Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Discussing Published Hooks & Books » Books that suck (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Books that suck
Salimasis
Member
Member # 2490

 - posted      Profile for Salimasis           Edit/Delete Post 
Can't help adding my 2 cents regarding the SOT books.

I read the first three books of the series, then skipped ahead to Faith of the Fallen. What I found was the same plot device used in three out of the only four books I had read, namely Richard being "kidnapped" by a strong female character and being forced into a lifestyle he didn't believe in or want. Huh. There were some elements of the books that I did like, but primarily found them to be sophmoric in writing and concept. I found several scenes that left me wondering if Goodkind had read what he had written previously. Example, in the first book Richard attends a ritual with the Mud People in which the spirits of dead ancestors appear. In the second book, Richard again attends the same rite, and lo and behold, the spirit of Darken Rahl, his dead father, arrives despite not being specifically summoned. Made me wonder why none of Richard's other dead relatives made an appearance in either ritual to help or interfere with his quest. Hmmmm. And how was it Violet was able to torture Richaed with Cara's agiel when the device will only work for someone who's been trained with it?

Well, perhaps I overlooked something in reading the books.


Posts: 66 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rcorporon
Member
Member # 2879

 - posted      Profile for rcorporon   Email rcorporon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
o.k, several things here are not making sense. first of, this is a DISCUSSION. we are supposed to pick a topic and stick with it for at least five posts. (I know I am doing the same thing here. I am a hypocrite sometimes. doing this to get us back on track.) the only time I have seen this is with the Harry Potter five series. and that was just to dis it, wich you never want to do if the writer is filthy rich. and another thing: NEVER DIS GEORGE LUCAS! sure, His latest three bombed but never forget the clasics that make four of them. (the first and second dont count.) Harry Potter five may have bombed in storyline and about every other aspect of the book, but what killed it for me was WHO WAS KILLED!!!!! I cannot believe that she did that! never seen the matrix or trinity, but I can understand the "long-winded-speech-just-after-you-stab yourself-or-do-whatever-it-takes-to-die" thing. three words: Antony and Cleopatra. it took every person who did die over ten minutes to. that killed what was otherwise a violent and well-written play.

The enter key is your friend.

About Lucas, I agree that episoe IV was good (but the dialogue is HORRIBLE! "But I want to go to buy power converters!"). Empire wasn't written OR directed by Lucas, and ROTJ had Ewoks, who sucked and nearly ruined the entire movie.

Lucas is lucky to be surrounded by fanboys.

I've never read the SOT books, and I think I'll stay away now.


Posts: 450 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
arriki
Member
Member # 3079

 - posted      Profile for arriki   Email arriki         Edit/Delete Post 
I remember hearing that it was SF writer Leigh Brackett who wrote the scripts of Star Wars Iv and V. Then she died before she could write The Return of the Jedi and things went downhill from there.

Why can't the people out in Hollywood realize that it is the story, not the special effects, that makes a movie fun to watch?


Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
"Star Wars V" definitely (better known as "The Empire Strikes Back"). The only time Hollywood put her talents as a science fiction writer to proper use. She also worked on the scripts for "Rio Bravo" and "The Big Sleep" (the latter with William Faulkner, no less), and many others. And, alas, she died before shooting began for "Empire," making it her last work both in science fiction and for the movies...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheMaia
New Member
Member # 3231

 - posted      Profile for TheMaia   Email TheMaia         Edit/Delete Post 
So here is the deal these days. It isn't the story that people want to watch anymore. Not to put everyone in that group of course but people are consumed by television and movies. The population of book readers is going down. We are the dying race so to say. I mean even us readers are so busy these days that I even find myself sticking my boy in front of a TV instead of give him a book. So we are raising this race of TV mongers that are no longer interested in the story of movies but the action and if it is enough to keep them entertained through the whole movie. As long as the the good guys win and the bad guys die. Then the movie is a hit. The only time peple want to see a story to the movie is if it is controversial. Then they need to know all the facts so that they can brag about seeing the flick. But even then its not the story that got them but the hype about seeing it.
But like I said befor that isn't the deffinition of all movie goers. I like to read all the time (when I have the chance) so I like movies with stories. Besides in books, if its all about the action then what is the point in reading it?

Posts: 6 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Having "the good guys win and the bad guys die" seems a valid resolution of plot, whether it's a book or movie or TV show. If these things didn't resolve in some way, but just came to an end, chances are they'd bomb and fail. A spectacular action-adventure shoot-'em-up might do for awhile, but it's gotta have the requisite resolution...otherwise, competition is stiff, and chances are there's one playing on another channel that'll do the job better.

