Post: #1

Throughout my life, we I've decided to read a book, I pretty much stick to that book at that book only. Try to absorb it and focus on it during that period of time that I'm reading it, whether it be a week or a month. I've just ordered a new book for home and still have a book at my work that I'm reading. My question is, does anyone on here do this frequently and do you think something is 'lost' by not focusing on one book at a time in your life (not including books you're studying for school)? I know I might not be articulating my idea of what may be 'lost' very well, but if you get what I'm saying I'd like to hear your input.

Thanks

Post: #2

That's not a bad idea actually. Sticking into one book does help you understand it a lot more than usual.

Now that I've gotten into reading, I've just decided to keep it to only two books at a time. I would say that nothing is lost if you don't focus on multiple books. Especially if they have exactly different tones. Reading too many serious books at the same time would bore me and reading too many chilled books wouldn't really teach me anything.

Right now I'm reading The 50th Law by 50 Cent and Robert Greene and Assholes Finish First by Tucker Max.

Both books are great. I'm able to read them both without feeling bad about the other. First book gives me a deeper insight about life, the second book teaches me some funny shit.

Post: #3

I always have at least two or three books going. I know some that have a seven or eight book rotation, but I think the most I can handle is four or five. I always felt that being able to switch between books kept my interest better. If one books gets slow or you're a little sick of reading about a topic you can float around to other books and then come back to it when you feel like it. Especially since I read a lot of +500 page books I can sometimes get bogged down in the middle. Even good books can be slow at times. Plus I usually have a kindle for work and traveling and then physical copies at home so the rotation is very fluid for me. I pretty much always have a book within reach which forces me to read a lot of the time.

Post: #4

I have to do this for work, so
- I take notes
- I keep a log

It works okay for non-fiction. But I"ve been trying to slog though Neal Stephenson's Quick Silver....i've pretty much abandoned it cause he requires way too mcuh from the reader.

Post: #5

I'm usually reading through one nonfiction book and working through one textbook at the same time. Reading two or more nonfiction books shouldn't be difficult and might even be beneficial, as the ideas in each book influence how you think about the ideas in the other.

Post: #6

meh, it's all tradeoffs.

Can be done without much difficulty. There's benefits to focusing on one and absorbing, but there's also costs with focusing too much on one thing when your mind is really tuned into something else. So you could make an argument for having 2-3 books on the go on different subjects and reading from each when your interest in that topic naturally arises during the week.

I wouldn't stress about it, just try it and see if it works for you.

Post: #7

When I used to read fiction more when I was younger, it was always one book at a time.

But for non-fiction, it's ALWAYS been concurrently. Sometimes to the point of 3-7 with different bookmarks in them.

I've tried to analyze this over the years, and here are some possibilities:

- A.D.D.
- Temporary loss of interest in that topic if a new one is suddenly more practical or relevant to my life
- The need for different ideas to stay in my head concurrently and sort of "gel" before continuing on with one book over another
- Aptitude towards "divergent" thinking and making connections between different fields/genres

I'm also someone who doesn't take notes or underline inside of books, and I don't mind re-reading a bit from where I left off when I return to a book. Often times I have a deeper understanding after the concepts have been sitting in my head for a while.

I could try to force myself to be more focused or linear with my reading, but I know I would probably enjoy it less.

Also, this Feynman quotes comes to mind: "Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."

Post: #8

(07-29-2013 12:04 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  I have to do this for work, so
- I take notes
- I keep a log

It works okay for non-fiction. But I"ve been trying to slog though Neal Stephenson's Quick Silver....i've pretty much abandoned it cause he requires way too mcuh from the reader.

i read stephenson's books and have the same problem. the best solution for me is to read them twice or three times

Post: #9

(10-12-2013 06:16 AM)douglas Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 12:04 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  But I"ve been trying to slog though Neal Stephenson's Quick Silver....i've pretty much abandoned it cause he requires way too mcuh from the reader.

i read stephenson's books and have the same problem. the best solution for me is to read them twice or three times

Read Snow Crash when it came out when I was a kid, if I tried to read his stuff now I would probably not make it through it.