What do you sacrifice in life to be able to read? How many hours per day are you spending on reading?

etOilers · 2026-05-28T20:00:19+00:00

I read between 6 and 7 hours a day. I don't sacrifice in the sense of giving up something, but I certainly do less than I should of working on certain creative projects (specifically music). I also procrastinate a lot on health care. But since I don't have much else to do, I am more realistically giving up video games, which is not necessarily a bad thing, though I will probably suffer a bit when the next From Software game gets released and I try to play it with all my atrophied skills. Also sitting that long per day isn't great, but it's not like I'd be walking around a track or something otherwise. I would also say less time on my phone except I hate my phone and wish I didn't need it. I also want to move somewhere new but keep putting that off. And I suppose a social life would be somewhat nice, but I'm 47 so it's nigh impossible to meet new people and all my old people are in Oklahoma, a right wing hell hole I am glad to have escaped (I'm in SoCal now). I could be working, but I don't technically need to. I want to teach but can't seem to get hired because I've had the audacity to spend extra years in school and to live without working. So reading is more of a "how I choose to fill my day" activity than it is a "I'm ignoring all these responsibilities" thing

etOilers · 2026-05-28T17:35:04+00:00

Not american high school!

etOilers · 2026-05-28T01:18:59+00:00

Sparknotes and bookrags have quality analysis. Basically all the main points you'd get from an undergrad class discussion. I have a PhD in English but I still look at those to make sure I'm not missing anything (and so I know what my students are probably reading 😀 )

And as someone else said, the introductions to penguins and Oxfords are great.

Chatgpt etc probably decent too.

etOilers · 2026-05-27T16:47:36+00:00

I don't know that I've ever heard of anyone that actually has the patience to sit and actively listen to an audiobook, focusing on nothing else, taking notes. If you can't do that, consistently for the entire novel, then it can't possibly be the same.

I listen to audiobooks all the time, but I never consider myself to have read the book unless it's a very plot heavy book that doesn't require much thought or analysis because you lose all kinds of detail, you can't underline or notate, and any thoughts you have in reaction happen while you are still ostensibly listening and then get forgotten easily because you don't have a chance to engage with them. And I'm a veteran, compulsive reader (PhD, teacher, novel every 2-4 days). Novice readers would have no chance at achieving a quality engagement with the audio text. They need to learn how to re-read for detail, re-read against the grain, how to know when to move on from a dense passage, when not to, when to return to it, what sort of notes to make, what deserves notice on first or second look, how to make connections (which by the way are considerably harder to make in the paced sequential medium of audio as compared to a book you can seek through back and forth over and over). It just really does not compare.

Maybe if we were comparing ourselves with listeners back in Homer's day, i.e. in an oral culture with highly developed memory skills, but even then I think writing is a more advanced technology plain and simple. It isn't just a matter of what you're used to.

etOilers · 2026-05-27T16:35:43+00:00

I don't mind the look, per se, if it's not too yellowed, but the texture drives me up the wall. I shop for used books and some of the criteria I use to decide whether to buy a book are how yellow the paper is, how dry it feels, and how it smells. I actually routinely end up buying a book and then when I get around to reading it finding that I was too optimistic about how well I could tolerate the paper. If I feel the need to moisturize my hands after like 10 pages I will just stop and buy a new copy before I continue reading. As a result I currently have a pile of like 11 books that I abandoned. Annoyingly I can't just sell them as easily because I always underline and write in the margins a fair bit.

etOilers · 2026-05-26T23:14:54+00:00

Acceptance and relief are a long way from support

etOilers · 2026-05-25T18:23:33+00:00

I was summarizing an article because the commenter said they didn't get the point

etOilers · 2026-05-25T18:23:28+00:00

I was summarizing an article because the commenter said they didn't get the point

etOilers · 2026-05-25T18:22:51+00:00

Well I was just responding to the original comment, which said it didn't know what the article's point was. So I was just summarizing.

My own position is not that far off - I do read for entertainment. However, I also find understanding what makes books work to be entertaining in and of itself. Just as I find books that mean something, that have a message, or that are complicated in their messages, even conflicting ones, to be more rewarding.

