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 this week, and I don’t plan to read all of the recipes in the last third of it, but if I get through most of it of the rest, I will consider it read. Other books have only four or five chapters suitable for a particular reader. Can’t that reader consider the book read, once he has read from it? Isn’t thoughtful reading of a portion better than cover-to-cover reading for the sake of it?

