The Sword and Laser discussion
The Simple Truth Behind Reading 200 Books A Year
Thanks for sharing this, Silvana. Nice article from which I think many people will take inspiration. My average is between 40-50 books year, but I really must up that (and, I agree, I'd much prefer to keep count in pages and/or wordcount.)
Mod
I could do it, but only at the expense of other things I like to do as well.
Sure, I could play less games, watch less TV, listen to less podcasts, do less housework (well that I could do), spend less time with friends and family, but I don't want to limit my other interests.
200 books a year, for me, is about 150 books more than I want to read, to still have reading as a pleasurable pastime.
I don't think his math quite works for me. I have no clue how fast I read ( after this I may try and figure that out), but I know that I'm not finishing most books in a little over 2 hours like his math would suggest. I even read mostly fiction that I know I read at a faster pace then nonfiction that I'm trying to get more out of. That said, I do like the concept of what he says, and do believe knowledge can be very powerful. And I do think having goals to acquire more knowledge, and to never stop learning is a great idea. I do spend more time reading my nonfiction online in web pages these days, and that has both its benefits and downsides. I also don't consider all social media and television to be void of learning, look at this forum as an example. And entertainment has its own value as well, so that isn't a bad thing either.
Thanks for bringing the article up Silvana.
*edit* I just took a couple of online reading tests, and as I expected I'm at the lower end of average reading about 200 wpm. I still don't have that many books that I'm going to be finishing in just 4 or 5 hours.
I'm dubious of anyone who dismisses an entire medium as TRASH. (His emphasis.) Sure, if all you're watching is sports and Real Housewives, then you're wasting your time. But a PBS documentary on Da Vinci? Cosmos? Nova? This is not an equivalency. There are plenty of crap books out there, too. Anything by Ann Coulter or her ilk, for example, or anti-vaxxer homeopathy woowoo garbage.That hour I spent the other night on Da Vinci was far more valuable and informative than Killing __________ by Bill O'Reilly's ghostwriter.
The whole article just seems one step up from an "11 Things" list on Buzzfeed, so I clicked on the author, and sure enough, he also writes lists.
Tassie Dave wrote: "I wouldn't even contemplate reading 200 books a year.I could do it, but only at the expense of other things I like to do as well.
Sure, I could play less games, watch less TV, listen to less podc..."
This for me. So much this. Aiming for that many books is a surefire way to get me to not want to read at all. It takes the pleasure out of the pastime for me.
Trike wrote: "I'm dubious of anyone who dismisses an entire medium as TRASH. (His emphasis.) Sure, if all you're watching is sports and Real Housewives, then you're wasting your time. But a PBS documentary on Da..."Aye, that was a bum note
The whole thing comes off as very elitist to me as in his way to live is the only correct way. People find answers (if that's what they want) and happiness in all sorts of ways and by dismissing fiction and other things like sports he is missing whole swaths of art and beauty.
It's pretty pointless to focus only on quantity of books you one reads in a year. Like some people already said not all books are valuable books, and reading some of them is no different then watching a crappy tv show. I read around 100 books in a year and I could probably reach 200 if I was only choosing fairly short books and sacrificed some of my neftlix time, but reading is a pleasure for me I wouldn't want to turn it into a chore.
With my insomnia i am probably up to 100 books a year. That feels rushed to me. I can whip through an old-style 200 pager on a weekend day. Any more and the books would be a blur.
The whole thing comes off as very elitist to me as in his way to live is the only correct way. People find answers (if that's what they want) and happiness in all sorts of ways and by dismissing fiction and other things like sports he is out missing whole swaths of art and beauty."Agreed. The whole thing reeks of privilege too. "Travel a lot. Hire a habit coach!" Are you serious?
If you do the math differently - 50,000 words in 200 to 400 WPM is 2.1-4.2 hours/book. No way. Not consistently at least - especially not with modern sci fi and fantasy books. Looking at this list: http://commonplacebook.com/art/books/...