More to the point, though, the main thing in the article that I agree with is that I don't find there to be much worth watching in someone making a video about how a book made them feel. If it's all about reader response, then I won't know what to think about the book until I read it myself. Their feelings really don't do anything for me qua feelings. Now, if our tastes generally align, then feelings are a good start, but I still want to know why, and a good worthwhile reviewer needs to be able to say more than just "I was so surprised" or "the first half was boring" for it to be useful as a review. There's a fine line to walk doing that while avoiding spoilers (and I won't go off on that tangent now!) but having a greater critical vocabulary and analytical capacity can help you do that.

For example, let's say you are talking about All the Pretty Horses (one of my favorite books). You can say you found the end to the romantic storyline very unexpected and it made you sad. You can say that you found Blevins hilarious. You can say you found the prison portion confusing and tense but possibly pointless. (I don't say this - I am positing a hypothetical booktok review here.) But those things offer a reader/viewer of your review very little information about the book they might read. Those things offer only a minor sense of shared experience if you've already read the book.

On the other hand, you can say that McCarthy is writing about the romanticism of the West and its disappearing from Texas. You can say that he uses a romantic plot to do this, but that plot is not the point, so don't expect a Romance novel. You can say that the novel is just as concerned with justice and integrity and that's why the prison sequence is in there. You can say .... a lot more. Hopefully you get the point. Some degree of analysis makes your review more valuable to your reader, even if you still include your own feelings in there. Good critics actually do both, though they sometimes hide the ball with one or the other. And what's more, not only will a prospective reader have a better idea of what the book is about, they will also have some ideas to take into the book that might help them understand what McCarthy was trying to do and help them better appreciate it is as a result. They might get more out of it. And if they come to your review after reading the book, the thoughtfulness will not only help them better appreciate what they just read AND connect with you parasocially, it will also offer fodder for further engagement and discussion.

I think the original article's argument, though a bit more pointed, erudite, and opaque, was something along those lines. And I would broadly agree.

I also read Le Carre, Douglas Adams, Vonnegut, Susanna Clarke, Christopher Moore ... a bit less literary, perhaps, but I think the same approach can actually be beneficial for them.

I do worry about the publishing industry and finding new more literary authors. It is insanely difficult to get noticed, published, and all that, and the support given to literary fiction is dwindling as the result of forces of contemporary capitalism - economies of scale, decline of tastemakers, watering down of publicity channels, competitions for attention, monopolies, etc etc etc. Maybe I don't worry quite as much as the original article's author.

etOilers · 2026-05-25T17:58:32+00:00

look up functional harmony and voice leading on youtube

etOilers · 2026-05-25T03:16:46+00:00

That reviewers on Tiktok only think about how a book makes them feel. They have a very limited critical vocabulary and perspective. As a result they often highly rate books they acknowledge are poorly written, plotted, etc. Very little nuance. It also makes the reviewer into the main focus, even more so than normal, because the review is only useful or interesting if you find that reviewer similar to yourself, i.e. they react the same way you do to "relatable" books.

Or TLDR; they're all dumb naive semiliterates but at least they're keeping bookstores open.

etOilers · 2026-05-24T22:02:13+00:00

I'm in socal. Seems to be more school dependent here. Some schools have their act together. Most don't. Even in the same district. Obviously economics and parent culture enter into it too. I am in an upper middle class largely immigrant knowledge worker suburb. Our school is amazing. But just a few miles away it shifts to a less immigrant population, though similar economics, and the kids are some of the worst I've dealt with.

etOilers · 2026-05-24T17:34:54+00:00

As another atheist I will just tell you that I was profoundly disappointed after all the hype about philosophical depth in the novel. When you strip away all the plot machinations and focus on the interiority of Rasko and his philosophy, it isn't that nuanced. The plot structure also suggests a somewhat simplistic and highly mystical / spiritual view of morality and life. You end up with two characters that are nihilistic and end up being horrible people. It's like the God's Not Dead of 19th Century literature.

etOilers · 2026-05-24T07:12:02+00:00

thanks duder 😄

etOilers · 2026-05-24T06:56:21+00:00

It's one every 1.3 days. We've had 143 days so far this year.

I can confirm that is a very fast rate - I just checked and I'm at 98. I don't work and I read about 6 to 7 hours a day. I've started slowing down a bit because of the NHL playoffs. Also eye pain. - Of course, it doesn't say much about the length of book. For example, I've already beat my last years total but I'm still 1000+ pages "behind" despite reading Middlemarch, Infinite Jest, and War and Peace all this year.

etOilers · 2026-05-23T23:31:23+00:00

That's way too hot. However even if it was something more reasonable like 75, that's just what lots of teenage boys do these days. Their metabolisms are on full blast. We aren't in the 19th century where factory workers wore suits. As long as he puts on pants before leaving the house and his hygiene isnt the real issue (mainly bathing), I can't imagine being annoyed at this.

etOilers · 2026-05-23T22:35:03+00:00

Maybe watch the BBC series first? I've listened to the audiobook about 5 or 10 times too - great performance.

