To Each, His Own

DiscussãoAwful Lit.

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

To Each, His Own

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.

1JBookLover
Nov 9, 2006, 12:55 pm

I understand that not everyone likes every book. I have had a few stinkers just like everyone else BUT I have one thing to say to all that post on this group.

"Do not slam a book that you have not read all the way through."

If you have not finished it then you have no true way of judging the book. Sometimes books have slow or strange starts that get better through the book.

Read fully before you call a book awful.

Don't Judge a Book By It's Cover.

- Jessa

2imaginelove
Nov 9, 2006, 1:20 pm

I am going to politely disagree with you, Jessa.

Part of good literature (not just great literature) is the ability to capture a reader and keep the pages turning. Even poorly written Harlequin romance can do this. If a book does not grab your attention within the first 50-100 pages, that only means it needs further editing.

Well, unless you like being tormented before getting around to pleasure, and some folks are into that as well. ;)

3JBookLover
Nov 9, 2006, 1:51 pm

Imagine - I thank you for your polite disagreement and understand what you are saying but I would like to make another point and that is that it is one thing to say a book did not 'grab' your attention and another thing to call it awful.

I still firmly feel that to truly trash a book you need to at least give it a full chance and read the thing through. I have nothing against saying a book had a ridiculous beginning or was unable to grab the reader in a decent amount of time. A Knight in Shining Armor was one book that I put down after about 30 pages because the beginning was too ridiculous for me to get into but because I have not read it through I cannot call it an 'awful' book because I do not know how it ended.

Thank you for your opinion.

Does anyone else have something to say on this topic?

- Jessa

P.S. "Well, unless you like being tormented before getting around to pleasure, and some folks are into that as well. ;)" - Uh...no thanks :)

4_Zoe_
Nov 9, 2006, 2:15 pm

I think it depends how much of the book you've read.... if it's only ten pages, maybe you wouldn't be justified in calling it awful. But if you struggle through 100 pages and can't bring yourself to continue, I'd be willing to consider that an awful book.

5Precipitation
Nov 9, 2006, 8:51 pm

I'm willing to give a book fifty pages. If I'm slogging through it, I'm done. I think books are meant to be enjoyed.

6kperfetto
Nov 9, 2006, 9:05 pm

There are a few books I've given multiple chances to impress me, and if it's the third or fourth go around and I still can't get past page the first thirty (or fifty or one-hundred) pages, I'm done. Honestly, I think that's a fair enough estimation of quality.

7Jargoneer
Nov 10, 2006, 4:46 am

Jessa, I agree with you. There are books you slog through and then near the end everything comes together in a manner that changes your attitude to the whole work. (Of course, this also works in reverse).

I'm not sure you can fully criticise a book if you haven't read the whole work but seems fair to otherwise state that you couldn't get into it, wasn't your cup of tea, it bored you, etc.

8Sackler
Nov 10, 2006, 2:37 pm

Jessa, jargoneer--right!! At the risk of offending everybody, I think you have to have an ego as big as the Ritz to condemn as "awful" a book you haven't really read. On the other hand, I think it's just sensible to recognize that there are certain books you are not going to enjoy. A couple of years ago there was a pretty strong buzz about a book--can't remember title or author--about a woman whose assistant captured her job, her house, and her husband (or her job, her husband, and her house). I checked the ending and it looked as if she had risen above these betrayals. I knew it wasn't for me: I'd want revenge: the job should have disappeared with the company, the house should have burned down, the husband should be impotently surviving prostate cancer, and the faithless assistant should be dying of AIDS-related leprosy. The point here is that I didn't think the book was awful; I just decided not to read it.

9imaginelove
Editado: Nov 10, 2006, 2:55 pm

I would like to ask a question though - how can we have a subject called "to each his own" and then not be allowed to use opinion words such as "awful?"

Words such as good, bad, great, awful, irritating, pleasant, rockin', sucky, etc... are just adjectives that describe an opinion. When we are allowed to have an opinion without being allowed to use one of the opinion words we are being stifled. If it is my opinion that a book is awful and I have a reason to back up my opinion, I have the right to say it. If you don't agree with me and your opinions are different, you have the right to state your reasons.

However, you cannot seperate the fact that "awful" is an opinion word. My mother thinks mushrooms are awful. My brother thinks spicy food is awful. My father thinks slow cars are awful. My husband thinks people who can't drive are awful. I think cell phones are awful.

10JBookLover
Nov 10, 2006, 6:54 pm

Jargoneer, Sackler - thanks for the support. You said what I had been trying to say but better. Sack - loved your comment about the Ritz. I would have said something like that but I did not want to start out offending people with this. I wanted to try and get a good open debate which fortunatly I think we have. As everyone can see there are people on both sides of this arguement. I think was it comes down to is not taking the work 'awful' out of the adjectives we use but just refraining from using what truly seems to be a very harsh critizism for a book that has not been fully read.

Yes imagine, it is opinion and all we are doing here is giving opinion (which means no one can be wrong.) I am not trying to say that we need to refrain from giving an opinion, just that we should not just label a book a word but go into the different things that we did not like about it or what kept us from finishing it. It just seemed to me that people would say "such and such book was 'awful' and I couldn't finish it because it was so 'horrible'" but that does not give much to go on. I really think not only did I want people to debate critizing book that we have not finished but to also go in-depth about our critizisms because what one person calls awful is what another may call blah.

- Jessa

11Bookmarque
Nov 10, 2006, 7:03 pm

I think the distinction lies with saying that a book is awful in the grand scheme of things v. it was an awful experience for the individual.

Example; I couldn't stand Crime and Punishment, but I can't say that it's worthless. And yes, I read the whole bloody thing.

12Hera
Nov 10, 2006, 7:09 pm

If only I had all the time in the world I too could struggle through books I dislike, stagger to the last chapter, turn the last page and then pronounce them awful. However, having read thousands of books in my lifetime already (and some against my will) I know what I like and what I don't. Therefore my spidey sixth sense tells me by page 100 whether it's going well or not and I act accordingly.

A quick scan of this site tells you one thing: literature is subjective. I'd rather eat my own head than read Historical Romances; to me, they're awful but my nan reads nothing else (bless her). So it is 'to each, her own'. Long may tolerance reign - just don't ask me to read Catherine Cookson and I won't make anyone read Ezra Pound.

13SimonW11
Nov 11, 2006, 4:05 am

If the reason that you dislike awful is because it does not convey any information about the book. I don't see how a description of awfulsuddenly becomes valid after reading the last line.

14JBookLover
Nov 11, 2006, 1:27 pm

Bookmarque - I think you state my point as well. There is a difference between an awful book and awful experience which is something critics don't always explain.

15imaginelove
Nov 11, 2006, 1:49 pm

There is also a difference between the following:

#1. an awful experience in reading a book because it deals with a subject that triggers unwanted emotions.

#2. an awful experience in reading a book because you would rather give yourself one hundred papercuts with the book than finish it.

and #3. an awful experience with reading a the title of a book while it was flying at your head, after being hurled by an enraged lover.

How specific do ameteur reviewers need to be?

16JBookLover
Nov 11, 2006, 3:05 pm

imagine - LOL thanks for that. we should make that a part of the grading scale. lol

17kageeh
Nov 17, 2006, 9:40 am

I will give a book 50 pages but, if it doesn't grab me by then, it is forever closed. Life is too short and the books too numerous to waste time on regrettable reading. The one dreadful book I plodded through THREE times (because I had to read it for book club and I couldn't understand why the leader loved it so) was The History of Love by Krauss. I detest writers who think their books are toys to be played with (post-modern writers) at the hapless reader's expense.

18mlfhlibrarian
Nov 18, 2006, 12:47 pm

I usually will ditch a book after about 30 pages UNLESS it has been recommended by several people, in which case I will give it another go, but only after a gap of about 3-6 months. I often find I can then get into books that seemed dire before - sometimes the time is just wrong.

Don't you think all views on books are subjective, and therefore it is perfectly valid for anyone to use the word awful about books they can't read? If it annoys you, bores you, makes you feel depressed or angry with yourself for having shelled out good money for it, then awful is a justified word IMO.

