Controversial Bookish Topic: "Ebooks Are Better Than Normal Books"

Hello, everyone! It's time for another controversial bookish topic post.

This is a hefty claim, in my opinion. And this applies to any statement that states one thing is better than another. It's a claim, and a lot of it is based on opinion rather than fact. Saying that one book format is better than the other two is, like I mentioned, a claim founded on opinion rather than fact.

You do hear statements like "Audiobooks aren't reading" or "Physical books are the best." However, the statement "Ebooks are better than normal books" is one I have heard way too often in comparison recently. And, you know, I get it. Ebooks are cheap, easily accessible anywhere and any time, on a single device, and so much more.

However, that doesn't mean that ebooks are "better" than other book formats. "Better," as I've mentioned in previous posts, is a very subjective adjective used to describe something. And while ebooks are convenient for many people, they're not convenient for everyone.

Additionally, what book format you use is highly dependent on your personal, unique situation. Not everyone can afford 100+ physical books. Not everyone can read physical or ebooks. Not everyone can listen to audiobooks.

If you prefer ebooks to physical books and audiobooks, that's great. I'm happy that ebooks are what works best for you. However, that doesn't mean that you should go around saying that "ebooks are better than normal books." This also applies to any other book formats - just because one format works better for you in comparison to the other formats, that doesn't make them "the best" format in comparison.