Do you set a time limit when you read?

[ilikecomputer]

When you sit down-or lay down-to read a NOVEL do you set a time limit? I've heard from many sources that the average human attention span is only 20 minutes long. I know some people claim to read hours on end, but the majority of the time they are not processing anything. My sources are doctors, psychologist, and college websites. I'm simply curious. Please answer my question honestly.


Personally I try to read in hour increments, but my attention begins to wander after 20 minutes. I am being completely honest.

[sinjinjoe]

my attention span is probably alot less than 20 mins lol. The most i have read in one sitting is maybe 3 hours. Usually its an hour to an hour and half. That also depends on what book. if its a tougher read it will be shorter as it will take more concentration

[Lokasenna]

Depends on how interesting the book is, or if its a course work and I'm under a deadline to have it read by. I think the longest single session was about 17 hours, wherein I read the complete Piers Plowman in the original Middle English. Now that was knackering - usually about 3 hours is my most effective span.

[Sapphire]

I do set a time limit to myself, just because real life gets in the way of reading ;) Deadlines and stuff...

But then I usually get so caught up in the book that the whole world can fall apart and I do not respond until I've read the last page. This might take 1 hour, 10 or 24 :p I will just not look at the time and ignore that it has past :lol:

I never set myself a limit as in "I will only to be able to absorb so much". If my attention wanders, I blame it on the book ;)

[ilikecomputer]

When people say they read for 8 hours + I begin to have my doubts. We are human beings. At some point we have to get up to drink, use the restroom, eat, sleep, etc...

[Sapphire]

You'd be amazed where you can go with a book in your hand ;)

[ilikecomputer]

Would I? I find walking around reading to be quite distracting. Stumbling over curbs, getting feet stuck in mud, dodging 747s.

[Eryk]

I can read one book all day. I have ADD, which gives me spontaneous rest periods where I think about anything and everything, and then I go back to the text. It keeps me from burning out.

[ilikecomputer]

A lot of people have rest periods when they read throughout the day. I can easily read for 24 hours if I have rest periods every 30 minutes to an hour.

[LostPrincess13]

It would depend on how I find the book. If I find it tedious, after 2 hours or so, I begin to get bored. But if I'm really into it, I could read it till I can't anymore. I once went for an entire day without eating or sleeping because I really wanted to finish a book!:lol:

[Chloe M]

If I consider a book excellent, I will put a lot of intellectual or emotional energy into reading it. I will read and reread a few pages very slowly and soak in all the words. I reason out the logic or paint vibrant pictures in my head. I take breaks often to clear my head.

I can read average books for long periods of time. Average books are interesting but don't require as much mental energy.

[librarius_qui]

There's always a mark of beginning!~

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm suprised that most people have an attention span of 20 minutes. My average reading time is three hours. Sometimes my brain wanders when I read something that grabs me (when I first read the quote that's in my siggy I sat staring into space for fourty-five minutes or so) but not too often, and I usually catch myself and go back. When I was a kid, I read the fourth Harry Potter book in one sitting. I also read The Catcher in the Rye in one sitting because I had a date with a guy the next day and that was his favorite book.

[ilikecomputer]

I'm going to be completely honest. I've read 3 hours at a time before and I find it difficult. Practically every single person I ask this question to says, "Oh I can read for hours on end." But usually when I observe them quietly while they read they read for about 20-60 minutes. Even kids in class begin to whip out their cell phones 20 minutes into the lecture. Its quite interesting. I'm sure some of you can read for hours on end, but people lie because they want to be admired. Its quite a sham. Mark Twain discusses this in The Mysterious Stranger.

I believe myself to be fairly intelligent and I know a lot of people with masters degrees in philosophy/english/psychology who rarely read-or study- for hours on end.

I also hear people claiming to read novels like War and Peace in as little as seven hours. There is another lady online who claims to read 462 books a year. Its absolute rubbish. Speed reading is disrespectful to the writer. Its a shame.





I know there are some people who have the patience to read for hours on end, but when I hear people at fast food restaurants claiming to read for nine hours straight then I begin to have my doubts.



I am jealous of the men who can read for hours on end. I truly am, but I believe its a rarity. If you have been blessed with this gift congratulations.

[Bloomsday]

if most people only have an attention span of 20 minutes then how could anyone ever watch a movie?

anyway, i don't really set a time limit, but the most i can read without getting up etc. is about an hour and a half.

[papayahed]

If I get engrossed in a book I can spend a good amount of time reading, I've never really timed myself (not counting the "how many pages I can read in 10 minutes experiment). I couldn't even give an estimate.

