5 ms·

Wow, how does somebody get all that reading/working done in a year?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
malexw 11y ago
I'd love to know that too. His goodreads profile shows 107 books read this year, so about 2 per week. I think my personal best (since I started tracking) was 12 in a year.
- panglott 11y ago
  My average for the last four years (since I started tracking) is 43.5. I think reading 100/year would require reading books instead of watching TV nearly every night. Here's confessions of someone who read 164: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/29/10634416/reading-list-books http://www.vox.com/2015/12/29/10634416/reading-list-books Blogger/economist Tyler Cowan also advises quitting books that are a slog.
  - joshyeager 11y ago
    You are correct, you have to make time for reading by reducing other entertainment time. I hit 100 books last year without too much trouble, but I've really struggled with my goal of 125 this year (123 now, and two days left). 2 books per week was an amount that makes me happy, so I kept up with it easily. I fell behind early this year because my wife and I wanted to catch up on a couple of TV shows, which meant I needed to average over 2.5 books per week. That was enough to kill part of the fun, which is why I've struggled. A goal is great because it helps you get started on the next book when you might want to do something easier. But if it's too big it just makes reading a chore.
  - fogus 11y ago
    > I think reading 100/year would require > reading books instead of watching TV nearly > every night. That's about right. I spend about 2-hours per week on television (depending on the season I spend zero) and I haven't played a video game in 5 years. There have been many times that I've wanted to see certain shows (Supergirl looked fun) but when the time comes reading wins out almost every time. I can only read this much because I love reading more than any other form of entertainment. It would be impossible otherwise. It does kinda stink to never be able to engage in conversations about games and shows though. Maybe there's a market for semi-annual books about current media. ;)
- misiti3780 11y ago
  I read about 70 books this year, 99% non-fiction - I try to read one hour before work and then devote as much time as I can at night before bed. It is very true that the more you read, the faster and better you get at it. I always read more than one book at one time - and I read only things I find interesting. I find fiction very uninteresting and that is why I do not read it, even though a lot of people give me shit for it.
wcarss 11y ago
He's actually got two posts about it, that I've found to be insightful and useful to take back to my own reading: http://blog.fogus.me/2012/02/22/reading/ http://blog.fogus.me/2012/05/23/extreme-reading/ I've always been a horribly slow reader, despite enjoying reading and reading at a high level. A lot of that slowness is actually about the time I devote to reading (toilet time and bed time, essentially), the level of interest I have in the material (usually "enough to continue"), and a symptom of my out-of-practice reading skill, which leads to me primarily subvocalizing instead of reading, and frequently backtracking. Spending 10-15 minutes every other day reading at 200 words per minute does not make for a quick journey through a book. After thinking of it in those terms, I've started to apply the idea that the more I read, the faster I will read (up to a point), to actively avoid subvocalization, and to devote real blocks of time to reading instead of fitting it in at the edges. I find that I end up reading closer to 400 wpm during focused time, and when I want to, I'm able to average 1-2 hours/day of a week. Spending that much time at 400ish words per minute makes books fly past. Keeping comprehension up and realizing value is where taking some notes comes into it. Beyond that, as he says, you have to know what you're reading a book for. For example, it's probably not worth reading the introduction and basic content chapters of technical books you're already up-to-speed on, and you can skip right to the important parts and just read them deeply.
- dilap 11y ago
  reading w/o subvocalization as a goal seems really weird to me! i feel like for stuff like novels the vocalization & imagined richness of the world is kind of part of the point, and for technical material, grasping the ideas is by far going to be the limiting factor. (e.g., easy to spend an hour on 1 page of a math text.)
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    I didn't even realize people subvocalized when reading until recently, when a friend mentioned it off-hand. It's really hard to analyze - if I think about it, I start doing it - but I'm pretty sure I don't subvocalize when I read at all.
zeroonetwothree 11y ago
I "read" >100/yr audiobooks just in extra time commuting, doing chores, etc.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

