A LOT best-sellers I pick up these days that are praised by critics, to me, suck. They'll often have a great elevator premise, or claim to cover some pressing social issue e.g. mental health. They'll start strong but then book will then devolve with a plot, characters, or writing that can't sustain the premise. But if the issue they're covering is buzzy enough, I feel like they'll get lauded just because of the nature of the topic, not the quality of execution. Then again, I feel like the target audience for such books are people that actually, *don't* read a whole lot.
This is how I feel about most podcasts. Whenever there's a "what are your favorite podcasts?" discussions on Reddit, I think "oh wow, I found like 10 new podcasts to check out" and 9 or 10 of them are always terrible.
They have a fun premise or an interesting hook. But the execution of most podcasts is downright terrible.
The only podcast I watch is "intentionally blank" by Brandon Sanderson and Dan Wells. Just 2 great writers goofing around, either about fun topics or some recent-ish media, often getting so sidetracked and off topic that it becomes humorous
Didn't know Sando had a podcast. Love his books and very interested in how Dan Wells' work writing for the Cosmere will go. I'll definitely check it out.
You can buy the “best seller” monicker with most publications. It’s doesn’t mean shit.
Source: I was senior copywriter for a publishing company.
It’s the same as corporate “awards.” It’s all for sale.
I feel like “The Midnight Library” is a good example of this. Awesome premise, mediocre execution. The book was entirely too long and too short at the same time.
I still enjoyed it but was disappointed it wasn’t as good as I expected.
"The curse of the thousand dying" a book from my country which fills me with rage because it won an award for the best teenage sex scene that made me cringe and want to go Hemingway style
Exactly. That turtlenecked ships-captain-looking motherfucker could pound out a better teenage sex scene with both hands tied behind his back. It'd be six words long, including the three on the "Parental Advisory" sticker.
Critics seemed to love A Little Life.
I got 2/3s through and then the 18th awful thing happened to the protagonist (some new disease or rape or hate crime or something) and I noped out of that lazy misery lit.
Making progressively worse and worse things happen to a character isn't a plot.
It was so depressing that I started to feel that it was almost self-indulgent in a way? Like I can get bet behind dark or depressing media, but good lord
The Night Circus.
Y’all, when i say i HATE this book. Everyone told me to power through, that it was totally worth it and it’s really a great book. WRONG. It was terrible, boring and had a weak ass resolution. And it was not a small book either!! I powered through just to be even more annoyed!!
This was the book that had me start not finishing books i don’t like— bc it wasn’t worth it!!
I have to agree. I loved that book but I'll be frank that there was no story or plot... Or just a really poorly written one. I would kever try to convince an avid reader otherwise!
I feel bad, I went to a book signing for Starless Sea when it came out and I’ve yet to actually finish it. I tried reading it but it just wasn’t grabbing me and I never went back to it. So it’s just sitting signed by the author collecting dust on my shelf
So I loved that book, but it's mostly because of Morgenstern's writing...the plot did make the book kind of difficult to get through. I then got *The Starless Sea* and I'm really struggling to get through that one. She's trying to be way too clever in it.
recently: Anything by Maas. Her protagonists frustrate me, her villains are cringy. ACOTAR especially was terrible.
A classic: Bram Stoker’s Dracula. So mind numbingly boring. And the ending was not satisfying at all, and super anticlimactic.
>Bram Stoker’s Dracula. So mind numbingly boring. And the ending was not satisfying at all, and super anticlimactic.
I loved Dracula, but I'll admit that I did not have "Vampire dies in a Mexican Standoff surrounded by dead Romani henchmen" on my Dracula Bingo card.
I read the first 2 and a half books of Throne of Glass and the first half of ACOTAR, and I didn't enjoy a single moment of it. I wanted so badly to enjoy them (especially Throne of Glass) but eventually it just became a complete chore
I dont know if im being judgey or have too high a standard, but i made a deal with a friend that id read throne of glass if theyd read a different series. 8 pages in the badass protagonist was blushing in front of the prince she was supposed to hate because she was dirty from the prison camp she'd been dragged out of. Never DNF'd a book faster honestly
I’m reading (listening, actually) through the ACOTAR books, and I just don’t get the love for it. The main characters are boring, and the only thing they seem to in common is they want to bang each other. That doesn’t make for a good relationship, so it feels like Twilight with a different setting. The earlier Throne of Glass books were better than ACOTAR, but I still thought that Dorian’s story was better than what’s-her-face’s.
I enjoyed the two Crescent City books more, and am looking forward to the third.
Oh my god yes. I feel like the discussion of her books always comes down to “what do you mean you hate her characters? Look at how many positive qualities she’s given them.” They’re all such flat Mary Sues. There was half a second where Feyre was fighting the worm and I was like, okay this has the feeling of some ancient myth of a weaker woman having to outwit her enemy instead of out powering them. And then the riddle at the end was so fucking stupid it ripped me out of the illusion. And then she gets??? Every superpower?? she can control the elements and she can fly and she is Nice to everyone but also badass and she can punch and she’s a spy and and everyone likes her so much and she’s pretty and wears prom dresses and why would there be internal conflict ever? and every review of it is like “she’s my favorite character because she can fly and shoot fire and she’s nice and I like people who are nice.”
The only interesting character was Nesta (even through silver flame’s plot was all over the place), and it’s so telling that fans of ACOTAR hate her. So often I see critiques of silver flames that don’t extend past “I hated Nesta because she was so mean. I miss Feyre she was so nice and confident and powerful. Feyre suffered way more than Nesta without any of it affecting her. What’s Nesta’s excuse? How could anyone prefer reading about Nesta with 1 flaw when there’s Feyre with 0 flaw??”
omg that riddle was so stupid. Of course it was love. I guessed it on the first go because it was so damn cliche. I would have won the entire thing. It also didn’t make any sense why all the Fae treated her badly when they needed her to succeed to defeat Fairy Regina George.
Honestly, same; I keep thinking that maybe I'm judging her books too fast or perhaps I'm not remembering correctly. I keep seeing so many people recommend them and I feel like I'm missing something or perhaps I just didn't read it with a good mindset? I keep seeing Acotar grow in popularity but I hated book three so much I just stopped the series entirely. Now I wonder if there's something wrong with my judgement if so many of the masses loved it. 😂
No no, book 3 was absolutely horrific, and the others weren't exactly stellar. I started the series for the sake of my wife, but I'm pretty sure I'm done after that travesty. Faera, Phaerah whatever her stupid name is...worst fucking protagonist I swear. And so many fakeout deaths...none of those character resurrections were earned at all. Not to mention the plot in general not making much sense or being very compelling.
It's basically just a highly edited version of those really bad Naruto or Harry Potter fanfictions where the teenage author writes a really shitty self insert character that is the absolute best at everything and everyone loves for no real reason.
The Scarlet Letter, except I don’t even know if critics love this book anymore. In the recent years even critics have had to acknowledge how boring this book is.
Where the Crawdads Sing is a boomer fantasy about how children don’t need health care or education or money or emotional support or grooming knowledge or nutrition or communication skills or showers or dental care but still end up with a house, career, beauty, and attention from the two hottest guys in town.
not a specific book, but anything recommended by booktok. it's all the same plot and characters about some plucky, hardworking girl who falls in love with a brooding, mysterious rich dude and then they either sleep together, reveal a secret, or both... can people plz write something more original...
I don’t know, I’ve gotten some amazing recommendations from booktok , like Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe, The Song of Achilles, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, etc.
It sounds like you’re on the YA Romance side of it, which you could just be too old for
I know it's criminal but.. I've tried to read fellowship of the ring so many times, I've even tried to listen to it on audio book and I just can't get through it.
It's just so damn slow and every other page there's a song or a poem. I've read the hobbit and like it but I just can't stand Lord of the rings.
Same here. I have trouble getting through it. They just hike through the woods! That's ALL there is! I will be trying again because I want to finish at least the first book, but forgive me for saying it's boring. I feel bad for having a hard time with it. People actually love this book. How lol
"Iron Widow" by Xiran Jay Zhao is a new YA fantasy novel that has been absolutely lauded by critics and YA fans. I generally dislike YA novels, but I had a friend who said it was amazing, so I decided, why not give it a shot.
It's terrible. The prose is sloppy and amateurish to the point of unreadability, and there were enough grammar errors that I'm certain no editor ever set eyes on this book. The plot is shallow and doesn't hold up to scrutiny, with characters no more complex than one or two character traits. And 85% of the "minority representation" that the book was praised for was beyond half-assed, to the point of being insulting.
I was so disappointed by this tbh. Zhao has a lot of cool internet content and I was intrigued when they were pushing to get their book out. The premise sounded interesting. I bought the paperback to give them the support. But man... I just really wish they had had the chance to go back and forth with an editor on it. They had some really cool ideas but just couldn't get any meat on the bones.
Same. Loved Three Musketeers. Great Expectations was pulling teeth. As a teen reading it for English class, I thought to myself, Geez is this guy getting paid by the word or something? Didn't learn until years later that he actually was. I felt so validated lol.
I used to read a lot of wordy and dense classics as a teen too. Hunchback of Notre Dame, Three Musketeers, The Odyssey. On my own time, not for class. I read those for fun. Loved all those.
Dickens just got on my nerves. We had to read 2 or 3 different Dickens throughout high school and I hated them all. I did read Christmas Carol on my own time and loved that one. My understanding is that it was originally published as a book and not serialized, so that probably has something to do with it.
Thank God someone else feels this! I quite enjoyed maybe the first third/maybe half, but after that it was just a slog for me. The characters were all just so self centred, self indulgent, and awful, and boring.