Sometimes, though, you need more. I saw an old movie ("Delta Force") the other week. For the first hour, it was the best movie about terrorism I'd ever seen. The second hour, though, flagged, coming to a more conventional action-movie end. It could be said to fit within the "good guys and bad guys" kind of resolution as above, but it lacked the gut-wrenching intensity of the first hour. (I can see why...real life hasn't yet offered a resolution for this particular plot.)


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rcorporon
Member
Member # 2879

 - posted      Profile for rcorporon   Email rcorporon         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know about failure due to not sticking with a formula.

Look at GRRM's Fire and Ice books. THey are not "good guys win, bad guys die" and are very, very popular.

In fact, I'd say that they are the opposite of "good guys win, bad guys die."

It's quite refreshing.


Posts: 450 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Smaug
Member
Member # 2807

 - posted      Profile for Smaug   Email Smaug         Edit/Delete Post 
On the Covenant books--yeah, Covenant is a jerk, and I still loved the books--because I love the secondary characters. I've read both the first and second chronicles twice each and want to read them again sometime.

On books that suck--Orwell's 1984 heads my list. I also can't stomach science fiction novels that get so into the technology that they put that ahead of the story. I can't remember a specific one, but there are many and I tend to forget the titles because I don't want to read them ever again (maybe that's a good argument for remembering the titles!).


Posts: 440 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kolona
Member
Member # 1438

 - posted      Profile for Kolona   Email Kolona         Edit/Delete Post 
Anthing by Hemmingway other than The Old Man and the Sea. Less may be more, as they say of Hemmingway's prose, but nothing is nothing.

Shendülféa, your comments were at the beginning of this thread, but this is my first peek here, so let me bring them down:

quote:
is this what the publishers think we fantasy fans want to read? Overly disgusting violence and smut all over the place?

Unfortunately, they might.

At a writer's conference where I had sent 20 pages to be critiqued, the editor who critiqued my pages was super positive. He had nothing but complimentary comments and had written across the top of my chapters that he wanted to see the whole book. We spent the 10 or 15 minutes talking about how I had come to write my story. However, his very first question when we sat down had been, "Does it have any sex in it?" I could see he was disappointed when I said it didn't. He even mentioned a female SF writer who was writing sex into her SF.

He ultimately rejected the story, and I have to wonder if it would have flown had it been a lurid tale. That's not me, though. Like you, I don't want to read that stuff and I certainly won't write it. In fact, I read so little now because too many books are permeated with off color junk. What I do read, I have to skim as I go. (How could I have forgotten this on the "Do You Read Every Word" thread?)

[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited February 18, 2006).]


Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Constipatron
Member
Member # 3183

 - posted      Profile for Constipatron   Email Constipatron         Edit/Delete Post 
Books, or I should say, stories that I dislike/abhore. Just a general rant:

Anything written by and for TSR. Or, I should just say any story that's a complete bite from JRR Tolkein's work.

The WHOLE "Rama" series was abysmal, such a let down where the ideas could've been GREAT if he would just stretch realistic science just a fraction more. It was so dry I couldn't get past book two and the thing that really turned me off of book two was the heavy Catholicism bent with one of the characters. I don't mind religion being a part of the character's lives and hence, part of the story, but I dislike reading over two chapters nearly devoted to religious theology. Not crucial to the story, either (at least, I thought). "Imperial Earth" was another horribly dry and unimaginative peice of do-do, though I imagine in his hayday that was the top poop.

The "I, Robot" series. Once again, another dry one. Although I enjoyed the FIRST book, the second, however was the last straw and I don't think I'd be able to stomach another one. It was so bad I actually PREFER the MOVIE over the book, for a change!

Yes, I must not forget "The Wheel of Time"! Oh, barf! Honestly, talk about an author that bites off others! Not only are there obvious Tolkein bites, but I've run across several books that predate his "ideas" that led me to believe there was no other possible source for those same "ideas" in his own work. Gosh, end the stupid series already! Don't get me started on his other works...

"Harry Potter". Although I like the books, I do have to say the plot lines are starting to look stale. Boy lives with his relatives (that you hope and hope and hope he'll just kill off!), goes to Hogwarts to face another year, meets challenge by villain and comes out triumphant. Okay, maybe not, but it's getting old already. Maybe she should've ended the series with book four?

