Reading: Quantity vs. Quality?

[NathanielZhu]

I keep hearing about people reading hundreds of books a year.
I don't see how it is possible unless they read all their books just once.

Obviously the best option is to read a lot of books AND have a great recollection of each, but that isn't possible because all that is read is converted into short term memory and only a little of it is actually assimilated into long term memory.

So, my question is:

Is it better to read and thoroughly learn from a book (reading less per year, but gain a solid understanding of each), or is it better to reading a lot of books per year (With less understanding for each)?

[Fran]

I didn't vote because I don't agree with the basis of your poll. You are making a very generalized assumption that there is a direct correlation between the number of books read & the quality of that reading which I do not agree with. It is my opinion that the more you read the fitter you keep your mind and the more efficient it will operate. In much the same way that physical exercise will keep the body operating more efficiently.

So far this year I have read 90+ books, that's a combination of purely entertainment reads, some classics and some educational reads. While I can't recall each and every book verbatim, and of course some books embed themselves in your mind forever, with a gentle reminder I would be able to engage in a fairly 'heated' discussion of most of them.

I regularly have discussions about books I read 15 or 20 years ago and very quickly they are recalled from, I presume, longterm memory. I think we grossly underestimate our mental abilities.

I do, of course, agree that there is a big difference between reading for leisure and the in depth study of an individual work or author required to produce a literature assignment. But it does not mean that someone who reads a lot is reading superficially or that someone who reads little reads in depth.

[StephenKingman]

I keep hearing about people reading hundreds of books a year.
I don't see how it is possible unless they read all their books just once.

Obviously the best option is to read a lot of books AND have a great recollection of each, but that isn't possible because all that is read is converted into short term memory and only a little of it is actually assimilated into long term memory.

So, my question is:

Is it better to read and thoroughly learn from a book (reading less per year, but gain a solid understanding of each), or is it better to reading a lot of books per year (With less understanding for each)?

Well, i cant speak for others but personally i like to take my time when reading and take as much from it as i possibly can before moving on to the next book. I am not someone who reads a hundred books a year, not only do i not have the time for that, i wouldnt have the will because i prefer to read a book, let it sink in a while, maybe read some reviews on it, and then move on. Having said that i can still remember most of the books i have read in the years gone by in great detail and especially all the Stephen King books- my memory simply recalls the stories and i can then debate the finer points. I have a good 2 dozen books on my shelf just waiting to be read but thats ok, it can wait, i dont feel the need to just 'get through' the pile in order to replace them with the next batch; for me, reading is a slow and leisurely activity that is best enjoyed at whatever pace you are comfortable with.

As Fran says though reading keeps the mind sharp, and although i would not necessarily say that the more books read, the sharper the mind, i think that a steady and regular reading habit does keep you active and open to all sorts of new ideas about the world. Many a book i have read that has taught me much about the world around me. So your poll probably should ask do you read a lot of books or only a few books a year because it is too black and white to attribute descriptions like quality and quantity when there are compelling arguments about the merits of reading a little or a lot from the two camps.

[Lonestar]

I voted, and feel that it's better to read and retain, yea savor, a book. So for me it is definitely quality over quantity, every time.

But I do agree with Fran that there are different reasons for reading, certainly. If one chooses and has the ability to read a plethora of literature over the course of a year, fine. If one takes a more leisurely approach, this is good also. To each his own.

[Cnfwriter]

I didn't vote because I don't agree with the basis of your poll. You are making a very generalized assumption that there is a direct correlation between the number of books read & the quality of that reading which I do not agree with. It is my opinion that the more you read the fitter you keep your mind and the more efficient it will operate. In much the same way that physical exercise will keep the body operating more efficiently.

So far this year I have read 90+ books, that's a combination of purely entertainment reads, some classics and some educational reads. While I can't recall each and every book verbatim, and of course some books embed themselves in your mind forever, with a gentle reminder I would be able to engage in a fairly 'heated' discussion of most of them.

I regularly have discussions about books I read 15 or 20 years ago and very quickly they are recalled from, I presume, longterm memory. I think we grossly underestimate our mental abilities.

I do, of course, agree that there is a big difference between reading for leisure and the in depth study of an individual work or author required to produce a literature assignment. But it does not mean that someone who reads a lot is reading superficially or that someone who reads little reads in depth.

+1

Some years ago, while strolling along the lush aisles of Barnes and Nobles in full-color bloom from the latest releases -- a favorite pastime -- I chanced across a reduced-price copy of the old Evelyn Wood's speed-reading course. That book changed my life.

I now know that it is entirely possible to have both quantity and quality.

[Sophius]

I agree with Fran. You do not count the possibility that one might be able to retain a qualitative expierience from a book while being capable of reading it at a quick pace. It also depends on how fast one reads, as someone who reads 250 words per minute recieves the oppporutunity to to assimilate more data than some who reads at 150 words per minute. If i had to make a choice with the poll, I would prefer to leisurely read and absorb data than to speed read, but that doesn't mean I read slowly.