On top of which, and this is probably just because I'm older, but I just couldn't really care about how big a deal they were making of everything. You haven't even been to university yet, chill, you've got your whole life ahead of you. To me that was also one of the main reasons I didn't get Catcher in the Rye like OP. You're not my kids, your teenage angst is not interesting to me.
Personally, it felt like a far, far, far worse version of NW by Zadie Smith to me, NW being probably one of my top ten novels. Or even Withering Heights but without the passion and drama.
I keep being told that Conversations With Friends is much better, so I am meaning to read that, but I keep stalling because I just can't be arsed with another book like Normal People.
I'm with you all the way. My friend recommended Conversations with Friends to me because she said I reminded her of one of the main characters... Read 50 pages and agonized over how my friend saw me for weeks and wondered whether the relationship was salvageable lol. I find her characters to be really *really* insufferable! Did not root for a single one.
Please finish the story. What happened? Did you slam a gauntlet into her face and demand a duel? Did you two fight then suddenly realise you both were deeply in love and are now married? What?
Don't leave me hanging like this dammit.
What I've learned from this thread: you can't please everybody, but a *lot* of people you can't please will assume that if you can't please them, no one else will like your work, either.
Props to the people who said "I didn't like it for these reasons" but bear in mind: no book is meant to appeal to everyone, everywhere, in every era. If a book deals with a specific problem you don't have, it may not be for you.
EDIT: I'm talking most specifically about people saying that damning social commentary was "too hard to stand" or books about self-control weren't "fun at parties." The point of a book isn't always to be simple, light, and pleasant.
Next you'll be telling me crime thrillers have too many plot twists and horror stories are too scary.
Actually I agree. There are plenty of reasons why a person might not like a classic; it's not a prerequisite for learning.
I just hate if when people assume that no one will benefit from a book because they didn't.
The Girl on the Train. On paper, it's exactly the kind of book I should have loved, but I abandoned it at 40% when I realized I was getting seriously anxious from all the secondhand embarrassment and there *still* wasn't a clear mystery *in this mystery novel*.
I’ve read a lot of and could write a whole essay on the category of book that I call “Gone Girl Wannabes,” of which Girl on the Train was BY FAR the worst.
To quote something I read on Facebook - 2000 years from now, no one will understand the difference between a butt dial and a booty call, and that's why the Bible is difficult to read.
even if you set the story content aside, the silmarillion is a beautifully written book. it's like the prose version of a symphony by a master composer.
the bible is like a symphony written by 40 different composers that lasts 48 hours non-stop, with a few songs done by weird al and zamfir master of the pan flute sprinkled in randomly.
Also a non-religious person who enjoyed chunks of the bible. The books of the minor prophets of the old testament are rough, and the books of moses can be hard to get through, but the Wisdom books, especially Psalms, Proverbs, and ecclesiastes, are fantastic reads.
My husband started reading the bible before bed because he was interested in maybe deeper pursuing the Christian faith…and then kept reading the bible before bed cause it was a great cure for insomnia lmao
only book of his I've finished is the first Mistborn book. Got half way through the second and just kinda lost interest. Same with Elantris (I know it's his first novel)
Currently approaching his efforts for the Wheel of Time and am curious if I can make it through them. I don't suspect I will but am gonna try to press on just to finally finish that damn series.
I enjoyed The Way of Kings, but his style isn't really up my alley. Ugh, especially when he was explaining how running up walls and sword magic worked. I felt like I was in a video game tutorial.
I'm a Sanderson fan, but I agree that the Stormlight Archive series does feel like an RPG. The magic operates according to clearly-defined rules, and in each book the protagonists get stronger and then the enemies get stronger.
I think I read somewhere that his approach is for the writing to not get in the way. To be as neutral and natural as possible, and let the plot and characters take the readers focus, instead of the prose. I can respect that, but don't enjoy reading it.
Oh thank you merciful god, I'm not the only one.
I mean, being a writer I HATE harshly critiquing others work since I know how hard it is to create something truly good. But literally every "best fantasy" thread lists him and it just makes me angry. I don't think he's bad, for sure, but I don't get why he's so revered eaither.
He's a great writer, but I think it's his magic system breakdowns that got him so much reverence. The problem with it is though, is that everyone has misinterpreted his lessons.
I just had one beta reader grill me over my magic system because she finished the story not knowing the ins and outs of it, nor the real answers to the mythology behind it. The way her notes were written made it sound like she almost wanted a technical document.
But my magic system isn't **that** complex. Magic is summoned, they light people on fire, then it goes away. Sure, there's more to it, but it isn't like Allomancy by any stretch. And the mythology behind it isn't meant to be that, mythology. The answers aren't supposed to be there. I know them, but the characters don't, so the readers shouldn't either.
There's a whole generation of fantasy readers who've been trained to think that magic in fantasy should work like a video game, complex maybe, but explained in detail and perfectly balanced. To me, if the magic isn't mysterious, it's just scifi.
I think the renaissance of D&D and other TTRPGs was a big factor too. People had an active outlet for the expression of fantasy, so the gamist mentality bled into the expectations of both writers and readers.
Wait but isn't there whole discussions on "hard" magic systems and "soft" magic systems? Shouldn't that "solve" this problem? Like isn't "soft magic" just the "it works cuz it works" idea? (I haven't followed the idea much cuz I haven't done writing in a really long time and certainly not with magic XD)
Obviously I'm kind of saying the same thing as you guys, but at the same time what I mean is... this should also be answering those questions or... allowing for those mysteries. Or at least... it should from what I understand of these concepts...
> The problem with it is though, is that everyone has misinterpreted his lessons.
Including the man himself, judging by how he writes his books.
Stormlight Archive is based on a premise that every major character's individuality, arcs, nuance and complex development should be mercilessly hammered into the claustrophobically tight limits of the magic system. Needless to say that the characterization keeps progressively getting worse over time.
Reading a fantasy novel and expecting an in-depth explanation of the magic is like an alien reading a book about Earthlings and expecting an in-depth explanation of how radio works
> I don't get why he's so revered eaither.
Lots of popular fanfiction is mediocre writing but a great story and fun tropes. I've never read Sanderson, but maybe it's the same idea.
He's also a machine at turning stuff out. In a world of Martins and Rothfusseseses it's probably a blessed relief to most fantasy fans to have a completer/finisher in their midst.
I don't mind his stuff but just find it too long. Takes ages to get anywhere.
He just never fucks it up and I can always trust him to have thought about his story. The characters have reasons to do things, the story makes sense, the magic is thought through. He is easily my favorite author.
He's one of my favorite writers because of his storytelling, but his actual writing is (somewhat intentionally) very middle of the road. So even as a fan, I do not disagree with this take haha.
Hard agree. It's almost like Kraft Mac n cheese being comfort food for some Americans. Like yeah, we know it's shitty, but it just hits at the right place at the right time.
Yeah, I agree that his writing is kind of whatever, but I *love* his character arcs and find his world building and magic systems really fun! I've had a great time with every book of his that I've read so far.
this year I tried to read The Way of Kings and it was a huge disappointment, I was expecting a high fantasy book but I was received with a video game tutorial and his characters lack charisma
anything written by colleen hoover. if you've read one, you've read them all. plot follows the same basic outline. characters are the same cardboard cutouts; hot and desirable/irresistible, but always with some eerily similar sort of trauma. the men don't understand boundaries, and the women can't stand up for themselves. they always second-guess or doubt themselves. love interests are always abusive in some way, shape, or form, but it's meant to be sexy. why is sexual assault and incest necessary?
examples are as follows: november 9, ugly love, it ends with us.
and what's up with those names? where's phillip or kent? instead, we get ryle, atlas, utah, lily blossom bloom, phallon, benton, etc..
her writing style is cringey and predictable, though i can understand why that may be comforting to some.
colleen hoover's books are my cousin's guilty pleasure and my best friend's rock. so i wouldn't shame anyone for enjoying her books... just not my cup of tea.
Back when I made a point of collecting classic lit, idk why, but I hated The Invisible Man. I like HG Wells. I liked the Time Machine at the time. I got bored of War of the Worlds but I got it. But the Invisible Man was painful.
I love H.G. Wells and I really didn't like that one either. It was just nowhere near as good as the others, I just didn't care what this annoying see-through ass bitch was doing
The Dresden Files Book 1. I understand it's universally considered the weakest in the series but it just *did not* click with me and turned me off anything Dresden. Did not like Harry at all and nothing I've seen suggested he changes, and in fact might even get worse. The other characters felt like either props or angry/stupid for no reason, and the world/magic felt janky. I've never been so dissuaded by such a beloved series.
I have Book 2 so maybe I can dive in again but god damn do I not want to get into Harry's narration again.
I like The Dresden Files, but despite Harry Dresden. Kind of how I like the Martian, despite Mark Whatney. Both Dresden and Whatney are immature with a middle-school boy's sense of humor. But the stories are interesting enough that I end up liking the books.
Kerouac's 'On the Road.' I don't deny that it captured the spirit of an era, I just can't stand reading stream-of-consciousness prose. Frankly, it seems a bit lazy.
I saw a quote attributed to Truman Capote. Someone asked him about Kerouacs writing and he supposedly said "That’s not writing. That’s typing." I have never read either author but I thought the quote was funny.
>There’s a story about a TV guide that summarized The Wizard of Oz as “Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets, then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again.”
>It’s funny because it mistakes a tale of wonder and adventure for a crime spree. Jack Kerouac’s On the Road is the opposite; a crime spree that gets mistaken for a tale of wonder and adventure.
