If it turns out that my reading rate is actually keeping ahead of the entry rate, on the other hand, then I can wait until the queue is down to a smaller level (5 items?) and then lower my mental threshold for adding items to the list. Which I’m not sure is completely impossible: I’ve modified my “visit the library” algorithm to include a pre-step of taking the oldest book or two on this queue, searching the library catalog for them, and putting in a hold or interlibrary loan request before necessary. (And then checking out one or two fewer books when I go to the library in person.) This means that, for better or for worse, my reading is now biased towards books that other people blog about. (So if you think I’d be interested in a book, don’t tell me, just blog about it!) Actually, then, maybe when the queue gets short, I’ll change my library visit algorithm to eliminate that bias? Or set up a special rss feed (using delicious or tada lists or something) for other book recommendations, that I could then subscribe to? So many possibilities, which is why I like thinking/talking about this sort of thing: queue management isn’t a static process at all.

Clearly, in that hypothetical case, “spend more time reading” is not going to achieve the goal of keeping the queue size under control. But the hypothetical isn’t so far-fetched. I think it’s safe to say that books you would want to read are being produced faster than you can read them, it’s just that technology has conspired to make you aware of them (ignorance was bliss?).

So maybe a better strategy is to find a way to reduce the queue size without reading everything in the queue.