** QUESTIONS For the Avid Reader, September - October 2012

Please feel free to continue to answer the questions in the previous Avid Reader thread, but here is the first question for September.

QUESTION 30.

Think about the last several novels you've read. Who was a favorite character, and why?

For his sweetness, charm, and chivalrous attitude, Don Quixote.

Q30: My favorite is a character from a book I'm reading now: Matthew Bramble who is the principal letter-writer in Tobias Smollett's epistolary novel The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker. Bramble's hypochondria makes him a keen observer of the conditions around him, and he is also a delightfully conflicted combination of misanthrope and humanist.

Jim Lynch's Border Songs is chock-full of quirky, unique and likeable characters, but the protagonist Brandon Vanderkool is all that and more.

I liked that description of a character conflicted with a combination of misanthropy and humanism, and found a free Nook book version of The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker at BN.COM to download.

I have not read very many novels this year. I liked Doc from Doc just for his competence and temperament. I liked several of the characters in The Elegance of the Hedgehog but especially the two lead female protagonists, again for competence and temperament; I liked the book without being wild about it. And for the same reasons of course there is George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Honourable Schoolboy, and Smiley's People; the merit of these books is in their readability. I admire and like Joseph Knecht enough to return to him in The Glass Bead Game once a decade or so; he would not have liked or admired me, and I suspect he would not have given me much time.

Robert

Margarita from The Master and Margarita stands out. Why? Maybe just because she seemed to have so much fun.

At the moment, my favorite character from a recent read is Loochie (short for Lucretia) from The Devil in Silver. She's a 19-year-old African-American young woman who's been in mental hospitals since she was 14 for unspecified reasons that made her too much for her still-loving family to handle. She's a force of nature -- strong, opinionated, ferocious, clever. loyal, and ultimately tender and vulnerable -- and I was cheering her on throughout the book.

Otto Quangel from Alone in Berlin stands out, especially as his character is based on a true person. The simultaneous courage and sheer futility of his defiance against the Nazis during WWII are heart wrenching.

Good question, and I'll think about it more, but I can say right now that I recently read Falling Man by Don DeLillo and thought it was great. It may have been the first 9/11 novel I've read, but I'm not sure. Living in Vancouver, I was far removed from the events of that day, although it touched me profoundly. I do remember thinking during that day that it would be great cover for someone who wanted to disappear and start a new life, and in my head I started writing a novel about a married couple who both worked at different offices in the WTC and used it as a way to escape their horrible marriage and start a new life. One day I may write it.

I don't think it is ever too soon to write about an historical event--people have written novels about wars even as they were happening. But for some people it may be too soon to read them.

I had no personal connection to the events of 9/11, so it wouldn't bother me to read about them. The only 9/11 novel I've read, however, the one by Jonathan Safran Foer with a long and silly name I don't recall, wasn't any good. On the other hand, it was only recently that I could bring myself to read anything about the Kennedy assassination because of the unpleasant associations for those of us who were living in Dallas at the time (and it was another DeLillo book, Libra). And if someone were to write a novel about the Oklahoma City bombing, where an old friend of mine was murdered, I don't think I could ever read it.

What bothers us about some of these works, I suppose, is the question: is it art or exploitation? If the author is a person who was personally involved in the event, or a writer of note who doesn't need the connection to current events to sell his or her books, then I think we're more likely to look upon such a work more favorably than if it's by a relative unknown who claims sudden inspiration.

What bothers us about some of these works, I suppose, is the question: is it art or exploitation? If the author is a person who was personally involved in the event, or a writer of note who doesn't need the connection to current events to sell his or her books, then I think we're more likely to look upon such a work more favorably than if it's by a relative unknown who claims sudden inspiration.

Yes, that's an excellent point. (and leads to a future question about explotation.... how do I get on the list to ask an official question?)

Great responses, Joyce and Steven.

#10 What an intriguing idea for a novel, Joyce. Go for it! One of the few 9/11 novels I've read, A Disorder Peculiar to the Country by Ken Kalfus, involved a couple in the midst of a difficult divorce; the husband thinks the wife was on one of the airplanes used in the attack and she thinks he was killed in the building. However, both are still alive. The premise was great, but the book badly deteriorated from there on. There was also a "Law and Order" episode (I'm an L&O junkie, recovering only because fewer episodes are shown) in which a man kills his girlfriend the night before 9/11; I forget what he does with her body, but he has the idea of leaving her handbag in the rubble to suggest she was killed in the Trade Center where she worked. The scheme unravels much later because it was her evening bag, not the bag she routinely took to work.

#11 I think you are right, Steven, about events that are close to us being difficult to read about, and that's interesting about you're still having difficulty reading about the Kennedy assassination. And I think you may be right about exploitation too. However, I also think it involves how the author handles the event. Another (much praised) book I didn't like was The Emperor's Children by Claire Messud which I thought brought in 9/11 to provide an edge to an otherwise annoying book about vacuous characters who I just wanted to slap. On the other hand, I thought Let the Great World Spin by Colum McCann, which never mentions 9/11 but which by implication (because it involves the day everybody was looking up at the twin towers when Phillip Petit was walking a tightrope between them) and themes foreshadows the day we all were looking at the towers fall, was brilliant.

#12 As for "official questions," this thread is Lois/avaland's inspiration and I stepped in when she became too absorbed by family issues to post question regularly. I certainly welcome other people's questions but I hesitate to let this become a free-for-all question-wise. For now, if you have an idea for a question why not send it to me as a PM on my profile page and I'll post it and identify it as your question. Then, we can let Lois figure out what she wants to do when she comes back. I've mostly been posting questions on Tuesdays.

I'm with Steven as regards it never being too soon to write about an event but often the closer you are to something the less perspective you have on it - sort of like not seeing the forest for the trees. This lack of perspective can make a book feel shallow, ill-judged and even exploitative even when the author is writing with the best possible motives. I also think with events like 9/11 or the Holocaust writers include references to them in the misguided idea that it gives their work 'weight' without realising that without balance the whole book falls over.

It's an odd thing - the immediate emotional response is so transient, it would be very difficult to capture that accurately later...or to respect it later. But yet I agree entirely with Turner (Jargoneer), writing done too soon, and thinking too, lacks the perspective required to gain any depth.

Rebecca - I'm surprised how many books I have that fill the category...but I stretch the definition too much.

Some examples - point is maybe variety.

- The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov - borderline. I felt this was largely about the Russian purges...and it's absolutely magnificent. But other readers may disagree about how strong the connection was to the purges. Written during the biggest purges, and just after.

- History: A Novel by Elsa Morante - A Jewish experience in WWII Rome, but written long afterwards, and, in the end, maybe WWII wasn't actually the point. Published in 1974.

- Barefoot Gen series by Keiji Nakazawa - On the Hiroshima bomb by a survivor. The first two books in this graphic-novel series are some of the most powerful stuff that I've come across. Published 1972-1973.

Black Rain by Masuki Ibuse is the book that immediately comes to mind - an absolutely stunning novel set in the aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing, first published in serialized format in 1965, twenty years after the event itself. The overall tone is one of great emotional reserve, which adds to, rather than diminishes, the impact of the writing.

>13 rebeccanyc: I also thought of Let the Great World Spin, Rebecca. I attended a talk by Colum McCann last year and he spoke about his father-in-law having been in the first tower hit, but able to get out and walk to McCann’s apartment. Although he initially intended to write only about Philippe Petit’s high wire walk between the Twin Towers as an allegory of 9/11, the book evolved further, as he wanted also to talk about fate, war and theology.

Yes the closest I remember McCann coming to 9/11 (other than the whole book!) was oblique: “She had the bluest eyes, they looked like small drops of September sky.”

I had forgotten that quote, but yes. For a long time I couldn't look at a crisp blue sky without remembering.

I've read a couple of books that referred to 9/11 and that I felt dealt with it well - When I Forgot by Elina Hirvonen (which I reviewed for the first issue of Belletrista http://www.belletrista.com/2009/issue1/reviews_3.html) and The Sorrows of an American by Siri Hustvedt. If I remember rightly both linked the event to mental ill health and breakdown.

I've never read anything dealing directly with individual acts of terror like 9/11 or Oklahoma City bombing. Especially with things like the Oklahoma City bombing and Columbine where frineds and family were involved it would be too hard to read something about those events no matter how much time has passed.

On the other hand I don't find it as difficult to read the books on Hiroshima and other war artocisties. I think I find it easier to read about the horrible topics inflicted by organizations rather then individuals. Some naive notion that group pyschology makes people do things that they wouldn't normally do as good decent people, allows for seperation from the event and the people commiting the act. Not the most sound rationale, I know, but one that works for me.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid is the one book I thought did something interesting and thoughtful. That said, I do avoid books with that as a theme or plot point.

