Two novels at the same time

[tecweston]

Originally Posted by kiwidude

Back on topic - I don't really "get" why people would willingly alternate between multiple books, other than for physical reasons which doesn't apply if your ereader goes everywhere with you. To me it would indicate the book just isn't doing enough to capture your attention, becoming a "chore" to get through rather than a pleasure. A good book has me page turning like nobody's business and reading at every opportunity. I can't imagine by choice interrupting that experience to chop and change with another book. Maybe it is just that my memory ain't what it used to be...

Speaking for myself, it's because the books are too engrossing. I start reading a preview of a new book and get sucked in. But if I'm already reading three other books at the same time, rather than put one on hold I'll just go back and forth between them.

Also, I check out ebooks from the library and you don't always know when those are going to arrive. If I'm halfway into a 1000-page book and a library book shows up, I can't exactly finish the other book first before starting my library book. It'll be due back before I have a chance to get into it. The better option is to read both at the same time.

But, y'know, there's no "correct" way to do it. I figured this thread would eventually be sucked into a "why would you do that?!?! My way is the best!" debate, but I see nothing wrong with reading one book at a time or reading twelve books at a time. Whatever way works for you as long as you're reading.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Whenever I'm reading an exciting can't-put-down sort of book, I make a point of having something less enthralling on the go as well.

The second one is for reading in bed. If I didn't do that, I'd never put the light out.

Mike

That is exactly my strategy as well. The bed book is often non-fiction.

[The Terminator]

I always have a few books going at the same time, but I don't do days of the week for different books.

[vxf]

Wrong thread...

[kiwidude]

Originally Posted by paulsalter

I compare it in a way to watching tv series...

Interesting way of thinking about it, appreciate your comment. I guess the difference I find between the two is that I rarely find TV to be an engaging experience - it is intentionally disrupted every 10 mins with advertisements, it often spends significant parts of the show recapping things for the sake of people who can't remember what happened a week ago etc. Which is why lots of people prefer to wait for the DVDs to come out and then watch a series back to back . And how many people enjoy breaks (of any kind) in a movie, which I would equate a really compelling short read to. Its an interesting comparison, I hadn't thought about it that way so thanks for the comment.

Originally Posted by tecweston

Also, I check out ebooks from the library and you don't always know when those are going to arrive...

A good point, I don't use libraries myself but that makes sense.

Originally Posted by tecweston

But, y'know, there's no "correct" way to do it. I figured this thread would eventually be sucked into a "why would you do that?!?! My way is the best!" debate, but I see nothing wrong with reading one book at a time or reading twelve books at a time. Whatever way works for you as long as you're reading.

I certainly never intended to imply one way was better than the other, it was just a question out of genuine curiosity, as it would never occur to me personally to do it by choice. If someone just posts saying "I read 4-5 at a time" or "I alternate chapters in books" it didn't help me understand the "why" - if the reason was good enough after all it might convince me or others to try it. I'm still not convinced outside of reasons of necessity, but I am never going to criticise someone for doing it, if it works for you then great!

[DrNefario]

I am the same, kiwidude. I tend to stick with one novel all the way through. I accept that there's no real reason for it, though. I manage to go for about a day between reading sessions, after all.

I wonder how I'd have coped back when novels were usually serialized in magazines.

[paulsalter]

Originally Posted by kiwidude

Interesting way of thinking about it, appreciate your comment. I guess the difference I find between the two is that I rarely find TV to be an engaging experience - it is intentionally disrupted every 10 mins with advertisements, it often spends significant parts of the show recapping things for the sake of people who can't remember what happened a week ago etc. Which is why lots of people prefer to wait for the DVDs to come out and then watch a series back to back . And how many people enjoy breaks (of any kind) in a movie, which I would equate a really compelling short read to. Its an interesting comparison, I hadn't thought about it that way so thanks for the comment.

Fully agree with that, especially about the ad breaks, they do ruin the flow, mainly why I subscribe to a movie channel/dvd service

probably a better example of this is a dvd I got for my birthday, it was Our Mutual Friend by Dickens, 4 episodes of 1.5 hours each (no ad breaks but each episode does have a few min catch up at start)

not watched this yet, as I am reading the book first, but I read about an hour of the book each night, during the day I will read something different

when I get to watching the DVD, It will probably take a couple of weeks, 2 episodes each week on different days, watching other films/tv series in between

it's hard to describe it really, but it gives me variety

"looking forward to reading a bit more of X book tonight"
"looking forward to next part of series Y on TV tonight"

OT:This is also why I like tv schedules instead of download/on demand services

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I wonder how I'd have coped back when novels were usually serialized in magazines.

