Do you consider yourself well read?

[scifisam]

Did you go somewhere to learn that or is it self taught? It would be nice to be able to get through more books....

I thought I was well read until I met onemonkey. I'm not very well read but I'm enthusiastic about it. I don't tend to read anything but fiction though....

I'm a speed-reader too, but it's just the way I've always read. Basically I process information from halfway down the page at the same time as processing information from the top of the page - I don't read linearly. I make an effort to slow down when reading some texts, though. Reading deeply is more important than reading speedily, IMO. (Though it is possible to do both, and cesare probably does as well).

It's one of the reasons I appear to spend so much time online. I read quickly and am a very speedy typist, so it doesn't take long to read and reply to a thread.

I'm not online that much really, honest guv.

 

[Pieface]

I'm a DEEP reader, me, then. Your way sounds quite annoying and like you won't remember half of it.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I love reading, used to spend lots of my childhood either at the library picking and reading books, or in my bedroom reading the books i had taken out. Carried on into adulthood as well, and really took off when i worked in an oxfam shop for a few years and picked up all sorts for bargain prices. My book shelves are heaving, i have ~8 books by the bed, some of which i'm ploughing through (The Bookseller of Kabul is fav at mo) whilst others i dip in and out of (Ulysses, Rothmans Rugby League Yearbook 2006, Redemption Song all spring to mind).

I think there's an innate snobbery in some people (no-one on here obviously), that somehow because they have studied what are taught to people as being the 'classics' that they somehow understand reading better than the proles. I think that's b/s in many ways. Reading William Burroughs at 15/16 was far more important and worthwhile to me than studying Chaucer, even tho they're equally incomprehensible in many ways to many people.

So, well-read? Yes, i'd like to think so.

 

[cesare]

Did you go somewhere to learn that or is it self taught? It would be nice to be able to get through more books....

I thought I was well read until I met onemonkey. I'm not very well read but I'm enthusiastic about it. I don't tend to read anything but fiction though....

It wasn't intentional or learned as such tbh. I just sort of skim unless it's work related then I have to be more careful ...

 

[cesare]

I'm a speed-reader too, but it's just the way I've always read. Basically I process information from halfway down the page at the same time as processing information from the top of the page - I don't read linearly. I make an effort to slow down when reading some texts, though. Reading deeply is more important than reading speedily, IMO. (Though it is possible to do both, and cesare probably does as well).

It's one of the reasons I appear to spend so much time online. I read quickly and am a very speedy typist, so it doesn't take long to read and reply to a thread.

I'm not online that much really, honest guv.

Yes, that's exactly how I'd have put it if I was making an effort

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Ian McEwan - Atonement

which are all a bit shit to be honest.

Really? I thought it was astoundingly good.

 

[mrs quoad]

Yes.

 

[ice-is-forming]

yes too

 

[damnhippie]

s'all comparitive i suppose...i read a lot but know nothing about books compared to lots of people i know.

and to quote some film or other, where i come from that's a term no-one would self-apply.

 

[scifisam]

I'm a DEEP reader, me, then. Your way sounds quite annoying and like you won't remember half of it.

I remember it all very well; my brain processes the different pieces of information at the same time. Connected with a being a compulsive mutli-tasker, I guess, finding it very difficult to just do one thing at a time.

Reading deeply is still more important, though.