Bookstore for me. I will read the first page or two of a book in a bookstore. If the author hasn't interested me sufficiently by then, it goes back on the shelf. If I see a prologue it may go back before I read any of it
Perhaps you have a point there... I always buy books/ebooks (rather than borrow from a library etc)and then only books that grab my attention through the description/teaser or having read (and enjoyed)other works from the same author.
@Steerpike Oh in that case I'm sure it's the first couple of pages for most people. I wonder who sits in a bookstore reading more than ten pages of a book in order to make a decision. That's why that first page is so vitally important.
It depends an many factors. I tend to research all the books I want to read beforehand so that anytime I go to the library or bookstore, I know exactly what I want. On the books that I pick up on the whim, most of them have caught my interests in one form of another without having to read the first two pages so usually they turn out good. Two pages aren't sufficient for me. I usually give all books the benefit of the doubt as opposed to not. Of all the books I have stopped reading, it was either because I was assigned to read it, or the more I read, the more I hated the book. It just depends. Depends on the author, depends on the writing itself, depends on book reviews. Like I stopped reading The English Patient by Ondaatje after about six pages because the prose was absolutely boring even though the book's premise was interesting. Currently reading American Pastoral by Roth and almost almost gave up. The first 70 page were torture to read. No, not just boring or lifeless, torture. It had engaging parts, but the torture required to read through them was overwhelming, but I made myself stick with it and I'm so happy that I did it. And if you read reviews etc., on it, many people gave up or hate the book because of of how it was written, personally I think the first 70 pages were skillfully crafted that the intent was to make the readers hate and struggle with the first part of the book. And the more you read, the more it makes sense as to why the first part was so horrible to read. It's just one of the many complexities of the book.
In the first two pages there should be something that will hold my interest and make me want to keep reading. You can tell if the writer is competent or not, usually in the first couple of sentences, but definitely by the end of the first page. I like a lot of different genres and styles so I guess I'm pretty lenient. There are also books that are so terrible I keep reading them just to see how bad it will get. I use those as a kind of self-teaching experience (and entertainment). As far as library, book store, etc. I shop for books primarily online. I often buy because of recommendations, but sometimes just because it looks interesting. The ones that allow me to read a couple of pages online before buying have saved me a lot of trouble (time and money too!), but even if I paid for it, garbage is garbage and there are a ton of other books I'd rather use my time for. I used to finish every book, no matter what, because I thought of it as a teaching experience. Lately though some things are just so bad I can't do it. I want to fix all their mistakes and ridiculous language usage. That probably sounds arrogant, but it's true. I get so distracted by the bad writing there's just no way I can continue.
If I'm choosing it in a bookshop or library, I'll read the blurb and the first couple of pages. If I'm not hooked then I won't bother with it. If it's a book I've been given or bought purely on recommendation then I'll usually give it the first chapter. It depends really though. Sometimes I can tell from the first page if I'm going to enjoy it and other times I'll read a hundred pages and then realise that I don't want to read it anymore.
I used to finish everything, too. But then I realized that time is too short. Besides, I'd rather learn from reading good writing than from reading bad writing.
I will give it 25-30 pages before I make a judgment about it though I rarely leave a book unfinished once I have started it
If you find yourself asking that imaginary reader to "bear with you for a couple more pages" you're doing something wrong. Besides, they probably won't "bear."
On the "books starting slow" bit, I will agree. Some published books do start slowly. I can think of a number of TV/movie tie-ins that spring to mind. They were awful. I rest my case. The point is, it's a dangerous gamble on the part of the writer to start a book that way. If it does happen to make it to the bookshelves (and that's a Pluto-is-still-a-planet sized if) you will be hard pressed to find anyone willing to spend money on it. You may end up writing those movie/TV tie-ins just to earn back the advance you were paid. So no, I don't think two pages is harsh. If I'm shopping for books and the cover of yours catches my eye, you've got those two pages to get me involved.
Well, I once heard someone say they would read about 50 pages, if it hadn't got them hooked by then, they got rid of the book. Personally I would give it a little longer, but sometimes I can ditch it sooner, if like you've said, when you realise it's just not for you after a couple of pages. From what I've learnt, you really need to make sure from the first sentence you hook your reader. Find some action, surprising dialogue, or intriguing information to put right at the beginning. Then have flashbacks and new pieces of information as you go through the book. No one wants to read a chunk of explanatory backstory at the beginning of a novel, it will put them off. Or at least it would me! I think you're right, most the "classic" books you read in school do tend to start slower, or perhaps it's because we are being forced to read them that we are loathe to get into them! I'm also glad I'm not the only one who finishes only about 10 percent of the books I start, I was beginning to think I was a fussy reader!
