Books or authors you dislike.

[Shadow_of_Light]

JV Jones. Author of such books as 'The Baker's Boy' (Book of Words series) and 'A Cavern of Black Ice'. I'm only a short way into the second, but read the first a few years ago. It didn't inspire me to get the next book in the series. I actively dislike her writing style. Maybe I've been so spoiled by the humour of Terry Pratchett that I can't stand something so utterly devoid of light-heartedness as JV Jones' work.

But it's not just the lack of humour. Jones' 'dark writing' style can be on a level I can only define as nasty. It leaves me wanting to have a hot shower.

On a more technical level, the narrative can bore me. There are only so many pages of descriptive text I can take before I want to skim ahead in search of dialogue.

/rant

So, anyone else have a book or author (which you've gone to the trouble of reading) you actively dislike?

[Quincunx]

Tolkien remains the only author with staying power whose books I picked up, began reading, and simply could not finish. I also reserve especial hatred for Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, because I have read and liked his other books, and dislike it for more than the six weeks I spent studying it one school year.

[Last_resort_33]

Thomas Hardy
Depressing, predictable, vomit inducing tripe.

Robert Rankin
Starts each book off well, doesn't plan the plot well enough, and then gets bored a quarter of the way through, and writes any old anything just to get it out to the publishers

I'll be back with more

[Dhavaer]

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, for opposite reasons.

Lewis is a fantastic writer, but the material he uses is so transparently dogmatic that it infuriates me.
Tolkien had a fantastic story, but he was an above average writer with the Hobbit, average in the Fellowship, scaling down to pretty awful by RotK.
Now if Lewis had written Lord of the Rings, that would have been a great book.

[Baerdog7]

The Picture of Dorian Grey remains, to this day, one of the few books that I really dislike. I really liked The Importance of Being Earnest, but Dorian Grey just turned me off for some reason. If I had to say why, I'd probably say it was due to the incredible shallowness of the two main characters: Lord Henry and Dorian.

-Baerdog7

[npc4hire]

I can't stand Jane Austen and the like - her heroines just seem so... vacant. And there was Children of the New Forest (can't remember the author sorry): the only book which was SO boring I never finished it.



Robert Rankin
Starts each book off well, doesn't plan the plot well enough, and then gets bored a quarter of the way through, and writes any old anything just to get it out to the publishers

NOOO! Take that back! Take that back! :D Robert Rankin's one of my guilty pleasures, I have to admit, though I always feel a little bit dirty for reading them. He's a great guy to meet, though I'll admit his books are hardly Pullitzer winning.

[Ikkitosen]

Ian Irving (sp?). Read the Geomancer quadrilogy and was left totally unsatisfied. The ending was just a shameless way to try to sell more books. And it hasdn't worked, since I never intend to read him again.

[bosssmiley]

Virginia Woolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf). The woman was self-indulgent, privileged, snooty (typical of the Bloomsbury set in that regard) and her books are very much reflective of their author.

Now I usually don't believe in burning books, I think even something as vile as "Mein Kampf" should be preserved as a warning for future generations. But Miss Woolf's opus is so entirely devoid of merit it could vanish from the world tomorrow and we would lose precisely nothing.

"To the Lighthouse" - Proust did the whole 'memories and regrets' thing better
"A Room of One's Own" - Mary Woolstonecraft did the feminism schtick 100 years earlier and much better
"Orlando" - who in their right mind writes a thinly disguised sapphic love story to the ghastly woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Sackville-West) who inspired Lobelia Sackville-Baggins? Congratulations Woolf, you've managed the seemingly impossible; you've made chicks kissing not hot! :P

Die, Woolf Die!

I have two small ambitions in life; to urinate on the grave of Karl Marx, and dance on that of Virginia Woolf. :D

[Last_resort_33]

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, for opposite reasons.

Lewis is a fantastic writer, but the material he uses is so transparently dogmatic that it infuriates me.