Terry Brooks' "Shinara" series. Aside from the aformentioned bites, I despise prequals. I think that's the quickest way to ruin a good series, go BACK in time before the first book you just read...

Speaking of prequals, "Star Wars" ranks up there with the most. I love the movies, but after seeing them a couple times, the new ones actually poked more holes in his own story than anything else. Plus, the information on the official site is so convoluted and saturated with detail it acts as paint thinner to the whole story/universe. Major problems come with letting others write in your universe as extensively as Lucas has. Another thing that ends the beauty of it. I'd rather have seen him do work AFTER Episode 6 than go back and find out *gasp* that vader was a pompous, know-it-all, emotionless pansy. He falls to the dark side, do we really need to SEE it? We already KNOW what's going to happen.

Anything involved with "Star Trek". If I wanted to be bored with talking during action sequences I'd have hired Al Gore to read the names from the phone book while in the middle of the LA riots. That would've probably been more interesting. Those Trekkies really need some help...

For movies, I'd have to say Jackson's "adaptation" of "Lord of the Rings". Ack, I've seen hack jobs before but this was... unforgivable. He said in an interview that he "kept things true to the book". His nose should've impaled someone's eye out in the audience! What a crock! Sauruman WASN'T allied with Sauron intentionally, orcs DIDN'T crawl on walls, Gandalf was never an overly HAPPY character... on and on and on... there are so many things wrong with it that even the cool effects, wardrobe and style leave it gasping for breath on the floor after having trampled Tolkein's vision afresh just like prior attempts before him. Thanks so much, Jackson, now we'll have to deal with a butt-load of admirers who simply GUSH about how "brilliant" you made it for at LEAST 50 years!

Lastly, "The Matrix". Barf. My friend and I sat in the theater PREDICTING the "flowery" dialogue and wondering why, if this is a universe where your thoughts can control the environs, then why NOT go Dragon Ball Z on the whole flipping lot of them? Bad acting, although I WILL say that Keanu Reeves did an EXCELLENT job "emptying his mind" for training. Not necessarily a difficult task for him, if you've seen his other movies...

Anyway, I'm done now. Please, this is just my opinion! Don't shoot me for it! :-)


Posts: 62 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rcorporon
Member
Member # 2879

 - posted      Profile for rcorporon   Email rcorporon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The WHOLE "Rama" series was abysmal, such a let down where the ideas could've been GREAT if he would just stretch realistic science just a fraction more. It was so dry I couldn't get past book two and the thing that really turned me off of book two was the heavy Catholicism bent with one of the characters. I don't mind religion being a part of the character's lives and hence, part of the story, but I dislike reading over two chapters nearly devoted to religious theology. Not crucial to the story, either (at least, I thought).

I thought that the first Rama book was simply awesome. Mysterious and engaging.

However, the other books were TERRIBLE.

I read them because I simply wanted to finish the story, but they were BRUTAL.

I can't believe somebody said 1984. That is one of the most relevant political books ever written! For shame!!


Posts: 450 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DeepDreamer
Member
Member # 5337

 - posted      Profile for DeepDreamer   Email DeepDreamer         Edit/Delete Post 
Any time I get down and depressed, I take a look at _Ceres Storm_ sitting on my bookshelf. It's a book I bought cheap from the Dollar Store...usually I read books pretty quickly, but this one took me months. I kept giving up halfway through.

Every time I look at it, I think, "If a book like that can get published, then so can mine."


Posts: 34 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I never thought the stuff in the later "Rama" books matched up with the original...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ted Galacci
Member
Member # 3254

 - posted      Profile for Ted Galacci           Edit/Delete Post 
A book I hated was "Queen of Slaves." A colaborative effort by two well known authors whom I won't mention here because I have nothing good to say about them.
I found the book morally repulsive. First one of the main characters engineers the death of many innocent people and then the other characters rationalize it. It was just an excuse for a fire fight. It was also entirely avoidable--proving both the characters and the authors are not as smart as they think they are.
Then the 'good guys' set out to liberate a notoroious slave planet by imposing a monaarchy around the title character. None of them has ever set foot on this planet before and they're divying up cabinet posts along the way! Gahhh!
Needless to say I never finished the book. If I am wrong and the good guys wise up in the last hundred pages, please let me know, okay?
So what do we learn from this book?
Be careful lest your heros turn out to be villains in your readers' eyes. The road to fiction hell is paved with the good intentions of your characters.

