Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

Speedreading .... does anyone here speedread, or have you taken one of the speedreading courses, or read a book about it? And if so, does it work, is it easy to learn, and which one do you recommend, if any?

Because, this site is killing me. I need to up my game somehow if I'm going to keep up with all the GREAT stuff I want to read RIGHT NOW :p.

lol Miranda .... EXACTLY!

I joined Goodreads with the goal of organizing my collection. All I've done is add to the mess :D.

No speed reading for me but if I'm completely focused and absolutely absorbed in the book, when no other thoughts enter into that one reading experience, my progress on a book tends to surprise me.

It's about focus. If my mind is on other things, if it wanders (which is often a pleasurable prescribed activity to the reading) then it takes a long time to read a book and I find many books demand this.

edit: I should have said collections. Ebook, and physical book.


I thought after I'd got them all organized and collated and tabulated and ... well, you get the picture, I could just start decluttering most of my physical books. Most of the reason I keep them is so that I can remember which ones I've read, and which I haven't, so I don't buy it again :p.

But, if I had that ORGANIZED ... then I could just let someone else enjoy the books :D. Some I reread, but no way I'm going to read most of them again!

Daisy wrote: "For me it's about focus. If my mind is on other things, if it wanders (which is often a pleasurable prescribed activity to the reading) then it takes a long time to read a book and I find many book..."


That's very true, I've noticed that. Mind/focus discipline. If the text isn't absorbing me, other thoughts push their way to the front, and before I know it, my eyes are reading the text, but not absorbing it.

I saw a poll here on Goodreads yesterday that made me think about it. I read about 40 pages an hour - or so. Stipulating that 'pages' vary with content and font size etc etc :D

But, on that poll, which many Goodreaders had answered, my 40 pages per hour speeding rate was near the bottom of the pile. Fourth quintile, I think. So, I was thinking, HOW do so many people read 100 pages an hour !!??!!! cuz that would be freaking awesome :D


edit: I am going to try and find that poll again. If I can, I'll link it :)

MK wrote: "But, if I had that ORGANIZED ... then I could just let someone else enjoy the books :D. Some I reread, but no way I'm going to read most of them again!"

That's why I joined BookCrossing. I just registered 8 books yesterday while watching the game. (I got my stickers finally.)

I'm not so sure that speed reading would be for me.
I think it would be great if you have to absorb a lot of knowledge in a short space of time, if you're reading a textbook or a report or something, but I'm not so sure it would be of advantage when reading fiction.
When I'm reading a novel I like to savour it, I like to take my time and enjoy the rhythm of the language, think about it as I go along, maybe jump back and re-read a paragraph now and then. The author has taken the trouble to choose their words and express themselves in a particular way, but I don't think that speed reading would allow you to appreciate that. Sure, you'd follow the plot, but would you actually enjoy the book in the same way? I don't think so.

Here's the poll. It was:

Poll

Reading non-stop, how long does it take you to read a 300 page book?

3-6 hours 977 votes, 38.1%
1-3 hours 536 votes, 20.9%
6-9 hours 514 votes, 20.0%
More than 12 hours 253 votes, 9.9%
9-12 hours 224 votes, 8.7%
An hour or less 61 votes, 2.4%
2565 total votes

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/4...



It would take me about 7.5-8hrs! Not even the bottom quintile - that's the bottom tenth :o.


And I always thought I was sorta "fast". Guess not! lol

Liz_ wrote: "I'm not so sure that speed reading would be for me.
I think it would be great if you have to absorb a lot of knowledge in a short space of time, if you're reading a textbook or a report or somethin..."

Yes, that's a great point. If you don't understand what you're reading, what's the point?

Hm. I wonder if speedreading would preclude enjoying it. That would be pointless as well...

Tytti wrote: "MK wrote: "But, if I had that ORGANIZED ... then I could just let someone else enjoy the books :D. Some I reread, but no way I'm going to read most of them again!"

