How Fast Do You Read?

[twentysix]

Recently, I have been wondering if I read slowly, quickly, or averagely when compared with others pursuing advanced education.

 

I think I read particularly slow as course readings are often agonizing (depending on topic of course). I'm finishing a 250 page work of historical scholarship in about 7-8 hours. I think that on a pretty good day I read about 35 pages per hour (~500 words per page). I think I read closer to 20pp/hr when I'm sidetracked or tired.

 

I'm particularly interested in books that you have read for the purpose of using the book as source material.

 

Have you ever clocked the speed at which you read academic material? If so, please share.

Edited April 27, 2015 by twentysix

[twentysix]

I'm mostly interested in reading in one's native language.

 

I read agonizingly slow in Spanish by comparison.

Edited April 27, 2015 by twentysix

[dr. t]

I use https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sprint-reader-speed-readi/kejhpkmainjkpiablnfdppneidnkhdiffor PDFs, and currently feel comfortable at 550 wpm for academic stuff.

 

I don't really remember how long it took the last time I actually read a book cover to cover, but I usually spend 1-2 hours on an academic work.

[Sigaba]

I don't really remember how long it took the last time I actually read a book cover to cover, but I usually spend 1-2 hours on an academic work.

At the core of this statement are two of the key skills for studying history in graduate school.

Knowing how to read a work for its argument, and having the confidence to stop once you have figured out that argument will help you keep your balance.

(Other skills include knowing when you don't need to read a word of a particular work, and knowing when you probably should read every word. In both cases, professors will give verbal and non verbal cues.)

Edited April 27, 2015 by Sigaba

[random_grad]

As Sigaba pointed out, not all readings are created equal.

On some books I spend a couple of hours (mostly focusing on the introduction/conclusion); others I would read and re-read (sections of them) if it really matters to me right now. For some articles I just need 15 minutes to figure out what they're all about, others I need significantly more time.

It helps to put a timer when you know there's only that much time you've got until the dawn to finish these readings. I also use highlighters if it's a printout to color-code the thing: orange for what main sources the person uses/names of historical figures, yellow for argumentative points, green for significant quotes of primary sources. It helps reconstruct the thing in a minute. (Otherwise I use a Word table with all the articles/books I use for an essay and put the key points relevant to me with the page where it's at so that I don't have to browse the articles again when I'm doing my footnotes.)

 

And, of course, when the text is in French (which is my first language), I read 3 times as fast and thank heaven for the mighty Francophone scholarship (German is still a fearsome challenge but let's not talk about that XD)

Edited April 27, 2015 by random_grad

[ashiepoo72]

The best advice I've gotten on gutting a book is to take no more than 3 hours. Limiting time is one of the keys to effective predatory reading because it forces you to just read for what you need. Obviously some books need to be read more closely (like the pillars of your field), but for the most part I limit myself to 2-3 hours regardless of book length.

[kotov]

Whenever I read for a course, I wasn't reading the entire book, I was just reading to get a grasp on the author's arguments and evidence, so that's hard to gauge. It takes me about an hour to get through 100 pages of microfilmed documents, I guess?

[twentysix]

The best advice I've gotten on gutting a book is to take no more than 3 hours. Limiting time is one of the keys to effective predatory reading because it forces you to just read for what you need. Obviously some books need to be read more closely (like the pillars of your field), but for the most part I limit myself to 2-3 hours regardless of book length.

 

And when doing this you find yourself capable of writing coursework papers on said books? This is a completely foreign tactic to me. I have been reading ~70 books a year (70/2 semesters) cover to cover throughout my undergrad.

Edited April 27, 2015 by twentysix

[dr. t]

And when doing this you find yourself capable of writing coursework papers on said books? This is a completely foreign tactic to me. I have been reading ~70 books a year (70/2 semesters) cover to cover throughout my undergrad.

 

This becomes more difficult when you start being assigned 70 books/articles per course.

 

As Sigaba said, it's all about knowing how to read what when.

[twentysix]

This becomes more difficult when you start being assigned 70 books/articles per course.

 

As Sigaba said, it's all about knowing how to read what when.

 

For sure, that is partly why I asked the question. Of course I am not including articles, non-book based readings, or research in my book total, but I'm sure 6 courses is still nothing compared to what 2-3 grad school courses will be like.

 

70 books per course is wicked though, in my senior/grad combined courses when we read 6 books a semester the PhD/MA students only read 18. They only take 2 courses a semester so it worked out to about the same number of books 18x2 or 6x6.

Edited April 27, 2015 by twentysix

[ashiepoo72]

And when doing this you find yourself capable of writing coursework papers on said books? This is a completely foreign tactic to me. I have been reading ~70 books a year (70/2 semesters) cover to cover throughout my undergrad.

 

Absolutely. I can even do it for courses entirely outside my field, and pretty well.

