STEPHEN FRY

I'm a little biased against the Kindle, but I have good, solid reasons if you would like to hear them?

1. Amazon has stated in the past (specifically when it first started allowing used books to be sold on its site) that once a person buys a piece of media, they should be allowed to do whatever they wish with it, including lending it out, reselling it at a used shop, or throwing it out a window in a fit of rage. Amen, I says to this. However, when the Kindle was released, it was limited to reading only ebooks in the Amazonian format. And it cannot read other formats. AND (here's the kicker) the ebooks cannot be given to another Kindle! So I am not allowed to finish my ebook and hand it over to a friend, as I would do with a paper-bound book. Ridiculous. (Of course, you can crack your Kindle pretty easily, I'm told, but I'm miffed at anybody who wouldn't even offer some sort of middle ground for file-sharing. Like the old iTunes 5 devices rule, let's say.)

2. It's not very attractive. Just...that color. I can't even say for sure what that color is. Bone? Motel 6 beige?

3. Whoever thought equating a book device's name with fire obviously doesn't recall book-burning. It's an unfortunate name. I know it's supposed to imply a re-kindling of the imagination or whatever, but it just rubs me the wrong way. As if it implies that this will replace all paper-bound books in the near future, which is not true. But that's a whole new rant.

Anyway, these complaints aren't wholly limited to the Kindle. The Sony E-Reader has its own set of problems as well, I think. What it all comes down to is the need for an all-in-one media device that hold ebooks, music, photos, and simple mobile apps. I mean, besides hardcore book nerds, no one is going to pay $400 (I think that's about 200-something of your Queen Money?) just to read ebooks. It would be like asking a normal guy off the street for $400 cover before entering a bookstore so he can buy a book. (Club Borders?)

Personally, I will wait for someone (probably Apple) to release that dream device.

Whew! Sorry to get my opinions all over your post, but this is kind of my pet project.

I'm opposed. I'm already in bifocals at 25 from peering at regular books for 8-10 hours a day, I'll be stone blind by 30 if I switch to a friggin e-reader! Also you lose out on the best bit of book reading; that lovely papery smell!

i've never been remotely attracted to the idea of an e-book...i've put it down to being old fashioned but just the idea of focusing on a screen for that length of time gives me a headache, never mind actually doing it. but then maybe it's fine and my imagination just needs a bit of help. but i'm already wearing reading glasses from straining my eyes too much, like c_r said i don't think i could handle the kindle!

But what about the papery smell?! :'(

You just can't beat books. It's an experience reading a book and it's a means of escaping from the modern world. I'm happy reading stuff on the internet for pleasure and research but I do prefer to read and use books. Anyway, it strains my eyes more and gives me headaches reading from a screen.

The thing I would most like to use ebooks for is non-pleasurable reading. (This the the whole 'nother rant! I get to use it too.)

Books like most works of fiction, poetry, and art books will always, always, always be available in paper formats. At least in our lifetime, I guess. It's just because there's no added quality to those kinds of books in ebook format. And because most people equate that sort of reading with a certain tactile response, there's no good reason to change.

But for reference books, textbooks, workbooks, and other non-foofy-artistic reading, it has got to be put in digital format. Think how much money it would save students to digitally update their ebook rather than buy a new edition. Think of carrying around an entire semester's worth of texts in your jacket pocket. And think of genre fiction readers, who could finally read all 6000+ titles their favorite house puts out a year without breaking the bank or shoving it all on a shelf. In fact, ebooks have proven most popular with Harlequin Romance readers, of all unlikely bedmates. Because their books are a disposable pleasure (and there's nothing wrong with that) they have really capitalized on the new format. Good for those ladies, I say. (Or dudes! I didn't mean to be sexist there.)

Anyway, to tie in with my original rant, for Amazon to tout the Kindle as if it will replace paper is just pompous. Ebook readers have been around for a long time, and paper hasn't fallen by the wayside, and it probably never will entirely. So don't fear for the death of the paper book.

(Meanwhile, the "smell" issue is hilarious; everyone says it; can you imagine people hundreds of years ago talking about clay tablets? "This paper thing sounds like a nice idea, but it's not for me. I'd miss that earthy clay smell too much.") And if you haven't seen Book Tech Support, you must.

No, no, the smell is very important. I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying, how funny that we associate it with reading a good book, and not a school brochure or a train schedule or a wedding invitation for two people we don't really like. I think I read somewhere (on paper) that scientists have proven that smells will stay in the human brain longer than any other sort of memory, and they will cling to the good ones best.