How much do you skip?

[maestrowork]

As a reader. And what do you skip usually?

I find myself skipping over long expository paragraphs. I glance at them, then determine if the paragraphs advance the plot or not. If not, I skip over them. I have no patience for long descriptions of characters or a setting. I get most of the characterization through the dialogue and action. I also skip over psychobabbles.

[CindyBidar]

Long paragraphs describing in great detail what the character is wearing. I do not care if the detective is wearing brown loafers or running shoes, green polyester slacks or jeans, baseball cap or fedora. Most times it just doesn't matter, and only bogs me down with the details.

[dblteam]

Sex scenes.

I've only read one book where an explicit blow-by-blow description of a sexual encounter was necessary to the story (Crichton's book... grrr can't think of the name right now). But in general, I find explicit descriptions of whose tongue is where pretty distasteful.

Second to that would be the long expository paragraphs describing some bit of historical trivia unrelated to whatever the main characters are doing (in fantasy or SF). This is part of the reason I could never read Tolkein. But, if it's real history (how we got the Sears Tower, a brief history of the mongol invasion of China, etc), I end up finding it interesting.

Valerie

[katdad]

If the exposition is padding, it's pretty easy to spot, because the pace of the story is immediately derailed.

However, exposition can help in setting the mood, or it can just be fun to read for its interesting content. A skillful writer will provide this exposition and still maintain the pace.

That being said, I must admit that I'm a dedicated Joycean and find Ulysses is immensely fun to read. Go figure.

[detante]

Basically, I skip the boring stuff. I tend to skim over character descriptions that read like APB's. I also skip technical schematics of machinery, weapons, and the like. Oh, and detailed geographical layouts, whether they are the layout of a city or a continent. Soliloquies don't get much attention. Neither do sex scenes that read like an anatomy lesson. Same goes for fight scenes. Especially if they don't make sense. (He put what where? Can the human body bend that way?)

That said, if it's well written (i.e. not boring), I read it.

Jen

[macalicious731]

I never skip anything intentionally. But sometimes, I'll find that I've gone through a couple of pages without realizing one word that was on any of those pages. In those cases, when I zone out, if I can still pick up where I left off, I don't bother to go back and reread the pages again. If this happens in the beginning of the book, I probably won't finish it.

[Jamesaritchie]

I just skip anything that bores me, and when I find myself doing this I close the book and look for another writer.

I want to read books that get me so wrapped up in the story and the characters that I lose all track of time, not books where I have to skip and skim.

So in a way, I really skip nothing. Life's too short to read books I have to skip through.

[foodlit]

I skip/skim the boring parts. I just don't have the patience for long descriptions or clinical sex scenes. I need to just get to the story.

:)

[maestrowork]

I'm reading this bestseller now... Up to page 190 or so it was very good and kept me flipping pages, but then the next 20 or so pages -- I'm just bored out of skull. Maybe it was just me -- it just seems to go on and on and on about these characters and it's not very interesting either. I'm on the brink of either skipping the whole section or closing the book for good. Danger.

[Thekherham]

If a writer is really good I can read every sentence, every paragraph, every page. Length of paragraph or descriptions doesn't really matter; it's how the writer expresses him/herself.

[Azura Skye]

Usually long descriptive prose.

A lot of times I have to fight myself from jumping ahead during dialogue. I think I'm too impatient and want to find out what happens and fast.

[ChunkyC]

I'm kind of like macalish and James A. I always start out intending to read every word, but if I find I've zoned out more than once, I chuck it and find something else to read.

[Stace001]

Years ago I was a huge fan of Stephen King novels, but the more I read, the more they started to drive me nuts. His descriptions of the scenery and landscape, the colour of the characters hair, etc would take pages and pages, and eventually i just stopped reading them. If an author can set the scene in two paragraphs or less, i'm happy. Two pages i'm pissed off, two chapters i'm outta there.

[novelator]

I page over Stephen King's pages of trees, etc, also. And I noticed in Twilight Eyes by Dean Koontz I was doing the same thing through the first half--paging past the description in the search for story.

And I have to say, Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy drove me bananas. How many ways can you describe angst, especially in regards to one's mother? There was a really good story buried in there, too, but not three hundred pages worth, not even two hundred, try a hundred and fifty. I wonder if the main character's angst over his mother was born of a desire to appear more literary than not. Really, I flipped more pages in that than I have any other book--ever. That's the reason I hesitate to pick up another novel by him again. Geez...

Since I'm griping now, I just read James Patterson's Roses are Red and I was mad at the ending. I won't give that away but for those of you who've read it, that was the most unsatisfactory ending I have ever encountered in my life, and for that reason alone, I don't want to read another one of his books, in case he does that again.

Mari

[Jamesaritchie]

Different strokes, I guess. King is one writer I never skip. I love the way he writes. Story is a good and necessary thing, but for me it's the detail that adds versisimilitude, sets the story in the real world, and makes me believe it. I hate stories without description. Too much like reading a synopsis.

I want to live the story, see the same details of the character's world that he sees, feel what he feels, etc. I can't do this if I skip description.

Pat Conroy is another I don't skip through. I think he's a superb writer.

Maybe it depends of whether the reader is just looking for the action of the story? For me, the most important part of the story is often the part that has nothing to do with the action.

[Gala]

I read every line of Jamesaritchie's posts. There are some posters I glance, others I skip. (personal reasons.)

Oh we're talking books? Same answer as Jamesaritchie. In fact I recently made it through The Shining and Tommyknockers. The more novels I write the more amazed I am at King's talent. And damn he has good grammar.

I skipped exposition in Iriving's A Widow For One Year because it was repititous. But the style of writing with multiple POV, author intrusion and saying what was going to happen long before it happened was spectacularly executed.

I skip dialogue in Michael Crichton because it reads like primer level cartoon bubbles.

[Writing Again]

Maybe it depends of whether the reader is just looking for the action of the story? For me, the most important part of the story is often the part that has nothing to do with the action.

Movies handle action well: In fact movies are action; someone doing something. Movies are stories told externally: It is what they do best.

Novels are all about how the story is told and the reactions via emotions, thoughts, considerations (prejudices if you will) of the character as the action is taking place. Novels are stories told subjectively. This is what a novel does best.

The reason so many people enjoy Stephen King's descriptions is because he is able to do so much more with them than to simply "describe" something; he is able to convey mood, setting, tone, and something about the character doing the observing as well.

[Coco82]

If it's a recreational book, nothing. If t's a book for college, I'll skim it, read the bare essentials.

[anatole ghio]

Different strokes, I guess. King is one writer I never skip. I love the way he writes. Story is a good and necessary thing, but for me it's the detail that adds verisimilitude, sets the story in the real world, and makes me believe it. I hate stories without description. Too much like reading a synopsis.

James hit it on the head, exactly. The reason that Kings writing resonates with so many people is its realism. As soon as you pick up a novel by King, you know exactly what kind of car the main character drives, what he had to eat that morning and where he likes to shop. More often than not, you eat the same type of food, shop at the same places and drive the same type of car.

When the supernatural element hits the story, it becomes more believable and more terrifying because it seems so real... this was set up from the beginning by the natural style of writing the King employs. His fiction wouldn't be as successful without it (don't believe me? Pick up something by Lovecraft. It's not as scary because his language and arcane mythology distances the reader from feeling to associated with the terror. The flip-side is that Lovecraft tends to be more eerie and atmospheric than King, and has a more distinct voice as a writer).

As for Katdad's suggestion that long prose works for Joyce, I second his sentiment on the provision that most writers don't utilize description in the same way. His description is filled with metaphoric weight... each individual word can mean several different things, all of which add to the overall meaning of the work. Most writers simply aren't functioning at that level in their prose, which is why their descriptions have no metaphoric weight, just dead weight.

- Anatole

[detante]

King makes excellent use of details to control pace.

Jen

[maestrowork]

I find King ramble quite a bit. But I don't find his descriptions boring.

I think it really does depend on the skills of the writer. Some writers can make a long exposition fun and interesting to read. Every word is golden. Some writers are boring even when they narrate an action sequence and dialogue.

[katdad]

I can't do this if I skip description.
I remember an old Peanuts cartoon, where Linus was bugging Lucy to read him a bedtime book. Lucy of course didn't want to, but she finally grudgingly agreed. She read:

"There was a man. He lived. He died. The end."

Details and colorization in narrative is part of a good book. So if the book is well written, I'll read every word and enjoy it. That means the action parts and the narrative "details" part. It's all in the quality of the writing. I poured over every word in long books like Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum" or Heller's "Something Happened".

