Do you have a preference or do you like a bit of both? The last two books I've read have been at both extremes of the scale. The first Red Dwarf novel (based on the TV show) is about as easy a read as I can imagine, helped I admit, by the fact I know the characters and storyline so well from the show. But the second book, William Gibson's Nueromancer of which I'm half way through, is proving to be a right chore. Half the time I have absolutely no idea what's going on or even who's who, and a large part of me can't wait until I've finished it. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean I'm not enjoying the latter of these titles, and this is my point; do you like to work at a novel, or breeze through it in a few sittings?
I like both, bit it really depends on why I'm reading. If I'm reading a novel for a particular reason, like to study a genre or style or something like that, I'll generally trudge through no matter how rough it gets. After a few of those, though, it's always nice to refresh with something that's fairly easy. If you're reading for fun, though, I really don't thing you should be forcing yourself to get through anything. No matter how great a book is supposed to be, if I can't find something about it to enjoy, it generally gets put down to wait for a time when I have the energy to pick it up again. If I do work through a novel, the ending better be worth the struggle.
Both are rewarding in their own ways. After a long day, I prefer an easy book because it helps me relax. But I also like working to understand a complex novel because of how rewarding it can be. It's also nice to challenge yourself every once in a while and keep that brain sharp.
I absolutely prefer easy, straightforward and enjoyable reads. I spent enough years in school forcing myself to read things I didn't necessarily like but had to slog through because they were assigned reading. I will usually give a book a chapter or two if I'm not feeling it from page one, but if I'm not having a good time by chapter three I'll usually give up and move on to something else.
Can't stand to read anything that puts me to sleep or gives me a headache. Reading, if done at home, is for fun and some writers writing styles just don't mesh with my idea of that. So, easy reads. Like @Laurin Kelly I've dragged my mind through enough shit-reads in High-school.
Well what I've learned so far is that many of you equate 'difficult read' to 'shit book'. Interesting.
More like "difficult to read" = "not written along my personal tastes." I would never say that Tolkien or George Martin write shit books, I'm just not interested in the things they write about or the way they write them. There are definitely people who like their reading material challenging, I'm just not one of those folks. I don't mind movies or TV shows that are intellectually stimulating, but when it comes to books I like them sweet and simple.
Nor I, generally speaking. I feel I should add my last comment wasn't a criticism aimed at anyone, just an opinion formed from a similar set of replies.
I don't think harder books are worse, but they have the potential to be worse. If I put in ridiculous amounts of energy trying to read a book, I'm going to want a decent pay off. Jane Austen is rather difficult for me to read and I don't like the books, because all the jokes and the wit and the story aren't enough to offset the effort I put into understanding the jokes and the wit from a small section of a certain class from over a hundred years ago. Night, by Elie Wiesel is top three most difficult books for me to read, but it was worth it. Needless to say, I consider Night to be a better book than Mansfield Park, though some people might disagree with me.
