4 ms·

How many times have you read a 1000 page book?

by niels_olson 10y ago

pklausler 10y ago
This one, or any 1000-pager?
- niels_olson 10y ago
  both
  - pklausler 10y ago
    I've read Infinite Jest three times -- the second reading being immediately after the first, of course, since the narrative is circular and the first part makes full sense only when you cruise into it from the last bits. I read it for the third time this year due to all of the 20th anniversary publicity and enjoyed it even more. Other kilo-page doorstop-sized single narratives that I've read and recommend include Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, Wm. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Tolstoy's War and Peace, and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. (The world is also full of good single narratives that span multiple thick volumes, of course.)
jfoutz 10y ago
Authors have a way about telling a story. I guess it's "style". With longer books, you sort of build up a predictive parser for that particular author, so they get easier and easier to read. For example Douglas Adams likes punchlines. He'll give a long and detailed description of a kitchen, and oh by the way there's a dead body bleeding in the middle of the floor. You kind of learn detailed descriptions are garden paths, the details don't matter. If you're just kind of trying to get through the book you can skim to the punchline, smile, and move on. Casual reading isn't like technical reading. Missing a detail won't cost you a week of effort. Song of Ice and Fire(game of thrones) is a better example. If you don't particularly care for a character, just skimming their part of the story isn't going to kill the book. You get that so and so is sad, and went for a long walk. Ok, whatever. If you like reading for entertainment, there's nothing special about page count. It's just the fun of being on an adventure. I'm not exactly saying you just skip the boring parts, it's more that you internalize the author's style, and implicitly read the boring parts less closely.

How many times have you read a 1000 page book?

pklausler 10y ago

This one, or any 1000-pager?

niels_olson 10y ago
both
- pklausler 10y ago
  I've read Infinite Jest three times -- the second reading being immediately after the first, of course, since the narrative is circular and the first part makes full sense only when you cruise into it from the last bits. I read it for the third time this year due to all of the 20th anniversary publicity and enjoyed it even more. Other kilo-page doorstop-sized single narratives that I've read and recommend include Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, Wm. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Tolstoy's War and Peace, and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. (The world is also full of good single narratives that span multiple thick volumes, of course.)

jfoutz 10y ago

Authors have a way about telling a story. I guess it's "style". With longer books, you sort of build up a predictive parser for that particular author, so they get easier and easier to read. For example Douglas Adams likes punchlines. He'll give a long and detailed description of a kitchen, and oh by the way there's a dead body bleeding in the middle of the floor. You kind of learn detailed descriptions are garden paths, the details don't matter. If you're just kind of trying to get through the book you can skim to the punchline, smile, and move on. Casual reading isn't like technical reading. Missing a detail won't cost you a week of effort. Song of Ice and Fire(game of thrones) is a better example. If you don't particularly care for a character, just skimming their part of the story isn't going to kill the book. You get that so and so is sad, and went for a long walk. Ok, whatever. If you like reading for entertainment, there's nothing special about page count. It's just the fun of being on an adventure. I'm not exactly saying you just skip the boring parts, it's more that you internalize the author's style, and implicitly read the boring parts less closely.