[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 45 KB, 640x641, 05u9pootfwg11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21805319 No.21805319 [Reply] [Original]

How do you feel about reading two books concurrently? I am currently doing it for the first time and it feels fine given that the two books are very different ('Anna Karenina' and 'Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich'). After becoming mentally fatigued upon reading one of these, I can take a short break and have a sense of renewed energy while reading the other book.

I suspect that reading two pieces of literature which share more in common would create confusion?

>> No.21805337

>>21805319
I'm against it. One should be able to read one book fully without getting exhausted and moving unto a different one before finishing it no matter the lenght.
Exceptions:
When you are researching a project and need multiple sources.

>> No.21805345

>>21805337
Why does it matter? If one would be spending two hours a day reading only book A, and instead decides to spend two hours a day reading book A, and then two hours per day reading book B (i.e. four hours per day) - what difference does it make? The latter is simply more efficient.

>> No.21805348

I like to read 2 authors and imagine them arguing with each other

>> No.21805375

>>21805345
I guess is a way to trick yourself into thinking you are being efficient but is reading 2 hours of book A and 2 hours of book B better in any way than just reading 4 hours of book A?
I don't see how.

>> No.21805385

>>21805375
Because the alternative would be (for most people, including myself) reading only two hours of book A OR reading four hours of book A and failing to maintain focus due to the inevitable fatigue of reading single book for that long in one day. To say otherwise is akin to believing that you are not impaired by a sleep deficiency - saying it doesn't make it true.

>> No.21805457

>>21805385
Sure but you can't simply reject the idea that it is possible to built some sort of resistance to reading fatigue. Actively pushing yourself to overcome it is probably better if you see reading as a long term habit instead of just a check box of titles

>> No.21805467

>>21805457
Wouldn't reading two books be effective for that? Trick the mind into being interested, while continuing to perform the same activity?

>> No.21805468

>>21805337
>I'm against it.
lol what a tough pseud

>> No.21805507

>>21805457
>if you see reading as a long term habit instead of just a check box of titles
This is a plebeian interpretation of what I said. If you could snap your fingers and gain the ability to obtain reading knowledge at twice the speed, wouldn't you? It's not about a check box of titles, it is about becoming a more proficient reader and gaining the reward of having read more.

>> No.21805508

>>21805467
In that case you would only be feeding your brain what it craves without ever really testing your limits as a reader.
Why 2? Why not 3 or 4 if it is the same activity after all?
I'm not saying it's wrong but it does seem like an completely arbitrary.

>> No.21805518

>>21805508
I mean...yeah. I don't see why reading fatigue wouldn't be reduced by that either. Are you conflating general attention span with reading fatigue? Because they seem meaningfully different here

>> No.21805523

>>21805319
>'Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich'). After becoming mentally fatigued upon reading one of these
I am impressed you can read the title and not be immediately fatigued by such propaganda

>> No.21805532

I read as much as I like of any number of books I like. I have a at least a dozen half-finished books scattered around my home and office.

>> No.21805535

I can't handle juggling books like that, but sometimes I'll read a new book and listen to an audiobook of something I've read previously. Less risk of getting the two mixed up because the information is being processed differently, and I don't feel like I need to give my full attention to the audiobook book, because I've already read it.

>> No.21805537

>>21805507
But that's what i'm saying here. Profficient readers are not always the best readers or the ones that read the most.
If you are honest with yourself you will always have in mind the number of unfinished books you own but it doesn't have to be that way when you can easily -(figuratively) lock yourself up with a book until you finish it. That is if you can overcome the childish anxiety of possibly be reading a different, better book.

>> No.21805539

>>21805523
Go visit another holocaust museum, you pathetic cuck. It's interesting, the observations of the media's behaviour written in the diary of Dr. Goebbels are reminiscent of the practices employed by contemporary media. Ah, but my lying eyes certainly deceive me, as I suppose is the case for Dr. Goebbels?

>> No.21805547

>>21805518
No, are you?

>> No.21805554

>>21805547
Then why wouldn't reading multiple books, bypassing attention span issues, improve reading stamina?

>> No.21805637

>>21805537
You are lacking comprehension of what I said. The internal debate one has is not between reading a book for four hours versus two different books for two hours each, it it between reading a book for two hours versus reading two different books for two hours each. Accordingly, there is no 'childish anxiety' of trying to bookmax. I would simply prefer to spend my time still reading after I become temporarily fatigued by book A.
Sure, I could sit down with book A for longer than two hours, but I get to the point where my mind begins wandering, as intently reading requires a lot of mental energy, so any subsequent reading of that book would not be as efficacious (instances of forgetting what I had just read become increasingly prevalent).

>> No.21805638

One physical book and one ebook, always.

>> No.21805700

>>21805554
Does it?

>> No.21805709

>>21805700
It's fucking reading, ain't it?

>> No.21806965

>>21805319
I like reading one fic and one non fic at the same time. And by that I mean alternate. I’ll read non fiction at work becsuse it’s easier to drop in the middle of it and then fiction at night.

>> No.21807402

>>21805319
All the time for me. I can't remember last time it was as few as two, actually. It's fun to jump around between books of similar-enough subject matter to see what sort of understanding I develop. I mostly read philosophy though, and doubt this reading strategy would work as well with fiction.