What is the difference between digital reading and paper reading?

Paper books represent knowledge, not just knowledge. The weight of printed books and the muscle movement of turning pages remind us in physical form that the contents of books are full of hardships. Matthew, University of Exeter, UK? Dr. Heller's seemingly difficult article, if you taste it slowly, can give you endless inspiration. The full text is as follows:

I seldom hear the following opinions, but I think it is very important to remember them: an ancient book, in which the text content is copied into paper binding, will no longer be different from each other, and both of them have physical properties and are integrated. The form of physical media fixes the content and the way of dialogue between readers and content. In other words, the work and the printed page are actually the same thing. Not only that, when we talk about War and Peace as a book, I mean a book printed and bound on paper as an entity. Pointing at it, we can say that this book is War and Peace.

For centuries, we have always thought that the so-called reading experience refers to obtaining a specific and unique (although reproducible) copy, and then understanding the content (plot, argument, etc.) of the work. ) by browsing. The e-book reader, or the carrier of communication between readers and e-books, is completely different; We can't point to an e-book reader and claim that this book is War and Peace.

Like Katherine? Hiles believes that if there is no suitable hardware and software running on it, electronic text basically does not exist. Strictly speaking, electronic text is a process, not an object, although it needs objects (such as hardware and software) to generate it. [See: Catherine? Hiles, Printing is Flat, Code is Deep (Printing is Flat, Code is Deep), 79 pages.

E-book readers are as substantive as classics (although readers obviously have their own characteristics and need people to use a completely different set of actions), but the e-books opened on the readers are as erratic as phantoms, and their relationship with physical readers is very fragile. Jump to the surface of the reader when opening, and return to darkness when closing, which makes the physical carrier form of e-books largely divorced from the content. The physical carrier form (that is, the reader) defines itself in completely different situations.

We can also make many inferences about this kind of content experience, such as TV programs, computer software, movies shown on the screen and music on the player; These contents are related to fixed physical objects and can play and display a variety of contents. Therefore, when we look at this matter, we should basically not make a fuss about this new equipment. But perhaps this surprise is normal: reading always means interacting with physical objects called books (or scrolls or parchments) until the arrival of moving images (that is, movies, televisions, etc.). Movies, television, especially computers, changed this arrangement, and eventually moving images were introduced into families, introducing our long-term relationship with texts (not subtitles), that is, books.

I am very interested in what kind of influence this situation has on readers. The language people use when talking about the screen reading experience makes me curious, as if the screen can continuously dump valuable data. This is the same as folk psychology. People talk about various mental states in the dialogue. We can see people's reports on unnatural screen reading experience. As a common phenomenon in daily life, screen reading experience has become a phenomenon discussed by some people. People describe the screen reading experience in the first person, as if this personal experience can be shared with others without obstacles.

Thomas? Thomas Metzinger used some classifications and terms to describe this kind of folk phenomenology as a naive and pre-scientific talk about the content in our consciousness. This is a way to mention the specific content in consciousness in the first person, which is mainly manifested in a universal naive realism. However, just as fold psychology can often provide useful examples and methods for professional psychology research, folk phenomenology, which provides intuitive experience reports, can bring us many useful things, at least in e-book reading, involving some core issues, such as reading equipment can present countless different contents, which is not a quantitative difference, but a qualitative difference for traditional reading experience.

Like Lynn? In her pedantic handbook Eating Buds and Leaves, Serus vividly describes an example of folk phenomenology, which seems to support the attitude that scroll-like literature represents the opposite of reading: when scrolls are unfolded one after another, the reader's eyes are still. Now, I don't agree with Cyrus' point of view here, saying that the eyes don't need to rotate when the scroll is unfolded, unlike turning pages marked with page numbers. This is wrong, because all the information about the way the eyes move when reading is against this point [for example, stanislav? Reading in the Brain by Dehone (stanislas Dehaene)], but this statement still has its value. According to Serus, it's not like reading at all. In fact, it is more like the opposite of reading, with the eyes still and the experience more passive.

