On the verge of abandoning a book... for the first time in my life

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

It’s such a great feeling when you decide to abandon a book; the realization that, “It’s not me, it’s the book.” Yesterday I abandoned one of this year’s hot novels, Booth, by Karen Joy Fowler, a popular author. It’s a historical novel about the family of that Booth. Golly, it was tedious and with nothing of insight or interest to say that I could see. And long! After I abandoned it, I took a quick look at the reviews and was delighted (because who doesn’t like confirmation?) to find a stinker in the NYT. The WaPo and the Guardian loved it, however.

Eek. My library hold on Booth just came through. I was already feeling iffy about it. Since I do not abandon books, the question is if I should even start it. How far did you go before abandoning?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by issybird

It’s such a great feeling when you decide to abandon a book; the realization that, “It’s not me, it’s the book.” Yesterday I abandoned one of this year’s hot novels, Booth . . .

I first read a review or two in publications I respect, and rarely start a book unless it got a rave. So when I abandon a book, as I frequently do, it really is me.

As for Booth, my main go-to for reviews agrees with you:

If it sounds tedious to witness an author grapple with tension for 470 pages, that would be an accurate forecast of the reading experience. It’s impossible to summarize the plot of “Booth.” There’s far too much of it.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Eek. My library hold on Booth just came through. I was already feeling iffy about it. Since I do not abandon books, the question is if I should even start it. How far did you go before abandoning?

The display on my Kobo said 16%. Which is probably about the sweet spot in terms of giving it a fair trial but not throwing good time after bad.

Obviously I can’t parse someone else’s taste and a lot of people think this is great, but especially given that it’s long and you don’t abandon books, I’d think hard. I’ll just say that overall, it struck me as a very pedestrian effort on historical fiction lines. The author used the topic to give it heft that she didn’t earn. That is, it wasn’t interesting on its own merits, but only because of the specter of JWB.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I first read a review or two in publications I respect, and rarely start a book unless it got a rave. So when I abandon a book, as I frequently do, it really is me.

As for Booth, my main go-to for reviews agrees with you:

That’s the stinker I referred to.

When a book catches my attention, I don’t want to read a review, or read far in one, if I think I’d like it. It’s a delicate dance in terms of getting enough info to make a decision yet not spoiling my experience. This time I erred on “not enough info”. In my defense, I checked my three usual sources after the fact and two of them gave thumbs up.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by issybird

That’s the stinker I referred to.

When a book catches my attention, I don’t want to read a review, or read far in one, if I think I’d like it. It’s a delicate dance in terms of getting enough info to make a decision yet not spoiling my experience. This time I erred on “not enough info”. In my defense, I checked my three usual sources after the fact and two of them gave thumbs up.

TBH, the very idea of that book sounds suspect. I'd be put off by the blurb.

Lots of stuff sells well and many people don't finish and I'd never start. Like "Fifty Shades of Grey".

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Quoth

TBH, the very idea of that book sounds suspect. I'd be put off by the blurb.

Lots of stuff sells well and many people don't finish and I'd never start. Like "Fifty Shades of Grey".

“Popular” isn’t persuasive for me; it’s probably more of a contraindication. But the serious press, the NYT, the WaPo and the Guardian, took this seriously. Historical fiction based on actual people and events can be fascinating and illuminating, but Fowler proved to be no Mantel.

It’s possible that Booth the person is inherently more interesting to Americans. In any case, dragging Fifty Shades into this as a point of comparison is absurd at best.

[Quoth]

I don't like Mantel either We do have a couple in the house from a Charity Shop.

But obviously Booth and Fifty have nothing in common. It was only a bad example of how popular is meaningless. Oxfam built a castle from donated copies and said no more needed. Harry Potters still only last a few days in the local charity shop but they now have six copies of Fifty.

Sorry for bringing down the tone.

[Catlady]

OK, thanks folks, I'm saying NO to Booth. I hadn't read any reviews beforehand; I just thought a novel about JWB and his family sounded interesting so I put the audiobook on hold. But now I've read the NYT review (kudos to the reviewer for opening with a Sondheim quote!), which led me to look at the sample from the e-book version, and the writing style turned me off completely.

I'm usually more careful choosing books; I'm going to let this one go to the next unsuspecting victim on the wait list. Maybe I'll listen to the original cast album of Assassins instead.