Do you ever give up on books?

"Never read a book through merely because you have begun it."
~John Witherspoon

I had a mini-discussion on my blog about this quote and I'm always curious to hear other people's thoughts.

I'm a compulsive book finisher. I sort of wish I wasn't - people keep telling me life is too short to read books you don't like - but I have a really hard time not knowing how books end. (And the optimist in me always seems to hope that a good ending might just save a really bad book.)

Are you a book finisher? How long do you give a book to be good before you stop reading it?

I usually finish what I start, but I'm getting pickier as I get older. An example is my recent ER win - see my review to see why I quit ;-) Guess I've got to be more careful as to what I request!

I finish the vast majority of the books I start, but not all of them. There's nothing in particular that the ones I didn't finish have in common -- some are boring, some are offensive, some were just difficult to follow and not holding my interest enough for me to make an effort. I don't read primarily for plot, so the "not knowing the ending" or "a good ending saves a bad book" reasons aren't terribly important for me.

Several of the books on that list were gifts from family, which is the only reason I even bothered to attempt them.

Edited to fix formatting

I have to agree with Witherspoon on this one. I don't have time to waste on books that I don't find either entertaining or informative. I usually read at least one chapter, but if it hasn't caught me by then, I'm not going to waste more time on it.

Not every book was written for me. I understand that fact -- and that others will enjoy things that I don't. There's no crime in saying 'this isn't for me' and moving on to something else.

I know I will anger some with this statement. Steven King books drive me nuts. I have never been able to finish one ... most go flying. He is an excellent writer, but he goes off on tangents that lead nowhere and never come back to the story line.

I've been quicker and quicker to give up on books lately. Probably has something to do with the size of my TBR pile. I used to finish everything but now if I'm not hooked 50-70 pages in, I put it down.

I've given up on a couple books. It is tough...if I find myself getting bored, it's hard to keep going, because I've got so many new books to read still and so many old favorites that I know I love!

>3 lorax: Lorax, I noticed you didn't finish White As Snow, which is by my favorite author...
It doesn't bother me that you couldn't finish it (to each their own!) but I'm just curious...what made you put it down?

I often give up on books. Did so just the other day. (Secret lives of husbands and wives, if you must know.)

There are too many books, and not enough time. I don't want to waste what time there is on books that I don't enjoy.

I do give up/abandon books when I find they don't satisfy me or if I find them highly irritating. I have recently started to track the books I abandon here on LT with comments so I can revisit them at a later date if I choose to - just in case it wasn't something I was in the mood for at the time.

Books that get discarded within the first 10 pages of reading don't even get mentioned in the abandoned category of my library. They are gone. Harsh maybe, but there are a lot of books out there to choose from!

In days gone by I would have always finished a book - just on principle alone. Seems sort of silly now when I think about it. There are so many books that intrigue me and my reading time is so precious to me that I just don't do that anymore. I try to make it at least a third of the way through to give it a chance. If the book is just so-so and it is not too long, I will see it through. If I really don't care for it, I pass it off and never think about it again.

I like to use Nancy Pearl's Rule of 50: If you're under 50 years old, give a book about 50 pages and if you aren't into it, abandon it. If you're over 50, subtract your age from 100 and give a book that many pages, since the older you get, the less time you have to waste on stuff you aren't enjoying.

I was stared at in shock when I told someone I read Blink which I really loved, but quit two pages before the end. I read a lot of nonfiction and sometimes I feel like the writers are struggling to find somehing more to say when they really have nothing left.

I don't have the time to read. When I do I have to be entertained or I just set the book down. I feel no need to give up precious time force feeding myself words that don't nourish.

The book I just couldn't stomach and really tried to finish with all my heart? The Tale of Two Cities I know so many loved it. I just didn't. I may try again some day only because the story may be great once finished. And it was a gift from my mother, an avid reader, who loved it.

I have to admit that normally I finish books, however, last year was the first time that I abandoned a book and now that I've done it, I give each book 100 pages to get me - if I'm not caught by that time, it's back to library or onto the shelf for someone else. There are just too many books that I want to read, to waste my reading time with a book that I don't want to read.

I also will admit that I sometimes skim through non-fiction especially if it's a topic that I have read about in other books. I have been reading the President's biographies and sometimes the "current" presidential read will cover something from a former read so I'll skim through it.

I finish most of the books I start, always hoping that I will find something wonderful even if I didn't love the beginning.

When I do give up on a book, it's usually because I have something I think will be better impatiently waiting in the wings, a library book or one I need to review. More often though, I skim through the rest of the book, trying to get the gist of it and hoping it will engage me.

