Hello, readers & writers,
****Before we get started: Several of you have expressed interest in the idea of forming an online writers' group, where you trade work via email and then discuss using Skype or Google Hangouts. If that sounds like something you'd be interested in, reply to this email to let me know.****
Well, this week's post kind of spun out of control. I intended to write about authors whose bibliographies intimidate you, but instead I ended up writing about death, and how I'll probably never read another Philip Roth book.
The gist is: I've come to acknowledge and accept the fact that I'll have time to read only x amount of books during the rest of my life.
And because of that, I now read what I want to read--and reread--rather than choosing titles mostly through a sense of obligation, a "should."
I've read a lot of "should" books in my life: "[Title] is considered a classic, and so even though I'm not really interested in it, and maybe don't even think I'll like it, it's something I should read... and therefore, I'm going to."
I've even felt guilty in the past for rereading books rather than trying something new. Because when you think about it, every book you reread equals a different book that you'll now never read.
Which I am now, finally, OK with.
So what I want to know from you is, are there authors whose bibliographies intimidate you, and are there writers whose entire bibliographies you've read?
How much of your reading is rereading, and what do you get out of it?
What percentage of your reading comes out of a sense of obligation, a "should"? And where do you think that "should" comes from?
