Skip to main content

Bibliophile’s reading report for 2006

I suddenly occurred to me yesterday that I had not published my annual reading report. Well, here goes:

Total books read in 2006: 160. This is 122 books fewer than in 2005, which is not surprising as I wrote my master's thesis in 2006 and thus had less time for reading.

Fiction: 119 (74,4%)
Non-fiction: 41 (25,6%)
My non-fiction percentage has risen by 4% since 2005, probably due to all the travel books I read in 2006.

Total no. of pages: 40422.
Average number of pages per book: 252. Not surprisingly, I read fewer pages in 2006 than in 2005, but the books I read in 2006 were on average 38 pages longer than those I read in 2005.
Number of books under 100 pages long: 2
Number of books over 300 pages long: 43 (26,8%)

Re-reads: 15 (9,4%)
Library and loan books: 50 (31,25%)
E-books: 1
Audio books: 1
Translated books: 13 (8,1%)

Books published before 1900: 2 (1,25%) -> Memo: Must read more classics in 2007
Books published after 2000: 27 (16,9%)

Average rating per book (out of a possible 5+): 3+
Most common rating (out of a possible 5+): 4 (36 books, 22,5%)

Languages: English (153, 95,6%), Icelandic (7, 4,4%) -> Memo: Must read more Icelandic books in 2007

Breakdown by genre:
Fiction is often difficult to classify by genre because so many novels straddle genre boundaries, like "romantic mystery", "mystery thriller" or "supernatural romance". This is why, when I break my reading down by genre for the purpose of statistical analysis, I always look at the main genre so I can get a clear breakdown. If a book is, for example, a romantic mystery, I decide which is the main focus: the mystery or the romance. Rachel Gibson's Sex, lies and online dating uses the mystery to get the lovers together, and so gets classified as a romance, while Carolyn G. Hart's Death on Demand features a romance incidental to the mystery and thus gets classified as a mystery. A historical romance is classified under "romance". A historical novel is classified under "fiction", unless there are many of them (see below). Non-fiction where I only read a few books in the genre is collected under "miscellaneous non-fiction" and so on. The only time is use a fuller genre classification is when there are enough of them to be statistically interesting.

Out of the 160 books I read in 2006, 17 books count as historical fiction, which includes historical novels, historical mysteries and historical romance. 3 more feature a historical mystery that is solved in modern times. That makes 20 books that can be counted as historical, or 12,5% of all the books I read in 2006.

Crime, mystery and action, including criminal stories and revenge tales: 65 (40,6%, up by 10%)
Romance (no chick lit this year): 14 (8,75%, down by about 2%)
Fantasy and sci-fi, supernatural horror, alternate realities and futuristic novels: 24 (15%, up by 5% due to a re-reading spree of the Discworld series)
Miscellaneous fiction, incl. novels, short story collections, verse, cartoons and graphic novels: 16 (10%)
Biographies, autobiographies and memoirs: 7 (4,4%)
Travel: 20 (12,5%, up by 8,5%)
Miscellaneous non-fiction: 14 (8,75%)

Out of these, 5 were written with teenagers or children in mind, but I only use teen-lit and children's lit as genre definitions when I have read a substantial number of them.

Last year I promised to publish a list of my most read authors in 2005, but never did. I will try to do better this year.

Comments

jenclair said…
Impressive number of books read! I enjoyed looking at your statistical breakdown.
Bibliophile said…
Thank you. It's amazing what you can discover about your own reading habits by doing something like this. Of course, it takes a good 10 years or so before you really start noticing any trends. I just hope I can keep my book journalling up for that long.

Popular posts from this blog

How to make a simple origami bookmark

Here are some instructions on how to make a simple origami (paper folding) bookmark: Take a square of paper. It can be patterned origami paper, gift paper or even office paper, just as long as it’s easy to fold. The square should not be much bigger than 10 cm/4 inches across, unless you intend to use the mark for a big book. The images show what the paper should look like after you follow each step of the instructions. The two sides of the paper are shown in different colours to make things easier, and the edges and fold lines are shown as black lines. Fold the paper in half diagonally (corner to corner), and then unfold. Repeat with the other two corners. This is to find the middle and to make the rest of the folding easier. If the paper is thick or stiff it can help to reverse the folds. Fold three of the corners in so that they meet in the middle. You now have a piece of paper resembling an open envelope. For the next two steps, ignore the flap. Fold the square diagonally in two. Yo...

Book 40: The Martian by Andy Weir, audiobook read by Wil Wheaton

Note : This will be a general scattershot discussion about my thoughts on the book and the movie, and not a cohesive review. When movies are based on books I am interested in reading but haven't yet read, I generally wait to read the book until I have seen the movie, but when a movie is made based on a book I have already read, I try to abstain from rereading the book until I have seen the movie. The reason is simple: I am one of those people who can be reduced to near-incoherent rage when a movie severely alters the perfectly good story line of a beloved book, changes the ending beyond recognition or adds unnecessarily to the story ( The Hobbit , anyone?) without any apparent reason. I don't mind omissions of unnecessary parts so much (I did not, for example, become enraged to find Tom Bombadil missing from The Lord of the Rings ), because one expects that - movies based on books would be TV-series long if they tried to include everything, so the material must be pared down ...

Bibliophile discusses Van Dine’s rules for writing detective stories

Writers have been putting down advice for wannabe writers for centuries, about everything from how to captivate readers to how to build a story and write believable characters to getting published. The mystery genre has had its fair share, and one of the best known advisory essays is mystery writer’s S.S. Van Dine’s 1928 piece “Twenty rules for writing detective stories.” I mentioned in one of my reviews that I might write about these rules. Well, I finally gave myself the time to do it. First comes the rule (condensed), then what I think about it. Here are the Rules as Van Dine wrote them . (Incidentally, check out the rest of this excellent mystery reader’s resource: Gaslight ) The rules are meant to apply to whodunnit amateur detective fiction, but the main ones can be applied to police and P.I. fiction as well. I will discuss them mostly in this context, but will also mention genres where the rules don’t apply and authors who have successfully and unsuccessfully broken the rules. 1...