Whenever I run across interesting-looking articles online, including those in the Washington Post, I always print them out to read when I can really focus on them. The only stuff I read online is what I find only marginally interesting -- and it has to be short. So I totally agree with you, Rob -- great article!

"Why does the thought of reading an entire novel on a computer's monitor seem absurdly painful?"

Because a computer screen hasn't the resolution of even cheap print?

I don't have the distraction problem. Mainly, I think, because I've learned to ignore the distractions.

In reference to catalogs, I find that I read them while also watching TV. I normally compare items on several pages and can just drop it on the sofa when something interrupts. I've seen several "book readers" but for a catalog it would have to be a self contained device, 8.5"x11", very light, thin and able to be sat on without harm. It should have user settable tabs and recharge quickly. I might be able to handle that. For a book or anything longer than your article, computers just don't have the ability to be convenient.

Computer screens can only go so far in replicating the spatial aspect, and relationships, of real life objects. Screens, finally, are two dimensional and the third dimension can be represented only metaphorically. This spatial ("analog?") element contains a wealth of information that is simply lost on screen - think of how easy it is to stick your thumb in a book to temporarily mark a spot while you check something in the index, or how you can arrange a stack of research materials on a desk, open to the right pages; and remember where a particular article is just by its real life characteristics (mm - to the left a bit, and under another book; also, oh yeah, that article was in a book with a green cover, not red). If you are scanning a print article and miss the first reference to someone early on, it's a simple matter to cast your eyes up the page and over two columns to find it. On a computer screen you've got to click, click, click to get to the top, then read, then find where you were when you had your question (a 'find' command helps here but you always lose your current place).

Digital representations have their advantages but so do the traditional physical modes and I think the former will never really supplant the latter.

If I buy a hard-copy newspaper, I find that I read a relatively small portion of it, and then I am left with the task of disposing of the newspaper itself. Online, I look at the headlines in the sections I am interested in and open the articles I want to read in their own browser tab.

The very few magazines I read concentrate on a subject I am interested in, and so are worth getting the hardcopy version.

The comment by John Dorsey does a good job of describing why I like to read books in a hardcopy format.

Rob, I read a LOT of books on my 480x320 (landscaped) Clie'. I also grab articles offline, toss them into text files and read then the same way. I USED to print those text files out.

Advantages over paper:
1) I'm not tossing ENORMOUS piles of paper each week. Literally, 25+ pages, double-sided, of articles to savor and enjoy

2) Can read in bed, without a light on, without disturbing my wife

3) Can return to where I was very quickly, not needing to shuffle through a large stack of pages

4) Can carry an IMMENSE amount more reading material (finish one book, want to start the next/another? There it is, let's go!)

5) Don't feel as guilty when I don't get around to the articles right away (The New Yorker Syndrome, I believe it's called...)

6) eBooks TEND to be a bit cheaper

7) Clie' serves as emergency flashlight

8) Easier to shove in a pocket and GO, easier to pull out and RESUME (standing in line for a moment)

Advantages of paper:
1) Easier to hand fascinating article to spouse: "READ THIS!"

2) mmm.. mmm.. ahhh..

Note: I'm 40. I've grown up with these devices but spent first 30 years of my life doing most of my reading via paper.

I still love books, holding reading browsing handing to friends, but I'm HAPPIER, I think, curled up with my clie'.

One of the most striking differences is that paper does not contain flash animations, pop-ups, and the like that are designed to take your attention away from what you're trying to read. Also, most online articles are purposely spread across multiple pages so that you can be exposed to more ads. However, pages fail to load properly and if I have to hit refresh more than once or twice, forget it(which happens with depressing frequency on washingtonpost.com and slate.com BTW).

I subscribe to the paper Post. I find that browsing through the paper gives me a nice way to read articles that I might not have read because they don't pop up on the front page of the web site.

Hmm. I find it easier to skim over articles on paper. Just by seeing everything at once, the eyes seem to be better and picking out the more interesting/important points.

Also, although we have tabs and multiple windows, neither matches the ability to put two papers side-by-side for reference or comparison.

