All the time.
The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon; put it down maybe a quarter of the way through. The way Pynchon writes is distracting and pretensions. I believe he's a great example of a writer prioritizing style over substance, except his style sucks ass too. His fans are even worse.
Neuromancer by William Gibson. I really wanted to enjoy this book, but sadly it seems like the bulk of it is just Gibson trying to create a cool, hip atmosphere, with minimal plot and no insightful thoughts on anything. Sex, drugs, fighting, and some gee wiz tech is pretty much all I found. And that's all fine and good, except, like Pynchon, Gibson really sucks at writing. Putting in the effort to follow what he's trying to say just isn't worth it when there's literally nothing beyond the surface. Gibson gets a lot of undue credit for being a visionary and it seems anyone who criticizes him gets told, "yeah, but he wrote all this in nineteen-eighty-whatever and predicted the rise of so many new technologies". Yeah, except all the random stuff he wrote about that is literally nothing like the world today. If your book consists of not much more than descriptions of fantasy tech in a tech-dystopian future, you'd have to be a moron to not predict a thing or two correctly across the span of several hundred pages.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)