I'd love to know that too. His goodreads profile shows 107 books read this year, so about 2 per week. I think my personal best (since I started tracking) was 12 in a year.

panglott 11y ago
My average for the last four years (since I started tracking) is 43.5. I think reading 100/year would require reading books instead of watching TV nearly every night. Here's confessions of someone who read 164: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/29/10634416/reading-list-books http://www.vox.com/2015/12/29/10634416/reading-list-books Blogger/economist Tyler Cowan also advises quitting books that are a slog.
- joshyeager 11y ago
  You are correct, you have to make time for reading by reducing other entertainment time. I hit 100 books last year without too much trouble, but I've really struggled with my goal of 125 this year (123 now, and two days left). 2 books per week was an amount that makes me happy, so I kept up with it easily. I fell behind early this year because my wife and I wanted to catch up on a couple of TV shows, which meant I needed to average over 2.5 books per week. That was enough to kill part of the fun, which is why I've struggled. A goal is great because it helps you get started on the next book when you might want to do something easier. But if it's too big it just makes reading a chore.
- fogus 11y ago
  > I think reading 100/year would require > reading books instead of watching TV nearly > every night. That's about right. I spend about 2-hours per week on television (depending on the season I spend zero) and I haven't played a video game in 5 years. There have been many times that I've wanted to see certain shows (Supergirl looked fun) but when the time comes reading wins out almost every time. I can only read this much because I love reading more than any other form of entertainment. It would be impossible otherwise. It does kinda stink to never be able to engage in conversations about games and shows though. Maybe there's a market for semi-annual books about current media. ;)
misiti3780 11y ago
I read about 70 books this year, 99% non-fiction - I try to read one hour before work and then devote as much time as I can at night before bed. It is very true that the more you read, the faster and better you get at it. I always read more than one book at one time - and I read only things I find interesting. I find fiction very uninteresting and that is why I do not read it, even though a lot of people give me shit for it.

wcarss 11y ago

He's actually got two posts about it, that I've found to be insightful and useful to take back to my own reading: http://blog.fogus.me/2012/02/22/reading/ http://blog.fogus.me/2012/05/23/extreme-reading/ I've always been a horribly slow reader, despite enjoying reading and reading at a high level. A lot of that slowness is actually about the time I devote to reading (toilet time and bed time, essentially), the level of interest I have in the material (usually "enough to continue"), and a symptom of my out-of-practice reading skill, which leads to me primarily subvocalizing instead of reading, and frequently backtracking. Spending 10-15 minutes every other day reading at 200 words per minute does not make for a quick journey through a book. After thinking of it in those terms, I've started to apply the idea that the more I read, the faster I will read (up to a point), to actively avoid subvocalization, and to devote real blocks of time to reading instead of fitting it in at the edges. I find that I end up reading closer to 400 wpm during focused time, and when I want to, I'm able to average 1-2 hours/day of a week. Spending that much time at 400ish words per minute makes books fly past. Keeping comprehension up and realizing value is where taking some notes comes into it. Beyond that, as he says, you have to know what you're reading a book for. For example, it's probably not worth reading the introduction and basic content chapters of technical books you're already up-to-speed on, and you can skip right to the important parts and just read them deeply.

dilap 11y ago
reading w/o subvocalization as a goal seems really weird to me! i feel like for stuff like novels the vocalization & imagined richness of the world is kind of part of the point, and for technical material, grasping the ideas is by far going to be the limiting factor. (e.g., easy to spend an hour on 1 page of a math text.)
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  I didn't even realize people subvocalized when reading until recently, when a friend mentioned it off-hand. It's really hard to analyze - if I think about it, I start doing it - but I'm pretty sure I don't subvocalize when I read at all.

zeroonetwothree 11y ago

I "read" >100/yr audiobooks just in extra time commuting, doing chores, etc.