> So I'm wondering - what is it about the screen vs. the page? Is it just that I'm from a generation raised on print, habituated to the idea that serious writing is ink on paper and stuff on the screen is basically just news or gossip, totally in-the-moment stuff? Or is it something about the media themselves? Anyone else have this experience?
It might be something of a generational thing. I experience a much less intense version of what you describe -- so for, say, scientific papers I can usually get the gist of them on screen, but if really need to digest them paper is the way to go. It might also be a question of background, as a lot of the technical material I've learned exists primarily in electronic form (like man pages) and manages to require concentration while being inherently ephemral.
It might also have something to do with the printed page offering no distracting alt-tab to FB updates. One thing that I've loathed about some of the DF Wallace pieces I've read are the multilayered footnotes -- if I want to flip to wikipedia, I'll read the damn web. I'm surprised people mention that habit of his without bitching about it.
-- Andy