Generally, I do tend to prefer shorter books--I like to get in and out of author's worlds and into the next one. My sister-in-law, on the other hand, loves nothing better than to get herself absolutely lost in a big, thick book. Different strokes, right? And it’s not like I never read long books—in the past few years I’ve read (and loved) Anna Karenina and Bleak House, to name just a few.
So far this year I read Margaret Atwood’s The Blind Assassin for January, and Dickens’ Nicholas Nickleby in February (although I didn't finish it until well into March). This month I decided I needed a shorter big book, and something really different than Dickens, so I'm reading We Were the Mulvaneys by Joyce Carol Oates. This is a book that was given to me and I've never been particularly interested in reading, so I figured I'd give it a try or get rid of it. I have mixed feelings about it, but I don't dislike it as much as I expected to! In fact, I have to say that it’s rather compelling, and if I had more free time I’d have finished it already.
Not sure what I'll read in April. The idea is to clear some shelf space, but Margaret George's publisher sent me an ARC of her new book on Elizabeth I to review, so I think I might bend the rule and read that instead. It's 600+ pages.
Still to come this year are 100 Years of Solitude, which I'm going to read along with an internet friend; Jude the Obscure, by Thomas Hardy; and Dracula (saving that one for October when I’ll read books with a spooky theme).
Do you love big books? Or do you avoid them?
Do you set reading goals for yourself? Tell me about them.
No comments:
Post a Comment