Open City by Teju Cole mentions 9/11 a few times, but it isn't really about the event. I thought that it was well-handled, though the book as a whole was a tad disappointing.

I don't think there is really much mileage in claiming that something is "too soon" in general, but it may be "too soon" for individual readers. I find exploitive writing about real tragedies distasteful, but the libertarian side of me balks at the notion that they shouldn't be published. I think that publishers should make it clear if something might be offensive, but they should otherwise refrain from editorial intrusion.

I've read a lot of novels about momentous historical events written shortly after they took place by people who were involved in them, too many to list most of them here. Most of them, I would say, involve Russia in the 20th century, including Life and Fate which I mentioned above. I would include Grossman's other works, as well as a lot by Victor Serge, including especially Conquered City but also The Case of Comrade Tulayev. I would also include Doctor Zhivago in this category, although it did cover a long timespan, and definitely, as Dan says above, The Master and Margarita and also White Guard by Bulgakov. Moving to Japan, I would include The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo, about Japanese vivisection "experiments" during the second world war. Half a Yellow Sun dealt with the Biafra war, by a woman whose family lived through it.

Perhaps, for me, it is that more time has passed since these events took place, so that they are truly history, as well as the fact that I wasn't personally confronted with them, that makes me think of them as great works of literature that illuminate what history feels like before it is history.

#23, I don't think anyone was suggesting that works shouldn't be published because some people might find them troubling; I don't even know if I think publishers have an obligation to "warn" readers.

>24 rebeccanyc: Oh, yes, I'm aware that none of you were suggesting this, but I have heard the idea crop up in conversations of this type. Also, I might have been a bit vague about the obligation to "warn"; what I really mean is, you should be able to get an idea of what type of book it is from the description, and not end up buying, say, American Psycho for a 12-year old.

Of course, there are 12-year olds who are more than capable of reading disturbing books - thus the emphasis on the individual reader.

I'll be interested in everyone's answers. I don't have a system yet.

- for e-books, I highlight and sometimes I type up some of my highlights (usually you can't copy them)

- for my bible reading I take notes in a notebook as I read. I will summarize, or copy some things out word for word. But this is because I'm typing up summaries later, and I want to be able to do this without opening the book too much

- The rest is random. Sometimes I take notes, sometimes I fold in corners...but sometimes I don't want to that to a particular book, so I'll stick a bookmark in. Sometimes I try to memorize the page number. I don't typically write in my books because I find that distracting when I try to read, but I will star things on occasion.

Ever since I did a course with the Open University I have lost my fear of desecrating books. I usually use pencil but am inclined to scribble all over the text and in the margins.

I do keep a notebook as well.

I will only dog ear a page in desperation - that is if I can't find my pencil.

>26 rebeccanyc: Question 32. I take notes occasionally (but I'd rather not interrupt my reading by doing so), use little sticky markers (i.e. Post-its), page points...etc. As I have gotten older, I have began to dog-ear and mark on pages - depending on the book, of course. I think this has become more acute since I have been writing reviews.

I do try to keep track of sentences etc. that strike me. On those occasions when I don't want to stop and be bothered with that, I always regret it, particularly if I am going to write a review, as these notes help me to organize my thoughts. Like Dan, I make liberal use of highlighting with e-books. For dead tree books, I keep a notebook or pad handy and try to jot down quick thoughts and page numbers to revisit. I would never, ever write in a book or even dog-ear a page. The mere thought is blasphemy to me!

I read books mostly in bed where it is inconvenient to take notes. And I have lost at least two pricey fountain pens to the mess that sustains itself at the head of my bed. So striking sentences and longer impressions and good ideas are lost. I have to try to remember what is important to me. Sometimes I am successful at that. From time to time, in study groups and book groups, it has been remarked that I remember in ways that others don't; more of the time I despair that I don't get as much out of a book as there is in it.

Robert

I could never bring myself to highlight or write in a book. I've tried taking notes, but it's too disruptive to put down the book, write a note I probably won't be able to decipher later anyway, then find my place again. So I do what avaland does and use PostIt flags. I keep a dispenser on my lamp table, but for portability I stick a few on my bookmark as well so they're always at hand. After I write my review I take them off and reuse them.

With ebooks it's simple just to highlight the passages. When I'm writing a review or discussing the book online, I can call it up with the Kindle PC application, find my highlights and copy the passages.

I highlight lots of passages and write notes in my kindle. I wasn't doing any writing or flagging in my real books because I just don't like writing in them and never have a pencil with me. I love having the notes on my kindle, so I've tried at least having post its with me to mark passages in my real books, but I'm not very successful at keeping them with me. Even without any highlighting or note taking, I've found that collecting my thoughts to share my impressions here has made me remember books longer and in more detail. I'm sure my reviews would be better if I had a more consistent routine for taking notes while reading. Sometimes that makes it feel too much like school, though, and I read for enjoyment at this point in my life.

Since most of my books come from the library I can't mark in them so if I find an interesting sentence/paragraph I want to return to I write down the page number on a bookmark. If the book is mine, though, all bets are off and I highlight, write and mark in it, but in pencil so I can change my mind later. The flag-it with Post-it note idea has crossed my mind but I'm afraid they'd simply fall out since I tend to drag whatever book I'm reading around with me everywhere.

I'm a "courtly" reader. After I read my books it looks like they've never even been touched. I used that to my advantage once when I read The Road on the airplane and really didn't feel like keeping it, enough to return it to the bookstore the next day. Not something I would ever do usually but I didn't really care to see the book again. I wish I had done the same with On Chesil Beach.

Ever since buying an ebook reader I've become a big highlighter and note taker, it makes it so easy and I don't mark up actual books. Before I'd occasionally jot down some interesting topics/ideas that I would want to explore later, but I'm usually a "courtly" reader of fiction. I hate to crack spines or dog ear pages, but don't have trouble killing bugs between pages (hazard of reading outdoors).

I dogear and then come back to those pages when I'm ready to review though I use a bookmark for my place. Most of the books I buy are cheapo used paperbacks so I'm ok having a bit of wear. I write in rare cases - a few textbooks from school, and The Brothers Karamazov I underlined. I do however, have some nice books which I religiously keep clean.

>35 lilisin: - I'm glad I'm not the only one that reads like that. Using an ereader has made it so much easier to make notes and highlight passages (impossible before).

I use those post-it flags, too. I'm never sure until a book is finished whether I will keep it or not, or lend/give it to someone else, so this lets me mark them up as much as I want without wrecking anyone else's enjoyment of the book. The ones I keep tend to be heavily festooned in bright colors. If I come across something when I don't have a post-it handy, I remember the page number. I can hold a few numbers in my head for the length of time it takes to read the book. I'm less a courtly reader (I carry books around in handbags and at the bottom of totes and stash them in places where they do get a little dinged up) than one who hates to find dog-ears and underlining in any book I read.

It's the writing of reviews here on LT, which has made me a more thoughtful reader and the act of writing something down about the book, even just a few sentences, cements the book in my mind so that I remember it.

All of the above--it depends on the book. I love marked up books. When I was at university and there were multiple copies of a book at the library, I always checked out the one with the most writing in it--one time I recognized my prof's writing, which was very helpful (although I was using it for a class under a different prof).

Mostly I'm lazy and so will bend down a corner and get back to it later. If it's still good on 2nd reading, I'll copy it into my reading journal. If I''m reading something I know I'll want to take notes on, I'll make sure I have a pencil with me--often a purple or lavender Col-erase editor's pencil.

I am relatively new to the whole review process and had never before even considered taking notes while reading or flagging pages. But, it's a wonderful idea. I have never liked to dog-ear pages unless I'm in a hurry and have nothing to mark my place with. I love all the ideas here by everyone here. I haven't made the plunge yet to an e-reader - still the old fashion books for me for now anyway.

I fold over the top corner of the relevant page. And then when I go back to it I can never remember which bit of the page had caught my eye. I need a better system!

I don't permanently mark books. (Though there is a smear of chocolate in one of my childhood books, from a Russell Stover French Mint candy bar my mother gave me. I was unhappy about it at the time but look fondly at it now.) I use a pencil to mark the margin next to a memorable passage. I keep a 3x3” Post-it at the front of the book to make notes and to list the page #’s of passages I’ve marked; if I mark a lot, I stop listing them and just page through the whole book after I’ve finished. If I have only a pen with me, I list the page # on the Post-it and then "t" "m" or "b" to help me locate it later on the top, middle or bottom of the page.

Audiobooks are harder. I usually look to see what track I’m on, remember that, then listen again at home and type the passage into my “draft reviews” doc. Or I remember a keyword and then hope the book has the “Look Inside” feature on Amazon to search for the passage.

