Oooooh, I know all about that. And then those expensive books just gather dust on the shelves while I immerse myself in Agatha Christie or David Eddings or whatever trashy novels I want.
You’re not “deficient” at all. Reading books just isn’t a hobby of yours. (Though I’d say reading in general is an activity you like, just not books.) That doesn’t make you stupid. You might have pigeon holed me as an elitest, I’m not. I don’t understand those who don’t read at all, (Not even newspapers, menus at most.) and are proud of this fact. It’s not that they can take in information better in a different way, it’s not that they have a disability, and it’s not that it’s just not a hobby they have. (I admit it, reading books is a hobby of mine. It’s not yours, that’s fine.) It’s for lack of a better word willful ignorance, or “anti-book learning”. They can read, but they won’t because they don’t see any use for it, not even to learn how to do things like cook or fix a car. It goes beyond them just not having acquired a taste for reading, into not wanting to if at all possible not to. There are also people who are illiterate, and are proud of this fact, and won’t learn to read because they don’t want to. Those are people, I admit that scare me. Yeah, it’s a bias of mine. I own up to it. You don’t scare me.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never found myself sitting around on a rainy day thinking, “Gosh, I think I’ll go spend a few hours enjoying that old bottle I haven’t seen in years,” or hearing that someone has a certain interest and deciding to lend him/her a specific box because of it.
I do, I do! I love to re-read books that I found enjoyable, and do it often. Owning the books makes it much easier to read it again when you want to, instead of taking the chance that someone else has already checked it out, and is late returning it. 
Aint that the truth? And it drives me fucking nuts. I hate missing out on good stuff! My philosphy in life, so far, has been to experience as many as I can while deeply envying/pittying the mavens I encounter who allow themselves or are driven to be devoted to masterdom.
I think that the concept of being “well read” implying only the reading lots of books will become increasingly antiquated. There are simply so many channels available for exposing oneself to the ideas of others, and that is what I think this all boils down to.
Because each of us can’t do it all, a valuable alternative is to consider the experiences, thoughts, and ideas of others. But you don’t have to use books as your method of doing so.
Somewhere in the elitist reader attitude, I surmise, is the misconception that books are the only or best way of feeding the brain.
You have a point, and this has been true in days long ago when books and literacy weren’t as widespread. In this day and age though, reading (especially books) is a primary way to find out about the world, be it newspapers or books discussing history/current events, to instruction manuels and how to guides. Not to mention other works.
I guess I can post a sample size of one although I don’t know why.
One of the smartest people I know probably has, since high school, read maybe 1-2 books that were not specifically assigned for college. And he’s 37.
He’s an incredibly smart guy who can sort of almost look at a problem and immediately see the solution, whether it’s a car engine that doesn’t work, a home repair and improvement issue, or source code (this guy, among other things, writes custom device drivers for hardware to talk to Windows, including hardware that the manufacturer said was “impossible” to talk to Windows).
But he’s only maybe read 1-2 books in 20 years, and not only does he have no intention of reading any, he’s somewhat proud that he doesn’t spend his time reading them. He reads no magazines (other than source-code sample magazines), no journals, no newspapers. If I send him an e-mail about something I think is very interesting, it’s even odds he’ll read the mail, or delete it.
And I have to say, I can say that his life isn’t “rich” and that he misses out on many things to learn and know and such in life, but then, he simply doesn’t care that much about anything that does not directly impact him. He should, IMO, care very much so. But am I correct in thinking that?
He also not only doesn’t travel, he simply won’t. His philosophy is “if I’m happy in my town, why do I need to go to the next town”? He’s not only not jealous of my globe-trotting, but he in a way thinks that, outside of mandatory work-related travel, it’s kind of silly. The longest trip he ever took for vacation was one State over, and that was only because family demanded absolutely that he do so. He’s happy, and yet I think he’s missing something. Who’s right?
