Reading Novels

[jonereb]

How often, if ever, do you give up on a book within the first 100 pages? I don't like doing it. But as a saleperson at Books-A-Million told me, "there are too many good books out there." I gave up on two in the past year.

I mention this as a reminder to myself that a significant development needs to happen up front. Maybe not always. It depends on the genre and topic, I guess. But I confess, I'm drawn to books that hook me in the first chapter. I don't like to read 4 or 5 chapters to find out if there's a reason for this book to exist.

My question for you is this -- how far into a book do you read before you toss it?

[Julie Worth]

My question for you is this -- how far into a book do you read before you toss it?

To the first he thought to himself (or equivalent). I don't buy books anymore because I can't finish them. Ever since I became a novelist, the only books I can finish are my own, and those I read and reread until my eyes cross.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm not sure I have an answer. I read until I'm no longer interested in reading. Sometimes this is two pages, sometimes this is two hundred pages.

But I will say some of the best novels I've ever read had lousy first chapters, and some had lousy first one hundred pages.

[britwrit]

Four or five times a year. They're usually library books, so I get 50 pages in and decide to return it. If I don't like it, someone else probably will.

[Provrb1810meggy]

I read like 5-10 pages of a book, was heck of annoyed and bored by it, and stopped. Thankfully, it was free. I'm sort of notorious though for never finishing books, sometimes even ones I buy.

[CaroGirl]

I try to finish all the books I start. But even with that goal, I give up on about 1 or 2 books a year, on average. How far I get into those books varies depending on the novel.

[Jenan Mac]

There've been a couple I've quit on recently. One was a Christmas gift from my husband, and I wondered what on earth made him think it was my kind of book, and read about 75 pages in to figure it out. Only thing I can figure is he had me mixed up with his other wife or something.

[victoriastrauss]

I get a lot of books for review; I also like going to the library and taking out a big armful of whatever new books pique my interest. So I do a lot of book grazing, and I think I probably set aside as many books as I read all the way through.

Occasionally I can tell within 5-10 pages that I don't want to read something, but I usually give it at least 50 pages to grab me. If not, into the reject pile it goes. Life is too short, and the list of interesting books too long, to waste time on a book you don't like.

- Victoria

[doeraymee]

I gave up on a few last year. I usually read about 40 pages, but then I dip into the next few chapters and read the last few pages (hoping that it might get better). If it doesn't look any more promising, then I put it aside.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Let me put it to you this way, it's rarer for me nowadays to get past the first hundred pages and finish a book. I'd say out of 10 books, I might actually find one that keeps my interest long enough to finish it.

At the moment, I can't think of what the last book I finished was or how many months ago that was.

[veinglory]

If you include test browsing I skip over 90%. If you mean from books I bought, about 10%

[Judg]

I almost never give up on books unless they're offending me deeply and repeatedly. Mind you, the jacket blurb is usually enough to prevent me from getting into those.

I'm a very fast reader, though, and it is my practice to read any decent book a second time, right away, so I can catch all the setups and foreshadowing I missed the first time, as well as taking the time to savour the texture of certain passages now that I'm not so intent on getting to the next part. I'm reading more like a writer then, and the really good books will transfix me the second time also, so I still miss the technical details. I am finding that fewer books are enticing me into that second read now, because I'm reading more things I wouldn't have bothered with before, exploring writers outside of my normal tastes to see what I can learn from them. Perhaps only about 50% are managing to pull me all the way through a second read. Before it was more like 75-80%.

[PeeDee]

Like James, I just read until I lose interest. It's not anything conscious. It's just that I go to read, and the book I was trying to read is NOT the one I pick up. I pick up some old book I've read a milion times, or I pick up new novel and read that.

Sometimes, it's not that I've even abandoned a book, it just hasn't grabbed me so strongly as to hold my conscious attention. It's why, around the house, I have so many books with bookmarks in them

Usually, I eventuall come back and read them. It took me a year to finish Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, and it wasn't because I spent a year continuously reading the book

[Edward G]

I am such a harsh critic of fiction that I rarely finish a novel. Most are such garbage, I can't believe a publisher puts money into them. Even the good ones usually have some serious handicap (unrealistic dialogue, shallow characters, unrealistic or improperly motivated behavior, mixed POV within the same section, etc.). So, I often toss books in the trash before finishing them. My books may end up being no better. I hope that's not the case.

[CaroGirl]

I am such a harsh critic of fiction that I rarely finish a novel. Most are such garbage, I can't believe a publisher puts money into them. Even the good ones usually have some serious handicap (unrealistic dialogue, shallow characters, unrealistic or improperly motivated behavior, mixed POV within the same section, etc.). So, I often toss books in the trash before finishing them. My books may end up being no better. I hope that's not the case.
Wow, really? How do you choose which books to read? I'm a harsh critic as well, so I tend to peruse the list of literary award winners, read serious book reviews, and ask people whose opinion I trust for a recommendation. I'm pleased to say, I rarely make a bad choice, particularly if I'm buying instead of borrowing.

