*depressed sigh*

[conuly]

I really feel bad. And this is embarassing, because I'm going to sound arrogant.

How on earth can people feel proud of only reading a book a week, or less, even? I can read a book just going to class, and another coming home. It's a sad week when I don't manage to read even one book. High school, I would take out six books from the library at once, return all six within two days. That's not counting the books they gave me, and the ones I read while in the library during lunch. Is it normal to read so little? Is it that people read slowly, or that they have other things to do? I don't get it.

I feel weird now. Like the freak here.

Well, I did tell you not to click. Don't blame me.

Comments

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

Ok, not to harp on you, but you obviously don't have a good grasp of what it's like for the vast majority of "normal people."

1. Yes, people do read slowly. Apparently, many magnitudes slower than you. What kind of book can you read in an hour? I sure don't know of many aside from short stories. A novel takes me 8-10 hours. A theological book of the same size can take twice as long, since it needs digesting. Ditto for a text book, or really anything other than fiction relaxation reading.

2. Not everyone has long commutes, especially outside of the city, and in the rest of the country. And if they do commute here in the city, during rush hour, I have a sincere hatred of people who take up twice as much space as neccesary because they're sticking the book out in front of them.

3. Even if they do read on the subway, many business people are reading business documents.

4. I, and many many other people, like to use the commute time to simply sit down and relax. For many people, it may be their *only* time to do so.

Mind you, I tend to read a lot too. But I'm not obsessive about it. To me, being unable to be without a book is the same as someone who's unable to be without TV or whatever other mind candy. Everything in moderation....

[conuly]

A novel takes me an hour. A textbook can take me three hours, plus another quick glance through for review. I certainly don't stick my book out in front of me, how tiring. My book sits on my lap, with my laptop. And reading is the best way of relaxing, mihi. It's a nice way to ignore the fact that you're crowded on a train.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

You get a seat? Nice.

[conuly]

I have a late commute. And I fall if I stand, so people are usually eager to let me sit.

[prezzey.livejournal.com]

Strange, for me textbooks take a shorter time than fiction.

I'm extremely busy all the time (I create it for myself so I shouldn't complain!) and I only read recreationally during "biological pauses" (food, etc) and on Shabbes. I don't commute, I live 5 mins. from the Institute of Psychology and 15 mins. from the Institute of Linguistics - I'm not on campus, I live smack in the middle of downtown Budapest. The fact that both of these buildings are so close is nothing more than a coincidence.

I still end up reading ~10 books a month (excluding textbooks), all levels and varieties from hard-SF to these "For Beginners" books by Icon, mostly SF though.

Here are my past reads for a few months or so:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/prezzey/69016.html
Professional reading is rarely entered (mostly because it's articles and chapters, not whole books). Hyperion was awesome BTW.

Back when I was a little girl with nothing to do, I read two children's libraries. Whole. But back then I didn't have the Internet, or my graphics tablet, or... er... stuff. So I had a lot less to do! My only hobby was drawing. Now I have more hobbies than an average household. ;P I never drop obsessions completely but I keep on acquiring new ones. Whoo!! *chaotic*

You know, something about the crack "normal people" puts my back up....

[marveen.livejournal.com]

...so let me respond to your points.

1. Most novels take me 1-3 hours. Robert Jordan's The Fires of Heaven took me two and a half.

2. If I were to read during my commute, I would end up with my car wrapped around a tree. Not everyone lives where there is public transit.

3. That's their choice. I work at in-home caregiving, so I take a book and read between tasks. Before you yelp about my job being uniquely suited to that, the law requires that everyone have a lunch break and I have made do with reading only at that time in previous years.

4. Are you implying that reading isn't relaxing?

I was aghast the first time I visited a house that didn't have books--my parents' house had multiple bookshelves in various rooms, and each family member was allotted individual space as well.

And of course, I view the way I was raised as "normal", thankyouverymuch.

Re: You know, something about the crack "normal people" puts my back up....

[conuly]

Not everyone lives where there is public transit.

*hugs tightly* You poor, unfortunate person. Of course, I couldn't drive if I tried, so I'm never leaving pedestrian friendly cities, which really explains my push for the whole world to have good public transportation.

Re: You know, something about the crack "normal people" puts my back up....

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

The vast majority of people *cannot* read a novel in 1-3 hours. Hence, "not normal." That doesn't mean wrong, just not normal. You obviously have a skill most other people don't have, which is perfectly fine - just don't be uprighteous about it. What I'm reading from most comments in this post is "I can read books really fast, so everyone else should be able to too."

Ditto for saying that reading is relaxing. It might be for *you.* That doesn't mean it is for someone else.

What I hate in this thread is the intellectual elitism I'm seeing. Just because someone reads tons doesn't make them one iota better than someone who doesn't. Different people have different skills, for different purposes. Reading is just one of many.

Re: You know, something about the crack "normal people" puts my back up....

[conuly]

What I'm reading from most comments in this post is "I can read books really fast, so everyone else should be able to too."

Actually, most are "I can't do that" or "I used to be able to do that, but can't anymore".

Ditto for saying that reading is relaxing. It might be for *you.* That doesn't mean it is for someone else.

If it's not relaxing for you, don't read. End of problem. That's something I don't understand - why try to read more than usual if you don't enjoy reading?

What I hate in this thread is the intellectual elitism I'm seeing. Just because someone reads tons doesn't make them one iota better than someone who doesn't.

Nobody said "I'm better than you". I did express my confusion over being proud of not reading (to me) much, but I didn't say that makes me better than you. I just said I don't understand it. To me, one book a week is nothing. To me, being proud of reading is like being proud of... I don't know, of playing a certain sport. Unless you're very good at it, it's just something you do, nothing to be proud or ashamed of.

Re: You know, something about the crack "normal people" puts my back up....

[eofs.livejournal.com]

If it's not relaxing for you, don't read. End of problem. That's something I don't understand - why try to read more than usual if you don't enjoy reading?

Because there is a hegemony that people *should* read, and read well, and reads lots. Which leads to shame if you feel like you're not reading 'enough'

Re: You know, something about the crack "normal people" puts my back up....

[marveen.livejournal.com]

*tightens lips*

Elitism? I hear that all the time--every single time that I expect someone to try before giving up, as a matter of fact. Every time I express my belief that many people would find themselves capable of much, much more, if they would only put actual effort into learning or practicing a new skill.

I'm not talking specifically about you, or about reading, but the above has been played out with people I knew personally. People that I did know well enough to say "I know you're capable of this!"

I'm not being insulting. Patting these people on the head and saying "That's all right, honey, don't worry your pretty little head about it, I'll do it for you" would be insulting.

So you don't read fast. And reading doesn't relax you. I still opine that practice is the key to any skill.

And oh yes, define "normal".

Re: You know, something about the crack "normal people" puts my back up....

[eofs.livejournal.com]

So you don't read fast. And reading doesn't relax you. I still opine that practice is the key to any skill.

And I opine that you should go out and join a couple of amateur theatre groups - starting learning scripts, be at tech runs to the small hours of the morning, do 14 hours physical days, work evenings and weekends on top of your paying job and come home bruised and sore, get up on stage and perform night after night as if this is the best performance you'll ever give. Doesn't sound easy to you? Not fun? Relaxing? Because to me, it's not so hard, it's definitely fun, and it's relaxing in its own way.

Doesn't mean it has to be for you.