Feb
29

RTW: Book of the Month, February 2012

Happy Leap Day, and welcome to this week’s Road Trip Wednesday! The question from YA Highway is: What was the best book you read in February?

I read some great books this month, but I have managed to select one favorite, and one shout-out. The book I have selected as my read of the month is NEVERWHERE by Neil Gaiman. After being told for some time now “you need to read some Neil Gaiman,” and especially after seeing his Doctor Who episode, “The Doctor’s Wife” (which was, IMO, the best episode of that season), I finally obtained a copy of NEVERWHERE and read it. There’s something about Gaiman’s style–I can’t quite put my finger on it–that connects with me. The way he phrases things reminds me of the way I might phrase something. I don’t mean to sound arrogant, as if I’m as good as him, or he’s somehow copying me–not at all! But it’s as if we’re on the same page stylistically. And that connection automatically draws me in. The story itself was also very well told. For those who don’t know, the novel is about a guy called Richard who moves from Scotland to London for work. He’s a bit put-upon, and dating a very domineering rich girl, but his compassion for others makes him very likeable. Indeed, it’s this compassion that gets him into trouble. When he rescues a seemingly homeless teenage girl, he finds himself drawn into a secret world that exists below his feet, where people talk to rats, the Angel Islington is an actual angel, not just a place, and he is now invisible to everyone above ground. The girl, Door, wants to find out who killed her parents, Richard wants his life back, and together they embark on a quest to obtain what they’re looking for. In the meantime a couple of cutthroat maniacs are determined to stop them. I highly recommend this book, really to anyone who enjoys good fiction, no matter what genre.

My shout-out is TORN by Erica O’Rourke. This is the first in a series of three: the second, TANGLED, came out about a month ago, and the third, BOUND is due out in the summer. TORN begins the story of Mo Fitzgerald whose happy, relatively-uncomplicated life is shaken when she is witness to her best friend’s murder. This event begins a series of revelations for Mo, showing that nothing was ever quite what it seemed, from her father’s imprisonment, her Uncle Billy’s associations with Chicago’s mob world, to the real reason her best friend died. As she learns more about Verity, and the magical power that runs in her family, Mo finds out she is connected to her in a way she never anticipated, and the magical people that inhabit Verity’s world need her to help prevent a disaster that could destroy them all. I enjoyed reading the novel, and there are things Erica did that I found instructive. For example, especially in the earlier part of the story, she fleshes out some back story by inserting italicized flash-backs–not randomly, but as illustrative of something Mo is saying (it’s a first-person narrative). The way these flash-backs are written and integrated didn’t feel like an intrusion into the story, just a continuation of the flow of Mo’s thought. I also liked the fact that Mo is not magical. This is not a Harry Potter-style “you’re a wizard, Mo!” kind of story. Mo is a “normal” person, and remains so. And while she forms attachments to the magical world, there’s no doubt that she’s an outsider. I liked this because it was contrary to what I expected. There are romantic scenes in the story which, just as a personal thing, I’m not really big on. I don’t mind romance, but I don’t need to know details (taste of lips and breath, etc.). Again, not a strike against the story, it’ s just not something I look for. Nevertheless, I recommend TORN, and plan to pick up TANGLED sometime soon-ish (the pile of books on my desk isn’t abating!).

What was your favorite February read? Join the in RTW fun either in the comments, or by blogging your answer and linking to your blog in the comments at YA Highway.

Feb
28

Sunday School Notes: Romans 7:7-12

7 What shall we say, then? The Law [is] sin? Certainly not! Indeed, I would not know sin except through the Law. For I would not have known coveting except the Law said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me every [kind of] coveting; for apart from the Law, sin [is] dead. 9 Now, I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, 10 and I died, and this commandment [which was] unto life was found in me [to be] unto death. 11 For sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and, through it, killed [me]. 12 So, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

This section begins with one of Paul’s now-famous rhetorical questions. And like the others, this one follows naturally from the prior discussion–it’s what we might expect people to be saying in response to what Paul has just said about the Law. If the Law arouses our sinful passions, and the Law is something we need to die to and be free from, then surely the Law must be something bad. We have noted in previous weeks that the word for Law, nomos, doesn’t tell us whether Paul means law generally, or the Mosaic Law (the Ten Commandments, etc.) particularly. This is something we need to determine from the context. I have said before that I think often we can assume general-law, but Paul clearly has Mosaic Law in the back of his mind to a greater or lesser extent. Given the citation of the tenth commandment in verse 7, I think the Mosaic Law is  much more in view here. This means his comments are aimed more to the Jewish believers, but the gentiles (who, as Christians, would not have been unaware of the Law) are not exempt.

