new thread
If a person reads, on average, two books per month, is it too little, too much, or just enough? I was wondering because I came to conclude that is approximately how much I've read since the beggining of my studies (N.B. Some larger and more complex I never came to finish). I started to fear it's not enough for my age and the fact that I write poetry in my spare time suggests I should work on my (in)formal education more than I do now... So I only wanted a few pieces of advice. I know it's unrelated to hair, but I thought, because we know each other, there'd be no harm in asking about an everyday life dilemma.
If it would help, I like philosophical books and fine novels; I've already read Pascal, Voltaire, Rousseau, Koerkegaard, Jose Ortega y Gasset, "The Brothers Karamazov"...
Never knew there was any real standard for how much one should read for personal gratification. All depends on how much you enjoy reading, and how much time you care to devote to it among whatever your other activities are.
If you are reading two of the kind of books you mention below per month, then that is fantastic. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish with your personal program. That's 24 books per year of good quality. For instance, I know for me, The Brothers Karamazov took me like three weeks to get through just because it is so long. For some reason it popped in my head the other day after a year, when Dmitri doesn't want to take his socks off because he doesn't like the way his toes look, when he is being questioned toward the end of the book, that this illustrates how we reduce ourselves to triviality when faced with far more serious issues. And all the time the book spent on talking about that toy cannon, and the description of the boy's dog. And if you read too quickly, you might miss the humor of those letters from the Polish soldier to Grushenka asking for money. He was finally reduced to asking for one ruble. I laughed out loud in that section. And why does everyone love Alexi so much? "Hurray for Karamazov!" An amazing book with lots to think about.
I feel that to really soak in a philosophy or treatise, it is better to take it a little slower than faster. You will understand more and have time to think about what you've read. Also, what helps too is too look up academic journal articles and criticism on what you read; this helps to get an idea of the points in a work that are being discussed academically and also sheds light on things you may not have caught when you read the books. Another good thing is too keep a reading notebook where you sketch out your ideas and responses to any part of the work you have questions about. Writing helps you think through things. This all does take a lot of time, but again, it depends on how well you want to get to know whatever it is you have read.
Poetry is probably a good thought exercise too, and not something to be shunned. It is difficult to make all the hypertactic connections make sense with brief words in poems. Like making a puzzle for someone to figure out.
In all, it sounds like you are doing a good job in your self-education.
MB
I would think that how much you read is a purely subjective thing. How much is right for you is only right for you, and for you to decide.
What's more important is the ability to absorb and use what you read. Someone once said, "Language is the tool of thought." You need to learn to use the tool well, for both input and output.
The only time I tend to read Novels is when I'm on holiday, a train journey or on a plane. So not that often...does this mean I'm thick then?
Cheers,
John.B
You could always pretend you're too busy, LOL!
I read a lot myself, but 90% of it is not what these blokes would call literary, and that's fine with me.
Two books per month seems like a good, steady rate in my opinion. I myself particularly enjoy occult studies, nihilism, astronomy, and fantasy novels.
Everyone should read a book a week...shut off the tube.
I read fiction and non-fiction usually alternating.
I find it alarming that many young kids do not read books.
Do you mean those nasty old mule trucks that London transport run, where no one speaks to each other and cattle get treated better at rush hour?
Cheers,
John.B
": Everyone should read a book a week...shut off the tube.
Either no books at all or some pathetic schund written only to bring $$ to their authors. Indeed, I wouldn't regret if I didn't read a scratch from the today's list of bestsellers.
I'm addicted to Wikipedia, always reading on that everyday on a variety of subjects.
I would say about 2 a month is good. I read a lot of history so I can tell you anything you want to know about the Peloponnesian Wars, The Byzantine Empire and it's demise, aw well as the Romans, and a lot of English history..
Nothing there that will help me advance my career but it's what I'm interested in.
Kevin
It depends on, of course, how much one likes to read. I have about 500 or 600 books but I don't get to read as much as I'd like. At present I'm trying to catch up on some of the classics I've missed.
I finished "Of mice and men" a while back and now I'm on "The picture of Dorian Gray".
"Animal Farm" has always been a favorite, that damn Squealer! In my opinion, the foulest character in the story. I know so many people like that: rule changers. And that poor dumb Boxer, "work harder, work harder" then... well I won't spoil it.
I think how the book was written also has a lot to do with it, Tolkien's Lord of the rings is one of my favorites but it took me three whole weeks to finish the trilogy. It was a chore and if I had not liked the subject matter so much I probably would have tossed it. One the other hand, Battle Field Earth, 1054 pages and it such a breeze, I read it twice in two weeks.
History research is another thing that I get lost in. In school I hated it. The teachers were so boring, it was all names and dates. Now it seems like one long soap opera, I guess the school left out all the juicy stuff.
Paul
Personally, to me, some 300-ish books should do just enough, but if I'm willing perhaps I'll read more. I blame my duties at college for not having more time to devote myself to books. At the same time I wouldn't like to overburden my head with over 1000 books, as some people I know did. I don't know if it's good or bad, I just wouldn't like to.
I'm a little biased, since I work at the public library. For me, reading is also an occupational hazard! It's hard, but I try to limit myself to only a half-dozen books on my coffee table at any given time.
If I read only two books a *week* I'd feel like I was on starvation rations. I've read and enjoyed the classics and the literary stuff, but my regular diet is off the bestsellers list--both columns--supplemented by occasional forays deep into the stacks and sometimes rescuing something from the discard pile.
I'm currently on a Scandinavian author kick. And for some odd reason, cookbooks keep coming home with me.
Anyway, compared to the general population who won't read a milk carton, and given your choices of material, I'd guess you're about right.