Fantasy Book Club discussion

Pickle wrote: "i read 49 books last year and at times maybe felt like i didnt fully get into or absrob a story. Ive set my limit to 30 books this year with a view to taking more in and try to visualise more."

That's a good point. Like food, books are meant to be savored and to do so you must consume slowly. That's my reading philosophy.

Sometimes I think of books like food. There's some kinds that are just meant to be fast--they are meant to be enjoyed, but there's a lack of depth or complexity in the writing. I think of these as "candy bar" or "french fry books." Fun, delicious at times, but if that's all I eat, eventually unsatisfying. I read a lot more of these if I'm taking a class and reading becomes more of a fun break. For me, a lot of the urban fantasy genre fit into there. Then there are books that truly are meant to be savored, digested, teased apart and ruminated over, the "slow foods" movement of books. Guy G. Kay is a great one for those kind of books, or Ursula LeGuin. Most fall in between. I guess my point is I wouldn't feel too badly or be too hard on yourself if you didn't get into or enjoy a story--sometimes it's the book or writing or timing as much as the reader.

Carol wrote: "Sometimes I think of books like food. There's some kinds that are just meant to be fast--they are meant to be enjoyed, but there's a lack of depth or complexity in the writing. I think of these as ..."

Well said. Koontz's work is candy for me. I love candy but there is little complexity to the flavors and I tend to devour the bar in a gulp or two.

Carol wrote: "Sometimes I think of books like food. There's some kinds that are just meant to be fast--they are meant to be enjoyed, but there's a lack of depth or complexity in the writing. I think of these as ..."

Hah! I agree. Some books certainly are 'fast food' or candy reads. That's what I call the Sookie Stackhouse books. Love them, but can rarely keep the details separate from one to the other.

My reading speed depends on style, content, & vocabulary level. While I'll read a Sookie book in a couple of hours or so, I took longer with A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, even though I've read it before. I'd re-read sections because the language tickled me. I put one example in my review:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
It's definitely worth savoring. A real meal versus a quick burger.

Nicki wrote: "Clinton wrote: "That's a good point. Like food, books are meant to be savored and to do so you must consume slowly. That's my reading philosophy."

I completely disagree, and what's more I find thi..."

You are more than welcome to disagree with me. True, you can comprehend a book while reading quickly. Some people can at least. However, I don't see the logic in comprehending a book better when you read quickly versus when you read slowly, that seems odd to me, but that is just me.

I still maintain that certain books are easier to read quickly than others. I can read some books quickly but not others. It also has to do with the level of detail in the narrative; Tolkien was difficult to read fast because of the amount of descriptions, especially about the scenery. In this case I slowed down to digested the words carefully because it was necessary, there were a lot of bites to chew. That is my opinion and I'm not getting high and mighty.

I apologize, Nikki, if I offended you. No disrespect was intended. Let me say though that in my lifetime I have met a lot of readers who can read 300 books a year and they in turn act superior to me, though our styles are different and we take in the information differently. This is a battle no one will win and from which we'll all come out a little bloody.

Clinton,

I think Nikki's frustration comes from a certain general theme underlying the thread rather than your particular comments in isolation.

However, I don't see the logic in comprehending a book better when you read quickly versus when you read slowly, that seems odd to me


Let me put it like this. I apologize for the extreme nature of this example. I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm just trying to be very clear about where certain people are coming from.

Do you only read one book a year? A decade? If so, why not? Aren't you denying your maximum enjoyment then? By not doing that are you rushing through the book?

I mean if slowing down and savoring a book increases an enjoyment isn't the best thing then to simply slow down as much as possible? I'd assume there's a certain natural pace that you can enjoy a book without having to slow down anymore.

Why wouldn't someone savor the book as much as possible?

Now, I get what you're (and others) saying about some book being slower reads, but I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise.

As Nikki noted, people have different natural reading speeds. If a person can comprehend the book at speed x, there's no inherent need to slow down to speed y. It's not a matter about rushing through or reading quickly for the sake of reading quickly, it's just about not slowing down past their otherwise natural speed.

There's a relative balance for you, I'd assume, between not slowing your down so much as to not limit your overall enjoyment from reading by limiting yourself to my notional 1 book a decade.

At the same time, I don't have to actively slow my otherwise natural speeding down to comprehend and understand the book. This makes me faster than some and slower than others.

Again, as you noted, different books require different speeds. Even a so-called "fast" reader is going to go slower through something like Night Circus than a Sookie Stackhouse book. I read four times as many books one month last year than any other month. Not because my speed magically changed but just because that particular month I tended to be reading a lot of "candy" books.

Some books are so dense that, even slowly read, may still require additional reads to get maximum understanding. I have a friend who re-reads Ulysses every year for that same reason (I've read it once and don't really think the relative value of re-reading it is worth it, but that's just me).

Besides, in my opinion, the number of books one reads a year is a pointless measure of comparison, even if someone wants to compare the relative amount of reading between readers, which doesn't really seem worthwhile anyway. What's the point other than ego?

Such measures have no special value and also has to do with a bunch of other factors anyway (amount of free-time, if a person does other recreational activities, et cetera). I've set yearly reading goals before, but these are not about reading more books than other people but about helping me prioritize my free-time to make sure I'm getting the amount of reading in I want in a world with a LOT of distractions.

I don't place any special value in the number of books I read for year, but, at the same time, there's zero reason for me to slow down past my otherwise natural speed that is a result of interface with the material, and like Nikki, am somewhat wearying of the implication that slower readers must be getting better understanding, comprehension, or what not out of their books.

If a person is purposefully avoiding a "slower/more dense" read or rushing through a book just to rack up points in some imagined contest, that a bit odd. I don't think most people are doing that, though.

Most fast readers in the thread, from my understanding, aren't trying to say that one should just rush through a book at maximum speed, no matter what. This isn't about speed-reading or skimming or ignoring details, just about hitting one's natural reading speed.

We're denying there's some inherent need to slow from their otherwise natural reading pace (which will be modulated by the type of material) to get the same comprehension, enjoyment, understanding, and what not.

That doesn't make a person better or worse or anything else other than different. Reading's an intensely personal thing in the end.

If by "slow" reading, someone just means "more dense/difficult material will cause people to read slower", I tend to think most people would agree regardless of whether or not they think of themselves as a "fast" or "slow" reader.

This may mostly be people talking past each other.

I understand what you're saying, Jeremy. I am backing away from the arguing, there is no point. We're all different and have our different styles/speeds for reading. That was the point I was making, that and that different books sometimes require a different style.

Anyway... To each his (or her) own.

To each his (or her own) own.

Indeed. :)

Adrienne wrote: "In my case, I use "savor" simply because I get quite sad when I finish a book that I absolutely love, since it's over. Then I wander around forlornly for a few days, staring at my bookshelf and hea..."

I just start reading the damn thing again. I did that with Cold Comfort, just kept putting it down and picking it up again.

Adrienne wrote: "In my case, I use "savor" simply because I get quite sad when I finish a book that I absolutely love, since it's over. Then I wander around forlornly for a few days, staring at my bookshelf and hea..."

I do that too if it's a good book. Sometimes I heave a sigh of relief and am just glad it's over! It always takes me a while to start a new one.

Well that's the good thing about GR--lots more to read and discover!

I read at my normal pace (which is quite fast for some), but I have no trouble retaining information. I often mull over ideas and developments in the books I've read before I go to sleep or maybe take a moment while reading to process a thought or idea. I have a great memory for things I've read and never have problems distinguishing one story from the other, so I'm glad to say I waste no time at all in between finishing one book and picking up another. I'm always hungry for good reading.

When I savor a book, it usually comes in the form of praise. I will tell others about it and encourage them to read it so I can discuss it with them. I feel like the best way to savor a book is to share it with others.

Sometimes I slow myself down if I am really enjoying a book and feel I will have a sense of loss upon completion. Generally, I read faster if I truly enjoy a book especially if I know there is a sequel. My reading can also be slowed by poor writing in which the author uses unfamiliar terms or familiar in a way that doesn't work with what they are trying to say. That might stop me in mid-sentence while reading.

Nicki wrote: "...This is based on the faulty assumption that reading speed and reading comprehension are inextricably linked. Once again, they are not. There are slow readers with bad comprehension. There are slow readers with good comprehension. There are fast readers with bad comprehension. There are fast readers with good comprehension...."