50,000 words is about the length of Slaughterhouse Five - which, in the 3 most popular editions has just over 200 pages. That's really, really short for a novel, IMO.
His word count per book is off - at least when it comes to fiction. He does specify non-fiction in his article. With his snide remark about TV, it's possible he thinks all fiction is trash.
Melanti wrote: "If you do the math differently - 50,000 words in 200 to 400 WPM is 2.1-4.2 hours/book. No way. Not consistently at least - especially not with modern sci fi and fantasy books. "And not all words are created equal.
One could read the word-count equivalent of Lord of the Rings or Dr. Zhivago in Hardy Boys mysteries or Babysitters Club books and it would take half the time.
I've never liked the challenge stuff and evaluating how one's reading year went by how much one read whether expressed as pages, words or books. I read a lot. I totaled up last year and it was around 70-75 books I think (I checked some out of the library via Overdrive). But I didn't set out to hit some goal and I don't think I'd have had a better year with 125 books or a worse one with 50. This might be because, while I want to read most nights, sometimes I don't have anything specific that I really want to dive into. I've described myself as a streak reader and I think that's accurate - sometimes I'll go from book to book without a pause, reading 2 or 3 a week. Usually this happens when I discover a series (I read the entire Dresden files in 3 weeks) but sometimes it's just that a lot of cool things that interest me are released in the same couple of months.
Other times, I don't read for a week, two or three. It is what it is - I have things in the TBR pile but I'm not going to power through them if I am not in the mood. If I am, I'll be reading.
On TV as trash - much is. But we're in a golden age of TV thanks to HBO, Netflix and increasingly Amazon and perhaps soon Hulu. There's a lot of good stuff being made and that doesn't even count the kind of thing Trike mentions above. Plus... sometimes I WANT light entertainment. Yes, I like Agents of SHIELD and Lucifer. No, I'm not under the illusion that they're more than fun TV... but that's OK.
Trike wrote: "Melanti wrote: "If you do the math differently - 50,000 words in 200 to 400 WPM is 2.1-4.2 hours/book. No way. Not consistently at least - especially not with modern sci fi and fantasy books. "An..."
I sometimes find reading short 200-page novels take longer time than epic fantasy times. Trike's right. Not all words are equal.
Rick wrote: "I've never liked the challenge stuff and evaluating how one's reading year went by how much one read whether expressed as pages, words or books. I read a lot. I totaled up last year and it was arou..."
Streak reader! Now that's the first time I heard about it. I think we're the same, I could read series really fast but I sometimes do not even touch a book for three days or more.
And we need that light entertainment. Which is actually some kind of knowledge - it gives us stuff to talk about with friends, offline and online.
Knowledge does not have to be non-fiction.
Melanti wrote: "With his snide remark about TV, it's possible he thinks all fiction is trash.
Yeah, he only made calculation for nonfiction.
Dara wrote: "
I could do it, but only at the expense of other things I like to do as well.
Sure, I could play less games, watch less TV,..."
You know I like challenges, GR challenges etc, but I never set goals way too high because yes, that would ruin the enjoyment.
Darren wrote: "The whole article just seems one step up from an "11 Things" list on Buzzfeed, so I clicked on the author, and sure enough, he also writes lists."
No surprise there huh
Trike wrote: "I'm dubious of anyone who dismisses an entire medium as TRASH. (His emphasis.) Sure, if all you're watching is sports and Real Housewives, then you're wasting your time. But a PBS documentary on Da..."
Hey what's wrong with sports? :D
I feel like the fun (mindless?) entertainment is still useful. I don't see myself only watching documentaries on TV, Even if it's about dogs.
John (Nevets) wrote: "I don't think his math quite works for me. I have no clue how fast I read ( after this I may try and figure that out), but I know that I'm not finishing most books in a little over 2 hours like his..."
