Booking Through Thrursday: Why Buy?

Booking Through Thursday's prompt for this week:

I’ve asked, in the past, about whether you more often buy your books, or get them from libraries. What I want to know today, is, WHY BUY?

Even if you are a die-hard fan of the public library system, I’m betting you have at least ONE permanent resident of your bookshelves in your house. I’m betting that no real book-lover can go through life without owning at least one book. So … why that one? What made you buy the books that you actually own, even though your usual preference is to borrow and return them?

If you usually buy your books, tell me why. Why buy instead of borrow? Why shell out your hard-earned dollars for something you could get for free?

There are a few reasons why I buy books, depending on the circumstances of the purchase.

• I know I love it (or I'm reasonably sure I'll love it because of experience with the author, or a really good review or blurb). If I love a book, it's worth owning (assuming I can afford a copy). I want to have it available for re-reads. I'd be irritated if I had to make a special trip to the library (or satisfy myself with reading off the computer monitor) every time I wanted to read an old favorite. And what if it was already checked out, right when I needed to read it again? That would be unacceptable.
  
• They are objets d'art. ;o) I sometimes enjoy just looking over my best-loved books, lined up neatly on their shelves. Even the tattered paperbacks I've had since middle school are collectibles, as far as I'm concerned, though I do tend to put the "pretty" books on display and keep the falling-apart ones on the lower shelves, behind closed doors. Not everyone appreciates the beauty of an old Bantam paperback the way I do.
  
• They are souvenirs. (This reason ties in with the previous one.) They can be traditional souvenirs-- bought while on vacation-- or they can be souvenirs of periods of my life (adolescence, college) or even souvenirs of people or events. Looking at, touching, and smelling these books is a trip down memory lane. A library book just isn't the same for me.
  
• I prefer to read my own copy. I like to feel free to read at my own pace, taking as much time as I like, stopping for days or weeks, then picking it back up again whenever I want. I don't like knowing that there's a deadline. Also, I just like the feeling that "this is mine" and knowing that I can write in it, take it wherever I like, and so on.
  
• Sometimes buying is cheaper than the gas and time to go to the library. If I can get the book cheaply enough (at library sales, for instance), I'll take more of a gamble on unfamiliar titles or authors.
  
• I can't (easily) get it at the library. This is actually an issue, sometimes.
  

And I think that about covers it. :o)

Booking Through Thursday: Book Meme

I haven't participated in Booking Through Thursday for a few weeks, but this week's set of questions looks interesting:

What was the last book you bought?

That would actually be a handful of books I ordered at the same time from Amazon, but to name just one, I'll give the title of the one I started reading first: To Say Nothing of the Dog, by Connie Willis.

Name a book you have read MORE than once.

For one, Jane Eyre. I haven't kept count, but I've probably read all the way through it from start to finish at least four or five times, and I've read my favorite passages many more times than that.

Has a book ever fundamentally changed the way you see life? If yes, what was it?

Yes.

One again? Ok. . . Well, this one book symbolizes (for me) the whole series, plus even more by the same author: Anne of Green Gables.

How do you choose a book? eg. by cover design and summary, recommendations or reviews?

In general, I go by summary. Recommendations and reviews are nice-- and I like to use recommendations as starting points in book hunts-- but even if I like a person and sometimes like what s/he likes, I often find that our tastes can differ greatly from book to book. As for cover design and title, they might catch my eye, but I usually try to look beyond that before making my final decision. Some of my favorite books have hideously unappealing cover art, and plenty of books with tantalizing titles turn out to be duds.

If I'm buying, I'm pickier than if I'm just browsing the library. And if I'm paying for a new book, I'm pickier than if I'm paying 50 cents for a used copy. So for a 50-cent book, I might let myself go on "instinct", but for full price, I look at everything and try to make a more informed decision.

Do you prefer Fiction or Non-Fiction?

