...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
)
The mystery deepens... I think. *MySmiley*
Re-reading WoT Ten Years Later
- 16/04/2010 06:07:40 AM
3200 Views
The Eye of the World (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
- 16/04/2010 06:08:54 AM
1721 Views
Re: The Eye of the World (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
- 16/04/2010 06:29:53 PM
1341 Views
I think you misrepresent me
- 16/04/2010 11:15:34 PM
1225 Views
Re: I think you misrepresent me
- 17/04/2010 02:56:53 PM
1270 Views
MA in History? Is there a more useless degree?
- 16/04/2010 09:56:36 PM
1282 Views
- 16/04/2010 09:56:36 PM
1282 Views
Yes, whatever degree you have/are studying for
- 16/04/2010 11:12:55 PM
1248 Views
- 16/04/2010 11:12:55 PM
1248 Views
Gah!
- 18/04/2010 12:30:17 PM
1206 Views
Aww...
- 16/04/2010 07:58:27 PM
1295 Views
That's next month or June
- 16/04/2010 11:12:02 PM
1195 Views
Be sure to send me a noteboard then
.
- 17/04/2010 03:45:46 AM
1166 Views
.
- 17/04/2010 03:45:46 AM
1166 Views
Oh, I'd post it at this site as well, perhaps
- 17/04/2010 03:51:19 AM
1158 Views
Yeah, but I only lurk in the OF when I'm interested in getting new books...
- 17/04/2010 04:00:14 AM
1161 Views
Can anybody please explain to me
- 17/04/2010 08:45:18 PM
1444 Views
The more posts from this larry guy I read, the more I think.........
- 18/04/2010 08:56:34 AM
1348 Views
Interesting metatextual analysis there
- 18/04/2010 09:47:43 AM
1413 Views
Nice, but in the future...
- 18/04/2010 04:04:07 PM
1240 Views
I know...
- 18/04/2010 08:11:18 PM
1159 Views
Re: The more posts from this larry guy I read, the more I think.........
- 18/04/2010 10:26:12 AM
1377 Views
The Great Hunt (1997-2000, 2010 reads)
- 19/04/2010 09:22:40 AM
1365 Views
It's interesting you thought this about The Great Hunt.
- 19/04/2010 07:06:57 PM
1153 Views
Yeah, I almost gave up this series after The Eye of the World too. *NM*
- 19/04/2010 08:38:25 PM
685 Views
Winter's Heart (2000 initial read; 2010 re-read)
- 07/05/2010 01:35:13 PM
1135 Views
Re: Winter's Heart (2000 initial read; 2010 re-read)
- 08/05/2010 09:43:31 AM
1238 Views