Paul’s response is with the familiar mê genoito–”certainly not!” This is a very emphatic “no!” He then goes on to credit the Law with his ability to know sin. What does he mean here? Did he not know what sin was until the Law told him? Doesn’t this contradict what he discusses in Romans 1 and 2? We think Paul is referring here to a depth of knowledge. He certainly did wrong, and probably knew that it was wrong, prior to being told the Ten Commandments. However, up until that time, he neither knew what the sin was, nor that it was a violation of God’s Law. He coveted, but he didn’t know that it was coveting, and that it was God who condemned it, until he was given that commandment.

Some commentators suggest that Paul had a particular issue with coveting, or, perhaps lust (the Greek is epithumia, which we’ve seen used before in the context of “passion” or “desire”), which is why he picked this particular commandment as an example. However, there is precedent in Jewish literature for quoting the tenth commandment as a short-hand for all ten of the commandments, so it is possible he is using this commandment to refer to all of them. Commentators are also divided over who Paul is actually referring to in this passage when he says “I.” Is this Paul himself, speaking autobiographically? Or is he referring to himself as a representative of Israel? Or is he referring to himself as a representative of Adam, or mankind as a whole? One can argue for or against any of these possibilities using verses in this section, so it’s possible that it’s more a question of emphasis. Certainly, Paul speaks from personal experience, but his experience is one that at some points relates particularly to the Jewish people, and at others to mankind as a whole.

Returning to the text, Paul goes on in verse 8 to say that for sin to be alive in this way, it needs the Law, such that without the Law, sin is dead. Once the Law is revealed, sin can take the opportunity to use the Law as a means of invoking sinful activity. As we discussed last week, the sinful heart presented with the command of God does not desire to obey–in fact, often the opposite reaction happens. When told that God says “Don’t covet,” the sinful heart wants to covet, if only to “thumb the nose” at God.

In what way was Paul “alive apart from the Law”? This may be a reference to the Garden of Eden, and Paul is here using “I” in the sense of “I, as a representative of Adam and mankind.” Prior to God telling Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit, there was life in the Garden. Once that command came, sin, in the form of the serpent, used the command as an opportunity to bring sin into Adam’s (and Eve’s) heart by seducing them to disobey. Thus, the commandment which was to bring life in fact brought death. It might not be sufficient, though, to see this simply in terms of the Garden of Eden. When the Rich Young Ruler encountered Jesus, he thought he was living life to its fullest, even though he felt something lacking spiritually. When Jesus brought the command to sell his possessions and follow him, the depth of his sin was revealed: he loved money more than obedience to Christ’s command. Is this not something we find paralleled in our own lives? We think we have it all together until God’s righteousness reveals our sin.

Verse 11 seems to be another reference to Eden: though Paul was “alive,” he died because sin took the opportunity, through the commandment, to deceive and kill him. The serpent twisted God’s command in order to provoke Adam and Eve to sin, and that sin brought about spiritual death. There was certainly deception involved, but that is the way of sin. As Paul says in verse 12, God’s commands, the Law, is good, righteous, and holy. It is sinfulness in the hearts of men that twist the Law and use it to lead them into sin.

I offered a caution about Paul’s use of terms like “life,” “death,” and “kill” here. There is the temptation to be over-analytical about Paul’s use of such terms. Sometimes it’s warranted, such as when he uses “baptism” in chapter 6, or speaks of marriage in verse 7. There’s something about baptism and marriage that means something in Paul’s mind for him to use that language. However, Paul’s overarching theme is freedom from the bondage of sin and death, and being united to Christ–a change of allegiances. So when he speaks of life and death, he is probably speaking somewhat poetically (though dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ are certainly spiritual realities in the life of the believer). Paul is not above using poetic language (wait till we get to the end of chapter 8!), so it’s well to bear in mind that Paul is using vivid language to communicate deep spiritual truth.

As usual, I invite those that were at the study on Sunday to add or elaborate on my notes in the comments. And anyone is welcome to ask questions or offer thoughts and insights.

Feb
27

Some Monday Stuff

This picture isn't really relevant to the article--I just liked it.