For sitting down and reading? Fiction, usually. I also like crafts books, but I don't really read those in the same way. I see them more as references and instructional works. I do occasionally read non-crafty non-fiction, but even that is typically related to fiction-- biographies of favorite authors, for instance.

What’s more important in a novel - beautiful writing or a gripping plot?

I'd say that plot is more important than beautiful writing, if it comes down to deciding between the two. Of course, a blend of both is best, and if I don't care about the characters, I'm not going to love the story, no matter how gripping the plot or how beautiful the writing.

Most loved/memorable character (character/book)

I don't know which is my most loved (or memorable). . . It's probably Jane Eyre, Mr. Rochester, or someone from L.M. Montgomery's novels (Anne? Pat?).

Which book or books can be found on your nightstand at the moment?

To Say Nothing of the Dog (currently reading)

Looking for Anne of Green Gables (waiting to be started)

The Jeeves Omnibus, vol. I (reading w/ Donald)

Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary (looking up obscure mythological figures and Victorian things referenced in To Say Nothing of the Dog)

What was the last book you’ve read, and when was it?

Finished? Anne of Windy Poplars, by L.M. Montgomery. I can't remember exactly when I finished it. . . Sometime in September.

Still in the process of reading? To Say Nothing of the Dog (again), last night in bed.

Have you ever given up on a book half way in?

I've given up before I got halfway in. A couple of times, actually, with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. (Incidentally, I have never managed to seriously crack open Les Misérables, either. Some sort of Victor Hugo phobia, perhaps? (g)) I'm sure there are others, but that one in particular stands out, because I've kept my copy, and every so often, I look at it (and a few I've never even started, like Les Mis) and wonder if I'll ever actually read it. . . (They were purchased back in my teenage "classic-reading" phase. Now, I've mostly lost interest, but maybe someday I'll feel ambitious.)

Booking Through Thursday: Peer Pressure

This week's prompt from Booking Through Thursday:

Have you ever felt pressured to read something because ‘everyone else’ was reading it? Have you ever given in and read the book(s) in question or do you resist? If you are a reviewer, etc, do you feel it’s your duty to keep up on current trends?

Hm. . . I haven't really felt pressured to read anything just because other people are reading it.

But then again, I may be weird that way. I was one of just about two or three girls in my sixth grade class who didn't like New Kids on the Block-- a "boy band" from the late 80s/early 90s. Or at least I was one of the few who didn't at least pretend to like them. (shrug) I was also never "peer pressured" into smoking, drinking, or doing drugs. Whether this is because I've always been a strong-minded individual who refuses to be made to do what I don't want to do or merely because no-one wanted to "peer pressure" me, I can't say-- but obviously I prefer the former explanation. (g)

(As far as the alcohol and drugs go, it probably helped that I was never in a situation where underage drinking and drug-use were happening, as far as I can recall. Frankly, I probably would've been scared to death, if I had been, so thoroughly had it been pounded into my brain that those things were dangerous.)

With that said, I have read (do read and will read) books that I see are popular. I figure that if that many people enjoy them, I might, too. However, I don't feel obliged to pretend to like them, myself, if I don't-- and I'm likely to be more cautious with praise of a popular book than I am with something more obscure.

This holds true for other things, too. For instance, I like some Beatles songs, but I'm less likely to ooh and ahh over The Beatles than, say, The Wailin' Jennys. Why? Someone has to act as a counterbalance for all the silly people who worship things simply because everyone else is doing it. ;o)

Oh, and I'm not a reviewer, so maybe I needn't bother with that part of the question, but no, I don't feel that it's my "duty" to read anything I don't want to read. Maybe back in school, this was more of an issue, but as things now stand, no.

. . . I think this wandered far enough from the original topic. . .

