I have to admit that I am very biased about "the book." Growing up, I always had a book in my hands. Today, I feel quite passionately about traditional books. My library consists of first edition, leather bound books. There is something that is picturesque and homey to the book. As long as there are people who share a similar idea about books, they will remain in print.
Bolter wrote that, "printed books are portrayed as closer to nature" (43). This statement leads to other questions, such as: Why do we mean by nature? In this context, it seems safe to say his point is that we do not view electronics as part of the natural order of things. Of course, we could say this about almost any form of remediated text. None of it seemed natural at first, but we eventually embraced the new methods. The full remediation of books will not as easily be embraced or accomplished though. Books through electronic means is more isolated to certain situations, which is exactly why it will be difficult to live in a society with no printed materials. Bolter reinforces the ability for printed books to be used in places where computers are not available and uses the example of the great out doors (43). Printed books do not run out of batteries or need to recharge. They do not get a glare from the sunlight. There is a sense of accomplishment when you can see the place of the bookmark. Overall, there are two parts to the story of why books will not be completely replaced with electronic formats: (1) we hold an emotional attachment to the image of the book and (2) technology isn't always the more convenient choice.
For a comical and dramatic take of how avid book lovers may feel about this issue watch the Book. vs. the Kindle.