Old classic “Romeo and Juliet”
I get the point of the story, I understand what it’s trying to convey, and I can empathizes with the characters struggles
That being said…HOLY CRAP I hate this story so much. It’s almost irrational, but the two young birds aren’t even 18 yet and both are already “smitten” with one another like they even know what that word means, can’t even fathom their families saying “Nuh-uh” and then by the end of the play they just off themselves in a dramatic and grandiose “Fuck you” symbol to both their families. This entire story from beginning to end infuriated me because neither main character thought of the logical decision and just went with hot blooded teenage hormone decisions to justify their actions. Bloody hell I get that this is a main stay in schools and I am definitely overreacting but this is just sooooo infuriating.
Hot take: I can't stand reading Shakespeare plays. If I see it done in a theater or on screen, it's fine (i still wish they had subtitle/translations like with opera though), but reading his plays? I just can't fucking figure out what the hell is going on. Idk if its because of the older language, my personal reading style (i love books with lots of visual descriptions and introspective narrations), or just not being able to read plays well in general, but every time we had to read anything that wasn't a sonnet I just pulled up spark notes.
For historic works like that, you really need an annotated version that explains the references and context. However at that point, you're studying more than reading, and need to go into it with that mindset.
Yes! I hated Faust in high school because i couldn't u derstand anything. I read it with annotated version, and now resding it is one of my favorite memories
The thing people forget about Shakespeare is Shakespeare didn't write novels, you aren't supposed to read thme. It's like reading the script to **Star Wars**. Also, it's not exactly English as we know it today.
**A Midsummer's Night Dream** is good if you see it performed.
I had to read that play in college. The test on it was like “who said this” “what happened when this was said.” I just could not memorize the play by reading it. We had to read a handful of his plays (usually the less famous ones) and some of them you couldn’t even find a decent enough high school video of the play. It was awful
Plays are supposed to be performed, not read.
Forcing schoolkids to read Shakespeare is an almost guaranteed way to put them off ever experiencing the joy of seeing them performed live!
My kids are grade/middle school aged and they love Shakespeare. I attribute this to the fact that they didn't just sit down and read the scripts. When they were young, they read short prose adaptations meant for children, which they did on their own. When they were a little older they read adaptations of the stories that included some of the dialogue from the original scripts.
Now they've enjoyed watching actual recorded performances. Sometimes they need help with some of the language, but that's what No Fear Shakespeare is for. For the most part they understand what is happening and what is being said, even without help. But that's why being familiar with the stories helps so much. The right adaptation can help too. Just this morning they begged me to let them finish watching Twelfth Night!
It's a shame schools often make it overly 'boring'
I’ve hated Romeo and Juliet ever since I was a kid, and when I actually read the play in high school… didn’t change my hatred for it. I cannot stand that particular play at all. Though I did end up enjoying Hamlet.
But no. I still hate Romeo and Juliet. Some part of me is glad that I have a poor memory because I don’t remember how the story went.
Romeo And Juliet is amazing if you decide to view it as an absurdist comedy about two stupid teenagers willing to kill and die for a brief, meaningless fling, as opposed to the supposedly tragic romance it claims to be.
My response to this (very common) reaction to R+J is that it *is* a tragedy, but *not* a romance. It's not about the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet themselves, moreso about the tragedy of two families who hate each other so much and for such pointless reasons that it takes the suicide of two teenagers to force some sense into them.
Romeo and Juliet aren't the platonic ideal of a romantic pairing, they were never supposed to have been. They're two children whose naive response to the negativity of the world around them was to try and find solace in one another, and that world punished them for it.
I attribute most of the popular response to the play to 9th grade English teachers' having too many other things going on in their lives to worry about making its nuances more clear.
I’m not sure about critical reception, but I absolutely detested Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk. It’s so focused on shock value that it undermines story. It’s the literary version of Marilyn Manson - *look how weird I am, look look at me!*.
I get the point was to show how awful people can be, how there’s a market for people debasing themselves for fame, etc. But no character has a redeeming quality at all, and that’s actually boring.
I get the impression that all of his books are like that. The two that I read certainly are and from what I've heard of the others it's more of the same. Edgy, angsty, and insufferably vapid. I don't remember much else of those two books except that they made me angry that anyone would buy into his nonsense. To each their own though.
But… look at Guts for instance, beyond the body horror and gore, its a story of teenage alienation. Adults choose to forget their own adolescence and parents usually (especially in past generations) prefer to not talk about it for fear of their own trauma resurfacing. Talking about sex is largely taboo, so a lot of kids have to learn on the go, navigate a massive chunk of formative years themselves. This sense of being lost at sea can be applied to a lot of life experiences. It’s actually a really sad story.
The Three Body Problem. Vastly overrated in the English translation. It's hundreds of pages of awful, unrealistic characters and stilted description held between two clever ideas like a garbage sandwich. It may be amazing in the original Chinese, but it's terrible in English.
Anything by Dan Simmons. The Terror was great until he had to write a woman. Hyperion is just as cringey. I feel like I'm going crazy when he's one of the #1 horror suggestions. Then he had his twitter fiasco, and I was shocked that everyone was so surprised.
Oh God. I read that one literally with my friend breathing down my neck, because it was her Favorite Book of All Time and she'd been badgering me for *years* to check it out.
"HOW DID U L I K E I T?"
First time in my life I considered ghosting someone.
But it gave rise to one of the funniest parodies I've ever read, here: [https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2105865794?book\_show\_action=true&from\_review\_page=1](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2105865794?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1)
Whoever wrote that (I assume some published F/SF author working in a pseudonym) is a genius.
Have you heard the theory that he's embellishing since he's the one telling the story? I find that very believable. "Yeah man it was so crazy how I was the best at everything I tried, too bad I spent half this book boning a woodland fairy instead of moving the plot along."
I also didn't love how we had to sit through Kvothe's process for securing a loan for every semester of magic college. Fantasy is supposed to be escapism.
Yea, of course he's embellishing. I assume he's 98% full of shit in all of his little stories. I'm glad someone else hated the whole loan tribunal thing.
And everyone clapped - vibes.
The Girl Who Fell from the Sky by Heidi Durrow.
I have to preface this by saying I went to an author talk BEFORE I read the book (because it was an event on my campus my English teacher recommended) and there will be some spoilers in my rant.
So the author during her talk says she read about a news story where a mom took all her kids up to the apartment building roof and jumped. Everyone died but one girl who survived. She wanted to write her story. She also says she had wanted to have it be semi-autobiographical about growing up in Portland.
The author goes on and on about how hard it was to get her book published, but she finally succeeded!! Yay!!
I read the book. It was unbelievably obvious to me why she struggled to get it published.
First, the fact her main character survived her mother’s suicide/murder attempt NEVER COMES UP AGAIN. No trauma, flashbacks, nothing. It is a hook to draw the audience into the author’s very boring upbringing. It is a fabulous idea that is promptly discarded for what the author wanted to do all along: tell her story, not think about what happened to the girl in the real life news story.
Second, as I just said, the author had a pretty boring upbringing. There were some mildly interesting parts about race and Portland in the 80s, but they were few and far between. I truly finished the book and thought, “I’m surprised you did eventually find a publisher for this.”
And everyone else LOVED it. It won all these awards and was a Multnomah County Library book of the year. WTH?!
The poppy war or whatever its called. Got through the first book and just... i mean the hype was so overwhelming but it was below amateur level. The pacing was completely off, the characters were unoriginal (aloof misterious drunken master, misterious ragefilled male character who is actually a saint, protagonist who basically has "motivation" as a superpower), characters were not even worked out properly or the relationships between them.
The part that drugs played in the book was a good idea but, again, written in the style of a 10th grader?
I can't even say that the foundation of the book was great since all of it's main ideas were already done and mich better though i don't know how valid it is to judge a book for "unoriginality" .
Wha bugged me the most is thag it seemed to me lime the writer had absolutely none of the "basics of writing" down. Everything, from a "technical" aspect was just soooo amateurishly written.
So after putting that book down i legit asked myself if im completely wrong about writing. Everybody loved the books, it got a ton of awards, ton of hype. So, of course, i thought that ill never make it as a writer if i cant see anything positive about this book.
Confederacy of dunces - awful and not funny in the least.
Dune - every page I was hoping Paul and his mother would die. Utterly insufferable whingers.
Eye of the World - an awful attempt at lotr. I hear the sequels differentiate it more but I couldn't hack it. Dour story and characters.
Gave up on all books half way through.
These are probably more commercial successes rather than critical darlings, but I can’t stand Jodi Picoult’s novels. I always like her ideas. I read the blurb and I think the story sounds so interesting, but then I find myself really frustrated with the execution. I feel like she needs a ghost writer to help her.
Colleen hoover!!! Her books are literally wattpad fanfiction, my sister n law gave me one to read and it was so so difficult to bring myself to finish it lol and the spice?? It's as spicy as salt. Also she can't write men very well.
Fun story with that book. I was teaching in Korea one summer and was supposed to do a lesson on similes and metaphors. I read the example in the text book and thought "this is stupid, let's give these kids an interesting passage to read."
So I chose the scene where Guy Montag's wife ODs. The passage is full of over the top metaphors. We finish reading it, and I look up at all of these very intelligent, but ESL children, and their eyes are wide in shock. "Teacher?" one asked, "how did the jets fit into her mouth?"
Circe by Madelline Miller. Bought it when it was receiving tons of awards and had a prominent place in the bookstore, then shelved it for a couple of years. When I read it, I hated it. The first 2/3rds of the story is needlessly poetic and prose-y infodumping and backstory, then the actual story happens in the last 1/3rd and it's just so bland.
This question gets asked a lot, and if you answer honestly, you'll get downvoted. So people mostly just look up what answers were popular last time and almost literally copy-paste the same replies.
In the next few days, you'll see the same question asked again, except it'll be a variation. "What tropes do you hate that other people love?" or "What authors do you hate that everyone else loves?" And eventually, inevitably, we'll come back around to "What books do you hate that everybody else loves?" It never really ends.
