useful to people - we farm them on an industrial scale (the bigger issues in paper manufacture are probably pollution since the process uses a lot of very nasty chemicals, some of which end up in the atmosphere/rivers/etc. - most of which occurs no-matter where you get your wood from - and the potentially serious ecological impact of tree plantations as opposed to natural forests).

I can see them becoming much rarer in many of our lifetimes in some parts of the world (newspapers/magazines maybe even within the next 10-15 years) but I doubt they'll disappear completely for a long time, if ever. It's worth remembering the millions/billions of people around the globe for whom something like a Kindle is equivalent to e.g. buying a luxury yacht for someone from the more economically developed nations i.e. if you're well off and have everything else you need then sure, why not, otherwise not so much. Those people will need books long after most of the folk posting on here have started using e-readers (as William Gibson put it, "The future's already here, it's just not evenly distributed"). Then there'll always be purists who just prefer having the object for their own reasons (think vinyl as an example).

(always thought highly of SMG for how she conducted herself in interviews etc. but when I found out how she felt about books it just cemented her place in my regard. And though e-readers are incredibly useful, amazing devices, particularly for reference materials, I personally feel about books the way NRA members feel about their guns. Cold dead fingers and all that ;)

[ edited by Saje on 2011-05-12 11:23 ]
It's worth keeping in mind, too, that the production of electronics has its own impacts. For example, your iPad or Kindle or laptop needs gold, copper and lithium (among other things); that means mining, with all it entails.

Nothing's free, unfortunately.
Stopping by to say: you don't ever not make sense, Saje. That is all.

Also, SMG goodness! Lovely to see her surfacing again.
Cheers cardea (though i'm thinking you haven't seen many of my pre-caffeine posts ;).

It's worth keeping in mind, too, that the production of electronics has its own impacts. For example, your iPad or Kindle or laptop needs gold, copper and lithium (among other things); that means mining, with all it entails.

Very good point. And in many cases, electronics have a shorter lifespan too and so have to be disposed of/recycled. Whereas i've got books where the object itself is 80+ years old - not even rare or antiquarian either, just secondhand - and they still function perfectly. Hands up who thinks they (or their descendants) will be using the same e-reader they currently own in 2090 ?

(though in fairness, the disposal/recycling problem is also an opportunity to spread the technology to people who maybe can't afford it. Similar schemes operate now for mobile phones for instance)
I dunno KoC, if they really supported it yeah they wouldn't come out and say it probably but they'd probably be more diplomatic about it.

Anyway this was lovely. Go books!
I love books. I have a lot of book shelves filled with nice editions of my favorites. That being said, my eyes have been problematic for a while now. I had just about quit reading for pleasure due to eye strain. My Kindle has changed all that. For anyone who might have the same problem and not know, e-readers like the Kindle and Nook are not backlit. E-ink is like reading a book, not staring at a computer screen. The upshot is they are just like looking at a paper-and-ink book except you can adjust the font size.

(Much love for SMG!)
Yep, bad eyesight's something e-readers are excellent for (you can get magnifying pages, large print books etc. but it's a slightly clumsy workaround). That said (this applies to Blueskies too), at risk of pointing out the extremely obvious and really not meaning to be condescending, I take it you guys're sure you don't just need glasses ?

(I ask because though I don't now, as a kid I wore glasses specifically to avoid eyestrain even though my visual acuity itself was fine)
I love Sarah Michelle Gellar. And Joss Whedon (thanks for linking to that old interview, b!X. It made me laugh bunches). And books. And Dr. Seuss. And Saje. And peanut butter.
Yay Sarah! Worst movie ever!
I personally feel about books the way NRA members feel about their guns. Cold dead fingers and all that

Ha, I love that, and might even steal the line without giving credit sometime. *cackles evilly*.

I miss me a screenful o' Sarah Michelle Gellar, and loved her reaction there. But holy gods am I sick to death of the (wonderful, of course, of course, whatever) Dr. Seuss. I could go a good long while without Curious George too. (Can't go wrong with Saje and peanut butter though, right there with you Giles_314 ;)).
@saje, actually I do wear glasses, since I was 9(long time ago!)but seeing as my job is staring at a screen and through a view finder I try and avoid unnecessary use of screens, it causes headaches. But at the same time I use my iphone for comics quite a bit, oh the hypocracy!
Love ya SMG! And yes, this is old news to me. She has come out in the past few months against the Buffy reboot without Joss.
My mother is nearing 70 and loves her nook. She especially loves the feature that lets her reverse-out the type, much like this page on the Black, that makes it less likely that she'll disturb her hubby when she reads in bed. And yes, the sizable font feature is quite useful.