Posts: 50 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ted Galacci
Member
Member # 3254

 - posted      Profile for Ted Galacci           Edit/Delete Post 
Some observations and hopefully some uncomfortable questions:

A lot of folks talk positively about a first books of a series then gripe about the rest. What does that teach us?

One good book leads to a dozen bad?

Know when to stop beating a dead horse?
(But I imagine those advance checks are so additive!)

Don't we all wish we were at a point where others can complain we had sold out?

Readers and editors share one thing in common: They want more and more and more of the same.

If we buy books not because we hope they will be something new but because they will be something the same, who do we blame?

Is the failing in the writers, the editors or the readers?


Posts: 50 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Smaug
Member
Member # 2807

 - posted      Profile for Smaug   Email Smaug         Edit/Delete Post 
For movies, I'd have to say Jackson's "adaptation" of "Lord of the Rings". Ack, I've seen hack jobs before but this was... unforgivable. He said in an interview that he "kept things true to the book". His nose should've impaled someone's eye out in the audience! What a crock! Sauruman WASN'T allied with Sauron intentionally, orcs DIDN'T crawl on walls, Gandalf was never an overly HAPPY character... on and on and on... there are so many things wrong with it that even the cool effects, wardrobe and style leave it gasping for breath on the floor after having trampled Tolkein's vision afresh just like prior attempts before him. Thanks so much, Jackson, now we'll have to deal with a butt-load of admirers who simply GUSH about how "brilliant" you made it for at LEAST 50 years!

Ah come on Constipatron! I think it's all in your vision of Tolkien's books. While some dramatic license was taken by Jackson(as you mentioned--and other things like no Tom Bombadil, and Frodo not being naked at the last etc.) The overall feel, IMHO was true to Tolkien's tale. In fact, Tolkien could've done a bit of improvement on his writing style--waay too much world-building, not enough introspection and character development. Still I love Tolkien's books, and Jackson's rendition. Any yes, since I'm planning on living until my eleventy-first birthday (at least) you'll be hearing about it for far LONGER than 50 years!!!!


Posts: 440 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shendülféa
Member
Member # 2964

 - posted      Profile for Shendülféa   Email Shendülféa         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree. I like the books and the movies in their own rights. I'm not a book purist in any way shape or form. I understand that books and movies are two different types of media and that therefore, what can be written down in a book cannot always be translated to the screen--inner dialogue, for example.

With the LotR movies, I think that Jackson stayed as true to the books as the medium would allow him. He had to think about time constraints (the reason why Tom Bombadill amongst other things were not included and even then the movies were quite long, not that I am complaining or anything--I think anything shorter than the 3 hours each that they were would have been less effective). These time constraints are what affected the trueness of the movies to the books more than anything. That's why there's no "Scouring of the Shire," and why, because of that, Saruman was stabbed by Wormtongue and then killed from a fall from the top of Orthanc (in the Extended Version).

I also don't think that there was any one proper way to interpret Tolkien's characters. He didn't characterize them well enough for one to do so. Take Gandalf, for example. Constipatron said that he was "never an overly HAPPY character." Tolkien, I think, never developed his character enough in order for anyone to determine whether or not he was an "overly happy character." On the other hand, I don't even recall him being "overly happy" in the movies. He was, I would say, optimistic, but not "overly happy." (However, near the end of RotK, we see him lose his optimism. Pippin asks him, "Is there any hope, Gandalf, for Frodo and Sam?" To which Gandalf then replies, "There was never much hope. Just a fool's hope." At another point, he comments, "I've sent [Frodo] to his death." We see here that Gandalf has lost hope for the quest and that he is no longer so optimistic about it.)

Anyway, before I start babbling on for too long, that's my two cents.


Posts: 107 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
What Smaug and Shendulfea said...what I may have said elsewhere. There were quite a few things I regretted not being in the movie (it's really one long single movie, just like the trilogy is one long book), and "Scouring" is close to the top. (I missed a lot of characters, like Bill Ferney or Gamling the Old or Prince Imrahil or Ghan-buri-Ghan.) But once you accept the premise of "show, not tell," a lot of things have to be rearranged and revised...and, in the end, I found the movie enjoyable.

Maybe twenty, twenty-five years from now, somebody else will take another crack at it, with improved special effects. But for here-and-now, it will do.

