Slashdot Mirror
Kindle E-Book Sales Surpass Print Sales In UK
twoheadedboy writes "Book lovers are increasingly turning to e-books, and in the UK Amazon has announced it now sells more e-books than physical copies on Amazon.co.uk. Kindle books surpassed sales of hardbacks in the UK back in May 2011 at a rate of two to one and now they have leapfrogged the combined totals of both hardbacks and paperbacks."
Now an ebook.
So does the kindle support ePub yet ...?
(or non-latin scripts?)
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Another vindication for technological progress, and another steely blow to the right of first sale.
Yes, they "conveniently" ignore a market that has not traceable sales.
The majority of the people in the UK are illiterate
[Citation needed]
Seriously that's quite a claim and needs a bit of backing up. UK folk aren't all dribbling TV-addicts whose idea of literature is The Sun "newspaper".
For my own part, I'm a reader with a voracious appetite for new material. My shelves are always overflowing with books, to the point where it is unmanageable - therefore I have decided to buy a tablet PC, put the Kindle app on it, and buy my books in that way. I can have thousands of books stored on the device if needs be. I'll keep some of my more cherished paper copies, but the vast bulk will be going to the local charity shops.
are just chicks buying lady-porn i.e. romance novels
Seriously that's quite a claim and needs a bit of backing up. UK folk aren't all dribbling TV-addicts whose idea of literature is The Sun "newspaper".
Given the circulation figures of The Sun, I think you're not doing a great job of disproving the grandparent's assertion.
For my own part, I'm a reader with a voracious appetite for new material.
If you put down your book for a minute and go and wander around for a bit then you might discover that you are not part of the majority.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Every kindle owner has dozens of free ebooks of classics downloaded from Amazon. On my own kindle right now, I have 41 free ebooks (downloaded form amazon like this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wuthering-Heights-ebook/dp/B004UJAOLM/ref=sr_1_10?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1344332042&sr=1-10) and 4 bona fide paid-for ebooks.
Stats inflation much?
Thank you - you nailed my point.
I don't think so, you could however use calibre to convert it and then get a friend to read the long words for you
I am quite thankful for e-readers as they have allowed me to read more books in a more convenient format by solving problems I was experiencing with paper books, namely: storage (I own too many books and carry too many books while traveling) and font size (I have an eagle nose, not eagle eyes).
For all the problems (DRM, bad typesetting) and the perception of (IMO hyperbolic) problems with e-books (oh, Amazon will know which page I am reading -- as if there was not a direct way to turn that off AND as if you couldn't just always have your Kindle with Wifi/Radio turned off), e-books are winning. Much in the same way that digital music won. There are just too many advantages.
The Kindle (or any other e-reader I've seen) can still use loads of improvements in typesetting quality, but just the fact that I can adjust font size and type are real deal breakers for me. Instant dictionary look-up is a God send for those reading in foreign languages, but it can also be improved, dictionary setting should also work per-book, so that I don't need to switch back and forth between language dictionaries all the time. It would also be nice if a new Kindle also did PDF reflow, but I doubt it, Amazon is likely to continue giving it its half-baked support that is just good enough to avoid users from going elsewhere.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html
How's the grading curve work these days though, surely only 30% SHOULD be getting A-C's?
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Do these include sales using fictional credit card numbers added for account takeover purposes?
Sure, more e-books are bought, but how many of those are read? Perhaps people are just buying e-books because they are easy to buy, and never get around to reading their purchases.
It's a fine example of where socialism breeds it's own suicide by providing for everyone regardless of the effort they make.
Why is that socialism? The U.S., which cannot be accused of being too socialist, has the same problem, while the pretty socialist Finland does not. Don't blame every social failure on Socialism, it's just a cheap excuse not to do anything about it!
You're confusing statistical ranking (the government's policy) with fair grading.
Everyone should be getting a fair education and A-C grades.
Are you stupid?
The current problems with education are the result of a National "one size fits all" Curriculum, a Tory measure, plus the privatisation of exam boards so there is a standards race to the bottom to maximise the number of students taking your papers. Also a Tory measure.
People whine about measures of 40+ years ago like the combining of comprehensives and grammar schools, forgetting that deciding people's future at the age of 11 was an absurd idea, and that all good schools put people into sets by subject according to ability (though, again, the NC and its offspring make this much more difficult than it should be).
And I say this as someone who went to a top fee-paying private school, having won a continuation and regular scholarship before my 13th birthday.
Of course, we could go back to pre-"socialism" literacy levels, back in the day when only the sons of rich parents or the wards of generous sponsors even had a full education... indeed, it probably wouldn't matter for people like me, as I naturally shine. But it would matter for people like you, because you don't seem very smart. Now shine my shoes.
There's something really sad about this. I hope they keep making books, and while I know deep down that they probably will, this scares me.
Seriously that's quite a claim and needs a bit of backing up. UK folk aren't all dribbling TV-addicts whose idea of literature is The Sun "newspaper".
They're probably not illiterate, but that doesn't stop them from electing morally repugnant politicians and falling for "save the children in exchange for your freedoms" pleas. Same situation in almost every country. Being literate is an improvement over being illiterate, but intelligent they are not...
having a Kindle touch, Kindle Fire, and even an iPad 2, I find myself reading almost all new books on the Kindle Touch. For two reasons, its so damn light and second because I can use it in full sun light.
