[syndacks]

So I know this is the opposite of what OP is asking, but I've taken the stance recently that I won't re-read another book. There are books that I would like to re-read, but they come at the opportunity cost of reading others.

A fellow traveler in a Guatemalan hostel broke it down to me like this: - let's say as an avid reader, you're able to read 12 books a year. - let's say you have 50 years of reading left in you, that means you have 600 books left to read in your lifetime

That back-of-the-napkin-math put things into perspective for me. So many great books to read, so little time. It's also for that reason that I have no qualms about putting a book down that I'm not into.

[alanfalcon]

Breadth is nice, but depth is too. I tend to gain more from a second read than from a first, and also I can consume content where I know what to expect while in a different mindset and state of being than what I require to crack open and explore something all new.

But sure, everyone is different and does things their own way. If it works for you, that’s great!

(Totally agree with putting down a book that isn’t working for you. You have no obligation, in most cases, to any book. It can be freeing to realize this if it’s not something that’s already obvious!)

[abecedarius]

Yes, this is an important point. OTOH the reality of human learning (spaced repetition, etc.) is that a book worth reading is probably worth reading again. Correspondingly you need some ruthlessness about dropping books that aren't panning out.