Besides, if I'd been critiquing the MS for Tolkien, I'd've told him to cut Bombadil and the Barrow Downs out. Enjoyable as they are, they play little or no part in further developments.


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rcorporon
Member
Member # 2879

 - posted      Profile for rcorporon   Email rcorporon         Edit/Delete Post 
What's with all the Bombadil hating going on here?

Am I the only one who loved that guy?


Posts: 450 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shendülféa
Member
Member # 2964

 - posted      Profile for Shendülféa   Email Shendülféa         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't hate Tom Bombadil. I just think that he shouldn't have been in LotR. I think that perhaps he would have served better as a character in another story since he didn't seem to advance the plot much at all.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Constipatron
Member
Member # 3183

 - posted      Profile for Constipatron   Email Constipatron         Edit/Delete Post 
I understand the need for "rearranging" things to make a book into a movie, but my main problem with Jackson's heavy-handed interpretation was that he took too MANY creative liberties with the books instead of keeping it true to the books. He didn't even consult the Tolkein family for the film, which I think was one of his biggest errors in the first place, seeing as how Christopher and Co. have much, MUCH more knowledge about Tolkein's intent and purpose than he does. His "interpretations" of the books to "keep it true" were abysmal, far more things wrong with it than right. It almost seems that most of the fan(atic)s are too wow'ed by the special effects than the story. I'd rather he kept the movies accurate than make such a botch job of the films; cutting and hacking the work of someone far more qualified to create than he is.
Besides, if you want a GOOD annalysis of Lord of the Rings and Tolkein's intent, read Tom Shippey's books about him. A LOT went into the development of the stories that most fans miss. I, for one, wouldn't have even TRIED to interpret the books into movies because there's no real way it could be done, at least, so far. I think when we stack the good next to the bad, Jackson did a horrible job. Tolkein, I would bet, would be spinning in his grave or just exhausted with all the failed attempts to translate his work into the film medium.
HOWEVER, I DO think that as movies, IF you disconnect yourself from the book entirely (which is something I couldn't do) then yes, they were good movies. Also, to those who know nothing of the books and enjoyed the movies, great.
I still think that in the long run, no one can really say they would've written LotRs better than Tolkein. That'd be presuming too much for any writer or filmmaker; after all, it was HIS story not the story of a contemporary author. Jackson's travisty really has colored the way the stories are perceived...
Anyway, this is a thread about what BOOKS that SUCK, not an extensive discussion about films that please one group of people and not the other.

Posts: 62 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I suppose our minds will wander over to any subject over and beyond what's already here. Tolkien and the movies made from Tolkien's works have a lot of intense fans and we're bound to step up to the plane and defend our takes on their takes.

Mention of "Christopher and Co." reminds me of the "Histories of Middle Earth," those posthumous works Christopher Tolkien has edited into shape from the mass of disorderly manuscripts Tolkien left behind him. I recently reread the volumes devoted to the writing of "Lord of the Rings," and found it fascinating---but sometimes I thought Christopher Tolkien often misunderstood. For instance, mention is made of the end of the book giving the appearance of being written in one long burst of activity. Christopher Tolkien seemed at a loss to account for it---but, being a writer myself, I can see that J. R. R. Tolkien simply saw that the end was at hand and pushed on to it in a hurry. All my finished novels ended that way.


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Smaug
Member
Member # 2807

 - posted      Profile for Smaug   Email Smaug         Edit/Delete Post 
Consider this. Had you never heard of Tolkien, and you watched the movies first, how would you rank them? The films were very well made, and if you didn't know the original Tolkien, what exactly would you find wrong with them?

Okay, back to books that suck. Mayor of Castorbridge


Posts: 440 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shendülféa
Member
Member # 2964

 - posted      Profile for Shendülféa   Email Shendülféa         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, Constipatron, it seems we are at an impasse. I'll just stick to my opinion that Jackson did a fine job and you stick to yours that he didn't (in which case I'll just have to keep disagreeing with you ).

Anyway, so that I don't cause us to go off topic once again, one of the books that I hated in high school (and still do) is The Scarlet Letter. Yes, it is considered a classic, but it was just so dry and boring, I could hardly bring myself to read it. It didn't help that it was for my honors American Lit class and we had to analyze the pieces out of it, but even so, I do not think that had I read outside of class I would have enjoyed it any better.