For me nothing beats being able to read outside without having to worry about glare and portability. While I am still a fan of hard cover books, having shelves of them, I am more than happy to own an e-reader version of them. Too bad publishers don't help the trend and follow a similar model DVD publishers do, where you can get a digital version without your hard copy.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
More than 50% should be getting C or above, as the GCSE grades go from A*, A, B, C, D, E and Fail - C and above is slightly more than half on the range.
I got a C at GCSE English, despite the fact that I read five or more books a week, wrote novella length stories, had excellent typing skills, perfect writing technique and had read all of Shakespeare (out of choice) by the time I was 13. Why didn't I excell at English? Because it had fuck all to do with "English" and a heck of a lot of more to do with "English Lit".
Unless the curriculum has changed a *lot*, it's all about reading "Of Mice and Men" (a book that I read in a couple hours, several times over) and then spending 6 fucking months dissecting it to find ridiculous hidden meanings and literary bollocks. I used to get into serious trouble during English because the class had to read it "together" a chapter at a time - which bored the fuck it of me because I could finish the chapter in a tenth of the time of everyone else and picked up the book I was reading for enjoyment. At the end of the day, Of Mice and Men is a shallow story that I wouldn't ever read out of personal choice.
GCSE grades don't show everything.
What am I reading today? "The Age We Live In - A History Of The 19th Century, in 7 Divisions", published in 1883 covering the period of 1813 to 1883. Fantastic social and political insight into the period by the people that lived there. C at English? Sod that.
"I am a "prolific" reader as well, but I don't think having thousands of texts at hand is necessary, especially when they are DRM encumbered. I read a book and give it to someone, then they read it and give it to someone. This cycle continues. Usually I get given a book and either read it or pass it on."
I do that too. I have 40,000 books in my Calibre library, DRM removed if applicable and I share them with thousands of leechers.
I consider it a service to the literacy of the planet.
Was about to buy a kindle book on Amazon when I realised that the kindle version was more expensive than the paper version! And it was not only for this particular book, but almost all the book are more expensive in Kindle version. This is insane! At least with a real book, I can give it to one of my friend and share it indefinitively. When they will come to more reasonable term I may resume to buy eBook but for the time being I'm not going to be their milk cow :)
Bullshit. The actual story is Kindle E-Book Sales Surpass Print Sales ON AMAZON In UK.
Huge difference.
No you've got the wrong end of the stick. I myself went through the crappiest ranked school in Hertfordshire in the 1980s and 1990s and am currently dragging my three children through one of the crappiest schools in London. I did VERY well and achieved A/B passes in everything at GCSE and A level. My children are doing well.
There is literally NOTHING AT ALL wrong with the curriculum then or now. It's broad, but extremely relevant to life in the UK and always was.
There are two problems: apathy and ranking.
The first problem - socialism has bred people who don't care and expect a lot for nothing. Most of these individuals just do not have a place in society as they have precisely no skills worth using. This is not due to education but apathy towards it. They don't give a shit about it either as they always have the state to fall back on. I experience these people daily and have done for 20 years. Having 8 children is their career path these days where they get given a £450k house to put them in.
The ranking system. People are ranked in order statistically and prevented from progressing up the ranks. You have to be the best or you don't have a chance.
It's fucked up. People need to get some realisation that if they don't or can't help themselves (bar any exceptional circumstances such as disabilities), that they should probably die hungry like the do in a lot of countries. The opportunities are ALWAYS there - they just choose the safety net every time.
My wife has hundreds of classics which she downloaded but has not read. I have downloaded some things on a "free for today" offer, read a page and then just discarded them. I wonder if these are included in the ebook sales. TFA doesn't not say.
But sharing is communism! ;-)
Yes I've bought some books - mainly when they are "deal of the day" fodder or in the 99p or less price bracket. The rest are the "free" selection; classics or trashy sci-fi, thrillers and crime novels. My position on kindle books is only to buy when they are interesting and at charity shop levels.
On the other hand, I've bought a number of hard-back novels from Amazon in the same time period, because they're cheaper and more readily available than from local bookshops, either independent or a chain. Each time, the Kindle price for the book has been a pound or less lower than the hardback price with delivery.
£7 or more for a kindle book is a great disincentive to buy.
The tech ignorant masses still don't understand the freedoms they are giving up with ebooks. This is a serious problem. Also it is the beginning of a dark period for future archaeologists.
Here in the USA you would have received an A++
Yes our grading system is that badly skewed, we don't want to make the morons feel bad so we give everyone A's and B's... I had classmates in CS classes that should have been ejected. They were in CS 112 and still did not know CS 102 concepts, the prof had to stop and teach remedial computing over and over.
and the funny part, in reality when you leave school, your GPA means nothing to anyone that matters. Your boss will not care if you got A's, all they care about is that you have that degree they can check off a list.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I myself went through the crappiest ranked school in Hertfordshire in the 1980s and 1990s and am currently dragging my three children through one of the crappiest schools in London.
So, having had this bad experience, you decided to give your children exactly the same experience. What is wrong with you? Before giving birth, did you think about any of 1) how your location would affect which schools are available to you; 2) saving up for private school; 3) private tuition; 4) opportunity for private scholarships?
There is literally NOTHING AT ALL wrong with the curriculum then or now.
Yes there is. Perhaps, because you went to a shit school then sent your kids to a shit school, you don't know what it's like to enjoy the freedom of a private school which can ignore what the government tells it to teach. It's wonderful.
The first problem - socialism has bred people who don't care and expect a lot for nothing.
