/lit/ - Literature

>>8495184
doesn't specify if it's an e-ink reader or not while also mentioning the use of ipads in the study. are you sure it's not comparing a kindle fire to reading a paperback?

>>8495184
>mystery story

PS: I bet you read translations

>>8495199
>>mystery story
That was just one study out of many

>PS: I bet you read translations
I'm fluent in 5 languages, and more than capable in 8. Everything I read is from original text.

>>8495198
>e-ink reader
What?

>are you sure it's not comparing a kindle fire to reading a paperback?
On one study it is, but the general point is that reading from paper is objectively better than using a variety of e-readers

>>8495225
>What?
Non-fire Kindles (and most e-readers) use an e-ink screen instead of a LCD screen

The physical order and space of the pages in a book help order the story in the brain. You loose that with single page presentation.

You also loose it with research using Hypertext as opposed to actual reference books open on your desk.

Its a brain thing.

>>8495274

(cont)

Also, when you go back in the story to re-read a section, the physical distance of pages back helps order the story. You lose that too with a single page screen.

Books are very physical things...

>read about 2 books per year the past 7-8 years without a kindle
>got a kindle
>now reading like 20 books a year

pretty sure i'm doing it right desu

How would be the experience of reading 4chan from a book? Maybe this is some next level shit we arent comprehending yet because of presentation medium?

>>8495184
the recall part of the study was not actually done on kindles, iirc. it was on computer screens. big difference.

also
>reading for plot

>>8495281
this. Before I wasn't reading because I couldn't read on a computer screen but i'm glad i made the investment

>>8495281
>>8495306
>>read about 2 books per year the past 7-8 years without a kindle
That is due to your laziness.

>inb4 b-but, books are expensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbXz3MXx2DU

>>8495339
No, it's due to not wanting to buy physical books or go to fucking physical book stores. I do not want to own useless objects, ever.

>>8495346
You're in denial fampai.

>or go to fucking physical book stores
Have you no self-awareness?

>I do not want to ow useless objects ever
>implying books are useless
>not using a fucking library

>>8495363
>implying a physical book has any reason to exist when the digital text exists
>implying a book does anything but sit and take up space and collect dust after being read
>implying libraries don't cost money and why the fuck would I ever want to go to a library and read shit that other people had their hand bacteria and shit and jizz hands all over?

>>8495184
I read a lot more since I got a Kobo.

>>8495378

lmao I read dozens of books from the library each year. Every once and a while I'll scratch my balls and then go back to reading without washing my hands.

At least I'm not spending $$ on a gay little tampad that's going to become obsolete in 2 years. If you buy a book it's yours for life.

>>8495416
why do you hate kindles so much did a paperwhite raped your dad or something

>>8495274
>>8495280
>loose

But yeah, this is correct. The physical aspect to books is the main reason why we can stomach reading them.

I think the only *real* benefit that e-Readers have is mostly standardized (and high quality) fonts. Tons of books, particularly old ones, are pains in the ass to read because they're laid out on the page terribly: bad fonts, bad spacing, etc. It becomes a non-issue with an e-Reader.

>>8495428

My cousin Raoul was kill when amazon kindle fire factory had tragic fire D:D:D:

>>8495184
>Why do you use this junk when your level of comprehension suffers as a result?

Because I can find extremely obscure books at the touch of a button, usually for free or for pennies.


The bookstores charge me $9.99 for something I can get for free on Kindle.

>>8495339
>muh library books
I can barely find any of the classics at my library and it's scant on philosophy, especially right-wing philosophy. Why should I wait for an interlibrary loan or order books that will get me put on a watch list? Fuck off cunt

anyone manufacture a two-page, thin-paneled ereader with all the electronic junk in its spine? there's no reason these things can't come closer to book format

OP is such a shitty troll and you're all falling for it.

>https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation

Paper presented at a conference years ago, still not published as a proper paper, makes me think that it has some basic flaws pointed out in peer review.

>>But instead, the performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story. "The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order."

So the author went on a statistical fishing trip and one of the values was significant by chance, which I assume the peer reviewers pointed out, and after correction for multiple comparisons the study fell apart, which is why it wasn't properly published.

>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/

A whole bunch of studies from the 90s about computer screens vs. books - you can't compare LCD vs. CRT vs. eInk, they're not the same and cause varying levels of headache.

The article even disproves OP's claim:
>>but almost as many have found few significant differences in reading speed or comprehension between paper and screens.

>http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2014/08/19/book-buzz-study-finds-people-absorb-less-on-e-readers/14291189/

This cites the same presentation as the first link! OP get your shit together.

>>8495726
Libraries provide free books

>>8495428
He can't afford it.

>>8496054
my library has a terrible selection of english books. i don't even have an ereader but you have to see the upside to having one simply for the access you get to books.

>8495215
>I am such an accomplished gentleman.
>I post in a Chinese cartoon board

Si boludo, seguro.

>be me
>get a kindle
>read everything I want on thar
>with the money I saved started taking guitar lessons
>now I buy only small indie books from local authors to support them
>most of these are actually good books

Why would I support the mainstream editors which pumps out mostly shit when I can download my classics for free?

>>8495198
>>8495248
>>8495346
>>8495378

you guys are all fucking retards who can't understand a simple fucking concept: physicality. i assume all the rabid defenders of kindles and shit are 16 year old kids who just started reading their genreshit on babby's first ebook because to anybody with any degree of experience or self awareness as a reader can tell that paper books offer a more memorable experience.

