Polls for Our Souls discussion
Discussion
>
How do you define "slow"?
date
newest »
newest »
For me, a book is slow when there's not much dialogue happening. Conversations between characters are what I find most interesting in a story, and when there is no/a complete lack of dialogue in a book for an extended period of time, I become bored.
for me it usually just means that i was getting bored with it a lot or maybe that i felt like i had been reading it forever but actually made very little progress. like there are some books that are really long but they don't feel long because they keep you engaged but sometimes you're reading something that is only 200 pages long and you're like 'oh my god get to the point'. also i'm more likely to call something slow if the characters are boring or i don't relate to them. if i really love the characters in a book i genuinely don't care what they're doing or how fast the plot is moving because i just love anything they do lol
There is slow and there is really slow.
For me it's when not much happens that forwards the plot in important ways. Also slowness for me isn't always bad as long as I like the characters
Linda wrote: "To me, a book is slow if there isn't a lot of action or stuff happening in the plot to keep me interested. It's also slow if an author spends 5 pages talking about an IKEA shopping trip (i.e. [book..."Love IKEA
When the plot feels like it’s barely advancing. The Host felt slow; so did Lunar Chronicles. It’s stuff that makes me say to the book, “Come on! Get on with it already!” It tends to happen when books are overflowing with description or a character is analyzing his/her feelings in excruciating detail.
For me it means BOTH that lottle action is happening(fpr example say is a mystery if few clues are found that is little happening action wise) but also if no sideplots or no new developments in terms of meeting interesting people or fun throwaway scenes.
Say if a book has NOTHING of that it is slow to me. Say a fantasy book has a kill the evil uncle king as a main plot, but no attempts to kill him are made till one third through the book, it is still not slow in my mind if we get introduced to the world, the characters and the backstory.
Say if a book has NOTHING of that it is slow to me. Say a fantasy book has a kill the evil uncle king as a main plot, but no attempts to kill him are made till one third through the book, it is still not slow in my mind if we get introduced to the world, the characters and the backstory.
Well a lot of comments and examples, but I wonder if it helps answering your question. I think people experience it all differently. What one thinks of as overflowing with description (and therefor slow) the other might see as just enough description (and therefor not slow). One might experience a story as barely advancing, while the other doesn't feel like that at all. For example Audrey felt like The Lunar Chronicles were slow (if I may use your example Audrey), making her say Get on with it already! While I never experienced that while reading them. And I bet there are books where it would be the other way around. We're all different people, experiencing things differently and therefore liking different things/books (which is a good thing, I think).What I really don't like in books (although it doesn't necessarily mean I find that book slow, just annoying) is the (abundant, meaning more than one per page on average) use of similes. Because I'm not a fan of (abundant) similes, it often feels to me like they're misplaced. But if you like similes, you can probably understand and appreciate them better than me.
As for me, 'slow' would be endless pages (more than 3 or 4) that are describing things. Although it is important to give a backstory or a little insight about the world, area or character, some books make it boring (eg: Great Expectations by Charles Dickens and The Museum of Things Left Behind by Seni Glaister). It really depends on the language and choice of words used by the author. As for me, describing the surroundings (world, character backstory, environment) are important as it gives an insight but if it is slow (focused on it more than necessary), I will just ignore or skim through it.
Joanna wrote: "As for me, 'slow' would be endless pages (more than 3 or 4) that are describing things. ..."Indeed! I wish I could skip it but I'm afraid of missing some important details lol
I don't mind a lot of description, IF it is in service of the plot, but if it's extraneous to that, it becomes annoying and "slow." I think the best authors are the ones who provide a periodic twist or cliffhanger at the end of a chapter that makes you sit up and say Wow, what's going to happen NEXT? and immediately want to turn the page and keep reading (even if you're late for work, which is why I am mostly late for work). If things meander too much, interest can be lost.
Slow for me was Never Let Me Go; I mean, it just dragged on and on. And since everyone knows what it's about by this point nothing was a surprise. Slow was Zero World; there was a lot of action in the beginning and then the book shifted to a different planet and character, and everything just died. Slow was Mary Queen of Scots (the non-fiction biography); the part where she was at the super-bizarre French court was exciting, but when she went back to Scotland - still a trapped, medieval country - and all of the stupidity she displayed through her actions made me so bored I could have used it as a pillow.
Slow for me means not a lot of action is happening and developments take a lot of time. But I don't necessarily see it as something negative. I consider some books slow because the focus on atmosphere and character development rather than a lot of plot, but still keep me engaged. I only dislike slow books when they are boring (pointless descriptions, characters I don't care about). But at the same time I might also dislike a fast book for different reasons.
When I define slow while reading a book; it usually means that there isn't a lot of noteworthy things happening, or that a particular situation is being stretched so far. It can also mean to me, that there's an abundance of detail that doesn't really matter. Occasionally, I'll find myself nearly saying out loud, things like "Hurry up already" or "I don't care!". Thankfully I haven't read much lately that would make me feel that way
Patrick wrote: "When I define slow while reading a book; it usually means that there isn't a lot of noteworthy things happening, or that a particular situation is being stretched so far. It can also mean to me, th..."If you're saying, "I don't care!", when you're reading a book, you should probably declare it a DNF and save yourself the pain of finishing it.
Devann wrote: "for me it usually just means that i was getting bored with it a lot or maybe that i felt like i had been reading it forever but actually made very little progress. like there are some books that ar..."I so agree with you Devann!
Slow is when the book has empty words... No story. Well, none commendable atleast
For me it’s literally anything where it can’t keep my attention. I know that’s pretty subjective but yeah. I can read some dense books and find it really entertaining while other small books can keep me lagging because they are so dry.
L.C. wrote: "I always find it interesting how one person might find a book or a part of a book slow, but someone else wouldn't think of it that way at all. When you think a book is slow, what do you mean by tha..."Usually, overflowing with description. I think writing programs now must over-emphasize the importance of describing as a way of "show, don't tell," because so many authors these days overdo it. Pacing is just as important!
I found Gormenghast by Mervyn Peak very slow. I read 90 pages and he was still describing the footprints and the dustmotes. That much and he still hadn't reached the opposite end of the room. I said this to an old friend of mine and he nearly bit my head off! He absolutely loved it. Each to their own.
Michael wrote: "I read 90 pages and he was still describing the footprints and the dustmotes. That much and he still hadn't reached the opposite end of the room."I'd die.
"I said this to an old friend of mine and he nearly bit my head off! He absolutely loved it. Each to their own."
There are some books that get these strong reactions. People need to calm the heck down!
Caroline wrote: "Michael wrote: "I read 90 pages and he was still describing the footprints and the dustmotes. That much and he still hadn't reached the opposite end of the room."I'd die.
"I said this to an ol..."
I suppose people can't help being passionate about the books they love; or hate for that matter.
I think I'd call something slow if I get through a whole chapter and there has been no story progression or character development. There's no point to endless descriptions or world-building if it isn't informing the current story and moving it along.
Rachel Adiyah wrote: "Slow for me was Never Let Me Go; I mean, it just dragged on and on. And since everyone knows what it's about by this point nothing was a surprise."I loved Never Let Me Go, but I went in 100% blind, and from Ishiguro's previous books I expected it to be fairly slow and digressive. If I'd known the premise beforehand, I probably would've been a lot more impatient. ((view spoiler))
i think there is a difference between "slow" and "boring"
Yes, I wondered if you were defining "slow" as a negative, or simply as an element of pacing. For instance, Tana French's books are "slow" in that she intricately describes every aspect of every character, location, and event. I love her books, but I know people who liken them to watching paint dry!
All thoughts are welcome! :D