I think I'm a bit strange, because the way I have always done it was to look for interesting titles, then read the blurb on the back, and if it still looked interesting, open the book to a random point and read a page.
That's right, I don't even look at the hook. I have been doing it this way for as long as I remember, long before I even knew what a hook was.
This also reminds me of the book "The Island Stallion" by Walter Farley. It was one of my favorite books when I was a kid, but I always started reading it about five chapters in (when the main characters get lost in the tunnels), because the beginning was so boring.
Now I'm curious just how strange I am. How do you guys choose your new books, and are there any books where you skip some part of the beginning whenever you read them?
--Mel
I'm very picky with a "cold" choice. I'm much more lenient with books that have been recommended.
I deliberately read outside my genre preferences occasionally; when I'm doing that, I rely totally on the opening page to decide if a random pick is something I want to read.
(Sorry for the length of the post and slight off topic-ness)
Cloud of Sparrows
by TAKASHI MATSUOKA
There is a seqel too, but I can't find it at my local bookstore, so I had to order it.
But don't take my word for it!
Well, title can intrigue or put off, and so can cover art, but for me the most important thing is the blurb on the back. For me, that's what gives me the flavour; it should tell me enough of what the story is about for me to know whether it's my "thing" or not, without giving away too much detail. if I like the blurb, I might flip the book open and read a page - often at random, rather than the first few lines (remember, everyone's TRYING to impress with the first few lines these days, so checking out page 78 can be a better bet at finding out whether it's "got it").
This brings me to a question - do authors get to write the blurbs for their own books, or not? I'd hate to go to the work of writing a novel, which features a few lovely plot surprises and twists on the way, and then find out the blurb gives them away and completely misrepresents the point or emphasis of the story. I try and write 150-word or so blurbs for all my work, but I have no idea whether I should be bothering...
PS - If there's something on the cover that says "Volume 1 in a stunning new fantasy saga!", I'll put it back. In my experience, "Volume 1 in a stunning new fantasy saga" means "an incomplete book, which will meander on for as long as the writer thinks they can get away with publishing new volumes, or until they've got bored or made enough money". I don't mind fantasy series, but I look a book to have a proper ending. It's all Tolkein's fault - people think a "trilogy" is one big book published in three volumes, when it isn't; a real trilogy is three related but self-contained books. LotR was only published in three volumes because it was too big to physically bind in one. End of rant...
[This message has been edited by tchernabyelo (edited June 16, 2005).]
People tend to try their hardest in the first few lines and it is probably a good indication of the best of the writing that follows.
If I like it, I turn somewhere in the middle and read.
If I still like it, I look at the cover.
The scene is often an indication of one of the high-points in the story. If it looks stupid, ie: a dracoid creature in a tunic and boots wielding a cutlass and hanging from an anchor chain fighting mermen with tridents. I gently put it down.
Good, sophisticated cover-design will draw me in. Not just a fancy illustration with gilt lettering, but good conceptual design.
Does that sound childish and shallow?
Also a series of maps at the front of a book is a turn-off for me. I think, 'Wait a minute! This story/writer is going to be going to so many places of such little consequence that I wont be able to keep track.' Especially when the names sound like all the other place names on fantasy maps I've ever read.
An enormous image of the author in the back -- I seem to remember a full-page image of the author in the back of Ill-made mute. -- screams: 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here.'
If the 'praise for this author's other work' blurbs contain too many ellipses -- I freak out --
quote:
"This work is of...obvious merit." NYTimes
I'll go now and have a tylenol and a good lie-down.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited June 16, 2005).]
After that I read the back blub and then I'll open and skim a paragraph or two at several different places. If it still looks good, I'll grab it.
I also like to browse the discount aisle. Sometimes there are some pretty good books there.
Most of the time now I read for research, though. So I check out books on Amazon, read the reader reviews, check how popular it is, etc...before I buy it. Lately I buy books that I wouldn't always buy after reading the first chapter. Lots of YA/Fantasy--which I love--but not all of it is great or even good.
It's funny what tchernabyelo said about the back covers, cause I've wondered the same thing. I've writen several for my books, but they say you should do that anyway cause it's what they like in a query. I've heard that most of the back covers you read came from the query letter.
Have you ever read a book without reading the back? It's a lot more fun. Lot's more surprises. I only do that with books that were recomended to me by people I trust.
That said, if I'm looking to buy a book I know absolutely nothing about, I'll look at the blurb, table of contents (if there is one), and first page. I absolutely NEVER look randomly, because I tried that once and was very disapointed to read mid-plot-twist-in-action. I didn't realize it; I just thought, 'Hey this is good'. But then started from the beginning and realized I knew one of the best parts already, which kind of ruined it for me.
