just out of curiosity, was it the fast increase in # of posts, knowing there was a kerfuffle, or someone suggesting it - that brought not normal readers back to this thread?

I am always interested when posters that don't normally post in a thread appear when there is a kerfuffle. I've certainly done it, mostly from bad motivation, but that is me.

Maybe lots of people lurk here?

Right now, I've only got one book going on right now: Gravity's Rainbow. I just can't keep another one in my head. It's hard, because I'm used to having two or three going on, and reading whichever based on my mood that day. The Pynchon requires so much concentration that starting another book would be actively harmful to my reading.

Has anyone else who is used to multi-booking had that happen to them? Which books?

just out of curiosity, was it the fast increase in # of posts, knowing there was a kerfuffle, or someone suggesting it - that brought not normal readers back to this thread?

For me, the kerfuffle got mentioned, which reminded me we had a literary thread. Plus, rubbernecking, it's true.

Plus, rubbernecking, it's true.

t'aint nothin wrong with that. PLUS added a new voice in the thread. good times.

just out of curiosity, was it the fast increase in # of posts, knowing there was a kerfuffle, or someone suggesting it - that brought not normal readers back to this thread?

I lurk most of the time, because I tend read many more plays than books. And it was and has been a discussion that I have opinions on.

I was reading St. Burl's Obiturary and Lies My Teacher Told Me at the same time and had to put the fiction away while I read the non-fiction. So much stuff to unlearn and relearn, and I just didn't have time to get back to the fiction.

I read a lot more than I post, but I post more than lurkers. And I agree with you about the Herriot books,bt. (I probably still remember more about a cow's insides than is strictly healthy for an urban dweller.) Look who I'm talking to...never mind Multiple books: Yeah...and I still do it with IJ. Silly chick books, for palate-cleansing...a little lightweight Crip Lit. Cause it just can't be "Jest" all the time. My brain hurts, sometimes.

Maybe lots of people lurk here?

I'm sure that lots of people lurk for the book recs.

just out of curiosity, was it the fast increase in # of posts, knowing there was a kerfuffle, or someone suggesting it - that brought not normal readers back to this thread?

Someone mentioned it in Music, and I wanted to see exactly what was said. I wouldn't notice the increase in number of posts for any thread I'm not subscribed to.

(I'm such a rubbernecker.)

It's almost impossible for me to readtwo books at once -- I feel that I must be through with the one book before I start the other. But I read fast, so that's me.

I remember (and I think I said this a couple of months ago) being in one of my first lit classes in college, and thinking "Oh, my god -- how do people think like this? I'll never be able to see all of these things!" when I was first introduced to really in-depth analysis of a story. And I can do this, after 2 degrees in English, and like JZ, I dearly love sitting around with a bunch of people who have read a book and getting into a passionate debate about what we have read. (And I'm back in school for my MA in Education, and I have to admit I was looking forward to these kinds of discussions/debates again, and I am sad to say that I haven't really found that in any of my classes.)

I also have taken several literary crit. classes, and found them interesting, but I took them all with a grain of salt. I believe that being able to analyze a book is a useful skill to have, and it certainly provides me, I think, with the ability to translate that logical analysis to other topics...but I don't think it's necessary for all people to approach things that way. And it doesn't translate to other topics. For instance, I am never in the music thread becasue music, while it's enjoyable and fun, isn't anything that I am passionate about. I like hearing it, I like singing, I like playing with other people's guitars and drum...but no passion.

However, while I can, have and will read books that are either canon, or are regarded as "important" just to see what the fuss is all about (and to see whether I agree or disgagree), first and foremost, I read for pleasure. The pleasure of the language, the pleasure of the story...and sometimes, most times, there is the pleaure of learning -- either learning new things, or finding inferences or images or clever plotting. Mostly, I'm read for something that make me go "Oh!"

Now...

I don't like Madame B., either. I haven't read any Dickens, beyond "Carol." I can't get into Joyce. I dislike some of Duras, but I loved "The Lover." I like Wharton, because I'm fasinated by social mores. I hate Hemingway with a passion, although I can recognize why his style was influential and modern. Shakespeare is fun -- I love Lear, and Antony and Cleopatra the best. I pretty much dig all medieval canon. Fun! Reading Byron makes me want to go back in time and slap him, but reading Blake makes me want to go back and get high and listen to him talk.