@bibliolater @jarulf @bookstodon That is interesting I wonder why the difference between physical and ebook for retention. I only buy physical books for recipes, reading a physical book with my shoulder pain is too much usually. But now wondering if eg history or science books I should consider trying physical sometimes?

(I generally don't do audio-anything - I get too easily distracted - I really need video for any audio type stuff so audiobooks are not really for me usually)

@picard @jarulf @bookstodon This is a piece from 2013: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/

@bibliolater @jarulf @bookstodon Thanks - will have a read, sounds like a good article!

I remember seeing Norman Davies (historian / writer) talk about the difference in quality between writing with pen and paper and using a laptop - the physicality of it.

@picard @bibliolater @jarulf @bookstodon

There's also a difference in how you approach the task. Writing with pen and paper is physically demanding and unforgiving of mistakes. Editing is a pain in the arse. So it's better to have a good idea of what you're going to write, which implies a thorough understanding of the ideas behind it.

But with a computer, you can do a brain dump and it's easy to edit afterwards. Less preparation, less thinking, is required. It's not an improvement.

@riggbeck @picard @jarulf @bookstodon Is there a right or wrong answer or is it just a matter of preference?

@bibliolater @picard @jarulf @bookstodon

I think it depends on what you want to read. 'Content creators' will always produce shallow, ephemeral stuff because that's what their market demands. Most of it is a waste of time.

I prefer writers steeped in the knowledge of their subject, because that's where the insight comes from. How they get it written is up to them.

As to your original question, it's probably a matter of preference, though I prefer real books. Knowledge should have weight.

@riggbeck @picard @jarulf @bookstodon I must say that I am in agreement with you.

@riggbeck @bibliolater @jarulf @bookstodon thanks, appreciate your thoughts on this. Not been able to read the article today but valued your input.

@bibliolater @picard @bookstodon thanks for sharing this. Very interesting read, though I read it on my phone so I may not have understood everything and remember less. 😉

@jarulf @picard @bookstodon You are welcome.

I remember this article from 2013 and it was bad back then. It goes back and forth between #EInk and regular screens as if these are related. They are not.

We all know that computer screens make for an awful reading experience. Before I got an #EReader I read a single book an a screen. I rarely read paperbooks today.

I got a decade of highlights from my ebooks available and yesterday my reading app told me I've 30 hrs left on my current book series.

@bibliolater @picard @jarulf @bookstodon

@oligneisti @picard @jarulf @bookstodon Thank you for commenting on the toot. I can see that you didn't like it then and you don't like it now. Do you think that electronic readers have made such a difference? Personally I find that having a physical book with pages and ink that I touch helps me to retain information better than even an e-reader screen.

@picard @bibliolater @bookstodon I also have some issues with pain which sometimes make it difficult to simply hold a book, a little counterintuitively HC books are easier than paperbacks. So my wallet is a bit unhappy with me, since that's almost the only physical books I buy. My Kobo is usually fine, but occasionally that's a bit much too, so audiobooks.

@jarulf @bibliolater @bookstodon I do have a book stand which I suppose might help with physical books, but still less comfortable than propping up an ereader. Interesting about the relative ease of hardbacks though, thanks.