One of the interesting statistics I found while doing my research was this: The average consumer spends less than ten seconds looking at the front cover and fifteen seconds looking at the back.
The point is that even though everyone says "You can't judge a book by its cover," in reality everyone DOES judge a book by its cover.
I personally usually go through the full catalog of things written by authors I admire. Then, when I venture out into unknown authors, I will peruse the bookshelves, find a title that interests me, find a cover that interests me, read the blurb on the back, and then read a couple of paragraphs in the front. If I'm still undecided I'll read a couple of random pages in the middle. If I like the author's style and if it seems it is a fresh approach to my favorite topic (usually fantasy), I'll give it a whirl.
That was how I found Orson Scott Card. 
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited June 16, 2005).]
quote:
If I'm looking for something entertaining, I head for the fantasy section
You folks read a lot more fantasy that I do. Maybe you can answer something. I have generally avoided fantasy because the first fantasy I ever read was Tolkien, and that set the bar extremely high. I started to read Sword of Shannara," and I couldn't get past page 50. I started to read "Lord Foul's Bane," and I couldn't get past page 50. I started to read "Dragon Riders of Pern," and I couldn't get past page 50. Yet, I've read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings trilogy seven times, and I played D&D as a kid.
The authors of the three books I can't finish are very highly regarded fantasy writers. For me, it seems not to have any correlation to the quality of the writing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these all fall under the sub-genre of high fantasy, right? Is that the problem for me? There seems to be a lot of regurgitation of the same ideas (dragons, elves with white magic, bearded dwarves that live in mines, wizards with long white beards, talking trees, and evil meanies with black magic).
Is the reason I read SF simply because fantasy readers want the familiar, whereas SF readers want the unfamiliar?
'Wizard of the Pigeons' by Megan Lindholm is a case in point. Try it you may like it.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited June 17, 2005).]
Anne McCaffrey is another writer I loved when I was a kid, but now find rather annoying (although not as bad as Brooks).
You might try Raymond Feist. The first book of the series is called Magician (actually published in two books called Magician: Apprentice and Magician: Master, although I think newer editions are one volume.) I found the beginning to be a bit slow, but it only took maybe a chapter to get into it. I have read all of the original series and I loved it.
It does use some of the plot elements that have become so trite, such as dwarves who like to mine. However, the overall story is not quite the standard fantasy fare.
For years I didn't read fantasy at all, because I thought it was all sixteen-volume epics about elves and such. Luckily I've learned the genre is has more to it than that.
My new favorite is Robin Hobb. I just finished the Farseer Trilogy and loved it. I'm now headed into the Live Ship Traders. And I usually hate a series that drags on and on. I perfer the beginning, middle, and end, to all be in the same book. Unless--of course--it's LOTR.
How ironic. I'm writing a trilogy. But if I put the whole story into one book it would be like 400,000wds. And it's YA. So I guess I forgive myself.
Unfortunately, many are not that great. Take The Wheel of Time for example. Jordan writes a lot of words, but they don't actually accomplish much. I'm struggling through the series yet again so that I can read the latest book (#10, I believe), but I am losing patience quickly. If he doesn't wrap it up in the next book (#11), then I'll probably give up in disgust.
--Mel
[This message has been edited by TheoPhileo (edited June 17, 2005).]
I like covers that look like some thought went into them, and that make the book look unique, and interesting. If it looks too mass-market, I'm skeptical, and if it just looks bad, I'll probably put it down.
The cover also tells me a lot about the genre.
I'm not even a very visual person, overall, and covers play a big role in the decision for me.
what probably drew me in on the book was the size of the thing. it had to have been the thickest volume i'd ever seen at that point in fiction, and so i figured it should keep me busy for a while. if i had to estimate the number of pages with actual story in it, i'd have to say that it was upwards of 500+ pages, probably nearing 600+ pages.
I don't usually read bits "out of order" unless I have a particularly strong reason to believe that later text might be of markedly different quality than earlier text. Usually, I do that on my way to a "not gonna bother with this one" decision (whether I'm suspecting that the writing would be better or worse, since I tend to be right about bad things and...overly optimistic about "good" things).
As for the problem with fantasy - the comments about Sword of Shannara were spot-on. It's dreadful, and I could never get deep enough into the book to find the spot where my friends said, "It gets better." It was such a blatant rip-off of Tolkien, I tossed it aside as a poorly done copy.
Fantasy - to be well done - should take a familiar theme (usually centering around magic) and come at it with a slightly different approach. Tolkien set the bar. But there are a myriad of other ways to deal with the theme. Too many fantasy authors settle a tired rehash of familiar material.
