3 ms·

I "read" tens of articles a day through various forms, but I wouldn't add up the words and equate it to reading books. Most of the articles I see are so padded

I "read" tens of articles a day through various forms, but I wouldn't add up the words and equate it to reading books. Most of the articles I see are so padded with verbiage that they just get a quick skim - I like being exposed to the stories and ideas they contain, but I feel like if anything I'm trading the ability to deep-read like I do with technical literature for the ability to skim. I guess my point is that it's pretty rare that I see an article that I think merits the sort of deep reading that the author is espousing (for reasons other than recreation, that is). Maybe that's just a function of the literature I expose myself to.

such_a_casual 11y ago
I think this is a really important point. It's dangerous to think that reading x amount of articles is the same as reading a book. With a book, you're taking one idea and going into immense detail over the course of a day, a week, or a month. Additionally, the size of books encourages and even requires in many instances that they be written with some degree of organization. This means it's much easier for the reader to find the information they're looking for and to skip over information they already understand. Most of the articles I read are poorly written. They fail the reader by not introducing important information (such as their point) as soon as possible. In fact, authors will purposely leave out all the important information til the end in a hubris effort to sensationalize the piece. This means that the best way for someone to read these articles is actually backwards (so you don't commit 15 minutes of reading just to find out you don't care about what the author actually had to say). It's silly, and I don't think I've ever seen it done in any book that I've actually read.

3 ms·

I "read" tens of articles a day through various forms, but I wouldn't add up the words and equate it to reading books. Most of the articles I see are so padded

by TTPrograms 11y ago

such_a_casual 11y ago
I think this is a really important point. It's dangerous to think that reading x amount of articles is the same as reading a book. With a book, you're taking one idea and going into immense detail over the course of a day, a week, or a month. Additionally, the size of books encourages and even requires in many instances that they be written with some degree of organization. This means it's much easier for the reader to find the information they're looking for and to skip over information they already understand. Most of the articles I read are poorly written. They fail the reader by not introducing important information (such as their point) as soon as possible. In fact, authors will purposely leave out all the important information til the end in a hubris effort to sensationalize the piece. This means that the best way for someone to read these articles is actually backwards (so you don't commit 15 minutes of reading just to find out you don't care about what the author actually had to say). It's silly, and I don't think I've ever seen it done in any book that I've actually read.