E-readers shouldn't be thought of as a 'replacement' for physical books. Best if e-readers are thought of as 'complementary' to physical books. There are time

E-readers shouldn't be thought of as a 'replacement' for physical books. Best if e-readers are thought of as 'complementary' to physical books. There are times when an e-reader is handier than a physical book, and times when a physical book is far more convenient to use than an e-reader. It's a question of access: An e-reader works better for straight-out sequential reading, like (say) a novel. And you can carry a lot(!) of novels in a very light-weight medium which is excellent when travelling. A physical book works best when you want rapid random access all over the book, like (say) a technical reference manual. You can flick through a book and pick up a wanted section almost instantly. You can also put a physical book down and not touch it for 10 years and then continue reading on from where you left off. A e-reader's battery would have died long since. I use both. "Works for me."