Posts: 107 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wetwilly
Member
Member # 1818

 - posted      Profile for wetwilly   Email wetwilly         Edit/Delete Post 
I think one of the problems with high school lit is that kids have to read these books that no teen-ager on the planet is going to like, even if they are fine books. No 16-year-old is going to enjoy Hawthorne.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nyna
Member
Member # 3062

 - posted      Profile for Nyna           Edit/Delete Post 
As for LotR: I found the books horribly, horribly, boring. They were brilliant, of course, and Tolkein certainly achieved what he set out to do, but they bored me silly. I loved the movies, and many of the stories based on Tolkein that came after, as well as many of the epics that came before him. I even liked The Hobbit. But as far as books I hated go -- Lord of the Rings is right up there. Please don't kill me.

Other books I hated: The Baker's Boy, by JV Jones. I could never get past the first few chapters. Yawn. Also The Sword of Shannara, by Terry Brooks. I've tried to read that book I don't know how many times, and every time I get to the same place and have to quit. It's the loooong lecture of irrelevant history that does me in.

And finally, the one book I just can't stand: Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse. It's just a bit too trite for me.

Now I'll go back into hiding, and let the rest of you tear me to shreds...


Posts: 9 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shendülféa
Member
Member # 2964

 - posted      Profile for Shendülféa   Email Shendülféa         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, Siddartha. I remember that one. I did not like it much either. Again, it was an assignment for my English class, so that might be why, but I don't think it is a book I would have picked up outside of class either.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ray
Member
Member # 2415

 - posted      Profile for Ray   Email Ray         Edit/Delete Post 
Sword of Shannara was a big copy off of LotR, but as far as copies go, that one could have been a lot worse. My biggest problem is with the sequels: they're all the same! By the time I got to Scions of Shannara, I could predict everything that was gonna happen, and continued to do so with the rest of the novels I read by Brooks. And predictability wouldn't have been that big of a problem if I'd cared about any of his characters, but instead, they were as bland as the plot. All the mildly interesting characters got killed off. It was like Brooks realized he was about to do something great, so he needed to destroy them and stay in the good old Mediocre Meadow of literature, where life is safe and dull.

</rant>


Posts: 329 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I've gotta say that the majority of the books I didn't like (or didn't appreciate) were ones I had to read for class in school. They say being studied in school is a good way to see your estate will collect substantial royalties long after you're dead and gone---but it's no way for a reader to like or love the book in question. I read Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" in school and didn't like it (but not so much as to put it under "books that suck" here)---but later, past school, I read a lot of other Hemingway works and did like them (though not enough to push any of his titles in among my favorites).

I had one high school class where we read five books that were, more or less, SF. (As close as I ever came to studying one of my favorite subjects in school.) One I had read already and liked. (Clarke's "Childhood's End.") I only remember two titles among the others (Golding's "The Inheritors," and, predictably, Orwell's "1984.") There was a lot of discussion about the different cultures in these books, and I remember thinking---I could go to my bookshelf and pull five straight SF books that would illustrate this concept better. I could still. And I really didn't like the other books. (I'm pretty sure I read "1984" before hand, but didn't like it---you've got to admit it describes a depressing future---but, more recently, I picked up a couple of other Orwell books, and liked "Homage to Catalonia" very much.)

Oh, and Smaug comes close to one point about the "Lord of the Rings" movies---you might not like (or hate) the movies very much if you hadn't read the books first. To an extent, if you haven't read the books, you might not understand what was going on. (Another SF movie that had that trouble, even more so: "Dune.") I don't know the opinions of anybody who hadn't read the books (like or hate them)---I've never read a review or talked to anybody who hadn't done so. Anybody here seen the movies but not read the books?


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
x__sockeh__x
Member
Member # 3069

 - posted      Profile for x__sockeh__x   Email x__sockeh__x         Edit/Delete Post 
"Anybody here seen the movies but not read the books?"

=raises hand= I haven't read the books, and I've seen the movies. I'm going to try, since my friend has been telling me that they're really good, but I have book 3 and I couldn't get into it. At all.