Perhaps you don't understand what we (I) mean by savor. Not infrequently I will find a paragraph I love, read it several times, read it aloud. Type it into my note books... All this decreases my reading speed. Other times I want to research a topic under consideration and do an hour of google or wikipedia work. This too decreases my reading speed. And, other times I sit back an think about what an author is saying or trying to say. Do I agree? Is this something I should consider further or in more depth? There was something similar a few pages back, let's go compare them. This decreases my reading speed. Etc...

And too, I try to remember that feeling offended comes from within, not from without.

Kernos wrote: "...Other times I want to research a topic under consideration and do an hour of google or wikipedia work...."

No English Wikipedia today & Google is wearing black across their name to protest SOPA. Hurray for them. Politicians have absolutely no understanding of the Internet, just want to grasp more power.

The ability to quickly look things up now is wonderful, but can be very distracting & hard on a story. I rarely google just one thing or read a single Wikipedia article. There always seems to be just one more interesting link to click on & the next thing I know I'm far, far off topic & out of reading time. My wife used to make fun of me for it, but since she's started using the computer, she's having the same problem.
;-)

Kernos mentions that he reads descriptive passages (descriptions of locals) slowly. Those are the ones I speed up on, especially if they are longish. Fight, battle, and gore scenes I tend to skim or skip entirely.

Jim wrote: "Kernos wrote: "...Other times I want to research a topic under consideration and do an hour of google or wikipedia work...."

No English Wikipedia today & Google is wearing black across their name ..."

Yes! Good for them! Regarding getting sucked into the Web, that happened to me when I first began, but after a year or so I learned how to discpline myself with it.

Cynthia wrote: "Kernos mentions that he reads descriptive passages (descriptions of locals) slowly. Those are the ones I speed up on, especially if they are longish. Fight, battle, and gore scenes I tend to skim o..."

Me too. I look for dialog, character interactions mostly.

Cynthia wrote: "...Regarding getting sucked into the Web, that happened to me when I first began, but after a year or so I learned how to discpline myself with it. "

I seem to be getting worse as the years go on. At first, it was a fight to find anything with Archie & company, but then the web came along & it got easier. Everything is so heavily hyperlinked now & a simple click on the roller opens a new page in the background. It's too simple & frightening how far astray I can go. Curiosity isn't killing me, but it sure is burning up a lot of time.
;-)

I tend to read books I enjoy faster and those I dislike slower. Which kind of sucks because a book I love is over too fast. And one I hate never seems to end. Lol.

My reading speed is in the middle. About 150-200 pages on a workday. 300 on a non workday. If I can stay offline long enough. But I will admit to some jealousy towards quicker readers. It's not the matter of winning an invisible contest but the fact that they have a better chance of reading all the books they want to.

Cynthia wrote: "Kernos mentions that he reads descriptive passages (descriptions of locals) slowly. Those are the ones I speed up on, especially if they are longish. Fight, battle, and gore scenes I tend to skim o..."

Some may be descriptive, but I mean beautiful song-like prose.

Jim wrote: "I seem to be getting worse as the years go on. At first, it was a fight to find anything with Archie & company, but then the web came along & it got easier. Everything is so heavily hyperlinked now & a simple click on the roller opens a new page in the background. It's too simple & frightening how far astray I can go. Curiosity isn't killing me, but it sure is burning up a lot of time."

I am guilty of getting sucked in. Wikipedia and the internet are the bane of productivity... and yet it feel so good to get lost.

Kernos wrote: "Some may be descriptive, but I mean beautiful song-like prose."

I even go to the extent of writing it down, at times.

Clinton wrote: "I am guilty of getting sucked in. Wikipedia and the internet are the bane of productivity... and yet it feel so good to get lost. "

Yes, yes it does!

much like Kernos, if the prose is genuinely beautiful, i slow my reading down, reread it, really try to savor it, etc. have had this experience with many authors like Tolkein, Kay, Valente, and right now Robert Silverberg. although i have no problem with those writers whose focus is not necessarily to create beautiful prose. i like them just fine too, in general.

for the most part, i'm a speedy reader.

I read faster than most people. Someone once told me it's because I also talk faster than most people and that I probably subvocalizing the words fast and that's why I read faster.


But reading code is different. It's a lot slower. Takes more effort too.

I have had very little time to come on Goodreads for books aimed at adults lately, as I'm on a kid-lit fit for work right now. However, I was intrigued by this thread and started out savoring it and was pretty much skimming for the last several posts. :)

I read quite quickly, and I always have. I remember details pretty well, unless it is a long series with similar stories, like the Dresden Files. Then I sometimes get the details confused from book to book.