And don't throw books in the garbage. So many community libraries, schools, and even homeless shelters could use the books you so carelessly toss.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I'm not sure I have an answer. I read until I'm no longer interested in reading. Sometimes this is two pages, sometimes this is two hundred pages.

But I will say some of the best novels I've ever read had lousy first chapters, and some had lousy first one hundred pages.


That's about what my answer would be, also. I don't think there really is a solid answer to this question. I toss the book if I lose interest in it, no matter what page I'm on.

I hope this helps.

[Jamesaritchie]

I am such a harsh critic of fiction that I rarely finish a novel. Most are such garbage, I can't believe a publisher puts money into them. Even the good ones usually have some serious handicap (unrealistic dialogue, shallow characters, unrealistic or improperly motivated behavior, mixed POV within the same section, etc.). So, I often toss books in the trash before finishing them. My books may end up being no better. I hope that's not the case.

Odd. Very odd. You and I have opposite experiences and opinions. I'd think at least 90% of what's published is fair to good, and at least 10-15% is excellent. Why try writing them if you don't like reading them? Whatever your onion of quality, thsoe books you hate are what the reading public loves and wants more of.

[Gabriel]

I usually discover the sheer craptitude of a book within the first few pages. It's rare that I am fooled into reading a bad book further than this and when I am and I eventually realise, it's a very darth vader moment.

[finch]

I can count on one hand the number of times I've failed to finish a novel. Even the ones I just know are going to be execrable. There are several reasons for this.

One, I am a frighteningly fast reader. Not skimmer, reader. The average novel doesn't last more than a day or two in my clutches, so it doesn't cost me a lot in terms of time invested.

Two, for all I know there's a point of genius somewhere near the end, something that validates all the preceding tripe and puts it all into shocking, crystal clarity. I'd hate to miss that, and just because I can't think of a book that's ever done it doesn't mean they don't exist.

Three, even if it is horrid, someone paid money for it, and spent money on marketing and distribution for it. Someone, somewhere, made considerable effort to get it to sit prominently on a table at Borders. Even the most god-awful inarticulate crap has a lesson to teach if it's sitting on a shelf at a bookstore, and it behooves me to learn that lesson if I expect to write for a living.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I am such a harsh critic of fiction that I rarely finish a novel. Most are such garbage, I can't believe a publisher puts money into them.

This from the guy who thinks in 100 years Dan Brown will be listed among the classics. ;)

[CaroGirl]

This from the guy who thinks in 100 years Dan Brown will be listed among the classics. ;)
You're kidding? Did he really say that? I'm having trouble finding the time to keep up with the incredible volume of posts. It's funny because Angels and Demons is one of the two books I started and couldn't finish last year (it was appallingly awful, imo).

[aadams73]

I am such a harsh critic of fiction that I rarely finish a novel. Most are such garbage, I can't believe a publisher puts money into them.

Wow, that's hard to believe. I've read a lot of really great books lately. I don't always wants the same thing in a book and choose widely from various genre's. Just about every one has been a hit for me. You sure you're not browsing the bargain "bins" out behind Publish Americaca's office building?

[jbal]

I've only given up on one in the last year, and I was about 200 pages in. I read pretty fast, (about 100 pages an hour average?), and I try to finish everything. Especially sine I started writing it seems like at least I can learn something from a badly written novel, by trying to determine why it didn't work.

[JerseyGirl1962]

I think I've given up on about 3 books that I can remember.

One was a Neil Gaiman book I desperately wanted to like, as I enjoyed Neverwhere. I gave up after about the 4th chapter.

The 4th book in The World of Time saga - I read about 1/3 through and couldn't take Nynaeve's braid pulling anymore.

The 3rd book I gave up was an erotic, Native American-type book. It moved way too slowly for me, although I thought since I like a lot of Native-American myths, I would enjoy this. Nope. Just not my cuppa.

I've also pushed through on books I didn't completely enjoy; Ender's Game comes to mind, but there have been a few others. Like the one I'm reading now; it isn't out-and-out awful, but the writing is...weird. I actually liked the idea behind the book, and it's interesting and moves forward at a good pace...but I just can't seem to read more than a couple of pages at a sitting, and I'm a voracious reader. Give me a Stephanie Plum novel, and there's a good chance I'll finish it that day or in a couple of days. (Same thing with Jim Butcher's Dresden Files novels, which I finally discovered and ordered near the end of last year.)

As for trashing novels you can't stand...I second bringing them to a community center or the local library. Or how about the Paperback Swap website? I've mailed off a dozen or so books that were gathering dust in my house; at least now they're with good homes (I hope!).

~Nancy

[lfraser]

I almost never give up on a specific book, although I may give up on an author if more than one of his or her books fails to grab me. I can usually tell within a few pages whether I will like a book, so I spend a little time browsing before I actually plonk down cash, especially if I'm not familiar with the writer.

If a book I don't particularly like does get past my radar, I do try to spend a little time figuring out why I don't like it. It's all learning.

[Stew21]

The last one I didn't finish was a few years ago: Insomnia. It's just so long. I love Stephen King, but that book is just a monster to get through, and I got side-tracked, picked up something else and haven't looked back. I read even the bad ones. There's always something in them for me to learn from. (even if it is a turn of phrase or clever characterization, I can learn something from it.)
Hmm...wasn't because I didn't like Insomnia, it was just a big time commitment that I didn't want to get into, perhaps I'll go back to it and finish it?

[Azure Skye]

I read until I lose complete interest. I'll read even if I'm not really interested only to see if something is going to come along and interest me. I don't toss books aside lightly; I give 'em a good chance before I give up on them.

[Shadow_Ferret]

One, I am a frighteningly fast reader. Not skimmer, reader. The average novel doesn't last more than a day or two in my clutches, so it doesn't cost me a lot in terms of time invested.


Oh, if only... I am such a slow reader, even on my best days where I'm allowed to just sit and read and do nothing else, it'll still take me a few days to finish a book.

That's why I'm so quick to give up on a book if it doesn't grab me. I get antsy that I'm wasting so much of my life on something that might turn out to be awful.

Life is too short to spend it finishing books that don't grab you.

[jonereb]

I found that changing genres every book or two keeps them fresh. I learned the hard way not to read two books back to back by the same author. At least not that particular author. But I still occasionally give up on a book because it failed to grab me.

[jodiodi]

I'm a very fast reader as well. I used to average a book a day until I got married. Between work all day and spending quality time with the husband in the evening and trying to do my own writing, I've slowed considerably.

I usually won't buy a book unless I want to read it. I've found a few I got into and realized my dog thumping her tail on the keyboard could've turned out a better book, but I still finish them even if I have to skim the rest of the book.

Like in my writing, I don't even pretend to read 'Important' books (as defined by some group somewhere who compiles those lists to make the rest of us feel incredibly stupid because we 'just don't appreciate these massive tomes of wisdom'). I read to be entertained and to learn a story. That's pretty much it. If nothing else, I sometimes learn what not to do.

[BiggerBoat]

I usually will trudge through a book unless it's awful. At this stage, I read primarily to learn and secondly for entertainment. It's interesting to compare a book that I found somewhat boring that takes me a week or two to finish versus one that I sit down and roll through in a single sitting.

[glutton]

Does skimming through the rest (or until something grabs your interest again) count as giving up on a book?

[IrishScribbler]

I have yet to not finish a book I've started. It may take a while, but I finish.

[Isanthe]

It depends on my mood and how aversive I find the book. I just gave up on a book last week, and I'm over halfway through it. Others I give up on after 10-20 pages. I try to give every book a fair shot, and usually when I give up on one I try it again later.

All that said, I agree that there are too many books out there to wallow through one you don't enjoy.

[Del]

Oh, if only... I am such a slow reader, even on my best days where I'm allowed to just sit and read and do nothing else, it'll still take me a few days to finish a book.



Jeeze, if I can manage 20 pages a day, I'm doing good. I read a novel in a month. :(

I don't care about a hook. I like good writing. I'll keep reading for a lot of reasons, even if it is only to learn how not to write. What I will put down quickly is BS. If a writer is trying to convince me he knows more than I can credit him for, the book goes. I can't stand laziness in writing. If you load a gun from the wrong end (I heard about this one) or put an ignition switch in the wrong place (locking a steering column on a 62 chevy), then I know you didn't do your homework and thus, how can I trust anything you have written. I also don't like to feel like I'm reading your shortcuts; excessively convenient solutions. If you don't have time to write I certainly don't have time to read it.

A book starts as a lump of clay and it has to be shaped. If you give me lumps of words how can I possibly consider it art? Every word has a purpose and every scene has something to do with another. Sculpt it.

Writing doesn't have to be exciting to make me wonder what is on the next page. Keep me curious and I'm yours to THE END.

[PeeDee]

I read very quickly (a blessing, when you're in college). I read Misery in eight hours, spread across two days.

But that doesn't make me any more likely to whiz through a book I'm not interested in, I'm afraid... :)

[Shadow_Ferret]

Jeeze, if I can manage 20 pages a day, I'm doing good. I read a novel in a month. :(



That's my normal cycle. I have never managed to finish a library book in the allotted time. My fantasy scenario of finishing a book in a few days only occurs under the conditions that I might be given something like 10 hours per day of uninterrupted reading.

