Reading? Ain't Nobody Got Time That!
April 2, 2013 3:53 AM   Subscribe

If the bird is the word, three must be the number. Do you feel you don't have time to read everything you want? What about establishing some ground rules?
posted by huguini (41 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite
Reading? Ain't Nobody Got Time That!

I appreciate omitting unnecessary words order cut down reading time.
posted by orme at 4:13 AM on April 2, 2013 [15 favorites]

I appreciate what the author is trying to say here, but it still strikes me as lazy and narcissistic. Hear me out. If this is truly "a time of infinite resources but finite attention," I would argue, contrary to the author, that this maybe means that we should be more suspicious of first impressions than ever. It is easier than ever to craft facile, empty works that make a splash and catch our attention, and so maybe if I "don't instantly fall in love with a work" I might consider that perhaps the work contains something that I didn't already bring to it, and so maybe it has something new to teach me, even if it didn't jump up and down and tell me what I already wanted to hear. Thoughts that come on doves' feet guide the world and all that.

"Sherlock Holmes famously considered our brains to be like a little empty attic, which we stock with objects of our choosing. Since attention is finite, I don’t want to decorate my attic with stuff that doesn’t make me dream." I don't know about you, but I tend to not choose what I dream -- it chooses me. And so it strikes me as an incredible hubris to think that I can decide--immediately or with only 30 pages--whether a work is worthy of my attention. It is notable that the author chooses the word "decorate," as if we were creating a space to impress our friends or to enjoy the surface appearance of rather than to really struggle with, absorb, engage.

Might I suggest a little humility in the face of a work that doesn't immediately grab one's attention? When I encounter a book that seems like a slog, that I don't connect with, that doesn't encourage me to turn the page, I have a choice. I can think, per the author of this article, that the book is a "waste of time," "needs more editing," or "doesn't truly matter to me." Alternatively, I can think that maybe, just maybe, the problems is me, not the author. Maybe I don't have enough background knowledge; maybe the problems that are truly motivating me at this moment don't resonate with the author's problematic; maybe I'm too wrapped up in my own bullshit to be open to another person's perspective on the world. If I take this latter route, rather than assuming that there's nothing there for me, it really opens up the possibility that this just isn't the right time to read this book. Rather than foreclosing on that book, I can return to it later. Often, when I do, I find that I've come back at just the right time.
posted by mister-o at 4:16 AM on April 2, 2013 [20 favorites]

I think you are taking an overly-superficial interpretation of "catch my attention". It doesn't necessarily have to mean it has a bunch of explosions and sex on the first page. It could mean just the opposite. "Whoa, now THIS is different", i.e. exactly what you mean by "something I didn't already bring to it".

Maybe "intriguing" would have been a better word choice, but I think the sentiment is still there.
posted by DU at 4:24 AM on April 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I prefer Marshall McLuhan's variation, which was to skip ahead to page 69 (or thereabouts). Everyone knows to hook in the reader with the first few pages, but how does it look after the beginning?

Another rule I kinda-enforce: don't spend too much time reading things I already agree with.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:59 AM on April 2, 2013

Mister-o, I want to print everything you wrote and tuck it inside the first few pages of all the latest bestsellers, and the entire contents of Indigo.
posted by windykites at 5:15 AM on April 2, 2013

Might I suggest a little humility in the face of a work that doesn't immediately grab one's attention?

A few years back, I spent a couple of nights in a hotel waiting for my mom to get out of the hospital. I had brought Vikram Chandra's rather doorstoppy novel Sacred Games (thanks, Kattullus!). I had gamely read through a chunk of it on the train, but, while individual scenes are arresting, it's a long, leisurely read. The cable in my hotel room was acting up, so tv was not an option, so I kept reading. At page 900 of 1000, the plot wraps up. I turned the page, and it is the story of a whole new character unconnected to the main story. I was like "fuck you, Chandra," but it was late, I didn't know where I could find a book store, and, as I said, the tv was broken. The story drew me in, resolved some lingering doubts I had about the novel, and did, eventually, tie to the main story, making an earlier plot point more poignant. Then, on page 970, the story shifted to yet another new character, who really did manage to wrap the story up in a very satisfying way. If I had followed this advice, I never would have gotten there. And I would have never read eaither Genji or Proust....
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:36 AM on April 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

skip ahead to page 69


Forgive me, for this base humour in this literary thread.