[librarius_qui]

I'm suprised that most people have an attention span of 20 minutes. My average reading time is three hours. Sometimes my brain wanders when I read something that grabs me (when I first read the quote that's in my siggy I sat staring into space for fourty-five minutes or so) but not too often, and I usually catch myself and go back. When I was a kid, I read the fourth Harry Potter book in one sitting. I also read The Catcher in the Rye in one sitting because I had a date with a guy the next day and that was his favorite book.

:lol:
_ :lol: :lol: :lol:

(admirable!!! LoL, hahaha!)



I'm going to be completely honest. I've read 3 hours at a time before and I find it difficult. Practically every single person I ask this question to says, "Oh I can read for hours on end." But usually when I observe them quietly while they read they read for about 20-60 minutes. Even kids in class begin to whip out their cell phones 20 minutes into the lecture. Its quite interesting. I'm sure some of you can read for hours on end, but people lie because they want to be admired. Its quite a sham. Mark Twain discusses this in The Mysterious Stranger.

I believe myself to be fairly intelligent and I know a lot of people with masters degrees in philosophy/english/psychology who rarely read-or study- for hours on end.

I also hear people claiming to read novels like War and Peace in as little as seven hours. There is another lady online who claims to read 462 books a year. Its absolute rubbish. Speed reading is disrespectful to the writer. Its a shame.

Well, I begin, but I rarely ever finish a reading. It's rare. There are a lot of unfinished readings in my list. The one I consider the present one, the main, is The Odyssey, which I've been reading for the last ../calculating-- four, three to four years ... When I finish it (I'm in chapter XIX), if I'm not mistaken, I intend to read the Iliad, and, read the Odyssey again, only, in English, second time. If I don't find a Latin version of the Iliad to read, I'll read it for the second time in English. (Poetry form.)

Same to Don Quixote (I'm reading, slooowly), Il nome della rosa.

I'm also reading Christmas Carol (Dickens), but I only read it around the christmas period ... Last christmas I didn't advance not a little.

I'm looking forward to find place to read Alice's adventures in Wonderland, which I also have at home.

I have the Hobbit on the shelf, but I never fully read it (again) in English. I remember to have read the LotR I, in about a month, II in two weeks, and III in ... about a month. Volume II, I was on vacation, and was a teen, so, I read all afternoon, it was wonderful! :)

At that same time, after, I read the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales. All six books in (European) Portuguese (around 1991).

Until 1994, I only read Tolkien. Then, I read the first book in English that really made sense (in English, after p. 200), which was The Mists of Avalon. I read about an hour a day, sometimes less.

I remember to have gotten stuck in the Harry Potter (the first one), then, I watched the movies, and began to read the first one again, after years stuck; I took it from the beginning, and found out that it was amusing to read it one chapter a night. Then I bought second and third, but I got stuck on the second.

I'm also stuck in The Devil wears Prada. (Which means I didn't give it up ...) But I haven't been reading and, when I think about it, I think in finishing the Odyssey. #2 is Don Quixote, in the depths of my mind ...



I know there are some people who have the patience to read for hours on end, but when I hear people at fast food restaurants claiming to read for nine hours straight then I begin to have my doubts.

It depends. I worked in a library, and there were old ladies who did read most two or three books a week. Some said to read at night. Some, all day long. I think it's a matter of having the book at your side, and picking it up every now and then ... I don't know, but I understand it as possible, and not necessarily as boasting.



I am jealous of the men who can read for hours on end. I truly am, but I believe its a rarity. If you have been blessed with this gift congratulations.

I'm not jealous. I don't know. I like to start, and go on. I start, and I go on. One day it comes to the end. But I don't worry about that. I think of having a good time.

I spend hours in the internet. When I'm well, what I really like to do is to create playmobil stories ... And I'm jealous of people who can master a musical instrument ... I have strings at home (mandolin), but it's far from being a company, poor lass ... (I'm probably boring to her.)

[librarius_qui]

If I get engrossed in a book I can spend a good amount of time reading, I've never really timed myself (not counting the "how many pages I can read in 10 minutes experiment). I couldn't even give an estimate.

Ah, come on, Papaya ... You must have, one day ever, realized to have begun reading at, say .. two o'clock, and have stopped at 17, for tea time ;) hu huh huh!

lq~

[ilikecomputer]

I can answer your question quite easily. A movie creates the images for you. You do not have to think so you become engrossed.


Television tells you what to think
Computers do the thinking for you

[librarius_qui]

I can answer your question quite easily. A movie creates the images for you. You do not have to think so you become engrossed.


Television tells you what to think
Computers do the thinking for you

I completely agree.

the talking was about concentration in reading. and it makes sense.

tv, computer, writing, painting, making vases &c., are other activities.

reading is very, very peculiar.

