The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, why do you read poorly written books then?

Any scene can be a filler for poorly written books, not just sex. And any well written scene can make a book more enjoyable, including sex scenes. IMO, of course. Obviously there are a lot of people who dislike specifically sex scenes, for reasons I don't really understand.

What's not to understand? I don't want to watch sex scenes in movies or read them in books. I don't think it is appropriate or healthy. Some things are best left private.

I don't like watching or reading graphic violence. It's not entertainment for me, it puts stuff in my head that I don't want there.

[Renate]

I've been known to "fast-forward" books sometimes.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

What's not to understand? I don't want to watch sex scenes in movies or read them in books. I don't think it is appropriate or healthy. Some things are best left private.

I don't like watching or reading graphic violence. It's not entertainment for me, it puts stuff in my head that I don't want there.

Thanks for explaining. While I don't agree with you about sex, it's certainly a perfectly valid reason and one I can respect, more than vague stuff about how most sex scenes are unnecessary and fillers.

[ownedbycats]

I have an annoying habit of starting one book, reading the first 2-3 chapters, then switching to another unread book, repeat and repeat until I have half a dozen books all being read at the same time. Sigh...

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I have an annoying habit of starting one book, reading the first 2-3 chapters, then switching to another unread book, repeat and repeat until I have half a dozen books all being read at the same time. Sigh...

Right there with you. I’m trying to be better about it. Part of the issue is that I like having a few books going at once so I can suit my mood and attention span, but it gets out of hand.

[Fat Abe]

As human beings, our tastes change, sometimes on a daily basis. I do not expect to eat a pastrami sandwich everyday, so I switch to vegetarian, soups, casseroles, cereals, etc., on other days.
The same seems to apply with books, after glancing through this thread. I can be awed by Faulkner, James Lee Burke, Thomas Pynchon, and other "great" writers. But, then I have to put their books down, and read more accessible books from Elmore Leonard, Lawrence Block, Walter Mosley, etc. Even raunchier books by Jim Thompson and Bill Pronzini are needed when the mood calls for them. I wish our e-readers had a synopsis of the previous six chapters, when we hop from book to book.
Last but not least, I feel sorrow for the huge numbers of authors whose books are placed in Kindle Unlimited's vast library. I do tend to skim over these novels much more than I do with purchased books, or Overdrive books that I have been waiting months to borrow.

[ownedbycats]

At most, I like to have four books going at once: one regular fiction/nonfiction, one omnibus edition, and two fanfics (one fully-completed, one in-progress). But I get distracted easily. Plus I never know when a library hold will show up.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

At most, I like to have four books going at once: one regular fiction/nonfiction, one omnibus edition, and two fanfics (one fully-completed, one in-progress). But I get distracted easily. Plus I never know when a library hold will show up.

Theoretically I go with what I think of as a Three Bears approach: one “hard” book, serious fiction or biography; one “medium” book, e.g. travel, memoir or literary fiction; one “light” book, for when I’m tired or can’t concentrate. And one audiobook.

But something may call to me or I get bogged down (especially likely with the hard nonfiction) and sometimes it’s two audiobooks, one to go to sleep by and one for when I’m out and about. And the library aspect, but with a 21-day checkout I don’t have to start it right away, at least in theory. And next thing I know….

[Apache]

I have always been a read one book at a time kind of guy.
Apache

[Renate]

Being a bear of very little brain I prefer not to mix up my story lines.
But while I am reading a history of oysters I realize that I also am in the middle of three collections of short stories.
At least I only read entire stories between major books.
And then there is the electrical experimenter book from 1909 which I dip into occasionally.

[isarl]

does anyone really think that adding : A Novel to the book title is useful?

Replying to and seconding this sentiment, expressed in passing in another thread, here where I think it's highly relevant, particularly as I just ran into it this week with Neal Stephenson's* Snow Crash : A Novel.

Even if you consider that A Novel is the subtitle and not part of the principal title itself, what use does it serve? It is completely uninteresting and unhelpful. Presumably the reader knows from context clues whether the book is fiction or not. I like to maintain good metadata in my library but this is one subtitle which will get deleted with prejudice.

[Witty Username]

Originally Posted by isarl

Replying to and seconding this sentiment, expressed in passing in another thread, here where I think it's highly relevant, particularly as I just ran into it this week with Neil Gaiman's Snow Crash : A Novel

Neal Stephenson, not Neil Gaiman.

[isarl]

Originally Posted by Witty Username

Neal Stephenson, not Neil Gaiman.

Thank you very much for the correction.

[theducks]

:A Novel

A (similar title ) tie breaker? Previously a Short Story?

IMHO a sub-title should add or further explain...
'Or how I learned to love the Bomb'

[Quoth]

A novel is so 19th Century? Or maybe 18th Century. It was only needed if the author might also have written factual books (maybe a travelogue or biography), poetry, novella, short story collections or the publisher did omnibus editions.

It now looks a bit strange but much less annoying than Amazon titles and filenames that now include part of the blurb.