*** QUESTIONS for the Avid Reader, 2013, Volume I

Well, I got caught up in the new year's frenzy on LT and let this slip, but Questions for the Avid Reader is back for 2013!* I'm going to start it off, though, with a little twist. It's your turn . . .

QUESTION 1.
If you could ask your fellow Avid Readers a question, what would it be? What would you really like to know about their reading tastes, habits, deep thoughts, or whatever? Please DO NOT ANSWER other people's questions!!! I will be picking the most interesting ones to ask in the weeks to come, interspersed with ones I or others come up with. Let the questions begin!

*For those of you new to Club Read this year, here is a link to the last Questions thread of 2012.

How do you decide on what books to read (reviews, recommendations, etc.)?

I think that would lead to an interesting discussion.

I'm curious to know how everyone's reading tastes have changed at different stages of their lives. I'm always in awe of the breadth of books that people in this group read or the detail into a particular topic and wonder if people have always read that way, or if this tends to happen at a certain time in life. I think it would be interesting to see if there's a pattern in how we approach the vast amount of books available.

Slightly derivative of 2> How do you choose the book to read next?

For fiction, is it important to you to read current works, or do you prefer an earlier period? If so, what period would that be?

Do you read things that challenge your convictions, your most deeply held beliefs? Has anything you've read ever directly led you to alter such beliefs? If so, why?

What are things that turn you off of a book? What are your literary pet peeves?

Is there an elusive book that you've been hunting down for months or years? What is it, why do you want it and why is it so hard to get hold off?

How do you decide what to write about the books you read? Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopsis, etc? Do you have a standard format or improvise?

Would you agree that reading is for introverts? Many people need quite time alone for reading, how do you find this time, what effect on your life does your reading have.

>11 baswood: Good one, Barry!

A piece of fiction is a model of the world, but not of the whole world. It focuses on human intentions and plans. That is why it has a narrative structure of actions and of incidents that occur as a result of those actions. It tells of the vicissitudes of our lives, of the emotions we experience, of our selves and our relationships as we pursue our projects. We humans are intensely social and—because our own motives are often mixed and because others can be difficult to know—our attempts to understand ourselves and others are always incomplete. Fiction is a means by which we can increase our understanding.
From the introduction to Such Stuff as Dreams: The Psychology of Fiction

Do you generally agree with this statement? Can you tell us about a book you read recently that increased your understanding of yourself or others?

>11 baswood: & 12 Love these questions!

When you think about the theme at the heart of a particular book, do you find yourself drawn to the same theme(s) over and over? If so, which one(s) do you tend to seek out (perhaps subconsciously) and why do you think that might be?

ETA fixing typos as usual!

When do you read? How do you read? In long, uninterrupted chunks of time or piecemeal? What are your ideal conditions for enjoying a book?

A novel can have different interpretations, and reading it is a way one makes it their own.

1. When you discuss a book you have read here on LT with others who have read the same book, how much do you think you are affected by others interpretation or experience of the same book? And if there is a general consensus that differs with your experience of it, do you stand by your experience of it, or do you wobble a bit? (even if you don't reveal that in your postings).

2. Related question: When you read, do you have a fair understanding of whether your strengths and limitations are as a reader? Do you take that into account when you comment on a book?

1. Please give us one example about how a bit of associational information (i.e. about the author, the subject, the literary heritage of the book, the time in which it was written...etc) changed the interpretation of a book for you, or affected your experience of the book in some other way.

2. Please tell us about an experience, past or present, in which you were completely immersed in the world of a book.

3. Can you like a book if you cannot identify with its main character? Can you identify with a character without liking them? Can you give us an example of a book you enjoyed despite not liking or identifying with the character? Does this make your experience of the book different than with other books? (i.e. does it make you look at other things in the book...etc)

4. Tell us about book, unusual or difficult for you personally at the time you read it (for whatever reason). Was it worth the struggle? Did you approach it differently or do anything differently while reading it? (perhaps you took notes, talked to friends, stopped reading it at bedtime, reread chapters over, read up on the author or read some of literary criticism written about it...)

5. Can you give us an example from your personal reading where humor, in one form or another, was able to show you something, a different perspective perhaps, that a straightforward approach might not have been able to?

6. "Fiction and nonfiction are usually distinguished by whether a story has been imagined or reported." Can you talk about a novel you read that took something true and fictionalized it (i.e..an event, a biography...etc) or another kind of book that was some mix of the two. What do you think the fiction brought to the story that wouldn't have been there otherwise? In contrast, what did the factual elements bring to the story? From your experience, what do you think the benefits and detriments are of mixing these two things?

Wow! It's exciting (but not surprising) to see so many great questions!

>17 rebeccanyc: If you're lucky, you'll get more than 52!

Some related questions about tagging books in your LT library:

1. Do you make extensive use of tags? Is it for personal reference only, or do you see this as a way to share information with other readers?

2. Do you look at how others have tagged a book when deciding whether to purchase or read it? What sorts of tags are most useful to you?

3. Are there any tagging tips you'd like to share?

#18 Very funny, Lois, but I do have a few ideas of my own up my sleeve!

Just ideas, in case any of these ring with anyone else...

1. What book do you feel mostly closely expresses or is aligned with your own personal belief system?

2. What book have you read that most closely captures our world, or your world, a you see it now?

3. What book is most closely aligned with your current state of mind?

4. What book do feel is the most promising book that you have not read?

5. Of the books you have read, what do think will be your favorite(s) in ten years, looking backward? Why?

6. What do you think is biggest thing missing in modern literature?

7. What is something that was captured by books in the past that modern books can't (or don't) replicate?

What book have you re-read more than any others (if you re-read books...)?

Why do you choose to re-read a certain book or books?

What did you learn the second (or third or nth) time you re-read a book?

Have you re-read a book and come away with a completely different view or feeling from the first time you read it? Possibly liked it a lot more, or a lot less? Came away with a 'duh' moment - so that's what the author meant?

>21 dchaikin::6 Do you mean 'contemporary' literature when you say 'modern'? ('modernist', 'modernism' relates to specific literary movement...)

Yes...current, new stuff, not modernist. Poor wording.

>24 dchaikin: That's what I thought you were talking about, but I wanted to be sure. Interesting questions, though.

So many fabulous questions (and please keep them coming throughout the year!). I'm posting this question a little early because we're going away at the end of next week and I want to give everyone plenty of time with this one before I post another one before we leave. Also, this is one I came up with myself, but I'll be using yours in the weeks ahead.

QUESTION 2.

It's only the middle of January, so I hope it isn't too late to ask this question. Have you made reading plans for 2013? Why or why not? If you have, what are they? And do you think you're on the right track or are do you already see yourself veering in an unplanned direction?

Q2 I have a plan, but it supposed to be loose and more like a guide. The plane gives me some structure and purpose, and helps create context around what I read. When I read randomly, I tend to get less out of the books and, I think, tend to hit slumps.

Plans:
1. Keep reading the OT, one book a month.
2. Work though a list of books I want to read before I re-read Infinite Jest
3. Now that I'm reading Beloved, I want to read around it.
4. Two other books I want to read: Memory of Light, which I've waiting over 20 years for, and the Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson.
5. soft goal - since 1, 2 & 4 don't do it, I want my other reading to include woman authors. Last year I was about 60-40 men-vs-women, without trying. I would like to be 50-50. Won't happen this year, but the Morrison helps.
6. Read poetry - either a poem a day, or part of a lit journal
The rest of my goals are still idealistic at this point - read Israeli authors, from my 50 "best hits" list, read on English antiquarians and early science,

Good grief, that's long and detailed...

I am on track, but I don't actually care that I am...or I don't want to care.

No, I haven't made a reading plan, for the simple reason that if I make a list of books to read I will immediately not want to read them at all, but these other books not on my list. Instead, I'm going with the loose intention to read those books that caught my eye here sooner rather than later, but also to read from the books I already have. I'm also trying to not back away from enormous or daunting books. It's working well, so far, this not-plan thing.

This is the first year I've made a real honest-to-goodness reading plan and so far I've done a good job of sticking to it as the few books I've managed to read so far were ones already on the list.

So, so far so good.

I planned not to have a plan this year. Since, as many of you know, I'm expecting my second child sometime in the next month or so, I decided to have a no pressure reading year. I expect to read lots of books that are easy to get into quickly and read in short spurts. But we'll see . . .

I generally only plan in the sense that I do the category challenge, but use very broad categories, and I focus on certain groups to read with (like 1001 books, author theme reads, monthly author reads, etc). That gives my reading direction without making me feel confined or making my hobby feel too academic.

This year I was rather compulsive about putting together a list to pick from for books to read this year. I am concentrating on reading books I already own. I went through my library and selected about 120 books to give me a wide choice. I then put those books on a separate shelf to make it easy to pick out something to read after I finish a book.
Even with all of that planning I still leave myself open for something new I see or something I am introduced to that looks very good.

I have a definite reading plan for 2013, which goes something like this

1 Continue with my readings from the Renaissance period - 25 books listed to read so far and counting........

2 Read Infinite Jest ( I have read the first chapter)

3 Read as much of Albert Camus and Robertson Davies as possible as well as any thing else listed on the Literary Centennials threads. I have just finished an excellent biography of Camus.

Of course I will fall hopelessly behind with it all, but it's nice to set targets. In fact it is so nice to set targets that I have been setting myself weekly reading targets, which this week means I have got 5 renaissance plays to read by Monday morning. Looks like Sundays going to be a long night.

I'm happy to report that I do not have a reading plan for 2013; however, I think I might, at some point, like to read JCO's My Heart Laid Bare, the one remaining of her American Gothics I haven't read. And, I did look at my African fiction shelf at the beginning of the year and think I might like to dip purposely again into the continent...but really, these are just loose thoughts. Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

I can't make plans, because if I decide what I want to read, it makes me not want to read it. So I choose five books off my TBR list, get them from the library, read them, return them, and repeat. I also read or reread stuff I already own. I do have a 2013 Category Challenge going, but my categories are so broad that no book on my current TBR pile doesn't fit in a category.

My best friend and I did swap books assignments for 2013. She assigned me The Historian, Adam and Eve after the Pill, Revelations of Divine Love, Descent into Hell, The End of the Affair, and The Silmarillion. I'm also trying to read Calvin's Institutes this year.

Of course!

1. Booker Prize group
     a. Finish reading the 2012 longlist (I finished Communion Town yesterday, so I've read 8 of the 12 books so far)
     b. Read the entire 2013 longlist by year's end, and the shortlist in advance of the award ceremony

2. 2013 DSC Prize for South Asian Literature
     a. Finish the shortlist in advance of the award ceremony in late January (I read Our Lady of Alice Bhatti earlier this month, and I'll complete the 6 book shortlist when I read The Walls of Delhi today)

3. Orange January/July group
     a. Read the shortlist of the 2013 Women's Prize for Fiction (WPF) in advance of the prize ceremony, and participate in the LT Shadow Jury (as I did last year)
     b. Read 8-12 or more books nominated for the Orange Prize or the WPF in any year, or novels written by women which would be eligible for the prize (I read 8 Orange books, and 5 others which have a strong chance to make the inaugural WPF longlist: Bring Up the Bodies, The Yips, The Lighthouse, Swimming Home, and NW)

4. Reading Globally group
     a. Read 3 or more books for each 2013 quarterly challenge
          *Central & Eastern European literature
          *Southeast Asian literature
           *Francophone literature
          *South American literature
     b. Read 6 or more books throughout the year for the 2012 4th quarter challenge, China & neighboring countries

5. Author Theme Reads group
     a. Read 4-6+ books by Simone de Beauvoir

6. Literary Centennials group
     a. Read books by Albert Camus throughout the year (I'll read A Happy Death this coming week)

7. Patrick White 100th 101st Anniversary challenge
     a. Read at least 1 of the 3 books that I own and was supposed to read last year: The Vivisector, Voss, The Tree of Man

8. Medicine group
     a. Read 12 or more books on medicine, science and public health throughout the year

9. African/African American Literature group
     a. Read 12 or more works of fiction from the African diaspora

10. Read Mo Yan group
     a. Read 4-6 books written by Mo Yan

11. Other
     a. Read books longlisted or selected as finalists for these other literary prizes:
          * Wellcome Trust Book Prize (medicine in literature)
          * National Book Award
          * Hurston/Wright Legacy Awards (African diaspora)
     b. Read more spontaneously (seriously!): Despite my highly structured reading goals I also want to allow myself to read books that catch my eye at a particular moment. I've already read The Chip-Chip Gatherers by Shiva Naipaul this month, and I've started reading Damascus by Joshua Mohr toward that end.

Well, after going through Darryl's amazing list of planned reading, I feel slightly shamefaced in saying that I have no definite plans. I think I'll be looking at women writing in the 1930s at some point. Not sure yet.

I have a list of classic novels that are gathering dust on my shelves. I would like to read, and read around (as Dan put it), at least twelve of them.

I think I would like to reread The Lord of the Rings this year, as it has been several years since I last read them.

I also have a huge TBR to whittle down...

rebecca, I'm adding questions to my previous posts rather than constantly interrupt the flow of answers to one question...as I am doing now :-)

I don't have a plan. My wife is due with our fourth child in March and will not be returning to work until August. As such, we will only have one income during that period of time, which makes purchasing books difficult. As such, I will probably stick to books that I own but haven't read, books at the library, books that my state's online digital library has for my ereader, Early Review books, or books that I find for dirt cheap at a library book sale. If I were to make a plan to read certain books or certain types of books, it would make me more likely to buy books that I can't afford in order to complete my plan. Besides, I kind of like the fact that I don't know what the future will bring. I think it makes reading more exciting.

I'm reposting what I posted near the top of my reading thread. To date, I've read two French novels, a nonfiction book about a French person, and a Hungarian novel, and I'm reading nonfiction about Poland. So I'm sticking to my "plan," but I fully recognize that I'll continue to read books just because I feel I want to read them at the moment.

This is my earlier post:

So, thinking about my reading for the coming year, I realize that of course I will continue to read what strikes my fancy at the time I need to pick up a new book, that I'll continue to buy more new books than I read and to read newer books in preference to those languishing on my TBR, and that I'll need more fun reads (as I discovered last year) to balance my tendency to read grim and depressing books!

That said, there are several areas that I suspect will claim my interest at least part of the time, some related to groups I participate in and some that are of personal fascination.

Reading Globally
I know I'll be participating eagerly in the first quarter read on 20th and 21st century Eastern and Central European literature, as I have already read a lot in this category and have a ton of books on my TBR.
I'm intrigued by the Southeast Asia read, as I have nothing from this area, and will enjoy the Francophone (outside Europe) read as this will encourage me to read some African Francophone literature and the South American read which will encourage me to read more than Mario Vargas Llosa (although I still have a couple of his books, unread, on the TBR).

I had greater ambitions for last quarter's China theme read than I was able to fulfil, so I hope to be reading some of the works by Chinese authors I've acquired, including more Mo Yan for the Read Mo Yan! group.

Author Theme Reads
This year's focus is French writers, and the year-long writer is Zola, who I became addicted to this year, so I'll have no problem continuing my read of the Rougon-Macquart cycle. I'm reading it in the recommended order and only reading titles that have recent English translations, as the older translation are notoriously bowdlerized. (I have an ambition to improve my French to the point where I could read the others in French, but not only am I unlikely to put enough effort into improving my French (actually, bringing it back to where it was when I graduated from high school) but Zola is said to be an incredibly difficult author to read in French.)

I expect to read works by other French authors as part of this group (hopefully, at least one for each of the featured authors) and I hope also to read works by other authors that are sitting on my TBR (e.g., Stendahl). I've been moderately interested in the French revolution since reading Mantel's A Place of Greater Safety several years ago and finally got around to reading the voluminous and fascinating Citizens last summer, so I will probably continue to read books that are peripherally related to the revolution, including The Black Count, which I may start today and Carpentier's Explosion in a Cathedral, which has been on the TBR for a few years.

Literary Centennials
I read a big zero of books for the two literary centennials of the past year that I hoped to read (Patrick White and Elizabeth Taylor), but I can be confident that I'll do better this year, not only because there's a group for it but because Robertson Davies is one of this year's centennial authors and I'm looking forward to reading the two books of his I haven't yet read. Might read some Camus too.

Russian Literature and History
This is an area that has interested me for quite a while and I have a lot of classic and more recent works of Russian literature on my TBR. This also segues into my next ongoing area of interest . . .

Evils of the 20th (and maybe the 21st) Century
A few years ago I realized I was reading a lot about the Hitler and Stalin eras, and I have continued to do so (although I think I've reached my limit on the Holocaust). This year I hope to read the two-volume Stalin biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore (Young Stalin and The Court of the Red Tsar, as well as a book I have on Stalingrad, Kolyma Tales, and In Russian and French Prisons, among others. I also would like to branch out to Asia, and read Mao's Great Famine, and possibly to the 21st century, as I've got The Cage: The Fight for Sri Lanka and the Last Days of the Tamil Tigers on my wish list, thanks to an LT review.

