What Are We Currently Reading?

[grommit2]

Finished The Women by Kristin Hannah.
Kristin authored one of the best books ever, The Great Alone.  The Women has some distinctive, compelling and powerful episodes. Its core message is that women who served in Vietnam were ignored and unsupported after their tours were over.

[Bookish Jen]

I just finished "The Genius of Judy: How Judy Blume Rewrote Childhood for All of Us" by Rachel Bergstein. I loved this book. Bergstein really showed how Ms. Blume, once a suburban housewife went on to be one of the most iconic (and yes, controversial) writers of young adult literature and how she affected readers, writers, and books for tweens, teens, and adults. I can't recommend it enough.

And right now I'm reading "Mastering the Universe: The Obscene Wealth of the Ruling Class, What They Do with Their Money, and Why You Should Hate Them More" by economist Rob Larson. This book is quite enlightening and it's also really pissing me off.

[andromeda331]

11 hours ago, grommit2 said:

Finished The Women by Kristin Hannah.
Kristin authored one of the best books ever, The Great Alone.  The Women has some distinctive, compelling and powerful episodes. Its core message is that women who served in Vietnam were ignored and unsupported after their tours were over.

It really doesn't surprise me. Men or women returning home were ignored, forgotten and told to forget about it.  They were all messed up and no one where to go for help. It really sucks how badly they were treated by well everyone but especially the government.

[Anduin]

I just finished the Magicians, by Lev Grossman. What a strange book. I'm not sure how I feel about it. But I know one thing, the protagonist is mopey as hell. Wake the hell up, you're living your dream! Try to bloody appreciate it, will you? Anyone know if he gets his act together in the sequels?

Also, what exactly does Grossman think about the Narnia books? Love them? Hate them? It must be one of those.

[scarynikki12]

I don't know if anyone has read Paris Is Always A Good Idea by Jenn McKinlay. I finished it a couple days ago and I really enjoyed it. I was ready to give it 4 stars on Goodreads until the final line which I hated and dropped it to 3 stars. I'll get to that.

So the premise is Chelsea's father is getting married seven years after her mom passed away from cancer, Chelsea's opposed (I'll get to this too), she eventually realizes she's allowed her life to come a halt and decides to recreate the year long trip she'd been on when she got the news of her mom's cancer. She's doing a three week version in Ireland, France, and Italy and hoping she can reconnect with the three men she dated. If there's a renewed spark, great, but it's ok if there's not. She also has a coworker who joins her in France and then Italy to try and get a rich guy to donate to the book version of the American Cancer Society.

I liked the basic story and I liked how the characters played out. Rock solid premise and execution.

HOWEVER.

Now I'm picky about what I give a 5 star rating. For me a 5 goes to the books I love so much I not only make sure to own a copy but I will also purchase a second for when I travel. They get reread regularly and I end up having them almost memorized.

My 4 star rated books tend to be the ones I enjoyed so much I'll definitely be rereading and will own but not a second copy. 

My 3 is for books I genuinely enjoyed and will recommend (with caveats when necessary) but won't necessarily own and may reread but rarely. 

So, the reason this book didn't hit the 5 star rating is because of the instigating subplot of Chelsea's dad getting married again. Here's the thing: her dad comes to her and reveals his engagement to a woman he's known for literally 2 weeks and then the whole book Chelsea is presented as being unreasonable for thinking they were rushing things and not jumping for joy. Chelsea does accept the wedding will happen pretty quickly, and a part of her concern does come from the place of thinking of her mom as still being her dad's living wife even though she's been dead seven years, yet everyone is all "who cares if we've only known each other two weeks (three months by the time the wedding happens)? We're in love!" Why the hell couldn't they just write it as her dad's been in this relationship for over a year and Chelsea just refused to accept him moving on? At least then the characters and book acting like she was the bad guy in her family would have some validity to it. If anyone I knew in real life came up to me and revealed they were about to marry someone they'd know for two weeks I would absolutely be trying to talk them into a year long engagement at the least. Chelsea's reaction was perfectly normal AND reasonable so no 5 stars.