When I am most excited about a book, I read it really fast. However, I also cannot stop reading the book; cannot barely sleep until I finish the book. Of course I am disappointed when it is over! So, I savor the book by going back and re-reading it, often immediately. I also take notes, right in the book, as I am reading it the first time, so I come back to it and re-live it in my leisure.

I agree with Nikki that people just read at different speeds--it isn't really better or worse one way or another unless it is affecting your comprehension. I wish she would come teach in my school district however, as my kids were tested on fluency--how fast they could read out loud without making a mistake--at regular intervals, which drove me crazy.

Something that stands out in my memory of learning about "the reading experience" through school or the library world is the value of reading without interruption. Reading for a longer period of time is supposed to allow the reader to get "in the zone" in which they are no longer sure which world they are inhabiting--the book's or their own. I don't think this has anything to do with the speed of reading.

Michele wrote: "Reading for a longer period of time is supposed to allow the reader to get "in the zone" in which they are no longer sure which world they are inhabiting--the book's or their own.."

Psychologists have a term "immersed reader" for those readers who feel they "are in" the story. Apparently this does not happen to everyone, so fascinates psychologists. Regarding speed, I'm one of these people who gets immersed. I read quickly both when I really like a story and when I really don't. Some descriptive passages sing along, and some really don't. Those that sing carry me, those that don't, I read more swiftly. What I read really fast is 30 500 word essays that must be returned to students on the morrow. They have to be read well, but they all have to be read within the deadline so I speed up. So my rates really vary. With fiction, I'm really much more interested in feeling I am in the story and am thinking what the story means. Then there are those passages that I simply must stop and reread three or four times because I find it speaks to me so. As others have pointed out, there are so many ways to read, ways to fit our mood, ways to comprehend, ways to enjoy the story better, ways to learn. Isn't reading great!

"Immersed reader" perfectly explains that disjointed feeling I get when I finish certain books and end up wandering the house aimlessly.

What an interesting discussion.

Here's my deal - I bridge the fence on almost all these arguments.

I'm a slow reader. (I set a lofty goal of 36 books for last years reading and I didn't make it, fell 3 short, this includes about 10+ audiobooks). I will carefully port a library book around with me for months, while I renew the loan (twice), and then carry the book back to the library and check it back out in person. Obviously, if I'm on month three, it must be good (or I would have stopped reading). It seems two things keep me from reading a book fast (I think my actual reading speed is quite decent - no speed reading though): 1)sometimes it's life, (busy busy bird with work and life), and 2) sometimes... I AM savoring it. Certain books I just don't want to be over, so you go slower.

Occasionally a book engrosses me, and I read and read, finishing it in a few days. I've found that while this requires and excellent book, it also requires good timing (sick days, rainy days, vacation, travel, etc...) those are some of my favorite books, and years later, some of them will stick in my mind more than others as true favorites that stand the test of time.

Now... here's the issue. What makes a book stand the test of time. Well, again, excellent story. BUT, there's also a remembrance factor , (not going into comprehension here) and no matter how you look at it (or who you are), carrying a book around with you for months at a time while you slowly read it, causes you to remember the story more than a book you carried around and read for just a few days. (Think semester long class versus month long class - which do you remember better in 5 years?)

Another thing that I have found effects my remembrance factor is "what's going on in my life?" I think this works different for everyone, as I believe someone mentioned a stress-factor where they don't retain as much... well, I've found that when I'm upset, I retain and favor stories that make me feel better. Also, reading aloud to someone, helps remember a story forever and makes it more endearing.

My personal opinion concerning epic fantasy series.
There's a trade off in reading the books back-to-back versus over years and years. One is completely engrossing and you are bound to catch little author hidden details much quicker. The other though is like re-visting an old friend and remembering again why you love each other.

But there's a question for ya... Do you prefer a 10+ year read of WoT, or an ~6 month binge?

There's no right way or wrong way to read a book. We are all clearly avid book lovers. Slow readers and fast readers and audiobook listeners unite!

I like that term, "immersed readers".

Clinton wrote: "I like that term, "immersed readers"."

I too. The books I like best are those in which I actually become the protagonist and live in his world for a time. And, the best continue long after I'm finished reading.

