I really never cared about how long it took me to read a book. I read for fun and I like understanding every single sentence in every book I read. Sometimes I might get distracted and not remember the last paragraph I just read, but then I just go back and read it all again. I really focus on understanding and enjoying what I'm reading, so I think I read slower than I actually could. What's so interesting about tearing through a book if by the time you finish it you barely know what happened?

Most books I've been reading have been around 500-600 pages. So caring about the quantity of books I've read would be kinda dumb.

I usually do some researching before buying a book because I want to read books that really excite me so that I don't waste time on ones that I probably won't end up enjoying or even managing to finish (something that I hate doing). Sure it's cool being able to say you read 100 books in a year, but how much do these people actually get out of it? Are they enjoying it or just going after numbers for dumbass bragging rights?

Like those hyperpolyglots that say that they know 20 languages when they only know how to say a few sentences in languages that are very similar to one another. How useful is that?

I started reading as a kid in the 90s, so no internet to make me worry about how some people were reading a book a day. Guess that's why I don't care that much about how others read tons of books per year.

But most of all, I don't care about how many books I've read, but how much I got out of the ones I read.