Author Discoveries
I discovered many great authors this year (see post 4) and will continue reading works by some of them, as well as by other authors I've discovered in recent years (mostly thanks to LT). And I'm sure I'll continue to find new ones, thanks to all of you.

New Directions?
This is the fun part! I have no idea what I'll become interested in this year. Stay tuned.

I'm using a plan. Why? It's about 1/3 whim, 1/3 compulsion to track what I have read, 1/3 invoking the potential of public shame to keep myself on target (the plan is posted in one of the challenge groups).

I picked subjects I was interested in with the intent of choosing the books as I went. When I started picking the initial books, I ended up filling in most of the categories.

I think I'm on the right track in that I have made plans in the past and failed miserably. So far, I'm sticking to this one. The downside is I am a slow reader and I need to re-read books to really get anything out of them. I'm not sure if I will stick it out the whole year and then return to some of the books next year or turn this into a two year plan and start reading slower in coming months.

It's only the middle of January, so I hope it isn't too late to ask this question. Have you made reading plans for 2013? Why or why not? If you have, what are they? And do you think you're on the right track or are do you already see yourself veering in an unplanned direction?

I never have specific books I want to read for the most part. Just what is on my already existing TBR pile and usually I read what I want and follow my mood and interests. This year as always I will read within my own Author Theme Reads group and will be looking to read authors I think might be good for that group in 2014. So, I am always on track and also never on track at the same time.

This year though I'd like to aim for between 15-20 books a year at least instead of 13.

I have a series of questions to add that could be fun for discussion later.

When you read dialogue, is your mental voice monotone or do you try to imitate what you think is the voice or the accent of the character? Does your mental voice go up and down depending on if the character is whispering or shouting? If you have a children, do you read aloud to them? Do you do voice acting then as well? Who has been the most interesting character to try and mimick while reading?

I can never plan my reading more than three or four books ahead, maximum, and usually don't even do that much. I do often tend to have a loose and informal list in my head of books I'd like to get to sooner rather than later, but that's less of a plan and more of a vague suggestion.

I suppose, however, that I do have goals. I've once again joined the Books off the Shelf group -- ROOT, they're calling it this year, for Read Our Own Tomes -- which encourages members to set goals for reading older books which have been sitting around too long, an encouragement I desperately need. I've set up a clever point system for myself this year, where books that I just bought last year count less than books I've had for longer. (I've only read one of the latter so far, but what the heck. The year is young.)

Otherwise, I just want to make some kind of dent in my out-of-control TBR pile, to get back to reading more books than I acquire. I've been good about the book-buying so far this month, throwing out book catalogs unread and deleting bookseller e-mails unopened, and not going into bookstores. Unfortunately, though, the me of December knew I was going to make this particular vow at the start of the year and went crazy figuring she needed to buy as many books as humanly possible before the ban came down. I'm still getting books from that out-of-control spree trickling in to me through the mail, and it's already pretty thoroughly sabotaged any idea I had of making progress for the year, or at least for the next several months. I swear, I could kill December-me, if only it wouldn't cause a rift in the spacetime continuum and destroy the universe or something.

Anyway, basically my plan is still READ ALL THE BOOKS! That's good enough, right?

>44 bragan: ALL certainly sounds comprehensive, at the very least!

I make plans for only as long as they're fun. When they become an assignment, I've gone too far and ignore them. My general plan is to try to read as much as possible from my existing TBR pile. I always make sure I read some of the oldest ones, but this year I'm going to make time for newer TBR books too (before they become old and my tastes have changed). I'm doing the 2013 challenge with 13 categories of 3 books--but I never pick the books in advance. I think doing this stops me from getting into a reading rut.

Good questions, btw. This should be a fun year for book chat.

I've only ever planned my reading once, and it didn't take me long to realise that it does not suit me AT ALL. I have some vague goals, I'd like to read more works from the 18th and 19th century, more poetry, more Australian and Asian history. Some philosophy. And buy a lot less. I SHOULD be on a very strict budget (and Mt TBR is not remotely like a molehill), but somehow books have been making their way in.

Because I'm going away tomorrow, I'm posting the next question now. After I get back on February 4 I'll post a new one.

QUESTION 3.

This is adapted from japaul22's question in post 4. Have your reading tastes changed over your reading life, and if so how? In particular, have you always read broadly? Conversely, if you like to delve into a particular topic, have you always done this? Do you feel that you have read different types of books at different stages in your life?

Q2: My plan is to see what's on the shelves and decide what I feel like reading, and then reassess as I go along. Perhaps occasional acquisitions, equally whim-driven.

Q3: Somewhat yes, somewhat no. There are definite themes to what I like, but the quantity is way down, and probably to a degree the quality.

I loved literature - well, books in general - up through high school. In college and for a bit after, I still read a lot, but it had started to feel like work. I re-found the joy of reading when I started teaching, and broadened to include some styles I hadn't been that into in the past. This background is by way of explaining how my tastes have changed.

I'm one of those people who enjoyed the literature we were introduced to in in school, and read similar things voraciously outside the classroom, too. I read slews beyond that, as well. At university, it was a mix of lit (in English, French & Spanish) and non-fiction/textbooks/articles, mainly for classes. There wasn't as much pleasure reading.

While I still love the idea of 'classic' literature, now I'll tend to tip towards something else because it feels less taxing. I'm more likely to pick up modern lit and will indulge more in guilty pleasures. I've also expanded into YA and graphic novels, which I've only started reading in the past 5 or so years. Combined, there's breadth and depth, but coming in various waves.

When I was working and reading time was limited, I read fairly indiscriminately. I read science fiction for escapism/light reading when I was much younger.

Now I have more time to devote to my hobby I am trying to fill in the gaps to my literary education. Becoming a member of Club Read has helped me to focus my reading and writing about the books I have read and reading about what other people have read, has opened up a whole new world of connections.

My reading tastes haven't changed substantially over my lifetime (but I'm only 26; ask me again in 20 or 30 years). My favorite genre is mystery, and has been since I got two Sherlock Holmes books for Christmas in fourth or fifth grade. I don't really go through reading phases like I did when I was a kid--no 18-month spates of reading nothing but horse stories (second and third grade) or Star Wars novels (seventh and eighth grade). I've always read fairly broadly. My perennial genres of choice have been mystery, science fiction, fantasy, historical fiction, classics of the Western world, and cookbooks. I am more picky about my historical fiction after getting a BA and an MA in History, though. Accuracy *is* important.

Now, as always, I just try to read what makes me happy.

Q2: I never make reading plans - they never work anyway so why loose the time to do it. I am a moody reader - I can read the same genre for months and then not touch it for years.

Q3: I had always read anything I can get my hands on. But it is a feature of the last decade or so to get into a topic and just get stuck there for months - I suspect it has a lot to do with maturity :) But my tastes had not changed that much - SF, Fantasy and Mystery had always been the genres I return to and enjoy the most.

Now - if we include non-fiction, the picture changes a bit. I used to dislike non-fiction in my teens - even history could not keep my attention. Then in my mid and late teens, when the school curriculum included Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, Ethics and so on, things started clicking. This was the same time when my literature and English classes covered the classics and my history classes were covering the World History and all its aspects. All the background and the interlinking finally clicked properly and the non-fiction section was not boring anymore.

But ask me again in 10 years, who knows what the answer will be.

I have certain trends to my reading that have always been true such as a preference for classics, books written by women, and mysteries when I'm in the mood for something light. I read shockingly little during my college and masters years, but since getting a job that affords me some free time about 8 years ago, my reading picked up. Then I was reading mainly classics but starting to get bored. Joining LT introduced me to so many current authors that I either had never heard of or had dismissed as pop authors that weren't worth my time. I now read much more current fiction than I ever have. My non-fiction reading has been pretty steady for the past 15 years or so - mainly historical biographies.

I'm in my mid thirties and I still have not really broadened my reading to read much written outside of North America and Western Europe. I hope that I can change that down the road when I feel that I've read more of the "must-reads" from my own Western influenced list. I've also never been one to get into poetry, though I've tried on occasion. I also almost never delve into a single topic long-term, though I think that's something I might be interested in later in life when I'm not so busy.

I think many of my reading preferences became clear during my teenage years - sci-fi, late 19th/early 29th century classics, books by and about women and a start to exploring non-European writing. However, my reading range has really broadened over the past ten years for three reasons: a book-loving best friend; a partner with a brilliant ability to buy me books I would never choose myself (without these two people it would have taken me much longer to know about Jeanette Winterson); and Librarything.

In my teens and early twenties, I only wanted to read books that were full of action. Stephen King and Tom Clancy were two of my favorites. Anything that didn't go from one action sequence to the next bored me. What was weird about this was that I loved the books that they made us read in school. I particularly liked The Grapes of Wrath and The Great Gatsby; yet, for some reason I never would have chosen to read those on my own. I wanted simple, action packed stories at that point in my life.

In my mid-twenties, I began to look for more depth in the books I read. I can distinctly remember reading Red Dragon by Thomas Harris and finding it to be the most boring thing that I had ever read. It was very simply written with very little depth. It was kind of like watching a Michael Bay movie. Apparently, my reading tastes had matured.

Now, books that lack depth annoy me. I recently won The Afrika Reich by Guy Saville in the Early Reviewer program, and it would have been perfect for the teenage me. Instead of enjoying it, adult me was annoyed by the complete lack of meaning in the novel in exchange for using cheap thrills. The adult me would much rather read Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, or Cormac McCarthy. I want writing that tells me more about the human condition rather than reading books that are merely entertaining. If it is eloquently written without being excessively wordy, that is even better.

I forgot to add that luckily I grew out of a misjudged Jeffrey Archer phase!

#2 Here's my loose plan from my thread:

I want to read more of what I consider my off-the-shelf books - those books I already had in my house before joining LT in 2008.

Of course, I won't be able to only read those - new, shiny books need some attention too!

I also want to continue to read a few 1001 books.

And a couple or three US President biographies.

And I want to catch up on books given as gifts to me.

Looking at those categories, it will probably be hard to read a lot of off-the-shelf books, because gifts (that I've been tracking as gifts) would be considered new as well as US Presidents biographies, and some 1001 books. Ah well, we'll see how it goes. I'm thinking that if I can try to alternate between new and old, that would be great, but it might be more like 2 new and 1 old, in which case I'll still probably do better than 2012 (only 4 off-the-shelf books!).

#3 My dad introduced me to Ray Bradbury at a pretty young age, and that launched me into science fiction. I was also into horror (Stephen King and Dean Koontz) and fantasy (Tolkien, T. H. White).

I'm like some of the other folks here who enjoyed everything I was assigned to read in school. I ate it all up. But I also didn't go out and get more of the same for my own reading; I pretty much stayed with sci-fi, fantasy, horror and suspense.

It was about 1997 or so that a co-worker and I formed a "2-person book club" and started to read some classics that we never got around to. And in 2007, at a new job met another co-worker who loved to read, and we started giving each books as presents for Christmas and birthdays - which has really gotten out of control! - and we both introduced each other to some genres we hadn't been reading much of. Joined LT in 2008, and discovered the category challenges which I've done for the last 5 years and also Virago Modern Classics, the US Presidents Challenge and the 1001 Books. I've used the category challenges to broaden my reading, discovering graphic novels, reading more non-US/UK authors, mystery/crime fiction, more non-fiction - mainly biographies. It's been fun to read outside of the box.

Q3: My reading tastes have definitely expanded over the years. When I was very young, I used to read things like R.L. Stine's "Goosebumps" series and other bubblegum horror. I was also very interested in dinosaurs, bugs, and other "boy" stuff. Hell, I'm still interested, but I don't collect books on these topics any more.

(I still read Stephen King, and I always will. This isn't the place to defend him, but I'll just say that he can be a good writer (not a great one) when he puts his mind to it (thinking Different Seasons here)).

I loved the classics we read at school, but, since I went to an Afrikaans high school, we were limited to a small selection of books (our final year's reading consisted of A Tale of Two Cities, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Macbeth). I tried to read more widely, but I was worried that I wouldn't be able to grasp the older works without some mediation (and I had a bad experience with Reader's Digest condensed editions). What really opened the world of literature to me was my first year at the University of Pretoria. I had an excellent lecturer in my first semester, who really encouraged me to read more widely. Now, I'll try almost anything at least once (for those with dirty minds, I'm talking about anything connected with my reading).

My reading tastes have definitely broadened a lot. And not just since I was a kid. Even ten years ago (or a little less), I think my reading was dominated a lot more SF -- which I still read a lot of, but not in as high a proportion -- and featured very little of what I then thought of as "mainstream fiction," something I have since learned to appreciate in all its great diversity. And while I've always liked non-fiction, my non-fiction to fiction ratio has slowly crept up over time, to the point where it's not all that far below 50-50. I also find that I have a lot less tolerance for just plain bad writing than I did when I was younger, although I still steadfastly refuse to apologize for enjoying entertaining works of little or no literary merit whenever I happen to feel like one.

As a kid, I would read whatever I could get my hands on. My parents placed a lot of importance on reading (though oddly, neither of them are great readers), Christmas and birthdays we were guaranteed a book, so I grew up on children's classics and what my parents had on their shelves. Lots of Dickens, Tolkien and David Attenborough. I was never interested in SF or fantasy, although there was a phase when I, and seemingly every girl I went to school with, inhaled the Sweet Valley High and Sweet Dreams romance series (with the odd Jackie Collins style airport soft porn pinched from someone's mum and passed around). Like others here, I loved all my high school assigned reading (Heart of Darkness excepted; I still can't touch Conrad), and when I was fifteen, my English teacher and a friend of my mother's began lending me books. Jeanette Winterson, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Peter Carey, Virginia Woolf and Salman Rushie are loves that I can credit them for, amongst many others. When I started university, most of my course reading consisted of art history and theory, but I had an older and very well-read flatmate who got me into lots of 19th century fiction and poetry (I haven't read nearly as many classics as I did at that time). I used to spend hours in the university library reading books of folktales,fairytales and their history when I should have been writing essays. Now, in my late thirties, I still love the same fiction writers, natural history and nature writing, and folktales, and have developed a love of social history. I dip into current events and politics occasionally, which I should do more of, more modern poets as well as my beloved Romantics, and I'm hoping to get back to the classics. LT has definitely broadened my reading, whether by recommendation or just snooping in other people's libraries, especially in terms of global reading. Once in a while I do dabble in a bit of sci-fi, but fantasy is still limited to Tolkien.

Q2 My only plan for the first part of this year is to try to finish as many as possible of the ridiculously high number of books I've started and not finished over the last couple of years. I won't be forcing myself to finish things I don't enjoy, but I do want to go back to those that I was enjoying but didn't make it through, for whatever reason. So far I'm doing well, and it feels good to tie up the loose ends. I'm letting myself read other things as well, though.

For the last couple of years I haven't planned my reading at all because I like it to be spontaneous, and I even stopped participating in theme reads on Reading Globally, for example (group reads of a particular work are a bit too prescriptive for me but theme reads used to take me to some great books). I'm thinking it might be time to give them another go. I'd also like to pick up my Reading Globally read-around-the-world project, which is severely neglected but not forgotten.

ETA that I'm still laughing at the thought of Char and her 'misjudged Jeffrey Archer phase'!

Have your reading tastes changed over your reading life, and if so how? In particular, have you always read broadly? Conversely, if you like to delve into a particular topic, have you always done this? Do you feel that you have read different types of books at different stages in your life?

Absolutely. I read mainly science fiction novels, popular fiction, and biographies about famous athletes and noted African Americans for much of my adolescence and early adult life. I did read somewhat more broadly in my late 20s, as I enjoyed more substantial but well known novels such as The Stranger, The Plague, and Love in the Time of Cholera, but I almost completely stopped reading for pleasure during graduate school, medical school and residency, except for nonfiction books about medicine and biology, such as The Youngest Science: Notes of a Medicine Watcher, The Social Transformation of American Medicine and Baby Doctor. Toward the end of my residency in 2000 I became more interested in international literature, and I read books such as Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World and A House for Mr. Biswas, which spurred my interest in international literature. Since then my reading interests have broadened considerably, particularly after I traveled to London for the first time in 2007 and after I became active in groups in LibraryThing the following year.

>61 rachbxl:, it took courage to make this confession!

My father loves Jeffrey Archer, but I prefer this Bob Monkhouse quote:

"The last time I was in Spain I got through six Jeffrey Archer novels. I must remember to take enough toilet paper next time."

;)

>63 charbutton:

I love Archer. :) Tastes vary - that's what makes the world interesting.

