When they were surveying readers vs non-readers, does the reading have to occur via books? Does reading text on the internet not count as reading? I've always wondered why this apparent dichotomy exists. I read quite a lot of lengthy texts, but they're often technical documents that exist on the internet. I hardly ever sit down in a quiet place with a book. Am I not a reader?
My take is that different types of reading affect the brain differently. Reading for facts stimulates the learning parts of the brain, reading comments stimulates the social parts. But Reading books, as in novels, is an act of immersing yourself in storytelling. It's not exactly learning or social, but it's own category.
I read words all day, everyday on a computer. I have read hundreds if not thousands of non-fiction books but for fiction in the last 30 years, have only read 1984.
It is like a club that I am not dressed for to gain admission. I am just not able to get into the story. 1984 was different though because I think I was half in the story, half comparing things to actual reality.
It really sucks because works like The Brothers Karamazov or War and Peace are just completely impossible for me and I know how much I am missing out.
All the great classic science fiction...tried many times, failed many times, know how much I am missing out.
As a frequent reader (I like to do an hour before bed), I will say that most fiction novels are hard work the first 1/3 or so, getting to know all the characters, the situation, etc. But once you "know the world" the middle third is usually very enjoyable, and the last third can be thrilling / addictive. Series books help there, you usually already know the characters / world a bit when you start.
That said it's often just entertainment / mental junk food, not some great virtuous act like it's frequently portrayed by libraries / kids shows / lit majors.
If immersing yourself in longer works of fiction feels challenging, you might consider exploring short stories across different genres. I would particularly suggest something like Asimov. Plays by people like Oscar Wilde (Lady Windermere's Fan comes to mind) could also fill this niche.
Another idea could be poetry. I particularly love romantic poetry (referring to the era and style here, not the genre) which is on the longer side. So, maybe W.B.Yeats[Second Coming], John Keats[Endymion, Hyperion], P.B. Shelly[Hymn to Intellectual Beauty].
These formats are in stark contrast to a novel in that their "plots" are simpler to digest, and these are often shorter, focusing much more on how the reader experiences themes and emotions.
Fear not, the brain is a muscle and you can develop the strength to beat up the bouncer and force your way in to that club.
Building on the idea, I think movies probably stimulate the same sense, except compared to books they do most of the imagining for you.
Some say audio books are a cop out, but they can really carry you through a story you wouldn't be able to finish otherwise. And as the saying goes, anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.
But really there are no roolz. It comes down to doing what you enjoy. Try to find fiction that plays to your interests and lean into it, see where it goes.
I was a voracious reader of fiction as a child, and in a way immersed myself in books too. But, I never really considered whether other readers are having an accompanying visual experience that isn't just pages and pages of typesetting. I also went through a phase of reading a lot of poetry, and was a bit of an outsider because my experience of it is also as text on a page, not some reconstructed audio performance.
On the reading speed topic, I don't have any performance metrics for myself but it seemed I was pretty fast and comprehensive compared to peers. I definitely lean towards the gestalt parser side of things, taking in phrases or larger blocks of text rather than scanning one word at a time.
As an adult, I've noticed that this ability seems to be more content dependent than I originally understood. If I encounter truly unfamiliar writing styles, or even unfamiliar typesetting conventions, I can find myself getting "disoriented" and having to go back. It's like my visual parsing and lexical parsing pipeline tosses up some kind of "parity" error and I have to go back and try again.
I think this reading stall also happens more often with non-fiction, and wonder if that's because I mostly assimilated fiction idioms. So my brain has more trouble predicting and assembling texts that follow other structures. But also, the non-fiction I encounter is more often written by international authors with English as a second language. So that may also shift grammar and prose conventions...
I used to read books with ease but have had to limit my reading to online texts, both short and long form, mostly technical. I know for sure that I am not a reader anymore, because whenever I pick up a book I can't sit through it. It's an entirely different mode of consuming text, for me, one that I would have to relearn.
I struggled to read books while I was working. When I retired and suddenly stopped getting hundreds of emails every day, my book reading ability--my general ability to focus--came back. I read a lot of books this year, including long novels (1Q84...much longer than it should have been) and histories.
I have this conversation with my wife (who is an avid book reader) at least once per month. I read so many technical documents for work, via my computer, that I often don't want to read a book for pleasure.
I’m “reading” all day long. Code, chats, news, documentation.
There’s really all the difference in the world if you can sit still and focus on a good engaging long-form work. I think most folk are losing the discipline to do that, as we all communicate in brief spurts of async messaging and anything published for mass consumption is written at a 4th grade level
I try to read novels in chapter length segments. It’s hard to avoid to urge to context switch or get distracted
I agree that the big difference is between short and long form reading.
i do not think this is discipline so much as inclination. I never had to discipline myself to read a book I enjoyed (whether fiction or non-fiction). Some books grip me so much it takes discipline to but the down.
What this seems to show is that long form reading has significant effects on your brain, developing the ability to read long form. I am not clear on whether they have shown which way the causality runs: maybe having a brain adapted to long form reading just makes you more likely to do it. It could even run both ways?
maybe listen to audio books instead. i don't read books because i would forget everything else around me, but with audiobooks i can do other mundane activities (like housework, going for a walk) alongside it, and it feels very different from reading.
for some reason experientially is different, when i read on computer it's mainly grab some piece of data that im looking for. i almost never read books on computer, my desire for reading came after i bought a kindle - the difference is absurd.
even paper books suck compared to kindle, which saves space, access to billions of books in a comfortable way to read. (can't read brother karamazov laying in bed)