I completely understand the 100-page rule and other rules that people set for themselves, but they aren't right for me.

For my fiction reading it is rare that I do not finish a book through to the end. I read reviews and LT recommendations and if possible I may skim a chapter or two at B&N to see if I can relate to the story, the characters or the writing style. If it doesn't grab me fairly quickly then it's NEXT!!!!

For my non-fiction reading, I may read a few chapters and start another book and come back later and read some more. I guess I'd call it the smorgasbord approach to reading.

I simply cannot finish the Snopes Trilogy by William Faulkner. In fact, I couldn't get through the first book, The Hamlet. It is the only book I've not finished. I'm hardheaded. I started Sophie's Choice by William Styron and was very disappointed. I got about 1/3 the way through it, then picked it up a few months later and finished it. There have been a few others that I've almost abandoned but stuck out to the end.

My daughter, lucky woman, has no trouble putting aside a book that doesn't interest her. Fortunately, those are few and far between for me, as I only buy books I think I will like. My daughter gives me books, but we have similar tastes, so I don't have to worry about reading one to avoid hurting her feelings, which it wouldn't, anyway, but I'd hate to tell her I didn't like a book she gave me. How was that for a run-on sentence? I love to write those.

I quit any fiction if not grabbed by the end of the first chapter or so, but I nearly always finish nonfiction works. I figure it's a combination of 3 things: (1) I don't have time to waste on a fictional story if it's not interesting or has a poor writing voice, (2) I always want to learn, so the nonfiction works I pick up are already of interest to me, and (3) I'm highly selective in practically everything I do (just ask the spouse :-)

I can't think of any books I've given up on completely, tho they may have been so bad/boring/whatever that I've completely wiped the memory of them. That being said, one book that DOES stand out as taking several tries to get past the first 100 pages was The Silmarillion. I think I finally actually read it thru to the end on around the fifth or sixth try.

19> "I think I finally actually read it thru to the end on around the fifth or sixth try."

So maybe Tale of Two Cities still has a chance? Maybe I'll read another chapter today. :P

I'm afraid I've always been a bit OCD - if I start a book I feel compelled to finish it. But there have a couple and The Silmarillion was one! I felt so guilty having it hang around on my shelves mocking me, but now that I know I'm not the only one, I won't feel so bad. ; )

Just recently, I've been able to put a book down if I'm not enjoying it. No meds, maybe age?

I did realize that I give up on fiction long before I give up on nonfiction. In fact, I can't think of a single nonfiction book that I haven't read all the way to the end, even when the author's obvious agenda annoyed me.

Fiction gets about 20 pages to grab me. If the plot grabbed me, but not the characters I'll skim it to see what happens, otherwise I usually read it all the way through.

Non-fiction I read until I satisfy whatever itch made me pick up the book in the first place.

I give up on books all the time, and even more so in recent years. I used to hesitate, as if it was my duty to finish it once I'd picked it up, but now I agree with John Witherspoon, quoted by elbakerone in message #1:

"Never read a book through merely because you have begun it."

#18 - I'm the reverse. I'll always finish fiction, but am more inclined to brouse through non-fiction and not necessarily read all of it.

Being a fast reader helps. Very few fiction books will take more than 3 days or so to read, and it would have to be a truly terrible book to so throw me that I wouldn't have some curiosity as to how it all ends out. I even finsihed quicksilver and I couldn't care about anything in it after about halfway through.

For non-fiction, it really has to keep holding my attention throughout, providing the promise at least of new information. Some non-ficiton books just don't, they state an initial premise, provide some justification and then wonder off into the wilderness for pages. At that point I'll ditch them.

I rarely give up on fiction. If I think it is a significant book and I am having trouble with it, I will set it aside for a while and try again. The only book I had to put down for months and months before getting back to it was 120 Days of Sodom, because I could not stomach the scat.

Non-fiction is a different animal.

If I don't feel something for the characters a few chapters into the story, I will usually just skim the rest of the book just to get an idea of what happens and then move on. Just did that recently. The hero was shallow and just irritated me. I didn't even flip through to see what happened.

For me, it's all about digging up the emotions.

I gave up on Rowling's last Potter book. I just wasn't enjoying it. The characters didn't feel right and the story was too dark.

I wish I'd noted the last two novels I didn't finish. I used to read whole books but I've changed since I started writing myself - or perhaps it's just my age!

oldstick.

I finished the whole Twilight series because I'd started the first and had a mild interest in what happened!

Usually I'll see it through to the bitter end but if a better book comes along, it gets dumped :)

With me, a book I don't enjoy just takes longer to read but once you have started you may as well finish - who knows, the book may turn into a masterpiece half way through. The author thought it was worth finishing so there has to be something in it.

