I worked for about two years reading manuscripts for a literary agency here in New York. I read about 3-4 manuscripts a week, which is reading a lot of writing. A lot of bad writing.
In all that reading of bad writing, I developed some persistent quirks. The most significant of them is my inability to care about a story simply because the author wants me to. If the author hasn't written a story that is compelling, or human, or in any way makes me want to invest, I feel no obligation whatsoever to do so. Reading is not necessarily caring.
This means I have little patience with authors who contrive to lose me in the opacity of their story. Writers who treat me, their reader, as intruders on their narrative. Listen writers, you want to wax that internal? Buy a journal.
Don't misunderstand. I don't need my literature spoon fed. I don't mind working if I feel like my investment will pay off--I like Borges just as much as the next guy.
Oh, and if it's not already patently clear, one of my other charming qualities is the belief that if a story doesn't work for me, it's not because I didn't "get it". I mean, there are probably books out there that I wouldn't exactly "get", but their mastery doesn't escape me. I'm talking more A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and its ilk. I got it. I just thought it was stupid.
I don't like to waste time. I don't like to fill my head with noise like the buzzing of disgruntled bees. I don't like walking away from a book feeling dissatisfied and ill-used. Like my time has been misspent.
I am under no obligation to read your book, so don't act like I am. Like you can just opine and sigh and whatever and I have no choice but to stick it out with you. I'm not going to.
A reader (but not necessarily yours)
p.s. I'm currently reading The Bloody Chamber, which, if you can get past some creepy eroticism, is terrifically spooky.
p.p.s. If you're wondering, yeah, I know how insufferable this is. So much so, it's now its own tag.