Quality or quantity or both?

[jaynebosco]

As I was reading the thread about how many books one reads in a year, a thought popped into my head and I wondered how many of you read for quality rather than for quantity or vice versa or even both. As for me, I think I read for a combination of both. While I do read for the quality of a book, I do sometimes (or at least for the past year and a half) read for the sake of how many I read during the course of a year. But really, I think I read both reasons, as they seem to be combined at some point.

 

[-Carlos-]

Quality reading over here...

 

[Occlith]

I'll read anything that seems interesting.
I don't seek books based on "quality", but I will avoid reading something with many poor reviews.

 

[BooknaMug]

I think I read for both reasons, too. I like to see my reading list spreadsheet fill up with all the books I've read. But I also like a good, deep, quality read. However, I'm also not very picky - I like anything that will entertain. So I guess my quality standard isn't set very high. Is that sad?

 

[jaynebosco]

I think I read for both reasons, too. I like to see my reading list spreadsheet fill up with all the books I've read. But I also like a good, deep, quality read. However, I'm also not very picky - I like anything that will entertain. So I guess my quality standard isn't set very high. Is that sad?

I don't think it is; I do the same thing and usually its because the book interests me. I also happen to pick up books that are quality stuff, at least I hope so.

 

[Samerron]

For me, the first thing is interest in the topic.
Second, I don't believe there are absolute bad books, it's just relative. Each book is good at something and in the end you get something of every book you read.

To answer the question, I can't prefer quality nor quantity... it depends on the situation, or what do you want to get. I face the same thing in university text books, as wether to concentrate on one book, or to study from different resources.

 

[jcsoblonde]

only books of quality here. if i dont like a book, i just wont finish it...maybe i'll try it again at some later point, but yeah, for me its quality. i dont find much point in reading a book just so you can say "i read this many books..." except of course for a contest

 

[beer good]

Why read just to tally up a certain number? I don't get the point of that at all. Surely everyone reads for their own sake, not to impress others with how many books they've read?

 

[Anamnesis]

Both. I like to see how many books I can finish in a month, but that's not the only reason. I tend to skip books that have received mainly negative reviews and try to look for books that I've been recommended or contain subject matter that interests me.

 

[nomadic myth]

I like to know I'm making reading progress, so I read for quantity, but... I only like to read "quality" books. Without getting into a treatise on art I can't define 'quality in writing', but I find a lot of popular fiction to be tedious and I find poorly written non-fiction to be mind numbing. So, I read for a combination of the two.

I find quantity goes way up if I carry a book with me wherever I go, read during coffee and bathroom breaks, and cut out most TV, internet surfing and movie watching.

 

[SFG75]

I'm all about quality. I study up before hand to get a better grasp of historical context, influence on the writer, not to mention themes that may not be so obvious. Arguments over interpretation are the most interesting aspect of a given book. If you are talking about the likes of Dostoyevsky or Nabokov, you can really get into that. Going through Palahniuk or King is another story as they are rather straight forward and what you read is essentially, what you get. Don't forget that some people have more free time on their hands as well at certain times of the year.

 

[ewomack]

Quality. Sometimes books require a second reader immediately or soon after the first eye scan. My latest book I read through twice before forming a definite opinion on it. If I want to read for quantity only then I read manga.

 

[Rien]

I read for both. And sometimes, my quality standard isn't really whether or not I like it, or find it interesting--it's sometimes also based on whether it'll give me information or make my brain better. I've done some bad things to my brain. Must make up for it. ^_^

 

[jaynebosco]

I'm all about quality. I study up before hand to get a better grasp of historical context, influence on the writer, not to mention themes that may not be so obvious. Arguments over interpretation are the most interesting aspect of a given book. If you are talking about the likes of Dostoyevsky or Nabokov, you can really get into that. Going through Palahniuk or King is another story as they are rather straight forward and what you read is essentially, what you get. Don't forget that some people have more free time on their hands as well at certain times of the year.

I know that they do and they usually work in schools, having had both my parents work as teachers and having them around for Christmas and summer.

 

[dominicgaj]

Quality. As I am an author as well you need to read to see what's out there (and also what's not, looking for market gaps can give you an idea about what to write, provided there are readers interested in the particular market)

 

[SydneyMackie]

I read for quality, I couldn't ever read a book I'm not interested in. However, I do think a lot of people read certain books, not necessarily for more books to say you have read, but for more knowledge. For instance, the Bible, many people who aren't religious read it for knowledge of biblical stories that are referenced in other works even if they really aren't interested in it at all. I know that's what I did with some of the classic books. When I read summaries of A Farewell to Arms, even though the reviews are great, it didn't seem to interesting to me at all but I read it anyway and I loved it.