For those of us NOT 70, I concede that for some it would be an extravagance, but that for a voracious reader (even a working poor one like me) it actually saves money, as books average about $8.99, and more and more libraries are jumping on the lending bandwagon (and you can join ANY library in the country that is part of the network. Imagine living in Indiana and being a member of New York and Los Angeles libraries... or those of some colleges. Awesome.). You can even lend books to your Nook friends for two weeks. Also when you get a re-conditioned one as I did, it's cost-effective almost immediately. Imagine being able to carry with you every single book you own. There's no downside to that.

I balked at first, the whole tactile thing, but fell in absolute love in the span of a few hours. I think anyone who focuses on the immersion in the story, the sheer joy of flying from word to word, it matters little what format the story is delivered.

And did anyone else squee inside when SMG said "Buffy"? Just me, then?
I remember that Lady Sarah won my bookish heart when I read at the the closing of Heritage Books in L.A. that she referred to the store as "my church". (While it's true the proprietors could be snooty when it was obvious you lacked serious bucks, it still contained some of the world's most amazing books, and it smelled wonderful. It was across the street from the bookstore I used to work at, and I would go in there at lunch and just stare and look longingly and inhale.)

She's a real book person, and I like bookpeople.

So - I'm not buying a Kindle or any other kind of eReader - I like my books, and intend to keep buying them and keeping them. I usually buy at used bookstores or at thrift, and I'm kinda good at finding what I want at very affordable prices. I like that actual books belong to me absolutely, and cannot be snatched back by the publisher, or become unreadable on the latest tech. I can lend them quite easily if I want to, without being concerned about the technology of the person I want to share it with. I like to pore over any drawings. I like the old book smell - a lot. I like old bookcovers and endpapers. Digital ain't the same.

But for certain old reference books there's nothing like google books online, or the various offerings at archives.org, project gutenberg, etc., etc. I'll download them & read them on my laptop, and it's much easier to take notes than with an actual book.

And I have both the Stanza and Kindle apps on my iPhone for when I'm out and about and finish a book and gasp, don't have another one with me. There's tons of public domain books available online, and I read mostly dead people, anyway.

Lioness sent me to this New Yorker article recently, because in an act of stunning zeitgeistery-blindness, I'm soon opening up an online used bookstore. The article makes some good points about the difference between bookowners, and folks that only want to read a book's contents.

Booklovers of the genus bookownerus want to own physical books - and there's still plenty of us - there's not a sudden glut of old or used or antiquarian books on the market as people dump their collections or something. (Oops, and some of us apparently go on and on about it - sorry.)

(Regarding the Nuffy movie - well, yeah, good for her, and 'nuff said.)
Sarah is awesome. I'm glad to see all the strong negative press for the Buffy movie.

And let me throw in a vote for e-readers. I just recently got a Kindle DX, and I love it. It has free 3G that lets you access a limited number of sites, such as Wikipedia and CNET, but most importantly the Kindle bookstore, so you can go ahead and buy any book you want, whenever you want, and download it in 60 seconds. The e-ink screen is VERY crisp and clear - I might even say it's more comfortable to read than real paper. It can hold something like 3500 average-sized books and weighs only 19 ounces. E-books are considerably cheaper than regular books - I can get new releases for $7-15, and the various old collections are obscenely cheap - I got the complete works of Shakespeare for $2.99, and Les Miserables for $0.89, for god's sake. There's the little things you appreciate as well, like not having the wind blow your pages all over the place when you're trying to read outside. And though this doesn't apply to me, think of the people with bad eyesight who can just change the font size rather than worrying about finding large print versions of the books they want. All these things - the low prices, constant access to books, greater portability and ease of use - they really strike me as the sort of thing that would encourage reading in society, by making the whole activity more comfortable, and isn't that the exact thing that reading advocates like Sarah want to see?
Don't get me wrong, i'm basically sold on e-readers already for all the reasons you, Willowy and others point out Break_Atmo and i'll likely pick one up either this tech iteration or maybe the next (because for the sort of books i'd use it for - mainly recent non-fiction/reference - colour's useful/necessary and AFAIK, none of the current e-readers have genuine colour e-paper screens yet), i'm just also gonna keep buying/owning books.

Not that convinced about prices, e-editions (? ;) that i've checked are often roughly similar price-wise to paper and since I seriously doubt the author's getting paid a bigger cut and costs are much lower, I kinda wonder why. I'm also waiting to see how the ownership/privacy situation shakes out cos as QuoterGal alludes to above, i'm very not happy that Amazon (for instance) can just zip into my e-reader and remove books whenever they feel like it. Imagine a similar situation with physical books as a comparison - someone from Barnes and Noble can just walk into your house and remove a book from your shelf because, for whatever reason, they've decided you shouldn't have it. Clearly bang out of order, no-one would stand for it and Barnes and Noble would go out of business very quickly (or change their practices) yet its exact e-equivalent (this could get addictive. Or annoying... yep, it's annoying ;) has already happened.