In my parents' home, it was considered tantamount to a mortal sin to mark or otherwise deface books, except perhaps with your name. I'm afraid I still suffer from this, so I take notes if I'm reviewing a book, rather than marking it. In university, it would really bother me if the library book had been highlighted or underlined and I found it very distracting. Don't even get me going on cracked spines!

Lately I've taken to using post-its for the duration of the read, but they must come out when I'm done.

Gosh, I haven't answered the last umpteen questions here. Time to get back to actually participating!

I am definitely what you call a "courtly" reader. I really dislike the idea of marking up a book. Heck, I've been known, at least once, to erase notes someone else had previously written in a book I bought used. (In that case, though, I found said notes rather offensive, in content more than simply because of their existence, and they were annoyingly distracting.)

The exception is textbooks, or at least textbooks actively being used for a class. Back in college, I marked those things up like crazy with highlighted passages and occasional marginal notes. It helped me study, which I figure is a large part of a textbook's function.

MJ - that's brilliant - one sticky note with page numbers. I'm going to try this. (checking out our sticky note collection...)

ETA - we have them, active paper books duly stickied

Wow, great to see so many answers to this question! I partly asked it because I find myself wanting to pay more attention to sentences, etc., I want to remember now that I'm writing reviews for LT. I've resorted only to dogearing pages (yes, I'm a carnal reader, from a carnal reading family), but it isn't really enough. I don't object to writing in books, but I mostly don't do it because I'm loath to interrupt reading and I still have to mark the page somehow. So, like Dan, I think I like the one sticky note idea, although it wouldn't work well when I'm reading on the subway unless I have a seat.

I did used to underline like crazy in textbooks when I was in college, and the latent proofreader in me (my first job) leads me frequently to circle the increasing number of typos I find in books.

I largely follow bragan's method - books don't get marked, with the exception of textbooks, which used to get scribbled in, highlighted AND underlined (the latter when I realized I was highlighting to the point of perhaps not being effective anymore and thus needed something to make a highlighted part stand out) to my heart's content.

I have, occasionally, marked grammatical/typo errors in books, but overall have found this to be more frustrating and futile than anything. I'm trying to view them as speed bumps - slow down and take notice, but just keep moving.

When I was in a book club, I diligently kept a notebook to jot down thoughts, interesting passages or lines, page numbers, questions to pose to the group, etc. Similar to above, while I don't physically do this anymore, I still find myself making mental notes or thinking 'oooh, this would be good to remember/think about/discuss with someone...' It put into practice what I used to ask my students to do when I was teaching (post-its - mentioned in other comments above - were another suggestion, but one I didn't follow myself - find an interesting vocabulary word or passage but don't want to slow down your momentum? - slap a sticky by it so you know where to find it later).

I feel guilty about not re-reading. I think it's Richard Derus over in the 75ers who reads every book twice, in succession. I always wish I could do that. In general I don't re-read books, and the only reason is really because of habit. I never did before LT. Now I want to, but never seem to get around it, or at least not very often. I want to re-read in order to understand the books better. I know that I'm not really getting the book the first time I read it. There just so much I miss and so much I never thought to look for.

I love rereading books and feel no guilt over it. I tend to reread favorites, both from childhood and adulthood (admittedly a blurry line!). Most of what I consider my favorites are classics or literary fiction (another loaded term) and I find that with any good book, I get something different out of it every time. Sometimes I like the book more, sometimes less like with my most recent reread of My Antonia. This year I've also reread Middlemarch, Persuasion and Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen, and Wolf Hall.

I'm like Dan, I rarely re-read books and feel guilty for not doing so. It's just easy to put off re-reading a book when there are so many worthy book I've never read. When I do re-read, it's usually for a group discussion. But what I really should do is count a book read more than 20 years ago as though it had not been read at all.

I reread, although less since moving back to the US and finding LT. I reread favorites and also books I found challenging. Most books that I reread have about a decade between reads, a few I reread more often.

I keep all the books I read, pretty much, often with the feeling that it would be great to reread them someday, but I almost never do. Because, yeah, there are all these books I haven't yet read once, and I should really get through those first...

I do re-read, but only when I think that I will enjoy or get something more out of a book that I might have missed previously. The last books I re-read were The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann, Lady Chatterley's Lover by D H Lawrence and Moby-Dick by Herman Melville. Moby Dick and The Magic Mountain were group reads with an LT group and Lady Chatterley was with my bookclub

I enjoyed all the re-reads and reviewing them on this thread also added to my knowledge and enjoyment of the books. I think there is an awful lot to be gained by re-reading and also by reading around a book that has had an impact on you. If it's good the first time round it will usually be better the second time.

I'll happily re-read most things but usually need a reason to do so - perhaps for a book group or evening class. The act of re-reading strikes me as a completely different process than the original reading - knowing the plot means that you are looking for other aspects of the work. I would argue that the re-reading of childhood favourites is a more unsettling act - those book tend to become enshrined in our memory and re-reading them can completely destroy this. (Note - this could be because I read lots of SF&F as a youngster, not to mention Biggles, the Three Investigators, Famous Five, etc - I came to the classics late).

I do find myself re-reading short stories more often, probably on the basis they are short.

I rarely re-read, though there are several I'd love to go back to. For the most part, the only books I've re-read are ones I taught - i.e., I'd read them each year in prep/to refresh for the lessons. That, or ones that I'd read already that then came up on a course reading list later on. I did find that there would be new things I'd pick up each time, which is a definite argument for revisiting books.

I find, though, that there are so many books I want to read and can barely find the time for those that, sadly, I (can't justify? won't/don't make the time for?) re-reading.

It would be nice to reread but seeing as how I usually only read a book per month (gosh that sounds depressing), if I were to reread, then that could mean only 6 new books per year. Considering I have more than a 100 physical books on my TBR pile, I'd never make it! Rereading just isn't an option for me. Really I just need to become better at picking up a book when I have free time (which being unemployed, I have a lot of free time).

Lots of unnecessary commas in that paragraph.

I very rarely re-read whole books, although I am now tempted to do so with several that I read many years ago, have largely forgotten, and suspect I would appreciate more now. Since joining LT and writing reviews, what I am more apt to do after finishing a book is to immediately re-read specific sections, in order to better understand the author's intent.

Rereading for me is a delight, like seeing old friends for the first time in years. I mostly reread nineteenth century fiction, although there are a few more modern authors I also reread. Most of these are Chinese for some reason I haven't figured out yet. Do I feel guilty about the time spent in rereading? Absolutely not! Who could let down their friends when you come away with something new after every meeting?

I have many books set aside to reread, however, right now I'm focusing on my huge TBR pile. I always reread any book I had to write about at university, and I always gained a deeper understanding and appreciation for the work. Rereading is a luxury to cherish.

For years, there were a few books I reread often as comfort reads, including The Straight and Narrow Path and Cold Comfort Farm. I still do, and I could add We Have Always Lived in the Castle to this list.

About 10 years ago, when a relative needed surgery and I knew I'd be spending a lot of time in the hospital and wanted a long book that would take me far away, I decided to reread War and Peace, which I had read as a teenager (skipping most of the war parts). Wow! I loved it (and especially the war parts). So that got me started on rereading some books I had last read more than 35 years earlier. When the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation of Anna Karenina came out, I read that and had a very different view of it than when I read it as a teenager (and loved it). (In fact, I liked both P-V and War and Peace so much that I read W&P for a third time when their translation came out.) Some books I reread I didn't like any better than the first time, including Madame Bovary and some books that I had liked as a teenager I couldn't get into as an adult (Crime and Punishment, despite the P-V translation).

I also tried rereading (or trying once more in these cases) books I had tried several times to read over the decades without success. This worked so well for The Magic Mountain (which I was spurred to read by loving Buddenbrooks) that I went on to read a lot of Thomas Mann, but I couldn't even bring myself to retry Moby Dick (which I had once taken as the ONLY book on a trip to try to force myself to get into it).

I think I would try rereading other works of classic literature that I last read in high school or college (e.g., now that I'm reading Zola I've become interested in other French literature and I feel The Red and the Black calling to me) and possibly some works that I really loved and feel I could still get more out of (e.g., Life and Fate, but I have very little interest in rereading contemporary novels because there are just too many other books calling to me.

In fact, I have gotten sidelined on reading On Rereading by other books, but I do plan to get back to it!

*I am posting this on Monday instead of Tuesday because I'm going to have a very busy couple of days.*

This question comes from Joyce/nickelini. If others of you have questions you think would be interesting for avid readers, please PM me.

QUESTION 34.
In Question 31, we talked about the exploitation of events. This question is about the exploitation of people -- famous people (including other authors), celebrities, people in the news. If you think about books that are inspired by famous people, from the zillion Jane Austen-inspired books (e.g., Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters) to acclaimed novels like Joyce Carol Oates' Blonde to well-written books about famous people (e.g., The Master, The Hours), how do you decide which seem like worthwhile reads and which seem exploitative? How would you react if the next book one of your favorite authors wrote was about a celebrity?

