"Paper books are dead.""e-Readers are 'greener' than paper!"
"Books will never be totally replaced by e-readers"
Oh dear Lord the entire e-reader vs. printed book issue is as tiring as those politician ads that run just before an election.
In my humble opinion (IMHO) that is.
Between my partner and I, we have probably 1500 books. More come each year. We also own a Kindle and an iPad and we also both have library cards.
As an aspiring writer and storyteller, I know in my heart I won't be happy until I hold a printed copy of my book in my hands. That will be the ultimate success story for me. But I certainly understand (and love myself) the convenience and portability of an e-Reader.
Both Tina and I travel a lot for business. It's much easier for each of us to pack a Kindle or other e-Reader with 20 or so books loaded on them than to pack a suitcase half-filled with hard-covers. But we both feel like there's nothing better than the smell and texture of holding and reading a good paper book.
I think there is room for both out there. Competition is what makes our society in the Western world work. Besides, I think the authors I love benefit greatly from both (although the compensation model still needs to be fixed for ePubbed stories...but that's a rant for another time). See, if I like an author I tend to buy both the electronic and paper version of his/her book.
And sometimes the audio version as well.
I'm looking at YOU Jim Butcher and my full collection of The Dresden Files in hard cover, paperback and the wonderfully produced audio books read by James Marsters.
I won't debate here what's greener or which delivery (electronic or paper) is better. I won't be recommending one e-Reader over another (Well, ok. I lie. Buy a Kindle).
My personal preference is both...and supporting local libraries as well. But I'm a book-nerd, so what do I know?
