Giving up.

When do you give up on a book? Is it after a certain number of pages?

I am trying to read The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton and
may have to give up. It won and received so many accolades that
I feel like I am missing something.

When do you give up on a book? Is it after a certain number
of pages? The Luminaries is so slow that I am ready
to give up in spite of all the accolades.

With respect to nonfiction I simply plow my way through. With respect to fiction, I balance writing style against plot development. With clean lucid prose, and good character development, I can patiently await for a plot to emerge. With poor writing, a fantastic plot better capture me within the first 20 pages or I am through. Faulkner and Joyce can lose me quickly. Hemingway, I can abide.

I don't. If it interested me enough to pick it up, I read it. On rare occasion I may set something aside to pick up later because it just isn't jiving with me at the moment, but it's not "given up on."

I loosely follow the Pearl rule. If a book isn't grabbing me in the first fifty pages or so, I'll give it up and move on. There are just too many books I want to read.

I do have some pet peeves that make me give up on a book right away. An author who doesn't use quotation marks, for instance. I can recall at least three separate times when I've given up on a book with this conceit after reading only one page. However, I do make exceptions for even that (*cough* Cormac McCarthy *cough*) and the exceptions are made for those authors whose writing is so compelling that they keep me reading despite their lack of appropriate punctuation.

It depends on the book. For a longer one, if it doesn't grab me in the first 100 pages or so, I give up. I'll also give up if it takes me too long to finish it--if I can't remember when I started reading it or why I'm pushing so hard at it, I usually give up. That's only happened once of twice, though--usually it's the 100-page rule. For shorter books I often just push through, or give them a proportional deadline.

Sometimes I give up temporarily. For example, I love Three Guineas and Les Misérables, but we have been going along for quite some time and I need a break.

Sometimes I give up when the book has made the point (possibly true for Three Guineas) and there is nothing to be gained by reading further, such as True Compass: a Memoir.

Sometimes I just can't get into the book within about 50 pages, e.g. Reading Lolita in Tehran and The Joy Luck Club. These I may try again someday.

I do not like to do this, but sometimes ya gotta do what ya gatta do.

Usually, I give a book about 50-100 pages. If the book still hasn't pulled me in by then, I will probably give up. Sometimes I continue a bit longer, for instance if it's for a challenge, but even then I won't continue indefinitely. I've also given up on books after just one or two pages, however, when the writing didn't appeal to me.

I used to obsessively read any book to the end no matter how much I hated it, but the time constraints of being an adult and a growing "To Read" list mean that I no longer do that. I'll usually give a book about 100 pages before I'll give up (The Crimson Petal and the White for example just didn't do anything for me after that amount of reading) but I've been known to give up after less than that. It does take quite a strong dislike for a book to make me give up though.

It depends on how much I'm not enjoying the book and what it is I'm not enjoying about it.

With an audio book - if it's the narrator that isn't working for me, I give up within a disk or two, but that doesn't mean I won't try the actual book again later. If it's by an author I've struggled with before I give up (an example of this would be The Dark Road by Ma Jian - I'd previously read Red Dust and had found myself struggling to connect with the writer's style despite being interested in the subject matter but had made it through to the end, so when the same seemed to be happening with TDR, I decided to give up and find something else to read instead).

With a non-fiction book - again it depends. Firstly on why I'm reading it - if it is something I need to know more about - then I'll struggle on. If it is something that the subject matter is interesting but the text is making unmanageable rather than giving insight, then I'll give up and look for a different book on the same subject. If it's something where the subject matter is hard to deal with then I'll read on, but in limited chunks.

With a fiction book it basically depends on how much I dislike it - most I will try to get to the end of the book The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo would be a good example of that - I almost skimmed to the end, but then gave the two sequels away without trying them because I really had had enough, no matter what other people told me about how good it was - it was not my thing. If the book is short or will provide an insight to a style/period/genre I try to persist Big Planet was one I did that with the other day. Generally though it depends how much I'm disliking it but generally I try to finish, but there are too many books to read and too little time for me to make myself truly unhappy by insisting I finish every book I'm not enjoying and feeling invested in.

#1

A reliable rule to use is Pareto's Law of 80/20.

If by 20% of the book you are unsatisfied, there is an 80% chance that you will remain so if you keep at it.

Giving yourself 20% is in most cases a fair go doing justice to both author and reader.

Best Wishes.

I give up when I realize I'm getting more pain or boredom than satisfaction from a book. Not necessarily "pleasure," because some non-fiction can be satisfying but not pleasurable.

The last book I abandoned was Emma Donoghue's Frog Music. I was listening to it, and just didn't like it. Others have loved it, and I don't often give up, but my thoughts were "nasty people, who cares?"

