What books did you read in 2003?

[Sage]

well, 4 or 5 pages an hour is what I would consider normal, so I would consider you a super-speed-reader. I can do more like 8 or even 9 on very rare occasions and if the pages have low contrast and the text isn't too blurry and is large enough.

 

[RussSchultz]

If I can't make it through 20 pages an hour, I put the book down because I'm not getting anything out of it. I'm likely too distracted.

 

[Sabastian]

The speed you read at really doesn't matter that all comes with time. Sure you can skim through and get the gist of any book or story if you want but that is not the point of reading. The real point of reading a book IMO is when the words and pages disappear and the story unfolds in your imagination, that is good reading. It creates an atmosphere where your imagination and reading comprehension are melded in some way. Writers who can do accommodate this ambiance are not a dime a dozen but it also takes a certain quality in the reader to let it happen. Same goes with non fiction, the best reading is when you are immersed in the topic what ever it is. Reading for the sake of reading is like a chore, reading because you want to and are enthralled by the book is by far a better experience. That is why I refuse (these days) to read a book because I feel obligated in some way, rather I choose the material, it is far more entertaining and educational. A person who can read like this can convey that skill to a degree to their own writing. What was a pleasure can be molded into a communication skill. Anyhow the point is it really doesn't matter how fast you read, rather that when you read it doesn't feel like you are.

 

[Tim Murray]

I read The Da Vinci Code (worst book EVER, by the way--don't waste your time if you don't want to have your intelligence insulted) in like an hour and a half. Dunno. Some genetic thing--I can do it, my sister can do it (she read Lord of the Rings in a day...), my dad can do it.

 

[Simon F]

Foucault is a pretty interesting guy to read about hehe. I have to pick up Power/Knowledge someday.

Foucault's Pendulum actually refers to Jean Foucault, who built the pendulum in the book in 1848, not Michel Foucault the author of "Power/Knowledge."

I read Foucault's Pendulum a few (err 10?) years ago and didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as Eco's "Name of the Rose".

The most recent book I've read was "Blackberry Wine" by the same author as "Chocolat". Quite different to what I normally read but enjoyable.

usually there'd be at least one or two Terry Pratchett novels on this list, but past year I didn't actually manage to finish one for the first time in ages, guess after reading over 20 Discworld novels your brain kinda wants something else for a while...

You mean you missed "Night Watch"? It might easily be his best.

It's not that bad when you have a 50 minute bus ride every day, twice a day.

You can read on a bus? Lucky B'stard. I'd be throwing up after 4 minutes.

 

[Gerry]

well, 4 or 5 pages an hour is what I would consider normal, so I would consider you a super-speed-reader. I can do more like 8 or even 9 on very rare occasions and if the pages have low contrast and the text isn't too blurry and is large enough.

Don't take any of what I'm about to say the wrong way Sage. If you're a slow reader, then just consider the fact you're getting better value-for-money that other people!

The average reading speed seems to be (after a bit of googling) around 200-250 words per minute. If you consider that the average novel has about 300 words per page (can vary quite a bit) then you're talking about 40 pages per hour being a pretty (low-end) average.

As I say, when it comes down to it does it really matter. If you're happy with your reading speed then there's no issue. Have you considered the fact that you may be slightly dyslexic? Or perhaps just need glasses?

 

[Sage]

Have you considered the fact that you may be slightly dyslexic?

I'm not dyslexic, but I do have several eye problems. 1) yeah, I have a pretty strong prescrption- most people that go around saying "I'm totally blind without my glasses" and then try mine on freak out because it's waaay too strong for them. 2) as I think I mentioned before, my eyes aren't coordinated with each other properly to give me good binocular vision, most people with that problem who have it to a much less degree than I fail in school because the brainpower it takes to overcome the issue leaves practically nothing for actual comprehension. Luckily, I am extrodinarily gifted mentally and was still number one in my (rather small) school. 3) I have some ADD symtoms (most likely not ADD, it's incredibly over-diagnosed- probably not even half the peopel being treated for it are actually ADD/ADHD) meaning that I loose interest very quickly, especially since I'm already reading so slowly. 4) I was also diagnosed with Irlens Syndrome which, in the more severe cases, has results similar to dyslexia. However, I have a very mild case of it (if even I actually have it) and it's totally treatable with coloured glasses / transparent overlays- and I got my blue glasses (which, amazingly, don't give a tint to things for me because it's the correct colour for me, whereas for other people it produces a very strong tint as one would expect). But, my Irlens diagnosis may actually be false, and the real culprit of the symptoms would be the stereoscopic issues I mentioned.

