How To: Read more books

I fully agree with the value implicit in having that library book deadline to push you to finish something that you wouldn't have finished otherwise (100 Years of Solitude was that book for me). At the same time, you can avail yourself of the cost-free access to try something that you can't find in bookstores in case you won't like it. I got to surprise myself with enjoying Asterios Polyp and hating Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan.

If you try and like it, please donate to your local public library! Just think of how much you're not spending on books and how much you'd spend for Netflix discs

As a side tip, I've usually got notions towards more books than I actually want to check out at a time, so creating an Amazon wish list is a really easy way to track interests.

From the comments:

"I don’t watch TV, I have no social life"

Yeah they certainly have their place, but I would never put them above human contact. I'd go insane.

You're the essence of the problem, messieur.

What's so pessimistic about it? Whatever floats your boat, pal. If books enrich you, keep reading. Do not force everyone else to do so, though. Might be that there are other sources of enlightenment. Nature, nice chicks, long discussions, Italian restaurants etc. It's pure symbolic violence what you do right now, pal.

Easy test, though.

Speak to a random literature folk, who graduated five years ago, or so. By average, he is completely clueless. You recognize he is smart, uses much complicated buzzwords than you've ever heard of, but chances are, you do not expect him to change the world, nor get laid.

It should be obvious what's my point. If you're smart, books might help you. If you're average, books won't change it significantly and sometimes might make things much more worse, clouding your mind or hiding your ignorance behind overly complicated concepts. Accidentally, most of the world is not that smart, and it's perfectly OK.

That's why I say that books are overrated, and we should ask yourself a question whether we really get so much from them as we think we do. Chances are that some people will keep reading but others would be more happy dancing, drawing or being next Sasha Grey or Stoya, without this guilt they don't read enough books.

By the way, I don't say that there is "nothing" in books. Nothing can be something, too. However, the knowledge about Humbert Humbert and a little girl he loved, is, for me, nothing significant.

I don't think it's sad; I think it is a matter of having motivations so disjointed that each side can't make sense of the other's enough to even begin a discussion toward understanding.

I don't think that, even for people who actively sacrifice human contact to read, that it is an end to itself. It is possible that they are also building toward a better life, but that their concept of a better life does not include being in the presence of others whenever possible with something to share. Their better life might be one where they can spend time in quiet contemplation, and reading is the fuel for that contemplation.

Some people are just not that gregarious. And some who are gregarious find that it is a tendency that interferes with their goals.

The pressure for people to be gregarious is intense, though, and it is harder for those who aren't natural social butterflies. The natural tendency might be for someone to soak up an enormous amount of time reading. Because of the pressure to constantly be socially on-call, they have to make the choice seem much more deliberate. As a result come off as someone with an anti-social disorder. The result would be the same, but because we brand the end as less than desirable, they get cursed for their means. Either way, they get patronized, which simply isn't conducive to anything but antagonism.

This may not be the thought pattern aaronsw is following; I don't know. He might be actively fighting a natural extroversion because his goals don't align with his extroverted nature. I'm rather strongly introverted as a natural tendency. He may make a deliberate choice, while I drift, but am forced to make it seem at times a deliberate choice. Same ends, different means.

Nevertheless, the net you cast to catch him caught me as well. I suspect I have much more to understand about the naturally gregarious frame of mind, and would enjoy a discussion toward understanding. I'd also enjoy a discussion toward others understanding the less gregarious amongst us. I don't think casting an unusual or confusing behavior as 'sad' is going to help at all in understanding; it indicates a mind already made up. I'd rather be misunderstood or confusing than sad; then I'm not forced to apologize just for the opportunity to explain.