Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
I see--so, you're judging them internally, BEFORE you name them as readers. 
Just teasing, but that's what you're doing-you're simply mentally dismissing casual readers from the group "reader". Gotcha. |
No. I'm doing nothing of the sort. A "casual" reader is included in my definition of "reader." But again ... I make no distinction based on volume. "Casual" is simply not the opposite of "serious" in my personal lexicon (RE reading volume anyway--personal relationships are another story).
My point is that I make no distinction between the casual or high-volume reader. All are readers who may loves and adores reading equally. Volume, speed, or endurance are not things I factor in when it comes to readers. There are simply those who read because they want to, and those who only read because they
have to. The latter are not "readers" to me, and the former need no further demographic breakdown, in my opinion. I still personally consider "serious" to be a slightly loaded and incorrect term, if you insist on defining subcategories of those who love to read (regardless of how much they may actually "get done").