Sine qua non of Almost Reading

 We had to read 'Behave' by Robert Sapolsky for my Book Club. It has a tasty introduction but is a tome to get through. Of course, I have no real excuse other than sloth, intellectual lethargy and usual potion of procrastination and dispersed focus. But I still landed up at the book meet. 

And I noticed that there is a way readers don't read. In the sense, their non-reading is also a kind of reading. Like when a billionaire becomes a millionaire - sure, there is huge loss. But there is still enough money to get by. I reckon this is sounding like sugar-coating lapse but here's what I mean.

We discussed a little bit about what we thought of the book of whatever we had read. And that is where, even the non-reading of the material was described with some subtext. They weren't all bald, bland, and blatant 'No's'. There were some of those. But there were also some who catalogued their perusals carefully. Some connected what they had read with whatever else they had read at another time - like daisychaining a set of ideas. Then there were the recommendations. That is always the most precious part of any conversation about books, isn't it? What does this topic remind you of? If you liked this theme, you may enjoy that. What would you recommend I invest a few hours of my life in? 

Even the attempt of reading a book and then failing at it (my own performance was abysmal) is the least hopeless in a confederacy of (almost) readers.