Besides, it’s not like he’s totally in the lurch. When he wants to know something that’s outside of his scope, he either figures it out (with an amazing success rate), or else…well, asks me. And he has an amazing ability to figure things out, too. But there seems, to me, to be a “richness” that’s missing. Meals for him are typically mac & cheese, hamburger, steak, and canned and frozen things. But that’s what he likes. TV is sci-fi stuff, which is what he likes. And as I said, anything outside of his scope he asks me, but that’s very rare (the last few things I can remember were “what is a good wine” (as he had a date over), “what do/can Muslims eat”, and “where should I plant this type of flower”).
And yet, I still think he’s suffering, even though he probably is perfectly happy. I guess that’s my problem, not his.
It’s not that he’s suffering exactly, it’s that he’s ignoring the things that he doesn’t find useful/doesn’t like. Sherlock Holmes had a similar mindset, (refusing to learn things that weren’t going to aid him in his chosen work, he called “cluttering the mind”) though you know how the people in A.C. Doyle’s world viewed him. He doesn’t know what he’s missing, doesn’t care to find out, and may never glimpse it either. As long as he’s a contributing member of society, then I’ll respect that. That doesn’t mean that I won’t find it very odd indeed.
First, I had to check my post in the thread. Thankfully I just answered the poll. No snarkiness.
Second, you sound thin skinned about off-hand remarks by a few people.
Third, my bedroom is the L of our ranch and with three exterior walls; the complete floor to ceiling wall of books provides a good insulation factor. 
Fourth, I have bought the majority of my books used. I love books and have kept over 1500. I read over a 1000 from libraries or friends. I have only given about 500+ away.
My wife buys books and keeps them but she doesn’t devour them the way I do. She probably has a few hundred. She is at least as intelligent as me and much better educated.
My Brother is also very bright and probably owns less than 25 books. I doubt he has read more than 200 possibly as little as 100. He reads newspapers and on the web, he watches a lot of the history channel. Get into a discussion on history or sports with him and he will hold is own quite well.
Owning books mean nothing more than we like books and might want them for reference. I have about 400+ that I would classify as reference. I keep the fiction books because I am 39 and I have been collecting since I was about 12 and I go back and read many of them from time to time. I read the Hobbit pretty much yearly.
IMHO, reading books is better than watching network TV. But reading fiction is not better than watching discovery or reading science/craft/tech magazines. I find the Straight Dope more educational than most fiction I have read. Last night I was watching a D-Day Documentary on the Military Channel. It was the first time I saw they used howitzers from the landing crafts. Etc.
Do I think you are less intelligent for only owning a few books? No.
I think you are closer to the norm. I think those of us with over 700 books are the abnormal ones.
Why can’t we take a little pride in our collections? People take pride in collecting Beanie Babies, why not books?
Jim {Geek}
Well, that’s where we are different. Complete opposites. To me, a book is just a bunch of paper, glue and ink. But when read, it becomes part of me and I can’t throw it away. It doesn’t matter if it was a terrible book, because somehow it’s part of my experience.
Then again, I have a hard time throwing away anything. I saved a horrible, horrible Miamy Vice-ey suit from 1985 in case I was gonna be invited to an 80’s bad taste party. I finally threw it away in 2002, having never been invited to such a party and having moved about 10 times, hanging that suit in the closet and not wearing it for 15 years.
What’s a… “book” ?
Does TV Guide count? I usually read about 52 of those a year. 
Seriously though, where would those of us who are “Book Smart” be without those who are “Street Smart”? I’ll tell ya where we would be, we would be handing over our credit cards to the local neighborhood wallet inspector, that’s where. :eek:
Sure, TV and Movies are fine, but for example: “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene was better to me than the Nova special on it, anything on that level should really be digested slowly to extract the full impact. Conversly, for any of the Harry Potter series, I would just as soon watch the movie. Although the books are great, watching the movie burns out 2 hours of my life while reading “The Prizoner of Azkaban” took a couple of weeks that I will never see again :rolleyes: . I guess it boils down to personal priorities. I would think nothing of pouring over a Steven King novel, yet the draw of Tom Clancy eludes me. As far as just non-fiction goes:
Would you still be upset to converse with a person who has not read a couple of hundred books in their lifetime, but who has lived a couple hundred books in their lifetime? You could read all of the books on mountain climbing (just one example) you wish, fiction, non-fiction or technical, and still not fully grasp the point, the overwhelming feeling of triumph, the adrinalin. In other words, reading is fine; reading is even important, but there’s a whole world of practical knowledge that you’re not even bothering to explore. Take the time to live some stuff.