And books. And Dr. Seuss. And Saje. And peanut butter.

I made the same list as books and peanut butter ? Win !

(it's like that time Joss listed Whedonesque in the same figurative breath as porn ;)

Ha, I love that, and might even steal the line without giving credit sometime. *cackles evilly*.

*sets jaw and grimly resolves to thwart catherine's evil plan at every turn (despite that being something of an uphill struggle/impossible) !*
'Not that convinced about prices, e-editions (? ;) that i've checked are often roughly similar price-wise to paper'

I should note that I'm from Australia, and my experiences my be due to our good dollar and the Kindle books being in US prices. For example, the most expensive Kindle book I've bought is Bears of the Black staff for $15 - which is about $25-30 at a store. Same price for various books like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which is about $10 on the Kindle Store. Maybe it's different in the US?
My kids gave me a kindle for Christmas, and I love it to bits for 2 reasons.

First, it helps me keep my overwhelming and excessive book collection under control. Since I am unable to throw away any but the most appalling actual books, I have always had a problem living with the results in a remotely orderly fashion. Now, I do not buy a physical book unless it promises to be so special that I am willing to give away one I already possess. If I fall in love with a book I read electronically, I shop for a nice used edition to keep.

Also, though I enjoy (actually adore) physical books, and admire their bindings, typography etc, they can be terribly burdensome to carry when traveling- even back and forth to work on a bus, or especially when you need so much reading for a trip that you'd bring an extra suitcase. My previous travel tricks included taking a bunch of used paperbacks, and leaving them behind as I finished them for other guests, or a host. But the Kindle is even better- it weighs next to nothing, and slips in my handbag.

It even leaves space in the suitcase for special actual book finds on the road. Because actually, I'm incorrigible.
@Saje, ya the Nook Color is out now and is spectacular! And further yep, Break_Atmo, the prices ARE better for new releases, and crazy-good for the classics. :)
Think the Nook Color (grr but it's a proper name so 'u'less ;) has an LCD screen Willowy rather than an actual e-ink one (which I guess may mean back to potential eye-strain issues for some as well as the other disadvantages of LCD vs e-ink - possible issues reading in sunlight for instance, power usage etc.).

First, it helps me keep my overwhelming and excessive book collection under control. Since I am unable to throw away any but the most appalling actual books, I have always had a problem living with the results in a remotely orderly fashion.

This is one of the major attractions for me too toast. Much as i'd love to never get rid of any book, recently it's just become impossible due to storage constraints (considered renting a lock-up but for a reasonable size it's just too expensive on an ongoing basis). Trying to convince myself to pare the pile down is something of a, err, work in progress though ;).

I should note that I'm from Australia... Maybe it's different in the US?

I'm in the UK myself Break_Atmo but your point may still stand. Of the many, many things we Brits like to moan about - or 'whinge' may be more appropriate here ;) - "rip-off Britain", the way we seem to pay over the odds for a lot of products compared to other countries, is probably in the top 20 or so (though it may just have been pushed out by "how much the royal bloody wedding cost us" ;).

"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is currently 3.88 on Amazon for the book and 3.49 for the e-book. The sequel, "The Girl who Played with Fire", is 4.49 for the book, 4.27 for the e-book (admittedly those prices don't include postage but both books are eligible for supersaver delivery so as long as you're willing/able to wait 3 or 4 days for them it'd be free anyway - clearly e-books win hands-down when it comes to delivery times BTW). Can't check that one about Bears cos the e-book seemingly isn't available on Amazon.co.uk (but the hardback's a tenner and change).

The first book of "A Game of Thrones" (which i'm considering buying so had open) is 5 on the nail for the book and 5.49 for the e-book (maybe because it's slightly older and so had to be transcribed ? I'd expect older books that may not have previously existed in any electronic form to be more expensive than the usual e-book price, at least initially, so they can recover the cost of creating it).

[ edited by Saje on 2011-05-13 14:05 ]
Also would like to add that for me, giving away my paper books was a lot of fun. I have a couple first editions of favorites that I'd never part with, but friends and (Nookless) co-workers were happy to take the rest of them, and I was gratified that they all went to good homes.

And Saje, I'm sure you're right about the screen, though you can easily increase or decrease the brightness levels, and I've found no power issues as it stayed charged for about 4 days of reading/surfing before I had to plug it in.
4 days is pretty decent I reckon (though it might seem low to people with previous e-reader experience since some of them can last weeks - one of the advantages of many e-papers is it doesn't take power to maintain the display, only to change it. Quite odd when you first see one in the shop, screen full of text and no visible supply of electricity).

