To add to this, it isn't "doing it bad" if you aren't out there reading deep texts. Just as it isn't "doing it badly" if you can't run a 4 minute mile.
As you say, you get better at what you are doing. If you want to get faster, at anything, you don't really have the option of skipping the slow phase.
But it's also important to realize that it is "doing it bad" if you are hoping to run a 4 minute mile but your only training is slowly walking around the block forever. At some point you have to seek out more substantial books. You can't just continually read pulp fiction and think you're going to improve at anything; you have to progress.
Largely fair. This is one where the specific goals, I think, work against people. I know most coaches will attach "attainable" to goals, to combat that.
To that end, if your goal is just to read more, there is no reason to worry about how substantial your books are. However, if you goal is to read more substantially, you should start by aiming a bit higher than where you are. Achieve that, then adjust target.
Progress, then, can come either in more volume of reading where you are; or in more substantive reading. Either are valid, to me.
To take this to the exercise. If your goal is to do a fast mile, agreed that just walking the dog is unlikely to help. If your goal is to be physically active, simple walks punch well above what people think they do.
I exclusively read fiction, mostly fantasy books (I used to also read programming books, but all my learning is online now). I enjoy them. I don't feel the need to "improve".
Because of my job (and hobbies), I spend a lot of time thinking and straining my brain. After 14 hours of working I don't feel the urge to read Nietzsche or Plato. I admire people who do, but for me it's just a way to relax (and maybe escape from daily chores). Am I doing it bad?
Book people really hate to hear it, but literary fiction follows Sturgeon's law just as much as Sturgeon's own genre. 90% of it isn't worth reading, and that includes 90% of what's fashionable at any given time. You're better off reading books you enjoy than suffering through garbage that you're told you're a bad person if you don't read.
(Literary fiction isn't bad. But for the love of reading, skip anything new and fashionable until enough decades go by for the influnce of fashion to fade. And skip things that aren't enjoyable to actually read.)
> But for the love of reading, skip anything new and fashionable until enough decades go by for the influnce of fashion to fade
You could stick to the old stuff, but I think it's also enjoyable to read things written by people that exist in the context I exist in. I don't know what "fashionable" means to you - likely best seller lists of awards? - but I don't find it all that difficult or burdensome (in fact, I find it fun!) to look for newer books dealing with topics and themes I'm interested in. Sure, not all of them are great, but a few are, and many are good. It's a little less fun TO ME to ONLY read consensus lists arounds "top books of the 70s" or whatever.
To be fair, this is no different than any other thing people might want to do more of. Increasing the amount you can bench press, cycle, run, read, write, cook, whatever. Most will allow you to progress at something that most people don't care about. Nor, necessarily, should they.
By far, the best thing to learn when learning to progress at something, is learning to be satisfied with your own progression.
Improve at the ability to read, understand, and digest higher literature.
I am in complete agreement with you that 99% of books are crap. It's the 1% that you hopefully want to get around to reading, and those are typically not the easiest reads.
What's how you so upset about their comment? They just said if you want to be able to read harder books, you need to start reading harder books. It's a pretty obvious statement.
As you say, you get better at what you are doing. If you want to get faster, at anything, you don't really have the option of skipping the slow phase.