I almost gave up on the fluffy Beauty Queens by Libba Bray because the beginning was so silly, but in the end, I loved it. Maybe I would have loved Frog Music too if I'd stuck with it.

I don't have any rules. It's often not even a conscious decision. It's more a matter of putting a book down from reading and then never picking it up again.

EDIT: unless it's an Early Reviewer book. I finish those, sometimes against my inclination.

>12 TooBusyReading: "nasty people, who cares?" I take that view as well. There seems to be much of that in popular fiction nowadays, which is one of the reasons I prefer older fiction. I realized that I wouldn't want to spend time with them in real life, why subject my reading time to them. Not that what I read is all lightness and fluff. Sometimes there is a point to disagreeable characters.

The older I get, the easier it is to abandon a book that just isn't working for me. Lots of what I order from the library is just what someone on LT made to sound interesting. Vive la différence, eh?

No rules here either, per se.

If I don’t feel like I’m using my time well, I’ll ditch the book. It’s not always about enjoyment or entertainment, sometimes it’s learning or pushing my mental boundaries. Psycho/sociopaths aside, I don’t need characters to be likable, but I do need them to be interesting.

Sometimes I keep going even though I’m not enjoying the experience. Usually it’s because the book is one that garnered a lot of praise or one where there are some enjoyable/interesting moments, but the whole isn’t working. I’ll keep at it to see if it connects with me eventually and I understand what made everyone else love it. The writing has to be strong here and so does either characterization or plot. If I can see an author is trying, sometimes I keep reading out of stubbornness. Occasionally it pays, but mostly it doesn’t so I’ve learned to recognize the signs early and I have no qualms about calling it quits.

I will also give up a book if it is boring. But "boring" has little to do with any specific complaint--"nasty" characters or too much description or too "literary" or too "lyrical." It is more about whether I think the writer has anything interesting to say. If not, the book is boring and I put it down.

But that is an assessment of my own state of mind as much as it is an assessment of the book in question.

Usually if I'm not going to finish reading a book, it's because I never actually start reading it. It's much harder for a book to get out of the "must-read" pile and into my actual hands and under my nose than for me to give it the couple of hours to finish it. But of course, I have a pretty restrictive "must-read" pile to begin with, and that helps.

Another way is to subtract your age from 100 and that's the number of pages you read before you decide. Not sure what happens once you hit 100, though.

The only ones I permanently give up on are the low-brow, guilty-pleasure kind; the books I started reading only because they were supposed to be fun and then turned out not to be. If candy tastes terrible, the whole point is gone.

If it's a classic or something much acclaimed, I'll see it through to the end no matter what so I can fully form my opinion, even if it takes multiple tries. Veggies aren't always pleasant, but there's other benefits.

I'll see it through to the end no matter what so I can fully form my opinion
That's my take as well, though I extend it to cover everything. Granted I can count the number of times on one hand, with fingers to spare, that any light reading has made me even think twice about why I was reading it, so it's not like I'm saying I often force myself read unimportant fic. Honestly I can probably think of maybe twice when I would have even vaguely considered abandoning one. There's been a handful more classics, but yeah, I don't feel right quitting those, then I can't properly comment on them. Even if my end opinion is still "this sucked, why is it highly regarded??" I can at least rest easy knowing that opinion is based on more than a measly few pages and is substantiated by the full rest of the content.

I really hate to quit something I started, case in point, Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, which by the time I finished I asked myself, "Why did I waste my life's precious moments on THAT"? However, now that I'm 60, I really am trying to firstly pick great reads and secondly value my time. In the past 20 years I can count on 1 hand the books that I quit before finished. The last one was just last month when I tried to read Born to Rule: Five Reigning Consorts, Granddaughters of Queen Victoria. There were so many German, Russian, etc., relatives with the same titles, same names, that I was confused as to whom belonged to whom. I was all set to abandon the book get it out of the house. However, somebody suggested that I copy a good family tree of Queen Victoria's and try to tackle it again. A great idea and I'm going to search for that tree right now!

Much like several posters, I hate to quit something I start. I finish it and ask why oh why did I not let this go. There are a few books that just got the heave before being finished. As bad as they are, I cannot remember any at the moment, but I will update this when I do. For the previous post, I enjoyed The Sun Also Rises. I cannot call it my favorite work, but I enjoyed it.

10 pages is enough for me. My time's too precious to waste on anything that can't get me in 10 pages. I was reading way before the Internet came along so it's not about shortening attention spans. An author's job is to make me want to read and I haven't got time to mess about with clever literary devices or weird tenses (hence Hilary Mantel fails my 10 page rule due to her weird tenses.)

One hundred pages.
If it does not hold my interest by the time I reach that hundredth page it is done.
Put the book away forever.