19kageeh
Nov 20, 2006, 4:19 pm

"Awful" is a perfectly acceptable word IMHO -- when 4-letter words would be inappropriate and not everyone understands the better word "dreck".

20HelloAnnie
Nov 21, 2006, 5:06 pm

I will typically give something 50 pages. If I just can't do it, I put it down without a second thought. There are too many books out there to waste time on something I am just hating. Reading is such a pleasurable activity for me. I don't want to dread or hate reading. No book is worth that.

Also, I have no problem someone calling a book awful. I prefer that to those who turn it around on everyone else.

Ex. "if you hated this book, you just didn't get it."

I see some of that on these boards. People will call out a book or author as being terrible and for "this type" or "that type" of person. I don't like it when people just write off people who like a certain book. If you can't tell me why you liked it or hated it without making fun of those who disagree with you, you have no arguement.

21akenned5
Nov 21, 2006, 5:18 pm

'not everyone understands the better word "dreck".'

Lol. kageeh, that is a great word! It sounds like something that might build up on your teeth.

"If you can't tell me why you liked it or hated it without making fun of those who disagree with you, you have no arguement"

tunarubber, that is so true. I get a little overinvested in my tastes and interpretations. But I remind myself that my own tastes have changed immensely over time. I also find that my response to a book can be very dependant on my mood, circumstances, other issues etc.

22Jargoneer
Nov 22, 2006, 7:07 am

Message 18 - are all views on books subjective? It is true but you have to have some absolute standards or else you end up with Dan Brown being a great writer, Westlife being musical gods, and Adam Sandler being funny. (Ok, I made the last one up, that will never happen).

Message 20 - I agree that anyone should be able to explain why a book is good or bad, but that takes much more effort than calling someone a umpty.

23Sue.k.
Nov 24, 2006, 5:39 am

I agree that diffirent people will have different reasons for not liking a book. For example i did not like all she ever wanted by patrick redmund. it had a great beginning, a slow middle and a boring and un fulfilling ending. but i will not call it an awful book, because i feel that no writer really deserves to have one of their pieces called "awful". Its either for you or it isnt. Rather then give it to someone who WILL like it, a friend, family member, your weed smoking neighbour so he can stop using your morning newspaper to roll the joints .....just kidding

all books are good, just not to everyone.

24SimonW11
Editado: Nov 24, 2006, 6:21 am

I think Asimov had the right of it. "you dont have to eat a whole egg to know its bad"

25HelloAnnie
Nov 24, 2006, 9:18 am

SimonW11- what a perfect analogy! I love it!

26Thalia
Nov 24, 2006, 9:24 am

Well, the analogy with the egg doesn't work for me. I don't even need to take a bite to know that I won't like it :-) I do try from time to time though.

27lampbane
Nov 24, 2006, 10:08 am

Life is too short to spend it finishing bad books.

Period.

28thatsquitedandy
Nov 26, 2006, 4:19 pm

I know personally, i have a difficult time not finishing a book for whatever the reason. but i had to recently read A Tale of Two Cities for a class, and absolutely hated the act of reading it. I pulled myself through it, and in the end, i decided that it wasn't quite the waste of time i had thought it while reading it. But i believe that it is entirely personal. Some people are able to make accurate judgements faster than others and thats all there is to it.

29hobbitprincess
Nov 27, 2006, 10:41 pm

I find that something that doesn't appeal to me at one point may be quite interesting months or years later. In college, I pretty much decided that Faulkner's novels were a bunch of bunk (or dreck - great word!), but now that I am older (*cough, gag*) and wiser (*choking laugh here*), I just might give him another try.

I would venture to say that Harlequin Romances are yuk to me (and yes, I have read a few), but I have a friend who is incredibly intelligent who used to read one of those books rather than watch a 30-minute sit com. To her, they were pretty much the same - a half-hour's diversion. "In the eye of the beholder . . ."

30ariel4thou
Nov 28, 2006, 12:08 am

Well, I remember a book that is still one of my favorites, that I positively dragged myself through until page 180 ... after which I couldn't put it down. Of course it was a HUGE book ... at least 500 pages, possibly many more (was a big thick one .. could have been 1,000). Maybe it's a matter of percentage?

