****QUESTIONS for the Avid Reader, 2015 edition, Volume II

For our first question in this new thread, I'm using a question suggested by Reva and Suzanne/Poquette.

QUESTION 11.
In the area of genre fiction — historical, romance, thriller, science fiction, etc. — which is your favorite genre, or as Reva said, "guilty pleasure," and why? And who is your favorite author in that genre?

I'll be interested in the other answers, but I tend to only read genre fiction despite its genre classification.

I think my favourite genre and my guilty pleasure are not the same thing. I'd be hard pressed to name my favourite genre. I like mysteries and historical fiction (and when they're combined, so much the better) but I'd be hard pressed to say which is my favourite.

Whereas my guilty pleasure are Amanda Quick romances. He heroines are sparky and unconventional; her heroes are chiseled, flawed but have redeeming qualities and I'd not be kicking them out of bed for eating crisps. To read the books are about as intellectually stimulating as candyfloss is a nourishing health food, so I tend to describe them as candyfloss for the brain. Because as soon as you start, you know what the ending will be, it's just quite how you get there that's open to debate. They're safe, light, unchallenging, predictable, but leave you with a warm fuzzy glow.

And if you now want to kick me out on the grounds of that confession, it is a risk I will take.

>3 Helenliz:

I like Amanda Quick as well! I appreciate her witty dialogue.
She's a Seattle author and I began reading her books when I lived there.

I love pretty much all genre fiction. I read lots of mystery and fantasy.

Some of my favorite historical mystery series -

Mary Russell/Sherlock Homes books by Laurie King
Maisie Dobbs by Jacqueline Winspear
Charlotte and Thomas Pitt by Anne Perry
Gas Light Mysteries by Victoria Thompson

I suffer no guilt whatsoever about reading genre fiction! (Well, OK. Right now, I'm reading a Janet Evanovich novel, and it's hard not to feel as if I should feel guilty about that, because it's very much the literary equivalent of junk food. But, hey, even literary junk food has no calories!)

I tend to read pretty widely across various genres, but my favorites come under the umbrella heading of speculative fiction. Science fiction, fantasy, that big, fuzzy area where the two overlap... I like a bit of supernatural horror, too, although I'm pickier about that.

I can never, ever manage to name favorite authors, though. Well, OK. Maybe Terry Pratchett. *observes a moment of silence*

I like historical fiction and spy thrillers, and as Helenliz said above - when they're combined, so much the better. At the moment I'm reading some Robert Harris, and I've enjoyed some Ian Fleming in the last couple of years, but one of my favourites has to be Alan Furst. Why? Why not? If they're well written, with a good plot that keeps a decent tempo and has believable characters (or semi-believable in the case of James Bond), they can be an entertaining palate-cleanser between more substantial reading.

I've always been a history buff so if the story has enough attention to detail to render the whole thing convincing enough, that will usually see me through.

My favourite genre fiction is Sci-Fi, but I also used to like police crime novels, but have not read one for ages - Oh yes I have just remembered I read Dissolution which is a cross genre novel not really police but close to it.

Science fiction is my favorite genre as well. I read a lot in my youth, but only got back into reading it about three or four years ago after an absence of about 30 years. I haven't read enough by any single author to have a current favorite. My current "guilty pleasure" would have to be the pulp SF of writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs.

So - and this might seem particularly odd, given I live in India - I love westerns and spy novels - the pulpier, the better. My grandfather had a sizeable, ancient, paperback collection, and childhood summer vacations for me, atleast, are defined by the taste of mangoes, and the smell and feel of gently-disintegrating paperbacks. I don't consider them a 'guilty' pleasure (the heart wants what it wants) but I do often hear the people around me describe it as that.

As I've grown older, I've come to acknowledge that these books have many flaws - some are extremely politically incorrect, some have absurd levels of sexism, and so on. But as a kid, these were just books of adventure to me, and sometimes, I go back to read them again, for that.

Authors I've enjoyed include Oliver Strange's 'Sudden' series, and almost anything by JT Edson, but particularly those novels involving the Ysabel Kid, Peter O'Donnell's Modesty Blaise, Gregory McDonald's Fletch,and Flynn, novels, and Leslie Charteris' Saint books.

As readers of my thread know, my genre of choice is mysteries. In my 20s and 30s I read a lot more than I do now. Some of my current favorite authors are Janwillem van de Wetering, Andrea Camilleri, Manuel Vazquez Montalban, and Denise Mina. I've also been impressed by Dorothy Hughes and Leonard Sciascia. I tend to like mysteries that are character-based and have a good sense of place. I also love the NYC-based Matthew Scudder novels of Lawrence Block. In the past, I've read a lot of Elizabeth George, P. D. James, Bruce Alexander, Rex Stout, Dorothy Sayers, Marcia Muller, Sara Paretsky, Annette Meyers, Maan Meyers, Frances Fyfield, and of course Arthur Conan Doyle. It was Sherlock Holmes who got me started on mysteries, way back when I was 12.

This question was inspired by a comment on my thread about movies.

QUESTION 12.
Very often movies are disappointments for readers of books, but occasionally the movie surpasses the novel. Please let us know what movies you thought were better than the book, and give us some of the duds, too.

Makes me think if L. A. Confidential. I wouldn't even consider the book, but what a great movie. Another movie that comes to mind is A River Runs Through It, which is an old forgotten movie now. Different than the book, with all the characters about 15 years younger. But yet it's both a good book and a good movie. And one doesn't spoil the other.

Not a movie, but many years ago, after seeing the BBC's adaptation of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I attempted to read the book. My memory was shock that the BBC should have got so much out of what seemed so little on the page. I never tried le Carre again. (perhaps I should)

>13 Oandthegang: I'm a fan of le Carre's earlier work (his cold war stuff), especially A Perfect Spy (which is really about fathers and sons). I enjoyed Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (and the two Karla novels which followed it), and I couldn't follow the BBC adaptation at all (saw it after reading the book).

>12 dchaikin:

an old forgotten movie now

Oh I hate to think of it as that. That's a movie I revisit quite often and is always so touching. Brad Pitt's best role I would say.

----

I really enjoyed the movie so much for No Country for Old Men that I was almost disappointed in the book even though they are the exact same thing except for the ending. But really, that doesn't mean the book is bad, just that the movie was exceptional, and I'm sure I had read the book first, it would have been on the top of my list.

I've always loved the movie The Lover and that got me to read the actual books by Duras which are just excellent (although some on LT haven't liked this book as much).

Otherwise I don't read many books that are eventually turned into movies. My problem is more that I see really great movies and then I hesitate to read the books after so I have many books I think I'd like to read since I enjoyed the movies, but since I now know the story I don't feel like I need to read the book. Examples of this would be The Reader and We Need to Talk about Kevin.

However, as for duds:
Blindness
- not sure why anyone would turn this book into a movie as it's a powerful book but it's powerful because you have to use your imagination to get through it
- also it was marketed as more of an action film which confused a lot of people; in fact, I still feel bad about the teenage guy and girl who were obviously coming to this moving as a first date type of situation thinking this would be a good date movie; I couldn't stop looking at their faces at all the various scenes; they were horrified and super uncomfortable!

Any movie "based" on The Three Musketeers should be scrapped immediately without any further talk about going into production. Not a single movie has tried to actually follow the book and the movies end up being so cheesy. Eesh.

It's been ages since I read the book or saw the movie, but my go-to example of a movie that was actually better than the book is The Hunt for Red October. As I remember, it the book would constantly stop the story cold for pages and pages of tedious technical details about submarine engineering, or to tell us the not-actually-very-interesting life stories of characters who were relevant to the story for maybe five minutes. The movie, thank goodness, didn't have time for any of that, so it all got pared away until the actually really good, tense thriller buried in the heart of the book was all that was left.

(Needless to say, I'm aware that others' mileage may vary on this one, depending on just how much they love reading pages of technical detail about submarines.)

What a quirk of timing, as I just saw the latest film version of Far from the Madding Crowd, which made me want to go back and read the book again. Unfortunately it is boxed, but I stood in a bookstore outside the theatre rereading the ending, which I had thought seemed almost upbeat for Hardy, only to find it was written that way. It will be one of the first books I unpack.

I don't often go from books to movies, as I have a feeling that the movie will spoil my idea of the book, but movies can inspire me to read books if I see the movie first. Several mentioned already would fall into this category.

>15 lilisin: The Reader was a case where I saw the film, then hunted for the book and was disappointed, even thought there was very little deviation in plot. I suspect that was due to the strong performances in the film, which made it so convincing.

>12 dchaikin: L A Confidential was a great movie and got me reading James Ellroy, which might be an answer to question 11 above. He is definitely one of my guilty pleasures, although I understand that others loathe him. The film was actually an amalgam of several of his books, but mostly the one of the same title.

>13 Oandthegang: and >14 rebeccanyc: After seeing the more recent Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy version, I went back and watched the BBC production in a binge like fashion. It reawakened my appreciation of le Carré, whom I had abandoned somewhere after The Constant Gardener as the film and novel were disappointments. What really got me back reading him though was A Most Wanted Man, after seeing the film, which I preferred as the tension was better developed.

A quiet film which you could take your granny or grandchild to and still enjoy, was October Sky, which sent me out for the book.

Patricia Highsmith novels are usually well treated in films.

>15 lilisin: Any movie "based" on The Three Musketeers should be scrapped immediately without any further talk about going into production. Not a single movie has tried to actually follow the book and the movies end up being so cheesy. Eesh.

Too funny, but also too true. That seems to be the fate of a lot of nineteenth century classic adventure stories. Just too many story lines to compress into two to three hours, so lots must be lost.

Five minutes later: edited to add that I just discovered Bragan had just reviewed October Sky, another of those odd coincidences. It's good to see it is still being read.

>17 SassyLassy: It's amazing how often these kinds of coincidences crop up on LT! I've lost count of the number of times I've picked up what I thought was a relatively obscure, or at least not at all new-and-hot, book, and then popped onto LT only to find someone else discussing it.

And I agree about October Sky; it is one of those rare movies you can watch with just about anybody, and all enjoy it. The book is even better, though.

>17 SassyLassy: It was the recent version of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy that I saw, and it mystified me. I should look for the earlier one.

>16 bragan: I've never read The Hunt for Red October, but the movie was brilliant. I remember seeing it with my Dad.

I have a few - some where I prefer the movie, some where I'd say they are both very good -

The Princess Bride - I loved the movie and watched it over and over, but found the book less satisfactory (I read it in elementary school, so that may have affected things).

Howl's Moving Castle - the book is well worth reading, but I think the movie actually streamlined some of the tangled plot threads that had my head spinning when I read the book. Also, Movie Howl could be an irresponsible bolter, but Book Howl was getting close to an unsympathetic manchild. The animation for the movie is also wonderful - not surprising as it is Miyazaki.

Strangers on a Train - one of my favorite Hitchcock movies. The book is good, and interesting in that it is more cynical than the movie and diverges sharply from it after a certain point, but I love the movie. I liked a lot of the changes that were made and there are some classic visual motifs/scenes - the demented carousel fight, the doubling of the ex-wife/sister, and the tennis match scene - in the book, Guy was an architect, but in the movie he is a tennis player. There's a scene where Bruno is watching him play a match - everyone in the audience is looking back and forth, watching the ball, except for Bruno, who creepily stares only at Guy.

The Vanishing - the movie is a masterpiece of slow tension and psychological suspense/dread, but I don't think the book, which was pretty short, conveyed that as effectively. (Also, avoid the American remake which is really horrible.)

>21 DieFledermaus: I loved the original film of The Vanishing. I'm a big fan of that French actor (name temporarily forgotten). I'd forgotten that it was originally a book. Must hunt it out.

>17 SassyLassy: What did you think of the new Madding Crowd? I have a friend wanting to see it, but (a) I don't like Hardy (b) I saw the Terrance Stamp/Julie Christie version when it came out and I remember it as long and tedious and (c) I can't imagine anyone but Terrance Stamp and Julie Christie in it. I heard Stamp on the radio recently talking about filming the sword scenes. The new version is being well reviewed, but I'm not sure I can summon the energy for it.

>22 Oandthegang:

a) Hardy is one of my favourite writers, but if you don't like him, it could be difficult steeping yourself in his work for the length of this film.

b) Terrance Stamp and Julie Christie long and tedious, oh dear. How did you like the film version of Dr Zhivago?

c) I had difficulty at first picturing Carey Mulligan in the role of Bathsheba, but she actually did a good job. It did take me some time to get used to the pronunciation of her character's name, which I had always heard as Bath SHE ba, but here was rendered as something approaching BATH sheba. Matthias Shoenaerts was an okay Gabriel, while Michael Sheen was an excellent Mr Boldwood.

Overall, I would say it is definitely worth seeing.

>21 DieFledermaus: The Vanishing (the Sluizer version) was definitely an amazing film. I didn't know it was a book, but I don't think anything could approach the film.

>23 SassyLassy: I haven't seen Dr Zhivago since my teens, but recently came across a dvd which I brought home. I haven't yet found the right moment to watch it. It may have to wait for the cold weather. I loved it at the time.

A quick plug for two dramatisations of books which I confess I've not read : Cyrano de Bergerac a feature film starring Gerard Depardieu, and The Count Of Monte Cristo, a French television series, also staring Gerard Depardieu. Can't vouch for them as renditions of the literary works, but jolly good viewing. I was going to read The Count, after watching Depardieu, but got trapped in translation selection hell.

>17 SassyLassy:

That seems to be the fate of a lot of nineteenth century classic adventure stories. Just too many story lines to compress into two to three hours, so lots must be lost.

I'm okay with details being dropped or maybe some side characters getting less screen time, but full on changing the ending just so some characters can live or others can die is exasperating. Especially when the original just makes so much sense.

>25 Oandthegang:
Can't vouch for them as renditions of the literary works, but jolly good viewing. I was going to read The Count, after watching Depardieu, but got trapped in translation selection hell.

Yes, I'm sure if I had seen the movies before the books I would have been entertained. But this means you can enjoy the books oh so much more now!

I always think of The Godfather I & II when I think of movies that far far surpassed the book. And, although I never read the book, and the movie was fluffy too, I think that the movie of The Devil Wears Prada probably far surpassed the book too, if only because it had Meryl Streep!

On a more literary note, I enjoyed the movie of A Month in the Country and probably others that escape me at the moment.

Too many disappointments to mention, so that now I rarely watch a movie of a book I loved unless someone highly recommends it.

Meredith/mabith suggested this question back on the previous thread.

QUESTION 13.
Do you make a point to read authors from your home state/province/county/region?

I don't exactly make a point of seeking them out, but books about my home state (New Mexico) often do catch my attention. Even more so if they're about the part of it I live in. Sadly, I've only ever seen one novel set in my little town, and it wasn't particularly good.

I grew up in the Chicago suburbs so I don't really identify myself as "from Chicago". I'm sure there are lots of authors and books from or set in Chicago and I've probably read quite a few, but I don't seek them out and don't think of them as hometown authors. I do, however, seek out books from Scandinavia which is where my mother's family is all from. We used a lot of Scandinavian traditions for Christmas and holidays and so this side of my family has always been a part of my identity that I enjoy exploring.

I probably avoid works by authors from my home region if anything. Many write stereotypical fictional accounts of the Troubles set in stereotypical streets of 2 up, 2 down houses, or else chick lit style comedies set in grossly exaggerated rural communities.

There are definitely are some very talented local authors who work outside of these pigeon holes, but unfortunately there are enough stereotyping books out there to put me off. The country is still struggling to move on from the past (don't get me started on our utterly useless local Assembly), so I don't feel a need to spend my leisure time engrossed in it. I hear enough nonsense related to it on the news every day.

I am now off to take deep breaths into a brown paper bag.

Just going back to Question 12 quickley for my two penneth... I haven't read either book I'm afraid so maybe should not comment, but I wonder how good the novels Jaws by Peter Benchley or Psycho by Robert Bloch were? Anyone read them?

