Books I Loathed discussion

Bwaha, I just commented in my thread on The Giver about this. Anyway, I won't drag that discussion in here *points down* if you want to see, go read the thread.

Castaway's of the Flying Dutchman by Brian Jacques (author of Redwall) looked like a totally awesome book and even though I never liked Redwall the book sounded so cool that I wanted to read it anyway. Well, the whole book besides the idea behind it was awful and I basically had a permanent cringe on my face through the whole thing.

I've posted on this elsewhere. I think that Gregory Maguire's WICKED is a wonderful idea that is rather undone by the uninspired writing. I like the story, and the way Maguire absolutely refuses to pretty up the story, I just wish a more interesting writer had made the story come alive a bit more. Someone like the late Angela Carter, who I'm convinced is stamping her foot in the afterlife at not having had the idea herself.

Tom, I'll see your WICKED and raise you Maguire's CONFESSIONS OF AN UGLY STEPSISTER. Same complaint: poor writing ruined a good idea.

I agree with Tom about Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West; had it not been a good / compelling idea, I would not have bothered to read it to the end, despite being angry at how the author wasted this great idea by the middle of the book. Reading this to the end was TORTURE.

I agree with Wicked, although I liked Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister. I'm so curious to see the musical Wicked, though because it seems like someone managed to infuse some life into what was often a joyless novel.

I thought The Historian was a great idea for a novel, but found it painstakingly boring to read.

I agree with Wicked and The Historian. Amazing ideas who have fallen into the hands of authors who can't bring them to their full potential.

I vote for Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. It's an amazing idea for a novel, even just the little slice that he focuses on in the book. But gah! I want to know how it happens! Why did it happen? How long did it take for society to accept this?

It absolutely infuriated me that, with such a wonderful subject to play with, he focused on a little teen popularity battle.

Darcie, not sure I agree. Part of the enjoyment of the book (for me - YMMV) was that you didn't know what happened or how that that society had evolved. Maybe it's me, but sometimes tying up all the loose ends makes the book longer and less satisfying than allowing the reader's imagination to take over.

I think that Cell by Stephen King was a great concept, but it seemed to me like he didn't put the effort that one usually finds in his literature. I think that someone else could have done way better on the concept of cell phones turning people into zombies. I would have liked Neil Gaiman to have made it into a graphic novel, but that's just me.

I'd have to say American Gods for this one. Shadow was a completely dull character to follow. And I kept feeling like there should be pictures so that you would know what the hell was going on.

I am not sure if Shadow was such a dull character, or if his (?ex?)-wife was the problem. She really put him in a negative, one-dimensional light.

Lazygal- you're the kind of reader that I'd like to be (no snarky sarcasm here, promise) but I can't. I started reading Never Let Me Go and thinking it was cool that he was using a narrow focus. But I very quickly got to the point where I was skipping entire pages, scanning forward to a point where he explained anything about surgeries or society.

I've learned that I simply can't read Kazuo Ishiguro. I can't accept the worlds that he creates as-is. I need much more.

Darcie, I had the same experience with Ishiguro. I felt like it was all way over my head but I think maybe the way he writes about the world was so unlike my experience of it I was confused about where I was.

Don't give up on Ishiguro without reading THE REMAINS OF THE DAY. Forget the sweetened up film version, the novel is much less pretty. I think it is one of the very few works of art I'd refer to as being "perfect."

Abigail, you're absolutely right about American Gods. Neil Gaiman always has great ideas, but his writing is stilted and silly.

I have to disagree with y'all about Kazuo Ishiguro, though. In a world where the things are legal that are legal in Never Let Me Go, people wouldn't spend all day thinking about it. It would have been a far worse novel if there had been a page or two of exposition or worse, a timeline, instead of the narrator's peek-a-booing. Tom's right - TROTD is great.

My own nomination for this thread: Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower. I'm sure she could've come up with an interesting way to tell that story. Instead, the prose is laughable.

I have always wondered about Remains of the Day - from what I have heard of it, it seems more accessible. I'll put it on my (unrealistically long) list!

Oh, I can't recommend it highly enough, Kate. Ishiguro is one of my favorites.

A Pale View of Hills is also really worth it - it's a little more surreal than his other novels. Ishiguro is a little bit of a one-trick pony, but it's a hell of a trick.

