What makes you put down a book?

[Uplifted Spirit]

I rarely quit reading a book because I have the need to finish things.  But I have quit reading a couple books and it was for either of two reasons:  1.  They tell more than show.  2.  The story doesn't seem plausable. 

 

Uplifted Spirit

[chrysoprase]

I read Tolkien in high school because everybody else was doing so, and hated it; I've always had a hard time with taking high fantasy seriously.  I read it again years later and loved it, primarily for its language and style, and the way in which it described an admittedly mythical age that was yielding slowly to a more mundane and less-interesting world.

 

I rarely put books down unread, but the most recent casualty was the Bible.  Dense, unyielding prose with too much weight placed on trivial events; the author disposes of the creation of the Universe and Earth in about a page and a half, but the story of Joseph and his brothers went on and on and on ... and that's when I got off the ride.

 

Equally interesting are the books we loved in our youth but re-read as adults and realize how ridiculous they are.  A recent casualty in that department was Atlas Shrugged ... pretentious, monotonous nonsense, and I always skip over John Galt's monologue towards the end.

[chrysoprase]

It's unusual for me to put a book down once I have started it, however it's not unheard of. For me, there are certain authors (Shakespeare, Tokein and Gregory Maguire) who I have to be in the mood for reading. If I'm not, they will only hold my interest for a few pages before I give up. On the other hand, when I am in the right mood, these same authors are compulsive page turners for me (particularly Maguire's books "Wicked" and "Son of a Witch", heavy-going though they are).

 

In terms of classics, I tend to find too much a language barrier is off-putting as it means having to mentally translate into modern English, which is something I'm not always in the mood to do. It's why I love books like Bram Stoker's Dracula. In that story the writing still feels very fresh, vivid and modern, even though the story is over a hundred years old now. Ditto for Jeckyll and Hyde (apologies if I haven't spelled that correctly). On the other hand, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein I find completely impenetrable, and I gave up on both The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les Miserables after a few chapters of trying. Another example is my love of Dante's Inferno, but my impossible relationship with Homer's Ulysses and Odyssey (again, apologies if I have spelled the names incorrectly).

 

I also fail if suspension of disbelief hasn't happened within a few chapters. That was my major problem with the Twilight novels. I found it too difficult to accept what was being said on the page. On the other hand, The Hundred Year Old Man Who Climbed Out Of The Window And Vanished was a brilliantly entertaining read, but I have not yet finished it as I can't focus on it for too long. Yet To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my favourite books of all time. The plot could be considered dull, but the world is brought to life in such vivid detail that I have been Scout Finch in my mind more times than I care to count.

I dream of writing anything a tenth as good as To Kill A Mockingbird.  If you're going to write only one book ...

 

Read Les Miserables after I watched the movie; yes, it was a long slog (on a first-gen iPad with low-res screen, so - new eyes on order), but it was a very rewarding read, as much for the history of Paris and of France in the Napoleonic era as for the humanity with which the book is charged.

 

I picked up the Odyssey in high school (a copy that my mother had) and loved it.