A Monday post? Yeah… I’m re-thinking the blog schedule again. Not in a major way, but I know a lot of people are doing this at the moment–balancing blogging with the rest of one’s life. For my part, I’m looking at stats, and trying to discern reader habits. When do people seem to visit my blog? I know some read whenever I post something new, and some check periodically during the week. I also use my own blog-reading habits as a guide. In short, I don’t want my blogging to be a burden to my readers, and want each blog to be useful–fun, informative, insightful–not just the day’s obligation (for me or for you). I have ideas, and I’ll let you know when those ideas translate into changes.

Janet Reid posted the results of the INSURGENT ARC contest last night. No, I didn’t win, but the entries were so good you really should read them if you haven’t already. I can’t tell you how beneficial an exercise contests like this are in “remove useless words.” For someone like me who tends toward verbal diarrhea verbosity, being given these sort of parameters really helps me tighten my writing. So, win or lose, it’s worth it. Keep an eye on Janet’s blog for the next contest, and give it a go! This time around, I want to give a special shout out to my blog friends (at least the ones I noticed) who entered: Mrs S. (who was a semi-finalist–woohoo!), Elodie, Emma Maree, Isabel Bandeira, my wife, and my FirstBorn. You all entered a tough field, and–at least in my opinion–you can hold your heads high: your entries were great! Well done.

Lastly, if you’re looking for an agent and not following Agent Vickie Motter’s blog, you should check it out. Last month she blogged on the subject of querying. This month she has been posting on “requests,” i.e., the various aspects of responding to an agent’s request for a partial, or a full (notes, formatting, nudging, etc.). The articles are not overly long, and are very informative.

Have a great Monday!

Feb
26

Sunday Devotional: Philippians 2:14

14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings

Today’s devotional is brought to you by John Calvin, from his commentary on Philippians.

14 Without murmurings. These are fruits of that humility to which he [Paul] had exhorted them. For every man that has learned carefully to submit himself to God, without claiming anything for himself, will also conduct himself agreeably among men.

When every one makes it his care to please himself, two faults prevail: First, they calumniate one another [i.e., they make malicious or false statements about one another]; and secondly, they strive against one another in contentions. In the first place, accordingly, he forbids malignity and secret enmities; and then, secondly, open contentions. He adds, thirdly, that they give no occasion to others to complain of them — a thing which is wont to arise from excessive moroseness. It is true that hatred is not in all cases to be dreaded; but care must be taken, that we do not make ourselves odious through our own fault, so that the saying should be fulfilled in us, They hated me without a cause. (Psalm 35:19.) If, however, any one wishes to extend it farther, I do not object to it. For murmurings and disputations spring up, whenever any one, aiming beyond measure at his own advantage,  gives to others occasion of complaint. Nay, even this expression may be taken in an active sense, so as to mean — not troublesome or querulous. And this signification will not accord ill with the context, for a querulous temper (Greek: mempsimoiria) is the seed of almost all quarrels and slanderings. He adds sincere, because these pollutions will never come forth from minds that have been purified.

 

Feb
24

Friday Fives: The Billboard Hot… Five!

Last week we took a journey back in time to see what songs held the top five positions in the UK singles chart 40, 30, 20, and 10 years ago. This week, I’m shining the spotlight on the US Billboard Hot 100 singles chart: what songs were sitting on top of the US charts all those years ago? I’m also adding 50 years ago, to make this a 5×5 (the top five for the past five decades). So here they are–with YouTube links, of course.

Happy Friday!

February 18-24, 1962

  1. Duke of Earl: Gene Chandler
  2. The Wanderer: Dion
  3. Norman: Sue Thompson
  4. The Twist: Chubby Checker
  5. Hey Baby: Bruce Channel

February 20-26, 1972

  1. Without You: Nilsson
  2. Hurting Each Other: The Carpenters
  3. Precious and Few: Climax
  4. Let’s Stay Together: Al Green
  5. Down by the Lazy River: The Osmonds

February 21-27, 1982

  1. Centerfold: The J. Geils Band
  2. Open Arms: Journey
  3. I Can’t Go for That (No Can Do): Daryl Hall & John Oates
  4. Shake It Up: The Cars
  5. That Girl: Stevie Wonder

February 23-29, 1992

  1. To Be with You: Mr. Big
  2. I’m Too Sexy: Right Said Fred
  3. I Love Your Smile: Shanice
  4. Remember the Time: Michael Jackson
  5. Diamonds and Pearls: Prince & the N.P.G.

