What exactly do you call "reading a book" ?

[ekster]

I read everything.

If I ever feel the need to skip phrases, paragraphs or chapters, it means it's time to close the book and put it away. No point in finishing a book that you're not interested in.

[astra]

Originally Posted by maianhvk

In hope that he'd get back to his right mind!

Ahh...

“Hope Is The Last Thing To Die”

[theducks]

I used to skip the Preface in Paper books, then I found out I was missing sometimes important part of the story.
I skip the 'Rave review' junk
But I sometimes check out the "printing History" at the bottom of the Copyright page. 8 reprints and I just discovered this one

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Quexos

So I'll start by answering the question with my perspective:
To me reading a book means reading it from the first word to the last, always, no exception. I don't skip sentences, pages or chapters, If I decide to read a book I do it from A to Z.
Granted I don't read the copyright stuff and appendixes, but the story with prologues, epilogues, forewords I do read. Maybe that's why I can't read as much as many seem able to, I don't know but that's my way for better or worse.

By this definition, no one has ever read Infinite Jest. I mean, consider the footnotes...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Yeah it would feel kind of something was missing if I'd quit a book before the end of it.

Actually, I read every book I start until the end.

The end, of course, occurs when I stop reading.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kya

Usually I skip the introduction because sometimes they talk too much about the plot and I don't want to know anything in advance but if I really liked the book then I go back reading the intro.

I read a book of short stories recently, in which the author concealed one of the short stories ine introduction...

[Crusader]

When I read a book I read the entire book. The only things I might skip would be a glossary or character list, but I might refer to them when actually reading the story.

[Harmon]

I can't remember when I couldn't read. Of course, there a lot of things I can't remember...

I have a memory of being tested in reading comprehension in about the 6th grade. Turned out I was able to read 1200 words per minute with comprehension. Perhaps this memory is true, at least in terms of short burst reading.

Retention is another matter. A friend of mine says "I have a good memory, but it's short."

I've always envied those who have photographic memories, but I'm glad that I don't have eiditic memory, which oddly enough I remember how to spell correctly. Borges has a short story about that ability. Don't remember the name...but my external memory (Goodle) does: Funes the Memorious.

Anyway, I used to be able to knock off fat books in slim time frames.

But then I went to law school. My reading speed ground to a halt. I started arguing with the text, which rebelliously argued back, leading to side arguments with other texts. Eventually, I got to the point where every word I read was inherently ambiguous. (I don't understand why Borges didn't write a short story about this.)

For a long while, law school ruined me for reading fiction. I had to give up science fiction and fantasy entirely. I could still handle things like historical novels, but only if they were historically accurate. Most aren't. What was interesting is that I could still read mystery novels with pleasure. I could also read non-fiction, albeit slowly.

Over the years, I have largely recovered. At the same time, my attention span has diminished, so that I rarely read more than 15 or 20 minutes at a time. The result is that I don't do the immersive reading I did when I was a teenager.

For me, reading is not a word by word matter. It's more like I read in clumps - a phrase or sentence at a time. Sometimes a sentence or two at the beginning of a paragraph is sufficient to tell me if I want to read, skim, or skip the rest of the paragraph. This is not always a good strategy. I'm reading Hemmingway's short stories these days, & I've learned that I need to force myself to go word by word.

No discussion of reading is complete without a quotation from Dr. Johnson:

On advice that books, once started, should be read all the way through: "This is surely a strange advice; you may as well resolve that whatever men you happen to get acquainted with, you are to keep them for life. A book may be good for nothing; or there may be only one thing in it worth knowing; are we to read it all through?"

[speakingtohe]

On advice that books, once started, should be read all the way through: "This is surely a strange advice; you may as well resolve that whatever men you happen to get acquainted with, you are to keep them for life. A book may be good for nothing; or there may be only one thing in it worth knowing; are we to read it all through?"

I don't think this is advice just what those people do.

I don't always read eveything start to finish, but I admire those that do. They exhibit endurance, determination and a high tolerance for people and things that may not be completely as they like them.

Helen

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by astra

Then why to read this book/author?

Because some parts the author gets right. Lord Kalvan by H. Beam Piper, for instance, has two main threads. One is the accidental traveler from a parallel timeline finding out about the new timeline he's dumped in, and introducing new ideas and inventions. The other is a series of battles between groups following (or at least beholden to the priests of) one god, and those following other gods (or at least not wanting to be wiped out by the first group).

The first thread is interesting: how to make better paper, how to make gunpowder, discussions of democratic reforms, how to organize libraries, and so on. The second thread--army X under General Y does such and such, and armies Y and Z react to that by doing something else--is soporific. Tell me who fought--and more importantly, why--and who won, and that's sufficient. I'm no more interested in the tedious mechanics of it all than I am in how someone finally got their new toy to do whatever it was that had been troubling them.

Piper more or less balanced these threads. Unfortunately, the people who've continued the Kalvan stories set greater store by the battle bits than the socio stuff, so there's more to ignore. It's like picking the yucky peas out of a chicken pie: why should I deny myself something I mostly like because it has parts I don't?

[captkjaneway]

Originally Posted by emellaich

I'm one of those 'fast' readers.

I don't skim, but I do. I read every word, but I don't always pay attention to every word. I usually do, but sometimes I don't. I'm more interested in the progression of the plot than in the endless details.

This is a bit of me, so to speak.

In terms of fiction, I read very fast, but some how manage to take in enough detail to understand the plot/characters fully. I do not skip at all, but I guess my mind does wander off a bit if the storyline, plot or narrative is slow.

I do not read authors notes, dedications, or ancillary bits and despise 'bonus chapters' of new books being added to the end of the one I am reading to fluff it out. I may be doing the author a disservice and for that I apologise - but I just like the nitty gritty.

In my job, I have to work to extensive technical and contractual information and for this use a completely different type of reading skill.

In short, I think most 'readers' have an adaptive style of reading, and tweak it to suit the text, subject and reason for having to read. Doing everything the same is boring!

Oh and books I don't like, get binned early and deleted - too much good stuff out there to read to waste my time on piffle.

[Quake1028]

The top choice. I can't imagine reading a book any other way.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't think this is advice just what those people do.

I don't always read eveything start to finish, but I admire those that do. They exhibit endurance, determination and a high tolerance for people and things that may not be completely as they like them.

Helen

Hmm. You would appear to be someone who reads to the bitter end!

To me, books are like food. There's food I don't like, food I might like, food I do like. Sometimes I can tell that I won't like something just by looking at it. Sometimes a taste is enough to tell me I don't like it. Some I'm indifferent to after tasting, but now & then it gets better as I eat more. Some I learn to like. Some just need butter & salt. And some is so damn good I have to force myself to slow down and savor it.

I see no reason to eat more of any book that doesn't taste good.

[sakura-panda]

I thought this was going to be "is an audio book really reading?" question.

I don't read the promotional stuff -- praise for this book or some other book in the series -- and I don't very often read the acknowlegments. I don't read prefaces and afterwards that are basically thanks and appreciation. I think they should be there, but I only look at them if I am curious about something in particular. Prefaces and afterwards that are actually part of the story, but separated from the main body for one reason or another, I read.

I feel like I'm somewhere between "read every word" and "occasionally skip stuff". I think I need to vote for "occasionally skip stuff", although strangely, I *feel* like I read everything. I didn't realize I was skipping so much!

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by sakura-panda

I thought this was going to be "is an audio book really reading?" question.

As much as print, yes, though I find there's a greater likelihood of zoning out while listening to an audiobook, so it paradoxically requires more concentration.