Lunch break [online] reading

I didn't intend to blog again until Monday when I planned to regale you with an amusing story told to me yesterday by Stanley Morgan.

However in today's lunch break I read Richard Charkin's and Grumpy Old Bookman's blogs, and a GOB link led me to this. Note the last sentence.

"Books, especially fiction, are unfortunately something that many, many people want to write and relatively few people want to read, at least not in commensurate amounts. (See last year's NEA survey, "Reading at Risk.") People tend to point their finger at the part of the process where the book they've written has gotten stuck. If it doesn't make it to the agent, it's the agents' fault; if it doesn't make it to a publisher, it's the publishers' fault; if it doesn't get reviewed, it's the press. But, in reality, the whole system is overloaded. Everything that most people dislike about the system really derives from this fact. If people were as enthusiastic about reading (or rather, buying) books as they are about writing them, the industry overall would not be in the poor economic situation it's in now."

That comment was made by Laura Miller, a journalist who frequently writes reviews for Salon, and published in Finn Harvor's blog on December 20.

I am, as you know, extremely enthusiastic about reading, but in recent years only a handful of titles on the bestseller lists have appealed to me.

More and more often I'm re-reading books bought years ago. What is the point of spending money on new authors who are not a patch on their predecessors?

Stanley Morgan's hilarious tale [prompted by my recent "scary Sunday" blog, will appear here shortly.]

Right now I must stick to my new Day Plan which includes half an hour's housework every day. How long this good resolution will last...quien sabe? But I'm sticking with it for the time being.