You think YOU like to read?

[SFG75]

I got a kick out of this article (http://www.npr.org/2012/11/01/163949969/reading-125-titles-a-year-thats-one-for-the-books) from NPR. I would have to say that this guy has a LOT of time on his hands. I'd love to know what he does for a living, if he has kids, or if he is involved in the community in any way.:crazy: Some of his musings are also quite interesting.

On self-published books:


Self-published books are great. Self-published books are so, so addled. ... They always have ghosts. Like the ghost of a deer goes into a composer's head and becomes a serial killer, and there's no editor to say, 'You really want to tone this down.' ... They're just insanely bad books. ... I read them, but I read them real fast.

:lol:

[cafolini]

I got a kick out of this article (http://www.npr.org/2012/11/01/163949969/reading-125-titles-a-year-thats-one-for-the-books) from NPR. I would have to say that this guy has a LOT of time on his hands. I'd love to know what he does for a living, if he has kids, or if he is involved in the community in any way.:crazy: Some of his musings are also quite interesting.

On self-published books:



:lol:

I think you are using one example to generalize on the value of self-publishing. Too much to be acceptable. Many good writers have also self-published. That's fact, although I don't need to give examples to get entangled in this subject. It's already not appropiate to tackle it in this manner.

[Drkshadow03]

One of the bloggers I follow reads about 200 - 500 books a year. As of October he is up to 345 books. (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/october-2012-reads.html)

[Pierre Menard]

One of the bloggers I follow reads about 200 - 500 books a year. As of October he is up to 345 books. (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/october-2012-reads.html)

I read that same blog.

It blows my mind how much he's able to read and still be able to review in a fairly in-depth way.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I read an average of a book a week--on track to read about 60 this year, and including some of the better comics/graphic novels I've read--but I seriously don't get how someone can read so many books that fast and get something out of it. Isn't the point of reading supposed to be slowing down and savoring the book? I kinda feel sorry for these people who're all about reading as much as humanly possible. 500 books a year? That's just stupid, and I doubt he's reading all of them. Tons of skimming, I'm sure.

[OrphanPip]

If I included books of criticism I might be over 100 a year, but I really don't keep track of what I read. I tried a bit here, but I left out a lot and then I kind of lost interest in tracking what I read.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I like to track what I read mostly so I can go back and take a look if someone asks for a recommendation (which seems to be happening more and more), plus I admit there is a certain amount of bragging involved when I get to post my reading list on FB at the end of the year. I don't have that much to brag about, otherwise.

Also, why so much criticism, Pip? Just for fun? I can't get into that stuff no matter how hard I try.

[Larry Nolen]

I read an average of a book a week--on track to read about 60 this year, and including some of the better comics/graphic novels I've read--but I seriously don't get how someone can read so many books that fast and get something out of it. Isn't the point of reading supposed to be slowing down and savoring the book? I kinda feel sorry for these people who're all about reading as much as humanly possible. 500 books a year? That's just stupid, and I doubt he's reading all of them. Tons of skimming, I'm sure.

I happened to see this link appear in the referral stats of my blog and I thought I would see what was being said. Well, it's difficult to have something eloquent to say to those who just know that it is "doubtful" and "stupid" for someone to be capable of reading (with full reading enjoyment and comprehension) 500+ books a year (for the record, I'm actually on book #402 for 2012, which is Anthony Shadid's memoir, House of Stone, which I'll be reviewing next week when I cover the 2012 National Book Award finalists for Non-Fiction). I suppose you "got me." After all, there was an exposé written in 2010 (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-i-am-able-to-review-so-many-books.html) about how those books are really read. After all, it is difficult for some to accept that there just might be others who have the talent for reading rapidly and with understanding, just as it's difficult for others to admit that some are smarter than them, better looking than them, or who were great at playing sports.

Now back to watching the MTSU-Western Kentucky football game on ESPNU. Reading just isn't 24/7 for me; I do love sports and having a social life as well ;)

[OrphanPip]

Also, why so much criticism, Pip? Just for fun? I can't get into that stuff no matter how hard I try.