I read 2-3 books a week. Anymore, I will not continue with a book that is disappointing as in lousy writing, or themed as so many are these days with low lives, violence, drugs, dysfunctional families and people....very predictable stuff. I most often read non-American authors to get away from this standard novel formula.
Having said that, I do give a book a good try as I really do hate not finishing.

Sometimes I finish a really awful book just so I can give a qualified review on it - so other people don't waste their time, although there have been occasions where I do simply give up. I don't think it requires any set number of pages to know if you will be able to finish. With fiction things that irk me: poor plot, bad characters ( and I don't mean evil, mean-spirited - I mean poor character development and poor writing style. I generally stay away from contemporary fiction for that reason. The classics are wonderful! Some of them get bad ratings from me, but for very specific reasons. Also, with non-fiction - presentation is everything. If it is a subject that appeals to me, there is no reason to give up. I would rather scan and skip segments than totally give up.

I rarely give up books on purpose. For me to give up each additional word must be like fingernails on a blackboard.

I do put books down and forget to come back to them though. My currently-reading list is very fluid. I read dozens of books at the same time, and I will often put a book down and not pick it up again for months. I can take years to finish a lengthy book. I expect I abandon as many or more as people with a page number rule, but I have no idea which ones I've abandoned and which ones I'm getting back to eventually.

Every once and a while I try to make a list and finish what I've started and remember, but it doesn't work.

I feel I need to read 15% of the pages of a book to give it a fair chance. If it hasn't "grabbed" me by that time, I put it down.

I see many have a number-of-pages rule. Well, it's less precise for me. If I am reading and suddenly think "I can't stand this" then that's it. Sometimes in the past this has happened well past half-way through (just about happened on a re-reading of Catch 22).

Even then, on a re-reading of Fahrenheit 451 (60 years later) I wasn't more than 5 pages in when I thought that thought...'I can't stand this'... yet I slogged though it to the bitter end (what were all those accolades about so long ago?).

I see so many readers here I wish I could reach! Such great comments.

Being a reviewer, and 90% of what I read is to be reviewed, I take much longer than I would like. But if I get bad writing, paragraphs that look like posts instead of literature, and gobs of silly nonsense, I'm done. There is just this obligation to finish when you take on a book to review. It is amazing how interesting a synopsis can be, and how it describes such a wonderful sounding plots, and then it falls apart before 5 pages have been read.

More often than I'd like, I scream, "People get an editor." I am talking children's books for age 0 to 12, not heavy writing/reading, but the same problems exist, maybe more so. Many people think they can write a kids book that would never, ever consider an adult book. Children's books are not easier. There are many special rules.

In my personal reading, I give it two chapters, three if feeling charitable, and then it is done. I just do not have the patience to read a bad book. Bad can mean anything, but for me when I think it is bad I shut it and take it back to the library or give it away.

I try to be very selective in what I read. If the author is unknown to me, I will first read excerpts from amazon.com to judge the quality of writing. I almost always finish what I start. The few exceptions have been due to poor narrative skills and shallowness of characterization.

I try to get through at least a third of the book, just to give it a chance to impress me. I also ask myself whether I will bother rereading the book or not. If not, then it's not worth a first read. Too many other books to read and my time is precious.

It will depend. If I have received the book free from the author or publisher then I will do my best to read all of it to make an informed review. Otherwise if I haven't gotten interested by 20 percent then there is a good chance I will stop reading.

There should be no rules. To me, books are tools to expand one's experience vicariously in terms of both knowledge and experience. I read very little fiction now, although I did quite a bit as a teen. To me, non-fiction is more interesting that anything an author can make up. That being said, I try to read 20 to 25 books at a time. What that means is that I've got these 25 books on my desk for easy access. In practical reality, it means that in most weeks I am going back and forth between four and six books and occasionally reading parts of one of the remaining 20 or so. Doing this, I get through between 75 and 125 books/year. Reading non-fiction is tough, intellectual work. It's similar to a workout for your physical health except it's for your brain. Different books/topics are like one type of exercise. You wouldn't expect to spend all your time on one. So, for me, there are many types of books I think can/should be part of a simultaneous reading schema. Some books I read rather quickly, some over several months and some over years when I suddenly remember something about it and I want to pick it up again. Many books can be skimmed and milked of 90% of their content quickly without much loss if not read in detail. Others take far more effort. My bottom line is that if a particular book is boring you and keeping you from reading as much as you'd really like to do, then either put it down for a while and take a break from it with another book or forget about it. The idea that you have to finish a book once started is crazy--don't feel guilty if you don't like something that has been given awards, etc. That's like saying that you have to marry someone after a first date! Of course, I also like to highlight books and take notes, etc. To me, books are tools and ONLY that--they shouldn't be worshipped. Also, I find reading more than one back at a time is an aid to strengthen memory.

