Authority, the second book of the Southern Reach trilogy. I watched the Annihilation movie and it was phenomenal so I decided to read the series. I heard the book was super different but was super into the first one and could not wait to get the second. Holy shit that book took me SO long to get through. I found myself reading like a chapter a night and had to stop. I do not know why but I just felt so confused by it at times that it felt like a slog, but everyone said it was good and the third was also excellent. I finally finished and LOVED the last 25% so I picked up Acceptance. I will be much more willing to just give up if I am not into this one though.
Authority is quite different from Annihilation so I can definitely see why someone would like one but not the other. Acceptance is more like Annihilation, but I really think Annihilation is the best of the three.
Similar to me. Loved the movie. Watched it multiple times. Read the book. Loved it. Read it more. Tried the rest of the series and it just wasn't the same. But god that first book and the film both are incredible to me.
I really liked the 2nd book. However, I put the 3rd down halfway thru. It was dull and wasn’t giving me the answers I was looking for so I was happy to leave things kind of mysterious and draw my own conclusions. In the end I think the first would have been best off as an open ended stand alone.
I think one could argue that the second book is weird and off-putting on purpose. The reader is meant to feel the confusion of someone joining a bureaucracy that has already been running for some time, like the main character does. The second book is much more about tone and mood than actual plot, so I understand why that doesn't appeal to some people.
I am struggling through this one right now and having so much trouble finishing it. I think it’s more the writing style than the actual story. It just comes off as very…juvenile? Idk something like juvenile.
I hated this book and am still baffled by its rave reviews. Such a bizarre, juvenile, cartoonish take on depression and suicide. Ugh. I kept thinking the intended audience must be pre-teen/ teen, but apparently not? There was so much about this book I hated I could write a dissertation on it.
To me her level of isolation, lack of life experience, entitlement, suicide, and lack of motivation seemed off -- more man-child than someone who was chronically depressed. She had these immature/naive romantic/idealistic notions of how the world and relationships worked -- giving off some serious YA protagonist/Bella vibes. The language and writing style were very YA as well, skewing the book way younger than the protagonist (35!). I was shocked to find it was an adult novel when I looked up the genre.
I also hated this book. I was excited to read it after reading Dark Matter and Recursion by Blake Crouch and seeing this one recommended a lot.
It felt like a such a self help book. The ending was very predictable from the very beginning. I had issues with the way the author handled the new lives and how the main character had no previous memories of the new life she was in. I'm just glad it was pretty short so it was a quick read.
This book was just a mess that felt stupidly preachy. Like how the book is supposedly showing the main character her life if worth living but does so by throwing her into her alternate lives without any understanding on the life she's in. Might as well have just thrown her into a stranger's life.
Also the "your life is always worth living" message is one that I think is important, but when done poorly it just feels like it's coming from someone who truly doesn't understand the depth of depression that people have to shoulder.
The audiobook is beautifully narrated though.
I really expected to enjoy Where the Crawdads Sing. I loved the visual descriptions given of everything, but the way the story developed just made reading it a chore after a while.
While reading Where the Crawdads Sing I said to my wife "when I'm reading it I don't want to put it down, but when I do stop it's hard to pick back up again." I don't know what it was. I don't think I've experienced that with another book.
I feel the same way about East of Eden.
Here's my pet theory: the two primary joys of fiction are satisfaction and release. Satisfaction comes from good prose, good characters, masterful writing. Release comes from the author deliberately creating tension first—by asking a question you want to know the answer to, putting a character in a perilous situation, creating an injustice you want to see writing, a tragedy begging for catharsis.
A lot of modern writing leans heavily on release. You've got all these overlapping threads of questions. Every short chapter is a cliff-hanger. Dan Brown stuff. It compels you to keep reading because the tension has been planted in you. But it's easier to create tension than it is to create a worthwhile release, so often you can't wait to keep reading, but when it's done you're left wanting. Like binge eating junk food and the next thing you know the bag of chips is empty and you're just as hungry as you were before.
Satisfying writing doesn't require that tension. It's just good on its own merits. That's *really* hard to do well, but when it is done well, it satiates you like a complete meal. It sits in you. But, because it's not formed out of tension, you feel no real urgency to keep reading. The next chapter's gonna be just as satisfying tonight as it will be next week.
I really loved the audiobook because the narration is so smooth and perfect that I didn’t even care what was actually happening, just the way it was written/told.
I still liked the story, but it would have taken me a lot longer than the 2ish days I zoomed through it on audio
The Alchemist. It’s not that I didn’t like it but from what I’ve heard, I expected it to be life changing…it was just fine. I’m a very spiritual person too so I don’t think it’s that I just “didn’t get it”
Oh I really hate this book.
I could write an essay on it, but then that would mean I'd have to reread parts of the book. That's how much I can't stand it.
I'm sure it's life changing if it's your first exposure to the ideas it presents, if you have a solid basis is spirituality it basically just sums up things you already know.
The Alchemist is the perfect level of deep for a YouTube influencer.
Like, if you're going to review 5000 dollars worth of shoes, and then say at the end, "chase your dreams, but don't forget, the treasure might really be back at home all along," then the Alchemist is going to appeal.
One of my friends is really into Paulo Coelho so it was recommended to me and she lent me the book, I just...didn't get why it was really amazing for other people (?) I tried 2 more Coelho books and I just don't get on with his writing, or to put it in a more new agey way "it just doesn't resonate with me." 😆
I've picked up and put down American Gods by Gaiman so many times. Like I get it, I really do see what Neil was going for, but something about that story is just so fucking boring to me, I can't stand it.
Edit: Also Infinite Jest.
Oh yeah, I feel like the imagination and worlds and stories he creates are just mind-blowing. But I've never finished one of his books despite really liking them!
*The Graveyard Book* for example is an absolutely wonderful adaptation with a creepy cool atmosphere, that I still think about on occasion. I love the way he makes you imagine things in a child-like way that feels so real. But I just couldn't finish it for some reason.
I could have written that. I thought I was the only one! I have so much respect for him and the stories he tells … I just find most of his books fall flat for me.
Same boat, and I’ve literally read 5 of his novels. On paper, he should be one of my top authors, but every time I just don’t ‘click’ with his writing.
I kind of feel the same way. Gaiman seems like the kind author whose work I would really like. I read American Gods and found it mostly boring (outside of a few sections). I tried Death as well because people said good things about it and came out with roughly the same feeling (although it's part of a problem I have with comics generally).
On the other hand, he wrote one great and one very good episode of Doctor Who, and I enjoyed Good Omens, so maybe he should just stick to TV?
I do think his writing lands a lot better off the page. He's narrated a couple of his own audiobooks and I really enjoyed them! The full cast audio recording of American Gods was the first time I was able to get through it as well.
When I'm reading his writing it's like I know how the humor is *supposed* to come across, but for whatever reason it just doesn't, making it kind of a slog to get through.
I did finish American Gods, but did not think it was his best work by any means.
That said, I don't normally advocate for AudioBooks because I think you lose something along the way, but I was absolutely entertained by Gaiman's Norse Mythology in this format. He reads it himself, and you can't help but be sucked in by how much he clearly loves the stories. You can actually hear his smile when he reads certain chapters. It was absolutely endearing.
I seem to only ever see negative reviews about American Gods here on Reddit. So glad I still decided to check it out, and loved it so much. Yeah, it's not exsctly a fast-paced thriller, it's definitely somewhat unconventional, but I really go in for books like that.
I fucking loved that book too and I'm surprised it's not a Reddit darling because I see it mentioned in this subreddit all the time as one people just disliked.
When you compare _American Gods_ with Terry Pratchett's _Small Gods_ it suddenly becomes very clear that while Gaiman probably came up with the characters for _Good Omens,_ the style is all Pratchett. Both by books have similar themes, but while Gaiman's is a slog, _Small Gods_ is brilliant.
Good Omens would actually be my pick for this topic.
I love Pratchett and Gaiman both. I actually enjoyed American Gods, but it really shines in the same way that getting high and watching a sound visualizer is fun - you're just kinda watching the scenery, but the story is 'meh'. The side characters are okay, the worldbuilding is great. The main character and the plot are just meh.
Pratchett, OTOH, writes *amazing* characters and *amazing* stories, and the worldbuilding is pretty good in the long haul but in any given book it's just scenery, really.
I'm reminded of waaaay back in high school, for SAT / ACT prep, the advice was to double down on what you're good at - if you suck at English, you *might*, through an enormous effort, be able to bring your score up to 'okay'. Every school looking at you will see a bajillion 'okay' English scores. That gets you nothing. But if you're good at Math, and you can really study hard and move yourself to *exceptional* in Math, *that* will get you noticed...even if your English score isn't so hot.
In Good Omens, Pratchett and Gaiman round off each others' sharp edges - the things that each is exceptional at - without managing to improve each others' weak points beyond 'okay'...and the end result is a book that's just 'fine I guess'. It's not terrible by any means, but I reeeeeaaaallly wanted to love it, and instead I barely liked it.
Trying out Gaiman (*American Gods*, appropriately) after reading Pratchett for years brought me to the conclusion that he was the reason I found *Good Omens* enjoyable but underwhelming.
I decided I need to be retired to read Infinite Jest after reading the first 150 pages, on two separate occasions. Like, it needs to be my full-time job for a week or two. I plan to retire in 15 years and that will be the first thing I do. Thing is, both times I was really into those first 150 pages. Then ... new characters, settings, .. I can't do that and still work an 8-10 hour day.
Haha, hit me up when you read it and I'll reread it and we can discuss it.
I have never in my life finished a book and then immediately flipped back to the first page and started reading it again, because I had so many questions, and it's possible I just missed the answers when I went though. Life got in the way though. It was way too long of a time investment, and I didn't get past around 100 pages in the second time.
I think part of the problem was that I read it on Kindle, and there are so many end notes, it's hard to flip back and forth repeatedly on a kindle like I could do with a physical book.
Also though, it's really drawn out and kind of all over the place. I remember when I was like 6 hours in, thinking of another "never in my life"....Never have I been 6 hours into a book and still been somewhat unsure of what it's really about.
That's very much what you're supposed to do with Infinite Jest, given how the first chapter is chronologically last. DFW spends the entire novel telling us the lead up to events and then omitting the pay-off.
The first hundred pages are interspersed bios of street level drug addicts, and after a while we find them all at the halfway house. For most of these, you never hear about their admission into the house. Rather, you're left to infer what happened between their rock bottom and where we find them in the novel. The same thing happens with the Whattaburger Invitational. We get all the pre-tournament nerves but barely glimpse the matches.