Booking Through Thursday: Flavor

This week's Booking Through Thursday writing prompt:

Think about your favorite authors, your favorite books . . . what is it about them that makes you love them above all the other authors you’ve read? The stories? The characters? The way they appear to relish the taste of words on the tongue? The way they’re unafraid to show the nitty-gritty of life? How they sweep you off to a new, distant place? What is it about those books and authors that makes them resonate with you in ways that other, perfectly good books and authors do not?

I love authors who write in depth about their characters, giving me at least a glimpse (if not the whole picture) of life from those characters' eyes. I love authors who constantly make me say, "Yes! I know exactly what you mean! I've thought the same thing so many times!" or "You're right. I've never seen things that way before, but now that I read this, I know you're right." I love authors who know how to make me smile-- even laugh. I don't mind crying a little, but for me to love a book best, it can't be one sorrow after another. I love authors whose descriptions are so perfect that I feel as though I'm living the story myself.

From time to time, I "visit" authors with a gift for readable poetic prose-- but more often I prefer a good sense of humor. Tight plots that keep the pages turning are good, but the books I love and return to on a regular basis tend to be slower-paced. (They're more character- than plot-based.) Books I love best are set in the real world-- though usually in another period of history-- and their version of "the real world" often comes with a few unrealistic bits.

I love books that are rich enough (in characterization, plot, setting) that they envelope me and melt away real life, for a while.

ETA: I forgot to answer the last part of the question!
I think the reason that some books with these characteristics resonate with me more strongly than others do lies partly with timing (meaning I first read them at just the right time of my life-- or that when I re-read them, I'm taken back to a pleasant time in my life), but mainly with the "recognition" factor. (The part above about "I know just what you mean!") If I find myself frequently "recognizing myself" in a book's characters or narrating voice, I tend to like it. It may sound conceited, but I don't think it's unusual. Most of us gravitate toward like-minded people. Why should it be any different with books and authors?

Booking Through Thursday: Trends

This week's prompt from Booking Through Thursday:

Have your book-tastes changed over the years? More fiction? Less? Books that are darker and more serious? Lighter and more frivolous? Challenging? Easy? How-to books over novels? Mysteries over Romance?

Yes-- and no.

Explanation of "yes":
I definitely read more "new-to-me" how-to books than new-to-me fiction, these days. When I do read fiction, I'm less likely to pick up a heavy "classic" than I was in high school. This may be partly because the new-to-me classics I have ready at hand just don't interest me that much, right now. Excuse for book shopping? ;o)

Explanation of "no":
When I read fiction-- not that often, lately-- I tend to turn to the same books over and over and over again. It's the same collection of books I've been reading since middle and high school! So I guess my tastes haven't changed much since then. . .

Booking Through Thursday: Manual Labor Redux

Oops. Got delayed by bad weather (and then forgetfulness). . .

This week's Booking Through Thursday expands on last week's question:

Scenario: You’ve just bought some complicated gadget home . . . do you read the accompanying documentation? Or not?
Do you ever read manuals?
How-to books?
Self-help guides?
Anything at all?

Manuals--
A complicated gadget, eh? I probably won't read the manual-- if I think I can "find my own way" without damaging the new toy. Sometimes I refer to the manual after several fruitless tries to get it to do whatever it is it's supposed to do. ;o) Sooner or later, I skim it to see if there are any cool functions I haven't already found on my own. And I definitely keep the manual (along with the receipt) in case I run into problems down the road.

I've read through at least certain sections of the various manuals that came with the car, and I learned a few useful things. (I was curious about all the different settings for the A/C and vent, how the passenger side airbag sensor thingy worked, etc.)

For "some assembly required" type things, yes, I read (and follow) the directions. I'd rather take a minute to read the instructions than ruin something by rushing through it.