I don't know, I read a lot that has no direct application to my work, but which I hope might give me some insight or inspiration, it usually doesn't though. I've been reading criticism intensively the last few weeks because I need to provide a critical background to my own research for a grant proposal. So far, I've got about 30ish books checked out, but I'll only read a few of them cover to cover; I removed every bit of criticism relevant to my topic that is available in the city from three university libraries. I can be a bit OCD about my work.

[Drkshadow03]

I read an average of a book a week--on track to read about 60 this year, and including some of the better comics/graphic novels I've read--but I seriously don't get how someone can read so many books that fast and get something out of it. Isn't the point of reading supposed to be slowing down and savoring the book? I kinda feel sorry for these people who're all about reading as much as humanly possible. 500 books a year? That's just stupid, and I doubt he's reading all of them. Tons of skimming, I'm sure.

I've been reading Larry's blog since I used to frequent the Other Fantasy Section of the now defunct WOTmania. I believe him when he says he reads 500 + books and maintains a high level of comprehension. He's always been a fairly sharp critic and reader.

I wish I could read that many books a year. Heck, I'd be happy if I could read about 100 books a year. This year I've only read 23 books. I'll be lucky to make it to 30 books. My feeling sometimes is that there are so many good works out there and such little time to read it all.

[Charles Darnay]

A thread with a sudden twist - I like it :)

On the notion of reading fast/too many books - I will have to side with Larry on this one. I don't know if I would call it a talent (although, you do have to perfect it, I suppose) - but it is my biological. Something in the brain-eye-wiring-I-should-stop-pretending-to-understand-anatomy allows certain people to absorb a wider scope of content at the same time. I am not such a person: due to physical limitations I am a fairly slow reader (that and I often find myself pauses to drift off into a reflective world) - but whatever. I guess it's why I have never cared about the "how many books can you read in a year" thing.

[mal4mac]

A friend of mine has a PhD in physics, looks & social life the envy of everyone, is a really nice person, and boundlessly happy. But he says he has never read a novel. Might have been exaggerating, slightly, but I know he reads hardly any literature (if any). Is reading many novels better than spotting many trains? That said, I like reading novels... but I couldn't care less about how many novels/year, I read. Reading quickly, or "all the time", I find stressful

[SFG75]

I am a member of another book forum and I utilized their "blog" feature as a book tracker of sorts. As of late, I prefer the good reads website. I don't stay faithful though as it creates an internal pressure akin to what you felt in school: "You only read three books the last two weeks?" Life is too busy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I happened to see this link appear in the referral stats of my blog and I thought I would see what was being said. Well, it's difficult to have something eloquent to say to those who just know that it is "doubtful" and "stupid" for someone to be capable of reading (with full reading enjoyment and comprehension) 500+ books a year (for the record, I'm actually on book #402 for 2012, which is Anthony Shadid's memoir, House of Stone, which I'll be reviewing next week when I cover the 2012 National Book Award finalists for Non-Fiction). I suppose you "got me." After all, there was an exposé written in 2010 (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-i-am-able-to-review-so-many-books.html) about how those books are really read. After all, it is difficult for some to accept that there just might be others who have the talent for reading rapidly and with understanding, just as it's difficult for others to admit that some are smarter than them, better looking than them, or who were great at playing sports.

Now back to watching the MTSU-Western Kentucky football game on ESPNU. Reading just isn't 24/7 for me; I do love sports and having a social life as well ;)

Alright, alright, calm down. I guess I'm wrong . . . though your extreme defensiveness seems a bit odd. Can you not see how one might be dubious when hearing about someone who reads more than one book a day and writes reviews on them, and also apparently has a social life and watches television? It just doesn't seem like there's enough time in the day. How fast do you read? Seems like it'd have to be a page in a matter of seconds. And, I'm sorry, but I still doubt how much someone could get out of a book by reading them that quick. Comprehension and appreciation or two different things, after all.

And I know there're plenty of people smarter than me (though I'm not sure that just because someone reads a ton of books that makes it so--I've met plenty of people who barely read who are way smarter than me, too).