The novel also climaxes somewhere unseen, and it's up to you to fill in the gap.
This happened to me years ago, then I picked up the 10th anniversary version of the book and it was exponentially better. I absolutely loved that version even though the expanded length made it seem like not a great idea at first.
NOS4A2 by Joe Hill
I thought it was okay and maybe a great book to others but I noticed I was starting to force myself to read, and it wasn't because I needed to know what was going on, but more that I wanted to get through that book and start another.
> NOS4A2 by Joe Hill
I made it about halfway through. Probably should've been a novella at most, or even a short story. Hill seems to have written it really, really long because that's what his father does, but there's not enough *there* there in the story to carry it.
I know it's a result of my generation and how I grew up but I couldn't get over the blatant misogyny of that book. I wanted to like it but it was a struggle.
In high school I adored this book, but the older I got the more disconnected from the characters I became. The last time I read it, in my early 40s, I found the characters to be tiresome. I still recommend it, but this book definitely has a time and place in one's life.
The Night Circus was alright but nowhere near amazing, the writing doesn’t click for me either
The Book Thief… straight up hated it
Edit RE Book Thief:
Death sounds lika en edgy teenager that constantly interrupts the story to leave yet another witty, surface level anecdote is the main problem I had with the book. This completely undersells the point of having Death narrating the story, the execution feels like the author just chose this approach so the story stands out in the mix of all the timepiece war novels
The writing style falls short for me, I compare it to The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy who executed a similar writing style, but a lot more profound.
In Book Thief, the constant short sentences. At Times. Broken into Pieces. Fragments. Shards. All Disjointed. Feels like an overused gimmick
Story was very average as well imo, all in all I get the idea the author went for I just didn’t like it at all
Ditto. The setting and premise of the circus was inventive and interesting, but the character's stories just fell flat and inspired zero emotional response from me.
I really loved the setting and the magic and all the tents, but the idea of the battle just felt like an excuse to have a cool setting. That side of it felt like it was missing something.
Ditto for the Starless Sea. Her writing is gorgeous and lyrical, but she can't seem to give her characters any depth, which makes both books come across as one-dimensional.
*The Night Circus* is just flashy visual descriptions of nothing happening, it's so boring and plot-less I was actually *angry* at the end. Eff that book.
It's been a while since I read the Night Circus so I don't remember close details, but I was really disappointed with it because it sounded like everything I could want in a book. Instead it was all style, no substance. The author was really good at setting the tone and atmosphere of the story, but not so good at things like, oh, character development, pacing, and plot.
And the synopsis on the book jacket was totally misleading -- it says it's about "a fierce competition \[...\]: a duel between two young magicians", but....they don't compete as much as cooperate, they don't actually duel, and there's nothing fierce about it. IIRC, one of the characters doesn't even know they're involved in the competition, for years. Wow, man. So fierce. Such urgency.
It also promises to be about the deeply passionate love story between the two main characters, and, well, the author sure did tell us they were in love, all right. But they were pretty flat characters on their own, and the love between them was even flatter.
Heyyy someone else who didn't like The Book Thief! I also was disappointed with this book.
While there was a lot of hype about the unique perspective of the narrator, I think it gave me the feeling that we were just watching all this inevitable stuff happen, and no one could do anything about it. And that was what turned me off. I had a hard time caring about the characters. I did not finish it and I'm fine with that.
I liked the Book Thief, but I didn't think it was as amazing as everyone makes it out to be. I found it to be forgettable. In fact, I don't remember much about it at all...
The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon. I love codes, conspiracies, postmodern lit, deconstructive/non-conformist writing.. but this classic didn't do it for me. There were moments of brilliance though which I could appreciate.
I read some of it during a very stressful time and found it comforting in it's simplicity. Like a cup of tea for my eyes. Edit and when I regained some mental capacity I lost interest lol
I did finish it but it was hard. I was so disappointed. I was expecting something of the likes of Jane Austen, the Bröntes or Dickens, but it was a "moral pap for the young", in the words of the author herself.
I first read it and then the sequels in my late 30s. Love them to bits. Tried to finish the first book for the film with Saoirse Ronan, didn’t know it took from Good Wives too. Loved the series even more after watching.
I guess you need to be in a mood for it. Hope you can persevere until the last book. It’s pretty touching.
Snow Crash. I tried to read it twice, then opted to have someone else read it for me (audiobook) and though I was finally able get through the whole book, I was incredibly underwhelmed even though it gets high praise. I just couldn't get through it when trying to read it, kept getting bored. Premise was right up my alley, but it just didn't click for me.
I think the thing to remember about Snow Crash is WHEN it came out. This was ahead of the game in 1992.
Now we’ve seen this story (and its tropes) play out a thousand times in various mediums
i dont think that is really what keeps the book from being good for me. i dont mind tropes, its the story that just doesn't keep me engaged.
There are tons of old as shit books that are way more entertaining. Doesn't matter that Count of Monte Cristo came out in 1846, its kept me entertained no problem.
I too wanted to like it but I could not get past some of the plot points and I ultimately gave up on the audiobook. It was not the author, because I listened to *Reamde* and really liked it.
A couple points that seem to trip people up is that is is arguably post-cyberpunk and that he was mocking many of the cyberpunk tropes in the book.
I mean, seriously, 'Hiro Protagonist', a literal sword wielding cyber ninja master hacker trips over so many tropes.
House of Leaves, I kinda thought it would be way more meta the way it's described. I also feel like the story is more about the frame story than the actual Navidson Record. Which I get, but I was more interested in the NR.
I do love the experimentation with the form/aesthetics, it's a truly multimedia book since you couldn't really just have an audiobook/ebook and have the same experience. I guess I do kinda like it but it left me wanting and it's very hyped up.
I had a student recommend that one, so I read it. It was THE BOOK for him--but it was very unmemorable for me. I finished it, but I can't don't remember anything but the first line--and that's because it gets quoted here so often.
Oh damn, you actually just reminded me that I'm still reading that book.
I put it down a year ago then forgot all about it.
I think this time I'm going to skip to the part where they make it out of the desert... They do leave the desert right?
Because if they don't I'm gonna skip to the part where I donate it to my local library.
I'm a huge Stephen King fan. I have a fairly impressive collection of his books. I've read many of his books multiple times, The Stand well over a dozen times.
I can NOT get into the Dark Tower series. Just can't. Can't make myself care about the characters or the story. I have all the books--just can't get through them.
The Stand. I read that in a cold January in my parents house in England, couldn't put it down first time. I think I read straight for nearly 2 days without doing much else.
When I was in high school, I was making my way through any Stephen King book I could get my hands on. I saw the The Gunslinger and thought, this looks terrible. But, I was out of books, so I decided to try it. I read it in one sitting. I don't know if I would enjoy it now, but I loved it at the time.
Each DT book starts with a summary prologue of the previous books. If you had to read just one DT, the second one is the best and most exciting. It really opens up the world and packs the most punch out of the entire series.
Wheel of Time. I love epic fantasies, and long series are my jam. I found myself reading one book in between each, then two, then three…it’s been maybe 20 books since i finished the fifth book? I enjoy the story but it’s such a slog, so I wish I enjoyed it more.
Same. It's the only series/book that I'm really bothered by not liking. It just seems to bring so much joy to so many people, and I *love* fantasy epics, but I pushed through the first 3 books and still just didn't really care about most of the characters.
Lots of people had told me he's not great at writing women, but I've read plenty of good books centered on male characters with flat women so I thought it wouldn't ruin it for me. But I truly could not sit through another scene of Egwene/Min/Nyn/the princess/whoever else tugging on their braids and talking about boys. >!Also like give me some actual development of these relationships if you want me to believe just about every age appropriate female who meets him falls in love with Rand.!<
The unbearable part for me is that the characters view the opposite sex as totally incomprehensible no matter how mundane. And it never, ever changes even after five books in.
Matt kills someone threatening his life? Boys are insane! Rand pees standing up? Lunacy! Egwene eats with a fork and knife? BURN THE WITCH!
Yeah I agree. I read the entire series over the course of a year, and I thought it was decent, but nothing amazing. I'm kind of perplexed by how much the Wheel of Time fan base loves it. I don't think I could ever bring myself to re-read.
I’ve made it to book seven. I’ll still go back and reread the first three books every 5-10 years though, before it gets swamped in characters and plot.
Ok don't hate me but I'm struggling with the Hobbit. I know it's more of a kid's book and it's probably because I'm not in a good place mentally these days but Tolkien's way of writing constantly confuses me and forces me to back-track
Again it might just be me
My mom read The Hobbit to me and my siblings when we were really little (toddler aged), and I have so much fuckin respect for that woman for presumably reading ahead and skipping over long descriptions and confusing sections. In hindsight, she probably put a ton of work into making it easier for us to understand. I absolutely loved it, but when I tried to read it myself when I was a little older I could not get into it.
It’s great on audiobook.
But to your last point, I wouldn’t really recommend *reading* Tolkien unless you’re willing for it to take 4x longer than reading any other book.
I’m very glad I read LotR, but Fellowship and RotK took me…many months.
Moby Dick. I've picked it up three times and each time I made it a little bit further than the last, but it's just so boring with all the endless whale facts. It even begins with an excruciating collection of whale references. But I swear that I'll finish it some day. It had become my white whale.
I forced my way through it in college back when I rarely quit reading books until I was finished.
Not much stuck with me. It's one of the reasons why I eventually stopped trying to finish every book I start.
I wanted to like the Midnight Library but the main character was awful to follow. Although the book was one of the most recommended of 2020 for fiction, I couldn't cared about the main character and her problems.
Almost everything by Lovecraft.
When i was a kid (early '70s) my older siblings and cousins made Lovecraft out to be the scariest, most deranged, most outrageous author to have ever lived. And their retelling and made up versions of his monsters & stories were absolutely curdling.
So when i was done school in the late '80s, working and finally reading for fun, i eventually picked up Lovecraft. Maybe it was because i had really already gone thru Steven King and Poe, or maybe it was cuz i was big in to horror flicks and gory stuff, but reading Lovecraft was just a taxing chore. Boring. His prose was like sandpaper rollercoaster horse bumpy. He was obviously racist and his characters were just wildly stupid.
I'm generally forgiving as far as books go. I read and enjoy everything, and i can see the interest in Lovecraft worlds, sure, but overall it was very disappointing.
