What is your reading style?

[tonywalt]

I read at a rate where I understand everything as best that I can. I prefer to read at night, but do read by the pool or elsewhere. I do not like to read multiple books, instead read one or two at a time.

[Pompey Bum]

I read aloud too! I'm sure I freak my husband out about it. Somehow it seems to facilitate better concentration.

Yeah, my wife thinks I'm nuts when I do it, too.

And I'm with Tony: serial monogamy where books are concerned.

[kiki1982]

And reading aloud brings out the life in a book too. Mind you, there are those that work better and those that work less well.

A serial monogamist here too. I abhor poligamy .

[tonywalt]

I tried reading books concurrently, but it can create some level of confusion. It is most pronounced when I read two books at the same time by the same author say.. Haruki Murakami, things got blurred.

[tailor STATELY]

I enjoy reading more than one book at a time... maybe I'm just wired weirdly, no? And then maybe I'll peruse forums and write at the drop of a hat. Yeah, I'm weird. Oh, and no polygamy here (lol).

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Pompey Bum]

I tried reading books concurrently, but it can create some level of confusion. It is most pronounced when I read two books at the same time by the same author say.. Haruki Murakami, things got blurred.

I have the same problem, even with different authors. Mr. Darcy ends up picking pockets for Fagin. It can get ugly.

[Pike Bishop]

Studying for my qualifying exams taught me how to read many books at once. However, I usually limit myself to two novels and one theoretical/philosophical/critical book at a time. I never read two books by the same author at a time. It gets too "incestuous" and the texts often merge.

[Carmilla]

Hello Carmilla! So nice to hear from you again! Yes, my secret is out. Pompey Bum is a Shakespearean pimp. Hope you are enjoying the play. Please let us know what you think about it. I would love to hear your thoughts, and I'm sure JonathanB (in any case) would have an intelligent response to them.

Hello Pompey Bum!!

So far I'm loving 'Measure for Measure,' but I must tell you that I was utterly shocked when I read this line: 'More than our brother is our chastity' (Act II Scene4)

What do you think of the line in question?

[Pompey Bum]

Hello Pompey Bum!!

So far I'm loving 'Measure for Measure,' but I must tell you that I was utterly shocked when I read this line: 'More than our brother is our chastity' (Act II Scene4)

What do you think of the line in question?

Yes, it's a morally troubling line. You almost wonder if Shakespeare is intentionally teasing his audience with the paradox. There is a traditional pietistic view of what Isabella is doing; namely, that the principle of a woman's virtue is sacrosanct, even in the face of appalling sacrifice. There's also a modern feminist reading that Isabella's body is her own, and that Claudio is just going to have to save himself without compromising that "sacrosanct" principle. Personally I find both of those positions somewhat fanatical--perhaps because I am neither a woman nor a pietist! For me, Isabella is simply standing firm in the face of corruption and coercion, because in for a penny in for a pound is how Angelo's game works. But I admit my reading is not entirely satisfying either.

How do you see the line?

[Carmilla]

Yes, it's a morally troubling line. You almost wonder if Shakespeare is intentionally teasing his audience with the paradox. There is a traditional pietistic view of what Isabella is doing; namely, that the principle of a woman's virtue is sacrosanct, even in the face of appalling sacrifice. There's also a modern feminist reading that Isabella's body is her own, and that Claudio is just going to have to save himself without compromising that "sacrosanct" principle. Personally I find both of those positions somewhat fanatical--

I find them fanatical too.

perhaps because I am neither a woman nor a pietist! For me, Isabella is simply standing firm in the face of corruption and coercion, because in for a penny in for a pound is how Angelo's game works. But I admit my reading is not entirely satisfying either.

How do you see the line?

I see the line as selfish and feministic to an extreme degree. In any case, I think life is more important than virginity.

[Pompey Bum]

Yes, certainly. It makes me wonder if Shakespeare was being deliberately provocative or was maybe just having an off day. Or maybe he originally intended to write a tragedy about Isabella's choice, but was persuaded to rewrite it as a comedy for financial reasons. I don't think his source was a comedy--I think the forced happy ending was an addition. I haven't studied the play for many years, though, and don't remember the source history very well.

[Auddfoote]

Perusing can be great and awful. It permits you to perceive how other individuals compose; their styles, procedures, and so on. It will likewise help you to learn new words and, ideally, refine your meanings of those words. Be that as it may, in case you're seeming to be innovative, perusing can be an aggravation. I've regularly read a book, been enlivened and all of a sudden understood that I've tackled the same style as the writer and lost my own. To recover my style back, I free-compose. I compose as fast as I can about anything that comes into my head. This, I believe is one great approach to enhance your written work. It permits you to wind up free-er. Have you ever seen that when individuals expound on their own encounters, they have a tendency to let it know a mess better than when they expound on something that isn't genuine. Mostly, I feel that is on account of you know yourself exceptionally well so are unrealistic to pass up a great opportunity for something, additionally I find that when you expound on yourself you lose to some degree every one of the tightening influences that we and others put on ourselves unwittingly.

[mortalterror]

I am a slow reader. I read at the pace I would read aloud and it is really important to me to be able to visualise the action as if I was present. If I have skim read a section then I feel uncomfortable and have to go back over it again, to 'watch' and savour the language. Does anyone else read like this? How do those of you who read very quickly experience a novel?

I do the same. I have some slight reading disorder that slows my eye's movement over a page. Even though I tend to read at half the speed that other people do, and maybe a fifth as fast as some people in my family, I feel like the extra time helps me focus on what I'm reading and I get more out of a text than most. However, being a slow reader means I have to be vigilant when prioritizing what I read. I don't have time to read garbage. If I find myself not enjoying something, I don't finish it. And I usually don't even pick something up unless it has a solid reputation for being excellent.

[~Ji]

I find my reading style is usually determined by the book - The Moor's Last Sigh (Slaman Rushdie) - is a bit frenetic and demands a similar reading response.
Henry James on the the other hand evokes a sense of paddling down a river on a lazy summer afternoon and my reading meanders along in response.
Poetry needs to be 'chewed' slowly. Many recommend reading poetry aloud but I find my voice works better in my head than it does in stark reality.

[Ecurb]

I read very quickly, especially when reading most novels. I don't take any pride in reading quickly, it's just that I'm eager to find out what happens next. My speed-reading technique is to read all the dialogue, and skim the descriptive bits (I guess I intuitively feel that fiction is essentially dramatic).

Perhaps as a result, I reread almost every book I like, often several times. Heck, when you read fast, reading the book a second time is as good as reading it for the first time.