>28 rebeccanyc: Question 13

I don't particularly seek them out, but if mentioned I make a mental note. Books about the province where I grew up or by people from there are invariably about lives quite other from mine, so apart from a nostalgia for the land itself and a sort of self-deluding "these are tales of my people" pride there is no clear-eyed reason for me to identify with them.

Question 13

As others have said, I don't seek out books from my town (Chicago), but when I know a writer is from Chicago I'll give it a second look. For example, I just picked up off the library shelf Paper Lantern: Love Stories by Stuart Dybek, who grew up in Chicago. A couple of years ago I read Theodore Dreiser's Sister Carrie, which takes place partially in 1890's Chicago. Carrie walks some of the same streets my ancestors did at that time. And I enjoy reading stories by Joseph Epstein, who grew up on the North Side...I love trying to figure out the locations he uses in his stories, like hot dog joints, buildings, L stations, etc. Not to mention Saul Bellow, Richard Wright, James T. Farrell, Maya Angelou, etc., etc. Then of course there's Hemingway (from suburban Oak Park)--not sure if he wrote anything about Chicago, though.

I lived in San Francisco for most of my life and still am attracted to books set there — and movies too! Since moving to Las Vegas, I have read a couple of books set here, but because of the bigger-than-life reputation of this town and the stereotypical associations, I find it less appealing. Also it is not known for its literary associations while San Francisco has too many to mention — from Mark Twain and Jack London to Dashiell Hammet and Raymond Chandler, the Beat Generation, City Lights Bookstore, etc.

I'm late coming to this thread, so some catch up to do.

>3 Helenliz:, >4 nrmay: --- I was unfamiliar with Amanda Quick, and then the day I read your messages, I later saw her books at the drug store. I was all ready to buy one, and then I read the back description that said "paranormal," and I didn't think I was ready for a paranormal romance. Maybe another day.

Q12 - Movies that are better than the book? There are so many. The Godfather is a famous one. Let's see, from my reading list . . . .

A Room with a View - yes the book is very good, but you can't beat the cinematography, the music, and the fabulous cast (a young Helena Bonham-Carter! Maggie Smith, oh, I could just name them all.)
Out of Africa - it's not that the film is better, because the book is very good. But they are very, very different from each other. When I found out they were making this, I couldn't figure out how they'd film that book. They did it by changing it. And they made something wonderful. Can't beat that scene of flying over the flamingos. I'd have liked a different Finch-Hatten, but if you forget who the real man was, Robert Redford is suitable.
Les Liaisons Dangereuses - both versions of this book -- Dangerous Liaisons and Valmont are different from each other and both are better than the book. By a lot.

Those are the ones that come to mind. I could also make a long list of books that were excellent and then made into excellent movies.

Q 13.
Do you make a point to read authors from your home state/province/county/region?

------------------------

I try to read CanLit because growing up in Canada, I read none at school, which I think is horrible. And now I read it because I enjoy it. I sometimes like to read books set in Vancouver, but I have to be in the mood because they are often "off," and then I get annoyed. One author who does an excellent job of capturing Vancouver is Douglas Coupland.

Q13: Do you make a point to read authors from your home state/province/county/region?
No. I have read a local author, and I'll probably pick another up if I saw it, but I'm not eagerly awaiting it. As PG Wodehouse lived in my home town (and named a number of his characters after the area) local authors do have a certain something to live up to. Never seen anything set in my home town, not that I've looked extensively.

>36 Nickelini:, not all of them involve the paranormal. Those that do aren't necessarily the best of the bunch, at least in my opinion.

Q13: Do you make a point to read authors from your home state/province/county/region?

I have done, and I may do again in the future. As a Londoner I enjoyed the earlier Martin Amis and Hanif Kureishi books - particularly the latter: My Beautiful Launderette and The Buddha of Suburbia being excellent stories set in the capital's suburbs of the 1980s. While Amis' London Fields was not my favourite of his, I did like his portrayal of a very particular part of east London. I consider Joseph Conrad an adopted Londoner, and I've enjoyed many of his - including the London-set thriller The Secret Agent.

I did and do make a point of reading Israeli authors, though as it is fast approaching twenty years since I lived there I don't know if I can call that my home territory really anymore...

I've not yet read much written by Welsh authors, though I have many TBR. Coincidentally, before logging in to LT today I was reading a 19th century American diplomat's impressions of south Wales.

Of course, being from New York City, there are hundreds of books that take place here. Some I like, some I don't. Some explore the immigrant experience here and that can be interesting, although again, some i like and some I don't. The thing that drives me crazy is when authors get facts about NYC wrong, like the wrong names of streets, or one-way streets going the wrong way, or . . . .

>38 Helenliz: not all of them involve the paranormal. Those that do aren't necessarily the best of the bunch, at least in my opinion.

Thank, Helen. I'll keep checking when I come across them.

>40 rebeccanyc: The thing that drives me crazy is when authors get facts about NYC wrong, like the wrong names of streets, or one-way streets going the wrong way, or . . . .

Indeed! If you're going to use a real location, you have to get the details right (which is exactly why I like Douglas Coupland re: my post #37 above)

Question 13

Yes, and because India speaks so many languages (of which I know only three) I try to read as much literature in translation as I can, too.

I do read Canadian authors- and look out for the detective series by Robert Rotenberg as he uses Toronto as the subject of his books.

Re: Question 13

I was born in Berks County, PA, and I've had a Berks County mailing address for the last 40 years (living within 5 miles of the county line). It's only natural that I've read some John Updike. John O'Hara was born in Pottsville and Conrad Richter in Pine Grove, both in neighboring Schuylkill County. Read some of their books too.

Q13: Do you make a point to read authors from your home state/province/county/region?

No. There are only a handful of writers of note from Texas, and the only one I know of whose writing has any regional flavor is Larry McMurtry, whom I have not read. The closest I could come to a local connection in my reading is Cormac McCarthy who isn't a Texan but has lived here and used Texas as a setting for some of his novels, No Country for Old Men in particular.

Question 14:

I had a sort of mental list, at the beginning of the year, of books I wanted to read ASAP, and I think I've gotten through all of them, or at least all the ones that felt high-priority in my mind, so that's good. I've also read some really fantastic books, as well as finally getting to a least a few books that had been on the TBR shelves for far, far too long, which is also to the good.

But, that having been said, it seems to be impossible for me ever to be completely satisfied with my reading, because there are always more books I want to read than books I'm able to read. I also can't help looking back over certain reading stretches and thinking I should be reading more Serious Literature and less escapist fluff, but I try not to give that thought too much credence, since I know there are times when my brain just needs the escapist fluff.

As for changing my reading patterns I think the second half of the year is probably going to look much like the first half, although it is already feeling a little different, since my book choices are a bit less pre-determined than they were for much of the first half.

My reading this year has been a mixed bag. I joined the category challenge for the first — and last — time. Making a list of books to read is not an entirely bad thing, but for once I think there is too much "heavy" reading in my list because I am way behind in the number of books I typically read in a year. While it is true that RL caught up with me in a big way and I basically lost a couple of months of momentum, I am now back with it but I am going slow as molasses. And while I do not like to read by the numbers, my pace should be a bit quicker. The books I have read have mostly been great with only a couple of clunkers thrown in, and one of those was better in retrospect. There are still some great books I am looking forward to for this year, and I hope I can pick up my pace.

Q14 - I seem to be distracted by other things this year and not reading as much. I have such a massive TBR pile that I'll never get to them all . . . but at this rate (3-4 books a month), I won't even get to a big chunk of them.

My reading has been very satisfactory so far. I've read more than usual, partly due to discovering audiobooks. I think I've read a good mix of books and I'm only a little behind in the goal I set for reading off my shelf.

That being said, I often have a slightly desperate feeling that I'll never get to all the books I want to read. There are just always more that I'm adding to my mental list (and physical shelves). I'm coming to terms with the fact that this is just how it is. It's a better problem to have than what I experienced before LT, when I often felt at a loss for what to read next.

My reading so far this year has been disappointing both in volume and quality. I looked back to previous years where I felt it had been more rewarding and saw that in the two years I read the most, 2012 and 2013, I had participated in the Category Challenge. The structure and balance it had imposed on my reading seemed to have helped, so I will take a similar approach to my reading for the second half of the year.

This year has made me realize how much I use reading as a means to escape stress. Last year when I started substitute teaching, I read the most I've read in a long time just due to the sheer amount of stress that it brought me causing me to want to escape into literary world with authors who could show me a world of intelligence compared to the world of stupidity I was surrounded with.

But now I've only read one book since moving to Japan (I read three before coming during my last days of teaching) which I realize is mostly due to the sheer lack of stress I feel here. And the book I did read I kind of had to push myself through it as I was trying to use it to get back in the reading mood (didn't work).

In the grand scheme of things it's a good thing I'm not reading since it means I'm not stressed but I do miss the idea of picking of a pick and entering a wonderful world. I guess it also doesn't help that my brain can't decide what language it wants to read in.

So I don't think I'll even make it to five books this year but perhaps motivation will come back. (At least now I'm finally started to at least watch new television series instead of watching my favorites on repeat. Just recently started watching Breaking Bad!)

Also, I just thought up of a question I think would fit into this Avid Readers thread. It's something that has bothered me before and would like to get people's opinion of.

The question and it's follow-up is:
Are there any books that you're proud that you haven't read? Can you explain what it is to be proud in this sense? What are the reasons why not reading this book makes you proud?

(On the opposite side of the spectrum we could ask if there is a book people feel pride about having read. I don't think it's a question we've asked. So what makes someone proud to have reading something.)

After a good start to the year my reading over the last three months has slowed to a crawl. I guess I have just been doing other things, but if I was asked what i had been doing I couldn't really say.

I will keep on with my Master: To Read List

>54 lilisin: Thanks for that suggestion, lilisin. I'll keep it in mind for a future question!

Real life has got in the way the second quarter year. The last 3 months have been very difficult, and my reading has, to some extent, retreated to the safe, re-reads and the non-threatening. Nothing challenging emotionally, nothing to make me cry, nothing that cuts too deep. But that's OK, if that's helped then that's the right reading to be doing. Reading should be an escape. For a while it stopped being even that, so at least I do now feel I can loose myself between the covers of a book again.

QUESTION 13.
Do you make a point to read authors from your home state/province/county/region?

I like to read about where I am. It adds something, brings up unique connections and can make a place feel more like home.

QUESTION 14.
The year is half over. As you look back on your reading, are you happy with it? Would you rather have read differently? And as you look ahead, will you change anything about your reading patterns so far?

Hmm. I'm not sure. My best reading was with Le Salon. Now that I'm off on these obscure goals, i kind of don't have anyone to talk to - or listen to - about my reading. But, i've been productive per my goals, and it's been rewarding.

Q14

I've loved my reading this year - I really feel like this is the year I've properly got back into reading again (and that has totally been down to LT and all the great interaction I've had with you guys in CR).

At the beginning of the year I set out a list of 30 or so books that I wanted to be part of my target of 50 books this year. I've now passed the 50 mark and still have around 10 from that original list waiting to be read. Whilst setting the list gave me a goal to work towards, I've found that I still need to enjoy the randomness of picking a book off the library shelf, or to follow up a fictional book that has piqued my interest with some related non-fiction history books.

For the rest of the year I'll still keep picking away at the remaining books from my original list, but will continue to follow my heart and mood at the time with my reading choices. I've learnt that I really don't enjoy reading books of short stories, so will be largely trying to stay away from these.

I posted an analysis of my reading statistics for the first half of the year on my reading thread. Part of my goal for the year was to read more books from my TBR, and I didn't do too well at that. Since my life has been stressful, I'm reading more mysteries and more absorbing 19th century fiction than usual, but I try not to additionally worry about the kind of books I'm reading!

This question was suggested by lilisin in >54 lilisin:.

QUESTION 15.
Are there any books that you're proud that you haven't read? Can you explain what it is to be proud in this sense? What are the reasons why not reading this book makes you proud?

Or is there a book that you feel pride about having read. Why?

>61 rebeccanyc: I don't feel proud of not having read books. There are books I have zero desire to read, but I find being all proud about that a little... distasteful, maybe? I mean, I may think Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey sound super-unappealing and probably don't deserve their bestseller status (whatever it means for a book to "deserve" things like that), but it seems a bit silly to pat myself on the back for that opinion, and I don't see any call to make a big thing about it in front of people who, for whatever unfathomable reason, actually enjoy them. It reminds me of my mother's unbelievably annoying habit of looking at what's on your plate and announcing, in a loud voice, "I don't eat that shit!" and then not understanding why you're offended. I don't want to be the person who does the bookish equivalent of that.

As for books I'm proud of having read... I may be proud of how much I've read in general, or feel proud upon finishing a particularly long or difficult book, or one it'd taken me way too long to get to, but I don't exactly walk around thinking to myself, "Wow, I'm sure proud I read The Iliad!" I read books for lots of reasons, but the pride of having done it isn't really one of them.

Wow. That all probably sounded snarkier than I meant it to. Um... Sorry? :)

Are there any books that you're proud that you haven't read? Can you explain what it is to be proud in this sense? What are the reasons why not reading this book makes you proud?

I think a lot of times people like to define themselves by what they don't like. It's easy, that is to say safe to dislike things. Being the one who says "Pfffft, Titanic, that movie was so awful!" doesn't require a lot of defense on your part. You can be proudly not part of the "herd" and maybe other people will feel like they missed something if they like it. It's much harder to talk about what you like, because you are creating a definition of yourself with your likes, instead of an anti-definition with what you dislike or refuse to honor with your time.

So, are there things I don't want to read? Yep. Are there things I'm proud of not reading? ... Not that I can think of. Some things I'm pretty sure won't suit me, but I'm not proud of avoiding them.

Or is there a book that you feel pride about having read. Why?

I think that I can feel proud of reading some things in the sense of feeling like I'm developing a better cultural framework, or in having stuck with something in spite of serious doubts and feeling rewarded at the end for seeing it through. I spent last year trying to read 11 pages a day of Proust and made it through all of In Search of Lost Time, and I'm proud that I did it, for a few reasons. I've never seen through a large project like that, I now understand what it's all about, and I did it in spite of having to force myself through the first book.

There are two ways that I could think of that someone would be proud not to have read a book. One would be the one already mentioned where the reader is sort of placing his/herself above the quality of a popular book. 50 Shades of Grey pops to mind, or some of the more popular YA lit. I'd say there was a time when I would have secretly considered myself proud to not read these super popular books of questionable literary value. But since my own reading has expanded, I also have more patience with this and, while I have no interest in reading 50 Shades of Grey, I have found quite a few works of YA fiction that are quite good. I also love the idea that these books might be "gateway books" to non-readers that might open them up to the idea of reading and lead them to more books.

Another option I can think of for being proud not to have read a book would be if you didn't agree with the politics or morals of the author and refused to read the book. I can't think of any concrete examples of this, and haven't felt this way myself, but I can see the argument here, especially for a living author who you don't want to support financially.

As far as books I'm proud I read, I guess there are certain long, difficult books that I'm glad I stuck with and happy to have added to my personal set of books that I can discuss with other readers. But I agree that I don't walk around thinking "I'm so great to have read so&so."

I think that LT has been a very humbling experience for my reading as there are always tons of other readers here reading more widely or deeply than I am. And conversely, there are readers here who I completely respect who make time for some fun with some of the more popular books and YA fiction, myself included. Moral being, I just love anyone who takes the time to read anything!

To say you are proud of not having read a book implies that those who have read it should be ashamed. That would be a very narrow-minded attitude, since people read books for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with their intellectual capacity, literary taste, or political views. You could even argue that to not read a book because of what people may think of you is no different than reading it solely because it is popular--in either case it's being a crowd-follower and not an independent reader.