So no sad faces!

[IThinkICan29]

I'm one of those persistant passive agressive types so I read until I despise myself for putting up with whatever. Nine times out of ten, I suffer through it. But there's only been ONE book to make my "neva' eva' eva' again pile". The author is phenomenal, and has other works I love, but this particular book was just TOO much for me. Maybe when I grow up I'll be able to try reading it again.

[Jamesaritchie]

The last one I didn't finish was a few years ago: Insomnia. It's just so long. I love Stephen King, but that book is just a monster to get through, and I got side-tracked, picked up something else and haven't looked back. I read even the bad ones. There's always something in them for me to learn from. (even if it is a turn of phrase or clever characterization, I can learn something from it.)
Hmm...wasn't because I didn't like Insomnia, it was just a big time commitment that I didn't want to get into, perhaps I'll go back to it and finish it?


I love long books. The longer the better. You can't write a book too long for me. But like you, I hated Insomnia, and I love pretty much everything King writes. But even Stephen King calls Insomnia "A stiff, trying-too-hard novel.")

[Anonymisty]

But I will say some of the best novels I've ever read had lousy first chapters, and some had lousy first one hundred pages.

Exactly! Sometimes I stick with a book just because there's some undefinable quality that makes me keep going. And I end up loving the story.

I've also noticed that some books will appeal to me more depending on my mood. I received a copy of The Meq a few months ago, and couldn't force myself past the second chapter. I stuck it back on the shelf and read something else. Last week, in desperate need of something to read and no chance of going to the store or the library, I picked it up again...and finished the whole thing in two days. Go figure.

[jodiodi]

Well, I will say I have put down some books, now that I think about it. If there are animals in the books that look like they may be in peril or suffer in any way, I won't read the book. I'll skip through, read the very last page, and that's it. If the animal is still alive and well on the last page, I'll go back and finish the book; if not, I put the book down and never finish it no matter how much I liked it. I made the mistake of reading Cujo and bawled like a baby through the entire book, from the time the dog was bitten on the nose until the end. I became dehydrated. I just can't take that sort of thing. Now people, on the other hand ... no problems there.

[JerseyGirl1962]

Well, I will say I have put down some books, now that I think about it. If there are animals in the books that look like they may be in peril or suffer in any way, I won't read the book. I'll skip through, read the very last page, and that's it. If the animal is still alive and well on the last page, I'll go back and finish the book; if not, I put the book down and never finish it no matter how much I liked it. I made the mistake of reading Cujo and bawled like a baby through the entire book, from the time the dog was bitten on the nose until the end. I became dehydrated. I just can't take that sort of thing. Now people, on the other hand ... no problems there.

I know exactly where you're coming from. There was one book I read where the MC had a dog that pretty much took care of him; something bad happened to the dog early on, although the dog survived. However, the dog died at the end. I cried my eyes out, and I haven't been able to read anything by that particular author since.

That scenario reared its head in a movie I saw last year, Eight Below. I thought it would be light and fluffy, about northern breed dogs (of which I have two). It was not light and fluffy. I cried throughout the entire thing, squeezing my husband's hand the entire time. When I got home, I hugged and hugged my two Malamutes endlessly; both of them must've thought I was crazy.

Heck, I can't even watch that one SPCA series on Animal Planet; the thought of animals purposefully starved or beaten makes me sick.

Human beings, on the hand, meh... :tongue

~Nancy

[jodiodi]

That's the reason I never watched Eight Below. I heard it had tragedy and I firmly refused to watch it.

[PeeDee]

Heck, I can't even watch that one SPCA series on Animal Planet; the thought of animals purposefully starved or beaten makes me sick.

Human beings, on the hand, meh... :tongue

~Nancy

I'm exactly the same way. My wife used to watch that show, and I would be a raging maniac for the rest of the night.

[Jamesaritchie]

Exactly! Sometimes I stick with a book just because there's some undefinable quality that makes me keep going. And I end up loving the story.

I've also noticed that some books will appeal to me more depending on my mood. I received a copy of The Meq a few months ago, and couldn't force myself past the second chapter. I stuck it back on the shelf and read something else. Last week, in desperate need of something to read and no chance of going to the store or the library, I picked it up again...and finished the whole thing in two days. Go figure.

Sometimes it works just this way. There have been several novels I couldn't finish, and thought I hated, but when I tried them again weeks or months or years later, I couldn't put them down.

Don't know if my tastes sometimes change with age, or if I'm suffering from early onset Alzheimers, but sometimes it works just this way.