But I also want to echo what Mr-O said, kinda.
posted by Mezentian at 5:37 AM on April 2, 2013

posted by Fizz at 5:38 AM on April 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

30 pages seems a little unfair. I tend to go for 30 percent, and this applies to things other than books. It's enough that i should be at the point where i want to finish the work, but not so much that i will think "well, i'm not enjoying/interested in this but i'm over the peak now so might as well finish it."

Disclaimer: I may or may not have only read 30% of TFA.
posted by lawrencium at 5:51 AM on April 2, 2013

No knock on people who feel this way, but looking at life as merely a fixed period within which one must cram as much worthy (by whatever arbitrary metric) information as possible depresses the shit out of me. I'm realizing now this character flaw and resulting lack of focus could be at the root of my utter inability to make something of myself.

You think I don't want to read books? It's those TV networks: they won't let me. One quality show after another, each one fresher and more brilliant than the last. If they only stumbled once, just gave us thirty minutes to ourselves, but they won't! They won't let me live!
posted by Lorin at 5:55 AM on April 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

I generally use a page 1/page 30(ish) test, but it's a guideline, not an unbreakable rule. I have gotten better over the years at just stopping reading a book if I can't stay interested rather than resentfully reading to the end because I "should."

But this strikes me as silly and simplistic: Getting informed is a means to an end, not an end in itself. And life’s too short for bad information.

I'm not someone who reads just to get informed. Even reading nonfiction is not just about wanting more information about whatever the subject is. Basically, I read to know that I'm not alone. Everyone's mileage may vary.
posted by rtha at 6:00 AM on April 2, 2013

I appreciate what the author is trying to say here, but it still strikes me as lazy and narcissistic. Hear me out.

Sorry, you're time is up, I'm on to new things.

I would argue, contrary to the author, that this maybe means that we should be more suspicious of first impressions than ever.

There's nothing to argue about or no reason call the author lazy and narcissistic. He's found a system that works for him, so he shared it. That's it, there's no idea to get bent out of shape about it or take personally. Use his system or don't, whatever suits you. You're essentially telling him he's wrong for doing something he likes, which is odd.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:18 AM on April 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

My system is a bit more loosey goosey.

I have the perfect right to start or stop reading anything. Sometimes the piece's reputation will cause me to keep reading longer than I would have if I'd stumbled onto it on my own, but even if that happens, I don't care if I'm 3 paragraphs or 300 pages in, I'll stop reading if maintaining interest becomes more of an effort than I want to put in.

My records so far:

I stopped 430 pages into "The Tommyknockers."

And I stopped 2 paragraphs into "Harry Potter." Everything I've heard and read about HP since then has convinced me I made the right choice (for me.)
posted by Infinity_8 at 6:43 AM on April 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

If the bird is the word

Well, it most definitely IS the word.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:46 AM on April 2, 2013

I imagine TED talks are enough information for any subject matter for him. It's really a bad thing to read only short things, or as he suggests, only things that are specific to your domain. I can appreciate how narrow and shallow he's decided to be.... Maybe not.
posted by Napierzaza at 6:49 AM on April 2, 2013

My records so far:
I stopped 430 pages into "The Tommyknockers."

But raw leafy vegetables were about to be eaten!
Having pulled the book I am all "but why? Why would you do that".
But also having read the book: Your exit point is strange, but you saved an hour or two of reading.

And I stopped 2 paragraphs into "Harry Potter." Everything I've heard and read about HP since then has convinced me I made the right choice (for me.)

I got less than that into Dan Brown and Twilight, and a Poppy Z Brite book. So, fair play.
But I liked the Potter books. Enid Fan 4 Lyfe.
posted by Mezentian at 6:53 AM on April 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

"I think you are taking an overly-superficial interpretation of "catch my attention". "

I agree, and maybe this guy is like me, where if it doesn't catch my attention in the first 30 pages IT IS ABSOLUTE AND UTTER TRASH, because I will read 30 pages worth of the back of the Cheerios box with interest. In the incredibly rare cases that I'm bored of a book after 30 pages, it is almost always so terrible that it does brain damage to the hapless readers who stumble across it. But I STILL feel guilt about stopping.

