It's that time of the month again: another controversial bookish topic post. This is a similar topic to the "controversy" of audiobooks (which hasn't been an argument/controversy as much recently). However, this specific "controversy" is still rearing its head in the bookish community from time to time.
This specific argument focuses on physical books specifically, which is insane. You may hear one person saying "Paperback books are better than hardback books." On the other hand, you may hear the reverse: "Hardback books are better than paperback books."
As I think I've made clear at this point in my blog, I think arguments like "Book Format X is better than Book Format Y" are stupid arguments. Why? Arguments like this are based on personal preference, personal opinion, and personal convenience. As a result of preference, opinion, and convenience, there are no "right" or "wrong" answers or approaches when it comes to what book format to read.
My personal preference is physical books, and more specifically, paperbacks. My reasoning is that paperbacks tend to be lighter in weight, making it easier to read in bed and have on my person in multiple other situations. However, that doesn't make physical paperback books the easiest, most convenient for other people.
It may be more convenient for Person A to have ebooks since they have the Kindle app on all of their devices, On the other hand, Person B may find it more convenient to have mostly audiobooks since they don't have enough time to sit down with a physical book or an ebook.
I may have said this before, but I'll say it again. Just because you prefer Book Format X over Book Format Y due to your own convenience doesn't mean that it's the same situation for someone else. Someone else may prefer Book Format Y due to their own situation. So please be sensitive to another person's situation and circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment