[hk__2]

> First of all, you don’t have to make time to read. What you need to do is read every single time you are not doing something else.

Mmh I’m not sure about that. I prefer to read for 1-2 hours rather than read 2 minutes here and 5 minutes there, especially for books that require some concentration to read, like dense stories and/or books not in my native language.

[card_zero]

Who asked what you prefer? That has nothing to do with reading more books. Personally I have pages from books projected onto the walls, so that if I ever accidentally look up from the book that I'm reading, I read part of another book. Also I hire a mercenary soldier to watch me at all times, and if I try to stop reading even for a moment he jumps at me with a combat knife and pushes an open book into my face.

In this way I read more books, which is necessary because ... ah, I almost started discussing why to read more books, that's a different question.

[hk__2]

Neither the author, you or me have to wait for someone to ask us; we just share our thoughts with strangers in the hope to bring something positive into the conversation.

[mihaaly]

This "serious reader" expression makes my skin crawl.

Like if it was something of a sport with olympics where people compete in their own weight and it is measured in the end to the hundredths of seconds in front of spectators in a stadion shaped library cheering READ, READ, READ! Quality is mentioned, remotely, through selection, but still, the mental picture remains the same. The post smells like a training guide from a large gym franchise for readers. It's name is 'Serious Readers!'

[abnry]

I don't think serious reader is a cringe term. Reading is a skill like any other and we use terms like "serious golfer" or "serious painter". The flip side of serious is causal. It's okay to structure your life so that reading is a big part of it.

[eudamoniac]

I've noticed there is extremely common, profound insecurity among a substantial portion of online commenters around the concept of reading. People will come out of the woodwork whenever anyone claims to read more deeply than YAF or Sci-Fi and declaim them as pretentious / a loser / cringe. Some people just like reading frequently or reading hard books, and that's okay!

[djeastm]

You mean you haven't installed screens to the inside of your eyelids so you can micro-read whenever you blink? Amateur hour...

[theoreticalmal]

Only one mercenary? Are you even book-maxxing?

[silcoon]

Author here. Yes, I agree that reading for two minutes here and there is not that effective, but in my opinion, as little as 10 minutes of reading helps me make progress. The story is already loaded in my recent memory, so it's quick to switch context and immerse myself back in the book, even if I only have a short amount of time.

Reading multiple books at the same time helps with this. The level of concentration required varies by book and personal experience. I can set aside a larger span of time for more complex books and read more lightweight stories for the rest of the day.

[hk__2]

Yes. In my experience, I need to at least read a book for 1-2 hours to really enter the story, and then I can read for 10 minutes here and there. The issue is if I start reading the book 10 minutes by 10 minutes I never really enter the story and it takes me more time to finish it.

[chickensong]

If squirrels drank coffee and could read, I imagine they'd read like the author. It sounds horrible to me, but everyone is different I guess.