Bullshit. Socialism is tougher for the smart than capitalism - you have to work not only for yourself but for your whole country. You may be making some Marxist argument about the scourge of the lumpenproletariat, but the belief in the existence of a useless underclass has thankfully been eliminated since it was taken to its logical conclusion in mid-C20. (Now the people who actually had to live through that are dying off, I guess it's making a fringe resurgence. Bollocks.)
The ranking system. People are ranked in order statistically and prevented from progressing up the ranks. You have to be the best or you don't have a chance.
This is true. It is what happens when you put management consultants and private "metrics" testing providers into the simple process of determining whether someone is good enough for a job / should be given an education. The left have been continually opposed to that sort of testing because it reinforces the class divide.
People need to get some realisation that if they don't or can't help themselves (bar any exceptional circumstances such as disabilities), that they should probably die hungry like the do in a lot of countries.
Like when you decided that your education was awful, but ended up setting up the same bad education for your children. But I guess if they follow your example of "A/B passes" from a shitty school then they'll be OK. So, when we follow your philosophy, your own kids won't end up having to "die hungry".
Any time someone says something fascist like "the inferior [by some always stupid definition] should die", they don't seem to realise that the downtrodden won't just say "hurr ok i'll die then". Even if you throw aside all the philosophical and humanitarian arguments, there's the simple fact that people don't want to die - if you ask them to, you will have civil unrest on your hands. And you know who are the first to lose out? Not these guys, because they already had nothing to lose. Not the people at the top, because they're always protected. But people like you - the Alf Garnetts, the useless idiots.
So, for your children's sake if not yours, please think about what you're saying.
For us Of Mice and Men was summer reading and amounted to a single test at the beginning of the yeat. Our English classes were roughly 25% literature and 75% research papers. I was an A/B student when I bothered to do the work but damn when I got into college knowing how to write a good persuasive essay and cite sources gave me a huge advantage. Our school district had an awful history program (good luck finding a US public school that doesn't), but I am quite happy with our English program.
Your intellectual superiority and private school background obviously doesn't stretch to literacy as you miss the clearly defined point.
I said the school was ranked badly. The education and teaching was excellent. The other students were not, as they came from the background described.
Three of my cousins go to an expensive private school in Cobham and believe me, they are not getting their money's worth both on their results and general intelligence. It's a false dichotomy to state that private education is superior.
Saying people should be responsible for themselves and outlining the consequences is not fascism (or social darwinism which is what I assume you are referring to). It's a popular viewpoint but again, another false dichotomy. Alf Garnett was a parody of the people I included in the comment, most of which who are right-wing types or more generally, the hate rag readers.
Now please go and remove your head from your anus.
Unless the curriculum has changed a *lot*, it's all about reading "Of Mice and Men" (a book that I read in a couple hours, several times over) and then spending 6 fucking months dissecting it to find ridiculous hidden meanings and literary bollocks.
Wow. That's exactly my experience with the same book. I guess we both went to a UK school when they were trying to knock out carbon copy thatcherites.
I remember being the only one in a math class who was willing to point out that if you had to round to a whole number 4.46 is closer to 4 than 5. Apparently the rule was to round off one digit at a time and always round 5 upwards. Not one of 29 or so other children was willing to agree with me because the teacher must be right even when he is clearly wrong.
I had a chemistry teacher who could barely speak English. We had to sit and pretend to listen even though we didn't understand a word. When I complained to my year head he just took the piss out of me. Clearly it was my fault this teacher could not speak English.
The UK education system.. The higher level were good but the lower mandatory levels were one crock of shit.
Just like to say; Socialism actually is the cure for this problem.
(problem: Dumb people breed more dumb people).
You see; if you live in an african nation where life expectancy is zero and you are uneducated.
You have as many babies as possible.
When you are educated (with that socialist tool called education thing you seem to hate) and given health care (with that government minimum level of care you no doubt despise) then you no longer suddenly need to have as many babies as possible.
The problem with poor communities breeding more dumb poor people? not enough socialism. They haven't been provided with enough care, they are too poor. They look out their car window and see the douche bags in ferraris, and go: "I'll never be that rich, so I just throw a brick through his window and steal his CDs - then go have more babies".
Tax the rich; give to the poor. Win-Win-Win. You get poor people that arent dumb, whoh then go and earn money.
Rich people *still* have more than the poor people, and so are still rich, but perhaps not *too* rich. (not as obviously I guess??).
But ofcourse, thats just some pinko-communist-trash-talk wishy washy crap, give you the american dream where the incentive to be rich is what everyone should do! I mean, I could be rich soon! down with my potential future richman taxes!!.
Seriously that's quite a claim and needs a bit of backing up. UK folk aren't all dribbling TV-addicts whose idea of literature is The Sun "newspaper".
Given the circulation figures of The Sun, I think you're not doing a great job of disproving the grandparent's assertion.
The majority of people don't read the sun. In fact, in the UK, the combined circulation for papers thick people read (Sun, Mail, Star) is under 10% of the country. Mail readers are thick, but they'll probably disagree, and probably read books in any case.
However, the UK does have a large TV viewership. Probably due to the fact we have relatively decent TV compared with the U.S. 75%-80% of us watch TV at some point during the week, and spend about 25-30 hours a week watching (it's higher at the moment due to the olympics, and seasonable)
People sitting on their backsides doing nothing has little to do with socialism. Socialism is about workers not welfare, welfare is meant to be a safety net to stop people sinking into abject poverty. I'd say the situation we've got is down to two things: the lack of low paid manufacturing jobs which has it's beginnings in Thatcher, and that aspirational culture that says I can be wildly successful without doing any work, which again has its roots in Thatcher but became far worse once the reality TV celebrity turned up. Once those people are your aspirational role models then you can wave goodbye to people putting any effort in while not wanting to do work which is beneath them because immigrants do it.
