I must confess, I haven’t managed to finish reading a single book since the start of the year. I did start four books, which I am reading in small pieces, but it irks me that so far I haven’t managed to finish one. Instead, I am trapped in the middle of:
- Dubliners, by James Joyce.
- Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond.
- The Science Book, edited by Peter Tallack.
- Every Living Thing, by James Herriot.
Part of the reason I haven’t finished any of these is that I need what everyone else does: more time. I especially need more time—a nearly infinite amount, it seems—to catch up on my science reading. Every day there are new research articles, news stories, and blog commentaries to read.
Although keeping up is the biggest reading challenge, achieving balance is of equal importance. That balance can be lost if one dwells to long on the list of must-reads. Reading nothing but specialized or technical writing is a subtle danger.
Don’t get me wrong, such work is certainly real writing and real reading, but technical writing is often limited in the way it manipulates words. This narrowness occurs in part because medical, technical, and science writers always (or should always) strive for simplicity. It also happens because these writers are experts in a subject area rather than experts in a content area.
When reading creative writing, one has greater opportunity to find masterful writers who use techniques and words that aren’t commonly found in medical, technical, and science writing. Reading work that is more overtly creative allows a writer to re-immerse herself in the craft. Such reading replenishes the writing toolbox. Those words and techniques that aren’t common in specialized writing may still be useful later on, but you can’t use them if you don’t have them at the ready. The best writer is one who has a full toolbox, who knows how and when to use her tools, and who also knows how and when not to use them.
As for me, maybe I’ll have finished reading something by December. I’ll let you know.