I might say I was proud of having read some super-long books like In Search of Lost Time and Clarissa, but all that really means is that I have more time to spend reading than most people, and that's not necessarily a good thing. And to say that I was proud of reading a super-hard book like Finnegans Wake wouldn't mean anything unless I could also say that I understood it (which I didn't). If I should feel pride in anything about my reading I suppose it would be its diversity rather than any single book.

>65 StevenTX: all that really means is that I have more time to spend reading than most people...

Maybe. I mean, I have no idea what your circumstances are, so that could be entirely true. But it gets me when people who don't read say: "I don't have enough time to read," or "I wish I had that much time to read." It's silly. Most people don't spend all day reading. Some people read faster than others, particularly when they really want to absorb something, but the main differentiator isn't the amount of time so much as what you choose to do with your free time. I've had people tell me "it must be nice to have so much time to read," who have as much or more time than I do, they just prioritize watching tv or playing video games or washing dishes (;)) in a different order than I do.

Sorry, I know that was a tangent.

Back on topic: I agree that for me, what would generate any sort of pride is more about the breadth of what I'm reading than the specific works.

I am proud I have not read the Bible and also Cormac McCarthy which sound fairly similar.

Ultimately everything we choose to read we do at the expense of something else. In our case, typically at the expense of another book. So, hopefully we take some pride in our decisions. It doesn't necessarily mean we disrespect someone else's different choice.

Now, i do have a list of books i'm not proud to have read...

This is probably going to make me sound very elitist but so be it. I'm proud I haven't read any of the Twilight or 50 shades books. I've read a few pages of both (and to appease a friend I've watched a few of the Twilight movies) and that was all I needed to know it's really not for me. The writing was abysmal in both and the characters horrid. I could have read them just to "have it done" but I chose to spend my time reading things I actually want to read.

On the flip side, I, like a few others here, am proud of having read books that were very long or difficult to read (To the Lighthouse, The Odyssey, A Game of Thrones).
I'm proud that I made it through the entire bible (in audiobook form because there are limits) even though I haven't a religious bone in my body.
I'm proud of reading books that I was intimidated by but that I wanted to read anyway (The Plague, The Jew of Malta, Brave New World).
And I'm proud of having read books that I didn't think I was going to like but I read them anyway and loved them (The Awakening, The Color Purple, Waiting for Godot)

I cannot think just now of any books I am proud of not having read.

When I was a teenager I felt very proud of having read Moby-Dick and The Count of Monte Cristo, probably because my parents made such a big deal of it. They were definitely proud!

As an adult, I don't think in terms of pride in connection with reading. But I do feel quite a bit of satisfaction — if that is not quibbling — when I manage to finish a challenging book. Last year I read quite a few of those: The Iliad, The Odyssey, Herodotus, Thucydides, the Republic come to mind. What I am not proud of is that I did not get to them until I was in my seventies!

I asked this question because I see this word "pride" often used when someone hasn't read a work of popular fiction. However I find the use of the word quite strange, as if it's not the right word to describe this sense. Especially as to me it gives off a sense of lazyness, a mighter-than-thou egoism and plain idiocy.

I too have avoided Twilight and 50 Shades but I wouldn't say it makes me proud to not have read them. I simply decided to read them because a) the plots didn't appeal to me and b) the writing samples I read weren't very appealing. But there is no sense of pride of having not read them. No sense of "hah! I'm better than the masses because I wouldn't even give them the benefit of my time to read them!". I made a choice and that was it.

Then I've seen people have pride about not reading the Harry Potter series. Why? It's a clever series that brings a real sense of joy upon reading. Plus it's a quick read so it's not like you can't get right back into reading Kafka as soon as you're done. And reading HP does not undermine your enjoyment of Kafka.

So I don't know, this sense of pride, this sense that what you read can't be tainted by "non-worthy" reads has always struck me as funny. I read "Les Miserables" (unabridged) when I was 10 years old and I read Harry Potter first as a college student (maybe around my junior year). I have good memories of both and I am not less of a person for having read Harry Potter. If anything I find you can only gain from reading books outside of your literary circle. Whether that just gives you a perspective on what people around you are reading, or are interested in.

>71 lilisin: I think you misunderstood me. I never said I thought I was "better than the masses" for skipping Twilight and 50 Shades. I said I was proud I didn't read them after having read a few pages of them and realised they were as bad as I'd imagined. And I'm proud I went with my own feelings and my own taste rather than reading books just because other people read them (like I did with several Dan Brown novels, for instance).

>72 PawsforThought:

Oh, I think you misunderstood me! My post wasn't directed at you at all since you clearly mention that you gave the books an effort. I was merely using the two books you mentioned as a means to explain why I asked the question in the first place.

>67 baswood: hey!

Ok, a bit of delayed response. Thought I should acknowledge being a target of your post. : )

This question came up because of a discussion on my thread.

QUESTION 16.

Are there books you consider more serious than other books? I'm not asking about, say, mysteries versus literary fiction, or books that are essentially comedic (although of course comedy can be serious), but within any one genre (for lack of a better term), can books be more serious than others? Give examples.

Off the top of my head, I would say there are certain books that bring up subjects that we need to stop, take notice of, and do some real thinking about like the power of words in The Book Thief and the power of prejudice and fighting a lost cause - just because it's the right thing to do - in To Kill A Mockingbird.

>75 rebeccanyc: I think the answer to that is "yes, of course," but I find I don't have anything profound to say about it. Some books are serious, some books are silly, some are meant to be thought-provoking, some entertaining, and some both. Just like some foods are are filling and some are light, some are spicy and some are sweet.

I'm thinking absolutely yes. And then, why not compare genres? Some genres are more serious than others. But, the details are little more hazy. And the methods of measurement can become very subjective. And the terminology can warp the discussion. Does serious mean important?

I think some books are out there to entertain and distract, and some books are out there because the author is in love with themselves, and some are out there just because they will sell, or may sell. All of those aspects detract from the seriousness of book. But serious books try to entertain too, and need to sell, and are written by authors who think their writing is of value.

Also some books are out there to win awards and be or appear to be great literature, where as others are out there to change to world. Efforts being equal, I would tend to say the latter is more serious, but is it?

Do we think of a book's subject matter when we think of seriousness, or the manner in which it is written? I think it means different things to different readers.

Picking up on Dan's comment, I would tend to lean towards books which change the world, but this can be through many forms, from books which address an important topic, to those writers who turn the craft of writing on it's head from traditional approaches.

Right, I'd say there is a semantics issue here.

Do we mean "serious" in terms of the tone of the work? I think we can all agree that certain books have a more serious tone than others.

Do we mean "serious" as in having a certain gravitas and therefore being more important somehow? There we would probably have more differing opinions. Is a book more worthwhile or important if it deals with a serious subject matter (like genocide, war, political injustice, etc..)? I don't think that I consider that absolutely true. I don't think it would be simply the topic that makes a book serious or important.

Also, I can take a book seriously without considering it serious in tone. For an example, The Diary of Anne Frank is about a serious topic and is of course sad, heart-breaking, horrifying, etc. But I would say one reason it has become such a must-read book and important to so many is that even though it is a serious topic, it isn't written in a serious manner.

If it adds to the discussion, I see the word used on my thread was "important" not "serious" and I apologize for the confusion/error.

It's a different question with "important". Although still my first answer would be yes, absolutely, and that answer would work fine until I tried to give examples.

17.

I used to - when summers were different from the normal year because of school/university. Now, working all year long and rarely taking vacations in the summer (except for things like the Worldcon), I seem to be just reading the same all year long. I will go through phases but they have nothing to do with the seasons.

Now - I may end up reading Christmas books around Christmas but it is mostly because authors tend to publish them then and they are in my face.

I like to read books that fit my circumstances when it's convenient. Hence, books set in Hawaii when I'm in Hawaii, books set in Italy when I'm there. And more to your question, books set in summer in summer and in winter when it's winter. I've done this for at least 20 years.

But I'm thinking of changing . . . one, our winters here in Vancouver are so short (maybe late-November to the beginning of February), so my winter books are piling up and I just don't get to them. Also, our summers are getting hotter, and this year in particular, I'm done with the heat, so thinking a book on polar exploration is in order. I was going to read Summer House with Swimming Pool next, but maybe I'll pull out Doctor Zhivago instead.

I don't think my reading changes with the seasons. I used to be the person who composed the yearly reading schedule for an online reading group, and I would try to fit certain books to appropriate months, but I've never done that with my personal reading.

I'm not a planning kind of reader, I read whatever looks good to me at the time I pick the next book up. So I don't plan my reading to vary seasonally, but that's not to say that it doesn't. I try and take advantage of the Christmas break to read a big chunky classic, one of those that takes attention and concentration and suits being curled up in a chair while it's cold & wet & miserable outside.

My reading more reflects my stress level than the season. The summers are very hard for me physically (I work outside a lot) and I tend to turn to rereads (like Austen) or mysteries when I'm really stressed. I also like to read books set in cold places during my hot summer work! I've read The Ice Palace and In the Kingdom of Ice this summer.

Generally I read in a similar cycle year round - mixing classics, books from the 1001 book to read before you die list, current literary fiction, and mysteries. I find that it gives me a pretty good balance to my reading.

I do read differently in the hot summer- I add mystery and spy novels to my reading plans. I do the same with films- I see entertaining but silly stuff more in the summer -i.e. the movie "Spy" really funny ( make sure that you stay until the end of the credits to see a funny outtake) but not great plot wise.

My life doesn't change very much with the seasons, really, so my reading doesn't, either.

I think I've said this here before, but I've honestly never been entirely sure about the concept of "summer reading" and what people even mean by it. They seem to mostly mean vacation reading -- books you read by the pool, I guess -- but I've never been entirely sure whether the idea was that summer/vacation books were suppose to be long and substantial, because you have more leisure to read them, or light and fluffy, because your brain is in lazy vacation mode. Either way, it doesn't seem to square very well with my own vacation experiences, which often don't happen in summer, and seldom involve much poolside lounging. I always seem to be traveling with people who want to pull me away from my reading and make me go and do things, so I try to bring books that are undemanding and won't be too frustrating to put down.

but I've never been entirely sure whether the idea was that summer/vacation books were suppose to be long and substantial, because you have more leisure to read them, or light and fluffy, because your brain is in lazy vacation mode.

Personally, I think it can be either, or both. If it was only the reading-lite mode, then I think the question would be posed "Are you reading Dan Brown or 50 Shades of Grey?"

My first response was that my reading doesn't change at all with the seasons, but in reality I think subconsciously it does. In winter time I seem happier to get stuck into some classic literature and/or a fairly long book. In the summer time I seem to have less patience and need more instant gratification from whatever I'm reading.

But I would say my reading is more swayed by how busy I am. If I have a lot of work on, I struggle to read anything too heavy in the evenings - it's just too tiring.

>88 japaul22: My reading more reflects my stress level than the season.

That's true for me too. On the one hand, I can read longer books in the summer because my work is lighter and I don't have as much commuting to do. So that's the opposite of "light" summer reading. But on the other hand I"m stressed, so I'm reading a lot more mysteries.

>88 japaul22:, >93 rebeccanyc:

Funny enough when I'm stressed that's when I read the more difficult works because I want to escape my world and enter another. It's why I managed to read 27 books last year doing the most stressful job of substitute teaching, but now that I'm living the good life in Japan, I've read.... 4. And three of those books were from before I arrived!

>94 lilisin: Really good point. When my mom was dying, I read Anna Karenina and a Salmon Rushdie novel. Sometimes high stress calls for something to get lost in.

This question was suggested by Jennifer (japaul) back on the previous thread.

QUESTION 18.
Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes? Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?

I haven't read all or even plan to read all of Alexander McCall Smith's writings (he's pretty prolific!) but I do get mighty excited when a new #1 Ladies Detective Agency is scheduled to come out. I would love to read all John Steinbeck's stuff; I've already read quite a bit.

I guess I am following Toni Morrison and Cormac McCarthy, but I hadn't thought of it this way. I'm still working through their older stuff and it's only this year I'm doing that. Next year I'm planning on trying Thomas Pynchon.

As for authors from the past, well I could provide a list...

In terms of modern writers, I'm pretty sure I'll end up reading all of Alan Hollinghurst's books. I could also happily read my way through the works of Ian McEwan, and may end up doing so over time. Kent Haruf was a new author to me this year whose writing really touched me, and I can see myself devouring his other 5 novels.

From the past there are too many! I'm hoping in a way I won't complete all of Richard Yates' books as then I'll have no more to look forward to, but it's inevitable that I'll read all his work as I just love his writing. I'll also continue to work my way through John Updike's books, and have read quite a few already, but I don't feel compelled to read everything he wrote as he strayed into some new genres which aren't for me.

Same for Virginia Woolf and EM Forster. I'd like to finish all their fictional novels, but don't feel a need to read through all their other published writing.

There are a handful of authors from whom the announcement of a new book has me hurrying to pre-order the title. And usually, for these authors, I then try to wait as long a possible to read that title. Denise Mina and Megan Abbott spring immediately to mind.

There are also a few authors where I have read all their books, save one. If I read that book, there is nothing left to anticipate. Here I include David Mitchell (I'm saving Cloud Atlas), Thomas Mullen (I have a very nice copy of The Last Town on Earth) and Anne Enright (although I don't think The Gathering will remain unread for long.)

I originally thought my answer to both questions was simply an unqualified "no," but as I think about it more I realize that I'd like to read everything by Haruki Murakami. I don't really go out and reserve his books immediately or anything, but I'm working my way through his books slowly. I appreciate the approach dchaikin is taking with Morrison and McCarthy, but I don't think I have that sort of backbone. Maybe, though - I made it through about half a year of Steinbecks a while back.

But in general, I have to admit I'm more about breadth than depth. I don't have a lot of authors from whom I've read a lot of books.

Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes?

There are a couple of mystery writers whose work I read within a year of publication (Sansom's Shardlake series, Tana French, and lately Robert Galbraith). For other current writers, I'm always interested in Hilary Mantel, Kate Atkinson, Toni Morrison, and Margaret Atwood, but though I try to follow what they are publishing I don't read everything. I'll skip a book that doesn't appeal because of the plot description or if it's a genre I'm not interested in (like short stories or science fiction).

Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?

The only author whose complete works I'm aware of having read is Jane Austen. I think I've even read most of her juvenilia. I would like to read all of Virginia Woolf's novels but I'm not interested in all of the short stories or essays. I think I'll easily read all of Barbara Pym's novels. Otherwise there are authors whose novels I'll read a majority of, like Edith Wharton and William Faulkner and some of the Russian classic authors, but it isn't necessarily a goal to read everything. And, as always for me based on personal taste, I generally only count the novels, not essays and short stories.

I forgot to add Sharon Kay Penman to my list of current authors. I've read all of her historical fiction and am half way through her historical mysteries. As I answered this question, I'm finding it interesting that the authors I've completed and follow their new works write genre fiction like historical fiction and mysteries. I suppose it makes sense since you know what you are getting and often the books are linked in series. With, for instance, an author like Hilary Mantel, her books are all so different that I can't be sure I'll connect with each one and some just don't appeal.

18.

Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes?

No, I read very few recently-published works. While there are some living authors I like, I haven't made an effort to read all their works or keep up with what they're publishing.

Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?

There are a number of authors whose entire output I might like to read, but I haven't made this a goal. The only authors whose complete works I have read are those whose work fits into a single volume (e.g. Shakespeare).

Q 18.
Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes?

I don't usually read newly published books (I like them to age a bit like fine wine or cheese), and I don't like hardcovers, so no not really. However, I do pay close attention to anything new coming from my favourite authors.

Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?

I've read all of Jane Austen's major novels and am working through her minor works. For Virginia Woolf I've read all but 2 of her major novels, plus all her short stories, one volume of her diary, one minor novel, and four books of her essays. I still have much more to read from her. Other authors I've almost completed include Roma Tearne, Margaret Atwood (novels), Charles Dickens, Katherine Mansfield, Ian McEwan, & Jane Urquhart. Authors who I'm still chipping away at (have read several, have several more on my TBR) include Kate Atkinson, Margaret Drabble, Douglas Coupland, Alan Hollinghurst, Julien Barnes, Heather O'Neill and Penelope Fitzgerald.