Hi, I'm Johannes Gutenberg and my movable-type printing press business is suffering now that more people are buying these "e-books" instead of books printed using my presses. It's also killing the book binding business with many fine artisans looking for work.
Please stop purchasing these ebooks and go back to reading books printed with ink on paper. And please help out in the buggy-whip industry as well.
You buy two books from Amazon, one physical and the other for the Kindle. After you finish reading them, you want to pass it around your family and friends. To share the physical copy, you just ... hand it to someone. To share the Kindle copy, you must give Amazon that person's email address. They are then allowed to read it for two weeks. And you can only share it once.
Given the fact that Kindle books often cost the same or more than physical books, these restrictions make the Kindle versions a very bad deal for the consumer. Worse, in my opinion, than DRM on music, because you have to give up the email address of the person you are sharing your purchase with. Name me one other merchant who requires that you personally identify the person you share a purchase with. I'm not sure that's even legal, but even if it is, it's a horrible precedent.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Kindle readers buy four times the number of books they did before owning one, according to other data. :)
This is the actual thing that is good about the device... I even count the up/reading time of my kindle with uptimeproject
Amazon is thought to have approximately 20% share in total book sales in 2011, so it may still be fairly indicative of the market as a whole.
When a book only cost $/€/£0.01 I'm buying a few from one second hand seller on Amazon.
Is that accounted for?
General Personal Stat: For every 1 Kindle book I've purchased I've bought 5 - 8 second hand books through the same site.
I said the school was ranked badly. The education and teaching was excellent. The other students were not, as they came from the background described.
You said: "currently dragging my three children through one of the crappiest schools in London". Can only work with what I'm given, chief. And like I said, if you have such negative feelings towards all the kids around you, why did you give birth in that area? Sounds like an awful start in life to give your kids. Of course, you may be wrong, and they may not be as prejudiced as you... so it may all be windmills.
If the ranking per se is not an issue because the teaching is nevertheless excellent, what exactly is your argument? The only thing I can guess is something like "people who don't manage an A-C grade clearly don't deserve an education". Congratulations! that is exactly how governments have argued since 1979. The path of least resistance? Give more people an A-C grade by lowering standards.
The point in education is that you give everyone a chance, but that includes the chance to fail. And that's exactly what used to happen before sophomoric reasoning like yours came along. If everyone is getting top grades, something is wrong.
Three of my cousins go to an expensive private school in Cobham and believe me, they are not getting their money's worth both on their results and general intelligence. It's a false dichotomy to state that private education is superior.
No argument that some private schools are overall shit. But my position was that private schools have the opportunity to ignore lots of government education guidelines, and that this experience is wonderful. Just as it was for all kids pre-National Curriculum: the teachers were in charge, not the ministers.
Saying people should be responsible for themselves and outlining the consequences is not fascism (or social darwinism which is what I assume you are referring to).
Saying that the weak should accept their lot, even if that is death - as you argued ("can't help themselves") - is the essence of fascism. Having a degree of personal responsibility is another thing entirely. If you want people to work hard, you take the socialist (or at least Keynesian) approach of ensuring that secure, worthwhile jobs are available for hard workers. You downplay the Thatcherite service-based economy, i.e. riches for scrounging, useless middlemen.
Alf Garnett was a parody of the people I included in the comment, most of which who are right-wing types or more generally, the hate rag readers.
Alf Garnett was a parody of people like you. Mitchell has several times pointed out in public and private (he comes to a few local events) how it's the prejudiced like yourself, with all their views on people of a particular "background" or with a particular worthiness in society, who were the target of ridicule - yet those very same people assume that Garnett is a character devised to promote their opinions.
You may not think that you're a "hate rag reader" - it takes balls to admit hatred - but your views align perfectly with any Daily Mail article.
I think you have the ability to reason but you're disabled by a horrible chip on your shoulder. I don't have time to continue this discussion but I urge you to reconsider your understanding.
Otherwise you could claim any device supports any format so long as you convert it first!
Seriously that's quite a claim and needs a bit of backing up. UK folk aren't all dribbling TV-addicts whose idea of literature is The Sun "newspaper".
Given the circulation figures of The Sun, I think you're not doing a great job of disproving the grandparent's assertion.
Math: Population of Britain is 62.6 million. Circulation of The Sun is 2.6 million, total readership claimed to be 7.6 million. Less than 4% of UK folk are bying The Sun, 12% are reading it. 12%100% ("everybody"). I don't see your point vs OPs claim.
"You're confusing statistical ranking (the government's policy) with fair grading.
Everyone should be getting a fair education and A-C grades."
Giving everyone a good grade regardless of whether they deserve it is what has led to the mess we have now where the grades are increasingly becoming meaningless and employers and top universities are ignoring them. If you want to go that be nice to everyone and make them feel good about themselves by giving them all good grades liberal lefty route then fine , but don't expect the real world to take them seriously.
eBooks should be a CONVENIENCE format AS WELL as your paper copy.
It should NOT be REPLACING your paper copy.
Anybody who buys an ebook without a paper copy is just a mug and is welcome to jump blindly off the cliff to the CLOUD.
My parents came in with this leaflet about FREE CLOUD from the purchase of a new computer and asked me to install it lol.
FOOLS.
