I enjoy reading books; whatever kind, I enjoy...
In high school, I really didn't enjoy, nor do much reading because I had a mental and emotional adversity to doing book reports; and reading, to my young mind, equated to doing book reports.
I would rather take a butt-whipping than do a book report.
In my early days in the Marine Corps, I spent a lot of time in bus depots and on buses.
I soon learned that doing crossword puzzles and reading paperbacks helped to take up the time.
I found that I enjoyed reading, especially novels.
Later, as I accepted promotions and additional responsibilities, I learned to read non-fiction books to build up my reference material.
Then I attended a conference where I was informed that to really get a well rounded frame of reference, a person needs to read a lot...
And not just in their respective field of endeavor, but anything they can get their hands on.
So, I learned a lot.
Then I studied the home training program for ministers; and I was able to complete reports on the books I was reading.
Well, now I am retired...
In the last six months, I think I have read over thirty books, both fiction and non-fiction.
I just finished reading two books, that I want to comment on, based somewhat on what I have already stated.
I prefer books along the lines of international intrigue and politics.
I am a great fan of Tom Clancy, and have read every one of his books: some more than once.
The first book I read was The Scorpion's Gate, Richard A. Clarke (305 pgs).
I found this book really difficult to follow. It took me about four days to get through it. A couple of times I asked myself why I was continuing to read, when I really didn't want to.
The story was good, it was just the way it was written. I found, a couple of times, I had to back up a page or two in order to figure out where I was supposed to be in the story.
The second book I read was Nothing to Lose, Lee Child (407 pgs).
It took me about four hours to read this book; I had a hard time putting it down, even to cook supper.
Again, I can only surmise that the difference between the two authors is in the way they write.
My mentors in the Marine Corps advised me to always write as if I was speaking to someone.
There is an understanding that writing should be somewhat formal.
Mr. Clarke, as I understand has spent some time in politics, and the nature of that beast is to write in the non personal voice.
My caveat here, is that I am not a paid reviewer, nor am I a reviewer at all. I just wanted to put in my two cents.