Thread by @Gilesyb

How do you decide what to read? Unless you have an infinite reading capacity like @tylercowen (ie see this feedproxy.google.com/~r/marginalrev…) I can't see how one can ever plan a reading schedule that doesn't leave a greater sense of dissatisfaction at what's left unread vs finished 1/

Context: suddenly finished Roosevelt biog and tech history by David Edgerton and wondering what next, and could not feel happy with any choice. My usual categories are: 2/

Worthy, recent-ish, "relevant" books about economy, tech etc. Like the monumental Age of Surveillance waiting for me, or Sapiens, or the infinite number claiming that the tech revolution is either over- or under-hyped. You highlight lots of bits but they're not really fun ...3/

Classics. If commitment phobic, essays of e.g. Montaigne or a story from Saki or the Decameron, but I've also tried Trollope and Maigret this year. But they feel infinite. Wondering when it's time to re-read the greats I polished off in my twenties 4/

Supposed escapism. Like the two Bourne novels I read this summer. But they can be quite badly written in bits and action can be hard to follow, and you feel like you gained nothing at all reading them 5/

The closest I come to real pleasure reading are the political biographies/memoirs, and really good histories. Possibly the best book of the last few years, Salisbury by Roberts. Is this a simple way of realising that this is ALL I should read though? Life too short, etc? 6/

And there's the huge areas where I realize I'm totally deficient. Totally. For example: I'm involved in politics/policy but have read virtually none of the great writers there that people refer to. Have no idea what you mean if you reference Oakeshott, Habermas, etc 7/

Bottom line: we are all in this position. The number of books we can read to total candidates ratio is tiny. Does anyone here have a method for addressing this that actually works for them? Is the idea of filling in gaps pointless?

Sorry, a very self-indulgent thread