So can somebody please tell me why we are debating about whether ebooks or real books are better? My “hipster” friends on social media sites have decided to put down ebooks, and I have no idea why.
For one thing, the whole “real book” label is problematic in itself. If I read my paperback copy of To Kill A Mockingbird and then switch to reading it on my Kindle, did the words change? What makes my ebook copy less “real” than my physical copy?
Plus, aren’t ebooks more fitting with the times anyway? The younger generations love gadgets (as part of a young generation, I should know). More importantly than that, we love immediacy. Why should I wait to get a physical copy of a book when I can immediately download it on my Kindle?
To be fair, if I really love a book, I will get a physical copy. I do agree with the picture floating around that a physical library is more impressive than an elibrary, a least in terms of looks. Plus, it’s harder to lend a really great book to someone if I only have the ebook.
But that’s not the point. Why is one form of reading better than another? Shouldn’t we be rejoicing that people are actually reading, that despite all of the other gadgets and distractions, people are choosing to also get books electronically? Isn’t it a great thing that while my physical library is pretty small, my elibrary is bursting with books?
The fact is, people aren’t reading as much as they used to. There are so many other things to occupy our time now, and if ebooks are the way to get people reading again, then who am I to stand in their way?