How many books will you read this year? (MULTIPLE CHOICE)

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Hmm. I've also seen people who say that they read while walking to the train station... And now you say you read while eating. I don't do all of that, apart from reading while waiting for a train (and not while walking) or when eating a sandwich. I also don't read during lunch at work and that sort of thing. (Btw: you can get addicted to reading, and I don't think that it's a good thing; no other addiction is.)

I'm not sure how you intended this to come across, but the impression is that you've gone from "people who claim to read that much aren't reading properly" (paying attention) to "people who read that much must not have normal lives" to "people who read that much could have an addiction".

Is that really what you're saying? I'm actually asking, because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I'm getting out of your posts.

Normally the sort of exchange that's been going on here would annoy me, but for some reason I find this one to be really funny.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

That's me. Though I will make a huge effort NOT to derail the thread. I won't. Really. Why spoil people's fun? Live and let live.

Argh, I can't help myself, I have to say it at least one: COUNTING BOOKS IS STUPID.

Phew, I'm feeling better now. Please ignore me and keep counting.

Karma to you for that. (And I count books, but funny is funny!)

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I'm not sure how you intended this to come across, but the impression is that you've gone from "people who claim to read that much aren't reading properly" (paying attention) to "people who read that much must not have normal lives" to "people who read that much could have an addiction".

Is that really what you're saying? I'm actually asking, because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I'm getting out of your posts.

Normally the sort of exchange that's been going on here would annoy me, but for some reason I find this one to be really funny.

While I don't know when "reading a lot" becomes "having an addiction", let's say that if I caught myself reading 200, 300, or even more books a year (such as the previously mentioned 730), that I probably would become very worried, and would not think it to be a good thing.... But, maybe that's just me, because I can't *imagine* how to get to read that many books without skipping large parts of them, or skipping most of my daily tasks Maybe here at MR, reading 45 pages an hour and 100 a day really *is* slow, with 100 an hour and 500 a day being the normal average over here

Oh sh*. I'm not even allowed to have this discussion because I forgot to tick the "I will derail this thread" option. Sorry...

*Puts thread back on rails*

I answered “I'm thinking about 100. “ It will probably be more, the final count last year was 115. But “More than 100, easily. “ seems like hubris.

[anamardoll]

@Katsunami, I would strongly discourage against self-diagnosing additions on the internet. I doubt you have the relevant skill and training to sufficiently diagnose actual addiction (because most people who *do* have that training know not to throw the term around loosely), and I am sure that you do not know the reading speeds, life circumstances, and other salient facts in the lives of others on the internet who may or may not read 730 books a year. (Nor, for that matter, do you know how long those books were.)

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Apache

Reading while eating is better than just staring at walls or other diners while eating out.
Apache

There are only so many things to look at without making perhaps unwanted eye contact, or worse starting up conversations one does not want to have.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Will hamsters do?

(edited to do as attachment instead of direct link)

Great! We can use them to feed the Bucket of Crocodiles



(posted for no other reason than to prove that typing "bucket of _______" into a Google image search will provide relavent results. Also, it was Monday. )

[anamardoll]

CUTE!

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

While I don't know when "reading a lot" becomes "having an addiction", let's say that if I caught myself reading 200, 300, or even more books a year (such as the previously mentioned 730), that I probably would become very worried, and would not think it to be a good thing.... But, maybe that's just me, because I can't *imagine* how to get to read that many books without skipping large parts of them, or skipping most of my daily tasks Maybe here at MR, reading 45 pages an hour and 100 a day really *is* slow, with 100 an hour and 500 a day being the normal average over here

Oh sh*. I'm not even allowed to have this discussion because I forgot to tick the "I will derail this thread" option. Sorry...

*Puts thread back on rails*

Good response! Well said. I think it's a very individual thing. Thank you for responding so nicely.

*assists in putting thread back on rails - it's heavy!*

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

@Katsunami, I would strongly discourage against self-diagnosing additions on the internet. I doubt you have the relevant skill and training to sufficiently diagnose actual addiction.

I don't. Therefore I never tried any diagnosis, but I'd still be worried if I read that many books myself

But I could reread the Dickens Christmas Stories omnibus a few times and count each tale as a book; or would that be cheating? I'll just try my challenge of 52 books, containing around 20 rereads that I've postponed quite stone time

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

But I could reread the Dickens Christmas Stories omnibus a few times and count each tale as a book; or would that be cheating? I'll just try my challenge of 52 books, containing around 20 rereads that I've postponed quite stone time

I realize this was meant tongue-in-cheek, but it does bring up an interesting point. I often get omnibus editions when available, but I rarely want to read them all the way through in one go. So, if the works within were also published individually as books, I split them for "accounting" purposes. I mean, at the end, the number doesn't mean anything to anyone but me, so I do what makes sense for me.

What do others do?

(I think since we're talking about quantities of books read, it's relevant.)

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

What do others do?

(I think since we're talking about quantities of books read, it's relevant.)

Mentally, I treat an omnibus as multiple books. However, since my yearly book count is based on my GoodReads reviews, I reckon it doesn't count to my total.

[CazMar]

I have said about 50 - but looking at the reading list for my philosophy course that may balloon out to about 100!

[Chi Cygni]

Hm. And does every book really count? Recently I bought part 1 of family saga drooling I will have 2 more volumes after that but what I got was a bad aftertaste. And I did not buy the rest. I cannot un-read what I have read
What a glorious example of bad ... I don't know, literature it is not. And after that I read 2 of "whodunnit" which were more like chewing gum for the brain. They should not make it to my list of books for 2012, any of them. So I read 4 so far but only 1 of them was good.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Chi Cygni

I cannot un-read what I have read

This should help (attached).