Do you read one book at a time or multiple books?

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Normally I read two books at once unless there is a very interesting/intrigueing book I can't put down. Sometimes books in a same field, sometimes books in totally different areas. Do any members read more than two books at once? Maybe good idea. Jfyi, related articles are below.


https://www.bustle.com/p/reading-more-than-one-book-at-a-time-actually-has-some-pretty-incredible-benefits-73777

https://cozycritiques.com/why-reading-multiple-books-at-a-time-is-actually-helpful/

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Normally I read two books at once unless there is a very interesting/intrigueing book I can't put down. Sometimes books in a same field, sometimes books in totally different areas. Do any members read more than two books at once? Maybe good idea. Jfyi, related articles are below.


https://www.bustle.com/p/reading-more-than-one-book-at-a-time-actually-has-some-pretty-incredible-benefits-73777

https://cozycritiques.com/why-reading-multiple-books-at-a-time-is-actually-helpful/

Normally, one book at a time.  I could see reading books from very different genres at the same time though (like history and fiction).

PD

[Florestan]

If by reading you mean giving the book full attention from the first to the last page, then I'm currently reading three books simultaneously.

If reading is extended to include (quick) browsing, then I've read another two in the process.

It's been ages since I have read just one book at a time.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

If by reading you mean giving the book full attention from the first to the last page, then I'm currently reading three books simultaneously.

If reading is extended to include (quick) browsing, then I've read another two in the process.

It's been ages since I have read just one book at a time.

Good idea/method.

[Henk]

Multiple non-fiction (this means reading in two or three books during the day, maybe 5 or so during the week), one fiction (sometimes I put one away, so still some parallel reading).

[Florestan]

Good idea/method.

These are the books I'm currently reading:



These are the books I've browsed:

[Florestan]

strongly worded rant that has been deleted

I do hope you exclude the GMGers from the above rant.. heck, man, we are a different, superior breed!... 

[Henk]

I do hope you exclude the GMGers from the above rant.. heck, man, we are a different, superior breed!... 

I admit I feel somewhat superior, even over GMG  , because of what I read, the real tough guys of contemporary philosophy. That's probably why I don't post about it.
To mention only the books I'm into now:
Just finished reading today: Prozorov - Poses of the World (vol 3 in Void Universalism series, I read the first two volumes as well)
Illas - The Magma of War. Pre-ordered today.
Next up: Uhall - Noir Materialism

[DavidW]

I apologize for my strongly worded rant.  My intention wasn't to attack gmgers, but instead what I see as a dangerous trend that I think stems from online bookish communities such as goodreads and social media platforms changing how we engage with literature.

[DavidW]

because of what I read, the real tough guys of contemporary philosophy. That's probably why I don't post about it.

Well I just read pulp fiction, that is why I don't post about what I read! 

In the past couple of weeks I've reread Robots of Dawn by Asimov (filled with so much sex, how did I not pick up on that as a child!), The Naked Sun, Sundiver (David Brin), Winter's Heart (Jordan) and The Darkest Evening (Cleeves).  Only one mystery/thriller, unusual for me.  I seem to be getting back into sf after all these years.

[foxandpeng]

I've always read several books at the same time. I usually have open a volume of poetry, a work of fiction, a volume of academic theology, something historical, and maybe another.

I only read for about an hour per day, however.

And I do like Goodreads to track what I'm doing 😊

[DavidW]

I only read for about an hour per day, however.

Well that is what you get for having a job!

[Florestan]

the real tough guys of contemporary philosophy.

What do they say that is really, completely and absolutely different from classical philosophy?

[Henk]

I apologize for my strongly worded rant.  My intention wasn't to attack gmgers, but instead what I see as a dangerous trend that I think stems from online bookish communities such as goodreads and social media platforms changing how we engage with literature.

I do

Well I just read pulp fiction, that is why I don't post about what I read! 

I don't want to sound arrogant.

It's fullfilling to me to read those books. To me they are very relevant for the world we live in. Reading these books supplies me with a dose of trust. Without that rigorous and creative thinking humanity would be lost. This is how I feel about it. Those are just great books to read. I like to discover authors and new books, following what they publish.

[foxandpeng]

Well that is what you get for having a job!

It does make me wonder. I do like being able to buy food, wear clothes, and use electricity, though.