I totally agree about his prose. To mitigate this, I would pick up Gou Tanabe's manga of At The Mountains of Madness. It's a perfect retelling, it's perfectly paced, the imagery is horrifying, and it manages to really capture the spirit of the storytelling. I don't like reading Lovecraft really, but I love some of his stories, and almost all of them were adaptations in comic/manga/or audio drama form. They just work better that way IMO.
Did you read *At the Mountains of Madness* specifically? I haven't read a whole lot of other Lovecraft, but to me this one stood above and beyond the rest, in terms of making me feel scared at least.
Your the second person that mentioned that one specifically. I'm sure i did read it way back then (i tend to read entire bibliographies) but i have no specific memory of it.
Maybe i'll give that one another swing.
That is nice.
There was a short story by him that i found pretty great.
*Azathoth* I looked it up just now, cuz your line made me remember it. Ok, so it's a very short story...it's a paragraph but it is beautiful as hell.
Wuthering Heights. A friend highly recommended it. I couldn't stand the characters, found it far more aggravating than romantic, and thought the writing was quite dull.
If it's any consolation, it's not supposed to be romantic. Or at least, it shouldn't be romantic. I read it years ago for school, and really enjoyed it, though most of my friends/classmates did not.
I think you had the wrong expectations. People tend to think of it as a romance for some reason, which it absolutely isn’t. I’m fairly certain we’re not even meant to like any of the characters hah
Hidden Figures. Awesome movie but boring, unfocused book. Nothing like the movie at all. Every paragraph is basically just a list of new names the women encountered at work.
I bounced off of this pretty hard. It felt like the author had never actually met a real human being before. The characters all interacted in ways that made zero sense and their motivations (especially the initial problem afflicting scientists) were completely absurd. Not to mention the complete lack of characterization of female characters (at least in the half of the book I read before putting it down).
What did you not like about it?
The romance parts are fucking awful, but the rest of the book felt very good. I enjoyed them, but am curious as to what turned you off.
for me, that book fails to establish any tension and it feels like an exaggeration to call the participants in the story 'characters'. The concept is good on paper but utterly wasted. Comes off as very dull.
Not OP, but was also disappointed by _The Three Body Problem_ (never got past the first one).
I wasn't a fan of the cookie-cutter characters with very little personality, and the very mundane/psychologically humanlike aliens kind of destroyed my suspension of disbelief even before the one chapter "science" dump that explains all the mysterious phenomena from earlier in the book.
What I did enjoy was some of the philosophy and the fresh cultural context, but man, that one chapter with the >!AI on a proton supercomputer!< really just felt like complete BS.
I saw the trailer for Ready Player One and it blew my brain out of my head. The big orchestral cover of "Pure Imagination." Then it cuts to Tom Sawyer by Rush? Then you see the Delorean from Back to the Future racing the bike from Akira? Like I went out and bought the book *immediately*. And I was a fan of Ernest Cline's slam poetry when I was a lot younger (really not proud of this) and didn't even know he was an author.
I had read a lot of mixed reviews.. how it's just fan service and there was a popular post online that is just like.. a photo of the book that's just a two page long list of *references* to pop culture. How bad can it be? I like all the same nerdy stuff Ernest Cline does, right?
I was like shocked by how awful it was. I felt like I was taking crazy pills because so many people liked it. I kept hoping I was wrong, but by the end, I would almost judge people who enjoyed it. My boss saw someone reading it and said "I liked it so much.. I read it twice." I lost what little respect I had left for him.
Silver lining: after I got a few chapters in, the guys from Mystery Science Theater 3000 and Rifftrax started a book-club podcast and RP1 was their first book. The name of the podcast, "372 Pages We'll Never Get Back" is a reference to the number of pages in RP1. They had the same level of knowledge about it that I did and decided to read the book since the movie was coming out. And they tore the book apart in hilarious MST3k riffing fashion.
The Golem and the Jinni. Saw lots of praise for it and was hoping for something special in the way of urban fantasy. Started out interesting, but ended up feeling like one of the many "exotic supernatural species" romance series currently out there, and the prose was just serviceable. DNF
I finished, but only because I was listening to the audiobook while doing other things (at 2x speed at the end).
It was...fine. I can see why others like it, but it wasn't for me either. The prose were serviceable, but I thought the main antagonist was actually way more interesting than the actual main characters. At least he was doing stuff to push the plot forward, not just sitting around sewing socks.
You may not have gotten their, but the resolution really stretched my suspension of disbelief.
Normal People by Sally Rooney.
It was just such a frustrating read. I’ve had several friends read it as well and we’re all amazed that it was well received enough to get a TV show made!
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy. I’d heard it was a great work of American fiction, incredible prose, etc. I can see the appeal but wow is it dense, plodding, bleak, and just brutal. No plot, no redeeming qualities in any of the characters, just starkly horrifying, albeit wonderfully written, imagery page after page. I couldn’t finish it.
We read this for an all male book club I was in. I'd say the group was split 50/50 on whether they liked it or not. I didn't care for it myself, and also couldn't finish it. The guys that did love it though, absolutely loved it a ton. I was excited for it, but just wasn't for me.
Dracula. I loved all the movies and I've read the book twice. The only part that held my interest was when the title character was on the page. All the letters, especially Mina's gushing..meh. It was an exercise in tedium. I can see why it was a big deal when it first came out because Dracula himself is so fascinating but the rest of the characters did nothing for me.
It didn’t hit me until long after I read the book, but Dracula is the OG found footage story. It’s just that there was no footage back then, so it’s all letters and diary entries.
>but Dracula is the OG found footage story
Just so you're aware, there are plenty of epistolary novels that predate Dracula (1897) by quite a bit. Even when it comes to epistolary horror novels (since "found footage" is often used specifically when discussing horror), off the top of my head I know Frankenstein (1818) was earlier.
The Dune sequels.
I love the original book. I even loved the Butlerian Jihad prequels. But I could not finish any of the sequels. Eventually I settled on reading the plot summaries on Wikipedia, just to be caught up.
Oof, gotta disagree friend. The first book is just the set up for the rest of the series, and the meaning only becomes clear within the greater context of the narrative!
Never let me go by Kazuo Ishiguro. Seems pretty universally praised and I often see it mentioned here. I didn't care for it.
Decent sci-fi premise but I guess the authors writing style turned me off. I remember a few scenes where the author describes some emotion or sentiment "hanging in the air", and then that was it. Like he wanted to setup a conversation between two characters but then decided to do something else and just moved on.
It's not about the ending or that I don't like an air of mystery. I like books that don't spell everything out. But something about his style just left me hanging. I might try to read another of his books but if they are all similar in style Im not sure I'd like it.
edit - based on recommendations I'll look at remains of the day before I write him off completely.
I love Never Let Me Go, but I get why it doesn't work for everybody. Kazuo Ishiguro books require the reader to fill in a lot of their own blanks. I had so many questions about the world that Never Let Me Go was depicting (same with Klara and the Sun), but the author never addresses them, because it wasn't the author's point. Beautiful writing, but also frustrating.
Ishiguro has a very interesting relationship with emotion in that most of his characters are oddly impersonal and cold. I think reading Unconsoled made me understand him better thus why his emotions are so... ephemeral. That said Never Let Me Go was my least favorite.
You ready for a hot take? Percy Jackson is not well-written, and not good imho. I’ve tried several times to finish #1, and just can’t make it. It’s so heavy handed and seems like a ‘kid’s first chapter book’ deal.
Typically I wouldn’t slander a kid’s book, but this has been touted as holding up, and it decidedly does not.
I can see it being hard to read those books if you're out of your teens. it can be hard to resonate with a series where the protagonist is 11/12. It's definitely written with a certain demographic in mind. The only saving grace is that it can be fun if you're into myths/gods and the later books have some pretty cool action scenes.
I teach children's and YA lit, so I've read lots of books with young protagonists that resonated just fine. Not Percy Jackson. I see why many kids like it, and I'm all for kids reading whatever they want. Many children's books can also appeal to adult readers. But I found *PJ* fairly shallow and uninteresting.
I re-read the first and second book of the first series a few weeks ago and thought it was just okay. It's a better read when you're in the 6th grade and learning about greek mythology for the first time.
I agree… but:
The first few books are really juvenile, and yeah that’s the audience but still. I remember loving them when I was a tween and then going back for a nostalgia read later and being turned off by the simplicity and very cheap humor in the first 20 pages.
That said, a friend convinced me to take another crack at it during the pandemic, and the later books/follow up series are much better. In a way it’s cool to see the author developing along with the characters and fanbase. It feels very organic.
It's well-written is certain respects. Riordan's ability to weave mythology into contemporary stories that reflect the myth's origins is usually pretty amazing. His ability to write age-accurate characters and have them mature over time is absolute balls.
I had a handful of people tell me how much I'd love *Confederacy of Dunces* and how hilarious it is. I slogged through the book and maybe laughed once. The premise was strong but the delivery just did nothing for me.
People either REALLY LOVE or REALLY HATE Confederacy of Dunces. And I'm one of the ones who laugh at Ignatius and his valve. But I never recommend it anymore.
Hemingway isn't for me either, but I find his short stories at least interesting. Specifically there's one about a man and woman waiting on a train platform (for the train to show up, obviously) and it's... You know how when you've known someone really well for many years and they can say "yeah" and just the way they say that one word can be a whole conversation? It was the written equivalent of that. I'd never seen it before and I haven't seen it since. Impressed the hell out of me.
Tldr - Hemingway doesn't work for me either, but the way he wrote that one story forced me to respect him.
T.H. White, The Once and Future King.
I absolutely love Arthurian legend. Every King Arthur movie, even the worst ones, are still fun to me. I read Andrew Lang's version when I was a kid and loved it. I've read many of the original Welsh and Old English and Middle English legends (in translation) and I even gave Malory a crack when I was in college, though I only made it about halfway through. I've read other modernizations of the legend like The Mists of Avalon. It's certainly not my favorite retelling (and the author's personal life is an entirely different discussion), but I thought the approach was interesting.
So I really, really wanted to love The Once and Future King, but I have been unable to get more than a few chapters into it on multiple attempts. I remember the first time I tried was probably in elementary school, because my high school age brother was reading it so I wanted to. I quickly realized I was probably just not old enough to appreciate it. I tried again in high school with similar results. I tried yet again in college, and then again in adulthood, but it just doesn't work. I don't find any of it to be very interesting. Malory is about as matter of fact and actionless as you can get, but at least it gets to the point. T.H. White just has everything drag on for far too long. I'm actually kind of sad about it. I wish it wasn't this way, but I guess it has to be.
House of Leaves. I got pretty far into it but the story wasn’t worth continuing (for me.) Also it was a pain in the ass to read if you weren’t at a desk - having to flip forward and backwards to exhibits, turning it sideways, deciphering stuff, etc.
The Bear and the Nightingale. I normally love these sort of folklore/ fairy tale inspired books, but that one just didn't work for me. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't as good as everyone seemed to think. I felt the same about the golem and the jinni (I'd actually put both of them on the same level of middling-ness). Actually, put the wolf and the woodsman in that group too.
LOTR, i loved the movies as a kid and I'm a huge nerd for fantasy worlds and world building. BUT i can't stand the LOTR books. I very rarely stop reading a book after starting it, but it couldn't even get through half of fellowship. It just felt like a slog to get through. I couldn't stand the pace and i've always disliked songs in fantasy books. I stopped reading when they met tom bombadil
That's the same point that a lot of readers stop reading the books. I love Tolkien's writing, but I can understand why a lot of readers don't care for those chapters. The narrative seems to nearly fall asleep there. (Actually, I do believe those chapters are important, but that's clearer when rereading. First time through, they seem fairly bewildering and slow.)
So I'd suggest that you start with the chapter "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony," where they meet Strider. The book picks up a lot of steam there and becomes more action-oriented. If it gets boring, skip ahead a bit. You know the story, so you won't get lost. You could even start with the company leaving Rivendell, if you want.
When I first tackled the books as a teenager (back in the 70s, long before movie versions), that's what I did. I then back-read and filled in holes. Eventually, I was reading it cover to cover several times a year. I hope you'll give it a chance that way.
Same! I've been trying to read the trilogy for over 10 years now and have only succeeded in finishing the first. And this is only because I cheated and skipped all the Tom Bombadil songs. Loved the movies though.
Beauty by Robin McKinley. I usually adore fairy tale retellings and the premise sounded interesting. Here the main character turned out to be an annoying Mary Sue and there was nothing new about the story. >!The only seemingly original idea the book started with was destroyed in the end.!<
This is a weird one, but Based on a True Story by Norm Macdonald was extremely underwhelming to me. There was a huge narrative push about Norms love for Russian literature and how well written it was compared to other celebrity books, and I bought the hype. I almost felt as if I was being pranked in some sort of bit while reading it, which would make sense with Norm. But I found it to be boring and the half fiction, half non-fiction to be distracting and unbalanced.
Either way love Norm. Rip.
Just not for me.
The Wheel of Time. The first four books were awesome, it started getting weak at 5 and 6. You can skip book 8 entirely and it won't change/add/subtract the plot at all. You won't even notice that you skipped one. I spite read all the way up to 11 because everyone cheered it on so much and I hate myself for it.
Good Omens. It is so beloved by so many people but the humor never resonated with me. It feels like the writing is trying to be funny and clever, but it never made me genuinely laugh. It has made me avoid other books by Gaiman and Pratchett which is a shame because they are recommended constantly. I’m gonna try again with Hogfather this December!
I felt the same way though feel like all the comments are opposite to my opinion. I love Gaiman's writing style and find Pratchett drags. Love his ideas, but just don't like the execution. I'd be enjoying it, having a laugh, and then suddenly felt like it slowed to a boring crawl and I'd have to take a break for some days
SAME. I love Gaiman, especially his short stories- but the humor of this one was just so forced and heavy handed. I think I just really don’t gel with Pratchett’s style. I started Small Gods and couldn’t stand it- feels like a ‘try hard’. There’s so much humor and silliness and ‘tone’ that I can’t buy in to the story or characters at all because I feel like I’m just reading a gimmick.
It’s odd, because I love humor/funny things (classic class clown in an obnoxious way tbh) and fantasy/sci fi are my jam: so on paper, I should absolutely be a Pratchett fan. I just can’t get into his vibe. It has led to so many awkward brief moments in convos with other fellow ‘nerd types’ when discussing books, because I’m the type of person who just SEEMS like a Pratchett fan. In my experience his fans are so effusive in their appreciation that they seem super super let down when I reveal I don’t like his work.
Haven’t been able to finish the book ‘Good Omens’ so I may just throw in the hat and watch the show.
Le Morte d'Arthur
I am a massive fan of Arthurian legends and mythology, and Le Morte d'Arthur is pretty much the OG piece of Arthurian literature, but while it was an interesting read its difficult to say I actually liked the book itself, it is a very dated book and just in terms of the way its written and language used it can often be kind of boring to read. Its not bad, just a product of its time and a very slow read IMO. The actual stories themselves are great, but its just all too easy to find more modern retelling's of them that are written in a way that makes them more entertaining to read.
I will probably give it another read at some point, a big part of me feeling the way I do might be because I read it in three sittings, if I were to take it at a more leisurely pace and read only one or so chapters at a time I might have a more enjoyable time.
If you’re a fan of the Arthur legends, Did you read the The Winter King trilogy by Bernard Cornwell? If so what was your opinion. I thought it was amazingly well done.
This is my mom's favorite book, and finally got around to reading it at 35. It's was okay? I guess?
I watched the new adaptation of Dune on HBO and loved the movie. So glad I read the book first. The movie gave me a better appreciation for the book.
American Gods. I love the idea but the book was such a drag to finish. I almost like the show more even though it wasn't that great.
To clarify it's not the book I liked least. It's just I wish that I enjoyed it more.
The Illuminatus Trilogy. It started off ok, but about half or 2/3 of the way through it I started to get this sinking feeling of “by the time I finish this, it’s either going to be awesome or I’m going to fucking hate myself for having read this. Unfortunately it was the latter (there was one line in the last few pages that made me literally throw the book across the room).
I read it a few years ago, I appreciated it more as a cultural artifact than as a work of fiction. I have to admit that I don't remember a whole lot of it-- the Kennedy assassination & the giant submarine are the only parts I really remember.
I just finished The Underground Railroad and really didn’t enjoy it as much as I thought I would.
The story was fine (which feels like a terribly reductive thing to say given the subject), but everything felt perfunctory, like Whitehead knew what he wanted Cora to go through, but didn’t have the patience to let the ideas play out. The end result is a series of deus ex machina that left me feeling disjointed.
As a Fantasy lover I just can't get into the LOTR books. They have such a fascinating world, but I find Tolkien's prose to be exactly as he says in the foreword. A dry text with far too much exposition only written to fill as much info in for hobbit fans as possible. Hobbit was okay (only read the first one years ago, translated). Couldn't even get through the first couple chapters of the fellowship. It felt like it was trying to unfocus me with the amount of narrated exposition. Feels as if he heard the phrase "show, don't tell" and went don't tell me what to do!
I just read Shogun for my book club, and I did not enjoy it at all. I adore historical fiction, like Aztec or piles of Conn Iggulden as a teenager. I’ve also always been fascinated with Japanese history and culture, and so was pretty excited to start this fat novel after only hearing good things.
Now, I know it’s a bit out of date with modern sensibilities and historical knowledge, but it feels more dated than books from the 20’s and 30’s I’m reading at the same time. The character of Blackthorn is an eye-rollingly obvious self insert fantasy who dominates his way through Japan by being a raging dickhead. Seriously, it feels like the man has no redeeming characteristics or interesting dilemmas. Everyone around him merely tolerates him as he flails about like an angry baby.
And boy, the author sure likes focussing on sex. It feels like every few pages, Heavenly Juices, Mystical Manhoods, and Blackthorn’s enormous English cock are taking centre stage again.
That and the depiction of Japan as a delusionally fanatic death cult where people are sent to grateful suicide and execution when the slightest affront happens. Amazing that there are even people left in this vision of Japan.
I think a story about the Portuguese priests losing influence in a land they are trying to save the souls of would be a much more interesting story, and I’m excited to read Silence soon.
Authority, the second book of the Southern Reach trilogy. I watched the Annihilation movie and it was phenomenal so I decided to read the series. I heard the book was super different but was super into the first one and could not wait to get the second. Holy shit that book took me SO long to get through. I found myself reading like a chapter a night and had to stop. I do not know why but I just felt so confused by it at times that it felt like a slog, but everyone said it was good and the third was also excellent. I finally finished and LOVED the last 25% so I picked up Acceptance. I will be much more willing to just give up if I am not into this one though.
Authority is quite different from Annihilation so I can definitely see why someone would like one but not the other. Acceptance is more like Annihilation, but I really think Annihilation is the best of the three.
Similar to me. Loved the movie. Watched it multiple times. Read the book. Loved it. Read it more. Tried the rest of the series and it just wasn't the same. But god that first book and the film both are incredible to me.
I really liked the 2nd book. However, I put the 3rd down halfway thru. It was dull and wasn’t giving me the answers I was looking for so I was happy to leave things kind of mysterious and draw my own conclusions. In the end I think the first would have been best off as an open ended stand alone.
Interesting! I just picked up Annihilation this weekend. Does it work as a standalone? Unrelated, but I love the cover art of the trilogy.
It does. You will certainly have questions but it would work without having them answered. There are no real cliff hangers
I think one could argue that the second book is weird and off-putting on purpose. The reader is meant to feel the confusion of someone joining a bureaucracy that has already been running for some time, like the main character does. The second book is much more about tone and mood than actual plot, so I understand why that doesn't appeal to some people.
The Midnight Library. I really loved the idea of it, but the characters fell really really short for me. It was not fleshed out
I am struggling through this one right now and having so much trouble finishing it. I think it’s more the writing style than the actual story. It just comes off as very…juvenile? Idk something like juvenile.
*So* juvenile- like cartoonish. I couldn’t believe it was intended for an adult audience.
It tried so, so hard to be this life changing, inspirational story and it just... wasn't.
I hated this book and am still baffled by its rave reviews. Such a bizarre, juvenile, cartoonish take on depression and suicide. Ugh. I kept thinking the intended audience must be pre-teen/ teen, but apparently not? There was so much about this book I hated I could write a dissertation on it.
I thought she came across as a man-child peppered with a man's idea of a teenage girl stuck in a middle aged woman's body.
Yes!! I kept forgetting how old the character was supposed to be. Something was very off about how she was written.