It's funny. The fictional use of real people actually makes me rather uncomfortable much of the time, but there's a certain point where "real people" becomes "historical people" and then it seems OK. I'm not at all sure where the line between the two is, though, as it doesn't seem to be just a question of whether they're living or dead.

I have just finished Will Self's Dorian which is described by the author himself as "An Imitation." It is in fact a retelling of The Picture of Dorian Gray with the characters of that novel reset in 1980's London rather than Oscar Wilde's 1880's London. I was highly suspicious of this novel when I started reading and was asking myself the question as to whether the book was a rip off; a cheap tilt at the best sellers list. However although the story was very similar to Wilde's novel the modern setting allowed Will Self to say some of the things that Wilde would not have been able to do in the Victorian era. Also Self introduced new themes into the story that fitted perfectly with the subject matter and what I feared might be a retread turned out to be a refreshing new read.

It is clear that only a writer as skilled and witty as Self could have pulled this off. I think he has added another dimension to a great story. He has also made it relevant to our times. In the original Wilde novel the cause celebres of his day mean little or nothing to us, but Self's book is full of icons from late 20thy century England and so none of the wit and cynicism of his writing is lost.

Q34 - I am conflicted about this. On one hand, I'm always suspicious of a cash-grab. Every time I see yet another Jane Austen inspired book published, I roll my eyes--probably a wanna be writer trying to make money off her. But why couldn't a book about (or inspired by) Jane Austen be good? Maybe I shouldn't be so skeptical.

When I find out a favourite author has written a book about a famous person, I've had two opposite reactions. The first one is disappointment. For example, I wanted to read a Joyce Carol Oates book because Lois (Avaland) raves about her. And she has some books on the 1001 list. But then I find out that the most popular of those is Blonde and learn that it's about Marilyn Monroe, and I think "does the world really need yet another book about Monroe?" I haven't read it yet. The other reaction is interest or excitement. Some famous author come out with a book last year about Princess Diana, and I immediately put it on my wishlist. But then I thought "wait a minute . . . " and now I've forgotten both the title and the author. So I guess that means finding out a book is about a famous person is more of a deterrent than an attraction for me.

#65 - thanks for sharing--Dorian sounds so interesting.

This is a tough question. My instinct is to steer away from books about other authors or fairly current events or people. The Master is a great example. I was very uncomfortable with it at first until I did some research in James' own letters and realized that Toibin had taken every detail from them. From that point on I trusted the book and loved it. But you can't do that kind of verification with everything you read.

A few years ago I read two novels based on Dostoevsky. Summer in Baden-Baden by Leonid Tsypkin was wonderful and enlightening because its intent was to illuminate an aspect of Dostoevsky's character. But The Master of Petersburg by J. M. Coetzee was, in my opinion, exploitative because it didn't deal with the historical Dostoevsky but with one who was a projection of Coetzee's own life and feelings.

This isn't a question I've thought about before. From the biblical perspective, if I see a book of fiction based on the bible, my first reaction is interest, because it's a perfect branch off from what I'm reading now. Whether the book is exploitative or...something else...is entirely up to the quality of the work. But I think there is a significant difference from, say, a novel on King David, like the one I'm currently reading (God Knows by Joseph Heller) verse pride and prejudice and zombies (which I haven't read).

Focusing on the general idea of a novel - when arguing whether a work is "literary", the path of reasoning would not be concerned with whether or not the subject is a reference to someone famous. Arguing whether a work that clearly references a famous person is exploitative or not would seem to lead to a very similar line of reasoning. If it's good literature it's not exploitative.

I read just enough of a review to see if I will like the book or not - same thing with films, theatre etc. Once it's on my wishlist, I avoid reading reviews until after I have read the book (seen the film etc) myself. I also try not to read the back of the book, the introduction, etc. - my aim is to try and read the book in as unmediated a way as possible. The only exception is that now, if I am struggling with a book and am trying to decide whether it's worth persisting, I'll read the LT reviews to see what people think. Usually it confirms me in my decision to stop, because others have been annoyed by the same things that I don't like...

I try to avoid (or warn about) spoilers but I think anything that happens very early in the book is fair game. Spoilers don't necessarily spoil my enjoyment of the reading (partly because my memory is pretty bad), but I think it's polite to try and avoid giving them. I have had a couple of occasions when I've seen 'spoilers' in the LT tags... (and I once saw on the rating label on a DVD, "one scene of failed suicide", which was DEFINITELY a spoiler).

I will happily read reviews of books I think I might be interested in but am not sure about. Once I've decided for sure that I want to read the thing, and especially once I've picked up a copy, I tend to be a lot more resistant to reading reviews of it. I might "peek" a little, if I pick a book up off the TBR pile and am wondering what I'm in for, but generally I'd rather not have someone else's thoughts in my head shaping my opinions while I'm reading.

Introductions drive me a little crazy, unless the book that follows is something I've read before, because they tend to be full of spoilers, and they're usually talking about things that make much more sense after you've read the work in question. And, of course, they're all about putting thoughts in your head before you read. And yet, I have this weird, obsessive thing where it's somehow hard for me to feel like I'm allowed to skip the introduction, or to go back and read it after I've read the book itself. So usually I just end up sort of skimming them. I really wish they'd print the things as afterwords, instead. I don't know why they don't, when it's clearly so much more appropriate.

And I really dislike spoilers, and tend to avoid them in my reviews, even when they might seem justified (such as including spoilers for the previous book when reviewing a sequel). I very much appreciate it when people warn for spoilers in reviews; I can think of at least one significant example of a book that was spoiled for me a bad way by reviews on LT and Amazon. (Admittedly, that was a book that was very hard to review without spoilers, direct or implied. But doogone it, I managed!)

Most of my thoughts are on Steven's thread, but here's a synopsis

reviews
- I read reviews and keep lists of books that are new to me which I think I would like, as reviews are a major source for new reading material
- since joining LT, I even try to keep a note of whose recommendation it was
- if the review was paper, I keep it to read when the book is finished and then tuck it inside

exceptions
- with a book I am about to read, I try to avoid the reviews until I have finished it, as like wandering_star and bragan, I would like to form my own thoughts first and then look at what others have to say
- the better the reviewer, the more I try to avoid the review

introductions
- I try to get editions with good introductions and footnotes.
- I read the footnotes as I go, then the introduction once I have finished, since there will inevitably be spoilers there
- like w_s, I also will not read the back cover until I have read the book

spoilers
Most LT members are very good here, but I go out of my way to avoid reading or hearing spoilers. I always remember going to see The Crying Game after I had successfully avoided all discussion of it, only to hear the person in line behind me relate the spoiler to her companions.

When I write reviews, I try to avoid spoilers so much that at times I wonder if I seem completely vague to the reader.

nonfiction
This is totally different. I just read rebecca's excellent review of The New Jim Crow which I hope to read soon. Reading nonfiction reviews seems to focus my reading and I really enjoy them. I will also go back to them for another read through once I have finished the book.

How much do you want to know about a book before you read it?

If I'm reading something written long ago or that represents a culture with which I'm not familiar, then I'll usually want to get some background first. If it's contemporary fiction, then I usually prefer to go into it cold and let the book speak for itself.

Do you read or avoid reviews?

Mostly I just read the reviews here in Club Read. They are a major source of inspiration for my wishlist. Occasionally I'll see a book mentioned elsewhere that looks intriguing, and I'll scan the reviews on LT to see if anyone I know has reviewed it and what they thought of it. But when I'm about to read a book I don't go looking for reviews. After I've read a book I'll avoid reading other reviews until I've written my own.

Do you read or avoid introductions?

I used to read introductions religiously, but after some very bad ones I've taken to just skimming introductions unless they appear to offer something useful. Many introductions appear to be reprints of journal articles that only make sense after you've read the book. A few, though, actually do what they're supposed to: introduce the author and lay the necessary background but leave it to you the reader to discover the book for yourself.

How concerned are you about possible spoilers in reviews or introductions?

Not terribly. I don't want to read a plot summary in advance, but if something is revealed ahead of time it doesn't bother me so much. Knowing how Anna Karenina ends, for example, didn't in the least spoil it for me (but I would never have given away the ending in a review of my own).

And, as a related question, if you write reviews here on LT, do you think about avoiding spoilers in them?

As I just noted, I don't want to give away spoilers because that does matter a lot for some readers. If I'm in doubt about how much of the plot to disclose, I'll look at the publisher's description of the book in the dust jacket or elsewhere and assume that it's safe to say as much as they did. Another rule of thumb is that it's safe to disclose anything from the first third of a novel. There are plenty of novels, however, where there is simply nothing to spoil. Wolf Hall is a good example: it's historical fiction, and everyone knows Anne Boleyn's destiny ahead of time.