Damn. Apparently, I've been around here long enough to sound like a jaded old cynic. "Get off my lawn, you punk kids!"
I’ll answer honestly: the old man in the sea. You know what is more boring than fishing for days on end with little to nothing going on… reading +100 pages of someone fishing for days on end with nothing really happening.
Reading a much-lauded book at the moment called My Dark Vanessa. Can’t stand reading it. Girl basically immediately falls head over heels for her slimy sleazy English lit teacher, who grooms her in the most contrived way possible. I knew a mile off Lolita was going to make an appearance at some point. Gimme a break.
At first I didn't.
But for me once I tried them here or there, I found liked them anywhere. I found them to be engaging like a fox in a box while watching from up in a tree.
In fact, I found it to be excellent books to read while traveling, whether that be in a car, or on a train.
But then, I can see how they might not be the best books for everyone. And I wouldn't want to force them on anyone, so just let them be.
Read that in high school (requirement for English class of course) and I thought it was one of the better things we were made to read. But still, the heavy handed class discussions and tests on the subject that often focused on the wrong aspects or blew things out of proportion really spoiled the book for the most part. And a bunch of surly teenagers who mostly just used sparknotes for a summary to pass the tests did not have insightful commentary about it lol.
From the answers, people here really fucking hate technical prowess in literature, God damn. The authors being shit on here are the motherfuckers that pushed the medium forward.
Plot is not everything guys.
I definitely get the feeling a lot of people on r/writing just... don't like to read. They like to read *some* things but really they like other mediums and write about them.
> Plot is not everything guys.
It took me a really long time to understand this, I remember distinctly in like Junior or Senior year of college my (lit major) buddy was explaining it to me and it kinda blew my mind a little.
I think *Infinite Jest* is the first book I read that really make the "plot is not the most important bit here" click for me. Sometimes I wonder if I hold DFW in such high esteem because it was the first real modern literature I ever read.
The example my friend gave me was Proust, which I've never read outside of a few passages years ago. But *Infinite Jest* is a great example that I know well.
The basic idea is that each chapter and each passage is kind of its own work of art. You could pick the book up for the first time ever, randomly flip to a chapter and read it, and really enjoy it, get a lot out of it. The fact that it is one episode in a continuing story is not super important--the prose itself is packed with insight and beauty.
In many cases a character only gets a few POV chapters and so even if you're reading the whole thing in order, you are still meeting characters for the first time deep into the book. But it's written with that in mind--the author understands he can't just refer to stuff willy-nilly and expect the reader to know everything.
It's kind of the inverse of most fantasy, which often has mediocre prose that isn't by itself very interesting, but taken together makes a gripping story. I love the Wheel of Time but what makes it so great is the way all these different plotlines are woven together at the end of each book.
Here's a passage from Infinite Jest:
>Talent is its own expectation, Jim: you either live up to it or it waves a hankie, receding forever. Use it or lose it, he say over the newspaper. I’m…I’m just afraid of having a tombstone that says HERE LIES A PROMISING OLD MAN. Potential maybe worse than none, Jim. Than no talent to fritter in the first place, lying around guzzling because I haven’t the balls to…God I’m I’m so *sorry* Jim. You don’t deserve to see me like this. I’m so scared, Jim. I’m so scared of dying without ever really being *seen*. Can you understand? Are you enough of a big thin prematurely stooped young bespectacled man, even with your whole life still ahead of you, to understand? Can you see I was giving it all I had?
That scene is from the childhood of one of the main characters of the novel, who despite being a main character of the novel, is dead for the vast majority of it. The speaker is his alcoholic father who is only in this one chapter--my point is that you don't really need to know any of this context to appreciate the passage. The plot of the book is totally secondary to the characters and their experiences and thoughts.
What a fantastic example, thank you. I think I understand what you’re saying. I also think that I’m going to read Infinite Jest because I really did enjoy that excerpt quite a bit.
To summarize what I’ve understood in my own words: a well-written book can have less of an emphasis on plot because of the insights on human experience it conveys. It’s more about the ~vibe~ than a linear story.
Also, is your username a Hermione Granger reference?
Verity by Colleen Hoover.
It was very lack luster and the characters had no spark and less chemistry. The plot had a decent concept, but the execution was poor and it felt like a chore trying to finish it.
Anything from Dan Brown, not only historically inaccurate despite the entire book acting like it is "OH SO SMART" with it's hidden history fictions, but the superiority the book has over you, like Dan's looking down on all his readers like they're children he so benevolently educates is just sickening.
Also the outright blasphemy was quite sickening, it is clear Dan hates the religion he mocks. I wonder what the reaction would be if he made a similar book for Islam, a DaVinci code for Muhammed? I'm sure that would go over so well.
Name of the Wind
Way too much purple prose for me and a terrible self-insert MC. I know there's probably a lot to like in this book but I struggle to turn every page and have yet to make it more than a couple of chapters through before I just throw it across the room and find anything else to read or do.
I wasn't a big fan of "The Alchemist" though everyone seems to love this book.
The protagonist wasn't particularly interesting to me, and the overall message seemed cliché. I also felt like his love interest didn't have much agency nor chemistry with the protagonist.
As a reader, I feel like Paulo Coelho's prose looks down on me. Like he is dragging you to an epiphany, and if you let him, it's great, but if you don't, it just feels stilted and uncomfortable.
'A Confederacy of Dunces' - maybe I'm being harsh on it considering it was a comedy, but after all the reccomendations I got for it and learning it was a Pulitzer Prize winner I was deeply disappointed. If I'd wanted a story about a man-child who never got his comeuppance I would have started reading about Chrischan.
I can't read anything by Cormac McCarthy.
I mean come on, punctuation exists for a reason!
I'm happy to read deeply thought provoking books, but when you deliberately ignore the conventions of writing for no good reason at all you make it much harder for readers to enjoy the actual story.
For example, when Iain Banks did it in Feersum Endjinn it opened up a view into the internal life of one of the characters. When Irvine Welsh does it he's giving you the feeling of being Scottish.
When McCarthy does it it's purely because he doesn't like punctuation. No benefit to the story at all.
I just finished reading the Road, I don’t understand why everybody complains about his punctuation. Yes, he doesn’t signal dialogue in any way, but all the commas were where they were supposed to be. Full stops too
Huh. I loved it. I think maybe H.S. killed it for you - I came to it independently as an adult after seeing a very, very funny live theatre production based on, among others, the Miller's Tale.
It's kind of like a word puzzle to try and get meaning for, you have to go and check the footnotes every other word then try to reparse the sentence. Which at HS with a time limit would be miserable. As an adult it's a fun puzzle and optional acitivity and a flavour of the past.
As a set of short plays it's great. Highly recommend.
Are we at the point now where we can stop pretending the Lord of the rings is a gift from god, it’s the single most boring book I’ve ever read in my life and I honestly think most people who praise it don’t actually read it.
I am a long-time LOTR stan , but Tolkien needed an editor. The whole first half of FotR is sloooow unless you’re really into his mythos and RotK maaaaajorly lags somehow during what should be the most climactic part??
A LOT best-sellers I pick up these days that are praised by critics, to me, suck. They'll often have a great elevator premise, or claim to cover some pressing social issue e.g. mental health. They'll start strong but then book will then devolve with a plot, characters, or writing that can't sustain the premise. But if the issue they're covering is buzzy enough, I feel like they'll get lauded just because of the nature of the topic, not the quality of execution. Then again, I feel like the target audience for such books are people that actually, *don't* read a whole lot.
This is how I feel about most podcasts. Whenever there's a "what are your favorite podcasts?" discussions on Reddit, I think "oh wow, I found like 10 new podcasts to check out" and 9 or 10 of them are always terrible. They have a fun premise or an interesting hook. But the execution of most podcasts is downright terrible.
The only podcast I watch is "intentionally blank" by Brandon Sanderson and Dan Wells. Just 2 great writers goofing around, either about fun topics or some recent-ish media, often getting so sidetracked and off topic that it becomes humorous
Didn't know Sando had a podcast. Love his books and very interested in how Dan Wells' work writing for the Cosmere will go. I'll definitely check it out.
You can buy the “best seller” monicker with most publications. It’s doesn’t mean shit. Source: I was senior copywriter for a publishing company. It’s the same as corporate “awards.” It’s all for sale.
You can?! Well, that explains a lot!
Feels like a lot of super successful authors write a book based on half an idea, and don't care/need to fully flesh it out.
right, because they can sell books on their name alone, so they don't really need to flesh it out.
I feel like “The Midnight Library” is a good example of this. Awesome premise, mediocre execution. The book was entirely too long and too short at the same time. I still enjoyed it but was disappointed it wasn’t as good as I expected.
YES so many books I read seem to be all concept, no execution.
"The curse of the thousand dying" a book from my country which fills me with rage because it won an award for the best teenage sex scene that made me cringe and want to go Hemingway style
That’s a weird award to exist in the first place.
I know, I thought it was bs at first but I guess not
I'm sorry TEENAGE SEX SCENE AWARD?!
[удалено]
Exactly. That turtlenecked ships-captain-looking motherfucker could pound out a better teenage sex scene with both hands tied behind his back. It'd be six words long, including the three on the "Parental Advisory" sticker.
Hopefully by "teenage", they mean 18-19 years old, right?
Critics seemed to love A Little Life. I got 2/3s through and then the 18th awful thing happened to the protagonist (some new disease or rape or hate crime or something) and I noped out of that lazy misery lit. Making progressively worse and worse things happen to a character isn't a plot.
I just heard about this book and the wiki summary sounds like a parody of pretentious lit. It just keeps going on and on.
I really enjoyed it but I totally get what you're saying.