I would kill to be secure in the knowledge that the next installment of a story I was enjoying was no more than a month away.

It would certainly be preferable to the way many series are being handled today (2.3 installments per decade).

[Justin Nemo]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

Frequently I will read two very different novels at the same time. One novel on Monday, Wednesday and Friday while the other one on Tuesday and Thursday. Do any of you do that? At the moment I am most of the way through 1633 and Shadows of Saggami by David Weber.

I'm on a reading Ferris Wheel at the moment, ever been on one of those? I get them from time to time and no matter how many times I say to myself there are millions of new books out there I come back to my old favourites. So at the moment I am reading The Dreaming Suburb by R.F. Delderfield again and listening to Dunction Wood by William Horwood.

[ATDrake]

I start a bunch of books and just keep flipping between the more interesting ones until something starts to really grab me and then I usually commit to reading it all the way through before returning to the rest.

There may end up being more than one "grabby" book running at a time, though, especially if one's a lengthy door-stopper narrative that I want to take occasional breaks from and another is something more non-linear that I can read in more-or-less self-contained segments, like a collection of essays or whatnot.

[garyanbear]

I've been a one-book-at-a-time reader for years, but getting my Kobo has definitely changed that habit. I find since I got it I've been reading two or three books at once on average, although there's no pattern to how much attention I pay to each. I find that I usually have at least one which is light or easy to read for times when I'm on the bus or somewhere I might be easily interrupted, and then one (or perhaps two) that are more 'dedicated' reading.
Of course, when I stumble across an engrossing book I temporarily become a one-book-only reader again. Most recently that happened when I (finally) got around to reading the first book of the Hunger Games. Everything else I was reading took a backseat to that. :P
On the flip side, I'm now reading Jane Eyre which, while I enjoy the story overall I don't always feel like reading. At those points I'm glad to have something else to switch to for a break before I resume the heavier novel.

[Polarpenguin]

I often have more than one book on the go. This is a habit, born of the need to have a book in my bag & another at home, when reading DTB. However, I would often get to a good bit in my away from home book & have to continue it at home. So inevitably one book will take over from the other.

Also even if a book is really gripping you find yourself in the mood for something else. After having a rough day at work a light hearted comedy is more preferable than the heavy weight political thriller I was reading the evening before.

[issybird]

I'm off my game at the moment, but ideally I read three or four books at a time. A history or biography, a memoir or travel, a literary fiction and a lighter fiction. Not only do I switch among them as I get tired of the work in play, more importantly, it lets me cater to my level of energy and ability to engage. During the workweek or while on the fly, I often can't manage more than a light memoir or novel. In theory, I always choose the most difficult of my current reads that I can manage, given my level of attention and tiredness and sobriety.

[caleb72]

I don't always have more than one going at a time. I tend to stay pretty focused and keep reading until I'm finished what I've got. But there are times when I might.

1) I have a reading schedule to maintain particularly for my indie review web site. If I happen to be reading a book with 1000+ pages for my own enjoyment I might share the reading time with some of the indie books I'm reading/reviewing on my site. But this tends to be a little more like breaking the bigger book into episodes and then fitting other books between.

2) If I have something that's paperback only I'll read that in bed before going to sleep while reading my ebooks at other times.

3) If I want to read a non-fiction book I will generally share time with a fiction book.

On the whole though, I tend to prefer reading one book exclusively until it's finished.

[morriss003]

Only two? I'm presently readiing, "Island in the Sea of Time," "Hunger Games," "V is for Vengence," "Colossus," "Priceless," "Victory Conditions," "A Chance in the Night," and several others. I give up on books a lot. Some that I've mentioned will almost certainly be tossed aside before I finish. That happened to the latest Niven, Coulter, and Kleypas books. My wife finds it annoying and unbelievable that I can stop watching an hour long TV drama with ten minutes to go. I always finish Weber, Flint, and Krentz.