Ditto on both accounts. I just don't tend to read books in the horror genre, which is what I predominantly dislike. I can deal with murder and grisly details if it's after the fact (like in a mystery novel), but I can't deal with these things as they happen, nor do I like to read things through the eyes of a psycopath. I just find it far too uncomfortable. I also dislike books that are plain depressing without redeemable characters. I'm not saying I demand a happy ending, indeed some of my favourite books have very sad endings. But if an author is writing about a tradgedy without any sign of hope or happiness, then I'm not really interested. I think there is hope and love in all tradgedies. An example might be 'On The Beach'. I confess to not having read the book, but the miniseries was a very close account, I believe and I am really looking forward to reading the novel. Authors with their own agendas piss me off and up the wall. Terry Goodkind's preaching is getting worse with every book, and if it weren't for the story behind it, which I do enjoy I wouldn't hesitate to throw them off a cliff. The ending of God's Callgirl, where she started spouting about motivational seminars and so on, destroyed what had been a great and emotional journey up until that point. As with Novella, I also dislike a bad ending. I loved the first 90% of both Antonio Perez-Reverte's books I read (The Flanders Panel and The Club Dumas), but the endings of both were a let down. No, I don't like the concept of censorship either, because we should be able to choose what we do and don't like. If it offends you, it's your perogative to choose not to read it. Be careful of going too far the other way and insisting that people read things they *know* they dislike and feel uncomfortable with. That is almost as dictatorial and pervasive as the concept behind censorship.