The number of books on my ever growing bookshelves that I have not read far outnumber the the books I have read. This, I think, it completely normal. Umberto Eco wrote a very funny essay on how to justify a private library: what to say to those who enter your abode, drop their jaw at the expansive collection, and ask, "Have you read them all?"
Nevertheless, I am constantly fighting the temptation to plow through the books as fast as I can while still acquiring a basic if mediocre understanding of what the author had to say. The blood and sweat required to really enter into the mind of another--to see the world as he sees it, to understand his projects, to empathize with his concerns--is more than I often think I can give.
I'm faced with the question: is it better to learn a little about a lot or a lot about a little?
Pages