Now, the very end of the book, and I mean literally the last line, further dropped my rating to a 3. The book's almost five years old but I'll still spoil bar it just in case:

Spoiler

Chelsea calls her dad's new wife Mom. What the fuck?? To be clear, Chelsea is twenty nine, this woman has been in her life for three months, and they hardly know each other both because Chelsea hasn't made an effort to get to know her AND because a full third of that time she was on the other side of the world. In the final paragraphs Chelsea has a realization that Sheri (new wife) really is great and that's all that was needed! There is literally no reason for Chelsea to start calling her Mom. Her dad makes a comment earlier in the book about Sheri had never been married before and was looking forward to having daughters but, again, Chelsea and her sister are full grown adults in their twenties. I'm an advocate for the role of step-parents being recognized for its importance in the raising of children but that doesn't apply here. Also Chelsea doesn't spend the book wishing for another mother or anything where it would kind of make sense for her to grab on to this second opportunity. Maybe this is just a me thing but I cannot ever imagine a full grown adult calling the new spouse of their parent Mom or Dad. I think Chelsea establishing a good relationship with Sheri to the point where she comes to see her as family makes sense but that's it. I don't know what the writer was trying to do here.

Whew, rant over.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, I’m saving to read Bonded in Death  when I’m on an airplane headed for a family wedding in Thailand in two weeks-UNINTERRUPTED time to read it all!

And so now I’ve gone to the Malorys and finished Love Only Once, by Johanna Lindsey. Started Tender  Rebel (and am blocking out of my mind what she did books later regarding Tony). @scarynikki12 knows wot  I’m talking about!

And yes, I’m picturing the yummilicious Pierce Brosnan as Lord Anthony Malory!

[proserpina65]

I'm currently re-reading Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising sequence.  I've loved the books ever since I first read them, but what I appreciate the most is that while the story is very much one of good vs. evil, from the second book on, the author makes it clear that it isn't a matter of Christians vs. non-Christians and even has one of the characters specifically state that the conflict is much older than Christianity.  I also like that most of the characters, both Light and Dark, are complex and some move from one side to the other and sometimes back based on understandable, relatable reasons.  And the female characters are not treated as necessarily being silly or undeserving for liking girly things.  For me, these books are the anti-Narnia series in these respects.

[Cloud9Shopper]

Currently reading The Partner Track by Helen Wan and really enjoying it so far. It’s about a Chinese-American woman who was the first in her generation to go to college in the U.S. and the first to go to law school and she is close to making partner at her fancy NYC law firm, but has to navigate being the voluntold DEI figure and gets into a romance with one of her fellow attorneys. I’m about halfway through the book and it’s a realistic look at law firm politics and especially how they try to pump up diversity in firms. I wish the Netflix series of the same name had lasted longer than one season, so I had to read the book.

I DNFed (did not finish) a book for the first time this year, New York, New Year, New You by Rachael Bloome. I enjoyed it when I started out but I stopped because I could guess the ending about 35% of the way through. I’m fine with romance and chick lit being a bit predictable, but I don’t want to be able to guess the ending before the book is even half over. When I last read something where the ending was kind of obvious, at least there were still other elements or plot twists that kept me wondering. This book didn’t have that.

Last month I finished The Baker’s Man by Jennifer Moorman. It was a cute, lighthearted read and I’d pick up again if I wanted something mindless to look at. However, I think for future reads, there will only be so many books with small town bakeries and coffee shops I can read before they start to feel the same. And I wasn’t a huge fan of the fantasy aspects of the book, but again…if I needed to escape life or wanted a book to read on a vacation, it works fine. 

[Anduin]

Runes of Engagement, by Tobias Buckell and Dave Kletcha. Magic portals open up across the Earth, linking it to some kind of fantasy world. Monsters come through, humans repulse them and go back to the other side. It's about a squad of USMC who are cut off behind enemy lines and have to hoof it to the next portal, while carrying critical intelligence and have enemies after them.

It's good, though weirdly a few too many Tolkien references for my liking. There are a zillion fantasy universes out there, you can reference some of them instead.

Thing is, I first heard about this book in November, and ordered it from my favourite bookshop. Publication date came and went with no book arriving. I discovered that in Australia, if mainstream chain bookshop Dymocks want more copies of a new book, it comes out of the indie bookshops orders. Well, fuck that. I have not set foot in Dymocks since then and can't see myself doing so possibly ever. It spurs my stubborn and 'support the little guy' instincts.