Regards

If a book doesn't grab me right away, I'll skip ahead and read bits and pieces. If it looks like it gets better, I go back to the start and read it all. If it doesn't appeal to me, I just check to see how it ends, then get rid of it. I'll never have time to read all the books I want to read--I'm not going to waste time on the ones that don't interest me.

If I haven't got that feeling by about page 100, I'm done.

If the pacing is bad and the story isn't flowing for me, I might give up at 50.

If the story hasn't caught me beyond the cover jacket summary anywhere in that region, I'm done.

Reading is, for me, a fun, leisure activity...even if I'm reading to learn something. So, if I am reading something educational, I keep reading until I've learned what I set out to learn. If the book sucks I try to find a diferent source.

Most of what I read, however, is fiction. With so many books yet to read I do not have the patience to slog through crud. I generall know very quickly whether I want to contunue with a book or not, usually based on the author's style.

Examples:

A Clockwork Orange: Quit after one page. All nonsense words made it impossible to follow. Loved the movie tho.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: Quit in the middle of chapter two. Couldn't follow what was going on & more importantly I REALLY didn't care. Still need to see the movie.

Moby Dick: Tried on three seperate occasions, with many years in between each, to read this dreck. Bored me to tears each time. I don't care to see a movie adaptation.

That said, I've still read about 99% of what I've started.

I quit after 10 pages.

I used to finish everything I started. As I have gotten older I have adopted the motto "Life is too short to read bad books." I don't have any set rules for when I'll stop but if a book isn't pulling me in I move on to another one. I've stopped at all different points. A month ago I was 3/4 of the way through a book and realized I just didn't care how it would end.

I stopped reading a fantasy book when a character was described as leaping out with a "blood-curdling oink." I was reading a James Patterson book once. In the very beginning the bad guy grabbed a woman's arm, clamped his other hand over her mouth and then stabbed her. I knew the character did not have 3 arms and I thought it was a sign of lazy plotting to come so I stopped reading.

>40 MarkNeu: 'a blood-curdling oink' made me chuckle although I have a feeling that probably wasn't the intention!

I try to give every book that I start reading a fair chance, because I know that it frequently takes a while for me to get hooked on a book even if it's good. However, if I do get to the point where I just am not enjoying the book at all and have no faith that it will get better, I will give it up.

I will also occasionally give up on a book really early if I discover right away that there's something about the book that I just can't deal with, for example if I hate the writing style right off the bat or if something happens right at the beginning of the book that is a deal breaker for me in terms of plot.

Depends on the book. I'll give a book with a good reputation a longer chance than a random read that simply looked good in the bookstore or library. For example, I gave Possession 200 pages and it ended up being a book that I'm happy to have read and would like to read again someday. Other books I am willing to give up on, but not after a set number of pages -- sometimes just a few pages of poor writing can be enough!

On the other hand, if a book is bad enough, it's worth finishing in order to be able to write a revenge review.

39

I assume them you haven't read any Sir Walter Scott? By page 10 he has hardly finished describing how he is going to introduce the book. But he is a perfectionist and he wants to fill in all those points that you need to really appreciate the coming narrative. And he produces perfection!

I have no set criteria for determining when to discontinue reading a book. Usually, I finish any book that I start. Since I have pre-determined standards for selecting books to read, most books live up to my expectations. Thus, I'm rarely faced with stopping reading a book, once started. This applies to both fiction and non-fiction.

For me, it's the annoyance factor. I am a runner and everyone in the running community has been raving over Running Like A Girl, so I bought it. I found it self-indulgent and whiny. I made it through half the book before I couldn't take anymore of the author's justifications for self-pity and laziness, while she expected friends and family to continue to praise her over one achievement in 5 years, so I stopped. I also tried reading The Book Thief on a plane recently. I found the writing and style annoying from the first page and read the inflight magazine instead. Then I left it in my hotel room for someone else. Any book that makes me want to throw it out the window gets ditched if I have that feeling longer than ten minutes.

I used to finish everything I started, but a few books I really did not enjoy in a relatively short time finally broke me of it. Now, if a book hasn't got me interested by a 1/4-1/3 of the way in, I give up. The most recent example is "Slaughterhouse 5" by Kurt Vonnegut. Read a 1/4, skimmed to halfway and gave up. I just didn't care what happened to the main character. And so it goes.

I abandon a book whenever I start thinking of what I'd rather be reading or casually start looking on my shelves for inspiration. Or get irritated, or, in one memorable case, Cutting for Stone by Abraham Verghese, read a sentence about 40-50 pages in and said to myself I couldn't possibly reward an author by continuing his book after reading such a horrible sentence. The book went to the thrift store that weekend.