So I took this quiz (http://www.readingsoft.com/) and my wpm is 381 with reading comprehension score 91%.
That's alright I guess but I still don't see me finishing 200 books unless I don't have a job.
Tassie Dave wrote: "
Sure, I could play less games, watch less TV, listen to less podcasts, "
Podcasts! No way I'm sacrificing it either. I must have spent at least six hours a week for them.
Paul wrote: "Thanks for sharing this, Silvana. Nice article from which I think many people will take inspiration. My average is between 40-50 books year, but I really must up that (and, I agree, I'd much prefer..."
40-50 books is already alot to me, actually. I remember reading around those number just a few years back (before my SFF fever kicks in full gear). I guess the key is not that you'll feel burdened or anything. Reading should be fun :)
Silvana wrote: "40-50 books is already alot to me, actually. I remember reading around those number just a few years back (before my SFF fever kicks in full gear). I guess the key is not that you'll feel burdened or anything. Reading should be fun :)"Yeah, same. There's no need to make it a competition - it's not like most of us don't have enough stuff to get stressed about.
Mod
Reading Ann Coulter is guaranteed to kill brain cells. ;-)
and what did Seattle do to piss her off?
Knowing Ann, it wouldn't take much. ;-)
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/lo...
I blasted through the vast Pandora's Star + Judas Unchained in just over two weeks (1595 pages).It took me a similar amount of time to read the very slim The Left Hand of Darkness (304 pages).
Why? Because while the Commonwealth books are full of food for thought, once they get going they are full of edge-of-the-seat page turning action that would give Weta Workshop cold sweats.
The Left Hand of Darkness is full of beautiful poetic images and thoughts that make you stop, pause and reflect - maybe even go back and read a whole section again. That's the joy of it.
Now both stories are just as good as each other in their own way, but if I was aiming to hit X number of books a year, there is no way I'd pick up any of Hamilton's rainforest leveling tomes - and and I'd miss out on some great, adrenaline filled reading. I might go for a nice slim Le Guin - but only to blast through it, and miss half the subtleties and subtexts - which to be frank, feels like a crime.
I guess my strategy is quality, not quantity - but remembering that there are different sorts of quality, both fun and serious.
It's pretty clear to me that this guy doesn't have young kids.
Bryan wrote: "It's pretty clear to me that this guy doesn't have young kids."I don't know. I can't really blame my inability to read 200 books a year on my son. I just don't read quickly enough, and have other interests, even before I was a parent.
Darren wrote: "Bryan wrote: "It's pretty clear to me that this guy doesn't have young kids."I don't know. I can't really blame my inability to read 200 books a year on my son. I just don't read quickly enough, ..."
Can I use him as an excuse, then?
Bryan wrote: "It's pretty clear to me that this guy doesn't have young kids."I never had any kids so I'm not sure like how many hours a day you have to spend with them without doing nothing else. More than six?
William wrote: "I blasted through the vast Pandora's Star + Judas Unchained in just over two weeks (1595 pages).
It took me a similar amount of time to read the very slim [book:The Left ..."
I can't finish Left Hand of Darkness maybe because I could not get the subtleties and subtext. But maybe because I was not in the right mood.
I probably peaked at about 80 or 90 books a year in my early 20s, when I was living in a godawful town, with a crap job in digs with a violent Glaswegian family.Today I read to enjoy myself and escape a little. I probably read about a book a week. I do look at others who read more and think it would be good to make better inroads into my TBR pile, but it is not important. Each to their own.
Happy to sit and consume the written word at my pace. As long as we share the love of reading.
Hey I wonder if seasons or weather actually affect your reading amount. Being in Southeast Asia, we are now in the rainy season, so lots of time indoors and for me more time to read. For those with winter or any weather that requires you staying indoor alot, do you experience the same thing?