That's why I joined BookCrossing..."

Wait.
Does you registered 8 books mean you READ 8 books? *eyes pop*



edit: ohhh, no, I get it. Registered means you logged you read them, so now you can release them into the wild :). That makes sense. Cool on the stickers!

Hi MK

Yes -- it works BUT I do NOT recommend speed reading. Once you start it is very hard to savor a book again -- the temptation is too great.

In college I started as a chemistry major -- but was a total klutz (breaking beakers, spilling acid and so on). This was when advisors had no trouble discouraging their students! He told me that I was physically too uncoordinated to be a chemist!

So my Junior year I switched to English. I was dead set on finishing in 4 years (this was I the early 80s). So I crammed 4 years of English courses into two. Speed reading was a necessity. And I graduated in four years with an "A" in every English course. So yes, it works.

But it has taken me nearly 30 years to unlearn it. It's not worth it. A great book is like a great wine -- one does not want to chug it.

I agree -- there are too many books and not enough time. I always have two books going. One in print and one audio book. I listen to the audio book on my iPhone while exercising, walking the dog, cleaning, laundry, waiting in line, etc. That will help.


Take care, Cathy

MK wrote: "Does you registered 8 books mean you READ 8 books? *eyes pop*"

Nope, I am in a slump. I start books but they don't interest me enough the next time I want to read.

I registered and put some stickers on books that I have found somewhere (so I never paid anything for them) so I can "loan" them to someone I know and get them back later or free them if I think I won't read them anyway. But one day they won't be in my bookcase anymore.

But my friend is getting rid of some of his "read" books, paperback mysteries and thrillers mainly, I guess. They have those small stickers you can put on the spine of the book, so they are easier to spot. So you might want to start there if you want to de-clutter your shelves (and they are not worth selling).

Cathy wrote: "Hi MK

Yes -- it works BUT I do NOT recommend speed reading. Once you start it is very hard to savor a book again -- the temptation is too great.

In college I started as a chemistry major -- but..."

Cathy - wow! Interesting. Appreciate that first hand experience (also, huge kudos to you!)

Thankyou :)

Tytti wrote: "MK wrote: "Does you registered 8 books mean you READ 8 books? *eyes pop*"

Nope, I am in a slump. I start books but they don't interest me enough the next time I want to read.

I registered and put..."


Very fun. Happy "releasing into the wild"! and tracking :).

I love that phrase, it makes me smile.

I've seen some videos about it in Youtube. They're actually pretty useful. Something as simple as using apen to guide your eyes can improve your reading speed so much... Now I wish I'd found them before.
As for enjoyment, how would you really gauge that? I could say that a guy who reads 1000 words per munite couldn't possibly really enjoy what he's reading, but that'd be only because I can't imagine myself reading that fast, but you can't really know if he enjoyed it or not.

It really is hard for me to wrap my brain around the concept, Gavin.

Cathy's experience is eye-opening, though.

I think you can read books that fast but does it make you think.

I think it's sort of similar as the debate between YA and adult books, or not... Well I have never thought that there is any reason for YA because kids can read adult books if they want. The difference between YA and adult is not so much in the language (at least in Finnish) but that books for teenagers are easier, more simple. The more "mature" adult books expect you to have some life experience for you to appreciate them fully (but you can read them younger, too). So the more complicated novel, the more you need time to understand it. And in that case speedreading isn't good for you. But some YA or chick-lit book you can speedread because WYSIWYG.

Part of the ongoing nonsense that is crushing the publishing industry. This craze for gadgets, to 'speed things up' and 'get our tasks done faster'. For what? So you can sit around with utterly nothing to do, everything accomplished? Will that somehow enhance our lazy lives and make them more satisfying? After all, what's the difference between reading ten Harlequin romances or twenty? Its still just sitting around on your butt. Is it a contest...? How much 'stuff' can you possibly consume in a day? To what end? For God's sake. What the heck is anyone in that much of a damn rush for. Books are the one of those things which are better when absorbed slowly. Anathema to the American rat-race, nonetheless it is so. Speedreading is for the foolish reader.