I read some absolutely awful books just because I started them and have a morbid curiosity about how they end and whether grammar eventually gives up and dies after being tortured so excessively.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:56 AM on April 2, 2013

I have the perfect right to start or stop reading anything.

This. If at any time, the book annoys or bores me and I start thinking about how much I'd rather be reading something else, I put it aside and read something else.

I don't worry that I might have missed something good if only I'd slogged through another 150 pages. There are other books out there which I will enjoy from cover to cover that I could be reading instead. I will never run out of good books and have to settle for half-good books.
posted by Foosnark at 6:59 AM on April 2, 2013 [10 favorites]

The page 69 rule isn't random. The author will put an unusual amount of effort into the opening parts because that is what they send to the publisher - they are not only hooking you the reader, but hooking the publisher on the idea of finishing the book. It's like a trailer. Skip the trailer and see what the book is really. Though this is not always true, authors can write complete books before shopping them around, but even then they might send the publisher only the opening part. Maybe a better rule is start with chapter 2 or 3, skip chapter 1.
posted by stbalbach at 7:23 AM on April 2, 2013

"Sherlock Holmes famously considered our brains to be like a little empty attic, which we stock with objects of our choosing."

Yeah, Conan Doyle was fond of throwing wacky idiosyncrasies like that into the early Holmes stories. It made the character more extraordinary, and to this extent it was probably a good move in establishing Brand Sherlock. However, when subsequent adventures revealed there to be practically no limits to Holmes' erudition, this little character quirk started causing all sorts of continuity problems, and we didn't hear much more about it.

Mind you, I prefer to assume that Holmes was just yanking poor gullible Watson's chain.
posted by Prince Lazy I at 7:30 AM on April 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

We consume much more than we create, we read much more than we think, and it should be the other way around. We have to make sure we consume the things that truly matter to us, but only so that we have time to create something that matters to someone else.
I can't find much fault with the dudes's propositions, actually. It sounds like a perfectly fine way to organize what someone finds important to them. But it's pretty ironic (in a rain-on-your-wedding-day way) that someone who's blog and job seems to be devoted to producing superficial bits of information should be so persnickety about what I should choose to read.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:42 AM on April 2, 2013

I mean, if I'm going to choose not to read something, then sub-B-school platitudes are exactly the sort of thing I'm going to choose not to read.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:47 AM on April 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


I’m Roberto.

Digital native. Strategist. Allergic to bullshit.

"Digital native"? Apparently allergic to everyone's but his own.
posted by mistersquid at 7:54 AM on April 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

He was born in the breakdown lane of the information superhighway.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:57 AM on April 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I stopped 430 pages into "The Tommyknockers."

I was expecting more reaction to this, there are folks that may need medication to "just stop". There is also a variation, read half the book, watch the movie, finish the book. Or if you have patience, catch the last third of the movie on cable, read a section of the book at random, grab bits an pieces from various sources over the years.

I did read the first half or so of the 2nd or 3rd Twilight book, I was stuck in a clothing store with a spot to sit, in a mall that was in the bottom 2 per cent of interesting malls so no where to walk. Found it interesting in a meta, why are people reading this stuff, way. Did not hesitate to put it down when we were ready to go.
posted by sammyo at 8:07 AM on April 2, 2013

The digital natives are restless.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:20 AM on April 2, 2013

One of the risks inherent in democratizing a pretty fundamentally elitist reading culture is that we sometimes have a hard time distinguishing "reading" as a basic activity from "purposeful reading." By "purposeful reading" I mean the activity which we hope will make us better informed, or more educated, or better equipped to make certain decisions, or will provide an intellectual foundation for our opinions.

See, a lot of writing online is similar to, pardon the expression, mainstream video game journalism. Basically, there is some broad agreement about the topics which are at least somewhat important for an "informed citizen" to have some grasp of. But then writers who themselves only have a tangential and possibly nonexistent grasp of these topics create "content" that is misinformed, glib, and superficial, fails to identify and address important questions, lacks insight, and so on. Instead of writing to take part in the conversation on a subject, and thus take part in the big set of conversations that make up the intellectual heritage of the human race, these writers take part in the conversation about the conversation, producing "intellectually flavored" noise.

