Why would you do this? If you did an Arts degree (like I did in the UK) you probably recognise this technique. I will admit it was some time back - my degree w

Why would you do this? If you did an Arts degree (like I did in the UK) you probably recognise this technique. I will admit it was some time back - my degree was all about reading from multiple sources. The goal was to have multiple perspectives on events (in my case history) which are inherently subjective. In reality, there was never enough time - so you "filleted" the core of each argument, grabbed some quotes and dug out some tiny element to "prove" you'd read it. Running 10-15 books - hah - I was researching multiple areas - 15 a week maybe? And, that's how my degree was made - I'm sure lots of people have similar experiences and skills. I totally accept that this form of reading is possible. But, beyond "professional learning" it's terrible. It's unenjoyable, develops poor understanding, limits comprehension of nuance and destroys enjoying the flow of the argument. Unless you have to do it, I can't see why you'd put yourself through it. Ultimately reading for learning is not about volume, it's about considered thought.