5 ms·
This seems wildly inflated. > Reading 200 books a year isn’t hard at all. I don't spend much time on social media, and I read maybe 30 to 50 books a year. My
by dustincoates 7y ago
This seems wildly inflated.
> Reading 200 books a year isn’t hard at all.
I don't spend much time on social media, and I read maybe 30 to 50 books a year. My wife, a huge reader, will read around 90 this year. Maybe if we gave up our creative, athletic, or social pursuits we could get those numbers up to 200, but what's the point?
> Typical non-fiction books have ~50,000 words
I recently finished writing a book, and it was around 125,000 words. In the end, it felt short when I held it in my hands. I doubt highly the 50,000 number.
> The main reason this happens is a failure to execute.
The main reason people don't read 200 books a year, really, is because there's not much value in reading that many. If you're reading for enjoyment, slow down and enjoy it. If you're reading to learn something, slow down and internalize it. If you're reading to show off, just read the Wikipedia summaries because no one really cares that you've read a ton of books.
- reallydontask 7y agoI've read an average of a book per week for the past 12 years or so. I probably read/listen for 1 hour each weekday and about 2 hours each day on the weekend. 200 would require around 30-40 hours of reading time per week, so it's possible I suppose, but unlikely.
- libertine 7y agoThis may sound like a dumb question, but how much do you think you retain and take with you from each book through out a year? I know it will depend on the book, if it's a book to entertain or a technical book... but sometimes I get the feeling that so little is retained it's almost unproductive in the long term simply because you will forget a lot of it. I have books that stuck with me, that changed my perception, but those are a really small fraction, and probably had to re-read them to get some details if I wanted to talk about that book to someone for example. Do you take notes? If so, do you revisit those notes?
- Vomzor 7y agoNot an answer to your question but seems fitting to share it: http://www.paulgraham.com/know.html http://www.paulgraham.com/know.html
- reallydontask 7y agoI probably read 75/25% fiction, non-fiction, so for me it's mostly about entertainment. A few years ago i started takin serious notes, using memory palaces and other stuff to try help to remember more but it made reading a lot less enjoyable, so i stopped. These days I tell my better half or a friend or a work colleague about the interesting things i read and that is a good balance between remembering and enjoying reading.
- ed312 7y agoReading comprehension and speed can both improve with practice. This is a fundamental building block of the "learning how to learn" that school is generally teaches.
- howard941 7y agoI'm sure you didn't intend a rude, insulting response to a valid critique but that's how it reads. Please reconsider.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI don’t see how one could process 200 books a year. That means thinking about new ideas every other day. I have 90 minutes commuting time every day to listen to books and podcasts. In the beginning it was fun but now I am slowly realizing that this is more information than I can or want to handle on an ongoing basis.
- jacobush 7y agoI have adapted my podcasts accordingly. I listen to lighthearted banter between cohosts which I also have some online (text chat) communications with from time to time. It's like eves-dropping on nice acquaintances or distant relatives having a good laugh while getting some light industry news at the same time.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI do that too. Mix some light stuff in with the heavier stuff. For example I have learned that Stephen king is a damn good writer. It won’t change your life but it makes a commute quite entertaining.
- dwags 7y agoI listened 'The Stand' on audiobook over my commutes a couple of years back. Incredible way to spend 50+ hours in a car
- dbspin 7y agoThe 'traditional' length of a fiction novel is 60k words. Although I believe 90k is a more common expected length today (looking at publisher submission requirements). Obviously non-fiction is much more variable, both in length and time required to read. E.g.: it's going to be significantly more time consuming to read a physics text that walks you through (even rudimentary equations) than a step by step illustrated guide to photography.
- awkward 7y ago> Warren Buffett So quit social media, do some stuff, and once you have a passive income measured in the billions your professional and creative pursuits don't get in the way.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoReally it depends on your definition of books. Anyone can read though 100 pages in a day, and there are plenty of ~100 page books. So really, 365 books might be reasonable.
- alltakendamned 7y agoNot saying this applies here, but I have the impression that many people consider listening to audio books at 1.5x-2x speed also "reading". I think it depends what the goal is, comprehension vs simply going through the motions. When I read technical books, I tend to read quite slow. When I read some fantasy novel just before bed, I read fast and will have probably forgotten by the morning what I read about. With audio books, it's easier to go through the motions of reading lots, but imo reading comprehension suffers greatly due to other distractions at the same time.
- randcraw 7y agoReading tech books requires that you frequently stop and think, and work problems or write code. This slows the read speed significantly. At slowest, reading math can take 30 minutes or more per page. Likewise, if you intend to ace an exam in molecular biology or physics or medicine, you'll be taking notes and re-reading often. In fact, few substantial nonfiction books can be read quickly. I suspect that only popular nonfiction fare can (like political screeds or one-concept wonders).
- Vrondi 7y agoThe main reason that even most bookworms don't read 200 books a year, is most of them need to spend time one some manner of work in order to live.
- klodolph 7y ago50,000 is one of the (several) generally accepted minimum lengths for a novel. That must be where the number came from, but agreed—even in my most voracious stack-of-books-a-week years, I wouldn’t hit 200 books a year. This was before social media existed.
- Paul_S 7y agoThat argument is inconsistent. You say that that humans don't have capacity for 200 books, yet have capacity for the equivalent of social media? I read on average a little short of 200 books a year. I don't feel rushed. It works out a bit more than a book every other day. And you can fit more than that over the weekend. I don't understand the hostility here. I read books because I enjoy it. Nothing beats a book for information density. Do you watch TV series? You can read Song of Ice and Fire faster than you can watch a season of Game of thrones.
- arandr0x 7y agoI read 200 books a year (some years) due to reading lightning fast and not driving, but reading books using my algorithm of picking the most appealing at the library is not really more edifying than social media. Like I sometimes pick up graphic novels, weird poetry, handbooks with pictures of mushrooms or whatever. At this point I'm wondering if this idea that reading books is always more valuable than any other entertainment activity is a kind of cultural brainwashing we're going through to make sure our kids stay literate.