I've debated how much, if anything, to say in the manner of warnings about content that some may find objectionable: sex, language, drugs, violence, racial attitudes, etc. I'd be interested in what others say on this. Mostly I don't bother with warnings because the plot description should be a clue in itself. I would only bring it up if the book gave the appearance of something it wasn't. However, I generally avoid quoting explicit passages in my reviews.

Another related question is whether to use tags that are themselves potential spoilers. I started to give a book I had read the tag "abortion," but decided not to because that was a potential spoiler in itself. On the other hand, such a tag would be useful for people who are looking for fictional treatments of that issue. "Suicide" is another example of a potential spoiler tag that I've avoided.

Before I'm actually holding a book in my hands, every review is fair game. There's so much out there and any review is potentially helpful in winnowing down the books I'd like to read. Of course, I've read reviews where the reader hated the book that made me think I'd probably like it. Realistically, there's usually a waiting period between when I procure a book and when I read it. Sometimes, that can be years, so I'm not too worried that a give away detail from a review will spoil the book for me.

Once I've begun a book, however, I don't read anything more about it. I save introductions and critical essays for after I've finished the book. And I won't read any of the LT reviews until I've written my own version thereof. I try not to give anything away in my own reviews, at least anything not in the first fifty pages or so, and if I quote from the book at all, I try to choose something that shows the writing style of the author without referencing the plot.

I'd really like to do a better job making note of who steered me to a particular book.

Q. How much do you want to know about a book before you read it?

I don't typically read a lot of outside material for a book beforehand. Even as background information. I like to explore themes or topics as they come up rather than do most of the exploring up front and come at something some preconceived notions already in place.

Q. Do you read or avoid reviews?

As far as reviews, I don't really read much of any reviews outside LT and Club Read. Occasionally stumble across something interesting from NPR, Belletrista, or other review sources, but that's pretty rare. Mostly I only trust the reviews from the folks here with similar tastes and outlooks as my own.

Q. Do you read or avoid introductions?

Avoid introductions altogether most of the time. I find them pretty boring most of the time and not that informative, plus they tend to giveaway plots or just a summaries of theses. I might skim them in the beginning or wait to the very end.

Q. How concerned are you about possible spoilers in reviews or introductions?

It doesn't necessarily bother me if there are spoilers in reviews. Certain books I wish they weren't there of course (i.e. mysteries, thrillers) but for the most part if a book is worth reading, I'll still read it regardless if I know how it comes to an end.

Q. And, as a related question, if you write reviews here on LT, do you think about avoiding spoilers in them?

I try to keep major plot twist and spoilers out of my reviews as much as possible. I've always felt it is necessary to have some plot summary to introduce the book for those who don't anything about it, plus it helps remind me of what I liked and didn't like about the certain elements within a book. Sometimes, after the fact, it does feel like I give too much away. Non-fiction reviews on the otherhand are a whole another matter. I find it very hard to write a review in a formula driven matter like I do with Fiction. It's easier for me at least to write mini-essays about the book and explore the thesis a little. To me these are not reviews, and feel out of place in context with the rest.

Backtracking a bit...Question 34. JCO has several books that are a nod to various famous people or events. Blonde, as Nickelini as noted, is about Marilyn Monroe. Black Water is about Ted Kennedy and the accident at Chappaquiddick. My Sister, My Love is loosely about the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. A Bloodsmoor Romance is about the Alcott family and it's fictional Little Women counterpart. Them is actually based on someone's real life story, and culminates during Detroit riots of '67. These are all people or events who have entered the American cultural psyche in one way or another, some as myth, others as obsessions, and JCO, is exploring this very thing, but also she is terribly fond of tragedy. Although I haven't read it yet, Blonde strikes me as a synthesis of the two things - tragedy and myth, but ones very particularly American.

Question 35.

How much do you want to know about a book before you read it? Do you read or avoid reviews?

I like a decent synopsis that will tell me not only a bit about the story, but perhaps a little about its prose (although I have come to distrust generally both blurbs, and comparisons made to other authors printed on the book). There are other things that have weight - if I'm familiar with the author, the publisher or imprint, an intriguing author write-up...etc. I never look at LT reviews or other reviews before I read or buy a book. NEVER. I want the choosing and the reading of it to be as much my own experience as is possible. This is why I am especially attracted to choosing books from publishers catalogs, a habit developed from my bookseller days. I suppose this makes me a little adventurous but also a bit anti-social (probably a middle child thing). It's balanced by the fact that I certainly don't mind talking about it while I'm reading it or after I've read it.

This is not to say that I'm not influenced by others, because I am, but usually the more popular something gets, the less I'm interested in it. This goes for not only the usual suspects - bestsellers - but also award winners. I like best to read the books BEFORE they are nominated or win the awards. That said, there are exceptions to everything I've just posted!

Do you read or avoid introductions? How concerned are you about possible spoilers in reviews or introductions?

I do not read introductions before reading the book, but I generally read them afterward. Yes, mostly to avoid spoilers and having the introduction author color my experience with the book. I appreciate a good Afterword or translator's notes, too!

...if you write reviews here on LT, do you think about avoiding spoilers in them?

I try to give enough synopsis so that readers can judge whether this might be the type of book they will like. I try to leave out any plot points that are meant to be 'unexpected' (isn't the term 'spoilers' rather subjective?). Certainly, I'd never include the who-dun-it when commenting on a crime novel.

I find myself nodding in agreement with some of your comments, so some of this will sound familiar.

Review
There are basically two ways I find books, and what I look at is different for the two ways. Before LT, I occasionally picked up books because of reviews, but mostly found them by browsing in bookstores. Now, I get a lot of books because I read about them on LT threads, especially those here in Club Read. Then, of course, I read the review and that's what stimulated me to buy the book, and the same is true for books I buy based on reviews elsewhere (although I read fewer print reviews now than I used to). Once I've bought the book, however, I don't read any other reviews until I've read the book, and since my mind is a sieve I don't always remember the review anyway. I do like Sassy's idea of slipping the paper review of a book inside the book; my father used to do that when he bought books based on reviews.

However, I still buy a lot of books by browsing. Then I do read the back cover, to see if it sounds intriguing, and then I flip through a few pages before deciding to buy it. In those cases, I don't read reviews before I read the book.

I also try not to read other LT reviews before writing my own review so as not to be influenced by them, but there have been some occasions when I was so puzzled by a book I've read that I check the other reviews to see if I can get some help in understanding the book.

Introductions

I tend to read introductions, especially if the book is from a different culture or a different era, because I feel it helps me understand how to approach the book. For example, when I recently read The Monk, the introduction helped me understand Lewis's anti-Catholicism (although I think this would have jumped out at me anyway), but also the rationale for his chapter epigraphs (the notes helped here too) and the theatrical style of some of the prose. I've also appreciated the introductions to the Zola novels I've been reading, and I've learned a lot from introductions to the Pevear-Volokhonsky translations of various Russian novels. I am not especially concerned about learning something about what happens in the book, although I would be upset if the introduction revealed real twists of the plot. Occasionally, introductions are just plain boring and I give up!

Spoilers in Reviews
As with introductions, I'd be upset if a review gave away a major plot twist, but other than that I don't mind knowing a little about the book. When I write them though, I do try to avoid spoilers (although one time someone, maybe Lisa, told me I had a spoiler in a review so I took it out). For fiction, I generally just give an idea of the plot in my reviews and concentrate more on what I think the author accomplished or was trying to accomplish. But for nonfiction, I do feel I have to tell what the book is talking about.

I mostly agree with what people have said here. My only differences:

Reviews: sometimes I will read reviews in the middle of reading a book. If I'm not clicking with a book, especially if it comes highly recommenced, I will look at reviews to see if I'm missing something. I've found this either gives me a fresh insight into the book, or conversely, reinforces what I've suspected. Obviously I wouldn't do this with something that's especially plot-driven.

Introductions: I currently skim them. Occasionally they are helpful, but often I find they don't make sense until after I've read the book.

>78 Nickelini: For the same reasons, I sometimes will do that with introductions.

To read or not to read introductions...

In my current reading state of mind the word I get stuck on is "context". I want to know, as much as I can, what the author is trying to do before I start reading the book. The plot itself is often just a means, a way to approach something else the author is actually getting at. So, I should like introductions, reviews, essays about the book, anything before hand. Which means I should be open to spoilers too. But that hasn't really come up this past 2-3 years, since I'm not reading many novels.

This question comes from Lois/avaland, the creator of the Questions for the Avid Reader threads.

QUESTION 36.

Think about the last three (fiction) books you read and loved. Were there any common traits among them? If so, what?

For the previous question -

Q. How much do you want to know about a book before you read it?

It depends on the book. If it's a writer that I know I don't need to know anything (although it could be argued that knowing the writer means that I already know something). If it's a writer I haven't read before then something has to influence to read the book and the likelihood of that is something I have read somewhere.

Q. Do you read or avoid reviews?

I read reviews beforehand but often by the time I get a book I have forgotten the review. After finishing I do read reviews - I want my conception of the novel challenged, the more it is challenged the more I think about the book.

Do you read or avoid introductions?

I now read introductions afterwards. That's not because I'm worried about spoilers, it's more to do with the fact that the introduction has more substance after reading. (If possible I prefer to have books with introductions and notes).

Q. And, as a related question, if you write reviews here on LT, do you think about avoiding spoilers in them?

I don't avoid them if I think my discussion of the book is enhanced by the inclusion of them.

Q36:

Hmm. I'm not entirely sure how to define "loved" there, but for the sake of identifying stuff that qualifies, let's pick the last three fiction books I gave at least a 4.5-star rating to. Those would be: Man in the Woods by Scott Spencer, Sharp Teeth by Toby Barlow, and Locke & Key volume 5: Clockworks by Joe Hill and Gabriel Rodriguez. In terms of format, they sure don't have anything in common: one is a tradition novel written (albeit in present tense, which I guess is slightly unusual), one is written in free verse, and one is a graphic novel. Sharp Teeth and Locke & Key both have strong supernatural elements (werewolves in the former, demons and magic keys in the latter), but Man in the Woods doesn't. Sharp Teeth and Man in the Woods both prominently feature canines, but that seems pretty superficial. More significantly, they're both about the capacity for violence lurking in each one of us. You could maybe argue that Locke & Key touches on that idea a bit, but it's a lot more of a stretch. There's certainly enough violence in the series, though. And maybe, as with Sharp Teeth, there's a certain human + something supernatural = violence there.

Mostly, though, I think the main common factor is that they all feature characters whose psychologies and emotions and reactions often feel more real than fictional to me. If it makes sense to put it that way.

QUESTION 36.

Think about the last three (fiction) books you read and loved. Were there any common traits among them? If so, what?

The last three fiction books I read and loved were Silence, Dracula, and The Book Thief. All three of these books deal with death. (!) The Book Thief is narrated by Death; Dracula is undead; and Father Rodrigues is confronted with death as a choice. That's the big commonality that strikes me at first. Silence and Dracula mainly deal with man's relationship with God through the characters' Christian faith; The Book Thief focuses on human relationships. Both Silence and The Book Thief would satisfy my historical fiction craving. I wouldn't consider Dracula historical fiction, although I did learn a little history from it. What set them apart for me was that they were all excellently (IMO) and uniquely written: Endo's poetic prose; Stoker's subtle Christian subtext and Zusak's unique approach with Death as the Narrator.

That was quite an eye-opening exercise!

Q 36: Using Bragan's criterion of a 4 1/2 star rating, the last three books I loved were The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker by Tobias Smollett, Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco, and The Empty Book by Josefina Vicens. The only thing I can think of that these three books have in common is that they have first person narrators (Humphrey Clinker being an epistolary novel with multiple first person narrators), but I don't think that's meaningful.

Q36

The last three fiction books I read and liked most ("loved" would be for a 5-star read, which does not happen that often to me) were The Edge of the Storm by Agustin Yañez, The Harp and the Shadow by Alejo Carpentier, and Cities of Salt by Abdulrahman Munif. The common theme was the changes in a community caused by either the arrival of foreigners, occupiers or colonists, or the arrival of new ideas that would upset age-old practices, beliefs and challenge the society's ancient ways of life. The Edge of the Storm is set in the early 1900s Mexico on the eve of the Revolution, The Harp and the Shadow is the confession (on his deathbed) that Columbus never made about his discovery of the Americas, and Cities of Salt is set during the arrival of the Western companies in the Middle East to begin oil exploration.

Q36

Using the last three books I enjoyed immensely: The Polish Boxer, On Black Sisters' Street, and Children in Reindeer Woods, I would say that they don't have that much in common. The authors are from Guatemala, Nigeria-Belgium, and Iceland, respectively. Their prose styles and formats are very different, as is the narrative content.

However, I would say that they all present humanity (the human dilemma?) powerfully.

Not sure what to do with "loved", so I've just listed the last three works of fiction that I have a lot of affection for in some kind of way...so maybe I loved them...

The Druid's Son by G. R. Grove
Closing the Sea by Yehudit Katzir (a short story collection)
When I Lived in Modern Times by Linda Grant

I've been reading so little fiction lately that these were kind of spread out in terms of when I read them, which means I was in different states of mind for each. I'm not able to construct any common themes or similarities other than that I enjoyed each one and got lost in them and where they took me. Katzir & Grant took me to Israel, but in very different ways.

I'm interpreting 'loved' as 'have stuck with me in some way, I still think about them, and something about them still stands out for me'. This often manifests itself in a zealous streak of 'have you read... Well it's great because...' to anyone I think would be interested.

I'm leaving out anything Edward Gorey, just because I'm so biased and they aren't novels:

To Say Nothing of the Dog by Connie Willis
Alone in Berlin by Hans Fallada (based on a true story, but technically fiction)
One Fine Day in the Middle of the Night by Christopher Brookmyre

The only (albeit tenuous) thread is that all three include exploration (in very different ways and to different degrees) of some aspect of human nature, even if that isn't the main thrust of the work. Plus, they have the distinction of my going into them not really knowing what to expect. The 1st and 3rd had a good deal of humor, but very different kinds.

I think it's less the thread between the three and more that each one represents a type of book I tend to be drawn to: To Say Nothing of the Dog has humor, period piece, sci-fi, and questions of fate vs free will; Alone in Berlin is WWII, but from a very personal, individual level (not the big battles fought, but resistance in the face of what was happening); One Fine Day... is a darker humor, but with underlying questions of whether we can ever leave behind who we were growing up.

I've been thinking about this for days! The three novels I most recently put in my "Favorites of Recent Years" collection are The Monk by Matthew Lewis, The Kill by Emile Zola, and Nervous Conditions by Tsitsi Dangarembga.

These books all come from different countries and different eras, but the one thing they have in common is that they are all great stories that kept me glued to the page. Beyond that, both The Monk and The Kill feature corrupt characters who put lust (both) and greed (The Kill) ahead of more human virtues (and needless to say come to no good end). Both The Kill and Nervous Conditions create vivid portraits of a time and a place, as well as realistic characters, and the characters in The Monk are vivid too. Nervous Conditions and The Kill both have political angles as well So I would say that another thing they have in common is insight into human nature and people's responses to changes in circumstances.

I think this is a great question.

I've been thinking about this too, but wanted to get more into a book I am currently reading, as I suspected it might be included. The three novels that currently come to mind are Beijing Coma by Ma Jian, Broken April by Ismail Kadare and Life and Death are Wearing Me Out by Mo Yan. There is a commonality among these books in my mind as each of the protagonists is dead in one way or another. One is in a vegetative state, one is under a community sentence of death, and one is dead as a human and seeking rebirth in that form. All three works reflect societies in the midst of enormous social and political upheaval, although in Broken April this is not an overt theme.

QUESTION 36.
Think about the last three (fiction) books you read and loved. Were there any common traits among them? If so, what?

The Good Doctor by Damon Galgut
The Lighthouse by Alison Moore
Shipwrecks by Akira Yoshimura

They could all be seen as depressing. They are all relatively short, and spare in style. In the most recent two, we dont really like the main character, but we feel for him anyway. They are not obvious and they make you think about good and bad, right and wrong.

QUESTION 36.
Think about the last three (fiction) books you read and loved. Were there any common traits among them? If so, what?
------------

The last three that I've really enjoyed were:

Empire Falls, Richard Russo
White Tiger, Aravind Adiga
Border Songs, Jim Lynch

All rather different, but I can think of two things they share: the first is that they all have a terrific sense of humour, and the second is they have great, larger-than-life characters. And I thought of a third-- they all evoke a strong sense of time and place.

#92 - Megan - I like how your three titles can go together to make a sentence. For example, The good doctor lives at the lighthouse so he can help the people from all the shipwrecks.

>94 Nickelini: hehe, that is funny.
I have White Tiger as one I want to read by the end of the year. I hope I can get to it!

I'm posting this week's question early because I'm going to be away from my computer all day tomorrow and I'm very busy for the rest of today. But of course keep answering the last question(s) if you'd like to!

QUESTION 37.
Halloween is next week. What are your favorite scary, spooky books (if any)? Do you plan to read or reread any as the day approaches?

I don't plan on rereading it, but I do like Turn of the Screw. The film version, The Innocents , starring Deborah Kerr is good, too, and I recorded it on TCM recently. I may watch that version before Halloween.

