I want to become a well-read person, but reading is unbelievably

Seriously, what are you reading? You shouldn't have to force yourself. It's fun and relaxing.

>>16573462
Ideological novels are shit anyway. The most condecending way of getting your point across. You always get the point by the 3rd chapter and feel like a fucking asshole for the author babbying you into their opinion with their stupid allegory. I'm talking about books like catcher in the rye or 1984 or atlas shrugged.

Read what's interesting and exciting. Like Jurrassic Park. It still has phisophical questions like "who are we to play god and fuck with dna" and is essentially Frankenstein 2.0. But at least you don't have to force yourself through a lame ass book just to say you read it.

John Locke > Voltaire

>>16573479
Huckleberry Finn seemed like a good place to start.

>>16573492
Boring as fuck fampai. Bunch of stupid allegories haphazardly thrown together. We get it, slavery is wrong. Hetfields and McCoy's. The south. Wow, so deep.

Read some fun pulps like westerns. I read a book called 47th Samurai that was a fun ride, no stupid philisophical gay shit thrown in. Just action.

Read biographies

Try audiobooks.

>>16573492
Go to a bookstore. Find a book that has a neat cover or an enticing description; it doesn't matter if it's genre fiction or smut or whatever. Just find something that looks cool and read it, once you enjoy reading you can become well read.
Also audiobooks.

>3 hours to read 150 pages
Lol

Give Discworld and Terry Pratchett a try.

>>16573462
What is "well read", and why should anyone want to be "well read"?

It seems to me you haven't answered these questions in a way that has convinced your brain to let you enjoy doing the reading.

>>16573491
Who the fuck recreationally reads Ayn Rand? Anyone who's read Atlas Shrugged either had to for school or is a snob who wants the ability to say they know about some crazy Russian woman's joke of a sociological system. If you want to learn about objectivism just play Bioshock 1.

>>16575148
You know, there is a reason they say that you can't judge a book by its cover

>>16573462
Why do you want to be "well read"? Are you interest in particular themes? Or do you think people will find you more interesting if you are?

>>16573500
>>16573491
You're an idiot. Philosophy and literature are not things one should dabble in lightly, because that's called being a fucking pseudo-intellectual prick, interested only in showing off.

>ayyy forget the most entry level good books
>forget good books in general
>go read steaming piles of shit instead lmao

Reading low brow is fine, if that's what you enjoy. If you don't enjoy reading and really just want to give off the impression that you do, it's stupid as shit to go with such books, not to mention a waste of time that could be spent on more pleasant activities.

>>16575583
They aren't even good, and who are they to think they know more than you to the point of writing you a nursery rhyme to teach you a lesson.

Again, John Locke > Voltaire. They had a very similar message, but Locke actually respected his audience and wasn't up his own ass.