I beg to differ. I've been far more addicted to a good page turner book than I've ever been addicted to a TV show. And when I finally put the book down 10hrs later I can barely focus on anything further away than 20-30cm. With TV I can also do other things not give it my full attention by checking email or browsing the web but I can't do that with a book
I really envy your ability to get hypnotized by a book, and I've heard others have similar binge reading sessions quite frequently. I love reading. I read every morning and night, but I can only read for about an hour at a time. I do read mainly non-fiction, and I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it. However, I'm drawn towards non-fiction more, so wouldn't I prefer longer reading sessions for the books I'm interested in the most?
I read non-fiction and fiction books in similar amounts, but only the latter trigger binge sessions for me. With non-fiction, my brain usually gets tired after an hour or so, and I feel an urge to take a break. But with good fiction books, I frequently ended up reading an entire series of books over a week, with the only breaks being sleep, food prep, hygiene and the dayjob. Those sessions were more intense than binging TV series, which is something I am prone to do too.
I enjoy both quite a bit, and I wouldn't find it implausible that it's easier to get lost in fiction than nonfiction, even if you prefer the latter. I feel like when I read nonfiction, I generally like time away from the book to digest it, compare the new models I'm forming with existing ones that I have, integrate external information into the stuff I'm learning about (e.g. by Googling or talking to friends).
With certain kinds of fiction, I'm much more able to get completely lost in the world created to the point that I lose track of what's going on around me.