#37
I'm always on the look out for a good spooky book, but I find them almost impossible to find. Dracula certainly had some moments (the count climbing down the castle wall, for example), and the fog and house in the Woman in Black were pretty creepy. Also the children in the closet in Coraline. But as a whole, these works weren't particularly scary.

My reading has sort of backed up, so I'm not sure I'll be able to fit in a spooky read, but I certainly want to try.

Dracula would be tops for me, though I haven't read much at all in the horror genre. For my non-LT reading group I scheduled The Prague Cemetery for this month because it seemed the most Halloweenish of the books we selected for the year. It was perhaps a bit spooky in its own way. I hadn't given any thought to further seasonal reading. Perhaps I'll pick up some ideas from other responses. If not, there are still plenty of Edgar Allan Poe short stories I haven't read.

I am crossing my fingers and hoping my friend's promised early X-mas present of Unclay arrives.

I remember a few years ago reading Ray Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes on a dark Halloween night with bare branches scratching spookily against my windows. I recommend the experience to anyone.

I'm thinking of reading Let Me In (aka Let the Right One In) by John Ajvide Lindqvist after I finish the book I'm currently on. I don't know how Halloweeny it is, but, hey, vampires!

bragan - I'd argue Människohamn, or Harbour, is the eerier book, and starts off in a proper Swedish winter. Still, yes, vampires!

I always like E. A. Poe, and there are so many to choose from. Maaaaany years ago, I went through a Stephen King kick, and he's got some good Halloween-friendly stories and novels.

I keep trying to find a really good ghost story. I want spooky and eerie, psychological, not gory. I've read a few that I've enjoyed, but wouldn't say they left me with the same chill that Poe can. Dark Matter by Michelle Paver, The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg, and The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins are a few recent stabs (ugh, sorry, just realised - but I'll leave it in) at it.

I just bought a new copy of The Turn of the Screw and The Aspern Papers to replace the one I "lent" to a friend who stayed with me before going on a trip and then must have left it on the plane or in the hotel. So I will probably read that. I'm also thinking of rereading We Have Always Lived in the Castle by Shirley Jackson, which isn't a ghost story but which is definitely spooky. I didn't really warm to her The Haunting of Hill House which is a ghost story of sorts. And I do have a collection of Poe somewhere . . .

Is We Have Always Lived in the Castle good, Rebecca? I wasn't taken with The Haunting of Hill House either, so I wasn't going to bother.

I loved We Have Always Lived in the Castle, Joyce. It is not supernatural at all, but is a brilliantly creepy story told from the perspective of a compelling but seriously disturbed narrator. In fact, just thinking about it makes me want to reread it!

Well, in that case, back on the wishlist it goes! Sounds great. Thanks!

Hope all is well for you East Coasters.

Galveston was taken out 1900. You can read about it in several places, including Isaac's Storm.

But much more powerful is Zore Neale Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God, where she has a fictional take on the 1928 hurricane in Florida when Lake Okeechobee burst it's man-made dyke, wiping out the mostly black farmers. Hurston built off of her own interviews of survivors.

I'd recommend:

The Hungry Tide by Amitav Ghosh, which features prominently a tsunami in Bangladesh.
The Last Brother by Natacha Appanah - which, if I'm remembering correctly, has a hurricane/cyclone in it.
1222 by Anne Holt, a homage to Agatha Christie, which is set in a hotel during a blizzard.
Salvage the Bones by Jesmyn Ward, which is set during Hurricane Katrina.

Fiction:
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
In Hazard by Richard Hughes
In the Kingdom of Air by Tim Binding

Nonfiction
Death on the Ice by Cassie Brown and the above mentioned Isaac's Storm were the first books that came to mind.

I do love reading about a good storm.

The Perfect Storm was pretty good reading and maybe even relevant.

I also very much liked Their Eyes Were Watching God.

Robert

Two spring to mind:

A.D. New Orleans After the Deluge is a graphic novel by Josh Neufeld. It is a non-fiction account exploring the lives of 7 New Orleanians leading up to, going through, and post Hurricane Katrina.

To Build a Fire by Jack London has stuck with me for years as a classic man-vs-nature, in this case an icy cold wintry Yukon, story filled with tension and drama.

Two favorites that spring to mind for me are A High Wind in Jamaica by Richard Hughes and Shadow Country by Peter Matthiesen. Another good depiction of a storm is in The Prospector by J.M.G. Le Clezio. I'll probably think of more; these are just the first ones I thought of when I posed the question. For nonfiction, The Coldest March is a compelling description of the Scott expedition's fight against the Antarctic winter.

Several post-Katrina books I would recommend: Nine Lives: Death and Life in New Orleans, Where We Know: New Orleans as Home, and Zeitoun.

Also Rising Tide about the 1927 Mississippi River flood.

Oh yes, Rising Tide was excellent both about the flood and about its aftermath and the role it played in the African-American migration from the south.

Since I couldn't remember a storm book, I checked my tags and I have neither storm nor hurricane. However, I do remember being greatly moved by Stormy, Misty's Foal by Marguerite Henry when I was ten years old. Stormy is born in the opening chapter of the book, during a hurricane, in Chincoteague, Virginia (hence the name "stormy," natch). BTW, as a west coast Canadian, I was always mystified at how to pronounce Chincoteague. I just learned about ten years ago. Anyway, that literary storm was my first hurricane experience, and almost forty years later, every time a hurricane hits the news, I think about it.

>117 Nickelini: Interesting, my first thought had been a children's book also, though not any of the Henry books, but The Children Who Stayed Alone by Bonnie Bess Worline ©1965 about children alone in a sod house on the prairie during a blizzard. Also the Big Wave by Peal Buck, another 'disaster' book from my youth.

Colleen, welcome, but perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of this thread, which asks participants to answer specific questions (see post 108). Also, I see you haven't entered any books into your library yet. You will find LibraryThing much more fun if you enter books and find groups for people who share your interests.

As Hot as It Was You Ought to Thank Me: A Novel by Nancy Kincaid is based on the author's memories of growing up in Central Florida in the 1950s. In it, there's a hurricane, and I still remember the scenes of the aftermath although it's been years since I read the book. Warning: there are a lot of snakes in this book.

Sorry to be a day late with this; too anxious about the election yesterday!

QUESTION 39.
And speaking of the election, thinking about political activities as broadly as possible, what books can you recommend in which characters get involved in political action or which take place in periods or locations with political activity? As I type this, I think this is an incredibly broad question, so please feel free to narrow it down in any way that makes sense for you!

Wolf Among Wolves is set in the political upheaval of Germany between the wars. Finishing it left me with the feeling that I had been exposed to something special.

Robert

I will have to think on the "broadly" aspect but I have an immediate answer for a narrow interpretation. Over the last couple of weeks I read two light novels about political campaigns -- 1996's Primary Colors (fictionalizes Bill Clinton and the 1992 presidential primary season; it's held up well, still funny and thoughtful despite my having seen the film several times) and 2011's The F***ing Epic Twitter Quest of @MayorEmanuel (a collection, annotated for context, of Dan Sinker's tweets under the persona of Rahm Emanuel during last year's campaign for mayor of Chicago; hilarious, with a surprisingly good story arc).

All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren is often considered the classic American political novel. It's quite good.

A very different type of political novel is one I'm reading now, Blue Mars, the third volume in the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. It describes the creation of a government for a newly independent Mars colony and all the challenges facing those who must invent a government where none has existed before. The founders must deal with such basic questions as will there be such a thing as private property, and do minority groups have the right to establish rules in their community that offend the values of the majority.

Two books by Adam Roberts come to mind, both technically science fiction. I thought Salt a fascinating look at two different groups of people with very different political philosophies who colonize the same planet (Salt). If I remember correctly, one group is anarchist, the other patriarchal and hierarchal.

The other is New Model Army, one of his more recent novels, and one I did not finish. This is a satirical war novel in which he illustrates what democracy really means, by creating an Army ruled by the soldiers themselves. It's also fascinating. Here's part of the book description, "Pantegral is a New Model Army—a giant whose thoughts flow through countless wireless connections, whose intelligence comes from the internet and real-time camera updates, whose mind is made up of thousands of minds, each deciding what Pantegral will choose to do. And Pantegral has chosen the joy of the fight. His fury is truly democratic."

It may not be exactly what you are looking for, but it's what came to mind when I thought about the subject.

I partly asked this question because I think a lot of books I read deal with political questions, broadly speaking (i.e., beyond electoral politics). Just from the last six months . . .

Nervous Conditions and The Book of Not by Tsitsi Dangarembga both cover the period of resistance to British colonialism in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, and the politics of the period.

The Colonel by Mahmoud Dowlatabadi deals with the politics of Iran after the Ayatollah has taken over.

Germinal by Emile Zola is not overtly political, but certainly the struggle of the mine workers demonstrates the start of a lot of political movements.