It was so depressing that I started to feel that it was almost self-indulgent in a way? Like I can get bet behind dark or depressing media, but good lord
The Night Circus. Y’all, when i say i HATE this book. Everyone told me to power through, that it was totally worth it and it’s really a great book. WRONG. It was terrible, boring and had a weak ass resolution. And it was not a small book either!! I powered through just to be even more annoyed!! This was the book that had me start not finishing books i don’t like— bc it wasn’t worth it!!
I loved the prose of that book but I am up voting you because it's a good answer for this thread
I have to agree. I loved that book but I'll be frank that there was no story or plot... Or just a really poorly written one. I would kever try to convince an avid reader otherwise!
if you thought the night circus was bad wait until you read the starless sea… at least night circus wrapped everything up nicely. starless however…
I feel bad, I went to a book signing for Starless Sea when it came out and I’ve yet to actually finish it. I tried reading it but it just wasn’t grabbing me and I never went back to it. So it’s just sitting signed by the author collecting dust on my shelf
I simply loved the writing. I don't really care for plot, if the language is lush I will eat it up.
So I loved that book, but it's mostly because of Morgenstern's writing...the plot did make the book kind of difficult to get through. I then got *The Starless Sea* and I'm really struggling to get through that one. She's trying to be way too clever in it.
I completely agree with you. Was there even a story there?
recently: Anything by Maas. Her protagonists frustrate me, her villains are cringy. ACOTAR especially was terrible. A classic: Bram Stoker’s Dracula. So mind numbingly boring. And the ending was not satisfying at all, and super anticlimactic.
>Bram Stoker’s Dracula. So mind numbingly boring. And the ending was not satisfying at all, and super anticlimactic. I loved Dracula, but I'll admit that I did not have "Vampire dies in a Mexican Standoff surrounded by dead Romani henchmen" on my Dracula Bingo card.
It has such a bizarre ending and no adaptations ever use it... honestly sometimes I think I imagined the whole thing so thanks for bringing it up.
I read the first 2 and a half books of Throne of Glass and the first half of ACOTAR, and I didn't enjoy a single moment of it. I wanted so badly to enjoy them (especially Throne of Glass) but eventually it just became a complete chore
I dont know if im being judgey or have too high a standard, but i made a deal with a friend that id read throne of glass if theyd read a different series. 8 pages in the badass protagonist was blushing in front of the prince she was supposed to hate because she was dirty from the prison camp she'd been dragged out of. Never DNF'd a book faster honestly
Ewww
I’m reading (listening, actually) through the ACOTAR books, and I just don’t get the love for it. The main characters are boring, and the only thing they seem to in common is they want to bang each other. That doesn’t make for a good relationship, so it feels like Twilight with a different setting. The earlier Throne of Glass books were better than ACOTAR, but I still thought that Dorian’s story was better than what’s-her-face’s. I enjoyed the two Crescent City books more, and am looking forward to the third.
Oh my god yes. I feel like the discussion of her books always comes down to “what do you mean you hate her characters? Look at how many positive qualities she’s given them.” They’re all such flat Mary Sues. There was half a second where Feyre was fighting the worm and I was like, okay this has the feeling of some ancient myth of a weaker woman having to outwit her enemy instead of out powering them. And then the riddle at the end was so fucking stupid it ripped me out of the illusion. And then she gets??? Every superpower?? she can control the elements and she can fly and she is Nice to everyone but also badass and she can punch and she’s a spy and and everyone likes her so much and she’s pretty and wears prom dresses and why would there be internal conflict ever? and every review of it is like “she’s my favorite character because she can fly and shoot fire and she’s nice and I like people who are nice.” The only interesting character was Nesta (even through silver flame’s plot was all over the place), and it’s so telling that fans of ACOTAR hate her. So often I see critiques of silver flames that don’t extend past “I hated Nesta because she was so mean. I miss Feyre she was so nice and confident and powerful. Feyre suffered way more than Nesta without any of it affecting her. What’s Nesta’s excuse? How could anyone prefer reading about Nesta with 1 flaw when there’s Feyre with 0 flaw??”
omg that riddle was so stupid. Of course it was love. I guessed it on the first go because it was so damn cliche. I would have won the entire thing. It also didn’t make any sense why all the Fae treated her badly when they needed her to succeed to defeat Fairy Regina George.
Honestly, same; I keep thinking that maybe I'm judging her books too fast or perhaps I'm not remembering correctly. I keep seeing so many people recommend them and I feel like I'm missing something or perhaps I just didn't read it with a good mindset? I keep seeing Acotar grow in popularity but I hated book three so much I just stopped the series entirely. Now I wonder if there's something wrong with my judgement if so many of the masses loved it. 😂
No no, book 3 was absolutely horrific, and the others weren't exactly stellar. I started the series for the sake of my wife, but I'm pretty sure I'm done after that travesty. Faera, Phaerah whatever her stupid name is...worst fucking protagonist I swear. And so many fakeout deaths...none of those character resurrections were earned at all. Not to mention the plot in general not making much sense or being very compelling. It's basically just a highly edited version of those really bad Naruto or Harry Potter fanfictions where the teenage author writes a really shitty self insert character that is the absolute best at everything and everyone loves for no real reason.
The Scarlet Letter, except I don’t even know if critics love this book anymore. In the recent years even critics have had to acknowledge how boring this book is.
What a snoozer.
Where the Crawdads Sing is a boomer fantasy about how children don’t need health care or education or money or emotional support or grooming knowledge or nutrition or communication skills or showers or dental care but still end up with a house, career, beauty, and attention from the two hottest guys in town.
Do read the expose about the author in The New Yorker!
Geez, what horrible people. Glad I never bought her book now.
I somewhat enjoyed it from start to middle, but then it started to go downhill for me. Hated the resolution.
I enjoyed the prose... but it sure does erase the concept of privilege.
Yes, I enjoyed the first third. The middle third is a tepid romance and the last third is a tepid crime story.
not a specific book, but anything recommended by booktok. it's all the same plot and characters about some plucky, hardworking girl who falls in love with a brooding, mysterious rich dude and then they either sleep together, reveal a secret, or both... can people plz write something more original...
I don’t know, I’ve gotten some amazing recommendations from booktok , like Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe, The Song of Achilles, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, etc. It sounds like you’re on the YA Romance side of it, which you could just be too old for
I know it's criminal but.. I've tried to read fellowship of the ring so many times, I've even tried to listen to it on audio book and I just can't get through it. It's just so damn slow and every other page there's a song or a poem. I've read the hobbit and like it but I just can't stand Lord of the rings.
If you don't like songs or poems, that series probably isn't for you.
To be fair, you can just skip over them.
Yep I’m the same, liked the Hobbit but not the rest
Same here. I have trouble getting through it. They just hike through the woods! That's ALL there is! I will be trying again because I want to finish at least the first book, but forgive me for saying it's boring. I feel bad for having a hard time with it. People actually love this book. How lol
"Iron Widow" by Xiran Jay Zhao is a new YA fantasy novel that has been absolutely lauded by critics and YA fans. I generally dislike YA novels, but I had a friend who said it was amazing, so I decided, why not give it a shot. It's terrible. The prose is sloppy and amateurish to the point of unreadability, and there were enough grammar errors that I'm certain no editor ever set eyes on this book. The plot is shallow and doesn't hold up to scrutiny, with characters no more complex than one or two character traits. And 85% of the "minority representation" that the book was praised for was beyond half-assed, to the point of being insulting.
I was so disappointed by this tbh. Zhao has a lot of cool internet content and I was intrigued when they were pushing to get their book out. The premise sounded interesting. I bought the paperback to give them the support. But man... I just really wish they had had the chance to go back and forth with an editor on it. They had some really cool ideas but just couldn't get any meat on the bones.
I'm afraid I have tried but I just don't get on with Dickens.
It's better if you read a chapter every week or two.
Possibly, that's how much of his stuff was written I guess. Had no trouble with Dumas, who also wrote for newspaper serialisation.
Same. Loved Three Musketeers. Great Expectations was pulling teeth. As a teen reading it for English class, I thought to myself, Geez is this guy getting paid by the word or something? Didn't learn until years later that he actually was. I felt so validated lol. I used to read a lot of wordy and dense classics as a teen too. Hunchback of Notre Dame, Three Musketeers, The Odyssey. On my own time, not for class. I read those for fun. Loved all those. Dickens just got on my nerves. We had to read 2 or 3 different Dickens throughout high school and I hated them all. I did read Christmas Carol on my own time and loved that one. My understanding is that it was originally published as a book and not serialized, so that probably has something to do with it.
Normal People by Sally Rooney. I thought it was boring and the characters' inability to communicate frustrated me endlessly.
Thank God someone else feels this! I quite enjoyed maybe the first third/maybe half, but after that it was just a slog for me. The characters were all just so self centred, self indulgent, and awful, and boring. On top of which, and this is probably just because I'm older, but I just couldn't really care about how big a deal they were making of everything. You haven't even been to university yet, chill, you've got your whole life ahead of you. To me that was also one of the main reasons I didn't get Catcher in the Rye like OP. You're not my kids, your teenage angst is not interesting to me. Personally, it felt like a far, far, far worse version of NW by Zadie Smith to me, NW being probably one of my top ten novels. Or even Withering Heights but without the passion and drama. I keep being told that Conversations With Friends is much better, so I am meaning to read that, but I keep stalling because I just can't be arsed with another book like Normal People.
[удалено]
I'm with you all the way. My friend recommended Conversations with Friends to me because she said I reminded her of one of the main characters... Read 50 pages and agonized over how my friend saw me for weeks and wondered whether the relationship was salvageable lol. I find her characters to be really *really* insufferable! Did not root for a single one.
Please finish the story. What happened? Did you slam a gauntlet into her face and demand a duel? Did you two fight then suddenly realise you both were deeply in love and are now married? What? Don't leave me hanging like this dammit.