>>8495442
>The physical aspect to books is the main reason why we can stomach reading them.
If you can't 'stomach' reading books regardless of medium then I feel sorry for you. It's not the screen that's the matter, buddy: it's you.

>>8495378

>not reading the fucking studies in OP
>not rereading and annotating your books
>poorfag problems

get off this board you stupid child.

>>8496241
this is objectively untrue as per the OP dipshit

>>8495290
I have my assistant copy down 4chan threads on parchment for me to peruse at my leisure. I can assure you that it's far superior and every single post is stored in my memory forever.

>live in Tucson for 18 months
>fucking library sales all the time all over the city for some reason
>go and find all of the classics I could ever want for ~$1 a piece
>carry 20-30 hardcover library books in my backpack while riding home on my bike
>filled a bookshelf with classics for a negligible amount of money
I have a kindle and used to read it a lot, but I prefer books.

>>8496237
i can say with confidence that i have thrown away more paper books that you have ever owned and that you are a rube. please go ahead and tell us about that unique smell, the excitement of cracking it open for the first time, that beautiful ritual of placing it on the shelf and so forth so that it can be clear that you're just another yokel that prefers purchasing and handling "wonderfully physical" objects to actually reading and that you would be just as happy to collect dog turds if you believed that filling your house with dog turds would socially elevate you from your yokeldom.

>>8496300

you're a fucking moron, I never said any of that shit. god damn you're such a presumptuous, pretentious cunt trying to talk about your irrelevant life experience on an anonymous image board. I actually hope you get lymphoma or some other terminal illness. by their physicality, paper books HELP YOU REMEMBER BETTER. that's it. it's a purely pragmatic consideration.

>>8495184

I'd rather have a ton of books in my apartment sitting on row and row of shelves, but it's not feasible for a lot of us. So now I use a Kindle and a laptop occasionally my phone because it's more important for me to read on a less-than-optimal medium than not read at all because I can't get the paper books I want.

>>8496304
You didn't say any of that shit in your last post you fucking pagan, keep your "new book smell" autism to yourself.

>>8496275
Can you give me some tips please? I live in phx. and am having trouble finding any good sales

>>8496304
i like how you're gullible enough to look at a link to a "study" and immediately start insisting it matches your personal experience: "ooh yeah i remember SOOO MUCH because i'm a PAPER READER, us PAPER READERS huh, we're SCIENTIFICALLY superior". except the study never came out and the thing you're feeling superior over is literally a meaningless clickbait article. if the clickbait was "dog turd smelling improves respiration" you'd be in here all "ooh us DOG TURD LOVERS, huh? my lungs are so powerful since i started smelling DOG TURDS, so SCIENTIFIC" because you are a yokel and a rube and you will cling to anything.

>>8496329
Not sure if it was just a spike when I was there but I hit a couple big library sales at one of the pima library branches and the pima community college.

There's also the Festival of Books every year on the University of Arizona campus and it's pretty much as the name suggests. Lots of used book sellers setup tents, and you'll usually find at least one big tent with loads of used books for super cheap.

Best bet is to hit the festival of books and look online for library sales in your area.

>>8496253
>objectively untrue
That study (which were will pretend for the sake of the argument that it's not at all flawed, see >>8496040
) only proves that there is more than one idiot who can't concentrate on the contents of a book unless displayed on a piece of paper rather than an electronic screen. Other readers can. Again, this only shows that the problem lies with the reader, not with the medium.

>>8495184
If you don't live in a cave you ain't sleeping right bruh

>>8496304
>REMEMBER BETTER
Anon, those are called textbooks and they are a special kind of book. I can see you are special too, in a way, so I will try to keep this straightforward for you: One does not read literature to memorize it. That is not how one derives enjoyment, emotion, understanding or even self-improvement--if that's what you're after--from literature.

If you find yourself having trouble retaining information from a book unless you can hold it in your hands and touch each of its pages with your fingers, by all means go ahead and do that. Whatever helps. I suppose someone who must go through life with your condition needs any help they can get.

>>8495184
Studies have shown that OP is a faggot

>>8495274
>>8496237
You know its poor form to start out with a scientific argument, then poorly present it an argument as unsophisticated as "n-no but muh physicality!"

Here's a thought. My kindle has:

A) a counter on the bottom that tells you what percentage or page you are on in the book (your choice, I prefer percentage), and
B) A quick and simple way to place bookmarks that doesn't obstruct the page, and
C) A quick and simple way to annotate shit that doesn't obstruct the page.

So how the fuck am I deprived of a physical relationship with the book itself? How does shifting through 600 plus pages of a book, with no identifiable markings outside page numbers, help me structure of the plot?

Here's a another thought. I read both physical and electronic copies and my retention abilities are basically the same. The most significant impact to my working memory has been the internet.

You haven't convinced a single person who actually reads kindles that kindles are the devil. You know why? Because we KNOW thats retarded.

>>8495184
>If you use a Kindle/E-Reader, you're not reading correctly
It's okay, I don't read anyway.

>>8496446

>he doesn't care about remembering great poetry and prose

>>8496330

>he lives in a world where everything anybody does is a neurotic assertion of identity

>>8496392

>he doesn't understand spatial memory

>>8496237
this desu senpai

>>8495215
Post the others, then.

>>8498720
These studies go into even more depth than the ones posted in the OP.