The White Guard by Mikhail Bulgakov depicts the political as well as military and personal conflicts in Kiev during the Russian civil war.

Ashes and Diamonds by Jerzy Andrzejewski shows the complicated politics of Poland at the very end of World War II, with various groups of partisans, Soviet military and political agents, and others.

Machiavelli's The Prince - Real political action

This one probably isn't aimed at me, since I consider myself very much a one-book-at-a-time reader, but what I do do sometimes is to have a second book that's meant to be read in small chunks (e.g. something with an encyclopedia-type format) that I dip into at random moments when I don't really have enough time to get back into my "real" book.

Since my teenage years I've been in the habit of keeping several books going at once. I could say that it helps me read long and difficult works by breaking them up with shorter and lighter ones, but a more honest response is that I just don't have the attention span to read more than 20-30 pages of any book without wanting to take a break and read something else.

Over the years I've devised any number of systems for deciding what to read next--some of them ridiculously elaborate. Typically it is to maintain a balance in subject categories, not necessarily between heavy and light reading. My current system is based around the 2013 Category Challenge Group. (Yes, I know it's still 2012, but like many others in that group I've gotten an early start.) My current thread is here if you want to see what the categories are.

One thing I try to do is to keep one book going at all times on my Kindle. That way whenever I'm caught out without a book (e.g. waiting outside some store where my wife is shopping) I can pick up where I left off using the Kindle app on my iPhone.

As to keeping track of multiple books, that's becoming harder as I get older, so I try to keep it down to no more than three books in progress at the same time (not counting collections of stories, plays, etc. which can be interrupted indefinitely). As long as I can read something from each book every day, I usually have no trouble keeping track.

I used to always read one book at a time, but since joining LT and increasing my reading overall, I've found I need the variety of 2 books at once. I've tried more than that and I tend to get lost or ignore one book if I have more than two going. I like to have one fiction and one non fiction, but sometimes I'll do 2 fiction at once. In that case, I usually have one harder/denser book and one lighter book.

Let me see now. I have markers in ten books at the moment and so yes I do read more than one book at a time. However one of those ten books can easily become predominant if I get really interested in it and I will then read it until the end. I usually have books of different categories on the go at the same time, for example only one of those ten books is a novel; the rest are poetry, short stories and various non-fiction categories.

I do a sort of stock take every three months or so and write a list of the books I want to read, usually about 20 or so and will read those books strictly in the order that I have written them down, however I will also start other books that have grabbed my attention at the same time. I don't seem to have trouble picking up where I left off in a book.

I have more than one book going at any one time, and more often than not, it's four or six books going. The primary reason is that there is nothing worse than finishing a good book. With another partially started, I don't have the pain of working through a book with a slow start. I have a book on my kindle for reading after my SO has gone to sleep, and one in a non-valuable form (a battered copy or a mass market version) to travel around with me (the dog park is hard on books, as is the bottom of a tote).

I don't read more than one book in a specific genre at a time. So currently I have a historical novel (Baudolino), a crime novel (Doors Open), a "literary" novel (The Finkler Question), a few non-fiction books (Mummies, The Moon By Whale Light) and a poetry book (District and Circle) going.

I usually average about 5 to 6 books going at any given time. It can sometimes reach the double digits if I let it, but that can feel a little chaotic at times. Reading this many books helps get through some of the slower bits; there's always an alternative. I've been trying to reduce the number of in progress books to just one or two, but that hasn't worked out so well. I don't have too much trouble with remembering were I left off with each story or topic, often just rereading a page or two is enough to jog anything that's lost.

Usually I read a mix of fiction and non-fiction books at the same time. One will be less actively read then the others, but they all get read eventually. Otherwise there is no scheme to what I read or how read. Some books on the kindle, others live next to the bed, and some travel with where ever I go. I could use a little more scheduling just to get through them better, but that is still a work in progress.

Not an easy question to answer. First there are practical concerns. Some books I like to read only when I can take notes or only when the atmosphere is somehow pleasant. Then I need to account for when I ride in a vanpool to work, which I do irregularly several days a week. It's a 30 minute drive and I'm prone to motion sickness which I forced myself to partially overcome. So I need a book that doesn't require too much concentration and I need light to read by...which makes using the iPad with built in lighting very appealing. Then there's the poetry - I can only read a handful of poems at a time. Then, when I'm in bed, I want something easy to read so that I might not fall asleep right away (if I don't want to). Currently those are graphic novels. So, that's four books at a time for all that.

But I read more than four at time. There are the books the I want to read about as I read them - sort of like some kind of research. So, that requires other books that need to be fit in. Then there the various things that interest me at various times, and then I change my mind about what I want to read. So, books get set aside for various reasons. And group read books occasionally need to be stuffed in.

Then there are the times when something new strikes me and completely takes over all my reading for a stretch, which leaves all those other books languishing with book marks.

An odd thing is that for most of my reading life I read only one book at a time.

I have no problem switching back and forth between books. Actually, like Steven describes above, I hit stopping points on a book, and find switching books refreshes my energy. But, I do have problem picking up a book that has accumulated too much dust in the interim. So, I find myself having to re-read sections on occasion.

---

Side note - I'm a slow starter with books. I sometimes need a lot of context and sense of what the book is like before I read it. So, I might read the first ten pages, then set the book aside for a while until I'm ready. Reading a lot of books at once makes this easy. Also, for this reason, I prefer to always be about halfway through at least one book at any time. Having no choice but to start a new book can be oddly discouraging.

From 2001-2010, I was a university student, so often had multiple books that I needed to read for a set deadline. Added to that, I was in a book club, and also reviewed books for the ER program and Belletrista. this meant that reading a lot of books at once has been a common thing for me.

However, since graduating, I've tried to be more focused and read fewer books simultaneously. But it's not unusual to have one fiction, one non-fiction, and an audiobook all going on at the same time. They don't really seem to demand the same part of my brain and it's easy to keep them completely separate.

This morning I have to add a comment to what I posted last night (#139)--I've decided that although I like to focus on one book at a time when I can, switching between books can be a good thing. For example, last night before bed I read The Cage :the Fight for Sri Lanka & the Last Days of the Tamil Tigers, which is the one I'm currently focusing on. And then I fell asleep and had horrible dreams about governmental torture and terrorists. Not pleasant.

Tonight I will be reading Mrs Palfrey at the Claremont.

I generally have two books I'm actively reading at one time and possibly more I'm dipping into. Often, but not always, one is fiction and one is nonfiction. One always has to be small enough for a "subway read," as commuting is when I get most of my reading done, and it may take me a while to get through larger books because I'm limited to reading them at home. Often, I'll break up reading a big book by reading several smaller books alongside it. If I have trouble remembering where I am, I usually can reread a few pages and get back into it.

On the other hand, I've been known to start a books, and then move on to others, and eventually I wonder whether I should put the first book into the "Interrupted" collection instead of the "Currently Reading" one. Then there are the books I dip into; for example, I've been rereading The Complete Sherlock Holmes since the summer, but I dip into it when I need the relaxation of a good detective story.

I almost always have at least one fiction + one nonfiction + one audiobook going. Often, one of the printed books will capture me and I’ll then read it through.

I don’t remember having multiple books going even in my early adulthood; I wonder if today’s collage of media has decreased my attention span or increased my ability to “juggle”? I have no problem keeping the plots/characters straight among the books, just as I have no problem doing so with TV shows.

I used to have 4 or 5 books going at any one time (lately, I'm lucky to be reading just one), but I have reformed in the last few years....

Most often, I have two fiction books ongoing, one 'upstairs' beside the bed, one 'downstairs' (the danger of carrying books around in the house is that they can get lost). But, there is also usually some non-fiction book I am dipping in and out of, and sometimes a poetry collection, and then sometimes also a small 'travel' book in the purse or car for waiting rooms...

OK, clearly I have not reformed, but have instead had reduced reading time and concentration, and have chosen to do other activities which use a different part of my brain:-)

Somehow I didn't notice that it's the middle of November already! You can find the thread for the rest of the year here. Come on over!

I like to have several books going at the same time, as many as ten, like Barry. Of these, around 3 or 4 would dominate my reading depending on necessity (e.g. a slim one when traveling), mood (a bit of light magic realism now with Ana Maria Ortese's The Iguana for shorter, gray and wet November days), and related activity (now reading Fortey´s Life: A Biography after a visit a few days ago to the Natural History Museum in London and the Penha Garcia Ichnologal Park here in Portugal). I always have a breakfast book, a non-fiction, usually history or biography -- my mind seems to be sharper in the mornings in taking in details. The rest of the books would be a mix of fiction (at least one dense read), art/art history, an anthology or short story collection, travel, and food-related, picked up rather randomly and with no finish date in mind. Not much system to my reading, I'm afraid, which only serves to increase the number of unfinished books I have at any one point. Badly need to reform...