I like the idea of eBooks. They've done some good things like making reading appealing to younger people and allowing authors to self-publish relatively easily. But I don't like reading them.

I'm no Luddite - I'm not anti-technology or anything - I just prefer reading a paper book. I like the feel and the smell of them, the act of manually turning the pages...

eBooks have their advantages, such as saving space and being able to download them on different devices. But what of the rare first edition? The randomly chosen second-hand book that turns out to be incredible? And, of course, the magical chaos of a second-hand book shop itself?

I realise that it's not strictly either/or. Despite many peoples fears the two have managed to co-exist relatively harmoniously. But for me personally the electronic word will never replace the printed one.

So much of a book guy, for years now I've been asked by my folks if I want a Kindle and I tell them no each time; I like the feel of a book on cheap, coarse, paper and a full shelf as much as anyone else.

Real books as much as I can I retain the information better, which is funny since years alter I found out that reading a physical book does help with retention of what your reading.

I collect physical books and sometimes read them. I like to have them on the shelf and occasionally flip through them. I almost always read e-books, though. Not on an LCD screen (tablet, phone, notebook, etc.). It's got to be an e-ink reader. Right now I have a Kindle (again, not the Fire because it has an LCD screen), and I love love love it to pieces. I have a tablet, but I don't read on it...'cuz again, LCD screen, and the battery only lasts 5-8 hours. The Kindle only needs a charge a little less than once a month. I also do a lot of reading on the go, and from multiple books. My Kindle weighs nothing and slips into a small side pocket in my bag...and at this moment contains 67 full books (can hold hundreds).

When you study, you take whatever books, pdf.files and eBooks you can find to read. So far, I haven't read a single eBook in my life. Not one word from one either. I do read a lot on the computer though, which is far less comfortable than reading through say a large-screen tablet and lying in your bed, just like you could with a real book.

eBooks are cool for a variety of reasons, but personally I prefer physical books. I just find it much easier to immerse myself in them. Having said that, I'm a little curious about kindles, but not enough to go and and buy one.

I also prefer actual books. Handling a nicely-bound book is half the experience, in my opinion.

Ebooks have a certain degree of convenience but convenience isn't everything... and printed books don't have any DRM shenanigans!

I prefer real books for the tactile and sensory sensations.

There is nothing like the smell of a book.

However, I am not threatened by the rise of ebooks, they are not going to replace real books anytime soon.

As Stephen Fry said: "Ebooks will replace paper books in the same way that escalators have replaced stairs."

Oh yes it will. This isn't visual art we are talking about. The written word has the least to lose by going digital and the most to gain. It will be cheaper in the long run for authors and publishers alike, better for the environment and it means more opportunity for up coming/ new authors. E-books are the best thing to happen to writing since the press was invented.

Is a 20% loss of reading retention "nothing to lose"? It seems pretty serious to me.

Edit

As the years go by I see the weaknesses of digital technology. I don't have as much faith in it as I used to. It's not a lot of weaknesses, so don't read into this comment too much. But it's a real one.

What? Words are words. I don't see what you are talking about. If it's on my Kindle or a page, it's all the same.

Not according to a ton of university studies over the past 10-20 years. Here is but one source. http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/14/do-e-books-impair-memory/

Edit

If this issue can be solved, then that's great.

Dubious study, as online internet courses have been thriving for years.

That doesn't mean they actually retain information equally or better as through hardcopy.

I can very much imagine reading comprehension being less so when getting the information from a screen simply by the way the information is processed.

Screens being projections and having a light source aimed at the viewer might very well translate to the brain perceiving it as moving images instead of a still view and that will have an effect on memory.

Also, new technology never completely replaces old technology. We still use stairs even though there are escalators. We still use the telegraph even though there are telephones, we still use telephones etc. etc.

I know from when I was in college and in a psychology course my professor told me about a few studies she heard of this years ago. Obviously I can't go and look this up since I don't have access to their article databases to link you. I have yet to see any studies debunking this, which would be your onus if you wish to prove me wrong. I doubt you will. If I couldn't find a study debunking it (and I tried years ago) the odds are against you.

