William Petruzzo

Phew! I think I started Dr. Albert Mohler’s Atheism Remix about two months ago and I just finished. Took me long enough.

In his recent book, Mohler documents and reacts to four of today’s most prominent and evangelistic atheists. The new atheists, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. Or, as Mohler likes to call them, “the four horsemen of the new atheism”.

Mohler himself is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Kentucky. He also hosts a self-titled national radio program. He is the author of the recent book Culture Shift, and is one of my favorite bloggers, writing mostly about culture issues.

Mohler’s style of writing is easy to read. Like something you’d find in a commentary section of a newspaper. The content is compelling, but the language and structure is not overwhelming. It should be an easy read for most and a breeze for heavy readers.

Remix is short. Surprisingly short. 108 pages, spread over four chapters, sliced into about six chapter subsets (again, why’d it take two months to finish?). But length doesn’t necessarily mean much. Mohler says quite a lot in a little bit of space.

This New Atheism is unprecedented, as Mohler sees it. Unlike atheism movements in the past, it’s popular. Mohler sites how long these proponent’s books have taken residence on best seller stands. He also addresses the distinct lack of moral grieving over the loss of something previously seen as beautiful: faith. There’s quite a lot more to say. That’s why Mohler wrote a book.

The subtitle is “a Christian confronts the New Atheists”, but the subtitle is misleading. When I first received the book from Amazon, I was disappointed at the size. I thought to myself, “really? this dude is effectively going to go up against four of the most outspoken members of the atheist movement in just over a hundred pages?”. Well, he doesn’t. In fact, he doesn’t even try to. The final chapter of the book makes clear that this text was not written to confront them, or even their followers. It’s written for Christians, living in a culture that’s shifting as a result of this emerging “New Atheism”.

And for us, he writes convincingly, with conviction.

Dr. Mohler does an excellent job of bringing together information. Much of the pages are made up of discussing other opponents attacks on the New Atheists. I find this reads with a refreshing humility. It gives us the sweetest points of popular rebuttal but also lends to an argument that feels much larger that is actually contained in the book.

Mohler saves the biggest chunk of his own opinion for the final chapter (which is also typical of his blog), titled “New Atheism and the Future of Christianity”. In it he gives Christians an encouragement not to shrink from the discussion but to read, study, learn and pray.

Overall, I recommend this book to most all Christians. If you’re unfamiliar with this new movement, this will serve as an excellent introduction. If you’re already pretty well informed, this will be an easy read and an important reminder. It’s certainly no waste of time.

I won’t say too much here, because I don’t think a conventional review of this book would either be adequate or appropriate. But there are three things I would like specifically to bring up.

1. The theology John Piper’s of Desiring God is not gimmicky and it’s not a fad of Christianity. It’s just plain biblical. Frankly, it’s simply biblical theology, with a slightly different packaging. It’s the staple and the life force of some of history’s great saints and it would be foolish to ignore it.

2. If at any point we undermine and neglect the message Piper brings forth in Desiring God we dishonor God, and we cheat ourselves.

3. Few books rely as heavily on biblical reference and citation as this one.

I have only a small handful of criticisms.

Piper has subtitled this book Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. As poignant a subtitle as that may be in light of scripture, in this circumstance it mostly just threatens the reader’s confidence in the message.

Piper spends a good deal of time in the beginning of the book explaining that Christian Hedonism isn’t a new thing. It was the faith of steadfast saints before us as well as the church fathers. That is a strong point, not easily discredited. Unfortunately, coining a new term makes it seem new and shiny and thus less credible. I had trouble with the term the whole way through the book. Being Christian Hedonist simply means being a biblical Christian, then just call them Christians.

I think this is a point Piper and I are simple going to have to disagree on.

My second criticism is what seems to be Piper’s inclinations to extremes. For example, in a chapter on suffering, Piper argues that Christians must suffer. That we must choose to suffer. A point and bible believe Christian will have difficulty arguing against. However, Piper’s inclination is to the extremes in that situation. Torture, martyrdom and such. While these circumstances are certainly reality for many Christians worldwide, they aren’t for much of his audience.

He does spend a short bit to explain that suffering is a broader scope than simply the physical extremes, but not enough time. So unfortunately, what may be communicated is that real suffering is only in those extremes. Or worse, that perhaps we should seek out those extremes. That’s not the case. When called for the sake of the Gospel, we ought to tread boldly into situations where those extremes are possibilities, without fear of them.