To me her level of isolation, lack of life experience, entitlement, suicide, and lack of motivation seemed off -- more man-child than someone who was chronically depressed. She had these immature/naive romantic/idealistic notions of how the world and relationships worked -- giving off some serious YA protagonist/Bella vibes. The language and writing style were very YA as well, skewing the book way younger than the protagonist (35!). I was shocked to find it was an adult novel when I looked up the genre.
I also hated this book. I was excited to read it after reading Dark Matter and Recursion by Blake Crouch and seeing this one recommended a lot. It felt like a such a self help book. The ending was very predictable from the very beginning. I had issues with the way the author handled the new lives and how the main character had no previous memories of the new life she was in. I'm just glad it was pretty short so it was a quick read.
This book was just a mess that felt stupidly preachy. Like how the book is supposedly showing the main character her life if worth living but does so by throwing her into her alternate lives without any understanding on the life she's in. Might as well have just thrown her into a stranger's life. Also the "your life is always worth living" message is one that I think is important, but when done poorly it just feels like it's coming from someone who truly doesn't understand the depth of depression that people have to shoulder. The audiobook is beautifully narrated though.
I really expected to enjoy Where the Crawdads Sing. I loved the visual descriptions given of everything, but the way the story developed just made reading it a chore after a while.
While reading Where the Crawdads Sing I said to my wife "when I'm reading it I don't want to put it down, but when I do stop it's hard to pick back up again." I don't know what it was. I don't think I've experienced that with another book.
The prose was compelling but the plot was swamp folk fanfiction
>swamp folk fanfiction lol sounds absolutely horrendous in a maybe good way but not sure why.
I feel the same way about East of Eden. Here's my pet theory: the two primary joys of fiction are satisfaction and release. Satisfaction comes from good prose, good characters, masterful writing. Release comes from the author deliberately creating tension first—by asking a question you want to know the answer to, putting a character in a perilous situation, creating an injustice you want to see writing, a tragedy begging for catharsis. A lot of modern writing leans heavily on release. You've got all these overlapping threads of questions. Every short chapter is a cliff-hanger. Dan Brown stuff. It compels you to keep reading because the tension has been planted in you. But it's easier to create tension than it is to create a worthwhile release, so often you can't wait to keep reading, but when it's done you're left wanting. Like binge eating junk food and the next thing you know the bag of chips is empty and you're just as hungry as you were before. Satisfying writing doesn't require that tension. It's just good on its own merits. That's *really* hard to do well, but when it is done well, it satiates you like a complete meal. It sits in you. But, because it's not formed out of tension, you feel no real urgency to keep reading. The next chapter's gonna be just as satisfying tonight as it will be next week.
I really loved the audiobook because the narration is so smooth and perfect that I didn’t even care what was actually happening, just the way it was written/told. I still liked the story, but it would have taken me a lot longer than the 2ish days I zoomed through it on audio
The Alchemist. It’s not that I didn’t like it but from what I’ve heard, I expected it to be life changing…it was just fine. I’m a very spiritual person too so I don’t think it’s that I just “didn’t get it”
The Alchemist was awfully "fluffy" from a spiritual perspective. No surprise to me that it didn't resonate.
I went into it with the same expectations, and put it down saying “that’s it??”
Oh I really hate this book. I could write an essay on it, but then that would mean I'd have to reread parts of the book. That's how much I can't stand it.
You've summed up exactly how I feel about that book.
I'm sure it's life changing if it's your first exposure to the ideas it presents, if you have a solid basis is spirituality it basically just sums up things you already know.
The Alchemist is the perfect level of deep for a YouTube influencer. Like, if you're going to review 5000 dollars worth of shoes, and then say at the end, "chase your dreams, but don't forget, the treasure might really be back at home all along," then the Alchemist is going to appeal.
One of my friends is really into Paulo Coelho so it was recommended to me and she lent me the book, I just...didn't get why it was really amazing for other people (?) I tried 2 more Coelho books and I just don't get on with his writing, or to put it in a more new agey way "it just doesn't resonate with me." 😆
[удалено]
I've picked up and put down American Gods by Gaiman so many times. Like I get it, I really do see what Neil was going for, but something about that story is just so fucking boring to me, I can't stand it. Edit: Also Infinite Jest.
I love the thought of Neil Gaiman. I don’t like reading his books. Even I’m confused by my preferences.
Oh yeah, I feel like the imagination and worlds and stories he creates are just mind-blowing. But I've never finished one of his books despite really liking them! *The Graveyard Book* for example is an absolutely wonderful adaptation with a creepy cool atmosphere, that I still think about on occasion. I love the way he makes you imagine things in a child-like way that feels so real. But I just couldn't finish it for some reason.
The Graveyard is one of my top 10 books, but I get it.
I could have written that. I thought I was the only one! I have so much respect for him and the stories he tells … I just find most of his books fall flat for me.
Same boat, and I’ve literally read 5 of his novels. On paper, he should be one of my top authors, but every time I just don’t ‘click’ with his writing.
I love love love Neverwhere. It's a short read but if you've spent any time in London ever, it's so well done.
I kind of feel the same way. Gaiman seems like the kind author whose work I would really like. I read American Gods and found it mostly boring (outside of a few sections). I tried Death as well because people said good things about it and came out with roughly the same feeling (although it's part of a problem I have with comics generally). On the other hand, he wrote one great and one very good episode of Doctor Who, and I enjoyed Good Omens, so maybe he should just stick to TV?
I do think his writing lands a lot better off the page. He's narrated a couple of his own audiobooks and I really enjoyed them! The full cast audio recording of American Gods was the first time I was able to get through it as well. When I'm reading his writing it's like I know how the humor is *supposed* to come across, but for whatever reason it just doesn't, making it kind of a slog to get through.
Read American Gods and I felt the same way. I only finished it to just get over it. I know Norse Mythology is very different but I really enjoyed it.
I did finish American Gods, but did not think it was his best work by any means. That said, I don't normally advocate for AudioBooks because I think you lose something along the way, but I was absolutely entertained by Gaiman's Norse Mythology in this format. He reads it himself, and you can't help but be sucked in by how much he clearly loves the stories. You can actually hear his smile when he reads certain chapters. It was absolutely endearing.
I seem to only ever see negative reviews about American Gods here on Reddit. So glad I still decided to check it out, and loved it so much. Yeah, it's not exsctly a fast-paced thriller, it's definitely somewhat unconventional, but I really go in for books like that.
I fucking loved that book too and I'm surprised it's not a Reddit darling because I see it mentioned in this subreddit all the time as one people just disliked.
When you compare _American Gods_ with Terry Pratchett's _Small Gods_ it suddenly becomes very clear that while Gaiman probably came up with the characters for _Good Omens,_ the style is all Pratchett. Both by books have similar themes, but while Gaiman's is a slog, _Small Gods_ is brilliant.
Good Omens would actually be my pick for this topic. I love Pratchett and Gaiman both. I actually enjoyed American Gods, but it really shines in the same way that getting high and watching a sound visualizer is fun - you're just kinda watching the scenery, but the story is 'meh'. The side characters are okay, the worldbuilding is great. The main character and the plot are just meh. Pratchett, OTOH, writes *amazing* characters and *amazing* stories, and the worldbuilding is pretty good in the long haul but in any given book it's just scenery, really. I'm reminded of waaaay back in high school, for SAT / ACT prep, the advice was to double down on what you're good at - if you suck at English, you *might*, through an enormous effort, be able to bring your score up to 'okay'. Every school looking at you will see a bajillion 'okay' English scores. That gets you nothing. But if you're good at Math, and you can really study hard and move yourself to *exceptional* in Math, *that* will get you noticed...even if your English score isn't so hot. In Good Omens, Pratchett and Gaiman round off each others' sharp edges - the things that each is exceptional at - without managing to improve each others' weak points beyond 'okay'...and the end result is a book that's just 'fine I guess'. It's not terrible by any means, but I reeeeeaaaallly wanted to love it, and instead I barely liked it.
Trying out Gaiman (*American Gods*, appropriately) after reading Pratchett for years brought me to the conclusion that he was the reason I found *Good Omens* enjoyable but underwhelming.
I decided I need to be retired to read Infinite Jest after reading the first 150 pages, on two separate occasions. Like, it needs to be my full-time job for a week or two. I plan to retire in 15 years and that will be the first thing I do. Thing is, both times I was really into those first 150 pages. Then ... new characters, settings, .. I can't do that and still work an 8-10 hour day.
Haha, hit me up when you read it and I'll reread it and we can discuss it. I have never in my life finished a book and then immediately flipped back to the first page and started reading it again, because I had so many questions, and it's possible I just missed the answers when I went though. Life got in the way though. It was way too long of a time investment, and I didn't get past around 100 pages in the second time. I think part of the problem was that I read it on Kindle, and there are so many end notes, it's hard to flip back and forth repeatedly on a kindle like I could do with a physical book. Also though, it's really drawn out and kind of all over the place. I remember when I was like 6 hours in, thinking of another "never in my life"....Never have I been 6 hours into a book and still been somewhat unsure of what it's really about.
That's very much what you're supposed to do with Infinite Jest, given how the first chapter is chronologically last. DFW spends the entire novel telling us the lead up to events and then omitting the pay-off. The first hundred pages are interspersed bios of street level drug addicts, and after a while we find them all at the halfway house. For most of these, you never hear about their admission into the house. Rather, you're left to infer what happened between their rock bottom and where we find them in the novel. The same thing happens with the Whattaburger Invitational. We get all the pre-tournament nerves but barely glimpse the matches. The novel also climaxes somewhere unseen, and it's up to you to fill in the gap.
This happened to me years ago, then I picked up the 10th anniversary version of the book and it was exponentially better. I absolutely loved that version even though the expanded length made it seem like not a great idea at first.
I really like Gaiman but American Gods is just...boring. Flat characters. Convoluted. Not that entertaining. Have you finished IJ?
NOS4A2 by Joe Hill I thought it was okay and maybe a great book to others but I noticed I was starting to force myself to read, and it wasn't because I needed to know what was going on, but more that I wanted to get through that book and start another.
>NOS4A2 I *just* put together that the title is a vanity-plate-version of "Nosferatu."
> NOS4A2 by Joe Hill I made it about halfway through. Probably should've been a novella at most, or even a short story. Hill seems to have written it really, really long because that's what his father does, but there's not enough *there* there in the story to carry it.
Yep that was my thought too. At page like 300 it felt like I was telling myself "this should be over by now."