Quite true



Tolkien had a fantastic story, but he was an above average writer with the Hobbit, average in the Fellowship, scaling down to pretty awful by RotK.
Now if Lewis had written Lord of the Rings, that would have been a great book.
...
ub
..
deqodk
...
ab
...
WHAT!?!??!?!!!!?!?!??!!??!?

I admit he does ramble... but... but... but...

[potatocubed]

Laurell Hamilton.
Her middle initial, 'K'.
She sucks so badly.

Also...


I can't stand Jane Austen and the like - her heroines just seem so... vacant.

Good call.

[Ego Slayer]

I hated Silas Marner by Uh.. who the Hell wrote that anyway? And The Pearl, Steinbeck and also A Separate Peace, John Knowles.

EDIT: George Eliot! Duuhhh.. ::)

[Goff]

Terry Goodkind's godawful Sword of Truth crap. That fellow does not have any idea of comic relief, it's just bad situation gets worse, worse situation get worser, worser situation gets worserer. I read the first two books, and have no intention of reading any more.

[Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick]

Am I the only one who likes Woolf and Austen both?
Confuzzling.

As to who I dislike;
Whoever did that 'left behind' tripe.
The Da Vinci Code et. al. sequels.
Roughly 50% of all fantasy novels and science fiction books.

Edit: I'm going to go ahead and mention Terry Goodkind specifically. I believe he subsists on a steady diet of mewling orphans.

[Alarra]

Hate Terry Goodkind.

But I love Jane Austen!

others..hmm...Heart of Darkness was a really dull book.

[Goff]

Hate Terry Goodkind.

But I love Jane Austen!

others..hmm...Heart of Darkness was a really dull book.


Oh, seconded on Heart of Darkness, the hardest, most dull slog of a novella I've ever read.

[NeonBlack]

Thirded on Terry Goodkind. I also read the first two books of the Sword of Truth, and thought something similar to "well, that was bad, but I guess I can survive the third one and finish it". Then I discovered there were *more* books after the third one, and since I could not really imagine how the story could be stretched sooo much, I just gave up on them.

(Side note: that "stretching way too much the story" thing is what has prevented me so far from starting with Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. As Bilbo said, too little butter spread on too much bread)

Talking about leaving a trilogy (or, in Goodkind's case, a toomanylogy) after the second book: Dragonlance: Fifth Age. To this day, I refuse to read anything about Dragonlance released since the original Fifth Age trilogy appeared, so big was the impact of seeing my favourite setting shredded apart. Jean Rabe must die, seriously.

And last but not least: Stanislav Lem's Solaris. Cornerstone of the SF literature, a true classic, blah blah blah, it sucks donkey balls. I struggled through it (it's quite short, thank god), waiting for something, anything to happen, to no avail. I left it 20 pages before the end, since I figured it was going to be wasted time anyway. This... thing fits quite well in my definition of "boring". The tears-inducing kind of boring, that is.

[Dudukain]

Y'know how C.S. Lewis is famous for speaking german? He couldn't speak nor understand it, not one word.

Also, Neil Gaiman. His books are vile, immature, disgusting crap.

[Tiferet]

I can't stand Ernest Hemmingway. His style just infuriates me, and the fact that I had to read two of his books for English classes in high school did not help.

I don't like Elaine Cunningham's books either. I don't like her characters, her style, nor the way she portrays the elves on Evermeet. As far as other fantasy books go, I didn't really like the first Dragonlance novel, but that was mostly plot, not the author (authors, I suppose.)

I must disagree with C.S. Lewis being a bad author. Though as far as Tolkin goes, I couldn't get through the Lord of the Rings. I always seem to put the Fellowship down at the council of Elrond.

Edit for grammer.

[Saithis Bladewing]

I personally don't like most modern authors or books. It just feels like there is a severe lack of soul in most modern creations...too many people are just doing it to try and get money.

[Baerdog7]

I hated Silas Marner by Uh.. who the Hell wrote that anyway? And The Pearl, Steinbeck and also A Separate Peace, John Knowles.