> (2013) Anne Mangen, University of Stavanger - Reading linear texts on paper vs. computer screen: effects on reading comprehension.

> (2007) Erik Wästlund, University of Karlstad - Experimental studies of human-computer interaction : working memory and mental workload in complex cognition

> (2001) Daniel K Mayes, University of Central Florida - Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading

> (1994) Jan Olsen, University of Cornell - Electronic Journal Literature: Implications for Scholars

>>8496040
Critique any of the aforementioned studies.

>inb4 muh e-ink
It makes no difference. Stop trying to validate your waste of money on that device.

>>8496261
Pretty patrician desu

>>8496468
>a counter on the bottom that tells you what percentage or page you are on in the book (your choice, I prefer percentage), and
Did you know that most books have magical things called page numbers?

>A quick and simple way to place bookmarks that doesn't obstruct the page, and
Your laziness is not an argument

>A quick and simple way to annotate shit that doesn't obstruct the page.
Your laziness is not an argument

I find this true in my experience. Reading books on my kindle ends up feeling somewhat aimless and less organized. The physical position in the book and on the two pages enhances my comprehension.
It's not for lack of trying either, I've read plenty on my kindle because of the cheap/free books, but I get at least 2x out of books.

>>8498747
You're stupid. That's all there is to it.

>>8498768
You're objectively wrong.

>>8498780
You're stupid

>>8498745
Most of those studies predate e-ink screens, and furthermore none appear to have used devices designed specifically to recreate the physical reading experience. The lower resolution of older screens, and the eye fatigue inflicted by screen light and CRT flicker are not issues with current e-reader technology.

Additionally, they are short-term studies that do not investigate whether speed and comprehension improve over an longer-term acquisition period. More than likely they tested subjects that had habitually used physical paper to read, so it is to be expected that in a one-time study they perform better with the medium they have always used compared to one they don't normally use in that capacity.

If I read correctly, one of those studies talks about how presenting a PDF in a paged format rather than continuous scroll showed improvements in comprehension. It isn't unreasonable to think that further changes towards the physical reading experience, as e-readers aim to do, can lead to similar improvement. At any rate I don't think these studies are sufficient to definitively state that, given long-term use and modern technology, an e-reader can't be used to achieve the same level of speed and comprehension as physical books.

>>8495184
>A new study which found
Ha! Op's thread was shit the moment it began.

Correlation=/= causation

And it doesn't say jack shit about whether they are using an actual E-reader with an E-ink display. Of course some chump reading a book on his smartphone isn't going to get it.

>>8499271
>>8499104

you retards are in denial, paper clearly beats out e-readers for serious study. see: thread

>>8495184
>A new study

The more multi the media the better the retention but the quality of the media is what counts (next to the actual content). Haptics are a medium like text but in ereaders it's like a uncanny valley because you're not really affecting the physical screen plus you lack possession and monkeys want to possess things. I think that's the issue, that and not growing up with ereaders.

I think the practical solution lies in limiting the freedom of control in ereaders and making the interaction more complex and time consuming like intricate hand gestures for marking the text and flipping pages with different gestures for each book.

But you still wouldn't circumvent the lack of physical ownership of a "piece of the intellectual world" so to speak which is why I think physical copies will always be superior. We can still improve ereaders however.

>>8498999
I'm with you on that, mahn

>>8498745
>Did you know that most books have magical things called page numbers?
Exactly, they both have a means to track your place in the book. So how is a kindle somehow worse off when there are many ways, including this, to relate to the text in a physical fashion I.e. the sole argument anti-kindle fags in this thread have?

>your laziness is not an argument
Neither is this statement an argument, but it does ignore the argument I was responding to. Are you sure reading physical books has helped your reading skills? :)

>>8499690

BECAUSE A PHYSICAL TEXT DOES NOT EXIST WHEN YOU HAVE A KINDLE, DIPSHIT. YOU HAVE A SINGLE SCREEN THAT CAN CHANGE ITS CONTENTS. HOLY FUCK HOW FUCKING STUPID CAN YOU BE.

IT'S ABOUT SPATIAL MEMORY. "SPATIAL MEMORY". JESUS CHRIST YOU ARE LITERALLY RETARDED.

>>8495184

I find E-Ink significantly easier to read than LCD screens. The eye strain is very annoying. I think as long as you read Paperwhite and the like you should be OK.

>tfw i had to print out OPs post to understand it

>>8501073

no it's literally not about eye strain, it's about this subtle thing your brain does where it remembers physical objects (i.e. pages and words printed on a page) by taking into account their spatial relationship with other physical objects. have you ever wanted to find a certain passage in a book and intuitively remembered where it was on the page and where the page was in a book? this is because as you read you are making synaptic connections in entire regions of your brain that aren't being activated when you stare at a single substrate displaying ephemeral patterns.

i'm also confident that it has something to do with monkeys valuing their treasures. kindles don't give form to individual works. i'm not sure how to analyze this as clearly, though.

seriously, you guys are fucking idiots. just keep reading for another few years and you'll realize that the shit you read on your kindle just doesn't carve itself into you as deeply. they're great for portability, cost, all sorts of shit, but paper books are the real deal.

>>8501128
I solve this by reading general stuff on my Kobo and buying hardcovers of my 'greatest hits' that I know I will reread again and again.

>>8501135

that's perfect, there's no problem with that. i just take issue with retards who say the kindle is objectively better. if you had to disavow reading literature on either e-readers or paper tomorrow, forever, you would be a fool to give up paper books.