I dropped Ahab's Wife after 1 1/2 pages because of the first sentence. I read within 30 pages of the end of Far Pavilions, a very hefty book, and decided I didn't care about what happened.

Very rarely I'll re-start a book. I abandoned Room by Emma Donoghue, listened to the women at bookclub extol its virtues and then decided to re-start it. I ended up loving it.

Just like #47 Bargle5, if I don't care what happens to the characters, it's easy to abandon a book.

And so it goes indeed. :)

Love the metaphors, though I usually turn my nose up at veggies. ;)
In gratitude,
Marissa

I have a low tolerance for boredom. And like others have said, it isn't necessarily one thing in particular that will push me out of a book, but more a sense, a lack of experience. I can't relate to the characters, or maybe they are too cliché. The plot is stalling, or I'm not even sure where it is. The writing is convoluted or uninspiring. If I'm not 'feeling' it, I put it aside. Life is too short to be spent ploughing through books I find marginal at best. There is a whole universe of new and undiscovered pages out there. I'd rather keep looking for the next great read!
In gratitude,
Marissa

(1) I am trying to learn to terminate a book--or, put more positively, to read more judiciously. As with any habit, the trick seems to be replacing the bad book with something better. (2) There is usually a right time for books that are difficult for one reason or another (e.g., emotionally painful, intellectually or linguistically challenging). I'll put them down if I must and pick them up again when the timing improves. For example, I couldn't handle The Orphan Master's Son when I got sick, but was drawn back when I recovered my strength a week later.

I modify the Pareto Law process only to the extent of continuing on to the end of a chapter - If it does not change my view of the book or offer any further enjoyment, understanding or enlightenment at that point, I get another book (same subject, different author if non-fiction) unless it is a required read for some reason. Life's is too short to put yourself through problems you do not have to.

I don't have any specific rule. Typically, I quit when "I just can't take it anymore" or when I'd rather be reading something else - anything else. This can be one page in (The Expedition of Humphry Clinker) or three-quarters of the way through (Wolf Hall).

Over the last seven years, I've quit 29 books. So, less than 2% of books read during the year.

I was always the type to finish a book, but now with the thousands of free ebooks, and so many of them poorly written and unedited, I give them only a couple of pages to hook me.

I almost never do. I plow my way through it. One of the few, however, was Joyce's Ulysses. Tried it last summer. Kept at it for several days trying to make heads or tails of it and finally gave up.

I normally try to plow my way through, too; but if I've gotten past the one-third mark (or, preferably, halfway) and am still struggling to care, or if I'm counting pages/chapters and doing the math to figure out exactly what percentage I've read, then it's time to put it aside. If it's non-fiction or for review, I'll struggle longer than I will for not-for-review fiction. But there's one book (for review, sadly) that I started and had to put down after only three pages simply because the editing is So! Bad! that I need the Red Pen of Doom handy. It was seriously making my brain hurt. I should get back to that one, but it may require massive amounts of alcohol and red ink.

I just realized: I still remember the first book I had to stop reading: The House of the Seven Gables. I was... somewhere in my early teens? maybe? and had read about a third, when I realized that I just couldn't take anymore. I skipped to the halfway point & tried a few pages, hoping it would get better; it didn't. I skipped to a few chapters before the end, nope. I skipped to about halfway through the last chapter, couldn't be bothered to read the entire page, and tossed it.

I used to read almost all books all the way through no matter what.

In recent years, I've tried to give them 50 pages at last.

Now I give them up when I have reading time, and I realize that I don't really want to pick that particular book up again. Sometimes it's less than 10 pages.

I'm 46 now, so more than halfway through my life at normal lifespans. I feel like I don't have the time to spend on books I'm not enjoying.

>53 Morphidae:, I love it when someone else can give such a precise statistic as "quit 29 books in seven years = 2%". Now I don't feel quite as much a Martian for being able to run similar calculations. ;)

The book Malevil, which I read back in the 1970s hooked my about 2/3s of the way down the first page. That was fortunate because the next 80+ pages were a hard slog, background that did make the rest of the work more interesting but I came very close to deciding that the first page was a fluke and just quitting. I am very glad I didn't give up, it is one of my all time favorite books.

There is no rule of thumb for me in giving up on a book except that under The
Reader's Bill of Rights we all have the right to do so!
In the past year I read a book of books where the author said she with read,skimmed
or tossed so now I am using that rule!

>58 Cecrow: If we are being REALLY accurate, the correct percentage is 1.5080603, i.e. 29/1923.

