Why is it so hard to read a book when you dislike the main character?

[Swedes2Turnips1]

In spite of really lovely writing I am struggling. Any advice?

I now have a copy of UQD's new book. I felt a bit voyeuristic reading his personal dedication to his wife and named children. So I read that bit very very quickly. There is (what I hope is) a typographical error on page 32. If it is not a typo then it needs examination in pedants' corner.

Have now abandoned Agayev's Novel With Cocaine to concentrate on UQD.

Go on! Dish the dirt on the typo!

I definitely find it hard to enjoy a book when I don't like the main character

agree re Amsterdam and Saturday- found them both pointless and dull...

disagree re Billy in Regeneration

I really disliked We need to talk about Kevin- apart from the fact that the subject matter is pretty unpleasant, I found the narrator really irritating...and actually all the characters are fairly unbelievable

hated Atomised by Michel wotsit too

so what's this typo then?
and when is UqD going to stop teasing us and reveal his identity?

I found his identity once, as a reusult of one of his postings. But now I have forgotten it.

well fat lot of use you are

an extract from p32 of UQD's novel.

'She swivelled, plumped up her breasts a little. And then she allowed herself a broad, lovavle white grin - albeit, she noticed ruefully, with that one damned wonky incisor, the bastard almost at forty-five degrees these days.'

Bastard copy-editors

Do I get a refund?

Hang on lovavle is my typo - it does say lovable!

Thank goodness for that!!
They and I did proof-read the damn thing, you know. And there shouldn't be anything that bad as they took it straight off my disk. The only thing which slipped through - which I'm annoyed about - is AIDs rather than AIDS. I have a sneaking feeling someone actually thought that was correct, because I'm sure I marked it up...

You're talking lovable vs loveable then?

uqd you will be relieved to kno that i am now sufficiently enlightened to be able to go and find a book by u x

Very nervous here, but I'm not sure that I spot the error, if it isn't lovable. Do you mean the ommission of 'and' in the opening sentence? That's possibly legit isn't it?

Oh God it's going to be something hugely obvious that I can't see.

Have I posted this before: In a philosophy book I noticed '...he owed a direct debit to Spinoza' -- rather than (what I presume was intended) 'a direct debt' to Spinoza.

lol

Perhaps it's me then. But it's this sentence. 'She swivelled, plumped up her breasts a little.'

i did think that was an achievement to be honest..saves on the surgery

love the DD to Spinoza.

swedes - why did the dedication make you feel voyeuristic?

Oh, and if you are on facebook, there is now a group for the book! Do a search for it. Not much on it at the moment as it has only just started up.

Is it just me? I would have written it like this:
'She swivelled and plumped up her breasts a little. Then she allowed herself a broad, lovable white grin - albeit, she noticed ruefully, with that one damned wonky incisor, the bastard almost at forty-five degrees these days.

You will often find me in pedants' corner. But I think leaving out the "and" in that sentence is allowable. Artistic licence and all that. Agree with Zippitoes tho!

'Norks' has been quite badly misspelled.

I think the population will be divided on whether or not you can start a sentence with 'and'. I think you can if it adds emphasis or aids understanding. You would never come across a legal document with a sentence starting 'and' because it is open to misinterpretation. Leaving the 'and' out of the first sentence, means the next sentence has to start with 'and'. It makes the string sound affected imho.