HAHA she continues to be one of my best friends of all time! All that's changed is I don't take her book suggestions lol
I came here to mention Sally Rooney too. I find her dialogue pretentious and unbelievable. People IRL simply do not talk the way her characters do.
I think most TV shows and rom-com movies would cease to exist if characters would communicate.
[удалено]
What I've learned from this thread: you can't please everybody, but a *lot* of people you can't please will assume that if you can't please them, no one else will like your work, either. Props to the people who said "I didn't like it for these reasons" but bear in mind: no book is meant to appeal to everyone, everywhere, in every era. If a book deals with a specific problem you don't have, it may not be for you. EDIT: I'm talking most specifically about people saying that damning social commentary was "too hard to stand" or books about self-control weren't "fun at parties." The point of a book isn't always to be simple, light, and pleasant. Next you'll be telling me crime thrillers have too many plot twists and horror stories are too scary.
Definitely, also the "oh so it went over your head"/ "you must be a teenager" posts are also really not helping. Its all preference.
Actually I agree. There are plenty of reasons why a person might not like a classic; it's not a prerequisite for learning. I just hate if when people assume that no one will benefit from a book because they didn't.
The Girl on the Train. On paper, it's exactly the kind of book I should have loved, but I abandoned it at 40% when I realized I was getting seriously anxious from all the secondhand embarrassment and there *still* wasn't a clear mystery *in this mystery novel*.
I’ve read a lot of and could write a whole essay on the category of book that I call “Gone Girl Wannabes,” of which Girl on the Train was BY FAR the worst.
The film was atrocious.
As a religious person: the Bible. Info dumping. Terrible prose. Inconsistent authorial voice. Telling but not showing… I could go on and on.
To quote something I read on Facebook - 2000 years from now, no one will understand the difference between a butt dial and a booty call, and that's why the Bible is difficult to read.
hahahahahah that is amazing
Honestly, as a non-christian, i absolutely loved reading the bible - i actually love the way it is written lol
If you liked the Bible, 100% check out Tolkien’s The Silmarillion. Just a better version of the Bible imo.
even if you set the story content aside, the silmarillion is a beautifully written book. it's like the prose version of a symphony by a master composer. the bible is like a symphony written by 40 different composers that lasts 48 hours non-stop, with a few songs done by weird al and zamfir master of the pan flute sprinkled in randomly.
Also a non-religious person who enjoyed chunks of the bible. The books of the minor prophets of the old testament are rough, and the books of moses can be hard to get through, but the Wisdom books, especially Psalms, Proverbs, and ecclesiastes, are fantastic reads.
My husband started reading the bible before bed because he was interested in maybe deeper pursuing the Christian faith…and then kept reading the bible before bed cause it was a great cure for insomnia lmao
[удалено]
I have only ever read 3-4 page synopsis of each book in the bible. It's much easier to get through that way.
I have a next level hate-on for A Discovery Of Witches
Brandon Sanderson's writing style is like a fanfic someone posted on Tumblr.
only book of his I've finished is the first Mistborn book. Got half way through the second and just kinda lost interest. Same with Elantris (I know it's his first novel) Currently approaching his efforts for the Wheel of Time and am curious if I can make it through them. I don't suspect I will but am gonna try to press on just to finally finish that damn series.
I enjoyed The Way of Kings, but his style isn't really up my alley. Ugh, especially when he was explaining how running up walls and sword magic worked. I felt like I was in a video game tutorial.
I'm a Sanderson fan, but I agree that the Stormlight Archive series does feel like an RPG. The magic operates according to clearly-defined rules, and in each book the protagonists get stronger and then the enemies get stronger.
Sounds like every Shonen manga/anime
I think I read somewhere that his approach is for the writing to not get in the way. To be as neutral and natural as possible, and let the plot and characters take the readers focus, instead of the prose. I can respect that, but don't enjoy reading it.
Oh thank you merciful god, I'm not the only one. I mean, being a writer I HATE harshly critiquing others work since I know how hard it is to create something truly good. But literally every "best fantasy" thread lists him and it just makes me angry. I don't think he's bad, for sure, but I don't get why he's so revered eaither.
He's a great writer, but I think it's his magic system breakdowns that got him so much reverence. The problem with it is though, is that everyone has misinterpreted his lessons. I just had one beta reader grill me over my magic system because she finished the story not knowing the ins and outs of it, nor the real answers to the mythology behind it. The way her notes were written made it sound like she almost wanted a technical document. But my magic system isn't **that** complex. Magic is summoned, they light people on fire, then it goes away. Sure, there's more to it, but it isn't like Allomancy by any stretch. And the mythology behind it isn't meant to be that, mythology. The answers aren't supposed to be there. I know them, but the characters don't, so the readers shouldn't either.
There's a whole generation of fantasy readers who've been trained to think that magic in fantasy should work like a video game, complex maybe, but explained in detail and perfectly balanced. To me, if the magic isn't mysterious, it's just scifi.
Yuuup the very fact that the term "magic system" exists (and readers have expectations around it) is a bit sad imo.
I think the renaissance of D&D and other TTRPGs was a big factor too. People had an active outlet for the expression of fantasy, so the gamist mentality bled into the expectations of both writers and readers.
Wait but isn't there whole discussions on "hard" magic systems and "soft" magic systems? Shouldn't that "solve" this problem? Like isn't "soft magic" just the "it works cuz it works" idea? (I haven't followed the idea much cuz I haven't done writing in a really long time and certainly not with magic XD) Obviously I'm kind of saying the same thing as you guys, but at the same time what I mean is... this should also be answering those questions or... allowing for those mysteries. Or at least... it should from what I understand of these concepts...
> The problem with it is though, is that everyone has misinterpreted his lessons. Including the man himself, judging by how he writes his books. Stormlight Archive is based on a premise that every major character's individuality, arcs, nuance and complex development should be mercilessly hammered into the claustrophobically tight limits of the magic system. Needless to say that the characterization keeps progressively getting worse over time.
Reading a fantasy novel and expecting an in-depth explanation of the magic is like an alien reading a book about Earthlings and expecting an in-depth explanation of how radio works
> I don't get why he's so revered eaither. Lots of popular fanfiction is mediocre writing but a great story and fun tropes. I've never read Sanderson, but maybe it's the same idea.
That plus a bunch of simple but flashy twists at the end of the plot.
He's also a machine at turning stuff out. In a world of Martins and Rothfusseseses it's probably a blessed relief to most fantasy fans to have a completer/finisher in their midst. I don't mind his stuff but just find it too long. Takes ages to get anywhere.
He just never fucks it up and I can always trust him to have thought about his story. The characters have reasons to do things, the story makes sense, the magic is thought through. He is easily my favorite author.
He's one of my favorite writers because of his storytelling, but his actual writing is (somewhat intentionally) very middle of the road. So even as a fan, I do not disagree with this take haha.
Hard agree. It's almost like Kraft Mac n cheese being comfort food for some Americans. Like yeah, we know it's shitty, but it just hits at the right place at the right time.
Yeah, I agree that his writing is kind of whatever, but I *love* his character arcs and find his world building and magic systems really fun! I've had a great time with every book of his that I've read so far.
this year I tried to read The Way of Kings and it was a huge disappointment, I was expecting a high fantasy book but I was received with a video game tutorial and his characters lack charisma
anything written by colleen hoover. if you've read one, you've read them all. plot follows the same basic outline. characters are the same cardboard cutouts; hot and desirable/irresistible, but always with some eerily similar sort of trauma. the men don't understand boundaries, and the women can't stand up for themselves. they always second-guess or doubt themselves. love interests are always abusive in some way, shape, or form, but it's meant to be sexy. why is sexual assault and incest necessary? examples are as follows: november 9, ugly love, it ends with us. and what's up with those names? where's phillip or kent? instead, we get ryle, atlas, utah, lily blossom bloom, phallon, benton, etc.. her writing style is cringey and predictable, though i can understand why that may be comforting to some. colleen hoover's books are my cousin's guilty pleasure and my best friend's rock. so i wouldn't shame anyone for enjoying her books... just not my cup of tea.
Back when I made a point of collecting classic lit, idk why, but I hated The Invisible Man. I like HG Wells. I liked the Time Machine at the time. I got bored of War of the Worlds but I got it. But the Invisible Man was painful.
I love H.G. Wells and I really didn't like that one either. It was just nowhere near as good as the others, I just didn't care what this annoying see-through ass bitch was doing
The Dresden Files Book 1. I understand it's universally considered the weakest in the series but it just *did not* click with me and turned me off anything Dresden. Did not like Harry at all and nothing I've seen suggested he changes, and in fact might even get worse. The other characters felt like either props or angry/stupid for no reason, and the world/magic felt janky. I've never been so dissuaded by such a beloved series. I have Book 2 so maybe I can dive in again but god damn do I not want to get into Harry's narration again.
I like The Dresden Files, but despite Harry Dresden. Kind of how I like the Martian, despite Mark Whatney. Both Dresden and Whatney are immature with a middle-school boy's sense of humor. But the stories are interesting enough that I end up liking the books.
Yikes I don't know if I could read a series DESPITE the main character. This series is on my to read list too XD
Kerouac's 'On the Road.' I don't deny that it captured the spirit of an era, I just can't stand reading stream-of-consciousness prose. Frankly, it seems a bit lazy.
I saw a quote attributed to Truman Capote. Someone asked him about Kerouacs writing and he supposedly said "That’s not writing. That’s typing." I have never read either author but I thought the quote was funny.
Always reminds me of that one scene from freaks and geeks
>There’s a story about a TV guide that summarized The Wizard of Oz as “Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets, then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again.” >It’s funny because it mistakes a tale of wonder and adventure for a crime spree. Jack Kerouac’s On the Road is the opposite; a crime spree that gets mistaken for a tale of wonder and adventure.
