The L.A. Times Jacket Copy blog asks how many books you’ve read (this year (Sorry for the omission, Michael (2 more demerits for you))). Not many answers yet. Perhaps the left coast is still waking up. The highest percentage of votes has been in the 101-150 category, followed by 51-75. I don’t keep a clear number of books I’ve read, but comparatively, it isn’t that many.
Let me ask for your comment on this idea. Not all books need to be read completely, that is from cover to cover, to be considered read. Some readers may take them in completely, but many readers should feel no compulsion to read all of a book they don’t like or don’t need to read. I’m reading The World Encyclopedia of Coffee
Well, yes, a thoughtful reading of a portion may be all you really want or need of a particular book, but for the purposes of counting how many books one has read in a given year, well, I still opt for the cover-to-cover requirement. I haven’t counted lately, but I’m guessing my total would be in the 40s for completely read books, and quite a few more than that for partial reads.
Could the partial reads add up to whole books? Not that it matters much.
How in the world would one keep track? I’m sure I’d be in one of the highest tiers, both with full reads and partial reads, but I have absolutely no clue how many books I’ve read.
Ah, shucks, I should click the links before commenting on things like this. YOu didn’t say that it was books read in 2010. I still don’t know the answer, but it would be somewhere in the middle of his categories.
Ouch, I should have said her categories. This is a new low in my blog-commenting career.
Michael, your frat house has 5 demerits for these comments. We expect better from you, young man.
Yeah, the other Hufflepuff kids are huffing and puffing at me right now.