Plus layouts usually don't fail on paper as opposed to on screens. Like when a full URL is posted in a Post discussion, all of the sudden you need to scroll horizontally, which is extremely annoying.

I subscribe to the paper Post and typically don't read anything but the online-only content on washingtonpost.com. The reasons are the same as those cited above: I find it easier to concentrate, to relax and take in the full span of the article. I also like to stumble upon articles I might not otherwise have noticed (although this happens online too, just in a different way).

I'll note also that I find it impossible to do serious editing work on a computer screen. Paper and pencil all the way for me, baybee.

The real problem with the newspaper is when you are done with it, you have a lot of trash to throw away. I too read the Post every day online, but would rather have peper to hold if it just disappeared when I was finished and didn't stain my hands with newsprint.

I do a lot of writing and also a lot of proof reading of other people's writing. For accuracy I find I have to print out the work and read it, because if I read it on the computer, for some unknown reason, I miss a lot of mistakes, typos and grammatical errors.

I wonder if this happens to other people...

I really prefer the on-line newspaper because I can pick and choose the articles I'm interested in and forego the waste of paper that contains the stuff I am NOT interested in.
Besides the WaPo, I subscribe to several other on-line newspapers, that way I can get different viewpoints (editorials, etc.) on a subject.
Except the advertising, I don't see how the newspapers make any money online, however.
Incidentally, I am 73 in Dec. and I was reading long before TV became affordable to the general public. Also, I am a compulsive reader - EVERYTHING!

I really prefer the on-line newspaper because I can pick and choose the articles I'm interested in and forego the waste of paper that contains the stuff I am NOT interested in.
Besides the WaPo, I subscribe to several other on-line newspapers, that way I can get different viewpoints (editorials, etc.) on a subject.
Except the advertising, I don't see how the newspapers make any money online, however.
Incidentally, I am 73 in Dec. and I was reading long before TV became affordable to the general public. Also, I am a compulsive reader - EVERYTHING!

A life-long subscriber to the print edition of the Washington Post, I still have Washingtonpost.com as my homepage on all my computers. The key reason I still prefer to read the print edition is that they have more photos and graphics, curiously. One would expect the online version to feature all the extra photos and outtakes the print version couldn't fit in, but invariable the online article will feature only a single image to accompany it. I also prefer the print edition (particularly the Style section) because I can easily fold it and work on the crossword puzzle standing in line or waiting at the doctor's office, anywhere I don't wish to be bored. Even in traffic at the lights, though I don't recommend this.

I agree with the above posters. I read the Washington Post and several other newspapers on-line daily. When I find a large/long article that I won't be able to finish in one sitting, I usually print it out to read later. I do this for an interesting article that I may want to read again. It is almost impossible to find an article from a few days ago that I really wanted to read again.

If you want to make notes so that you could write a letter to the editor, you almost have to print it out. It's hard to bookmark a page or paragraph in an on-line article. The best you can do is the entires article. Someone mentioned about interruptions and that with a book you can put a finger at your place and deal with the matter at hand. You can also bend the corner of a page in a book (I really don't like doing this, but...) to mark your place.

There is a tactile feeling that you receive when you pick up a book to read. You become immersed in the contents and you get a connection to the author. That is especially true when reading novels. Do get me wrong, I can spend as much time in front of a computer reading things, but it seems the on-line reading isn't as satisfying. When USA Today was first published, it was considered the McPaper, meaning lots of empty words and stories. Sometimes on-line reading feels the same.

With technical literature, you almost have to have it in print to make notes. I receive several technical magazines along with the on-line versions of the same issue. The on-line version works to get the gist of the article, the paper version allows me to think more deeply about the contents.

Re Popups:

If popups, blinking, or animated ads are truly obnoxious, I put a Post-It note over them and read on.

I love the tactile feeling of photographs, I still keep a hand wrtten rolodex on my desk for important numbers, and books are better when you can carry them from room to room. I work as a volunteer at the public library and there is a peace and quiet you wil never find at home. I can not enjoy reading anything, where there is flashing commercials all around me, so I will stay will the written word.

