[alexm920]

The author lays it out as simple math, but I take issue with several of the assertions. First, that we all read content of all types at the same speed - namely our maximum words-per-minute. I've recently been handed a book far outside my area of training (I'm a scientist, the book is philosophy and cultural critique), and often I find myself re-reading a sentence or stopping to dig up context on terminology. I'm sure if I was simply taking in the sequence of words at maximum speed, I'd finish the book much more quickly, but I wouldn't be getting anything out of it. Secondly, the author is incredibly dismissive of non-book media (they mention television, but it may be my habits that bias me toward grouping blog posts and essays in with "social media" since they both happen in my phone-to-face space). It's true, engaging with a single author on a focused topic over many pages has unique advantages, but not everything worth being exposed to requires that level of involvement. Some of the best reading I've encountered this year has been short fiction and essays, almost always online. Also, others have noted it, "books" is an overly general target, there are lots of books that aren't worth the time it takes to read them. Setting a target of reading so-many books, without any other qualification, can lead to some strange optimizations (e.g. reading through dozens of pulpy airport romance novels to pad your total in late December). I'm not immune to book elitism, I do find I enjoy reading paper more than a screen for most topics, but the all-caps "TRASH" definitely set off my alarms.