IMG_0409

The release this weekend of my second paper back, Morgan, the collected version of the bestselling Morgan trilogy, has got me thinking about the paper books vs ebooks debate.

Before I became a kindle convert, I couldn’t bear the thought of ebooks. All I wanted was paper, paper, paper. As a historian, I was deeply suspicious of anything that didn’t leave a physical trace in the world, and anxious about texts that would disappear if the technology suddenly vanished. I love the feel of a paper book, the smell of a paper book, the fact that I can read it in the bath, on the beach, all of that. I love the way they look on the shelf, the way that you can give them and share them and leave them in cafés for someone else to find. cropped-imgp2850.jpg

But then I moved house. I moved house and let me tell you that transporting (literally) hundreds and hundreds of books is heavy and difficult. Besides the fact that last year I had to buy a new bookcase after christmas. Now, in an ideal world, I would live in a giant house, every wall of which would be bookshelves, and I would dance around in my infinite library and never go to work. Since we live in the real world and I simply cannot afford to move to a bigger house just to buy more books, ebooks are a complete godsend. They weigh nothing, they cost 1/3 of a paperback, and I can carry my whole library in my handbag on the train and have an endless choice of reading to pass the time.

12118891_1213862698627125_2793772755906552606_nI hear a lot of people (colleagues mainly – perhaps a particularly historianesque disease) who don’t read ebooks complaining about how they’re awful, but I imagine that when the printing press was invented there were a lot of people who only read from manuscripts complaining that they, too, were awful.  I love ebooks, I love print books – I just want all the books. Anything that means more books and more reading can only be a wonderful thing, in my opinion!

Advertisements