I'm pretty sure reading gets a boost during the summer and winter...or book sales do at least.It's all about how you spend your time. I'm falling way short of last year, heck I'm currently only at 19 books, because so far this has been the best year for videogames since...well ever. I havn't lowered my goal yet and I still might hit it because I really doubt the games industry can keep up this pace of high quality games.
Nioh (~40 hours)
Resident Evil 7 (~10 hours)
Horizon Zero Dawn *still on hold until I finish Zelda
Zelda: Breath of the Wild (~100 hours) *working on
Nier: Automata (~30 hours)
Atleir Firis (~50+hours) *on hold till P5 is done
Dark Souls 3 Expansion (~10-20 hours)
Stellaris Expansion (running a new campaign so ~50 hours) *In progress on weekends.
Persona 5 (~70+ hours) *working on
and...Yooka Laylee comes out tomorrow. *sigh
That's over 200 hours I have dumped in so far this year probably, even half of that 100hours would easily cover my 13 missing books and probably more.
Silvana wrote: "... I can't finish Left Hand of Darkness maybe because I could not get the subtleties and subtext. But maybe because I was not in the right mood....."I hear you. There are books that I read again and again. Then, there are books that I am happy to have read, but once is enough. The Left Hand of Darkness is one of the latter for me.
Silvana wrote: "Hey I wonder if seasons or weather actually affect your reading amount. Being in Southeast Asia, we are now in the rainy season, so lots of time indoors and for me more time to read. For those with..."Totally. Also work interferes. That's one reason I can never finish NaNoWriMo: it hits right in annual budget season.
On my Insta you can see the amount of snow we get here. Aside from shoveling and keeping the fire stoked, it's mostly cozy reading time interrupted by a daily dog walk.
Silvana wrote: "I never had any kids so I'm not sure like how many hours a day you have to spend with them without doing nothing else. More than six? "Closer to 24.
Some good tips there. I used to average about 50 books a year until I went multi-media and started to listen to audio books. Since I started listening during my commute, or while doing jobs around the house, I have added about 20 books to my yearly total. On any given day I usually have 3 books on the go at once. One physical book, one e-book and one audio book. That work well for me as long as the three are from different genres :)
AndrewP wrote: "On any given day I usually have 3 books on the go at once. One physical book, one e-book and one audio book..."I do that too. Between that, the completion of grad school, and insomnia my yearly book total has significantly increased.
That said, 200 books a year is still a bit much while having some semblance of a well balanced life.
I've never used audio. Don't have a long commute and if I'm doing other things I can't focus on the book and to me, one of the points of reading is to immerse myself in the world of the book.
Mod
Western Tasmania has rain, rain and more rain. And when it's not raining it's dripping off the trees. ;-)
Seriously though, it rains here 250+ days a year. So plenty of time to read, just more things to take up my time.
I do read more over winter when it rarely isn't raining.
Work at the moment takes care of 50+ hours a week.
BTW did I mention that it never stops raining here ;-)
AndrewP wrote: "Some good tips there. I used to average about 50 books a year until I went multi-media and started to listen to audio books. Since I started listening during my commute, or while doing jobs around ..."I planned to do the same but I have too many podcasts to listen during commute so audiobooks never get any chance.
When you mentioned about all have to be different genres, why is that? Because I know some Kindle readers, for example, who sync their reading across devices, e.g. smartphones and Kindle (not sure whether it applies to Audible )
Tassie Dave wrote: "Silvana wrote: "Hey I wonder if seasons or weather actually affect your reading amount. Being in Southeast Asia, we are now in the rainy season, so lots of time indoors and for me more time to read..."
250 days....that's two months more than here. WOW.
Rick wrote: "I've never used audio. Don't have a long commute and if I'm doing other things I can't focus on the book and to me, one of the points of reading is to immerse myself in the world of the book."
I did listen to audio when going to be bed - it's like a bedtime story. But last time I did that, I lose sleep because the book was so engrossing.
