Does anyone else here reads two books at the same time? I sometimes do, to satisfy diverse moods throughout the day.
Or do you think that one should immerse entirely into one book at a time?
Does anyone else here reads two books at the same time? I sometimes do, to satisfy diverse moods throughout the day.
Or do you think that one should immerse entirely into one book at a time?
I usually read 2-5 books at a time: one in the bathroom, one on my bed stand, one or two at school, one in the living room. . . . .
“Oh crap”
-- Hellboy
I don't think it really matters how many books you read at one time. Eventually though most people end up focusing on the one that fits their mood bests and finishes that one and the others get forgotten about.
I'm losing all those stupid games
That I swore I'd never play
I tend to read several books at a time as well. Incidentally, this is a good strategy for anyone who suffers from any attention deficit disorders like I do. It is often easier to concentrate on many books for short intervals of time than long periods on one.
docendo discimus
How do you know most people do this? I certainly don't. My mood varies throughout the day, and after forty minutes of reading an essay I'm then usually in the mood for reading some Shakespeare, then after struggling with the bard I need some light relief, Fielding, say...Originally Posted by Mathor
My reading gets into a pattern, it's a kind of groundhog day approach: Montaigne, bard, Fielding,... I repeat what I find pleasurable, otherwise I change things!.
Glad to find out that I'm far from being alone in this practice.
I read two books at the same time; and enjoy both. lol!
The source of any bad writing is the desire to be something more than a person of sense--the straining to be thought a genius. If people would say what they have to say in plain terms, how much eloquent they would be.
-S.T COLERIDGE
I usually read two, three or more books at the same time... All of them get finished eventually
It's an interesting question in a way. I always assumed most people were like me & can handle two or more books at a time. Some people really hate that though. A friend of mine, who is a teacher hates having to read more than one book & definitely won't do it for pleasure. Although she also reckons she's poor at multi-tasking as well!
docendo discimus
Heh. This question is actually what brought me here.
I normally read one book at a time. When I mix books, I tend to lose my place in one or another, forget details that may or may not be important (won't know until I finish the book, now will I?), get characters and events mixed up between the books, and eventually have to go back and start over.
But I've been wanting to read the Bible (I feel illiterate without having it under my belt), and if I were to go at any sustainable pace (big, dry, wordy, difficult book that it is), it would take years to finish the thing, which would mean giving up all other reading until after the next presidential election.
So if I'm ever going to read the Bible (and, let's face it, 90% of all other essential literature that I'll be reading more for duty than pleasure), I'm going to have to learn to read multiple books at once.
Bother.
If you forget details so easily then I'd give the Bible a miss! It's not a fun read. Better to live with feeling illiterate. If you want the illusion of feeling literate, and have fun at the same time, read the RSC Complete Shakespeare. It has footnotes which unpack the religious illusions (sorry, allusionsYou get to learn "enough" of the Bible and have the joy of reading Shakespeare as well.
If you start reading the Bible with aim of becoming "fully literate" you''ll be reading it forever -- there are so many incredibly boring details & situations, so many minor and inconsequential characters, that you will forget most of them immediately. So if, say, you go on to read Milton you will still feel illiterate because you will have forgotten the characters he makes reference to. Better to get Milton-with-footnotes (Oxford Classics edition).
If you *must* read a bible, try the 100 Minute Bible, but even it includes too many minor characters and is certainly more boring than a (truly) good book...
A truly literate person never reads books for duty, only for pleasure.
Last edited by mal4mac; 12-11-2009 at 07:19 AM.
I think the New Testament would do. I read that for pleasure and I actually liked it too.
I can't remember a time when I read just one book at a time. Sometimes I even use one book to serve me as a sort of break from another one, especially if they're different genres.
When I was younger I used to have 10-20 books open on my bed in piles at a time, and burn through them.
Though, I guess back then I actually did go through all of them, and not so slowly at that too, so I guess that means something. Now? Well, I find it difficult to get through anything, though I still go at about 3-4 at a time - no longer on my bed though.
I have from 2 up to 7 at a time. but usually one of them is a book of poetry, and often the same one for a long time. but I have a few different to fit my mood every time I long to read. in my bag I have 2 usually and 2 on my nightstand and sometimes by my reading chair too.
I hope death is joyful, and I hope I'll never return -Frida Khalo
If I seem insensitive to what you are going through, understand it's the way I am- Mr. Spock
Personally, I think that the unique and supreme delight lies in the certainty of doing 'evil'–and men and women know from birth that all pleasure lies in evil. - Baudelaire
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
