Could you read a book a day for 100 days?

I feel for them actually. I can read like that, no problem, if the books are good. I have been known to read 3 – 4 books in one day, giving each the same attention. However, if I had to take notes on each, it would slow me down considerably. And if I didn't like the subject, or how the book was written, it could become a struggle.


ETA: Glad the camel is back.


ETA2: And the camel is gone again. lol

Well, I read a whole one yesterday, so I've got a good start. Haven't picked up one today though.

But yeah, the note-taking thing would slow me way down.

forty days and forty nights

Only one book a day? Doesn't seem fair.

I am the slowest reader I know. My 11 year-old son is a faster reader than I am. I would not be a good man for the job. I am absolutely frustrated by the number of books on my reading list! It will take me until about 2700 to read them...obviously I'll be dead before then!

Good heavens, no. Wouldn't happen. I average maybe 20-30 books annually, sometimes less (of course, I read mostly non-fiction, so that might explain it). Between not reading fast (a Harlequin paperback takes a full 6-9 hours) and not having much time to read, it's an impossibility.

Though it is a favorite fantasy to have all the time I want to read and get those muscles back into shape.

I could do the reading, and the notes. Problem is, I seldom like the books that make the list. It would be awfully hard to finish any of them.

Do they suffer from eye strain?

Also, they don't get to choose. I'd be able to read a book a day for 100 days if I had choice of picking the genre I felt like reading on a particular day. Hmm, I read crime fiction yesterday, maybe I'll read some romance today, and self-help tomorrow.

Note-taking, remembering each book for what it is, comparing, finding the best-- yeah, it's way too much work. Just reading I can do. All the analysis would make me go mad.

Unfortunately, I am unable to access the site given in the link. But to the question...

Really? One hundred days and 100 books. I would surmise that they have developed the skill of scanning; this is a good time saver. (I have tried to learn this, but remain a word-by-word reader).They may not even finish reading each book cover-to-cover.

If they have to take notes, I wonder how comprehensive they would be--somewhere between an academic journal-type critique and a very pithy summary? They would have to have a skill here too, I think. I would suspect that in this manner, each reader/judge would likely fill out a standardised sheet of questions, maybe even with scores required.

Like or dislike the judges' final decisions, for each judge it is a time-consuming exercise. I wonder if each judge has to take leave of their regular job to undertake the task, despite a degree of prestige attached to judging?

Depending on the length of the book, I don't see a problem with it. I can easily read a couple or three books a day without trouble. Having said that, most literary fiction bores me to tears, so I might not be a good choice judging the Booker prize since I'd likely put Space Opera or Fantasy at the top of the list because it had action and a plot.

No, I could not...

But I could skim 100 books in 100 days.

Take THAT Booker judges.

Will Lavender said:

No, I could not...

But I could skim 100 books in 100 days.

Take THAT Booker judges.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...interesting. Just to be sure that I was using the word correctly,
I did a search on the word 'scan' at the site below.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scan

If you're interested, go the the section on Word History on the development of the use of the word scan. Skim is listed as one of its synonyms.