EDIT: George Eliot! Duuhhh.. ::)

I totally forgot about A Seperate Peace! God that book was boring. I think I actually cheered inside when Phineas died.

-Baerdog7

[CapnAlex]

William Shakespeare. Responsible for many generations of miserable children. Really stupid and unrealistic language too.

[Don Beegles]

Billy Shakes??!!!??!?!?!??! How can you not like the Bard? He's the man. And teh language isn't that bad when you get into it, considereing that it was intended to have some sort of language, which will obviously prevent much informal language. To each his own, I guess.

I am also shocked by the not liking Lewis, though of course, I don't mind and enjoy his dogmaic tendencies, and I can understand that they might bother people.

Back on topic, with books I hate.

Moby ****. Oh god, I've wanted to rant aobut Melville for some time now. I reall liked it for the first 30 chapters or so, when they were on shore. He stayed on topic, and I was absorbed. After that, once they left, however, it just died. Honestly, I don't give a damn how you go about skinning a wahle, nor do I want to hear Ishmael ramble philosophically about man and the sea, and knowing that whale bits make great steaks was also unnecssary. After a while, I just skipped like forty pages to get to the part wehre they all die.

It wasn't just that though, because another book that does a very similar thing (Les Mis) is one of my favorites. I think the trouble with Moby was just that the plot was so bland. I mean, it was written fairly badly with a meh plot, so I couldn't stay involved, whereas Les Mis was written OK with a great plot, so I enjoyed it despite the length and digresssions.

[Sophistemon]

And last but not least: Stanislav Lem's Solaris. Cornerstone of the SF literature, a true classic, blah blah blah, it sucks donkey balls.
Okay, that makes it to my 'Laugh so Hard I Scare People' list. Bravo and encore.

I hate Robert Jordan. Any man that can create something that abysmal deserves to be thrown off a building. I liked the first three books, but then they started getting romance novel covers, and they became nothing but meaningless tripe.

[WarriorTribble]

I dislike David Eddings & Leigh Eddings. The first series was decent, but the characters in the sequel became caricactures, and the dange/suspense was forced. His later works to the best of my knowledge is nothing more then him recycling old characters and situaions.

Also, Neil Gaiman. His books are vile, immature, disgusting crap.What do you mean by immature? Personally his stuff is hit and miss, but he does write mostly adult material...

[Scion_of_the_Light]

Hmm...if Heart of Darkness is anything like Lord Jim, then it is a great book. Conrad is a little dull, but the stylistic use of language alone is amazing. I love him as an author!

Grr...Tolkien is amazing. His style is just so...epic. Not bad at all. He was a genius, and we owe all fantasy to him.

How can Shakespeare have unrealistic language? you know, it wasn't meant to be vernacular. It is amazing, not just in a theatrical sense, but in a philosophical sense. the language barrier isn't even too bad at all--I've found more difficulty attempting to compare two translations of Oedipus Tyrannus than understanding Skakespeare. Ah...

I do agree with Robert Jordan. His focus on the insignificant characters somewhat annoys me.

[Flabbicus]

Let's see books I don't like:

Lord of the Rings (couldn't finish the first book because it dragged on and on)
The Pearl
A Separate Peace
Jane Eyre
The Unvanquished
and Gods and Legions.

[Don Beegles]

Y'know how C.S. Lewis is famous for speaking german? He couldn't speak nor understand it, not one word.



You know, I fancy myself somewhat of a big Tolkien fan, and I had never heard that he was famous for speaking German. Nor does his lack of ability to speak it at all decreases his ability as an author. NOw, if you dislike him for other reasons that i can understand, but because he didn't speak German? What are ya, some kinda Nazi? ;)

[exivis]

i hate all books that are fantacy related exept for comics which i can go with sometimes. but any book that is mysticl and has magic and crud like that, ill put the book down after the 2nd paragraph.( or maby even first if its way mistycal!)


but i just cant go with mistical books or any thing "ye olden days" im more of future warfare type person.

