Quote:
Originally Posted by Nausicaa
Do you rank the amount of books rather than the quality? I never read fiction and never read books that I believe are "noisy" AKA useless. I can tell you how many words per minute I wrote or how many hundreds of pages I have read, and on paper you may want to have higher amounts of both. Yet someone who wrote 500 words per minute was writing single or double letters, while the one writing at 40 words per minute was writing more complex 10 letter words, and the pages were those of facebook posts, not pages of an instructional manual.
Do you care for quality? It not easy to measure, but I am not ashamed that my numbers are low, the information I retained is high.
|
I read across a number of genres. I don't want or need to retain much of what I read in light fiction...it's done for pleasure, as a hobby. What you call useless may very well be enjoyable to me. I don't track how many hundreds of pages I've read, but I can estimate loosely how many fiction books I read in a years time, if for some reason I need the info.
Quality is in the eye of the reader. I don't happen to care for bodice rippers or erotica. For me, they would fall in the useless category. For me, because I don't read them, I wouldn't "use" them. But many people do, given the sales numbers of such books. (I don't like the word useless at all, only used it because it was used here)
I've no reason to count pages, or keep strict track of how much I read. Who cares? What's the point, beyond casual conversation? I can easily read a piece of light fiction with 260 pages in a couple of hours. Because I enjoy it. I also enjoyed putting 15-20 hours into
No Ordinary Time. I've enjoyed the heavy info in the trilogy about China by Frank Dikötter, even though it made me cry many times, and I had to put them aside for a break from the horrors.
Comparing my reading to others in a quest for comparing "quality" seems like a waste of time and brain space.
I love to read. Bringing subjective yardsticks into it isn't necessary.