...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
- 2975 Views
The Eye of the World (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
16/04/2010 06:08:54 AM
- 1482 Views
Re: The Eye of the World (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
16/04/2010 06:29:53 PM
- 1179 Views
I think you misrepresent me
16/04/2010 11:15:34 PM
- 1074 Views
Re: I think you misrepresent me
17/04/2010 02:56:53 PM
- 1095 Views
MA in History? Is there a more useless degree?
16/04/2010 09:56:36 PM
- 1084 Views

Yes, whatever degree you have/are studying for
16/04/2010 11:12:55 PM
- 1073 Views

Gah!
18/04/2010 12:30:17 PM
- 1031 Views
Aww...
16/04/2010 07:58:27 PM
- 1150 Views
That's next month or June
16/04/2010 11:12:02 PM
- 1008 Views
Be sure to send me a noteboard then
.
17/04/2010 03:45:46 AM
- 1019 Views

Oh, I'd post it at this site as well, perhaps
17/04/2010 03:51:19 AM
- 966 Views
Yeah, but I only lurk in the OF when I'm interested in getting new books...
17/04/2010 04:00:14 AM
- 986 Views
Can anybody please explain to me
17/04/2010 08:45:18 PM
- 1214 Views
was thinking the same thing
*NM*
18/04/2010 03:59:36 PM
- 658 Views

The more posts from this larry guy I read, the more I think.........
18/04/2010 08:56:34 AM
- 1170 Views
Interesting metatextual analysis there
18/04/2010 09:47:43 AM
- 1192 Views
Nice, but in the future...
18/04/2010 04:04:07 PM
- 1055 Views
I know...
18/04/2010 08:11:18 PM
- 1021 Views
Re: The more posts from this larry guy I read, the more I think.........
18/04/2010 10:26:12 AM
- 1179 Views
The Great Hunt (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
19/04/2010 09:22:40 AM
- 1162 Views
It's interesting you thought this about The Great Hunt.
19/04/2010 07:06:57 PM
- 974 Views
Yeah, I almost gave up this series after The Eye of the World too. *NM*
19/04/2010 08:38:25 PM
- 593 Views
Winter's Heart (2000 initial read; 2010 re-read)
07/05/2010 01:35:13 PM
- 954 Views
Re: Winter's Heart (2000 initial read; 2010 re-read)
08/05/2010 09:43:31 AM
- 1061 Views