>>8501128
This desu senpai

>>8501128
Just read the PDF versions then if you want page numbers and formatting rather than the standard percentage tracking.

This is a case for correlation not causation: a light reader is more likely to buy a kindle than buy physical books. The kindle itself doesn't create problems, but rather a larger proportion of people with problems use kindles.
Why are people on this website so insecure about their image?

>>8500723

I tried out them 3d books but they gave me a headache bro how do you do it??

>>8501089

u wot m8? Did u say?

>>8501438

Holy fuck you're really not getting it. Every letter in a paper book has concrete physicality. This IS NOT THE CASE with data. Information is transmitted, but you are "reading" a single object (the screen) rather than a huge procession of individual objects (pages and actual words) that I, if I so choose, can cut apart and mail to you. Your brain is biased toward forming memories that have to do with the relationship of objects to one another in 3d space, and this can only be APPROXIMATED with any form of digital media - this is inherent in our concept 'digital media'. like I said before, paper books are the REAL deal. you cannot escape your spatially-located and conceptualized humanity.

>>8495184
I bought a kindle because my shelves are stuffed with books I have far too many. The kindle serves its purpose and I like having more than one option when it comes to reading.

I'm moving and so irrationally attached to most of my books that I'm having a hard time picking what stays and what can go. I wish they were all on the kindle at this point. It would make things so much easier.

>>8501558

wow you really are autistic. have you ever considered that when you listen to mp3s or watch tv shows you aren't seeing something "real"? fucking faggot can't let other people like something that he doesnt like

>>8501453

this is a case of hur de hur hur

readers who aren't used to reading a kindle would have their reading pattern shunted which would likely impair their reading absorption unconsciously.

>>8501558

The brain is biased towards text on a screen due to internet. Likewise, print anything on page and people will believe it.

The problems on the human-side.

ALSO, reading a physical book causes you to read the letters displayed over a convex surface which means your eyes are constantly having to refocus its view in order to make the sentences appear in linear format or clear 2d space, likewise for the disproportionate spread of light across the page, adjusting for fine nicks and indention on the paper also. All this is computing in the background taking up glucose and dopamine store. This leads to poor eyesight (further costing you thousands across a lifetime), grumpiness, and depression.

Imagine purchasing a brand new book, the paper is the clearest white - no creases or folds, and the ink print is of the finest most precise jet black, so that the words slip off the page and into your cortex with the minimum of effort. This is the kindle Paperwhite and the books never diminish in quality.

You could pick up a rare thousand year old text and read it like a pristine Malcolm Gladwell novel.

All this nonsense about spacial assessing - in kindle you're given 'locations' which defines book locality finer than page numbers, as you read you can see your progress by location number - that's your spacial assessing - you say, 'I am - so far - through the content of the book' Not 'oh i'm halfway through to the end I can't wait'

>>8501571

Let's discuss with sound reason now, we're not all shit-flinging monkeys are we now?

>>8501580

>the problem is 'human-side'

what the fuck is the other side? what else have we ever been other than humans? tell me how you plan to access this special mode of being in which you transcend your humanity. it must have something to do with the clearest white paper, the jet black ink of your kindle. what a load of shit. I've owned a kindle. I understand the utility.

>All this nonsense about spacial accessing
>nonsense about spacial accessing
>nonsense

this isn't nonsense. the most effective memorization techniques all include activating your spatial awareness. this is just a fact, and you're telling me we've been indoctrinated somehow? oh, it's not that books are objectively better, we've just been oppressed by reality into favoring the physical over the ephemeral. great intellectualism there, champ

>>8499671
I think this is a great point. People want to buy and own things, and with the same device over and over again you don't get the rush of satisfaction of getting and feeling that new thing.

>>8501610

Your human side takes massive turds, your human side hates for no reason, your human side is most envious, your human side is a non -thinking automated flesh sack piece of crud essentially.

The most effective memorization techniques be actually having an interest in the subject. Your memory techniques are for random stuff you don't really care about but need to know, like your phone number, bank card number, boring facts you don't really care about etc.

If you're engaged by a book you don't need to memorize it as much as you'd be focusing on memorizing your first date or first lay or second date or best lay etc. etc.

A book, you live through it, you remember it by living through it, like real life. Reading a book should be like an engaging conversation.

I know you want to get at something and that's not really about books at all, that you're smart, but misdirected. Your smartness makes your angry more that you don't know in this confusing world how to apply it.

Because, we are culturally engineered to favor the physical over the ephemeral, but that is entirely off-point.

First: e-ink is functionally the equivalent of ink on paper, as it is particle-ink arranged onto a blank background. If it however has a backlight, it will likely cause issue. If you are making a claim based upon scientific studies you must also accept the science behind the e-reader rather than presume it is the same as that of an iPad. I personally will read pure non-fiction in a paper format, and fiction or writing with more decorative prose on either.

I do this mostly since 'textbooks' and other non-fiction are often formatted larger and with colour photos, and e-readers are low-definition and black-and-white. Also because they're much harder to fine in ebook format.
>>8496237
I am 28 and have read more than you, and have also been published. You have no grasp on the bullshit coming out of your assface.
>>8496275
Wow your so classy omg 10/10
>>8498745
>computer screen:
Not e-ink; e-ink is physical.
>It makes no difference.
Yes it does, e-readers may as well be a dynamic single-page book with a plastic casing.
>>8500723
e-ink is physical text. It's the evolution of the etch-a-sketch, which you are probably too young to know of.
>>8501558
e-ink has 'concrete physicality'.

