reading a book in one sitting

[sickboy]

im quite curious on the general sentiments of reading a book in one sitting amongst the users here on lit network. personally, im not too proud about it but i've actually never read a book in one sitting before. i tend to get worn out easily and will really start to get distracted abit towards the end so i'll end up not enjoying the read as much. do you folks find that reading a book in one sitting allows a better intimate dynamic with the story? or do you prefer taking it slowly to really absorb it?

i'll be trying a session this weekend though but im not too sure what i'll be reading!

[Dark Muse]

I never read a book in one sitting, though there have been a few books which I felt like I could keep reading until the end but never managed to actually pull it off. I myself thinks that reading a book slowly over time does help me to better absorb the content, depending upon the book, as it gives me time to mull over things as I am reading. If I tried to read a book in one sitting I think that my attention would start to flag, I need a breather now and than in my reading. I can focus better on my reading if it is done in gradual amounts.

[iamnobody]

I'm not sure reading a book in one sitting is anything to be proud of either.
I've read lots of books in one sitting but not because they were so very good.
It's usually because they're not well written and/or predictable you can basically skim through it without missing anything.
Really good books require time.

[Charles Darnay]

I can't do it, my eyes are not up to the strain. I have read books in "close to one sitting" before - there was some standing and going to the washroom involved! - but I have read books really quickly. However the only books I find I can do this with are books in which my only interest is getting to the end (to find out what happens) - I tend to gloss over details and put no investment in these books.

Books that have characters who are well developed, or are stylistically wonderful demand a slow reading coupled with time to reflect.

[Big Dante]

I read Catcher In The Rye in one sitting and I found it to be great.

[hawthorns]

im quite curious on the general sentiments of reading a book in one sitting amongst the users here on lit network. personally, im not too proud about it but i've actually never read a book in one sitting before. i tend to get worn out easily and will really start to get distracted abit towards the end so i'll end up not enjoying the read as much. do you folks find that reading a book in one sitting allows a better intimate dynamic with the story? or do you prefer taking it slowly to really absorb it?

i'll be trying a session this weekend though but im not too sure what i'll be reading!

It's nothing to be ashamed of. I'd guess most of us never do them in one sitting. Who has the time or desire? Personally, I visualize what's happening as a movie, which means I'd have to watch it in fast forward to prevent my butt from going numb.:ack2:

[Desolation]

I have read things in one sitting before...But I can't anymore. My eyes have gotten really weak, and I can't afford glasses, so the most that I can usually do before I start getting headaches and popping blood vessels is about 30 pages. If I'm really into it, I can ride through and do more in one sitting, though.

[JuniperWoolf]

I've only done it once, with Catcher in the Rye, because I had a date with a boy the next day and that was his favorite book. I wanted to impress him with the fact that, well what a coincidence, it's my favorite book too! ;)


I have read things in one sitting before...But I can't anymore. My eyes have gotten really weak, and I can't afford glasses, so the most that I can usually do before I start getting headaches and popping blood vessels is about 30 pages. If I'm really into it, I can ride through and do more in one sitting, though.

If it's just reading glasses that you need, you can usually steal a pair from a gas station or something if you need to (that or hawk up the $10 if you're one of those moral types).

[Big Dante]

I've only done it once, with Catcher in the Rye, because I had a date with a boy the next day and that was his favorite book. I wanted to impress him with the fact that, well what a coincidence, it's my favorite book too! ;)




That would work on me. Stroke of genius on your behalf. :wink5:

[kasie]

It depends on the length of the book! :smile5: And what else Life, the Universe and Everything is demanding of me.

I read quickly most of the time: usually by fifty or so pages in, I have worked out whether this is a book for speed-reading, in which case it may take me a day or so to finish, or one that requires considered, slow reading with pauses for thought and assessment. The book that recently slowed me right down, even had me reaching for a pencil to mark what I felt were significant passages that would need further thought and maybe referring back to, was Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison: though I was desperate to know 'what happened next', I just could not rush through it but read slowly, in short sessions with lots of thinking time in between.

[Seasider]

I have read things in one sitting before...But I can't anymore. My eyes have gotten really weak, and I can't afford glasses, so the most that I can usually do before I start getting headaches and popping blood vessels is about 30 pages. If I'm really into it, I can ride through and do more in one sitting, though.
Get a Kindle and increase the font size!!

