Since the first e-book came into existence in 1971, the same question has been festering, which is superior – e-books or physical copies of books? Having owned a Kindle E-Reader and lots of physical copies of books, I think that both have their positives and negatives.

E-books are an incredible source of literature, having millions of different titles, genres, and writing styles all at the touch of a button. I have a Kindle, and I pay 11 dollars a month to have thousands of free books available to me, however, that money might be going to waste. I do not read as much as I would want to, averaging only one book per month, so the money that I spend every month doesn’t do much good. However, the fact that I have the power to read whatever I want, whenever I want, is a huge incentive to having the Kindle. However, to add new books to your library, you need to have WiFi access, which is not always available. Sometimes, you can not even read while not having an internet connection, which is the whole point. Another great thing about the Kindle is that it fits into any purse because of how compact it is. 

With physical copies of books, WiFi does not matter, and you have the book whenever you want to read it. However, you only have one book at a time, and it is not as compact as an e-reader. You only have to make a one-time payment on the book. The average amount that somebody will pay for a book is $15, making it more expensive than an e-reader. 

Based on all of this, I believe that the e-reader is a better investment than physical books. It is more compact, more affordable, and has easier accessibility. So, if you have been considering buying one, I would highly recommend it.