Books are Too Short

There is only one cure that I can think of...but is too drastic.

Consider carefully...

James Joyce.

I agree. It's easy to read slowly if your not involved with the book and wraped up in the characters and the missions. I recently read one of S.M. Stirling's books and it took me 3 days to read it. It was chattery and skipped around so much I almost lost intrest in the plot. I enjoy reading fast as I what to know what happened.

I am still working. Just started to reread Dudly Pope's Ramage series. Should keep me for this week and if I am lucky next weekend.

Read most folks mystery novels. Most are so boring as to put one to sleep. That will take you weeks to read them. Oh wait, that is why I don't read most of them.

Um Try a library card guys? New material you read slow.

I know some guys who claim 1000 wpm. Give them a test on material they supposedly read and they flunk it every time. Even the guys with their photographic memory. Knew 2 of them with photographic memory in college out of a class of 50.

BFoote

PS. I try not to lie too loudly.

Well all I can say is my speed in reading with 80% comprehension, got my last years tuition,books, fees, and meals reimbursed as a test subject at the university.

They were testing to determine how to teach this to others. All I can tell you they had no great luck. I love to read and watch little or no television. I can only use a coumuputer for about 15 minutes before I get a blinding headache so I am condimed to read. Sure is nice that I enjoy my handicap. LOL

I just wish I could find more books that I liked. I even tried some James Patterson books and they were alright, but not absorbing so that I really enjoyed them.

Maybe I should read E.E. Smith again. Or perhaps start on Andre Norton; though some of her works are a little touchy feely for my taste.

WEll, I know the theory that one should read new books slowly, takingin every word. I prefer to read quickly and take care not[i] to remember toomuch - that way I can enjoy re-reading. Straight away for a really good story, after something else for one not quite so good, and never for the ones that wre so bad I don't want to remember what was in them. Text books and reference books are a different matter, if I actually need to recall what I read I go at half speed or less and re-read several times. It seems to work, I passed my literature exams after doing that with some of the most boring books I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. If all I need is to know where to look in which book for information I can go at my normal high speed.
Cheers
John
[/i]

bafoote wrote:Read most folks mystery novels. Most are so boring as to put one to sleep. That will take you weeks to read them. Oh wait, that is why I don't read most of them.

Um Try a library card guys? New material you read slow.

I know some guys who claim 1000 wpm. Give them a test on material they supposedly read and they flunk it every time. Even the guys with their photographic memory. Knew 2 of them with photographic memory in college out of a class of 50.

BFoote

PS. I try not to lie too loudly.

dreamrider wrote:There is only one cure that I can think of...but is too drastic.

Consider carefully...

James Joyce.

Actually I would say James A Michener. Ever try reading POLAND?

White Tallon wrote:

dreamrider wrote:There is only one cure that I can think of...but is too drastic.

Consider carefully...

James Joyce.

Actually I would say James A Michener. Ever try reading POLAND?

If you think James A Michener's Poland is a difficult read, then you obviously have never attempted to read Joyce's Ulysses. Horrible, horrible stuff.

It made me understand Mark Twain's quote (and I paraphrase):

"A classic is a book everyone wants to have read and no one wants to read."

:-)

How fast can you read John?

John Prigent wrote:WEll, I know the theory that one should read new books slowly, takingin
every word. I prefer to read quickly and take care not[i] to
remember toomuch - that way I can enjoy re-reading. Straight away for a
really good story, after something else for one not quite so good, and
never for the ones that wre so bad I don't want to remember what
was in them. Text books and reference books are a different matter, if
I actually need to recall what I read I go at half speed or less and
re-read several times. It seems to work, I passed my literature exams
after doing that with some of the most boring books I've ever had the
misfortune to encounter. If all I need is to know where to look in
which book for information I can go at my normal high speed.
Cheers
John


[/i]

bafoote wrote:Read
most folks mystery novels. Most are so boring as to put one to sleep.
That will take you weeks to read them. Oh wait, that is why I don't
read most of them.

Um Try a library card guys? New material you read slow.

I
know some guys who claim 1000 wpm. Give them a test on material they
supposedly read and they flunk it every time. Even the guys with their
photographic memory. Knew 2 of them with photographic memory in college
out of a class of 50.

BFoote

PS. I try not to lie too loudly.

It's taken me years to get up to the point where I'm reading at approx 500-600wpm. Even so, I read HH books more slowly, taking in the detail to a greater degree. I still finished MoH in about 8 hours if memory serves. My math is probably off on my reading speed.

They're not too short. David just likes to leave you at cliffhangers, begging and drooling for the next book. I cannot wait until January.

I understand about the frustration of reading too fast. I finished "A Mighty Fortress" in about 2 1/2 hours. Same for most other books of that size. My reading speed is about 1500 wpm, but drops to about 7 or 8 hundred wpm with scientific material or non-fiction. And it's been that way for the last 40 or so years. My comprehension has been tested at about 90% to 100%, so I really don't have to reread much.

Having said that, I suggest you start reading Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series. They run over 800 pages each, are very good reading, and have so many threads making a tapestry, that you HAVE to slow down, think, reread and concentrate. Plus, there are now 11 of them! It takes me a week to get through all of them, even when I have already read the first five at least three times, just to refresh my memory when the next one comes out.

I guarantee they will not put you to sleep!

I still prefer David Weber's books, though!

By the way, having a photographic memory doesn't mean you are reading, or even comprehending. It just means you are taking a mental picture of what you see, and can recall it later. I'd rather have an eidetic memory.