Today’s Book Blogger Hop question is: Do you read historical fiction?

I do, although I suspect I read less than I think I do.  Along with actual historical fiction, I read a decent amount of fantasy books set in magical past eras–or as I like to describe the time period of my Beyond the Tales books, in the “faux medieval” era (loosely medieval, but I never worried too much about the details).

When I read historical fiction, I like books set in the first half of the 20th century,  the Victorian era, Napoleonic wars, Elizabethan…or ones that go all the way back to the Roman Empire, or ancient Greece.  With occasional forays into Camelot-era (though mostly that involves fantasy!)  I think the mere way I describe eras probably  indicates a preference for British historical fiction.  I tackled the enormous tome of London a few months ago, which pretty well covered everything of the last 2,000 years.  I especially liked the Roman era, both Julius Caesar and the days of Londinium.

There’s something fascinating about very different time periods, when life was very different–and, perhaps, the same to a surprising degree too!

Do you read historical fiction?  Do you have a favorite era?

Today’s Book Blogger Hop question is: Do you own more than one copy of a book?

Only a few.  I don’t feel a need to own multiple copies of most books, since I only need one copy to read it.  But there are a few where different copies have provided a different value.  I don’t think the particular books I have multiples of will surprise anyone…

I have four copies of Gaston Leroux’s Phantom of the Opera–the cheap, paperback, bad translation copy I bought first and highlighted all over; the fancy, annotated, good translation copy; the French copy, just…because; and the illustrated copy because illustrations!

I also have a paperback Anne of Green Gables that’s part of a full set, and a 1914, “thirty-eighth impression” hardback, in the style of the first edition.  I have several of L. M. Montgomery’s books as both paper and audiobooks, because I wanted to  listen to them on audio and the library, alas, let me down on that score.

I have a complete Sherlock Holmes collection, and a paperback of Hound of the Baskervilles (my favorite, and easier to carry).  I also have a volume of Shakespeare’s complete plays, and a dozen or so individual plays as paperbacks (easier to carry, and better footnotes–actually, sidenotes, as I like the Folgers editions).  I have two copies of Walden–I inherited one I’m keeping for sentimental reasons, and also keeping the one I had already done all my underlining in.

And I think that’s it for duplicates!  All the other 700 or so books on my shelves are individual. Do you keep multiple copies of the same book?  If you don’t usually, what reasons would lead you to?

Today’s Book Blogger Hop question is: Do you always have a book with you?

This used to be a yes.  I used to never leave the house without a book in my bag, even if I was going somewhere where I was very unlikely to read.  And then I started carrying a smaller bag…and this magic device in my pocket with endless access to entertainment!

I still carry a book a lot of places, and generally if I’m going to be stationary for an extended period of time I’ll make sure I have a book on hand.  I still bring a book to work every day.  I don’t do much reading out and about in the world, but the truth is, I don’t think I ever did.  I do seem to do far less reading in line at grocery stores now.  But I tend to do all my blog reading on my phone now, so at least some of that time is going to that.

I think I did read more when I carried a book everywhere–but I’m not sure about the cause and effect here.  Do I read less because I don’t carry a book as much anymore, or do I not carry a book because I’m not in situations with opportunities to read as much anymore?  Conundrum.

Do you carry a book with you?  Or is reading something you do at home?