How to you guys get through books so fast?

[newbiebotter]

Ignore the long post below if you want, but please expound on your reading habits and state of mind... write as much as you can, I enjoy reading about this because I'm absolutely amazed at how fast some people can read. If you're one of these people, post here plzz.




----
Dear Bibliophiles,

It's come to my attention very recently that I'm a slow and inconsistent reader. My reading speed was calculated at around 250 words per minute, when I'm concentrated, and as little as half that rate usually, due to deleterious reading habits.

Okay, I admit 250 WPM is not terrible, and I do have excellent comprehension. However, I want to get better. Shouldn't efficiency and form be emphasized in one of the most basic and personal activities of modern life? I'm going to college (hopefully) next year, and I'm just astounded at how little attention people pay to their reading speed when it can have such a dramatic effect on their quality of life.

I spend the majority of my productive day reading. Whether it's novels, textbooks, worksheets, homework, magazines, websites, or Internet forums, reading is something that I do naturally... so naturally in fact, that I think I could benefit from scrutinizing and regulating it a bit.

As of now, I doubt my reading habits have changed since my grade school years. I plodder along at a pedestrian pace, and I never really learned to change gears. My eyes have to touch upon every single word to count it as being "read", yet they end up drifting all over the page. My brain is particularly anal about not moving on to the next word until I have articulated the current word out loud in my head. As such, I often reread passages many times over, more out of instinct than out of necessity, and my mental acuity was never honed to sustain swift reading. Furthermore, it seems like half the time I'm reading for the sake of reading because I'm sounding the words out but not deriving any meaning. I'm a very complacent person, an insecure decision maker and a dullard at thinking on my feet, so I've kept the status quo for quite some time.

But, through recent contact with certain individuals, I can see what a difference a conscious effort makes! Ambitious, time-wise, and disciplined (everything that I'm not), they can read with a speed that's at least twice my own. I am an intellectual at heart, and I can only imagine doubling my reading throughout a lifetime.

With this pursuit in mind, I have experimented for the past few weeks. I began by consciously subjecting my mind to a brisk pace (note: brisk, not fast). Finding that my brain was too lackadaisical for even this simple expectation, I resorted to using a notecard to cover up each finished line so that I wasn't tempted to go back and reread every other line. Through many trials and timing, I've discovered that I CAN keep a blistering pace if I can whip my mind into shape; it has been very difficult so far, and I EASILY lapse back into my former dazed state of mind.

So, any structured methods of improving my reading? How fast do you guys read, by the way?

Also, what are your thoughts on "subvocalization", the practice of reading words out loud in your head, hence slowing down your reading? I've read a wide variety of opinions; some say that this technique is necessary and that forcefully pounding it out will be harmful for me in the long run; while others say that this is a truly unnatural method imposed on us when we first began learning to pronounce words out loud in Kindergarten, and that advanced reading should consist of reading large chunks of words at a time and identifying them as you would a picture.

[Sir Bartholomew]

hmmm... Have you been reading Cutler's book on reading faster? i read that one but i decided to do otherwise.

i'm a deliberate reader. my wpm is about 170 but what i did was to cut it down to 140 and rationalize my reading to 120 minutes a day or 40 minutes X 3 a day. so far it's working well, for me, on long fiction. i enjoyed Austen's books more through this method.

i do subvocalization, sometimes i even read out loud. this i did at most in A Clockwork Orange, and it was a fantastic experience.

[Joyeuse]

I'm going to loosely quote Mortimer J. Adler here (or maybe it was Harold Bloom. I forget, but I think it was the former) "The speed at which you read is only of importance if that which you read is of no importance."

[newbiebotter]

Oh come on, you know that's not what I meant.

If it's a choice between 250 wpm at 90% comprehension or 500 wpm at 80% comprehension, bring on the speed!

I know people who read at 1000 wpm without any noticeable deficiency in comprehension. It frustrates me that I can't do that. I thought a literature board would understand.


Edit: and yes, most of what I read is of little importance... I want to at least be able to speed through that

[Sir Bartholomew]

i don't think literature is all about comprehension.

[newbiebotter]

Didn't say it was... geez why are you guys being so reactionary?

[Sir Bartholomew]

what do you want me to do? sit here and stare at the monitor? :lol:

[newbiebotter]

I don't understand..

[JBI]

I read at a medium pace, with maximum retention. I would never, ever, compromise retention for speed. Of course, I don't have a Harold Bloom memory, so I am not as fortunate as he is to be able to read a text and memorize it.

The real secret though, is to know the beginning of words, and therefore know the ends without reading them. The same with names and things. It cuts off half the time. That skill however, can only be developed by large amounts of reading.

[Sir Bartholomew]

im sorry i was just kidding. don't mind me.

[newbiebotter]

Let me a share a little personal example with you guys, so you might please relate!

I've never been much of a literature guy - pardon me - but I love reading almost encyclopedic information on the Internet.

Right now, my browser says that I am approaching 200 opened tabs, all textual based websites pertaining to subjects that range from "The effect of mode of breathing on craniofacial growth revisited" to "Underachievement in Exceptionally Gifted Adolescents and Young Adults: A Psychiatrist's View" to " fighting the intellectual hegemony of the privileged in the admissions process". Now why the mass accumulation of information - because I'm extremely interested in these topics, but I lack the means of processing such amounts of texts without opening up new links to different websites of interest. Please help me handle this mountain of ideas, enable me to escape from the stickiness that is the World Wide Web!

edit:

So, no I'm not just some philistine looking to rip apart your precious classics with my savage speedreading techniques

Oh, and JBI, that can't be right or I'd be an amazing reader by now - I think I missed out on several stages of childhood, and emotional development, due to reading. There must be something I've been doing wrong.

[papayahed]

My research is around here somewhere.....

[newbiebotter]

Research about what? Have any idea what I should search for?

Even if it can't help me, I'm pedantically curious haha

[JBI]

I think he was making a joke, in other words, he read it so quickly that his research failed to be comprehended, and therefore is "somewhere" as in, not part of his general summonable memory.

[stlukesguild]

I can see the value... perhaps... in being able to read rapidly when th point of your reading is merely comprehension: technical info, encyclopedic info, etc... The ability to take in a body of words almost as an image can certainly be developed just as we all develop a similar approach to reading "sight words" as a young reader... words such as cat, hat, mom, etc... that are never read in the phonetic sense of our sounding them out, but rather are taken immediately as a whole. The value of "speed-reading" when approaching literature, on the other hand, would seem useless to me... unless (again) the goal is merely comprehension so that one can quickly get through one's required readings in college, etc... Reading is an aesthetic experience. The flow, the rhythm, the sensuous sound of the words (even if it is only in our heads), even the look of the words on the page are all part of this experience. One doesn't read literature merely to comprehend... to "get the point". If that was all it were then Cliff Notes would be all we'd need and to hell with all that added reading. To rush through reading something worth reading would seem to me to be as absurd as listening to a Beethoven symphony or watching a classic film on fast forward just so we can get through it all faster. Since when did the goal of reading become merely to get done with it? The pleasure lies in the process... the journey... the actual experience of reading and not at simply getting another book our of the way and "getting" the gist of it all.

[aeroport]

I typically read at a 'conversational' pace, maybe slightly faster. I could probably go much faster if it were really necessary, but why bother?
That said, I'm currently reading The Wings of the Dove at the rate of 8-10 pages an hour... :(

[sprinks]

I don't know how fast I read actually, but I'm curious to know!! :D I read reasonably fast, as I finish lengthy books rather quickly (in comparison to everyone I know)... But I'm quite curious to know how fast I read now :p

[PeterL]

I used to read very fast, but I have slowed down so that I can savor the joy. I tried some of the speed reading techniques, and my speed was over 500 wpm, but I doubt that I average 100 wpm now, and I have no deire to read faster.

[Nossa]

I'm a VERY slow reader, I never really try to speed up, I like it this way. Of course it doesn't help with studying cuz it takes ages for me to finish, but when it comes to pleasure reading I think I'm pretty happy with how I read. Although I can't claim that I have great analytic skills (compared to some people here I think I don't have any..lol) but I'd like to at least try to put myself in the story itself, to capture the feeling of the author when he was writing, and pay attention to details as much as I can. This won't happen if I read fast. I can read newspaper articles for example very fast, but not with literature.

