11–20 of 105 posts
I both read and buy a lot of books. Infact, most of my funny money goes on books, as I go through them fast. I have a reading speed of around 6 ppm for fiction and 3-4ppm for non-fiction.
$100 of books barely lasts a few days :(
Probably too much (in that the expected utility of reading more books significantly drops off after a certain point). I own way too many books. about 1/3rd literature and non-fiction and 2/3rds science fiction. I can't bear to part with the really good ones. But the problem is that at 4-8 books a month my collection grows on average 50-60 books a year. Since i started when i was 8 or 9 I'm up to about 600 books (a co…
Science fiction authors and computer scientists (lots of overlap there) seem to be only people on Earth that have zero respect for bullshit I call bullshit on that statement and point you in the direction of a certain L Ron Hubbard.
I always find a lot of great PDF books but it's hard to read them on the PC. I really want a Kindle, but its price range is too much for me just yet.
Privately, I call it procrastination. It has plenty of good side effects. Without reading, I would never come up with the list of silly ideas I have per day; some of which pay off for the rest in excess.
If I was to buy every book I read, I'd be broke. "Public libraries"--in its most extended meaning--are the best idea ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science fiction authors and computer scientists (lots of overlap there) seem to be only people on Earth that have zero respect for bullshit I call bullshit on that statement and point you in the direction of a certain L Ron Hubbard.
What's wrong with L. Ron Hubbard? He made a bet with a friend that he could start a religion. so he did, and got rich. You wouldn't do the same? I would.
One common excuse for fiction reading is to suggest you learn passive facts about the setting as you progress pleasantly through the story, but that's not a particularly strong argument in favor or reading fiction. Sure I could pick up a book about Austen-era England or I could read an Austen novel and get a slightly inferior product education wise with a nice romantic chaser.
That's not what I'm talking about. Specifically I think fiction is a way to learn though experience vicariously, and I think there are some things learned best and perhaps only that way.
For example I could read a terse description of objectivism or I could read a Rand novel and walk a moment in the shoes of her characters. I would argue that the chance of fundamentally understanding what her philosophy is about through channel one is very low, although it takes a lot less time.
Another example: I could say "Sentience is not mutually inclusive or exclusive of understanding" or alternatively read Speaker for the Dead. "Morality resides entirely with intent rather than result" or read Ender's Game. "What is self?" or read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
The deepest and perhaps most important topics can best be addressed this way. Regardless of how you feel about the historical accuracy of the Bible or Qur'an, certainly someone found it valuable to tell stories and parables to covey abstract concepts.
At the moment I am reading The Black Swan by Nasim Nicholas Taleb. In the fiction category I last read Haruka Murakami's (hope I spelled it right) After Dark.
Next up is Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky.