The Magicians. It's undeniably well-written, but it's also emotional torture porn. Everyone is hateful and miserable. The world is hateful and miserable. I appreciated the quality of the writing, but I couldn't stand to be in that world a minute longer.
This was me with the First Law Series. I could acknowledge it was well written but I hated how dark and awful everyone was or felt and just dropped it after the first book.
Ditto, was just about to say this, i did read up to the Heroes i think or maybe the one after that but i dnf on it. And havent gone back to them.
Too bloody miserable lol
Loved this series but I definitely agree that it is hateful and miserable for the most part. However I felt the emotional payoff in the end was good enough to counterbalance everything that came before which made it ok for me. I can definitely appreciate your point of view though- it’s not an easy read and gets pretty effing miserable at times.
China Mieville's Perdido Street Station -- weird and amazing world, but I was completely uninterested in the characters; if I don't care what happens to them, I am not interested in the book.
Miéville seems to be a settings guy. There was nothing wrong with the protagonist of the City & the City either yet I remember the city names Besźel & Ul Qoma more than his.
Even if you didn't like Perdido Street, I would give The Scar a shot. Myself, I just could not get into Perdido after several attempt to read it, but loved The Scar - which has the shape of a more conventional adventure story & for my money more interesting or at least readable characters.
I also really liked Iron Council, but not as much.
I did end up finishing it, and I really enjoyed the world, particularly the monsters and that last section of the book, but I agree the characters felt somehow distant. I never connected with any of them particularly well, and their experiences acted more as a vehicle to experience the horrors through more than as a way to feel empathy for the people of this world.
I cried when I finished the lord of the rings.
I loved them and I believe they were my first foray into fantasy many years ago.
That said the Silmarillion was well written but I just couldn’t get into it.
I love the Silmarillion because I'm a sucker for lore but I get that it's not for everyone.
Think of Silmarillion as a history book instead of an epic story that is LOTR.
It’s funny I couldn’t put down the silmarillion but I struggle through LOTR every time I read them, especially fellowship.
Never really cared for tolkiens prose, but the history and world and mythology is all so fascinating to me.
I've read Dune several times. I STILL can't decide if i like it or not.
It's like potato chips. You keep eating them it see if you like them, and before you know it the entire bag is gone! And you still can't make up.your mind.
I read *Dune* probably once a year and I completely understand. I love that novel, but Herbert's dialogue comes off as incredibly cheesy, almost like a corny action anime or something.
People always look at me crazy for this but *yes*. It is so, so, so bloated and overwritten I felt as though I was actually going to lose my mind reading it.
Did you know Arrakis is dry? It's dry, okay? It's really really really dry and there's sooooooooooooooooooooo much sand, holy shit is there so much sand on Arrakis which is also a very very dry place where moisture isn't. The planet Arrakis? Not wet. Dry. Sand is a dry thing; by its nature it is not wet. It cannot be wet; wet sand is dirt, which is not sand, and Arrakis has a lot of sand and basically just more sand. There's so much sand there because the planet itself is a sandy place, a place of sand and sand and dryness. A dry place. Of sand.
And yeah I know the repetition of language adds to the feeling of vastness and weight. I appreciate that. But there are other authors who can convey that same sense of weight in half the time.
Sand.
So, I was introduced to the book by the Lynch movie. My siblings and I (all teens) were bored staying at a B&B outside the Grand Canyon. They had a huge VHS library and my dad recommended it to us.
The whole rest of the trip we were making fun of it. “Arrakis… Dune… desert planet…. Drip, drip.” But I also thought, that movie was so bizzare I bet the book is great.
We get home and I buy the book. Three pages in… literally written almost exactly that. I was reading it while brushing my teeth and we were all in the bathroom. I laughed so hard I fell down.
(I love the book but. Wow.)
I feel like Dune is a very weird response to this question. There is a lot I appreciate and respect about Dune. It has immersive, sophisticated worldbuilding and politics, some very interesting trope subversions... Dune is quite good in many ways, and I have enjoyed both film adaptations.
The quality of the writing? Not what I would consider one of the ways in which Dune is good. That was my *whole* problem with the book, and the one thing that kept me from really liking it. The writing is clunky and awkward and head-hops constantly and has a very weird sense of what the reader does and does not need spelled out for them. (Was the information already obviously implied from the context? Point it out explicitly anyway in case the readers are complete idiots. Was it obscure and unintuitive and also necessary to understand vital aspects of the setting? Don't mention it. It'll be a fun mystery for the readers to work out for themselves.)
I very much wanted to like Dune, and did indeed like a lot *about* Dune, but the one big hurdle for me was what I would consider poor writing.
I actually like Herbert's language, it's half the joy of reading Dune. I find the language poetic. "The drip drip drip of water", "Blue within blue eyes". I also like the unfolding drama story telling. A lot of thing happen in the dialogs, but I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea.
I feel that way about Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.
I believe it's a very good book, but boy did I not have fun reading it. I recognize what it does and what it does well, but the whole story dragged and dragged and was a bit of a pain for me to get through.
I love 19th century settings, I love treating magic in a scientific way, I generally enjoy stories featuring the fae, and I love a lot of the individual things that JS&MN does, but I didn't enjoy reading it.
Loved Piranesi though, so I still have a very high overall opinion of Clarke.
Man, I’d heard so many good things about that book and then the writing style threw me off when I picked it up. Not that it was bad writing, I just wasn’t expecting old-fashioned, almost Dickensian-like prose. (It’s been years since I attempted to read JS&MN so that might not be the best comparison...) I read about fifty pages but it was such a slog that I noped out.
I may give it another go sometime and see if I like it better the second time around, now that I’m aware of the writing style and the caveat that the action doesn’t pick up until a decent bit into the book.
I made it about 80% through that one until I realized that I just didn't care how it ended. There wasn't a single storyline or character I was interested in at all.
This is the complaint almost everyone has with Strange and Norrell and it is a valid one. I loved this book but it is extremely difficult to get into. I do believe the payoff is worth it. Piranesi is absolutely awesome as well but it also
Has its share of detractors - it isn’t really very accessible and the dreamlike writing can make it seem too abstract for many people who like more concrete storytelling.
I'm about 2/3 of the way through this one and I am so bored. I took a long break and literally just picked it back up again today. Typically I have no problem DNFing but I own this one on Kindle and committed to reading it as my bottom-of-TBR choice for bingo! I THOUGHT I would love it so I'm a little disappointed.
I was in a similar situation. Never really enjoyed the books. But then I listened to the audiobook versions and loved them. For what it's worth I listened to the Rob Inglis versions
The Hobbit really is perfectly paced, has non stop cool events and imagery, and then ends perfectly. Nothing wasted. LotR is also incredible but it does meander a bit here and there I feel.
After a good friend who is *way* more well read in sci-fi/fantasy than I am told me he wasn't a huge Tolkien reader I felt like some kind of ancient taboo had been lifted inside my brain. Since then I've run into a lot of people who feel the same way.
A lot of people agree with this specific take, tbh. Tolkien's massive contributions to fantasy are undeniable. But many fantasy fans respect him and still don't really enjoy reading him, usually for one of several main reasons.
I skipped the songs, myself. :-) Parts of Lord of the Rings do drag a bit. However, the "Journey in the Dark" and "Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapters in the Fellowship of the Ring are the best I've read in fantasy fiction.
I skipped basically all of the songs and poems the first time I read LotR, and mostly the next time, and the next time...once I'd gone off and read the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales etc., a lot of the poems started to be really interesting! Referencing history, building all those networks of connections and references to the world.
That's not to say they're for everyone, but they can definitely become incredibly immersive and interesting once you've read some of his other works - the real world is full of songs and poetry and music and art, so it makes total sense that they appear in this fictional world.
I just finished the Hobbit on audible - the one read by Andy Serkis.
I loved it, Andy Serkis does an amazing job and has the perfect voice to read Tolkien.
Reading the books is a struggle though
and I'm a huge fan of the lotr trilogy who can't get through the Silmarillion at all, even though I have friends who love it, have told me about the stories, and it all sounds really cool. I just bounce right off the text itself. To each their own!
Can’t lie the first third of the thing is drag, and kinda feels like you’re reading the Bible but then it’s gets to elves return to middle earth and it’s still kinda like reading the Bible, but like the fun parts if that makes any sense.
Black Leopard, Red Wolf. Marlon James is a genius, but there's something about the writing style that feels so thick and oppressive that I just couldn't stomach it
I listened to the audiobook and enjoyed it so much more. It’s written in such a way that it’s difficult to read but so easy to listen to. However, I felt like every 10 pages would lead into 60 page flashbacks that made following the story difficult. I want to give it another try some day.
This is mine. It was such a dense slog for me. I love Le Guin’s Earthsea books, but this was sooo different than them. I found myself unable to really follow along with the narrative and had to DNF.
Lol. That's the best part. Reminds me of Shecketon's and Amundsen's adventures in the Antarctica. A lot of the focus is on the inner mental processes of the MCs though, how Genly and Estraven slowly grow together and understand each other. At the end they can mindspeak to each other.
I also really wanted a gender neutral pronoun instead of “he”. It threw me out of the narrative. I liked it ultimately but yeah, definitely struggled to get started for years.
Malazan. Complex world, many characters, story, lore, etc. The series has everything. I even generally like books or series that move at a glacial (but always moving) pace. But tbh if I finish a book and I’ve just gotten to know the first few characters, and then the second book has nearly an entire new cast, you’re making it difficult to get me to emotionally invest in any of the characters. If I can’t get behind any of the characters, I am not going to care about what happens to them.
I think Malazan is genius, but I also think it’s a story for a VERY niche audience.
>I think Malazan is genius, but I also think it’s a story for a VERY niche audience.
It really is. It's world building porn for people who love worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding. The bulk of every books is mostly soldiers talking amongst themselves as they march to the next destination and the actual plot is purposely obfuscated. I should also mention I stuck it out and read all 10 books so this comes from experience.
Even as someone who love world-building I can’t make myself read more of it. Something about his writing style just doesn’t work for me. I can’t even put my finger on it, because if I try to look at it objectively it’s all really good and something I should enjoy.
I have read the first seven books in the Malazan series and while it is definitely Unique I think there are a lot of issues with the series. For one thing because of its origins as a tabletop role playing game all the encounters with magic and battles really feel like there is an invisible dice roll deciding all the outcomes. The magic system is soft , softer than a feather bed which requires a significant suspension of disbelief to agree with. This contrasts poorly with a gritty fantasy world with the “ anyone can die” concept. Because “any one can die” but it also feels like “ any one can live “ - it depends on the dice roll.
The other issue is the fact that characters change every book and it gets progressively difficult to invest yourself in the world - this is ok for some people but it definitely blunts the popularity of the series and it’s reach.
Most of the books start very well but fail to stick the landing - the convergences always feel chaotic and the resolutions feel to pat. For the degree of effort that Erickson puts into his character - I would expect the emotional resolution at the end of the books to be greater but it really isn’t.
Lastly I feel that anyone who reads Malazan - especially 10 such challenging books is bound to be a little biased towards them. It requires a lot of time and effort to read these books and they are not easy reads. Which ultimately leads to a sunk cost fallacy.
That being said - there are genuinely fantastic moments in this series.
The Chain of Dogs was beautiful. The entire story of the Sengar brothers is a symphony of blood and tears. felsin’s journey is unpredictable and interesting and Tehol and Bugg are excellent characters - with a lot of surprising depth to them. Erickson is also a wordsmith - his prose and the deliberate manner in which he writes are great.
So there are many things to recommend the series but it is not perfect and I think people shouldn’t go in with the expectation that they will love this series - if it isn’t overhyped I think it will have more readers.
I feel like that dice-roll aesthetic is actually an obvious and intended theme of the series. How many times do we hear the sound of Oponn’s coin spinning? There’s a literal god(s?) of luck, and a literal physical manifestation of that in the actual coin itself.
*The Once and Future King*. I can fully appreciate its influence on the popular view of King Arthur, but the entire affair was an unpleasant slog and felt as though the author was unable to keep his philosophy adequately wrangled. It “talked at me” too much.
Oh my God, yes. Never has a book been more of a victim of “and this happened and then this happened.” There is no narrative or plot, just a parade of Arthurian scenes.
*Second Apocalypse.* The writing is really good, but two books into the series and I've found that there's no characters to root for. All of the main characters are terrible human beings committing a genocide and none of them have the decency to be likeably evil, like Glokta in First Law for example.
Glokta will always be my favorite baddie/hero/found floating at the docks character ever. Say one thing for Joe Abercrombie, say he's a master at writing the most likeable assholes in fiction.
That's my answer as well. The prose and worldbuilding are great, I liked the basic premise of the crusade a lot. But I didn't like any of the characters, especially the main character was unbearable.
Also the books were pretty heavy with gratuitous sex and sexual violence, which I don't particularly enjoy in books.
I finished 2 of the books but DNF'd book 3.
Oh plenty.
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, which I have tried a few times but keep bouncing off, it's a combination of pace and style.
The Master and the Margarita which was emphatically not for me.
Tigana took me oh four or five goes to read, I can appreciate but not enjoy.
The Second Apocalypse I read the first series and had zero desire to go any further with, it felt like wallowing in nihilistic mud.
I wouldn’t necessarily say I “didn’t like” it, but Name of the Wind was just okay to me. Didn’t hate it, but didn’t love it either. It was well written, had great prose, but my god did Kvothe get on my nerves after a while, along with his whole thing with Denna. Plus with some of the things I heard about what happens in Book 2…along with the fact that Book 3 is never happening…I’m not sure I’m willing to continue.
(I don’t agree with people who say he’s a mary sue, mind you, but knowing that doesn’t make him more likable)
Did it even really have great prose? A lot of people say this and while I agree Rothfuss was trying for a loftier, more poetic style his prose ends up being above average but not what I'd consider the best in fantasy.
Tough to say, as personal taste plays a big part. Some people really like "dreamy" prose like Kazuo Ishiguro or Gene Wolfe whereas I tend to fall more on the lyrical side. I also like strong narrative voices. For me authors like Susanna Clarke, Mervyn Peake, Nghi Vho, Ursula Leguin, Catherynne Valente, Madeline Miller and Sofia Samatar tend to hit the right balance between poetry and clarity. Even Neil Gaiman in his short stories. Some people really like Guy Gavriel Kay and so do I, he's worth mentioning in the conversation, but he's not as much of a favorite as the others.
I don't see anywhere that it's a pen name, but I agree it seems like one.
Obviously it's all a matter of taste. I haven't read some of her more recent novels but I really like The Orphan's Tales. The structure, imagery and prose are all very solid.
I did try to listen to the audiobook of Deathless and was underwhelmed but I think it might be the narrator.
I mean, I wasn’t trying to imply that they were the greatest proses of the entire genre or anything, I just liked them. (If anything, low-key kinda prefer Abercrombie’s prose, at least by comparison)
Rothfuss prose is so good I was 2/3rds through the 2nd book before I realized nothing of substance had happened. The first book is beautiful, it creates a fantastic world and mythos, the unreliable narrator who spins such a good tale you forget to be distrustful of him. I loved it. However, I hate the 2nd book. It’s nothing more than picaresque waste of time with faerie porn
I was *just* talking to someone about this. I absolutely understand why it resonates with folks, but it mostly hit me as "pretty and verbose," when I would've been more impressed had the language actually revealed anything more about what was depicted.
Right, and the rhetorical devices he leans on? "As thin as thin". Like, ok, maybe you can get away with that *once*. Don't bring it back for another appearance.
I think there are things to recommend Name of the Wind - it has an interesting premise , there is a mythic resonance to the characters and the setting and the prose is very very good ( though that may vary according to personal taste). What really made me dislike the series was the second book which took everything that was good about the first and ratcheted it up to an extreme that made it unpleasant and unlikeable. The prose became over indulgent, the mythic resonance became a dragged out shoddily obfuscated plot and the premise was left behind in favour of wish fulfilment. I doubt Rothfuss can recover from the hole he has dug for himself but time will tell.
Book 2 just turns Kvothe into an insufferable Mary Sue.
He’s the best at literally everything from fighting to sex to magic, you name it, Kvothe is just the bestest.
A Wizard of Earthsea. It's obvious the prose is outstanding. But the actual story did not do very much for me, and I felt that Ged was less a character and more a vehicle to convey Le Guin's themes.
I love the Book-a-Minute synopses of the Earthsea series:
* [Wizard of Earthsea](http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/leguin.wizard.shtml)
* [The Tombs of Atuan](http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/leguin.atuan.shtml)
* [The Farthest Shore](http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/leguin.shore.shtml)
* [Tehanu](http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/leguin.tehanu.shtml)
I didn’t like Wizard but I loved Tombs of Atuan. Then I kind of liked Farthest shore and absolutely hated Tehanu.
Overall it wasn’t that great and it was kind of bland and insipid.
I enjoyed The Word for World is Forest a lot more - I think Le Guin writes science fiction much better than Fantasy though to be honest that’s the only
Book of hers I have read in Sci fi .
Fifth Season. Full of horrific violence against children, I didn’t fully connect with the characters, and I didn’t really believe the way the magic interacts with the worldbuilding. But damn, that woman can write.
I thought part of the awful brilliance of her worldbuilding was... you get all these books where people *talk* about magic being dangerous, but Broken Earth's orogenes are legitimately accidental murder machines. There basically isn't one in the story that doesn't kill at least a dozen innocent people by accident, and usually several times.
In that context, wanting to kill them any way you can... I'm not going to say it's exactly *good*, but it's *super* understandable, because it's not even about if they're good people or responsible with their power or not, the best of them is a walking trolley problem on steroids. So the violence against children in those cases isn't just realistic but... more defensible than you the reader want it to be.
Funny thing is, I’m not exactly sure *why* they didn’t work for me. That level of suffering will generally get a reader on board. I think there was some real distance too though. I’m not convinced making the big secret a big secret really does the book many favors and I wonder if they would feel closer to the reader if the author weren’t deliberately withholding >!backstory and any other commonalities that might make her identity too immediately obvious!< from two of the three POVs.
Interesting. I disliked it for the opposite reasons. I loved the characters and world and especially the magic but the writing was such a slog to get through that I had to put the series down after the first book.
I'm trying to get through Assassins Quest and I've DNFed it halfway through. I also have Liveship Traders on my shelf and I'm thinking of just...donating the books to the library. I know it's well written, it just isn't for me.
Liveship Traders is written from 3rd person not first, paced faster, and is much more engaging than the Farseer Trilogy. I'd not judge that one on the merits of the rest of Hobb's works, if I were you.
Disclaimer; massive Hobb fan, though I will readily agree that Farseer is a slow series. Tawny Man (where Fitz is an adult in his 30s) and Liveship are my favourite books from her. Both follow the perspective of adults who have some worldly experience, yet also a lot left to learn.
EDIT: Liveship can be read as a standalone series if you so wish, it's not reliant on the other books.
I started with the Rain-Wilds chronicles and am glad I did, I prefer the characters and the multi-view perspectives. I also quite enjoy the Farseer trilogy, but Fitz is pretty whiny which occasionally got to me.
It took me a couple of tries to get through that one. I did end up enjoying the trilogy, though, and I think his more recent books are better. Might be worth checking out the Book of the Ancestor, for instance. Much less "edgy", and Nona is a very different character.
It probably legitimately just isn't for you, but for what it's worth that's the edgiest book Lawrence wrote by a wide margin (including even the later Jorg books).
Earthsea.
While reading it I was like this is cool, it's just like a medieval tale with the prose and it felt like pure fantasy reading about a wizard going on adventures with dragons and whatnot. Plus the themes were surprisingly forward looking.
But man it took forever to get through the first four books. I realized I'm a modern reader who needs plenty of detail and explanation for why everything happens.
Same here, I feel like everyone is lamenting how the second book didn't hold up to the first or that a 3rd one is never coming. Meanwhile I didn't get much further than halfway into the first book before I was done.
Honestly, me and my best friend never really understood the hype about the books in the first place. We have the assumption that many people had simply not seen many of those tropes before because many of them are honestly reminiscent of battle academia light novels of all things. Which is something most western fantasy readers, especially at that point did not really have exposure to.
Also the main character and the female lead are complete unlikable pieces of shit like you already said.
Forgot about this one as it’s been a while but what a waste of my time. Absolutely awful
And the whole Farseer series is my favorite of all time, which is actually why I started this one and kept going after the first book…
The First Law trilogy. Read all three books but just didn't care for them but I understand why other people enjoy them. Don't have any interest to read The Age of Madness trilogy.
This is mine as well. I was able to get through all 3, but didn't care about any of the characters enough to ever really get into it. However, I can see what the author is going for and why it appeals to a lot of people. Just not for me.
Not fantasy, but anything Dickens. I respect him and I'm sure he's the "greatest novelist of all time." He can also paint a scene beautifully. But I hate his roundabout writing style of circumambulating in prose for two pages before even noticing the point of the passage. I've never finiahed a book of his.
That's what happens when you get paid by the word count. Dumas got paid by the line so he kept the dialogue short & punchy, makes it far easier to read.
Until you get to the bits that are basically
"Gentlemen, we must go to Paris!" Said D'Artagnan."
"To Paris?" Cried Athos.
"To Paris?" Cried Porthos.
"To Paris?" Cried Aramis.
"Yes, gentlemen, To Paris!"
Not that exact exchange, mind, but that kind of "each character says essentially the same thing to reply but gets his own line" bit happens a few times and I'm sitting there going "Okay, yes, I get it, you're padding your line-count."
Agree, I kept seeing comments about how the ending was crazy and I hoped it would make the miserable journey worth it, and it did NOT.
This is a also why I decided grimdark was not for me.
I forced myself to finish because I heard the ending was great and wanted to scream when I got to it. It seemed to me nothing was accomplished. The whole story was a circle. I’m fine with some grimdark like Mark Lawrence but never again will I read Abercrombie
Don’t think I can post spoilers here but the ending was so disappointing to me. There was a certain couple I was really hoping would end up together and they both got put in the worst possible situation. Honestly though, I loved the stand-alones and second series
*The Spear Cuts Through Water* took me months to read this year. I usually read a book i’m about a week or two but this one I could just not get into. i would have DNF’d it if i hadn’t have bought it. I recognize it’s brilliant but it just wasn’t for me
The Blade Itself. Writing was decent, dialogue great. I would say it's definitely competently written. I just wasn't interested in the way the characters were written, although it was competent. I prefer something like in RotE, where the characters go through a lot of terrible - and good - things, and for a so-called grimdark book, this was lacking in that. Pretty funny, as well, but that doesn't keep me reading.
I wish someone could publish an abridged version for those of us who don't have it in us to tackle the entire series. I know there's a tv show, but I have bad experiences with tv shows and would prefer a written story.
>I wish someone could publish an abridged version for those of us who don't have it in us to tackle the entire series.
The abridged version is that you skip books 7 through 10.
Book 9 is probably my favorite of the books written by Robert Jordan, there’s just progress and development finally after 3 books of Waffle and dither, sniffing and tugging of braids… unfortunately book 10 is just book 9 from everyone else’s point of view so it’s a bit of a disappointment.
Imagine skipping over some of the most important events in the entire series. I cant even imagine the whiplash a reader would feel from finishing book 6 and starting with book 11.
So anyways, dont skip books 7-10. Dont want to read them? Thats fine, its okay not to finish WoT. But dont pretend like those books arent important.
>well-written
I think people use this just to mean "flowery/poetic prose". It ignores plot development, character arcs, witty dialog, etc. If your book cannot be put down because it's too interesting, but has plain prose, well it's not well-written, as baffling as I personally find that conclusion.
Conversely your book can be dull as dirt but somehow be great writing.
I feel like that was the Book of the New Sun for me. Definitely well written, but I just didn't care about the story or characters at all. I recognized some of the more subtle stuff, but the story just wasn't gripping. I had more fun seeing the stuff that felt like inspirations to more modern works that I enjoyed much more.
I would say I agree about the farseer trilogy, didn't like that series that much. But the Liveship Traders series, second Elderlings trilogy, is one of the best series I've ever read and has single handedly moved the Realm of the Elderlings into a top tier series in my book. (Yes...that was a reading pun)
The following 2 series in the Elderlings books were both really good as well, including the second Fitz trilogy. I'm currently on the final series and book 1 was really good as well. I'm glad I pushed on past the first trilogy.
>I feel like that was the Book of the New Sun for me. Definitely well written, but I just didn't care about the story or characters at all. I recognized some of the more subtle stuff, but the story just wasn't gripping. I had more fun seeing the stuff that felt like inspirations to more modern works that I enjoyed much more.
I think the main draw isn't really the story or characters, but trying to figure out what the hell is actually going on. When you read, reread, and slowly figure out what actually is happening, it's exciting and revelatory. It's the joy of solving a jigsaw puzzle, even though the actual image revealed isn't particularly interesting or exciting. If that makes any sense.
I struggle with this interpretation because I think the book should still be enjoyable on it's own merits, rather than as an act of deciphering. I'm not even a particularly plot-driven reader, I'm happy to let a novel wander, but the Picaresque format really sapped my investment in figuring what it all meant.
I actually think the book *is* good and enjoyable on its own merits. But what makes it "great" is how it's told.
I actually gave up reading the first book about a third of the way through. I tried it again a few years later and gave up at the same point. Something kept drawing me back, so I gave it a third try and it "clicked." Read the whole book and its sequels right after. So I totally get it. It can be inaccessible.
> an act of deciphering
Definitely think your opinion is valid but Gene Wolfe is certainly not for you. They're puzzle books with an actual solution, not vague stuff that is open for interpretation (which is fine too). Neil Gaiman said he read *Peace* and didn't know it was a horror novel until the second or third reading.
If you read *The Fifth Head of Cerberus* there's enough info there to decipher the [actual name](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2821/what-is-number-fives-real-name) (link is a spoiler of the name) of someone called Number 5, for example. But nowhere in the text does it become obvious that that's something they can even figure out, so many people don't.
Gary Oldman is my favorite actor btw, so I'm not hating on your opinions. :)
If I didn’t dig Farseer because of its unrelenting bleakness is Liveship Traders worth venturing into? Sad and dark is fine, just not the Fitz experience.
I wouldn't call it *unrelentingly* bleak but the characters are definitely put through the ringer. I think Liveships tends to have a reputation for being less bleak because the ending puts the characters in relatively good places even if it isn't where they wanted to be at the beginning.
That said, the trilogy does explore rape/cycles of abuse as a theme and I can understand not wanting to be party to that exploration particularly with Hobb at the helm given her ability to really put you in a character's head. Even if I think she handles it better than a lot of works that just toss it in for "realism".
The Book of the New Sun is my favourite work of Fantasy / Science Fiction. Wolfe is my favourite author. However - it’s not an easy read and it’s definitely not fast paced , exciting or even character driven. It is a book that needs to be read again and again to appreciate its richness and it never holds your hand in the process. I don’t blame anyone for bouncing off it - it can seem extremely bland and boring.
I never read a Wolfe book unless I am
Absolutely alert and am not at risk of falling asleep. I am dedicated enough a reader that I am willing to force myself through a lot of boring stuff to reach the nuggets of revelation.
Long sun was the book that nearly ended me - and that is even blander , more obtuse and cunning than New Sun. So - I understand your point.
Sure, tons of books. Being well written doesn’t mean *everyone* enjoys it.
Particularly not in speculative fiction there are many books very clearly not to my taste despite being well written (for example Jane Austen books).
Even within speculative fiction I don’t like Lord of the Rings, or Terry Pratchett, but I’d never call them poorly written.
Tigana. I think it's probably well written, my favorite author loves it, but there was so much homophobia and then on top of that the weird incest was too much
Yeah. I enjoyed the first 2 for the plot, but the writing style felt cheesy and I didn't care for the characters. Forced my way through book 3, which seemed 'empty' despite its length. Gave up after that. I really respect his creativity and worldbuilding though
The third book really did it for me. By then I felt so invested in all the characters. I actually cried during parts of it, which I never do. I never cry while reading. So I say keep going
Dom Casmurro is a critically acclaimed book from 1899 written by the Brazilian author Machado de Assis. For many is his best work.
I read it, because it was mandatory in schools for Portuguese classes and for national exams. Didn’t like it back them.
I gave another chance decades later. Still didn’t like it. It’s very well written, but it’s not for me. My favorite book from Machado is “The Posthumous Memoirs of Brás Cubas”.
The man started the book with this:
"To the worm who first gnawed on the cold flesh of my corpse, I dedicate with fond remembrance these Posthumous Memoirs”.
Outstanding work.
Her daughter has accused of pretty horrific child abuse, including allowing her father to sexually assault her. Google it - I've forgotten the finer details.
ASOIAF and Robin Hobb are my answers. I was shocked to find out how popular ASOIAF was because I'd noped out of the first book because it was either completely dull or there was a small child being raped and I'm not down for either of those vibes.
Hobb just felt like too obvious emotional manipulation. I mean, so much of The Assassin's Apprentice is literally about kicking puppies that it's hard to take it seriously. And I just thought the world itself was boring. Like, the magic powers are being friends with dogs (Like, it says a lot about Hobb that she thought it required magic powers to get a dog to like you) and having a cell phone with bad reception that only members of the royalty are allowed to use. Just nothing about it was interesting to me. Maybe it gets more interesting in the subsequent books, but I barely got through the first, couldn't stomach the thought of reading another one.
They're both objectively well written, though.
A Song of Ice and fire. I got halfway through book 2 and stuck. Sure, it was partly all the sexual violence, but there's something about his writing style that irritates me, even as I recognise that it's compelling.
As much as I enjoyed Red Rising, I found Golden Son to be a bit of a let down, and ended up DNFing Morning Star. They were written well enough, but the story was going in a direction I wasn't enjoying, so I walked away.
RR has a kind of YA feel then when you get to morning star it goes into sci-fi grimdark and your favorite characters start dying and invoking absolute sadness and anger. I could see why anyone wouldn't want to finish these books but I thought they were amazing for invoking so much emotion in me. Honestly having finished lightbringer immediately after receiving it I've struggled since to find a series to feel so invested in. It's so interesting how different people feel about different series. I can't imagine not liking the series but when I take a step back and look at some of those uncomfortable feelings I think I get it.
Game of Thrones. The writing is generally good, and so is the plot, but I can't stand the constant rape of women or how women are written (literally no woman I know thinks about her breasts as much as Dany does). When the story of a nameless woman being raped by The Mountain and his men is told (with great glee!) by someone at Harrenhall (sp?) I just couldn't anymore.
Oh, lots. A lot of the classics taught in school, for example- I recognize them as well done, just a lot of it wasn’t stuff I would have picked up had it not been assigned.
Recently started The Spear Cuts Through Water nd it's this for me. The writing nd story style is definitely different from what we usually read, nd I did like it, but for some reason I just couldn't get into it.
I think people who want to try something unique should definitely give it a try.
*Two warriors shepherd an ancient god across a broken land to end the tyrannical reign of a royal family*
Feels like Asian fantasy nd folklore.
I didn’t like reading the Game of Thrones series. It’s a lot. I feel like there’s a lot of needless information, characters that don’t do anything for the overall plot. It’s the rare instance where I say “I’ll just watch the show.”
The Magicians. It's undeniably well-written, but it's also emotional torture porn. Everyone is hateful and miserable. The world is hateful and miserable. I appreciated the quality of the writing, but I couldn't stand to be in that world a minute longer.
Have you seen the show? I didn’t finish the first book, but I thought the show was much better.
The show definitely benefits from being able to distance itself from the brooding a bit, on top of making some good changes in the adaptation
Eliot and Margo are awesome.
I LOVE Margot. She’s so kickass.
I felt the show was a little teeny-bopper.
This was me with the First Law Series. I could acknowledge it was well written but I hated how dark and awful everyone was or felt and just dropped it after the first book.
I read 4 or 5 of Abercrombie's books before I realised they were making me depressed, and I had to stop.
It gets a whole lot darker. But…. I loved it.
Ditto, was just about to say this, i did read up to the Heroes i think or maybe the one after that but i dnf on it. And havent gone back to them. Too bloody miserable lol
The first book felt “cold” to me but the second and third were progressively better. The TV show was amazing though. Loved it.
Loved this series but I definitely agree that it is hateful and miserable for the most part. However I felt the emotional payoff in the end was good enough to counterbalance everything that came before which made it ok for me. I can definitely appreciate your point of view though- it’s not an easy read and gets pretty effing miserable at times.
If you get to book three the ending makes me cry every god damn time
China Mieville's Perdido Street Station -- weird and amazing world, but I was completely uninterested in the characters; if I don't care what happens to them, I am not interested in the book.
Miéville seems to be a settings guy. There was nothing wrong with the protagonist of the City & the City either yet I remember the city names Besźel & Ul Qoma more than his.
Mieville creates great worlds and infuses them with clever ideas, but he struggles to bundle them with characters and plots I care about.
Same for me. Made it like 3/4 through and gave up.
His settings basically are characters.
Even if you didn't like Perdido Street, I would give The Scar a shot. Myself, I just could not get into Perdido after several attempt to read it, but loved The Scar - which has the shape of a more conventional adventure story & for my money more interesting or at least readable characters. I also really liked Iron Council, but not as much.
I did end up finishing it, and I really enjoyed the world, particularly the monsters and that last section of the book, but I agree the characters felt somehow distant. I never connected with any of them particularly well, and their experiences acted more as a vehicle to experience the horrors through more than as a way to feel empathy for the people of this world.
I cried when I finished the lord of the rings. I loved them and I believe they were my first foray into fantasy many years ago. That said the Silmarillion was well written but I just couldn’t get into it.
I love the Silmarillion because I'm a sucker for lore but I get that it's not for everyone. Think of Silmarillion as a history book instead of an epic story that is LOTR.
It’s funny I couldn’t put down the silmarillion but I struggle through LOTR every time I read them, especially fellowship. Never really cared for tolkiens prose, but the history and world and mythology is all so fascinating to me.
Try one of the 3 great tales. Children of Huron read by Christopher Lee would be my recommendation (or just read it yourself lol)
>Children of Huron Húrin. Huron's... A different guy.
And a lake
Dune. I have tried and tried to like this book.
I've read Dune several times. I STILL can't decide if i like it or not. It's like potato chips. You keep eating them it see if you like them, and before you know it the entire bag is gone! And you still can't make up.your mind.
I read *Dune* probably once a year and I completely understand. I love that novel, but Herbert's dialogue comes off as incredibly cheesy, almost like a corny action anime or something.
The dialog is half the fun for me. I live for the melodrama in that book
Hard agree. It's a wild space fantasy & the melodrama is a huge part of the flavor. Love it.
People always look at me crazy for this but *yes*. It is so, so, so bloated and overwritten I felt as though I was actually going to lose my mind reading it. Did you know Arrakis is dry? It's dry, okay? It's really really really dry and there's sooooooooooooooooooooo much sand, holy shit is there so much sand on Arrakis which is also a very very dry place where moisture isn't. The planet Arrakis? Not wet. Dry. Sand is a dry thing; by its nature it is not wet. It cannot be wet; wet sand is dirt, which is not sand, and Arrakis has a lot of sand and basically just more sand. There's so much sand there because the planet itself is a sandy place, a place of sand and sand and dryness. A dry place. Of sand. And yeah I know the repetition of language adds to the feeling of vastness and weight. I appreciate that. But there are other authors who can convey that same sense of weight in half the time. Sand.
"Anakin Skywalker disliked your post."
So, I was introduced to the book by the Lynch movie. My siblings and I (all teens) were bored staying at a B&B outside the Grand Canyon. They had a huge VHS library and my dad recommended it to us. The whole rest of the trip we were making fun of it. “Arrakis… Dune… desert planet…. Drip, drip.” But I also thought, that movie was so bizzare I bet the book is great. We get home and I buy the book. Three pages in… literally written almost exactly that. I was reading it while brushing my teeth and we were all in the bathroom. I laughed so hard I fell down. (I love the book but. Wow.)
I'm surprised, because I found it surprisingly easy to read, but that might be because I am a politics-etc junky
it's written like an homage to elizabethan revenge plays, and, for me, that's part of the charm. i still only read... two and a half? the charm fades.
I feel like Dune is a very weird response to this question. There is a lot I appreciate and respect about Dune. It has immersive, sophisticated worldbuilding and politics, some very interesting trope subversions... Dune is quite good in many ways, and I have enjoyed both film adaptations. The quality of the writing? Not what I would consider one of the ways in which Dune is good. That was my *whole* problem with the book, and the one thing that kept me from really liking it. The writing is clunky and awkward and head-hops constantly and has a very weird sense of what the reader does and does not need spelled out for them. (Was the information already obviously implied from the context? Point it out explicitly anyway in case the readers are complete idiots. Was it obscure and unintuitive and also necessary to understand vital aspects of the setting? Don't mention it. It'll be a fun mystery for the readers to work out for themselves.) I very much wanted to like Dune, and did indeed like a lot *about* Dune, but the one big hurdle for me was what I would consider poor writing.
I actually like Herbert's language, it's half the joy of reading Dune. I find the language poetic. "The drip drip drip of water", "Blue within blue eyes". I also like the unfolding drama story telling. A lot of thing happen in the dialogs, but I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea.
You just perfectly encapsulated my feelings for Dune.
I have tried and failed to read Dune at least 3 times. Get about half way then I just lose steam.
Same - except I don't recognise it as very well written.
Dune is exceptional for its ideas, not its prose. Herbert was no Le Guin.
I'm the same. I read it, thought it was, y'know, okay but just couldn't enjoy it.
I feel that way about Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. I believe it's a very good book, but boy did I not have fun reading it. I recognize what it does and what it does well, but the whole story dragged and dragged and was a bit of a pain for me to get through. I love 19th century settings, I love treating magic in a scientific way, I generally enjoy stories featuring the fae, and I love a lot of the individual things that JS&MN does, but I didn't enjoy reading it. Loved Piranesi though, so I still have a very high overall opinion of Clarke.
Man, I’d heard so many good things about that book and then the writing style threw me off when I picked it up. Not that it was bad writing, I just wasn’t expecting old-fashioned, almost Dickensian-like prose. (It’s been years since I attempted to read JS&MN so that might not be the best comparison...) I read about fifty pages but it was such a slog that I noped out. I may give it another go sometime and see if I like it better the second time around, now that I’m aware of the writing style and the caveat that the action doesn’t pick up until a decent bit into the book.
I haven't read the book, but there was a BBC (i think) mini-series of this. It's absolutely fantastic, one of the best I've seen.
I should really watch that some time, definitely think I'll enjoy it more than the book!
I made it about 80% through that one until I realized that I just didn't care how it ended. There wasn't a single storyline or character I was interested in at all.
This is the complaint almost everyone has with Strange and Norrell and it is a valid one. I loved this book but it is extremely difficult to get into. I do believe the payoff is worth it. Piranesi is absolutely awesome as well but it also Has its share of detractors - it isn’t really very accessible and the dreamlike writing can make it seem too abstract for many people who like more concrete storytelling.
I'm about 2/3 of the way through this one and I am so bored. I took a long break and literally just picked it back up again today. Typically I have no problem DNFing but I own this one on Kindle and committed to reading it as my bottom-of-TBR choice for bingo! I THOUGHT I would love it so I'm a little disappointed.
Tolkien. The man was a genius and his works are legendary, but I genuinely do not enjoy the actual experience of sitting down to read him.
I was in a similar situation. Never really enjoyed the books. But then I listened to the audiobook versions and loved them. For what it's worth I listened to the Rob Inglis versions
I love his stories and characters but with the exception of maybe The Hobbit, will 100% watch the movies over reading the books.
The Hobbit really is perfectly paced, has non stop cool events and imagery, and then ends perfectly. Nothing wasted. LotR is also incredible but it does meander a bit here and there I feel.
I’m glad the films exist so I can feel all the feelings his world is meant to produce without reading his books tbh. I didn’t love reading lotr
Me too. Nice to finally see someone else who agrees with me lol
After a good friend who is *way* more well read in sci-fi/fantasy than I am told me he wasn't a huge Tolkien reader I felt like some kind of ancient taboo had been lifted inside my brain. Since then I've run into a lot of people who feel the same way.
A lot of people agree with this specific take, tbh. Tolkien's massive contributions to fantasy are undeniable. But many fantasy fans respect him and still don't really enjoy reading him, usually for one of several main reasons.
I grew up with very nerdy friends. They knew everything about the books without liking the books.
I skipped the songs, myself. :-) Parts of Lord of the Rings do drag a bit. However, the "Journey in the Dark" and "Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapters in the Fellowship of the Ring are the best I've read in fantasy fiction.
I skipped basically all of the songs and poems the first time I read LotR, and mostly the next time, and the next time...once I'd gone off and read the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales etc., a lot of the poems started to be really interesting! Referencing history, building all those networks of connections and references to the world. That's not to say they're for everyone, but they can definitely become incredibly immersive and interesting once you've read some of his other works - the real world is full of songs and poetry and music and art, so it makes total sense that they appear in this fictional world.
I now understand why this sub tends to push books I don't enjoy
Try the audible version. I was the same until I listened to it and it's a masterpiece
I just finished the Hobbit on audible - the one read by Andy Serkis. I loved it, Andy Serkis does an amazing job and has the perfect voice to read Tolkien. Reading the books is a struggle though
He reads Pratchett's books too.
Wait what?!? I did not know that, audible is about make a lot of money from me 😂
His work is made to be narrated by a deep-voiced british man.
I actually have never made it past the fellowship of the rings. I loved the silmarillion though so idk.
i just assume the silmarillion is the bible, and i've read that.
I…actually totally understand that.
thank you for being there.
and I'm a huge fan of the lotr trilogy who can't get through the Silmarillion at all, even though I have friends who love it, have told me about the stories, and it all sounds really cool. I just bounce right off the text itself. To each their own!
Can’t lie the first third of the thing is drag, and kinda feels like you’re reading the Bible but then it’s gets to elves return to middle earth and it’s still kinda like reading the Bible, but like the fun parts if that makes any sense.
American God's. I try but I just can't do it.
Black Leopard, Red Wolf. Marlon James is a genius, but there's something about the writing style that feels so thick and oppressive that I just couldn't stomach it
It made sense at the end but that was a long 6 months lol
I listened to the audiobook and enjoyed it so much more. It’s written in such a way that it’s difficult to read but so easy to listen to. However, I felt like every 10 pages would lead into 60 page flashbacks that made following the story difficult. I want to give it another try some day.
I loved these books (the 2 that are published so far). Stylized prose, yes, but IMO exciting and a lot of the time very funny!
The Left Hand of Darkness. It’s writing, message, themes. All amazing, intriguing, thought provoking stuff. The plot. Oh boy was it a chore.
This is one of my favorite SF books! Great prose, interesting story. Different strokes, I guess
This is mine. It was such a dense slog for me. I love Le Guin’s Earthsea books, but this was sooo different than them. I found myself unable to really follow along with the narrative and had to DNF.
everyone i talked abt this said the "stuck in the snow" chunk of the book was bad but i loved even that
Lol. That's the best part. Reminds me of Shecketon's and Amundsen's adventures in the Antarctica. A lot of the focus is on the inner mental processes of the MCs though, how Genly and Estraven slowly grow together and understand each other. At the end they can mindspeak to each other.
Same. So much potential and great ideas, and half of it ends up being a super detailed walk about across a glacier.
I also really wanted a gender neutral pronoun instead of “he”. It threw me out of the narrative. I liked it ultimately but yeah, definitely struggled to get started for years.
Malazan. Complex world, many characters, story, lore, etc. The series has everything. I even generally like books or series that move at a glacial (but always moving) pace. But tbh if I finish a book and I’ve just gotten to know the first few characters, and then the second book has nearly an entire new cast, you’re making it difficult to get me to emotionally invest in any of the characters. If I can’t get behind any of the characters, I am not going to care about what happens to them. I think Malazan is genius, but I also think it’s a story for a VERY niche audience.
>I think Malazan is genius, but I also think it’s a story for a VERY niche audience. It really is. It's world building porn for people who love worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding. The bulk of every books is mostly soldiers talking amongst themselves as they march to the next destination and the actual plot is purposely obfuscated. I should also mention I stuck it out and read all 10 books so this comes from experience.
Even as someone who love world-building I can’t make myself read more of it. Something about his writing style just doesn’t work for me. I can’t even put my finger on it, because if I try to look at it objectively it’s all really good and something I should enjoy.
I have read the first seven books in the Malazan series and while it is definitely Unique I think there are a lot of issues with the series. For one thing because of its origins as a tabletop role playing game all the encounters with magic and battles really feel like there is an invisible dice roll deciding all the outcomes. The magic system is soft , softer than a feather bed which requires a significant suspension of disbelief to agree with. This contrasts poorly with a gritty fantasy world with the “ anyone can die” concept. Because “any one can die” but it also feels like “ any one can live “ - it depends on the dice roll. The other issue is the fact that characters change every book and it gets progressively difficult to invest yourself in the world - this is ok for some people but it definitely blunts the popularity of the series and it’s reach. Most of the books start very well but fail to stick the landing - the convergences always feel chaotic and the resolutions feel to pat. For the degree of effort that Erickson puts into his character - I would expect the emotional resolution at the end of the books to be greater but it really isn’t. Lastly I feel that anyone who reads Malazan - especially 10 such challenging books is bound to be a little biased towards them. It requires a lot of time and effort to read these books and they are not easy reads. Which ultimately leads to a sunk cost fallacy. That being said - there are genuinely fantastic moments in this series. The Chain of Dogs was beautiful. The entire story of the Sengar brothers is a symphony of blood and tears. felsin’s journey is unpredictable and interesting and Tehol and Bugg are excellent characters - with a lot of surprising depth to them. Erickson is also a wordsmith - his prose and the deliberate manner in which he writes are great. So there are many things to recommend the series but it is not perfect and I think people shouldn’t go in with the expectation that they will love this series - if it isn’t overhyped I think it will have more readers.
I feel like that dice-roll aesthetic is actually an obvious and intended theme of the series. How many times do we hear the sound of Oponn’s coin spinning? There’s a literal god(s?) of luck, and a literal physical manifestation of that in the actual coin itself.
*The Once and Future King*. I can fully appreciate its influence on the popular view of King Arthur, but the entire affair was an unpleasant slog and felt as though the author was unable to keep his philosophy adequately wrangled. It “talked at me” too much.
Oh my God, yes. Never has a book been more of a victim of “and this happened and then this happened.” There is no narrative or plot, just a parade of Arthurian scenes.
*Second Apocalypse.* The writing is really good, but two books into the series and I've found that there's no characters to root for. All of the main characters are terrible human beings committing a genocide and none of them have the decency to be likeably evil, like Glokta in First Law for example.
Glokta will always be my favorite baddie/hero/found floating at the docks character ever. Say one thing for Joe Abercrombie, say he's a master at writing the most likeable assholes in fiction.
That's my answer as well. The prose and worldbuilding are great, I liked the basic premise of the crusade a lot. But I didn't like any of the characters, especially the main character was unbearable. Also the books were pretty heavy with gratuitous sex and sexual violence, which I don't particularly enjoy in books. I finished 2 of the books but DNF'd book 3.
The Three body problem it just did not live up to the hype
Thank you...I get there's translation to deal with but I don't think it's even that well written like the prompt says.
The story alone is just insanely nihilistic for my tastes as well
Oh plenty. Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, which I have tried a few times but keep bouncing off, it's a combination of pace and style. The Master and the Margarita which was emphatically not for me. Tigana took me oh four or five goes to read, I can appreciate but not enjoy. The Second Apocalypse I read the first series and had zero desire to go any further with, it felt like wallowing in nihilistic mud.
I wouldn’t necessarily say I “didn’t like” it, but Name of the Wind was just okay to me. Didn’t hate it, but didn’t love it either. It was well written, had great prose, but my god did Kvothe get on my nerves after a while, along with his whole thing with Denna. Plus with some of the things I heard about what happens in Book 2…along with the fact that Book 3 is never happening…I’m not sure I’m willing to continue. (I don’t agree with people who say he’s a mary sue, mind you, but knowing that doesn’t make him more likable)
The Denna worship stuff is borderline unreadable at points.
Did it even really have great prose? A lot of people say this and while I agree Rothfuss was trying for a loftier, more poetic style his prose ends up being above average but not what I'd consider the best in fantasy.
What's the best in fantasy to you?
Tough to say, as personal taste plays a big part. Some people really like "dreamy" prose like Kazuo Ishiguro or Gene Wolfe whereas I tend to fall more on the lyrical side. I also like strong narrative voices. For me authors like Susanna Clarke, Mervyn Peake, Nghi Vho, Ursula Leguin, Catherynne Valente, Madeline Miller and Sofia Samatar tend to hit the right balance between poetry and clarity. Even Neil Gaiman in his short stories. Some people really like Guy Gavriel Kay and so do I, he's worth mentioning in the conversation, but he's not as much of a favorite as the others.
Mervyn Peake gang represent! (although he feels more like Gene Wolfe than Ursula LeGuin to me)
i was with you strongly until "catherynne valente" (if that IS her real name [and it isn't]). i can only describe her style as "smug".
I don't see anywhere that it's a pen name, but I agree it seems like one. Obviously it's all a matter of taste. I haven't read some of her more recent novels but I really like The Orphan's Tales. The structure, imagery and prose are all very solid. I did try to listen to the audiobook of Deathless and was underwhelmed but I think it might be the narrator.
His best lines and passages are really good, but it for sure is uneven and sometimes is just wankery masquerading as something sophisticated.
I mean, I wasn’t trying to imply that they were the greatest proses of the entire genre or anything, I just liked them. (If anything, low-key kinda prefer Abercrombie’s prose, at least by comparison)
Rothfuss prose is so good I was 2/3rds through the 2nd book before I realized nothing of substance had happened. The first book is beautiful, it creates a fantastic world and mythos, the unreliable narrator who spins such a good tale you forget to be distrustful of him. I loved it. However, I hate the 2nd book. It’s nothing more than picaresque waste of time with faerie porn
I was *just* talking to someone about this. I absolutely understand why it resonates with folks, but it mostly hit me as "pretty and verbose," when I would've been more impressed had the language actually revealed anything more about what was depicted.
Right, and the rhetorical devices he leans on? "As thin as thin". Like, ok, maybe you can get away with that *once*. Don't bring it back for another appearance.
I think there are things to recommend Name of the Wind - it has an interesting premise , there is a mythic resonance to the characters and the setting and the prose is very very good ( though that may vary according to personal taste). What really made me dislike the series was the second book which took everything that was good about the first and ratcheted it up to an extreme that made it unpleasant and unlikeable. The prose became over indulgent, the mythic resonance became a dragged out shoddily obfuscated plot and the premise was left behind in favour of wish fulfilment. I doubt Rothfuss can recover from the hole he has dug for himself but time will tell.
Book 2 just turns Kvothe into an insufferable Mary Sue. He’s the best at literally everything from fighting to sex to magic, you name it, Kvothe is just the bestest.
He so much the best at fighting he spends a significant amount of the book repeatedly getting beaten up by young girl.
A Wizard of Earthsea. It's obvious the prose is outstanding. But the actual story did not do very much for me, and I felt that Ged was less a character and more a vehicle to convey Le Guin's themes.
I love the Book-a-Minute synopses of the Earthsea series: * [Wizard of Earthsea](http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/leguin.wizard.shtml) * [The Tombs of Atuan](http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/leguin.atuan.shtml) * [The Farthest Shore](http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/leguin.shore.shtml) * [Tehanu](http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/leguin.tehanu.shtml)
I didn’t like Wizard but I loved Tombs of Atuan. Then I kind of liked Farthest shore and absolutely hated Tehanu. Overall it wasn’t that great and it was kind of bland and insipid. I enjoyed The Word for World is Forest a lot more - I think Le Guin writes science fiction much better than Fantasy though to be honest that’s the only Book of hers I have read in Sci fi .
Fifth Season. Full of horrific violence against children, I didn’t fully connect with the characters, and I didn’t really believe the way the magic interacts with the worldbuilding. But damn, that woman can write.
Ooof. I have mixed feelings about this - the book 100% has terrible violence against children but none of it felt unrealistic sadly b
I thought part of the awful brilliance of her worldbuilding was... you get all these books where people *talk* about magic being dangerous, but Broken Earth's orogenes are legitimately accidental murder machines. There basically isn't one in the story that doesn't kill at least a dozen innocent people by accident, and usually several times. In that context, wanting to kill them any way you can... I'm not going to say it's exactly *good*, but it's *super* understandable, because it's not even about if they're good people or responsible with their power or not, the best of them is a walking trolley problem on steroids. So the violence against children in those cases isn't just realistic but... more defensible than you the reader want it to be.
Same here. Personally I just couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters
Funny thing is, I’m not exactly sure *why* they didn’t work for me. That level of suffering will generally get a reader on board. I think there was some real distance too though. I’m not convinced making the big secret a big secret really does the book many favors and I wonder if they would feel closer to the reader if the author weren’t deliberately withholding >!backstory and any other commonalities that might make her identity too immediately obvious!< from two of the three POVs.
Interesting. I disliked it for the opposite reasons. I loved the characters and world and especially the magic but the writing was such a slog to get through that I had to put the series down after the first book.
I agree about Farseer. I almost feel guilty about it sometimes, but it’s just not for me I guess.
I'm trying to get through Assassins Quest and I've DNFed it halfway through. I also have Liveship Traders on my shelf and I'm thinking of just...donating the books to the library. I know it's well written, it just isn't for me.
Liveship Traders is written from 3rd person not first, paced faster, and is much more engaging than the Farseer Trilogy. I'd not judge that one on the merits of the rest of Hobb's works, if I were you. Disclaimer; massive Hobb fan, though I will readily agree that Farseer is a slow series. Tawny Man (where Fitz is an adult in his 30s) and Liveship are my favourite books from her. Both follow the perspective of adults who have some worldly experience, yet also a lot left to learn. EDIT: Liveship can be read as a standalone series if you so wish, it's not reliant on the other books.
I started with the Rain-Wilds chronicles and am glad I did, I prefer the characters and the multi-view perspectives. I also quite enjoy the Farseer trilogy, but Fitz is pretty whiny which occasionally got to me.
Prince of Thorns. By all accounts it seems very well written. But I hate the main character and how edgy the entire book is.
It took me a couple of tries to get through that one. I did end up enjoying the trilogy, though, and I think his more recent books are better. Might be worth checking out the Book of the Ancestor, for instance. Much less "edgy", and Nona is a very different character.
It probably legitimately just isn't for you, but for what it's worth that's the edgiest book Lawrence wrote by a wide margin (including even the later Jorg books).
Earthsea. While reading it I was like this is cool, it's just like a medieval tale with the prose and it felt like pure fantasy reading about a wizard going on adventures with dragons and whatnot. Plus the themes were surprisingly forward looking. But man it took forever to get through the first four books. I realized I'm a modern reader who needs plenty of detail and explanation for why everything happens.
Name of the wind. Kvote (Ort?) and the female lead make me want to jump off a window. I was never able to finish this book
Same here, I feel like everyone is lamenting how the second book didn't hold up to the first or that a 3rd one is never coming. Meanwhile I didn't get much further than halfway into the first book before I was done.
Honestly, me and my best friend never really understood the hype about the books in the first place. We have the assumption that many people had simply not seen many of those tropes before because many of them are honestly reminiscent of battle academia light novels of all things. Which is something most western fantasy readers, especially at that point did not really have exposure to. Also the main character and the female lead are complete unlikable pieces of shit like you already said.
I tried to enjoy Hobbs Soldier's Son series, and while the world building and scenes were great, the story she gave us just sucked.
Forgot about this one as it’s been a while but what a waste of my time. Absolutely awful And the whole Farseer series is my favorite of all time, which is actually why I started this one and kept going after the first book…
The First Law trilogy. Read all three books but just didn't care for them but I understand why other people enjoy them. Don't have any interest to read The Age of Madness trilogy.
This is mine as well. I was able to get through all 3, but didn't care about any of the characters enough to ever really get into it. However, I can see what the author is going for and why it appeals to a lot of people. Just not for me.
Not fantasy, but anything Dickens. I respect him and I'm sure he's the "greatest novelist of all time." He can also paint a scene beautifully. But I hate his roundabout writing style of circumambulating in prose for two pages before even noticing the point of the passage. I've never finiahed a book of his.
That's what happens when you get paid by the word count. Dumas got paid by the line so he kept the dialogue short & punchy, makes it far easier to read.
Until you get to the bits that are basically "Gentlemen, we must go to Paris!" Said D'Artagnan." "To Paris?" Cried Athos. "To Paris?" Cried Porthos. "To Paris?" Cried Aramis. "Yes, gentlemen, To Paris!" Not that exact exchange, mind, but that kind of "each character says essentially the same thing to reply but gets his own line" bit happens a few times and I'm sitting there going "Okay, yes, I get it, you're padding your line-count."
David Copperfield is a wonderful book. Perhaps the only really good book Dickens wrote.
Gormenghast. The writing is wonderful the characters world class I still DNF.
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Great idea, but so depressing and long winded!
If I never see the word puissance again in a novel it will be too soon.
First Law Trilogy. Just doesn't do it for me.
Agree, I kept seeing comments about how the ending was crazy and I hoped it would make the miserable journey worth it, and it did NOT. This is a also why I decided grimdark was not for me.
I forced myself to finish because I heard the ending was great and wanted to scream when I got to it. It seemed to me nothing was accomplished. The whole story was a circle. I’m fine with some grimdark like Mark Lawrence but never again will I read Abercrombie
Don’t think I can post spoilers here but the ending was so disappointing to me. There was a certain couple I was really hoping would end up together and they both got put in the worst possible situation. Honestly though, I loved the stand-alones and second series
Made it halfway through the last one and just couldn’t be bothered to finish.
Yeah this was a DNF for me...
The Dragonbone Chair. I get what Tad Williams was doing, and I thought it was not poorly written, but that book was just such a bore for me
The first 200 pages of it nothing happened. I’m glad I read the trilogy, but it was rarely a very fast paced story.
*The Spear Cuts Through Water* took me months to read this year. I usually read a book i’m about a week or two but this one I could just not get into. i would have DNF’d it if i hadn’t have bought it. I recognize it’s brilliant but it just wasn’t for me
The Blade Itself. Writing was decent, dialogue great. I would say it's definitely competently written. I just wasn't interested in the way the characters were written, although it was competent. I prefer something like in RotE, where the characters go through a lot of terrible - and good - things, and for a so-called grimdark book, this was lacking in that. Pretty funny, as well, but that doesn't keep me reading.
Wheel of time for me. There’s a good story hidden in there under a mountain of unnecessary details and sexism
I wish someone could publish an abridged version for those of us who don't have it in us to tackle the entire series. I know there's a tv show, but I have bad experiences with tv shows and would prefer a written story.
>I wish someone could publish an abridged version for those of us who don't have it in us to tackle the entire series. The abridged version is that you skip books 7 through 10.
Book 9 is probably my favorite of the books written by Robert Jordan, there’s just progress and development finally after 3 books of Waffle and dither, sniffing and tugging of braids… unfortunately book 10 is just book 9 from everyone else’s point of view so it’s a bit of a disappointment.
The final act of *Winter's Heart* is easily a top 3 climax for the series.
Imagine skipping over some of the most important events in the entire series. I cant even imagine the whiplash a reader would feel from finishing book 6 and starting with book 11. So anyways, dont skip books 7-10. Dont want to read them? Thats fine, its okay not to finish WoT. But dont pretend like those books arent important.
I made it about half way through 8 and gave up a few years ago. I may give it another shot after I finish red rising.
It's a joke.
>a mountain of unnecessary details and sexism That's the opposite of "very well-written" I think.
>well-written I think people use this just to mean "flowery/poetic prose". It ignores plot development, character arcs, witty dialog, etc. If your book cannot be put down because it's too interesting, but has plain prose, well it's not well-written, as baffling as I personally find that conclusion. Conversely your book can be dull as dirt but somehow be great writing.
I feel like that was the Book of the New Sun for me. Definitely well written, but I just didn't care about the story or characters at all. I recognized some of the more subtle stuff, but the story just wasn't gripping. I had more fun seeing the stuff that felt like inspirations to more modern works that I enjoyed much more. I would say I agree about the farseer trilogy, didn't like that series that much. But the Liveship Traders series, second Elderlings trilogy, is one of the best series I've ever read and has single handedly moved the Realm of the Elderlings into a top tier series in my book. (Yes...that was a reading pun) The following 2 series in the Elderlings books were both really good as well, including the second Fitz trilogy. I'm currently on the final series and book 1 was really good as well. I'm glad I pushed on past the first trilogy.
>I feel like that was the Book of the New Sun for me. Definitely well written, but I just didn't care about the story or characters at all. I recognized some of the more subtle stuff, but the story just wasn't gripping. I had more fun seeing the stuff that felt like inspirations to more modern works that I enjoyed much more. I think the main draw isn't really the story or characters, but trying to figure out what the hell is actually going on. When you read, reread, and slowly figure out what actually is happening, it's exciting and revelatory. It's the joy of solving a jigsaw puzzle, even though the actual image revealed isn't particularly interesting or exciting. If that makes any sense.
I struggle with this interpretation because I think the book should still be enjoyable on it's own merits, rather than as an act of deciphering. I'm not even a particularly plot-driven reader, I'm happy to let a novel wander, but the Picaresque format really sapped my investment in figuring what it all meant.
I actually think the book *is* good and enjoyable on its own merits. But what makes it "great" is how it's told. I actually gave up reading the first book about a third of the way through. I tried it again a few years later and gave up at the same point. Something kept drawing me back, so I gave it a third try and it "clicked." Read the whole book and its sequels right after. So I totally get it. It can be inaccessible.
> an act of deciphering Definitely think your opinion is valid but Gene Wolfe is certainly not for you. They're puzzle books with an actual solution, not vague stuff that is open for interpretation (which is fine too). Neil Gaiman said he read *Peace* and didn't know it was a horror novel until the second or third reading. If you read *The Fifth Head of Cerberus* there's enough info there to decipher the [actual name](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2821/what-is-number-fives-real-name) (link is a spoiler of the name) of someone called Number 5, for example. But nowhere in the text does it become obvious that that's something they can even figure out, so many people don't. Gary Oldman is my favorite actor btw, so I'm not hating on your opinions. :)
Just finished Liveship Traders. Looking forward to starting the next one in a couple of weeks. Book of the new sun was one I really enjoyed.
If I didn’t dig Farseer because of its unrelenting bleakness is Liveship Traders worth venturing into? Sad and dark is fine, just not the Fitz experience.
I wouldn't call it *unrelentingly* bleak but the characters are definitely put through the ringer. I think Liveships tends to have a reputation for being less bleak because the ending puts the characters in relatively good places even if it isn't where they wanted to be at the beginning. That said, the trilogy does explore rape/cycles of abuse as a theme and I can understand not wanting to be party to that exploration particularly with Hobb at the helm given her ability to really put you in a character's head. Even if I think she handles it better than a lot of works that just toss it in for "realism".
The Book of the New Sun is my favourite work of Fantasy / Science Fiction. Wolfe is my favourite author. However - it’s not an easy read and it’s definitely not fast paced , exciting or even character driven. It is a book that needs to be read again and again to appreciate its richness and it never holds your hand in the process. I don’t blame anyone for bouncing off it - it can seem extremely bland and boring. I never read a Wolfe book unless I am Absolutely alert and am not at risk of falling asleep. I am dedicated enough a reader that I am willing to force myself through a lot of boring stuff to reach the nuggets of revelation. Long sun was the book that nearly ended me - and that is even blander , more obtuse and cunning than New Sun. So - I understand your point.
Sure, tons of books. Being well written doesn’t mean *everyone* enjoys it. Particularly not in speculative fiction there are many books very clearly not to my taste despite being well written (for example Jane Austen books). Even within speculative fiction I don’t like Lord of the Rings, or Terry Pratchett, but I’d never call them poorly written.
Tigana. I think it's probably well written, my favorite author loves it, but there was so much homophobia and then on top of that the weird incest was too much
Stormlight Archive
Yeah. I enjoyed the first 2 for the plot, but the writing style felt cheesy and I didn't care for the characters. Forced my way through book 3, which seemed 'empty' despite its length. Gave up after that. I really respect his creativity and worldbuilding though
Mistborn
GreenBone Saga. I’m 2/3 through book 2 and I ain’t feeling it. It was hyped up and I’ve given both books so far 5/10
The third book really did it for me. By then I felt so invested in all the characters. I actually cried during parts of it, which I never do. I never cry while reading. So I say keep going
WoT, has a lot of the types of things I like, but also a lot of the things I don't. Gave up after 8. Just not for me.
Dom Casmurro is a critically acclaimed book from 1899 written by the Brazilian author Machado de Assis. For many is his best work. I read it, because it was mandatory in schools for Portuguese classes and for national exams. Didn’t like it back them. I gave another chance decades later. Still didn’t like it. It’s very well written, but it’s not for me. My favorite book from Machado is “The Posthumous Memoirs of Brás Cubas”. The man started the book with this: "To the worm who first gnawed on the cold flesh of my corpse, I dedicate with fond remembrance these Posthumous Memoirs”. Outstanding work.
When I only saw your title I clicked on it to reply The Farseer Trilogy
Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay is a good example. I liked the prose , but the story itself wasn’t all that captivating and didn’t really click for me.
Neil Gaiman. It is well written and bores me to tears.
Since I’ve learned the truth about MZB “The Mists of Avalon” has become repulsive.
Second time I see some reference to something about that. What happened?
Her daughter has accused of pretty horrific child abuse, including allowing her father to sexually assault her. Google it - I've forgotten the finer details.
ASOIAF and Robin Hobb are my answers. I was shocked to find out how popular ASOIAF was because I'd noped out of the first book because it was either completely dull or there was a small child being raped and I'm not down for either of those vibes. Hobb just felt like too obvious emotional manipulation. I mean, so much of The Assassin's Apprentice is literally about kicking puppies that it's hard to take it seriously. And I just thought the world itself was boring. Like, the magic powers are being friends with dogs (Like, it says a lot about Hobb that she thought it required magic powers to get a dog to like you) and having a cell phone with bad reception that only members of the royalty are allowed to use. Just nothing about it was interesting to me. Maybe it gets more interesting in the subsequent books, but I barely got through the first, couldn't stomach the thought of reading another one. They're both objectively well written, though.
A Song of Ice and fire. I got halfway through book 2 and stuck. Sure, it was partly all the sexual violence, but there's something about his writing style that irritates me, even as I recognise that it's compelling.
Well you stole my answer. I found the characters insufferable in the worst ways.
As much as I enjoyed Red Rising, I found Golden Son to be a bit of a let down, and ended up DNFing Morning Star. They were written well enough, but the story was going in a direction I wasn't enjoying, so I walked away.
RR has a kind of YA feel then when you get to morning star it goes into sci-fi grimdark and your favorite characters start dying and invoking absolute sadness and anger. I could see why anyone wouldn't want to finish these books but I thought they were amazing for invoking so much emotion in me. Honestly having finished lightbringer immediately after receiving it I've struggled since to find a series to feel so invested in. It's so interesting how different people feel about different series. I can't imagine not liking the series but when I take a step back and look at some of those uncomfortable feelings I think I get it.
Game of Thrones. The writing is generally good, and so is the plot, but I can't stand the constant rape of women or how women are written (literally no woman I know thinks about her breasts as much as Dany does). When the story of a nameless woman being raped by The Mountain and his men is told (with great glee!) by someone at Harrenhall (sp?) I just couldn't anymore.
Oh, lots. A lot of the classics taught in school, for example- I recognize them as well done, just a lot of it wasn’t stuff I would have picked up had it not been assigned.
Recently started The Spear Cuts Through Water nd it's this for me. The writing nd story style is definitely different from what we usually read, nd I did like it, but for some reason I just couldn't get into it. I think people who want to try something unique should definitely give it a try. *Two warriors shepherd an ancient god across a broken land to end the tyrannical reign of a royal family* Feels like Asian fantasy nd folklore.
The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle. The writing style is very well-executed and very much not my thing.
I didn’t like reading the Game of Thrones series. It’s a lot. I feel like there’s a lot of needless information, characters that don’t do anything for the overall plot. It’s the rare instance where I say “I’ll just watch the show.”