[johann cruyff]

I guess I'm a reasonably slow reader,although I usually rush through the books I don't really like.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

I have been a speedy reader almost since I learned to read, and I never try to control my pace. I just let myself go. :D
I typically read at a 'conversational' pace, maybe slightly faster. I could probably go much faster if it were really necessary, but why bother?We had a pretty interesting discussion about this subject in the thread Speed reading (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27082). I suggest a look.

/Claes

[newbiebotter]

Claes, this quote from that link provides very good points:

Speed reading is a worthwhile tool. It can actually improve the overall understanding of a work. Think about finishing a book in a day and being able to reflect on the whole versus taking 5 days to finish it? The thing about speed reading is that it actually speeds up your reading faster than just the wpm jump. There is too much good stuff to read and come back to again and again to not learn this skill. The important point is that with the ability to read faster does not mean you lack the ability to read slower. You can do both. What is negative about this?

I already said I'm not much of a literature fan; even when I do read novels, I do it for the ideas and not to scrutinize the syntax or diction as "art".

I've been thinking of following one of those "speed-reading" books for a while, but I figured why not first ask someone who is naturally a quick reader, and compare methodologies?

I figured I could find people like that on these boards, but I guess love of literature is not that correlated with fast reading speeds after all :)

[Dharmabeat]

I tend to alternate. If I'm reeeeally into a certain book, I like to take my time and go over things, and make sure I read it all very carefully. However if I'm not too into a book, I can usually read through pretty fast and skim through the odd section of dialogue or whatever.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

I've been thinking of following one of those "speed-reading" books for a while, but I figured why not first ask someone who is naturally a quick reader, and compare methodologies?Good thinking. When that thread was active I searched for and found a speed test at http://www.readingsoft.com/index (which I am in no way associated with) and ended up with a result of 829 wpm and 91% comprehension.


but I guess love of literature is not that correlated with fast reading speeds after all :)To some extent I think it does: I have noticed that I tend to get bored when my speed goes down due to for instance too small print or weary eyes (showing my age there).

/Claes

[papayahed]

Research about what? Have any idea what I should search for?

Even if it can't help me, I'm pedantically curious haha


I think he was making a joke, in other words, he read it so quickly that his research failed to be comprehended, and therefore is "somewhere" as in, not part of his general summonable memory.

She wasn't joking. In some thread or another reading speed was discussed, since I wasn't doing anything that day I timed my reading. I think I was around 35 pages an hour. Maybe.

[DapperDrake]

The real secret though, is to know the beginning of words, and therefore know the ends without reading them. The same with names and things. It cuts off half the time. That skill however, can only be developed by large amounts of reading.

I remember reading somewhere that the brain only needs to see the first and last letter of a word in their respective places and the other letters can be jumbled up. That would suggest that many words we don't actually read as such but the brain just recognises the pattern and interpolates the rest - I wonder if that's the key to speed.

Example:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

[Bakiryu]

I'm naturally a fast reader. Usually i can read a medium-sized book (180-230 pgs) in a hour or so. I have no idea why but i would assume it's because i learned to read before i could speak properly. I read the way i think, and since i've never actually hear any words when i think (or see any pictures by the way), i just absorb and retain what is on the page. I think it's because i'm a fast talker too, i have to naturally slow down my talking and my writing speed.

however, i don't think people or myself should really try to improve their reading speeds. It's the enjoyment and deep understand of a book that makes it worthwhile, not how fast you can read it.

[B-Mental]

I tend to enjoy my reading at a slow to moderate pace. I visualise the story in my head, and usually can read 300 pages in a 4 or 5 hour sitting. I tend to read less though, because its difficult to take that much time out of my busy day.

[JWHooper]

I read 35 words per minute (not out loud, but reading silently).

How fast do you guys read? I'm pretty sure you guys will read like 500 words per minute. (Wow!)

I respect you guys' talents, so keep it up!

[Umbilical]

"As of now, I doubt my reading habits have changed since my grade school years. I plodder along at a pedestrian pace, and I never really learned to change gears. My eyes have to touch upon every single word to count it as being "read", yet they end up drifting all over the page. My brain is particularly anal about not moving on to the next word until I have articulated the current word out loud in my head. As such, I often reread passages many times over, more out of instinct than out of necessity, and my mental acuity was never honed to sustain swift reading. Furthermore, it seems like half the time I'm reading for the sake of reading because I'm sounding the words out but not deriving any meaning. I'm a very complacent person, an insecure decision maker and a dullard at thinking on my feet, so I've kept the status quo for quite some time."

This sounds like me in many ways...
I've considered myself to have 'reading problems' for some time, but they're getting much better...
I've realized that it's connected to anxiety/aggression.
How does not reading 'fast enough' make you feel? Do you feel 'stuck' on a word? Do you sometimes see sentences, but not absorb them?
I've noticed that after you described your reading frustrations, you immediately self-depreciated/flagellated. "I'm a very complacent person, an insecure decision maker and a dullard at thinking on my feet, so I've kept the status quo for quite some time." That sounds like self-anger to me, and considering where it is in your post (comes right after explaining how 'anal' your brain is) how you feel about yourself could (and I believe IS) very connected to how you read.
I very much relate to what you've written here.
I started finding reading difficult when I was around 15, turning 16... All of a sudden it became a struggle - I was re-reading words and sentences, my eyes were not flowing, or maybe that was my brain (I couldn't decipher), and I would get stuck half-way through a sentence.
Only recently have I began to see these 'problems' as anxiety-related; whatever anxiety I do have has been channelled into my reading as a sort of self-torturous limitation, as I'm aware of how reading can expand my mind, and have punished my mind by trying to limit this expansion.
Have a look at how you view your mental power - how you use it in other areas of your life.
Is reading becoming something that you obsess about (even mildly)?
Do you find that you want to read and learn SO BADLY, and sometimes when you pick up a book and just can't feel your way through it, you become sad and frustrated?
Do you find it confusing how you're so able and intelligent and yet you seem to feel 'behind' in this way -
almost dwarfed, malformed, stuck in childhood?
I'd really ask myself all of these questions...
Maybe I'm COMPLETELY wrong about all of the above and am reading too far into everything, but I don't think so.
My reading is getting a lot better myself... but it's come with self-realizations that I didn't realize were necessary.
Take care!
Jodi

[DapperDrake]

Good thinking. When that thread was active I searched for and found a speed test at http://www.readingsoft.com/index (which I am in no way associated with) and ended up with a result of 829 wpm and 91% comprehension.



/Claes

I took that test and got 177 wpm at 100% comprehension - Guess that means I'm slow :D

[Pyrrho]

I tried speed reading with the Buzan book but I always had a headache after trying to apply his 'tricks'. Guess that I must have done something wrong...

[aabbcc]

Never counted it by words, but by pages (but then again it would depend on a plethora of little things, such as the size of a font, etc). Unless I do speed-reading (which I never do when it comes to literature - it removes all the joy from reading), I guess I read about a page and a half - two pages per minute (a couple of moments ago I just asked my father to check together, and I read two and a - nearly - half pages of Crime and Punishment, though the font was relatively big).

I don't try to read quickly, it just happens, years of practice. It also depends on text, and author (some things are just naturally read more slowly - e.g. Proust or Krleža for me - and some quicker). Don't force speed in reading, read at your own pace as it's most convenient for you. It's about the quality, not quantity. ;)

[ben.!]

I'm slooow. I just stick to my formula of reading a chapter out of a book before bed, I don't go into specifics. I'm happy if I knock off a chapter per night, it's a constant thing, not too little, not too much.

[Nightshade]

118 pages in less than 40 minutes was the only time I was timed.. (some people were spying on me and then came and asked me how many pages Id read... they were not book fans so they were horrified :lol: ) But thats only fun reading if Im doing study reading it can take me as long as 10 minutes to get through 15 pages , if its partically academic and dense .

[Trystan]

It depends . . . on the complexity of the story, or the writing style. I don't read that quickly generally speaking . . . actually I sometimes think I read too fast, even if it is slow by comparison, as I might fail to fully appreciate the writing.

[Umbilical]

I heard that someone read so fast
he learnt how to burn books faster than anyone else.
So that's what he's doing now... He's learnt to burn books, and when he's going he'll burn himself and will write himself out SO FAST.

Read my post at the end of page 2 on anxiety as related to reading.

