I’ve often heard people say that those who truly love reading can’t be satisfied with an e-reader, they need the feel of paper. In this short post, I want to explain why I find that idea both narrow-minded and completely unfounded.

First of all, calling the use of an e-reader “settling” makes no sense. Unlike a physical book, an e-reader doesn’t limit what you can read. In fact, it can hold thousands of books, while a single paper book can only hold one. So labeling the use of an e-reader as “settling” is just wrong.

But before comparing e-readers to paper books, I want to clarify what it actually means to “read” or to “want to read” a book.

Reading simply means absorbing information through written words. Over the centuries, people have written on various mediums, from stone and clay tablets to parchment and scrolls. Books, as we know them, are historically recent, and their rise was largely due to convenience. Exactly for this reason, books replaced older mediums, and in the same way, e-readers are poised to replace physical books because they are even more convenient. Ultimately, reading is about processing information through written words, whether those words are on paper, carved into stone, or displayed on a digital screen.

With that said, here’s a quick comparison between e-readers and paper books:

So why do some people still prefer paper?

Preferring paper is fine, it’s not wrong to enjoy the tactile experience of a physical book. I do it myself sometimes, especially if I know I’ll only read a single book and want the experience of holding it. But this preference has nothing to do with reading itself. Choosing paper makes sense for enjoyment, but claiming it’s inherently “better” than an e-reader is simply incorrect.