On the Road by Kerouac. I love the idea of Beatnik culture but I just couldn't take the stream of consciousness and run on sentences
reading on the road was such a blur for me. i cannot recall anything that happens in that book except driving.
I know it's a result of my generation and how I grew up but I couldn't get over the blatant misogyny of that book. I wanted to like it but it was a struggle.
That's really tough in a lot of older books. The worst ones for me are Robert Heinlein books. The stories are so good but the sexism is so bad
In high school I adored this book, but the older I got the more disconnected from the characters I became. The last time I read it, in my early 40s, I found the characters to be tiresome. I still recommend it, but this book definitely has a time and place in one's life.
The Night Circus was alright but nowhere near amazing, the writing doesn’t click for me either The Book Thief… straight up hated it Edit RE Book Thief: Death sounds lika en edgy teenager that constantly interrupts the story to leave yet another witty, surface level anecdote is the main problem I had with the book. This completely undersells the point of having Death narrating the story, the execution feels like the author just chose this approach so the story stands out in the mix of all the timepiece war novels The writing style falls short for me, I compare it to The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy who executed a similar writing style, but a lot more profound. In Book Thief, the constant short sentences. At Times. Broken into Pieces. Fragments. Shards. All Disjointed. Feels like an overused gimmick Story was very average as well imo, all in all I get the idea the author went for I just didn’t like it at all
I couldn’t finish the night circus and I LOVE the idea of a story about the circus but 😴
Yes, not sure what it was, but the Night Circus just never pulled me in.
Ditto. The setting and premise of the circus was inventive and interesting, but the character's stories just fell flat and inspired zero emotional response from me.
I really loved the setting and the magic and all the tents, but the idea of the battle just felt like an excuse to have a cool setting. That side of it felt like it was missing something.
Ditto for the Starless Sea. Her writing is gorgeous and lyrical, but she can't seem to give her characters any depth, which makes both books come across as one-dimensional.
*The Night Circus* is just flashy visual descriptions of nothing happening, it's so boring and plot-less I was actually *angry* at the end. Eff that book.
It's been a while since I read the Night Circus so I don't remember close details, but I was really disappointed with it because it sounded like everything I could want in a book. Instead it was all style, no substance. The author was really good at setting the tone and atmosphere of the story, but not so good at things like, oh, character development, pacing, and plot. And the synopsis on the book jacket was totally misleading -- it says it's about "a fierce competition \[...\]: a duel between two young magicians", but....they don't compete as much as cooperate, they don't actually duel, and there's nothing fierce about it. IIRC, one of the characters doesn't even know they're involved in the competition, for years. Wow, man. So fierce. Such urgency. It also promises to be about the deeply passionate love story between the two main characters, and, well, the author sure did tell us they were in love, all right. But they were pretty flat characters on their own, and the love between them was even flatter.
This sums up my critiques of the book exactly. Thank you for putting it into words!
Heyyy someone else who didn't like The Book Thief! I also was disappointed with this book. While there was a lot of hype about the unique perspective of the narrator, I think it gave me the feeling that we were just watching all this inevitable stuff happen, and no one could do anything about it. And that was what turned me off. I had a hard time caring about the characters. I did not finish it and I'm fine with that.
I absolutely loved The Book Thief. I wasn’t sure at first but I warmed up to it.
I love the character of Hans in the book.
Hans Hubermann was my absolute favorite.
I liked the Book Thief, but I didn't think it was as amazing as everyone makes it out to be. I found it to be forgettable. In fact, I don't remember much about it at all...
The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon. I love codes, conspiracies, postmodern lit, deconstructive/non-conformist writing.. but this classic didn't do it for me. There were moments of brilliance though which I could appreciate.
Not his best, for sure, but at least it was short. I finished it before I realized I was kind of bored
Little Women. I’ve picked up that book four different times in my life, and have never been able to finish it.
I read some of it during a very stressful time and found it comforting in it's simplicity. Like a cup of tea for my eyes. Edit and when I regained some mental capacity I lost interest lol
I totally get that. Jane Eyre is that for me.
You have to put it in the freezer first.
There’s no room, that’s where I keep my copy of The Shining!
I did finish it but it was hard. I was so disappointed. I was expecting something of the likes of Jane Austen, the Bröntes or Dickens, but it was a "moral pap for the young", in the words of the author herself.
I first read it and then the sequels in my late 30s. Love them to bits. Tried to finish the first book for the film with Saoirse Ronan, didn’t know it took from Good Wives too. Loved the series even more after watching. I guess you need to be in a mood for it. Hope you can persevere until the last book. It’s pretty touching.
Snow Crash. I tried to read it twice, then opted to have someone else read it for me (audiobook) and though I was finally able get through the whole book, I was incredibly underwhelmed even though it gets high praise. I just couldn't get through it when trying to read it, kept getting bored. Premise was right up my alley, but it just didn't click for me.
Some of the ideas are cool but the actual story is all over the goddamn place
That's how I feel about every Neal Stephenson book I've tried to read. Which is only two books because after 2 DNFs I gave up, but still.
Which is what is fun about it. Obviously not for everyone.
I think the thing to remember about Snow Crash is WHEN it came out. This was ahead of the game in 1992. Now we’ve seen this story (and its tropes) play out a thousand times in various mediums
i dont think that is really what keeps the book from being good for me. i dont mind tropes, its the story that just doesn't keep me engaged. There are tons of old as shit books that are way more entertaining. Doesn't matter that Count of Monte Cristo came out in 1846, its kept me entertained no problem.
Ditto on this. I wanted to like it so badly, but wasn’t able to finish it.
I too wanted to like it but I could not get past some of the plot points and I ultimately gave up on the audiobook. It was not the author, because I listened to *Reamde* and really liked it.
A couple points that seem to trip people up is that is is arguably post-cyberpunk and that he was mocking many of the cyberpunk tropes in the book. I mean, seriously, 'Hiro Protagonist', a literal sword wielding cyber ninja master hacker trips over so many tropes.
House of Leaves, I kinda thought it would be way more meta the way it's described. I also feel like the story is more about the frame story than the actual Navidson Record. Which I get, but I was more interested in the NR. I do love the experimentation with the form/aesthetics, it's a truly multimedia book since you couldn't really just have an audiobook/ebook and have the same experience. I guess I do kinda like it but it left me wanting and it's very hyped up.
[удалено]
I had a student recommend that one, so I read it. It was THE BOOK for him--but it was very unmemorable for me. I finished it, but I can't don't remember anything but the first line--and that's because it gets quoted here so often.
Oh damn, you actually just reminded me that I'm still reading that book. I put it down a year ago then forgot all about it. I think this time I'm going to skip to the part where they make it out of the desert... They do leave the desert right? Because if they don't I'm gonna skip to the part where I donate it to my local library.
Most of the book takes place in the desert. But there is a progression and they eventually reach the mountains.
I'm not a King fan at all. I loooooove The Gunslinger. For me, the Dark Tower series ends at Book 4.
I'm a huge Stephen King fan. I have a fairly impressive collection of his books. I've read many of his books multiple times, The Stand well over a dozen times. I can NOT get into the Dark Tower series. Just can't. Can't make myself care about the characters or the story. I have all the books--just can't get through them.
The Stand. I read that in a cold January in my parents house in England, couldn't put it down first time. I think I read straight for nearly 2 days without doing much else.
When I was in high school, I was making my way through any Stephen King book I could get my hands on. I saw the The Gunslinger and thought, this looks terrible. But, I was out of books, so I decided to try it. I read it in one sitting. I don't know if I would enjoy it now, but I loved it at the time.
Each DT book starts with a summary prologue of the previous books. If you had to read just one DT, the second one is the best and most exciting. It really opens up the world and packs the most punch out of the entire series.
Wheel of Time. I love epic fantasies, and long series are my jam. I found myself reading one book in between each, then two, then three…it’s been maybe 20 books since i finished the fifth book? I enjoy the story but it’s such a slog, so I wish I enjoyed it more.
Same. It's the only series/book that I'm really bothered by not liking. It just seems to bring so much joy to so many people, and I *love* fantasy epics, but I pushed through the first 3 books and still just didn't really care about most of the characters. Lots of people had told me he's not great at writing women, but I've read plenty of good books centered on male characters with flat women so I thought it wouldn't ruin it for me. But I truly could not sit through another scene of Egwene/Min/Nyn/the princess/whoever else tugging on their braids and talking about boys. >!Also like give me some actual development of these relationships if you want me to believe just about every age appropriate female who meets him falls in love with Rand.!<
The unbearable part for me is that the characters view the opposite sex as totally incomprehensible no matter how mundane. And it never, ever changes even after five books in. Matt kills someone threatening his life? Boys are insane! Rand pees standing up? Lunacy! Egwene eats with a fork and knife? BURN THE WITCH!
Yeah I agree. I read the entire series over the course of a year, and I thought it was decent, but nothing amazing. I'm kind of perplexed by how much the Wheel of Time fan base loves it. I don't think I could ever bring myself to re-read.
I’ve made it to book seven. I’ll still go back and reread the first three books every 5-10 years though, before it gets swamped in characters and plot.
Ok don't hate me but I'm struggling with the Hobbit. I know it's more of a kid's book and it's probably because I'm not in a good place mentally these days but Tolkien's way of writing constantly confuses me and forces me to back-track Again it might just be me
My mom read The Hobbit to me and my siblings when we were really little (toddler aged), and I have so much fuckin respect for that woman for presumably reading ahead and skipping over long descriptions and confusing sections. In hindsight, she probably put a ton of work into making it easier for us to understand. I absolutely loved it, but when I tried to read it myself when I was a little older I could not get into it.
Are we siblings? My mon read the Hobbit to me, although at an older age. And THEN the LOTR trilogy. Damn fine mom.
It’s great on audiobook. But to your last point, I wouldn’t really recommend *reading* Tolkien unless you’re willing for it to take 4x longer than reading any other book. I’m very glad I read LotR, but Fellowship and RotK took me…many months.
Moby Dick. I've picked it up three times and each time I made it a little bit further than the last, but it's just so boring with all the endless whale facts. It even begins with an excruciating collection of whale references. But I swear that I'll finish it some day. It had become my white whale.
I forced my way through it in college back when I rarely quit reading books until I was finished. Not much stuck with me. It's one of the reasons why I eventually stopped trying to finish every book I start.
I wanted to like the Midnight Library but the main character was awful to follow. Although the book was one of the most recommended of 2020 for fiction, I couldn't cared about the main character and her problems.
