The reader versus reviewer conundrum

I am a compulsive reader.  Not only do I like to read, but there is some sense in which the act of finishing – not just reading but completing – a book gives me satisfaction.  The problem comes from reading too fast or in reading small sections over a larger period of time.  My compulsion drives me to read whenever I can and to read as much as I can.  Sometimes this leads to less than ideal comprehension or insight into the material read.

And when it comes time to write a review I often feel like I would be better off reading the book again to get a deeper appreciation for the work and to catch things I missed the first time through.  This doesn’t happen all the time, but regularly with non-fiction and more complex fiction.

But to take time to read a book again means a missed oppertunity to read a book I haven’t read yet.  And there are so many books out there that I want to read but haven’t, that the pressure is usually too much.  So I rarely read a book a second time despite the obvious benefit it would bring to me as a reviewer.

Does this make any sense?  Anyone else have this problem?

*It really has nothing to do with the post, but I love that Alice in Wonderland image.