Do you ever try to read a book, even if you don't like the style it's written in?

For instance, I find it hard to read books written in first person. So it's my natural instinct to leave such books behind and go for one that is more 'my style'.

However reading books that you aren't necessarily comfortable with could open your scope more, and be a good learning tool to use for writing.

Another, I dislike sad endings in books; however, some people say it's good to read what you don't like because it widens your reading knowledge and gives you ideas for writing, instead of just writing it off because it's not what you like.

What do you guys think, and do you naturally shy away from books that aren't to your style, or liking?

I will admit that oftentimes I'll give up on a book if I don't like it withing the first few chapters (awful, I know), but yes, I generally stay away from sad endings and bright cheerful books. I like a darker mood while having a sense of satisfaction and closure at the end.

Sorry, I may have been rambling a bit there.

Kya....if you think that's a ramble...

I have been known to sit down and read Grace Livingstone Hill books. Not just one to see what it was like, but multiples. Just because they were there, and I have a reading disorder that sometimes has nothing to do with good taste. I absolutely abhor romance so...

I highly disapprove of dismissing any genre out of hand because you don't like it. There's works of note in just about every category imaginable. Obviously we're all going to favor our preferences, but if someone says "This is the best book I ever read" but you "hate" the genre, then you'd be rather idiotic not to go read it.

That said, I've recently had to train myself to start putting down books that were boring. If it's been two weeks and I'm only halfway through a book and I'm not getting any other reading done because I'm trying to finish this book that I really can't stand I'll just give up on it. Life is too short to waste on boring books.

I've had to force myself to read some books, especially classics. I especially dislike the way older books are written in the semi-poetry form, because my brain just cannot comprehend a story written in that form. I've managed to get around that by listening to classics, but it's still difficult.
I think reading outside your comfort zone is good, but reading a book you don't like just because you don't like it is not really a good reason. Basically, if you don't like it there's probably a reason and, while a few books like that may widen your horizons, there's no need to force yourself to read only books you hate.

I used to dislike first person present a great deal, but I sort of "trained" myself to read it when all these Dystopian novels came out.

I try to stick to the book until I reach the ending, although when I come across a book that I have difficulty reading, or just isn't my kind of book, I tend to go more slowly, but I really, really try to finish it, for no other reason than the fact that I don't like stopping in the middle of a book and never finishing it. Nevertheless, I've done that for two books already. The first was Moby Dick (I was not a big fan of whaling) and the second was a book that was labeled "Christian" and then had a lot of swear/curse words in the first page that made me so uncomfortable.

I do believe that you should read as much as you can to broaden your horizons and your perspective, but you shouldn't torture yourself in doing so.

Moby Dick, LOL. I read that back in the days when an unfinished book was a paramount crime. I mean, I never even considered not finishing something. I picked it up, and I read it all the way through, and the only safeguard I had in place against boring books was that I only ever read fiction. I think I was about fifteen.

That said. Moby Dick is incredible and everyone should read it. Just skip the chapters on whaling. You can usually tell by the titles whether it's plot related or just more whaling textbook stuff.

I have a very wide range of tolerance in books ranging from Walter Scott and Norse narrative poetry to the "Classic era of Victorian prose. And back to the short sentence action of stuff like the hunger games. So i can't read pretty much any style of book without to much bother.

Though I sympathize with Katie In that up till recently I have considered it a great crime to not finish a book no matter how dull it was.

I am probably a very picky reader. If the book isn't in the Christian fantasy genre or a Marvel/DC comic, I generally pass on it. It's only recently I decided to try a couple series in the Christian paranormal and dystopian genre.

I have read Moby Dick! Once. *Chuckles* I have to say I enjoyed it, but the ''technical' descriptions made it long winded in places.

I will take your piece of advice and try Moby Dick again.

Simple answer: I don't read books I don't like. The only exceptions to this are
(1) reading classics
(and/or 2) assigned readings--rare
(and 3) stories I've promised to read/edit--but I do my very best at selecting stories that sound interesting from writers/friends that I appreciate (but that's a whole other story.)

Long answer: I try to stay with books that are within "my genre"--I read what I love and I write what I read and vice-versa. Right now, that would be Children's Fantasy/Fiction/Sci-fi. I do like some YA--although I have a habit of distrusting the genre given what has come out of it in recent years, and frankly they aren't as original as many kid's stories. XD I also read Christian Fantasy and Christian Suspense. I tend to limit my "adult" reading to the Christian market, simply because it saves me from reading a lot of gunk.

There are many, many books that I have started to read and then put down because I'm not enjoying them. That's what reading is for, isn't it? Enjoyment. (Again, there are exceptions to that rule) But why waste time and energy reading a book that will leave you dissatisfied in the end? Sometimes, I'm just not in the mood and I'll return to a book a week later and read it cover-to-cover. *shrug*

I don't like sad endings unless they are appropriately sad and with hope. There are enough sad endings in life for me to worry about without having to experience them through fiction as well. Stories should always have hope. Always.

And if the style is annoying--ie, poorly written--then I can quickly give up, even if the idea is interesting. I'm not really a picky reader, but I'm definitely a selective one. (Very small difference there.)

I just recently started reading books and--if they are badly penned, have cursing especially in kid's books, or the story is not moving, etc--I'll flip through some pages to see if it gets better. Within the last year, I've even *gasp* started flipping to the back (not right away!) to see if the ending looks promising. I've avoided wasting my time and feeling deeply dissatisfied by doing this.