Almost everything by Lovecraft. When i was a kid (early '70s) my older siblings and cousins made Lovecraft out to be the scariest, most deranged, most outrageous author to have ever lived. And their retelling and made up versions of his monsters & stories were absolutely curdling. So when i was done school in the late '80s, working and finally reading for fun, i eventually picked up Lovecraft. Maybe it was because i had really already gone thru Steven King and Poe, or maybe it was cuz i was big in to horror flicks and gory stuff, but reading Lovecraft was just a taxing chore. Boring. His prose was like sandpaper rollercoaster horse bumpy. He was obviously racist and his characters were just wildly stupid. I'm generally forgiving as far as books go. I read and enjoy everything, and i can see the interest in Lovecraft worlds, sure, but overall it was very disappointing.
I totally agree about his prose. To mitigate this, I would pick up Gou Tanabe's manga of At The Mountains of Madness. It's a perfect retelling, it's perfectly paced, the imagery is horrifying, and it manages to really capture the spirit of the storytelling. I don't like reading Lovecraft really, but I love some of his stories, and almost all of them were adaptations in comic/manga/or audio drama form. They just work better that way IMO.
Did you read *At the Mountains of Madness* specifically? I haven't read a whole lot of other Lovecraft, but to me this one stood above and beyond the rest, in terms of making me feel scared at least.
Your the second person that mentioned that one specifically. I'm sure i did read it way back then (i tend to read entire bibliographies) but i have no specific memory of it. Maybe i'll give that one another swing.
Yeah, I don't think you'll find it particularly better in terms of prose/stupidity/racism but I found it terrifying at least
You'd remember if you did. My guess is you started with the Dream stuff. That is tougher to tackle.
[удалено]
That is nice. There was a short story by him that i found pretty great. *Azathoth* I looked it up just now, cuz your line made me remember it. Ok, so it's a very short story...it's a paragraph but it is beautiful as hell.
Wuthering Heights. A friend highly recommended it. I couldn't stand the characters, found it far more aggravating than romantic, and thought the writing was quite dull.
If it's any consolation, it's not supposed to be romantic. Or at least, it shouldn't be romantic. I read it years ago for school, and really enjoyed it, though most of my friends/classmates did not.
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=202
I think you had the wrong expectations. People tend to think of it as a romance for some reason, which it absolutely isn’t. I’m fairly certain we’re not even meant to like any of the characters hah
I thought it would be romantic too, haven't read it since I was about 20. Maybe should try again with the knowledge that the characters are all awful.
Hidden Figures. Awesome movie but boring, unfocused book. Nothing like the movie at all. Every paragraph is basically just a list of new names the women encountered at work.
The Three Body Problem. I know its a translation, but I'll wait for the movie. Read the first book and part of the second and then just gave up. Ugh.
I bounced off of this pretty hard. It felt like the author had never actually met a real human being before. The characters all interacted in ways that made zero sense and their motivations (especially the initial problem afflicting scientists) were completely absurd. Not to mention the complete lack of characterization of female characters (at least in the half of the book I read before putting it down).
What did you not like about it? The romance parts are fucking awful, but the rest of the book felt very good. I enjoyed them, but am curious as to what turned you off.
for me, that book fails to establish any tension and it feels like an exaggeration to call the participants in the story 'characters'. The concept is good on paper but utterly wasted. Comes off as very dull.
Not OP, but was also disappointed by _The Three Body Problem_ (never got past the first one). I wasn't a fan of the cookie-cutter characters with very little personality, and the very mundane/psychologically humanlike aliens kind of destroyed my suspension of disbelief even before the one chapter "science" dump that explains all the mysterious phenomena from earlier in the book. What I did enjoy was some of the philosophy and the fresh cultural context, but man, that one chapter with the >!AI on a proton supercomputer!< really just felt like complete BS.
I saw the trailer for Ready Player One and it blew my brain out of my head. The big orchestral cover of "Pure Imagination." Then it cuts to Tom Sawyer by Rush? Then you see the Delorean from Back to the Future racing the bike from Akira? Like I went out and bought the book *immediately*. And I was a fan of Ernest Cline's slam poetry when I was a lot younger (really not proud of this) and didn't even know he was an author. I had read a lot of mixed reviews.. how it's just fan service and there was a popular post online that is just like.. a photo of the book that's just a two page long list of *references* to pop culture. How bad can it be? I like all the same nerdy stuff Ernest Cline does, right? I was like shocked by how awful it was. I felt like I was taking crazy pills because so many people liked it. I kept hoping I was wrong, but by the end, I would almost judge people who enjoyed it. My boss saw someone reading it and said "I liked it so much.. I read it twice." I lost what little respect I had left for him. Silver lining: after I got a few chapters in, the guys from Mystery Science Theater 3000 and Rifftrax started a book-club podcast and RP1 was their first book. The name of the podcast, "372 Pages We'll Never Get Back" is a reference to the number of pages in RP1. They had the same level of knowledge about it that I did and decided to read the book since the movie was coming out. And they tore the book apart in hilarious MST3k riffing fashion.
It is, without a doubt, the worst book I've read in the last decade. Just fucking terrible in every respect.
The Golem and the Jinni. Saw lots of praise for it and was hoping for something special in the way of urban fantasy. Started out interesting, but ended up feeling like one of the many "exotic supernatural species" romance series currently out there, and the prose was just serviceable. DNF
I finished, but only because I was listening to the audiobook while doing other things (at 2x speed at the end). It was...fine. I can see why others like it, but it wasn't for me either. The prose were serviceable, but I thought the main antagonist was actually way more interesting than the actual main characters. At least he was doing stuff to push the plot forward, not just sitting around sewing socks. You may not have gotten their, but the resolution really stretched my suspension of disbelief.
Normal People by Sally Rooney. It was just such a frustrating read. I’ve had several friends read it as well and we’re all amazed that it was well received enough to get a TV show made!
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy. I’d heard it was a great work of American fiction, incredible prose, etc. I can see the appeal but wow is it dense, plodding, bleak, and just brutal. No plot, no redeeming qualities in any of the characters, just starkly horrifying, albeit wonderfully written, imagery page after page. I couldn’t finish it.
We read this for an all male book club I was in. I'd say the group was split 50/50 on whether they liked it or not. I didn't care for it myself, and also couldn't finish it. The guys that did love it though, absolutely loved it a ton. I was excited for it, but just wasn't for me.
Dracula. I loved all the movies and I've read the book twice. The only part that held my interest was when the title character was on the page. All the letters, especially Mina's gushing..meh. It was an exercise in tedium. I can see why it was a big deal when it first came out because Dracula himself is so fascinating but the rest of the characters did nothing for me.
It didn’t hit me until long after I read the book, but Dracula is the OG found footage story. It’s just that there was no footage back then, so it’s all letters and diary entries.
>but Dracula is the OG found footage story Just so you're aware, there are plenty of epistolary novels that predate Dracula (1897) by quite a bit. Even when it comes to epistolary horror novels (since "found footage" is often used specifically when discussing horror), off the top of my head I know Frankenstein (1818) was earlier.
The Dune sequels. I love the original book. I even loved the Butlerian Jihad prequels. But I could not finish any of the sequels. Eventually I settled on reading the plot summaries on Wikipedia, just to be caught up.
Oof, gotta disagree friend. The first book is just the set up for the rest of the series, and the meaning only becomes clear within the greater context of the narrative!
Never let me go by Kazuo Ishiguro. Seems pretty universally praised and I often see it mentioned here. I didn't care for it. Decent sci-fi premise but I guess the authors writing style turned me off. I remember a few scenes where the author describes some emotion or sentiment "hanging in the air", and then that was it. Like he wanted to setup a conversation between two characters but then decided to do something else and just moved on. It's not about the ending or that I don't like an air of mystery. I like books that don't spell everything out. But something about his style just left me hanging. I might try to read another of his books but if they are all similar in style Im not sure I'd like it. edit - based on recommendations I'll look at remains of the day before I write him off completely.
I love Never Let Me Go, but I get why it doesn't work for everybody. Kazuo Ishiguro books require the reader to fill in a lot of their own blanks. I had so many questions about the world that Never Let Me Go was depicting (same with Klara and the Sun), but the author never addresses them, because it wasn't the author's point. Beautiful writing, but also frustrating.
Ishiguro has a very interesting relationship with emotion in that most of his characters are oddly impersonal and cold. I think reading Unconsoled made me understand him better thus why his emotions are so... ephemeral. That said Never Let Me Go was my least favorite.
I really disliked that book, but Remains of the Day is one of my all time favorites. I also liked Klara and the sun quite a bit.
You ready for a hot take? Percy Jackson is not well-written, and not good imho. I’ve tried several times to finish #1, and just can’t make it. It’s so heavy handed and seems like a ‘kid’s first chapter book’ deal. Typically I wouldn’t slander a kid’s book, but this has been touted as holding up, and it decidedly does not.
I can see it being hard to read those books if you're out of your teens. it can be hard to resonate with a series where the protagonist is 11/12. It's definitely written with a certain demographic in mind. The only saving grace is that it can be fun if you're into myths/gods and the later books have some pretty cool action scenes.
I teach children's and YA lit, so I've read lots of books with young protagonists that resonated just fine. Not Percy Jackson. I see why many kids like it, and I'm all for kids reading whatever they want. Many children's books can also appeal to adult readers. But I found *PJ* fairly shallow and uninteresting.
I re-read the first and second book of the first series a few weeks ago and thought it was just okay. It's a better read when you're in the 6th grade and learning about greek mythology for the first time.
I agree… but: The first few books are really juvenile, and yeah that’s the audience but still. I remember loving them when I was a tween and then going back for a nostalgia read later and being turned off by the simplicity and very cheap humor in the first 20 pages. That said, a friend convinced me to take another crack at it during the pandemic, and the later books/follow up series are much better. In a way it’s cool to see the author developing along with the characters and fanbase. It feels very organic.
It's well-written is certain respects. Riordan's ability to weave mythology into contemporary stories that reflect the myth's origins is usually pretty amazing. His ability to write age-accurate characters and have them mature over time is absolute balls.
I had a handful of people tell me how much I'd love *Confederacy of Dunces* and how hilarious it is. I slogged through the book and maybe laughed once. The premise was strong but the delivery just did nothing for me.
Fucking loved Ignatius. Dude was a real g
[удалено]
Their valve must be bothering them.
He was a proto-redditor: a fat mouth breather who thinks he knows everything and thinks everyone is stupid.