>28 oldstick: - perhaps there ought to be a review category which allows for analysis of books which people don't finish reading, i.e. 80% of people who started this book just felt there were better things to do than waste time reading it?

>29 svh_mad: - I finished the "Mortal Instruments" series and believe me, that didn't become a masterpiece!

I did for a while because at one point it seemed like all writers were bending to pressure to be like everyone else. What I have always like about the art of storytelling is its the last place for someone to be original. There so much crap that gets rewritten and sold as something new when its completely predictable. I read for a while then noticed a trend where writers seemed to fall to this problem.

I came back because I found hidden gems in writers no one has heard about and books I missed from writers with real talent.

http://dawnoftheshadow.webs.com/index...

I'm a book finisher...especially as an author, I'm conscious of the effort it takes to write a book, so I feel it's common courtesy to finish a book out of respect for the author. As I've aged, I've become a fussy reader...I want to read books that I know I will enjoy. I will go the extra mile to research them, check reviews (and I'll even research the reviewer to see if their views are consistent with mine.) I'll read random pages to see if it's anything I'm interested in reading, to see if the writing has a special 'magic' to it that further perks my interest. If I find myself faced with something that's not quite there for me and I'm well into it, I tend to tough it out, not just so I can say "I read it", but to analyze why I don't like it, and to see if the ending changes my mind. Sometimes this works out, sometimes not, but I feel good that I gave it a chance. When I was younger, I went through phases in which I gobbled up books in various genres and naturally these phases tap out after awhile, because when I've read enough of them they start to sound alike, different author, same formula. I did give up on a book that I had started just because I couldn't stomach one more fantasy novel that was another first book in yet another trilogy inspired by the Lord of the Rings... I just couldn't do it. Thankfully, I hadn't gotten into it too far to feel committed to it (the first ten or so pages) so I tucked it back into the bookshelf in my library, thinking, "maybe another time"...well, years later, it's still there along with the other two that follow it... I'm sure they are fine stories, but I just can't bring myself to read them... it's a bad case of fantasy trilogy burn out. :P

I'm intrigued by your feeling "it's a common courtesy to finish a book out of respect for the author." Very nice, but how will the author know whether or not you finish it? I had never even thought of that. My reason for finishing a book is my being so hardheaded. I hate to admit defeat. ;-} There has only been one book in my life I have not finished. I still have it, and I may finish it, yet!

They'll know I finished it when I leave my review.

Ah. I hadn't thought of that, maybe because I don't review every book I read -- lazy, I know. I admire your ambition!

34>

If the book is so bad that you have to force yourself to finish it, though, is the author really going to be grateful for the review?

Life's too short to read bad books. On the rare occasions that I start one that's terrible (usually my filters are better than that), I bail. Better for me, better for the authors of the books I'll buy instead of finishing the bad one.

Common courtesy to finish a book? I've done enough for author by buying the book. Anything else is a bonus.

I very rarely abandon a book, but I do have a bad habit of putting books aside indefinitely "until the right occasion comes along". With some books it is actually very pleasant to ration yourself to reading a little bit at a time (I do this a lot with poetry books, and Don Quixote, for instance; it's also the way a lot of people read religious books). But sometimes "putting aside" is probably just a way of postponing the admission of defeat.

When I do abandon a book, it's usually something outside my normal range that I've taken off the shelf in a place where I'm staying, as an experiment. If it doesn't convince me in a chapter or two, I put it back where I found it.

As others have said, non-fiction is a separate case. If you're reading for pleasure you may well want to read every word; if you're researching a specific topic you might just need a couple of chapters (or even pages).

I do occasionally give up on a book. However, I always give it 100% effort. I always read at least half-way to see if maybe it will pick up. And I usually go back later and try to re-read it, to see if maybe it was just my mood the first time around. But I think that if you are not enjoying a book, your review will reflect that, and it may be that it is a wonderful book and someone else will love it, but it just isn't your cup of tea. I would feel bad if I knew that I gave a book a less than great review, and it prevented someone else (who would have loved the book) from reading that book. That being said, I have read some books that were simply awful, and have reviewed them as such. I think there is a difference between a book that just isn't for me and a truly bad book.

I've only ever given up on one book, though I feel more and more inclined to do so. As other have stated, there's too many other options and my TBR pile is dangerously tall at this point. I still can't normally set a book aside, but now that I did my first, I may take a few more steps down that road. :)

I used to be very much finish every book I'd started, but these days I look at the TBR mountain range and think that if I'm not getting on with a book, and I can see 20 books from here that I know I'll like better...