[Erichtho]

I read relatively fast I think, but my speed depends of course on the difficulty of the text, the language I read in and the style - some works are meant to be read aloud, some need a pausing now and then, and some one can simply skim here and there.
I never counted the words, though, and to give a number of pages is rather useless.

[R34]

I used to be a really slow reader. I don't know if you have ever heard of that program "EyeQ" but its actually helped my reading speed and comprehension a lot. It's hard to say that without coming off as plugging a product, haha, but my friend bought into the hype and bought the program, it worked for him, and let me borrow it.

[Pensive]

I don't remember taking a speed test but by according to what I have noticed, I have a very good reading speed when it comes to reading works in my own native tongue. Once we had two lessons free in school (about 1 hour) and I completed about two hundred pages then, and the pages were of quite a good length. There are some magazines which my mother brings and she is always astonished at how when she would have completed two or three stories out of it I would have read the whole, oh her speed isn't bad either....but it's kind of a disadvantage too as some of the stories I love at that moment get over so early. :p

My reading speed, in my opinion, is a bit slower than that (maybe much slower than that of Urdu). Well, I completed Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in six hours the first time I read it...if my memory isn't fooling me the chances of which there obviously are :p...

[Honest]

I'm just curious how it takes you to finish a novel of 300 pages, as an example?
I'm kind of a fast reader but my problem EVER is that I got bored easily, say, after reading 2 or 3 pages..

What about each you?

[JBI]

3 hours, give or take, depending on the author. I consider that fast, though Harold Bloom claims that up until he was in his late thirties, he could pull off 1000 an hour with full recollection (I am tempted to believe him, given his wide range of textual knowledge, yet think that quite impossible). Perhaps then, I am fast for "normal" readers, but slow for "freak of nature" readers.

[Uberzensch]

I must be super slow!

I have no idea how it's possible to read 100 pages per hour.

I do, however, read every word. Do you skip words or skim? Still retaining information but not reading every word?

[Eryk]

It varies. I skim non-fiction and then decide if I want to read it fully. I read fiction and poetry linearly, one sentence at a time, so it's slower. About 40-50 seconds per page for novels, but then my mind wanders a lot (ADD). So, I'm sometimes a moderately fast reader and sometimes I'm just not reading. If I keep working at it all day I can read over 500 pages of fiction. There's something really satisfying about finishing a novel in one day.

[JBI]

I must be super slow!

I have no idea how it's possible to read 100 pages per hour.

I do, however, read every word. Do you skip words or skim? Still retaining information but not reading every word?

I don't skip words - the voice in my head though, reads very, very quickly, and is able to form the syllables faster than most people - perhaps that is why - in a sense, the speed of my voice is my doing and undoing - the fact that I listen to it, instead of deal with words as pictographic representations of meaning caps my speed, whereas I do have a tendency to read them quickly. I can read out loud at over 60 pages an hour too, so generally, I'm just a rather quick reader.

Linguistically though, certain tricks work to increase speed - one, the one I use, is merely learning how to recognize the word, and sound it out faster - I think most people overhear themselves read, so the speed of the voice in your head, and the rate in which the word is formed is very important. Other readers, supposedly, formulate a trace while reading each word - and convert the trace into a sentence later within their head, without having to overhear themselves reading. That generally can speed people up, but from what I know, people who do that tend to have weaker vocabularies, and perhaps less enjoyment and retention.

Generally though, often when people speedread, from my experience, they should not be. The point is to read at a pace that is comfortable, and allows maximum retention - and yes, reads every word. but when you formulate the words, the more you read as a kid, and the more you practice reading out loud quickly, from what I find, helps increase speed. Always read for retention rather than speed, but do not doubt yourself and read slowly, rather, challenge yourself to read faster, and generally, you will find your speed can increase if you force yourself to do it.

[Eryk]

Harold Bloom claims that up until he was in his late thirties, he could pull off 1000 an hour with full recollection (I am tempted to believe him, given his wide range of textual knowledge, yet think that quite impossible).
I'd say it's impossible to emotionally process 1000 pages of literature in one hour.

[JBI]

I'd say it's impossible to emotionally process 1000 pages of literature in one hour.

I didn't say it - he did.

[papayahed]

I did an experiment a while back and I think the average was thirty pages per hour. I'll have to search for that thread.

[Eryk]

I didn't say it - he did.
I know. :)

Maybe Bloom read in layers--once for information, and then slower re-reads for reflection. But even this is hard to understand. The emotional impact of literature would slow down even the first reading, or at least it does to me.

[higley]

I'd boast that I could read a whole novel in five minutes, but I'd feel bad lying to someone named Honest. So I'll tell the truth and say it takes me a few hours if I'm really into it and can't put the book down.

[mayneverhave]

I'd boast that I could read a whole novel in five minutes, but I'd feel bad lying to someone named Honest. So I'll tell the truth and say it takes me a few hours if I'm really into it and can't put the book down.

I read relatively slow (much slower than JBI, and, needless to say, Bloom), but since I have a fair amount of free time, I can do a 300 page novel in around 2-3 days.

[Dr. Hill]

I read about 50 pages in a solid hour.

[Bakiryu]

About an hour give or take. It also depends on the quality of the writing. If i'm forced to read the book then it'll take an age!

[Mr Endon]

I've been studying literature at the University for years, am working on my dissertation now, but cannot read more than 140 pages a day. If I read a page over that I'm surely skimming. Always been a slow reader and this ole dog ain't gonna learn tricks now, innit.


I'd say it's impossible to emotionally process 1000 pages of literature in one hour.

The keyword is emotionally. Idiot savant Kim Peek (who inspired that Dustin Hoffman movie) can, in only 10 seconds, not only read a page but memorize a page, the result being that he can recite thousands of books by heart. Needless to say, probably not much "emotion" going on there.

[vagantes]

In my youth I consistently read 1,000 words per minute with total recall of plot, character and style, which equates to approximately 50,000 words per hour

I now find great satisfaction in slowing my reading down, so that I can savour each and every nuance in the text.

Fast or speed reading is a trick designed to absorb quickly great wads of information, which I found extremely useful during my career in business where I could be streets ahead of the opposition purely by utilising this talent. I also found it useful to be able to read texts which were upside down.

[MorpheusSandman]

If I'm REALLY into a book I can read a page in around 45 seconds (@ about 300 words per page); faster than that and I lose the ability to form the movie in my head (though I can still comprehend the words). To me, reading is a unique, mentally sensual experience and while it would be nice to devour 100 pages per hour I'm much more interested in the aesthetic and appreciating the nuances. But I might look into trying techniques for reading faster. I know a lot of times when it would come in handy (like non-fiction).

EDIT: I actually just timed myself reading because I was curious and it seems I can do a bit over 400 words-per-minute. I encourage others to try this just to get an idea (pages-per-minute is understandably unreliable since words-per-page varies). I copied a lot of text onto a Word document and timed myself for 10 minutes.

[kiki1982]

I think I am a slow reader, somehow... :p

Although, if I want I can read very fast: my record is 300 pages in three days (Persuasion), I can also do very slowly: my record at this trime being also 300 pages (Dorian Gray) in about one month?

I think, the amount of time I need to read a book is largely down to how much I want to read it, so how much time I want to spend on it rather than how much time I need to read a page. If absolutely love a book I tend to spend a lot of time on that, reading all day, if possible. If I don't love it, then it takes a little longer...

But I like pondering over what it says emotionally, so I guess I need to process that first.

My father reads extremely fast: 200 pages in one evening? But he forgets as soon as the book is finished. I guess it's nice so that he can read his vast bookshelf over and over again... :p But on the other hand, my mother reads as slow as I and can still say what happened after 10 years... I read a little faster now... I guess it all comes down to training...

[Honest]

It's really interesting to hear that from all of you guys. I wrote as I thought that I'm a fast reader, but after reading all of your posts, I shall admit that I'm really a slow, slow reader... I can't at any rate finish a 300-page-novel in a week :( :( :(
I borrowed three books last week and still thinking which one I should start with
They: 1- The Lord of the Rings 2- Moby Dick 3- The Count of Monte Cristo

[Helga]

I think it will always depend on the subject and why I'm reading it.. about a week or so with 300 pages, but that also depends on what time of year you ask me cause if it's school season it takes longer but if it's a holiday season then it's less than a week, but average is a week.