While I don’t really collect books (or anything else for that matter) I do wish I had held on to my copy of The Hitchhiker Trilogy (all 4 books ) as my kids really do enjoy the movie. Should probably get them a copy for Christmas.
I wonder if reading speed is a factor. Do those people who have read few books read slowly, and do those people who have read lots of books read quickly? I don’t think reading speed correlates to intelligence, but it might correlate to love of reading.
Anybody?
Voyager. You may have a point, partially. I think developing a swift reading speed (300 words a minute is higher than average), up to and including the ability to actually speed-read (say, 500 - 800 or so words a minute) and the stamina to read hundreds of pages at a time in a single sitting, are definitely skills one develops over time with a love of reading. It’s also common for me to see people do things like reading several disparate books at once and even walking while reading.
As a kid, one of the things that impressed me the most about my Mom was handing her a book I was reading and watching her read the selection I pointed out, in a few seconds, without moving her lips.
“Mama, you read all that that quick?”
“Yes.”
“Dag! I want to do that!”
Impressed the hell out of me, I’ll tell you. It was one of those things I swore I’d learn to do myself. Over timke, I taught myself how and I probrably surpassed my Mom.
I have always been a voracious speedy reader with the stamina and concentration to read for hours and hours. This is not a put down of nd_n8, or anyone else, but no Harry Potter book or Stephen King novel (with the exceptions of IT and THE STAND) ever took me longer than a six-nine hour single sitting to read through.
We seem to be discussing two seperate but related issues; how much people read and how many books people own. Obviously, they are not equivalent - there are people who read numerous books and own none and people who own numerous books and read none - but I think most reasonable people are going to agree there is some significant overlap between book owners and book readers.
As to those who don’t read … well … I have to think the rest of us have a point. Not reading doesn’t make you a bad person but you are going to lack something. No person, no matter how much they do, can know very much through their own direct experience. So if we are going to have any degree of knowlege, we are dependant on learning from the experience of others.
And how do you gather this experience? Through word of mouth? The quality of your sources is going to be random and limited. Through newspapers and magazines? You might get some broad knowlege but not very much depth. Through television and movies? All of your information will be greatly distorted for entertainment purposes. Through talk radio? God help you. The fact is that books are the only way to efficiently convey large pieces of knowlege from one person to another. If you’re not reading books, you’re not gaining any knowlege.
And I’ll grant you that there are plenty of people who are reading books on a regular basis and not gaining any knowlege either. There are plenty of books that aren’t useful for any purpose except light entertainment. But books are to knowlege what food is to life; they are essential for existence. The fact that there are things out their like jellybeans and harlequin romances don’t disprove the greater truth.
When I was a kid I was one of the faster readers but it was because I learned to read early (my parents were teachers) and I know I wouldn’t be a reader at all now if I hadn’t practiced and been encouraged and taken to the library every week. I may have loved reading anyway but I am pretty sure my habit of using the library and reading when I could be watching TV comes out of what was normal in my childhood and I’d love it a lot less if it took a lot of effort.
I read an essay by Jonathan Franzen once where he talked about a linguistic anthropologist from Stanford named Shirley Brice Heath. I didn’t remember her name because it was a library book, but I used Amazon’s search inside to find it. Anyway, she did a study about who reads serious fiction and she came up with motives for readers. She said that there are people who are raised like I was where reading is modeled from an early age and the motive is partly that it’s “what’s done” by non-bumpkins. You are expected to read because it’s good for you and because out of all the leisure pursuits you can do on your ass, it’s one of the less “lazy.” The other type is people who actually grew up with too many bumpkins and without feeling happily connected with their peers because while their peers were out throwing rocks, these reading kids were smarter or more introverted. They would read in order to get a social connection with a better and more interesting world. That is the type of kid who would be up late under the covers with a flashlight and the essay said those are the readers who most often grow up to become authors. I think if that’s true, it explains why both types of readers are invested in the idea that readers are better and more special than non-readers.