[alaskamatt17]

I've finished most of the books I started. The only ones I can remember giving up on are A Tale of Two Cities and Lord of the Flies, both of which I feel guilty about not liking, since everybody else seems to.

I didn't finish Harry Turtledove's Into the Darkness series, but I managed to make myself finish the first book.

[arrowqueen]

I always used to finish anythng I started, but either life's getting shorter or my attention span's getting shorter.

Now I read only until I reach the point where I no longer care whether the hero/heroine is beamed up by aliens or run over by a combine-harvester.

[Melanie Nilles]

I gave up on a book a couple months ago after 30 pages (2 chapters) into it. It could have been good if the technical details had been clearer and one of the characters hadn't been such an unlikable a$$ that every scene with him put me off. Luckily, BN accepted it as a return without too much question, especially since it didn't look "read". I figured, what better way to tell the writer and publisher it wasn't that good than to speak with my dollars?

Melanie

[a tree of night]

I have no qualms about not finishing a book I don't like for whatever reason. It somewhat depends on the book itself and the way I started reading it in the first place, though. If I just picked up a book myself, because I thought it looked interesting or had some deserving accalim, I'll stop reading it at if :

* it bores me. I'll usually give it maybe 20% of the total pages before giving up. If it seems like it should be a far more interesting story than the start is indicating, I may skip ahead and if I find that more engaging, I'll start over from the beginning. If not, it's back to the used bookstore.

* it offends me. There aren't a whole lot of subjects that offend me and the ones that would I can usually figure out before I read the book. If the guy on the cover with a sheet and hood over his head isn't a ghost, I'm probably not buying it in the first place. I do get offended by particularly bad or generic writing. I also get offended by certain writing techniques, particularly in mystery or horror. There's a fine line between keeping something mysterious by using POV and filtering information and by downright lying to the reader. If you lie to me to create an effect (other than first person narratives that have a reason to lie), you're going directly to the trade-in box.

* I just don't like it, for whatever reason, usually a combination of style and plot. Unless there's something specific bothering me, I'll try to weather it through about 20% and then I may trade it in or reshelve it for another try in the future.

* I'm not in the mood. Sometimes, I just don't feel like reading a certain type of book and the one I picked up wasn't what I thought it would be. It'll just go back on the shelf until I'm in a different mood, though. I'll usually read about 10% before I decide it's not the right time.

If a book was recommended to me by a large number of people or one person whose judgement I trust or is an accepted "classic", I have a different standard :

* if it bores me, I'll still read it all the way through, if the recommendation was strong enough. Far From the Madding Crowd goes in that category. I had a lot of trouble getting started with it, but it was recommended by someone who both has excellent recommendations and knows my taste well, so I stuck with it. It wasn't until I finished it that I felt it was worth it and I still can't quite put my finger on why.

* if it offends me, I'm pretty much done no matter what the recommendation. Never got past the first chapter of any of the Harry Potter books.

* if I just don't like it, I'll go as far as I can stand (maybe 30-40%), reshelve it, and try again later. I think this happens most often with works in translation. I've tried Remembrance of Things Past three times now with not much success, but it's still on the shelf.

* not in the mood. I'll probably force myself to read it anyway.

[victoria.goddard]

I don't usually buy books unless I (a) have already read them and know I will read them again, (b) have loved everything else I've read by the author and it's new, (c) discover a classic (however defined!) I've been meaning to read for years and have finally found, or (d) am in a second-hand bookstore and browsing and willing to try new things. If I like said book I'll probably go look for the new ones by the author.

I read very quickly; I once read the entirety of The Lord of the Rings in about ten hours, one sitting. However, for every new book I read I probably re-read about four, and once I get a new one I like it goes into the re-reading section of my books--they're organised alphabetically at the moment, but they used to be organised by 'books I have read all the way through', 'books I have not read at all', 'books not to be read straight through (ie, dictionaries)', and 'books I have read part of'. If I bought it, it stays on my shelves until I read it all the way through. If I read it and don't like it--if I can find nothing redeeming in it that I can possibly imagine wanting to read again--it goes to my parents' basement for a while. Next time they move the books I have not read nor thought of since I moved out will probably find their way to a charity or second-hand store. Except for the ones I look at, go, "Do I really have this? I'd forgotten all about it!" or "I wonder if this is any good if you're over the age of twelve" and read again.

As far as giving up on books, they have to be really bad, or annoy me quite considerably. (Or creep me out. But then I steer clear of horror quite consciously, since it gives me nightmares, so it's not in the same category.) Usually they just sit on my shelves until I eventually read them. "Giving up" usually means I've had to return it to the library unfinished, or that I got distracted by something else and haven't picked it up again. So there are still a number of books in my "Have read part of" category. But one of my goals this year is to read every single book I own that will reward sustained reading (so not the dictionaries), so hopefully I will get there.