Note to authors/editors: Manuals should be written in very short paragraphs or bulleted lists. There should be plenty of photos or illustrations. Seriously, you're lucky if I read it, even then. (g)

How-to books--
Yes, these I read. On a fairly frequent basis, actually. I read how-to books on crafts and gardening, especially. Now, I may not read them cover-to-cover, page-by-page. Most I dip into now and then or treat as references, but there are a few that I'll actually sit down and read. You know, like a real book. ;o)

Lately, we've been skimming through a variety of "do it yourself" style books on the subject of patios and other similar structures. I'm not sure how much Donald's been reading of them. I mostly look at the photos and read just the parts that seem relevant at the moment-- parts about placement and related considerations (shade, privacy, wind, and so on).

I guess cookbooks count as "how-to", as well. These I mostly skim until I find the recipe I want, but then I pay very close attention. Growing up, I had a couple of cooking/baking disasters where I used water instead of milk and put in the wrong measurements of things. I learned my lesson the hard way, but at least I never burned down the house. (g)

Note to authors/editors: How-to books need photos and/or illustrations. Without them, I'm just not interested. Oh, and when you refer to photos in the instructions, please be sure they are correctly labeled. Place the relevant text as near as possible to the photo. (Thank you! ;o))

I do a lot of my "how-to" reading online, these days. Yes, there's unreliable info out there, but if you're careful, you can fairly easily determine what's good and what's not.

Self-help guides--
I don't think I've read any self-help books. . . None come to mind, at least. Oh, well, maybe one. It was one of those "different genders come from different planets" relationship books. Somewhat interesting, somewhat "oh, give me a break!" It's certainly not a genre I frequently read. When I need help, I prefer to suffer in silence. Or suffer loudly, if anyone's around to listen. (g) (Just kidding! Kind of. . .)

Anything at all--
Food labels (especially one or two of the "nutritional facts" that I'm always keeping an eye on), subtitles (in foreign films-- or if Donald or I can't understand a heavy accent-- Sometimes we have to have them, but then I end up reading the dialog instead of watching the movie or program, because text draws my eye), medicine labels (dosing instructions), catalogs (sometimes, mostly I skim them), the occasional magazine (preferably those with no health articles, because I hate those things with a very passionate passion, to the point that I'd rather not even look at the magazine at all), my own notes (of which there are way too many floating around the house = I need to sort through them, consolidate the "good" ones into a few categorized stacks, and toss the rest), blogs, "twitters", comments on "my stuff" (my blogs, my photos at flickr, etc.), and so on.

Booking Through Thursday: Manual Labor

Here's this week's prompt from BTT:

Writing guides, grammar books, punctuation how-tos. . . Do you read them? Not read them? How many writing books, grammar books, dictionaries-- if any-- do you have in your library?

I've read parts of some of them, but mostly I treat them as references. Since I do most of my "real" writing on the computer, these days, with the Internet at my fingertips, I tend to look up things online. Still, it's good to have a few good resources available.

Dictionaries-- At least 2 in English. One nice, hardcover "collegiate" dictionary I was awarded at the end of high school (for participation in an honors program). One tattered paperback that got me through high school! At least 2 in Swedish. A French-English/English-French dictionary that hasn't been used in years. A Swedish-English/English-Swedish dictionary that also hasn't seen much recent use.

Writing Books-- I can think of about four right now. There may be more. Most of them were purchased (very cheaply) second-hand, and to tell the truth, I haven't read much of them, yet. Maybe someday. One is the well-known Elements of Style; the others are guides for writing more specific types of fiction.

Grammar Books-- I know of at least one on my shelves-- a "commonsense" guide written by one of my college professors. (My copy's an earlier edition than the one linked, of course.) I enjoyed his class and thought the book was useful enough to be worth keeping. I hardly ever open it, these days, but if I ever want to be certain that my grammar's correct, I know where to look.

Then there are several related books-- a thesaurus (one book I've actually used, along with the tattered paperback dictionary) and four books of quotations (one in Swedish). Oh, and I have a handful of books about Swedish grammar and usage, too. . . We have at least one dictionary of names, also.

