So, why not get an e-reader?

It takes less space than a single good book, but can hold thousands, entire libraries' worth. Most good ones are great at what they do.

If he has merely not thought of this then he should consider it. If he has, but chooses not to... Isn't he doing what he's arguing against? If you willfully choose books over a good e-reader filled with said books, then I tend to think that, to a certain degree (although not always) you're sentimentally attached to the physical book. (I grant in certain cases, such as text books or heavily-noted books it can be a greater convenience to have a physical thing handy).

Does he ascribe the same value to having movies? What if I replaced "Books" with "Video Games"? I don't disagree with his philosophy but I do want to know where he draws the line on having lots of 'stuff', especially if the stuff is essentially pure information, like books, movies, music and games.

EDIT: I can see this was written in 2007, when e-readers were not like they are now. That in mind, I think the privileged position he gives to books is a bit counter-intuitive. Also if he thinks owning "several thousand books" is not an inconvenience greater than several thousand of anything else, he has never moved.