[joao_oliveira]

1000 pages per hour? Even if it's possible, what's the point? It's like those hot dog eating contests. I don't want to be a fast reader. I want to "taste" and think over what I read.

[Eryk]

1000 pages per hour? Even if it's possible, what's the point? It's like those hot dog eating contests. I don't want to be a fast reader. I want to "taste" and think over what I read.
:):thumbs_up

You nailed it. And it also depends on what is being read. A good poem is a delicacy, to be savored. Formula fiction is a glass of Coke. High fructose corn syrup and a belch.

[whatsername]

Hm I once read 300 pages in about a day, so I guess I'm a really slow reader. I can read quickly but I feel bad sometimes committing much of my time in the fictional world and forgetting the real world!

[Nightshade]

3 hours, give or take, depending on the author. I consider that fast, though Harold Bloom claims that up until he was in his late thirties, he could pull off 1000 an hour with full recollection (I am tempted to believe him, given his wide range of textual knowledge, yet think that quite impossible). Perhaps then, I am fast for "normal" readers, but slow for "freak of nature" readers.


I'm just curious how it takes you to finish a novel of 300 pages, as an example?
I'm kind of a fast reader but my problem EVER is that I got bored easily, say, after reading 2 or 3 pages..

What about each you?

DEpends what I am reading and the type of writing, but say a novel, 300 pages? and hour and a half maybe a wee bit less maybe awee bot more.
I know that the only time i was times ( i didnt realise it was happening) 2 guys from my class noticed Id gone into the library watched me pick up a book and 40 minutes later came over and I had read 158 pages or something. That is witrh near perfect recall of passages. I can go facster if you dont want me to quote . or slower if I am concidering implications behind the text. Like normally Id read belinda in a couple of hours, but this asttime it took me 2 days, granted I never actually had time to sit down and read solid, and I kept stopping to concider the implications of what I was reading in context of events and other literature of the time.
FOnt paper and ink also affect the speed.

[Hank Stamper]

it depends on the size of the text i suppose but generally i can read anything between 30-50 pages an hour.. my biggest problem is concentration, my mind can wander so i normally have to go back and read again

[mystery_spell]

I'm a relatively fast reader. It really is dependent on what I'm reading. If I'm reading something that I really enjoy, I will read it very quickly. If I'm reading something that I find dull and uninspiring, then it will take me more time to read.

[MorpheusSandman]

I also think it's very important to make the distinction between what should/can be read fast and what can't. Non-fiction and most novels can be speed read as long as you can retain the content well enough. Poetry should be read in the meter it's intended, and most poetry is based on speaking rhythm so it shouldn't be read in chunks. Especially something like Homer which was originally intended to be orated. Plays are meant to be performed and spoken so I think they also work best reading at speaking speed (preferably with the actors "playing" the words in your head).

[mono]

1- The Lord of the Rings 2- Moby Dick 3- The Count of Monte Cristo
Whew! All relatively long books! Worry not, because The Count of Monte Cristo reads with some ease - Dumas did a fantastic job at storytelling, and its tales catch one's attention and maintain it. Moby Dick? Not so easy, as it weighs heavy with metaphors and nautical terminology, but both times I read it, I could hardly place it down. Good luck! :)
To answer the question, I would not consider myself a very fast reader, but, then again, I have never timed myself. Regardless, I never rush, and if I fail to fully absorb a long chapter, I do not hesitate to reread it; no author designed any book for anything other than enjoyment (unless we speak of Joyce's Finnegans Wake), and while one reader may prefer enjoying a book quickly, I enjoy most best by taking my time, while occupying my reading time more as leisure than as a race or an obligation.

I also think it's very important to make the distinction between what should/can be read fast and what can't. Non-fiction and most novels can be speed read as long as you can retain the content well enough. Poetry should be read in the meter it's intended, and most poetry is based on speaking rhythm so it shouldn't be read in chunks. Especially something like Homer which was originally intended to be orated. Plays are meant to be performed and spoken so I think they also work best reading at speaking speed (preferably with the actors "playing" the words in your head).
I thought the same thing while reading this thread - thanks for bringing it up, too. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant, which measures some 200 pages, took me a lot longer than a novel of a similar length, take The Catcher in the Rye by Salinger (more like 250-300 pages), for example, which, though containing many metaphors worth analyzing, reads like cake compared to Kant, in which every sentence has a strong message; most philosophy takes time, and I would love to meet an individual read and retain every part of Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals or Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by Hume, of similar length, in 20 minutes, which measures to 1,000 pages per hour, as someone claimed he could.
Poetry tends to take me longer to read than fiction as well, but not quite as long as philosophy, plus I tend to read it off-and-on until I have finished the book, especially for those poets who wrote a lot, like D.H. Lawrence, Emily Dickinson, or Lord Byron. Taking it further, some poetry reads with more ease than others; in terms of difficulty, I would never place Goethe, Tennyson, or Yeats in the same category as Bukowski, Collins, or Rosetti.

[librarius_qui]

My answer is no.

But, then, I put myself to read your question, and I'll have to say some more things ...


I'm just curious how it takes you to finish a novel of 300 pages, as an example?
I'm kind of a fast reader but my problem EVER is that I got bored easily, say, after reading 2 or 3 pages..

What about each you?

It depends on the book, and your (my) interest in it.
I remember having read The Mists of Avalon in about 2 weeks ...

I was very interested.~


lq

[DanielBenoit]

I'm a particuarly slow reader really. I would rather spend more time on a page to soak it all in, then just touch the surface level and move on.

[Jazz_]

From http://www.readingsoft.com/index

473 wpm, 100% comprehension (though the comprehension questions were not very difficult :P)

I don't think I'm a very fast reader, I find I enjoy reading more when I take my time ;)

[Selfsame]

I'd say it's impossible to emotionally process 1000 pages of literature in one hour.


Hi all,

Bored and sleepless and searching through all the threads that mention Harold Bloom, because he is my literary crush of the moment. (I go through these phases where I feel like I have to read everything on the internet about a certain author. . . before Bloom it was Vollmann, Emerson.)

Just thought I would share my weird experience with this. Throughout most of my life I was an excruciatingly slow reader. If I was lucky I'd get through 15 pages in an hour, and this would be with frequent "focus breaks," because I would just feel like my head was so cloudy and hazy and foggy that I could hardly even see the page. Since age 13 I have been nearly debilitatingly depressed, though, and I am just now coming to realize that much of the "lost in a fog" mental stuff was probably mostly the depression. Anyhoo. Several months ago I was hospitalized for my illness, and since then I have been on a very very high dose of an SSRI (sertraline hcl). However, the weirdest thing I've noticed since I've been on the medication is that my reading has become much more of a physical thing, almost, and my reading speed has really ramped up. I'm not sure how to explain it. For instance, if I scrooll down from this typing box here, I can read the entire contents of this thread in only a few seconds. However, if I go and actually read all of it aloud, I notice it takes me much much longer. However, when I first read it silently, it "felt" like I was still mentally hearing the phonetics of the words.

Erm. That may not make sense. What I mean is that when I used to read more slowly, there was a way in which I felt I still "heard" the words even if I wasn't saying them. Now I read much faster, but I feel like that same sense is still there. And while I'm not quite at Bloom's warp speed, I hit around 600ish an hour these days, if I'm not feeling sleepy. (And it still involves deep emotional engagement.)

But it seems to me that there's something to this "mental voice" experience I'm trying to convey. I think that it accounts for the "emotional experience" part of strange reading rates.

I mean, a big part of my depression was a very strange form of auditory hallucination where I would listen to oblique conversations about death/suicide, though I guess that wasn't the strange part. It's just the way the thought-sounds "felt" that was always very odd, and I guess I'm really failing for a good way to describe it. I want to say that they felt like intrusions, but I realize that clears nothing up. I'm sorry, I'm sleepy and fogheaded right now.

But basically, it feels like now that I read out of the same "vector" of myself that this auditory disturbances once came from. I mean. . . before, it very much felt like the reading was like this: words-->mouth-->the "front" of my brain, where the would soon get lost in the jumble of depressive fogheadedness. But now, it feels more like: words-->"back" of the mind. If you think of how listening to your absolute favorite song w/ headphones on feels like it "activates" and pulses the areas on your brain just above the ears, that's how my reading feels now. . . . like it "leaks in."