But I did give up on Salman Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet last summer, for two reasons: 1) Because I felt like I was being patronised incessantly, and (2) because my WIP is also a retelling of the story of Orpheus and Eurydice and I kept thinking I liked mine better. It therefore went back to the library. But I might, once the WIP is completed, go back to it and see what he did with the rest of it. You never know what jewels might be waiting.

[Del]

(2) because my WIP is also a retelling of the story of Orpheus and Eurydice and I kept thinking I liked mine better.

:D

[Jamesaritchie]

I've tried Remembrance of Things Past three times now with not much success, but it's still on the shelf.
.

This was one I had a terrible time getting into, but once I did, on about the fourth try, I fell madly in love. Now it's something I read again every few years.

I have the seven volume set, and it's a lot of reading, but well worth it, once I fell in love.

[Edward G]

Wow, really? How do you choose which books to read? I'm a harsh critic as well, so I tend to peruse the list of literary award winners, read serious book reviews, and ask people whose opinion I trust for a recommendation. I'm pleased to say, I rarely make a bad choice, particularly if I'm buying instead of borrowing.

And don't throw books in the garbage. So many community libraries, schools, and even homeless shelters could use the books you so carelessly toss.

I don't read literary fiction. Literary fiction may be better than genre fiction in some ways, but fails in others, usually with long passages of boring text.

As for throwing books away: I paid for them, I can do whatever I want with them. Besides, why should I force a bad book on a homeless bum. They have it hard enough.

[farfromfearless]

I have a few trusted sources when it comes to opinions in various genres and so my book purchases are rarely ever bad. Though I can think of one exception with Riddle-Master of Hed by Patricia A. McKillip. That is one book I could not even get through the first few pages - it should have been named "Blow your Hed off Riddle-Master"

[Nicole_Gestalt]

In the past month i've read 16 novels, of all different genres. I really enjoy trying out new things and so tend to push my way through a book even if at first I don't like it, sometimes it takes a little while for a book to get going so I always read all the way through. I have also along the way discovered some great authors I wouldn't have read otherwise and found an interest in some new genres some of which i'm now thinking of attempting to write in.

The reason i'm able so many however is because I read fast, I can usually finish a book off in a couple of days no problem.

[seun]

The only book I've given up on recently was The Lovely Bones. I kept waiting for something to happen after the first few chapters and got bored by around page 100. My girlfriend said it was great but it wouldn't work for me.

As for the comment about Dan Brown being on the classics list in a 100 years...:D

[Inkdaub]

Well I read until I don't want to anymore. Usually I will just put a mark inside and reshelve the thing...come back later maybe. Very rarely a book will bother me so much that will take it back to the shop and trade it in. The most recent example was a book called 'Gardens of the Moon' by Steven Erickson. I made it about a hundred pages in before asking myself...what am I doing here?

[Raphee]

I normally do not give up reading a book as a habit. Once in a while I'll come across a book that just does not match my mood; even though the book is good and I just give up.
Sometimes I start a book that does not hold my attention and is badly written inspite of it being a bestseller or something of the sort. I give up at that point. This might happen once a year.
I have found out though that some books with lousy starts end up great and that is why I totally disagree with the hook theory or a great first chapter or a great first five lines.
Treat a novel like a novel. Otherwise read short stories.

[Jamesaritchie]

This from the guy who thinks in 100 years Dan Brown will be listed among the classics. ;)

God, that's a horrible thought.

[jodiodi]

At the risk of sounding completely inane, I feel I must speak up for the 'common' reader.

All these comments about how bad popular fiction may be, especially the Dan Brown hatin', make me feel like I'm missing something. His books may not be written in perfect literary style, but they've entertained a lot of folks, apparently. I read both DC and A&D and for me it was like going to an amusement park and enjoying the rides. I didn't read for beauty of language or grammatical brilliance. I just wanted to escape for a few hours. My favorite parts of the books involved the works of art that I'd have never given much thought; but after reading about them, I looked them up on the internet and found the different interpretations he mentioned to be an interesting diversion.

The same goes for John Grisham, Dean Koontz, and many other popular authors who've been cast in a less-than-favorable light. If the great majority of people read their work and enjoy it, does that mean the majority of people are ignorant? I don't think so.

"Great literature" is determined by subjective standards. What one person thinks is great, such as Rememberance of Things Past, someone else may find incredibly dull, ponderous and boring. It's the same with movies: 'important films' can either be intellectually stimulating or snooze-fests. Just because a movie or book is popular, many critics and literati translate that to mean 'appeals to the lowest common denominator'. Well, yeah, it does. So what? The 'lowest common denominator' means there's something about the work that a group of readers/viewers has in common and makes them want to read/see what we put out.

