Why readers stop reading...

[deborahjross]

Check out Nathan Bransford's blog on why (and at what point) readers give up on a book. It's fascinating -- and instructive to us writers.

The people posting fall into several categories. Some, a minority I think, are compulsive finishers. Others are either so critical or so stressed for time, they give a book only a few pages, a chapter at most, to hook them. Most seem to be somewhere in between -- they'll hang in there for 30-100 pages.

Many commented that if a book has been recommended (or they've enjoyed other books by the same author), they will give it more time. Others mentioned specific turn-offs, ranging from content (I just put down a book which combined glorification of the military, a dystopic world, and killing a dog, all in the first chapter -- I would probably read on if it were only one, not all 3) to prose technique (telling not showing, weird tenses).

The single most cited reason for giving up on a book? "IT'S BORING." Granted, one reader's "boring" is another reader's "brilliant," but I am struck by how many bloggers used the same word.

When and why do you give up on a book? What makes a book boring to you?

Comments

[controuble.livejournal.com]

Interesting viewpoints some of those posters have. For me, a book is boring if the author can't get me to understand what's going on. It doesn't matter if the main thrust is action or character development, if I can understand it and follow along I will usually get caught up in the story and keep reading. The most recent book I put down and will never pick up again was Brasyl. I'm not even sure I made it 30 pages into the book because I just couldn't figure out what was going on.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Some books are like the Emperor's new clothes, don't you think? All the "in" people rave about them, as if liking the books is the key to a secret club. Sometimes I wonder how the editor figured out what was going on, as my only clue is the cover copy.

The only thing worse than feeling stupid is the pressure to pretend you understand and like something you don't.

Good writers make readers feel smart, and included.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Boring is one reason, but I'll also give up on a book if the viewpoint character is profoundly unpleasant, or if the author seems to hold a worldview that I find really unpleasant. I don't like it when authors seem to be sneering at their characters, or at readers, or at the world. As with boringness, I guess this is a matter of perception. The examples that come to mind are not sff books--they're books I had to read for book group.

[the-resa.livejournal.com]

May I second this? I drop a book or TV show that shows this kind of mindset immediately.

If I get that the creator of the story basically hates humanity, and tries to tell me that's just how the world is -- I'm gone.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Yes, a patronizing attitude is a real turn-off. I think it's an aspect of generating -- and keeping -- reader trust. Come with me, and not only will you not be insulted or betrayed, but you will have a wonderful adventure. That's the kind of contract I as a reader look for.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

What constitutes boring has changed considerably over the years. But one thing: if the view point characters are consistently awful, and do awful things, I'm outa there.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Do you mean, boring to you as a reader? As in, your tastes have changed? I know that many subtleties that I used to miss entirely, I now find delightful.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Yep--boring to me as a reader. Generally, predictable patterns will lose my interest.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Here's a phrase that knocked me right out of a book (on p. 4):

"Wildness surrounded him, oozing out of his pores like the sweet musk that covered his body. The man was magnificent in his rugged beauty."

Even for a romance, I'm outta there.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Yep, that would toss me right out as well.

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Whaaat...? I have been writing romance for thirty-some years, I know how it works; and, y'know. That is beyond bad. I was just going to say that I almost never quit a book once I've started, but that? Urk...

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Yes, quite amazing. Do you suppose there are night classes in how to write like that?

Some editor paid money for this.

The book, which came in a box of SFWA Circulating Plan books, is new, with a cover painting mostly in hot reds and lots of bare skin. I think it's paranormal romance. It's already in the box-to-go.

[jennythe-reader.livejournal.com]

I rarely if ever give up on a book part way through. I read so fast that finishing even a not so great book doesn't feel like a waste of time. What I do usually do is decide that the book isn't worth re-reading, or that it's not worth it to read more stuff by that author.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Yes, many of the people posting in Branford's blog mentioned the lack of time as a motivation for giving up on a book, perhaps sooner than they might otherwise have.

In high school, I determined to read every book in our small branch library. I made it quite a way through, as I remember, sometimes in utter slogging endurance, sometimes in delight at a book I might never otherwise have picked up or stayed with.

[janni.livejournal.com]

The first thing for me is the prose. If the prose clunks in the first paragraph, I'll put it down unless I've heard good things about the book from others.

