31–40 of 56 posts
I recommend reading a book every three days (on average) and doing it for a year. I did this one year and read mostly bios and history material. At the end of the year I felt I have so much more knowledge in so many different areas and has given me different perspectives.
The estimates seem a bit high, or perhaps unbalanced from book to book. The Count of Monte Cristo is slated for 208 days at twenty minutes per day! I read mostly just in bed before going to sleep, averaging around 30 minutes. The Count of Monte Cristo took me three to four weeks (I don't keep notes on that, so it's an estimate), and I'm not a speed-reader. It's just a book that has aged well (i.e., a limited cognitiv…
If the only translation you’ve read is the public domain one from the 19th century, it was heavily censored/edited. Newer translations are much better, and have all the hash smoking and lesbian sex. (And yea, I’m being literal)
highly recommend Ovid then :)
I am an avid reader, reading 2 or 3 books at a time, alternating between history and economics to fiction and fantasy, with detours into science and periodicals (like The Economist). I think I exceed this 50 books/year goal easily, but I never bother counting. I am also lucky to read in more than one language, for a nice variety. Incidentally, I read Moby Dick this year and found it a mixed experience, but more on a…
disclaimer: I have not read, but normally very long books are best absorbed in larger chunks as they tend to be more descriptive and take longer for plot to unfold
I recommend reading a book every three days (on average) and doing it for a year. I did this one year and read mostly bios and history material. At the end of the year I felt I have so much more knowledge in so many different areas and has given me different perspectives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is really good, but one thing I have learned to appreciate is that some books just don't work for many teenagers yet. Classics in particular! I think it was Forster who wrote (I'm paraphrasing) that trying to teach teenagers literary novels is almost pointless, and more likely to piss them off than enlighten them, because they simply don't have the highly-developed sense of empathy to appreciate them yet.
I was under impression that reading novels was ‘to develop sense of empathy’ not to enlighten them.
For people that really want to read through some these books, I actually recommend the abridged versions first. It is a lot easier to read the details of the full novel if you have read the abridged versions, and know that you enjoy the story.
Another suggestion if you just want to get used to reading long books is to start with something more modern like the Game of Thrones books, Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter.
The estimates seem a bit high, or perhaps unbalanced from book to book. The Count of Monte Cristo is slated for 208 days at twenty minutes per day! I read mostly just in bed before going to sleep, averaging around 30 minutes. The Count of Monte Cristo took me three to four weeks (I don't keep notes on that, so it's an estimate), and I'm not a speed-reader. It's just a book that has aged well (i.e., a limited cognitiv…
J. Joyce Dubliners
Dante's Divine Comedy
several others.
The hard work makes the journey meaningful (for me) and I'm absolutely bored ticking check boxes just to brag about having speed read through 60 classics in a year.
Reading War and Peace in 20 min/day increments? Would that be a good experience? disclaimer: I have not read, but normally very long books are best absorbed in larger chunks as they tend to be more descriptive and take longer for plot to unfold