/lit/ - Literature

>>9052318

you are 100% american. you wanna know how i know? cause americans' love of quantity pervades everything: it is not a matter of what i've read, but how much i've read. anyone who thinks america is obsessed with money mistakes who we are: its an existential love of quantity, to be free from scarcity on a massive scale, to overcome the sheer abundance of this world by dominating it all--that's what drives us.

so to your question: i have no idea, it all depends on the person. as far as my colleagues go, i work with some very studious people, who can engulf a 300 p. book on obscure european history in a day and think nothing of it. whether this is sustainable is questionable; i tend to have extraordinary bursts of productivity followed by substantial periods of rests and reflection. like i'll read 8 books in a week and then not read anything for 2 months.

what is categorically more important than reading widely in academia is reading deeply. .or, rather: what i have is less a consistent work ethic (though this is extremely important from a professional angle, and i cannot stress the significance of discipline) in terms of consuming many books, but a good idea for what is actually worth reading. i swear, i've had courses where you could read 100 books and learn nothing, totally tread water in terms of time and energy; and i've encountered other courses whose reading lists are small, but who probably saved me a decade or more of research into whatever topic.

personally, i think that it's all a matter of choosing the right thing rather than choosing many things. of course, combine the two and you're golden. but, as a friend of mine from undergrad once said: "i haven't read much; but what i have read, i understand; and what i understand, i use"--this disposition always strikes my respect more than the "well-read bookworm"