And, really, it doesn't matter how many KB of this noise you get from Longreads and stuff into your Kindle. My personal impression is that this kind of noise makes up at least 75% of superficially "serious" content here on MeFi. It's all just noise, and the article author's proposition does very little to cut through it. What we need is a well-honed set of ninja-level skills for purposeful, directed, engaged, insightful reading, skills that let us identify what we're reading and where it belongs in the grand scheme of things. That used to be called "a liberal arts education," although it appears to be on the wane.
posted by Nomyte at 8:41 AM on April 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

If I did nothing but devote the remainder of my days to consuming works of literature universally agreed-upon as unassailable masterpieces, I wouldn't even finish the short list before I keeled over, I suspect, and would want to kill myself before then anyway. I need variety, and that includes facile entertainment too. There's an impossible amount of cinema, tv, video games, music, and art demanding my attention, and where will I get time to travel everywhere I want to see, and keep abreast of politics the world over? Is there some infomercial product that can solve my time problem, damn it?

Something is gonna end up on the cutting room floor, is what I'm saying, and some of it is going to be great stuff I would have loved. So it goes. I can't fault this guy for where he drew his line, it seems reasonable enough. Perhaps not the ideal way to vet your reading list if your goal is purely to maximize quality (or some vague metric of "enrichment," I guess), sure, but.. that is not everyone's ideal life itinerary.

He's maddeningly vague, anyway. The post could be an oblique way of saying he gave up on Atlas Shrugged, and is anyone here going to hold that against him? My only criticism is that he made a rule to follow at all. I wonder if people who say this are just using the idea as a rhetorical device, or if they actually structure their life around whatever pithy rules they are citing, like as things they must follow even when the outcome doesn't mesh with their intent, as rules are wont to do. Maybe he meant it's more like a guideline.
posted by cj_ at 8:50 AM on April 2, 2013

The author asked me if I could post this for him, and because he's a good, well-intentioned guy, here it is: (If this is against the blue's rules, let me know, please)


Hello, first of all sorry for commenting via someone else but I'm not registered on Metafilter. I just wanted to clarify a few issues.

First of all, thanks for reading the whole thing. It kinda means a lot to me, even if the article is flawed. I like to believe it sets good ground for further discussion, as it did.

I'm sorry for sending the message of laziness and narcissism. It wasn't my intention. I merely tried to express a method which frankly works with me but I don't necessarily expect it to work for other people. When I say "fall in love" I mean the "oh" moment when an idea really strikes you and you want to read on. Most of the times it's something which is NOT related to something I already believe in. (thankfully!)

The 30 pages thing has been making some noise, but let me clear just one thing: I don't know if something is good with 30 pages. But I can form a better educated guess instead of just via a title, or back cover review. We snap what catches our attention all the time, in fact we have to -- otherwise we'd feel chaotic all the time. I merely tried to place a mark which could serve as a standard for myself, while trying to figure out if it made sense.

Your last paragraph proves exactly the "this works for me" part. I think it's about perception too: I'm quite fond of processing things and feeling in control. I'm glad everyone's not like that; we need diversity above all. "This just isn't the right time to read this book" is as valid an argument as it gets, and personal stories have also shown me that things have a certain timing to create meaning in our lives. I'm just glad I don't have 1% figured out at 24. It means there's still a lot to go.

Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting! I think this is a debate worth having, no doubt about that.

Perhaps, perhaps. The right word can make a huge difference. Thanks for the feedback!

Both very good points. The curse of knowledge is a beast we should try to tame every day. That's why I, working with social media, try not to read about social media to inspire my work (as long as it grasps my attention and I make some sort of connection to the work). But it's valid for anything else.

Yet another great example of why rules should have exceptions. Thanks for sharing!

Ok, quite valid. Perhaps 30 pages in a 900 page book is not the best example, and percentages are a much better unit of measurement. I had in mind typical 200-page business and ideas books. But I like where you're going with this!