[Scheherazade]

If it's just reading glasses that you need, you can usually steal a pair from a gas station or something if you need to (that or hawk up the $10 if you're one of those moral types).And this money saving tip is brought to you by JuniperWoolf!

I cannot remember the last time I read a book in one sitting... Like Kasie said, it depends on so many things. What's more, I cannot see the importance of reading books in one sitting or why we are supposed to feel proud or un-proud about (not) having done so.


Get a Kindle and increase the font size!!He says he cannot afford to buy a pair of glasses... How likely is he to be able to afford a Kindle?

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[Seasider]

I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in one sitting. Not to feel proud but to find out what happened. It helped that I was confined to bed with a chest infection.

[LadyLuck]

I think it depends on the book. Some books are easily read in a single sitting, but like someone already commented it is typically because they're engaging but easy to skim through the pages and catch the highlights. Often, I find my favorite books deserve a little more time devoted to them to really read, understand, and enjoy them. I don't begrudge the time to do this, but finding the time is not always a simple thing. I tend to read both types, and I don't feel any better for having read a whole book in one sitting than I do for having read it over the course of two weeks. Anymore, I'm happy to have the time to read a book to begin with and beggars can not be too picky ;)

[Desolation]

If it's just reading glasses that you need, you can usually steal a pair from a gas station or something if you need to (that or hawk up the $10 if you're one of those moral types).

Nah, I need the whole shebang...eye exam and prescription glasses. It's not just about reading, I'd also like to be able to go for a walk without stumbling and bumping into things because I can't see where I'm going.


Get a Kindle and increase the font size!!

:lol: Right now, my local used bookstore has a copy of Samuel Beckett's Three Novels: Molloy, Malone Dies, & The Unnameable for $8...I've been saving up to grab it for the last 3 weeks. I couldn't even fathom being able to afford a Kindle at this juncture. I'm still too attached to physical books to make the switch anyway.

[KCurtis]

I read Catcher In The Rye in one sitting and I found it to be great.
That is a hard book to put down, and if I remember correctly it is an easy read, although a GREAT book.

[cafolini]

That is a hard book to put down, and if I remember correctly it is an easy read, although a GREAT book.

:iagree:

[LadyLuck]

:lol: Right now, my local used bookstore has a copy of Samuel Beckett's Three Novels: Molloy, Malone Dies, & The Unnameable for $8...I've been saving up to grab it for the last 3 weeks. I couldn't even fathom being able to afford a Kindle at this juncture. I'm still too attached to physical books to make the switch anyway.

I make extensive use of the library for this exact reason. I simply can't afford all the books that I read. $10 of disposable cash every two weeks does not add up to the purchase of 5-10 books for the same time frame :smilewinkgrin:

[henrymilesoxfor]

Read "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" on a bus once, though I had already seen the movie which covers the first 2/3rds of the book (though not all of it for some reason). Cover to cover. Only time that's happened though. i get burned out easily.

[sickboy]

Books that have characters who are well developed, or are stylistically wonderful demand a slow reading coupled with time to reflect.

yes i find this absolutely true. while i was reading the picture of dorian gray, i spent an ample amount of time in real life mulling about the character of lord henry, dorian and basil trying to decipher which of these oscar was trying to be reflected in. i imagine they wouldnt have appeared intriguing had i read it in one sitting.

also, jay in great gatsby was a really charming and alluring character that got me hooked.

i guess the thread was triggered by my curiosity to find out how it would be like to read a book in one sitting rather than to debate if it was better or if i should or shouldn't be ashamed of not having done so. i also liked that kasie mentioned taking a pencil to mark certain passages in the book. something i should really learn to do more often!

[Austin Butler]

Train Dreams by Denis Johnson and The Moviegoer by Walker Percy, both highly recommended reads.

And you should not be ashamed at all! Any semi-decent person would not laugh in your face for not having read a book in a sitting or having a low wpm. Certain prose demands more time. I always thought Faulkner, Fitzgerald, McCarthy, and Melville with their long, beautiful sentences heavy with similes benefitted for getting lost in them

[classicpegasus]

I've read lots of books in one sitting but not because they were so very good.It's usually because they're not well written and/or predictable you can basically skim through it without missing anything.
Really good books require time.

I think you've nailed it. A good book demands your attention to details and rewards you for your engagement. It will prompt you to ask what's happening at a level beyond the immediate action. It's a reed switch (http://www.standexelectronics.com/Reed_Switches.html) that closes when you apply too much force but opens when you're thinking of something completely unrelated.