Posts: 168 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wetwilly
Member
Member # 1818

 - posted      Profile for wetwilly   Email wetwilly         Edit/Delete Post 
I read "Dune" (only the first one), but only after having seen the movie. I hated both.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Constipatron
Member
Member # 3183

 - posted      Profile for Constipatron   Email Constipatron         Edit/Delete Post 
x__sockeh__x, try starting with the first book, not the third. It might go better for you. :-P "Might" being the operative word.
I started with "The Hobbit" and read through to "The Return of the King". I was completely sucked into the story. When I got to "The Silmarillion", however, that's where I stopped dead... couldn't get into it (although I INTEND to read it at some point). I try to consider what Tom Shippey said about Tolkien's earlier attempt to publish this mythology: he initially sent in what constitutes "The Silmarillion" and the editor just didn't get it. I think this was after "The Hobbit" had already succeeded. "The Silmarillion" was Tolkein's heart and that's what he really wanted to publish first. "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was just a side-note in that whole mythos. I DON'T suggest reading "The Silmarillion" FIRST before the other books though! That'd be murder for anyone to do. lol. But they all are definitely a good read; although some may disagree. Fans are fans after all and they're fans for a reason. :-)

Posts: 62 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, start with "The Hobbit." Though the information from it, necessary to "The Lord of the Rings," is present in the latter in capsule form, it's not really a satisfactory beginning point.

Skip "The Silmarillion" and everything else of Tolkien's unless you do get really hooked. Though I bought and read "The Silmarillion" when it first came out, I "didn't get it" until many years later.


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ray
Member
Member # 2415

 - posted      Profile for Ray   Email Ray         Edit/Delete Post 
I disagree with avoiding everything else by Tolkien. Middle-Earth was not the only thing he wrote in; he did a wonderful job translating "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", along with "Pearl" and "Sir Orfeo." Roverandom isn't bad either.

However, if you mean avoid all the "Histories of Middle-Earth" books, then I agree completely, unless you get really hooked into the LotR world. Getting through those is not for the faint-hearted.


Posts: 329 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rcorporon
Member
Member # 2879

 - posted      Profile for rcorporon   Email rcorporon         Edit/Delete Post 
wetwilly, what didn't you like about the first Dune book?

I read the first one, and LOVED it.

The 2nd, and 3rd though I hated, and stopped reading them after that.


Posts: 450 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Smaug
Member
Member # 2807

 - posted      Profile for Smaug   Email Smaug         Edit/Delete Post 
I just tried to read Terry Goodkind's Chainfire. I got through around 140 pages before finally giving up. Most of those pages were spent by the main character trying to convince people that wouldn't believe him, that he had a wife and that she was missing. Not much action and slow-pace are quick killers for my interest in reading. I do not recommend this book.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
x__sockeh__x
Member
Member # 3069

 - posted      Profile for x__sockeh__x   Email x__sockeh__x         Edit/Delete Post 
Just to clarify, I did start with The Hobbit. Forced myself about 1/4 of the way through. Haven't seen it around here in ages...

To add to the list, unsure if it's already been mentioned, but The Outsiders...it was horrid. We're being forced to read it in class, although I finished it a while ago. Everyone says that they loved it. I hate the author...she's not very good, IMNSHO. The plot isn't terrible, I liked it a bit, but the author brought the story down a ton.


Posts: 168 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
The one by S. E. Hinton, or the one by H. P. Lovecraft?
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FastCat
Member
Member # 3281

 - posted      Profile for FastCat           Edit/Delete Post 
Kind of non sci-fi but I have to mention it because it was so popular:

The DaVinci Code

God it stinks. There is a great writing lesson in this book about how not to write. I am studying this book cover to cover and quantifying the badness in all its glory.


Posts: 25 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rcorporon
Member
Member # 2879

 - posted      Profile for rcorporon   Email rcorporon         Edit/Delete Post 
FastCat,

I think that Mr. Brown is not a great writer, but he's something that most of us here aren't:

RICH and PUBLISHED.

Good for him, I say.


Posts: 450 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corky
Member
Member # 2714

 - posted      Profile for Corky   Email Corky         Edit/Delete Post 
I think Dan Brown handled flashbacks fairly well, but I didn't like his use of cliff-hangers--when he'd switch to a character I didn't care about.
Posts: 603 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FastCat
Member
Member # 3281

 - posted      Profile for FastCat           Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, Dan Brown is Rich and Published which makes it even more annoying. I recently read a book he wrote called Deception Point that was equally bad. In this one its the absurdity of the plot, and the cardboard characters. Then again maybe I am just jealous.


Posts: 25 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aalanya
Member
Member # 3263

 - posted      Profile for Aalanya   Email Aalanya         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree about "The DaVinci Code." The plot and some of the tools used in the story were interesting enough... maybe, but the writing itself was just horrible. Technicality is extremely important for me in deciding if a book is good.

Another book I hated... "Heart of Darkness." It may just be a matter of taste, but I was cringing through the entire story.


Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mig
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for Mig           Edit/Delete Post 
Stephen King's recent book "the Colorado Kid" was a cheat. If you haven't read, it's about two old men telling a young intern about a mysterious death that occurred in their small Maine town years earlier. King sets up an inticate mystery then...doesn't solve it! No implied answers. Nada.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I saw something somewhere (might have been his occasional column in "Entertainment Weekly," but I'm not sure), where he mentioned that he did it that way---but was unapologetic for doing it that way. Sometime before that I bought a copy, but, perhaps because of that comment, I have yet to get around to reading it.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eagle
New Member
Member # 2886

 - posted      Profile for Eagle           Edit/Delete Post 
Memory, Sorrow and Thorn By Tad Williams.

This book was really hard for me to get into and read all the way through. I cant put my finger on why I didnt like it, but I didnt.

What really annoys me about this book, is that its *just* intriguing enough that I want to find out what happens and finish the series.

ok. Sigh. Im just OCD about finishing books. I can't not finish a book.

I dont understand how I loved his Otherland series so much, and Can't get into this one.


Eagle


Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 3384

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
HATED: Stephen King's _Gerald's Game_ was one of the worst, most horrible, most boring, books I've ever had the displeasure to read completely through. I couldn't find anything worthwhile in it, but I was stuck for a week with almost nothing to do, so I forced myself to read it because I had already read the other 3 books in my dorm room.

If you have a copy of _Gerald's Game_ that you are lucky enough not to have read, burn it, then scatter the ashes into the ocean, then scoop up that part of the ocean and drop it into a volcano, then launch that whole volcano into the sun.

There was some really lame Star Wars novel with Prince Xizor or something like that, but it was so bad I didn't even get half way through before I stomped on it and threw it into the trash. There weren't any volcanoes near by.


Posts: 86 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
colorbird
Member
Member # 3425

 - posted      Profile for colorbird           Edit/Delete Post 
I've liked Terry Goodkind's books so far, except they aren't so good a second time for some reason. Maybe I've changed.

Re: LOTR movies -- I didn't like the Aragorn dissing Arwen thing. He would NEVER have treated her like that. She would never have even considered leaving him. /shrug

I didn't like the Covenant books. But then I hate whiners.

Dune ... it gets better once you get to the last couple of books (the ones with Miles Teg in them), which are really a different story, with a fascinating ending (I thought). The "prequels" are awful, we bought them but I can't bring myself to read them.

I have yet to find a Star Wars book I liked. They are all pretty boring. And I love Star Wars.


Posts: 28 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jayazman
Member
Member # 2818

 - posted      Profile for jayazman   Email jayazman         Edit/Delete Post 
I have to say, I didn't like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series. I read all three of them hoping it was going to get better. The first one started out well enough, but there was so much extra stuff that had nothing to do with the story, I was bored. By the second book, I had a hard time caring about the characters, and the third book, well, I managed to get through it, but I had to force myself. If each book was about 1/3 shorter, they would have been better.

RE: Wheel of Time. I have to say I like the series. All of it. Even the newest one. I have them all. BUT, it needs to end. Soon. I'm starting to wonder if Jordan hasn't written himself into the proverbial corner and doesn't know how to end it. Even thought I like the series, if he doesn't end it soon, I'm going to have to give up on it.

RE: Harry Potter. Read it, loved. Even though I have really enjoyed the whole series, I'm really glad there is a definite end coming. If for some reason Rowling doesn't end on 7, I will be really dissappointed.

I like series, having familiar characters and all, but somehow they need to end! These series that never end have got to stop!

A recent movie that I was really dissappointed in was "The Weather Man." I watched the whole thing waiting for 'it' to happen. You know, the good part. Never came.


Posts: 212 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 1738

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the only book mentioned on this thread that I've read was Dune, which I really enjoyed. Well, someone mentioned Anna Karenina but they weren't dissing it. I got a few chapters into HP IV, but as soon as Sirius wrote back the tension dropped for me.

I used to read a bit of Grisham and in every book he had these sleeping subplots that never went anywhere. I guess looking back it was an indication that he overwrote something. In The Chamber it was the mother. In The Rainmaker it was the lawyer he originally worked for. In The Testament it was the missionary organization that handled all Rachel's temporal affairs. I think it may be that in A Time to Kill he has such a figure that something actually happens too. The mickey mouse impersonator or something like that.


Posts: 334 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2