I know, I know, I'm really just kidding; my father hates that quote...

Oh brother how did I miss this great thread? New to the group explains it I guess. I just said on another post I'd love to hear how people's reading has changed over the years and here it is! I am really enjoying it.

Q2 - NO PLANS! I kept looking at other threads and trying to decide which group to post my reading on and NO PLANS is why I chose this one. 75 Books wasn't enough. Non-fiction is attractive but limiting. Categories limiting. - I have been retired 4 years and still don't want to do anything but just what I want to do. (feel like a 5 year old stamping my foot). I wonder if/when that will pass. I am looking at the Dewey Challenge not as a challenge because I probably couldn't live that long! but just as fun to see what I have read in those categories. So this group seemed to be the best fit, although I have enjoyed many many posts on What Are You Reading Now.

I'm glad to be here in this group and very much enjoying it.

Merrikay

Yep, it takes all sorts!

64, I do love a Bob Monkhouse joke

Have your reading tastes changed over your reading life, and if so how?

My tastes have definitely changed. With LT's help I can tell you give a whole history. I went from not reading as a young kid, to reading anything, but mainly fantasy (looks like I had a mini-thriller phase in 1993), to primarily reading non-fiction. Then I began mixing in some of what I might call fun fiction books, like Terry Pratchett. This went on for over five years. About 2004 I started try to be more literary, and began adding to my reading some of the more popular literary fiction. This was perfect for LT, which I joined in 2006, and went on through 2009 when I read Beowulf on the Beach. After that book I began to read more classics, started reading some literary journals, and, eventually started reading more poetry. My latest change is my efforts to read about the books I'm reading.

In particular, have you always read broadly?

No

Conversely, if you like to delve into a particular topic, have you always done this?

I do this now, but it's a new-ish thing. It really started by accident when I read about Hawaii in 2011, then Israel...which led to my reading the OT...

Do you feel that you have read different types of books at different stages in your life?

Actually, now that you mention it:

Pre-marriage - fantasy and non-fiction
Post-marriage/Pre-kids - above plus "fun fiction books, like Terry Pratchett"
Pre-school-age kids - added more popular literary fiction
Elementary-school-age kids - more classics and poetry

Now I need to psychologically analyze that

There are some wonderful answers to Q3 (And I don't even know who Jeffrey Archer is...)

Q3 Have your reading tastes changed over your reading life, and if so how?

Short answer: Yes, of course. Life experience, education...etc have made me a better reader of whatever I chose to read. And my choices have indeed swung from topic to topic, genre to genre, country to country...etc. over the decades.

In particular, have you always read broadly?

No, not the way I read now.

Conversely, if you like to delve into a particular topic, have you always done this?

Yes, I think I have, but perhaps it has not manifest itself as it does now.

Do you feel that you have read different types of books at different stages in your life?

Yes, though not exclusively. For example, I read a lot of science fiction when my children were small and I was working nights answering 9-1-1, but that certainly wasn't all I read. My theory for this is that a fair amount of SF is easy to read and built around a thought-provoking idea (though a great amount of it is also just adventure stories in a SF setting) and I could read and digest those, enjoy a little thoughtful mulling even with all the distractions I had at the time. Psychohistory, anyone

Another pair of examples off what could be an endless list: During my bookstore era, I read a lot of what I would call "book club books" (which includes more popular titles like, say, Kite Runner and Never Let Me Go, but also potential award winners (which I used to have a pretty good nose for) because this is what most people who came into the bookstore wanted and wanted to talk about. After I left the position, I felt free to explore other kinds of books which didn't sell so well; such as, short fiction and translations.

And certainly I am able to now read JCO, someone I couldn't read back in the very early 80s when I first tried.

OK, I'm back, and will catch up on all your responses as soon as I catch up with Real Life. However, this question is stimulated by the fact that I started Young Stalin while I was away and was startled to find that, in his schooldays, he liked two books that I've read and liked, Germinal (not such a surprise) and The Toilers of the Sea, as well as one I hope to read, Hugo's Ninety-Three. This made me realize that I'd never explored LibraryThing's Legacy Libraries feature, in which volunteers have cataloged libraries of famous people.

QUESTION 4.

Go to the Legacy Libraries home page and pick one or more libraries to explore. If you click on catalog, at the top you will have an option of showing the books that you share with this library. Are there any that you are surprised to share with one or more of these libraries? I, for one, was surprised that the Unabomber owned Strunk and White's The Elements of Style -- he certainly didn't pay attention to their guidelines in his own writing!

Q4: Well, I went to a few, but so far haven't been able to find anything very surprising. I did notice that William Butler Yeats and I both have The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns, & Fairies by Robert Kirk, which is a rare book, but considering, WBY's interests, it isn't that strange.

I'll keep looking.

>72 rebeccanyc:, I thought your question might be 'What reading tastes do you share with brutal dictators and what does that say about your personality' ;-)

ETA: I'm up to G and I share the most books with Graham Greene so far. He was a fan of Jean Rhys, as I am.

I'm noticing that with some authors, my number of shared books is inflated because these authors have multiple copies of the books they wrote, often in multiple languages.

I just scanned some libraries to see what I shared and found interesting overlaps with Hannah Arendt and Sylvia Plath. Arendt has a nice selection of literature...I had kind of imagined her as more of a nonfiction persona, whatever that means. Also I was surprised how many of these libraries had Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Finally getting to #3 for myself!

I've been a reader all my life. As a child, I particularly liked fairy tales (does anyone remember the "color" fairy tale books, i.e, the Red Book of Fairy Tales, the Blue Book, etc?) and a series of biographies of famous people's childhoods (not sure how accurate they were, but I remember young Ben Franklin being sent to his room without supper, although I forget why). In sixth grade my best friend and I went through an Agatha Christie phase. By my teens I was reading adult classics, and I particularly liked poetry (something I need to get back to). In college, besides my assigned reading, I kept reading classics and mysteries, and started reading some of the women writers who were coming on the scene (Erica Jong, anyone?).

In my 20s and early 30s, I tended to read lots of books by authors I liked, and to read a lot of women authors, so I read almost all the Margaret Drabble, Ann Tyler, Marge Piercy, Jane Smiley, Doris Lessing, and Mary Lee Settle books then available. I got hooked on various mystery series, largely by women. But I also read books by men, including Phillip Roth, Mordecai Richler, and John McPhee. When I was 36, I moved to a neighborhood that had a mystery book store, and that expanded my mystery reading a lot.

By my 40s and 50s I was branching out to more varied authors, and reading a lot fewer mysteries. This was partly because I regularly went by several bookstores that had excellent and interesting selections, and partly because I think once I started reading more variety I sought more variety. Then, when I joined LT 6 1/2 years ago, I rapidly started expanding the variety of books I read, both geographically and chronologically. I can't emphasize enough how much LT, and especially Club Read and Reading Globally, have influenced and expanded my reading.

I still can get obsessed by certain authors (e.g., most recently Camilleri and Zola), and sometimes by topics (e.g., Russian and Soviet history and literature) but I feel most of my reading is pretty scattered.

Rebecca, I adored those Andrew Lang fairy tale books--to the point where my mother was concerned there was something wrong with me.

Just to add to question 4, if you go to 'stats/memes' in your profile page, one of the options on the list at the left is Legacy Libraries - which come up in order of the number of books you share. You do still have the problem with author libraries holding multiple copies of their own books, though.

This question is a combination of ones suggested by RidgewayGirl and baswood.

QUESTION 5.
When do you read? How do you read? In long, uninterrupted chunks of time or piecemeal? Do you feel reading is for introverts and that you need quiet time alone to read? If so, how do you find this time? What are your ideal conditions for enjoying a book, and what effect do you think your reading time has on your life?

I read in the morning, the afternoon, the evening, and the middle of the night. I read at home on the sofa, at work during quiet moments (a lot of my job involves just keeping an eye on things and waiting for them to go wrong), while walking to work or around town, in the bathtub, during meals, in line at the post office, in doctors' waiting rooms, on airplanes, and anywhere else I have a few minutes with nothing in particular to do. Unless the internet distracts me, that is.

A quiet-ish environment, or one filled with something like white noise is best. I find it extremely difficult to read with the radio or TV on, which is one of many reasons why I'm glad I live alone. Uninterrupted time is probably ideal, but, you know, I'll take whatever I can get. Some books need it more than others, and I'll usually tailor my reading choices to whether I'm expecting to have long, quiet blocks of time, or whether I'm mostly only going to be able to read in small, stolen moments.

And my reading time is my life! Or at least a significant facet of it.

When do you read? How do you read? In long, uninterrupted chunks of time or piecemeal? Do you feel reading is for introverts and that you need quiet time alone to read? If so, how do you find this time? What are your ideal conditions for enjoying a book, and what effect do you think your reading time has on your life?

I love long interrupted chunks of time for reading, but rarely get them. So I read where I can. Sometimes for 20 minutes in the morning, and always for at least 20 in the evening--more if I can get it. I try to always take a book with me when I leave the house, so sitting in my car while I'm waiting for my kids is also a common time for me to read.

When do you read?....

Most of my reading is done on my daily commute - up to 80 minutes in total each day. Londoners rarely talk on public transport so it's usually nice and quiet! I also do a lot of train travel in my job so I often get a few extra hours in every couple of weeks. Then I usually have a BBC Radio 3 classical music podcast on my headphones to drown out any background chatter.

At home we try and not have the TV on unless we really want to watch something so I'll read while the other half listens to music. It can't be something I know otherwise I get distracted and sing along. I sometimes try reading in bed but usually fall asleep within a couple of pages. And I read on the 5 minute walk from the bus stop to my house if there's daylight and it's not raining.

The effect my reading time has on my life? I wouldn't cope without it. I have to have time completely to myself every day otherwise I get quite stressed, so reading is essential to my mental health. If I'm on holiday with my partner or friends I always make sure I'm up at least an hour before everyone else so I get time with a book and a cup of tea. I love going on holiday with one of my friends - we often find a coffee shop and spend a couple of hours reading instead of talking to each other. It's bliss!

I read as much as I can in the evening--if I can grab time while dinner is in the oven or on the stove, after dinner with my kids, and generally for an hour or so after they go to bed. On the weekend, I try to get in as much reading as possible, particularly between loads of laundry. I particularly like reading with my kids, by which I mean some or all of us in the living room, each absorbed in his or her own book. I look forward to my once-a-week hour-long train rides in and out of New York City, which is uninterrupted bliss. I prefer to read in quiet, but with four other people in the house, there's usually a TV or two on, or conversation, or projects, or . . . you get the picture. I have to say we are in general a quiet household, but I have gotten used to reading through just about anything. My ideal vacation is a week with nothing to do but read.

I'm with Charlotte--reading is important for my mental health. It has a negative impact on my chores. And there's a nightly negotiation with my family as to whether we'll watch a half hour or an hour of TV together--they complain about the shows that build up on our DVR because I like to watch the shows with them, but don't want to give up any of my reading time!

I read whenever I can. I get a lot of reading done right before bed and when I first get home from work since I get home before my wife and kids. My favorite place to read is the toilet. Is that too much information?

Mostly I read in bed, mostly before I go to sleep, up to a few hours at night, up to the better part of an hour before an afternoon nap. It keeps me from making notes.

Robert

Pretty much what Bragan said (except take out reading at work, and add reading on public transport). Now I have a Kindle I read even more as I no longer need both hands free! I once read a book about reading where the author talked about finding the right book to read while he cleaned his teeth, which got a laugh of recognition from me.

I don't feel that reading is for introverts, partly because nearly all my friends like to read. On holidays and trips together there will definitely be times when at least some of us are reading.

Following on from that I guess my ideal environment for reading is sitting in the shade of a palm tree or balcony, somewhere sunny and with a bit of a breeze! But if the book is good I can be absorbed in it wherever I am.

Like some of the others, I try to read whenever I get the chance. I'm a tutor at our university, but the tutoring only runs from February till October, so the three months in between are golden reading time. I also have consulting hours where I'm free to read if no students show up. I tend to read for about an hour at a time, as I have difficulties sitting still for longer than this.

I don't think reading is for introverts, but I do need quiet time alone to read, especially fiction. I hate listening to the television while reading anything other than magazines.

Reading saved my life at school. I wasn't very popular, but reading showed me that there were endless possibilities for change. Nowadays, I think it enriches my life no end.

I read in the morning over coffee and at night for about 20 minutes before bed. Sometimes I'll read a little in the middle of the day.

I think that reading appeals to the introverted side of people, but pretty much everyone has some of that in them, so it doesn't mean you have to identify as an introvert to enjoy it. Also, I don't read just for the sake of reading - I read to talk about it. So I think it's playing into my extroverted personality quite a lot.

For most books, I don't really mind having other things going on in the background, or being interrupted every couple of paragraphs. Occasionally I'll be absorbed enough or require enough concentration to need to be left alone with it. I get that time by giving my husband A Look, and he knows not to interrupt!

The effect reading has on my life is that I feel more interesting when I've been reading. I have occasionally gone for long stretches without reading (including when I worked in bookstores - I didn't have time to read much beyond the backs of books for too many stretches there), but I enjoy making connections between topics and ideas, and the more reading I do, the more I can do that.

When do you read? How do you read? In long, uninterrupted chunks of time or piecemeal? Do you feel reading is for introverts and that you need quiet time alone to read? If so, how do you find this time? What are your ideal conditions for enjoying a book, and what effect do you think your reading time has on your life?

I developed my reading habits growing up in a small house with 8 people where quiet and privacy did not exist. In fact, I'm inclined to think that reading was a way of finding a private space. I can read anywhere, although it has become more difficult to do so as I have aged. Rarely has life allowed me great "chunks of time" to read, so I have learned to read in smaller portions, whenever and wherever I choose to. I learned to study this way also.

My favorite place to read is in bed and now that we have one of those adjustable Tempur-pedic beds, it's become a super favorite place (there is a certain head/foot height arrangement that is attained that I call "the zone").

It is rare for me not to be reading some kind of book. Reading and my creative activities are, as others have noted for themselves, essential for my mental health, both are relatively solitary activities, although sometimes dukedom and I read together, or he reads in the corner same room I am being creative in.

I think there is a world of readers that is made up of all kinds of personalities, introverts, extroverts and everything in between. To claim reading is for introverts is like saying chocolate must only go with peanut butter.

When do you read? How do you read? In long, uninterrupted chunks of time or piecemeal? Do you feel reading is for introverts and that you need quiet time alone to read? If so, how do you find this time? What are your ideal conditions for enjoying a book, and what effect do you think your reading time has on your life?

I wake up early to have that 45 minutes to read. I read at night until my eyes start to lose focus. I read in the school line, where I am guaranteed quiet and nothing else I can accomplish at that time and place. I grab a few more slices of time to read when they present themselves. I prefer the long, uninterrupted stretches, but they're rare and when they do occur I find myself popping up to throw clothes in the washing machine or to unload the dishwasher. I love quiet when I read, but have learned to block out the noise of my family. I've sat in the same room while the kids have watched Alvin and the Chipmunks movies three times now and have never noticed a thing. If they pick a movie I like, however, it does distract me.

Experience has taught me not to read while ironing.

I'm not sure about the introvert/reading thing. I'm not particularly introverted. I like being around people, but I also like being alone with a book. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

Now that I am retired I have more time for reading, which is great as I have always struggled to fit my reading into my life.

I have my own room now and so that is where I do most of my reading, I like to be quiet, but I do not mind being distracted by the view out of the window. I have always enjoyed reading in cafes and bars as then I can be distracted by my other favourite occupation "people watching"

I don't have the stamina to read for very long periods at a time, and a light doze will often overtake me, I have learned to live with this and no longer get annoyed because of reading time wasted. I bought a reclining chair for the first time recently but dare not use it for reading, because it is far too comfortable. I hardly ever read in bed these days.

I can't imagine a life without books, reading is so important, it is the best entertainment, the best way of learning something new, the best way of finding out about the world we live in now and the world of the past, the best way to assimilate new ideas, the best................

The act of reading is not a social occupation at least it is not for me and so whoever I have lived with has had to accept there will be periods when I want to be alone with a book. However I can't think how uninteresting life would be if I was not able to talk about books I had read or that I wanted to read. I get all my best ideas from books. I avoid (when I can) talking socially to people who do not read and if they have no interest in music or football or cooking as well then it is a complete no no.

After doing the Myers-Briggs test on zeno's thread I discovered that I was an introvert, (which I have always denied). and I find I am in good company as more people are in this category than any of the others. Now assuming that all those people in club read classified as introverts were honest and truthful in their answers then we have absolute proof that The majority of readers are introverts. Suck it up everybody it's true.

When do you read? How do you read? In long, uninterrupted chunks of time or piecemeal? Do you feel reading is for introverts and that you need quiet time alone to read? If so, how do you find this time? What are your ideal conditions for enjoying a book, and what effect do you think your reading time has on your life?