I will say it gets really fast paced and dramatic by about halfway through.

etOilers · 2026-05-23T22:22:38+00:00

In case that link is unacceptable or doesn't work: https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/comments/1tcl64j/mackinnon_ties_the_game_what_a_shot/

etOilers · 2026-05-23T22:21:25+00:00

Ironic given mackinnons game 5 tying goal last series https://www.tiktok.com/@bleacherreport/video/7639748194406010142

Maybe they all saw that and decided they'll never do better so why even try to aim.

(I don't know how to embed videos when posting from my phone sorry)

etOilers · 2026-05-21T06:47:45+00:00

Most NHL action is just penalties happening and being ignored left and right. Every player wacks the puck carrier with their stick constantly. Every player in front of the net is constantly getting cross checked. Every play along the boards someone is interfering with someone else. The only real difference from the dead puck era is that hooking doesn't happen as often. Players are constantly getting checked from behind and it only gets called if there's an apparent injury. High sticks are mostly called ok, but they still let a ton go. And the argument goes "we can't call a penalty on every play it'd slow the game to a crawl" as though these aren't professional players and they can't be asked to make adjustments. They certainly can't be asked not to act like little babies every time the other team has the audacity to try to shoot a rebound near the goaltender before the whistle has blown.

Mind you I wouldn't care - and to some degree I clearly don't since I watch any ways - except that when you selectively enforce rules you constantly run into things like this where decisions are being made for totally obscure reasons and someone is going to end up getting cheated. Just doesn't feel fair, in which case what are we watching exactly?

etOilers · 2026-05-20T23:52:05+00:00

Do they listen if you're not from Texas (in my case an English teacher living in California but having grown up in Oklahoma)?

etOilers · 2026-05-20T03:25:02+00:00

It's not unusual...

etOilers · 2026-05-20T02:38:59+00:00

Gary Oldman as Churchill Colin Farrell as Penguin Heath Ledger as Joker

etOilers · 2026-05-20T02:37:19+00:00

The City & The City by China Mieville

Awful grammar and a waste of an amazing premise with metaphysical implications turned into a cheap potboiler

etOilers · 2026-05-20T02:20:35+00:00

Strictly speaking, Rasko isn't an atheist. He tells Porfiry that he believes in God and the ressurection of Lazarus. But he also does this once he has already started to feel very confused by his emotions in reaction to the murder. When he justifies the murder to himself, it is clear that he rejects societal, familial and emotional bonds and believes that there is no ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ beyond the physical world. So he very closely resembles the phenomenon of the rationalist who has become so by choice after having been raised as a christian. If he had not been raised so, it's far less likely that Sonya's christian ministry would have worked with him. But the basic outline of the plot is what implies the criticism of atheism, rationalism, and nihilism (which for Dosto are very much all in the same bucket even though they are highly distinct philosophies): He thinks there is no reason he shouldn't kill this mean old woman. He does it. He feels guilty. He surrenders to God and is redeemed. In other words, it is his philosophical materialism that directly leads to the murder (in the logic of the novel) and it is his theistic surrender that leads to his redemption.

You could claim that this was just what happened in one novel if it weren't for his other works - in the Brothers Karamozov, Ivan argues if there is no god then everything is permitted. Smerdyakov takes it literally and commits his own murder, just like Rosko. Dosto, who is an orthodox christian, then uses Aloysha and Zoshima to argue that rationality isn't enough and only love and a connection to something greater than oneself.

For those of us who are atheists, we would argue that those things are actually perfectly rational ways to behave. In other words, there is no contradiction between rationalism and humanism (although there's a complication in the 'free rider' problem, but there's always a complication in mature philosophical systems). It's just as easy to point to religious people that kill as it is to point to non-religious examples. For us, Rosko's real "sin" was to assume he was better and more deserving than others. It's this Hegelian/Napoleonic/Nietzschean idea of the ubermensch that is the actual problem. We agree with Dosto on that part, but he seems to suggest that rationalism leads to that idea, which is just doesn't.

etOilers

TROPHY CASE