MK wrote: "It really is hard for me to wrap my brain around the concept, Gavin.

Cathy's experience is eye-opening, though."
I suppose so, but it's not like you have to read every single book as if you were cramming for college to speedread.

Feliks, there a ton of books out there. People want to get through the most they can before they die.

And I'm saying that's about as foolish a modern notion as any I might name. Its a poorly-thought out goal. Foolhardy. With reading, its not about quantity. If you choose your books wisely, you don't need to worry about how many you consume. The Western Canon itself, is not endless; there really aren't an impossible amount of books you really need to master. Unless--like I said earlier--you're reading simplistic fluff, quantity is irrelevant. Even if you're a researcher or reading for professional or academic reasons--you typically reach 'critical mass' where you know all you need to, in order to do your job or write your own books/papers. Reading is not just sending characters past your eyeballs--books are important for the introspection and reflection they generate. Or, are they trying to speed that up too, somehow?

Is it a contest...? How much 'stuff' can you possibly consume in a day?

People want to get through the most they can before they die.

The "1000 things to do before you die" mentality that we're fed by the media is designed to make us feel as if we're constantly missing out on something, making us feel less of a human being unless we consume, consume, consume.

So you don't read War and Peace or A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man before you die. So what? Enjoy what you DO read.
Quality, in all aspect of life, is more important than quantity.

So many people are dissatisfied with their life because they can't have everything. But thinking you have to be/ do/ see/ experience/ read everything is a mug's game designed to make you spend. The only people who win are those who make money out of you.

Think of it this way: 'motion' is not the same as 'progress'. Faster motion does not equal to progress achieved. If you've aimed yourself at an ultimately pointless goal--getting there faster won't make reaching that goal suddenly 'purposeful'. There are no 'shortcuts' to anything worth attaining.

MK, I'm the world's slowest reader so I totally sympathise! It doesn't help that I often let "real life" priorities get in the way of reading too, but hey, that's life!

I do agree with some of the views on here - we should definitely remember to enjoy the books we read and not fall into the trap of thinking "I've got to finish this so I can start the next..."

That's why I tend not to take "challenges" too seriously - otherwise I ended up feeling obligated to read certain books that fit the challenge, when I know what I want to read changes as I go along and I need to "see how I feel" when I've finished a book before deciding what to read next - sticking too rigidly to a challenge zaps the joy out of reading for me! I also don't worry about list of "books to read before you die" - I pick and choose what I want to read and, no matter how many times anyone tells me how fantastic Jane Austen is, I'm never going to read any of her books again, no matter how many lists she's on! :)

As for speed-reading, I do think that's more useful when you're analysing data etc (as Liz says) but I doubt it's ideal if you want to kick back and enjoy a novel. Where's the joy in that?

LOVE all the comments!

Gavin's resonate most closely with me :). Yes, I want to enjoy as many as I can!

Leanne, thx. Good point on the challenges (but, I do really love challenges .... and lists. :D)


Felix, some points well made. I would point out, that I'm not trying to cram my way through a curriculum, noone is forcing me to read any title. I read just for the joy of it, I like reading about places, ideas, things, stuff, experiences, all of it, it makes my brain happy. We had a VERY tough winter here in Maine, and I greatly expanded my literary diet (because you know, it was too cold to do anything else ... ). I enjoyed it very much, and still am. I'd like to continue the wide and varied literary diet - but spend less time doing it. It's not so cold out anymore. And I'm not so young anymore. My eyes would be happier with fewer hours on a page, my brain wants to continue the journeys and challenges of those very same pages, however. A balance, I seek. Work the brain, rest the eyes ...

Liz, :D :D :D ... reading War & Peace right now. I hope I don't die before I finish. (hahaha! just a note of levity ... )

Tytti wrote: "I think you can read books that fast but does it make you think.