*points* That, Kya dear, is rambling.

I have never minded reading books written in first person perspective nor in third person. Both versions are natural for me to read. (I actually wrote a story using first person but started rewriting in in third person once).

Books that write using several characters' perspectives are a bit more of a challenge for me. While having two or more perspective can be nice, it ends up muddling the story for me. That is to say, I never finished reading "The Phantom of the Opera" in high school. *debating on trying to reading it again someday or not* I loved reading "Pride and Prejudice" but I gave up a few pages into "Sense & Sensibilities". Maybe it's hit or miss with me?

I tend to be selective with genres so for me, contemporary novels are a bit of a challenge to get through, especially YA contemporary novels. The get dated very quickly or seem phrased immaturely (plus they have excessive drama...I read books to escape that stuff). It's why I prefer fantasy, historical, and sci-fi novels.

Do you mean, a story with more than one perspective at all, or with more than one perspective in a single scene or section? * wondering *

Both the kind where perspective changes every chapter (chapter one: character a, chapter two: character b) and the kind where it breaks the chapter apart into perspectives through different paragraphs.

There is very little that I don't like to read.

That said, I, so far, haven't learned to handle more than a few paragraphs of First Person Present Tense. (Like the Hunger Games.) I plan to try again, but I've closed every book I've started that way.

I definitely will walk away from a book whose content I don't like, because it doesn't live up to certain standards. (Like the book I skimmed last week; it claimed to be Christian, but the one "Christian" seemed to have a very shallow religion, not to mention that the entire book was poorly researched and kind of weird.)

I will also stop reading a book that is just so poorly written, I want to pull my hair out.

LOL I have to agree with you there.


Replying to the discussion of first person: I like first person. I like it because it's easy. I tend to think it's more appropriate for YA books than Children's or even Adult genres, but that might just be because there is far more of 1st person in YA than the others. *shrug*

I find nothing wrong with 1st person, but I definietly think it fits best in short stories. You don't have enough time to get into the character's history and life goals, so the 1st person gets into their head right away. Shows what they're feeling and thinking and makes it very personal. This is the same for longer works, but then you have time to write this all out and you don't need that instant connection that is the purpose of writing from 1st person.

I've recently gotten into writing swapping perspectives. (Chapter 1, character a; chapter 2, character b and etc.) I only do this two, maybe three characters and I make absolutely certain not to head hop into somebody else's perspective when in a different chapter.

That being said, when I look at my book shelves, I own more books in third person than first, so that tells me I tend to like third better. XD

I've put books down in the past, but it takes a lot to keep me away from them. Bad grammar or word choice does it for me; I won't ever finish a poorly-written book.

I can never put down a classic. I like how much personality the narration has. It gives the stories a familiar feel as though many of them are being told by the same talented, old storyteller who can spin yarns in many voices, but always has the same twinkle in his eyes. I adore the quips and asides that give you a chance to laugh at serious characters and feel sorry for unpleasant ones. Even if the language is hard to chew, I usually have to laugh every few sentences because of some comment about a character, or some clever way of wording a sentence that we seldom use anymore. I just find them very encouraging to read.

There are some that I struggle through, either because I am presently full of words and no longer hungry for a book, or because they are rather dry and I occasionally have trouble remembering what is going on. Usually I lose interest in those books within the first few chapters, but end up coming back to them when I am more refreshed.

As for books I really don't like... Sometimes it is due to being poorly written, though I can often still skim through them just to see how the story progresses. I cannot stand large print books. It's an odd sort of conditioning, but they just feel too loud and in my face for the first several chapters, and I find that to be rather stressful. It's like it's trying to jump out at me rather than draw me in. Mockingjay was one of those books. I already wasn't very into it, but the print made me annoyed for the first few chapters. First person that is written well, I can handle, but there has to be something creative about it beyond being the diary of an angsty teen who goes adventuring for better or worse. For that reason, I really can't take anymore dystopian. I try to read it, but the style is usually too dingy and gloomy and I just end up being more critical of the flaws in the writing rather than getting anything from it.

That said, if there is a dystopian that breaks stereotypes and is very different, clever, and amusing, I might consider. I don't really read within a single genre. Typically, I don't go for modern books unless they come highly recommended, or they catch my eye in a certain way. I'll give anything a try, but that try might not last very long depending on the content of the story and sometimes on the style and speed. Being too boring only becomes a problem if it's characters doing boring things. I devour books on information, so a few chapters on the history of bridles usually fascinates me.

So read or not read? It depends. If I think I can learn something from it, I'll give it a chance. I don't really stick to one genre, so I don't avoid certain books on that account. Something that's a mass market best seller is usually something I won't more than glance at, but if I hear it's good for the right reasons, or that it might have something original to teach me, I'll give it a try. More often than not, I find that originality in classics anyway.

Yes. I used to try writing like that. It ended poorly.

Another thing: If a story is first person, I will nine times out of ten put it down. I can't get into that sort of thing because the character usually reacts to things differently than I do, and it frustrates me, because I go, "no, I do this!" and the character doesn't listen...

Oh. I didn't make that connection with first person. Maybe that's why I felt similar to Katniss, but felt she did everything poorly.