[JuniperWoolf]

if most people only have an attention span of 20 minutes then how could anyone ever watch a movie?



That's what I was just thinking. I don't believe that most people's minds get bored after twenty minutes, especially when it comes to books that interest you and television/movies. Most of the people that I know who read books go for about three hours. Anything less, and it feels like nothing has been accomplished. Twenty minutes is less than twenty pages if you're processing the information properly. If you could only read twenty pages a day, it would take an entire month to read Of Human Bondage.


I can answer your question quite easily. A movie creates the images for you. You do not have to think so you become engrossed.


Television tells you what to think
Computers do the thinking for you

Not really. Critically watching a film can be just as mind-consuming as reading. Try watching (and understanding) Mulholland Drive and see if your brain doesn't feel like mashed potatos afterwards.

[Wilde woman]

Why would anyone want to set a time limit for reading? I'm happy enough to find time in my day (or night...it's usually nights) to read at all. And when I do, I read for at least an hour. But I average probably around three.


I've heard from many sources that the average human attention span is only 20 minutes long.

If you're looking for confirmation for this, you've come to the wrong place. If you're reading novel-length books, reading in sets of 20 minute increments would make finishing a book take an infuriatingly long time.

If we can only concentrate for 20 minutes at a time, how do you explain people who score well on exams (like the SAT or GRE subject tests) which take over three hours to complete?

[Sapphire]

I'm sure some of you can read for hours on end, but people lie because they want to be admired. Its quite a sham.
I do not really get that. Why would it be admirable to read hours in an end? I know that I often want to lay that book aside and do "something useful", but it usually draws me back in again.
I am not known for my patience, but when it comes to reading time just becomes irrelevant to me.

I sit in the train a lot, and a 4 hour journey is not a novelty to me. I often read all the time: walking towards the station, waiting on the station, getting in the train (ok, if it's very busy I might quit for a few minutes there), finding a seat and then during the journey itself... If you want to you can say that's not 4 hours reading in a row, for I might have to lay it aside to get in the train or when somebody asks something. But that's not really because my attention has wandered away from the book...

Of course, there are books which I can not focus on for more than 10 minutes :p

[papayahed]

Are you saying that after 20 minutes we should stop doing an activity or are you saying in a 20 minute time period our mind might wander?

If it's the ladder I might agree. Who doesn't come up for air every once in a while? I mean I can be totally engrossed in a book and a sentence might remind me that I need to put cloths in the dryer. That's a break in concentration but I can go right back to reading, it doesn't stop me ftom sitting all day.

[librarius_qui]

Not really. Critically watching a film can be just as mind-consuming as reading. Try watching (and understanding) Mulholland Drive and see if your brain doesn't feel like mashed potatos afterwards.

I don't quite agree. Even if the movie/film demands thinking and concentration from you, it is a different kind of concentration. I haven't ever watched a movie that gave me the same kind of effort (& delight) than a book. Simply because they move different senses. (A book moves your imagination, and your eyes in reading; a film moves your eyes in paying attention at what's going on on screen, it moves your hearing, it moves your intelligence (or not ... well :rolleyes: ) ... so, different ways of "reading".)

In other words, few times I ever took a book to rest, but I take a movie to rest. What many people make with a book (read at bed, so as to "wait" for a sleepy mind to come), I make with movies, many times: I put a movie I've watched dozens of times (such as Pirates of the Caribbean II) Sunday afternoon, when I wish to rest a little. I go on watching it, but it's 100% right that I'm going to sleep. When I really wish to watch it, I have to make intervals, eat something, or be vEry awake, and specially, not at all lie comfortably in the couch ...

I know people who can't, who don't enjoy watching movies repeatedly, like I do, at least not alone. They need company to endure watching it again. I think, in this case, they don't want learning, but entertainment.

There are movies I watch again and again, so as to learn from them.

Books demand more effort from me than movies. It's a different way of learning, and it demands a lot more of imagination.

I like better to write (stories) than to read them. And seldom do I read poetry. (Or make it, however I write some things, sometimes, that people would call poetry, and I call whatever else, but they haven't the art and craft of what I call poetry, because it's more about feelings than about writing and thinking writing.) (Different from my stories. In stories, my delight #1 is to think about characters, when I'm writing.)

[(And my delight #2 is to work ideologies ...)]

(...)~


Are you saying that after 20 minutes we should stop doing an activity or are you saying in a 20 minute time period our mind might wander?

If it's the ladder I might agree. Who doesn't come up for air every once in a while? I mean I can be totally engrossed in a book and a sentence might remind me that I need to put cloths in the dryer. That's a break in concentration but I can go right back to reading, it doesn't stop me ftom sitting all day.