Subscribe to a Montreal paper and get it online as well.Maybe its my age--- well through my ninth decade, but on days I get to see printed nsp, I simply delete the email version -- just not as enjoyable to read it that way.

I think the question is a generational one. We as adults still prefer paper. This is what we grew up loving. I still read real books, and newspapers. However, the future is not going to be dictated by us. The young generations grew up with the computer, they scan faster, they write online, why not read everything online. We need to be prepared for what they will demand.

I am a home subscriber but when I am reading an article in the paper and it's a pain to turn to the continuation page or fold it to read..I go to the online version to complete my reading

Am 85+ yrs.Have been an avid reader of books, magazines, etc for at least 80 of those years..Have a fairly extensive collection of previous magazines & books ..However the passing years have made inroads on many of my physical abilities including my vision..Many times, in Doctors waiting rooms a previously subscribed to Magazine is there and have noted a degradations in quality of articles & a proliferation of advertisements..that plus the Glare from slick paper & multicolored print on multicolored backgrounds does little to enhance the articles inserted between the commercials.. I still enjoying many articles on my previous published Magazines that carry the same name but the latest are certainly poorer in content..

While my eyes tire easily from reading from a PC Monitor, at least it is in Black & White and the font size can be adjusted to accomodate my failing eyesight also the reading material does not have to be held, folded,& continued on another page which is not always easy to find..Have learned to ignore the commercials on the PC which to me are more prevalent on much printed matter that occurs on at least every other page following all the introductory Trash that occupy the first 10 - 20% of most publications..

Thomas J Hegerich

I am 27. Both have a purpose - and should be addressed differently.

Living outside the distribution area of a particular newspaper makes online reading very attractive - printing out individual articles has no appeal to me whatsoever (waste of paper). Clicking 'next' 5 times to read an online article is sometimes a bit much, but I've also never gotten down the newspaper origami it takes to go from A1 to A22 on the bus. I stumble upon different things in a physical paper than the online one. Can't decide which one is better - but they are certainly different. And I agree with an earlier poster that the newspaper ads are easier to ignore. I think is the movement and color - online the text seems boring in comparison - while in the newspaper the ads and articles have an equal chance of catching your eye.

Catalogs are simple - color. Online colors are far inferior to catalog colors. The catalog color is far more likely to resemble the actual color than the online version. It's also easier to browse - unless you are looking for a specific item (in which case online is easier).

Novels - a book is better to me.

One other about reading online - the width of the columns is not always correct - sometimes they are too long or too short - print versions seem to be better at this.

Two years ago I stopped taking the print version and signed up for the e-mail version. Had read the Post daily for over 40 years. Haven't looked back. If the newsletter is late or doesn't come, I go to the site. I know I am missing some articles, but so what, life goes on, you don't miss what you don't see. I am now also doing the same with USA Today and the NY Times. I once owned two newspapers. Dead.

dear mr Pegoraro & friends
i can only tell what i do and why i do it
I read newspapers on the screen and books most on the paper
newspaper on the scren because this avoids the delays of the logistics [i am reading WP of nov 08 and it is just 1200 CST or 1800 GMT of 8 , paper comes tomorrow and can be found in very few places asi am not in US ] and i skip sports and locals and gossip over tv stars which fills several pages per day
But screen won't support earmark and on the spot cross referencing to other things i have read and comments and it is more volatile [and requires power or batteries and this adds problems ] i use to scan books to trat them later and cross index them but the work is slow
i think wifi enablked readers linked to home WIFI net ans SAN memory can be of help to do similar things
[i wish you could see an informational book after i have read and tretated it ]
and books are collectible while ebooks aren't
bye to all
K

I can hide behind a newspaper at the breakfast table.

Seriously, all the advantages of books and paper CAN be achieved with technology available now. The history of the truly elegant afordable ebook reader has taken some wrong turns, and also their advantages unseen by the masses. In other words, they have been tried but did not become popular. It's coming, though. Soon, I hope.