Books less engrossing on a kindle

[Jo Zebedee]

I found this interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-e-readers-shown-enjoyable-harder-follow.html

I certainly find I don't enjoy a book on an e-reader anywhere near as much as I do a paper copy. I used to out this down to critting a lot on screen so reading anything published was like critical reading, but over time I've come to believe it's more than that - that I simply don't find e-reading the immersive experience a paper book offers, from touch and sound and even smell (yes, I have been known to sniff the odd book, I'm afraid, especially leather-bound). So it was nice this might be backed up with research and I'm not completely luddite-ish nuts.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

To be honest I don't notice the difference. Once I get started on the story I don't really care where I am or what I am holding. It surprised me I didn't expect to prefer my ereader but it's easier to hold and the print is the size I choose etc

 

[J-Sun]

I'm not completely luddite-ish nuts.

I figure this was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but, still, it's not at all luddite-ish. We have developed all kinds of nuclear weapons and bioweapons but choose not to deploy them because they're bad tech. (I'm not equating these three things - just pointing out that we can love our MRI scanners and spaceships and whatnot and still not blindly deploy every piece of tech that comes along.)

 

[thaddeus6th]

I do agree with the article. There's a particular smell books have (a few Chinese classics I own have a distinctive smell which immediately takes me back to Nine Dragons Shi Jin and Short Arse Wang [genuine character name, in one translation]) and I prefer the feel of a real book in my hands.

But it's not a critical difference. E-books are cheaper, more convenient for delivery and take up (barring the e-reader itself) zero space. It doesn't make a significant difference to me. I prefer histories to be 'real', because the maps, photos and so forth may not look as good on an e-reader, but usually buy fantasy electronically.

In the future, technology may mean maps can be more detailed on e-readers, so maybe that'll change my mind. But I like owning books that I know I can always read, without needing a fully charged battery.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I prefer to have real books. I was surprised that I found the eBooks slightly easier to read on Kindle DGX compared to Paperwhite (better but smaller screen) once I got used to extra weight due to larger screen. I got the DXG for PDFs. But I don't find either Kindle reduces my enjoyment of reading books (Novels).
Magazines, technical books, Datasheets etc are much inferior on Kindle due to slower random access, slower "bookmarks", lack of resolution/size even on DXG and MUCH slower page turning for images and PDFs than real eBooks.

If your eye sight is poorer then large Kindle DXG is advantage over standard paperbacks with 8point print or less.

 

[Brian G Turner]

The New Scientist quote claims that people on eReaders are multitasking, ie, distracted to visit YouTube. But that's impossible on a basic Kindle - they're making a comment specifically about smartphones and tablets, rather than eReaders.

 

[farntfar]

I find reading e-books (on a tablet, I don't have kindle except as software) so much easier, that I read more easily with it than I did with books.

Sitting in an armchair in the evening, maybe a book has that special bookiness, but away from home (travelling or during lunchbreaks etc) or reading in bed, where many books are heavy and awkward, the tablet is so much easier.
I don't find I forget the plot, and can generally find a page in an e-book if I want.
I haven't got too much trouble with zooming in to maps on the tablet either.

I might also have been more convinced by the article if the Daily Mail hadn't thought that the way to convince me was a picture of a girl in a bikini reading a book on a beach, but I suppose that's just the Mail

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The New Scientist quote claims that people on eReaders are multitasking, ie, distracted to visit YouTube. But that's impossible on a basic Kindle - they're making a comment specifically about smartphones and tablets, rather than eReaders.

Actually, I think that point, about being distracted, referred to typing on screen?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

eReaders are multitasking, ie, distracted to visit YouTube. But that's impossible on a basic Kindle - they're making a comment specifically about smartphones and tablets

IMO there is NO comparison in usability between a real eInk eReader and an LCD (or AMOLED) screen with an App, even it's a semi dedicated tablet (Kindle Fire and similar).

 

[Parson]

Reading novels on my Kindle is a joy. I can detect no greater distractedness on my part. When I'm reading for study the lack of being able to find my way to the appropriate quote rapidly is frustrating. But being able to cut and paste into a document more than makes up for that.

 

[Vertigo]

First I have to comment on the appalling quality of that article. For such a short piece of work (it was mostly random pictures of people reading stuff) it had an astonishingly large number of typos/missing words in it and it seemed totally unable to distinguish between an ereader and a computer.