In "Something Happened" not much actually does happen, except toward the end. In fact, it's a long, convoluted interior monologue. But for me, I was hooked from the beginning sentence "Closed doors give me the willies" and have still been captivated after several re-readings.

But if a writer pads out the book, I will glaze over. I can't remember the reviewer's name (might have been Truman Capote) but in discussing Mario Puzo's "The Godfather" he said that about the middle third of the book, Puzo "stopped writing and started typing."

That pretty well explains it for me, too.

As far as skip ahead, let's also remember in "Holy Grail" -- "Skip ahead, Brother" as sage advice. I also skip the "begats".

[RGame]

I never skip a line, a word, or punctuation mark.

[HConn]

Detailed searches of a room or building.

[anatole ghio]

I can't remember the reviewer's name (might have been Truman Capote) but in discussing Mario Puzo's "The Godfather" he said that about the middle third of the book, Puzo "stopped writing and started typing.

lol - I believe you may have conflated two different reviews!

Truman Capote once criticized Kerouac for a writing style that he said wasn't writing, but typing (the whole first thought is best thought notion).

I haven't read the Godfather, but I wouldn't be surprised if the quote characterized that work as well.

- Anatole

[ElizabethJames]

We skip boring stuff, which for us is usually indicated by long, dense paragraphs and convoluted sentences that go on and on and on and on. You get the idea.

When we pick up a new book, we first look for dialogue. If a novel is thin in the dialogue department, we usually move on.

[reph]

Elizabeth, how many of you are there?

[ElizabethJames]

One . . .

Our royal we-ness is an indulgence pure and simple. Hope it's not too distracting. Though we must confess, it does help in keeping our other gender present when developing characters.

Thanks for asking!

[vstrauss]

>> I just skip anything that bores me, and when I find myself doing this I close the book and look for another writer.<<

Same here. If it's a good book (and suits your taste), you shouldn't want to skip anything.

- Victoria

[HConn]

It's pretty rare for me to read a book where I never skim anything.

[STORMTURNER]

I skip when I create the backstory and plot outlines. I need to know what the end is before I can start so I know whether it can all come together.

With my screenplays, I needed 90 to 120 pages for it to be full length. That means, Act I is page 1-30; Act II is pages 31-60; and Act III is pages 61-90...

So I have no choice but to use the same method to work out my conflicts. I hang scenes/pages like a clothespin. All the scenes are scattered on the clothesline. Some sections of the novel will be missing or drooping until I think that scene/page through. Meanwhile, what I know about the story is hanging on the line to dry.

Rubbish analogy, I know. But that's the only way I can work through the intricate details of a novel that aren't necessary in a screenplay.

[novelator]

I just finished Needful Things by Stephen King and I didn't skip a word. There are just some of his books that I find myself skipping pages and others where I don't miss a word. I'm not exactly certain of the reason, just that it happens.

Mari

[katdad]

Most writers simply aren't functioning at that level in their prose, which is why their descriptions have no metaphoric weight, just dead weight.

Yes, exactly. Joyce's narrative descriptions are filled with intense meaning, and therein lies the wonderful complexity of the novel.

And yes, most writers aren't at that level.

I think that narrative exposition is part of a book but if the author wanders and doesn't present the backstory or details skillfully, then it does invite a big skip on my part.

[maestrowork]

I just finished a best selling book. While I enjoyed it very much, I found myself skipping quite a lot. For example, right in the middle of a major action, the author stops the action and describes the room! Now, one can argue that it's for pace, but I find it irritating. To use settings and descriptions in the middle of action or dialogue to set the pace is irritating to me.

I also skipped large chunks of dreams and psychobabbles. To hear the narrator babbling and telling me how he's afraid or sad just irks me. Show me, don't tell me.

[bgbohemian86]

I skip nothing, if I'm reading it on my own. But I am guilty of skimming large readings I have to do for school.

[ChunkyC]

Descriptive passages need context as well. If you're in the middle of a fight like Maestro's post mentions, it's a pretty dumb time to break off and describe the texture of the curtains or the smell of coffee brewing.

Perhaps if one combatant snags the coffeepot and throws it in the other's face, okay, there's a reason to mention the smell, because that's what gives the character the idea. But endless description with no real point to it is the definition of boring. King's lengthy descriptions, as mentioned above, are to anchor you so deeply in normalcy that you are just as deeply jolted when the paranormal shows up.