Randy wrote: "Silvana wrote: "I never had any kids so I'm not sure like how many hours a day you have to spend with them without doing nothing else. More than six? "
Closer to 24."
Lucky kids do grow up.
Trike wrote: "On my Insta you can see the amount of snow we get here. Aside from shoveling and keeping the fire stoked, it's mostly cozy reading time interrupted by a daily dog walk. "
*stalking*
You, Ser, have awfully cute dogs (Wabash is my favorite). And I don't envy the pile of snow at all.
Aaron wrote: "That's over 200 hours I have dumped in so far this year probably"
As long as you're happy!
Tassie Dave wrote: "Western Tasmania has rain, rain and more rain. And when it's not raining it's dripping off the trees. ;-)Seriously though, it rains here 250+ days a year. So plenty of time to read, just more things to take up my time."
Oh sweet jeebus. After six months I'd walk into the ocean without my floaties.
Silvana wrote: "When you mentioned about all have to be different genres, why is that? Because I know some Kindle readers, for example, who sync their reading across devices, e.g. smartphones and Kindle (not sure whether it applies to Audible )."Well, you can't sync anything with a physical book :) Whispersync, to sync an Audible and Kindle book, is not available for everything and you have to buy the book in each medium. For many books there is a special deal for this but of not it would make it very expensive.
I actually read this article back in January and it motivated me! I decided to read less Reddit on my commute and pick up a book instead. The time I would have spent on social media, reading the same non important junk, is less important that reading a good book. That's what I took out of the article anyways.
Sandra wrote: "I actually read this article back in January and it motivated me! I decided to read less Reddit on my commute and pick up a book instead. The time I would have spent on social media, reading the sa..."Funnily enough, I was thinking about why someone would ever set a target and this is the main reason I could come up with in my head. I'd be interested to read other reasons.
William wrote: "I blasted through the vast Pandora's Star + Judas Unchained in just over two weeks (1595 pages)."Me too and for the same reasons. (Actually almost 4 weeks but still significant). In paperback it's more like 2,000 pages.
Rick wrote: "Funnily enough, I was thinking about why someone would ever set a target and this is the main reason I could come up with in my head. I'd be interested to read other reasons."I actually use the yearly challenge not to set a goal of how much that I WANT to read, but as a nice way to see approximately how much I actually DO read in a year.
ladymurmur wrote: "I actually use the yearly challenge not to set a goal of how much that I WANT to read, but as a nice way to see approximately how much I actually DO read in a year. "Heh. Exactly what I do.
Interesting. I'm bad at marking things off on GR but I kind of like that use of the challenge.
As an alternative to the annual challenge, you can also use the stats feature in your shelf to look at how many books you read each year (plus number of pages).
This is complete and utter bull. Reading that much fiction will not improve your knowledge. It may improve your ability to write and tell stories a little.
reading non-fiction will only improve your knowledge if you apply it. To really ground knowledge you have to work at it. Reread, apply and implement.
Damn, I have read several statistics books and have to reread all the time to apply them correctly.
Yeah, I could read 200 books in a year, and all I get is a bunch of anecdotes.
grumble grumble grumble.
A comfortable amount of reading should be down to each person but if there was a set 'challenge' for humans then surely 75 books would be enough?That in itself is a huge challenge, I mean 75 books in one year. Breaking it down that's around 1.5 per week with other hobbies and plans.
My challenge is set at 24 this year as it's my first one. Two books a month is good with me otherwise it may take the fun out of reading stories because I would be rushing through the words just to beat a personal prison sentence.
I'm getting my PhD in English. It is part of my daily job to read books. That includes collections of poetry, which (if you're not agonizing over every word), fly by. Last year I finally made my goal of 100 books a year. I am the only person in my office that made a goal that high. And it was a struggle. My TV viewing took a dive, and my social life was pretty non-existent. And I don't have kids, or any kind of family to speak of.