Mostly these books just take up shelf space, but they have the potential to be useful, so we keep them. ;o)

Booking Through Thursday: Mayday!

This meme completely slipped my mind, yesterday.

This week's Booking Through Thursday is on the theme of "Mayday":

Quick! It’s an emergency! You just got an urgent call about a family emergency and had to rush to the airport with barely time to grab your wallet and your passport. But now, you’re stuck at the airport with nothing to read. What do you do??

And, no, you did NOT have time to grab your bookbag, or the book next to your bed. You were . . . grocery shopping when you got the call and have nothing with you but your wallet and your passport (which you fortuitously brought with you in case they asked for ID in the ethnic food aisle). This is hypothetical, remember….

I know it's sacrilege (g), but I might not absolutely require a book. However, if I'm all alone and have to sit still for a very long time, I guess I will be wishing I had something to read-- or a book of word games-- or some paper to write on. (I think I generally spend more time writing, doodling, or doing puzzles than reading, while I'm flying.)

The answer seems obvious, if it's a fairly large airport. If I had to read, I'd seek out a bookstore-- or any shop that might have books, magazines, or newspapers-- and see if they have anything remotely interesting. I suppose you may pay more for something you buy in an airport (don't think I've ever actually done it before), but it could be worth it.

If I couldn't find anything to read, I'd have to content myself with walking around, looking out the windows, and people-watching. Airports are interesting places to watch people. Besides, I'm usually too excited and nervous when anticipating a flight to feel like sitting down for a long read. Walking is a good way to release some of that nervous energy.

Booking Through Thursday: Vocabulary

This week's Booking Through Thursday relates to vocabulary:

I’ve always wondered what other people do when they come across a word/phrase that they’ve never heard before. I mean, do they jot it down on paper so they can look it up later, or do they stop reading to look it up on the dictionary/google it or do they just continue reading and forget about the word?

When I was younger and more enthusiastic about scholarly pursuits, I was more likely than I am now to immediately stop and look it up.

(Back then, that meant going to the dictionary or the family encyclopedia rather than "googling" it. It's not that I'm "old"-- I'm not even thirty, yet-- but rather it's an indication of how drastically our world has changed in the last twenty years. Several years ago, some of the eighth graders I was working with had no idea how to use an encyclopedia! A few seemed confused by even the simple process of alphabetization. Of course, how much of that was due to a change in technology rather than individual ignorance is up for debate. . .)

These days, whether or not I stop to look up something (or on a very rare occasion, write it down and look it up later) depends on a variety of factors, including the following:

• Whether or not I can get the gist of the meaning from context clues. If I'm completely stumped, I'm less likely to ignore it and continue reading.
  
• How "into" the story I am. The more engaging the story, the less willing I am to pause.
  
• How often the word or phrase occurs. If it keeps cropping up, I'm more likely to stop and research it. (Of course, I'm also less likely to want to continue reading the book at all, if the author repeatedly uses the same exact word or phrase. That's one of my pet peeves. You're an author; invest in a thesaurus, for goodness' sake!)
• How personally interesting I find the word/phrase. If it "sounds good" to me, I'm more likely to take the time to look into it.
  

I suppose stopping and looking things up is almost the only way we improve our vocabularies, once we leave the classroom. Obviously it's good for us to continue to learn, but I also feel that an author who continually forces his/her readers to stop and reach for the dictionary (or the keyboard) is running a certain risk. Every distraction takes away from the story, I think. Besides, people don't like to be "talked down to". If I feel that the author is more interested in flaunting how many thirteen-letter words he knows than in weaving a good tale, I'm not impressed.

Booking Through Thursday: Writing Challenge

Here's this week's prompt from Booking Through Thursday:

• Pick up the nearest book. (I’m sure you must have one nearby.)
• Turn to page 123.
• What is the first sentence on the page?
• The last sentence on the page?
• Now . . . connect them together….
  (And no, you may not transcribe the entire page of the book–that’s cheating!)