I'm so glad for this specific topic because there is this one book that is perfectly described by this. TWILIGHT. I'm 12 and I feel I could have written a better book.

So I was just reading through the comments here when I saw the name "Wicked" come up. I was so joyed because that is my favorite Broadway musical. I am awfully disappointed though that the book was so terrible.

I know this is for books, but...

Has anyone seen the movie Ginger Snaps Back??? Not Ginger Snaps, but Ginger Snaps Back??????? It was a good attempt, but the ending seemed like they were running the last half hour on the last day before it was due. WARNING: DO NOT WATCH.

Masha - I agree with your comment on Twilight. The story was at times interesting and at times really pulled me in, but all of the other times I was really turned off by the quality of the writing.

This is funny...I loved Never Let Me Go. It was wild and interesting and it made me cry. I like not being able to figure things out and having to think on them for awhile. Whereas with The Remains of the Day I kept waiting for something to happen. Anything. It's worth the wade, but that was tough read for me.

The Harry Potter series. It started out great and the story idea is fantastic. But the more JK Rowling writ the worse it got. I mean I couldn't wait to read the books when they came out, but I recently re-read the series and I imedatley found a ton of things that could have and should have been written better.

Yeah ... I don't like Harry Potter. I just don't get the big deal.

I like Twilight, yes. But it's not the genre of a book that draws me to it, really. It just has to be ... good. And I didn't think Harry Potter was that good. But plenty of ppl like both; I don't think it necessarily has to do w/genre.

I haven't read lord of the rings ... well, i read the hobbit, and it was okay. i'm not sure if i ever finished it. i read most of it, anyway.

"Twinkie, Deconstructed..." could have very well been interesting, but was written so poorly I actually laughed within the first few pages with his attempted quirkiness.

I thought that Harry Potter actually got better as it went along (until the last book, which sucked). I can't bear to read the first 3 anymore. They're way to childish.

I agree with Twilight being in this thread, though I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the idea wasn't all that great or original either. I mean really, a girl falling in love with an amazingly handsome vampire? Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, in just about every vampire romance novel ever written.

And I'm also going to agree with Wicked being on here. Great idea, terrible writing.

And right now, I'm reading (or trying to read) The History of the End of the World, which is a book about how Revelations has shaped history, usually in some not-so-great ways. It seems like a really cool book as far as non-fiction goes, but the writing is just not engaging at all and he never really seems to make his point. I'm like 20 pages in and I feel like I'm still reading the introduction. So it's a really cool topic, but really bad writing.

Gonnna have to go with A Long Way Down by Nick Hornby. Good idea, absolutely TERRIBLE characters and writing style.

I can´t say I agree with WICKED though. I thought it was good, going to re-read soon.

What? No one has mentioned The Da Vinci Code? Lets' face it--this book is the epitome of a great idea that was poorly written. And don't even get me started about the movie.

I thought the same of The Time Traveler's Wife. Had it been written by someone who had a little experience and could write well, it would have been a much better story.
Mary, I actually liked The Da Vinci Code. Yes, Dan Brown is a terrible writer, but the plot lines were great.

Heather wrote: "....I actually liked The Da Vinci Code. Yes, Dan Brown is a terrible writer, but the plot lines were great. ."

Dan Brown's plots resemble Gruyere cheese. Unfortunately unlike Gruyere the enormous holes do not add to the charm.

That is true, but you don't notice them when you are as young as I was when I first read it. I was fifteen, so it was easier for me to overlook the holes.

Heather wrote: "Mary, I actually liked The Da Vinci Code. Yes, Dan Brown is a terrible writer, but the plot lines were great."

Exactly!! Great idea, terrible writing. Isn't that what we're talking about in this thread? I've read
The Da Vinci Code twice and it's a page-turner but at the same time I'm groaning aloud to myself at some of the more awkward, hackneyed bits.

Anna wrote: "..I kind of loathe myself for having read Da Vinci Code."

I have read a lot of rubbish in my time, one of the dangers of being a voracious book worm, so I can forgive myself for that.
I can't believe I bought it. Having read Holy Blood Holy Grail my mother thought it would be interesting. What a mistake!

Conrad wrote: "Abigail, you're absolutely right about American Gods. Neil Gaiman always has great ideas, but his writing is stilted and silly.