I like the term 'Remembrance Factor'. There are a few books I read once and they stick with me long after. I cannot get them out of my head. Others, most probably I'll forget a week after I finish, though reading a summary will bring them back for a time. For me, I think this is more related to the book rather than to something within me.

But I'm not sure about that. I read Willy about 9 months ago and cannot get it out of my head. It pops up daily, out of nowhere, seemingly, and I start processing it. I have no idea why. It's not even a favorite genre (horror). Could it be feeding into some Freudian or Jungian aspect of my psyche I'm unaware of? This is totally different from something like LOTR: I can step into Middle Earth and go a-questing at will when I need to escape reality.

Kernos wrote: "Clinton wrote: "I like that term, "immersed readers"."

I too. The books I like best are those in which I actually become the protagonist and live in his world for a time. And, the best continue lo..."

Most of Brandon Sanderson's books are that way for me. His writing and world building is so immersible I cannot help but go back to those worlds when I have an mentally unoccupied moment. Rothfuss's Kingkiller books are that way for me too.

I read for enjoyment and sometimes to learn something (mostly it's for enjoyment). Some books are quick reads because they get me caught up in the action and I just speed through them at the pace the author seems to be setting. Other book are a bit more dense but I get so wrapped up in them that I want to see what happens next. Then there are books that are like walking through a tub of molasses. These tend to be either books that I would put in the category I call "high-fallutin'" or are those fantasy doorstoppers that have too much filler to pad out the pagecount.

I can't read on-assignment so don't join book clubs. I read at the speed-of-enjoyment whatever that may be. That's why I originally wrote that I don't feel competitive with anyone about number of books. Would I like to read more? Of course. But I read the number of books I do and enjoy what I'm reading so I guess that's good enough for me.

I have this problem. My mother at a young age taught me to speed read, and I find that with my pleasure books I read to fast that sometimes I miss an entire scene that I needed for the next passage and I have to go back and re-read. It can be very frustrating

If I try to speed read sci fi or fantasy with heavy world building or spy novels, I run into that problem. Historical romances are easier to speed read.

I like to enjoy the book I'm reading at the moment, however, I don't consider myself a slow reader. If the book it's very interesting I usually end it in a week or less, depends of the length.

College doesn't leave me with a lot of free time, so what I do is read on the bus to school and on my way home, since it takes me about 40 minutes.

Kara wrote: BUT, there's also a remembrance factor, (not going into comprehension here) and no matter how you look at it (or who you are), carrying a book around with you for months at a time while you slowly read it, causes you to remember the story more than a book you carried around and read for just a few days. (Think semester long class versus month long class - which do you remember better in 5 years?)

Carrying a book around with you for a month instead of a week doesn't mean that you reread every passage more often and then therefore read it more. Just because it took you longer doesn't mean that you remember more of it.

This is actually true for college classes as well. I attended a college on the "block plan." All of our classes were 3 and 1/2 weeks long. It has been on this schedule for more than 30 years. There have been multiple studies done to prove that long-term memory of subjects are just as good or better than learning on a traditional calendar.

I agree with Kernos that some books just stick with you more than others. Maybe it's the book itself; or maybe it is the unique relationship between the reader and the book. People to respond to books differently--obviously.

If it takes me weeks, I don't think I ever took months to finish any book, it usually means I don't like it. So no it doesn't stick with me. The more I like a book the quicker I read it and the more it sticks with me. It has nothing to do with how long it takes you to read it.

And isn't there a difference between speed-reading and skimming? I can't speed-read myself but as I understand it if you're not reading every word it's skimming not speed-reading, right?

Traci wrote: "If it takes me weeks, I don't think I ever took months to finish any book, it usually means I don't like it. So no it doesn't stick with me. The more I like a book the quicker I read it and the mor..."

I agree with you. I can still remember books from when I was 10 that I absolutely loved

Michele wrote: "Carrying a book around with you for a month instead of a week doesn't mean that you reread every passage more often and then therefore read it more. Just because it took you longer doesn't mean that you remember more of it. "

No. You don't reread passages and read the book more... but you do spend more time with the story. If nothing else you carried that book around with you for a few months. You stared at the book cover. You have memories of reading that book in various places for a few months. You may have even had more conversations about that book because you were reading it for a few months.

