Reading speed

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by ST-One

My reading speed is the same whether I read to/for myself or I read aloud to others; I "act out", if you will, the words on the page in my head. The narrator has a different voice that the various characters (well, it's always my voice, but you know what I mean).
I love reading good dialogues (or a really good monologue), and I just can't imagine enjoying reading them at a speed at which they couldn't possibly be spoken aloud.

Me too! I've taken the tests, and can read fast with good comprehension. But it isn't fun for me - i enjoy hearing the characters, savouring the language, etc. Reading isn't an IQ test, and there isn't a 'correct' method on how to enjoy yourself - if someone is reading for pleasure, they should just relax and not worry about speed.

[FinancialWar]

The act of reading is a skill, and reading speed, comprehension are all part of that skill.

When you guys call "enjoyment" does not come from the act of reading itself, but from the content of the book, which must be accessed via the act of reading.

I am talking about the act of reading, not the content or entertainment value of the books.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by FinancialWar

The act of reading is a skill, and reading speed, comprehension are all part of that skill.

When you guys call "enjoyment" does not come from the act of reading itself, but from the content of the book, which must be accessed via the act of reading.

I am talking about the act of reading, not the content or entertainment value of the books.

Agreed - that's a good point.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yesterday I've read part of a paper book, comparing it to reading on the Kindle, and I noticed that I was faster than on the Kindle. Weirdly enough, the issue seems to be that the Kindle's lines are shorter, and I have set the font bigger.

If you noticed my posts previously, you know I like to grumble about the way Kindle presents text.
There is a very good reason behind many aspects of formatting a book. It might not be obvious, but typography has been evolving for 500 years to optimize reading comfort.

There is optimal line length. Just try to read on Kindle with the widest margins or on a 24 inch monitor with line spanning the entire width of the monitor. Neither is good. In the first case your eyes have to jump lines very quickly (and there are other problems) in the other case you will spend way too much time searching for the next line because your eyes can't track to the beginning of the line and you can't remember what the beginning of the line was.
Try to search the net for the optimum line length (50-60 characters including spaces). Then take a well typeset paper book and count the number of letters. The count will be a little bit higher than the optimum (75), but a bit longer is more acceptable than shorter line.

[Katsunami]

I know. The LaTeX typesetter uses a width of 67 characters for example. That is why the margins are so wide on an A4. I can actually have around 55 characters on the Kindle, but it still feels a bit short.

[speakingtohe]

Someone (can't remember username) posted that reading on a 6 inch ereader in landscape mode with wider margins resulted in faster reading and was more comfortable.

I thought that that was silly but tried it anyway. It did seem more comfortable line length wise and I did seem to read faster. Unfortunately the page turn buttons were not in a great place for me when held sideways.

I do find even a small margin is better than with the text lined up close to the bezel. Perhaps ones eyes figuratively bump against the bezel at every line providing a minute distraction not found in paper books or when reading online.

Helen

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by kacir

If you noticed my posts previously, you know I like to grumble about the way Kindle presents text.
There is a very good reason behind many aspects of formatting a book. It might not be obvious, but typography has been evolving for 500 years to optimize reading comfort.

There is optimal line length. Just try to read on Kindle with the widest margins or on a 24 inch monitor with line spanning the entire width of the monitor. Neither is good. In the first case your eyes have to jump lines very quickly (and there are other problems) in the other case you will spend way too much time searching for the next line because your eyes can't track to the beginning of the line and you can't remember what the beginning of the line was.
Try to search the net for the optimum line length (50-60 characters including spaces). Then take a well typeset paper book and count the number of letters. The count will be a little bit higher than the optimum (75), but a bit longer is more acceptable than shorter line.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I know. The LaTeX typesetter uses a width of 67 characters for example. That is why the margins are so wide on an A4. I can actually have around 55 characters on the Kindle, but it still feels a bit short.

With the adjustments I make to the CSS of my books I get about 70 characters per line and 41 lines per page; this looks and feels the most balanced layout to me, and resembles a printed page from a paperback the closest. The left and right margins have to be quite wide for this though - which some (me included until a few weeks ago) would see as a waste of screen-space.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by ST-One

What ever it is, it certainly isn't enjoying the reading of a good story/book. The people who claim they can read an entire book in a day can't enjoy that process, nor get the little subtleties of the language, the word-plays, IMO.
Getting the gist of a story isn't quite the same as actually reading that story.

I can easily read entire books in a day at my normal reading speed.

[Froide]

Originally Posted by rdfry

I can easily read entire books in a day at my normal reading speed.

The number of words per book can vary widely. Consequently, your statement would be more informative if you provided further quantification.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Froide

The number of words per book can vary widely. Consequently, your statement would be more informative if you provided further quantification.

Well, the original statement being rebutted was "The people who claim they can read an entire book in a day can't enjoy that process, nor get the little subtleties of the language, the word-plays, IMO."

No mention of length of books or number of words - just a blanket statement that no-one reading one book in one day could be gaining enjoyment or appreciating subtleties. Not to mention the little dig at their honesty, by choosing the word "claim".

[speakingtohe]

Some of us may not fully appreciate the subtleties. I have no idea what is meant by that really.

I read because I enjoy reading, and the books that I enjoy the most are those where I feel that I understand the characters and their thoughts and actions although I do not have to agree with them. I don't often stop to mull over a section, although I do on occasion.

Today I am reading a book that I am enjoying particularly and I found myself wondering what makes this book stand out for me. Pretty sure it is not the subtleties, but then perhaps I am not understanding the term despite using google search.

Helen

[meeera]

I often get more out of a book when I read it in a day, rather than in the same number of hours spread out over a few days or a week. Then there's no time to forget details in the intervening time.

[Lusitanic]

Depending on the book(s), at least one a week (unless I'm burned out).

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by meeera

Well, the original statement being rebutted was "The people who claim they can read an entire book in a day can't enjoy that process, nor get the little subtleties of the language, the word-plays, IMO."

No mention of length of books or number of words - just a blanket statement that no-one reading one book in one day could be gaining enjoyment or appreciating subtleties. Not to mention the little dig at their honesty, by choosing the word "claim".

"claim", "say", "state", "write" take your pick.

I don't doubt that people can read that fast. I explained above why I don't think that reading that fast can be satisfying. YMMV.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ST-One

I don't doubt that people can read that fast. I explained above why I don't think that reading that fast can be satisfying. YMMV.

But you also said:

My reading speed is the same whether I read to/for myself or I read aloud to others; I "act out", if you will, the words on the page in my head.

That is not the way that most people read, so you really can't compare your own experience with that of most people, who don't have need to "act out" the book as you do.

Eg, taking a page at random from the book I'm reading at the moment (Agatha Christie's "Ordeal by Innocence"), my normal reading speed for the page that happens to be shown on my Onyx T68 at the present time is 14s, but to read that same page out loud takes me 50s, which is three and a half times longer. If it took nine hours to read the book out loud (a typical time for an Agatha Christie audiobook), I could therefore read it in about two and a half hours.

Please don't tell me that I'm not appreciating the subtleties of the book, or that my reading can't be "satisfying". That's simply not true.