[Valda, Adlav and Samiam: the Jacked-Up Trinity]

Lewis is a fantastic writer, but the material he uses is so transparently dogmatic that it infuriates me.

It's a well-known fact that Lewis was a theologian. Narnia, and the series which contained Perelandra ( I never finished the last two, as I lost the books themselves :-[) were his way of expressing his faith in a creative and entertaining manner which; in my opinion he does quite well.

[Sophistemon]

I do agree with Robert Jordan. His focus on the insignificant characters somewhat annoys me.
Robert Jordan sits down at his computer and scrolls to the end of what he's written in his current book.
"Hrm," he mutters. "I could start talking about Rand again, finally move the story forward to some sort of conclusion and appease my fans." He smiles the toothy grin of a corpse. "Of course, I could also shove a fork in my eye." He then spends the next eight chapters writing about a farmer that died three books ago.

[Shadow_of_Light]

Urgh, Wheel of Time. I've resolved to not read any more of them until the series is finished. It's the only way to avoid re-reading all the previous books so I can remember half the storyline.

CS Lewis (and wife) I will always like for being one of the first fantasy authors I picked up and loved, but I do agree that his later works seem to be re-using storylines he's already used. Annoying.

Tim Winton. I read 'Cloudstreet' in school and detested it. How can anyone like the characters in that book? Grar.

[pandapandapie]

I HATE the LotR series. There are a lot of books that I've started reading and not been able to finish because they didn't grab my interest (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and The DaVinci Code being the first two that come to mind) but the Lord of the Rings are by far the worst books I have ever tried to read. I started reading the Fellowship of the Ring because everybody I knew couldn't stop talking about how great it was. It was so bad that I got angry. I didn't just get bored, I was mad. I told this to everyone and they're like, "What? It's hilarious! They're saying Bigfeet instead of Bigfoots! How can you not think that's funny?" But they insisted it got better so I read on.

It didn't get better. The rest of the book was just as bad. They insisted that the second one was better and that I should read that because I'd like it. Normally I wouldn't have believed them but I had seen the second movie and liked it (as opposed to the first one, which I hated). So I read the second book, it still sucked. So they said the third one was amazing! It would be the greatest thing I'd ever read! So I started reading that. I got about half way through it and gave up. I couldn't take it anymore, I was going crazy. They told me I had to finish it because it got good towards the end but I refused.

It's been two years and I haven't even touched it again, which I intend to keep up. I saw the movie once (which was mediocre) and that's good enough for me. The Two Towers movie is the only thing LotR related that I've liked.

[Saithis Bladewing]

William Shakespeare. Responsible for many generations of miserable children. Really stupid and unrealistic language too.


You too? ;D

[Hallavast]

I haven't read Douglas Niles' Forgotten Realms novels, but I hear that they are pretty good. However, the man can not write two steel's worth of Krynnish literature. He just doesn't do his research. He utterly mutilated one of my favorite characters from dragonlance, and his depiction of the Towers of High Sorcery in The Wizard's Conclave was atrocious. I don't know what other Dragonlance Novels he has written or plans to write, but I hope he does his research next time.

[geek_2049]

Author: Terry Goodkind

Book: Heart of Darkness by Conrad

[Umbilical_Lotus]

I'm probably going to get gang-beaten, but I've never been too impressed with Neil Gaiman.

Mind, I've never read his comic books. They might be heaven on paper, I just don't know. I've read Good Omens, and can definitely see the rift in style between Pratchett and Gaiman - and they surprisingly work blend pretty well together, playing off what would make the other somewhat annoying and combining into a coherent, funny, and curiously compelling whole. Alone, though, he rambles, and he is far, far too impressed with the coolness of the things he writes. When motivations are given for a character's actions, they seem flat and without merit. People don't seem to speak or act out of any internal drive, but rather because Gaiman wants them to say and do cool stuff. The plot winds and doesn't really go anywhere until Gaiman says OKAY IT'S DONE TIME NOW and it ends. Um.