It takes me a while to get through an author's oeuvre because I usually read only one book by any given author in a year.

Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes?

I don't read much current fiction and if I do, it might just be a debut novel or the the one and only novel of that author. Amelie Nothomb, however, I've been reading her book from the very beginning. She comes out with a new book every year and once only needs about 2 hours to finish a novel so I love jumping into her world. I don't get her books right as they come out since those are 16 euros and that is way too exorbitant a price for 2 hours of reading. But I will read her books as soon as they go to the regular paperback edition at 4 euros. I now own 21 of her books and have kept a little pile of 3 books available unread since I like to dip into her during reading ruts. I think another 2 books of hers are out that I haven't purchased yet since I'm still waiting for the paperback editions.

Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?

The authors that I have made great progress with here are:
Victor Hugo
Alexandre Dumas
Kobo Abe
Akira Yoshimura
Stefan Zweig

And I will probably read all of their fiction works and maybe a few of their short story collections. Otherwise I tend to avoid plays and essays. Zola will probably also join this list once I've reached at least 7 of his books read. And many other authors like Shusaku Endo or another French author could join this list eventually.

However, like >105 Nickelini:, I tend to only read one work per year per author as I like to stretch out their works as long as I can so I can enjoy their genius as long as possible. If I were to run out of Hugo's I don't quite know what I'd do with myself.

When I was younger I made great strides with the Nancy Drew series. I was convinced I'd end up reading the entire original series (the yellow hardcover series).

Terry Pratchett. I just got the last book he ever wrote in the mail today. Thanks, now I'm feeling kind of depressed...

Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes?
No, I don't think there is, or there certainly isn't at the moment. I used to get the next Brother Cadfael book when it came out in paperback, but I've not read any of Ellis Peter's other books. Similarly we used to get all of the Sister Fidelma books, but they've lost something as the series has progresses. Terry Pratchett was another who I used to dash out and get, but only the discworld series, not the young adult or any of his non-discworld books.

Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?
No. There are some authors I've read most of, or everything in a certain genre or series. So I've read all the Dorothy L Sayers detective fiction, but none of her other writings or translation work. I can't think of a single author of whom I have read everything they've published. And, to be honest, I can't think of an author that I would want to read everything, there are some topics I just have no interest in, no matter who were to have written it.

Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes

Until this question came along, I was operating under the delusion that I didn't read many current authors. However, on considering whose books I read as soon as I can after publication, I came up with a fair list:
William Boyd
T C Boyle
Philip Caputo
James Ellroy
Janette Turner Hospital
Hilary Mantel
Robert Stone (just died)

Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?

George Eliot - have read all her novels and Scenes of Clerical Life
Jane Austen - have read all her novels
Charles Dickens - have read all but 2 of the novels

Authors from the past whose works I would like to complete are
George Gissing
Thomas Hardy
Walter Scott
Robert Louis Stevenson
Emile Zola

When it comes to the past, I seem to be embedded in the nineteenth century.

I can't think of a current author whose books I would always read although I do like Hilary Mantel.

Authors from the past are different because being a bit of a completist I can see just how many of their books have been published and so I can picture myself reading them all.

I have read all of D H Lawrence's books, plays, poetry published in his life time and most of what has been published posthumously.

I have read nearly all of the poetry written by Geoffrey Chaucer.

I have read 12 of the thirteen novels published by Patrick White (I am not interested in reading the first novel "Happy valley" or his unfinished last novel)

I have read 31 books by H G Wells, but gave up trying to read any more about halfway through his oeuvre (it started getting pretty tedious after 1916 and there was still another 25 years to go at the rate of two novels a year)

I have read most of Albert Camus that has been translated into English

I am close to reading everything by Olaf Stapledon

I am slowly working my way through Doris Lessing

Oh yes, and I have read all the novels by Harper Lee

Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes?

No, I rarely read a book within its publish year. This is partly because of my focus on the 1001-list books and partly because I get my books either from the library (long wait lists in NYC) or buy them used (it takes about a year for enough copies to appear before it shows up at an affordable price in the used bookstores). I am sure there has been an exception or two, but I can't think of any right now.

Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?

I am more interested in reading individual books and reading eclectically. Also, even the best authors wrote some not-good books. I am the same way with music -- I like songs not artists/albums. I had to give up on Pandora pretty quickly -- I would thumb a song I loved, then get a bunch more by the artist that I didn't like, thumb down a song I didn't like and the other three songs in their quartet which I liked or loved would be skipped....

I would have said I had read all of Jane Austen, but that was before the resurgence of Lady Susan, The Watsons, Sanditon. If I've read all of an authors work, it has been accidental and I can't think of any I might have completed.

QUESTION 18.
Are there current authors whose books you always read upon publication, i.e., is there an author who you enjoy so much that you read everything he/she publishes?

No--there's no one these days that knocks my socks off.

Are there authors from the past whose works you would like to complete or have read in their entirety already?

--Have read all of Jane Austen, although only read the juvenilia & Sanditon once; all the major novels I've read multiple times

--Am working my way through Dickens: still need to read 3: Dombey & Son, Barnaby Rudge and The Mystery of Edwin Drood

--Am working my way through George Eliot: still need to read 4:Felix Holt, Romola, Impressions of Theophrastus Such and Scenes from a Clerical Life

--Am very slowly working my way through Anthony Trollope's novels. There are 47; I've read 15, working on #16.

I enjoy all of these authors that even reading the lesser works are enjoyable for me.

47 Trollopes... I had a sort of imaginary thought of dedicating a year to him. It might take a several years.

Just found this entire thread! Too much here to think about, so I'll only respond to a couple of the questions.

12: movies vs books. I have heard it said that for The English Patient, whoever read the book first prefers the book and whoever saw the movie first prefers the movie. Is that true here? It certainly is for me - I loved the book (after resisting reading it for a while - I'd heard someone describe it in a way that really didn't appeal to me, but then it was the only book available to swap for on a multi-day train ride through China!) and found the film terribly shallow in contrast.

18: authors whose books you would always read. This is a list that gets shorter, I think. There are several authors whose first book (or the first one I read) was so good that I followed them for years, to give up eventually after a few duds - Sarah Hall and Andrew Miller spring to mind. At the moment, Patricia Duncker is still on the list; partly perhaps because she is not at all prolific. So is Nicola Barker, although her work is much more variable, because it's so original.

I would like to read all of Hilary Mantel and Penelope Fitzgerald. Going back further, maybe George Eliot? I've only read two so far, though (Middlemarch and Silas Marner, and the latter was at school!).

Looking through other people's answers, I'll add Tana French to the first part of the answer and Margaret Atwood to the second.

>114 dchaikin: Yep, 47 novels, plus several collections of short stories. Actually, the reading goes pretty fast. It's locating copies of some of the more obscure ones that's the challenge.

I'm surprised at how many people are saying that they don't read books by a certain author as soon as they are published because I thought I was the only one at Club Read who doesn't usually read new books. I always felt I was missing out, but I see that I'm not alone.

>115 wandering_star: I have heard it said that for The English Patient, whoever read the book first prefers the book and whoever saw the movie first prefers the movie. Is that true here? It certainly is for me - I loved the book

Only antidotal, but based on the sample size of you and me, it appears to be true . . . I much prefer the movie. Mind you, I read the book during a difficult period in my life, so maybe I wasn't fully concentrating. But I love the cinematography and the majestic tone of the film that I didn't find in the book. Also, Colin Firth.

>116 kac522: I understand where your coming from. - the excitement in tracking down that one book that will complete your reading of an authors entire oeuvre is something I can relate to.

I keep hoping to find another Catherine Bailey (of The Secret Rooms and Black Diamonds fame rather than the author of Mind Your Monsters). I would buy it instantly.

>114 dchaikin: & >116 kac522: I have The Works of Trollope on my Kindle. It says that it includes 50, so if your numbers are right, it must include some of the short stories.

>121 NanaCC: Could also include the Autobiography, too--that's included in a lot of collections like this.

Or his non-fiction travel writings; I'd say that's quite likely.

I'm a "mostly all" kind of reader.

On the contemporary front, I've read mostly all of Hilary Mantel, Bonnie Jo Campbell, Jaimy Gordon, Mario Vargas Llosa, Vikram Seth, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Magdalena Tulli, and all of the Andrea Camilleri novels that have been translated into English, as well as almost all of the Janwillem van de Wetering mysteries.

For dead writers, I've read all the Zolas in the Rougon-Macquart series that have been recently translated, and almost all of Jorge Amado, Alejo Carpentier, Barbara Comyns, Mavis Gallant, Vassily Grossman, Shirley Jackson, Victor Serge, and Antal Szerb.

For authors who wrote in languages other than English, I'm counting only novels that have been translated into English.

Years ago, I read many more mysteries than I do now (although I've been getting back into mystery reading), and I read all of the mysteries by Dorothy Sayers, almost all by Rex Stout, all by Bruce Alexander, many (he's so prolific) by Lawrence Block, all by Sarah Cauldwell, a lot by Elizabeth George and P. D. James, all by Annette Meyers and Maan Meyers, all by Denise Mina (more recently), a lot of Marcia Muller, almost all of Sara Paretsky, and all that have been translated into English by Manuel Vazquez Montalban (more recently).

This question was suggested by SassyLassy based on a comment on someone else's thread, and then coincidentally on the same day the issue came up on another thread.

QUESTiON 19.
Are there writers who you have an irrational (or maybe rational) prejudice against? Who and why?

Ernest Hemingway -- whatever I read of his in school totally turned me off, and as an adult I've never been able to return to him. I disliked his ultra-sparse style, was more a Joesph Conrad gal.

Jonathan Franzen - I hated The Corrections, and then I just keep running across things that he's said and it's just all so ... Franzen-y.

Dave Eggers - essentially the same, but with A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. On the other hand, he's behind McSweeney's, which I like, so I'm a little conflicted.

>127 ursula: I hated The Corrections, and then I just keep running across things that he's said and it's just all so ... Franzen-y.

Everyone on LT seems to hate The Corrections. I picked up a copy a million years ago and will read it one day because I have one (non-LT) friend who liked it and it's on the 1001 list. But I never want to pick it up because his bad reputation. Slate bookclub podcast also did a discussion on another of his novels, and it actually sounded like something I might like . . . but because of his bad rep, I hesitate.

Great question. For me, it's the same two as >127 ursula:, plus David Foster Wallace. I can confirm it's an irrational dislike as my reasons for disliking them are contradictory:

1. The mental category I have given them is essentially younger versions of John Updike and Phillip Roth - ie pompous and mansplainy.

2. The two things I know about DFW are (a) his most celebrated piece of writing is an essay about a cruise journey, and (b) footnotes, which just make him sound insufferably arch. Dave Eggers also, largely based on the title A Heartbreaking Work...

What a grab-bag of unquestioned assumptions and prejudices!

Anyway I don't think it's possible to be both pompous and arch, but hey, irrational, remember?

I also know in part of my brain that all the descriptions I have given above could well be wrong. But fortunately I'm not someone who suffers too much from the 'shoulds' and I know that I can fill the rest of my reading life quite easily with books I actually want to read, so I'm never going to find out first-hand one way or the other.

Well, I'm going to join the trend and admit to a heated dislike of Jonathan Franzen. I read The Corrections and hated it and, like wandering_star said, there are just too many books I do want to read to give him another chance.

In general, I just don't want to read books by men who can't or refuse to write real women characters. I have irrationally (because of reading no books or only one by the following authors) given up on Hemingway and John Updike. I can't think of other specific examples, but I generally avoid books by contemporary men until I read a few reviews around here that make me change my mind. I totally know that this is making me miss some great books, but I am happy with the variety and breadth of the books I read now and will expand when/if I get bored or on a case by case basis. Exceptions I can think of for recent works are Julian Barnes, Jim Crace, Abraham Verghese.

The only author I can think of is Victor Hugo, but there must be others I'm sure. I think of him as miserabilist and wordy, but as far as I can remember I never read a single book by him, so it's definitely prejudice. I did read a few excerpts at school but I don't think my prejudice comes from those.

Somerset Maugham is different because I did try to read one of his books, so I don't see it as prejudice, but I did feel like throwing the book against the wall, it was so badly written and whiny, and my feeling of disgust and hatred is probably slightly exaggerated if not outright irrational.

And then of course there are the bestsellers that I don't bother trying, or the books I don't think I'll like based on only a short description. There are so many books, most of those I come across I only spend a few minutes checking out, so the criteria for choice are inevitably mostly irrational I think.

For example, one thing that I find very disturbing is the number of books that are based on a denial of death. I am reluctant to read Life After Life because of this. And don't even get me started on all the zombies. Vampires I could get, but zombies????

Jane Austen, after a very, very bad experience with Emma in a high school English class (ironically, with a teacher who was a little too eager to instill in us her passionate love of Austen). Many have tried to pressure me to overcome this mental block ever since, but it never, ever works.

I have an irrational dislike of clowns, carnivals, and parlor magicians, so when the first novel I read by Robertson Davies contained these elements, I developed a dislike for his work that it probably doesn't merit.

I'll speak up for Jonathan Franzen and say that I thought The Corrections was excellent, and Freedom almost as good. I suppose this is a gender thing. But I don't often follow the lives and opinions of current authors outside their work, so whatever they may have done or said doesn't influence my reading.

I have a rational dislike of Henry James after reading what Maisie knew. I just did not like the way he structured his sentences. However after reading The Master by Colm Tóibin which provided an excellent portrait of Henry James (with my bookclub) I will be reading Portrait of a Lady next

I have a rational dislike of Toni Morrisson after reading Paradise

I have an irrational dislike of Cormac McCarthy having never read anything by him, but after reading Dan's reviews I think that irrational dislike may well become rational should I be tempted.

I share twogerbils dislike of Hemingway. I was kind of/sort of forced into reading most of Hemingway's novels in my last year of high school and all of those books endings seemed so depressing that it just ended up ticking me off and turning me off from him. Maybe if I wouldn't have had to read those works back to back, I would have had a better experience with good old Hemingway. (Maybe.)

The only author I shy away from at all times is Jodi Picoult. My book club read a book of hers and I liked it at the time I read it but found it utterly forgettable. I'll never forget seeing that book we had read in my book club on the bookshelf in the store years later and me standing there thinking "Why does that seem so familiar?" And then I realized, "Oh, yeah, I read that book." Couldn't remember a thing about it! I guess that goes under my irrational prejudice category. There's this part of my brain that says if I don't remember a book it must have not been any good - which is probably not really rational or fair to Ms. Picoult.

Oh well.

This issue came up because I mentioned on a thread that I had an irrational dislike of Joyce Maynard because of an article she wrote when we were both freshman in college (at different colleges), called An Eighteen-Year-Old Looks Back at Life. The same day, >131 FlorenceArt: commented on my thread about her dislike of Hugo.

There are various other authors I have an irrational dislike for, including the aforementioned Jonathan Franzen and many other "Brooklyn" authors, such as Jonathan Safran Foer. I'm sure I'll think of more . . .

I can't bear Hilary Mantel. Everything about her makes me want to run screaming. Long ago people sang her praises to me. I picked up one of the Tudor novels, thinking what a tome it was, and found it seemed to be written in the present tense. I hate the use of the present tense when describing things which happened in the past. Since then I have read and seen/hear interviews with her and articles about her all of which have reinforced my . There's a completely bonkers article she wrote about the Queen which I can't find just at the moment, but involved her frightening the Queen by staring at her across a crowded room. Get a grip, Mantel!

Add me to the list of those with a rational dislike of Hemingway--dislike his prose, dislike his attitude toward women, dislike all the d-mn drinking that goes on in his books, dislike his depressing outlook on life in general.