It's not generated light, it's physical particles on a blank background, arranged according to the data.

You realize that this is also essentially how the printing press works, yes?

so much horseshit from both sides in this thread, somebody burn it please

>>8501785

10/10 4chan poster

Everyone applaud this guy

*appluse*

>>8495945
Most libraries delete their loan history to prevent it being used for watch lists.

>>8501799

>+10 hell-coins

>>8501644

nobody cares about your shitty experimental hypertext poetry that you "published" with that construct-a-website CD ROM you bought in 2004.
obviously EVERYTHING is physical if we're talking about "things" at all. let's not get caught up in retarded ontology; this is pretty basic heidegger. the LED and the light that is coming out of it is just as physical as the little blot of e-ink temporarily suspended against the screen. don't be daft and pretend you can't understand the sense in which a printed text has a special (if only provisional) kind of independent existence that isn't replicated on a kindle. on this note...

>>8501637

>Because, we are culturally engineered to favor the physical over the ephemeral, but that is entirely off-point.

This is entirely the point. This is a real state of affairs. It is the case that we favor the physical over the ephemeral. It may be "cultural engineering" but so is your classically Platonist rhetoric about "human side take shits, rational side approach god". People like books to hold; they remember them better. Each proposition is one side of the same phenomena, I doubt we'll be able to separate the cause and the effect, this is simply an immanent fact. This has and will continue to be backed up by research. You can obviously "get" something out of a work reading it online; if you are somewhat literate you can even get more out of a digital work than a numpty reading a paper copy of the same work. OBVIOUSLY engagement with the text is more important than the medium. All I'm saying is that for whatever reasons (be they historical, biological, idiosyncratic, necessary) physical texts offer a richer experience. It's actually really fucking simple, and while there are plenty of studies suggesting that this is the case I haven't seen a single study suggesting otherwise. Normally I am hesitant to go to materialist proofs for psychological suppositions but we've otherwise reached an impasse.

>>8495339
My library keeps a perennial stand full of gangster romance novels in front of the entrance because the clientele is like 70% middle aged black women. "The thug who loved me", " Honor thy thug ", "my father's girlfriend's son", etc. It's not a good place for finding decent books.

>>8501790
thanks :)

>>8501849

stfu

>>8495442
> The physical aspect to books is the main reason why we can stomach reading them.

Holy fuck. That has to be the single most retarded sentence I've read in my entire life. You only read books because of the object itself? You are the very definition of a pseud.

>>8501880
>>8501991


ANyone notice 4chan is like 80% corruptibles now?

Brainless little kids don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

>>8501849
>2012
>still having this meaningless debate

Why do you read posts on 4chan on a computer screen when you could read them in a book?

II say kill them

>>8501999

They're literally dirt on the ground, why would you keep them?

>>8502012

The poor who worship elitism are literally non-existent and don't deserve the life they don't even/will never have. Dirt on the ground.

Plus they literally make the rich rich by their stupidity. So easily led.

>>8501997

OP got BTFO'd.

>>8501995

Yeah man totally, this OP is retarded on a whole new level, completely agreed.

>>8501849
>nobody cares about your shitty experimental hypertext poetry
wow nice presumptions kiddo

e-ink is the exact same thing as the ink used in every other book, in that it is a dark pigment against a white background.

>>8501995

Preach, this debate is rehashed time and time again, and the anti-ebookers still haven't presented actual arguments. Most haven't even picked up a Kindle or Kobo and think people use fucking iPads to read a book - that's how stupid these people are.

What a pleby discussion. Audiobooks are clearly superior. There's a reason Socrates never wrote shit down, listening is the best method of absorbing information. Fact.

ITT
>e-reader/kindle users triggered by published scientific papers that prove reading on paper is better for comprehension, so as a result they are trying very hard to justify their purchases of a useless device

>>8502103

You're a fucking retard. That's the only explanation. If you think there's no difference between a kindle and a printed book, why are you even having this discussion. Doesn't matter which you buy. They're LITERALLY the exact same thing according to you, by virtue of the reflective surface and nonreflective pigment. You seem to be saying this is the only formal characteristic that could possibly affect memory and comprehension.
Also link to your work on amazon.

>>8502105
>>8502079
>>8502076

samefag trying to save face. countless studies provided. literal differences between media expounded. Response?
>hurr durr you lose
>I agree lol

>>8502127
>ITT
> Fags who're into fondling paper argue that reading is something you only "stomach" in order to fondle some sweet, sweet dead tree extract.

>>8502134

let's ignore all the real arguments and parade around one retarded statement to make ourselves feel better about getting BTFO'd by reality

>>8502141
>ignore all the real arguments

The ones in a clickbait article? The ones not backed by peer review?

In that one single statement you showed your true colours, so why should I change my tune? You played yourself, you fucking pseud. Go caress some mulched up bark and pretend you're an intelectual. I'd bet you're the kind of fag who smokes a pipe.

>>8502123
audio books are for fucking idiots

>>8502157
>idiots
>socrates

did you just really...?

>>8502157

let's ignore all the real arguments and parade around one retarded statement to make ourselves feel better about getting BTFO'd by reality

>>8502131
>You're a fucking retard.
so convincing

None of my work is in a digital format or still in print.