However, and I probably am AGAIN going to be gang-beaten for this, Ed Greenwood tops my bad-writer list. I know he made Forgotten Realms and we should all be in awe or something, but I've read the Spellfire series and it's just really, really damn FUNNY it's so bad. The characters wander and kill and die without any hint of a plot or, gods forbid, a coherent character arc, all important plot points are either viewable from miles away or sprung on the reader randomly because the pace is slacking/the book is three pages away from the end and hasn't seen a conclusion yet, and everyone's either a walking cliche, some tremendous Mary Sue horror beast, completely without any merit or interest as a character or fodder. Of course, I still have the books, because when I'm feeling bad about my own writing there's nothing better with which to prop up my sagging confidence.

Of course, another fantasy author/authors who've earned my "never read again" status is/are David and Leigh Eddings. I've read Belgarad the Sorcerer, I've read the Tamuli, I got a bit of the way through the Elenium before I decided to stop wasting my time with Eddings books because my library has lots of them. Despite the fact that every character has supposedly distinct differences in background, motivation, personality and whatever else, they all think and talk exactly alike, and THIS BUGS ME. And even though a token attempt was made to make the characters flawed and human, they're still running around with gods and godlike powers and whatnot really damn early, which doesn't help when their strategy and tactics are SO ADVANCED and their logic SO CORRECT that NOTHING can stand in their way and blah. If I wanted to see a clear show of superiority where the end was all but pre-determined by the Glorious Hand of God, I'd make my gerbils fight my cat.

[Sophistemon]

Urgh, Wheel of Time. I've resolved to not read any more of them until the series is finished. It's the only way to avoid re-reading all the previous books so I can remember half the storyline.
What storyline? Nothings happened in like, three books.

[Shadow_of_Light]

What storyline? Nothings happened in like, three books.


Touche. ;)

[Eloco]

The Dictionary.

Hated it! Webster board me to tearz withe all his unreelist example sentances. All of the wurds aint even in it!

[bosssmiley]

The Dictionary.

Hated it! Webster board me to tearz withe all his unreelist example sentances. All of the wurds aint even in it!

Yeah, but give it credit for explaining everything as it goes along. ;)

<spoiler>I was quite surprised the zebra did it though. :o

[Charity]

Yeah ^ I expected it to be the Aardvark right from the off.

I hated Lark rise to candleford, horribly dull book.

[Em]

Dislike... books...? Is that possible? :'(
I'd feel better if we could change it to "books you do not absolutely love". There are too many of those to list; I suppose I could start with Robert Rankin and Dan Brown.
Incidentally, Tolkien has the soul of a poet. CS Lewis, while a good author, has the literary soul of... um... something not that interesting.
Literate, intelligent people (well we are on a geek forum) insulting Shakespeare!! :o
I'm going to cry in a corner now.

[potatocubed]

Literate, intelligent people (well we are on a geek forum) insulting Shakespeare!! :o
I'm going to cry in a corner now.

I think the issue probably isn't so much Shakespeare - I love a bit of Macbeth, me - but the fact that he is taught in schools. No one likes having stuff rammed down their throats, and it doesn't help that Shakespeare classes are usually taught really badly.

[The Evil Thing]

To those of you who hate Jane Austen:


Jane Austen's books, too, are absent from this library. Just that one omission alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn't a book in it.




I haven't any right to criticise books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticise Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.


Yeah, I don't like her much, either. Hoorah for Mark Twain

[Valda, Adlav and Samiam: the Jacked-Up Trinity]

I think the issue probably isn't so much Shakespeare - I love a bit of Macbeth, me - but the fact that he is taught in schools. No one likes having stuff rammed down their throats, and it doesn't help that Shakespeare classes are usually taught really badly.

Good point, buy my last English teacher taught it quite well. She had a genuine love for the subject matter and we even started the unit on Shakespeare's birthday.

[Don Beegles]

Yeah, I ort of agree on Jane Austen. I started off Pride and Prejudice and it seemed decent enough, but by the end it was just sort of blah. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it eitehr. This could just be because I usually don't hate books, I just like some less than others. The most notable exception to this is Moby ****, which needs to burn in hell.