I don't know. I haven't really mentioned this to anyone. The SSRI's, while working fairly good for the depression (at times I feel like someone who's just come out of a coma), actually cause some pretty unfortunate sexual side-effects, but I haven't mentioned this to my doctors because I love reading so much, and I'm afraid that they would tinker with the meds, and I'm not sure how much this change in my reading process could be attributed to the medication.

Anyway, I guess that's all. I get kind of excited sometimes, because suddenly I am a much better reader than I ever thought I could ever have been, and I get all these silly dreams about parlaying this skill into some kind of intellectual profession, but I guess on some level I'm still kinda depressed and ****ty. I don't do much all day but eat and sleep and lay in bed reading. And feed the kitty whenever she gets pissed at the state of her food bowl. Egh, I'll stop rambling. . .. : ( I really like this site though.

[Uroboros1989]

slow, detailed reading!

[Pryderi Agni]

Oh, I'm a fast one, definitely. A 300-page novel would probably take me about 6-8 hours to read (barring break time) without interruptions.

[applepie]

I'm just curious how it takes you to finish a novel of 300 pages, as an example?
I'm kind of a fast reader but my problem EVER is that I got bored easily, say, after reading 2 or 3 pages..

What about each you?

A lot depends on the type of novel. A 300 page mass market paperbook will take me only 2 - 2 1/2 hours to read depending on the print size. If it is a 300 page book that is more of a literary classic, then it may take me twice that since I put much more thought into scenes, themes, and characters.

I suppose it is pretty fast, but then I had to get faster at reading when I was in college. I had 8 week terms so the volume of reading was overwhelming. Even still I had some 40 hours of reading a week that I was trying to fit into 20.

[anzki4]

As (almost) all have said, it depends. Lord of the Flies took me one day, while I read about two hours. But The Egyptian, which I`ve need to read for school, I`ve read about month and a half, with average 15 minutes a day. (Mainly because I am at the same time reading short stories, and philosophy.)

[blazeofglory]

3 hours, give or take, depending on the author. I consider that fast, though Harold Bloom claims that up until he was in his late thirties, he could pull off 1000 an hour with full recollection (I am tempted to believe him, given his wide range of textual knowledge, yet think that quite impossible). Perhaps then, I am fast for "normal" readers, but slow for "freak of nature" readers.

This is incredible. I cannot beleive at all. No body can speed that fast. The one and only way is to skip most. If one reads deeply or normally at most two pages a minute, not more than that. For our brains have limited capacities and we cannot stretch more than that.

People, even a celebrity like Harold Bloom live with vainglory.

I am not a fast reader for I never can concentrate my mind on a book for a ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''long time. My mind is always quivering, mobile. Most books cannot engross or arrest my minds and in a while something diverts my mind and I do not feel like reading and I in fact refrain from reading such books.

When I read Dickens I was rather fast but when I read Dostoevsky it was rather slow and when I read Tolstoy's war and peace I was slower, for it is hard to memorize so many characters.

I mostly read gradually. If I read a serious text like philosophy or literature or theology, I read patiently. For great texts like the trial by Kafka or any other works by him involves so much of my time.
When it comes to reading a novel like Ulysses by James Joyce reading fast is almost unthinkable. I become the slowest reader and at times it takes 5 to 10 minutes when I come across a difficult text to finish a single page. But when I read a light novel, once I used to read, I can be a fast reader.

Some books like the Brothers Karamazov took so much of my time despite the fact that it is a very simple book but some of the chapters there totally occupied my mind.

Therefore it depends on whether one is reading a simple novel or a philosophical fictional novel.


slow, detailed reading!

I like this idea and this reflects my nature too

[L.M. The Third]

I consider that fast, though Harold Bloom claims that up until he was in his late thirties, he could pull off 1000 an hour with full recollection (I am tempted to believe him, given his wide range of textual knowledge, yet think that quite impossible). Perhaps then, I am fast for "normal" readers, but slow for "freak of nature" readers.

I'd be delighted if I could read 500 pages in an hour! And I'd give worlds to be able to read 1000 in one hour! But I'll admit doubt of such a figure.
I'm not sure, but I could probably finish a 300 hundred page book in somewhat under three hours. I'll have to time myself soon.

[janesmith]

Years of studying have necessitated speed reading. I reckon I can read (and comprehend) 300 pages in around 4-5 hours.

[Modest Proposal]

I read about 70-100 pages an hour which is moderately fast.

I think the main asset to my reading is my patience and will to finish. I've read between 10 and 20 books a month for the last 3 and 1/2 years between school and private study. As anyone can see there is some amount of balancing that takes place, obviously. One could read only paradise lost for a couple hours a day for a year and STILL not get everything out of it, or someone can just read the words in a few hours and get nothing. I try and strike the most meaningful balance I can with comprehension, appreciation and breadth in my reading.

So everyone knows about the Harold Bloom thing, it certainly POSSIBLE scientifically and has been proven to occur that people can do such a thing.

It is not a question of whether it is possible to read 1000 pages an hour, but whether Bloom really can. Honestly, I have no reason to disbelieve that such a well-read, trained individual is among that select group if he says he is.

[teashi]

For reading I think I'm maybe a little faster than normal. But to actually finish a 300 page book.. these days it seems to take me months. I find even if I like a book, I can leave it alone for a week or more.

It doesn't help that I'm a very picky reader. It's like my mind may be willing, but my eyes get sleepy just looking at words on a page. Maybe my artsy side is taking over.:rolleyes5:

[Janine]

I am a super slow reader. I think I could listen to an audiobook in half the time I can read the novel. I do however comprehend all of the book and often go back and reread it if it's really something I was impressed with. We had this same discussion way back a few years ago on this site and I was surprised to find out how many more people on here read slowly.

[sadparadise]

This is very interesting as I have always considered my self to be a slow reader. I really need a very quiet area to read in. When I am reading I wear ear plugs, and I can't listen to any music especially if there is any singing involved. I have never timed myself reading, I will time myself this evening. I am in utter awe every time I hear or read of these speedster readers. I have heard that JFK was a very fast reader as is Harold Bloom. So I will post again tomorrow and let you know, even if I am embarrassingly slow!

[Candide]

It varies. I skim non-fiction and then decide if I want to read it fully. I read fiction and poetry linearly, one sentence at a time, so it's slower. About 40-50 seconds per page for novels, but then my mind wanders a lot (ADD). So, I'm sometimes a moderately fast reader and sometimes I'm just not reading. If I keep working at it all day I can read over 500 pages of fiction. There's something really satisfying about finishing a novel in one day.

Wow. I don't know if I could more accurately describe my reading style, so I'll just quote you and say, "what he said!".

[JuniperWoolf]

I've never timed myself with novels, but I think I take a while. I tend to re-read paragraphs and pages, stare off into space and think for a while about something that I just read, pause for a while if a cool looking bug lands on my page, whatever. It's a process.

Studying though, it takes me about three hours to completely get as much as I can to satisfy myself out of an eighty page chapter.

Bored after two pages? Eouch, that's not great. A good four hours is nothing; in fact, it should be more difficult to stop reading.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

In my youth I consistently read 1,000 words per minute with total recall of plot, character and style, which equates to approximately 50,000 words per hour.That is quite fast... We actually had had a pretty interesting discussion about Speed reading (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27082) in an old thread. I suggest a look.

/Claes

[scaltz]

Interesting question. My first read is very fast (I've got this odd technique of moving my head WITH my eyes when I read....don't ask, it's just me). But If I want to analyze the story for it fascinates me, like Fahrenheit 451; I go through a second read albeit in a much slower pace. This pace allows me to recollect my thoughts from the first read so that I could apply them in the latter one.

[Katy North]

I can read a 300 page book in a day... if I do nothing else I could read 500 or 600, but I need a really good suspense novel to read such a book.

[blazeofglory]

I have never been a fast reader. At times a single page engages me for hours. It happens particularly when I read great classics. Dostoevsky's novels engage me, so do Kafka novels. I have to stoop in between and pause before proceeding, for there are a few lines that are philosophically appealing and I can not skip them when swayed by the idea of fast reading. I have to halt and take a lot of time. At times I repeat the lines and that sucks up my time a great deal and here I am different from the rest of others in my reading nature or technique

[Aravona]

Hmm if the books good I tend to read quite fast, and not stop. But I try and slow myself down to about 100 pages a day if I'm enjoying it (normally thats all the time I have anyway) Sometimes this just does not work. But then, some books I take months to finish because I find them dull.