Regrettably though, I am afflicted with a case of higher end ADHD, meaning I can't sit with a book for more than one hour without getting antsy, and thats assuming that I am in my own house where there is less stimulus in the surrounding area. Not to mention that my school takes up alot of my time. As much I would enjoy reading 100+ books a year, the circumstances currently do not allow this.

[Lennoc]

More agreement with Fran (and I'm also not voting).

And, even if it was a choice between the two I wouldn't say one or the other was better. We read for different reasons and purposes. Some books I want to learn from, others I simply want to be entertained by.

Personally I read a huge amount of books. That's just because I'm a fast reader. For example yesterday I saw a post on here recommending Slaughterhouse Five. It interested me so I got it from the library, read it last night and returned it this morning. I also read a few more chapters of the Dickens book I'm working my way through and did some study from a textbook on Political Ideology which I have an exam on next week.

I'm quite confident that I could discuss any of what I read with an appropriate degree of depth.

I keep hearing about people reading hundreds of books a year.
I don't see how it is possible unless they read all their books just once.

Well I guess most people read most books just once. I read my favourite books over and over but that doesn't necessarily mean I would read them more than once a year.

[Cnfwriter]

Personally I read a huge amount of books. That's just because I'm a fast reader. For example yesterday I saw a post on here recommending Slaughterhouse Five. It interested me so I got it from the library, read it last night and returned it this morning.

Wow. That _is_ fast. How long do you estimate it took you to complete Slaughterhouse Five?

[Mairin]

I like to read a lot and memorize a lot. I've read many books and I feel confident in my ability to summarize what has happened in each.

[Megan Young]

I feel that you can both read a lot and still enjoy and keep a memory of each book.

[Kariema]

Some people are speed-readers (not me) and that's a gift. If they retain some/most of what they read, that'd be brillient. Plus, sometimes, you read a 600-page book and you come out with one single truth. It doesn't have to be life-changing or earth-shattering. But it might keep you sane.

[Enigma]

Depends how you define quality.
I much prefer reading an easy book like Harry Potter, to something by G Martin, Stephen King.
And I have a hard time with long books.

[Misaela]

For the time being, I read a little, but I would love to read a lot in depth.

[DATo]

Difficult question because I think in most cases it depends upon the book.

There are some books which are meant for only a superficial read, in other words, what you see is what you get. Such books can be read quickly and one may then move on to another. In the case of other books there is no way the work of the author can be truly appreciated without going layers beneath the superficial story, and this takes time and reflection on the part of the reader. I heard someone say long ago that in a truly great book one will not find a single word which the author did not labor over before including it into the text.

Speaking for myself I prefer a book which challenges me to interpret the author's true and often hidden intent. Often one will find many very interesting devices in a novel which are very easy to miss if read superficially. One book that easily that comes to mind is David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens. The following is from an extensive critique I wrote which can be found elsewhere on this website ...

The time of David’s birth - We are told that David was born on the stroke of midnight on a Friday. The superstition of those times held that a person born in the very early morning hours of a Friday was destined to have bad luck and also to be able to see ghosts. We later come to know the “bad luck” David experiences, and as for seeing ghosts ... in his narrative David reflects upon all of the people he has known. At various times David himself states in his narrative that as he writes his story these people appear as ghostly images taken from his memory. Thus, the characters of his story are metaphorically meant to suggest the ghosts foretold in the prophecy of the superstition.

The Rookery - The novel tells us that the house that David, his mother, and Peggotty live in was named “The Rookery” by David’s father when he purchased the property. (It was not uncommon for people to give a name to their estates back in those days.) The Rookery was so named because there were many rook nests present though the family soon learned that they were abandoned. The operative word is 'abandoned'. Later in the novel the Murdstones sell the property and David reflects upon it sadly as being empty of its furniture, and he imagines the shadows of the trees falling upon the bare walls of the rooms. The description of the abandoned rook nests foreshadows the abandonment of the house itself.

These things do not appear on the surface of the story but only emerge upon reflection by the reader. I don't know about others but it took me three "reads" of this book before I began to see some of the things I had heretofore missed when reading this book. They began to emerge magically once I began to look for them. Now, this is not to say that a novel such as this cannot be appreciated without deep exegesis. It can certainly be appreciated if only at the story level. But much of the magic and genius of Dickens writing is lost when read only superficially.

In my case I have trained myself to look for hints that the author has employed literary devices beneath the surface of the story. When I am convinced he or she did I tend to reread the book with a more critical eye later. If the story gives no hint of deeper meanings I sail right through it and read it simply as an entertaining "story" and then move on to the next book.

[matherse]

I would rather think about what I read, become a part of the story, and remember it all than read a ton of books. Why would you just want to read a bunch of books? Is it to seem smarter, or well-read, but not actually digest anything you are reading? I did that enough in college - now I read for pleasure!