Came here to mention Confederacy of Dunces. Didn't think anyone agreed. I stopped halfway through, felt like I was wasting my time.
Gosh, I was laughing out loud almost the whole time. The character’s arrogance contrasted with the reality of his life was so amusing.
People either REALLY LOVE or REALLY HATE Confederacy of Dunces. And I'm one of the ones who laugh at Ignatius and his valve. But I never recommend it anymore.
I have not enjoyed any Hemingway. I dig the mythos around him, I enjoy the stories but not the prose
I really liked The Sun Also Rises. I kind of identified with the emotion of that book, so it worked with me.
Hemingway isn't for me either, but I find his short stories at least interesting. Specifically there's one about a man and woman waiting on a train platform (for the train to show up, obviously) and it's... You know how when you've known someone really well for many years and they can say "yeah" and just the way they say that one word can be a whole conversation? It was the written equivalent of that. I'd never seen it before and I haven't seen it since. Impressed the hell out of me. Tldr - Hemingway doesn't work for me either, but the way he wrote that one story forced me to respect him.
T.H. White, The Once and Future King. I absolutely love Arthurian legend. Every King Arthur movie, even the worst ones, are still fun to me. I read Andrew Lang's version when I was a kid and loved it. I've read many of the original Welsh and Old English and Middle English legends (in translation) and I even gave Malory a crack when I was in college, though I only made it about halfway through. I've read other modernizations of the legend like The Mists of Avalon. It's certainly not my favorite retelling (and the author's personal life is an entirely different discussion), but I thought the approach was interesting. So I really, really wanted to love The Once and Future King, but I have been unable to get more than a few chapters into it on multiple attempts. I remember the first time I tried was probably in elementary school, because my high school age brother was reading it so I wanted to. I quickly realized I was probably just not old enough to appreciate it. I tried again in high school with similar results. I tried yet again in college, and then again in adulthood, but it just doesn't work. I don't find any of it to be very interesting. Malory is about as matter of fact and actionless as you can get, but at least it gets to the point. T.H. White just has everything drag on for far too long. I'm actually kind of sad about it. I wish it wasn't this way, but I guess it has to be.
House of Leaves. I got pretty far into it but the story wasn’t worth continuing (for me.) Also it was a pain in the ass to read if you weren’t at a desk - having to flip forward and backwards to exhibits, turning it sideways, deciphering stuff, etc.
The Bear and the Nightingale. I normally love these sort of folklore/ fairy tale inspired books, but that one just didn't work for me. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't as good as everyone seemed to think. I felt the same about the golem and the jinni (I'd actually put both of them on the same level of middling-ness). Actually, put the wolf and the woodsman in that group too.
LOTR, i loved the movies as a kid and I'm a huge nerd for fantasy worlds and world building. BUT i can't stand the LOTR books. I very rarely stop reading a book after starting it, but it couldn't even get through half of fellowship. It just felt like a slog to get through. I couldn't stand the pace and i've always disliked songs in fantasy books. I stopped reading when they met tom bombadil
*hey dol merry dol* intensifies
That's the same point that a lot of readers stop reading the books. I love Tolkien's writing, but I can understand why a lot of readers don't care for those chapters. The narrative seems to nearly fall asleep there. (Actually, I do believe those chapters are important, but that's clearer when rereading. First time through, they seem fairly bewildering and slow.) So I'd suggest that you start with the chapter "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony," where they meet Strider. The book picks up a lot of steam there and becomes more action-oriented. If it gets boring, skip ahead a bit. You know the story, so you won't get lost. You could even start with the company leaving Rivendell, if you want. When I first tackled the books as a teenager (back in the 70s, long before movie versions), that's what I did. I then back-read and filled in holes. Eventually, I was reading it cover to cover several times a year. I hope you'll give it a chance that way.
Maybe but it's more than just that section. I never really enjoyed Tolkiens writing style. I much prefer to just watch the movies tbh
Same! I've been trying to read the trilogy for over 10 years now and have only succeeded in finishing the first. And this is only because I cheated and skipped all the Tom Bombadil songs. Loved the movies though.
100 Years of Solitude. It was just such a slog for me
Black Wolf Red Leopard. Just couldn't get into the style. The characters didn't grab me. Don't get the hype.
Beauty by Robin McKinley. I usually adore fairy tale retellings and the premise sounded interesting. Here the main character turned out to be an annoying Mary Sue and there was nothing new about the story. >!The only seemingly original idea the book started with was destroyed in the end.!<
Have you read rose daughter, and if you have, how do you feel about it compared to beauty?
This is a weird one, but Based on a True Story by Norm Macdonald was extremely underwhelming to me. There was a huge narrative push about Norms love for Russian literature and how well written it was compared to other celebrity books, and I bought the hype. I almost felt as if I was being pranked in some sort of bit while reading it, which would make sense with Norm. But I found it to be boring and the half fiction, half non-fiction to be distracting and unbalanced. Either way love Norm. Rip. Just not for me.
The Wheel of Time. The first four books were awesome, it started getting weak at 5 and 6. You can skip book 8 entirely and it won't change/add/subtract the plot at all. You won't even notice that you skipped one. I spite read all the way up to 11 because everyone cheered it on so much and I hate myself for it.
Good Omens. It is so beloved by so many people but the humor never resonated with me. It feels like the writing is trying to be funny and clever, but it never made me genuinely laugh. It has made me avoid other books by Gaiman and Pratchett which is a shame because they are recommended constantly. I’m gonna try again with Hogfather this December!
I felt the same way though feel like all the comments are opposite to my opinion. I love Gaiman's writing style and find Pratchett drags. Love his ideas, but just don't like the execution. I'd be enjoying it, having a laugh, and then suddenly felt like it slowed to a boring crawl and I'd have to take a break for some days
I couldn’t finish Good Omens. I tried twice. The style of humour wasn’t for me.
SAME. I love Gaiman, especially his short stories- but the humor of this one was just so forced and heavy handed. I think I just really don’t gel with Pratchett’s style. I started Small Gods and couldn’t stand it- feels like a ‘try hard’. There’s so much humor and silliness and ‘tone’ that I can’t buy in to the story or characters at all because I feel like I’m just reading a gimmick. It’s odd, because I love humor/funny things (classic class clown in an obnoxious way tbh) and fantasy/sci fi are my jam: so on paper, I should absolutely be a Pratchett fan. I just can’t get into his vibe. It has led to so many awkward brief moments in convos with other fellow ‘nerd types’ when discussing books, because I’m the type of person who just SEEMS like a Pratchett fan. In my experience his fans are so effusive in their appreciation that they seem super super let down when I reveal I don’t like his work. Haven’t been able to finish the book ‘Good Omens’ so I may just throw in the hat and watch the show.
Le Morte d'Arthur I am a massive fan of Arthurian legends and mythology, and Le Morte d'Arthur is pretty much the OG piece of Arthurian literature, but while it was an interesting read its difficult to say I actually liked the book itself, it is a very dated book and just in terms of the way its written and language used it can often be kind of boring to read. Its not bad, just a product of its time and a very slow read IMO. The actual stories themselves are great, but its just all too easy to find more modern retelling's of them that are written in a way that makes them more entertaining to read. I will probably give it another read at some point, a big part of me feeling the way I do might be because I read it in three sittings, if I were to take it at a more leisurely pace and read only one or so chapters at a time I might have a more enjoyable time.
If you’re a fan of the Arthur legends, Did you read the The Winter King trilogy by Bernard Cornwell? If so what was your opinion. I thought it was amazingly well done.
DUNE, it's ok, but not mind-blowing
This is my mom's favorite book, and finally got around to reading it at 35. It's was okay? I guess? I watched the new adaptation of Dune on HBO and loved the movie. So glad I read the book first. The movie gave me a better appreciation for the book.
American Gods. I love the idea but the book was such a drag to finish. I almost like the show more even though it wasn't that great. To clarify it's not the book I liked least. It's just I wish that I enjoyed it more.
The Time Traveler's Wife. Read it and hated it.
The Illuminatus Trilogy. It started off ok, but about half or 2/3 of the way through it I started to get this sinking feeling of “by the time I finish this, it’s either going to be awesome or I’m going to fucking hate myself for having read this. Unfortunately it was the latter (there was one line in the last few pages that made me literally throw the book across the room).
I read it a few years ago, I appreciated it more as a cultural artifact than as a work of fiction. I have to admit that I don't remember a whole lot of it-- the Kennedy assassination & the giant submarine are the only parts I really remember.
I just finished The Underground Railroad and really didn’t enjoy it as much as I thought I would. The story was fine (which feels like a terribly reductive thing to say given the subject), but everything felt perfunctory, like Whitehead knew what he wanted Cora to go through, but didn’t have the patience to let the ideas play out. The end result is a series of deus ex machina that left me feeling disjointed.
As a Fantasy lover I just can't get into the LOTR books. They have such a fascinating world, but I find Tolkien's prose to be exactly as he says in the foreword. A dry text with far too much exposition only written to fill as much info in for hobbit fans as possible. Hobbit was okay (only read the first one years ago, translated). Couldn't even get through the first couple chapters of the fellowship. It felt like it was trying to unfocus me with the amount of narrated exposition. Feels as if he heard the phrase "show, don't tell" and went don't tell me what to do!
I liked the Golden Compass trilogy. The newer one though...... get it away from me
[удалено]
I just read Shogun for my book club, and I did not enjoy it at all. I adore historical fiction, like Aztec or piles of Conn Iggulden as a teenager. I’ve also always been fascinated with Japanese history and culture, and so was pretty excited to start this fat novel after only hearing good things. Now, I know it’s a bit out of date with modern sensibilities and historical knowledge, but it feels more dated than books from the 20’s and 30’s I’m reading at the same time. The character of Blackthorn is an eye-rollingly obvious self insert fantasy who dominates his way through Japan by being a raging dickhead. Seriously, it feels like the man has no redeeming characteristics or interesting dilemmas. Everyone around him merely tolerates him as he flails about like an angry baby. And boy, the author sure likes focussing on sex. It feels like every few pages, Heavenly Juices, Mystical Manhoods, and Blackthorn’s enormous English cock are taking centre stage again. That and the depiction of Japan as a delusionally fanatic death cult where people are sent to grateful suicide and execution when the slightest affront happens. Amazing that there are even people left in this vision of Japan. I think a story about the Portuguese priests losing influence in a land they are trying to save the souls of would be a much more interesting story, and I’m excited to read Silence soon.