I have an irrational dislike of Steinbeck. Can't find any reason for it, except that the couple of works I've read of his, he comes off arrogant and self-righteous to me. (Travels with Charley, The Moon is Down) I know I haven't read enough of Steinbeck to truly judge, but he just rubs me the wrong way, which is preventing me from reading his longer works.

>128 Nickelini:, >129 wandering_star:, >130 japaul22:, >136 rebeccanyc: clearly StevenTX and I are the only Club Readers who loved The Corrections! Really interested that so many of you disliked it - it was a 4.5 star read for me this year.

I can't really think of any authors I have an extreme dislike of, rational or otherwise. It's more that I have a rational or irrational dislike of certain genres that puts me off a whole raft of authors.

I will perhaps just include anything written by Russell Brand, as I have a totally rational hatred of this egotistical tosspot who just needs to shut his mouth for a few decades.

>139 AlisonY: Just to be clear, I haven't read The Corrections. My irrational dislike of Franzen keeps me from reading anything he writes.

>131 FlorenceArt: -
I'm drowning in tears at hearing the Victor Hugo comment! One of my favorite authors.

---

I refrain from prejudice until I've actually read at least one book by an author because otherwise you never know what you'll miss out on and especially since your tastes may differ greatly from another. My mother and I are almost spot on in our tastes but every once in a while we become polar opposites on an author and I think those moments are exciting.

So, I have no desire to read more Fitzgerald after reading The Great Gasby nor do I want to read another Salinger after reading The Catcher in the Rye. Mishima I might give a third and final chance but I'm on the brink of purely giving up on him.

On the other hand I still want to read Sinclair's Oil! no matter how negative the reactions I've read against him and that book are.

>139 AlisonY: I'm glad somebody here likes The Corrections, as I have it sitting on my TBR shelves! The only Franzen I've read was Freedom, and while I had some issues with it -- chief among them that it would have worked a lot better if it were a couple hundred pages shorter -- I thought it was very well-written. The more I hear about Franzen personally, the less well-disposed towards him I am, but the guy can write.

I also have a collection of essays by him that I bought back when I knew nothing about him or how annoying many people whose tastes I trust find his essays. I'm now equal parts trepidatious and curious about reading it.

>139 AlisonY:, what >140 rebeccanyc: said! Totally irrational.

But nevertheless I admire what >141 lilisin: said about refraining from prejudice. But this is for the rest of us mere mortals.

>144 rebeccanyc:

Well that led to a nice chuckle at lunch today. :)

>134 baswood: love it Bas. I'm still enjoying McCarthy though.

It's funny how one author's quirks will annoy to the point of being unable to read their books, while another equally annoying author won't put me off. I mean, Franzen does come across as, well, quite full of his own importance and yet I loved The Corrections, enjoyed Freedom and have even read a collection of his personal essays (How to be Alone). Yet Nicholas Sparks's equally self-important attitude has ensured I'll never read him.* This may have to do with my perceptions about the respective qualities of their respective bodies of work.

I've entirely dismissed authors after I've read them, which seems rational to me. After my third Philip Roth novel, I am happy to conclude he's a big old misogynistic jerk and keep to that, despite a few good stretches in American Pastoral. I've also got a mental list of authors who I've tried and found to be too-MFA-y, if that makes sense. They have a sameness to them that annoys me out of all proportion to the actual quality of the writing (see A. Manette Ansay, although I had to reassess that stance in the case of Emily St. John Mandel). Or that particular kind of author who writes about the tremendous angst of being a well-to-do white person living in comfortable circumstances. It takes a talented author to make that work and neither Howard Jacobson nor Elizabeth Berg could pull it off.

* Never is hyperbole. Trapped in a snowbound cabin with only The Notebook or copies of Guns & Ammo magazine to occupy me, I'd read The Notebook. Or if Sparks writes something that is critically acclaimed and several people here write eloquently about how wonderful that novel is, then I might rethink this stance.

Elizabeth Gilbert. Eat Pray Love made me swear I'd NEVER read anything else she's written. I disliked her memoir to the point that I'll also avoid reading a book that she lauds. I will never understand how such a self-indulgent, whiny piece captured the praise of so many. My blood pressure is going sky high just thinking about it!

Almost missed this question as I was away on holidays, but now I'm back and I guess I should answer it.

At the risk of being scolded, I intensely dislike a whole class of books, those written by middle class English women in the second half of the twentieth century, which deal with the tedium of their narrow lives. I want them to just do something. The term "white people's problems" is more recent than these writers, but it perfectly describes the minutiae these women seem to be moaning about.

My other irrational dislike is for that class of books with seemingly over contrived titles: The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, The Elegance of the Hedgehog, The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society, various titles with snow in them, and so on. Did the authors put all their thought into the title?

Even sillier is the fact that long titles don't bother me in nonfiction.

re The Corrections: I'm on the strongly dislike side. I never did figure out what all the hype was about.

>149 SassyLassy: At the risk of being scolded, I intensely dislike a whole class of books, those written by middle class English women in the second half of the twentieth century, which deal with the tedium of their narrow lives. I want them to just do something. The term "white people's problems" is more recent than these writers, but it perfectly describes the minutiae these women seem to be moaning about.

That's funny, because this is a category of books that over the last few years I've come to love. A few years ago I would have been so bored that I would have partaken in some of the above mentioned moaning.

This question was posed by Dan on a thread and Kay suggested it would be a good avid reader question.

QUESTION 20.
If we don't like a book, how much is our fault and how much is the author's? Although that is an odd way of putting it. It's not like you can quantify it. What I mean is when is a book bad and when is it just that we, the reader, just didn't get it, or read it right, or read it from the right perspective?''

Or, I would add, not be in the right mood for it.

Give examples.

For more context, it comes from Bridgey's thread, here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/185024#5284462

Question 20

This is such a hard question to answer, but it is something I've thought a lot about. I don't think I can pull generalities from my specific experiences, but I'll share a few examples from my own reading.

It happens sometimes that I read a book that I expect to love because of the respect is generally garners in the literary world or because of reviews on LT that I end up really not liking. Examples I can think of are My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante, Passage to India by Forster, and The Shipping News by Annie Proulx. In all of these examples, I don't blame the author for writing a bad book, I recognize that there is value and good writing here, I just didn't connect personally for whatever reason.

But there are also books where I think I recognize "bad writing". I have a couple of early reviewer books in mind where there were glaring holes in the plot and predictable writing that doesn't flow. Some of these books I enjoy anyway - maybe they fill a certain desire to pass the time easily at that moment in my life or they have one redeeming quality that makes them palatable. One example I can think of from recent reading is Death Comes to Pemberly by P.D. James. This book was not good. The mystery did not make sense and the characters were out of character for what she was trying to do. But I kind of enjoyed it anyway. I had low expectations going in and I was amused for some reason.

Overall, I'd say there are very, very few books that are actually published that aren't worth the time for someone out there. It leads me to another idea that I'm still amazed at how differently we all read and how different books work (or don't) for each of us. To see this even in a group of readers as closely matched as we are is really amazing! Even seeing eachother's reviews and taking suggestions from each other we all read a very small percentage of books in common every year.

Not sure I really hit at the heart of the question, but those are my thoughts!

Overall, I'd say there are very, very few books that are actually published that aren't worth the time for someone out there.

But there really is so much junk out there. The one thing I find really annoying about Barnes & Noble and the new additions lists to my library and the notices of new books from amazon, and best seller lists, is the absolute terrible overall quality. Sounds snobby out of context...but I actually don't think it's an exaggeration. I mean YA has a place, and so do other (not always, but many sexually themed) genres. But they seem to have taken over my library and bookstore.

...

I only just realized I'm ranting.

>154 dchaikin: I guess since my reading information has really narrowed to almost exclusively LT I don't see all these junk books. I've always hoped that junk books will be a sort of "gateway drug" to better books by at least getting people enjoying the act of reading.

>155 japaul22: It's really not. Most people who read that stuff rarely/never read others. Not all, I know there are some folks on LT who read that sort of thing as their fluff between the more thought provoking titles (as I do with thrillers/horror/etc), but for the vast majority, if they read that, that's pretty much the entirety of their reading. I speak from personal experience with a number of adults who read nothing else.

>156 .Monkey.: so then the question to me is do we value this sort of reading? Is it at least better than watching junk tv?

I don't know. The good news to me is that even though I'm hearing that there seems to be excessive amounts of junk out there, there are still plenty of smart authors writing challenging, exciting books currently. And I hope there is a large enough market for this sort of author that quality books won't be going away anytime soon.

QUESTION 20.
If we don't like a book, how much is our fault and how much is the author's? Although that is an odd way of putting it. It's not like you can quantify it. What I mean is when is a book bad and when is it just that we, the reader, just didn't get it, or read it right, or read it from the right perspective?''

Or, I would add, not be in the right mood for it.

All of the above, of course. My most recent example: after listening to over half of the audiobook Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, I deleted it from my phone. It was on my wishlist because I'd heard good things, and it has highly positive comments on LT. But it wasn't working for me because I didn't care enough. It's quite technical, and right now it's not were I want to spend my mental energy. So yes, I didn't "get it", in part because I didn't care enough. It's like intelligent people who read Jane Austen and you can tell by their comments that they don't really get what she's about. I think some of that comes from just not caring about that world.

Sometimes it's mood. I abandoned Trezza Azzopardi's The Hiding Place twice before reading it and giving it 5 stars.

I think the fact that we have differences in what we would call "clever" or "worthwhile" is a big part of why it's not easy to get to a consensus on what defines a good or bad book. Some people are okay with having to work hard to mine meaning from a book, and some others aren't. Is a book bad if the only way to get anything at all out of it is to labor over it? Maybe - not because it's bad to have to work at meaning, but because perhaps a book should have *something* available to readers who don't put as much work into it.

I guess I tend to think that if I have to read a book from "the right perspective" then maybe it's not a very good book. Or maybe it was written for a specific audience, which I am clearly not part of.

I find it much easier to be confident of my judgment of non-fiction works than of fiction. I sorted my "Read" collection by rating and saw what I expected: Even though most of what I read is fiction, the majority of my 1-2 star ratings are of non-fiction. With non-fiction the goals of the writer are usually clear, so it's easier to say whether she or he met or missed them. With fiction there's always the lingering doubt, as others have mentioned: Did I just not "get" it? I'm probably typical in that I'm more inclined to conclude that a book was "not for me" than that it was simply bad.

With recent literary works it can be particularly difficult to decide if a book is a brilliant work of genius or just a pretentious display of egotism devoid of any originality. I've decided the latter in a few cases, but there's always a reluctance to be harshly critical of a work when I may have simply missed the point.

I don't really have a problem judging a book harshly, and I feel like I'm pretty fair in my judgments. I can easily say "this book is not for me, but is well written and I can see where someone else could enjoy it," which is usually the case with classics that are not in my line of interests (e.g. Edith Wharton's Age of Innocence), just as I can say "this pile of drivel is a poorly written excuse for a book" (e.g. "HGW's" Monte Cristo continuation), or, "this horribly written book had a decent premise which could have made for a good book in the right hands/with a thorough editor" (e.g. much of Graham Masterton's work) or, "this was well written and said absolutely nothing/went nowhere," and so forth. The vast majority of books I've read that I dislike I don't think are "bad books," they're normally just not to my personal taste, or perhaps something particular about it irritated me (e.g. Ondaatje's Anil's Ghost). So personally, I feel pretty justified when I actually call a book bad.

(edited to toss in a couple example titles)

I wish I had a little notifier that told me in what way I should mentally approach a book. Of source, such a thing would impossible, because (1) I would have the mental vocabulary to understand (2) authors actively try to write outside all the existing ones anyway, meaning (3) any book capable of being described this way would essentially be an unoriginal book and (4) there are so many nuances books balance that lie outside our regular vocabulary and finally (5), once you have successfully done this for a book, it no longer needs to read. You have kind of ruined. Why spend all that time to capture one term you already know.

But, regardless, not only do I struggle with whether I read a book correctly, I also struggle with trying to figure out how to get through the book the first time in any way. As I said on Bridgey's thread, I'm a terrible book starter. It often takes me some time to get it right.

(side corollary: books that change mentality midway drive me nuts. and, 2nd side corollary: Often these are books with good beginnings and bad rest of the book. That is just annoying.)

QUESTION 20.
If we don't like a book, how much is our fault and how much is the author's? Although that is an odd way of putting it. It's not like you can quantify it. What I mean is when is a book bad and when is it just that we, the reader, just didn't get it, or read it right, or read it from the right perspective?''

Or, I would add, not be in the right mood for it.

I've been thinking about this and I think the answer to the first part "how much is our fault and how much the author's" is a valid sliding scale. A book that is well written is not always going to be one that you enjoy. You can see merit in a book and still dislike it. I think that sometimes I have read books that are about a character or set of circumstances that are so far removed from my own that I simply don't have any point of reference. In that instance, shouldn't the author being trying to give me something the hang on to? If they're only ever writing for people who understand what they are saying, that is a very closed system. Great books are open to all sort of people to try and take something from, to simply give up on a proportion of humanity because they can't see the world from the author's shoes seems, to me, to be shirking a responsibility as an author. Surely they should be telling their story to all who will hear it, not just all that already understand it.

Last year I read a few books that were set in the Southern USA during and after WW", focusing on the race relations. In both cases I found the experience thoroughly disorienting, as I simply had no point of reference for the entire book. I couldn't understand the mindset, I couldn't see the world through the character's eyes, I simply didn't get it. In both cases I was left with a nagging feeling that I had missed something. And that sensation is, I think is one of those cases where the fault for my not getting it lies on both sides. I can hardly blame my life experience for not exposing me significantly to racist attitudes of that magnitude, yet the author surely should not be assuming that all their readers will have had that experience. Should they have tried harder to make me feel for their characters? Maybe not, but it would have been a great book that did achieve that. I felt like there was somthing good in both books, but that I was looking at it through a glass darkly, never quite making it out.

In other cases it is completely out fault as readers. I will admit to strongly disliking Jane Austen. Don;t get it, don;t see what's so good about them, have an almost overwhelming desire to give some of her characters a firm slap. Well until I followed a tutored read by Lyzard. Oh, so I'm supposed to read it tongue partly in cheek? Never realised that before. Let me tell you that makes a massive difference to how the book appears. I'm still not her greatest fan, but it all made a lot more sense than it had done before. I actually saw the blossoming romance, rather than it coming as a complete surprise. So in that case I was reading it wrong.

Can you be in the right or wrong mood for a book? Yes, completely. I tried to re-read a Pratchett book earlier this year, shortly after Mum died - I thought it might work as escapism. Nope, fell completely flat. I could see the jokes, just didn't find myself being immersed in it in the way all previous reads of his have taken me. That has to be state of mind, not the text.

All of which random wittering, I realise, hasn't actually answered the question at all!

But it was a very interesting response. Your experience with Austen is a great example. Reading the words, but just not understanding because we miss the tone.

I find the notion of 'fault' here curious, as it suggests that the reader should feel apologetic or even ashamed about not liking a book. That would be preposterous. Furthermore there is an implied universality. As has already been mentioned, people have varying tastes and interests. The applicability of the notion of 'fault' to an author is more variable, depending upon the author's intention. If, for instance, you write for Mills & Boon then a lot of people are not going to like your books, simply because they don't like romantic fiction, but if Mills & Boon readers don't like your romantic fiction it is likely that you have not mastered your craft and/or have misjudged your market, and are therefore professionally at fault.

(edited to remove incoherent gibberish, though some may feel the entire post should be removed on the same grounds)

O, I don't see finding the reader at fault all the bothersome, although there may be a nicer word than "fault". But someone could read it a book in a different manner, and therefore there are better and worse ways - even if some ways are just different but also equivalent or something like that. And I like to think my reading improves, which implies that my previous reading was somehow worse.