I think Piper would agree with that, but it’s a bit unclear in his writing.

However, these criticisms are minor and the benefit held in the pages of this book far outweighs them. I have to recommend this book to everyone. It’s a bit long and the style takes some getting used to, but it’s worth it.

A few things before I get started. I’ve disabled comments on this post. Not for fear of disagreement, but because the general sway of critics on this topic is to to respond with no first hand knowledge of the book in discussion here. My suggestion to all will be that they pick up this book and read it, but that is especially my suggestion to you who vehemently disagree with my praise of this book. Please read the book before emailing me with criticisms.

I recently finished Phillip E. Johnson’s Darwin on Trial. And I will state outright, that this book should be read by many who accept Darwinian evolution simply on the bases that it is “widely accepted” or from the limited exposure we have received in grade school.

Simply for his skepticism, most serious supporters of Darwinism will chalk Johnson off as a creationist fundamentalist bent on mind control, without giving very much heed to his own testimony. Johnson is a “philosophical theist and a Christian. [He believes] that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead.” Through the rest of his text, Johnson makes little reference to intelligent design of any kind, except where discussing the scientific communities own actions. However, he makes no argument for another theory at all, simply a criticism of the existing one.

In the conclusion of his first chapter, Johnson describes himself as “not a scientist,” he states, “but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments.” This is the skill most clearly employed through the course of his book. Beginning with a linguistic discussion of the word “science” and what exactly it means according to various official statements. Johnson makes a compelling argument about the legal setting of scientific terms which reveal a bias that actually limits scientific integrity more than supporting it.

Johnson doesn’t shy away from the very specific discussion of the evidence supporting Darwinism. He spends about the first half of his book discussing natural selection, fossil records, mutations, molecular evidence and more, peppered throughout. But the other half of the book begins a critique of the scientific community at large; with Darwinism as a centerpiece.

Some of Johnson’s most compelling discussion involves the difference between empirical science and philosophical science—Darwinism falls largely in the latter. However, we have a difference here that the general public knows nothing about and because of philosophical reasoning, shouldn’t know anything about.

Johnson writes clearly and effectively and so that everyone can understand. The book is divided into 154 pages and twelve chapters. That leaves each chapter short enough that you don’t need a great commitment to the book to work through it. Johnson has a manner of writing that, although he is discussion relatively dry material, we never find ourselves especially bored.

Most Americans view the scientific community remembering the scientific method from back in grade school. Remember? Problem, research, hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis test, analysis, conclusions. This is not big science; it is sometimes, but not all the time, but we don’t see the difference—it all gets labeled science. Perhaps the populous shouldn’t rely so heavily on the science community for its truth.

Because the book speaks clearly for itself, and for fear of misrepresenting it, I’ve intentionally stayed away from Johnson’s specific critiques of the science community and of Darwinism. I recommend this book to all. It’s easy to read, easy to understand, and affordably priced.

In Philippians 4:11, Paul says, “I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am”; he will not be swayed by the afflictions of living with much, or living with little—giving note to the fact that there are heavy afflictions in both circumstances. This is the subject and the work of Jeremiah Burroughs in his classic text, The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment. Originally published in 1648, Contentment later underwent some language modernization and was most recently republished by Banner of Truth as a part of their Puritan Paperbacks series.

I finished the text today and have some mixed feelings regarding Burroughs’ thoughts on the topic. Burroughs’ text focuses on attempting to unpack Paul’s words to the Philippians. What does it mean to be “content”? How can that be achieved? What are the implications upon a content person’s life? What if we’re not content? Burroughs answers all of these questions quite clearly—sometimes too clearly. Unfortunately, at times his answers, well, just aren’t really satisfactory considering the evidence.

Burroughs begins by defining contentment. After reading the first chapter (slowly), there was still a bit of ambiguity concerning what exactly it means for a person to be “content”. I ended up attempting to draw conclusions of Burroughs’ definition from the coming context of the book. Unfortunately, it still wasn’t especially clear. It seems after finishing the book that Burroughs’ means to say that contentment is a sense of being okay with, satisfied in, not needing more than, whatever physical circumstance we may find ourselves in. This seems to be a relatively obvious interpretation of Paul’s words to the Philippians, however, Burroughs doesn’t always sound like that’s what he means when talking about contentment. Perhaps its generational.