I think it's sort of similar as the debate between YA and adult books, or not... Well I have never thought that there is any reaso..."

oops, skipped this one. Yes, I would imagine *what* you're reading would be a factor, I agree.


One thing that surprised me in the comments was that reading for business/etc is best suited to speedreading. I would have thought dense, dry material would have been LESS suited to speedreading, not more.

(That point may have been made in the comments to books I was looking at earlier this morning, while browsing my library catalogue, rather than here.)

I think some people prefer "having read books" rather than "reading books. I am not one of them. At 40-50 books a year, I have less than 2000 books left in my lifetime -- I plan to enjoy every last one of them. (Thinking about that makes one more choosy).

MK. -- Although I do like Jane Austin, I applaud your decision not to read her!

One caveat though -- sometimes with age your perspective changes. I hated "Moby Dick" in college. I picked up again earlier this year -- the parts I hated in college became my favorites -- in college the description of the whale was tedious; this time had me laughing aloud! As a 20 something I missed virtually all of Melville's -- 25 years make a difference.

Love all the comments. I read very slow for my own pleasure. Most all of my knowledge of literature comes from audiobooks. I know they aren't for everyone, but they really work for me. I would never have been able to sit down and really appreciate the classics if I hadn't discovered them. My mind wanders way too easily. I know they're not for everyone, but when they work, they really work.

Feliks, not sure what you mean by "it's a poorly-thought out goal". I don't think there's a set amount of books you need to read to "master" them and reach "critical mass" (much less if you're a researcher), new book are coming out everyday. Seems presumptuous to me claim that and call every other book outside of this list of definitive books to read "simplistic fluff" (though that's not necessarily a bad thing). But I don't mean, as you seem to think, just reading whatever and going so fast that you can't really comprehend anything; but reading more good books (which like I said there are a lot of) in less time. It can be useful for people who don't have much time to read.

Also, "simplistic fluff" can be enjoyable (otherwise YA wouldn't be such a hit nowadays); not everyone's reading to have some moment of enlightenment and not very book is written for that.

MK wrote: "Speedreading .... does anyone here speedread, or have you taken one of the speedreading courses, or read a book about it? And if so, does it work, is it easy to learn, and which one do you recommen..."

That same idea popped into my head about 3 weeks ago and I bookmarked some websites about speed reading but didn't have the time to look at them at that point in time. Reading your post reminded me that I had done this.

I'm not really sure if I want to become a speed-reader per se but I just want to see if there are any strategies on how to increase your speed just a little bit. I wouldn't want it to affect my enjoyment.

Cathy's comment about the difficulty of "unlearning" to speed read scares me a little bit. I tend to live my life with the 'quality over quantity' mentality and this post has me rethinking my reason for wanting to read faster in the first place. I think it all started with the group challenges and wanting to check things off of my list as quickly as possible to reach the goal.

I don't want reading to feel like a chore. Reading is pure enjoyment for me and I never want that to change. I think I need to change my perspective on what the intention of the reading challenges are. It's to broaden your reading experience and to try new things. It's not to "win".

All of your comments helped me to see the light. Thank you!

You're right. There's not a set amount of books you need to master a topic (that's my point). But there is a 'set' as circumscribed by quality. The number of necessary books for any topic is not infinite. It doesn't matter if 'new books' keep appearing. For example, there are no 'new' Victorian novels. If you're trying to master Victorian literature, you don't need to aim at some impossible or always-climbing number of titles, to do so. You will master it, when you have reflected enough and cogitated enough on the material.

You acquire learning by reading the necessary books, not some 'number' of them. Those who fixate on the 'numbers' of books fall prey to the fallacy that 'if they read more, they will gain more' of whatever it is they want. They're like cartoon-characters taking cartoon-vitamins: 'Gee, if one vitamin makes me 1x stronger, then taking 100 will make me 100x stronger'. This is the poorly-thought-out aspect.

