posted
I've read that OSC reads an incredible volume of material (he must to review everything he does) and was wondering about how his reading speed varies between fiction, non-fiction, stuff he is reviewing or stuff he is just reading for pleasure. (Hoping for an answer from OSC or family that would know)
For me I read novels at about 100 pages per hour and good non-fiction at nearly that rate. Now textbooks slow me down by probably half and 18 century case law gets downright lethargic. Because of the time it takes to read case law I don't get much other reading done these days (very sad) and was wondering if anyone knows of methods to increase reading speed without sacrificing comprehension for difficult material. Basically I want to be able to read again for pleasure.
Sergeant
(Of course I make time when any of my favorite authors publish a book, class just suffers for a day or two.)
Posts: 278 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I would just say read the way you already are, I did some "research" on this like a year ago when I heard about Kim Peak's reading ability. Whatever he is just a savant. I saw somewhere the world record reading speed was like 1700 words per minute for normal people or something give or take a 500 words. And the comprehension was terrible. Basically the techiques are just like skimming, and eye techniques, and avoiding subvocalizing... But subvocalizing has been said to be a very natural thing to do and essential for reading comprehension. Whatever 100 pages per hour is pretty good. I think thats about what I do I don't know. Ahh... Drink coffee?
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've started to avoid speed reading in some cases and I've gone to studying what I read. I read a paragraph of a nonfiction book with reference books at both sides and do not continue until I'm sure I understand the paragraph entirely.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I call moderate, finishing a book of Xenocide'slength in 1 or two weeks. It does get boring sometimes. Read Hp6 in a day, I'm pretty prowd of that. I still say Xenocide is the best so far.
posted
My wife laughs at me because I read novels so fast that I don't really remember what happened in the book a month later. When reading novels I experience rather than just read. And that way I can reread books over and over and and still enjoy them. (Not entirely true that I don't remember anything about the book, I simply don't remember every little detail, because much of the detail isn't all that important. Therefore, I only remember about 300 pages of stuff for every Robert Jordan book I read.)
I guess my biggest problem with school reading is keeping interested in it as I read. If something is not interesting it is very painful and I find it difficult to concentrate on it. They tell me that it gets easier after time.
posted
I read the BoM in three days. That's my record as far as reading goes, but I'm not a particularly fast reader so I'm not sure how. It's a throw up between To Kill a Mockingbird and the BoM of which I read more hours a day for consecutive days, but I think my reading speed must have been considerably slower for the less recent TKaM. Reading speed, for me, comes down to enjoying what I'm reading. I subvocalise and it helps me remember but it doesn't slow me down as long as the writing is clear and interesting.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read too fast. I mean, I love reading, so I pick up a book and time flies by. I usually can't put the book down until I'm finished with it. So it's a really good thing that the average novel takes me about 3 hours. Fast paced novels like thrillers or Dean Koontz stuff goes even faster.
I do find that I can re-read and enjoy the same novel a couple years later, sometimes forgetting most of it in between. But I even re-read books I have memorized, like Pride and Prejudice, or Ender's Game, so I don't forget EVERYTHING I read.
If I want to really immerse myself in a novel I'll listen to the audio version. Slows down and lets me use my hands for other things, so I really really enjoy the experience. I can look at a cross stitch pattern and remember what book I was listening to as I stitched a section. For me, that's the full sensory experience of reading, but I mostly do that with novels I already know I like. That way if I get interrupted or miss a couple sentences, I don't get lost or frustrated.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to read at like 400 words a minute. However one of my teachers got a fancy program called eyeQ. It seriously more than doubled my reading speed and increased my comprehension.
I still slow down to enjoy reading novels and the like, so I can appreciate the details and the style of writing, but for reading long boring text, it lets you scan through really quickly and get all the information you need and remember more of it than you would otherwise.
*Disclaimer: I am endorsing this product of my own freewill, not because of any payment received or previous ties to the corporation.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on the author. Koontz-I tend to read quickly (due to verbosity). OSC, I try to read slower due to the thought provocation.. however, the story and characters always seem to force me to read faster than I'd prefer.. (but those are the books I'll re-read)
Koontz's "Odd Thomas," books I might read again due to the finer character creations. (but this is rare)
Most Biographicals and historicals I tend to skim through and therefore read very quickly-only obtaining data for later references.
For me, it really depends on my motivation and reasoning.
Keirkegaard, ... I read slowly, methodically and thoughtfully. (In otherwords, I can make it last a year!) Meanwhile, I am reading something by fictional authors and connecting data like a giant web. (I think this often disturbs my sleeping and sanity. )
Posts: 163 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know my wpm count, but depending on the text I read anywhere from 100-140 pg. per hour. I find it fun to time myself on the HP books, but now that the series is ending I'll have to find something new to try. I read the last HP book in 5 hrs, 36 min, give or take a couple minutes, starting around 1am and ending at 7:11am (with breaks, of course!).
It's interesting...my reading speed seems to stay consistant, no matter what I'm reading. I can slow myself down willingly if the text is "heavy" or wordy, but on the whole I pretty much retain the same sort of information whether I read slow or fast. I don't remember if I've ever subvocalized, I suppose I did at one time, when learning to read, but I don't do it anymore.