Burroughs flows through a kind of rocky path of exploration. He begins with a definition of contentment, flows into how mysterious and miraculous a thing it is (although, doesn’t seem to designate it as something Christians can exclusively enjoy), then moves into the modes of teaching Christ employs when instructing his people. Following that, he goes on to explain the ‘excellence’ of being content. Up until this point, I tracked quite well and often added audible “hmm” noises to my reading. Following his bit on contentment’s excellence, he moves into the sin of not being content, or as he puts it, the sin of a ‘murmuring’ spirit. It’s at this point that things began to swing a bit out of balance—at least in terms of the whole of scripture.

Burroughs makes the point well that contentment is a duty. We ought to fight for it, seek it, labor to attain it. It is also convincing that to be discontented is sinful and we should not be okay with that kind of ingratitude. Unfortunately though, Burroughs’ bit on sin, unlike many of his contemporaries, seems never to really call back to the work of Christ on the cross. Frankly, I was a bit astonished. He had a great deal to say about God’s wrath and his wrath poured out on the discontented, worldly heart. But strikingly little to say about the great ocean of wrath poured out on the dying Jesus on behalf of his bride, who would undoubtedly struggle to achieve contentment all her days.

His definition of ‘murmuring’ is also a bit unclear. At times it seems that he means some deeper heart condition that is out of rest and ungrateful toward God. However, at other times, it seems that his definition might mean something more like complaining. At times of the latter, it’s hard not to call to memory David’s psalms, which are flooded with complaints.

When finally emerging from those chapters on the evils of discontent, Burroughs’ returns to more useful discourse. Namely a conversation about how people regularly will excuse themselves from guilt in discontentment, followed by a clear and practical discussion of how to achieve contentment.

Much of Burroughs’ text was convicting and inspiring. Some of it was discouraging and frankly, out of balance. However, while I disagree with a good chunk of his thoughts, even in the midst of questionable things, there are to be found nuggets of really good insights. I think unlike some of the other books in the Puritan Paperbacks collection, this one may be written more directly to its specific time period. Not that contentment isn’t ageless duty, but rather his method and tone may not be suited well for all time periods.

Because of my own reservations, I don’t recommend this book unless your up for the challenge of discerning and scrutinizing the text. If that is something you’re up for, there’s some excellent insight to be gained here. If you’re not up for that, may I recommend anything written by John Piper; God willing, the intended effect will be much the same.

I read Bruce Shelley’s Church History in Plain Language before I started keeping this website, so I never wrote a review for it. Late last night I was recalling how much I enjoyed the book and decided that I should share my thoughts.

Among the first things that should be noted in writing about Church History is Shelley’s purpose in this work. Shelley states clearly that this book is an “introduction” to church history and is designed for the everyday Christian; layman and congregant alike. If we were to evaluate this book with the same rubric as collegiate books on the topic, we’d find this book severely lacking. But if we grade this book according to its own claims, we’ll find a rich source of encouragement to further understand the earlier branches of our faith.

In the interest of readability, no references are found anywhere throughout the text, however recommendations for more scholarly reading can be found at the end of each chapter. For me, this helped keep the reading liquid. It helped me to engage the history as a story that I was interested in hearing and on some level felt a part of, as opposed to something dry and sterile.

I began reading Church History before I had become more confident and consistent with my extra-biblical reading, so coming at about 550 pages this endeavor was an ambitious one for me. However, besides being a novice at reading anything this scale, the writing made it easy to glide through while still understanding the text.

In Church History Shelley takes us though 2000 years of church operation, starting right after the ascension of Christ all the way through to 1996. Church history can become a sticky subject, with heresy after heresy, then division after division. Things can quickly become confusion. Any writer planning to take on 2000 years ecclesial webs is either going to have a very, very long book when their done, or is going to need excellent organizational skills to scale so vast a wall. In this instance, Shelley just so happens to be a well organized writer. In the text, after the first four centuries of history things began to get a little bit confusing. Simple the sheer madness of political and religious shifts could send anyone’s head spinning. But Shelley does a better job than many at keeping things straight.

The practical organization of the text is such that it helps a reader forget the size the literature he’s taking in. The book is broken down into “ages” (i.e., The Age of Jesus and the Apostles, The Age of Ideologies, etc.), each one coming in at around 50 – 75 pages. Each age is broken into much smaller, more digestible chapters of around 8 pages. In the interest of clarity, not all chapters are strung together in perfect chronological order.