[anduil99]

My reading is similar to yours in that I spend a great deal of time thinking about specific lines or even passages of a book. Im also beginning to write down lines and quotes from my books so I can continue reading and think about certain areas afterwards. -referring to blazeofglory

[sadparadise]

Timed myself last night came in at 305 words per minute. Not great but not too bad I guess.

[Candide]

For me, it also depends on the author. Some writer's prose is more intricate and detail oriented, which makes it a slower read. Other's are more simplistic and character or plot driven. For instance, I can read an 800 page Harry Potter book in a day, but reading Crime and Punishment will take quite a bit longer. Of course, I just compared a timeless classic with a modern children's book, but you get the idea! :biggrin5:

[cgrillo]

I don't read remarkably fast, which doesn't bother me. I prefer to read slowly and take in everything, because if I read too fast than I'll miss small, but important details.

[Bastable]

I can read anywhere from 30 to 50 pages in an hour depending on the book, but i have a suspicion that i may be needing reading glasses in the near future...

[blazeofglory]

I don't read remarkably fast, which doesn't bother me. I prefer to read slowly and take in everything, because if I read too fast than I'll miss small, but important details.

That is the beauty of reading. When we read engagingly we go lost and we will not care whether or not we read fast enough. It is not reading fast that is the objective but the joy we get and the knowledge we gain through reading. I never give any attention to reading fast. I always care for understanding what we read and how much we understand

[Revolte]

It took me three days to read The Call Of The Wild. I am a very slow reader but sometimes I re read pages to make sure I know whats going on. I get distracted easily to so I might read for an hour or two then go online or watch t.v. or read short stories or poetry.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think there is too much emphasis on how ability to read fast somehow equals intellectual power. I don't think this is anywhere near the case. I had a professor who strongly advocated reading slowly (though this was an intro to lit class) because you pick up on so much more in a novel, and in my case, this is particularly true. So, with me, it depends on the type of literature (and of course how man words are on a page). For classic, difficult, or "high literature," it takes me about two minutes per page, if not more (and it usually is). If it's something easy like Stephen King, about a minute per page.

[scaltz]

Timed myself last night came in at 305 words per minute. Not great but not too bad I guess.

Wait there is a flaw in your statement....how could you possibly read while counting the words that you are reading? Unless you're reading but your brain is somewhere else which is called staring...and not reading.

[Jeremydav]

I'm really not a fast reader. I do my best analysis of things when I read them mindnumbingly slowly.

^Maybe he counted afterwards?

[blazeofglory]

I'm really not a fast reader. I do my best analysis of things when I read them mindnumbingly slowly.

^Maybe he counted afterwards?

Yes, I am a very slow reader. It takes lots of time for me to understand things or ideas. But once I understand them they remain seated within me deeply. I still can recall the stories I have read decades ago

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wait there is a flaw in your statement....how could you possibly read while counting the words that you are reading? Unless you're reading but your brain is somewhere else which is called staring...and not reading.

He probably read, then counted the words he read after the times was up. . . .

[Bastable]

I have never been a fast reader. At times a single page engages me for hours. It happens particularly when I read great classics. Dostoevsky's novels engage me, so do Kafka novels. I have to stoop in between and pause before proceeding, for there are a few lines that are philosophically appealing and I can not skip them when swayed by the idea of fast reading. I have to halt and take a lot of time. At times I repeat the lines and that sucks up my time a great deal and here I am different from the rest of others in my reading nature or technique

There was something so poetic, so very romantic about what you said here, blazeofglory, it struck a chord with me, thank you.

[englishpk]

I am not to speedy in reading. My reading habit is not strong though. I am trying to improve it and build my reading skills.

[Three Sparrows]

It depends, sometimes I can read 100 pages an hour, sometimes much less. It also depends on whether I have other things to do or if the book is boring.

[lymrith]

It would probably take me about 4 hours to read. Although if the language is more complex then it would take longer.

[Razeus]

I'm spending more time reading these days than sitting at my computer mindlessly surfing the web (a favorite love of mine since childhood and I went on hiatus after finishing grad school). I'm going through some classic Russian lit I notice you all seem to go through books pretty fast. Are you actually reading, or mostly skimming? Aren't you afraid you'll miss things if you skim?

[Vladimir777]

I wonder this too. Maybe we are just slow readers? I would hate to skim, though.

[Rores28]

I don't know if I am one who seems to read fast or not. But one way I manage to read a large number of books is through audio format. I have an hour drive to and from work and so I'll put these on then and occasionally while I'm doing mindless chores around the house.

[dfloyd]

now that I am unmarried and have gotten rid of my television set. Both were positive moves.

[JBI]

Most of the major novels I read during high school. Poetry I digested at the beginning of university. I would wager many posters here just read books around what they are talking about, but then again, many posters also read a lot, so it depends.

On the whole, people serious about reading can read 100s of pages a day. I used to digest about 500 daily back in high school, and 300 a day at the beginning of university. My commitments now are greater, so I cannot find the time, but I still manage to read a fair bit, and I choose selectively what to read, and what to stop, which helps significantly.

[Alexander III]

I think everyone has their own pace, much like writing, everyone has different behaviors and styles when they write and the same applies for reading, everyone says the more you read the faster you become, but I find that isn't really true.

[LuggageFan]

I used to wonder about this also. I read slowly - maybe a book every two weeks or so. I don't want to miss anything. My brother would read VERY fast, like a book a day, if he put his mind to it.

I STILL read slowly, will never likely read any faster. In college, we'd get assigned a book every couple days or for the weekend, and I was always like, "huh? what the ****?" So I'd just wing it in class or get the Cliffnotes.

Many people just read much faster than I do, what can I say.

[B. Laumness]

Everyone says the more you read the faster you become, but I find that isn't really true.

I think it’s true for the simple fact that the more you read, the more you know the language, the more your eyes catch easier the words. It also depends on the book itself and on the interest you put into it. You can be absorbed in a story or in an essay and rapidly devour the pages or on the contrary take time to fully appreciate your reading, admire the stylistic qualities of the work or the profound thoughts, leave the book one instant and think about it and come back to it. When I read Montaigne, it took me a month, reading many hours a day during the vacation, 15 pages in average in one hour when I usually read 60 to 100 pages in the same time. It was not specially because of the difficulty of the language (middle French) or the citations in latin. Actually this author led me to meditate without hurry on what he wrote. As for the books in English, it takes me time, since I don't know very well this language. I mean I need to acquire more vocabulary and to become familiar with some grammatical structures, to learn a new code, for each language is a code. I'm reading Lady Windermere's Fan, it's not very difficult, so I scarcely use the dictionary and read about 20 pages in one hour, but it's quite different with Joyce.

[Wilde woman]

Well, it helps when you're getting paid to read (being a full time grad student). :biggrin5:

I usually max out at about 200 pages per day, if I read relatively slowly and take notes. When I'm doing research to, say, figure out a paper topic, I can read much faster. I have one professor who is either a ridiculously fast reader or has read everything (probably the latter), and will typically assign something like 4 books and three secondary articles per week. And then he'll say in class, "The reading is light this week, so let's add another 300-page book." Needless to say, many of us have either learned to skim or simply don't finish the all the reading every week.


everyone says the more you read the faster you become, but I find that isn't really true.

I think it's true up to a certain point, when you're just starting to read. Or perhaps when you start university and learn you can't just half-*** it.

But, if you're studying literature, you're not trained to read quickly. I think that surprises some people. You're trained to read closely, which can significantly slow down the reading process. I had an experience recently in a class, which was a mix of undergraduate and grad students. We were handed an article to read. The result was quite interesting; all the grad students went to work with our highlighters and pencils, taking notes. All the undergrads just read the thing. After ten minutes, the professor asked who needed more time, and all the grad students raised their hands but all the undergrads were done. It discombobulated some of us grad students b/c everyone expected the opposite result.

I'm still working on the enviable (and unattainable?) skill of reading both quickly and closely.