Christine? Shaw? Christine Shaw Rumi is a Canadian who provides financial support for libraries. This year, she wrote a blog post describing her first reading experience with iPad, and put forward a view similar to that of Serus: She has been thinking, is this reading? The experience is completely different from the previous reading.

In my e-book reading experience, I noticed many different things. First and foremost, eyes are easily tired. Especially when I work in front of the computer screen for a period of time and want to change the screen to have a rest, it is particularly obvious. Reading on the reader doesn't feel like reading at all [her husband interrupts her] I'm reading! But am I also studying? I miss the touch of books when reading. It always comforts me. The fragrance and texture of paper books, as well as the general reading progress judged by the thickness of page turning, are also gone. When I buy a book, I always spend some time looking at the font, paper weight and color of the cover design of the book. The edges and corners of the page are cut accurately and neatly, and it still looks a little torn. The paper texture on the cover and the photos or pictures under the title of the book have made me very involved and become an indispensable part of appreciating and enjoying this book. Sometimes, I buy books just because I like the feeling of holding them in my hand.

Rumi did a good research for us. She extracted the most familiar elements in the phenomenological debate about screen reading: eyes are easy to get tired; Reading on the screen consumes a lot of time; The book you read is no longer like a book; There is no feeling of books; No taste of books; Open books can keep reading progress; And lost the aesthetic value of books as cultural relics.

Physical books taste, new books taste like new books, and old books taste like old books. This is one of the many aspects lost after giving up paper reading and switching to screen reading. It is a strange reason for a medium to like the taste of books, but if there is no other reason, it embodies a deep feeling for traditional reading, or this taste embodies some sacredness of traditional paper reading, which is a comfortable feeling.

First of all, in the book Printing is Dead, Jeff? Jeff Gomez said that knowledge in a field is extremely sacred. For this kind of knowledge, other ways of using it are untouchable and impeccable in nature. What I said was from the book.

Second, Lucian? x？ Lucien X Polsatron said that the only difference between paper books is that the weight of paper books is always felt by readers except that the pages are obviously better than plastic characters in touch. This sense of weight may give readers the impression that they have everything expressed in words, and once this illusion is lost, it will make the fragile mind crazy [see Great Digitalization].

Finally, we began to see the detailed views against screen reading in the discussion of folk phenomenology, mainly because of the lack of contact with paper books in reading experience. Paper books represent knowledge, not just knowledge. The fixed physical characteristics of paper books are intrinsically consistent with the contents of the books, which makes the contents independent and complete, while the cover of paper books isolates the contents from the world, assuming that the contents in paper books are true. The acquisition of knowledge is closely related to the perfect packaging form of paper books.

In Sven? This view can be seen in Sven Birkel's related articles, and similar views can also be seen in the following folk phenomenological research on paper book reading:

So, why am I uneasy about this transition from paper to screen? Not directly opposed, but skeptical. I don't turn a blind eye to the awkwardness of paper books and the cumbersome and inefficient publication of paper books, including huge libraries and complex book information retrieval systems. However, the development over the centuries is the crystallization of our collective efforts to understand and express our world. Books are part of the system. This system represents the labor and classification of human cognition. Touching a book is touching the system, no matter how gentle it is. [See "Boycott the Kindle"]

This quotation shows a completely different attitude towards the text carrier: touching a book is to experience the unique history of evolution. For Bercovitz, opening every page reflects a tactile history, which contains the truth of muscle movement perception (as we have seen, Rumi is also a muscle movement perceptor). Turning the page reminds us that the content of the book is full of hardships in physical form and is part of enhancing human understanding.

To skeptics, when we turn this page, we are systematically pursuing knowledge. It's not enough just to look. We must take action on our own, such as the followers of Berkuz, Rumi, Serus and Davori.

Is there such a movement on the Kindle reader? Or a touch screen reader, is there such a movement?