>>8502149

there you have it. ignoring this post:

>>8498745
> (2013) Anne Mangen, University of Stavanger - Reading linear texts on paper vs. computer screen: effects on reading comprehension.

> (2007) Erik Wästlund, University of Karlstad - Experimental studies of human-computer interaction : working memory and mental workload in complex cognition

> (2001) Daniel K Mayes, University of Central Florida - Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading

> (1994) Jan Olsen, University of Cornell - Electronic Journal Literature: Implications for Scholars

because

>muh peer review. muh kindle.

My (I'm not OP, retards) point is very simple. The evidence that does exist suggests that printed works are more digestible and memorable than electronic documents. Reading on a kindle isn't retarded, you can keep your kindle because it saves money and space. But there's more to the ownership of paper books than "book smell". You might think that students of literature would be able to appreciate aesthetic experiences and their tendency to produce value that is 'more than' just aesthetic, in the same way that hearing an author read their story aloud is a qualitatively different experience than reading the story, and that it can produce quantitatively different effects in your relationship to the work.

you have your head in the sand. the kindle =/= the death of print.

>>8502211

wow man, I really believe you, sorry for saying anything mean.

just so you know though I'm actually in the exact same situation w/r/t my published works, so don't ask me either.

>>8502123
>listening is the best method of absorbing information. Fact.

well I'm glad we ended that issue gents

>>8502227
> (2013) Anne Mangen, University of Stavanger - Reading linear texts on paper vs. computer screen: effects on reading comprehension.

> (2007) Erik Wästlund, University of Karlstad - Experimental studies of human-computer interaction : working memory and mental workload in complex cognition

> (2001) Daniel K Mayes, University of Central Florida - Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading

> (1994) Jan Olsen, University of Cornell - Electronic Journal Literature: Implications for Scholars

Because this shit is literally irrelevant in the e-book vs book debate BECAUSE E-INK ISN'T THE FOCUS OF THE STUDIES. Kindle came out in 2007, which rules out 3 of your studies, and the remaining one has COMPUTER screen in the title. How fucking retarded are you? I know you just got these titles from Google Scholar and didn't bother to actually read any of these, so why should I? You didn't even bother reading the fucking titles and publication year.

>>8495184


>poor retard trying to convince everyone that can afford an e-reader that he is superior

/thread

>>8502262

Fact.

>>8496468
>le ad hominem meme
>You haven't convinced a single person who actually shoots heroine that heroine is the devil. You know why? Because we KNOW thats retarded

>>8502269
>comparing ebooks to heroin

was your daddy raped by a kobo? why can't you get over the fact that people enjoy reading in different media?

>>8495274
This doesn't support or disprove your point, but you wrote "loose" twice instead of "lose." I realize they use the same vowel sound and it's easy to confuse but you should remember the difference and not make the mistake in the future. Perhaps if you read on a kindle you could read more often and at any and every time convenient. Idk, it's a brain thing.

>>8502255
>rules out 3 of your studies
Are you fucking stupid?

> I know you just got these titles from Google Scholar and didn't bother to actually read any of these, so why should I?
o i am laffin

>>8495363
The physical book isn't as valuable as the contents of the book though right?

>>8502286
>Are you fucking stupid?

Good comeback kiddo. Go jerk off into a hardback. It's a brain thing.

>>8502294

You don't get it do you? It's a brain thing.

>>8502255

you're actually a dipshit if you think e-ink will solve all of the problems associated with reading electronic documents. but sure, your kindle is just as good as the library at oxford.

>>8501849
Why are you angry?

>>8496304
why so edgy

>>8502411

Talk to me when you actually read one of the studies you cite and are able to present actual arguments instead of your own opinion disguised as fact.

>>8502103
Holy shit, not even him but you're a fucking idiot.
He hasn't been talking about in this whole fucking time you retard, he's been talking about the location of certain sections measured by physical distance (thickness) in books which you have already correlated some significance to said location.

>>8502276
>le ad hominem meme
Compare them to red meat and you'll get the same picture

>>8502477
talking about ink in*

>>8502491

There wasn't any ad hominem in that post.

>>8502519

This guy is so retarded he doesn't understand the concept of ad hominem *or* meme.

Instead of fight can one of you help me figure out why my Nook Simple Touch Glowlight won't be recognized on any computer I plug it into? The cable works fine since it charges, and I've tried it on 3 different computers and 5 different cables, but it still doesn't come up as a removable device.

>>8501089
Underrated post

did the guy who killed your parents own a kindle or something? i'd take it seriously if it didn't come off as you having a huge hate-boner for e-readers

>>8502582
>>le ad hominem meme

>>8502286
>rules out 3 of your studies
>Are you fucking stupid?
Clearly not as it rules out 3 of the studies. Do you just not understand the argument or are you shit at reading?

>>8500723
>BECAUSE A PHYSICAL TEXT DOES NOT EXIST WHEN YOU HAVE A KINDLE
And yet
A) That hasn't impacted anyone's enjoyment of the kindle, nor their reading comprehension as someone already disputed the studies and

>IT'S ABOUT SPATIAL MEMORY. "SPATIAL MEMORY"
B) As I said here >>8496468 there is more than enough in the kindle itself to track your place in the book and relate to the text.

What the fuck does spatial memory mean in this context and how does it help more than interactive or visual memory? You can't use a scientific argument then stop using just to sperg all over the keyboard.