Here are some of my recommendations I just made to my writing group:
I have specifically liked OSC as an author for two reasons: he's had original approaches in his stories, and most of all because his writing is clean and concise. His characters are plain-spoken, and he does an incredible job moving plot along at a nice pace without becoming bogged down in extraneous detail or burdensome dialog - a trait I'm far too guilty of. I see him as a role model for how I want to write. But for pity sake, branch out from the Ender series. He has done several books that don't get the publicity, but are great tales nonetheless. I liked Songmaster and Wyrms, both stand-alone books that had different approaches. I also liked the Homecoming series, but it wasn't quite as powerful.
Margaret Weis/Tracy Hickman - if you've only read one of their series (most folks read Dragonlance), then you've missed some of their best writing. The Death Gate series is very well done, and again uses some unusual approaches - I liked the labrynth as a prison, and the glowing magical tatoos. They also did a sword thing - not that I can remember the name of it... Dark Sword series or somesuch. Again, it was well written although the plot (obviously) doesn't stand out in my mind as well.
Marion Zimmer Bradley is consistently one of my favorite fantasy authors. Her Darkover series focused a lot on psi powers and had a richly woven culture - premise was eons ago, Earth pioneers from the region of Scotland crash landed on the planet, so there is a feel of the scottish highlands to the books. Her treatment of the King Arthur legend in Mists of Avalon was incredibly well done, and has become - for me - the definitive version of the legend.
Katherine Kerr (not to be confused with Katherine Kurtz, who did the Camber series - which I could never get into) - Katherine Kerr did a series of fantasy books set in the land of Deverry. The first in the series is Daggerspell. Very much a feel of the old highwayman legends, a bit of a scottish feel to it as well. She has a nice take on elves, and I really like her gnomes. She built the series around the concept of reincarnation, and one character - Nevyn, who must atone for an error he made years ago. The series follows a small handful of people through their various incarnations and shows how they learn to deal with their Wyrd. This is one of my most favorite series - and best of all, there must be about 9 books written - all good. (I love it when I find a great author with an entire large catalog of material I've not yet read.)
The writing in all these books is well done, and I find myself - usually on the second read-through, thinking more about their writing style. They are all good enough authors that I cannot pull myself OUT of the story to think about mundane things like mechanics on the first read.
And THAT kind of author is what *I* want to be when I grow up!!!
I recently bought and read "Illegal Alien" by Robert J. Sawyer, and the cover art was merely a bright star. Boring. On the other hand, I was attracted to S. M. Stirling's Conquistador mainly because the cover art intrigued me.
But I also look at the back cover copy, read a random excerpt, look for blurbs from authors I know and respect, as well as possibly the page count and font size.
On the other hand, there are some authors that I will snap up anything I haven't read.
Next, I look at the title, although that rarely determines my decision after I've looked at the cover art. Then I read the summary on the back, see whether it's anything I'd be interested in reading.
And then...I look at the price. If I had my way, I'd take everything that piques my interest, but I'd go broke real quick. I wish it was different, but what's presented and the price are the two big factors in my mind.
I don't base my decision on the cover, but a good title with interesting art work on the cover is certainly going to grab my attention, and encourage me to pick it up in the first place. But then again, my favorite series/books were recommended to me by others, and I wouldn't say that the covers would have caught my attention. For example, the covers of any of Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion books. The story is of the level that I one day hope to obtain, but if my step-father hadn't recommended it, I don't know that I would have ever chosen it.
Cover art makes almost no difference to me, unless I'm going to be trying to read it to the Elder's Quorum and it's got a really prurient illustration on the front or something like that
For those that don't care for Tad Williams' high fantasy, I would recommend his stand-alone Tailchaser's Song. It's about cats. I thought it was very good.
-K.
quote:
For those that don't care for Tad Williams' high fantasy, I would recommend his stand-alone Tailchaser's Song. It's about cats. I thought it was very good.
Heh. Us Writers and our cats.
Back on topic, the things that most interest me in a book are:
First of all, size--decently thick, 700+ and it becomes harder to prove you need that much space, but on the opposite side, less than 300, and you need to prove to me that you can actually tell a complete story in that much space.
Second, blurb--it needs to be written concisely, and in an interesting manner. It needs to play with my mind and tickle my curiosity.
Third, quotes from other authors and editors--I could care less what the critics think, but if another author that I like, or an editor whom I trust says it's good, I'm more likely to proceed to the next step.
Lastly, First five and last five pages. I find that this is a pretty good amount of space to give a writer to prove to me that they can start an interesting tale and can also finish what they started. The shorter or longer the book, the more critical of these pages I become.
Of course, for anthologies, the rules change a little bit. I only read anthologies that are well established as industry leaders or are edited by an editor who is well established as an industry leader.