I'm simply trying to say there's nothing wrong with producing something popular. We don't write in a vacuum or only write for other writers to read. At least I don't; but as I've said before, I just want to write things that someone will find enjoyable and entertaining.

Thus endeth my pitiful attempt at philosophic discourse.

[PeeDee]

"great literature" is a mug's game. It's not for any of us to determine (and a silly thing to worry about).

Great literature is someone else's problem, and he's probably a college professor.

If I bash Dan Brown, it's because I personally do not like him. That's it. I'm not declaring him classical literature, or NOT declaring him classical literature.

[jodiodi]

"great literature" is a mug's game. It's not for any of us to determine (and a silly thing to worry about).

Great literature is someone else's problem, and he's probably a college professor.

If I bash Dan Brown, it's because I personally do not like him. That's it. I'm not declaring him classical literature, or NOT declaring him classical literature.

I agree. And as for classical literature, the only 'classical' lit I can think of may be Plato, Aristotle, Homer, et. al.

[CaroGirl]

As for throwing books away: I paid for them, I can do whatever I want with them. Besides, why should I force a bad book on a homeless bum. They have it hard enough.
Maybe you should try burning them. I hear that worked out well for the Nazis.

I have a reverential relationship with books. I have frankly never heard of anyone destroying books and am horrified by the thought. Perhaps I shouldn't be.

[PeeDee]

As for throwing books away: I paid for them, I can do whatever I want with them. Besides, why should I force a bad book on a homeless bum. They have it hard enough.

"Hey, Mister, can I have some of that steak?"

"Are you kidding? I paid for it. I'm going to throw it away. Besides, it's got a bunch of fat around the edges, you wouldn't like it much. Now, off to your park bench, there's a good chap."

[a tree of night]

This was one I had a terrible time getting into, but once I did, on about the fourth try, I fell madly in love. Now it's something I read again every few years.

I have the seven volume set, and it's a lot of reading, but well worth it, once I fell in love.

I'm told that it's a much better read in French, but that doesn't really help me. Maybe the fourth time will be the charm.

[jodiodi]

I read Candide and Madame Bovary in French and they seemed pretty much the same when I read them in English. Maybe it just sounds better in French.

[a tree of night]

At the risk of sounding completely inane, I feel I must speak up for the 'common' reader.

...If the great majority of people read their work and enjoy it, does that mean the majority of people are ignorant? I don't think so.

..."Great literature" is determined by subjective standards.
I think that, as with all things, you need to make a distinction between what you like and what has artistic value. There's nothing wrong with writing or reading things that have minimal literary merit simply because they are enjoyable. However, if you do not evaluate what you are reading on any level beyond "I like this" and "I don't like this", I feel you are doing both yourself and the work a disservice. Similarly, just because you don't enjoy a particular work, that doesn't mean you can't appreciate it (or aspects of it).

I don't believe that great literature is subjective. I believe that what is labelled and marketed and widely accepted as great literature is subjective.

[jodiodi]

But 'great' is a subjective term. One person's 'great' is another's 'mundane'.

Also, who determines the artistic value of anything? Value is set by the buyer and the seller. I was at an antique auction where a Tiffany lamp sold for over $15,000 and I thought it so ugly I would have moved to get away from it if it were in my house. To me it had no artistic value. To the purchaser, it had at least $15,000 worth of artistic value. Any sort of value is subjective and determined by each person involved.

[Jamesaritchie]

At the risk of sounding completely inane, I feel I must speak up for the 'common' reader.

All these comments about how bad popular fiction may be, especially the Dan Brown hatin', make me feel like I'm missing something. His books may not be written in perfect literary style, but they've entertained a lot of folks, apparently. .

Entertainment is a grand thing, but entertainment alone means nothing. Prostitutes and drug dealers have also entertained a great many people. So has porn. Probably a lot more than Dan Brown. My problem with Brown's books are partly that I think they're horribly written, and I know they aren't honest. He doesn't even write what he believes, and I think dishonesty always shows through.

It will be the common reader who determines whether Dan Browm lasts or not, but it will not be today's common reader. It just doesn't work this way. The common reader gets it right in the long run, but I don't think anyone would argue that they always get it right, or that the common reader has elevated some real crap into bestseller status.

Fortunately, in teh long run, the common reader throws away the crap.

I have the highest respect for the common reader, but I have little respect for the hot topic of the day, and this is all Dan Brown has ever been.

[a tree of night]

People determine the value of things to themselves and pass off that valuation to others. I believe that actual artistic value is inherent in the work itself and independent of the reader, viewer, whatever. Just my opinion, though. Don't take it too seriously. ;)

[illiterwrite]

As for throwing books away: I paid for them, I can do whatever I want with them. Besides, why should I force a bad book on a homeless bum. They have it hard enough.