So yeah, as a person who is in part paid to read, and who already does a lot of stuff in this article-- 200 books a year is bananas. If you can tear through books, obviously, it's possible. But it's certainly not possible for the average dude.
Eh, quantity is easy if you consistently have things you want to read. A 400 page book at ~1 page/minute (around 250-300 wpm) is about 7 hours. If you read just a bit over an hour a night that's easily done in a week - and I read in bed at the end of the day usually, so it's after TV/night out etc. So there's ~50 books or so. Allow for shorter books here and there, getting on a streak and reading something you love more hours in a week and I think you could do 70-80 fairly easily without it being a huge focus.
The problem for me is that I don't always have things I want to read and won't force myself to read just anything. Still, I probably did 75 or so last year... but 200? I'd have to read a lot more AND I'd have to either force myself to read things I don't care about that much or I'd have to be really lucky and have a lot of things I want to read out in that year.
And as I mentioned earlier, it's a lot easier to read some books than others. If all I read were nonfiction books on a specific topic that I'd already read tons of times before, I could fly through it because there's little new information there. Nothing that makes you stop and think.
But encountering new concepts embedded within complex crested worlds? That brings you to a dead stop as you rearrange your mental map of the world and assimilate new information.
As someone who actually does go through this many books (at least for the past few years), the article is fairly accurate in content, if condescending in tone.Yes, it does require that you read fairly quickly (1 page/minute sounds about right). But I get there with a combination of reading for an hour to hour and a half or so before bed, and whispersyncing to an audiobook during my commute, housework, etc. It amounts to going through a book every 2-3 days most of the year.
It does in some cases displace things like TV watching, but I have found myself more likely to consciously choose to watch a show I'm into (i.e. The Expanse, Mad Men) and less likely to accidentally kill a Saturday afternoon watching a marathon of House Hunters.
It's not something I generally put a lot of thought into, or watch the challenge counter that closely most of the time, just my preferred way to spend my commute and/or evening.
Also, agreed with whomever said reading that much fiction probably won't increase your knowledge - but it does wonders for vocabulary.
I wish I could absorb information via audiobook while performing other tasks like driving. That'd be a game changer. Right now, I think I would have fit in well pre-television. I'd be excellent at sitting and listening to my serial on the radio. Possibly knitting? Probably crocheting. I love the premise of finding solutions to our problems in the vast sea of human information. I think 200 books is likely not necessary, but great if it works for you. With the advent of podcasts, documentaries and a constant barrage of newsmedia surely the goal is just to learn things 417 hours a year?
That might be from consuming books of any sort--I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb by saying the people of GR will never find time with any book really wasted--but I'm not sure I'd find it less valid to have someone say they listened to all the radio talk shows on NPR that day, followed it up with a Forbes editorial on market sector growth, and then read Harry Potter before bed. As long as it contains new thoughts and tickles our intellect (or imagination) that's the real goal I imagine Warren was going for, no?
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
Do Not Say We Have Nothing (other topics)The Mighty Thor Omnibus (other topics)
Bone: The Complete Edition (other topics)
Alpha Flight by John Byrne Omnibus (other topics)
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (other topics)
More...
http://observer.com/2017/01/the-simpl...
First of all, it is indeed a challenge to dedicate/divide time for our downtime. I figure some of us readers also watch lots of TV and active in social media. But I don't see myself sacrificing those. I need my TV series, podcasts, etc.
Secondly, I don't agree using amount of books as standard, and prefer using number of pages or even words. Based on a super rough calculation, I read around 7.5 - 8 million words last year. I watched at least ten TV series and spent maybe two hours a day on social media (not including Whatsapp). The article say we could (and should) read 200 books or around 10 million words a year.
So, do you guys agree? 200 books/10 million words annually is not hard at all? While also active in social media and watch TV?
I know some ferocious readers who can easily top that (although not sure whether they also spent lots of time in socmed and TV) but still wonder whether that is actually doable for most.