I like to read first thing in the morning, ideally with a good cup of coffee. My brain works better in the A.M., I've found, and I'm usually not distracted then by the 6,000 other little things I need to do. Most importantly, my house (nice, but not too big) is quiet then. My underemployment ( *bah humbug *) means I have a few days off during the week, so if it's a day I go in, my book of the day will travel to work with me so I can read if I get any down time on my hands. On my days off, though, I like to go out in the backyard and read in the sunshine mid-morning or early afternoon.

I'd rather read for a lengthy period of time, but if all I can get is piecemeal, well, that's OK too. (I've been known to stir stuff on the stove with one hand while holding a book in the other.)

I am definitely an introvert! If I don't get some time alone, I get a little testy. I do think baswood's right, the majority of readers are introverts, but my best friend is a definite extrovert who easily strikes up conversations with strangers wherever she goes but she also loves to read.

>91 RidgewayGirl: Oh, I know where you are coming from.

>91 RidgewayGirl: The Myers-Briggs said even I was an introvert... (most would disagree).

i guess it's time for me to answer this question myself. I would love to read in long chunks of time but rarely have the opportunity. I get a lot of reading done on the subway, so if I am reading longer, heavier books I have to keep them at home and read them when I have little gaps of time. I find this works better for nonfiction than for fiction. In the evening, it is harder for me to concentrate, there's more going on in the apartment, so that's when I tend to read the newspaper and attempt to catch up with magazines. Sometimes I do have longer chunks of time, like this weekend, or when I travel (trip to Arizona to visit relatives coming up next week, with lots of glorious airplane/airport reading time), and then I try to read longer and/or more complex books that require more attention.

For nearly 14 years, I've been trying to train my sweetie to not interrupt me when I'm reading, but I fear it's a lost cause. That's another reason I tend to read the newspaper and magazines in the evening, as I don't mind being interrupted when I'm reading them.

I am somewhat introverted, but I don't think you have to be an introvert to be a reader. And every now and then, on the bus or the subway I'll get into a conversation with someone about books!

I need reading time and if I don't have it I miss it.

I've been thinking about this question and haven't come up with conclusive and definitive answers. Every time I think I've discovered some loose rule I follow, I find an exception. At this time in my life, I do seem to find it easier to read in context for works written before my lifetime, but I have a much lower tolerance for misogyny and racism (for example) in works written in the last 50 or 60 years. Maybe it's easier to read in context if the author/story is only exhibiting the general institutionalized intolerance or ...ism, than something more virulent. Of course, some authors I admire purposely explore these very things in the most uncomfortable ways...

Best example of deterrent: I have had no interest in reading works written by Norman Mailer, knowing he was homophobic and misogynistic (and, no doubt, other things).

QUESTION 5.

When do you read?

I would like structure, but it evades me with kids and a wife in school. Some days I get to work by vanpool, and that's two ~30 stretches of uncomfortable, but doable reading. Some days I leave the house super early and take myself out to breakfast before work. That's most of my predictable reading time, and days I don't do either of these I don't read much. Evenings I tend to lose to kids, chores...and the internet (oops) (although lately I read with my daughter, instead of to her...sometimes.) Weekends are often misses, and the reading time I find during them is very unpredictable.

How do you read? In long, uninterrupted chunks of time or piecemeal?

Either in 20-30 minute bits, or a one-to-(maybe)-two-hour stretch.

Do you feel reading is for introverts...

Can't answer for extroverts. I'm very introverted and find reading therapeutic. (I know my wife prefers dealing with me when I have found some reading time)

Lately an essay by Sven Birkerts led me to the idea that reading is a way creating and providing meaning in life, because every book has an author-constructed meaning (whereas in other things in life it's not always clear what the meaning is or where it comes from (because someone like me thinks there is no meaning outside what we construct) ) My point is reading offers meaning, and that has nothing to do with intro/extroversion.

...and that you need quiet time alone to read? If so, how do you find this time?

I can read with distractions, to an extent. I certainly prefer quiet.

What are your ideal conditions for enjoying a book...

Ideally at a table, with coffee, a notebook and endless time. Happens occasionally. I need to take breaks and switch books and whatnot. Oh, if it's nice outside, we have a little covered area with a table at the house...that's even better. (If it were ever to happen in the evening, I might replace the coffee with wine...or better, port)

...and what effect do you think your reading time has on your life?

It's an escape, a zen time, a time to focus on something far away from all the practical and impractical baggage I carry around, I time to quiet the voices in my head. It's therapeutic, convalescent, the closest I get to meditating. It also fools me into thinking I'm being productive, which allows me one less background worry. No greater feeling then finishing a book that offers closure and a sense of accomplishment. Everything seems easy and promising right at that point...including that TBR stack.

How did my answer get so long? sigh...

Q6

There is nothing worse than a prejudice you take personally. It is very painful when it comes from an author who presents it without meaning to, who is completely unaware of what he or she is doing, because of the context he or she is writing in.

I'm thinking of my recent response to Dickens and his efforts to write a nice Jewish character in Our Mutual Friend. This is a minor issue. Dickens was apparently compensating for the Fagin in Oliver Twist, who was also Jewish and led Dickens to look antisemitic, something he probably didn't intend. The thing is that the nice Jewish character, Riah, really bothered me as he manifests many Jewish characteristics that seem...medieval(?). The idea that much of England and Europe saw Jews this ways, when trying to look at them in a good light—even though it's in the past—it feels so hopeless.

Having said this, I do try to read authors within their time and context. I don't try not to avoid authors I don't like for various reasons, as long as they have something special to offer. An simplistic idiot is an idiot. But very intelligent and dynamic authors come from all social/political views and prejudices, and have various vices and human frailties. I like to know what these are, but I still think I can read even the worst and gain, if there is something to gain.

An author's social and political views have an influence on how I feel about them as a writer. Some authors are indistinguishable from their political and social views, like George Orwell, but even those who don't publicly spout their views have them emerge in their writing. I can't read Philip Roth because his misogyny is trumpeted in his novels. Would it prevent me reading an author if I discovered something unsavory to me in his views? Probably. What's more difficult is the discovery that an author whose works I have already enjoyed has unfortunate facets to their personality. I loved V.S. Naipaul's books, but I haven't read anything by him in a while, because of his public statements. Do I get rid of my copy of A Bend in the River or A Turn in the South? Does what I know about him reduce the enormous beauty and compassion in his books?

As for dead guys, I'm a lot more forgiving of those authors whose views reflected that of their milieu. Not everyone is as clear-eyed as Mark Twain. But I do have to remind myself of that.

>100 RidgewayGirl: I forgot to mention that I won't now read anything further by Naipaul because of those same statements. There are so many authors and books to be meant, I don't feel the slightest guilty dropping his works from consideration.

>99 dchaikin: Yes, sounds good, but could you read an author who was blatantly anti-Semitic and, as RG notes above, "indistinguishable from their political and social views."

I'm no Dickens expert, but would these stereotypes reflect the common attitudes of the time? Or, was Dickens trying to do something more advanced?

#101 Lois

- re Dickens - See post #62 on my thread LINK HERE. Murr posted a letter Dickens wrote responding to Jewish criticism of Fagan. With Riah Dickens was trying to make a good Jew.

- re the anti-semitism - it's a good question. Touchy for me. I guess I can't say for sure. If I couldn't stomach it...

How I respond to an ugly attitude like racism or misogyny in a book varies a lot, I think. Sometimes I'm able to shrug it off without too much difficulty, telling myself that all works are products of their times, and it's unreasonable to expect anything else. Other times, certain things will just really bug me. It can be hard to know what will fall into what category, although obviously exactly when the book was written makes a big difference. In particular, there's a certain kind of sexist stereotyping I find it much harder to put up with in anything published after, say, the 1970s. By that point, the author should have known better, dammit!

In general, I prefer to try to separate what I know of the author from what the book itself is doing, and not let any prior assumptions color my responses too much, but sometimes that's more difficult than others. And sometimes, of course, a little knowledge of the authors' beliefs might help to understand what they're trying to say, so I guess it's not always a bad thing.

I can say that at some point I stopped buying anything but used copies of Orson Scott Card's books, because while he is (at least sometimes) a very good writer and I have some interest in reading more of his back catalog, he comes across as such a massive, homophobic jerk that I just can't quite bear the thought of supporting him financially.

>103 bragan: OSC, he's another that comes to mind now that you mention him (not that I was particularly fond of Ender's Game).

Yes, I don't wish to reward these authors, it would make me feel complicit.

>102 dchaikin: Now that you have refreshed my memory, I do remember reading this on your thread, Dan. Thanks.

This is a tough question to answer. I can usually overlook political differences with authors. However, there are times when their political views can be so preachy that I can't overlook it. This usually manifests itself in characters that are caricatures of people with a different world-view than the author. This bothers me regardless of the author's viewpoint, but naturally, I seem to feel more strongly about it if the author disagrees with me.

japaul,

I posted this question on my blog awhile back:

http://kammbia1.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/wisdom-of-marion-2-25-has-your-book-col...

I do believe your tastes change as they got older. I'm reading less mainstream science-fiction and fantasy and more literary fiction that carries sci-fi and fantasy themes in their stories for example like The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. That was one of the best novels I've read last year.

I read The Book Thief by Markus Zusak last year as well. I would never read in YA Fiction in years past but I enjoyed reading that novel.

Marion

I am a firm believer in finding out about the context and life and times of an author before I read a book especially if it is a period of history that I know little about. I think a reader can miss a lot if they can't get past a writers conceived sexism or racism, especially if those terms had not been invented when they were writing.

I have recently read Enders Game by Orson Scott Card and beforehand found out that he was a Mormon and held views on capitalism that didn't concur with mine. It did not stop me enjoying his novel, but I was more aware of where he might be coming from as I was reading. The words on the page are all important, but it is better to know where they are coming from.

I enjoy reading around a subject that interests me. I would not think of going to see a Shakespeare play for example without reading the play first. I make a point of finding out more about musicians and the context in which they wrote their music before going to see a performance. It is so much easier to do this today with all the wonderful information available on the net. As for visual arts - well I do not see how you can appreciate a piece of work without knowing more than what you see in front of you in the gallery.

My wife disagrees with me. She wants to let the piece of work have an impression on her first and only if it holds her attention will she find out more.

I generally don't care what the author does or thinks in his real life - art is something that exists outside of the realm of the now and here. I usually end up reading some things about the author but it never changes my thoughts or feelings on a book - the author and the person that he is are two separate beings... That is why I have no issues whatsoever with authors that are outright idiotic in their lives (Orson Scott Card being one of them) and I don't presume that a novel's protagonist that hates women for example is a mirror image of the author.

Non-fiction is somewhat different... but not by much. Besides - it will be boring to read/see the viewpoint only of people we agree with. If anything, someone's quite different views from mine will make me want to read more from their work than less - because I doubt that I will have a chance to meet such a person in my life - or at least meet for long enough to hear their viewpoint

Same applies to music, art or anything else - art is not life. And cannot be.

Very interesting discussion. I've been thinking about this for a while, and it came up last year on my thread after I read some works by Gregor von Rezzori who, in his depiction of central Europe before the second world war features characters who express what I would consider to be garden-variety antisemitism. But then I discovered that he not only lived in Berlin during the war but also was a radio announcer, a job which must have required Nazi acquiescence if not approval. And I found that disturbing, although I think his books are excellent. It also came up when I read To the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson, as he made occasional stereotypical and offensive references to African-Americans and Jews, which I found disturbing for a leading critic and leading publisher even in the 1940s. I do tend to be more tolerant of racism etc. in works written much earlier, when unfortunately that was how people thought, but I think I would be offended if I thought a contemporary author was expressing his own opinions as opposed to those of his characters. That said, I do think art has to stand on its own merits; it's just sometimes hard to take it that way.

I rarely travel alone, mostly it's with family which makes finding reading time tough...but I tend to find it...but usually at the expense of sleep. But that's good reading time, so I can take in difficult books (although I won't take my Harper Collins Study Bible with me, too big and heavy...and I'm self-conscious about reading it, so I need some privacy.)

...

Hate reading on planes, hate being on a plane and not reading...OK, I just hate being on a plane.

...

E-books are wonderful for traveling. I always travel with my I-pad which has a variety of e-books. I sometimes buy e-books in anticipation of traveling, whereas normally I won't buy an e-book until I'm actually ready to read the book.

When I travel, I often try to read books that are somehow tied to where I'm travelling . . . a few years ago I read Remains of the Day while driving through the hedgerows of Wiltshire and Dorset (well, not exactly when I was driving--I waited until the car stopped), and The Enchanted April when I was near that location in Italy, and last year I read the Age of Innocence in New York City and finished it the day I went to the Frick Collection. I find this enriches both my trip and my reading experience. It's a bit more difficult to find a match when we go on ski vacations or camping--then I bring several and sort of tailor them to the weather. Books set in the tropics for a trip to the tropics, etc.

I just tend to bring things that will be involving but at the same time that I won't mind being interrupted while reading. So, lighter fiction normally. I don't read in cars, usually, just because when we're doing a driving trip my job is to keep my husband company and reading isn't very sociable.

I got the kindle after the last trip we took so I don't really know how it would change my habits for bringing books. I am guessing I would still want a physical book with me just because the experience of reading is different between the two.

I tend to bring books that I'm pretty sure I'll like. The terror of being stuck without a book extends to being wary of being stuck with a book I don't like. So I'll usually bring books by authors I've already read and then one big or challenging book just in case. And my kindle, in case the paper books are insufficient. Really, I travel with far too many books.

>111 dchaikin: A kindred spirit. I hate flying. I am a nervous wreck for a few days leading up to it. I am leaving for vacation next week, and hate the thought of the trip. I can't fly without a book.

I like books that are lighter fiction for vacation. My kindle has been a great addition to my reading pleasure. Before Kindle I would always wind up having to look for another book because I'd finished whatever it was that I brought with me. With the Kindle, I have hundreds of books with me that can suit any mood.

Most of my overseas traveling has been pre-ebook, so when I went to Australia in '08 I took 8 books in my carry-on (that's for 21 hours one way on several planes). It was a variety of shorter novels/novellas/short fiction. Books I thought I might be able to get through with distractions. I took only one book to and from the UK and Iceland in '10. In the latter case, I bought a book (translated) at an Reykjavik bookstore for the trip back.

When I take train to NYC or back (about 4 hrs) I always have a book or two with me, though sometimes I listen to an audiobook on my iphone. I still prefer paper books to ebooks, though if I were making the trip to Australia now, I'd save space in my carry-on and load up the ipad.

I don't own an e-reader, but when I'm traveling by plane is the only time I really wish I had one, as I am utterly paranoid about running out of books. I always end up taking more than I have time to get to, and that can get heavy.

I actually find picking out books to read on vacation a bit tricky, because I'm strictly a one-book-at-a-time reader, and the kind of book you want to pass a long plane fight is not the kind you want during the whirlwind of vacation, when people and activities are putting lots of demands on your time and you might only have a few exhausted minutes to read at night before bed. When possible, I often try to time things so that I'll maybe be finishing up an absorbing book on the plane, and then start something light, trashy, and easily put-downable. Or else I'll compromise and bring books that I'm expecting to be fun enough to make the flight go faster, but not too absorbing or too demanding. I've actually gotten yelled at a time or two when I made the mistake of bringing too good a book on vacation with me and got caught up in reading it when I was supposed to be paying attention to my surroundings.

>117 bragan:

I used to carry a lot of short stories/essays/articles books (mainly anthologies... a collection runs the risk of me not liking the author style) with me when I was still carrying books. This way you don't risk the "I cannot get into the style/book now).

And it is easier to put down if you need to pay attention to something else :)

>118 AnnieMod:: I actually tend to avoid books of short stories or essays in circumstances like that. I figure a short story or essay really ought to be read in one sitting, so getting interrupted in the middle of one and not being able to get back to it for a while is worse for those than for a novel, which I at least expect to have to put down at some point.

When I travel I usually read books that don't require a lot of thought;mystery,thriller,fiction, that kind of stuff, except when I'm on a train when I exclusively read poems,essays, and biographies.

27 - LOL at "don't want to care"!

If I'm going on vacation, I like to read longer, heavier books because I have more time to concentrate. Similarly for long train or plane rides. On the other hand, I like to bring a variety along because I can't be sure what I'll want to read, and I'll bring books I'm reasonably certain I'm going to like, not ones that I have any doubts about. Of course, I'll always bring more books than I think I'll have time to read, just to be sure I don't run out!

This question comes from Lois/avaland, the creator of the "Questions for the Avid Reader" thread (and Club Read, and Reading Globally!).

QUESTION 8.