[Virgil]

Not me. I'm a slow reader. I tend to savor every sentence. :D

[ClaesGefvenberg]

I notice you all seem to go through books pretty fast. Are you actually reading, or mostly skimming? Aren't you afraid you'll miss things if you skim?Speaking for myself, I am truly reading, and I have always been pretty fast. You can find discussions about speed reading, words per minute and so on in the following old threads

Speed Reading (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27082)
How fast do you people read, and how did you get that way? (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35014) (This one contains a link to an online test)
Reading speed and IQ (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46728)
Are you a fast reader? (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44601)


/Claes

[iRead]

I don't skim .. But often, if it's a very interesting book and there's a lot of action going on, the pages go very fast. Skimming wont help me that way!
But I find that when I reread a book, I catch details that don't seem to appear before. So rereading is good. I finished the Hunger Games in about three hours - loved that book so much.

[Lord Macbeth]

I have, on a good day, an hour trip to college over three busses, usually at least an hour and a half back, and then at least three hours before my first college class even begins.

Add that up, adn that's at least five and a half hours a day for me to spend delving into my Nietzsche or Spinoza or Wittgenstein or Plato...or my Shakespeare or Twain or whomever... :)

The only occaisions I ever skin are in philosophical treatises when they, occaisionally, devote part of the book to essentially recapping and recounting what they have just argued for for the last hundred pages or so before they move on; Spinoza especially does this, he spends about seventy-five pages laying out his views on the entire spectrum of human emotionality, the hows and whys and whens, and then gives about a ten page recap of that.

As I JUST READ the preceding seventy-five pages, and DID recall what he just said, and Spinoza HIMSELF places a header at the top of this recap essentially saying that's what this is, I did't feel too guilty skimming it. :)

But other than something like that I pretty much never skim, I don't read quickly or slowly, I suppose, about medium, I CAN read qucikly, but I prefer to read at a more medium pace, maybe with some good Tchaikovsky or Mozart on, or perhaps a lecture on philosohpy or literary criticism, and just enjoy the book and the ride--because really, my life is BORING otherwise, my friends are all off at formal colleges and have actual lives, I'm stuck at a community college, half because of money and half because of the sad fact that while I might be Sherlockian in Literature and Philosophy classes, I'm rather a sad sight in a Math class...

I've gotten an A on every English and Philosophy paper I've ever done, both departments generally like me, A's in all those classes...I even did a thirty-seven-page dissertation on four Shakespeare plays interpreted through the philosophical eyes of the philosophies of Locke, Mill, and Nietzsche, when the assignment only called for us to just write at least five pages on some aspect of one play we liked...

And yet I failed PRE-Algebra the first time around...

Put A, B, X, or Y in a literary sentence, and odds are I'll be able to interpret it and go to work as well and as happily as anyone else.

Put them in a mathematical equation...I'm left scratching my head and hoping the clock runs out quickly (or, if it's a test, dreading that very thing while I flail about hopelessly wodnering why mathematics have to be concrete...)



Aye, there's the rub. ;)

[Syd A]

now that I am unmarried and have gotten rid of my television set. Both were positive moves.
!!!
I can't agree more! The amount of time you have for reading is inversely related to the amount of time you spend on junk like TV, sports, family, newspapers, school work, and crap like that.

[kiki1982]

I'm a slow reader myself and can't understand my father who can get through like 300-500 pages in a night ????!
But I don't really read that much timewise. It depends, though. Austens tend to go fast at a record of three days. Dumas reasonably fast, and Scott, which I am doing now, is going horrendously slow (2 months now :eek:!), but he has no got through the prior explanation bit, so I'm getting more interested. Though his Scots way of making his characters speak is not helping for ease ;).

I think that I tend to read more the more interested I am.

[Vladimir777]

I'm reading Lady Windermere's Fan, it's not very difficult, so I scarcely use the dictionary and read about 20 pages in one hour, but it's quite different with Joyce.

If it makes you feel any better, I think Joyce is quite hard for even those who speak English as their native language. :smile5:

[mal4mac]

Why don't you limit the size of your essays to the minimum required and devote the time saved to at least getting some basic maths knowledge. Don't you want to get into a better college? Either that or you can move to the UK - you can do nothing but philosophy and English post-16. You might do A levels in say English, History and Philosophy and if you get As that's enough to get you into a top university. This causes problems of course. Look up the "two cultures" debate...

[Drkshadow03]

!!!
I can't agree more! The amount of time you have for reading is inversely related to the amount of time you spend on junk like TV, sports, family, newspapers, school work, and crap like that.

family = junk? Sports = junk?


Why don't you limit the size of your essays to the minimum required and devote the time saved to at least getting some basic maths knowledge. Don't you want to get into a better college? Either that or you can move to the UK - you can do nothing but philosophy and English post-16. You might do A levels in say English, History and Philosophy and if you get As that's enough to get you into a top university. This causes problems of course. Look up the "two cultures" debate...

I should point out that community college doesn't necessarily = bad. For my first two years I went to a community college on full scholarship for tuition plus books, as part of their honors program. It was a pretty sweet deal. If you get As at a decent community college, you should be able to get into a really good university and save money in the process; also, you might even get another scholarship to pay for a large chunk at said university and save even more money.

[dfloyd]

I had to read sections of Rob Roy two or three times to pick up on the dialect used. I've been selecting works which have little or no dialect. Read Ivanhoe 2x, Waverly, and The Talisman at my normal fairly fast reading speed. Without an appendix of Scot words and phrases, I might not have finished Rob Roy. There was an appendix at the rear of the book I had, but didn't find it at first. After locating the appendix, things were smoother.

[kiki1982]

Haha, glad to see there is someone else who has problems! I have read Ivanhoe and that wasn't too bad. Am now doing Waverley. Apart from the odd older word like 'an' for 'if' and the like, Ivanhoe was alright.

I also have an appendix, but it would help if they would actually highlight the words as such. In mine, there is italic for changes in the editions and ones for words that are explained in the appendix, so you end up looking everything up. Though I suppose I will pick up some Scottish along the way. :smilewinkgrin:

[Modest Proposal]

I just read the back cover and hope my professors and students don't realize that I'm just faking it.

[Syd A]

family = junk? Sports = junk?


Yes. What's unclear to you?

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm pretty sure that most people tend to read at about the same speed (give or take a few dozen wpm) if they've managed to become fairly proficient readers. I think that the amount of books you get through depends largely on the amount of time you can spend on a book each day. If I'm really into something, I can read for up to twelve hours straight, so I get through the book pretty quickly. If however I'm forcing myself to read something that I don't like, it could take up to a month because I can only spend about a half hour on it before I start to feel twitchy.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes. What's unclear to you?

Why exactly you're calling family junk. And sports too.

No doubt not having a wife or children increases reading time. However, I think for many people having a family is just as rewarding as reading a good book.

An important component of reading literature or consuming art of any medium, or the intellectual life in general, is engaging with the real world too. I think too many people forget that. I find literature is most meaningful when it connects to my actual life experiences. To have actual life experience you do need to spend some time away from the books (with loved ones, watching and playing sports, going to parties, watching/reading the news, spending time with friends, etc.)

[kiki1982]

I'm pretty sure that most people tend to read at about the same speed (give or take a few dozen wpm) if they've managed to become fairly proficient readers. I think that the amount of books you get through depends largely on the amount of time you can spend on a book each day. If I'm really into something, I can read for up to twelve hours straight, so I get through the book pretty quickly. If however I'm forcing myself to read something that I don't like, it could take up to a month because I can only spend about a half hour on it before I start to feel twitchy.

That's like me. I read no end if I'm interested. Otherwise, an hour is already enough, or even too much.

Though, I do think that there are people who read considerably faster. I'm not sure though how effective that is. My father reads three times the speed of my mother, but my mother still knows what's in the book after ten years where my father claims not to remember when he has finished it... I guess it makes re-reading interesting :confused:. My mother doesn't need to re-read, I sometimes do, but I get bored easily because, like my mother, I still know what's in it. :crazy:

[stlukesguild]

Like JBI I used to devour books at an incredible rate back in high-school... but most of what I read were novels. As my interests switched more toward poetry and a focus upon the language as much or more than the narrative, my reading slowed considerably. My reading over the last year has fallen off quite a bit... at least what I would call literary reading. I still read a good deal related to art and music, as well as writing related to my profession (to say nothing of the internet). I probably still read far more than most. I always have a book with me wherever I go, I only need about 4-5 hours sleep, and I almost never watch TV. Still my own artistic endeavors, the time I spend with music, my job, and time spent with friends and family all eat into my reading.

family = junk?

