homeabout kottke.orgarchives + tags

David is reading 52 books in 52 weeks

posted by Jason Kottke   Jan 05, 2004

David is reading 52 books in 52 weeks.

Reader comments

AugustJan 05, 2004 at 1:50PM

I don’t mean to be rude, but…. so?

Maybe I just run with an especially readerly crowd, but I don’t really find anything less than 90 books in 52 weeks (my average, and the average of many of my friends) all that impressive.

jkottkeJan 05, 2004 at 2:38PM

I’m probably trying to be rude, but…. so? It’s nice that you read alot, but what does that have to do with David wanting to read more? I don’t think he was trying to impress you, your crowd, or anyone else.

AugustJan 05, 2004 at 2:51PM

It’s good that he wants to read more, but his post (and your subsequent posting of it) reads to me like the taking up of some kind of challenge; like a bit of one-upmanship. I got the feeling that I was supposed to be impressed.

dotsaraJan 05, 2004 at 5:32PM

I think it sounds like fun. A challenge, to be sure, depending on how long some of the books are (I remember having to swallow “House of Leaves” in less then 2 weeks on top of work and other classes in college, yikes), but so what? I think it’d be great if everyone doing “52 Somethings in 52 Weeks” posted their progress. (: ahem

shaunJan 06, 2004 at 3:21AM

Someone told me the average American reads 3 books a year. When we were talking about this we did an survey of the car and no one read more than 30 books a year on average (I was 30)—all intelligent people, college students and graduates. I think 52 books in a year is impressive. I could have done it as a teenager but not anymore. It’s not the bulk so much—with magazines and web surfing I’m sure I read as much as I ever did, but the internet and a grown-up schedule make it hard to sit down and read actual paper books from the front to the back.

ChicagoTex!Jan 06, 2004 at 4:09AM

Heh, I’m sure we read much more than that here at the U of Chicago.

JonJan 06, 2004 at 7:26AM

Why doesn’t anyone seem to appreciate these efforts for what they are: New Year’s resolutions with artificial time constructs. If David or Jason want to read more, or if someone wants to expand their music horizons, or lose weight, or run a marathon, what better way to ensure success than to 1. write down the objective, 2. create a semblance of a plan, and 3. have it public so that there is support, encouragement, and motivation to not appear like a failure.

The number in 52 weeks isn’t what’s important, it’s that an approach is being taken to stimulate achieving a goal. If Jason finds himself too busy in May to pick up a new magazine, will that make what he’s trying to achieve any less impressive? It doesn’t matter, because it’s his goal. We can be impressed by it or not. He’s the one doing it, though, and doing it for himself.

dowingbaJan 06, 2004 at 10:26PM

I wish I had resolved to do 52 somethings in 52 weeks. It’s too late now, a week has already gone by.

What would I have done? Not sure…

mptJan 08, 2004 at 2:13AM

dowingba, do two of them this week. It’ll be all downhill from there!

davidJan 11, 2004 at 10:38AM

I’m not trying to impress, just noting that the internet and online pursuits have taken away time from one of my favorite pursuits, and attempting to immerse my self in the written word this year.

This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.

We Work Remotely