:D

Whatever book I may be reading at the time always gets a chance. I tend to keep reading even if I am bored out of my mind. I keep hoping things will pick up and it will get more interesting. My problem is I feel like I have invested myself into the story and owe it to the author to keep trudging on so I can leave an honest-to-God review. Very seldom has there ever been a book I have not finished. I would say maybe three times for me. For me to not finish a book it must have been a complete epic fail.

That's the best part of this rule, which I originally heard from everyone's favorite "what to read" guru, Nancy Pearl (author of "Book Lust"). Here's the complete rule:

Since life's too short to waste precious reading time on books that aren't enjoyable, here's how to determine how many pages to read before giving up on a book: If you're under 100 years old, subtract your age from 100 to get the number of pages you should read. If you're 100 years or older, you've earned the right to judge a book by its cover!

Many people have spoken to the contrary, so I want to say that life isn't too short to read books that aren't enjoyable!

Ploughing through influential classics despite the boredom helps build an understanding of literature as a whole that allows reading on a deeper level. Even if the individual book was boring, understanding it improves other books.

Genre fiction can have conventions that take getting used to. Even if the first couple are tough to get through, it can be worth it for future enjoyment.

Some styles of writing take getting used to. I hated the first 19th century novel I read, A Tale of Two Cities, and didn't finish it. When I returned to it, years later, after forcing through several 19th century novels, I enjoyed it. I'd gained the ability to read the prose easily.

And I think you have to read some bad books once in a while to make the good ones stand out.

So, in honor of one of the most unenjoyable works I've ever forced myself through, Aristotle's The Nicomachean Ethics, the key is moderation. Don't be afraid to give up, but don't give up too easily. Give books, authors, genres, and writing styles second chances. But not too many chances.

64

Bravo!

Yes you can ditch a book soon, very soon, but don't we need to give things a chance?
I fear that our instant-gratification societies are poisoning our love of books: the discovery, the exploration, the satisfaction.

My reading list falls into two separate categories: (1) classics/critically acclaimed and (2) all the rest. If it falls into the first category, I push myself to read to the end because my goal is not necessarily purely enjoyment, but personal growth, as well. I figure that, if it's a classic and has stood the test of time and/or it's received a significant number of book awards, there must be merit in reading it in its entirety. This doesn't necessarily mean that, even once I'm finished, I wish I had never begun the book in the first place and saved myself the boredom -- and ultimately -- hours wasted after realizing, "Well done, you, for your tenacity, but -- God forgive me -- what on earth do the critics see in this book?!?" An example of this is "The Unconsoled" by Kazuo Ishiguro. I finish most books in the second category, but I'm not very forgiving of shallow protagonists or grossly predictable plot lines. I don't have a hard and fast rule, but, if I'm 50% through and see little redeeming value, I put the book aside. This is rare, however, because I prefer to write reviews after reading, which I don't do, of course, unless I've read the book to the end.

I put aside The Unconsoled, too, but I assumed that was just my personal antipathy to dream sequences.

Anoplophora bravo as well.

That's kind of what I was alluding to in my post. That if a book gets high marks from lots of sources I'll probably read the whole thing even though I'm not getting anything positive out of it. Positive could mean more than just being entertained. Take The Wind Up Bird Chronicle as an example. I hated every moment I had to spend with that book, but I read the whole thing because it has such a big fan base and so does the author in general. While I didn't enjoy my time with the book, the experience was valuable since it gave me insight into the author's work and I won't be tempted by anything from him again.

Sometimes I'll hang onto a book that gets high acclaim and try to read it again and see if I have better success. I've done this with An Instance of the Fingerpost and also Blind Assassin, neither of which I was able to get through on my first or second readings. The third time was the charm though and I enjoyed both books.

I also agree that classic novels take some getting used to. I wrote a post about it a while back - http://thebookmarque.blogspot.com/2012/04/7-tips-for-reading-classic-literature....

I'm reading a curious book by a popular author with an abundance of adjectives and changes in viewpoint which is making me judge the book rather than enjoy it. I'll let you know if I get through it but sometimes it would be easier if I wasn't a writer myself.

I've only given up on reading a book twice in 60 years of reading. I choose carefully, according to my reading tastes, but even if I make a mistake I stick with it to the end. I haven't really dipped into experimental modern fiction. I'm more of a traditionalist. Though young writers are getting into some very creative new ways of telling a story I prefer what I grew up with. I felt the same way about Catton's, "The Luminaries" but I don't read much literary fiction. I prefer the thriller/suspense genre.

I agree with your observation. A recent article in the Washington Post suggests that humans are developing a digital brain with new circuits for skimming, making it difficult to read a novel. Are novelists in a dying profession?