Depends upon the family.:smilewinkgrin:

Sports = junk?

Most certainly.:smilewinkgrin:

[Drkshadow03]

family = junk?

Depends upon the family.:smilewinkgrin:

Sports = junk?

Most certainly.:smilewinkgrin:

Uh huh. And all I heard you say was NBA season starts Tuesday!!!!!!!!!! So screw all the reading! :drool5:

[Vladimir777]

Like JBI I used to devour books at an incredible rate back in high-school... but most of what I read were novels. As my interests switched more toward poetry and a focus upon the language as much or more than the narrative, my reading slowed considerably. My reading over the last year has fallen off quite a bit... at least what I would call literary reading. I still read a good deal related to art and music, as well as writing related to my profession (to say nothing of the internet). I probably still read far more than most. I always have a book with me wherever I go, I only need about 4-5 hours sleep, and I almost never watch TV. Still my own artistic endeavors, the time I spend with music, my job, and time spent with friends and family all eat into my reading.

Man, I'm jealous. I always feel tired even with getting 7 hours of sleep. I hate waking up at six.

[stlukesguild]

Even if I was a basketball fan I pretty much wouldn't have much interest this year. We lost LeBron and from what I've heard from those who follow things, the Cavs are gonna suck as bad as the Browns and the Indians.

[Syd A]

Why exactly you're calling family junk. And sports too.


I enjoy eating junk food, and I think that the Whopper is the most delicious food in the world. Nevertheless, I recognize that Whoppers poison my body while salads nourish it. I try to treat my brain the same way I treat my body. Sure, I watch TV sometimes, but only to satisfy the part of my brain that thrives on garbage.

[JBI]

I enjoy eating junk food, and I think that the Whopper is the most delicious food in the world. Nevertheless, I recognize that Whoppers poison my body while salads nourish it. I try to treat my brain the same way I treat my body. Sure, I watch TV sometimes, but only to satisfy the part of my brain that thrives on garbage.

TV is not garbage, TV programs are. As an outlet it has the same potential as print. Then again, television is dying now, so perhaps we would rather turn to the computer screen.

[Drkshadow03]

I enjoy eating junk food, and I think that the Whopper is the most delicious food in the world. Nevertheless, I recognize that Whoppers poison my body while salads nourish it. I try to treat my brain the same way I treat my body. Sure, I watch TV sometimes, but only to satisfy the part of my brain that thrives on garbage.

I was talking about family and sports, but sure let's talk about TV and fast food instead.

[The Comedian]

I've always been a pretty slow reader, even when I read almost exclusively in graduate school. Now, with a career, two kids, and a bit of social life, my reading time is much more limited than most would think. And mostly, I read when I'm tired -- on the edges of night (early morning and late evening) which doesn't help me read for long periods of time.

[Syd A]

I was talking about family and sports, but sure let's talk about TV and fast food instead.

I was making a general point, using junk food and TV as examples. Are you at all able to generalize, or do you have to have everything explained to you in detail?


TV is not garbage, TV programs are.

True, but I'm not really watching TV (the object), I'm watching TV programs, so your point is obvious.

[Drkshadow03]

I was making a general point, using junk food and TV as examples. Are you at all able to generalize, or do you have to have everything explained to you in detail?


So talking with your mom is as poisonous to your soul as eating a whooper with extra cheese and bacon? And spending quality time with one's children has the same worth as watching one of the many vapid shows on the Disney Channel?

And if those aren't the conclusions I'm supposed to have, I am failing to see what sort of generalization I am supposed to draw from Television = a Big Mac and literature = a salad, therefore you somehow addressed my questions about how family = junk?

I don't require details so much as expect any interlocutor to be able to explain what they mean when they make a claim rather than side-stepping my actual questions with an unrelated analogy about something I never questioned and then thinking they actually answered my question.

Heck, this post (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=967377&postcount=44) of yours answers my question more than your analogy. You like literature because it helps you escape a crappy world; that does explain why you would have some of the feelings you do.

[JBI]

I was making a general point, using junk food and TV as examples. Are you at all able to generalize, or do you have to have everything explained to you in detail?



True, but I'm not really watching TV (the object), I'm watching TV programs, so your point is obvious.
You missed my point - it is not the TV that is the problem, the medium, it is what the medium is being used for, I.E., that which is created within its sphere. The ignorance and reuse of the mediocre analogy of the "big mac" vs. whatever is both tiring and tedious. To be honest, we have strayed so far from the original topic that this thread has fallen into a bit of disarray.

On the point of escapism - that is suggesting you read quickly for the sake of getting away from some personal demons - on that side, we can consider the medium, literature. Now, for such a high taste as is suggested by the rejection of other forms of entertainment, it would seem one could interpret your post to suggest a keeping with a "cultivated taste."

My question to you then would be, what are you reading that would offer an escape, when really literature does not offer an escape (from my experience) but rather accentuates are own experience until we become one with the ideas within the book (for instance, we read so much of one thing that we begin to sound like it, and feel like it). Does this imply an escape?

Now, lets say we interpret the role, or function of this medium to work as "an escape" or "alternative" to the tedium of other activities, such as spending time with one's family, could we not suggest that sports, or television would be equally as beneficial?

Now, my criticism of TV is more in keeping with the mediocrity of much of what is shown on TV, but I could, for instance, be watching classic movies on
TCM or something, and expand my knowledge of the history, and art form which is Cinema, or I could go to CBC and watch the news, and expand my knowledge of what is going on within my country, or I could watch an educational program, or an historical program, or any other number of things. Those are not too bad, it is more our sitcom/soap opera culture that gets to me. But, then again, the same criticism can extend to fiction, which in itself is a decadent form.

[Syd A]

So talking with your mom is as poisonous to your soul as eating a whooper with extra cheese and bacon?

Talking to my mom? Hell yeah!

And who puts bacon on a Whopper???

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

I took that test and got 195 wpm. I don't really mind. It can be bothersome since there are only so many hours in a day and they fill up with other crap (like being forced to speak to people - pure torture!). I read interstitially throughout the day as I can't stand marathon sessions. Anyway, no one is holding a gun to my head and I can't be arsed to learn how to read faster so this is where I'm staying.

For those of you who do read fast or have learned to read without "vocalizing" the words in your mind, how does that work? Is every word bland and emotionless?


Talking to my mom? Hell yeah!

And who puts bacon on a Whopper???

Yea who does that to bacon?

[tbarnes]

I find I read about 30 pages an hour these days. Generally I can find an hour or two to read each day, with the occasional 0 days. On days off I usually get about 100 pages read. It really all depends on how much I have going on in my life during that particular time.

Some people definitely read fast.

[mortalterror]

Now, my criticism of TV is more in keeping with the mediocrity of much of what is shown on TV, but I could, for instance, be watching classic movies on TCM or something, and expand my knowledge of the history, and art form which is Cinema, or I could go to CBC and watch the news, and expand my knowledge of what is going on within my country, or I could watch an educational program, or an historical program, or any other number of things. Those are not too bad, it is more our sitcom/soap opera culture that gets to me. But, then again, the same criticism can extend to fiction, which in itself is a decadent form.

In large part, I agree with JBI. I watch quite a bit of television and movies, but I have no patience for bad media whatever its form. I've never watched an episode of American Idol or Dancing with the Stars; but on the other hand, I wouldn't sit through a mediocre opera either. Televisions as an appliance have little future, since most of their utility is being appropriated to smart phones, ipods, and computer screens. However, good programming like The Sopranos, The Wire, or Mad Men are thriving right now. I don't consider them a waste of time, even when they divert me from reading. As a matter of fact, I've been renewing my acquaintance with the comic book medium this year, after nearly fifteen years of absence. Maus, Watchmen, Preacher, Alan Moore's Saga of the Swamp Thing, Y The Last Man, Ghost in the Shell, and Akira all contain fairly strong writing. Even video games like the Fallout series can have impressive storylines.

[Emil Miller]

TV is not garbage, Then again, television is dying now, so perhaps we would rather turn to the computer screen.


Some of us already have. The majority of TV programmes over here are junk and designed for the kind of people who find celebrities, or nonentities as I prefer to call them, worth watching.