The book finally arrived last week, I nabbed it as soon as I could.

[Browncoat]

I just finished Lisa Genova's newest, "More or Less Maddy."  It's about Maddy's struggle with her recent diagnosis of Bipolar I, and if you know someone with that diagnosis (or even "just" depression), it's a tough read at times.  

I love Genova's books.  She's a neuroscientist and really researches her subjects; from early onset Alzheimer's (Still Alice) to traumatic brain injury (Left Neglected), and now Bipolar I, she offers real information about these issues.  "More or Less Maddy" is a nice addition to her library.

[Spartan Girl]

Black Woods, Blue Sky by Eowyn Ivey: I loved The Snow Child, so of course this was a must-read for me. It was good, but I was NOT prepared for the dark turn it took. You go in expecting a fairy table/dark romance a la Beauty and the Beast, and it winds up being more of a cautionary tale.

[Anduin]

I finished Runes of Engagement. The LOTR references didn't abate. There's a clear sequel hook at the end. It was fine. Nothing exceptional, IMO, but nothing terrible.

[grommit2]

OK.  An odd one:  We'll Prescribe You a Cat, by Syou Ishida. Yes, troubled folks visit a doctor,  who prescribes a cat. A furry little cat. For one to two weeks. Somehow a bit slippery in sticking to a story line. 😿 But, the treatment seems to work every time.

[Cloud9Shopper]

I finished The Partner Track tonight. Five stars all the way around for me. In addition to what I said above, I did like the climax of the book where the main character, Ingrid, realizes she was so caught up in doing for other people that she has never really done for herself and “said yes” to herself. I found it to be a really inspiring message regardless of what path you’re on in life. I won’t spoil what happened that leads her to that realization, however. 

It does end happily, but not before you get a moment of pause where you wonder if she blew up her life. 

Next up for fiction reads is Normal People by Sally Rooney. I also just picked up a nonfiction/self-help book called The Fangirl Life, which is about turning your fandom life into positive energy for your real life and, of course, how to navigate fandom drama and trolls. I’m really excited to share that with my fandom friends since I’m sure there will be some good discussion points. 

On 2/17/2025 at 4:58 PM, grommit2 said:

OK.  An odd one:  We'll Prescribe You a Cat, by Syou Ishida. Yes, troubled folks visit a doctor,  who prescribes a cat. A furry little cat. For one to two weeks. Somehow a bit slippery in sticking to a story line. 😿 But, the treatment seems to work every time.

This is actually on my to be read list! Someday, anyway. I also told my coworkers about it since they are also cat people. 

Edited February 24 by Cloud9Shopper

[Constant Viewer]

On 2/4/2025 at 12:21 AM, andromeda331 said:

It really doesn't surprise me. Men or women returning home were ignored, forgotten and told to forget about it.  They were all messed up and no one where to go for help. It really sucks how badly they were treated by well everyone but especially the government.

True, but while there were eventually places for men to go for help, female veterans were ignored completely. This also occurs in China Beach. They didnt get the Nurses memorial until the 1990s.

[scarynikki12]

So there's this thing in romance novels that annoys me. If our heroine had even one serious relationship before the start of the book she will eventually realize she didn't really love her ex or love him the way/as much as she loves her story love interest. Bonus points if the ex in question mistreated her in any way. This trope has been around forever and I hate it. It only exists to prop up the main couple in a cheap and easy way.

They don't have to downplay past relationships in order to prop up the current one. It's ok for our heroine (and this almost always applies to women) to have truly been in love before. It's ok for her to have been genuinely hurt by a breakup  before giving love another chance. I've read so many romance novels where our heroine's ex cheated on her and she eventually lets go of that anger when she realizes she didn't love him the way she should have or she'd been lying to herself about her feelings. Um...NO. This ends up absolving the ex for his actions and places blame on our heroine even though she did nothing wrong. You want us to see the heroine as equally/somewhat to blame for how the former relationship imploded? Then write them as cheating on each other, or both saying things in a fight they can't take back, or both losing interest in their relationship, or something where they are both clearly at fault. Don't write it so the ex did something unforgivable and later say/act like the heroine drove him to it.