I would be happy to read books and listen to music for a living, if anyone has a vacancy.

[Florestan]

I would be happy to read books and listen to music for a living, if anyone has a vacancy.

 

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

I generally have several on the go, which I pick up depending on mood.  At the moment there are these:

   

 

It helps that most of these lend themselves to being delved into.  Aside from (obviously) the Aristophanes, the Krzhizhanovsky is the 4th of 5 volumes of short stories, the Boswell (a reread) is a daily journal for the period, the Schwartz is a chronicle which divides naturally into episodes, in fact the only continuous narrative is the Eggers, which I don't think suffers from being laid aside periodically as it is all kind of on one note.

I'll get a copy of the Schwartz!

[Henk]

What do they say that is really, completely and absolutely different from classical philosophy?

It's a very different generation. My scheme is something like this: you had the French one with Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Loytard. Poststructuralism and postmodernism. Then you have Stiegler (who passed away some years ago) and Esposito. Stiegler is about political-economy, building on some philosophers, Marx of course, but he has developed his theory of technics in his series 'Technics and Time', showing why technics is foundational to human existence but also risky.
They all build on work of philosophers before them, but they add (and erase, so to say) to it with their own point of views, their own thinking style, their own ideas. Like Derrida said the work of those who came before is the stuff you need to work with.
You have Delanda, Deleuze-inspired but his work is nonetheless quite incomparable.
Prozorov is a bit younger than Esposito and has his own approach on politics. Biopolitics is a subject that began with Foucault. Both Prozorov and Esposito worked on that (and numerous others as well, but I select those that I think are truely great) and renewed the field in the context of these times.
Nail's work is on materialism. His great inspirator is Lucretius. He also wrote a book 'Theory of the Earth' a very orginal account of how our earth works, quite distinct from the Earth sciences.
Nail is still a young man.
Then you have Uhall writing about politics and nature (working on Schelling), his Noir Materialism, his first book, is my next book to read, it seems to me highly relevant to how to politically approach the crisis of the state of nature caused by humans, something of our times, demanding new thinking. Another one of the younger ones is Marder ('Pyropolitics in the World Ablaze', 'Energy Dreams', 'The Phoenix Complex'). Another book I need to read is by Rendueles, also the younger generation, 'The Commons'.
Illas renews the thinking on war in the context of the current conflicts in the global world, building on classical thinkers.
I have not read all those books by those authors. I have many of them still to read and I hope I will get to it.

[Florestan]

It's a very different generation. My scheme is something like this: you had the French one with Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Loytard. Poststructuralism and postmodernism. Then you have Stiegler (who passed away some years ago) and Esposito. Stiegler is about political-economy, building on some philosophers, Marx of course, but he has developed his theory of technics in his series 'Technics and Time', showing the why technics is foundational to human existence but also risky.
They all build on work of philosophers before them, but they add to it with their own point of views, their own thinking style, their own ideas. Like Derrida said the work of those who came before is the stuff you need to work with.
You have Delanda, Deleuze-inspired but his work is nonetheless quite incomparable.
Prozorov is a bit younger than Esposito and has his own approach on politics. Biopolitics is a subject that began with Foucault. Both Prozorov and Esposito worked on that (and numerous others as well, but I select those that I think are truely great) and renewed the field in the context of these times.
Nail's work is on materialism. His great inspirator is Lucretius. He also wrote a book 'Theory of the Earth' a very orginal account of how our earth works, quite distinct from the Earth sciences.
Nail is still a young man.
Then you have Uhall writing about politics and nature (working on Schelling), his Noir Materialism, his first book, is my next book to read, it seems to me highly relevant to how to politically approach the crisis of the state of nature caused by humans, something of our times, demanding new thinking. Another one of the younger ones is Marder ('Pyropolitics in the World Ablaze', 'Energy Dreams', 'The Phoenix Complex'). Another book I need to read is by Rendueles, also the younger generation, 'The Commons'.
Illas renews the thinking on war in the context of the current conflicts in the global world, building on classical thinkers.

Blah-blah-blah!

I have not read all those books by those authors. I have many of them still to read and I hope I will get to it.

Don't even bother. It's all blah-blah-blah!

[Henk]

Blah-blah-blah!

Don't even bother. It's all blah-blah-blah!

You just don't want to get into it. I can understand this, we all need to care about our hygiëne in order to stay focused on our own lives.