Can you like a book if you cannot identify with its main character? Can you identify with a character without liking him or her? Give an example of a book (or books) you enjoyed despite not liking and/or identifying with the main character. Did this make your experience of reading the book different from that with other books; e.g., did it make you look at other aspects of the book than character?

Can you like a book if you cannot identify with its main character?

Well, if I'm bored, no. But I think we tend to identify with any characters that show some humanity...even if they are really really unlikable.

Can you identify with a character without liking him or her?

Yes! See Notes from Underground. Do I always? no. Sometimes I'm simply not interested in the character that the author is obsessed with. (Thinking of TC Boyle character I came across in a lit magazine.)

Did this make your experience of reading the book different from that with other books; e.g., did it make you look at other aspects of the book than character?

I think once we identify with a character we don't like, it leads to something of a self-re-evaluation. Part of us begins to wonder if we are, you know, OK. I think it draws us into the character deeper as we become more curious about what it is that attracts us to them.

I'd say, yes, I can certainly like a book without identifying with its main character... within limits. For me, the main question is whether the character is interesting and believable, not whether the character is like me. Then again, I like to think that I can find at least some point of identification, or at least of understanding, with any character who is well-drawn and has recognizable human feelings and motivations. If I can't identify with a character because they're made of cardboard or don't respond in ways that feel remotely believable, that's obviously a strike against the book. Then again, I suppose there are certain characters, perhaps certain types of characters, who annoy me to the point where I don't care to spend too much time trying to sympathize or identify with them. Mostly extremely shallow characters, even if their shallowness is written with depth, so to speak. It was many, many years ago, but I remember disliking Douglas Coupland's Generation X, despite enjoying some of his other novels, because it was like being trapped in a room with the kind of people I would usually go out of my way to avoid.

The question of whether I can identify with a character without liking them is complicated. There's a difference between liking a character because I feel like they're compelling as a character, and liking them as someone I'd enjoy hanging out with in real life. I can certainly identify with characters without feeling like I could or would want to be their friend, but a character I identify with very strongly is at least fairly likely to be one who captures my interest and makes me want to read more about them.

For me, the prime example of a book I liked without liking the main character was Ian McEwan's Solar. I know a lot of people didn't like that novel precisely because the main character was such an awful person that it wasn't fun spending time in his head, but somehow McEwan managed to keep me interested and engaged and happy with the story despite that, which I thought was really impressive. It was the first McEwan novel I'd read, and it very much left me wanting to read more.

I liked The Talented Mr. Ripley without liking Tom or identifying with him. But it does say something that I consider it such an achievement to write a character that I was hoping wouldn't get caught even though I found him reprehensible.

I think that generally I probably prefer to identify with a character at least a little - on the level that I can understand why they might react the way they do. Otherwise I am left baffled at their motivations and wondering if they are realistic at all. You know how it is when you find yourself wondering "do people really do that?!"

I pretty much agree with what's been said here so far. Also, if I can see that a character is human and can see what motivates them, I don't have to like them.

Give an example of a book (or books) you enjoyed despite not liking and/or identifying with the main character. Did this make your experience of reading the book different from that with other books; e.g., did it make you look at other aspects of the book than character?

I didn't particularly like the characters in The Age of Innocence, and I certainly couldn't relate to the lifestyle of the uber-rich in 1870s New York. Yet I loved the book. The main character in A Confederacy of Dunces was gross and despicable, but I found his story fascinating. I think one of the main characters in Wuthering Heights needs counselling, and the other is a psychopath, but I still find the story amazing and entertaining. And for a newer book, I thought all the characters in The Slap were twits or worse, but I still felt the book was worth reading. I think in each of these cases, the author created a very interesting and strongly articulated world, and in each case I just wanted to hang around and see what happened.

You know how it is when you find yourself wondering "do people really do that?!" I've felt that very strongly when reading Anita Brookner. I like her writing, but find the worlds she writes about puzzling.

ha ha. My own question and I find myself unable to conclusively answer it, and I end up with even more questions!

For example, does it matter at what point in the story you come to identify with a character? In Zombie, a portrait of a particularly gruesome serial killer, joyce Carol Oates introduces us to a monster, but then shows us—almost against our will—that there are parts of this guy that we can identify with. It makes one a bit more self-reflective (as Dan notes) than, say, being presented with a likable character who we can identify with and then finding out he/she is a monster (I'm thinking of an example....). I think then it is mostly just the experience of horror and betrayal.

I sympathized, even identified with on some level, but I'm not sure I liked, Eva in We Need to Talk About Kevin. That ambivalence seemed to allow me to examine why exactly that was. If I had really liked her then the book might have been far less provocative.

Both the protagonist in African Psycho (I forget his name) and the serial killer in The Triumph of the Spider Monkey were clearly unlikable, but somehow not having to like them, allows one to look at other things in the novel, like the society around them (past and present).

Still thinking.... (didn't like either the guy in Lolita or Holden Caufield...didn't really care for the books either...but it's been ages since I read them...)

So, I've been thinking about this since I posted the question and I have to come down on the definite side of "it depends."

I definitely don't feel I have to like a character to identify with him or her (or at least some aspect of him or her) and I don't need to find characters likable to like a book (which is probably good, since I read so many depressing books!). For example, I really enjoyed the character of Vautrin/Herrera/Collin in the Balzacs I've been reading, even though he's almost entirely unredeemably evil, because he's a complex and intelligent creation.

On the other hand, there are books I haven't liked in which I've found all the characters irritating, or worse, such as After Claude by Iris Owens and The Finkler Question by Howard Jacobson, but in these cases there were probably other things I didn't like about the books as well.

And then there are the books where I've liked the characters but I've felt like slapping them and telling them to get their lives together -- Gervaise in Zola's L'assommor, for example.

If I had to generalize, I think it comes down to how well developed a character is, as well as the author's intentions and perspectives.

Can you like a book if you cannot identify with its main character? Can you identify with a character without liking him or her? Give an example of a book (or books) you enjoyed despite not liking and/or identifying with the main character. Did this make your experience of reading the book different from that with other books; e.g., did it make you look at other aspects of the book than character?

Oh, yes, I can certainly like a book with an unlikeable protagonist. It would be boring to only read about people I'd like to spend time with. And a good author can create a main character who is complex enough to have attractive traits along with the vile one. Take Lolita, with perhaps the least likable character in literature. Humbert's self-involved and does reprehensible things while excusing his own behavior, but he's also able to be charming and urbane. It helps that Nabokov draws him so unflinchingly. I was certainly rooting for him to be caught, but that didn't mean I couldn't appreciate the time spent with him. I think that it's always a mistake when an author likes a character too much (which is what happened with Salinger and the Glass family, isn't it?) and the author will lose me if they do this, whether or not the character is likable or not.

There's a certain delight (am I the only one who feels this way?) in watching a character make disastrous choices, or behave badly. Dmitri Karamazov is someone I'd avoid (and consider a restraining order), but I loved going along on his wild and destructive party weekend. The main character in Alice Sebold's The Almost Moon not only made poor decisions (in which matricide was really not the worst of it) but made decisions with a reckless disregard for the consequences for other people. I didn't like her, but I did understand her and therefore wanted to see where she was going. The Forgotten Waltz by Anne Enright featured a protagonist so wrapped up in her own drama that she disregarded the pain her actions caused, even as she could see what she was doing.

A likable main character certainly makes for more comfortable reading and many of my favorite novels center around a character that I fell in love with over the course of the book, but coming to terms with difficult or unlikable characters is, in the end, a rewarding and enlightening experience.

My most recent book was Mary Barton: A Manchester Tale by Elizabeth Gaskell, in which religion figures prominently. Not only are the characters constantly expressing religious ideas and sentiments, but the author also preaches frequently directly to the reader. The novel, published in 1848, depicts the sad lives of working class families in Manchester. Gaskell's response to their suffering and oppression is to urge reform and charity, but to the victims themselves she counsels patience and prayer. I was reminded of Uncle Tom's Cabin, wherein Stowe praises the pious endurance of Uncle Tom and advises against any form of resistance. Both writers were reformers, not revolutionaries. In their advice to rely on prayer and await God's aid you can clearly see religion serving as, in Marx's terms, "the opiate of the masses." It serves to dull the pain of poverty and repress the instinct for violent action.

One other very interesting point about Mary Barton is that, while the characters are constantly talking about their faith, we never see the inside of a church or meet a clergyman. Of course this stresses the Protestant view of religion as a personal relationship between the individual and God, but it also shows that the Church was completely disregarded as a possible source of charity or as a voice for the poor.

My reaction: Religion belongs in the novel because it was a factor in everyone's life at the time, but I was annoyed that Gaskell not only put her religious views in virtually every character's mouth, but felt compelled to sermonize the reader on a regular basis. It was also more than a bit infuriating to see religion effectively serving the interests of the rich and powerful by quelling dissent among the disadvantaged. But, again, this is the historic truth.

For me, Anna Karenina springs to mind. The one part of that book that I have a hard time with is Levin's religious musings and personal struggle with his beliefs. Tolstoy always loses me a bit in these parts. However, I recently read AK for the third time (it's a favorite) and this time I felt that Levin's religious strife added o the book because it is another example of the thinking and questioning side of his personality.

So at least with this example, the treatment of religion by Tolstoy adds o the characterization of Levin, but personally took me three readings to even begin appreciating!

A Prayer for Owen Meany is the first book that springs to mind when I think about books with religious themes. The book starts off with the narrator saying that Owen is the reason he is a Christian, and I know that that opening can be off-putting. However, I didn't find the story preachy or "religious" in that overwhelming way. The narrator's present-day musings on Canadian Anglicanism, well - I tell people they can skip those parts without missing anything important. I guess that for me, the story could easily be reworked in terms of fate or karma or any of a number of other non-specifically religious concepts, so it didn't bother me.

The first title that jumped into my mind was Barry Unsworth's Morality Play about a troupe of travelling players in a time when only plays with a religious or strong moral theme were performed and acting was seen as a sin. These religious dictates were central to the novel as the troupe had to work out how to perform a different kind of play about a contemporary event. Unsworth did an excellent job of integrating this into the novel, which would have been pointless without it.

More recently, last year I read Satan in Goray, The Monk and The Italian, all concerned with the temptation and fall of a religious figure. The Monk and The Italian were both written by English authors and reflected a fear of "the other", that being Catholic southern Europe. I B Singer was born into the culture he was writing about, which seemed to free him in some ways to write a more complex and imaginative story, while the other two had a more structured Gothic feel.

All four of these books were set in the past. The only book I can think of recently that explored the religious life of its characters would be Andre Dubus III's The Garden of Last Days, a story of a small cell of the 9/11hijackers and their attitudes toward religion, the US and death, from different viewpoints in the weeks before their mission. This was thinking and questioning from a point of view many would rather not think about and I thought Dubus treated the topic well.

Although I haven't read any books so far this year that seem to have a religious theme, I read several last year. Perhaps the most straightforwardly religious were two by Shusako Endo, well known as a Japanese Catholic writer: Silence and Deep River. Silence deals with the oppression of Christianity in Japan and the meaning of faith, and I had mixed feelings about it. It is very hard for me to grasp the depth of faith exhibited in th novel, and I have always had trouble understanding the proselytizing nature of Christianity. Deep River also is imbued with Christian messages and symbolism, but it also explores how Christianity can or can't adapt to eastern Asian sensibilities. I found it a little schematic, but also thought-provoking.

The Damned combined a longing for the middle ages when the Catholic church was all powerful with an intense interest in spirituality and getting in touch with the devil and his various minions. I found some of it interesting, but couldn't get into the supernatural aspects.

The Monk by M. G. Lewis satirized the perceived hypocrisy of the Catholic church; I found it very entertaining.

I could go farther back, but this gives a flavor.

Rebeccanyc,

That is an interesting question you have posted.

I have read quite a bit of religiously-oriented theme recently and reviewed several books on my blog.

The best 2 books I've read like this last year were Opposite of Art by Athol Dickson & The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell

Here's my review of Opposite of Art:

Athol Dickson is becoming one of my favorite novelists.

Last year, I did a review for his Lost Mission novel and I throughly enjoyed it. Now, I’m doing a review for his latest novel, The Opposite of Art. Also, he is the first novelist I’ve done a second review for on my blog.

The Opposite of Art is the story of the genius artist, Sheridan Ridler, who is known for painting nudes without faces. Ridler got quite a reputation in the art world as a cad to the ladies and an arrogant jerk to everyone else that came in contact with him.

Well, he has an accident at the Harlem River and that begins his spiritual transformation. However, the art world thinks the great artist is dead and Ridler’s paintings are worth millions. But there are reports that he’s alive and his daughter (whom he never met) from one of his models decides to search for him.

Because of her search, the daughter attracts another individual from Ridler’s past who wants to make sure the great artist is dead….and if not, stay dead.

In lesser hands, a story like this could have fallen victim to stereotypes and the spiritual transformation would have been a “Come to Jesus Moment and Now I Have A Get Out of Hell Free Card.” However, Dickson creates a story of intrigue, love, murder, family relationships, and the collision of art and faith. He goes beyond the stereotypes to produce a novel that has depth and reveals the honest struggles of someone trying to come to terms with their spiritual conversion.

Because of that, Dickson has become one of my favorite novelists. He seems to understand that being a believer is not just about saying the sinner’s prayer, attending at church once a week, and singing Jesus loves and forgives me songs. A spiritual conversion affects every area of our lives and this type of fiction should reflect that and not simplify it for mass consumption.

In both novels I’ve reviewed, Dickson has given the Christian Fiction genre a fresh and honest perspective of what these types of novels should look like and he deserves to be mentioned with writers that preceded him like Walker Percy, Flannery O’Connor, and Graham Greene who expanded the genre’s boundaries as well.

The Opposite of Art should be a must read for all serious readers and is one of the best novels I’ve read in 2012 so far.

I believe he's the real deal as a novelist and because he's stuck in the Christian Fiction genre, he will get overlooked by serious literary readers. Hopefully, that will change for him.

Marion

Rebeccanyc,

Here's my review of The Sparrow from my blog:

Have you ever read a book that you knew instantly you should have read years ago?

I knew it after reading the first chapter of The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell.

I was working at a mom-and-pop bookstore in Santa Fe, NM in 1996 when this novel was published. I remembered the sales rep from Random House promoting The Sparrow at that bookstore and how he believed that readers would be talking about this book long after they read it.

Of course, it was the sales rep’s job to promote their publisher’s books and their objectivity could be questioned as the sales reps were more concerned about the bottom line then the quality of the novel they were selling to these small independent bookstores. Nevertheless, I’ve came to this novel a decade and half later (better late than never) and realized that sales rep was right in his prediction. The Sparrow tells the story of Emilio Sandoz, a Jesuit priest, who leads a first contact mission to the Planet Rakhat. However, he returns to Earth as the only survivor and is blamed for the mission’s failure. The priest reveals his side of what happened on the mission to his father superiors of the Catholic Church in Rome and undergoes a crisis of faith that becomes more apparent by the end of the novel.

The characters are what makes The Sparrow a great novel. Russell creates real, three-dimensional characters that will remain with you long after the story is finished. Actually, my favorite characters of the novel were Anne and George Edwards. They were liberal, agnostic, and Emilio’s best friends. Their relationship develops throughout the story and shows how the author did an excellent job of not sugarcoating their differences with the Edwardses’ non-belief in God and Sandoz’s belief in God.

There is a scene in the novel where Anne, a doctor, wants to blame God for letting one of their comrades (another priest) on the mission die while she did everything she could to save his life. That scene was raw and unforgettable as anything I’ve read in contemporary fiction.The only issue where I could be critical of the novel is in the density in explaining the trip to Rahkat. I could see for non science-fiction readers it might be a bit boring and seem like a “info-dump” in which that genre is known for. However, Russell does an excellent job of not letting that density slow the pace of the novel. It is woven into the plot very well and doesn’t take away from the rest of the novel’s strengths.

This is a thoughtful, moral work of fiction and proclaims itself being just as effective as a book of theology or a run-of-the-mill sermon at your local church in showing how faith can be shaken under difficult circumstances.

I haven’t been excited and saddened by a novel like this in a long time. Excited by having read it and saddened by finishing it and wanting to read more.

I will give The Sparrow my highest recommendation to be read by all serious readers. Also, I will add it to my favorite novels list.

Welcome aboard…….The Sparrow!

Marion

I have met many religious characters recently, but I don't recall any that made me personally reconsider religion in any way. Without my own tension, I end up emotionally removed from those aspects to a degree. In Beloved there was an intense religiousness, a kind of Christianity heavily colored and changed, and even contradicted, by African-diaspora cultural remnants that came in many variations, some of which go well into simply being superstition. There was also a strong dislike of Christianity, sometimes within the same characters that were very Christian. It was quite moving, but it far from my own perspective...and it didn't bother me in any way. It made sense enough.