I have no rules about giving up on a book. If I get annoyed by an author because the protagonist is doing something not in keeping with their character simply to further the plot, or if the plot is not believable within the world the author has created, I definitely won''t read it. Poor punctuation or poor writing also annoy me. I want the author to be literate. And because I'm old, I have little patience with current slang and abbreviations from texting used as part of sentences unrelated to texting. But if a book grabs me I may read it anyway so no rules really apply. I just want a book to keep me rivited to the page.

I have to say that I generally slog thru to the end with rare exceptions, but I may have to read that as someone else said, "Life is to short to read bad books". Heading to Ireland soon, so wanted to read Leon Uris' Trinity...about 200 pages in and I just am not grabbed...will probably give up and read something entirely different for a bit and maybe pick up post trip...or not.

I am half way through both Underworld and Don Quixote, both considerable tomes so halfway is no mean feat, but I have stopped, not in disdain disgust or disappointment, its just that they have not compelled me to pick them up again. So I would not say I have 'given up' on them, just presently I am not inclined to recommence them.

I hear several people say that they feel they can't write a (good) review if they haven't read the full book, which I don't agree with. Clearly you should say on which portion of the book you're basing your review on, but if I cannot get through a book to the point that I'm giving up on it, this says something about the book. I once saw a movie that I thought was pointless and boring, but I watched it to the end. At the very end something happened that made it sort of a cool movie, but for that I had 2.5 hours of boredom. It's up to everyone to see if that is worth it to them (to me it wasn't). If I had stopped watching the movie halfway through, saying that it was too boring for me to continue, I find that a valid review.

#54 ToniTobin - you are so right! So much crap gets published as e-books. I started off on Kindle pulling down all kinds of books and most of them got abandoned after several pages of poor dialog and/or just plain bad writing.

Here was a book, where every time I attempted to read it, I was reminded of why I had stopped the previous times: Quarantine by Jim Crace is a book I tried many times and I have officially given up on it as of now. Despite it being awarded a Whitbread and made a finalist for the Booker Prize, I was lost by page 20. I can't tell if it's the style or subject matter,but whatever it is, I am no longer trying to push past it. Unfortunately, I am a bit of a particular reader, so giving up on books isn't new for me (even though I may try a few times within a year). However, there are things that generally prevent me from giving up on a book (other than it being by favorite author), a few if which include:

1. If I have nothing else to read (that I haven't read already)
2. If I chose the book and am reading it for myself (not for someone else)
and 3. If the book has stellar reviews from one of my favorite authors.

As for when do you give up on a book, I've had Quarantine for about two years, so ...?

I've got books over 20 yrs old that I haven't finished yet (mostly nonfiction) but keep because I think I could learn something from them. I'd count them as not being given up on, but obviously I'm in no rush to continue.
Since most of my books come from bag sales, I've got a lot of "maybe" to choose from. My mood of the moment determines what I start, & I'll generally finish something that I might not care for another time. Lots of books get put into someone else's bag sale when I'm done.
Since I tend to pick up sci fi on a whim, and since some of that genre are too full of swashbuckling space heroes, or stiffly written, I abandon more of them than from other genres.
Like >12 TooBusyReading: & >14 2wonderY:, I give up on bad people, which for me includes rich/celebrity types in this--shallow people all about brands & possessions. In fact, too much mention of brands turns me off. My definition of bad people does not include dysfunctional families (some powerfully emotional writing is done about people living thru hard times, & I often look for writers who can engage me emotionally).

Thomaswdevine, I don't have an answer to your question, but I am curious, too. The Washington Post article sounds interesting. Could you tell me who wrote it? I read quite a while ago that it is bad for young children to even use computers because it causes the brain to be rewired and perhaps that is a big part of the attention deficit disorder that is occurring in so many children today. My elderly uncle who is a psychiatrist says there was no such condition diagnosed in children until recent years.

#79--Lady, for the past 2-3 years I have read almost exclusively from my ereader (Kindle). I went to read a "real" book several months ago and I couldn't see it. I wear bifocals. I thought...well...I've been making the font on my Kindle big, so maybe in reality I needed new glasses. I went to the eye doctor and he said mine were fine! We had a discussion and he was unable to tell me why I could read a Kindle and not a book. 2-3 weeks later our school librarian sent us all an article from Scientific American (I will try to find, it's from a paid subscription) that gave a short synopsis of something from the New England Journal of medicine that was to the effect that watching television and using ereaders uses one part of our brain. Reading flat text from a book uses a different part. They report that people who go exclusively to ereaders "lose" the ability to read text to a greater or a lesser degree! It happened to me. Therefore I am very careful now to alternate between my Kindle and a real book.

I hardly ever give up! however I think as i get older and I have so many books to read, I do choose to just quit sometime- The latest one was Life After Life - read over 100 pages- Excellent writing, but didn't stay interested in the story itself. I feel bad when this happens- Oh well.