Throughout history, there have been many disagreements in the church. The most notable probably being during the time of the reformation. In that context, it is easy for folks to fall to one side of theological lines or the other. In this instance, most of Shelley’s words read unbiased, simply retelling the history, with little of his own commentary.

Here’s the skinny on this book: you’re not going to finish this book and be a church history genius (well, maybe you will, I don’t know). But what likely will happen is when you put this book down you will most likely have a more cohesive snapshot of church’s history. It will probably help you to understand how we got from the time of the Apostles and the church in Acts, to today. For me, it helped to challenge my ideals as far as church organization and methods are concerned. Seeing, quickly, how things were spread out helped me not to see myself as being the first to try and figure this stuff out, but in a way, knit me together with the people who have gone before me.

This book was encouraging, and enriching. I recommend it to anyone desiring to enrich their faith and more specifically, anyone interested in the subject.

Back in January I started a slow study through Romans along with the Pillar New Testament Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans written by Leon Morris. This morning, I finished the study.

When I started the study, I was looking to walk through something that wouldn’t spend too much time teaching the reader how to apply the text (not that that’s a bad thing) but would spend more time exegeting the actual text and leave the application up to the individual. That’s quite exactly what this commentary did; I know that has a name, but I’m not accustomed to it.

The format of the commentary is simple and familiar. A block of scripture is laid out, followed by a deconstruction and explanation of each verse. Explanations on any one verse ranged anywhere from one or two sentences, up to three or four pages, but with most of them coming in around two paragraphs. Multiple verses are scarcely combined into one comment. The first four chapters of Romans make up about forty percent of the commentary, as much of the foundation for the Apostle’s theological statement fall within those chapters.

Morris has a manner of writing that communicates an appealing sense of humility. While he holds his particular views, he also (usually) uncritically presents the opposing views and the arguments for all of them. During my reading of the book, this style helped me to look at the text and think critically for myself about what is said. In the majority of cases, Morris’ standpoint is the most rational and represents of the majority view of bible scholars.

Morris is clearly a member of the reformed theology tradition, but in his writing he presents himself as firstly committed to scripture. This comes out clearly in several places in which he is not at all afraid to unpack scripture that appears ‘dangerous’ to reformed thought. Rather than trying to fanangle the scripture, he treats in plainly and openly.

Although it’s based on the NIV, the PNTC Epistle to the Romans comes across as a scholarly commentary. It finishes out at about 550 pages and spends a good deal of time on linguistics and Greek.

Looking back on the commentary, I have only two real criticisms. The first criticism being that it’s not too clear why the commentary was based on the NIV. In Morris’ comments he regularly makes reference to NIV having “missed the mark”; not every time, but often enough to make one wonder why they didn’t just go with the ESV (a translation that Morris regularly refers back to with fond words). The other criticism is that Morris places a lot of information within parenthesis. This makes reading choppy at times. Had the parenthetical information been placed in the footnotes, reading would have been much clearer and smoother. Both of these are minor concerns.

All in all, this is a good commentary that I recommend as a reference tool to anyone, and a good tool for a student’s private study. The average reader may not benefit from purchasing this commentary purely for reference, as similar reference tools are available for free online (check my links to the right). For a student, the purchase is easily justified. And likely beneficial.

For a book titled Encouragement, I’ve actually found myself kind of discouraged. Now, I ought to clarify that. It’s probably, at least partly, a good discouragement. I’ll elaborate.

Dr. Crabb’s book is basically a beginner level counseling book. He speaks, almost medically, about people’s tendencies, thoughts, feelings, fears, etc. This alone, I don’t think would be terribly useful. However, Dr. Crabb builds relatively well on top of biblical foundation (albeit stretching things sometimes) which allows him to speak with more authority.

While I didn’t agree with everything Dr. Crabb had to say, I completely agree with the overall theme of the book, which is simply this: Rely only on God for everything, and on all occasions hold others above yourself. A pretty simple and elementary message, as some would say, but Dr. Crabb tenderly builds a subtext that clearly reveals the rarity with which we actually practice that message.

Encouragement spends the first twelve chapters dealing with the heart and motive of the encourager and only in the last two chapters does Dr. Crabb move onto encouraging others. He argues (well) that encouragement requires that the encourager’s heart be right in his words and actions. He delves deeply into people’s thoughts and motives behind why they speak and what they choose to speak and how they choose to speak it. The discussion is done with a level of care and intimacy that will almost certainly hit home with the reader.