At first, I thought you were just supposed to put the two sentences together-- and I wondered where the "challenge" was ;o)-- but then I realized that the idea is that we should write our own bridge between the two sentences. That is more challenging!

There were two books nearer me than the others. I suppose I ought to take the one that was on top. . . a copy of Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Brontë. Here are the sentences:

1. 'Generally thought? But what do you think?' (spoken by Mr. Rochester, asking what Jane thinks of gifts. She's just answered that they're generally thought to be pleasant things.)
2. 'I have none.' (spoken by Jane)

This is difficult. I'm so familiar with the dialogue in this book that it's hard for me to think of anything but what really comes next! (g) Well, here goes. . .

'Generally thought? But what do you think?'
'I haven't given them much thought, sir.'
'What? Not given much thought to the subject of presents, Miss Eyre? In my experience, many women think precious little of anything else!'
If by this speech he had hoped to draw from me an entreaty that he look more favorably upon womankind, I meant to disappoint him. But he immediately continued--
'What sort of misers are your parents, that you can claim ignorance of gifts?'
'I have none.'

That wasn't easy. I have renewed respect for dear C.B.! ;o)

The other book is Carry On, Jeeves, by P.G. Wodehouse, and here are the two sentences:

1. 'Rather! Bucks you up, you know!'
2. 'Your nephew's manservant?'

Um-hum. That pair of sentences almost seems to make sense-- in an odd sort of a way ;o)-- on their own. . .

Happy Thursday!

Booking Through Thursday: Cover-Up

This week's Booking Through Thursday:

While acknowledging that we can’t judge books by their covers, how much does the design of a book affect your reading enjoyment? Hardcover vs. softcover? Trade paperback vs. mass market paperback? Font? Illustrations? Etc.?

Once I'm really into the story, it doesn't matter quite so much, but of course there are preferences and pet peeves.

I'm irritated by books that. . .

• are so tightly bound that it's a huge effort to keep them opened to the right page.
• weigh so much that I grow tired just from holding them up.
  
• have embarrassing or hideous cover art.
  
• have cover art done by someone who obviously knows precious little about the story.
  
• try to squeeze too many words on one page (i.e. tiny font and/or insufficient margins).
• have pages that are too thin or tend to stick together.
  

Other than that, I'm pretty flexible. Some of my favorite books are mass market paperbacks, but generally I'm more attracted to trade paperbacks or hardcovers that aren't too bulky or heavy. I'm especially fond of small-scale hardcovers.

Illustrations don't usually matter that much to me-- with three notable exceptions: 1) books intended to be accompanied by illustrations, such as children's picture books; 2) "how-to" non-fiction-- cookbooks, craft books, home improvement, gardening, etc.; and 3) books that I grew up thinking "should" be illustrated (meaning that the editions I read a a child were illustrated-- such as the Little House series as illustrated by Garth Williams).

One other thing--
Even though I do sometimes read books borrowed from a library or buy second-hand books, I'm much more comfortable with a book that is my own. With library books, I can't completely forget that they aren't mine to keep, and with any book that I didn't buy new, I guess I just feel a little twinge of "yuck" and "I wonder where has this book been and who's been pawing it with dirty hands".* (g) A little silly, maybe-- especially considering even "new" books have been touched a few times by other people. Once I've had them a while, I don't think about that so much. I don't know; I guess that they're magically rendered clean simply by virtue of spending a little time in my pristine -- ha ha ha-- home. ;o) Well, that and the fact that I give them a wipe-down.

* Hey, it's a legitimate concern! At a recent used book sale, my sister found a book with cake on it! (g) Not all book owners are so careful with their books as they ought to be. ;o)

Booking Through Thursday: The End

Here's this week's Booking Through Thursday topic:

The End

You’ve just reached the end of a book . . . what do you do now? Savor and muse over the book? Dive right into the next one? Go take the dog for a walk, the kids to the park, before even thinking about the next book you’re going to read? What?