Last night I read She Doesn't Have A Clue, which I really liked for the record, that employs this trope. Kate's ex-fiance Spencer cheated on and dumped her for his soon to be bride, she was so upset she basically didn't leave her apartment for six months, but once Jake reenters her life she changes her tune about her relationship with Spencer. At one point Spencer tells her the following: she never wanted to marry him in the first place, she was always halfway out the door to their relationship even after getting engaged, she didn't react correctly when he came home and told her he cheated*, and apparently barely leaving her apartment for six months after the breakup wasn't a clue as to her devastation but was...embarassment  (he isn't clear) about getting dumped? And Kate thinks about it and ends up agreeing with Spencer because her feelings for Jake just happen to be way stronger than the ones she had for Spencer. If any of the nonsense Spencer said to Kate was supposed to be true then it would have been better to actually SEE IT.

Other than the trope I did enjoy the book. Solid mystery romance and I wouldn't hate to see Kate and Jake solving crimes again. I genuinely didn't guess the culprit and that reveal is well done. I also was reminded to NEVER attend the wedding of an ex even if you remained good friends because: a) there's a real chance you'll end up in a murder mystery, and b) all of the guests will spend their time watching you to see if you'll go all Dynasty against the bride.

*Another trope I hate is "you didn't react the way I wanted/expected when you found out I cheated so I'm not going to feel bad because this is now somehow your fault!" People react to so many things in so many different ways and that includes learning your partner betrayed your trust. Not everyone acts like they're on a daytime soap when presented with bad news. Kate was allowed to react to Spencer's cheating in her own way and fuck him for using it against her.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

So there's this thing in romance novels that annoys me. If our heroine had even one serious relationship before the start of the book she will eventually realize she didn't really love her ex or love him the way/as much as she loves her story love interest. Bonus points if the ex in question mistreated her in any way. This trope has been around forever and I hate it. It only exists to prop up the main couple in a cheap and easy way.

They don't have to downplay past relationships in order to prop up the current one. It's ok for our heroine (and this almost always applies to women) to have truly been in love before. It's ok for her to have been genuinely hurt by a breakup  before giving love another chance. I've read so many romance novels where our heroine's ex cheated on her and she eventually lets go of that anger when she realizes she didn't love him the way she should have or she'd been lying to herself about her feelings. Um...NO. This ends up absolving the ex for his actions and places blame on our heroine even though she did nothing wrong. You want us to see the heroine as equally/somewhat to blame for how the former relationship imploded? Then write them as cheating on each other, or both saying things in a fight they can't take back, or both losing interest in their relationship, or something where they are both clearly at fault. Don't write it so the ex did something unforgivable and later say/act like the heroine drove him to it.

Last night I read She Doesn't Have A Clue, which I really liked for the record, that employs this trope. Kate's ex-fiance Spencer cheated on and dumped her for his soon to be bride, she was so upset she basically didn't leave her apartment for six months, but once Jake reenters her life she changes her tune about her relationship with Spencer. At one point Spencer tells her the following: she never wanted to marry him in the first place, she was always halfway out the door to their relationship even after getting engaged, she didn't react correctly when he came home and told her he cheated*, and apparently barely leaving her apartment for six months after the breakup wasn't a clue as to her devastation but was...embarassment  (he isn't clear) about getting dumped? And Kate thinks about it and ends up agreeing with Spencer because her feelings for Jake just happen to be way stronger than the ones she had for Spencer. If any of the nonsense Spencer said to Kate was supposed to be true then it would have been better to actually SEE IT.

Other than the trope I did enjoy the book. Solid mystery romance and I wouldn't hate to see Kate and Jake solving crimes again. I genuinely didn't guess the culprit and that reveal is well done. I also was reminded to NEVER attend the wedding of an ex even if you remained good friends because: a) there's a real chance you'll end up in a murder mystery, and b) all of the guests will spend their time watching you to see if you'll go all Dynasty against the bride.

*Another trope I hate is "you didn't react the way I wanted/expected when you found out I cheated so I'm not going to feel bad because this is now somehow your fault!" People react to so many things in so many different ways and that includes learning your partner betrayed your trust. Not everyone acts like they're on a daytime soap when presented with bad news. Kate was allowed to react to Spencer's cheating in her own way and fuck him for using it against her.

