I think my main disagreement with the entire tenor of the article, is that it treats reading as just one more aspect of the modern obsession of 'self-improvemen

I think my main disagreement with the entire tenor of the article, is that it treats reading as just one more aspect of the modern obsession of 'self-improvement', whereas I read because it's fun. This doesn't mean that I never re-read a book - last year I re-read War & Peace, for instance. But I didn't do it to somehow deepen my knowledge of a 'core work' I read it again primarily because it's an immensely enjoyable narrative. I also read a book about Ants purely for the fun of it. Now I can barely remember anything other than a couple of details about soldier ants that are also suicide bombers (when defeat appears inevitable, they tighten a muscle in their abdomen that causes their thorax to burst, and spray all the attackers around them with acid) and that a whole nest of the smallest known ants would fit inside a single head of the largest known species. These two facts that I recall now can hardly count as 'deeper knowledge' or anything pretentious like that. But reading the book gave me a much greater appreciation of natural phenomena around me, and now when I see an ant's nest in the forest, I know more about what happens inside, I can discuss it with my kids and I'm more engaged and aware of my environment. But that's not why I read the book.