Reading is not a 1-to-1 ratio with learning. Sure, anyone can stock a room full of books to show off; but it really only says something if you can make something out that mass--as did Shirley Jackson or T.S. Eliot with their extraordinary shelves. The point is not to stock the room full of books, but to stock your brain with the best knowledge from them.

Next: I cited the 'Western Canon' as an example just to illustrate my point. There is a difference between relevant-books-for-the-purpose-of-education vs good-books-for-the-purpose-of-entertainment. It can be 'in-Canon' or 'out-of-Canon', but the principle stands. No more "Moby Dick"'s are being written anymore; but plenty of "Perfect Storms"'s are.

Still, if you wish to insist on defending fluff books--well, the point of reading for escapism, is what? To turn one's brain off. To engage in an essentially 'mindless pasttime'. But if they're inherently pointless, why then does 'reading speed' make a difference for them? If we were talking about wealth, it might be simpler to grasp: remember that no matter how wealthy a man is, there's a point at which his money can't buy him anything better than what he already enjoys. You can only fill your belly up so much. The 'law of diminishing returns' comes into play.

The principle can be extended to literature. "Being well-read" is never going to be based on how many YA novels you consume, nor how many 'good romances; nor how many 'good detective stories'. Meanwhile, 'cogent' books [books-from-which-you-are-trying-to-learn-from] --if you consume them as fast as possible (in order to consume 'more'), unfortunately that won't automatically produce any improvement in your acumen. So, if you have a youngster who has blazed through 'Harry Potter', he's gotten exactly nowhere. BTW, ever seen the movie, 'The Paper Chase'? It's exactly true to life.

I'm just sick of this constant rush by American citizens for the latest technological fads. We're as heedless as voles. Haven't we learned yet that new technology is not always a boon? Haven't we learned yet, the true cost of all the trade-offs, the waste, the sacrifice, the loss?

Let's say a small minority of early-adopters today, cheerfully buy into this RSVP technology. Hurrah for them. Can you confidently say that in 100 years, these devices might not be the 'default' reading platform for all readers?

And if you don't think that is something to give pause, then you really need to familiarize yourself with how crucial traditional printed-page reading is to the formation of literacy in early childhood development. Its not something you can 'set aside' without grave consequences. The change would be too fast; and some company making money by selling millions of gadgets is no excuse for tinkering with literacy. Too much rides on it.

Andrea wrote: "MK wrote: "Speedreading .... does anyone here speedread, or have you taken one of the speedreading courses, or read a book about it? And if so, does it work, is it easy to learn, and which one do y..."

Hi Andrea :))

Yes, that comment about 'unlearning' gave me pause too. Although, the challenges, I do like them exactly for the 'broadening my reading experience' reason :D. Not to win. I like goals/lists, I guess. They are a good skeleton, or map, for me to work off of.

I slow read. Find it very enjoyable. Right now I'm trying to read one classic and one fantasy book each month. I love to balance the heavy hitters with good shallow fun. I'm a whimsical kind of guy. I do, however, refuse to read Wheel of Time. I don't have enough years left in my life to finish it. Of course the very fact that I have imposed a rule on myself (one classic and one fantasy each month) means it will annoy me until I break it. I have no discipline, and I hate rules. I guess I'm just anti-authoritarian. And speed reading sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

Just for kicks, at the beginning of the year I made a list of books to read. I wanted to see how far I steered off course by December. It is only April, yet I am proud to report that my readings have taken a serious right-hand turn to the list. This is why my TBR pile grows and grows, and I will soon need to purchase a larger house.

Do authors hate speed readers? I should think they do. Here is a poor writer hunched over his desk in the middle of night going blind using energy saving light bulbs pondering whether to use a semi-colon or a period, and a "but" or a "however," only to have the reader come rumbling along at 150 mph devouring the semi-colon without chewing or tasting. It would piss me off. How would you like it if the writer practiced speed writing? I refuse to read my books the way those speed eaters eat hot dogs.