This question emerged from a discussion on my thread.

QUESTION 21.
How do you feel about rereading books? is it a new introduction to an old friend or a "waste of time"? Are there books you frequently reread? Are there books you would like to reread but hesitate because you fear you might not love it as much the second time? Give examples.

If I had several lives there are many fiction books I'd like to reread. Sometimes I don't have time to read books as carefully as I'd like to, and I'm sure there are many great lines and aspects to characters that I haven't full appreciated first time around. Plus I have a goldfish memory, so it would be like reading many books for the first time again anyway.

However, there are just too many other books out there that I want to get to, so I rarely go back for a reread. I'm probably more likely to go back and read a classic that I didn't enjoy many years ago in case it's got better with (my) maturity, but I haven't ever gone back to reread a favourite book.

If they get the whole cryogenic brain-freezing thing working well and I'm guaranteed to pop up again in 100 years or so then I'll be revisiting my bookshelves again in earnest.

I make a point to reread books. I don't think that I really remember a book until I've read it twice (at least). I've also found that if it's a book that I've enjoyed or respected enough to reread, I always get something new out of it the second time around. I mainly reread classics and reread about 4-8 books a year. Sometimes it is hard to mentally justify rereading something when there are so many new books I want to read, but I read about 75-85 books a year, so that's only about 5% of my reading. I also think there are certain books that deserve my full understanding and for me that comes with multiple readings. I also like experiencing how different aspects of a book will come out to me at different stages of my life.

For me, this addresses the question of why we read at all. When I reread, I gain a deeper understanding and insight than I do the first time around. I like getting to really know and "live in" a book and sometimes that's more important to me than pure quantity of exposure. I can never read every book, so I'd rather spend a little more time with the books I love. Since I have found lots of time to read, I've been able to make room for both in my reading life.

Dittoing what >168 AlisonY: said. Almost the only time I reread is if it's an ongoing series and it's been so long since I've read the previous ones that I'd feel utterly lost. Which is also why I prefer not to read series until they are finished.

For most of my life I would never have considered reading a book twice--there were just too many out there that needed to be read. But several years ago I wound up rereading books occasionally because they were selected for a reading group discussion and I needed them fresh in my mind. I found this very rewarding, though I'm still not inclined to do rereads without a specific reason.

I'm currently doing two personal reading projects that involve chronological surveys--one of Western classics and the other of early science fiction. For these projects I'm rereading anything that I first read more than 15 years ago.

I'm also occasionally rereading books from series that I never finished and have now gone back to. And in a couple of cases such as Gulliver's Travels I've reread the book because I realized that the version I originally read was simplified or bowdlerized.

I regularly re-read books, for a number of reasons. I find that during times of stress I tend to retreat to books I know, they feel safe and I know there isn't going to be something I can't deal with. They might evoke a previous time I read them, or they're a bit like meeting up with an old friend.
There are some books that are just comfortable and are a book equivalent of a hug, they fit well with a duvet and a mug of hot chocolate. Those are for days when you're feeling under the weather.
Some books I will re-read as you can rely on them to suit your mood.
Others I would re-read because they are so multi layered that you can find something that you're missed in previous readings.
And sometimes I need to re-read a few because there's a new one in the series and I can't remember what happened previously. oops.

Having said all of that, I wouldn't say that I re-read a massive number of books, 8 out of 83 last year. I'm not sure if that's a lot in LT terms or not. That, I think, will be interesting as a response to the question.

>172 Helenliz: That's more how I am about movies. I watch favorites in various moods for various reasons. But they only take 2 hours, as opposed to a lot of hours, and I can do other things at the same time if I want (even reading!), so, I get the comfort/laughter/etc out of it but not the "wasting time" aspect.

In theory, I'm fine with the idea of re-reading books, and there's no doubt in my mind that some of them can really benefit a lot from a second read. In practice, I hardly ever do it, because there are so many books I haven't read at all yet sitting there calling my name. I think some part of my brain is convinced that just as soon as I've caught up with all of these unread books I'll be free to go back and revisit a few of those familiar ones. But, really, whom am I fooling? I have nearly 900 books on my TBR pile, and it's just getting bigger, so all those books I've read once and shelved are most likely going to stay shelved. With rare exceptions, the only time I actually find myself re-reading is if I buy a book that I have read, but didn't previously own. Because then it goes on the TBR shelves with all the not-yet-read ones, you see, and I can treat it like one.

I think I am most definitely with .Monkey. I often re-watch movies/old TV shows for the comfort factor. I feel the same way about my books. Most often they are the more "gentler reads" - books I would go to as a de-stressor. There are exceptions. I reread The Book Thief. The first time through I was in it for the story; the second time through I sat back and enjoyed the writing. To Kill A Mockingbird definitely stood up to a reread. And I'll always be willing and ready to re-read my favorites like Cannery Row and Sweet Thursday, which I think I've read at least 3 times now.

>169 japaul22:, >172 Helenliz: and >175 avidmom: have said it so well, there's little more for me to add, except that yes, I re-read beloved books. I've read all of Jane Austen's novels several times; Pride and Prejudice probably dozens of times. I've re-read Jane Eyre, Middlemarch, and now I'm "re-reading" via audiobooks all of the Trollope novels I've read (Barsetshire & Pallisers). Each time I re-read a book, I get something new, and wonder how did I miss that nuance, that sentence, that idea the first time. For me reading a book at a different period of my life gives new insights.

For those who do re-read, I recommend On Rereading by retired English professor Patricia Meyer Spacks, who spent a year re-reading some of her favorite (and not so favorite) books. Her insights helped me to feel that re-reading is not a waste of time, but a great use of my time to truly understand a beloved work. In fact, it's probably about time for me to re-read Prof Spacks' book :)

I think rereading is highly beneficial, for all the reasons already stated. I'll add one more--for Virginia Woolf, rereading is almost required because her books make so much more sense the second or third Time around. I'm sure there are other authors like that too. As an English lit professor once told me, "you can't understand Woolf until you reread Woolf."

I'd like to reread more, but all the unread books in my TBR call louder so I only reread two one or two books a year.

I don't reread. I mean, I have reread books (about 5 of them in my life), all because I felt like there was much more to them to be unpacked than I managed to get to on the first try. That's pretty much the only kind of book I can imagine rereading. I am simply not the kind of person who will reread just for the story. If I forget the plot of a book in a series (rare because I don't read many series), I would read the synopsis on wikipedia or somewhere before tackling the next one.

I do reread books, but only a few each year. They tend to fall into two categories. I reread favorite books, usually when I have a bad cold, or I'm otherwise in the mood for something I know I'll enjoy. So I've read The Tenent of Wildfell Hall a few times, when I want drama and windswept moors, and Dear Enemy when I want to be delighted, with a side of eugenics, etc...

And there are some books that I need to reread to better understand. I usually wait a good decade between rereads, and being at a different place in my life also influences how I see the novel. I got so much more out of my second reading of Foucault's Pendulum that it was an entirely different book. And my first reading of The Brothers Karamazov was when I was a teenager. Rereading it a few years ago, I was surprised that the characters were so very different than I remembered them.

Somewhere I read that one needs to read a book three times before one can really understand it, and for some books, I think that multiple readings do enhance understanding.

I do understand the plaintive cry of "There are too many books!" but I've come to realize that whether I manage to read 5,000 books in my lifetime or only 4,800, there will still be a lot of books I won't get to. Heaven will be an infinite library.

I only keep books that I think I would like to reread... but like so many people here, I have so many TBR books that I rarely get round to reading one. Partly, too, a lot of the books I've read are in boxes so if I get an urge to read a particular one, I may not be able to find it!

I have only reread two books in my life:

1) Frankenstein because I decided to be a good student and actually read a book during the summer before school started. However, as soon as the first quiz showed up I realized I didn't remember any of those agonizing type of details that actually show up on quizzes so I had to read the book again. (But I really enjoyed Frankenstein so that wasn't difficult to do.)

2) Fires on the Plain which is one of my favorite books but I only reread it because I chose it as the book to study with a student of mine. I was happy to reread it and was just as enthusiastic the second time around.

However, these two are anomalies and they are the only books I have reread as I just can't put my reading efforts into books I've only read. I already know I won't be able to read all the books I'd like to read but I just read so few books a year to use that time on things I've already discovered. I hardly rewatch movies or tv series anymore as I find that there is just too much good material out there that I want to see now.

And so, like >178 ursula: above, if I need to remember a book because I'm reading the next in the series or it's a companion book, I just look to wikipedia to refresh my memory.

>180 wandering_star: I only keep books that I think I would like to reread... Me too, but I'll probably only get to a fraction of them. Instead of being in boxes, mine are stacked in the blind corners where two bookshelves come together, but they are just as much out of sight and hard to locate. (Of course this is not an issue with ebooks, which represent a growing proportion of my library.)

>181 lilisin: Frankenstein is one of the few books I've read three times. The last reading was because I learned that there are two versions, and my first two readings had probably been of the second version which Shelley had toned down for an increasingly conservative Victorian audience.

>179 RidgewayGirl: Heaven will be an infinite library. I guess that means the place I'm going will have nothing but TV sets endlessly showing Kardashians.

>182 StevenTX: Maybe you can convince TPTB that you love reality television, and so they'll stick you in the library, too, but as punishment. Make sure to moan a lot.

Re-reads are what it is all about. I personally get so much more from a re-read. However I usually have to remind myself of this fact because I usually choose to read something new.

I find that increasingly I re-read bits of books, sometimes no need to read the whole thing to relive the pleasures of a reading experience.

I do reread and would classify them in 3 categories. (1) comfort reads that I go back to when I'm at a difficult point in life. (2) classics or more complicated things that I read and enjoyed but don't feel like I got a lot out of or understood well - thus far these are 'I'll definitely reread that some day' but I haven't actually gone back to any of them yet. (3) strange things that I didn't feel were favorites at the time but somehow an image or idea stuck with me and I really wanted to visit it again.

>185 janemarieprice: - good categories

>184 baswood: I find that increasingly I re-read bits of books, sometimes no need to read the whole thing to relive the pleasures of a reading experience.

That come sometimes be true. I did that just the other day.

Rereads are such a pleasure for all the reasons mentioned above. I usually manage to fit in several a year. I tend to reread books written before the twentieth century, mostly Victorians and Russians, but then there is comfort rereading, which for some bizarre reason I have not cared to explore includes Gone with the Wind.

I've said it elsewhere, but to those who don't reread, is there any other enjoyable act in life that you limit to a one time event? You may feel there are too many other books out there, but recognizing you will never manage to read everything, read something well, which requires rereading. The benefits are far greater than reading a myriad of books, many of which you will not remember.

>179 RidgewayGirl: Heaven will be an infinite library.
What a wonderful thought, although like steven, I fear I may wind up with the Kardashians.

>187 SassyLassy: That is your take and you are welcome to it. But quite clearly, not everyone agrees with that notion. So what if I can't read everything? I can still read that many more new things.

is there any other enjoyable act in life that you limit to a one time event?

I wouldn't go to a large museum multiple times and spend hours looking at the same paintings. When I revisit cities, I try to see things I haven't seen before.

>189 ursula: Indeed!

>187 SassyLassy: I wonder if there is something about the Victorians and the Russians that invite a second (third, fourth) encounter?

>187 SassyLassy: There are lots of movies and TV shows I would like to re-watch, but also never get around to because there is too much new stuff clamoring for my attention. Although, at least for some kinds of things, my re-watch rate is somewhat higher than my re-read rate.

Always on to the next thing? This can't be good. Sounds like abject consumerism to me.

Can you be an abject consumer - just wondering?

I read Jaws and was too scared to go see the movie. I was only 21 and had never seen the ocean, maybe that had something to do with it! Anyway, that was before the movie came out too, so it was long ago. I do remember liking the book.

I don't re-read books very often, but there are a few favorites that I will dip back into once in a while. Also, as a few of you have said, if a new book in a series comes out and it has been a long time since I read the last. I re-read all of the Dorothy Sayers' Peter Wimsey books earlier this year, and enjoyed them very much. I also re-read Life After Life before reading Atkinson's new one A God in Ruins. Every year there are a few like that. Some are like visiting an old friend, and others are for a refresher.

And please tell me I can avoid the Kardashians. I've managed to avoid them in this life. :)

>187 SassyLassy:. I like that question. To me it makes no sense to answer it in the negative for a book when I wouldn't answer it in the negative for anything else.

>189 ursula: Really?
I would (and do) revisit a place. I have a complete favourite painting that I can quite happily spend hours in front of, absorbing the detail, the peace, the colours, the brush work etc. But at the same time I am equally happy to go to a new place, and find a new favourite.
I like the mixture of what I know and what I'm yet to discover.

TV, however, that is something I could quite happily live without (with the exception of BBC4, which I love).

>197 Helenliz: And I don't see how it makes sense to answer it in any way related to books. It's apples and oranges and bananas and kiwis! Why does how I read have any bearing on how I do any other thing but read?

I only have so much time on this earth, and there is an infinite number of things and places and goodness knows what to take in. I would like to spend my short time getting to see & enjoy as many things as I am able, having all kinds of different experiences.

>198 .Monkey.: Surely the question was raised simply to test the logic of the position that because more books exist than could be read in one lifetime time cannot be wasted reading any book twice. To stretch the point to absurdity there are so many people to meet one should be constantly making new acquaintances and dropping those already met. If on the other hand one already chooses to repeat some experiences, there is no reason why one should not make time to repeat the experience of reading a particular book - i.e. by rereading it. Ultimately it is simply a question of temperament, like the distinction between people who have an extremely wide circle of acquaintance of people they know somewhat and those who have very few friends but a very deep,

In my case it's a matter of age: in my 60's I can barely remember things I read in high school or college--40+ years ago, let alone the chapter I read last night! Re-reading those works from my youth now is a completely different experience.

And I'm sure there are people that re-read favorite biblical passages and stories multiple times to get various nuances.

>187 SassyLassy:

You've certainly posed an interesting question. Certainly I go back to eat my favorite foods, visit my favorite countries, see my old friends, watch a few favorite movies, and so on.

But as for books, who knows? I guess I don't have a reason for not re-reading a book. Just many reasons for wanting to read a new one.

Wow. Nothing useful to add, just noticing the great conversation.

I have re-read here and there and I found it very rewarding. I'm totally convinced I should re-read. And yet... I don't. For example, I haven't re-read a single book this year. (I have one planned, but I'm still undecided as to whether I will really give it a go. )

>189 ursula: and >197 Helenliz: I am also among those who revisits one or two old favourites at galleries each trip, as well as visiting whatever is on offer as the current display. Taking the thought further, why else do we have images on our walls, other than to see them again and again.

>191 RidgewayGirl: I'm with you there. There is a complexity that yields some new aspect each time through.

>199 Oandthegang: Excellent explanation!

This question emerged from a conversation on oandthegang's thread. This mostly relates to "classics" or books from past centuries.

QUESTION 22.

How do you feel about introductions? Do you read them first or save them until you've finished the book to avoid spoilers? And how do you feel about footnotes/endotes? Do you have a preference for one or the other? Do you read them? Do they answer questions you were wondering about or just seem overly detailed? Of course, the answer is sometimes one, sometimes the other, but give examples if possible. And if there are any examples of books where you feel the notes were just right, let us know!

I primarily read non-fiction written by academics so yes. If I am reading the book to get a general sense of the argument I will skip the notes. If I am reading for detail I will make an effort to follow them.

(And in answer to the prior question I am a compulsive re-reader, so I may very well read a book once without the notes and then go back again and look at the notes on a second or third reading.)

I prefer footnotes because flipping back and forth to the endnotes is a hassle.

Usually I am looking to see if the author is relying heavily on another source that I may want to add to my "further reading" list. Discovering and following these paths is one of the great joys I get from reading. I will also look at the longer footnotes to see if they are adding a clarification that is pertinent to my particular reason(s) for reading the book. Others I will skip if they refer to materials that are not relevant to my current interests.