 

Basically, you need to read the intro and conclusion very closely. I also pay close attention to the table of contents and index to find what concepts/events/people are important. Once that's done, I look at chapter intros/conclusions if the book has them, if not I either gut the chapters pretty quickly or choose 1-2 chapters that seem particularly important to read more closely. Sometimes in a pinch I don't even crack the chapters at all. Book reviews are a great supplement, too. JSTOR is your friend.

 

My first semester of the MA I read books cover to cover. Now that I've become fairly experienced at gutting, I understand the books I read even more than when I read word for word. The whole point, as everyone else has said, is to get down the author's thesis, main points, evidence and historiographical positioning. All the other stuff is superfluous when you're studying history at the graduate level.

[Sigaba]

And when doing this you find yourself capable of writing coursework papers on said books? This is a completely foreign tactic to me. I have been reading ~70 books a year (70/2 semesters) cover to cover throughout my undergrad.

 

Reading cover to cover is not sustainable in graduate school. You will drive yourself nuts, you will fall behind in your work, and, paradoxically, may not do as well in seminar as others.  Keep in mind that the objective is to establish a "dialog" among the book you're reading and others on the same topic. 

 

As a graduate student, you should/will be able to write a five to seven page essay on a book within four or five hours. This includes the time spent with the book, doing the background historiographical and biographical research on the topic and the person who wrote the book, doing the editing to get under the page limit, an appropriate amount of proof reading, and, if necessary, putting together an outline for a presentation on the work. This practice is not necessarily the best one, but...

 

IRT reading method, there are some older threads in this forum. For example.  also  (I recommend that one pays extra attention to New England Nat's posts on this and every other topic related to studying history. NEN is the bee's knees.)

 

FWIW, I do a lot of background research on the historian, maybe find earlier iterations of the work (e.g. journal articles). I will have in hand reviews on the book, as well as the topic, and by the author on other works. Then I will read the bibliography first, and then the introduction and the acknowledgements. Then I will start jumping around, generally reading very selectively (and backwards) while paying very close attention to the foot/end notes. If a book is related to an area of specialization, you will get to the point where you will figure out a work's central arguments by reading the footnotes.

 

When I was doing coursework, I (too often) fell into the graduate student's trap of criticizing a historian for not writing the book one thinks that she/he should have written rather than focusing on the work in its own terms. Professors would stand on my head for these lapses. I got better at not doing it, but there's still room for improvement.

[ToomuchLes]

Would someone explain why reading the acknowledgment is important? Also, whats a good way to read foot/end notes?

 

EDIT: Lastly, do you read every single end/foot note or selective ones? How do you choose which ones to read?

Edited April 27, 2015 by LeventeL

[Sigaba]

Would someone explain why reading the acknowledgment is important? Also, whats a good way to read foot/end notes?

 

EDIT: Lastly, do you read every single end/foot note or selective ones? How do you choose which ones to read?

 

IME, acknowledgments often contain vital information about a historian's due dilligence. If a given field has ten or twelve established experts and two or three deans, and a historian has gotten insight/support from a good number of these SMEs, I am more inclined to lean forward when going through that historian's work.

 

Conversely, there are historians like H.P. Willmott who are (increasingly) isolated from their peers. The isolation can lead to errors large and small as well as redundant arguments that don't advance the historiographical debates.

 

IRT reading footnotes/end notes, MOO, the key is to gain an understanding of the constellation of primary source materials that are most important at a particular time. If a book in question doesn't make use of these sources, it may be suspect *unless* it is focused on a neglected group of primary source materials. When it comes to secondary works, if an academic uses out of date materials and/or the notes are a "garland of ibids," then one might be served reading a different book. (Exceptions to this rule of thumb might be made if the author is an established titan in the field or she is exceptional when producing works of historical synthesis.)

 

Reading every note or not is a decision that should be made on a case by case basis. If a work seeks to push the cutting edge, I'm more inclined to read every note than if the work seeks to elaborate upon existing trajectories of inquiry.

[ashiepoo72]

I look at footnotes when the author makes an interesting/new/controversial/contested claim or something along those lines, and skim through the rest. I also like to read any extended commentary in the notes, often these are historiographical arguments. I've gotten in the habit of scanning bibliographies to trace foundational works and interesting sources, things I should read and potential material for future projects.

Acknowledgements are pretty important, for all the reasons Sigaba said. These are people that influenced the author in some way. I go through and underline names of important historians in the acknowledgements before I even look at the intro.

[dr. t]

70 books per course is wicked though, in my senior/grad combined courses when we read 6 books a semester the PhD/MA students only read 18. They only take 2 courses a semester so it worked out to about the same number of books 18x2 or 6x6.

 

Those two course probably do not include the private reading courses arranged directly with their adviser graduate students are universally expected to take as generals prep.

 

I have already had one course where we were expected to talk intelligently about ~3 books and 2 articles (in 3 languages) every week.

Edited April 28, 2015 by telkanuru

[Chiqui74]

I'm slllloooooooooooow.