In Beloved and elsewhere (Moby Dick also stands out), I find interesting how much the biblical language is echoed in the language of the works...and how effective this is, especially when I have currently have the bible in mind. The bible provides a point of reference that can cover such a vast range of experiences. And there are so many ways to take it and look at it. I loved how Beloved worked in multiple layers in different ways... I love how Moby Dick does this too, with strong hints at atheism.

Adding to my comment in post 137. Some of the stories in Jennifer Haigh's News from Heaven were somewhat religious but, in the first story in particular, a young Polish girl from Bakerton goes to New York to work as a housekeeper. It turns out she is in the home of observant Jews, but since she knows nothing about Judaism (possibly even that it exists) she is mystified by the behavior of the family and thinks that their customs (such as having two sets of china) are just what rich people do.

The last book that I can think of that I read that falls in this category was Minaret by Leila Aboulela, the story of a worldly, entitled, young Sudanese woman's conversion and spiritual journey into Islam. The novel, which has a contemporary setting, moves from the Sudan to London, as the family's fortunes change. It is in London that Nadjwa converts.

Due to some personal history, I'm not much interested in reading stories that are heavily religious, but hey, the book was free from the publisher, and I hadn't read much from the Sudan.

It's a credible, sympathetic and moving story of this woman's spiritual journey. It was certainly a timely story that could broaden thinking in the aftermath of 9-11.

This question is adapted from one from Jane/janepriceestrada.

QUESTION 10.

How do you decide what you write about the books you read? Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc? Do you have a standard format or do you improvise? Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them? Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT?

How do you decide what you write about the books you read?

My thought process isn't as structured as your question. First I decide whether I want to make a quick note, or if my thoughts on the book are useful enough to draw out. If the later, then ideally I outline everything possible, and then try to figure out what is of interest here. CR is my audience and the only place I write reviews.

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc?

I try to keep my reviews informal and personal, and to coat everything as my own opinions. I want to mainly get my own thoughts out, which isn't exactly like any of the options here.

I try to avoid synopses, or keep them as short as possible. Sometimes I go through the motions and write long synopses to straighten out my thoughts; but I'll drop it from the review or work to compress it as much as possible. In general I don't want a long synopses when I read a review. But...it's hard to write about a book without talking about the plot and characters in some detail. So that is something I spend time on working out.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise?

I improvise. And, for my best reviews, when I re-write them I improvise again, from the start

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them?

I had begun to write very short impressions before LT...small enough for an excel cell. That's all. The never left my excel sheet until I pasted them into my LT comment entry for each book.

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT?

Well, it kind of changes per review. Things I've been working on are:

- to have the review read as if I'm sitting their talking to you, and therefore to write what I would want to say if that were the case.
- to compress...no success here of late.
- to be organized, especially when there are several things I want to say. I have been outlining.
- to write them faster...no success here either
- to manipulate the direction of the review toward my main point. I try to put my main points up front, but sometimes I have to say a lot before I can make that point. So, I try to have the review lead the reader to that point which may be at end of a very long review...while staying interesting.
- to keep the review interesting.
- to be honest.
- to get a readers trust...whatever that means.

I do have a loose structure to my comments, but I wouldn't consider it a 'formal' or even a 'critical' review. I like to give at least a paragraph or two of synopsis, followed by my comments. With some novels and short fiction, and certainly with poetry, I like to include an excerpt. I aim for brevity but seldom achieve it. My personal comments on a book can go in any direction, but, besides my response, I also want to give others the sense of what the book is like so that they can decide if it might be something they would be interested in. Not every book is for everyone. (and I'm less interested in hearing myself talk).

As a bookseller, prior to LT, I wrote 'recommendations" of books I enjoyed, which is not quite the same a reader's review. However, excerpts of my comments—usually a juicy line or two—have been used by the American Booksellers Association and various publishers in venues like the NY Times, the New Yorker and sometimes in the books themselves. I guarded my credibility then, as I do now.

My original 'reviews' on LT, begun in '08, were more brief, but essentially the same thing.

How do you decide what you write about the books you read? I guess I write what I think is the most interesting aspect of the book, and what I think others will perhaps also find interesting. If the book isn't well known, I give more general information on what it's about, but if the book is fairly well known I don't bother with that at all and just give my impressions. Anyone can find the book description, and I don't want to read a book report--they're so grade 8.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise? I am trained as a technical writer, so I do follow a format. I want my readers to get out of my review what they're looking for, and to be able to skip the parts they don't care about. To do that, I divide it into easily identifiable parts, with bolded headings (Usually, Cover comments, Comments (this is what others call the "review"), Why I Read This Book Now --this section is really just for me because I sometimes wonder why I read a certain book when I have so many other options, Recommended for, and Rating.

I have to admit I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to reading other people's reviews, and if I find one that is one big long paragraph, chances are I'll think the writer is either rude or illiterate, and won't read the review.

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc? I don't think of what I write at LT a review, I call them comments. It's more my impressions of the book when I'm finished reading them. As I noted, I'm a snob, and have no patience for people who write straight book reports. However, when a book is less well known, I understand that more of a description is necessary. Still, I'm only interested in the writer's opinions on the book and whether it was a worthwhile read or one I should stay away from.

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them? I've tracked my reading for about 5 years before LT, and tried to make a few comments, and also I was at university studying English Lit and Humanities, so I was writing a lot about my reading. I was also journaling about it, which is something I still do (it's a lot less coherent and more personal than what I write at LT). I find that writing about reading enriches my reading experience.

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT?: Yes, I developed a pattern, which is subject to adjustment as my interests change. This year I've started adding a lot more photos to my reviews, as I'm also a highly visual person, and I think it enhances the whole package. Plus, if my review, or a book I'm writing about, bores someone, at least they can look at some cool pictures!

How do you decide what you write about the books you read? My goal is to write something that will hopefully give a person reading the review an idea of whether or not they might enjoy the book, which for me is more about reactions than content.

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc? Synopses kind of bore me, honestly, so I tend to just write what I have to about the plot to make the rest of what I'm saying make sense. When reading other people's reviews, I want to know what the book made you feel or think, and what it's about in a larger sense than plot, so that's what I try to communicate.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise? I write a couple/few paragraphs, a "recommended for" section in which I try not to be too literal, and include a quote from the book.

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them? I kept a reading journal for a while before joining LT, but that included mostly stream of consciousness reactions as opposed to what I'd consider a review.

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT? In the beginning, my "reviews" were often just a sentence or two in impressions. Now I have a format that works for me without feeling like I'm just emptying the contents of my untidy mind all over the book page.

Ursula - nicely put, and I do enjoy the quotations you add. I should remember to do that sometimes.

Thanks, Nickelini! I have recently become a more careful reader, and so I often read with a notebook at my side, where I note down page numbers of lines that strike me. What makes it into the review is hopefully something that gives you an idea of how the book reads, but some books are just not very quotable. But for the ones that are - it's fun going through and choosing one. :)

How do you decide what you write about the books you read? I have a very formulaic style to my comments. The first paragraph is generally what I hope is brief synopsis of the book followed by a paragraph on my views and general impressions. the second part is generally where I struggle. However, this is generally not true to non-fiction books I read. Those are almost straight book reports. I still don't know how to review non-fiction in a way that doesn't summarize the argument or thesis before critiquing whether the author has succeeded.

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc? I've never viewed my comments as reviews. I try to write something that I might find useful several years down the road and hopefully others might find them useful as well. I now include a few things like published year and my rating at the end, but this is mostly to gather that kind of information in one place for statistical purposes. I don't tend to even considering posting them to book page unless the book has been under reviewed or I have something to add that just isn't being said by others. Even then I more likely not going to post them formally.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise? It's all formula, I've tried to vary the approach once and while, but my brain is not wired that way. I need to have that synopsis or I'm lost when it comes to my general impressions. And since I have never been much of quoter or note taker, I need some reference to what I read.

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them? Nope, I didn't even log what I read before joining LT. Granted i didn't become a serious reader until college and didn't have the time or resources for such an endeavor, so I might have become one just to fill the need to have some record.

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT? Sadly, I think it has become more entrenched.

I generally write a very brief synopsis of the book so that someone unfamiliar with the book will have some idea what it is about. Then, I follow that up with my thoughts on the book. I place particular emphasis on theme and what I liked or disliked about the book.

How do you decide what you write about the books you read? Usually I'll have thought up an approach I want to take before sitting down to write about a book. At the very least, I'll have a vague idea about something I'd like to communicate about the book.

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc? All of those at different times, depending on the book, how much time I have in which to write about the book, the popularity of the book (if I'm the only reviewer, then I like to make sure I include a synopsis, whereas with a book many people have reviewed I'll skip that) and the level of inspiration I'm feeling at the time.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise? I'll often fall into the form of a brief synopsis followed by my impressions of the book, although I try not to.

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them? No, and as a result, there are many books I barely remember. The act of writing about a book, even if it's just a few sentences, serves to help me remember a book.

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT? I'd like to think that it is slowly improving over time, as I write more reviews and, more importantly, read more excellent reviews that show me what to aspire to. I'm certainly writing reviews that are more valuable to me.

>150 stretch: I have a terrible time with nonfiction.

I'm still thinking about this question.

Things on my mind when I plan out and write my reviews:

1. Avaland once wrote about making a review similar to what you might tell someone if you were talking to them. OK, I don't remember exactly what she wrote, but that's my take away.

2. EnriqueFreeque once told me he didn't like my response to the book, but still found my review entertaining to read. (This was about my review of Les Misérables.) That encouraged to say what I think, and not what I think other people might think...if that makes sense.

3. After writing a long wandering review that I figured no one would read, I got a very nice complement from Medellia. (This was my review of Gilead). I can't exactly say what I learned from this, but it encouraged me try to write more in that kind of style.

4. And lately, Linda92007 wrote a great review on Good Prose: The Art of Nonfiction by Tracy Kidder. The ideas in her review affect my writing now.

5. I start almost every review by typing something like "I really don't have any idea how to actually review this." That somehow relaxes me. Although I usually erase that line before I post. : )

My reviews are very informal and very rarely include a plot synopsis unless it's a book that's relatively unknown. I tend to ramble about my impressions - how the book made me feel, characters I loved or hated, elements of the writing that I found new or exciting, etc. With classics or popular books I tend to write a review assuming that many will have read it and I feel free to comment on themes as though everyone else has read it too.

I would like my reviews not to be just for me to remember a book, but also to spark some conversation. I'm only successful with that a small percentage of the time - usually dependent on how much time and thought I put into the review!

I generally write a longer review both for books I hate and love. A three star book will usually get a pretty short review.

I never wrote reviews before joining LT, but I'm happy I'm doing it as it helps me remember what I read. I have a terrible memory!

How do you decide what you write about the books you read I usually start with something from the book that stood out for me and build a review around that. I have in mind that I am writing reviews for my own memory log, but also recognise how useful other peoples reviews are on LT and so I do try to give an overall review that others might find useful

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc I usually write too much and would not call my reviews formal.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise Very much into improvisation. I value originality and I am pleased when something I write has some original thought in it.

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them No

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT? They have got longer

How do you decide what you write about the books you read? This links into the next question: it really depends on the book and what comes to mind when I finish. Time and energy are also factors.

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc? Usually, a brief synopsis and some impressions about and reactions to the book.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise? Largely improvised, but more or less following the format above.

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them? No, not really. When I first taught, I did a couple sample book review-type assignments for students (before I had student examples to use).

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT? Looking back, I did almost nothing in the start. Now, when inspired I tend to write more, include more developed thoughts; when in a rush or uninspired, it's more formulaic.

>154 dchaikin: I think what I said might have been what a former boss, a newspaper editor, once said to me, (paraphrase) write the story as if you were sitting across the kitchen table from the reader.

How do you decide what you write about the books you read? Usually I think about the book overnight after I've read it to try to decide what's important to me, but for a long or complicated book I may also be thinking about it as I read it. I dogear pages where I want to remember something or quote something. Although I don't want to just tell the plot, I want to give enough of a sense of what the book is about that my thoughts will make sense. I try to convey the general feeling of the book, but I especially try to focus on my response to it, since I can't speak for anyone else's reaction. I think I focus more on content for nonfiction works.

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc? I wouldn't consider what I write a formal review or a synopsis, but as noted above I try to tell enough of what the book is about that my reactions to it and thoughts about it make sense.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise? I improvise, although I try to give the "headlines" in the first sentence or two. Depending on the book, I may included some quotes.

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them? No

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT? Definitely. When I first started writing reviews, they weren't really reviews, just a few thoughts about a book that I posted on my reading thread. Gradually, they started getting longer, probably as I read and appreciated other people's reviews. That's probably about the same time that I started posting them on the work pages too, although I did go back to my old threads once and post my "mini-reviews" on the work pages too. Sometime last year I started adding book covers to my reviews, because I liked seeing them on other people's reviews. I like the photographs some people add too but I'm too lazy to find appropriate photos and figure out how to post them!

ETA I find that reviewing books has helped me remember not only what I've read but more about the books themselves. Having to think about what I want to say about them helps me remember them.

I try to write about the books I read as soon as possible after I finish the book. I might take a couple of notes about characters or action in the book that left a particularly vivid memory. I want to write something that will help me remember the book.

I used to write long formal reviews and it just got to be too much like work. I will write a short synopses to help explain the book to other readers. If I really liked the book I will try to write something to share my enthusiasm for it. Primarily I want to tickle my memories of the book.

I don't have a standard format. It depends on the book. Generally the more I liked the book the more I will write.

I didn't write any reviews before joining LT. I wish I had.

As I said above my style of reviewing has changed over time. I used to take notes and write an outline. Sometimes I would even write a draft. I remember spending days writing a review. I need to spend the time reading. I think of what I am writing as a reading journal. I print up my threads by year and keep them in a binder.

159. Rebecca, you dogear pages? (spoken in the same tones one would use to say, "You have sex with cheese?")

Hey! I've been known to dogear pages (on my own books). Cheese, however, is only for eating, and only in small amounts.

Just had to get that out.

161 RG, last year (?) we had a question on this Avid Readers thread, based on Anne Fadiman's essay on the subject, about whether people were "courtly" or "carnal" readers. I came out on the "carnal" side (but let's leave cheese out of this!), and you seem to be on the "courtly" one!

How do you decide what you write about the books you read?
I think most of my reviews are question of mood and inspiration. Some of my best (or rather, most well-received) reviews had almost very little plot and were based on feeling. See: Underground, Fires on the Plain, The Last Day of a Condemned Man, The Road. My reviews tend to get muddled though when I'm not wishy-washy about how I feel about a book. Also, if the book isn't very well known then I feel a responsibility to talk about more so as to introduce it to more people.

Do you write formal reviews, general impressions, synopses, etc?
These days I can't even tell what I write. I just send something out and wait for the comments. Only once I get comments do I reread what I wrote and often I wonder why I'm getting such good feedback. My last review of The Bells of Nagasaki was not at all what I wanted to write. Overall, the reviews are supposed to be for me to go back to in a few years and remember what the book is about and what I like about it. This has changed a bit since gaining an audience but I try to remember that the review is for me, mostly.

Do you have a standard format or do you improvise?
I tend to improvise based on whether or not the book moved me or I feel there is some particular information I'd like to relate. When I was reviewing for Belletrista I tried to find a format that worked for me but I never was able to find it and each was very different from the other.

Did you write reviews before joining LT, and if so what did you do with them?
No

Has your style of reviewing changed over the time you've been on LT?
It's constantly wavering.

>161 RidgewayGirl: I dogear pages these days too. Must be an age thing. (cheese? wheel, slices, or shredded?)

Happily have no cheese with my lunch...

#158 Lois - That exactly it, sorry for butchering. Funny enough I actually do place myself mentally sitting at our kitchen table talking about the book to someone...even though I had forgotten that came from the you too (via your one-time boss).

This question is based on a recent discussion on my thread.

QUESTION 11.

When you discover a new (to you) writer you like, do you want to read more of his or her books? Right away? Or do you prefer to spread out works by the same writer, and if so how much time do you like to leave between them? Does this vary for different authors and, if so, why? Please try to give some examples to help us discover new writers!

I think I would like to read all their work in the order it was published, sequentially, so I can get a sense of how they got from the early works to the later ones...but that is purely theoretical. I've never actually managed to do that.

If a book is part of a series, I do like to read them in order. I usually spread them out with other books in between. However, sometimes with an audio series that I am particularly enjoying, I may listen to those in order one after the other. That happened with Christopher Fowler's Bryant and May series. The stories are good, and the reader has the main characters voices down pat. If the book is not part of a series, I might not get to another for years.

