The thing I've noticed about my taste is that I didn't always decide what it is, or even KNOW what it is -- I only observe which things I like in retrospect and then try to generalise. So I've a reasonable idea what I like, but it's still a matter of continually learning more as my tastes grow. In fact, it's something I've talked about elsewhere, that "wanting to do X" and "enjoying doing X" are linked by a chain of positive feedback, but that that feedback is complicated and noisy, and it's more a case that "they're often related" than that "they're automatically the same".
It's quite new that I accepted not finishing books. I always used to feel that if I started something I MUST finish it. Now I'm a lot more ruthless: I know 99% of books, what's about the second half is usually about the same as what's good about the first half, and often things are a let-down. (Building up mysteries, and crafting mysteries well, are different skills.) So I try to avoid automatically rejecting books because they're different to what I'm used to, but if I'm half way through and not really looking forward to reading further, I just stop.
I also consciously noticed that I want to read more often than I have the mental energy to get into a book which is a different sort of thing to what I usually read. So I still value expanding my comfort zone, but I've deliberately made a decision to buy more books that I think will be easy and enjoyable, and ensure I get only a slow trickle of books I'm interested in but are likely to be more effort for me personally, because if I have a whole shelf of those, I keep putting them off forever until I move house and lose them :)
I'll rarely not finish something because I hate it, unless it's really horrifying: "want to finish" and "like" and "hate" are almost three independent sensations I can have any combination of. More often "not finish" means it failed to be sufficiently interesting: I've read mediocre can't-put-down books, and can't-put-down books I hate, as well as good can't-put-down books. Can't-put-down is ONE good aspect of a book, but not the only one, or necessarily the most important one. It always improves an already good book, but it's possible to make an addictive book without any other real redeeming substance, which I want only occasionally (say when I'm tired out but need something to take my attention).
What things ping me well? I don't have a canonical list, but things I've noticed: underdog protagonists who turn it around by their own efforts; well-crafted magical systems that are consistent but not too mechanistic; theology and god-politics; interesting but easy-to-absorb worldbuilding with ideas I've not thought of before. I am starting (late in life) to get more interested in interesting characters specifically, but am leery of too many books which think "depressed and jerkish" is the only sort of character which can be interesting.
I'm worried this is too general, and more specific examples would be more meaningful. And doesn't really answer the real question, of when nakedtoes and I can share book recs and when we can't :) But basically ALL my december prompts are quite thinky, and I have to let a lot of them go out without much polish, because I simply don't have time to rewrite them all to the standard I'd like.
It's quite new that I accepted not finishing books. I always used to feel that if I started something I MUST finish it. Now I'm a lot more ruthless: I know 99% of books, what's about the second half is usually about the same as what's good about the first half, and often things are a let-down. (Building up mysteries, and crafting mysteries well, are different skills.) So I try to avoid automatically rejecting books because they're different to what I'm used to, but if I'm half way through and not really looking forward to reading further, I just stop.
I also consciously noticed that I want to read more often than I have the mental energy to get into a book which is a different sort of thing to what I usually read. So I still value expanding my comfort zone, but I've deliberately made a decision to buy more books that I think will be easy and enjoyable, and ensure I get only a slow trickle of books I'm interested in but are likely to be more effort for me personally, because if I have a whole shelf of those, I keep putting them off forever until I move house and lose them :)
I'll rarely not finish something because I hate it, unless it's really horrifying: "want to finish" and "like" and "hate" are almost three independent sensations I can have any combination of. More often "not finish" means it failed to be sufficiently interesting: I've read mediocre can't-put-down books, and can't-put-down books I hate, as well as good can't-put-down books. Can't-put-down is ONE good aspect of a book, but not the only one, or necessarily the most important one. It always improves an already good book, but it's possible to make an addictive book without any other real redeeming substance, which I want only occasionally (say when I'm tired out but need something to take my attention).
What things ping me well? I don't have a canonical list, but things I've noticed: underdog protagonists who turn it around by their own efforts; well-crafted magical systems that are consistent but not too mechanistic; theology and god-politics; interesting but easy-to-absorb worldbuilding with ideas I've not thought of before. I am starting (late in life) to get more interested in interesting characters specifically, but am leery of too many books which think "depressed and jerkish" is the only sort of character which can be interesting.
I'm worried this is too general, and more specific examples would be more meaningful. And doesn't really answer the real question, of when nakedtoes and I can share book recs and when we can't :) But basically ALL my december prompts are quite thinky, and I have to let a lot of them go out without much polish, because I simply don't have time to rewrite them all to the standard I'd like.