One thing about reading is that if you spend a lot of time reading things that are hard for you to understand and if you engage with what you read beyond escapism, you will probably not consume as much and you will also probably figure out how smart you aren’t. It’s silly to say that the number of books you read has much to do with how much your view of the world is expanding. I know a 22 year old who reads 3 or 4 books a week and spends most of her free cash at the book store but the books almost always feature a half-naked female corpse on the cover and though she brags about reading and her book collection a lot, she doesn’t appear to be getting any wiser for any of it. I know another woman the same age who reads about a book a month but she’s gone through most of the classics and can have very interesting conversations that draw from all the different things she’s read and when you talk to her you know that she spends more time reflecting about what she’s read than she does counting words per minute. If you asked her opinion about people who brag about reading, she would probably give you an incisive quote from Mark Twain. It’s what books do to her. She uses the public library. She spends most of her money on beer at the bar where she reads and watches the hockey games so she won’t have to sit in her basement apartment with her dad. I like both these girls a lot, but you can tell which one I think is a better reader and what kind of reader I try to be.
I suspect that if we are talking about actual speed reading, then (Askia’s example notwithstanding) it would not generally be a factor in a love of reading.* On the other hand, a person for whom a single mass-market page of fiction was a ten-minute ordeal or effort would most likely not enjoy reading nearly as much. So the ability to read with some vaguely identified “speed” probably does play a role in one’s love of reading, but I would tend to think that only a very slow reader would actually find reading too much effort or not sufficiently enjoyable.
- I recall an essay by a writer who needed to read for a living finally caving in to pressure to learn speed reading. At the end of his successful completion of the course, he went home and read the collected works of Mark Twain in a single evening–and did not laugh once. I employ speed reading to get through technical documents, but for pleasure or contemplation of serious topics, I read at my “natural” speed, which is probably a bit faster than that of some people, but is significantly slower than my “document processing” speed.
Exactly. I learned to read fast at the same time I learned to read, so I always burn through books. But when it gets technical and specific, my rate slows down. It’s still faster than most people’s, but much slower than my usual speed. (FWIW, the last time I was tested for speed, in college, I was averaging 800+ wpm.) But like tom said, some books you just want to savor.
Several people have mentioned that the results in the linked thread are skewed because of the nature of this board, but there is an other, more important factor: a thread entitled “How many books have you read?” is going to get a massively disproportionate number of views and responses from people who like to read. Thus, the responses to that thread are not even representative of the average SDMB member.
Personally, while I do like to read, I would guess that I only read five to ten books per year, because I find that I cannot focus on a book for more than a few minutes before I lose all concentration. Occasionally I will become so engrossed that I can read continuously for more than half an hour or so, but it’s very, very rare. I don’t know quite what is wrong with me; perhaps I should start a thread here asking for opinions and advice.
On the other hand, unlike the OP I suffer no particular feelings of inadequacy for not being an avid reader, because even without reading much I am quite verifiably a fucking genius, and those of you who say that reading is essential to understanding the world (or whatever) are just deluded.
I helped a friend move two weeks ago for the third time in four years. On the first move four years ago, I helped pack over 100 boxes of books and load them into a U-Haul, including several marked “Author’s Copies” (my friend writes military and science fiction for a living). This last move took two trips in a U-Haul and again we moved many boxes of books (this time I didn’t keep count). After that experience, I’d have to say owning less than 700 books is a good thing!
On the other hand, my gentleman friend and I were at a bookstore last night and we found things which we thought would make good Yule presents for him until one of us said, “Didn’t we say something about more books being the last thing he needs?”
I love books; I took about 4 along for a four day weekend and bought and finished one in a detective series I’ve gotten addicted to (Margaret Frazier’s Sister Frevisse novels, for those who are interested). On the other hand, it’s as much a hobby and a time waster as anything else. The gentleman doesn’t read as much for pleasure as I do. He’s still brilliant, funny, and well rounded. We all have our ways of killing time and enjoying ourselves.
Oh yes, as for my friend, as we were loading up the U-Haul on the first day, he said he supposed we’d shoot him if he moved again in the next year or so. I assured him we’d do no such thing. We wouldn’t be that merciful! :eek:
CJ