In the book I am currently reading there is a note that shed some light on the argument, was useful to me personally in thinking about some issues that were discussed the prior evening in my RL reading group, and provided a potential further read. Definitely worthwhile.

>204 rebeccanyc: A complicated multi-part question! I thus have a complicated multi-part answer.

Introductions: Pleasant enough if they're there to give you a little background on the author's life and times, or consist of someone sharing a few personal words of appreciation for the author and their work. Super annoying if they're an in-depth analysis what you're about to read. Honestly, I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone would ever think that's a good idea. Not only are such things inevitably full of spoilers, but it's usually impossible to appreciate them properly until you've actually read the story. Why not put them in the back of the book, when readers might be ready to hear some thoughts on what they've just read? Sometimes I do put them off until afterward, but I find that stupidly hard to make myself do, as my brain is apparently programmed to want to read things in the order they're presented to me. (I won't skip around in short story collections, either.) Occasionally I will skip them entirely, but that annoys the completist in me. More often, I'll just skim through them, trying to skip over anything that looks too spoilery, but that is extremely unsatisfying. (I may have just been grumbling to myself a lot about this issue, actually having encountered it recently in Shirley Jackson's We Have Always Lived in the Castle. It made for an irritating start to a very good book.)

Footnotes: I always read 'em. I often find them really interesting, but can get a little irritated when they interrupt the flow of my reading. Proper footnote placement for minimum disruption is an art many writers have not entirely mastered. If at all possible, guys, please wait until the end of the sentence!

Footnotes in fiction, by the way, can be used to wonderful comic effect, if properly deployed. Terry Pratchett was an acknowledged master of this.

Endnotes: I used to be a completist about reading those, but I've kind of gotten over it. If they seem to be particularly juicy with interesting information, I might go back and read them at the end of a chapter, but these days mostly I'll just flip back to look if the statement they're annotating is something I especially want more information about. At which point, almost inevitably, it will just have some citation it wasn't worth interrupting myself for. Footnotes are better in that respect. At least then, you can see at a glance whether or not there's even something there to read.

The quality of introductions I find to be very variable, sometimes I re-read an introduction and wonder if the author is talking about the same book that I have just read.

I don't worry about spoilers, because the more I know about a book then the more I will enjoy the read. I need all the help I can get for a better understanding and so I always read the introduction before I read the book and will then re-read it to see if I agree if it comments on themes or ideas in the book.

Footnotes are useful to have as long as they are reasonably concise. I dislike footnotes that take up half the page or more. If they are going to be long then they should be at the back of the book as endnotes.

I generally read Introductions after I've read the book. All I want to know before reading the books is a brief biography of the author, and perhaps a little bit about the circumstances surrounding the writing of the book (was he/she influenced by a particular event or other piece of literature). Beyond that, I don't want the story line or any analysis until I've finished the book.

I want footnotes/endnotes to enlighten my understanding of a particular word, phrase, reference to a real person or event, mythology, etc. I DON'T want analysis. I remember specifically reading a Penguin paperback edition of Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, edited by Richard Maxwell. It was the first time I'd ever read ATOTC. I skipped the Intro (per usual), but was enraged when I started reading the notes, which had several instances of spoilers and allusions to later events in the book, assuming everybody knew the story! Arrrrgh!

reposting from oandthegang's thread:

On notes, introductions, etc - I always hold introductions until after I've read the book both to avoid spoilers but also if I don't like the book I'll skip it and if I do it's such a treat to get to stay with it for a little while after I've finished. Notes I sometimes like and sometimes not. I prefer foot to end but then when it's just minutia references to other works I don't find them useful (though understand they are necessary for scholars). It's a hard balance to strike though and I almost feel like essays on the work are more useful.

I often mean to read the introduction after the book, but usually I'm too lazy to do it. Notes I read or at least skim. I used to hate that end notes made me go to the end of the book to find out it was just a bibliographical reference or some erudite comment I wasn't interested about. With e-books there's no difference between footnotes and end notes, and I read those books with an iPad app called MarginNotes that displays the notes alongside the text, which is very useful. Right now I am reading Pantagruel in this way. I hope that the original paper book had the notes displayed on the opposite page, or at least as footnotes, because otherwise the book would be unreadable.

I'm with janemarieprice on the subject of introductions. I skip them until I've finished. If I loved the book, it's a treat to read an essay about the work afterwards, and if I didn't like the book, it's one less thing to read.

As for footnotes/end notes, I feel compelled to read them, using a second bookmark to keep my place in the case of end notes. If they're breaking up the flow of the book (whether fiction or non-fiction), I'll read them all at once at the end of a chapter, unless they are purely bibliographical information, in which case, I will eventually ignore them.

>211 RidgewayGirl: this is me exactly. Although it's pretty rare that I actually go back to the introduction.

I usually skip intros until after, because they often spoil it. I always read notes (and keep a 2nd bookmark for endnotes) as I read, otherwise by the time you finish you have no idea what it was referring to anymore and many don't have page numbers, just the note number. On occasion though some jackass editor will spoil the book with a note. I am still fuming about POS who completely ruined Jane Eyre in one of the earliest notes, WTF! And many others gave away all sorts of other things but I couldn't stop reading them because otherwise, as I said, I'd have no idea what they were referencing anymore and they did have some decent info. But ugh, so awful. Anyway like RG the only time I ignore them is if they're just bibliographical, which I don't really have any need of.

Well, it depends...

But oddly I can't think of an instance this year where this came up for me other than my study bible and I can't recall the last major intro/notes problem I've had. (I do recall a time when the intro ruined the book for me.) The study bible has lots of short moderately useful introductions, occasionally outdated or manipulated by an author too one-sides on an debatable issue. Spoilers aren't an issue. And it uses long foot notes that I rely on a lot and find myself disappointed when something isn't addressed. So, I think it's about as good as it gets.

The only book I've read this year with an introduction, has the author provide the intro (Toni Morrison in Love). Usually that is safe.

But as an after thought, only books considered somewhat classic get introductions. Actually that's a selling point- to have buyers pick up a second copy for the new introduction. So we probably should anticipate the intro assumes we have read the book before. But still, there is a place for an introduction that doesn't make that assumption.

Also copying from Oandthegang's thread:

Notes on the Corn Laws always make me think of the Penguin editions of George Eliot's books.

I must admit I am one of those who love foot notes. If I am buying a pre 20th century novel, or even a more current novel in translation, I always look for an edition with notes. This has probably helped OUP and Penguin to some modest degree. Now there is also broadview editions to add to the list. I also appreciate maps, glossaries and appendices. Some books such as the OUP editions of Walter Scott even incorporate the author's notes as well as the editor's notes. All this means it may take a while to read a book, as it is sometimes read almost twice, once going through the chapter with the notes and once after that for fun. I also really appreciate a good introduction, but only to be read after the book, as they often have spoilers. Spoilers seem to be creeping in elsewhere too; I have even noticed a few in notes lately.

It's worth the risk to me of having the scope of my vocabulary insulted by one note to quickly find out what the Fronde was in another. I do prefer the notes to be at the bottom of the page though, so you can quickly see whether it is of relevance or not.

Perhaps some of the needless notes are the result of OUP, Penguin and other publishers catering in part to literature courses. One of the other difficulties may be that they are read throughout the English speaking world, and vocabulary is different in different parts of the world. I reread Little Women last year and found many of the footnotes just did not work, for example "sweet cakes" for "muffins", or "scones" for "hot biscuits", or "jam" for "jelly".

For those who prefer noteless books, Vantage, Harvill and other publishers have nineteenth century novels without notes .
_________________

Last night I was reading the Penguin edition of Hadji Murat and found the most frustrating note ever. It read "See note 4 to Master and Man". Really! Directing me to another book? Luckily I did not need this particular note, but if I had, I don't know what I would have said or thought.

>215 SassyLassy: "See note 4...." 'Strodinary!! A sort of 'it's too long and tedious and I can't be bothered explaining it all to you again' approach. Someone is not earning their money.

Recently I was reading an edition of Max Havelaar that had an early note (in the 20s or 30s?) that said "see note 98" or some such. I'm like ....WHY would you not put that here and then at 98 say to refer back to this one! Whaaat! *shakes head*

I (guiltily) skip most introductions, although I might go back and read it later on if I become interested in some aspect of the book's origins and history.

The footnotiest novel I know of is Infinite Jest. Hmm I wonder how they handle that in an audio-version. The only thing I minded was that they were in the tinesiest print.

Endnotes and Afterwords . . . uh, I can't even think, I guess I usually take a look.

Well, I was fresh out of ideas for questions, so I went back to the previous thread where I asked what questions you wanted answered and I came up with one from Poquette.

QUESTION 23.
A few years ago I made a list of reasons why I "should" read certain books. What are your reasons for reading the books you read, whether categorized as "should read" or "want to read" and give us some examples.

>219 rebeccanyc: Oh, geez, in my case, I think it might almost be easier to make a list of reasons I don't have for reading the books I read. I don't think I've ever read a book just to impress someone specific. Or because someone literally held a gun to my head and made me. Otherwise, my reasons run the gamut, from "because it looks like it might be fun, interesting, informative and/or moving" to "because reading it will contribute to my overall cultural literacy" to "because I vaguely remember seeing it mentioned somewhere once in what I seem to recall was a positive light" to "because it's there." And that's just a few of the more common reasons. There's also "because someone recommended it to me," "because it's based on a TV show I like," "because I like the author," "because I know the author," "because the title caught my eye," "because it's set somewhere I'm familiar with," "because it got good reviews," "because this copy is free," "because I read it in high school English class, and that's a really unfair circumstance in which to read a book so I should give it another shot," and, of course, the ever-popular "damned if I actually know, but it ended up on my TBR shelves somehow." I could probably go on...

LOL I think bragan summed it up quite well. I'm interested in most classics, to see why they're considered as such and just to ...enhance my cultural...something? I mean, you know, literary canon, important stuff! Lol. I read other things because they're fun/entertaining/interesting/informative/make me think.

I think there are some books I "should" have read. I seem to have managed to get through school without making the kind of dent in the classics every one else did; certainly not the dent the adult me thinks I should have done. I feel, at times, almost terminally ill-read. Until the last few years I'd never read Bronte, never read Dickens, you get the idea. So I feel a bit like I'm making up for lost time and trying to read the myriad of books that everyone else read as a teenager. At some level I know that's not true, and that most of the population are equally ill read, if not more so. But that doesn't stop the sensation that I should have read a lot more than I have. Hence classics appear a couple of times a year and I have taken the time over Christmas to read a big chunky classic (suggestions for this year's selection welcomed).

Then there are books that I read to learn something. I think that the day I stop taking on board information and wanting to ask questions is the day you can put me to bed with a shovel. As a child I must have been dreadful, intellectually bored at the drop of a hat, always got my nose in a book, always asking questions my family couldn't answer. So I still read non-fiction, I love a good documentary. I often read a book realted to something I've watched, or because I've liked things the author has written or present, or the subject area or because the title intrigued me. I have subject areas I'm less keen on, but can't think of much I would not read.

Then there are the books I read for book club - not usually my selection, but I started the group to drag me out of my comfort zone, and it has certainly done that. I've read some corkers, read some I hope never to read again.

Anything else is read because I want to, be that because the title attracted me, the author, its a series, it's safe, it's cosy, I know what happens (but don't care and read it again for the umpteenth time anyway).

Most of my books are selected at random, something seen in a bookshop. Very occasionally I will hunt something out based on a review or a television programme, and then of course there are those zeitgeisty books which one finds oneself reading without having been consciously steered towards them. (This seems to happen to me less often these days)

I would make a slight distinction between those books which I think I ought to (but probably never will) read and those books which I should (but more certainly never will) read. The 'ought to' books are the books which are by reference part of our culture, the books which at one time anyone with any education would be expected to have read and to which reference is therefore frequently made. This is in line with Mary Beard's argument for the study of classics and their ongoing relevance, i.e. that because of their incorporation in so many later works we need to know them to understand the later works. The 'ought to's would generally be fiction, but could be history, philosophy, or even memoirs, or, more rarely, verse. The 'should's would be books explaining now - thoughts or information which should be taken into consideration when viewing current events and are sufficiently important that those with an interest in the subject would be expected to have read them. Their shouldness may be time limited. I should have read The Death of Yugoslavia but the moment passed. Although the subject matter is ongoing the moment for Hack Attack may be slipping by. I feel that I should read Piketty's Capital In The Twenty-First Century. A number of books have recently been published about the history of the BBC which are relevant to the current debate about its future, but will be less read when that future is decided.

The 'ought to' books will remain eternally 'ought to'. Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, Madame Bovary, Gulliver's Travels, War And Peace, Cider With Rosie, all the books referenced in the Penguin Great Thinkers series, etc., etc. Most of them I will never attempt because they would bore me rigid, but I will still feel that I ought to have read them.

Gulliver's Travels, boring?!

>223 Oandthegang: I kind of made myself read War and Peace, thinking it was something I *should* read, but would be bored. Exact opposite happened to me. Except for a few sections, where Tolstoy gets overly philosophical, I found War and Peace interesting, even exciting. I don't even like war books, but the military scenes I think were the best parts of the book. So sometimes those boring books can be surprising. On the other hand, I read the first book of Proust, Swann's Way, and it was way beyond my comprehension. I probably should have read it for a book club or a group read. So the *should* books aren't always successes.

My reasons for reading the books I do mostly fall into three buckets:

- those I randomly come across in the library / bookshops and just get taken with the blurb on the back and a quick flick at the style of writing
- ones where I've read a review which has tweaked my interest (either here on LT, on Amazon where I've looked up favourite authors or from reviews in the Saturday Times)
- period or modern day classics where I want to understand what all the hype is about

I would say most of them fall into the 'want to' read category. I'm finding myself at a time of life where I'm becoming more and more resistant to the whole notion of 'should' do things...

>223 Oandthegang: >224 .Monkey.: I love War and Peace and have read it three times. When I read it as a teenager, I skipped the war parts; when I read it in my 40s, I was fascinated by the war parts, and I read it again in my 50s and still loved it. It's one of the few books I've read more than once.

I haven't read it yet but I own it, and I will certainly read it at some point in the coming years! It's been on my list for ages! Once I knock out the other tomes already on my TBR Challenge, I think that may go onto the list. :P

>223 Oandthegang: Dittoing rebecca at >227 rebeccanyc: about War and Peace as a book to read again and again.

>225 kac522: >227 rebeccanyc: >229 SassyLassy: War And Peace is on the shelves, but we've just had the first frosts of winter, so I think that when I finish my present book I'm going to settle down to a borderline 'should', Doctor Zhivago, and then with all the encouragement you have given me shall make War and Peace my first book of the new year.

I have a lot if 'ought to's and relate to all those arguments above. But there is a large element of mystery to what makes me decide what to read. Probably, if it was all laid out, there would be some less appealing aspects to it - some snobbery somewhere.

On the conscious level I want to enjoy my reading and I find lighter stuff doesn't do enough for me. I need a level of obsession. Reading deeper does do a lot for me. So I try to put myself in a reading position where I can read more deeply. But then I have limits. I'm not a literary scholar and I don't want my reading to be work. This is for fun, a bit for sanity and mental peace. There is a meditative quality to my reading. So, i try to find the balance.

All this led me four years on the Old Testament, so I guess it's an odd road. It also took me to Toni Morrison and Cormac McCarthy. So, i can look back with a sense of accomplishment, which is also nice

Next year it should take me to Homer and Pynchon and perhaps more.

>231 dchaikin: Good to see you'll still be out there reporting back from the front.

I think I've managed to get pretty far away from feelings of "should read." Part of that is probably because I'm drawn heavily towards non-fiction which doesn't carry so much of the "classics" aura, especially since our knowledge of a subject is usually constantly improving (or our ability to look at events more neutrally increases as we get farther away from it). There are lots of things I want to read, of course, but I don't really stress about it unless I already have it out from the library and the due date is approaching!

