/lit/ - Literature

>>12845721

>Why bother cooking meals when you can just drink Onions

>>12845731
That argument would make sense if cooking meals took more than 10 hours each time. But it doesn't, you are just a retard.

>>12845742

It takes me only 2-3 hours to read a novel in the 300-400 page range. Your problem is that you read at the speed of a twelve year old

>why have sex when you could jerk off??? XDXD
because the real thing is always better

>>12845751
>It is aceptable to spend 2-3 hours doing something that can be achived in 5 minuets or less
lmao @ your pathetic life

>>12845721
Imagine if we weren't denied a robust and useful public domain by our governments in the interest of corporate greed and protecting the rights of a legal fiction.
The internet is a taste of what it's like to live in a world where copyright laws are reasonable. Imagine if the people of the 20th century were as free to build on popular culture as we are free to build on Pepe.
When a preschool teacher paints Mickey Mouse on the wall, it's because Mickey Mouse is a word in the language of culture that means safe and comfortable and fun. Culture is a language and copyright terms that ensure a person's work of art loses all relevance, everyone who ever knew it dies and the last copy is destroyed before it is allowed to be used is nothing short of censorship and inhibiting the natural progression of culture and art.
>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Tell me that protecting a work for 95 years after publication is in any way a reasonable interpretation of this article in the constitution.

>>12845762

>>12845751
How do you read a 300 page novel in 3 hours?

>>12845821

>300 pages
>~300 words per page
>90,000 words
>reading speed of 700 words per minute
>129 minutes to finish book
>~2 hours

The extra hour is because I like to take my time appreciating beauty/take breaks to stretch and have snacks

>>12845835
>reading speed of 700 words per minute
sure, pal

>>12845731
Drinking onions? Like you chop them into small pieces and mix them with water? Put them in a blender? How does that even work?

>>12845862
You need to go back

>>12845845

700 wpm isn't even impressive lmao. 1k-1.2k is "impressive". 1.5k is "you're lying for (you)s", but that's still plausible

Sorry about your brainlet cope <3

>>12845887
Yea no way some speed reading faggot is absobring the text they skim over.
Also:
>Humble bragging anonymously
Nobody is impressd by your supposed reading speed faggot. Being a super quick reader means you absorb much less information. I want speed reading faggots dead.

Where are the mods? Why are these faggots allowed to post the same fucking bullshit everyday? Holy fuck, /lit/ is trash now.

Yes, I know this is a bait but it's the same shit everyday.

>>12845721

>>12845922
Yeah, speed readers just want to say they’ve read books. They don’t really care for the information or the beauty or the structure. It’s like watching a movie on 2-3x speed. Sure, you watched the movie, but you didn’t absorb it nearly as well, and I’d say it’d be easier to watch a movie at that speed and absorb it than read a book at about three times the average speed and absorb that.

>>12845887
>700 wpm isn't even impressive
Neither is your skimming faggot

>>12845751
Any tips for improving this? I usually can only get through 20-30 pages a day. Only if I have absolutely no distractions (eg if I'm on a plane flight) can I read over 100 pages a day.

experience>plain information

Would you even attend your parents burial when you just can read the death notice?

>>12845721
The true red pill is SparkNotes

>>12845970

Unfortunately, I have no idea. I can't really read slower than 500wpm, and 700 is the comfy range. It's my only natural talent, hence the bragging.

If you can increase your speed to about 300 words per minute, though, that equals about one page per minute. I would try to make that a goal.

I haven't looked into programs or courses for speed reading because I'm already a statistical freak, but I believe that there's a reader of some kind that shows you one word at a time, and lets you adjust the speed for your comfort level. I would use that + combine it with some free .txt, like from project Gutenberg, and use those to train yourself.

>>12845938
Yeah, but what if you read the same book 2 or 3 times using speed reading? If that still takes you less time than a full single 'careful' reading session, then you're fine.

>>12846104
I doubt anyone actually does that and I still don't think that would allow you to absorb the text as well as just reading it properly once.
Why would anyone want to anyway?
Rush trough the same task twice or take your time once?

>>12846139
Actually, reading it "properly" once, makes no fucking difference. You'll never really understand a good book (or any book) in your first reading. Maybe a speed reading technique would be effective here. Say you speed read a philosophy book. You obviously won't have a good understanding of the arguments, but if you got even the gist of the arguments, if you got at least something about it, in your second, proper reading, reading will be much more easier than if you just go in blind looking for aguments and definitions. For fiction, speed reading seems useless though, but it may be useful for a second time read.

>>12845721
>>12845742
>>12845762
>>12845998
is this how brainlets cope now? How can you even enjoy 'reading' when you just shit post and read wikipedia articles all day? You do realise reading is understanding the culture and suppose to be equivalent to understanding art,film, and various other arts? The cope on this thread is just sad.

>>12846178
>Takes the bait and calls others brainlets

>>12845721
You are right, books are outdated and slow ways of gaining knowledge.

Most things can be compressed to a few paragraphs without losing that much substance. For example most philosophies, you only need to watch a 10-30 minute video and you understand it well enough.