There were some things that I disagreed with, although they may really just be contextual grievances. I think that Dr. Crabb failed to take into account the varying degrees of relationships. There are clearly times to go to close friends or wives about troubles and pains in life; that wouldn’t necessarily be wrong, and in many cases could likely be encouraging to the other person. However, Dr. Crabb paints a picture of encouragement that makes it sound like encouragers are not ever to voluntarily open up themselves and their grief to another person—barring the circumstance that the other person comes looking for it. It was this that caused me to find myself walking the line of discouragement. However, that point seems to be made, inadvertently, between the lines and I doubt Dr. Crabb would actually say that outright.

Ultimately, this book caused a great deal of introspection in me. It forced a serious evaluation of my thoughts and motives and actions. With time and prayer, I hope that the concepts in this book will bear fruit in my relationships with God and people.

I wouldn’t recommend this book to the casual reader. I could easily see it becoming confusing or even an undue pressure and discouragement if misunderstood. However, anyone able and willing to approach the book, at least kind of academically, will probably find a lot to learn here.

When I began reading Thomas Watson’s The Lord’s Supper I was expecting, and probably seeking, a better idea of the biblical teaching of the sacrament of communion. What I got was actually much more beautiful.

This book is almost more of a large pamphlet than a book, finishing at just eighty-six pages. I thought when I began I would start it and finish it all in one day. I quickly decided to take it slowly. Watson clearly writes to a group of people who already share a common understanding of the sacrament, as so he makes no defense for any kind of theological standpoint. Instead, as with most Puritan literature, he focuses primarily and consistently on the cross and the implications that it bears for us.

Watson calls us back consistently to undertake the difficult task of examining ourselves, particularly in the context of the sacrament. However, readers who earnestly consider his words will in all likelihood find them permeating their daily walks.

I ended up reading this book like a daily devotional. Taking just a few pages at a time and thinking about them, praying about them, and considering how what was said might affect my life. So what might have taken only a matter of hours on an intellectual level, took more than a week on a spiritual level. I regret no part of that.

In classic literature such as the puritans, it can sometimes seem like your reading a completely different language. As far as ease of reading goes, Watson falls on the easier side. The most difficult part of this book for modern readers will probably be a sometimes unusual vocabulary and occasionally a strange sentence structure.

All in all, I would recommend this book to Christians; particularly those interested in finding deeper love for Jesus, gratitude for the cross, and humility of heart. What honest Christian doesn’t want that?

Just yesterday I finished Thomas Watson’s The Great Gain of Godliness. Banner of Truth (a publishing company that I’m falling more and more in love with) re-releases a whole slew of classic text from Puritans and makes it available to us for shockingly reasonable prices (right now five books for $34, plus 25% off, plus free shipping; it’s a pretty sweet deal. I bought twelve of them.)

This book took me longer to finish than it probably should have because I’ve been sick. But besides that, it was a pretty easy book to track with, at least compared to many of the other authors in the puritan arena.

Godliness as with most Puritan literature is laced all throughout with scripture. The book itself is actually “Practical Notes on Malachi 3:16-18.” I was about four or five chapters into the book before I realized this. I was thinking to myself that it seemed like there was slightly less references to scripture in this as compared to other puritan stuff, so I flipped to the beginning of the book and found why—that’s all it is; discussion about scripture. And good discussion at that.

Malachi 3:16-18:

“Then those who feared the LORD spoke with one another. The LORD paid attention and heard them, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who feared the LORD and esteemed his name. “They shall be mine, says the LORD of hosts, in the day when I make up my treasured possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his son who serves him. Then once more you shall see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him.”

Through the book’s two parts and sixteen chapters, Watson takes this scripture and helps to apply it practically. Some themes of this scripture, such as fear of the Lord or the idea of some being ‘spared,’ are foreign to Western Christianity. I found those parts especially compelling.

I would recommend this book to anyone who’d like to explore some Puritan literature. Because it was among the easier of Puritan stuff to read, I would definitely recommend this book over almost anything published recently. There’s just more punch packed in. However, being that the topic of the book is a little vague, I’m not sure yet under what circumstances I’d recommend it yet.

Ten days ago I started following the day by day lesson plan of a little book called 10 Days to Faster Reading, by Abby Marks-Beale and the Princeton Language Institute. The original post can be found here. The purpose of the book is pretty well summed up in the title. Yesterday, I finished the program.

