Bought a $40 Kindle just to prove a point about paper books, actually switched for good

My hot take has always been that physical books are superior and e-readers are for posers. Saw some influencer claiming reading 80 books a year on Kindle was the only way. I was like nah, that's the dumbest take I've seen. So I grabbed a used Kindle from Facebook Marketplace for 40 bucks to do a week long experiment and trash it online. Problem is, it's been 6 months and I haven't touched a paperback since. The backlight at 2 a.m. in bed without waking my wife, the dictionary on tap, and carrying a whole library on my lunch break are too good. Still think the "aesthetic" people who buy fancy hardcovers and never read them are worse. But I have to admit my original take was wrong. Is it a bad take to think physical books are still worth the hassle for slower readers, or has the format war genuinely been settled? Anyone else flip sides after trying the other format for the sake of arguing?

2 comments

2 Comments

brooket431mo ago

3 weeks ago I traded my paperback of Dune for a Kindle in a bar bet and now I'm the guy defending e-readers at dinner parties. The flashlight thing is the real hook though, I used to read with a headlamp like a coal miner. Slower readers might get more from paper but I'm done pretending I can smell the pages when I'm trying not to wake the dog.

gavin_kim1mo ago

Paper still wins for me. @brooket43 can keep the flashlight thing, but there's something real about turning pages that an e-reader can't fake. The battery dying at the worst moment has happened to every Kindle owner. A paperback never runs out of juice. Plus, the distraction factor is real. That dictionary on tap is just a tap away from checking Twitter or whatever. Paper forces you to sit with the book. Slower readers especially need that slow burn, that physical connection. The format war ain't settled, it's just got a new loud voice. And those hardcover collectors might not read, but at least they're not staring at a screen.