I find it strange that the first piece of counter-criticism given by the defenders of a work of literature or an author, is that unless the work or author must sampled in their entirety before any criticism may be brought against it (notice a similar argument is not brought against praise). This would be a valid piece of criticism were artistic sins somehow remediable by artistic virtues, bound in a relationship wholly unlike that of crime and charity.
The argument for finishing a work holds somewhat more water. I could see how, having an entirely theoretical experience of literature (or any art that may be experienced only partially), one might genuinely entertain this idea. The conceptualization could be in one of two modes: either the remainder of the work contains material of such startling magnificence that any previous deficiencies will be burned out of the reader's mind, or that seeds, only just planted in the former part, have yet to bloom into the full and glorious potential of the work in the latter.
However, in practice these two things rarely, if ever, happen. In answer to the first characterization, if an objection is to a writer's style, characterization, or setting these things are often fixed throughout the work. Writers do not become different writers in the space of one writing. Yes, they do and can change, but rarely materially enough to banish all the misgivings their initial distaste inspires.
The second conceptualization is popular because it shows implicit praise. It shows this because to actually DO that in a work, to change it so drastically that it goes from good to bad by simply tearing away a facade is an act of literary genius so difficult as to be impossible. I have never been thusly surprised by a book, nor do I ever expect to be.
The more extreme version of this: that to know an author you must have read all, or at least a sizable portion, of their entire oeuvre is the more extreme version of this, and the more untenable. It is untenable for the simple fact that a sin against art is a sin, and cannot be abluted. True, one cannot make statements regarding the circumference of a career regarding one book, but knowing that The Bluest Eye is a terrible book means I can say Toni Morrison is a terrible writer. Maybe her other books are better, I don't know. I do know she writes (and claims) a bad piece of fiction. Maybe she gets a few years off of her sentence in literary jail for good behavior later down the line, but that's still only good for parole.