You can pry my paper books from my dead cold hands.
Can you back up the ebooks? This is *absolutely crucial*. A year or so ago, Amazon pulled existing copies of "1984" by George Orwell because of a licensing dispute. It would be naive to think that a government will not take advantage of this "kill switch" (and it doesn't even have to be a government to be scary, if a company can censor information that's just as bad). If you can back them up, on the other hand, then all is good. Doesn't matter if they're DRMed either, as long as you can load them back onto the reader, we're probably not headed for dystopia.
Amazon is thought to have approximately 20% share in total book sales in 2011, so it may still be fairly indicative of the market as a whole.
Since no one else sells Kindle books, that means 10% of all "book" sales are Kindle. Not over 50%. Ignoring other ebook formats, of course, but so did TFA.
Obviously number of ebooks has gone up, but they don't "surpass print sales in the UK" without a lot of qualifications added to that statement.
Faulty logic. You're comparing their readership to the entire population (including babies). Instead try comparing it to other newspapers. The Sun's circulation is around 50% greater than its nearest rival, and the only papers with a circulation over 1 million are The Sun, The Mail and The Mirror.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Amazon is thought to have approximately 20% share in total book sales in 2011, so it may still be fairly indicative of the market as a whole.
Except brick-and-mortar stores don't really offer e-books, and Amazon is a skewed sample as they're pretty much the champion of digital book purveyance. So no, not fairly indicative at all I'd say.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder how you measuring literary merit? A lot of people would love to have an agreed measure. For what it's worth, I'm finding an eReader (not a Kindle, but it could be) very useful indeed for the set texts on a university English Literature course I am studying at the moment. Not least because I have to go abroad on business during the course, and I would much sooner carry all the set texts on an eReader than weigh down my baggage with dead trees. I also use it for the books we read in the two book groups I belong to.
Of course, only a minority of people in any country are enthusiastic about reading and good literature (whatever that is). But all those people reading books you don't approve of? Guess what? They must be literate or they wouldn't be reading. "Illiterate" doesn't mean "sometimes reads stuff I don't like".
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
At my alma mater these people were all shaken out of the program after whatever number course was Assembly Language Programming (a department requirement).
Engineering schools are supposed to have weed-out courses in freshman or sophomore year for a reason. It's basically the difference between a good school and a bad one.
Jesus Christ that sounds familiar. I got into trouble for doing science work during an english lesson where we were taking 5 weeks to read through Animal Farm, a book I finished the first evening we got it. Not to mention having to then go through the painfully obvious allegorys in it.
More than 50% should be getting C or above, as the GCSE grades go from A*, A, B, C, D, E and Fail - C and above is slightly more than half on the range.
No, because grading on a curve is a stupid idea. Set high standards and grade people according to whether they have achieved them.
I got a C at GCSE English, despite the fact that I read five or more books a week,
Doesn't mean you understood them.
wrote novella length stories,
Doesn't mean they were any good.
had excellent typing skills,
So?
perfect writing technique
Anyone who says "I am perfect at [complex task]" isn't and "I excell" (sic) doesn't, but FWIW your post acts as disproof of your assertion anyway.
had read all of Shakespeare (out of choice) by the time I was 13.
But did you understand it, culturally and technically?
Why didn't I excell at English? Because it had fuck all to do with "English" and a heck of a lot of more to do with "English Lit".
When I was in school, English and English Literature were separate subjects. And since you like to point out how much you read, why didn't you do better?
Unless the curriculum has changed a *lot*, it's all about reading "Of Mice and Men" (a book that I read in a couple hours, several times over)
Did you understand it in a couple of hours, several times over?
spending 6 fucking months dissecting it to find ridiculous hidden meanings and literary bollocks
OK, that's answered my question: you didn't really understand it at all. And, to you, any sort of depth is "ridiculous" and any technical mastery is "literary bollocks". And you say you read Shakespeare!
the class had to read it "together" a chapter at a time - which bored the fuck it of me because I could finish the chapter in a tenth of the time of everyone else
Or maybe everyone could have read it faster - reading aloud isn't exactly the fastest way to read. Perhaps you don't understand the purpose of the exercise of reading aloud.
Spoiler: it means you might end up expressing yourself better than you are now.
At the end of the day, Of Mice and Men is a shallow story
How quaint - a teenage critic. The world sure needs more of them.
Fantastic social and political insight into the period by the people that lived there. C at English? Sod that.
OK, we get it, you can read grown-up books and you're bitter because you got a grade C in GCSE English.
FWIW, I got a top grade in GCSE English. But then I didn't have your inflated ego and enjoyed taking my time to read and understand both curriculum and extra-curricular material.
This is why I find the Olympics appealing now in a way I didn't previously appreciate. In principle it's just people competing for fame and prizes, just like on TV... except these are people who toil away in obscurity for decades to achieve what they do, and their achievement is judged objectively rather than by svengalis and txt voting, and by and large they seem surprised and humbled by the whole experience rather than using it as a vapid marketing launchpad.
Nice to see the haters are out today - having a nice time are you?
I understood the books I was reading very nicely thank you - I just didn't give a fuck about English Lit (and I still dont). And no, they weren't separate subjects when I was taking GCSEs (mid 1990s) - it was just "English". English Lit was a separate subject at A-Level, but not at GCSE.
Do I have to sit through months of dissection of Of Mice and Men that the class is walked through just to get to some pointless hidden meaning? No, I don't really - the book was obvious from the very first time I read it, I just didn't care for it much.
Its a contrived story with no real ongoing point in life, it has no depth of any real meaning and "technical mastery" is just another load of rubbish for those self important people who like to read more into something than is really there - if that offends you, then I don't really care. And I'm far from a "teenage" critic.
As for reading aloud - its boring and ridiculous to sit there and listen to 25 other teenagers trying to butcher any book, when I have no problems reading it myself. Infact, I have no problems reading it aloud - I've become quite a public orator since my school days when I want to be - its the fact that others reading it aloud for me does nothing for me. How about that? Want to explain to me how listening to others stumble over the most basic of phrases and sentences is going to improve my personal understanding of the work or my ability?
Fine, you got top grades in GCSE English - I guess that means you care a lot more about English Lit than I did. What does that have to do with an "inflated ego"? Not much. What does my point have to do with being bitter? Again, not much - its just that "English" as taught today (as in my day when I took GCSEs) has little to do with mastering the various technicalities and abilities of the written and spoken word, and much more to do with contrived, manufactured investigations into so called "literary classics".
So how about you go back to the literary classics you seem to so love defending, and let us out here in the real world get on with our lives.
I've been reading the whole Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan, in preparation for the release of Brandon Sanderson's completion of the series this next year. I discovered that I'd misplaced a copy or two of the middle hardcover books that I bought over the past 20 years in the fourteen book series, so I bought the missing copies on Kindle. At first I didn't expect to enjoy reading it, but after discovering how to zoom the font, and the relative light weight (considering the size of the Wheel of Time books are huge) I have decided I will no longer buy books of paper. My family all shares the same kindle account with multiple kindles in the family, so we don't have to bother with the restrictions that come with borrowing a book. I can have multiple copies out at once this way. Unfortunately I have hardcovers for the last two in the series, so I have to lug them around, but I've been sorely tempted just to buy another copy of the book in ebook form because it's so convenient to have.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
And no, they weren't separate subjects when I was taking GCSEs (mid 1990s)
That's when I took mine. I guess it must have depended on the exam board.
Do I have to sit through months of dissection of Of Mice and Men that the class is walked through just to get to some pointless hidden meaning? No, I don't really
Obviously you did. English Literature was probably my weakest subject at school, and - unlike English as mentioned - it was the only GCSE of about 13 where I didn't get an A*, only an A.
So, even though interpreting random poetry or Shakespeare doesn't come as quickly to me as to some(*), I still managed an A. So where did you go so wrong? If it were all that easy, you'd be able to pick up what the mark scheme requires in an afternoon and ace the exams. Hell, a few years ago I took the GCE A-level Statistics with a few days' preparation for each module in my spare time, and ended up with the top A level math % score in the country. Perhaps... and bear with me here... you're just not as good as you think you are.
(*) I don't think Shakespeare comes immediately to anyone - there are only people who find Shakespeare to require effort and dedication, people who think they understand it fully but don't, and liars.
Its a contrived story with no real ongoing point in life,
Really? Is that all you got out of OMAM? I reckon that the book simply hit a chord with or against you. I recall fair technical critiques of this book - it really isn't technically complex, but it's not devoid of technique either - but the criticisms of message tend to come down to one of (i) hurr sentimentalising the working man go capitalism; (ii) the mentally retarded should all be put down anyway; (iii) that slut had it coming to her; and the much sadder (iv) I never had anyone who cared for me therefore this book is unrealistic.
it has no depth of any real meaning
What is "depth of real meaning"?
and "technical mastery" is just another load of rubbish for those self important people who like to read more into something than is really there
Since Shakespeare's appeal is almost exclusively technical mastery, you must be some sort of masochist to have read all Shakespeare before you were 13.
I've become quite a public orator since my school days when I want to be
Proof or it didn't happen ("public").
Want to explain to me how listening to others stumble over the most basic of phrases and sentences is going to improve my personal understanding of the work or my ability?
"How is it possible to learn from others' mistakes?"
its just that "English" as taught today (as in my day when I took GCSEs) has little to do with mastering the various technicalities and abilities of the written and spoken word, and much more to do with contrived, manufactured investigations into so called "literary classics".
I don't know about now, but in the mid-'90s, it wasn't. Maybe some of the exam boards were particularly shit, or maybe it's just that your school was - explaining your poor grade. But then, if you were so talented, you'd have worked out what was required of you.
So how about you go back to the literary classics you seem to so love defending, and let us out here in the real world get on with our lives.
Eh? I went on to study mathematics and law. English isn't my thing. But I don't go around dismissing things just because they're not the easiest nor bestest thing in the world to me.
Faulty logic. You're comparing their readership to the entire population (including babies). Instead try comparing it to other newspapers. The Sun's circulation is around 50% greater than its nearest rival, and the only papers with a circulation over 1 million are The Sun, The Mail and The Mirror.
The parent claimed that
I don't see how Sun being larger than other newspapers, when it still reaches such a small amount of "all", disprove that claim. Even corrected for kids, adult population of UK (15+) seems to be around 51 million, of which 5% buys The Sun and another 10% reads but don't buy. 85% of the adult UK population don't read The Sun.
As long as we are on the topic of ebooks, anybody know of a good ebook reader for *PDF*? A lot technical stuff that I have is in the form of PDFs, and I was wondering if any body had a good experience reading those on ebook reader.