:Wha:

[jodiodi]

Entertainment is a grand thing, but entertainment alone means nothing. Prostitutes and drug dealers have also entertained a great many people. So has porn. Probably a lot more than Dan Brown. My problem with Brown's books are partly that I think they're horribly written, and I know they aren't honest. He doesn't even write what he believes, and I think dishonesty always shows through.

snipped for brevity

I have the highest respect for the common reader, but I have little respect for the hot topic of the day, and this is all Dan Brown has ever been.

Prostitutes may be considered 'artists' by some who enjoy their work. Drug dealers aren't artists themselves so much as they provide the means for artistic expression (for those who like that sort of thing).

As for Mr. Brown, I know absolutely nothing about him and, frankly, don't care. I don't need to know an author, director, actor, muscician, artist, etc., to like or dislike the product. Like most 'common' readers, I just look at the question: Was I entertained? If so, fine. If not, then the product has no value to me whatsoever.

And entertainment has many meanings as well. Did I enjoy it? Did I learn anything from it? Did it set my mind on a path to considering ideas I'd never pondered in the past? Those and other questions help determine what 'entertainment' is to each individual audience member.

Again, it's just my ridiculous opinion and no serious intellectual should take note of it.

[TLHines]

I have no qualms about giving up on books that don't hook me--maybe a couple dozen each year, all told. A few I might come back to later and try to pick up (I think I've started Jonathan Safran Foer's "Everything is Illuminated" at least half a dozen times, but have yet to make it past page 50), but most will remain forever unread. And that's okay, because I can always find stuff I DO enjoy.

I don't feel it's a pronouncement on the books in question; like James above, I tend to feel most published novels, by and large, are well-written (I'll be the first to admit Safran Foer, for instance, is a rather brilliant and inventive stylist). It's just a matter of whether they appeal to my interests, needs, wants and likes.

[Del]

I agree. And as for classical literature, the only 'classical' lit I can think of may be Plato, Aristotle, Homer, et. al.

By your own admission, that is subjective. And I wholly agree. Great literature isn't a plateau to be reached, it is an illusion. If the collective you think it is great then it is great. If I don't then I am somehow lesser than you. No. Not to me. I just didn't buy into the illusion. I don't believe just because I am told to believe. Great is personal, nothing more.

The majority are average...Duh, you say...but what is average? Certainly not University class literature professors. Most people have a high school education or less. You can write for the elite, for the sake of their respect if that is what matters to you.

If you want the big bucks you have to reach the masses and they are simple people.

The average is the audience that these books you deprecate are ideally written for. That isn't to say there is no such thing as a bad book, unless you believe that every book finds an audience, which is plausible. Is there a book that no one on the planet enjoyed? There are lesser successes. But if I reach an audience that most failed to reach, isn't that a success?

I don't read Dean Koontz. I've put down more of his books than any others. Winter Moon literally had me flinging the book across the room in a rage. How could anyone publish that garbage. Other people loved it. I could point out screw ups and shortcuts all day. To me he was lazy. He failed to research and he failed to be creative.

Then I had to ask, why was I angry? Because I liked his writing. If I could believe his stories I would love the books. It was so easy to see where the story(s) failed. But look at how popular it was. There are enough people that don't see or don't care that he is ranked among the top writers. He doesn't write for me.

Most writers don't write for me. But they write for someone. I don't bash writers anymore. I hold onto that phrase; they don't write for me. That also means that I will write for someone. And that makes me feel great.

[Nyna]

When I was a kid my mom always told me that I should get 100 pages into a book before I gave up, and when I was a kid, that's what I did.

Of course, those were the days when I could read one or even two thick novels a day, and had serious issues with dealing with reality. Now that I'm a little older and coming closer to being well-adjusted, I read less and am more comfortable with giving up a book before I reach that 100 page marker.

Usually, I give up books slowly and uncomfortably. I'll put the book down and promise myself I'll pick it up later and not start another novel until I've finished it, and then a week later, having only ever glared at it sideways while making up excuses for why I simply didn't have time to read anymore, I'll give up and start a new book.

Sometimes, of course, I'll hit a spot in a book where I'll know I just can't stomach anymore, and then I give it up guilt-free, which is always nice. (The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things, for example, was put down about two chapters in with a sigh of relief. That was, by the by, the only book I ever came close to actually throwing away when I couldn't inflict it on other people. I couldn't do it, though, and hid it in the depths of my closet, where it remains to this day. I'll figure out what to do with it eventually.)

The only book I ever put down because I liked it too much was The Once and Future King. I'd been having a really bad month, I got right up to the end of it all -- and I said, no way. I know how this ends, and I don't want to read it. A couple years later, when my mental health was a little more evenly balanced, I finished it. And yeah, it broke my heart.