Two months of failing to fulfill my reading goals towards the #100bookschallenge has made me rethink the purpose of taking up the challenge
Less than a decade ago, it was easy to recognise a book. It was anything that could be printed, bound and put on shelf of a library or a store. Now, though, things have gotten messy. There are ebooks, Kindle singles, Atavist originals, Matter stories, and the list goes on.
In many parts of the world, digital has become the primary platform for the written word. The advantages are plenty and this trend towards digital is no surprise. But it disrupts how ideas get shared, and sharing ideas was the main reason for books to come into existence.
While it was with the classical definition of a book that I began my #100bookschallenge, the main reason behind taking up the challenge was to be able to learn about the greatest ideas out there. These are increasingly being communicated not just in books. A lot of the ideas are long conversations that have been running on a blog, or those that appear in longform writing/journalism like the New Yorker or The Economist’s special reports.
Thus I’m revising the definition of a (non-fiction) book that can count towards my challenge of 100 books. Apart from the classical definition, all pieces of writing that will fulfill all the conditions below can be counted towards my target:
- Longform writing that has a clear-defined message or explores a topic in a significant amount of detail or has a central theme.
- Has been written by a single author (‘classical’ books may have more than one author).
- Is more than 10,000 words long as a single piece.
- A series of blog posts won’t count if at least one of them is not close to 10,000 words long and explains the main idea of the series.
- The writing should be so dense (full of ideas) that I cannot stop myself from writing a review of what I read.
- (UPDATE) The work should be not just newsworthy ie it should still relevant and worth reading after, say, many months or sometimes years.
As to why just 10,000 words? Because it’s not too short and it feels like the right length to have a comprehensive look at a topic. I’m open to revising my definition, so please feel free to make suggestions.
Akshat Rathi 