There's also a point around 100 pages where I'll often realize I'm just not that interested, but I'll often (not always) push past that. But I'm only very rarely glad that I did.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Then there are the books whose prose is positively noxious. Damaging to a writer's mentality, especially when enhanced by the authority of print. I can't read Dan Brown, no matter how others rave about his story telling. His prose is so bad and in all the wrong ways, that if I read any amount of it, it starts worming its way into my own prose. Ack, it sprains my mind!

[otana.livejournal.com]

I'm one of those "it has to grab me in the first chapter" people. Even if nothing really happens, there has to be something to snag me. And I'm a really fussy reader when it comes to fiction. I don't like overly flowery or pretentious prose, I like the author to keep it relatively simple. Not simple as in childish or dumbing it down, but I suppose more casual, almost conversational I suppose. Otherwise I feel like it creates a jarring divide between author and reader.

I need to get sucked in to a book. The kind where you pick it up, and when you finally tear yourself away you realize the house is on fire, the cat has eaten the curtains and someone stole your car and you hadn't even noticed. If I don't really get pulled in to the world and feel immersed, then it's entirely too easy to get distracted and go find something else to do.

Though the computing aspect is dated at this point, one of my favorite books that did this was The Miracle Strain by Michael Cordy; it's a strange book, something like a sci-fi thriller with religious themes. It was also his first ever novel and it went bestseller (not to mention the book dealt with a then-fictional genenome reading machine; about six months after being published, that machine was reality). His other novels had a lot to live up to and didn't quite get there, but all things considered, I still think they're some of the best books I've ever read. I don't think Sarah agrees, but each to their own. :3

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Hey, lady, good to see your phosphors!

Ah yes, Attack Books. Sometimes, nothing else will suffice, but at other times, I want something to savor, put down, pick up again, mull over slowly.

Isn't it wonderful that there are so many different books in the world?

I think the same holds true for tastes in books. One of the posters on Bransford's blog stated that he burns the books he doesn't like. Yet every book must have someone who loved it, presumably including the editor who bought it.

[imhilien.livejournal.com]

A recent example I can give was an 'urban fantasy' where the main character quickly came across as being Too Silly To Live. Usually I persist with books, but I couldn't this time after only a few chapters.

An instant turnoff happens if I read the blurb and find I can't pronounce most of the names (usually because of a million apostrophes the author has decided to stick in). :-p

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Too Silly To Live -- great expression. Candidates for the Darwin Award, no doubt, along with those who go down into basements -- alone -- after the lights have gone out -- in search of what's making those funny noises -- when the last 3 people to do so haven't come back.

Names with lots of apostrophes are right up there.

[sardonicus.livejournal.com]

Your subject reminds of the wonderful old line by Dorothy Parker, namely "This is not a book to be put aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."

For me, what is a real book-kill is an author that simply will not let his characters succeed.

There is a writer by the name of Alistair Reynolds. He does a really good job of interweaving cyberpunk, space opera, and hard tech.

But his books leave me cold, though I should love them. The reason is that no matter what his characters do, no matter how much they suffer.....in the end they fail.

There is no lasting success, and the climax of the material is that they don't fail as badly as they could have. It's simply not enjoyable.

Unlike one of the earlier responses, I loved Brasyl by Ian McDonald. It's a complex work, but organically so for me.

Another book he did, named River of Gods, was similarly complex. It was also one of the richest reads I've had in a long while.

As a writer, he cares for his characters. Even the smallest one has density and depth to them, making for material that might be slow to go through but in the end is very satisfying.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

I think you've put your finger on something I too find essential in a book: heart. I'll forgive a lot of prosecraft idiocies if the underlying passion is real and touches me.

[robinbailey.livejournal.com]

There are a number of reasons I'll give up on a book. Probably my biggest is if it is just too familiar. Stan Schmidt, ANALOG's editor, once referred to this as "the old-timer effect." The more you read in your specific genre, the harder and harder it gets to find something fresh and new.

I probably will never read another medieval fantasy novel again in my life. Been there, done that. Read the masters and read many retreads. That particular corner of the genre is just played out. For me, at least. To some newcomer or some reader who hasn't been reading the field for forty years it may be a different experience.

Other than that, boring characters probably rates right up there, too. Some writers spend so much time developing interesting and complex worlds and never get around to interesting and complex characters.

Two things I don't require: humor and a happy ending. I like my sf&f dark sometimes. Not always, but sometimes when the story warrants it.