Oops... sorry for making you feel that way. Not my intention at all. But I am a sucker for a strong sense of focus, so I stand my ground. :)

When I meant information I ment information as a general concept, of something that we consume. Comics are information in this way. I admit it may be a bit misleading, sorry. Your second sentence is the exact argument I wrote the whole thing in the first place. Reading because we "should" to me makes no sense.

@Brandon Blatcher
Thanks Brandon, but I'm sure it wasn't meant to be offensive. Just trading ideas here. No hard feelings, really.

Ehehehe yeah sure, everyone has their own system. I am too uptight with organization to be happy without a system, but hey that's me. :)


Wow... I didn't meant to say only read things of your own domain. Vary the subjects, by all means! But read what fancies you and graps you in a certain matter. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

@Eyebrows McGee
Well, I wouldn't say trash. Who am I to judge that? I just meant it won't interest me right now. :)

Yep, that's my point. Thanks!

An experiment worth pursuing indeed!

- rob

Roberto Estreitinho"
posted by huguini at 9:14 AM on April 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Weird, I too have a thirty-page rule and have since I was six years old. But I think about it a little differently; my perspective is that no matter how much I hate the first 29 pages of a book, the author has thirty pages to bring me around. Once I've picked up a book, I am committed for thirty pages, at which point I can put it down if I still don't like it.

Definitely I remember that it took me about a month to read the first thirty pages of Anne of Green Gables when I was little because I thought the first twenty or so were just crashingly dull, but somewhere in the last ten I got hooked and ended up devouring the next seven books in the series in short order. This experience convinced me that the thirty-page rule was doing me a service.
posted by town of cats at 10:27 AM on April 2, 2013

Dwight Macdonald said it best in 1957:

“[O]ur writers produce work that is to be read quickly and then buried under the next day’s spate of ‘news’ or the next month’s best seller; hastily slapped-together stuff which it would be foolish to waste much time or effort on either writing or reading. For those who, as readers or as writers, would get a little under the surface, the real problem of our day is how to escape being ‘well informed,’ how to resist the temptation to acquire too much information (never more seductive than when it appears in the chaste garb of duty), and how in general to elude the voracious demands on one’s attention to think a little. The problem is as acute in the groves of Academe as in the profane world of journalism…. The amount of verbal pomposity, elaboration of the obvious, repetition, trivia, low-grade statistics, tedious factification, drudging recapitulations of the half-comprehended, and generally inane and laborious junk that one encounters suggests that the thinkers of earlier ages had one decisive advantage over those of today: they could draw on very little research.”

Masscult and Midcult: Essays Against the American Grain

posted by doreur at 10:36 AM on April 2, 2013

I rarely quit a book because I sometimes change my mind by the end.

I’ve never understood people who skip to the end of a book or movie. If I didn’t care enough to read it, why do I care about the end? And what possible sense or meaning could the ending have for me if I didn’t work through the whole thing?
posted by bongo_x at 11:37 AM on April 2, 2013

I’ve never understood people who skip to the end of a book or movie. If I didn’t care enough to read it, why do I care about the end?

I've only ever skipped to the end as a consequence of caring too much. Or to see if a book ends on a cliffhanger so I know if I need to have the next book in the series available for immediate consumption.

But really, I look for spoilers when I'm emotionally invested and want to know if that emotional investment is going to pay off. It's not about wanting/not wanting to read a particular book. If I give up on a book out of lack of interest or disgust, I don't bother to skip to the end, I just stop reading. But when I'm on page 623 of like 900 when reading Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, and I've gone too far to turn back now and I have literally had the book sitting on the shelf waiting to be read for over five years after many false starts and half-hearted attempts to start reading it (convinced that surely some time, it will be the right time for me to read and appreciate this book), and I really need to know if the book is going to let me down with a shitty unsatisfying ending or if I need to mentally prepare myself for the death of my favorite character...well, that is when I sneak a peek at the last couple of pages or ask someone to give me mild spoilers.
posted by yasaman at 12:29 PM on April 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'm tickled by the fact that the blogger's name translates into "little narrow". It's ... eponysterical.
posted by chavenet at 12:46 PM on April 2, 2013

Since my retirement my time for reading has increased considerably, but the stack of books that I have not finished has increased exponentially. I do usually read the beginning, the middle, and the end of any book before I dive in, but it has not helped: either I'm less selective or there are a lot more books not worth finishing out there.
posted by francesca too at 1:03 PM on April 2, 2013

"Love or leave" - I've finally realized that it's the writings I react strongly against that tell me the most about myself. "Why does this bother me so much?" is a great question. Though there's no way I would have thought this at age 24.

