What's the consensus on reading multiple books over the same period of time?

What's the consensus on reading multiple books over the same period of time?

It's what real patricians do anyways

>ibn4 brainlets who can barely comprehend one text at a time: "nuh uh"

Reading multiple books over the same period, when you have the freedom to focus on only one book, is the sign of an unfocused mind. More importantly, multi-book reading is a consumerist and hoarding trait. Even in a shared library system, it still strikes of being oriented around consuming/finishing books, rather than really understanding them.

It depends on personal strengths and tendencies. You people on this board are absolutely obsessed with the approval of your "peers," aren't you? It's evident in almost every thread.

^see

Who the fuck cares what it "strikes" of? If someone has the capacity to read multiple books and understand them just as well as if they were reading one, all the better for them! You seem like the type of person who would tell an ambidextrous person to only use their right hand in public because that's the predominant thing to do.

I do it all the time: a novel for my commutes on the train, and a book of short stories to read before going to bed.

more replie pls :]

I usually read three books at the same time:
>fiction
>non-fiction
>university readings

I wouldn't be able to read more than that concomitantly, desu. It's harder to focus and remember stuff.

I have a book of poetry, some philosophy, and usually a novel all going all the time. It works because if I tire of one, I can switch to another and there isn't as much of a risk of muddling or confusion. I like reading multiple books and learning about different topics at the same time because it's easy to naturally make interesting connections between the works.

But really, OP, do whatever you want and find what works for you. You're not going to learn much about your own capabilities from asking Veeky Forums.

One of each
>fiction
>non fiction
>philosophy/self-improvement

>consensus
there is not one

I typically have read something fiction during the day, something non-fiction at night right before bed.

So you see this thread as your own OCD self-help thread where you can pontificate on why your OCD makes you superior. Got it.

It works on the same principle as reading multiple textbooks for your classes.

>over the same period of time?
I do believe you mean at the very same time.

thx guys luv u

>concomitantly
I like the way this word sounds

I typically have 3 books on the go at the same time, it works well since they're usually distinct types of book. Currently I'm reading:

Long-form fiction (Litany of the Long Sun by Gene Wolfe)
Short-form fiction (Kafka short stories)
Non-fiction (The Holy Roman Empire by Peter H. Wilson)

If you've ever seen the HRE book, you'd know it isn't something you'd want to carry around on the train...

Go for it if you don't find it too distracting. I try reading two books at a time but it does really slow me down. I'd much rather read one book at a time.

I really don't give a damn how you read. If you like to read multiple books at a time, go ahead.

You seem to think that most people who read multiple books have the capacity to fully understand them. This isn't the case. Maybe for you it is, although I doubt it.

I don't get it.

To me, if you're enjoying a book, why would you switch books instead of keeping on with the one you're already reading?

Like, it just seems highly inefficient to read multiple books at once, it has nothing to do with understanding them or not. Besides, why would you not understand them? Our minds have the capacity to hold more than one thing within context.

I always read one fiction, one philosophy, and one non fiction book at the same time.

Why same period of time? I usually have a couple of books in my rotation, some for reading at home, some for commutes. My backlog is massive but its a comfy feeling of always having something ready for me to read.

>I am reading six books at once, the only way of reading; since, as you will agree, one book is only a single unaccompanied note, and to get the full sound, one needs ten others at the same time - Woolf
I read anywhere between two and four.
I don't like reading big tomes without having something else to fill in the spaces. Like Dosto for instance I like to read works with good prose and imagery/something contemporary because I won't get that from his work. Also I'm constantly juggling short story collections on the side.

Why not, you most likely watch more than one tv serie at the time too

MORE replie :]

>he watches tv

wew

that's even dumber than trying to watch two movies simultaneously. only a brainlette with something to prove on the internet would say otherwise.

few more replie ? :]]

no more replie . . .