I was trying to say that you can have a higher remembrance factor because of those things.
NOT that because it took me longer to read, I remember more of it.

I would say rather the time you spend thinking about the book, talking about the book more than reading length. I can read a book for seven days and only think of it while I have it open. Or I can take two days, waking up thinking of it, at work watching the clock waiting to get back to it, and go to bed with it on my mind. I will remember the two day book more. Most of the books I read in high school have faded in memory. Memory is affected by the contents of the book. Not how long it took to read it. If you remember a book more by outside influence are you remembering the book or the actual memory itself?

If I carried a book around for months, a)it would be hopelessly demolished; and b)I would probably end up throwing the #$%& thing in the trash because I was sick of it! LOL. If a friend did it, I would ask, "Aren't you done with that thing yet?"

Traci wrote: "I would say rather the time you spend thinking about the book..."

That's it. The TIME spent thinking about it. Both WHILE reading and after. (So the time spent thinking about the book while reading it is longer... that doesn't say anything about the time spent thinking about the book after reading it. That's all).

For me, when I have a book around for two months, even if it's not my favorite, I remember the story better. It could be that I'm a very visual person when it comes to remembrance.

Anyway, it's just one aspect.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "If I carried a book around for months, a)it would be hopelessly demolished; and b)I would probably end up throwing the #$%& thing in the trash because I was sick of it! LOL. If a friend did it, I..."

We are all just different... and life has many phases. I have read books a plenty, and fast... and slow.

I love fresh air and I love books.

(Oh, and sadly, I have demolished books.)

I can read two full length fantasy novels a day, if I had an entire day to do nothing but read. Usually, I can get one book read in a day. Very rarely do I take longer than that. I don't know why I do that or how I pull it off. I have dylsexia and as a child I forced myself to read and read some more, in hopes I would eventually get over my letter mix up issue and be able to read quickly and comprehend what I'm reading. I suppose it paid off as like I said, I can read a book a day if so inclined and I never forget a book once I read it. Sure, I might forget tiny details but overall, I don't forget a book once I've read it.

When I read a really good book, I find it impossible to get away from it. It sticks in my head, pervades my dreams, and can keep me from concentrating on other things! I cannot begin to explain what the 4 years I spent immersed in Harry Potter was like...although some of you might understand. My husband was sick-to-death of my kids and I talking about it endlessly. That being said, I read the novels the first time around very fast, less than 24 hours each time.

I agree with you Kara, that you can have a higher remembrance of a book that you spent time with than one you've not. However, I think Traci put it well by noting that you can have that same experience after you've read the book, especially if you come here on GR and discuss the books with other readers. I have been somewhat frustrated in the past when I could find no one to go on and on to about a book! I don't know many people in real life who likes the same books I do.

Michele wrote: "However, I think Traci put it well by noting that you can have that same experience after you've read the book, especially if you come here on GR and discuss the books with other readers. I have been somewhat frustrated in the past when I could find no one to go on and on to about a book! I don't know many people in real life who likes the same books I do."

I agree completely (with everything).
Experience after the book is huge... and it can go on, and on...

And I wholeheartedly understand your feelings of frustration when you just want to chat about an amazing book you're reading or have just read, and there's no one! (I recently just started sending 2-3 of my favorite books from the last year to one of my best friends from HS... she's 3,500 miles away, and will probably read them about a year after me, but it's something...)

Yes, the discussion of books is where Goodreads has been very handy, even therapeutic for me. I love it for all the reviews too!

I feel obligated to say, that when I was younger I devoured books, which for me would have been about 5 a week or so.

My life is very different now, and I have to find time for reading. I do this by attempting to block out life and work on my 30 min lunch breaks and read a book.

When I first started doing this it was VERY frustrating. Imagine being completely engrossed in Chapter 1, and then putting your book down until the next day. It's hard. Also, it DOES take often a month or more to read a book in this manner, and you don't get the completely immersed effect that you do when you tear through a book in a couple sittings.

But, you DO get to look forward to a little bit more of that book every day, and then those 30 minutes calm my mind and brighten my day.

Fast or slow, there's no right or wrong way to complete a book, but there IS a huge difference in the experience, and I have found memories for both.

And that's all that matters. The enjoyment in reading. :-)

Traci wrote: "And that's all that matters. The enjoyment in reading. :-)"

=)