I've always been a moderately fast reader, but one thing that helped me speed up when I wanted it to (until about two years ago I couldn't seem to get faster, only slower) was to employ a method one of my teachers called "to-and-fro". I read a line forwards, then the line underneath it backwards, then forwards, then backwards. At first, I didn't remember what I read at all, and it was disjointed to me. But after a bit of practice, I found that my brain was beginning to make sense of it, and my reading speed increased dramatically. It's very useful for skimming, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend the method for a first reading of a novel or something you really need to absorb.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can read at a pretty blazing speed; but that's reading for comprehension. IE, when I'm done, I can relay the base points, the key argument being made, and distinguish what it means.
But reading for understanding takes a much, much longer time.
Here's what I mean by that:
I can pick up the Financial Times in the morning, and get through it in about 10-15 minutes. And I can retain a nugget or two of every story and of the headline stories, I can relay all of the general meaning.
Because those articles are all surface: point, fact, result. It's easy to read very quickly and not lose anything.
Whereas, if I take a good, complex book, I tend to go through it several times in different ways to think about it.
I read HP6 in an afternoon when it first came out. I then took about a week or so going through the audiobooks to listen back through to pick up the substance.
Probably my favorite examples of where that comes into play is a difference between authors.
I personally enjoy John Grisham. I think he's a hack, but the stories are fairly entertaining. But the story is 100% surface. I read "Runaway Jury" in a few hours and was done with it. There wasn't really a giant underlying story other then "point, fact, result" no matter how many times I would want to read it.
Now I'll take two other books on the other hand:
I have read "In Cold Blood" numerous times. Though not recently. And everytime I read it, or hear it, I think differently about the writers intent, the intent of those involved, the underlying story. It is a book that read fast gets you the details, but none of the meaning of what the book is about. In at least 8 or 9 reads of the book, I've always had different feelings about it.
Another good example is "Speaker for the Dead" I have read SoTD at least 8 or 9 times, and I've heard it on Audiobook numerous times.
When I first read the story, I got the general science fiction element, and with OSC's notes at the end, the feeling of this as a pronouncement of the justice of life. So, the story was about the way we reflect on life.
The second time I read it, I became very focused in on the concept of redemption; was the story really about characters seeking redemption, including the author postulating the redemption of all?
Somewhere around the fourth for fifth time through, I began to see the book as an interpretation of the philisophical impact of Calvinism (not religious, just philisophical) on people and how the expectation contorts their lives. Never forgiving yourself for a result you could not forsee when the motives were pure; retroactively assigning blame; etc.
More recently, I've had other thoughts on it.
But a good book takes a very long time to digest. Because the interpretation is up to the viewpoint of the reader. Whereas a "pulp" can be read so fast it would make your head spin, and you grasp almost all there is to be had.
That doesn't mean pulp doesn't deserve shelf space.. heck, I love pulp It just means that I would not judge how fast you read as having nearly as much meaning as how much impact the reading has on you in reference to the nature of the work.
Everyone is a speed reader of sorts (see how fast you pour through a Sunday Paper, picking out the good, dismissing what you don't want). It's the part regarding reading for the retention of meaning that matters. How fast can a person do that? It could be a short period of time or a lot, dependant on how thoroughly you are willing to dive into the content
How's that for a non-answer.
There are slighly over a thousand books hanging around the house, read them all. And tons that I never bought, just checked out. But I know which ones have worn covers Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my 11th grade english class i kinda procrastinated and ended up reading Moby Dick in about three days, dont know the hours. I usually read heinlein in about two full hours, and most thrillers:Koontz, Cussler, Clancy take me about two hours at maximum. anthologies of short stories take me longer, because I reread sections to try and connect them, and I am currently reading Heinleins The Green Hills of Earth, I have spent about an hour, maybe hour and fifteen minutes reading it and I am 246 pages in, so conservatively that is 197 wpm. I can give a erlatively indepth overview of most of the stories as well. I dont know if that means I understand the books better but I have absorbed them...
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read pretty fast, hp6 in 9 hours, and xenocide in 3 days, but that was during the school week.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: My wife laughs at me because I read novels so fast that I don't really remember what happened in the book a month later. When reading novels I experience rather than just read. And that way I can reread books over and over and and still enjoy them. (Not entirely true that I don't remember anything about the book, I simply don't remember every little detail, because much of the detail isn't all that important. Therefore, I only remember about 300 pages of stuff for every Robert Jordan book I read.)
That's so funny. My husband makes fun of me for the same reason. He will bring up some detail from a book we both have read and I won't have a clue what he's talking about. Of course, he also doesn't reread books. I love rereading my favorite books. When I read it's almost like seeing a movie in more detail than can ever be portrayed on screen. If I slow down, I find I lose some of that effect.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a very slow reader. I subvocalize almost all the time. I enjoy reading this way as I get the most out of what I am reading.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pretty fast at reading silently to myself, but when reading aloud I have to slow down drematically.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something close to three hundred pages an hour reading silently if I'm really enjoying the book. If not, its closer to one hundred and fifty pages in an hour. Textbooks or non-fiction are about fifty pages an hour.
When I read out loud, I read a lot slower. My speech style won't allow me to read very fast. I slowly, monotonely ennunciate each and every word.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is better to enjoy than read fast, but I love reading fast enough to keep that movie running in my head.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always read purely for comprehension and retention, so I tend to go about average speed. The drawback is that I have to wait years before returning to a book, or I get bored out of my mind.
The benefit is that I can act like a smartypants.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to read faster when I didn't have a toddler always pulling the book out of my hands and hiding it and such. >_<
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It just means that I would not judge how fast you read as having nearly as much meaning as how much impact the reading has on you in reference to the nature of the work.