I do hate that storyline. Romance books, they can have a past. They can fall in love. There's nothing wrong with it nor does it undermine the new relationship. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

11 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

So there's this thing in romance novels that annoys me. If our heroine had even one serious relationship before the start of the book she will eventually realize she didn't really love her ex or love him the way/as much as she loves her story love interest. Bonus points if the ex in question mistreated her in any way. This trope has been around forever and I hate it. It only exists to prop up the main couple in a cheap and easy way.

PREACH!

That said, at while some of Nora Roberts’ heroines and even heroes had this trope, there are also ones where the previous relationship was a good and loving one. Like in Birthright, Lana was a widow, whose husband had been killed-but she still loved him and her love for Doug was different; in her category Romance of the Donovans, Boone was a widower-who also loved his wife. There are others, but these two popped up in my head.

On a slightly off topic note, these days soaps do the same-that is whatever previous relationship one had, is erased and doesn’t matter whenever a new love interest is made.

[DearEvette]

11 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

So there's this thing in romance novels that annoys me. If our heroine had even one serious relationship before the start of the book she will eventually realize she didn't really love her ex or love him the way/as much as she loves her story love interest. Bonus points if the ex in question mistreated her in any way. This trope has been around forever and I hate it. It only exists to prop up the main couple in a cheap and easy way.

Agreed.  I hate that. I hate the need to make previous relationships less important or problematic to put the hero and heroine is a bubble of one true love. I know there are readers who despise the idea that the hero or heroine had a prior true love and some authors pander to that, but it is ridicuolous to write people in their 30s and act like they could have never had an authentic real love relationship before.

One romance  off the top of my head that kinda plays with/subverts that trope is The Sleepover by Serena Bell. Her main male character is a widower with a young son. The main female has an ex who left her for his first love.  She of course is hurt because of it but tries to have somewhat of a civil relationship because of their son.

The hero/heroine are neighbors and their sons become BFFs. They get together but the romantic conflict is the heroine is a little leery of becoming involved with someone who was deeply in love with his (now dead) wife. She has some left over trauma from being 'second best'  So they have to work through him letting himself fall in love again and not feeling like he is betraying his wife and assuring her that she is not second best.  Cute book.

Another one is Hero by Lauren Rowe where the heroine is the widow and her now dead husband was a great guy, a first responder.  They were in love and had three kids.  The main male character is also a first responder.  There is a great scene after he's gotten with her and has really bonded with her kids where he sees a video of  dead husband having a tea party with his daughter, complete with wearing a tiara and thinks "damn he was a handsome guy and a great dad. fuck."

[Bookish Jen]

I'm currently reading the novel "Women's Hotel" by Daniel M. Lavery. It's about women living in a women's only residency in NYC back in the 1960s. This should be right up my alley considering how much I loved "Mad Men" and last year I read a non-fiction book about the iconic Barbizon Hotel and really liked it. So far, I'm only a couple chapters in "Women's Hotel" and I can just tell it's going to be a slog. The characters are barely sketched out to be three-dimensional and interesting, and the plot is wafer thin. Plus, the writing is pretentious. Thank goodness, it's a short book. Perhaps, it will pick up.

[scarynikki12]

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Like in Birthright, Lana was a widow, whose husband had been killed-but she still loved him and her love for Doug was different;

If there’s a dead spouse we’re more likely to see a willingness to let the relationship be a good one. Living exes are where the trope tends to get applied. Though now I’m remembering one of the few Tessa Bailey books I’ve read where the man is a widower and it turns out he never loved his wife. She wasn’t a bad person and he does feel some guilt about it but it serves to make clear how the relationship with the heroine is Real. Why couldn’t it simply be that his wife passed and he wasn’t ready/interested in a new relationship until he met the heroine? Or do like the other Bailey book I’ve read I read where the man wasn’t interested in committing to a relationship until he fell for the heroine? Why they insist on tearing down characters unnecessarily I don’t understand. 

[proserpina65]

On 2/26/2025 at 1:15 PM, Bookish Jen said:

I'm currently reading the novel "Women's Hotel" by Daniel M. Lavery. It's about women living in a women's only residency in NYC back in the 1960s. This should be right up my alley considering how much I loved "Mad Men" and last year I read a non-fiction book about the iconic Barbizon Hotel and really liked it. So far, I'm only a couple chapters in "Women's Hotel" and I can just tell it's going to be a slog. The characters are barely sketched out to be three-dimensional and interesting, and the plot is wafer thin. Plus, the writing is pretentious. Thank goodness, it's a short book. Perhaps, it will pick up.