>80 Tess_W:, that is remarkable. I hope you find the article and post it as a new topic, that deserves some thought and consideration. I've been using an ereader for a couple of years now and have noticed my experience with books I read using that is different than with paper books. I've been wondering what the reason is. My theory was because it's a digital screen, I read it as I would any other digital content - it's not my brain being rewired, it's how I instinctively pattern my thoughts to absorb digital content. Sometimes I catch myself doing it and re-read a few pages.

Tess, that is scary. Especially since so many young children are using computers and the Kindle. And the Kindle is such new technology - imagine the possible long term effects. I wonder how many other people are experiencing the same problem. I agree with "Cecrow" - the subject deserves a whole new thread.

80

I remember after reading consecutively a few books on my tablet and kindle, I picked up a paper book to read and I touched the page trying to make it turn over. :-(

I've used the remote control for the TV to try to mute the laptop.

I've done something similar LesMis - I actually started to touch a word in a paper book to get a definition!

I wonder about people's experience with giving up reading books on their ereader; does the difference in format change the mindset about quitting? Pretty much all I read on my ereader is free classics, and I'm liable to set one aside more easily than with paper if it doesn't grab me. I'm not sure if that's because of the ereader or because it was free.

I think with the ereader, I'm more liable to not even get started with a book rather than give it up. I tend to read the samples before downloading and if I don't want to continue reading immediately when I get to the end of the sample, I don't bother to get the book. That's including free books such as from the library. The samples are a feature of ereaders that I really love, along with highlighting.

Cecrow - One other tidbit of information. There are proved studies that show reading by e-reader devises is generally a little slower than reading on a page. I don't know if this is because it takes more mental effort, or it's due to eye coordination - or what, but maybe the decrease in the speed of reading gives more opportunity for boredom with the story to set in. I don't have an e-reading devise so I can't speak from personal experience.

Typing on phone, please excuse any errors-

I used to make myself finish a book, no matter what.

Now -Life is too short, time is too precious. If I find it is taking too long to read, or I can put it down easily, I move on. I can easily devour a book quite quickly as long as it captures me. If I am carrying it around to do housework, or glancing to read a sentence on the sly at work then it is worth the time. If I am closing it and moving on to do other things, forget it.

I find that I really enjoy YA books, which at first I thought was odd. Now I just read on!

Up to 50 pages, I can give up and nothing more will be said. After that I've got to carry on regardless. Of course, nobody but me will know anyway.

To be fair, for the most part, the books I read are mainly from authors deceased and their works have gone through the ebb and flow of popularity, coming out of the process with fairly decent overall reception, confirmed over the years. Some may call these classics, but that in itself is a problematic work as many of the books I might pick up are largely unknown (or better described as perhaps unknown, largely unread) to the general public, but are considered classics within a certain literary niche. Therefore, I tend to really give these books a thorough examination based on the reception they have gained over time.

I totally agree with you LesMiserables - I love the classics and read a lot of the Pulitzer Prize winners, National Book Award winners, and Nobel Prize winners. It increases the odds that the book is good if supposed "experts" have judged it worthy of an award. I also love reading from the "Modern Library Best 100 Novels" list. Also, before reading a book I check other people's reviews and especially pay attention to bad reviews and what is said negatively about a book. It doesn't always discourage me from reading the book - in fact sometimes just the opposite - but I have a good idea what I am getting into before I start. It is very rare I don't finish a book. The last one I did not finish - and threw in the trash (rather than pass it on) was "Running With Sissors" A terrible book! I think I made it to about page 10. And the only reason I started it was a friend left it at my house - so I thought I would give it a try.

#89 - interested to read about this discussion on e-readers v paper books, but not convinced. Reading from an e-ink reader (as opposed to a backlit tablet) is for me not very different from reading from a paper book, apart from being more convenient and I generally find it quicker to read a book on the Kindle as it is more convenient to pick up and read for a few minutes while waiting for a bus/train, etc. I still read paper books as well and have many hundred at home and borrow books from the library.

Anyway, I think there is an argument to be made about screen v page as it applies to computers/tablets/phones, but not reading an e-book on an e-ink Kindle.

I don't put a book down because of delivery method - screen vs page - but rather whether it's worth reading for me any more.

I have started having difficulty reading big hardcover books - they hurt my hands - so if I start a biggie and can't physically read it easily I now have the option to and will purchase it on my Kindle. It's physically easier to read on my Kindle, but I don't get near the physical satisfaction of reading on Kindle.

I have a compulsion to finish what I start.....but it's less compulsive the older I get. I'm 60 and now don't have time to waste on something boring. So I give it 50-100 pages and if it's that bad, I donate it!