[dansanderson]

The article doesn't directly address (or takes as read) the ways reading is supposed to make you a better writer. Depth is better than breadth because a deep read is how you internalize how language communicates ideas.

The argument for breadth, especially the kind of breadth that says "read trash as well as classics," assumes at least a deep enough reading to understand how a piece of writing works or doesn't work. Understanding how Dan Brown novels are bad--and how they're good--can be illuminating. The article seems to be arguing that this idea is overrated, and that giving that kind of attention to bad writing (or just many kinds of writing) is counterproductive.

I "read" constantly. I just read this article and many comments here. But I almost never read in a mode that would supposedly improve my writing. The advice to read more in that mode makes sense. Letting all kinds of garbage wash over me uncritically does not.