Terminalcoffee discussion

I've just jacked in The Asylum after fifty pages. It got me thinking: when is it acceptable to give up on a book? How many pages in before you can say: Okay! That's it? You've had your chance, buddy...?

I tend to finish every book, but I wouldn't demand anyone else to do the same.

I usually try to get through the first 50-100 pages. If I’m not enjoying it, I’ll skim through to try and decipher if the book has any redeeming features later on. If not, I ditch it.

I used to finish every book I started, then one day I realized that I simply won’t have enough time on this planet to read everything that I want to, so why waste time on something I’m not enjoying?

Whether I read 10 pages or 50, if I hit a spot where my mind starts to wander to other books or the laundry, it's time to stop and find something else. I can usually tell if it's my own fault or the book's, so I'll sometimes revisit them if I feel like they were abandoned unfairly because I was too distracted to give them a fair try.

When they get so stupid, I feel like my brain will rot! That's pretty much the only reason I put a book down and don't (eventually) pick it up again no matter how boring it is.

When you just don't care about what happens anymore. Sometimes I'll go back to read a review and see why I wanted to read it in the first place. But I don't think if I started it, I have to finish it. I'm not into punishment for making a bad choice.

Hmm. We have this same thread somewhere else.

Yep - and there may be more.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/6...

Phil wrote: "Hmm. We have this same thread somewhere else."

Ooops!

Amber ~Geektastic~ wrote: "Whether I read 10 pages or 50, if I hit a spot where my mind starts to wander to other books or the laundry, it's time to stop and find something else. I can usually tell if it's my own fault or th..."

Good point.

I tend not to give up if I'm reading it for discussion, or if it has been highly recommended by people I trust. Robert Silverberg's Dying Inside was a slog for me, but I think I'm glad I stuck through it. Mostly, kinda.
I gave up on the new Eugenides book, The Marriage Plot, even though I had been on a waiting list for it for a long time. I just found it utterly boring.

I am 64, when I was younger I gave a book 100 pages, now, I give it 25. too many books and not enough time.

When it's one written by Stephen King in the last, oh, fifteen or twenty years.

I usually try to go through 100 pages.

I give up at about 50 pages.

I try not to give up on books. I think I've only given up on a handful of books so far. The worst was A Great and Terrible Beauty. I just could not get more than 1/4 of the way through. I eventually gave it to a friend.

If it offers me no reason to keep reading by the end of chapter three, I tend to put it down. Usually I'll try it again at a later date in case my mind just wasn't in the right place the first time. Sometimes it'll catch me the second time around--sometimes not. If it fails after three tries, it's gone for good.

I'll give a book 50 pages. When you get older, you realize you don't have time to waste on bad books.

I don't have a set limit. If I'm reading and decide "this book really sucks," I'll give up on it. There are too many truly wonderful books waiting to be read, and I'm too old. I'll never get to them all wasting my time on a book I don't like.

If it's morbidly depressing or ultra boring. I rarely give up on a book. Only 2 that I can recall.

I wouldn't be that judgmental...why is it not possible to drop a book because you don't like it, it's not your style, it's not compatible with your linguistic or imaginative patterns? Why does it necessarily have be bad, non-inteligent, not up to our, always superior, intelligence? this does by no means mean there are no bad books, a lot of junk around...

It's hard to find books to live up to my superior intelligence...

the logical consequence, you should stop reading?

Troll.

This is only a defensive substitutive answer...not worth, really

Troll.

Luana wrote: "I wouldn't be that judgmental...why is it not possible to drop a book because you don't like it, it's not your style, it's not compatible with your linguistic or imaginative patterns? Why does it n..."

It's possible to drop a book for any one of those reasons.

It's also possible to give up on one because it's written to an audience that appreciates using less gray matter while reading than does Scout, or Charly, or others.

Stating one reason for putting down a read does not preclude the existence of other reasons, just as saying, "I like baseball" does not mean I do not also like football.

I know when it's time to put down a book when I can find some other mundane task to do instead of submersing myself in that particular book.

For example, when JK Rowling's novel, The Casual Vacancy, came out I preordered it and everything. I was so excited for her newest her and couldn't wait to read it. So when it came, I started reading it. I never got past page 82. I'd rather read my psychology text book or go work on a paper that wasn't due for another four weeks. No joke. I just couldn't get myself to sit down and read that book.