(E-ink based ebook readers, btw, not one of those Tablet-Reader combos like Nook Colour or iPad or whatever)
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
I struggled with some of English and English Literature (they were taught together, so I don't remember which was which; there was poetry as well as Of Mice And Men). Much of my coursework was graded as B or C. However, towards the end of the year the teacher set me (only me) an assignment to analyse some factual writing -- articles from popular science magazines. I could do that, and easily got an A*. Apparently, stuff like that was on the syllabus but most English teachers didn't like it, so taught the alternatives.
My final grade was A, in 2002. The syllabus has probably changed a bit, but the way it is graded is changed far too much every few years to suit the politicians.
Oh, and it's actually A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, G and "fail" ("U", I can't remember what it stands for). A G is a pass, and you get a certificate, if you get U you don't get a certificate.
(There are noticeable differences between E, F, G and U, but I don't know whether any employer would care.)
Nice to see the haters are out today - having a nice time are you?
I understood the books I was reading very nicely thank you - I just didn't give a fuck about English Lit (and I still dont). And no, they weren't separate subjects when I was taking GCSEs (mid 1990s) - it was just "English".
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8938/1/6908_gcse_english_literature.pdfseems to think otherwise, but I'm not a teacher, and did mine in 2002.
its just that "English" as taught today (as in my day when I took GCSEs) has little to do with mastering the various technicalities and abilities of the written and spoken word, and much more to do with contrived, manufactured investigations into so called "literary classics"
After a bit of investigating to jog my memory I've remembered what English and English Literature GCSEs were about:
English: ...")
- reading lots of newspaper articles from different newspapers (e.g. Mirror and Telegraph), and explaining the bias, bad arguments, irrelevancies etc. (My main memory of my English teacher is him reading something from the Daily Mail, then reading it again and shouting out every "may", as in "it's is thought that immigrants MAY have
- reading a few poems
- "speaking and listening" -- a presentation, and listening to everyone else's presentation
English Lit:
- what you said
I don't remember where the Shakespeare and novels went -- probably some in both.
On this recent episode of Open Book on BBC Radio 4 a guest said that ebook sales in the UK account for something like 12-15% of total book sales. He said it was about 40% in the US, and that the UK numbers are pretty fuzzy because Amazon is the only significant player in the UK ebook market and they don't release their figures.
We can try to check this out for ourselves: If we guesstimate that Amazon accounts for 80% of UK ebook sales and (as per the grandparent post) 20% of total sales, and that their ebook sales are 55% of their book sales, we arrive at ebook sales being 13.75% of the total UK market. So this guesstimate lines up with the analyst's more informed effort.
Observation also suggests the same thing. I was in London in the spring and was astonished by the vast number of really good brick and mortar bookstores, far more than any American city I've been to. There's a handful of flagship stores in the US (the Strand in New York, the Seminary Co-op in Chicago, Powell's in Portland) that surpass what you can find in London, but no US city has anything like the bulk and variety of great bookstores that London does. This could just mean that they just haven't gotten around to dying yet, but it seems more likely that there are still very strong sales of hard copy the UK.
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8938/1/6908_gcse_english_literature.pdfseems to think otherwise, but I'm not a teacher, and did mine in 2002.
When I took my GCSEs in 1995, there was one single paper - and my GCSE certificate (having just checked) only has "English" on it.
I was in the upper bounds of the year, so I certainly wouldn't have been left out of any exams (if you could even be left out of a core subject!)
After a bit of investigating to jog my memory I've remembered what English and English Literature GCSEs were about:
English: ...")
- reading lots of newspaper articles from different newspapers (e.g. Mirror and Telegraph), and explaining the bias, bad arguments, irrelevancies etc. (My main memory of my English teacher is him reading something from the Daily Mail, then reading it again and shouting out every "may", as in "it's is thought that immigrants MAY have
- reading a few poems
- "speaking and listening" -- a presentation, and listening to everyone else's presentation
Didn't have any of that - poems were covered in lower years, but nothing at GCSE exam level.
English Lit:
- what you said
I don't remember where the Shakespeare and novels went -- probably some in both.
This was the only subject of any English lessons I had, and the only exam I took on the topic was orientated toward what I commented on earlier.
I thought the US was a fine example of where capitalism breeds it's [sic] own suicide by providing for the rich regardless of the effort they make.
I buy around a 100 books a year from Amazon, all used from third party sellers. I think Amazon is comparing new book purchases the Kindle purchases but not taking into account the thriving market in used books. It would be a literally different story if these sales were included.
Does the public domain books that you "buy" and cost 0,00 also count as a sale?
The Sun shifts 3m copies in a population of over 60m. A mere 5%. The people that buy it are factory workers and builders/labor, who only get it for the sports coverage on the back, and the 18 year old girls exhibiting their bare breasts. That's it, once tea-breaks and lunch is over, the rags are dumped. Other than the TV section in the middle, what resides between page 3 and the start of the sport pages the rest is generally unread fluff.
Now look at the US and the shit you see against every checkout in the entire country. Lying, slanderous and outright garbage like the National Enquirer that wouldn't make the stands in the UK.
The OP appears to be thinking of the old 'O' level lit and lang exams. There are also IGSCEs now, one off testing, no coursework to help the grade, and they're internationally recognised. Private schools brought them in due to the apparently decline in the acceptance level of GCSEs, whiach basically became bum-wipe. ICGSEs are considered a lot better, so much so, the regular schools are starting to adopt them. As ever, you have the examination boards and their pissing contests slowing it all down. But I did hear the govt wants to unify that (fat chance!).
If in doubt, send your kid to a grammer/private school, they're a lot cheaper than you may think, at least if you're not thinking about the likes of Charterhouse in Godalming ;-) And no, they're not all boarding, although they have that option.
