> Even the most active readers with a full-time job get to read at most about 3-4 books per month.
It is to laugh. I usually manage to read (or in some cases, reread) 5-10 novels a month. I have on occasion read as many as 15 novels in a month (admittedly older, and thus shorter, works).
First, i don't read quite that much, since I reach 15-per-month only with a large proportion of shorter works (eg. the Barsoom novels: http://www.feedbooks.com/list/1/barsoom).
2nd, if you don't watch much TV, and read when you take the bus to work and back, and always read for at least an hour before going to sleep, and you read faster than average, it tends to add up.
I think there are several arguments for it.
The converse a desire not to read is obviously a negative as it is one of the fastest ways we can assimilate information.
Before the internet and videos reading was one of the most efficient ways you could learn, be it actual non-fiction texts or the expanding the mind type fiction. (I'd argue it still is, but I'd guess it's arguable about reading fiction). So we still burn a candle for the heights reading reached as an intellectual pursuit.
Another reason it may be lauded is the positive signaling that can be associated with it. Off the top of my head it would indicate: the fact you have time to read, that you are able to focus for long enough to read, that you can be stimulated by purely mental pursuits, (arguably) that you will spend time finding books to read rather than just watch whatever the latest advertisement told you to, (arguably) that you have an interest in some of humanities greatest works.
This is off the top of my head and certainly you could argue that reading books (especially fiction, though studies have shown fiction to improve empathy) is no longer as important. Certainly you could argue that people may read books that have no inherent value but even that low bar would be worth encouraging as it would still encourage those around them to read in (perhaps) a more productive way.
That's not the point. I know I am unusual. but even if I am at the top end of 'most active readers' (which I actually know I am not), my example still points out a failure of imagination and/or analysis in this article.
I'll also point out that restricting the analysis to people like myself (and presumably you) who have a full time job is also rather amusing, as I read much more when I was a teenager in high school (and in fact got a part time job in a bookstore to feed my habit / take advantage of an employee discount).
So, you are manifestly an exception and you chastise the author of the original post for not including you, an avowed exception, in his calculation of what most people need.
I am chastising the author of the original post for setting an upper bound that is far too low. I may be unusual, but I am not a complete outlier, there are plenty of folks between myself and his upper bound.
Comments
It is to laugh. I usually manage to read (or in some cases, reread) 5-10 novels a month. I have on occasion read as many as 15 novels in a month (admittedly older, and thus shorter, works).
15 novels a month.
Averaging 90,000 words per novel (A). Average reading speed per person of 275 words per minute (WPM)
A/WPM*15/60 = 81 Hours Per Month spent reading novels
The average person cannot spend 2.7 hours per day reading novels.
I wish I could though :-(
First, i don't read quite that much, since I reach 15-per-month only with a large proportion of shorter works (eg. the Barsoom novels: http://www.feedbooks.com/list/1/barsoom).
2nd, if you don't watch much TV, and read when you take the bus to work and back, and always read for at least an hour before going to sleep, and you read faster than average, it tends to add up.
But you are (sadly, maybe) relatively rare in reading that much.
I love reading and I still don't read more than 1-2 a month... and I read more than many of my friends.
Same here, but the issue i have is that most books tend to be technical so that vastly limits the throughput.
Regular books are pretty easy to get through. Unless they're written by Peter Hamilton.
Or Neal Stephenson. ;-)
Why is reading considered such a virtue? Specifically reading stuff in book format.
I think there are several arguments for it. The converse a desire not to read is obviously a negative as it is one of the fastest ways we can assimilate information.
Before the internet and videos reading was one of the most efficient ways you could learn, be it actual non-fiction texts or the expanding the mind type fiction. (I'd argue it still is, but I'd guess it's arguable about reading fiction). So we still burn a candle for the heights reading reached as an intellectual pursuit.
Another reason it may be lauded is the positive signaling that can be associated with it. Off the top of my head it would indicate: the fact you have time to read, that you are able to focus for long enough to read, that you can be stimulated by purely mental pursuits, (arguably) that you will spend time finding books to read rather than just watch whatever the latest advertisement told you to, (arguably) that you have an interest in some of humanities greatest works.
This is off the top of my head and certainly you could argue that reading books (especially fiction, though studies have shown fiction to improve empathy) is no longer as important. Certainly you could argue that people may read books that have no inherent value but even that low bar would be worth encouraging as it would still encourage those around them to read in (perhaps) a more productive way.
Because reading books has been making people smarter for centuries?
There is something to that. Sounds like a great tagline, too.
That's not the point. I know I am unusual. but even if I am at the top end of 'most active readers' (which I actually know I am not), my example still points out a failure of imagination and/or analysis in this article.
I'll also point out that restricting the analysis to people like myself (and presumably you) who have a full time job is also rather amusing, as I read much more when I was a teenager in high school (and in fact got a part time job in a bookstore to feed my habit / take advantage of an employee discount).
So, you are manifestly an exception and you chastise the author of the original post for not including you, an avowed exception, in his calculation of what most people need.
I am chastising the author of the original post for setting an upper bound that is far too low. I may be unusual, but I am not a complete outlier, there are plenty of folks between myself and his upper bound.