February 24-March 2, 2002

  1. Always on Time: Ja Rule featuring Ashanti
  2. How You Remind Me: Nickelback
  3. Ain’t It Funny: Jennifer Lopez featuring Ja Rule
  4. In the End: Linkin Park
  5. Hey Baby: No Doubt featuring Bounty Killer

 

Feb
23

Win an ARC of INSURGENT!!

Since there was a Road Trip Wednesday yesterday, I wasn’t going to post an article today… but I had to let you know about this giveaway at Literary Agent Extraordinaire Janet “Query Shark” Reid’s blog. Regulars to my blog will know that Janet likes to run these writing competitions. Much to my humble amazement, I’ve managed to win one of them, and I’ve been a runner up in a couple. There’s something about these contests that brings out the best in us, because many of the entries are of the highest quality–hence my humble amazement that I’ve managed to do as well as I have.

Anyway, Janet, through her sharkley machinations, has obtained an Advance Reader Copy of Veronica Roth’s INSURGENT, the much-anticipated sequel to DIVERGENT–the book I chose as 2011 Book of the Year. She has apparently read it and is now offering her copy to the winner of the contest.

You can read the contest rules at her site. The contest opens at noon tomorrow. And yes, I’ll be participating. “But,” you might ask, “aren’t you reducing your chances of winning by advertising it?” Since this is a judged contest (i.e., the winner isn’t picked at random), it doesn’t matter how many enter since the winner will be the one Janet likes best. Although, it is true that the more people that enter, the more likely you are to get a ton of high-quality entries (as has been the case in past contests). But what can I say? I’m a nice guy, and I want to be sure you all have the opportunity to win too. It’s not as if I won’t be buying the book in May anyway. Heck, even if I win, I’ll still probably buy the hardcover edition in May.

Anyway, head over to Janet’s blog, read the rules, and put your best writing foot forward. And all the best to you! :)

Feb
22

RTW: For Black History Month…

Today’s Road Trip Wedensday at YA Highway is in celebration of Black History month (which is this month, if you didn’t know). This week’s questions is: “Who is your favorite African American author or fictional character?”

Honestly, I wish I had a week to prepare for this. Not that I don’t read novels with black characters, but often an author will describe a character as having dark skin and dark hair, which could just as easily describe someone of Middle Eastern or Indian descent as it could someone of African American origin. (Is this naïve of me? Should I just assume “dark skin and dark hair” means “black”?) Given more time, I could go back and re-read some of the character descriptions to get a better idea of their ethnicity. But for the sake of responding today, I’m going to cheat a little–just a little–and present a character from my current read: Hunter from Neil Gaiman’s NEVERWHERE. She’s a tough warrior, guardian to the Lady Door, and while she may end up dead, a traitor, or somehow not as good as she appears right now, at the moment I’m enjoying the way she contrasts the other characters in the story, and gives glimpses of depth to the tough exterior. As I said, I’m still reading this book, so my opinion may change by the time I get to the end. I’m sure there are dozens of other characters I could have chosen, but for now, off the top of my head, Hunter’s my pick.

Who would be your pick of African American writers or characters? Comment below, or join the fun at YA Highway by blogging your answer and then linking in the YA Highway article comments!

Feb
21

Pancake Day!

OK, so maybe you were expecting an article from me about Shrove Tuesday, a day of repentance prior to Lent. I have nothing against days of repentance, or even those who choose to observe a Lenten fast. Christians of the Reformed persuasion (as I am) generally don’t go in for those kinds of observances–it all goes back to the Reformation, and I’m sure you don’t want me to lecture you on church history.*

However, when I was growing up, the Tuesday prior to Lent was always “pancake day.” Every year on Shrove Tuesday, my mum (and I believe, on occasion, my dad) would make pancakes for us. Some of you may not be aware that British (or at least English**) pancakes are not the same as American pancakes. American pancakes are about the size of a hamburger and thick, whereas English pancakes are large and flat–a bit like a crêpe. Here are some pictorial examples:

American pancakes with maple syrup “drizzled” over them.

English pancakes rolled up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you’ve never had an English-style pancake, they’re very easy and very quick to make. All you need is some flour, some milk, a couple of eggs, and perhaps some butter (not everyone uses butter in their pancake recipe). You can then spread your favourite filling in the middle before rolling. The following recipe makes about 8 pancakes.