>>8501849
>obviously EVERYTHING is physical
>don't be daft and pretend you can't understand the sense in which a printed text has a special (if only provisional) kind of independent existence that isn't replicated on a kindle
Well demonstrate then. I mean clearly people are trying to use scientific arguments followed by MUH PHYSICALLY but you aren't really saying what this magical property that a physical book has.

>>8502672
>there is more than enough in the kindle itself to track your place in the book and relate to the text.
It's not spatial

>>8502684
... you have to be fucking kidding me
pro-kindle side of this thread are trying haaaaard to keep their heads in the sand

>>8496237

>you guys are all fucking retards who can't understand a simple fucking concept

No, you are the "fucking retard" who can't understand a "simple concept". An e-ink reader and an ipad are completely different. About as different from one another as each is from a "physical" book (all are physical, technically).

If you hate kindles so much then don't use one. Stop bitching and moaning on a chinese cartoon imageboard and get back to your physical book reading, pal.

butthurt hipsters can't decide whether they want to use hip tech or show off their /lit/ collection lel

>>8503429

you're such a fucking moron lol just leave the thread instead of bitching and moaning about other people "bitching and moaning" you dumb fucking child. you don't even understand the arguments, you're simply too attached to your shiny toy to understand. separate your identity from the shit you own and you might start to see more clearly.

>>8503429

I don't even hate kindles though. I own one and use it to supplement paper reading when I'm on a trip or anything like that. My ideal reading system (for academic work) is to have a searchable PDF open on my computer and the paper copy in my hands. Electronic documents are great and unlike OP I never said that you're "reading incorrectly" on a kindle. I've just been arguing with the newfriends who try to say that kindles are "objectively better" and that printed books offer nothing but "paper smell".

Seeing as all the arguments have degenerated to "u mad bro", I'm going to accept victory and put a new pin in my fedora of internet winz (debate +5)

>have ereader
>read every book ever
>have books
>read only what I can afford/loan/store on my shelf
hmm

I break a kobo every 18 months or so, that's still cheaper than buying books

>>8504489
But everyone knows youre just op's heteronym

Who gives a fuck if you can't place a plot point? What relevance does it hold to say "Ohh yeah that happened on page 142"

>>8504518

>who cares about being able to remember what they read

>>8504514

I'm literally not OP, I don't think OP has posted since the first day

>>8495945
>Right wing philosophy
Good one

So e-ink = /lit/ equivalent of fedora?

Not surprised desu

>>8505167


Nope, people who try to impose their preferred medium to read on others = /lit/ equivalent of fedora.

>>8505214
nobody's trying to impose shit, ebook users are just crying like babbys because paper books haven't been made obsolete

>>8505167
pic related: average ebook-only fanatic

>>8505802

faggot ebooks are the future get over it

>He criticizes Kindles when he doesn't even know what E-ink is

>>8507189

>he doesn't even say who he is responding to because it is just a strawman

>>8496446
>textbooks
I actually find them harder to read because the glossy pages reflect so much light into my fucking eyes and it's distracting as fuck

>>8507209

kys

>>8507194
If you post and don't respond to someone it means the post is either directed at the faggot OP or the entire thread. Clearly you need to lurk more.

>>8507225

nobody is confused about what e-ink is, dipshit. did you even read the thread

>>8507226
Don't you ever, EVER respond to my posts again unless you're going to say something constructive. I have had it up to here with you jackasses ruining this board because of what you think are "smart" and "funny" comments, when you're really trying to hide your insecurities by belittling someone on the Internet. Why? What do you gain from it? Don't you realize that the posts you respond to have REAL people behind them? Real people that don't deserve the bullshit you think is acceptable to throw in their faces? Did your parents not teach you any decency or basic manners? Whatever the case, it ends NOW. It's time you brats learned a thing or two about respect. If I catch you pulling this sort of shit again, believe me, there will be hell to pay.

this thread got off the very relevant and true topic of "kindle users are fucking retards who might as well be watching tv shows on a tablet if they're going to read on that piece of fucking garbage"

>>8495280
>when you go back in the story to re-read a section, the physical distance of pages back helps order the story
Made up for by beimg able to search.

>>8507235
>tfw OP is still in the thread, OP"s bullshit now has been thoroughly debunked, and OP gets mad

>>8496172
>small indie books from local authors

>>8498745
>>inb4 muh e-ink
He said inb4 lads. Nothing we can do now.

>>8496172
>indie books from local authors

>>8502211
>so convincing
lel, BTFO my man, sure got this debate in the bag

>>8505802
> nobody's trying to impose shit, ebook users are just crying like babbys because paper books haven't been made obsolete

Huh, did you even read the OP? Did you read any of the thread at all? Of course they're trying to impose paper books on others. Maybe the problem is you're reading this thread on a screen - did you try printing it out and annotating? Heard it helps retention.

>>8507235

Is this shit copy-pasta? Fuck you, old man. Now show me the "hell to pay", rofl.

who cares dude its just a book

>>8495198
this
>>8495225
>what
kill yourself

honestly, this is just because of the small screen size and the huge bezels.

>>8507338

LOL show me where OP has been "thoroughly debunked".

I can save you some time and tell you it never happened. Paper books result in better comprehension. Don't smash your kindle out of rage, your mom wouldn't want to see you treating your birthday presents like that.

>>8495184
It has nothing to do with Kindle itself, demographics make all the difference.

