Take this with a grain of salt, because there’s no way I’ll be able to find the cite, but this OP made me think of an article I read years ago on this very topic. As I recall, there were studies done that categorized readers into two camps with regard to how they processed what they read. One group mentally transformed what they read into images in their head. These readers were truly immersed in their reading. If they read an adventure story they could picture Sherlock Holmes (or whoever) acting out the scene they were reading, with vivid circumstances evoked instantaneously. Almost like effortlessly creating a movie in your head, with all the emotions and reactions such things produce.
The second group does not process the written word that way. It’s more or less the same black-and-white words in their heads. They can follow the narrative and understand the dialogue, but reading is more of a chore, a way to plod through words to comprehend but not quite “experience.” They could tell you the plot of the story, but they didn’t “witness” it. This group would read if there was a need to gain information, but not for the experience itself. If they could instantly download the same info into their heads, they would. Spending several hours on their patio reading a book to accomplish the same thing would not be the preferred method.
Have no idea if this holds water, but it made sense to me in that I am a first group guy. I love to read, and it is a supremely evocative act for me, at times thrilling, hilarious, or deeply moving in some way. But I could understand why someone who didn’t experience reading that way wouldn’t be quite as enamored.