Put a cup of flour into a mixing bowl, then make a well in the middle of the flour. Crack two eggs into the well and beat the eggs and flour together. When you have these mixed to a smooth consistency, start adding about a cup and a quarter of milk–mixing it in gradually to help maintain a smooth, lump-free mixture. If you want, you can add 2 teaspoons of melted butter to the mix when you’ve added about half the milk. But you don’t have to.

You then want to let the pancake batter sit–some people say 15 mins is good enough, though some like to refrigerate the mixture for an hour. I think the last time I made pancakes I refrigerated the mixture for an hour. Does it make any difference? I don’t honestly know–I’m not Bobby Flay, I just follow a recipe!

When your batter is ready to use, put a little oil or butter in a medium pan and heat on high. Once the pan is hot, turn the heat down to medium, then ladle enough batter to lightly coat the bottom of the pan (note the thickness of the pancakes in the picture above on the right). It should take about a minute to cook, at which point you flip the pancake (or turn with a spatula if you’re not that adventurous) and cook the other side for about 30 seconds. As you can see from the picture, the pancakes should be a nice golden brown colour. Put the pancake on a plate and repeat, stacking the pancakes as you go until you run out of batter.

The traditional filling for pancakes is sugar and lemon. Take one of your pancakes on a plate, lightly sprinkle sugar over it, then squeeze some lemon juice on it. Then roll the pancake and eat! Other popular fillings are jam (strawberry jam is really tasty on a pancake), and honey. I’ve not tried chocolate spread on a pancake, but I bet that would be tasty. Mmm… Nutella!

Anyway, I hope you have a fun day. And if you try the pancakes, I wish you every success and good eating! :)

* Just to clarify, I believe times of fasting and repentance are good and, especially the latter, should be practiced often. What I have in mind here, though, are church calendar observances (Shrove Tuesday, Lent, etc.).

** I believe Scottish pancakes are more like American pancakes, only smaller. Perhaps one of my Scottish friends *cough* Emma Maree *cough* could confirm this?

Feb
21

Sunday School Notes: Romans 7:4-6

4 Therefore, my brethren, you have also been put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may be with another, the one raised from the dead, so that we may bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, those through the law, were at work in our limbs, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, having died [to that] by which we were restrained, so that we serve in newness of life, and not in oldness of letter.

My translation of the passage is fairly literal, so feel free to compare with your favorite version. Hopefully the notes from this past Sunday will help to explain some of the odd wording.

As I anticipated last week, this week we spent time discussing exactly where Paul is coming from here with regard to “the law.” Which law does he mean: “law” in general, or the Mosaic Law? And he seems to be equating “law” with death and sin, and yet in the next section he will be telling us that “the law” is good. How are we to understand Paul’s attitude to “the law” here? And what does this all mean for us? As I’ve mentioned more than once, what follows are just some brief notes on the class discussion, and can no way fully represent all that we talked about. Please use the comments to ask questions, make points, and further the conversation–especially if you were in class and feel that I’ve either misrepresented what was said, or I’ve left out something important.

Just as the death of one’s spouse frees a person legally from the bonds of marriage so they can remarry, so being dead to the law through Christ’s atoning sacrifice frees us from bondage to sin and the law, and enables us to be united with Christ. This then enables us to do works that are pleasing to God, and bear the fruit of sanctification in our lives.

While it’s possible that “law” here may be general, it seems to me the Mosaic Law is at least in the back of Paul’s mind (especially given that he quotes the tenth commandment in the next passage). But if the Law was given by God, why would there be the need to be “put to death” to it? And how could it incite or arouse our sinful passions if it is good and holy? And if the Law is of God, why would we need to be free from it?

The Law was never intended to actually save anyone; it was not inadequate to save–salvation was not the goal. The Law shows God’s righteous standard. Obedience to the Law was indeed the mark of someone who loved God (for example, David extols the Law and God’s commandments in Psalm 119), but even in Old Testament times, salvation came through faith in the promised deliver (a topic we have touched on in Romans 4). The mistake of the Jewish Christians was to imagine that the Law, and keeping the Law, in any way made them more pleasing or acceptable to God than their gentile brethren. They could never keep the Law well enough to please God outside of Christ. This has been Paul’s message to them for much of the letter so far.