So when I find myself AVOIDING reading, I know there is an issue.

But don't get me wrong, I force myself to read until I just can't do it anymore. I've found some great novels by making myself read. However, there are a very select few that I've skipped out on. I know every book and author I've skipped over, there's that few of them.

If a book is highly recommended, and I'm having trouble, sometimes it may just be me. Maybe I'm in the mood for something different.

So some books get put back and do get a second try.

I agree, some books are worth a second try. I still want to try reading The Casual Vacancy. As of right now though, I have too many on my "to read" list.... Especially with school starting Monday.

Misha wrote: "Luana wrote: "I wouldn't be that judgmental...why is it not possible to drop a book because you don't like it, it's not your style, it's not compatible with your linguistic or imaginative patterns?..."

I agree; yet claiming that a book that you don't like is 'non-intellingent', whatever this might be, is a little too narcissistic

I'm agreeing with Misha on this one. We all form our own opinions on novels and other types of literature and reading materials. It isn't narcissistic at all. One book that applies to me might not apply to someone else and that's okay. Everyone is a critic of what they read and come across.

You honestly cannot tell me that you have absolutely LOVED every piece of writing you have ever come across because I will be inclined not to believe you.

Calling a piece of writing unintelligent is different than calling the writer unintelligent. Sometimes amazing writers write bad pieces. It happens to every writer. Does it mean they're unintelligent? No. It just simply means that one particular reader disagrees and finds it boring and bland.

In no way, shape or form, is that narcissistic.

Sarah wrote: "I'm agreeing with Misha on this one. We all form our own opinions on novels and other types of literature and reading materials. It isn't narcissistic at all. One book that applies to me might not ..."

Let me explain, I just do not agree with the statement 'any book which I do not like is dumb'...that's all; I a relativist, and although I do have firm opinions I do not think they are absolute

This is what I tried to say in the first place, there are many reasons for stopping to read a book, and I am not prepared to agree with 'absolute' statements which mostly are judgmental..

I'm not saying that a book I don't like is dumb. Sometimes I just don't like what I'm reading. And other times, I think to myself, "this is the dumbest thing I've ever read." But hardly ever do I quit a book because I find it to be "dumb." Clearly you're not listening to what we're all saying.

I've only given up on two books: Green Mile by Stephen King and Salem's Lot by Stephen King.

Which is ironic since I am a huge King fan.

These books were both boring and overly morbid for my tastes.

Other than those two, I've never given up on a book, even if it's a so-so one. I think it's a battle of conscience sometimes, or guilt.

Aaron wrote: "I've only given up on two books: Green Mile by Stephen King and Salem's Lot by Stephen King.

Which is ironic since I am a huge King fan.

These books were both boring and overly morbid for my ta..."

It's funny, now that you mentioned, I recall theat I gave up on Green Mile as well, although I am really a fan of King too....it was sooooo boring...
Quick question: I want to persuade my son to read The Stand, I enjoyed very much (I don't recall exactly what was that it fascinated me about it, as I read it long time ago) and I think it would be an entertaining lecture for him. He's 15, reads a lot of good books but a lot of junk too, and I would prefer to replace the junk with something appealing yet good. And he does not like horror books; how would you describe the book in terms of genre and fiction type so that it might appeal to a teenager who enjoyed harry potter, lord of the rings and asimov? could you help?

I wish I could help, Luana. I have not read The Stand. It's a dystopian novel, apocalyptic in plot. I've heard only good thing about it. From other readers, I've learned that the content is appropriate for a teenager.

The Stand is not a horror novel, that I'm sure of. From the books you're telling me he's already read, I think he'd enjoy the Stand. It's a very thick book, though. Would that appeal to him?

Aaron wrote: "I wish I could help, Luana. I have not read The Stand. It's a dystopian novel, apocalyptic in plot. I've heard only good thing about it. From other readers, I've learned that the content is appropr..."

thanks, I guess the dystopian part will be helpful as he already is into this kind of literature...I really loved the book, although I do not remember if the style, or the story; the movie was not bad either

When it is so slow and dull, that it becomes more of a chore to read than enjoyable.