Since no one else sells Kindle books, that means 10% of all "book" sales are Kindle.
Plenty of other sites sell Kindle books.
The U.S., which cannot be accused of being too socialist
I believe you'll find that only socialists feel that American isn't 'too socialist'.
Here in the USA you would have received an A++
Not always. His experience sounded just like mine here in the US in high school. Grades were more about being able to write about what the teacher wanted you to say rather than any technical skill or ability to construct your own clear coherent ideas. I even got in trouble for correcting the teacher on Arthurian legend and she got really made when I showed her the relevant text (ya, right, argue with an 80's D&D nerd about Arthurian legend) and found teachers marking points off because I was using vocabulary they were not familiar with. That being said, I did get A's in college while the rest of the class floundered because I could write a simple five paragraph essay and their HSs had not even taught them that.
Don't get me wrong, I live in the Now, and always have an eye down the road for Later but my heart relishes the comforts of Then. From what I observe around me, this is hard-wired into us.
I don't like the idea of books, film and music being only available as ethereal data. I double dislike the idea when one factors in "cloud" storage, and a vendor's ability to remove things from that cloud.
Can you imagine? "License" "Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt" now in 2012, watch it a bunch of times, then in 2022 try to go to it again only to find.. "Due to violation of Federal Decency Code #A113 paragraph 1313, this title has been removed for your own protection." I *can* see this happening. Good thing I have it in hardcopy here.. You want it? *come and get it*
How about availability? Can you get, 50 years from now, an e-book of some low-run title from some unheard of author? Cinemas are starting to find this out right now.. "Oh, you want "Everybody Sing" (1938, Judy Garland) in 4k DCI? So sorry, we don't have it.. but we do have the last 35mm print known to exist.. what's that you say? You sold your film projectors in the Great Physical Purge of 2012? So sorry to hear that! We can offer you the latest by Michael Ba"----*CLICK*
Speaking broadly, aren't we headed for a possible Digital Alexandria, or a Digital Book Burning Party? Didn't one of the major e-bookstores remove Tom Sawyer from reader's devices? What would prevent this on a much larger scale? What would prevent a government from declaring a title "verbotten" and having the e-vendors pull it from all readers' devices and zap it from the cloud?
I can't think of a world where all the world's books, music and film are sold and contained in "the cloud." I may be getting old, so I may have a skewed perspective on the physical world.. but there's little comfort to be found knowing that I have Mahoromatic on my hard drive, vs. just looking over my shoulder and seeing the 8 books sitting in my shelf, snugly surrounded by other obscure titles that no one in the mainstream cares about. A shelf full of books, film and music is a good sign. To me, anyway.
And yet, as I say all this, one of my back-burner projects is to build a home media server and stuff it with bit-for-bit copies of all my music and film. The physical media itself would remain, right where it is, lining the walls of my favorite room.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I like ebooks. Convenient to get & search and you get modern functionality (font size control, updates, smart indexing, etc). What's not to like? Only one thing: Giving up paper copies means giving someone else control of your library.
Even if you "download" ebook content and keep it out of the cloud, how are you going to read it? Oh, just use a networked device which.... oh, right, that's a fail because devices in the future will not even display forbidden content (and will report your attempt). Never happen because devices like that don't exist and besides people wouldn't stand for it? I was once told no one can possibly keep track of the websites you visit because that mechanism didn't exist and besides people just wouldn't stand for it. How'd that work out?
Only paper can be hidden and read back later without electronic intermediation. That means ONLY PAPER CAN BE HIDDEN. History tells us all unhidden documents are eventually taken. So use your ebook to read the latest thriller/romance/pulp. But PRINT ANY BOOK YOU WANT TO GIVE TO YOUR KIDS.
You've never lived in Britain, have you?
If you had, you'd know it's full of backward chavs whose sole aim in life is to pump out as many kids as possible to collect as much welfare as possible for as long as possible.
And you have no statistics that say the 85% that don't read the Sun read anything at all. They might be literally illiterate.
I love my Kindle Fire, I can make notes, mark pages, read in the dark, buy a new book when I'm done, read the classics for free etc. I will always choose E-book over paper. Lets face it (In the free world) attempts at censorship or governments tracking your reading habits are not a real concern. Will it ever happen, sure in Iran or China, but the free world would strip power from anyone stupid enough to try that.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Of course, but compared to about every other Western country, they are the least socialist.
I believe you'll find that only socialists feel that American isn't 'too socialist'.
Just like only covert Muslims feel that Obama is not a Muslim?
You've never lived in Germany, have you?
If you had, you'd know it's full of wily Jews whose sole aim in life is trick as many Aryans as possible to collect as much interest as possible for as long as possible.
Bah, you want books in the UK? Go to Hay-on-Wye. It's a small town that has more bookshops than all other kinds of shop put together (population 1500, but 30 book shops)
U stands for unclassified.
There's also N, but I think you can only get that by not submitting anything (exam or coursework).
London may itself be a bit of a special case due to the large number of Universities, and cosmopolitan residents that are perhaps more inclined to enjoy the heft of a physical wad of paper in their hands than the cold and clinical smoothness of an e-book reader.
As for myself, I definitely prefer a paper copy of a book. Something I can stick on a shelf, give to my kids to read one day, lend to a friend, resell if the urge ever hit me and something I can leave in a bag on the beach without worrying about someone stealing it. Most of those things are made much harder, or more pointless, by having e-books.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!