Still, I greatly apologize for apparently hurting your feelings, Larry.

[Paulclem]

I had to laugh. Sorry MM.

My wife reads very rapidly - a novel in an afternoon/ evening. She shrugs it off when I point out that it is very unusual, but it is. The way she does it is to look down the centre of a page and take in the lines as a whole. This is uber-speed reading as far as I can tell, and she didn't train herself to do this, but has always done it. Perhaps more of us could if we did train ourselves, but I think the method we use to teach reading to children could preclude the possibility of them realising that they can do it.

What's your reading method Larry?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why're you sorry?

[Larry Nolen]

Alright, alright, calm down. I guess I'm wrong . . . though your extreme defensiveness seems a bit odd. Can you not see how one might be dubious when hearing about someone who reads more than one book a day and writes reviews on them, and also apparently has a social life and watches television? It just doesn't seem like there's enough time in the day. How fast do you read? Seems like it'd have to be a page in a matter of seconds. And, I'm sorry, but I still doubt how much someone could get out of a book by reading them that quick. Comprehension and appreciation or two different things, after all.

And I know there're plenty of people smarter than me (though I'm not sure that just because someone reads a ton of books that makes it so--I've met plenty of people who barely read who are way smarter than me, too).

Still, I greatly apologize for apparently hurting your feelings, Larry.

Pfft! I was having fun more than anything else, considering that 1) I've always enjoyed seeing someone say something they believe to be authoritative and then having another person (usually one they've referenced in passing) pop in suddenly to rebut them, and 2) I wrote a piece about reading squirrels when asked about it two years ago.

I read around 300-400 pages/hour with comfort; skimming would be something around 600-700 pages. I just "see" lines at a time with full comprehension, it's nothing that was taught to me. So I really read for no longer of a time than many others; I just happen to finish 250-400 page books in a sitting, if I desire *shrugs*

Paulclem,

How your wife reads is very similar to how I seem to process it.


But here's another look at the issue: if you slow your reading to 1/3 of your comfort speed, is enjoyment increased or comprehension improved? I would argue that it is not, at least for many people. I have tried to slow down to 60 pages/hour or so and my focus wavers, since it take so much extra effort to make myself read so slowly that I process less than I do otherwise.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I envy your gift. It sounds like you have a photographic memory, then? Being able to read that fast is just incomprehensible to me.

Some questions: Do you enjoy the language when going that fast? Do you pick up on the nuance? Do you chuckle at humor, become frightened at horror, or do you get struck by beautiful prose I'm general whatever the form? Also, what about poetry? Poetry is believed by many to be a type of writing that one should read slowly, or at least multiple times (in the case of short poems). Do you breeze through those, too?

Thinking about it, though, I don't know if I'd want to read quite that fast . . . the possibility of running out of things to read seems almost feasible. Not to mention costly.

As to slowing my comfort speed, I guess it wouldn't help. But my comfort speed differs for different types of writing. I read something difficult or dense considerably slower than something easy--I can breeze through something like the Hunger Games much faster than something like Ulysses. Sometimes, though, slowing down does help, though I wouldn't say I slowed as much as 1/3 of regular speed. I can also read faster than usual, I'd say twice as fast if I try, and still understand what I'm reading (depending on the difficulty), but I don't enjoy it or get as much out of it, which is probably why I'm so skeptical of speed readers (and, yes, I realize the vanity of me thinking my way of reading is the best/most realistic way to read).

[Larry Nolen]

I envy your gift. It sounds like you have a photographic memory, then? Being able to read that fast is just incomprehensible to me.

Some questions: Do you enjoy the language when going that fast? Do you pick up on the nuance? Do you chuckle at humor, become frightened at horror, or do you get struck by beautiful prose I'm general whatever the form? Also, what about poetry? Poetry is believed by many to be a type of writing that one should read slowly, or at least multiple times (in the case of short poems). Do you breeze through those, too?

Thinking about it, though, I don't know if I'd want to read quite that fast . . . the possibility of running out of things to read seems almost feasible. Not to mention costly.

