So which is more successful? Hard-hitting action or discreet diplomacy? Readers looking for sheer suspense will be better served by picking up “Banquo’s Ghosts.” But for others, myself included, a novel’s merit might well be judged less by the swiftness of its plot than by the breadth and generosity of its perspective. While “Banquo’s Ghosts” subordinates character to thesis and frequently demonizes those Iranian baddies, “The Increment” seeks to paint a full portrait of its young scientist — charting his hopes and fears, plumbing the motivations behind his shifting allegiances and dangerous betrayals. Where “Banquo’s Ghosts” races toward panic in the streets, a more richly emotional climax takes place in “The Increment.” It may lack fireworks, but it bears the hard weight of both political and personal history and recognizes the seriousness of what might come next.

Now it strikes me that the above is perilously close to preferring a book for its political perspective.  Sure, Taylor seems to be saying, Banquo’s Ghost is more exciting but its politics are dangerous so I couldn’t really enjoy it.

Or I am over-reacting and this is just an instance of a reviewer preferring a more literary style to their thrillers? What do you think? As background, here is my review of Banquo’s Ghost.

And here is a question to discuss does politics get in the way of your enjoying a good thriller?

*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.