And since I've got a pretty strong finish-the-book-I've-started ethic, I've got one trick that can help me if it seems to be going slowly. I jump ahead to about 80% through the book, and read 1-2 pages there. It can sometimes give me hope for an existing character, or see that something new will be introduced. But the best part is when I hit those pages again, this time in the flow of reading. There's the weirdest recognition, anti-deja-vu feeling. Kind of like seeing a photograph of yourself in a group with a women who you later fell in love with.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:06 PM on April 2, 2013

I have found this system to be incredibly relaxing, because I spend less time reading things which I don’t really enjoy, and therefore have more time to read what matters to me (and also more time to go outside and experiment with photography, a recent new passion).

Translation: Life's too short to admit that expanding my mind might be more rewarding and revealing than indulging my hobbies.
posted by belarius at 1:14 PM on April 2, 2013

I rarely quit a book because I sometimes change my mind by the end.

I rarely quit a book because, at this point in my life, I can make a pretty good guess at what I will or won't find satisfying. I simply don't start books I think won't appeal. That said, there's no shame in abandoning pleasure reads; or much less shame than not reading at all, or merely reading out of some narrow sense of utility.
posted by octobersurprise at 3:49 PM on April 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I rarely quit a book because, at this point in my life, I can make a pretty good guess at what I will or won't find satisfying.

True. I still find it interesting how often I’m correct about that though, and with movies too. I wondered for a while why I rarely gave books a low rating, even though I’m fairly picky. When I think about it, I often just read the first couple of pages of something and put it down, but I don’t really count that as abandoning a book.
posted by bongo_x at 10:29 PM on April 2, 2013

Hi guys,

I managed to set up an account and reach out.

Glad to see my post sparked so many reactions. I don’t intend to debate each one of them but I’ll try to address each one directly, for the sake and respect of discussion.

@octobersurprise — I didn’t mean to tell you what to read or do, sorry if you felt that way. I was merely sharing what worked for me.

@mistersquid — fucking touché. Rethinking that as we speak.

@Nomyte — “purposeful reading” is a great tweak of what I meant to say. The right word matters so much... Thanks for the input!

@cj_ — well for me they are rules-ish, because I read with them in mind. But it’s not meant to be a system I recommend for everyone else, because we’re all so different from one another. So personally they are sort of rules but like all rules they do have exceptions. “Guideline” would be less of a shocking word, I admit it.

@town of cats — yeah that’s precisely my point. :)

@bongo_x — the “skip to the end rule” was more meant for online articles, for instance. On books I don’t think it applies that well, precisely because of what you said. Quite true your last remark, I believe that too:

“When I think about it, I often just read the first couple of pages of something and put it down, but I don’t really count that as abandoning a book.”

@chavenet — believe me, I’ve heard every fucking joke there is about my name. Besides, lots of wacky adaptations in Portuguese. Gotta live with it. :D

@francesca too — right now I am trying to be more selective. Too little time for so many good stuff out there, we have to pick our fights.

@benito-strauss — wow, very good example! I’ll keep that in mind next time I’m feeling some book isn’t feeling that good. Thanks.

@belarius — not quite. Expanding my mind is precisely the purpose. Why read 1000 articles when we can learn from reading, watching, taking pictures, talking to people on the street, etc.? My point is precisely the opposite: expanding the mind can come from being more selective on what we spend time reading. But this discussion could take hours. :)

Sorry if I don’t reply right away but Metafilter isn’t a site I visit every day. I'll try to keep everyone properly addressed.

posted by restreitinho at 11:09 AM on April 3, 2013

the “skip to the end rule” was more meant for online articles, for instance. On books I don’t think it applies that well, precisely because of what you said.

I thought it might have been, that’s why I just ranted in the general sense.
posted by bongo_x at 10:41 PM on April 3, 2013

« Older Then Play Long   |   House MetaFilter: ? Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments