Reading time: About 3 minutes
Do you ever consider the merits of paper vs. digital material when you’re reading or writing?
From room-sized computers to pocket devices, technology has transformed how we read and write. But is digital always better? As someone who’s witnessed the entire evolution — from typewriters to tablets — I’ve discovered some surprising truths about the winner in the paper vs. digital war.
Let’s break it down by specific tasks:
Reading: It’s complicated
When Amazon launched the Kindle in 2007, I was an early adopter. The appeal was obvious: countless books in one lightweight device. Perfect for travel! But something unexpected happened when I began using my Kindle — I started having trouble remembering what I read.
I wasn’t imagining things. Research backs this up. In a recent LinkedIn post, psychologist Adam Grant points to 54 studies involving 171,000 people showing that print outperforms digital for informational content, though not necessarily for narrative reading.
That’s partly why I developed a simple rule: E-reader for fiction and memoir, physical books for non-fiction. Why? Beyond retention, non-fiction often requires:
- Index consultation
- Chapter navigation
- Margin notes
- Visual mapping of concepts
I still love my e-reader for novels, though, because I can hold it with one hand and turn the page with a finger swipe.
Verdict: It’s a draw.
Writing: It depends on the task
Most people assume that writing is a single task, but I’ve never approached it that way. To me, it’s a series of discrete and separate steps, best pursued individually. So that’s how I’m going to tackle it here.
Writing:
Writing on a computer is way faster than writing by hand. The average adult can write by hand roughly 13 words per minute (wpm). And while there’s some variation based on age, motor skills and dexterity, just about no one can go faster than 20 wpm. Yet most of us can type at least 30 wpm, and many of us can go much, much faster than that.
Also, you’re saving a big chunk of time in another way. When you write by hand, you have to type up the work later. If you type directly onto your computer, you’re totally eliminating a step.
Oh, and for those who think that writing by hand boosts their creativity, I think you might be confusing writing with planning and thinking. See below.
Verdict: Digital wins.
Planning & thinking:
Before writing, it’s wise to spend a chunk of time planning and thinking. To that end, I teach mindmapping, a simple technique that helps writers channel their inspiration (and recover it when it’s gone on strike). But here’s what flabbergasts me: Whenever I teach this fun manoeuvre, most people ask me to recommend the best software for doing it.
And they’re always disappointed when I suggest a pencil and paper.
Why does this old-school approach work so much better? It seems to give us more ready access to the creative parts of our brains. Something about sitting on a comfortable couch or chair, armed only with paper and pencil, gives our brains permission to roam and wander, coming up with insights and much more interesting approaches.
To learn more about this phenomenon, watch this 10-minute video by Clive Thompson. He not only addresses the upside of planning by hand, but he also talks about the benefits of typing once you’re actually writing.
Verdict: Paper for planning.
Researching:
If you had to research 40 years ago, you’d understand why just about everyone agrees that research is so much faster, easier and more efficient in this digital age.
Also, you can do it at any time of the day or night that you like (without having to worry about library operating hours), and when you save material, you can tag (or index) it in your own software (Evernote, OneNote, Mendeley or Zotero), making it easier to find later.
Verdict: Digital wins.
Editing:
Some editors still prefer working on paper. But I think that’s just habit. Anyone who’s younger than 40 will be a devotee of computer editing. Here’s why:
- You can use track changes to show exactly where you have deleted, added or moved text.
- You can type notes in the margins explaining why you’ve made certain changes (or issuing reminders about important points).
- You can fix typos easily with a click or two.
- You can use the global search and replace function to fix repeated errors that are rampant in a particular text. For example, some people insist on putting two spaces after every period when the publishing standard is one space. Rather than fix this manually, a digital search-and-replace allows you to fix the error once and have the change executed in the entire manuscript.
Verdict: Digital usually wins, with the possible exception of when you need to visualize where you’re moving segments of text. In that case, paper, scissors and cello-tape may be more helpful.
Proofreading:
There’s a lot of evidence that most of us scan rather than read when using our computers. That’s fine — even helpful — for researching, but it’s a disaster for proofreading.
If you want to proofread effectively, you’re way better off printing out your manuscript.
That way, you’ll have the attention and the mental capacity to catch those errors.
One other tip: proofread with a ruler under the text (it helps better focus your attention) and read backwards, starting with the last sentence, then the second-last sentence, then the third-last sentence, etc., until you work your way back to the beginning.
If you’re out of paper or you have some other valid reason for wanting to proofread on screen, have your computer read your text aloud to you. Most computers will do this (consult Google or your software’s help manual). We hear mistakes much more easily than we see them. But be aware this method may not catch punctuation problems.
Verdict: Paper wins.
My conclusion?
Framing the paper vs. digital conundrum as a war with only one possible winner is misleading. Both have their place. The key is matching the medium to the task.
Digital excels at:
- Draft writing
- Research
- Basic editing
- Storage and organization
Paper dominates for:
- Reading non-fiction
- Creative planning
- Final proofreading
Instead of choosing sides, smart readers and writers leverage the strengths of both formats. The future isn’t paper vs. digital — it’s paper and digital.
If you liked this post, you’ll also like Exploring the idea of digital minimalism.
*
Need some help developing a better, more sustainable writing or editing routine? Learn about my three-month accountability program called Get It Done. There is turn-over each month, and priority will go to those who have applied first. You can go directly to the application form and you’ll hear back from me within 24 hours.
*
My video podcast last week addressed whether writing is a talent or a skill. You can watch the video or read the transcript, and you can also subscribe to my YouTube channel.
*
What’s your view on the paper vs. digital question? We can all learn from each other, so please, share your thoughts with my readers and me in the comments section, below. If you comment on today’s post (or any others) by Feb. 28/25, I’ll put you in a draw for a digital copy of my first book, 8 1/2 Steps to Writing Faster, Better. To enter, please scroll down to the “comments,” directly underneath the “related posts” links, below. You don’t have to join Disqus to post! Read my tutorial to learn how to post as a guest. (It’s easy!)