I used to finish every book I started, but the older I get, I don't mind abandoning a book that's not holding my interest. If it's one I bought, it gets sent to the library book sale.

19> & 21>
I haven't completed The Silmarillion yet after several tries, but that's one I expect to finish someday. :)

I will have to agree, The Silmarillion was a bit of a challenge to get through, but I managed it after investing a bit of time and patience...I didn't review that one, but I'm sure Tolkien's reputation will survive just fine without my words of encouragement ;)

To clarify my position... I have learned to steer away from books that are not my cup of tea, so it is a very rare occasion that I struggle through a book these days. But, if I'm asked or required to read/review/discuss a book for a book club or a writer's group...or as in a few recent cases, a young/new writer looking for advice, I've made every effort to be positive and read it for what it is, even if I didn't personally enjoy reading the book/manuscript, it is my intention to offer valuable insight in the craft of writing, therefore, to clarify why I attempt to finish books 'out of courtesy to the author', my approach as a reader in some cases is more professional than recreational reading. I guess I could be accused of being too kindhearted to look for the silver-lining as I wade through a manuscript/ or a self-published tome rife with first-novel-itus. But the way I see it, as an author, I never received much encouragement during those formative years when I needed it (back in the day when attitudes toward a small town girl wanting to be something other than a bearer of babies was considered weird or selfish.) And goodness knows, I'm sick of the snarky attitude of recent years in which it seems to be more amusing to crap on someone for trying. With that said...life is too short.

>28 oldstick:, until I read your post I thought my wife was the only one in the world who could read the first six Harry Potter books avidly, then simply say 'meh' and never pick up the seventh which ends the series, lol.

I used to read stuff that was over my head when I was young; most of it I got through, but I was stopped by Elric of Melnibone, Great Expectations, The Plague Dogs, Darkover Landfall, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and a bio of Lawrence of Arabia. All of them are decent books that I'll consider returning to someday now that I'm older, except possibly Darkover.

The only recent one I can't get through is Catch-22, with its writing style that completely throws me.

I used to be a book finisher, and still, I mostly do finish what I start. Ideally, I prefer to be hooked within the first page, or at least the first few pages, but if I'm not hooked early on, I will often give a book about 10%. 10 pages of 100, 20 pages of 200 etc. to a maximum of 100 pages for any book over 500 pages. However, I don't always go to the 10% mark.

I recently tossed aside Where the God of Love Hangs Out, (201 pages) after about 5 or 6 pages because I was so bored, I was falling asleep in it. Later, a friend told me she had problems with that book too; it didn't get good for her until after about 90 pages. I'm not going to waste my time on it. Also, because I couldn't even force myself to read 10% of the book, I deleted it from my catalogue.

Oh, and a good ending saves a really bad book? I'm not sure that could ever happen... but some books do end better than they began. I generally tend not to care how a book ends if I didn't care to read at least 25 pages at the beginning.

44 Glad I'm not alone. I've been so disappointed recently with books I have got out of the library I'm going back to Stephen King. The last book I really enjoyed had the same title as a hoard of other books. Why do people do that?
oldstick.

"The last book I really enjoyed had the same title as a hoard of other books. Why do people do that?"

Probably the author or publisher (or both) are hoping to capitalize on the popularity of another book with the same or similar title. I hate when they do that, because searching for the book by title then yields at least as many irrelevant results as good ones. And yes, I do search with author included when I can remember the author's name - which isn't always the case.

Probably the author or publisher (or both) are hoping to capitalize on the popularity of another book with the same or similar title.

I really, really doubt that. I think it's that often the same title is appropriate for many books; especially if it's a literary or cultural allusion, it's likely to come up many times. (Consider "Night Watch" or "The Night Watch". I have three books so titled, all aimed at rather different audiences so the "popularity" issue isn't even appropriate, and all where the title is obviously appropriate. There are half a dozen others listed on LT, one fairly popular.

And I have two books titled "Mockingbird"; chances are the author of the second (where, again, the title is obvious and appropriate) didn't even know of the first, which was long out of print, and certainly wasn't "capitalizing on popularity".

Can you give a specific example of the capitalizing-on-popularity situation? I'm not saying it never happens, just that I've never seen it, and it doesn't seem to be the norm.

>48 lorax:
What about the Introduction to Summer Lightning? Wodehouse comments that it's been pointed out to him that there are already various other books with the same title and says "I can only express the modest hope that this story will be considered worthy of inclusion in the list of the Hundred Best Books Called Summer Lightning". As far as I know all the others have vanished off the face of the map in the intervening years. There only seem to be two non-Wodehouse books of that title that make it into double figures for copies on LT.