For myself I have no problem with reading on an ereader, and, in fact, I am less distracted because I don't have to keep moving a bookmark or adjusting my grip on the book as it becomes steadily more uncomfortable and I'm no longer struggling to read as my poor aged eyes get tired.

With regard to the research saying you remember where stuff is on the page or what page something was on. Well of course but how is that a distinguishing feature of pbooks? On my ereader the same text always appears in the same place on the same page. Just because it is an ebook the text doesn't wander around to a different place each time I look for it! Does Fiona Macrae actually know what ebooks and ereaders are? The article does not lead me to think so.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think that aged eyes are a real factor for some of us. I do prefer paper-and-ink books when the type is large enough, but in a lot of books, especially old paperbacks, it's tiny. Squinting and trying to make out the words, not to mention eye-strain, are so distracting that they make reading less engrossing. Fortunately, this is not a problem with my Kindle where I can adjust the size of the words.

 

[BAYLOR]

Call old fashioned, but i like books.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It sounds psychological. Look hard enough and you may find people who prefer to read by candle light.

 

[Mouse]

There's no difference whatsoever.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

candle light

Certainly works for a Kindle in a Power Cut.
I tried the chemical party bracelet glow sticks (18 for €2) and it needs about four. They seem to last nearly 12 hours.

 

[Nick B]

I have to agree with Mouse, once I start reading it is my mind that takes over entirely. I was trying to explain recently (but it is hard to do) that when reading, if the story is good, I stop seeing the words. The story plays out in my mind entirely, the actual physical job of reading words seems to become subconscious. Hard to explain but that's the only way I can describe it, and that is how I judge a book, if all I see is words on a page then the story hasn't grasped me enough.
The medium on which I read seems to make no difference whatsoever, and I firmly believed I would not like an e-reader until I used one. Oh, and I actually just use my phone and the kindle app, means I can read in bright sunlight or pitch black night with equal ease.

 

[psikeyhackr]

if the story is good, I stop seeing the words. The story plays out in my mind entirely, the actual physical job of reading words seems to become subconscious. Hard to explain but that's the only way I can describe it, and that is how I judge a book, if all I see is words on a page then the story hasn't grasped me enough.

I actually have somewhat of a dislike for reading. So the story has to be good enough to get me beyond the dislike. So I kind of freak out when people say a book doesn't get good until about 200 pages. I'm thinking, "ARE YOU CRAZY!?!?" If it is not good enough by page 50 I give up on it.

That is also my problem with people who talk about how good the "writing" is. To me analyzing the writing is just turning the reading into work. Unless the writing is exceptionally good or exceptionally bad I don't really notice it. It is about the story and how well the characters integrate into the story. Bujold is one of the few writers with characters good enough to stand out significantly from the story. But that takes more writing. Heinlein has lots more stuff happening in fewer words.

psik

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But when you don't notice the writing - isn't that when we know it's good?

I also have to politely disagree with Mouse - for me there is a huge difference between reading on my kindle app ( and from what I've tried on others' kindles), and I find it horrid, frankly. But I have dry-eyes syndrome which isn't helped by the time I stare at screens. But, bottom line, the e-versions simply don't feel like I'm reading a book.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

if the story is good, I stop seeing the words. The story plays out in my mind entirely, the actual physical job of reading words seems to become subconscious.

My daughter says she doesn't need film versions.
Watching a film is very much less emotional effort for me than reading. I agree, if I enjoy the story I'm not very concious of the words. So I get tripped up by unfamiliar words impossible to define from context and large bursts of foreign text (Villette and The Professor lately) or Poetry. I have to read poetry out loud, or ideally hear it from someone else. I've rarely ever coped with simply internally reading poetry or lyrics.

I can't use a eReader app or read a book as PDF on laptop for a novel. A physical Kindle or similar (eInk, not fire) is the only alternate to paper I have found that works for me. In 45 years I think my Kindle DXG is the best gadget I ever got for relaxing (My current 1600 x 1200 15" non-reflective laptop, is the best ever thing I have for content creation. It's over 12 years old! I do have a relatively new computer too with 8G RAM, Core 2 Duo, 2Terabyte HDD and massive video card as well as a dedicated PC for Video. I have some very nice 17" CRTs and modern LCD panels too for computers. None of my newer laptops come close to the old one for screen quality.)