(Obviously, there can be more than one answer, here–a book with a cliff-hanger is going to engender different reactions than a serene, stand-alone, but you get the idea!)

I'm usually ready for a brief break after finishing a book-- a walk, a little housecleaning-- anything for a change. Meanwhile, I spend some time thinking about what I've just read (whether or not I'm satisfied with it, why characters behaved as they did, etc.). If possible, I like to discuss it with someone or at least read reviews and compare notes.

Unless it's a series (with the next book ready and waiting) or I've already started looking forward to reading a particular book, I don't usually think about what I'm going to read next until later on. Actually, I usually have a hard time making myself start the next book, these days, now that I'm not really "into" any series of books. I think I'm one of those who take a while to warm up to something (such as the next book on my "to read" list), but once I'm ever into it, I can be a bit obsessive about it.

I bought several books at a large library book sale last weekend. With those (and the still unread books already gracing our bookshelves!), I should be able to find something worth reading for some time to come.

Maybe I'll start writing book reviews, like some other bloggers I know. . . Might motivate me to read on a more regular basis. If nothing else, I could at least mention what I'm reading. . .

Booking Through Thursday: Playing Editor

Watch out! There are spoilers for the following books in this post: by L. M. Montgomery, Emily of New Moon, Emily Climbs, and Emily's Quest. By Louisa May Alcott, Little Women. Consider yourself warned. . .

This week's Booking Through Thursday:

How about a chance to play editor-in-chief? Fill in the blanks:

________ would have been a much better book if ___________.

Hm. The Emily trilogy (Emily of New Moon, Emily Climbs, and Emily's Quest) would've been much better books if Teddy Kent had been a well-developed, sympathetic character-- something closer to Dean Priest, but with less of a penchant for unrealistically flowery speeches. Oh, and if he hadn't done the unspeakable by proposing to Emily's best friend, Ilse. (And he probably would've gone right through with it, if Ilse hadn't run off at the last moment! . . . Now that makes these books sound pretty trashy. I promise, they aren't. (g))

I was going to say the books would've been better if Dean hadn't lied to Emily about her first book, but even then, L.M. Montgomery just beats you over the head with the whole "Emily and Teddy are meant to be" thing, from the first book onward, so there's really not much hope for an Emily/Dean pairing. I enjoy the books as they are, but I'd love them that much more if I could just like Teddy. (Ick. And that name. . . "Teddy" just doesn't sound very manly, does it? Not that I'm one who should make comments about names, I guess. (g))

How about another?

Little Women would have been a much better book if Jo and Laurie had gotten married. Or maybe it just would've been a very different book. ;o) I like Friedrich, too, but he never seemed like a "romantic" character. (Maybe it was the description of him as being bearded that made a very youthful me picture him as an almost grandfatherly figure.) I remember being mystified by the way that Alcott made me root for one couple, only to keep them apart at the last moment. Maybe she was trying to be realistic; for all we hear about "high school sweethearts", most childhood friends/sweethearts-type relationships don't end in marriage. It's been a long time since I read the book. Maybe I'd understand it better from an adult perspective.

One thing I'm pretty sure about-- It'd be awkward being in Amy's position and knowing that your husband had loved/wanted to marry your sister before he noticed you. I guess you'd just have to learn to live with it, but wow. So totally and completely unromantic! (g)

Booking Through Thursday

Here's today's question from Booking Through Thursday:

All other things (like price and storage space) being equal, given a choice in a perfect world, would you rather have paperbacks in your library? Or hardcovers? And why?

Even though I readily admit that hardcovers look better (and last longer) than paperbacks-- not to mention that a good hardcover will stay open at the right page without being held the whole time (very useful for when you're reading while brushing your hair, applying lotion, etc.-- I think I generally enjoy reading more when I'm reading from a paperback.

