Reading on social media - faster or slower

[tomfyhr]

I read somewhere that reading on electronic devices is easier for young adults to read in contrast to traditional books, in the sense that reading a line on social media is easier for young adults than reading a line in a traditional book.

I also read that when young adults scroll on social media, they have an easier time reading.

Is that true, and if it is do you know why?

[meeera]

You get good by practising.

[rcentros]

Scanning social media and reading books are two completely different exercises. For example, I'm currently reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Denise Kiernan's The Girls of Atomic City and Dean Koontz's The Crooked Staircase. What social media mechanism would allow me to do this?

(That said, the closest I come to "social media" is posting on forums like this one.)

[tomfyhr]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Scanning social media and reading books are two completely different exercises. For example, I'm currently reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Denise Kiernan's The Girls of Atomic City and Dean Koontz's The Crooked Staircase. What social media mechanism would allow me to do this?

(That said, the closest I come to "social media" is posting on forums like this one.)

Sorry! I used the wrong terminology! I meant reading on electronic devices.

[tomfyhr]

In addition, since reading on the web is much more spontaneous than reading a physical book, which some may seem as be more formal, could it make reading on the web and electronically much more easier from a psychological standpoint if one has a mindset than reading a physcal book is formal?

Historically, the physical book was intially only for the rich and educated and was hardcover with tremendously high price.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tomfyhr

In addition, since reading on the web is much more spontaneous than reading a physical book, which some may seem as be more formal, could it make reading on the web and electronically much more easier from a psychological standpoint if one has a mindset than reading a physcal book is formal?

Historically, the physical book was intially only for the rich and educated and was hardcover with tremendously high price.

Reading on the web is more "spontaneous?" In what way? And, again, scanning social media "news" (so to speak) and reading a book are two completely different exercises.

Reading on the web is "easier from a psychological standpoint?" In what way? "Reading" (so to speak) on the web is filled with distractions. It's "noisy" and requires more attention, not less.

The distinction between eBooks and "physical" books is pretty much irrelevant for me. The last ten books I've read have been evenly divided between "physical" books and eBooks (five of each). The main advantage of eBooks is that they're usually easier to get (borrow from the library or download – if public domain – or buy online if not).

Which brings me to your last point, that books are "historically" expensive. That's ages ago and far in the past now. It's been a long time since the only books available where those carved from rocks or hand written on velum. Thousands and thousands of books are now available – FREE – in the public domain even if you just have a $20 eReader and some kind of Internet access. They're also free to borrow from the library. Almost all the novels I read are downloaded from the Overdrive.

Life is good for readers now.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The distinction between eBooks and "physical" books is pretty much irrelevant for me. The last ten books I've read have been evenly divided between "physical" books and eBooks (five of each). The main advantage of eBooks is that they're usually easier to get (borrow from the library or download – if public domain – or buy online if not).

That's pretty-much where I'm at (though I read very few physical books at this point). Unless it's somehow relevant to the conversation, I tend to use the term "book" for both electronic and physical books. Like you, the main advantage ebooks hold for me is in getting books quickly and easily, not in reading them (with the exception of being able to change the font-size).

I think most people who've been ereading (as in reading electronic representations of novels/textbooks on portable devices) for a while tend to stop thinking of ebooks as "different" from books.

The novelty of the device wore out about 3 chapters into my first ebook. After that, I was simply reading books ... much like I've always done. Different, but same.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by tomfyhr

Historically, the physical book was intially only for the rich and educated and was hardcover with tremendously high price.

Hmmmm... Last time I looked, Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg made mass production of books in Europe possible in the 15th century. Scriveners copying from an exemplar and chained libraries have long been out of style.

[Pulpmeister]

Even in the early 19th century hard back books were very expensive. If you worked down the pit, or were a farm labourer, you couldn't afford a new one, or even a second hand one. Hence the arrival of public libraries in the UK and elsewhere. Mass production of books didn't really come until there was a very large population who were literate and production expanded accordingly, with machine binding and so on. And it really exploded with mechanical typesetting.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Even in the early 19th century hard back books were very expensive. If you worked down the pit, or were a farm labourer, you couldn't afford a new one, or even a second hand one. Hence the arrival of public libraries in the UK and elsewhere. Mass production of books didn't really come until there was a very large population who were literate and production expanded accordingly, with machine binding and so on. And it really exploded with mechanical typesetting.

Looking at Great Britian in the 1830's, penny bloods (later to become penny dreadfuls) were an example of mass marketed cheap fiction aimed at the working class. As for public libraries, in 1819 there were 28 booksellers who kept circulating libraries and 9 with reading rooms with Hatchards Booksellers founded in 1797 being one of the booksellers with a reading room and which is still in business. By 1821 there were around 66,000 reading societies in Great Britain with costs ranging from 1/2 to 2 guineas per year per family. These items courtesy of my wife and her near lifelong fascination with the Regency era. Never ever ask her about the newspaper tax courtesy of the Stamp Act of 1797.

I will admit that the penny bloods were not hardcover being printed on paper that was about the same quality as today's cheap paper towels. However while print runs of books in that era were much smaller than the average print run today, it's hard to argue that they were not mass-produced.

[patrickt]

When I read paper books, usually for work, I would often be highlighting passages with a yellow marker and flagging pages with stick-on tabs for future reference. I can do that with electronic devices, too. But, I would also scribble notes in the margins. That, I can't do with electronic devices.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Reading on the web is more "spontaneous?" In what way? And, again, scanning social media "news" (so to speak) and reading a book are two completely different exercises.

The OP clarified that he meant e-books as opposed to social media.

But reading social media on the web is more spontaneous than reading a book or an e-book. You are using a device that is always in your pocket and when jumping on to Facebook or whatever social media you are using, you are basically skimming content, rather than trying to comprehend anything. You don't have to worry about whether you have enough time to finish a chapter.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

The OP clarified that he meant e-books as opposed to social media.

But reading social media on the web is more spontaneous than reading a book or an e-book. You are using a device that is always in your pocket and when jumping on to Facebook or whatever social media you are using, you are basically skimming content, rather than trying to comprehend anything. You don't have to worry about whether you have enough time to finish a chapter.

I'll have to take your word for it. Forums (like this one) are the closest I come to "social media." But I still think it's comparing apples to oranges. You don't read books on social media. That's the whole point of an eReader.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'll have to take your word for it. Forums (like this one) are the closest I come to "social media." But I still think it's comparing apples to oranges. You don't read books on social media. That's the whole point of an eReader.

True. But then, it turns out the thread title is in error and now the thread is unlikely to ever get back on track. For the OP to ever get an answer, probably starting a new thread would be best

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

True. But then, it turns out the thread title is in error and now the thread is unlikely to ever get back on track. For the OP to ever get an answer, probably starting a new thread would be best

If I understood his/her original meaning (replacing "social media" with "eReaders"), I did respond to that, by saying that , in my opinion, eBooks should be as close to paper books as possible and that (for me) reading on the two mediums is not a significantly different experience.

But maybe I've missed something else?