Gavin wrote: "Also, "simplistic fluff" can be enjoyable (otherwise YA wouldn't be such a hit nowadays); not everyone's reading to have some moment of enlightenment and not very book is written for that.
."


Gavin, I'm with you on the YA stuff. Light reading can be such a relaxor ... and so fun, too. I'm definitely not on the YA boo bandwagon. To me, children's and teenager's minds are the most curious, the most open, the most elastic. Things targeted for them can be wonderful reading.

Not that I want to follow them into teenage angst about their 'true love' ;-). But, other stuff. Yea, for sure!! :))

What's wrong with a curious, elastic, open mind? I'd like that for me! :D

B.j. wrote: "Love all the comments. I read very slow for my own pleasure. Most all of my knowledge of literature comes from audiobooks. I know they aren't for everyone, but they really work for me. I would neve..."

Audiobooks definitely help me focus ... but only so long as I pair it with reading. "Immersion reading". I can't just listen (I'm not an 'auditory learner'). Maybe some brain training can help me in that area.

Hmm.. I just read the discussion and first I was thinking: this might just be something for me, since I'm studying English as well and I would be totally fine with more work in less time..

But then again I do love to read, when I can stay focused, so I don't really want to spoil it for myself. I would want to use this for my textbooks only, but if that doesn't work I might just ruin the only hobby I have?! That's just sad.. :(

I know ..... I'm going to watch the tubes Gavin mentioned over the weekend. Maybe borrow a book from the library. Check it out. I mean, I don't think I can learn it just by looking at it once, so I don't think I'll get cooties from looking into it :D.

(heh)

Love this discussion -- wish all of you were in my living room! To me there are two kinds of books: well written and everything else.

There are plenty of contemporary well written "escape" novels. I can't speak to "Perfect Storm" because I haven't read it. I do believe though Stephen King's "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" is exceptionally well written.

I read classics for several reasons

1) they are well written,
2).they are classics for a reason -- i.e. they have stood the test of time,
3) there is so much written and unwritten reference in the classics -- as an example Coleridge's albatross is sprinkled in both contemporary, classic literature and even the vernacular,
4) last but not least, I thoroughly enjoy them.

The classics are not notches on a belt for me, but I suppose that why "abridged" exists -- until now I could never understand why anyone would read an abridged edition.

Whoever commented about printed material, I agree. There is something sensual about the touch, feel of a real book.

Cathy

Cathy, I'm also enjoying the various opinions/perspectives/points of view very much too!

I'm not sure speed-reading is for me...

I tend to read faster when I'm not enjoying something than I do when I am even for something of similar complexity level, so obviously I'm capable of reading faster - I just don't want to.


But I agree with the "not all books are equal" debate. I definitely read, say, adventure novels much quicker than I do more complex works with lots of literary allusions and symbolism and things of that nature. But I enjoy a bit of everything - from middle grade books to deeper classics.

M< - I started listening when I was outside walking, and I've slowly built up my ability to concentrate on it... and I've found that I have different tastes in audiobooks than I do in print for some reason.

Depends what you mean by "necessary", Feliks. It's completely arbitrary. It's true there are no more novels by Victorian era authors, but there's still a lot of it, so if you can read it faster, why not do so? Besides there are still novels set in the Victorian Era coming out, so in a sense the number is climbing. But usually when people read specific "topics" is more like genres, and there are always more of those novels coming out. Sure, if your goal is to only read Jane Austen's novels, you're eventually going to run out of them, but I really doubt anyone would narrow down their reading experience so much and bother with speed reading to do so, but even so I think it would useful. Not seeing what's foolish about it yet.

I don't doubt there are people who only who only fixate on the number, but my point was about reading more of what you want to read. I wouldn't put in terms of "gaining" something, but of "having fun". You want to have more fun, so you read more. Simple.