Some of the best literature that I have read contains passages that practically beg for close readings. I'm not saying people need to meticulously analyze a work to appreciate it, but getting through one too quickly should raise a few red flags. Heck, I've read one of my favourite novels about four times now and keep thinking about new details.

[Pensive]

For me it generally depends on the nature of the book. If it's crime fiction or action/adventure novel it's a fast read and due to curiosity about the ending I usually finish it in one sitting. I have completed most works of Agatha Christie and Harry Potter series this way. But if it's something more complex which I am reading more for the beauty of language or idea it's a lot more time-consuming and I personally prefer to linger on with it. And most of all it depends on whether you have enough time to be able to complete the book in one sitting. :)

[Chris1991]

I almost read one book in one sitting it was like 150 pages one afternoon and the last 50 the next day

[Annamariah]

I've read many books in one sitting, though nowadays it doesn't happen as often as it did when I was younger and most of the books I read were shorter.

I don't read books in one sitting on purpose, it just happens if it happens, usually if the book is not very long or I happen to have enough free time (usually meaning I don't have to wake up early next morning, as I often read in bed before sleeping).

Every now and then I read a book in one sitting simply because I can't stop reading it, even if I didn't really have the time. Some books are just page-turners that suck me in so deep that afterwards I feel emotionally drained and I find it hard to focus on real life again. Crazy, huh? :D

[jyossarian]

It depends on the book I guess, but I very rarely read a whole book in just one sitting.

Bizarrely though, one of the few I have done is the Jaws novel :S It's not even that well written or anything but oddly gripping !

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Guilty as charged: I have finished numerous books in one sitting.
I don't read books in one sitting on purpose, it just happens if it happens...Ditto! It just happens, and if the circumstances are right it happens quite often. When I start reading, the real world fades away, and if nothing stops me, I generally keep going to the last page.


Some books are just page-turners that suck me in so deep that afterwards I feel emotionally drained and I find it hard to focus on real life again. Crazy, huh? :DIf so, we are both crazy, but... we already knew that, didn't we? :seeya:

/Claes

[Climacus]

I read Hermann Hesse's Gertrude in one sitting, not quickly, but slowly and methodically. It was mesmerising.

[chrisvia]

This is like applying Poe's poetic principle to a novel, I guess. I've read novels in one sitting many times, usually on Saturdays before I had a baby, and always books under 400 pages. Most recently, I read Houellebecq's first novel in a few hours...while being up with the kid, to be exact. One thing I've found, for myself, is that I don't seem to retain as much from a novel that I read in one sitting as I do from a novel spread out over the course of several readings. No doubt this has to do with inevitable human fatigue, but I think it also has something to do with cultivating a relationship with the text.

[cyberbob]

:lol: Right now, my local used bookstore has a copy of Samuel Beckett's Three Novels: Molloy, Malone Dies, & The Unnameable for $8...I've been saving up to grab it for the last 3 weeks. I couldn't even fathom being able to afford a Kindle at this juncture. I'm still too attached to physical books to make the switch anyway.

wtf? Are you a little kid or a hobo? How can you save for 3 weeks and not have 8 dollars?

[JuniperWoolf]

wtf? Are you a little kid or a hobo? How can you save for 3 weeks and not have 8 dollars?

I've recommended that Desolation take up thievery a few times now, but he hasn't shown any interest.

[qimissung]

I've read books in one sitting, but it's been years. It's even been years since I've stayed up late into the night reading a book, too mesmerized to put it down.

Speaking of, I've got a real page turner waiting for me-and it's take me a week to get to the end of this one.

[elineholst]

Slowly of course, to truly grasp the story. Although if I can finish it on one sitting, much as I want to, it’ll be nicer then I will be able to start another book. ^^

[krymsonkyng]

Chuck Palahniuk's Haunted lasted me through most of my flights from Denver to Addis Ababa. I probably lost a little sanity reading through it all sleep deprived though. I remember most of those stories against my will: The gritty details tend to stick. That and the characters are just... scary.

I also read through Ayn Rand's Anthem. All I remember from that experience is that my legs fell asleep. I tell people the book knocked me off my feet, but that's a flat lie. Really I just stood up too fast.

[Desolation]

wtf? Are you a little kid or a hobo? How can you save for 3 weeks and not have 8 dollars?

Well, with my very, very meager salary, I would be able to afford all the books that I want, but...

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad75/death_on_credit/Cigarettes.jpg

Priorities, man, priorities...