How many books do you read a year?

[aceflor]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Don't misunderstand: I'm not questioning any one individual's ability to consistently read that much. At all. I'm only questioning that the vast majority of people who responded to this thread (or all others like it) do so. Like I said; second place is never even close. But perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way. Perhaps most of the people who do read less (and I know you're out there) just become more reluctant to respond once they see where they fall on the scale.

I have read exactly the amount I stated (35 until now) because I keep count and rate them in GR. But before I started to use GR I think I had no idea how much I was reading really, more for sure, but crappier too.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

1) I just don't believe that the landslide-majority of MobileRead members reads 60+ books per year (especially when the curve drops off a cliff when going below 60). I can only assume that the people who read less just aren't as inclined to take part in this (and possibly any other) poll.

One reason for the cliff is that's how the poll is structured. If the gradations were maintained above 60, (ie, 61-72, 73-84, 85-96, etc) the results would be much flatter.

However, I agree that if the poll were anonymous, there might be more responses at the low end.

2) "Book" isn't a very useful term for the discussion of how much one reads.

Totally agree. "Book" is only useful in terms of tracking one's own reading and comparing it over time, and that's assuming your tastes don't change. "Books" as a standard is akin to comparing apples and automotive parts.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If those figures are accurate, it does sound as if you're a slow reader (and that's absolutely not a bad thing, let me hasten to add!). 2.5h a day is 17.5h a week. If we consider that an average novel can be read out loud (ie as an audiobook) in about 10h, the fact that you're not reading a book a week in 17.5h suggests that you're reading considerably more slowly than you'd read a book aloud. Vocalising a book generally slows down reading, but in your case perhaps it might speed it up?

Thanks for being gentle Harry!

But no, I think perhaps the problem is that people simply have different ideas about what reading a book entails. For some, I begin to perceive that "reading a book" may simply mean "getting through all the words in it." That's just not my mindset.

I stop a lot and "chew" on things I've just read. I'm not going to go as far as to say I'm studying my fiction, but... well-crafted sentences do entice me. For that reason, I sometimes I read the ones that catch my fancy several times. Sometimes I put the book down and think about what I just read for a bit. Often I flip back to see if some plot-point I just read was foreshadowed earlier. "Did that character speak so plainly about his/her plans in the previous chapter? Maybe I better check." I even actively slow my pace down when I catch myself taking in whole sentences at a stride, because I feel I'm short-changing the experience when I do so. Getting "done" isn't my primary goal--weird as that may sound.

So while I would never presume to think mine is the "right way" and others are doing it "wrong," it's just that sometimes it's easy for me to forget that everybody might not do things the same way I do. Even with something as simple as just "reading a book."

Perhaps the explanation is as simple as that. Perhaps people who read 60, 100 or more books per year are enjoying a different activity than I am, and we're just calling it the same thing.

[HarryT]

Absolutely - reading is a pleasure, not a race! Whatever reading method (and speed) maximises that enjoyment for you is the right one for you, and that may well not be the same things that maximise the pleasure for me.

[jocampo]

About 20 to 30 a year?

Mostly MS-SQL or database related books (500+ pages). So I read those at slow pace. They have exercises and labs.

The minority are self help books or biographies.

By the way, I've read this book two times: Ghost in the Wires. And like Steve Jobs bio so much that I will read it again.

[Ravensknight]

I concur with Dealer. HOW we read varies so much. I read as an escape, so I tend to skip large swaths of descriptions or "boring" parts, but the works I usually read [sff] don't require a lot of that.
Now when it comes to "classics", I do tend to read slower, on purpose.

It just like how people drive cars. My dad won't drive 1/2mph over the speedlimit, where as my boss is practically a Nascar driver. They both drive, but it is so different in style that it can be hard to call it the same thing, even though technically they ARE both driving.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

I concur with Dealer. HOW we read varies so much. I read as an escape, so I tend to skip large swaths of descriptions or "boring" parts, but the works I usually read [sff] don't require a lot of that.
Now when it comes to "classics", I do tend to read slower, on purpose.

It just like how people drive cars. My dad won't drive 1/2mph over the speedlimit, where as my boss is practically a Nascar driver. They both drive, but it is so different in style that it can be hard to call it the same thing, even though technically they ARE both driving.

I actually read a book, The Slight Edge, that recommends to read in small 10 min chunks if you're too busy or have issues focusing on your reading material.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

. . .

I stop a lot and "chew" on things I've just read. I'm not going to go as far as to say I'm studying my fiction, but... well-crafted sentences do entice me. For that reason, I sometimes I read the ones that catch my fancy several times. Sometimes I put the book down and think about what I just read for a bit. Often I flip back to see if some plot-point I just read was foreshadowed earlier. "Did that character speak so plainly about his/her plans in the previous chapter? Maybe I better check." I even actively slow my pace down when I catch myself taking in whole sentences at a stride, because I feel I'm short-changing the experience when I do so. Getting "done" isn't my primary goal--weird as that may sound.