I spread them out, sometimes to the extent that it takes an eternity to come back around to an author. There are relatively few authors that I've read more than 2 (and really, more than 1) of their books, and most of those are from years and years ago when I guess my habits were different.

If I find an author I like, I very often do want to read more of them, but, no, not right away. Well, if I'm starting one of those series where none of the volumes is at all self-contained, then I might prefer to read them all together as if they were one long book, maybe with just a tiny break in between volumes. Otherwise, I have an odd dislike of reading too much of the same sort of thing too close together; I'm definitely not the type of reader who goes on long streaks of reading books about the same topic, or by the same author, or in the same genre. (Well, okay, maybe the same genre, but not the same subgenre, at least.) For some reason, it seems vitally important to my reading brain to keep mixing things up. If I really have a lot of books by a certain author or on a certain subject -- maybe books in a series I'm catching up on -- I might read them at about one a month, but probably not much closer together than that. (I think that's how I read most of the Horatio Hornblower books, for example: one every month or two.)

When you discover a new (to you) writer you like, do you want to read more of his or her books? Right away? Or do you prefer to spread out works by the same writer, and if so how much time do you like to leave between them? Does this vary for different authors and, if so, why? Please try to give some examples to help us discover new writers!

I know you do this, rebecca, and I watch you from afar and think, "there by the grace of the book gods go I." I used to have this same tendency, but it the "old" days it was a lot harder to acquire an author's backlist than it is now! Still, I managed it through the library, and often read this way when I could. I have been a bit more cautious since I read all of Anne Tyler in the 90s and haven't been able to read her since (and the books all blur together in my mind). And look at the trouble that's caused me with Atwood and Oates!

Still, the desire is there, and considering how much of my reading is from authors I have read before, I'm still doing it, just spreading it out these days.

Some authors I have read through their backlists, others I read forward as the books come out.

When I discover a writer that is new to me and I like their writing I usually will want to read more of his or her books. When I choose a book I want to read something that is well written. I think the best guarantee of a well written book is a good author. A friend from LT introduced me to James Lee Burke and now I have over 20 of his books.
I don't have any real pattern about the way I read a new author. It's based on how much I like them and what books of theirs I can find and afford. Burke has a long series and I did not read it in order. If I could have simply lined them all up and read them that way I would have but they didn't come to me that conveniently and I wanted to read a James Lee Burke book.
When I was growing up my mother went back to college and she had a lot of good books. I have always read a lot and I spend time looking for new to me books. LT is a terrific resource for finding new authors. I may read a review I like and end up looking through a members library.
I'm a subscriber to Library of America and they have introduced me to a lot of good authors. I didn't read any poetry to speak of until I got some books from them. You can go to their website and find a lot of good authors.

When I discover a new to me author whose books I like then I have an itch to read everything and I like to start from their first critical success. Chronology seems important to me and that is because I like to look for development in the writing style of the Author's I like and also perhaps to understand any wild leaps from the norm. I also like to read a biography if it is appropriate or search around on the net for more information. This year I am reading several authors whose books I like:

Ian Mortimer His series of histories of the Plantagenet kings is masterful
H G Wells The reading of a couple of his early science fiction novels has re-kindled (pun intended) my delight of his writing style
Albert Camus I am reading his publications in chronological order and enjoying the journey
Machiavelli This stems from my reading of 15th century literature and the Italian renaissance

I am trying to resist delving into Leo Perutz and Philip Wylie

Of course I am also tempted by other LTyers reading binges particularly Steven and Rebecca's Zola reading, but you just can't read everything.

My typical experience is that I will find an author I really like, usually someone a bit off the beaten track, and start collecting his or her works with the intention of reading them chronologically. But then I get over committed to so many groups, themes and challenges that I never make the time to get back to that "favorite" author. Some examples are John Hawkes, Harry Mathews, and Kathy Acker. I've collected most of their work but have only read one or two books each.

When I do happen to read several of an author's books in quick succession I still prefer not to read them back-to-back. Even when books are in the same series I like to space them apart a bit with reading that gives me a change of pace.

Question 10 - Been thinking about this a lot lately as I have read more and more LT reviews and realize many are professional. I'm not interested at this point in putting too much time into reviews (and it is not one of my skills), but rather want a reading log for my own processing and memory aid. Altho I do want some conversation for sure! I do think about not wanting to mislead anyone into thinking they will like something or not so that kind of bothers me and is leading me toward addressing who might like it, but even that seems presumptious. I do put some on Amazon if I have either had strong reactions either way, or am bored (!) or it's an ER and I feel somewhat obligated.

I enjoyed reading all of your thoughts on this subject.

ETA: I'm thinking maybe I'll start listing how long after I have read the book until I review it to see how much my ideas change.

Question 11 - When I love an author I want to read all of their works and preferably in order. It is fun to see their writing improve over time. Altho, if I start with an early one that isn't great, I may miss out on their mature writing. However, LT is killing this for me as before I can get through one book, 20 more have shown up on my TBR through reading LT. Doesn't leave me time to read all of the works.

173 - Burke is one of the ones I read as soon as they are published - love him.

and I'm with you Steven - 175 - when I like them I often end up hunting them all down and buying them and then never reading them. But, as E.O. Wilson said, No I haven't read them all - they're friends!

So I asked this question because I worry a little when I find a new author I like and start buying lots of his or her books. Why do I worry? Because I feel guilty that I'm neglecting other authors, other countries, other time periods. It basically comes down to Too Many Books, Too Little Time.

That said, I do, as everyone knows, become excited about authors, wonder how I could never have read them before, and start buying books. Whether or not I read them all more or less right away depends a little on how short and/or readable they are. Thus, my Camilleri binge last year: they go down like candy, but they're good for you (i.e., they're not just fluff). Zola, on the other hand, my other 2012 discovery, while readable, takes more time and focus, so I'm spreading them out. Also, sometimes books are harder to find. Thus, while I became entranced with Ngugi after reading Wizard of the Crow, it took me a while to track down some of his works, so I read them over the course of a few years. This is true also of Alejo Carpentier. And sometimes I find an author I like a lot and buy some more of his books and they sit on the TBR (e.g., Saramago, LeClezio, both thanks to the Author Theme Reads group).

As to reading them in order, if all are readily available, and if it matters, as in a mystery series like the Camilleris, I'll start at the beginning. With the Zolas, after I read a few of the Rougon-Macquart series I decided to try to read them in the recommended reading order, which differs from the order Zola wrote them in, so that's what I'm doing now for the ones that are available in recent (i.e., non-expurgated) translation. Mostly, though, I read them as I find them; I'm not disciplined enough to track a writer's development by reading his or her works in order.

Of course, when I discover a contemporary writer, I eagerly await the publication of his or her new work (e.g., recently, Jennifer Haigh, but also Bonnie Jo Campbelland Jaimy Gordon, among others).

>> When you discover a new (to you) writer you like, do you want to read more of his or her books?
Yes. If an author is not dreadfully bad, I want to read what else they had done

>> Right away? Or do you prefer to spread out works by the same writer, and if so how much time do you like to leave between them? Does this vary for different authors and, if so, why?
It used to be right away. These days I am trying to space it. But it does depend on the authors - if they have just a few books, I may just burn through them very fast. If it is a dead author, I usually try to space them...

>> Please try to give some examples to help us discover new writers!
Simon Van Booy was someone I discovered this year - by chance. His new book was added to the latest Indiespensable volume... and I loved the style.

Jon Godden was someone I discovered when looking at books from her sister. Took a chance and loved the style... so I am slowly making my way through the books.

Jane Smiley was another accidental find - I love novellas and she had a book with two of them (Ordinary Love and Good Will). I still had not followed up on reading anything else from her... but that's the plan.

Most of the authors I find a genre ones and these are a lot harder to recommend.

LIBRARY THING! Duh!

That does take a lot of time, doesn't it Merrikay?! Maybe I should have put that that's a given, and asked what ELSE people read.

Seriously! I don't have time for books if I actually keep up with only Club Read 2013. Well you know how it works - like yesterday when baswood put up that beautiful pic of the angel painting and that led to google which lead to wiki which led to youtube which lead to my Thrift Store Paintings book and now to the dictionary because I am losing my mind and can't remember if it's led or lead. Oh Lord.

Oh, gosh. Well, let's see, non-book things I've been reading lately, other than LibraryThing talk threads (which I never, ever, ever seem to be able to stay caught up on):

Humorous websites:

Failbook, which is my only personal experience with Facebook, and a nice continuing reminder for me not to give in and sign up for it.

Not Always Right (and its sister sites), which remind me to be grateful I no longer have to work with the public.

Set Phasers to LOL: OK, more images than reading, but I love me some pop culture sci-fi jokes.

Cracked, which, despite its often crass irreverence and the fact that it is first and foremost meant to be funny, is still possibly one of the most intelligent and interesting sites on the internet.

Blogs:

Book Riot: My current favorite book blog!

What If?: Fascinating and hilarious answers to science questions it probably never would have occurred to you to ask.

Adventures With the Wife in Space, because I am a massive Doctor Who fan.

Also, various blogs kept by friends of mine.

Webcomics:

Dinosaur Comics

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

Unshelved

xkcd

Magazines:

The Skeptical Inquirer

The Planetary Society's membership magazine, The Planetary Report

Other:

Lots of chatty e-mails, fan fiction, book catalogs, my own old LT reviews, menus, cereal boxes, street signs, and any other written words than make their way in front of my eyes.

(And I'd say my geeky side is definitely showing with that list, but, honestly, I'm not sure I have any sides that aren't geeky.)

I have a list of publications I read on line with breakfast: The New York Times, my local newspaper, CNET, New York Review of Books, News of the Weird and LT. There is an add on for Firefox called morning coffee that brings them all up in tabs. I read National Geographic and Archaeology when I have the time.
I usually have an audiobook in my currently reading because they are so convenient.

World Literature Today, publisher catalogs online & hardcopy, random blog posts (none regularly), articles on the web; lots of random, curiosity-driven web content, food labels, recipes...sometimes I read a story from one of the hubby's magazine's (i.e. F&SF)...

Believe it or not, there are other pleasurable things I do in addition to reading.

I don't read much of anything else, honestly. I read posts here, I read posts on fitocracy.com, and I read occasional articles that are linked somewhere (facebook or here) and catch my eye, but that's really it. I can go days without reading much of anything that's not a book.

I don't read so many magazines these days, but I do subscribe to Telerama which is a French arts and TV magazine, I usually read this over breakfast and plan out all the TV programmes that I never have time to watch.
I have stopped my subscriptions to The Times Literary supplement and The London Review because I have about three years backlog of them both to catch up on.

Learning to play the saxophone has led me to have two books propped up on my music stand Creative Saxophone: A fresh approach for beginners featuring jazz and improvisation and The Jazz method for Saxophone by John O'neil. Now I read these two books over and over as I struggle to play the exercises.

I am an avid reader of all the programme notes and information that comes from JIM: that is Jazz in Marciac.

On the internet I read everything that is posted by Fulham F. C. and also on the BBC sport football website. I also read BBC News and occasionally The Guardian on the web.

I read plenty of CD cover notes

Recipes, I pore over these from time to time and I am always tempted by menus that are on display outside restaurants that I pass by and when I get through the door I read everything on the menu and the wine list.

11 When you discover a new (to you) writer you like, do you want to read more of his or her books? Right away? Or do you prefer to spread out works by the same writer, and if so how much time do you like to leave between them? Does this vary for different authors and, if so, why? Please try to give some examples to help us discover new writers!

It depends . . . often I'll want to read a lot more as soon as I can, other times I'll think "someday I'll read this author again." One thing I never do though is to pick up another book by that author right away--I like to spread my reading around, and never go on one-author kicks. The only exception to that may be the unusual number of John Sutherland books I've read this year and that's only because I'm using the interlibrary loan system, which can be tricky.

12 -Mostly, with some noteworthy exceptions, we focus on books when we write about what we are reading here in Club Read. But most (all?) of us read other things too: newspapers (on paper or online), magazines (ditto), blogs, cereal boxes, etc. etc. Please give your fellow Avid Readers some idea of what you're reading when you're not reading books, and please be specific (i.e., which magazines? which blogs?).

I've really stopped reading almost everything except books. Magazines and newspapers that come into my house sit unread. I don't follow anything online. This is a big change for me.

At the risk of being ostracized, I spend a LOT of time of Facebook and Twitter. When things started happening in Egypt, I found those to be a couple of the only places I could get any news about what was going on there and following things live was pretty amazing. Yes Facebook has been a great news source. Now Facebook is manipulating what they post even when I have asked for it, so it is just about done.

>190 mkboylan: I lost touch with Twitter since we put Belletrista in hiatus. I agree with you on FaceBook though (I have a love-hate relationship with it).

Definitely agreed about the love/hate relationship with FB. Plus, I've mentioned it before, I watch waaaaaay too much TV to relax and just tune out.

That said, when I get around to it, I try at least to glance through online newspapers and magazines. Recently, it's been a lot of Slate, Salon, & AV Club* (with meanders into The Onion, when I remember). The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Göteborgs Posten are also on the list (with nostalgic forays into Washington City Paper when the mood strikes).

I also go on random tangents, often triggered by something I'll pick up in reading above.

Speaking of which, I need to get back to Nimona! xkcd is another good one. Both were picked up from this Slate article.

I'm sure I'm missing slews, but those are some of the highlights.

*AV Club Undercover has some real gems for indie music folks out there (link is to 2012, but pick a year and have a scroll - 2013 is just underway).

I used to read a lot more other stuff. Sigh! Since I joined LT, I've been reading more books, but I've also spent a lot more time reading threads on LT, organizing my books on LT, writing review for LT, time I could be spending reading other things that I used to read . . .

Newspapers
I used to turn every page in the New York Times. Every day. Alas, those days are gone. Some days I read most of the news articles; many days I don't. I feel guilty. I also get a weekly newspaper from the upstate community where my family has a house. Most weeks, I skim it.

Magazines
Here's where I really feel guilty! I get several magazines and am way behind with all of them: The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, and Science. Sometimes I go through them and just throw out the ones that are more than a month or two old in the hopes that will make the pile seem less daunting. Ha!

Intenet
Thank goodness I don't FB or Twitter, because LT already takes up enough time! I do spend a lot of time each day on e-mail. I've discovered a cooking web site that I find a lot of fun, and have spent a lot of time organizing saved recipes, even though I've never made any of them: www.food52.com. And I keep the New York Times website open in my browser (along with the LT Talk page) so I can check the headlines every now and then.

Miscellany
I love maps -- the old-fashioned kind that are harder to find. I read the ads in the subway. I look at what other people are reading in the subway. I read signs in stores/buildings as I walk by. I read the ingredients on food products and then usually am too disgusted to buy them. I read the information that scrolls by at the bottom of the screen when my sweetie is watching TV news. I guess I just read wherever I am.

Cookbooks and other books on food. I also love books that tell me how to do things; all those things people used to do domestically before we all started buying everything. Garden newsletters and plant catalogues.

TLS when I can find it, ditto for the New York Review.

Online, bbc.uk, the Guardian and of course LT

Hadn't thought of maps until rebecca mentioned them, but I do spend hours "reading" them.

The Atlantic magazine, Mother Jones when I can find it and other similar magazines. One of the delights of going to a city is magazine stores.

At other times, whatever is in front of me.

This question is adapted from one from Dan/dchaikin.

QUESTION 13.

Do you find that, more often, books you really like when you first read them remain favorites or that some of them slip from your mental favorite list as you read other books? Are many of your all-time favorites ones you read a long time ago, and do you want to reread them or fear rereading them because you may not like them as much? Of the books you have read more or less recently, which do you think will still be favorites five or ten years from now? Why? And if you feel like telling us what some of your all-time favorites are, I'm sure we'd all love to think about adding them to our wishlists/TBRs!

13. Old as I am there is a bunch of books that I have reread, but my official list of books to reread is:

The Lord of the Rings
The Glass Bead Game
Paradise Lost

This has been my list for a long time, since shortly after I first read them in the mid-sixties. The first Norton Critical Edition of Paradise Lost was edited by my college Milton professor; the current one is by a successor. I have it here somewhere, and it is time to read it again.

Robert

The number of books I have reread in my life can be counted on one hand, I think. I read One Hundred Years of Solitude in 1989, and reread it maybe 10 years ago. Definitely still a favorite. I've reread A Prayer for Owen Meany, and it is still a favorite.

I could imagine myself rereading Sometimes a Great Notion, which I read last year, and I don't think my opinion on it would change very much. It didn't suffer from the time period it was written in (the 1960s), so I don't think it would feel any more dated in the future.

I have plans to reread Lolita and The Things They Carried; the former because I want to delve into it more deeply; I know I missed a lot the first time through. The latter just because I want to immerse myself in the writing again.