The effect of the Law on unbelievers, says Paul, is to work or arouse in their limbs, or the members of their bodies, their sinful desires. The result of this is to bear fruit “for death.” How can God’s Law produce sin, especially if it’s from God? One way might be by the fact that prior to the giving of the Law, people would sin, and they might even know that they had sinned, but they may not necessarily understand against whom they had sinned. When God gave the Law, not only did He make known what sin is, but He made it clear that all sin is an affront to His holiness. Not only is mankind without excuse, but now no-one can say “I didn’t know I was sinning against God.”

Further, the fact that the commandments are from God, and that the sin is an offense to God, causes the unbelieving heart to want to sin all the more. This is like telling a child not to do something–the child’s natural reaction is to want to do that very thing. Many times we have heard atheists and others express a desire to “thumb the nose” at God by doing things they know are contrary to what He has commanded in Scripture. In this way, the Law provokes the sinful heart to rebel against God, leading to the bearing of “fruit” for death. The Law is not to blame for the sin; rather it is the rebel heart’s reaction to God’s Law that brings about sin.

Paul says that we have now been released from the law by the fact that we have died to that which restrained (or “bound”) us. We were once captive to the law (or Law), feeling the obligation of the Law’s commands, but unable and unwilling to obey–and under the penalty of the law for that inability and unwillingness. But in Christ we are free from that obligation. Not that we don’t want to obey God’s commands, but now we have willing hearts enabled by the Spirit. We are now new creations in Christ. Where once sin was in accordance with our nature, now we have new natures, such  that when we sin, it is contrary to the “new man.”

Does the believer know he or she has sinned immediately? Is there always instant repentance? We don’t think there is always immediate repentance. And sometimes the Lord seems slow to prod our hearts about sin we don’t recognize. What we can be sure of is that the Lord will chastise His people. He won’t leave us unaware of sin, and in His time He will draw us to awareness and repentance.

So, once again we rejoice in the freedom from sin and the Law we have in Christ. This is not freedom to sin, however, but freedom to truly live for the Lord, to obey His commands, and to please Him with our lives. When we fall into sin, we know He will not leave us in sin but will convict us and lead us back.

Feb
20

On Sixties Music and E-books

Remember the sixties? No? Neither do I! Believe it or not, the sixties was before my time (just), but there was a lot of really good music that came out of that era, both in the UK and the US. Back in the early sixties, recording studios were fairly basic. Bands would record to two, perhaps four tracks, and effects would be limited to reverb and not much else. Essentially, what you heard on the record was not much different to what you’d get in a live performance. Check out this clip of The Beatles singing “She Loves You” in 1963 (look–no autotune!):

You may or may not like the song, but that performance showcases the song itself. There’s no fancy production work, no lush overdubs and autotuning. What you hear there is pretty much what you heard on the studio recording. Aside from The Fab Four shaking their heads and looking awesome (I’m a Beatle fan, sorry!), there’s nothing else to distract you from the song.

These days, and really for the last thirty years, the record producer has almost become one of the band in most studios. The work he or she puts into the sound of the recording is almost as important to the overall sound and appeal of the music as the song itself. Have you ever heard a song on the radio (or on your mp3 player), and then heard it live and thought “wow–that’s almost like a different song!”? The only difference is the lack of production and studio wizardry in the live setting. And often its the stripping away of all that production that reveals how good a song really is on its own.

Similarly, as much as I like real, physical books, I too can be distracted by the new book smell, the beautiful cover design, the fonts, or even just the weight and feel of the book itself. And sometimes we can pre-judge a book on those criteria, not on how good the actual story is. Maybe the physical book is like that carefully crafted, studio mixed song, where the song itself is hidden under layers of production, and the e-book is like the live performance. Sure, you get a digital representation of the cover art, and perhaps even some replication of the original font used. But you lose the feel of the book, the smell of the fresh pages, and all those other things that delight the bibliophile, but really aren’t part of the story. Perhaps, in this sense, e-books actually bring us closer to the text.

Don’t get me wrong–I love books. I have a lot of them, and will always prefer physical books. But I throw these thoughts out there to suggest that there’s something about the rawness of the e-book, that factor that makes us paper-and-ink fans uncomfortable, that forces us to the story more immediately than the physical novel.

What do you think? Especially those who have been reading e-books for a while, do you find it easier, harder, better, or no different than reading regular books?

Go back to top