Pew studies show the highest print readership rates are among those ages 18 to 29, and the same age group is still using public libraries in large numbers.
The Washington Post makes a case this week for reading in print: people retain more information and comprehend better when they read books as opposed to digital content. Comprehension includes recalling where particular information is located in a print work, something not easily duplicated in e-books.
There’s something to be said for holding a book: the scent of binding, the sound of turning pages, the feel of the paper. Reading a book can be a visceral experience, unlike reading digital content. And reading printed paper produces less strain on the eyes than reading on e-readers (with the exception of the new e-ink readers).
I personally read almost entirely digital content. I have no time or energy to travel to a library, and can read multiple works at a time on my tablet. Bored of reading? Play a game. Bored of the game? Download another, or shop for coffee, or purchase another book.
I can see where reading books is a pleasure. Yet, I sacrifice the visceral pleasure for the convenience of digital content — multiple books, games, news, and web — all in one place.