As to slowing my comfort speed, I guess it wouldn't help. But my comfort speed differs for different types of writing. I read something difficult or dense considerably slower than something easy--I can breeze through something like the Hunger Games much faster than something like Ulysses. Sometimes, though, slowing down does help, though I wouldn't say I slowed as much as 1/3 of regular speed. I can also read faster than usual, I'd say twice as fast if I try, and still understand what I'm reading (depending on the difficulty), but I don't enjoy it or get as much out of it, which is probably why I'm so skeptical of speed readers (and, yes, I realize the vanity of me thinking my way of reading is the best/most realistic way to read).

I do. I recently finished reading Mark Helprin's In Sunlight and in Shadow and the lyricism of his prose is very beautiful. Just because I process rapidly doesn't mean I don't react just as quickly; I usually do. But I will say this: When I'm reading in Spanish or Portuguese, my reading speed does drop to around 125-150 pages/hour, and a bit slower than that when I read in French or Italian. I read just fast enough for me to take in a lot of the atmosphere and I often take breaks to consider what I'm reading (I rarely read more than an hour straight; usually 2-3 sessions of that length or shorter is the norm for a day). As for poetry, I read and re-read it about 2-3 times before I write a review. I recently reviewed Alan Shapiro's National Book Award-nominated Night of the Republic (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/2012-national-book-award-finalist-in.html). I read it twice over a 10 day span; first for general impressions, second for a focus on the language and metaphors. That's my general approach when reviewing poetry, because the act of re-reading (or perhaps, re-listening in the case of lyrical verse) is to me at least as important as reading the first time.

But as for the speed issue, it's just what I'm comfortable working at for what I do as a reader and as a freelance reviewer and even occasional translator. I don't belittle those who read slower than I do, nor do I look askance when I've learned of a few that read even quicker than I do (I think of it more as quickness than just speed). It's what you take out of the experience that counts and I work no faster than I have to in order to enjoy what I do. Hope that answers your questions.

[JBI]

I read around 200-300 titles a year. I finish 80% of the ones I count. But I seldom read novels anymore. Poetry is faster

[MorpheusSandman]

I seriously don't get how someone can read so many books that fast and get something out of it. Isn't the point of reading supposed to be slowing down and savoring the book?Personally, I feel I get more out of books since learning to speed-read than I ever did beforehand. The notion that one gets more out of a book the more one "slows down" is simply fallacious. We only remember a very small amount of all we read anyway, and speed-reading trains your brain to remember things in chunks, rather than in details that get lost after the reading. Of course, some things benefit more from the speed approach than others. I think relatively straight-forward narrative novels and lucid, simply written non-fiction are perfect candidates, while philosophy and poetry requires a slower approach because, with the former, you're struggling to grasp difficult concepts and complex arguments and, with the latter, the sounds and rhythms are as much a part of the experience as anything. Really, the point is that being a good reader isn't a matter of how slow or fast you read, it's really more about how well you process what you read, and how well you do that is really a combination of content and speed.

[MorpheusSandman]

I seldom read novels anymore. Poetry is fasterMost poetry is shorter. ;)

[xtianfriborg13]

People's stories here makes me think like I don't really like reading. I'm slow at reading books. :|

[cacian]

Oh the joy of reading it is very tricky at times.
My partner only read a certain books and sometimes he runs out. It is that scary.
He can't read everything. I guess because he has bi-polar and the books he reads are very specific.
The same with films.

[Ranveer111]

I love to read books especially Amar Chitra Katha's Panchatantra stories are interesting to read.

[Pompey Bum]

Welcome to the site, Ranveer.

[EmptySeraph]

I confess to finding the pretense to a heroic, herculean reading list philistine and superficial. To the eyes of whom do I have the duty to prove my unequivocal predilection to reading? Where do my reading obligations begin, and by what incentive? May I not be thoroughly absorbed by the act of reading, and read solely one book a year? Or one page a day, by the same token? But of course--a literate must, by all accounts, devour books. He can't just like them, no, that's too base: he has to consume them, just as others produce them, at the cost of little to no effort, it's worth noting...

[Pompey Bum]

I agree. One thought fills immensity.