I may give it a bit longer, but essentially I think you're right. After buying a couple of disastrous books over the last year, I'm a bit more careful these days. There are so many great books I've yet to read, so I don't much feel like wasting time, at present, with mediocre stuff. Although what you mention about the cover is food for thought as well. How much do we base our decisions to buy on the artwork?
Depends. If I'm reading something online, which is not my preferred way of reading, I'll give it a few paragraphs at most. Especially work on forums. Whether or not it's worth your time is all there in the beginning. For published work, pretty much the bookstore test: if it intrigues me by the first page, I'll consider sticking with it. Classics and things I've heard about or notable authors I'll give the benefit of the doubt and stick with longer. I stayed with Catcher in the Rye for about 100 pages before moving on to something more interesting.
^ Me too, re. the classics. I think we know what to expect there. I struggled with The Grapes of Wrath, as an example... although I'd previously enjoyed and read others by Steinbeck.
I have to give books a real chance. I don't need a hook in the first line or two. One of my favorite novels is John Steinbeck's East of Eden, and it begins with a whole chapter of just description of the setting. I think readers who judge too quickly are responsible for some really awful writing. Nowadays, because of them, too many novels start off with lines like "Boobs boobs boobs and then the universe exploded!" Face it: Some stories just take a bit of time to get into. A writer isn't a bad writer just because you're not hooked in the first paragraph. If that were true, many of the best works of fiction ever would not be read. Maybe people these days all have some kind of attention deficit disorder, brought on, no doubt, by playing video games too much. But to judge a 500-page novel on the first page is, to me, silly.
We are a much more image-oriented society, and the pace of modern literature reflects this change of attitude. A lot of the work is left up to the reader, precisely because the reader can handle it, and probably prefers to. He has a Master's in pop culture, even if he isn't consciously aware of it. Just to be clear, though, my personal criteria for good work isn't so much that it begins with action, or is provocative in some way. I am just looking for great writing initially, and the first few pages does give me a clue as to whether the book is decent or not. I just have too many great books on my must-lead list to give every work I come across extended consideration.
I disagree. I've read lots of classics, and the ones I enjoyed all had something that interested me right away. In addition, employing ad hominem arguments does not bolster your case
Using "maybe" completely destroys the possibility of it being an "ad hominem argument", which he did. Also, what are you disagreeing with? He said some stories take some time to get into. That is a fact. He said a lot of the best works of fiction would not have been read if someone was a bad writer because their story had a slow beginning. This is also true, as some of the best works of fiction do have slow beginnings. What are you disagreeing with?
Me too, usually I have a pretty good idea if I'm going to like it or not within the first 5 pages. Well, you're not entirely right in that not much can happen in two pages, it all depends on how it's written. And the most important thing for the writer is not so much the action but to catch the readers interest, which not always demands action scenes. You can definitely get interested in knowing more in two pages. maybe that is why it is even more important to start off with something interesting, at the right place in the story. lots of people won't tollerate long backstories before getting to the whole issue of the story. As I just said, I'm one of those who wouldn't plough through page after page of useless backstory before arriving at the actual start of the novel. exactly!
You are confusing slow with interesting. The best works of fiction that I've come across all have something that interests me right away. Slow versus fast doesn't enter into it. This is true whether we're talking about Dostoevsky, Melville, or Conrad, or whether we're talking about non-classics, for example the latest Michael Connelly book.
Yes it does, because that means he was not really making a solid argument to begin with. He never said "Everyone who gives up after 2 pages has ADD, which is due to video games". Using maybe means it is just a theory, so it really is not a solid argument. Well then, should I fix what I said? It is true that many fiction novels that are "widely believed" to be some of the greatest have a not very interesting beginning, but get interesting later on. Again, what are you disagreeing with? Are you you saying that it is not true that some of the best works of fiction don't have the greatest beginnings? I don't think you can disagree with something like that, really, because there are great (or widely believed to be so) novels that don't have very interesting beginnings. I just don't understand what you were referring to when you said "I disagree". Are you trying to say that you don't agree that a novel with a slow beginning can be any good? I really don't think you meant to say "I disagree", because there was nothing to really disagree with. He was stating facts. Whether you enjoy the books that are widely believed to be some of the best even though they have a slow beginning is irrelevant, because all he was saying is that those books do sometimes have slow beginnings.
Well it depends on the book for me, so i'll judge with 3 pages, other by 60. You never know with me. Very rarely do i put a book back when i read 2 or 3 pages of it.