For poem collections... well, I just don't read them. I write poetry, I read isolated poems by people I know, but I absolutely refuse to read poetry collections. The only requirement to be published in one is to stroke the right persons back at the right time. And, to be perfectly honest, I could write a much better poem by a hundred-fold than some of the people that get into those collections, but I do not know the right people to get myself published in any of the "respected" ones.
My wife reads a lot, so I'll occasionally pull one of her books from one of our bookshelves and read the first 10 pages -- if I make it that far.
In a bookstore, I always head for the SF/F or New Releases sections and look for interesting titles, or new books from trusted authors. Then, I'll select a book and find a chair (if I'm in Borders or similar chain) and read a few pages. If it interests me, I buy it. If not, I search out another until I do find an interesting book. I've discovered that I nearly always look for trilogies or series, and I buy a lot of SF anthologies.
But we also buy books on-line. Amazon often has excerpts of books to read and that helps. Unlike pixydust, I never read the reviews -- I find them unreliable and often immature. (If a reviewer has poor grammar skills, then they have little business writing a review. Alas, the woes of the internet, where anyone and everyone can write uninformed drivel. This is also the "you can't please everyone" thing.)
Lastly, I buy a lot of E-books for my PDA because we have little space in our small flat to hold all of our books. We've only recently resorted to storing our printed books in large, plastic storage bins to make room for new books -- it's dreadfully difficult to part with a book once you've bought it. And my wife will read the same books over and over -- she's re-reading all of the Harry Potter novels for the sixth time in anticipation of the newest book in a few weeks. So, about 150 E-books currently reside on my hard drive, most of have been read already. I usually use Amazon to read the excerpts before buying, though.
Further, I visit Project Gutenberg to get free, public-domain books (I've got nearly every Poe story ever written from there, as well as many of the classics). Really, the only trouble I have with E-books is that they are often riddled with stupid scanning errors that get missed during proofreading phase. Anyway, I download these public domain books pretty much at random, usually in .txt format and then convert them for use on my PDA.
In sci-fi/fantasy, I look for authors that are well established and have major titles under their belts. I do this because best sellers are best sellers for a reason (a lot of people liked them).
Once I pick an author, then I look for their best-known works and I normally read the first page of the book. If it hooks me right away (you know, you're standing in the isle for twenty mins and you realize you’re already twelve pages in before you even knew it) then I make the purchase. If the beginning does not hook me but still manages to intrigue me, then I'll flip to somewhere in the middle and read a few more pages. If I'm still intrigued by then, I buy the book.
If I end up liking the book, then I'll return to that author.
quote:
Generally, going to a bookstore is very dangerous for my wallet.
I'll second THAT statement!! One of my most courageous moments was that once I went into Powell's Bookstore (in Portland, Oregon - the main store takes up an entire city block, 3 stories high), and walked out without buying ANYthing! (Mary Robinette will know what an accomplishment that truly was!) I told the owner of Powell's once that I'm sure I've made a house payment, or at least a car payment to him over the years. I love buying books. I just don't have any bookshelf room left for them. 
I'm not sure I could get into e-books like HSO. I read better in print than I do on the screen. It just seems more satisfactory to hold a book in my hands.
And that leads into one of the reasons I never bothered to finish Jean Auel's last novel... her last "Mammoth Book" was too heavy and bulky for me to hold. My hands ached. Plus, the story of Ayla Creating Modern Civilization got a little too predictable and boring.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited June 21, 2005).]
quote:
I'm not sure I could get into e-books like HSO. I read better in print than I do on the screen.
I think most of us do read better when a book is printed. And I agree, there is something satisfying about a paper book.
On the other hand, I can carry 50+ huge novels in my pocket, all of them stored on my PDA -- which weighs only a few ounces. Other than the aformentioned scanning errors, there are a few more difficulties with e-books. Tiny screen, battery life, badly formatted text to name just a few. I have, however, adapted to all of these things over time. But I find it much easier to read printed materials than an e-book. (I wonder if our newest generation of kids will differ from us in this regard.) And there is always that darned technology that changes every few years threatening to obosolete one's electronic library (which is why .txt files are ideal for me... I can always convert those into whatever is current.)
There are good things about e-books, too. For instance: searching on text string within a book, multiple bookmarks, writing lengthy notes about a particular page, section, chapter and storing those electronically for future study.
But nothing beats the smell of a new book, or even the slightly musty but inoffensive smell of a well-used book. As long as we have trees, we'll have printed books (and plenty of oxygen).
1. Cover Art or title catches my eye. Sometimes titles or authors you guys have recommended catch my eye too.
2. Pick it up and read the blurb
3. Flip to the first chapter and read the first page.
I ignore prologues, maps, lineage diagrams, etc. I also ignore those recommendation quotes.
P.S. - I agree the last "Mammoth" book disappointed me too. It kept building to a conflict between Ayla and several characters, but never delivered on it.