Kindles will never replace the magic of a physical book

Thought about buying a kindle for reading, there's no need

Going back last year when I was still a student I managed to get enough money together to buy an Amazon Kindle Fire. My intention was to actually re-buy a Nintendo 3DS, which looking back now I wish I had bought instead, anyway I wanted to get something which would keep me entertained between my travels from Middlesbrough to London, and vice versa. Instead of getting a 3DS I ended up getting a Kindle, I love reading and try to do so as much as I possibly can, and I can pretty much read anything from early 18th century literature to Dan Brown or Stephen King. I also purchased one because of the library of old literature which I could download for free on Amazon.

Well about two months ago my Kindle was stolen when the house I live in was burgled, although by that stage I had not used it in months I would still rather have liked to have kept it. But I hope they enjoy my copy of Nick Clegg's biography because I know I wasn't.

The Kindle Fire is a smart device, it's clever and it looks very sexy in your hands, and it's far more convenient way to buy and read books, as well as other multi platform media like films. And for many it provides them with an alternate opportunity to publish their work on. With that said it's is unfortunate that we are inevitably heading in the direction where eventually digital downloads will overtake the sales of physical books. But I'll give a list of reasons why I think reading a real book is far more rewarding than reading from a kindle.

1) Physical books are easier to read from
Contrary to popular belief Kindles aren't more comfortable in your hands compared with a physical book, but neither are they really less so either. However, swiping your finger to turn each page does get annoying.

2) You can't pass it on
The great thing about owning physical copies of books is that you can give them to other people once you've read them, you can hand them over to charity shops, you can sell it on to others.

3) They can be used to decorate your surroundings
Books can be used to decorate your life, they provide a personal touch in your living space, whether that's on your work desk, shelf space, or even coffee table. Having a library of books gives someone a sense of fulfilment, and to have these visibly around you provides warmth.

4) The smell of paper
There is something special about the smell of new paper, and the feel of it on the tips of your fingers as you flick through a book

5) It's more active and more rewarding to buy books
One of the joys of going out and buying a book is that it means you're actually making contact with other people, you're going out of your way to make the effort to buy something. It's also nice to make contact with people, for example about a year ago I went into Waterstones in search of buying a new book but I had no idea of what I wanted to read. So with the help of a member of staff I left with Lionel Shriver's brilliant 'We need to talk about Kevin'. I highly recommend it.

6) It's more expensive and restrictive
You can get books which are over a hundred years old for free on a Kindle because of copyright reasons, which is very good. But there is no need to when you can get these books for cheap prices on Amazon already, or even in charity shops if you dig around. Because a Kindle is a digital device you'll be paying top price for almost all contemporary books, by not buying a Kindle you will just save yourself a lot of money in the long run.

7) It's not just the words that are a work of art
You should never judge a book by its cover, but it certainly helps when the front cover is eye catching. A part of discovering new books is looking at the diversity of the artwork that covers it. Think of the iconic insignias of 'The Hunger Games' novels or even the holy cross on the Bible.   

8) You don't legitimately own what you buy
Like most digital media, even if you buy it and download it, you don't technically own it, you're really just borrowing it. Because of Digital rights management you can't hand it over to other people (unless you actually give them the kindle physically, which if it was the case, would just prove my point entirely). And like most pieces of technology a Kindle will eventually burn out, taking your library of products with it.

9) Kindles are distractive
In an age where pretty much everything is seen through a digital screen, books provide your mind and eyes with a bit of solitude away from it all. There's nothing much nicer than having a cuppa tea, sitting back and reading a book in a comfortable environment. It's a good way to break away from a screen. I've also always found that I take a lot more information in when I read something that I can physically hold, my mind is much sharper and my imagination far more focussed.

The Hobbit: the desolation of Smaug (review)

Director: Peter Jackson
Certificate: 12A
Running time: 169 minutes


A far better sequel, still hampered by its running time

The first Hobbit film 'An unexpected journey' was a good albeit very plodding and in the end a little underwhelming, especially when you consider the brilliance of the Lord of the rings trilogy. Thankfully the sequel is much more intense and its narrative runs much straighter, and in a more purposeful direction.

The film begins where the first one ended, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and the company of dwarves are continuing their journey to the lonely mountain to reclaim Erebor, the old Kingdom of the Dwarves which was attacked by Smaug the Dragon. In typical Peter Jackson fashion the landscapes of Middle Earth are beautifully shot, the sets are masterfully brought to life, especially Laketown which makes its first appearance in the last third of the film. Not only does it look great but it shows the people of Middle earth in their everyday life, which is something I did like about this film, unlike in the original trilogy where outside of the main cast the people of Middle Earth were nothing but extras with little relevance.

The action scenes are a lot more exciting this time and there are more of them, one of those sees the return of Legolas (Orlando Bloom) from the original trilogy, he appears in a real roller-coaster scene in which the main characters have to escape an army of chasing Orcs while riding through a river inside barrels.
But the greatest action sequence in the entire film is the one where we finally meet the Dragon Smaug. I won't spoil it for you, but let's just say that Smaug is without doubt the greatest CGI character that I have ever seen in a film, who is wonderfully and sleekly played by Benedict Cumberbatch, each of his dialogue lines are memorable. It was worth the price of the ticket all by itself.

The visuals are exemplary as you would expect, but still I still question the Orcs being computer animated. The great thing about the original was the make up of the Orcs, which was second to none and made them genuinely menacing, with the make up gone and replaced by animation they come across as pieces of meat with little character. With that said  they still look impressive and believable on screen.

Although the film title implies that it is centred on Bilbo Baggins like the first film, he is not the most important character in the film. The focus of the film is on Dwarf Thorin Oakenshield, the rightful heir to be King of Erebor, which is noticeable throughout the film, it's only when Bilbo confronts Smaug that his relevance comes into place.

With so many positives the film does have problems though, and one of them returns from the first hobbit film, the bum numbing running time. It is still too long, let's not forget the actual book this is adapted from is a children's novel which is three hundred and ten pages long, about half an hour could have been edited out.
Which now brings me onto a love triangle involving an entirely made up character called Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), who doesn't even appear in the book. She was put in because there was a lack of female characters in the story, which is fair enough. But her involvement is for the purpose of a love triangle between herself, Legolas and Kili (one of the Dwarves). It is a completely incidental plot narrative that seems distracting and a little out of place.

I saw the film in both forty eight frames per second (3D) and in a normal screening. And I have to admit I preferred the latter, I enjoyed watching it at forty eight frames much more than I did when I saw the first hobbit film, but the level of detail can be too diverting for the eyes, it still looks like behind the scenes footage. In time forty eight frames per second might be the norm, but for the moment I still think it's going to be the exception.

Undoubtedly the positives completely outweigh the negatives, 'The Desolation of Smaug' is a spectacle of such a grandeur that it has to be seen on the big screen, and although the ending is a bit of an anti-climax it leads onto the final part of the trilogy in perfect anticipation.

Verdict-4/5