So, William, are you a faster reader now than you were before you started? The short answer is yes; significantly. The long answer is a bit more complicated.

The Book

I’m generally not a fan of books that make huge promises and claims in the title (i.e., Your Best Life Now). I always expect them to read like an inaudible infomercial. “In only fifteen-minutes a day, you could be on your way to so much money you’ll want to puke!” The cover of our current book, while modest in its design (purple, white and black), reads in a manner that’s difficult not to hear in the voice from the guy on the Oxy Clean commercials. If you can’t tell, self-help type books don’t generally sit well with me. However, despite my judging this book by its cover, it proved itself in its pages.

The book stays largely academic; something I appreciate. Where many books in its genre sound something like a hokey life coach speaking, this one sounds more like a patient, caring school teacher. The book is divided evenly into ten chapters. The chapters generally focus on breaking old habits and forming new ones. Each chapter includes a benchmark to test your speed and comprehension. Each day introduces you to some new techniques to help build speed and comprehension and encourages you to practice those techniques, then of course to try the techniques you’re comfortable with on the next benchmark.

The beginning of the book focuses mostly on the bad habits we form when we first learn to read. Marks-Beale gives some helpful advice for breaking those habits; advice which I will attest is surprisingly effective. Things such as not reading to yourself out loud or in your head; that one I found especially effective. As she presents some helpful hints for breaking those habits, she also offers some useful techniques to replace those habits. Pacers, key-wording, reading between the lines, are among them.

Toward the end of the book, she starts to move away a bit from the academic topic and more into, what feels sometimes, like out of place life advice. For example, how to prepare for a board meeting you weren’t ready for or how to determine what emails you should and shouldn’t read. Per Ms. Marks-Beale’s advice, I skipped these sections altogether.

My Experience

On day one, I was reading at 185 words per minute, at 70% comprehension (technically a slow reader). Newly aware of my bad habits and actively trying to implement good habits, by day two, I was up to 220 words per minute with 90% comprehension (just barely making the cut as an “average” reader.) Clearly by the second day I was seeing results. Throughout the program, I fluctuated with my speed and comprehension because of experimenting with different techniques, but finally I ended at 345 words per minute with 70% comprehension (finally a “good” reader). At nearly twice my original reading speed, I’d say that the program was a wild success.

Each chapter Marks-Beale shares a new “pacer” method to help speed up your reading. Of the many offered, I felt the most comfortable using the white card method. The idea is to use an index card to keep track of where you’re reading. The only difference here is instead of placing it, in the traditional way, under the words your reading, she suggests placing it above the words your reading. This helped stop me from rereading things I’d already read. It also helped stop me from day dreaming.

Another technique she suggested was to read between the lines. As ridiculous as it sounds, it ends up working shockingly well. Much of the idea of speed reading comes from the thought that we can read word chucks, not just words. Every time our eyes stop, our mind picks up information. The more information you can pick up on one stop, the faster you can read; it’s reading with your peripheral vision. Reading between the lines is literally just that. Instead of placing your eyes directly on the words you’re reading, look right above them at the white space. This helped me to stop focusing on specific words and pick up more information in one glance.

My eye span I think is my biggest problem. I don’t confidently pick up as much in my peripheral vision as I probably could. The solution to that? Exercise. Throughout the book, there are various eye exercises to help expand your eye span; helping you become better at picking up more information in one glance. One problem, however, was that the exercises weren’t really adequate. They were often too short and once I memorized them, I wasn’t really gaining much. However, this has not been a problem thanks to a great program, Ace Reader, which Marks-Beale suggests in one of the later chapters. The program is full of tests to help build speed and comprehension, but most helpful, I think, are the games to help expand your eye span. The program alone I think would be insufficient to dramatically increase reading speed. Ace Reader is available for 30 days free from their website; then $49.95 if you want to keep it.

As a whole, my reading clearly became faster in the ten day period. I definitely learned some great new techniques for reading faster, which will only open the roadway for me to continue to improve my speed and I became aware of some really bad habits that were blocking me from reading faster. I would say this book lives up to its title and anyone who will stick with this reading program will almost definitely experience an increase in speed and comprehension. You’ll have to stick with it though!

Kudos Abby Marks-Beale; you’ve written an effective and useful book!

10 Days to Faster Reading from Amazon.com
AceReader
Original Speed Reading Post