I was quite the reader when I was a child. I couldn't get enough of books. Somehow I was the kid reading aloud to my kindergarten class while my teacher graded our coloring scribbles. I had a book reading contest with Jed and Ryan in 1st grade and managed to read 700+ books in the school year.
Of course as time went on, other things took over my leisure time and by college, forget reading books. Now that I work in magazines, I've counted close to 20 that I read monthly, and my Netflix queue is ever growing. Even if I watch 2 movies each week, it's still going to take me more than 2 years to just get through the present list. I'd say it's probably my favorite medium of media and books have fallen down the list.
For some reason though, I really felt the urge to read The Namesake before seeing it in theaters. I didn't read Jhumpa Lahiri's best-known Interpreter of Maladies, but I sought this one out in a couple bookstores before I actually found it. I rushed through it in a few days, mostly eager to get to the movie before it disappears from theaters (and I was excited for some Kal Penn live action). Last night I finally got to see it, and what do you know? The book version of anything will still always win over a movie adaptation. Why couldn't I just remember this fact? Harry Potter books - movies are good, but books are better. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - classic movie, but I still think the book is better. DaVinci Code - book wins. Jane Austen novels - always better than the 59 movie versions of each book. There are hundreds of examples, but the bottom line is maybe I should have a book queue that's two years long and only watch a movie every month or so.