[A. J. Raffles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(troop18546 @ Sep 28 2006, 08:20 PM) [snapback]258029[/snapback]</div>

So your just saying that you:
Sleep,
Read,
Eat/drink,
Read,
Sleep?

That's just living inside a book - no pleasure at all.
[/b]

Of course not only that. But I spend about three hours a day reading, and to me at least that is a pleasure. It's a hobby, if you wish. I know people who spend (or used to spend) at least as much time, if not more, playing MMORPGs, which is living inside a made-up world, if you wish, and I don't really understand the pleasure in that, to be honest. There's no accounting for tastes.

BTW are there that much interesting books to read out there, so you could really read 100/year? Just not ligical to me...[/b]

Good question. Well, the answer to that probably lies in what you consider "interesting". I don't really have a specific type of book that I stick to - although there are people who do just that; I have a cousin who reads quite a lot, but he reads nothing but books about ancient Rome, and anything else just bores him to tears. I can manage to get myself interested in lots of different aspects of books: not necessarily their contents, but stuff like the style they're written in, the rhythm and sound of the language, the way in which they build up an argument (regardless of whether I agree with it), their historical, political and religious context, , their publication history, their original - or sometimes their completely predictable - way of handling a particular situation within the story, the dynamics of a play, the sense of humour of the writer... well, I could waffle on for much longer, but you probably see what I mean. Plenty of things, can be "interesting" about a book, you just need to be able to see what it is that makes a particular book worth reading. There's an awful lot of books out there; more than anyone could read in a lifetime, so if you're a bit flexible as to what you consider "interesting", you'll never run out of reading matter because there are so many interesting books waiting to be discovered. Just because a book is old that doesn't mean it can't be fun to read either, so novelty isn't really an issue. I've come across some fascinating medieval texts, for example, which I'd probably never have read if I hadn't been more or less forced to read them for my Middle English tutorials

So, what lenght are your books, anyway? I'd consider 200 pages to be a normal book (maybe, a tad short; 250 would be quite nice).[/b]

Well, there are no official criteria as to how many pages a book has to have in order to be called a book. I've read books which were under 100 pages, but I've also read an 18th century epistolary novel that was well over 2000 pages and that was considered rather lengthy by readers even back then. It depends. The time you spend reading a book isn't only determined by the number of pages anyway.

Anyways, keep your spirit-up you reading-maniac . (not an insult, if you think so, just for the record
[/b]

Heh, you're going to think me even more of a maniac after reading this. Sorry if none of this makes any sense to you and sorry for having been so wordy, but then again, you did ask for an explanation...