Edit

Better source. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=reading-paper-screens

Real paper books, please. It's fine to read articles and forums on the screen but when I want to spend 4+ hours reading a novel, paper.

That said, since I have some hand arthritis, I imagine stuff like Kindle's will eventually be useful to me simply because holding a paperback open/turning pages while lying in bed and/or a heavy hardback becomes less and less comfortable to do for any length of time. I have yet to buy one, because reading on a screen (I don't care if it's a reading screen or not) is absolutely not the same.

It's be nice if e-readers let you read two pages before "turning the page", for example. The Kindle's I've seen I feel like there's often even less words per "page" visible. They'd have to at least feel/look more like holding a book for me to start to think I might actually like them. Maybe one day they'll have flexible plastic e-readers instead of hard little screen-boxes.

I have a Kindle and I like it well enough but I still prefer physical books. I love everything about a real book. An e-book is convenient but lacks the warmth of holding and reading actual book. And oh how I love browsing in book shops!

They really have done research on the subject and found that the act of touching the book, turning the page, etc. does aid in better retention of information. Something about how our brains are hardwired to receive and use that information.

For me, I absolutely hate Ebooks. I understand the appeal and if I were to just read things for enjoyment, I could see a use for a reader even in my life. However, I cannot even begin to tell you how much I abhor that my college is moving to ebooks in some classes. I had to jump through hoops just to get my hands on a physical copy of my statistics material. And I ended up paying only about $10 more to have access to the ebook and have the physical book so don't try to tell me it's more cost efficient. $91 for ebook or a bit over $100 for the ebook, book, and I can resell it to get money back at the end of the term. Yeah - I'll stick to real books.

I like the feel of real paper. I've tried reading electronic books and just can't take them seriously. I don't read often but when I do I like to feel the paper between my fingers.

Here is my growing libary....though some of these aren't novels.

http://m.imgur.com/vYIdIpw

real books, easier to flip through while with ebooks depending on the interface can be tedious to find an exact page.

He might not. But I most definitely will.

First of all, let me state that I read ebooks very often for my classes, and I've used ebooks for years because of my low vision. Reading from a paperback book is possible for me, but I prefer my Kindle. It would be wonderful if I could get my textbooks to display properly on my Kindle - damn DRM.

I'm going to look at several different studies:
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ960556
http://sicet.org/journals/ijttl/issue1102/6_Schugar.pdf
http://www.ifets.info/journals/16_1/32.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22882151

The issue under discussion here is whether or not paper books are better than ebooks in terms of reading comprehension and knowledge retention.

Schugar, Schugar, and Penny (2011) examined thirty students enrolled in a public university general composition course. They did not find any significant difference in reading comprehension between the students who used eReaders and those who used paper books (though they did find that the students who used eReaders did not utilize highlighting).

Wright, Fugett, and Caputa (2013) examined three young girls in the second-grade for their reading comprehension and vocabulary scores and found that there were no discernible differences between digital and print reading (the three girls served as their own controls within the study). The only difference found between the reading styles was that the girls were more likely to use reading resources when working with the digital text.

McClanahan, Williams, Kennedy, and Tate (2012) wrote an article describing how the use of an iPad as a primary reading tool helped a young child (Josh) who was diagnosed with ADHD. The iPad not only helped Josh to catch up in his reading ability, but also allowed him to gain greater control of his ability to focus.

No, it doesn't work that way. See Zambarbieri and Carniglia (2012), which found that there was no difference between the eye-tracking used by students between paper books and eReaders.

TL;DR - The debate is still going on between researchers as to whether ebooks are better or worse in terms of reading comprehension and knowledge retention.

When they come out with a kindle that I can swat bugs with, I'll think about it.

I can get hardcover books for $0.99 at the Salvation Army... I can find dirty Kindles for $20 at Goodwill

Interesting, thanks for the links.