31JoseBuendia
Mar 22, 2007, 3:33 pm

Life is too darn short to keep reading a book that is bad. One suggested formula is that you subtract your age from 100. That is the number of pages you should read in any book before you decide you don't like it. But if you find you don't, put it down! Imagine not living long enough to read some really great books because you felt a duty to slog through some bad ones.

32bluesalamanders
Mar 22, 2007, 9:52 pm

I am currently on something like page 37 of a book I got out of the library because I'd heard good things about it here. I didn't really like it much from page 1. I really started hating it about page 19. I think I might be able to get to page 50, just to see if it gets any better, but I'm not sure it's worth it. I have other books to read, that I think I would actually like all the way through.

33Bookmarque
Mar 24, 2007, 8:39 am

Yeah, when to abandon is always a conundrum. I'm about 115 pages into a novel by someone that I've only read one other book and I can't remember if that one had the grating style this one does. I don't think I can take any more.

34geneg
Mar 24, 2007, 10:37 am

I, fortunately for me and those who know me, have been blessed with seeing the truly objective in everything, no opinions, just stone, cold facts. Since my thoughts are not opinions I feel free to express them about anything and everything. If I say a book is bad, well, then, you can take it to the bank.

However, in an effort to save me from hurt feelings by people who don't appreciate my gift, my Mother taught me that if I didn't have anything good to say, don't say anything. That is excellent advice. It is enough to say, "I did not finish the book", or "the author did not connect with me at all", or any other comment that indicates you weren't able to meet the book where you were at the time.

Now, there are such things as bad books, some are poorly written, some poorly edited, and others poorly printed. The shortcomings of these books can be addressed in purely objective language, without resort to opinion.

35bluesalamanders
Mar 24, 2007, 10:00 pm

Failed, by the way, in bringing myself to open that book (see post 32) again. I returned it to the library without reading another word and picked up a pile of new books that I should be able to actually read. Well, half of them at least are by authors I already know I like, so those at least I shouldn't have a problem with. It's rare that I have as strong a reaction to a book as I did to that one.

36snpnmnmi
Jun 4, 2007, 5:25 pm

Well, I got through about 5/6 (read "a lot") of Watership Down and just had to give up within site of the end. Yes, that constitutes a bad read for me. What I mean when I say it is awful is that I would not suggest anyone read it.

37StarGazer72
Jun 4, 2007, 6:00 pm

I think you also have to make an allowance for the difference between "I didn't like the book" or "It doesn't work for me" and "It was poorly written." I read The Wayfarer Redemption by Sara Douglass - all the way through - and I would say, with little hesitation, that it was awful. This is not because it was not my thing. I really did want to like it, and almost could have. But the grammar was terrible, the omniscience was extremely obvious and plodding, and there were many instances of deus ex machina - that's what I would define as awful.

38bookstopshere
Nov 2, 2007, 1:08 pm

when to try again is more of an issue than when to abandon. If I'm unlucky enough to acquire a book I can't stand the first 10 pages of, I'll probably just give it away, but a lot of things that bored me silly when I was 20-something have serious appeal 30 years later. I delude myself that my "taste" has improved, but, of course, it's merely changed. The mismatch of book and reader doesn't necessarily mean the author has failed, although that is one distinct (and increasingly probable) possibility. There are also bad readers - but the top of Parnassus is flat.

39ambushedbyasnail
Nov 2, 2007, 6:11 pm

I agree that you can't judge a book you haven't finished. I'm currently reading Phineas Redux for a class, and man, the first 150 pages dragged like nothing you've ever seen. I went to my professor, practically in tears, begging for an extension on the paper because I couldn't read more than one chapter at a time before having to put the book down in sheer exhaustion. But at about page 160, it suddenly became readable - not just readable, but enjoyable!

Now, I'm not saying I won't groan every time I hear Trollope's name mentioned ever again. (This semester, between two classes, I have to read three of his novels, two of them being six or seven hundred pages long.) But I can say that once you get into it, this book at least is pretty good.

(I've found this also with John Irving's novels - the first 50-100 pages are torture, but if you can get through them, you end up reading an amazing book.)