[DrNefario]

I was surprised, when I looked back an old diary (2007), how long I had taken to read some good books. I don't read all that fast, but I do read every day, and some longer, slower-paced books were taking me an entire month to read. The Honourable Schoolboy by John le Carre, and The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie both took me 30 days to read. Both long books, but both excellent, although the le Carre is pretty depressing, as usual.

Now I am actually tracking what I read, I don't think I'd allow myself to take that long. I'd just put in some extra hours somewhere and push through. (I read Abercrombie's Red Country in 9 days, and the shorter Half a King in just 3.) It's a bit of a shame, in some ways, but I think I'm also much more aware of my backlog now I've built up a huge e-library. When I was reading those big paperbacks in 2007, I had nothing else I wanted to read. Now I have a three-figure number of books I want to read, and a four-figure number of books I could read.

In the case of non-fiction, though, if something was bogging down like that, and I really wanted to finish it, I think I'd just start reading other books to break it up. I don't tend to be so bothered about reading non-fiction in a single continuous stream. It kind of depends on the structure of the book; how much it forms a single narrative. There are some books I've been working on for years. I just pick them up every now and again and read a bit.

Edit: Just realised it was CJ Cherryh's Destroyer that took 30 days, not The Blade Itself, which was a mere 14 days. I can't read my own spreadsheet.