E-reading isn't reading?

[JDK1962]

I seem to recall some recent studies showing that student actually comprehend/retain more when using eReaders, which is one reason why more schools are adopting them (and why they seem to be popular with special ed teachers).

The majority of my higher education is in mathematics and computer science (though I also picked up a degree in English along the way, so I'm not a *complete* geek), and I think that biases me towards a more quantitative assessment of the author's statements. Specifically, IF the purpose of reading is to comprehend/absorb the written work, and IF eReaders are able to do that as well as physical book, THEN the claim that "eReading is not reading" seems like nothing but opinionated bollocks.

I love books and reading, adore my Kindle and have a wall of books in my living room. People who set up false dichotomies--especially about something as trivial as format--for no other reason than to look down on those on the opposite side of the line they've drawn drive me nuts.

I can't wait for his next article about how people who read paperbacks, rather than hardbacks, aren't really reading.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

But my point was that the articles reading_context_1 is of course not all possible ways to consume text. We can have reading_context_2 and my point was that this the author might have missed. But a lot of people here have missed that a context is necessary for this discussion and that just consuming text is not what the article was about.

Reading is reading is reading, regardless of the context. There is no "reading_context1". There is only "reading + context1", because it is still reading in a different context. If changing the context doesn't make it not reading, then the context isn't part of what makes it reading. The author makes a fatal mistake in assuming that how he prefers to read is an inherent part of reading. He likes the tactile sensation of paper books. That's fine, but it is a mistake to think that it isn't reading with out it.

To borrow from Dr. Seuss:

I could read them on a boat,
I could read them on a goat.
I could read them in the rain,
I could read them in the train.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Reading is reading is reading, regardless of the context. There is no "reading_context1". There is only "reading + context1", because it is still reading in a different context. If changing the context doesn't make it not reading, then the context isn't part of what makes it reading. The author makes a fatal mistake in assuming that how he prefers to read is an inherent part of reading. He likes the tactile sensation of paper books. That's fine, but it is a mistake to think that it isn't reading with out it.

To borrow from Dr. Seuss:

I could read them on a boat,
I could read them on a goat.
I could read them in the rain,
I could read them in the train.

You still miss the point. "reading in context" (e.g. call it reading a science fiction book in the context of you being a member of sf fandom) has as a part just reading. But it is not just reading. Just like having a fine dinner at a restaurant is not the same type of experience as eating microwaved dinner at home.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

You still miss the point. "reading in context" (e.g. call it reading a science fiction book in the context of you being a member of sf fandom) has as a part just reading. But it is not just reading. Just like having a fine dinner at a restaurant is not the same type of experience as eating microwaved dinner at home.

I'm not missing anything. If you want to use a dining example, it's like saying that it isn't fine dining unless there is a sprig of parley on the plate or if the tablecloth isn't the right shade of mauve. The author clearly thinks that an e-book versus a paper book is the equivalent of a microwaved dinner versus a meal at a fine restaurant. But he's just plain wrong, and mistakes his own preferences for objectivity. You get the same "literary meal" when you read a book in e-book that you do when you read a paper book. Everything beside "to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of (something written, printed, etc.): to read a book; to read music." is just a matter of preference.

[NickyWithNook]

Well eating really IS a sensory experience, so other sensory things involved could have an effect. But when I'm reading, I am not paying attention to senses. I'm swept up in the story and people have to work to get my attention to get me back on Earth. I can't imagine how anything sensory could affect something that so much happens in your head.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by NickyWithNook

Well eating really IS a sensory experience, so other sensory things involved could have an effect. But when I'm reading, I am not paying attention to senses. I'm swept up in the story and people have to work to get my attention to get me back on Earth. I can't imagine how anything sensory could affect something that so much happens in your head.

Sure, other things can affect your reading experience. For example, some people like music while they are reading, I like silence. If some people find the tactile sensation of a paper book gives them a better reading experience, then by all means, they should fee free to read paper books. But it doesn't mean it's a better experience for everyone.

[BenBanned]

IF YOU DONT TYPE LIKE ME,
YOUR NOT REALLY TYPING!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by BenBanned

IF YOU DONT TYPE LIKE ME,
YOUR NOT REALLY TYPING!