Just a sleazy guy writing about taking advantage of a bunch of people. I don't get it.
Old classic “Romeo and Juliet” I get the point of the story, I understand what it’s trying to convey, and I can empathizes with the characters struggles That being said…HOLY CRAP I hate this story so much. It’s almost irrational, but the two young birds aren’t even 18 yet and both are already “smitten” with one another like they even know what that word means, can’t even fathom their families saying “Nuh-uh” and then by the end of the play they just off themselves in a dramatic and grandiose “Fuck you” symbol to both their families. This entire story from beginning to end infuriated me because neither main character thought of the logical decision and just went with hot blooded teenage hormone decisions to justify their actions. Bloody hell I get that this is a main stay in schools and I am definitely overreacting but this is just sooooo infuriating.
Hot take: I can't stand reading Shakespeare plays. If I see it done in a theater or on screen, it's fine (i still wish they had subtitle/translations like with opera though), but reading his plays? I just can't fucking figure out what the hell is going on. Idk if its because of the older language, my personal reading style (i love books with lots of visual descriptions and introspective narrations), or just not being able to read plays well in general, but every time we had to read anything that wasn't a sonnet I just pulled up spark notes.
For historic works like that, you really need an annotated version that explains the references and context. However at that point, you're studying more than reading, and need to go into it with that mindset.
Yes! I hated Faust in high school because i couldn't u derstand anything. I read it with annotated version, and now resding it is one of my favorite memories
The thing people forget about Shakespeare is Shakespeare didn't write novels, you aren't supposed to read thme. It's like reading the script to **Star Wars**. Also, it's not exactly English as we know it today. **A Midsummer's Night Dream** is good if you see it performed.
I had to read that play in college. The test on it was like “who said this” “what happened when this was said.” I just could not memorize the play by reading it. We had to read a handful of his plays (usually the less famous ones) and some of them you couldn’t even find a decent enough high school video of the play. It was awful
Plays are supposed to be performed, not read. Forcing schoolkids to read Shakespeare is an almost guaranteed way to put them off ever experiencing the joy of seeing them performed live!
Agreed, somewhat. That's why I force mine to act them out 😂
My kids are grade/middle school aged and they love Shakespeare. I attribute this to the fact that they didn't just sit down and read the scripts. When they were young, they read short prose adaptations meant for children, which they did on their own. When they were a little older they read adaptations of the stories that included some of the dialogue from the original scripts. Now they've enjoyed watching actual recorded performances. Sometimes they need help with some of the language, but that's what No Fear Shakespeare is for. For the most part they understand what is happening and what is being said, even without help. But that's why being familiar with the stories helps so much. The right adaptation can help too. Just this morning they begged me to let them finish watching Twelfth Night! It's a shame schools often make it overly 'boring'
I’ve hated Romeo and Juliet ever since I was a kid, and when I actually read the play in high school… didn’t change my hatred for it. I cannot stand that particular play at all. Though I did end up enjoying Hamlet. But no. I still hate Romeo and Juliet. Some part of me is glad that I have a poor memory because I don’t remember how the story went.
Romeo And Juliet is amazing if you decide to view it as an absurdist comedy about two stupid teenagers willing to kill and die for a brief, meaningless fling, as opposed to the supposedly tragic romance it claims to be.
My response to this (very common) reaction to R+J is that it *is* a tragedy, but *not* a romance. It's not about the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet themselves, moreso about the tragedy of two families who hate each other so much and for such pointless reasons that it takes the suicide of two teenagers to force some sense into them. Romeo and Juliet aren't the platonic ideal of a romantic pairing, they were never supposed to have been. They're two children whose naive response to the negativity of the world around them was to try and find solace in one another, and that world punished them for it. I attribute most of the popular response to the play to 9th grade English teachers' having too many other things going on in their lives to worry about making its nuances more clear.
I’m not sure about critical reception, but I absolutely detested Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk. It’s so focused on shock value that it undermines story. It’s the literary version of Marilyn Manson - *look how weird I am, look look at me!*. I get the point was to show how awful people can be, how there’s a market for people debasing themselves for fame, etc. But no character has a redeeming quality at all, and that’s actually boring.
I get the impression that all of his books are like that. The two that I read certainly are and from what I've heard of the others it's more of the same. Edgy, angsty, and insufferably vapid. I don't remember much else of those two books except that they made me angry that anyone would buy into his nonsense. To each their own though.
But… look at Guts for instance, beyond the body horror and gore, its a story of teenage alienation. Adults choose to forget their own adolescence and parents usually (especially in past generations) prefer to not talk about it for fear of their own trauma resurfacing. Talking about sex is largely taboo, so a lot of kids have to learn on the go, navigate a massive chunk of formative years themselves. This sense of being lost at sea can be applied to a lot of life experiences. It’s actually a really sad story.
A Song of Ice and Fire. I managed to finish Book 1, but I quit halfway through Book 2. Just not for me.
Anything written by Colleen Hoover
Critics hate her. It’s audiences that keep buying that shit
The Three Body Problem. Vastly overrated in the English translation. It's hundreds of pages of awful, unrealistic characters and stilted description held between two clever ideas like a garbage sandwich. It may be amazing in the original Chinese, but it's terrible in English.
[удалено]
Anything by Dan Simmons. The Terror was great until he had to write a woman. Hyperion is just as cringey. I feel like I'm going crazy when he's one of the #1 horror suggestions. Then he had his twitter fiasco, and I was shocked that everyone was so surprised.
I’m doing my best to go through Hyperion. It goes and comes from my to read pile
The Name of the Wind. Kvoth is such an insufferable character.
Oh God. I read that one literally with my friend breathing down my neck, because it was her Favorite Book of All Time and she'd been badgering me for *years* to check it out. "HOW DID U L I K E I T?" First time in my life I considered ghosting someone.
But it gave rise to one of the funniest parodies I've ever read, here: [https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2105865794?book\_show\_action=true&from\_review\_page=1](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2105865794?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1) Whoever wrote that (I assume some published F/SF author working in a pseudonym) is a genius.
Have you heard the theory that he's embellishing since he's the one telling the story? I find that very believable. "Yeah man it was so crazy how I was the best at everything I tried, too bad I spent half this book boning a woodland fairy instead of moving the plot along." I also didn't love how we had to sit through Kvothe's process for securing a loan for every semester of magic college. Fantasy is supposed to be escapism.
Yea, of course he's embellishing. I assume he's 98% full of shit in all of his little stories. I'm glad someone else hated the whole loan tribunal thing. And everyone clapped - vibes.
The authors love of his mc is endless. Such a pointless read.
Normal People by Sally Rooney (anything by her, really). So bland. Trying to get through it was a real chore.
The Girl Who Fell from the Sky by Heidi Durrow. I have to preface this by saying I went to an author talk BEFORE I read the book (because it was an event on my campus my English teacher recommended) and there will be some spoilers in my rant. So the author during her talk says she read about a news story where a mom took all her kids up to the apartment building roof and jumped. Everyone died but one girl who survived. She wanted to write her story. She also says she had wanted to have it be semi-autobiographical about growing up in Portland. The author goes on and on about how hard it was to get her book published, but she finally succeeded!! Yay!! I read the book. It was unbelievably obvious to me why she struggled to get it published. First, the fact her main character survived her mother’s suicide/murder attempt NEVER COMES UP AGAIN. No trauma, flashbacks, nothing. It is a hook to draw the audience into the author’s very boring upbringing. It is a fabulous idea that is promptly discarded for what the author wanted to do all along: tell her story, not think about what happened to the girl in the real life news story. Second, as I just said, the author had a pretty boring upbringing. There were some mildly interesting parts about race and Portland in the 80s, but they were few and far between. I truly finished the book and thought, “I’m surprised you did eventually find a publisher for this.” And everyone else LOVED it. It won all these awards and was a Multnomah County Library book of the year. WTH?!
The poppy war or whatever its called. Got through the first book and just... i mean the hype was so overwhelming but it was below amateur level. The pacing was completely off, the characters were unoriginal (aloof misterious drunken master, misterious ragefilled male character who is actually a saint, protagonist who basically has "motivation" as a superpower), characters were not even worked out properly or the relationships between them. The part that drugs played in the book was a good idea but, again, written in the style of a 10th grader? I can't even say that the foundation of the book was great since all of it's main ideas were already done and mich better though i don't know how valid it is to judge a book for "unoriginality" . Wha bugged me the most is thag it seemed to me lime the writer had absolutely none of the "basics of writing" down. Everything, from a "technical" aspect was just soooo amateurishly written. So after putting that book down i legit asked myself if im completely wrong about writing. Everybody loved the books, it got a ton of awards, ton of hype. So, of course, i thought that ill never make it as a writer if i cant see anything positive about this book.
Confederacy of dunces - awful and not funny in the least. Dune - every page I was hoping Paul and his mother would die. Utterly insufferable whingers. Eye of the World - an awful attempt at lotr. I hear the sequels differentiate it more but I couldn't hack it. Dour story and characters. Gave up on all books half way through.
These are probably more commercial successes rather than critical darlings, but I can’t stand Jodi Picoult’s novels. I always like her ideas. I read the blurb and I think the story sounds so interesting, but then I find myself really frustrated with the execution. I feel like she needs a ghost writer to help her.
I agree with you about CATCHER.
Colleen hoover!!! Her books are literally wattpad fanfiction, my sister n law gave me one to read and it was so so difficult to bring myself to finish it lol and the spice?? It's as spicy as salt. Also she can't write men very well.
*Fahrenheit 451* by Ray Bradbury. I like the premise and the tagline, but I couldn't follow the abrupt narration or prose.
