I don't agree with this line of thinking, that the concept of the art in question lies entirely with the reader or viewer. If a piece of art (i.e. a book or painting) is conceived as a whole and executed as a whole, then finishing it is necessary to understanding and appreciating that piece of art.
If you are not enjoying a book, feel free to put it down. I have many times. But I don't pretend that I have formed a complete and valid judgment. I forfeit that when I fail to comprehend the work as a whole.
As for whether endings are "necessary" when you have enjoyed a book, it depends on how necessary the author intended it to be, not on whether (as the author was rightly, in my opinion, angered by) the reader felt he was "done." It's a bit like knocking the wings off a statue because you think it looks better that way. What you think looks better isn't the point. The statue was created that way because that's the way the creator wanted it created.
Personally, I think it is critical to read every word as the author intended. Otherwise you are appointing yourself as editor over their artistic imagination. You are in charge of your own time and enjoyment, but not the structure and content of their work.
The single most important book in my life is one I did not finish reading.
As a teenager I spend a few weeks reading Ivan Hortan's beginning C++ in depth. But, I skipped the last few hundred pages focused on the STL. I wanted to know the ins and outs of the language, but after that I had what I wanted and I moved on. And considering it's been 15 years and I have never seen a reason to go back and read that section or even write much C++ it was probably a wise choice.
Now you could argue that different rules apply to fiction, but the choice is the same. Do I risk continuing or should I quit and try something else and it's the authors job to convince you that the rest of the journey is still worth it. Feeling you can only judge what you finish is just the sunk cost fallacy in another form, they failed and it's ok to call them on it.
As mentioned in the other reply, "For reference works, or almost any type of nonfiction these days, nonlinear consumption makes a lot of sense." So for your engagement with Hortan's C++, it makes sense that you would take what you needed and not what you didn't.
But yes, I would argue that different rules apply to fiction. Completion is an essential part of the process. If you don't like the book, or don't want to finish, by all means don't finish! I've quit books for a number of reasons. If the book isn't holding your interest, that's - well, to say it's the author's fault is perhaps assigning blame where blame doesn't apply, but rather say that the fault is not yours. It's the job of the book to entertain, and while it may entertain some, it doesn't for you. You can put a book down in good conscience, certainly. But I disagree with the author's idea that finishing a book is purely optional.
IMO, it depends entirely upon the type of book. For works of fiction, or biographies, or for other books laid out in linear fashion, there's a tangible benefit to reading linearly. (And on through to the end).
For reference works, or almost any type of nonfiction these days, nonlinear consumption makes a lot of sense. How many of us have read a dictionary or an encyclopedia from cover to cover? How many of us have read a collection of essays in a perfectly linear manner? Any sort of book that does not confer a specific benefit upon linear consumption offers no real incentive for such. Linearity is largely a convention to which we've grown accustomed, and I would argue that the era of software and hyperlinks -- cross-references at the click of the button -- is steadily eroding that convention. And authors will start to intend for, and eventually optimize for, newer modes of consumption.
Comments
I don't agree with this line of thinking, that the concept of the art in question lies entirely with the reader or viewer. If a piece of art (i.e. a book or painting) is conceived as a whole and executed as a whole, then finishing it is necessary to understanding and appreciating that piece of art.
If you are not enjoying a book, feel free to put it down. I have many times. But I don't pretend that I have formed a complete and valid judgment. I forfeit that when I fail to comprehend the work as a whole.
As for whether endings are "necessary" when you have enjoyed a book, it depends on how necessary the author intended it to be, not on whether (as the author was rightly, in my opinion, angered by) the reader felt he was "done." It's a bit like knocking the wings off a statue because you think it looks better that way. What you think looks better isn't the point. The statue was created that way because that's the way the creator wanted it created.
Personally, I think it is critical to read every word as the author intended. Otherwise you are appointing yourself as editor over their artistic imagination. You are in charge of your own time and enjoyment, but not the structure and content of their work.
The single most important book in my life is one I did not finish reading.
As a teenager I spend a few weeks reading Ivan Hortan's beginning C++ in depth. But, I skipped the last few hundred pages focused on the STL. I wanted to know the ins and outs of the language, but after that I had what I wanted and I moved on. And considering it's been 15 years and I have never seen a reason to go back and read that section or even write much C++ it was probably a wise choice.
Now you could argue that different rules apply to fiction, but the choice is the same. Do I risk continuing or should I quit and try something else and it's the authors job to convince you that the rest of the journey is still worth it. Feeling you can only judge what you finish is just the sunk cost fallacy in another form, they failed and it's ok to call them on it.
As mentioned in the other reply, "For reference works, or almost any type of nonfiction these days, nonlinear consumption makes a lot of sense." So for your engagement with Hortan's C++, it makes sense that you would take what you needed and not what you didn't.
But yes, I would argue that different rules apply to fiction. Completion is an essential part of the process. If you don't like the book, or don't want to finish, by all means don't finish! I've quit books for a number of reasons. If the book isn't holding your interest, that's - well, to say it's the author's fault is perhaps assigning blame where blame doesn't apply, but rather say that the fault is not yours. It's the job of the book to entertain, and while it may entertain some, it doesn't for you. You can put a book down in good conscience, certainly. But I disagree with the author's idea that finishing a book is purely optional.
IMO, it depends entirely upon the type of book. For works of fiction, or biographies, or for other books laid out in linear fashion, there's a tangible benefit to reading linearly. (And on through to the end).
For reference works, or almost any type of nonfiction these days, nonlinear consumption makes a lot of sense. How many of us have read a dictionary or an encyclopedia from cover to cover? How many of us have read a collection of essays in a perfectly linear manner? Any sort of book that does not confer a specific benefit upon linear consumption offers no real incentive for such. Linearity is largely a convention to which we've grown accustomed, and I would argue that the era of software and hyperlinks -- cross-references at the click of the button -- is steadily eroding that convention. And authors will start to intend for, and eventually optimize for, newer modes of consumption.