As for bad experiences with rereading, I loved Catcher in the Rye when I was in high school, but when I read it again in my 20s I really hated it. I wanted to punch Holden in his whiny face. It's not the only reason I don't reread, but it's definitely a reason. I think that with some/a lot of books, there are ideal times to read them, and reading them again outside of those times just leads to disillusionment.

My favorites have changed largely because my childhood favorites are largely no longer favorites (with exceptions: Anne of Green Gables and the rest of the Anne series, A Little Princess, and the Chronicles of Narnia.) The Lord of the Rings has been an absolute favorite since 5th grade.

Most of the books I read now don't make my favorites list. There are just too many forgettable books. From recent reads, I think C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength) will be a long-term favorite, particularly That Hideous Strength, which is truly and spectacularly one of the best books I have ever read.

My most favoritest favorites are:

I Capture the Castle
A Tale of Two Cities
Anna Karenina (which is actually an easy read, although long)
A Little Princess
Anne of Green Gables and series
The Lord of the Rings
All the original Sherlock Holmes books
The Man in the Brown Suit
Out of the Silent Planet
Blackout/All Clear (one book, two volumes)

I've also got a more thorough list posted here, sorted by genre and year.

Q13: My favourites have definitely changed over the years! This is probably because I've been reading since a very young age, so you can't expect, say, R.L. Stine's "Goosebumps" series to remain high on the list. That said, some all-time favourites have been there for a while, including Dickens's A Christmas Carol and some of Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" novels.

I'm not worried about re-reading most of these favourites. I'm sure they won't seem as magical and luminous as they did to me as a young boy, when pretty much anything fantastic seemed excellent. But they may reveal hidden depths now that I'm older.

Of recent books, I'd say Religion and the Decline of Magic by Keith Thomas, Shadow Country by Peter Matthiessen and Ficciones by Jorge Luis Borges will still be favourites for years to come. All three are excellent books, though there isn't really a golden thread connecting them. I guess I just like the eclecticism!

All-time favourites:
The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov
Don Quixote by Miguel De Cervantes
The Faerie Queene by Edmund Spenser
The Gormenghast Trilogy by Mervyn Peake
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe
... and many more!

There has been a change in my favorite books over the years. Most of these changes are books that I read in my teens and 20's, many years ago. I recently tried to reread Catcher in the Rye a book I enjoyed very much when I first read it. This time I didn't like it at all and stopped reading after 30 pages.
On the other hand I recently reread The Impending Crisis a book I had read in the last ten years and enjoyed it just as much the second time.
I think this reflects a change in my ideas as I have aged and hopefully matured. I don't have plans to reread any specific books right now I have too many books waiting to be read the first time. I think that being able to see my library on LT has helped me to realize what I have and focus on books I want to read.
A short list of my all time favorites would include:
The Iliad and The Odyssey
Carson McCullers: Complete Novels
American Wits
Bruce Catton's Centennial History of the Civil War
William Carlos Williams:Selected Poems
Dashiell Hammett: Complete Novels

Do you find that, more often, books you really like when you first read them remain favorites or that some of them slip from your mental favorite list as you read other books?

My feelings toward favorite books probably strengthens over time. I'm usually very reluctant to put a recently-read book on that mental favorites list. Partially this may be that I've naturally become a more critical reader the more I've read.

Are many of your all-time favorites ones you read a long time ago, and do you want to reread them or fear rereading them because you may not like them as much?

I'm normally not much for re-reading, but I have re-read several of my all-time favorites from 30+ years ago. The results were mixed. I wasn't nearly as enchanted with The Lord of the Rings as I was in my teens, but War and Peace, which I had always considered my all-time favorite book, was, if anything, even better when I re-read it. There are a few more old favorites I need to re-read, and I guess Moby-Dick might be a case of reluctance that I won't enjoy it as much as I did the first time.

Of the books you have read more or less recently, which do you think will still be favorites five or ten years from now? Why?

I haven't found too many new (to me) books recently that would make my all-time top ten list. The most recent one was Germinal, and that was about two years ago. As I said above, I'm probably a more critical reader and less likely to be overwhelmed with enthusiasm than before.

And if you feel like telling us what some of your all-time favorites are, I'm sure we'd all love to think about adding them to our wishlists/TBRs!

I did this page some months ago (copying others' ideas, of course), and had forgotten about it until your question brought it back to mind. Here are my top tens all-time and by decade:

http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/User:Steven03tx

There are many books that were favorites in my childhood that I'm looking forward to rereading with my kids when they are old enough. Having two boys, there are some I'll probabaly have to skip, like Anne of Green Gables.

For my adult reading life, I have quite a few favorites and I typically like to reread books. In fact, if I'm not interested in rereading something, I probably don't consider it a favorite. I don't fear rereading because I'm not upset if I need to revise my favorites - there are plenty of amazing books!

Here are a very few of my favorites.
EVERY book by Jane Austen (yes every one!)
Anna Karenina
The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner
Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard (nonfiction)
To Kill a Mockingbird
Jane Eyre
The Name of the Rose by Eco
The Master and Margarita
Kristin Lavransdatter
Wolf Hall

I have a lot of favorites!!!

I always need a little time (like years) and usually a reread to decide if I really consider something a favorite.

My all time favourite books as a pre-teen were The Famous Five stories by Enid Blyton. Now this is obviously a case where you grow out of certain books (no, I have not been tempted to re-read them) and so I can understand the reactions to re-reading The Catcher in the Rye.( I never liked that book the first time I read it so no danger in me re-reading it.)

I hesitate to re-read some of my favourites in case the reading experience has become tarnished. I think that if your head is no longer in the same place then there is a danger of spoiling a previous reading experiences. One of my favourite books is Lawrence Durrell's The Alexandria Quartet which has it's own special atmosphere and I have not re-read it in case the magic no longer works.

A book that I was pleasantly surprised with when I re-read it recently was Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance a hugely popular book in the early 1970's and the magic was still there with that one. I am a big D H Lawrence fan and recently my book club selected Lady Chatterley's Lover and I was mightily relieved to find I still thought it was wonderful.

There are certain books that do get better as you get older and one of those for me was L'Etranger by Albert Camus.

I think about my favorites frequently, especially since I started my "Favorites of Recent Years" collection here on LT. Obviously, that is a more expansive selection than all-time favorites. Taking a look at last year, I put 29 books into that collection and I put about 20 of them on my best of the year list, plus some that I listed as "fun". I guess this means I read a lot of books I like, but it doesn't help me answer the all-time favorites question.

Of the ones I listed as favorites last year, some have definitely slipped a little from my mind, more the contemporary novels than the classics. And more from earlier years have slipped from my mind, which probably says as much about my memory as about the books.

I too haven't reread books I liked a lot as a child or teenager, or even college student (I'm with you on both Catcher in the Rye and The Alexandria Quartet, Barry, although I think I might get much more out of the Durell now). I have had the opposite experience, though, where I've enjoyed books I tried and failed to read earlier (e.g., The Magic Mountain) or had new thoughts about/loved more books I read earlier (e.g., Anna Karenina and War and Peace).

Of books I have read more or less recently, I looked back at lists of books that were my favorites published in this millennium, in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s, that I I posted on one of my threads last year. This doesn't, of course, include less recent books I've read recently, some of which do stand out in my mind. I still think most of these books are very fine books, and I may think of many of them as favorites in years to come, but I don't think most of them will stand out as all-time favorites.

Finally, to my all-time favorites, this list will include a lot of classics; perhaps they are classics for a reason.

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
Life and Fate by Vassily Grossman
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
Buddenbrooks by Thomas Mann (and maybe Joseph and His Brothers)
The Straight and Narrow Path by Honor Tracy (a book I love to reread)
A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth (may reread this in anticipation of Seth's forthcoming "A Suitable Girl"
Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak
The War of the End of the World by Mario Vargas Llosa
A Time of Gifts and Between the Woods and the Water by Patrick Lee Fermor
Troubles by J. G. Farrell

I could probably think of more, but these are the ones that spring to mind now, and I've probably written enough.

Do you find that, more often, books you really like when you first read them remain favorites or that some of them slip from your mental favorite list as you read other books?

I know the answer. They slip. What sticks can be very unpredictable. There is a mindset that goes with reading the book, no, really there are a variety of sets. The books that strike the types of things in my mind that carry over the long term, and that aren't forgotten and don't get discarded along the way - those seem to be the books that stick.

But lets test this. Here is a list of favorites from before I was active on LT. All adult favorites, by the way. I didn't have any childhood or teen favorites.

Some Pre-LT favorites - 13 listed
A River Runs Through It by Norman Maclean
Goodbye to a River : A Narrative by John Graves
Running After Antelope by Scott Carrier
Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
Small Gods by Terry Pratchett
Maus by Art Spiegelman
Lord of Chaos (Book Six of The Wheel of Time) by Robert Jordan
Our Parents' Lives: The Americanization of Eastern European Jews by Neil M. Cowan
The Deer Pasture by Rick Bass
Davita's Harp by Chaim Potok
The Covenant by James A. Michener
Desert Solitaire : A Season in the Wilderness by Edward Abbey
Crime And Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

So, which would I still consider favorites now?

Definites - um, 1
Maus by Art Spiegelman

Probables - 5
A River Runs Through It by Norman Maclean - but I couldn't possibly like this as much now, could I?
Goodbye to a River : A Narrative by John Graves - I think
Our Parents' Lives: The Americanization of Eastern European Jews by Neil M. Cowan
The Deer Pasture by Rick Bass - I would like to read this. It could go up or down. Not sure.
Running After Antelope by Scott Carrier - but maybe not??

No way - 6! (of 13)
Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson - fun but..
Small Gods by Terry Pratchett - I've lost my discworld attachment
Lord of Chaos (Book Six of The Wheel of Time) by Robert Jordan - outgrown, i think
Davita's Harp by Chaim Potok - outgrown too
The Covenant by James A. Michener - seems silly to me now
Desert Solitaire : A Season in the Wilderness by Edward Abbey - I'm afraid to read this

Are many of your all-time favorites ones you read a long time ago

Yes, if I define long ago at pre-LT (2006 and earlier)

and do you want to reread them or fear rereading them because you may not like them as much?

A little of both, see list above.

Of the books you have read more or less recently, which do you think will still be favorites five or ten years from now? Why? And if you feel like telling us what some of your all-time favorites are, I'm sure we'd all love to think about adding them to our wishlists/TBRs!

Ooh, another list. These are somewhat recent reads I might put on my all-time favorites, and their 10-year prophecies.

The Songlines by Bruce Chatwin - In then years? unlikely. I think the misrepresentation might undo this. It hasn't bothered me yet, but I'm not fully aware of the nature of the inaccuracies
The Prospector by J. M. G. Le Clézio - In then years? unlikely only because I don't really know why I'm so attached to it.
Empire of the Sun by J. G. Ballard - In then years? Yes. The movie has a strong nostalgia for me, the book is now mixed into that.
Barefoot Gen by Keiji Nakazawa - In then years? I suspect so.
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee - In then years? I think if I read it again, I'll love it again, so probably.
Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston - In then years? Maybe. I have a emotional connection because the history of Florida wrapped within.
Swann's Way by Marcel Proust - In then years? I hope so. I hope I read this again...and again.
Beloved by Toni Morrison - In then years? Maybe, it's still very recent.
Moby Dick by Herman Melville - In then years? I'm not so sure. I need to read it again and remind myself what's here.
Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace - In then years? I was surprised to find myself hesitant to add it to the list. So, maybe not.

Sorry about skipping last week; I got caught up in a lot of personal stuff as well as what was happening in the wider world. And to that wider world we turn.

QUESTION 14.
Even if their Chechen background did not play a role in the Boston brothers' actions, I couldn't help but think of Tolstoy's Hadji Murat, a novella set in the Caucasus of the early 19th century when the local residents are resisting the Russian conquerors, because when I read it I felt it explained so much about recent and current Russian-Chechnyan troubles. What fiction have you read recently or not so recently that made you feel you understood more about a troubled region of the globe? (Needless to say, it doesn't have to be a far away region and it doesn't have to be a polemic; Louise Erdrich's The Round House, which I read last December, offered insight into the troubles Native American women face in this country wrapped up in a great story.)

What fiction have you read recently or not so recently that made you feel you understood more about a troubled region of the globe?
I fairly recently discovered the graphic novel series Unknown Soldier, which deals with the atrocities in Uganda over the past several decades. It's incredibly enlightening and very very well done. That's what immediately jumps to mind.

Great question Rebecca! My current favorite author in this area is Raul Ramos y Sanchez. His first is America Libre, which gives an inside picture of how a southern California Mexican American man responds to issues of ethnicity and class in his efforts to take care of his family. It doesn't feel right to say he is radicalized because he is simply trying to live his life with some amount of dignity. Jeez is that what radicalized means in some circumstances? Somehow the author manages to show both the complications and the simplicity of these issues. AND, it's a book I couldn't put down. You see both his intellectual development and its effects on family relationships. VERY interesting reading.

I have a copy of Round House but haven't gotten to it yet. This question is going to hit my TBR list hard no doubt!

Agree with Merrikay, great question! I read Hadji Murat a few years ago, so I understand where you're coming from.

My own contribution is both far away from me and also in the past, but it gave me great insight into the writer's works and also made me re-consider my own ideas of the Victorian era. I am talking about Charles Dickens: A Life, in which Claire Tomalin spends quite a large amount of time focusing on Dickens's charity work in London's seedier areas. Not only did Dickens give away a lot of money, but he also helped set up a Home for "fallen" women or those who were likely to drift into prostitution and petty thievery. He spent an inordinate amount of time establishing the home: he found the building, hired the staff, and interviewed potential inhabitants. So, despite having a problem creating convincing female characters, Dickens certainly had considerable empathy for women who fell through the cracks of Victorian society. And this despite the complicated relationships he had with his own wife and possible mistresses.

There is certainly a danger of patriarchal over-reach here (who decides what constitutes a "fallen" woman, anyway?), which is certainly a problem endemic to the Victorian era and, arguably, our own. But Dickens's good intentions, in this case at least, seem to have led to good results.

So, I found out more about London and Dickens and, despite being concerned with the past, the biography also made me consider modern concerns with patriarchy and the sex trade.

Oye, I've been reading such limited fiction lately...I need to farther back...to 2009/2008

- The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz - for it's look at the Domican Republic (is that considered troubled?)
- In the Country of Men by Hisham Matar - about Lybia
- Half of a Yellow Sun by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie - about the Biafar war in Nigeria
- De Niro's Game by Rawi Hage - about Lebanon and the Sabra and Shatila massacres - maybe this should come first. (Touch by Adania Shibli could be included here too, which brings my reading all the way up to 2010)

Birds Without Wings by Louis de Bernieres was a beautifully written book that takes place in a small village in Turkey in the early 1900's. It is a story of love and a story of war, where Muslims and Christians coexisted until WW1 and ethnic cleansing spoiled everything.

When I read the question Swallows of Kabul was the first book that popped into my mind. The world of the Taliban portrayed by the author is a special kind of hell. Especially for women. One of the women in the book had been a university professor and now she cannot walk on the street by herself. I have another book by the same author that is going on my ten in waiting. Thanks for reminding me, Rebecca.

Of the books, I've read in the past year or so, in addition to The Round House which I mentioned in the question, I can think of the following.

Explosion in the Cathedral by Alejo Carpentier -- the Caribbean during and after the French revolution, and the impact on slavery -- gave me insight into the complexity of the Caribbean today. Also his novel The Kingdom of This World about the Haitian revolution.

Red Sorghum by Mo Yan -- the brutality of the Japanese invasion of China -- gave me insight into continuing conflicts between these countries and people

Nervous Conditions and The Book of Not by Tsitsi Dangarembga - the impact of the Kenyan liberation struggle on village life and an aspiring young woman -- shows the struggles of an individual in the context of larger struggles

Big Machine and The Devil in Silver by Victor Lavalle -- insight into how marginalized people struggle for dignity right here in the US

The Colonel by Mahmoud Dowlatabadi -- the impact of the Iranian Islamic revolution and the Iran-Iraq war on a man of culture who was a colonel in the Shah's army and his family -- insight into Iranian history

Ashes and Diamonds by Jerzy Andrejewski -- the immediate aftermath of World War II when the Soviet victors took over Poland -- insight into the postwar history of Eastern Europe

White Guard by Mikhail Bulgakov -- the Russian civil war in Kiev -- increased my understanding of the complexity of the revolution

The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo -- Japanese medical experimentation during World War II

I hasten to add that all of these are great books and that the insight they provide is part of the story, not something the author is beating the reader over the head with!

Well sheesh! I'm just copying the whole darn list! Thanks for posting those Rebecca.

I've started a Volume II of this thread with this week's question, but of course we can continue to discuss the questions on this thread here (or there)!