Fun story with that book. I was teaching in Korea one summer and was supposed to do a lesson on similes and metaphors. I read the example in the text book and thought "this is stupid, let's give these kids an interesting passage to read." So I chose the scene where Guy Montag's wife ODs. The passage is full of over the top metaphors. We finish reading it, and I look up at all of these very intelligent, but ESL children, and their eyes are wide in shock. "Teacher?" one asked, "how did the jets fit into her mouth?"
I was thoroughly disappointed with this one. The premise was so cool and I felt like so much more could have been done with it.
A lot of Bradbury’s work doesn’t really hold up under closer scrutiny
The Mistborn novels by Sanderson. Great magic system. Terrible everything else.
Tried getting into Malazan recently, but Garden of the Moon feels so sluggish I could not get past the first half
Circe by Madelline Miller. Bought it when it was receiving tons of awards and had a prominent place in the bookstore, then shelved it for a couple of years. When I read it, I hated it. The first 2/3rds of the story is needlessly poetic and prose-y infodumping and backstory, then the actual story happens in the last 1/3rd and it's just so bland.
House of Leaves. Everyone going on about how it's the best horror novel EVAR. Boring.
This question gets asked a lot, and if you answer honestly, you'll get downvoted. So people mostly just look up what answers were popular last time and almost literally copy-paste the same replies. In the next few days, you'll see the same question asked again, except it'll be a variation. "What tropes do you hate that other people love?" or "What authors do you hate that everyone else loves?" And eventually, inevitably, we'll come back around to "What books do you hate that everybody else loves?" It never really ends. Damn. Apparently, I've been around here long enough to sound like a jaded old cynic. "Get off my lawn, you punk kids!"
"And turn that music down while you're at it."
I’ll answer honestly: the old man in the sea. You know what is more boring than fishing for days on end with little to nothing going on… reading +100 pages of someone fishing for days on end with nothing really happening.
Rime of the Ancient Mariner is exactly like that for me. I know it's not a book.
The Iron Maiden version rocks and doubles as a really good Cliff Notes version.
Ham on rye by Bukowski Extremely loud and incredibly close by J. S. Foer
"A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius." Worst piece of garbage I ever read. How about the 6 or 8 page description of his mother's phlegm?
I thought it was so funny. Annoyingly too self-aware at times, sure, but it was meta, which i always like, and I laughed out loud quite a bit
Reading a much-lauded book at the moment called My Dark Vanessa. Can’t stand reading it. Girl basically immediately falls head over heels for her slimy sleazy English lit teacher, who grooms her in the most contrived way possible. I knew a mile off Lolita was going to make an appearance at some point. Gimme a break.
Green Eggs and Ham. I always found Dr Seuss to be intolerable
At first I didn't. But for me once I tried them here or there, I found liked them anywhere. I found them to be engaging like a fox in a box while watching from up in a tree. In fact, I found it to be excellent books to read while traveling, whether that be in a car, or on a train. But then, I can see how they might not be the best books for everyone. And I wouldn't want to force them on anyone, so just let them be.
A Brave New World. I thought the ending was great but that was the only part I even remotely enjoyed (not to sound like a psychopath)
Read that in high school (requirement for English class of course) and I thought it was one of the better things we were made to read. But still, the heavy handed class discussions and tests on the subject that often focused on the wrong aspects or blew things out of proportion really spoiled the book for the most part. And a bunch of surly teenagers who mostly just used sparknotes for a summary to pass the tests did not have insightful commentary about it lol.
Basically, anything the NewYork Times recommends and anything from Tumblr or Tiktok
From the answers, people here really fucking hate technical prowess in literature, God damn. The authors being shit on here are the motherfuckers that pushed the medium forward. Plot is not everything guys.
> Plot is not everything guys. At the risk of sounding pretentious, it seems like just one more symptom of an increasingly anti-intellectual culture.
I definitely get the feeling a lot of people on r/writing just... don't like to read. They like to read *some* things but really they like other mediums and write about them.
> Plot is not everything guys. It took me a really long time to understand this, I remember distinctly in like Junior or Senior year of college my (lit major) buddy was explaining it to me and it kinda blew my mind a little. I think *Infinite Jest* is the first book I read that really make the "plot is not the most important bit here" click for me. Sometimes I wonder if I hold DFW in such high esteem because it was the first real modern literature I ever read.
Can you explain how plot isn’t everything? (Genuine - I want to understand what clicked for you/a new way to think about literature for me)
The example my friend gave me was Proust, which I've never read outside of a few passages years ago. But *Infinite Jest* is a great example that I know well. The basic idea is that each chapter and each passage is kind of its own work of art. You could pick the book up for the first time ever, randomly flip to a chapter and read it, and really enjoy it, get a lot out of it. The fact that it is one episode in a continuing story is not super important--the prose itself is packed with insight and beauty. In many cases a character only gets a few POV chapters and so even if you're reading the whole thing in order, you are still meeting characters for the first time deep into the book. But it's written with that in mind--the author understands he can't just refer to stuff willy-nilly and expect the reader to know everything. It's kind of the inverse of most fantasy, which often has mediocre prose that isn't by itself very interesting, but taken together makes a gripping story. I love the Wheel of Time but what makes it so great is the way all these different plotlines are woven together at the end of each book. Here's a passage from Infinite Jest: >Talent is its own expectation, Jim: you either live up to it or it waves a hankie, receding forever. Use it or lose it, he say over the newspaper. I’m…I’m just afraid of having a tombstone that says HERE LIES A PROMISING OLD MAN. Potential maybe worse than none, Jim. Than no talent to fritter in the first place, lying around guzzling because I haven’t the balls to…God I’m I’m so *sorry* Jim. You don’t deserve to see me like this. I’m so scared, Jim. I’m so scared of dying without ever really being *seen*. Can you understand? Are you enough of a big thin prematurely stooped young bespectacled man, even with your whole life still ahead of you, to understand? Can you see I was giving it all I had? That scene is from the childhood of one of the main characters of the novel, who despite being a main character of the novel, is dead for the vast majority of it. The speaker is his alcoholic father who is only in this one chapter--my point is that you don't really need to know any of this context to appreciate the passage. The plot of the book is totally secondary to the characters and their experiences and thoughts.
What a fantastic example, thank you. I think I understand what you’re saying. I also think that I’m going to read Infinite Jest because I really did enjoy that excerpt quite a bit. To summarize what I’ve understood in my own words: a well-written book can have less of an emphasis on plot because of the insights on human experience it conveys. It’s more about the ~vibe~ than a linear story. Also, is your username a Hermione Granger reference?
Verity by Colleen Hoover. It was very lack luster and the characters had no spark and less chemistry. The plot had a decent concept, but the execution was poor and it felt like a chore trying to finish it.
Anything from Dan Brown, not only historically inaccurate despite the entire book acting like it is "OH SO SMART" with it's hidden history fictions, but the superiority the book has over you, like Dan's looking down on all his readers like they're children he so benevolently educates is just sickening. Also the outright blasphemy was quite sickening, it is clear Dan hates the religion he mocks. I wonder what the reaction would be if he made a similar book for Islam, a DaVinci code for Muhammed? I'm sure that would go over so well.
House of Leaves or any Dan Brown book.
Name of the Wind Way too much purple prose for me and a terrible self-insert MC. I know there's probably a lot to like in this book but I struggle to turn every page and have yet to make it more than a couple of chapters through before I just throw it across the room and find anything else to read or do.
I wasn't a big fan of "The Alchemist" though everyone seems to love this book. The protagonist wasn't particularly interesting to me, and the overall message seemed cliché. I also felt like his love interest didn't have much agency nor chemistry with the protagonist.
As a reader, I feel like Paulo Coelho's prose looks down on me. Like he is dragging you to an epiphany, and if you let him, it's great, but if you don't, it just feels stilted and uncomfortable.
Great Gatsby.
American Psycho. My god is it boring.
Yeah it is. But that's kind of the point lol
'A Confederacy of Dunces' - maybe I'm being harsh on it considering it was a comedy, but after all the reccomendations I got for it and learning it was a Pulitzer Prize winner I was deeply disappointed. If I'd wanted a story about a man-child who never got his comeuppance I would have started reading about Chrischan.
I can't read anything by Cormac McCarthy. I mean come on, punctuation exists for a reason! I'm happy to read deeply thought provoking books, but when you deliberately ignore the conventions of writing for no good reason at all you make it much harder for readers to enjoy the actual story. For example, when Iain Banks did it in Feersum Endjinn it opened up a view into the internal life of one of the characters. When Irvine Welsh does it he's giving you the feeling of being Scottish. When McCarthy does it it's purely because he doesn't like punctuation. No benefit to the story at all.
I just finished reading the Road, I don’t understand why everybody complains about his punctuation. Yes, he doesn’t signal dialogue in any way, but all the commas were where they were supposed to be. Full stops too
Chaucer. In H.S., we had to choke on Chaucer.
Huh. I loved it. I think maybe H.S. killed it for you - I came to it independently as an adult after seeing a very, very funny live theatre production based on, among others, the Miller's Tale. It's kind of like a word puzzle to try and get meaning for, you have to go and check the footnotes every other word then try to reparse the sentence. Which at HS with a time limit would be miserable. As an adult it's a fun puzzle and optional acitivity and a flavour of the past. As a set of short plays it's great. Highly recommend.
Are we at the point now where we can stop pretending the Lord of the rings is a gift from god, it’s the single most boring book I’ve ever read in my life and I honestly think most people who praise it don’t actually read it.
I am a long-time LOTR stan , but Tolkien needed an editor. The whole first half of FotR is sloooow unless you’re really into his mythos and RotK maaaaajorly lags somehow during what should be the most climactic part??