It's strange. . . I like the idea of hardcovers, but when I paint a mental picture of the perfect reading experience, I see myself holding a slightly worn paperback. I think it's probably because I grew up reading paperbacks, mostly. My very favorite books (not counting children's picture books)-- the ones that helped shape who I am and are still favorites-- were paperbacks. When I hold and read those same books, now, they feel "right". The texture of the paper's the same-- the rustle of the pages is an echo of my past-- the smell is comfortingly familiar-- the very font helps roll away the years and take me back to the magical first reading. . .

So I'd definitely keep all my own paperbacks, in this fantasy-world library-- but I might make all my new books hardcovers.

Booking Through Thursday

Haven't done a meme in a while, so . . . various prompts selected from many you'll find at Booking Through Thursday:

Would you say that you read about the same amount now as when you were younger? More? Less? Why?

I was all set to say "less". I do have my nose stuck in a book much less often than when I was school age. Why? I don't know. Partly because I do other things in my spare time. (Clay is a big consumer of my free time.) Partly it's because I just get out of the habit. When I'm reading something new-- if I'm enjoying it-- I want to read, read, read it until it's done. That gets tiring after a while, and it's difficult to get things accomplished if I'm constantly tempted to read, so it's probably good that I don't read as many "new to me" books as I used to. ;o) I still re-read favorites, but often it's only a bit at a time, so it's somewhat less disruptive to the other areas of my life.

However-- after initially thinking "less", I realized that on the other hand, I read much more nonfiction now than as a youth. I read blogs, news stories, informative articles, and so on. That's quite a bit of text, so it's entirely possible than I actually read more now, over all. If that "counts".

Do you read horror? Stories of things that go bump in the night and keep you from sleeping?

I sometimes do, but it's not usually the "blood and guts" type of horror. That just doesn't appeal to me, either in film or in writing. I'm more interested in "classic horror" (Dracula, Frankenstein) and "spooky stories". I like suspense and creepy-crawliness. Or at least, I think I do. When I'm in the thick of it, to the point that my usually friendly surroundings begin to feel sinister, I second-guess myself. ;o) Nothing I've read in a long time has kept me from sleeping, but I can certainly give myself nightmares.

Do you have any family-oriented memories with books and reading?

Definitely my best memory of the combination of family and reading is the bed-time story. Being read to-- and later reading aloud myself-- was a wonderful, soothing ritual. Unless I'm completely exhausted, I still like to read at least a few paragraphs before turning in for the night. Without question, that's a habit I'd want to start with children of my own. I firmly believe that it helps children develop a love of reading. Besides, it's just so much fun. Let's face it-- many children's books are at least as good as "grown-up" books.

Do you have multiple copies of any of your books? If so, why? Absent-mindedness? You love them that much? First Editions for the shelf, but paperbacks to read? If not, why not? Not enough space? Not enough money? Too sensible to do something so foolish?

When Donald and I combined books, it was inevitable that we'd have some duplicates. However, because Donald was at one time an active book collector (and still has the disease, though I'm trying to get it under control before we run out of space ;o)), we have more than two copies of some books-- particularly the Swedish translations of L.M. Montgomery's novels. I appreciate a nice-looking book, but I think I care less for "book as object" than I do for "book as message/idea/story". I'm perfectly happy reading my battered paperback. Generally, I'll leave the nice hardback on the shelf. Wouldn't want to mess it up by actually reading it, and it's the same story, no matter what package it's in. (g) . . .Have I answered this one before? It feels familiar. Oh well. (g)

Edited to Add:
When a story is all text, no photos, I don't care much about the book's physical form. I'm just after the story-- the pictures and voices it creates in my head. When it's a picture book, on the other hand, I'm just as much interested in the photos as I am in the words-- maybe more interested, depending on the book. I'm can also be somewhat sentimental about books that I've had for a long time, especially if it was my first contact with a well-loved story.