Oh god, this is the same Daniel Lavery who was an advice columnist on Slate for awhile.  I'm not surprised his fiction writing is pretentious.  God knows his non-fiction writing was.

[Bookish Jen]

6 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Oh god, this is the same Daniel Lavery who was an advice columnist on Slate for awhile.  I'm not surprised his fiction writing is pretentious.  God knows his non-fiction writing was.

Yep, same person. Try as I might, I don't think I'm going to finish it. Back to the library I go!

[proserpina65]

12 minutes ago, Bookish Jen said:

Yep, same person. Try as I might, I don't think I'm going to finish it. Back to the library I go!

I used to be that person who always finished a book no matter how much it disappointed me or how much I hated it.  Then I decided that life was too short to read books you weren't enjoying if they weren't required for a class.  That's the only good thing I can say about White Teeth; it taught me to give up on a book.

[Browncoat]

On 2/26/2025 at 1:15 PM, Bookish Jen said:

'm currently reading the novel "Women's Hotel" by Daniel M. Lavery. It's about women living in a women's only residency in NYC back in the 1960s.

I got that out of my library a couple of days ago, but haven't started it yet.  Maybe I'll just take it back.

55 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Then I decided that life was too short to read books you weren't enjoying

Agreed.  I'll usually give a book about 100 pages max, and if it hasn't grabbed me by then, I'll quit.

[Zella]

I'm another one who usually quits if I'm not feeling a book. I usually give it 50 pages but sometimes nope out on the first page or chapter. 

I have been known, however, to read an entire book while entirely loathing it if the powers of hate-reading compel me. LOL But I don't do that anywhere near as much as I did. 

[LBC Me]

This is my first post and I hope I don't mess it up!  I'm going to start my books where I'm at, which is reading Giovanni's Room, by James Baldwin.  I started it a few days ago in honor of Black History Month.  It's very short and I will finish it soon, but I really hate the main character, the narrator, David.  Why can't HE get a dang job, making Giovanni and Hella the sole breadwinners and depending on his whatever money being held by his father in the U.S.  And why the heck is he contemplating

Spoiler

suicide when he's gone off Giovanni at the moment and, by all measures, is quite privileged.

I know so many people adore this book, and shed buckets of tears about the ending, but I'm about 75% in and I'm not seeing it yet.  Off to hopefully finish this novel now.

Edited Saturday at 03:02 AM by LBC Me

[Spartan Girl]

Everyone who loved Kell Woods’ After the Woods will love her new book Upon A Starlit Tide. Couldn’t put it down and I loved every bit of it.

[bmasters9]

Just completed Arthur Hailey's Overload from 1979; as I read it, I kept thinking of, had it been a miniseries or other adaptation for television, who would have played some of the main characters...

--Barry Newman and Susan Howard of Petrocelli as Nim and Ruth Goldman

--Raymond Burr as Justice Paul Sherman Yale

--Barbara Hale as Laura Bo Carmichael

--Lloyd Bochner as Georgos Winslow Archambault (Bochner usually played bad guys effectively)

--Dana Elcar as Harry London

--Jack Lemmon as Ray Paulsen

--Kevin Tighe (or maybe even Ron Pinkard) from Emergency! as engineer Bob Ostrander, who gave the fateful order to shut down the trips that ultimately led to Karen Sloan's demise

[Browncoat]

On 2/26/2025 at 1:15 PM, Bookish Jen said:

I'm currently reading the novel "Women's Hotel" by Daniel M. Lavery. It's about women living in a women's only residency in NYC back in the 1960s.

Quoting you again to add that I picked it up last night.  I made it through the Author's Note, but couldn't get past the first 10 pages of the first chapter.  So much extraneous crap!  And so very boring.  Even if it had been billed as a non-fiction account of these women's hotels, it would be boring.  I'm mostly glad I got it from the library and didn't waste my own money on it.  I'm sorry the library wasted theirs, though.

On 2/28/2025 at 1:40 PM, Browncoat said:

 I'll usually give a book about 100 pages max, and if it hasn't grabbed me by then, I'll quit.

Quoting myself to add that there is no possible way I could have made it 100 pages into this one!