Speaking for only myself: I always cringe a little at the prefacing of the word "reader" with any kind of adjective used to convey the level of avidity or "seriousness" with which the individual approaches their reading. There are readers, and then there are non-readers. A reader's conviction, seriousness, addiction, avidity, love, etc... cannot be determined by the volume (or speed) one reads. There are those who read all the time, but slowly; and those that read half the time, but very quickly--and everything in between. The adjectives that typically get applied are unnecessary, in my opinion. Even if no offense is intended, the words chosen are still alienating in nature. If "serious/avid/hardcore" readers do X, then naturally anyone who espouses such notions must think that a reader who
doesn't do X, isn't a serious/avid/hardcore reader. It tends to be offensive and/or confrontational for no conversational gain (or clarification) whatsoever.
Readers are people who can't imagine a life without books being a part of it. Everyone else is a non-reader. Speed, hours-per-day, books-per-year, are irrelevant. As are devices/media used by such a person. In short: "reader" and "serious reader" are the same thing. One is merely a bit redundant, is all.