(I think it does for a man, I mean ... maybe this 20-minute3-hour story is about men. Woman's mind work differently, *they* say :rolleyes: :D )

I mean, if I'm interrupted, I cut concentration, and it's hard to go back into it. It's a whole work for concentrating again ... Reading demands this work. And women make intervals more easily, I dare say ... Men don't have such .. gift! haha!~

[ilikecomputer]

This is what I'm saying. I know people can study or read or write for more than 20 minutes. This is obvious. I just read for 45 minutes. I do not believe a person can sit in a chair for 8 hours and read without taking a break. Sometimes people claim they can but this is a bold faced lie.

[Nightshade]

Not really if its fiction I can often read in a whole book in a single sitting and then look up and wonder where the time has gone. Sometinmes I set timelimits but thats just because RL often produces things that can;'t really wait .
:rolleyes:

[Chloe M]

Regarding some earlier posts: yes, I agree exams and movies do take long-term concentration, but I think it's a bit different.

With exams, you can only concentrate on one question at a time and you have to move through them at a moderate pace. There is a brief break and readjustment of concentration every time you move to a new question.

TV and film directors use a variety of techniques, for example, regularly shifting the camera angles, to hold attention.

[librarius_qui]

As for limits, I tend to like to read chapter by chapter.
I don't like to interrupt in the middle of a chapter.

(And I like to write in chapters too.)

And I haven't read either J. Saramago (yet) or J. Joyce (this one I don't think I will).

[ShoutGrace]

I do not believe a person can sit in a chair for 8 hours and read without taking a break. Sometimes people claim they can but this is a bold faced lie.

That is quite an accusation.

You've invested a lot of energy in this thread towards repudiating the idea that someone can concentrate longer than you are evidently able. What is the underlying reason for this? People have differing attention spans and reading paces. Can you really impugn anyone who claims to be able to read for 8 hours straight? There isn't any shame in reading for different amounts of time, and in different quantities.

When I was younger, I recall reading two 500 page fantasy/fiction books in one day during my summer vacation (these were the last two books of a trilogy). I awoke after a typical youthful, refreshing slumber, and must have read for at least 14 hours. I got up before noon and didn't stop reading until 2 or 3 AM. I'm sure I took a bathroom break, and I may have gotten a jar of peanut butter to spoon from at some point, but for the most part I lay alternately on my back, stomach and side for the duration.

Is that a bold faced lie?

Having said that, it might be worthwhile to acknowledge that at present I am unable to read for more than ten to fifteen minutes at a time. I simply can't keep my mind in focus or follow an authors trail for that long. I suspect that this debilitating condition has a number of divers causes.

It also occurs to me that as little as 2 years ago I could still stay up late into the night reading easy fiction, and that I couldn't conceive of doing such a thing now.


Sometinmes I set timelimits but thats just because RL often produces things that can;'t really wait .
:rolleyes:

Who ever heard of such a thing? :D For the dedicated LitNetter, RL always comes second! There isn't anything in RL that can't wait for one more "New Posts" query ;).

[papayahed]

Ah, come on, Papaya ... You must have, one day ever, realized to have begun reading at, say .. two o'clock, and have stopped at 17, for tea time ;) hu huh huh!

lq~

erm.. not really.:( The last one I remember spending a good deal of time in one sitting was "I am Charlotte Simmons" but I was not working that day and don't really have a frame of reference, now mostly read before bed.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't quite agree. Even if the movie/film demands thinking and concentration from you, it is a different kind of concentration. I haven't ever watched a movie that gave me the same kind of effort (& delight) than a book. Simply because they move different senses. (A book moves your imagination, and your eyes in reading; a film moves your eyes in paying attention at what's going on on screen, it moves your hearing, it moves your intelligence (or not ... well :rolleyes: ) ... so, different ways of "reading".)

This is just where you and I differ, my friend. I love books and movies just the same. I find them both enjoyable, and use both to relax. There's not a lot of "effort" to either activities, because they're both fun. I think that this is the problem with the OP: he/she doesn't read because its enjoyable. If they did, there would be no question of "time limit." He/she sees reading as an extrinsic accomplishment, and doesn't reap the intrinsic reward.
Exeption: boring books or movies that I HAVE to read or watch because either all of my friends are (as in, we're watching the same crappy movie together) or I have to read a novel that I don't like for class (the Maltese Falcon... eugh :() can be EXTREAMLY boring.

[librarius_qui]

the only book that went exactly like a movie to me was The Mists of Avalon. But I have to admit: I don't read much, and I prefer to read those which DON'T feel like movies.~