I really liked Sandman but Gaiman's prose is just the worst. I don't necessarily need high literature but his stuff is 9th grade reading level at best. American Gods was a total waste of potential.

And I feel the complete opposite! I've never read Janet Evanovich, so I can't compare Charlanie Harris to her. But I love reading the Sookie Stackhouse series. I think Harris writes her so well, has created a really interesting supernatural world, and she's so good at turning a phrase, getting so many points across in one sentence. But I watched the first season of TrueBlood, and thought it was really dumb, and that Anna Paquin played Sookie like a screeching harpy. And I've also read 2 other Charlaine Harris series, and they were no where no as good as the Sookie series. To read how Sookie has changed from book 1 (where she agonized over doing anything immoral) to book 7 (where she took a "savage pleasure" in a friend killing an enemy for her, in cold blood, not self-defense) is fascinating to me.

I'm so relieved to see the negativity toward American Gods; I couldn't get past the first hundred pages, and for the longest time figured there was something fundamentally uncool about me.

More for this thread: The Man in the High Castle, by Philip K. Dick, is based on the premise that the Axis won WWII and the US is divided up between Germany and Japan. Awesome idea, worse than horrible execution. I kept reading it because I figured it had to get better, somehow. I didn't realize at the time that he came up with all of his (bizarre) plot points via repeated consultation of the I Ching. Really ridiculous.

Im not sure if this really applies, but Im going to suggest Sense & Sensibility & Sea Monsters. I hated Sense & Sensibility and hoped that this kind of text intervention would make it more amusing, but it didnt. I loved the author's original sea monster mythology, but I still found Austen's parts incredibly hard to read.

Loved Mr Darcy, Vampyre though, because it was set after the events of Pride & Prejudice and didnt use such flowery language.

the name of the rose i fund very hard to read and gave up 5 pages in- as i loved the shardlake series i thought i was going to discover the orginal monk detective novel that started it all but it was so stuffy i couldnt bear it.Anne Rice's vampire novels started well but then it all disintragated in vampire porn and she started telling the same story again and again and again but just changed the characters name!

Anna wrote: "Did you like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?"

I havent read it yet, purely because S&S&S was so painful and I dont want to go through that anytime soon. But from what I've heard from friends who are reading it, it's just like S&S&S - the zombie parts are awesome, but the original text is still boring as hell

A lot of PNR books fall into this category, IMO. But possibly the winner of the shiny trophy of sad letdown, for me, was Nightkeepers. Premise was fabulous, and the story was practically sitting up and begging to be wriien, but no. Denied Stairway to Heaven.

I'm conflicted about this one....House of Leaves. The way it was written was kind of the whole post-modern point but come ON already! The actual story of the house(The Navidson Record) was incredibly creepy and probably would've made a great story without all the extra gewgaws. Plus, I found the character of Johnny Truant to be repulsive and annoying, as well as distracting.

Tom wrote: "I've posted on this elsewhere. I think that Gregory Maguire's WICKED is a wonderful idea that is rather undone by the uninspired writing. I like the story, and the way Maguire absolutely refuses ..."

This. I loved the idea for WICKED, but then I hated the way it was written. I couldn't make it all the way through.

well that sucks for me then coz i've just started Wicked

I liked Wicked. The character development was good. Granted, he could have done more with the fantasy aspect, and he needed to forget the stupid movie, but it was a good read.

thnx

Hi John,

Curious what you mean about needing to forget the movie -- Wicked seemed to me to be true tot he original Wizard of Oz book, not the movie? Thanks!

Rampant

It's about killer unicorns...which sounds awesome. Be warned though: it is complete and utter pooh about a bunch of whiny virgins

I loved the idea behind Like Water for Elephants, but absolutely HATED the book.

Given the concept (Depression era travelling circus!) there was so much room for fantastical wonderfulness that this story lacks entirely. All the bits that almost got there- the mischievousness of the elephant that didn’t understand English, the moonshine paralysis, a hippo in formaldehyde, murdering elephants- weren’t the authors ideas, but anecdotes from her research. How dull.

It would have been far more gratifying had it been written as non-fiction, because the details were good. And even interesting. But the fiction part… basically is an unimaginative love story with boring, cliché characters that I couldn’t stand with a Hollywood ending.