Hacker News Reader

Comment by bmelton | Hacker News Reader

The only takeaway for me is the wondering whether or not the author really thinks you can't read a book a week. I mean, yeah, you have to make time to read the books, but an average length book takes something like 6-8 hours to read, so if you allocate an hour a day (which I maintain is worth doing), you're generally going to be able to comfortably knock out a book a week.

Sure, you're not churning through War & Peace every week, but for regular books, it's really not that hard.

View on HN

His point is that reading is about the journey not the destination. Better to read less books but savour and enjoy them (or if non-fiction is your thing take the time to learn the materials properly) then finish them to say you finished them.

I mean, sure, and of course that's right -- but you can do that and still easily read a book a week at the same time.

Yeah but don't make that the target. Make having time to read and enjoy it the target.

I've known a number of folks who have done "read more" challenges, whether 50 books a year was the target or some other number, and while this is surely anecdotal, the real goal wasn't hitting some arbitrary number, but simply to encourage reading more, and prioritizing reading as a hobby.

As someone whose greatest pleasure is a day off with a good book, it's hard to balance reading with all the grownup responsibilities we have, and as a leisure item, it's usually the first thing cut from a busy day's schedule. Reading a book a week isn't as much about the number, but by gamifying the outcome, you prioritize it above things you might otherwise not.

People say that, but the destination is important. "Journeys require endpoints, otherwise you're not Frodao, your just a homeless guy wandering around with stolen jewelry" - The Oatmeal http://theoatmeal.com/comics/unhappy

Not really applicable given I was using a journeys as a metaphor.

So was The Oatmeal. And Tolkein.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com