Would you rather…?

the second option.

For an avid reader like me this would be a cruel choice to make.

One book a year is not much at all. Sure, there are doorstoppers like "War and Peace" but so many other books which are lovely have only 150 - 300 pages...

On the other hand, it would be frustrating to read incomplete books all the time. OK, sometimes omitting the last chapter wouldn't be great deal but how would I know?

Either choice would be highly unsatisfactory: reading strings of incomplete books would be frustrating and always instill the feeling that something might be missing (and there would be little point to read thrillers with twist ending or denouements that come at the end, let alone murder mystery where the murderer is unveiled in the last chapter); reading only one book would be very very limiting as well and one might lose out on a lot of great books.

Not sure which one I would choose...

ETA: Hey, wait a minute!

I think I found the solution! :-)

What about audio books? You said I'd only be allowed to READ one book a year. Surely, I would be allowed to listen to many more? ;-)

Also, what if I have someone who is reading the books to me? That would work fine as well, and it wouldn't violate your rule.

Thinking about that, reading clubs might pop up where like-minded readers would gather read their one-book-a-year aloud. If you have a big enough group and each one reads their one book that may still be enough for a whole year. And if it isn't you would then tune in to the radio broadcast from other book clubs or watch the Book Club Channel, hehe!

I would rather that nobody puts restrictions on reading; I read what I want, when I want, how I want