Books are Getting Significantly Longer Every Year

[Cinisajoy]

Your binge reading was what I was thinking.
I am lucky to get a book a week now too.
Time wise not reading speed wise but right now my spare time is dedicated to making a very ugly blanket. I am using variegated yarn balls. Crocheting it.

[dordale]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Your binge reading was what I was thinking.
I am lucky to get a book a week now too.
Time wise not reading speed wise but right now my spare time is dedicated to making a very ugly blanket. I am using variegated yarn balls. Crocheting it.

Cinisajoy--Sounds like you need an audiobook or two to listen too while you're working on your blanket

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. Reading should be a pleasure, not a race.

For me there is a very big pleasure in reading a book and not just in the journey. So being able to read more books will increase the pleasure.

[issybird]

I question whenever people make claims about reading fast and it's worse when comparisons kick in. I think "fast" doesn't work as a quantitative measure as there are so many factors affecting it and it's even worse as a qualitative measure. I'd like to read faster, but just faster than me, because of the more books consideration. Everyone else's speed is both meaningless in itself unless I know they're reading the same books and have the same amount of reading time as I do, and it's still irrelevant to my experience
.
It seems to me that those who read the fastest are least concerned with making a statement about it. Because, who cares?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

A 350-page novel by Henry James or by E.L. James? I think it's a meaningless statistic and useless for comparative purposes.

Henry James I might be able to finish. E.L. James, it would never get finished.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Atunah

Only time I didn't enjoy reading was way back in school when we had to read certain books. I am a mood reader and don't like having to read something when I am not the mood for it.

This is why a Reader is great. If you are reading a book you like but just are not in the mood to continue reading it at that time, you'll have other book available to choose from.

[Atunah]

I read the first 2 in the 50 shades in 4 days. I think they are together around 900 pages or so. . Enjoyed them too. Those books are not even close what I thought they would be from reading other folks opinion. Especially those that never read them. Even I stopped the first initially and revisited and ended up enjoying it. I need to still read the 3rd one at some point.

But hey, I only care what I like, how fast or not fast I read and what I read. I don't really care what others think, nor do I make judgements on what others read. Just me I know.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Henry James I might be able to finish. E.L. James, it would never get finished.

Touché!

[haydnfan]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I have no idea how many words are in the books I read. Where would I find this information?

http://www.howlongtoreadthis.com/

They provide word count and time to read based upon your reading rate.

FYI word count is the only good absolute measure of book length. Location #s no that's file size not the same thing. Page #s for Adobe that is file size again, and for paper books it's arbitrary. You could go by character count, but those numbers are large.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^I love this site thanks for posting this.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I completely agree that pages are meaningless as a measure. It's why I don't include a page goal in my reading challenges which are more about the kinds of things I am reading than sheer numbers anyway.

Just this year I read The Variant Effect at 236 pages and Children of the Jacaranda Tree at 288 pages.Yet The Variant Effect has 2500 more words. I knew the progress was going by slowly with The Variant Effect while it was pretty typical for Children of the Jacaranda Tree.

[issybird]

I can see that word count is useful so long as you only read the same type of book and use it as a comparison with yourself (I don't see why you'd be comparing with another person anyway). The only problem is across genres, where not only might words be longer but also the difficulty of the text would slow you down further; i.e., longer words make for an exponentially slower read. However, I take the point that character count would get to be absurd.

But it's all for fun anyway! Great site.

[Katsunami]

LOL. That site times my reading speed to be twice as fast as it actually is with a real book. It said I would be able to read the one volume edition of Lord of the Rings in about 16 hours. I reread it two years ago, and I remember it to take around 35 hours (including appendices).

For some reason, it looks like as if I'm reading a book slower than I read webpages. It's a bit like drinking a coke (reading a website) and drinking whisky (reading a book) I guess...

[disconnected]

What a cool site. Thanks haydnfan. I don't care about the time to read but the word count is interesting to have just for comparison, and it's fun to see all the nice book covers too.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

LOL. That site times my reading speed to be twice as fast as it actually is with a real book. It said I would be able to read the one volume edition of Lord of the Rings in about 16 hours. I reread it two years ago, and I remember it to take around 35 hours (including appendices).

For some reason, it looks like as if I'm reading a book slower than I read webpages. It's a bit like drinking a coke (reading a website) and drinking whisky (reading a book) I guess...

I think their sample is far too brief to give any sort of reliable reading speed. They told me I could read GWTW in a bit over eight hours. I don't think so! Even with it being extremely familiar to me after multiple rereads, I'd never be able to read it in eight hours, nor would I want to.