I want to read more!

alvintchase done wrote:
 >I have a whole list of books that I want to read.I definatly want to
 >read alot more....I get angry with myself because I don't read
 >enough.I love to read,but I get distracted by other things.

  Sounds like you aren't a real reader. You think you should
be, but it isn't spontaneous. Don't fight it. Do the other
things. Some day you'll sit down and read something which isn't on
any "should" list. That's the big breakthrough. Throw away the
lists and just read on impulse when a book strikes your fancy.

--
rich clancey
The troublesome ones in a family are usually either
the wits or the idiots. -- George Eliot<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I want to read more! 

Rich Clancey <rhc DeleteThis @shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
  > > I have a whole list of books that I want to read.I definatly want to
  > > read alot more....I get angry with myself because I don't read
  > > enough.I love to read,but I get distracted by other things.
 >
  > Sounds like you aren't a real reader. You think you should
 > be, but it isn't spontaneous. Don't fight it. Do the other things.
 > Some day you'll sit down and read something which isn't on any
 > "should" list. That's the big breakthrough. Throw away the lists and
 > just read on impulse when a book strikes your fancy.

`Not a real reader'? That's a bit um, presumptious...

I can understand the dilemma. There are books I find easy to read and
books I find hard, but sometimes the latter are very rewarding if I
stick with them. This can be hard at first, and I find that I've gotta
force myself _not_ to read `easy' books for a while, and use what time
I've got for a `hard' book (usually the farther I get into it, the
easier it gets though -- I'm not sure if I could manage otherwise!).

An example might be something like `Paradise Lost' -- the prose is very
er, "thick", and it's very slow going for me, but I love the feel of
the language, and after a while, it sort of seeps in and has a wonderful
effect. It's a different experience from the fast flow of a modern novel.

Also, foreign language books: I often try to choose something just a bit
above my level, which can be very annoying at first, but eventually I've
looked up a bunch more words and become more familiar with the author's
style and vocabulary -- and then, hey, I've learned stuff, and other
books in the same language are now a tiny bit easier!

I agree that reading only from a list can be a bit silly, but I think
what I'm trying to say is:

(1) Sometimes it's good to read outside your comfort zone

(2) In such a case it can be hard to judge whether something you're
unfamiliar with is any good or not, before you've devoted the time
to reading it -- and the time required can be substantial!

(3) External lists of `great novels' or whatever can be useful in
choosing works that have some value, even if you can't see it
up-front

Of course at some point it's probably a good idea to sit back and
examine whether the books you've been slogging through have actually
done anything for you or not ... it may be time to change lists!

[BTW, I even recognize the `I love to read but never seem to do it' line:
If I'm finding something particulary hard going (and purposely forgoing
comfort books in an attempt to force myself to make some progress), my
lazy-ass mind is going `Hey don't you have to sort your socks? Dust the
wainscoting?' Damned brain...]

-Miles
--
80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I want to read more! 

Miles Bader wrote:

 >
 > `Not a real reader'? That's a bit um, presumptious...
 >

I don't thnk so. I formed this judgment of myself some years
ago when I saw my sister ripping through a stand of historical
romances while on vacation. I told her, "You're a real reader,
I'm a faux reader" ... traipsing down to the beach with
my "book not to read" as my brother put it.

BTW, I read _The Skylark of Space_ recently. Interesting really
as a time capsule, being a seminal work of science fiction as
it was, although it was engaging in parts.

The technical premise is very close to that of the movie, Explorers,
which was presumably inspired thereby. The discovery scene was very
similar as well. One important difference though. In the book the
technomagic is a simple bar of copper which by a certain reaction
is self-impelled with great force and speed. The ship is mechanically
attached to it and dragged along. In the movie, a bubble is formed
and anything in it simply stays inside its inertia free zone as it
zips about.

Relativity is explicitly brushed aside as the Skylark soars at
many times the speed of light. Even so, the numbers given do not
add up from a Newtonian view, either. It accelerates at some few
g's ( which knocks out the crew, but doesn't kill them ) for
48 hours, and ends up hundreds of light years away. Actually,
you'd have to accelerate at 1 g for a year to reach C, and so
12 g's for a month, after which you'd be 1/2 light year away.
Well of course, whatever!

Interestingly, one such superlative was consistent with another
datum. It was stated that "the Skylark tore through the reaches
of interstellar space with an unthinkable, almost incalcuable
velocity, beside which the velocity of light was as that
of a snail to that of a rifle bullet." So I figured -
hummana hummana - 300000 C, and sure enough, they were
making "one light-year per minute" 3e7/60 = 500000 C .

Well, as silly as it all was, it did set the tone of erotic
abandon which was more to the point. With two pairs of lovers
on board, they reach an insanely fascist paradise where they
submit to the ultimate climax - a fabulous double wedding.
They show not the slightest hesitation at submitting to a
public mind scan designed to reveal their moral fitness -
"Any person whose graphs show moral turpitude is shot."

A kept waiting for some trouble to develop out of this,
but the author was as sanguine as his characters.

Then in lieu of a wedding night, we segue quickly
into a fight with a gigantic "karlon" - "... Seaton
focused the attractor and threw on the power, jerking
the beast upward and backward. As it saw the puny size
of the skylark it opened its cavernous mouth and rushed
to attack." Oh my!

This whole segment was very reminiscent of Burrough's
Barsoom, almost to the point of imitation.

So ... on to the Lensman series? Gee, I don't know.

Lew Mammel, Jr.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I want to read more! 

Lewis Mammel wrote:
 >I read _The Skylark of Space_ recently.

I can't remember if I made it through _Skylark_. I was soundly
defeated by _Triplanetary_. Just couldn't get past E.E. Smith's
prose. Not that I'm so very discriminating, but yeesh! A friend
of mine loves 'em though. The trick may be to read them as fast
as possible, so the velocity overtakes the prose style.

--
+------Mike Wasson------------------ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.io.com/~wasson/" target="_blank">http://www.io.com/~wasson/</a> -----------+
"Only one life in this role-playing game." Super Junky Monkey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I want to read more! 

Lewis Mammel <l.mammel DeleteThis @worldnet.att.net> writes:
  > > `Not a real reader'? That's a bit um, presumptious...
 >
 > I don't thnk so. I formed this judgment of myself some years ago

It's a bit more difficult to be presumptious about yourself ...

-Miles
--
`To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to,
all of life's problems' --Homer J. Simpson<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I want to read more!