...how anybody can 1) read so many books in such a short period and 2) have a good idea of what it said, wanted to say and did to you emotionally.
I see Larry here doing many books in a row, including his personal challenges that he had posted on this board. Adam Roberts is doing a review of one book almost daily. I see others having a "144 book challenge this year", whereas I was hoping to finish "The Picture of Dorian Grey" before the year is out. (Or before the baby is born, which is basically the same, as I doubt I'll have any MORE time to read after that little moment.)
And I take it most of these people actually have jobs next to all this stuff. Or at least need time to sleep. Or post on this website.
I mean, I've got a bit of a reputation of always reading, but I'm glad to finish a book in a month. I've tried speed reading, mostly for my work, but that really doesn't pay off as much as I'd hoped. Especially the way that content is retained by me. Plus I find that literature at high speeds tend to bypass the emotional part of my brain that just needs time between "registering", "processing" and "feeling".
Part of why I'm asking, is that one of the major gripes of both Larry and Roberts (besides the prose apparently) is the AMOUNT of story that's been tried to push in there. To those with a critique of WOT, it's just too much information, with too many characters and overly detailed descriptions. To me, it's a large puzzle, with more and more strings and clues and hints. It has a huge scope that needs time to think about, that can be discussed, taken apart and put back together again. I can understand that if you don't take the time, you can never appreciate something like that.
It's like taking the TGV from Paris to Nice, getting out at the station near the Mediterranian and then complaining that the French countryside really wasn't the rustic, romantic place everybody took it for.
Still: good luck Larry and I look forward to your reviews. Just as I'm enjoying Robert's review. (But not as much as Jennifer Leigh's chapter-by-chapter reread )
I see Larry here doing many books in a row, including his personal challenges that he had posted on this board. Adam Roberts is doing a review of one book almost daily. I see others having a "144 book challenge this year", whereas I was hoping to finish "The Picture of Dorian Grey" before the year is out. (Or before the baby is born, which is basically the same, as I doubt I'll have any MORE time to read after that little moment.)
And I take it most of these people actually have jobs next to all this stuff. Or at least need time to sleep. Or post on this website.
I mean, I've got a bit of a reputation of always reading, but I'm glad to finish a book in a month. I've tried speed reading, mostly for my work, but that really doesn't pay off as much as I'd hoped. Especially the way that content is retained by me. Plus I find that literature at high speeds tend to bypass the emotional part of my brain that just needs time between "registering", "processing" and "feeling".
Part of why I'm asking, is that one of the major gripes of both Larry and Roberts (besides the prose apparently) is the AMOUNT of story that's been tried to push in there. To those with a critique of WOT, it's just too much information, with too many characters and overly detailed descriptions. To me, it's a large puzzle, with more and more strings and clues and hints. It has a huge scope that needs time to think about, that can be discussed, taken apart and put back together again. I can understand that if you don't take the time, you can never appreciate something like that.
It's like taking the TGV from Paris to Nice, getting out at the station near the Mediterranian and then complaining that the French countryside really wasn't the rustic, romantic place everybody took it for.
Still: good luck Larry and I look forward to your reviews. Just as I'm enjoying Robert's review. (But not as much as Jennifer Leigh's chapter-by-chapter reread )
Re-reading WoT Ten Years Later
16/04/2010 06:07:40 AM
- 2852 Views
The Eye of the World (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
16/04/2010 06:08:54 AM
- 1319 Views
Re: The Eye of the World (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
16/04/2010 06:29:53 PM
- 1048 Views
I think you misrepresent me
16/04/2010 11:15:34 PM
- 941 Views
Re: I think you misrepresent me
17/04/2010 02:56:53 PM
- 964 Views
MA in History? Is there a more useless degree?
16/04/2010 09:56:36 PM
- 903 Views
Yes, whatever degree you have/are studying for
16/04/2010 11:12:55 PM
- 897 Views
Aww...
16/04/2010 07:58:27 PM
- 1009 Views
That's next month or June
16/04/2010 11:12:02 PM
- 871 Views
Be sure to send me a noteboard then .
17/04/2010 03:45:46 AM
- 893 Views
Oh, I'd post it at this site as well, perhaps
17/04/2010 03:51:19 AM
- 847 Views
Yeah, but I only lurk in the OF when I'm interested in getting new books...
17/04/2010 04:00:14 AM
- 859 Views
Can anybody please explain to me
17/04/2010 08:45:18 PM
- 1052 Views
was thinking the same thing *NM*
18/04/2010 03:59:36 PM
- 596 Views
The more posts from this larry guy I read, the more I think.........
18/04/2010 08:56:34 AM
- 1035 Views
Interesting metatextual analysis there
18/04/2010 09:47:43 AM
- 1059 Views
Nice, but in the future...
18/04/2010 04:04:07 PM
- 937 Views
I know...
18/04/2010 08:11:18 PM
- 892 Views
Re: The more posts from this larry guy I read, the more I think.........
18/04/2010 10:26:12 AM
- 1041 Views
The Great Hunt (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
19/04/2010 09:22:40 AM
- 1013 Views
It's interesting you thought this about The Great Hunt.
19/04/2010 07:06:57 PM
- 846 Views
Yeah, I almost gave up this series after The Eye of the World too. *NM*
19/04/2010 08:38:25 PM
- 533 Views
Winter's Heart (2000 initial read; 2010 re-read)
07/05/2010 01:35:13 PM
- 812 Views
Re: Winter's Heart (2000 initial read; 2010 re-read)
08/05/2010 09:43:31 AM
- 924 Views