"Read a real book"

Define real book. As someone with a visual impairment, I regard the Kindle as a godsend as it allows me to change the font to suit my needs and makes accessible a whole range of literature which was previously unavailable to me because a) publishers saw no profit in large-print or audio versions and b) booksellers such as yourself didn't bother having such versions in stock, and were reluctant to order them.

Now, apparently, if I read a book on my Kindle, I am to be regarded as some kind of philistine, set apart from the likes of Jonathan Main, a 'real book' reader and the arbiter of what is a 'real book'. When I listen to audio, am I also guilty of not reading a 'real book', Jonathan?

Your attitude is patronising and insulting to the blind and visually impaired. Shame on you.

Ah yes the battery and the other technology that could break down. I can see that Kindles have their uses...a friend of mine currently on deployment in Afghanistan has one and has a library of books in one small object. Yes, they have uses if you have a visual impairment or want to travel with a lot of reading matter (and can access those batteries) but books printed on paper have been around for hundreds of years. I doubt they are going away soon.

If the point had been that he preferred physical books, fine, opinions and all that. The point appears to be being made quite strongly that an ereader is a useless device, which is patently untrue. So I stand by my original criticism of this worthless article.

My goodness, there are some unpleasant people who comment on this site. And what an appropriate name: Blah blah blah. The point of this article is quite valid - that ereaders aren't going to be for everyone. At a time when the media and the industry are enthusiastically hyping up ebooks and almost gleefully predicting the death of the physical book, it doesn't hurt to hear an alternative view. Of course some people will love them - and they certainly offer a wonderful opportunity to the visually impaired - but let's bear in mind that avid book readers tend to be older - middle-aged and onwards - and also, probably, rather small-c conservative. Those people love the tactile nature of books, the physical variations and, yes, even the page numbering - the fact that you can see at a glance how much you've read and how much is still to read. And sadly it's also true that ebooks are promoting a "race to the bottom" in terms of price and quality, with the ebook bestseller lists dominated by self-published dross (sadly including conventionally-published authors who ought to have a bit more sense) being "sold" for a few pence or given away for free. In the long term this will do untold, perhaps even terminal damage to publishing and bookselling.

He's right that the actual aesthetic experience of reading on a Kindle is very poor. If any publisher typeset a physical book in that font, with that leading, kerning and justification, and printed it on paper that grey, they'd be laughed at - and those getting needlessly angry here would immediately appreciate that they were being confronted with an inferior product were they to pick one up in a shop.

The grey will get less grey, the fonts will multiply, and a closer replication of the print book experience will be possible, hopefully in the next few years. Some Topaz format Kindle books already solve the latter issue. But as it stands, reading on the Kindle is definitely an inferior experience. It has distribution, pricing (just!) and convenience on its side, but not much more. As soon as people like the blog author can get accurate recreations of the print book on the Kindle, they'll be converted - not least because the eBook offers an edition that can never be scuffed, bent, torn, soaked or otherwise damaged, and is in that respect, I think, going to be deeply appealing to those who enjoy the aesthetic experience of books.

Yes, that's right, so it's not a straightforward case of older people getting nostalgic about shillings and steam trains.

What interests me is why some people have gone into a Melanie Phillips-style angry mode about this seemingly innocuous post. What's their agenda? Are they Amazon employees, or is there something really offensive about critical comments about e-books. I'm confused (cue Blah blah blah making some fatuous comment about my confusion being symptomatic of an inability to understand the issues).

I prefer reading print books but I am also happy to read them on my Kindle - for example if I'm going away and want to take a few books, or if something is on sale very cheap in e-format. At the moment I am re-reading the Palliser novels by Trollope, and although they are available free in Kindle (or any e) format, I am choosing to pay £7 apiece for them in print, as I don't fancy reading 700-900 pages in Kindle. But for a quick, light read of 200 or so pages, a Kindle is fine.

I travel a lot and my Kindle is a boon and a blessing in every way. As long as there is a mobile signal I can top up my library of books on my Kindle. Everybody has a point of view in the electronic book arguement. Some people love them, some don't, who cares as long as people read ?

I am over 50 and I like a larger font size. I think it's interesting that the first thing most kindle users do is buy a cover for it that makes it look more like a book - so that, as one high profile blog put it recently, you don't look like such a w*nker on the tube. I carry mine around a lot when I travel too - which may confound the people on here calling me a luddite. The point about my daughter was making was that it didn't do what she expected it to, and that it only did what a book did, but less well. She's more than happy with my iPad though.