What? I couldn't read that, I was distracted by the smell of Thanksgiving Dinner cooking...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BenBanned

IF YOU DONT TYPE LIKE ME,
YOUR NOT REALLY TYPING!

We have to use the wrong words when we type?

[JDK1962]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We have to use the wrong words when we type?

No, no, no. He meant bold, italic, and all caps. No, I mean bold and all caps. Italics isn't really typing. No, wait, it's bold and italics that's the only real typing, all caps is content-related. No, wait...

Well, your just wrong. No, you're just wrong. No, you are. Stop hitting yourself. Why are you hitting yourself?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by tompe

You still miss the point. "reading in context" (e.g. call it reading a science fiction book in the context of you being a member of sf fandom) has as a part just reading. But it is not just reading. Just like having a fine dinner at a restaurant is not the same type of experience as eating microwaved dinner at home.

Is he missing the point, I wonder? You did read the article I assume? Reread it looking for this one thing: Why would possibly so many people be upset with it? It starts out really good and reasonable. How new technology made reading more available. He is by far not against new things - going from tablets (the stone kind) and scrolls to codex. Stop reading there, it can go either way - I was half expecting him to go to the now, how ereaders are a next big step. Only half expecting, because reading this thread I already knew the outcome. The remainder of the article was describing in so great detail why and how evolution should stop at the book in codex medium. For the one reason, because st augustine loved the new books soooo much - that was some 1600 years ago. And he comes back to that - no new evidence. I don't recall reading about the printing press, making books look different (a lot) - not those beautiful hand-copied books before. Don't get me wrong, I love the look of those, they are beautiful, even though I am incapable of reading the calligraphy in them at any reasonable speed. Books got easier to read over time, fonts more modern. Now ereaders let you switch the fonts, and size, let you annotate and scribble in the book without ruining the book. What is the downside? The downside is that st. augustine did not have access to an ereader. Mentioning reading to his kids and how important the book is made me laugh. Replace book with ereader or tablet (this time the electronic kind), or fairy tale written on a scroll would have had the same impact.

I am not even going into how pointing a finger makes a difference or not.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Is he missing the point, I wonder? You did read the article I assume? Reread it looking for this one thing: Why would

Eh, I have already clearly stated that I think the article is wrong but it is not for the reason that just reading text is the the thing that is essential. The reason is that reading ebooks also have a lot of extra components that you get from for example usage of web sites for readers and so on.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by tompe

Eh, I have already clearly stated that I think the article is wrong but it is not for the reason that just reading text is the the thing that is essential. The reason is that reading ebooks also have a lot of extra components that you get from for example usage of web sites for readers and so on.

I see. So you are saying that reading is more than consuming text. Agreed. And you don't like in the article how paper-books are the only way to read. You say reading electronically is different though - with extra components. Do you think, in your opinion, that ereading is at least equal to preading, or potentially so, but that it can be an enhancement? Or do you think that p and e overlap, but are essentially different? Don't quite understand that from your responses. It is not completely clear if you prefer one over the other, or if you just disagree on why the article gets wrongly bashed? Maybe you agree with the article, that codex reading is better, but you don't agree on the reasons given?

Just trying to understand your point of view.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I see. So you are saying that reading is more than consuming text. Agreed. And you don't like in the article how paper-books are the only way to read. You say reading electronically is different though - with extra components. Do you think, in your opinion, that ereading is at least equal to preading, or potentially so, but that it can be an enhancement? Or do you think that p and e overlap, but are essentially different? Don't quite understand that from your responses. It is not completely clear if you prefer one over the other, or if you just disagree on why the article gets wrongly bashed? Maybe you agree with the article, that codex reading is better, but you don't agree on the reasons given?

Just trying to understand your point of view.

I really do not have an opinion other than that e-reading and p-reading is a bit different but can both be activities on the level that the article author considered p-reading to be. And the point that I tried to make here was that there exists activities that contains reading text that do not achieve that level so the argument that "reading is reading" proposed in this thread is a broken argument argument.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by tompe

And the point that I tried to make here was that there exists activities that contains reading text that do not achieve that level so the argument that "reading is reading" proposed in this thread is a broken argument argument.

How can reading not be reading? Some types of reading may be different than other types. I feel that I must take a firm stand that reading is reading. Unless there's some weird mathematical case where a set can be not equal to itself. And, if so, damn those mathematicians anyway.