. . .

This is one of the main reasons I have never taken to audio books. If I really enjoy the phrasing of a paragraph or sentence I will immediately read it at least once more, and with ebooks highlight it for reference later. Paper books required that a keep a tablet of small Post-Its handy. I will often want to go back and reread a descriptive passage that introduces later action (in say Dickens) as well. I should not say I never listen to audio books, but when I do it is not a replacement for reading but a complement for such things as say the Iliad.

[fjtorres]

My reading is 90% fiction, 10% history and science--physics, cosmology, archaeology, etc.
My main driver is "what's next?".
I can appreciate a nicely crafted phrase or scene--the opening of the first Harry Potter book, for example--but books that are about the author's wordsmithing are not for me; I prefer world-smithing and immersion. The best writers for me are those that don't draw attention to themselves and let the characters and story shine. Fluid and transparent prose, rather than "look at me, aren't I unique!"
"What's next" means my favorite books grab you and won't let you stop to til the end. Which leads to some fun single sitting readings. Those I merrily reread every few years.

[crossi]

Romances, Science fiction and fantasy books don't generally need much pondering. I tend to gulp down such books in a single day. Not to get through them but to find out what happens next. Even if that means I'm up all night. Non fiction and literature is different. But that is studying not recreational reading.

[Atunah]

Reading is just such a personal thing. Everything about it is experienced by each reader different. I like to read a book, a story the experience. If I have to skip sections or re-read sentences, for me it means the book isn't holding my interest. I want to go inside the book and be there so to speak. Those are the books I love reading and its why I read for leisure.
It doesn't mean that the writing can't be meaningful and beautiful, it just means that its all part of the experience, without throwing me out of it.

This isn't a competition, its a personal thing. I guess I just don't get why it is so hard to believe people when they say what they say. Why the need to insinuate that they either aren't truthful about the numbers or they must be just getting through the words. Why can't it just be what it is for each of us on a personal level.
Just getting through the words wouldn't be enjoyable to me. I read pretty much only fiction though. Back in school I am sure I had to go through the words with some non fiction stuff, but that wasn't for enjoyment then.

I get in the story, out of the story, on to the next one. And I still think about stories I have read in the past, they don't just fly out of my brain. I remember books I read 4 years ago and characters and settings. I can hold and treasure more than one book inside my head. Wish my brain worked that good on regular life activities.

I wish I could read faster so I could enjoy more of the stories that are out there. But my puny human lifespan will be getting in the way of that. .

I can never transpose the way I read and experience books on someone else. It just doesn't work like that. Its just way to varied and personal. None of us share the same brain and how we consume the written word. There is no right or wrong here.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Atunah

I guess I just don't get why it is so hard to believe people when they say what they say. Why the need to insinuate that they either aren't truthful about the numbers or they must be just getting through the words.

And that's why I can't take part in a lot of discussions here. People read stuff into posts that is just not there. I never suggested anyone wasn't being truthful. Nor did I insinuate that "getting through the words" was somehow "bad" or an inferior way to read. I only meant to imply different. It IS a very personal experience and I've tried SO hard to be very clear about what I'm trying to say (they were two bullet points a while back in case you missed them), which is why it's so frustrating when people hear what was never said or implied. So let me try one final time:

I question this poll's accuracy insofar as it representing any actual breakdown of the MobileRead membership's reading habits.

And I question whether "book" is even very relevant to the data the poll proposes to be collecting (which I'm admittedly assuming was "how much do you read in a year?").

Oh, and as for any perceived literary vs genre snobberation vibe that people might believe they're picking up on: forget about it. I'm not that guy. I primarily read genre fiction. Doesn't stop me from reading literary fiction occasionally; I just don't distinguish between them in how I approach the reading process. I use the same reading "technique" for both: wring 'em dry.

[kodiakblair]

Normally always have one on the go. So average 1 book a week.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I question this poll's accuracy insofar as it representing any actual breakdown of the MobileRead membership's reading habits.

If you scroll down this page to the "Similar Threads" you will find some former answers to this question and can see if the actual results are at least quite consistent (although the membership has quite changed).

[Lemurion]

I really think it's more the granularity issue than anything, although I'm sure there is at least some selection bias.

Most of the readers I know and have known, read at least a book a week, usually more. The average American watches 2.8 hours of TV per day (source), and it's reasonable to expect that a person who lists reading as their primary leisure activity would devote a similar amount of time to it. That's just about 20 hours a week, which according to the 10 hour audiobook scale, would easily translate to 2 books a week.

If you use that as a baseline, you get the average "reader" at around 100 books a year, which is almost twice the rate of the highest band on this survey. A better survey for this site would have far less granularity on the lower end, and extend further up. I think the average here is probably in the 50-150 range, and that's just not something this survey's designed to measure.