Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

Even junk fiction, like the 30+ mostly generic Alistair MacLean thrillers I read in high school 25 years ago, are easily recallable.

I'm also skeptical at so many comments here agreeing with the article. Perhaps it's a selection bias. I talk books with lots of people and no one has mentioned this phenomenon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691120749/

there are many Einstein quotations floating around the Internet that Einstein never said.

Einstein is on record as describing himself as an avid reader when he was a teen studying physics:

. . . I worked most of the time in the physical laboratory [at the Polytechnic Institute of Zürich], fascinated by the direct contact with experience. The balance of the time I used in the main in order to study at home the works of Kirchoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, etc. . . . In [physics], however, I soon learned to scent out that which was able to lead to fundamentals and to turn aside from everything else, from the multitude of things which clutter up the mind and divert it from the essential. The hitch in this was, of course, the fact that one had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect [upon me] that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year. In justice I must add, moreover, that in Switzerland we had to suffer far less under such coercion, which smothers every truly scientific impulse, than is the case in many another locality. There were altogether only two examinations; aside from these, one could just about do as one pleased. This was especially the case if one had a friend, as did I, who attended the lectures regularly and who worked over their content conscientiously. This gave one freedom in the choice of pursuits until a few months before the examination, a freedom which I enjoyed to a great extent and have gladly taken into the bargain the bad conscience connected with it as by far the lesser evil. It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly.

"Autobiographical Notes," in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19 © 1951 by the Library of Living Philosophers, Inc.

I know that citation is correct because I grew up with that book on the family bookshelf (as my late father studied the philosophy of science during his undergraduate education, just when the book was published). Reading can be good, Einstein thought, and maybe we should check the source of the quotation attributed to Einstein that discourages reading, to see exactly in what context it was said by Einstein, if it was said by him at all.

On the other hand, Einstein did most of his greatest work by the age of 25, and all of his great work by the age of 35, so perhaps we should be following the example of the younger Einstein rather than the advice of the older Einstein.