There is a difference between relevant-books-for-the-purpose-of-education vs good-books-for-the-purpose-of-entertainment

That's true. And both of them are steadily increasing, so I can't really stress enough the importance of being able to read fast.

I think it'd be too tiring if every novel was like a textbook. Reading something for "escapism" can be good. Who wants reading to feel like homework? Does this mean it's pointless? Maybe for you it is, but not everyone feels like they have to be T.S Elliott of Shirley Jackson for their reading to be meaningful, certainly not for it to be enjoyable.

Here's where the difference between books for learning and books for entertainment becomes important. Usually people (most here, I assume) read for the latter. As for being well-read, I think it doesn't matter. I say: just read whatever you want.

I'm a "embrace technology" kinda guy, even if I think the printed page is not going anywhere any time soon, I also don't think if it were gone and like you say RSVP became the default that would cause the decline of humanity or something. Hell, the TV was supposed to be our doom, but here we are.

Xan Shadowflutter, authors need to live too. As long you buy their books they already like you lol

Melanti, I'm becoming a better 'audiobook listener'. I can walk away from the text more frequently, and listen while I do, than I could when I first started. So, yes, I think I'm training my brain a little.

Cathy, I do not love to read Jane Austen (I almost hate to say that, though, as those who love Jane REALLY love her, and I always feel a little bad).

Feliks, Xan, as I was typing earlier at the same time you were posting, I missed your interesting posts. Sorry if it looked like I was talking past them (as I suppose I was, since I didn't see them).

I naturally read very fast already, so I have no desire to learn speed-reading. I looked into it at one point when professional reading was starting to leave less room for everything else I wanted to read, but the method was unappealing.

How fast do you read, April?

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "I slow read. Find it very enjoyable. Right now I'm trying to read one classic and one fantasy book each month. I love to balance the heavy hitters with good shallow fun. I'm a whimsical kind of..."


PS! Xan, I didn't notice this was your first post! Hello, and welcome :)

This is an interesting topic and I don't know much about speed reading at all. I do know that I used to read very quickly by nature, but then I went for 10 years where I read only a few books a year and now I read slowly according to that poll that was previously mentioned.

I would like to read faster also, and I wonder if my speed will pick up again as I get back into reading. I find that my speed is slow because my vision is worsening (I have to wear glasses to read now) and also because I get distracted easily, even if I love the book. I have to have silence or be listening to music while I read if the tv is on or people are talking, otherwise I end up reading the same paragraph over and over or skimming and not absorbing it.

I can't help but wonder though - if that poll is something that should be taken with a grain of salt or not? Because a 300 page book isn't a good measure. I don't know if it's been mentioned yet because I only read the first 10 replies or so (attention span issue, again) but I could read a YA 300 page book in a breeze, but then reading a heavy classic with tons of description and less dialogue would take me twice as long. What are these people who were polled reading as their "300 page book"?

I can agree with that. I blew through a 400 pg YA book in a single day yesterday but I've known particularly dense books in the 100-150 page range have taken me up to a week before.

I was curious so I browsed through the profiles of a few of the people who said it took them less than an hour to read 300 pages. I saw a mix of books actually... There were quite a few that seemed to read mostly young adult or romance books or other looked-down-upon genre fiction but there were plenty of others who were reading more challenging books too.

Caity,

You could have written for me :p. Every sentence, I'm saying ---> yea, yea, YEA !!! lol

Melanti, that's interesting. I didn't think to look what types of books. I think I was just shell-shocked. lol

Ah, thanks for looking into that Melanti!

I figured that people in this community would be faster readers than the average Joe, so to speak, considering they do it more often, but I also suspected that it was a little top heavy with people counting "Easy read" genres more than not.

MK, a typical 300 page book per the poll mentioned above would put me in the 1-3 hours range - where exactly in that range I fell would, naturally, depend on the book. I tend to stop and savor in a particularly detailed book, or I reread passages that struck me as particularly well-written, but otherwise...

yep, you're speedy! :)