A movie could take you 3hrs to finish. A book could take 30 days

i just pick up a book off bloom's list

>Search "top 100 of all time" lists.
>Scan the synopsis of each. Ignore the ones with themes or plots I don't like.
>Queue them up.

or

>Search "top 100" lists of a favorite genre.
>Scan the synopsis of each. Ignore the ones with themes or plots I don't like.
>Queue them up.

or

>Search the entire bibliography of a favorite author.
>Scan the synopsis of each. Ignore the ones with themes or plots I don't like.
>Queue them up.

The real question is, where to find these "lists" that aren't complete shit.

>>8161894
>A book could take 30 days to finish.
kys

>>8161894
Lit, goodreads, books mentioned in other books/footnotes/endnotes/essays, classics everybody knows about.
If they seem interesting or important to me I'll read.

is blooms canon shit? because bloom says so but is that just him being a little bitch about people complaining their favourite obscure author isnt there or is there a better definitive (as much as something like that can be) list of canon books of comparable length

>>8162095
Bibliographies and reading guides are common. I have an introduction to literatures—plural intended—in eight volumes which is basically a commented list of recommended authors and works across the world.

File: 1463713883149.jpg (112KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1200x800px

>a book could take 30 days to finish

>>8162070
>>8162124
There are books that take weeks of proper reading an studying to get most of them and to fully comprehend the more obscure treasures of them.

>>8162135
That answers OP's question then. If a book takes you 30 days, it is well worth 30 days of intensive reading. Simple, easy to read books like pulp or YA you can easily read in under a week.