Nov 14 2008
The reader versus reviewer conundrum
-
*Image via Wikipedia
*Image via Wikipedia
I am a compulsive reader. Not only do I like to read, but there is some sense in which the act of finishing – not just reading but completing – a book gives me satisfaction. The problem comes from reading too fast or in reading small sections over a larger period of time. My compulsion drives me to read whenever I can and to read as much as I can. Sometimes this leads to less than ideal comprehension or insight into the material read.
And when it comes time to write a review I often feel like I would be better off reading the book again to get a deeper appreciation for the work and to catch things I missed the first time through. This doesn’t happen all the time, but regularly with non-fiction and more complex fiction.
But to take time to read a book again means a missed oppertunity to read a book I haven’t read yet. And there are so many books out there that I want to read but haven’t, that the pressure is usually too much. So I rarely read a book a second time despite the obvious benefit it would bring to me as a reviewer.
Does this make any sense? Anyone else have this problem?
*It really has nothing to do with the post, but I love that Alice in Wonderland image.
Nov 14, 2008 @ 21:42:08
I can completely relate. There are so many good books out there and so many wonderful ideas. Sometimes I feel like I am just scratching the surface of what I could be learning and yet I never seem to have the time to really delve into any single topic. Then it also comes down to a balance between time for reading and time for writing.