I do physical books, e-reader, phone reading (thanks Cool Reader), everything. And I have to subscribe moderately to the theory of the improved retention with physical. It's not an ontological obscurity. It's a memory thing. Like mnemotechnics where you use your hands, fingers, etc, for memorizing. Memory works better when ideas or memories are associated with physical things or events. This is just how the human mind work, and it's that way for everybody, ancient greeks, contemporary physical theoreticians, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci

This is just the first link I found out of the top of the google search.

And WAIT, No, reading and enjoying books is not about memorizing, I know. But if any physicality of the book helps you 'retain' more emotions, events and their sequence, etc, then I think that's better and improves the reading experience.
With all that considered. I think there's a place for e-readers and phone reading: convenience and affordability.

>>8508786

HOLY SHIT. E READERS ARE NOT TABLETS. THERE IS *PHYSICAL* E-INK. IT IS EASIER TO READ THAN PRINTED WORDS ON PAPER. THE DEVICE IS *PHYSICAL*. THERE IS A PERCENTAGE READOUT AND A SEARCH FUNCTION. THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY PAPER BOOKS ARE BETTER IN ANY SENSE.

How can a group of readers be so retarded. It's about the text, not the medium.

>>8508811
m8. I know e-readers exist in the physical world. Calm down. I mean that ALL books you read in THE SAME e-reader, will not be differentiated by any physical aspect. They will all have THE SAME physical existence. That of the e-reader. So you can't associate different books to different physical aspects, as it happens in real paper books

Okay for those who don't hate ebooks (I am fine with both), which reader should I get as my first? I had considered the basic Kindle, Paperwhite, and Fire. Fire has nice functionality for a tablet but ultimately I think im just interested in the e-reader aspect. Do any of them have any issues with converting heavily used file types or other technical limitations?

>>8510115
Personally, I have a Kindle Voyage, however have used the Kindle paper-white and found it to be nearly as good. Calibre suite allows you to convert nearly any format, and bookzz has everybook you'll ever need.

>>8510169
That name sounds familiar. I think I used it back when I had my very old original kindle like a decade ago. So im glad thats still a thing. Do they support audio books at all even with headphones? Im pretty sure it has no speakers.

i use e-readers because they sell the same books at a non-retardo price.

>conan chronicles
>35.99 canadian
>1.45 for the kindle version

no i think I need to buy the retarded version.

honestly if i had to get a paper version of everything i wanted to read i'd go fucking insane. the library has unpredictable waiting lists and might not necessarily have what i want to read. and buying everything i want is just a pain in the ass, not to mention the cost.

the convenience is still worth the decreased retention to me. if there comes a time i absolutely need to focus on a book then i'll be happy to find a paper version, but if not, oh well.

>>8507338
OP here, I've actually made only about 4 or 5 replies in this thread. Being:

>>8502127
>>8501367
>>8496054
>>8495363
>>8495339

Others have already provided further and more thorough information that proves the main point of the thread.

I haven't even read whatever your argument is about

shills get out

>>8502123
The resason was because Socrates didn't exist you fucking idiot. And if Plato had done the same as your hypothetical Socrates, we wouldn't even have a Socrates in the first place.

>>8501799
Is this the case at public libraries or just academic/private ones?

>>8495184

Fuck you and fuck everyone who responded in this thread agreeing with you. The first and third link both refer to the same study, which had 50 participants.

Fuck you, you fucking retards.

The "muh physicality" arguments are embarrassingly sentimental.

Don't know about those people in those studies, but I know that I read better on an electronic device. The words feel more palpable and thus easier to absorb. I look at paper now and my mind feels distanced.

>>8495297
If you can't remember the fucking plot how do you expect to remember passages from it? Why even read in the first place?

>>8510260
Really dépend the book. I recently saw on Amazon some books for with there wasn't a big difference. Some prices for the Kindle version were even higher than for the physical one (who sais logic ?)

>>8510699
i bet you highlight your textbooks too huh

>>8495346
>not ordering used books on Amazon for literally one cent plus $3 shipping

I'm sure mummy will let you use her debit card if it's for books

What about stone tablets and papyrus scrolls? Are they better or worse than books?

>>8510810

thank for gregg turkington.png

>>8510819
I agree, the way a giant stone tablet is "just there" and doesn't change and imposes certain physical limitations on the reader is actually superior for retaining the information, let's all use giant stone tablets, everybody

>>8496275
>Go to local indie bookstore
>No AC in fucking Florida, where even the projects have central air
>no overhead lights, just industrial hanging lamps tied to random shit that are hot as fuck and are a huge fire hazard right next to all the books
>there aren't even lamps in some parts of the store, I had to use my phone flashlight to read the titles
>aisles blocked off with carts and boxes of overflowing, messy, unsorted books and other random crap haphazardly left on the floor, it would take like 15 minutes to move out of the way but the employee was just sitting on his ass behind a desk the whole time.
>It looks like a hoarder house, you can't even get to like a quarter of the store because the aisles are blocked with crap and it's pitch black in that corner

See, all of this could have made the coolest used bookstore ever but their prices were so ridiculous, they were charging $5 each for beat up old Star Trek books and anything actually good was over $10. They were basically charging just under brand new retail price for beat up musty books that would be 25 cents to $3 at any other used bookstore. I felt insulted, you want me to trip over boxes and use my phone flashlight to see, AND pay these prices? Fuuuuuck you, Book Mine in Tallahassee. If a place ever deserved to get torn down for luxury student apartments, this would be it.

Just read the fucking words and shit the hell up

>>8510848
>shit the hell up