Books have ALWAYS been “printed”; you make it sound like printing presses for centuries were somehow using script. Fact is placing type is much easier with block letters. But hand writing is faster in cursive, where as others noted without explaining, you don’t waste time lifting the instrument.
In modern times yes. In earlier times no actually they haven't always been print. Early books {before printing press} and many for centuries afterward were hand written and in cursive or a close variant in several languages. Here is a short history. http://www.bookdepository.com/English-Cursive-Hands-1250-1500-MB-Parkes/9780859675352
Even in the late 1700's our nation still was using cursive for it's documents ironically that a printer {Ben Franklin} helped to draft we call The Declaration of Independence.
Due to cost of printing even though it was developed likely in the 1300's it was often cheaper to transcribe books. Which would be faster cursive or printing?
Fact is placing type is much easier with block letters.
Yes and typing with a typewriter when it was invented changed the speed of that to where a person could type as fast as they could read.
But hand writing is faster in cursive, where as others noted without explaining, you don’t waste time lifting the instrument.
But typing is faster than cursive. The earlier writers were ones who had legible and preferably near perfect cursive handwriting skills. It was a skill like a stone cutter, carpenter, etc. Not everyone could write to the clarity and perfection needed. Thus writing at that time period was a trade in itself. Too if you had a printer say in 1600 who could print a book for high cost or a Monk who would work for free the choice is obvious even though it may take a Monk months or a year or two to complete the task.