Nooks're still pretty expensive over here (~250 though in fairness it seems more like a low-powered Android tablet computer, more flexible than e.g. a Kindle) but maybe if I saw one secondhand.
Sarah is just such a personality on screen and her response to the question was hilarious. I can't wait to see her on my screen each week again and...just as gorgeous as ever.
I'm not against Nooks or other E-readers but I never want technology to replace real books. I used to half-heartedly collect a first edition here or there (they are all gone now; sold when I had financial need). A Nook just can't give you that pride of ownership. I've also been painfully aware for awhile just what the human price of providing us with these tech toys is, via the marvelous Monologuist Mike Daisy (it's another subject, but still...):

Mike Daisey C-SPAN Interview
I have an old Sony Reader and love it. I use it almost exclusively when I travel though. I also read on my ipod touch quite a bit - borrowing books from the library. But if I'm reading at home, it is always a solid book.
However I agree with Willowy that if it is a good story, the medium disappears.
And yes, the Nook colour isn't a true e-reader in that it does not use e-ink. That also means, I believe, that it is harder to read in sunlight - as computer screens are.
I think a tool is a tool - throughout history when a better version, or a different kind, evolved, it supplanted the previous versions. Tools are great and better tools are better.

I like pens: fountain pens, antique pens, quills and so on - but that hasn't prevented me from using my computer most whole-heartedly and happily. As a older graphic artist, I made the switch quite easily from knives and rubilith and rule tape and press-type, etc. to computer design and layout. It made so many things so much easier.

And though I love letterpress, it's clear that it mostly exists now as a high-price indulgence, for fine art projects or the well-off, but otherwise obsolete, replaced in the main by digital imaging/typesetting, when printing is even required at all.

So insofar as a book is a tool, eReaders have quite obvious advantages over hard/real books. I'll use my versions of them - laptop and iPhone - when those advantages make their use preferable.

Now, I don't keep every book I buy, nor buy every book I read - I'm a fan of libraries... and purchased paperbacks often come into my place only to leave it a week or two later.

But many of the books I acquire - probably most - are not serving as merely a tool for delivering content; they are a major contributor to my aesthetic enjoyment of life. Reading them, and studying their design and shopping for them, and organizing them, are a significant aspect of my artistic, interior, and social lives, not at all satisfied by buying and reading digital books.

I became a graphic artist because of my love of book design, which began in chilhood, and I've been primarily a print artist in an increasingly digital field, so it may seem that I'm just digging in my heels and resisting the inevitable because of these changes in my profession.

I don't think that's what it is, though, that keeps me loving my books, and makes the digital book just something to add to my information delivery, instead of replacing the books that I own, in the same way that I replaced my overlays and border tape and waxer with Pagemaker and CorelDraw. ; >

It's more that books, and book-love, were so integrated into my life and selfhood from such an early age that giving them up would be like cutting out a little piece of my heart. Life does that enough to you on its own - I can't see helping it.
Aw, QG, I do still cherish books. I always will. And I was an early reader too, so I totally grok what you are saying.

I just LOVE this new format. Since my life has required EXTREME paring down this past year, it has allowed me to keep all my favorites, and have them at my fingertips. My kiddos and I have been living in one room in an extended-stay hotel since February, awaiting approval for a certain apartment which I'm pleased to say is finally imminent. I have no space, no room for books. My Nook made that all better. :)

Oh and Saje, the four days was pretty much constant use. Every moment I could sneak to use it, I did.

[ edited by Willowy on 2011-05-14 04:28 ]
Ahh, well, in that case, Willowy, I'd think an eReader would be a bloody marvelous thing. (And I do hope you get your apartment ASAP.)

It's funny, I once lost every book I'd collected for 33 years - which was about 40 boxes worth, and included my childhood books - when I moved to L.A. and someone I'd mistakenly trusted sold or dumped them all. I was surprisingly okay with it. Well, I survived it without harm.

I did start in collecting books again right away, and have since replaced many of them, and added... well, let's just say lots more. I suspect, though, that initial loss may have fueled my fierce attachment to my current collection.

Still and all, as much as I love them - I'd still be okay if I lost them again. There's far worse things that losing your books, and I'd still be grateful that I once got to have them.

We're all going to lose our book collections eventually, anyway... ; >
Ack, QG, truth-teller. Wow sorry for your book loss, that sounds... really bad on the 'people you trusted''s side. Glad you were able to replace many, hope ALL is the end result.

grumbles... still can't find 'Katy Did' for my daughter. No, not THAT one.

*feels umcomfortable with my post, like it just isn't...right. Didn't get my point across. :(

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home