But, really, we know so incredibly little about the eye and visual perception that I believe trying to say "I have this problem" or "I have this other one" are not fully correct because many factors contribute to the whole and manifest themselves in similar, even identical symptons and even be somewhat compensated for by treatments for other disorders/diseases, and that rather than identifying the real disorders/diseases most researchers are only identifying the symptoms and calling them a disorder/disease. So, what exactly is wrong I don't know and it doesn't matter- what I do know is that something(s) is/are very horribly wrong.

 

[Gerry]

But, really, we know so incredibly little about the eye and visual perception that I believe trying to say "I have this problem" or "I have this other one" are not fully correct because many factors contribute to the whole and manifest themselves in similar, even identical symptons and even be somewhat compensated for by treatments for other disorders/diseases, and that rather than identifying the real disorders/diseases most researchers are only identifying the symptoms and calling them a disorder/disease. So, what exactly is wrong I don't know and it doesn't matter- what I do know is that something(s) is/are very horribly wrong.

Comprehensive answer!

I'd never heard of Irlens Syndrome, so had a little look. Strange stuff, and I can see the similarities it has to dyslexia et al. I can imagine it's a complicated field since it's so difficult to pinpoint exactly what and where the problem is. Once you identify it as something to do with the way the mind perceives the data it's receiving it becomes a pretty little-understood subjects, as you say.

I had a friend who suffered from dyslexia; his problem manifested itself it terms of his spelling more than anything else. He'd be typing "hte" instead of "the" and simply not recognise the difference between the two. Didn't unduly bother him though, although he did have an over-reliance on spell-checkers.

 

[nelg]

Have you considered the fact that you may be slightly dyslexic?

I am mildly dyslexic and used to be a slow reader. I overcame it by practicing to the point where I see words as a pictogram instead of letters. Now I can read quite quickly. I read Homer's Iliad in about 5 hours. I still do find that reading in non-serifed type faces slows me down considerably. The only thing I still have difficulty with is spelling. Currently I spell at approx. a grade six level.

 

[Tim Murray]

Weird. Someone else with dysfunctional binocular vision. I was born with strabismus, so one eye was crossed, but I apparently had no double vision. I had one eye surgery before I was two--corrected the muscle part perfectly. However, I have no real binocular vision--I see out of one eye at a time (although I get a lot of peripheral vision out of the other). For me, it's a hell of a lot easier to read with one eye closed unless I'm sitting a good distance away from whatever I'm reading; if I leave both open and I'm close, I get a headache really fast. Heh.

Okay, that's my binocular vision rant of the day.

 

[Gollum]

You mean you missed "Night Watch"? It might easily be his best.

I stopped halfway through Thief of Time and haven't really followed anything since then. I love the Nightwatch characters though, so if his latest novel features those, I might just pick up a copy these days....

 

[Headstone]

Back to reading, I just finished the last 70 or so pages of Wolves of the Calla last night and now must wait a couple of months for Song of Susannah and then finally The Dark Tower.

 

[StefanS]

I've read:

A) TOO many mangas, seriously far too much
B) All Harry Potter novels
C) The Big Sleep -R. Chandler
D) The Long Goodbye - R.Chandler
E) Raymond Chandler speaking
F) Downsize This - M.Moore
G) Stupid White Men - M.Moore
H) Superpower USA Immanuel Todd (title translated from French)
I) Some of Shakepeare's dramas
J) Faust II - J.W. v Goethe
K) Songs of the Doomed - Hunter S. Thompson
L) something of Nick Hornby - don't remember title
M) piles of physics lecture scripts
N) some Japanese language books
O) 1 of Jamie Oliver's cooking books
P) Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency - Douglas Adams
Q) some book about HTML
R) Statistical Physics- Nolting
S) The Anime Encyclopedia - J. Clements & H. McCarthy (the best anime book available)

Currently reading:
A) Quantum Field Theory - Lewis H. Ryder
B) Quantum Field Theory - Michio Kaku (Look at those creative titles)
C) Relativistic Quantum Fields - Bjorken-Drell
D) Great Expectations - Dickens
E) Some scripts on atomic physics


Well, my reading list seems pretty inconsistent.

 

[Natoma]

I read a ton of books in 2003. None were "pleasure" based though. Perl, DB Schema, OOL, etc. Well, that was fun for me, but not what one would normally call bedtime reading I suppose.

Then there's the magazines I read. Businessweek, Time, Newsweek, SLAM, Electronic Gaming Monthly, PC World, PC Magazine, and National Geographic.

 

[Sage]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are; the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses, and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?