Regarding fiction classics I tell myself that I'm reading fiction which may become classics and won't it be interesting to tell my nieces' and nephews' children that I read such and such when it was (relatively) new and everyone hated it (or loved it or paid no attention to it).

Luckily, my "should" reads are almost all self-imposed. They often follow from a current book, so that reading The Tigress of Forli for example, makes me think I should learn more about the Medici and Renaissance Italy. Off I go and get books on said subject, but by then I have often wandered off into other realms, having lost my university discipline of reading ten or so books on a particular subject one after another. At least the books are still there waiting for me when I decide to return.

I have very few of the "ought books" so well described by >223 Oandthegang: as time limited. Why Your World is about to Get a Whole Lot Smaller confronts me periodically. As for other "ought" books, I have survived without reading any Narnia or Tolkien books, and any other books of the moment that people insist I should read. Some will go on to become classics, like the aforementioned Tolkiens, but I suspect they are just not for me, in the same way that War and Peace, a book I love, is not for others.

QUESTION 23.
A few years ago I made a list of reasons why I "should" read certain books. What are your reasons for reading the books you read, whether categorized as "should read" or "want to read" and give us some examples.

I'm sort of at the end of a 15 year project to read the books I "should have" read when I was younger -- literary classics that are alluded to in culture. There are still lots of classics I haven't read -- War and Peace and Proust come to mind first -- but I don't care if I never get to them, so I guess my project is done. There are still a few I'd like to get to -- The Years and Between the Acts because they are the last two Virginia Woolf novels I have left to read; Dr Zhivago and Independent People because I feel I "should" read them and think I will enjoy them, and House of the Spirits because that seems like one I "should" have read by now, and finally something by Mordecai Richler because he's a CanLit icon who I've never read.

That and the 900 or so unread books in my house, because I brought them in here--I must want to read them.

The reasons for reading the books I read is because they are on my list of books to read, or they were group reads on the net, or chosen by my book club. I have not revised my books to read list for nearly a year.

I tried some challenges when I first joined LT, but found that they felt forced and like homework. There are too many other "shoulds" in my life and since reading is my passion, I read whatever tickles my fancy at the moment it is time to start a new book. Sometimes it's nonfiction like now - I'm listening to a book about earthquakes and specifically the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake by Simon Winchester called A Crack in the Edge of the World and reading Van Loon's Geography. I also have picked up Wolf Hall by Hillary Mantel, which will most assuredly prevent me from reaching my 75 book challenge for the year, the first time I won't have read 75 books since joining LT in 2007. That is, unless I also pick some short books to re-read, perhaps Charlotte Armstrong, Thornton Wilder, or some of my favorite romances and put Wolf Hall aside for a few weeks.

It's all mood-driven and what clicks.

It's all mood-driven and what clicks.

That's my reading life, as well. But I do love a list, and will occasionally make reading lists, but now I do it with the full knowledge that a book's presence on a list (that I myself created) will instantly decrease my desire to read that book.

That said, there are many books I think I ought to read, and I do plan to read them, usually books that have become part of the canon or that have become part of the larger book discussion world. So I do want to read Anna Karenina, but also Americanah, A Brief History of Seven Killings and Between the World and Me.

but now I do it with the full knowledge that a book's presence on a list (that I myself created) will instantly decrease my desire to read that book.

I found that too and started making fewer lists. But then I found I miss (eventually) checking things off the list, or not. So now I'm starting to make more lists again.

This is the last Question for the year, and the last I will pose as .Monkey (thank you!) has ably taken over the 2016 Club Read.

QUESTION 24.
Thinking over your reading for the year, how has it gone? As planned? As not planned? (I know a lot of you, like me, are opportunistic readers.) Are you happy with your reading this year? Did you make any discoveries? Any other thoughts?

Question 24

I had a great reading year, mostly. My goal this year had been to redress the gender balance and begin reading more books by women. I had hoped to achieve a 60:40 split and I did. I plan to continue this in 2016.

The downside of my reading this year was reaching a saturation point in books about young, attractive, wealthy people living in NYC. Seriously, writers, please branch out a bit. There's more to the world than dinner parties and trust funds. I understand, in a theoretical way, that the pains and sorrows of a wealthy, attractive person are just as painful to them as the pains and sorrows of someone struggling to get by and/or under the weight of injustice and/or war, but I am finding it less interesting. Writers, your book has to be something extraordinary to overcome your characters' circumstances if you choose this set-up. Yes, there is a special angst in having too much privilege and money, but frankly, I do not care.

And, finally, I'm going to concentrate in 2016 in increasing diversity in my reading. Not genres, but the people being written about and the people doing the writing. If it's anything like my experience in adding more gender diversity, this will be a rewarding experience.

>240 rebeccanyc: Love the phrase "opportunistic readers". Thanks for all your work with this thread.

>241 RidgewayGirl: Do you think there is a link between redressing the gender balance and the subject matter of "young, attractive, wealthy people living in NYC". I reached that kind of saturation when I tried reading twentieth century middle class English writers, particularly women, and soon stopped. Were there any books in that NYC world that stood out for you?

Looking forward to your reading next year.

Q24. I definitely did not plan my reading at all this year, and my reading (quantity) was abysmal, because for most of the year I was distracted with other things (including a move, which was done slowly over the course of a month, then slowly getting things set up, etc). I have finished 26 books (a few more in the works). Howevvvvver, the quality has been excellent. Cormac McCarthy, John Dos Passos, William Godwin, Mary Shelley, Langston Hughes, Philip K Dick, Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie (her two best!), Michael Ende, Michael Crichton, Maria Dermoût, Denise Mina, Multatuli... What I have read has been good stuff, so on that front I am pleased. I am also on a rampage of planning for next year due to the slackage this year, going rather overkill to "make up" for it hahaha, but it's not like the monthly organization will be set in stone or anything, it's still just an idea to follow to help organize things. :)

This has been a pivotal reading year for me, and in no small part down to the support and interest shown by so many in Club Read. As the title of my thread suggested, over the past few years I'd been reading less than half a dozen books in a year. This year I'll close out not far off 75, which is way beyond the 50 target I set myself this January (which seemed totally unachievable back then).

I read about 40 of the 50 books I'd set out in my reading list, but as the year's gone on I've enjoyed the freedom of stumbling across new titles. As someone who's always enjoyed buying books, I was surprised how much I've enjoyed my first library membership in 30 years, and I no longer feel that need to have favourite books lingering on my shelves for decades just so I can look at them every now and again.

>242 SassyLassy: Were there any books in that NYC world that stood out for you?

As good? I think I might like Fates and Furies by Lauren Groff, and I'll pick it up again in due course -- I put it down a month ago, due to the protagonists being, well, young, beautiful, wealthy and having spectacular careers.

The book that just soured me was one that I adored for the first 350 pages; A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara. It was the second half that just wore me out. It was brilliantly written, and yet I feel a little spurt of annoyance every time I see it on a "best of 2015" list. Apparently, I have a tolerance threshold when it comes to having successful dinner parties described to me in loving detail. And second or third homes, being designed and built by architect friends, as well as exotic and luxurious vacations. Even when the characters are too filled with inner anxiety to enjoy them. Maybe especially then.

I've been really happy with my reading this year. I made a decision not to make a reading plan for the year. That seemed to work for me. I didn't read as many WWI themed books as I had anticipated, but other than that I think I met my mental goals. I finished Trollope's Barsetshire novels. I had a difficult time picking favorites for the 'Favorite Reads' thread because there were so many good books. I read 71, and 41 of those were written by women, so I improved my percentage there. I may finish a couple more books before year end. I'm saving The Night Before Christmas by Nikolai Gogol for Christmas Eve. I read it for the first time last year, and it was delightful.

I've had a fantastic reading year. I feel like I've really hit my stride with figuring out the sort of book I enjoy at this point in my life and I read enough to also push myself out of that once in a while to try some new things as well. I've read 98 books so far this year, 17 of which are audiobooks. This was really the first year I attempted audiobooks and I am slowly figuring out what works and what doesn't for me in that format (I really like non-fiction on audio!). I've settled in to a mix of planning a few books/authors (maybe 10-15) to get to and letting myself read where my whims (and all of your reviews!) take me for the rest.

Somehow I finding that a difficult question to answer. For the first time ever I made a reading plan and stuck to it. And actually I got so obsessed that I had trouble reading books not on the plan. And I finished the OT after four years. And I read more books than anytime before (although less pages than last year). So I should be crazy happy about it. But actually I'm mainly just thinking about next year. This past year feels almost forgotten. I mean I remember it, but I'm just not all that attached to it. But I did read some great stuff.

>247 japaul22: i also prefer nonfiction on audio. Best if it sounds like NPR.

>247 japaul22: & >249 dchaikin:. I find that for the most part I like fiction better than non-fiction on audio. I think I've figured out that it is because I like to do research when I'm reading non-fiction. I'm usually listening to books in the car, and an audiobook makes it difficult to go back to find what it was I wanted to look up.

My reading year was pretty good, though not totally outstanding. My goal for this year was to be less neurotic about my reading, and I think I succeeded. I wanted to do a lot of re-reads and I got a number in (17% of my total reading). In my reading spreadsheet I noticed that the proportion of recently published books I've read has gone up and up correlating to how active I've been on LT. It's left me craving older books.

>244 AlisonY:

over the past few years I'd been reading less than half a dozen books in a year. This year I'll close out not far off 75

That's an amazing jump!
Can you pinpoint anything that you did differently that allowed to make such a dramatic change in your reading?

I have a lot of time and a lot of room for reading and yet this year my moods were fickle and I end the year with only 6 books read. Were you able to temper your moods or was it something else that allowed you to have so much success?

Q24 - It's been a decent read for me this year. I haven't read as many books as most years, partly due to other distractions and partly due to not listening to audiobooks anymore (I've probably read about the same number of paper books as the past few years).

I've read some really good books, and have a decent number of 4.5 star ratings, but yet again this year, I didn't read anything really magically wonderful.

Looking back, I see that some of the books that I remember best, or that I got the most enjoyment from, are not the ones necessarily that I rated highly. Which shows me that a book with faults can still be really good. Or maybe I'm not any good at rating. One of those.

I had few plans with my reading -- I did join the Categories Challenge group, which is fun, but I only set myself 15 books to read, so it was easy to achieve. Other than that, I read what I want. Lots of British literature, and then a smattering of other stuff.

Q24: Thinking over your reading for the year, how has it gone? As planned? As not planned? (I know a lot of you, like me, are opportunistic readers.) Are you happy with your reading this year? Did you make any discoveries? Any other thoughts?

It's gone as not planned, since I'm not a big planner. Although having said that, I guess I started off with a few smallish plans - to read Infinite Jest, to read about the same proportion of 1001 books as the last couple of years (just under half), and somewhere in the late part of the year I made an effort to consciously choose to read more books by women.

So, assessing the results of those initiatives: I read Infinite Jest together with my husband, which was a great experience. I have fallen a bit short of my goal on 1001 books (35 out of 96 books read at the moment), and I've increased my percentage of books read by women by a percentage point or two (in my overall library). Success!

I'm pretty happy with my reading this year - I read a lot of books about Italy before moving here and it was really the first time I've tried any sort of focused reading like that. It was interesting, and I would consider doing something like that again, but I know I can also feel hemmed in by that sort of thing. And after a while, I was unpleasantly surprised when I'd pick up a fiction book and find out it was set in Italy (not again!).

>247 japaul22:, >249 dchaikin: I'm another one who likes nonfiction on audio. I think I like that it's straightforward - someone telling you about something. No histrionics or over-dramatizing (most of the time).

Or maybe I'm not any good at rating.
Hahaha, see, that's how -I- would feel about it, because the way I rate things is based around my opinion of it. If I loved it, I'm not going to give it low stars. I may take off points for glaring issues, but if I read it while thinking "This is great!" it's not going to be getting under 4 stars. Likewise, a book that I can clearly see is well-written but that I didn't enjoy reading, is not going to get over a 3.5 for sure. You can have excellent "skill" as a writer but if I think the story you're trying to tell sucks, well then that skill isn't worth much. I just tend to assume ratings are usually some combination of enjoyment and ...practical application?, but, when people give a rundown of their star meanings it's generally some form of "loved it" through "hated it," in their own words, so, it seems like most heavily weigh their enjoyment in their rating. :P

>245 RidgewayGirl: Thanks for the answer. As I said, I have always had difficulty with these themes in concentration, although I don't mind reading one or two now and then, so appreciate you mentioning the titles. You did hit on something I hadn't thought of. I live in an area where there are many second, third, or fourth homes, all with the designer touch. Even though I don't live in the high end part of it, the three homes closest to me all fall into this category, so I don't really have neighbours. I must confess to a certain resentment when these folk expect all the resources to lead their charmed existences to be available in a small rural area. While it has certainly helped some, primarily the architects and builders you mention, it is threatening to reduce many to merely catering to this trade. Will stop now as I am completely off topic.

>252 lilisin: I think a few key things helped me significantly increase the number of books I read this year:

- I was having a difficult time with my business at the start of the year, and setting a reading objective gave me something to focus on that WAS in my control at a time when a lot of things felt out of my control.
- Setting a quantity target gave me something to aim for, as well as having an initial list of books I wanted to tackle (but key with that was not to get hung up on reading from that list if I wasn't in the mood for that type of reading)
- I realised I was wasting my relaxation time at home on the net or watching TV when I wasn't really interested in either and it had just become a bad habit.
- In the past I'd get fed up with the books on my TBR at home and then not get around to buying any more books for ages. Since I joined the library, I make sure that I always have a few books on order at any one time so I know I'm always going to have titles in the house I want to read.
- I keep a wish list on Amazon of titles I'm interested in following reviews on here, reviews in The Times, etc. and use those as inspiration for my library orders. That way I seem to be having more success with choosing books that are styles I enjoy rather than picking things up on a whim in the shops which I then find out aren't my thing.

QUESTION 24

While I'm never happy with how little I read, this year I did try to get back on track by deciding to read my alphabet of authors in translation. This had the benefit of giving both flexibility in choice within a letter and the structure of a particular letter. The only rule I had was that they had to be read in alphabetical order, otherwise I feared I would skip around and then skip away. I did read other things as well, and all in all I was happy with 2015's reading. My only other plan was to try to stick to my TBR and by and large, with the help of a few library books, I managed to do that.

What I discovered was that I do need a plan, otherwise I procrastinate over my next choice and don't get anything read, whereas back in the days of imposed reading lists, so much was read. I'm working on a plan for 2016.

I have not read as many books this year as I had wanted to and so there is no need to make a reading plan for next year as I have still got most of this years to complete. There were however a few five star reads and a few of these were chosen by my book club.

Hope to do better next year.

On the whole, I'm feeling good about my reading this year. Well, there's always a little bit of an element of frustration for me, because no matter how many books I read, there are always so many more that I haven't gotten to. And meanwhile, the unread books continue to pile up. But, hey, maybe that's not the world's worst problem to have.

I'm not much of a planner, but I did, as usual, set some goals in the ROOT (Read Our Own Tomes) group to encourage me to read more of the books that had been sitting on the shelves for a while (or at least since last year), and I have met those. I even managed to finally get around to some books that had been there for a decade or two, which always feels like an accomplishment.

As usual, my reading was a mixed and varied lot, but it included some darned good stuff. I'm still looking back with pleasure on that weekend when I read two five-star books back-to-back. I'm pretty stingy with those five-star ratings, so that's not something that's ever happened before!

I could second-guess myself, I suppose, and lament that I didn't read more classics or "serious literature," or that there's at least one series I seem to have stalled out on completely, even though I have every intention of getting back to it sometime. But, eh, I enjoyed myself, overall. And that's a good thing.