Is it necessary to finish a book to enjoy it?

[osho]

When I read a book, the classics I often find the book repelling and do not want to further my reading and I simply want to give up. I find a few chapters or the beginning quite appealing and when I proceed and complete a few chapters I find the book repulsive, whether it is fiction or nonfiction. I have recently given up two nonfictional books: the Ascent of Money by Neil Ferguson and the other, Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goldman. Both of these books were on the best seller's list and I fantasized them and brought them but no sooner had I finished the book than I gave up. The same happened with War and Peace, classic by Tolstoy. I have read all of Tolstoy's short stories, Anna Karenna, Resurrection, his essays and I liked them and read them absorbingly and coolly but when I started reading his bulky novel war and peace I lost patience after going through a few chapters. I do not look too much detail of things in a novel. Sometimes a novelist gives excessive detail of the background and I feel fed up and in most Russian and French novels I come across such details.

Now when it comes to reading a book I do not confirm to the tradition of doing justice by completely reading the book. I have recently finished a novel – To Kill a Mocking Bird. I did not read the entire novel and to understand the plot better I turn to summaries of some chapters.

What about you?

[Prince Smiles]

The same happened with War and Peace, classic by Tolstoy

War and Peace is the only book I can remember having started and not finishing. I did however re-read it again several years later and finish it.

It is not an easy read compared to Anna and Resurrection.

As posters here have commented in the past, Anna has the wonderful scenes of agricultural life and reflections by Levin.

Resurrection, Tolstoy's last big novel is so underrated.

I think people do come a cropper with the battle scenes in War and Peace, they are not as well described as Waterloo in Hugo's Le Miserables or the Franco-Prussian scenes in Zola's Debacle.

The Waterloo battle in Le Mis is superlative!

The second section of the epilogue of War and Peace is incredible, but one needs to get to the end of the book to fully appreciate the message.

In reply to your question, do we need to finish a novel to appreciate it:

Yes and No. Yes, to appreciate the plot. No to appreciate words, sentence structure and paragraphs.

If you find the classics repelling and judging from the books you have mentioned, you seem very well read, perhaps they are not for you, or you might find that you will come back to them in later life with a different perspective.

[loe]

I usually finish the books I started reading. When the book gets boring I start skimming it, but I always want to know the end.

But as mentioned before, I think it is possible to enjoy a plot when not finishing the book or skimming it, but I don't think it is possible to understand its deeper signification (if there is any) or to catch the atmosphaere that contributes to a full understanding.

Maybe it's useful to distinguish between plot and meaning of a book and the wish to understand or just enjoy it. In my opinion an understanding of the full meaning can only be gained by reading it word by word until the end (I agree that not every book is worth this effort).
For pure joy and/or knowing the plot this can be neglected.

[Gladys]

Having read and loved much of Henrik Ibsen, Dostoevsky, Henry James and Patrick White in recent years, I've realised that one understands little of a book until one reads, and later, grasps the ending. The ending makes sense of so much that precedes it: the unimaginable crystallises. If you stop reading or skim the final pages, almost everything is lost: you have the plot but are forever blind to its significance. The epiphanic magic remains hidden.

There are novels where the ending does seem to matter less. For instance, I doubt that much would have been lost if I'd stopped reading Tolstoy's Anna Karenin with some chapters to go.