Yeah, that I think sums up the dislike for Shakespeare: it's not necessarily easy stuff, and when it's taught badly it becomes torture. Luckily, the only play I've been taught per se is Romeo and Juliet, and Mr. Carr is just such an amazingly funny guy that it was very interesting, and my Acting Teacher who absolutely loves the man taught us all about him throughout the year, in addition to doing a competition piece called Stratford Lads that took many references to his plays and his life and made a hilarious play, which helped me get into it, so I got lucky as far as billy Shakes goes.

[Muz]

My least favorite book ever would have to be Ethan Frome by (I think?) Edith Wharton. I had to read it in high school, and it's the mood equivalent of being locked in a cold, dark, smelly room with no food for a week until you're finally kicked in the crotch.

Author? The first one that comes to mind is Kevin J. Anderson...

[Kineon_War]

I think John Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress" was a painful read because it took a relatively simple idea and blugeoned the reader over the head with a moral lesson.

I understand the people who gave up on Tolkein. I did too at first but then a couple of years later I read it again and got into it. Now, I have read LOTR three times and love it. Tolkein's style is a bit long-winded because you could get away with that more back then - same as Orson Wells writing in first person.

Shakespeare shouldn't be blamed for his language. It is hard for us to understand because the English language has changed. Shakespeare's genius is in his stories. I recommend seeing them in theatre rather than trying to read all of those thees and thous.

The Conan books are ok but just once I'd like to see Conan fail at something.

Cheers,
Joel

[endoperez]

I disliked Eragon. It was the first fantasy book, ever, in which I could quess all the important plot hooks before-hand, and at the end quessed half-dozen things about the next book (which were right, says Google). I think I'd have enjoyed it much more four-five years ago. I wonder what books I enjoyed four-wife years ago I couldn't stand if I were to reat them for the first time now.

[Don Beegles]

I disliked Eragon. It was the first fantasy book, ever, in which I could quess all the important plot hooks before-hand, and at the end quessed half-dozen things about the next book (which were right, says Google). I think I'd have enjoyed it much more four-five years ago. I wonder what books I enjoyed four-wife years ago I couldn't stand if I were to reat them for the first time now.

Just out of curiosity, is a wife year longer than a dog year? :D

[The Evil Thing]

Yes, and err.. the hyphen's in the wrong place too. ::) Ahem.

I feel I must also leap to Shakespeare's defence in this matter. It's not like he authorised the use of his plays on school children. In fact, they were considered too vulgar at the time to be unleashed upon children. Don't blame him for the crimes against humanity perpetrated by those who dictated the curriculum in later times. :P

[Vorkosigan]

Wow. I really can't believe I've read this entire thread without someone mentioning Terry Brooks.

I hate Terry Brooks. HATE TERRY BROOKS!!

I mean, how in the name of all that's holy can you make that much money and fame off of a magical land that you can't even think of NAMES for? "Hmmm. I think I'll call the lands to the east the Eastlands, and the land to the west the Westlands, and the land to the south the Southlands. Now what should I call the lands to the north. . ?"

AAAAAAiiiiiiggghhhhhhhh!

[Muz]

Friendly guy, though. :)

And I agree about it not being Shakespeare's fault that his plays were forced on modern schoolkids. Besides, plays are meant to be seen to be appreciated, not read. My enjoyment and interest in various works of his went up quite a bit after seeing some of the plays performed. ...Then again, I wouldn't have understood as much of what was going on if I hadn't read them first. Hmm. ...Though I can't stand Othello, and Troilius and Cressida, which I may not even be spelling correctly, is absolutely HORRID. :)

[geek_2049]

Wow. I really can't believe I've read this entire thread without someone mentioning Terry Brooks.

I hate Terry Brooks. HATE TERRY BROOKS!!

I mean, how in the name of all that's holy can you make that much money and fame off of a magical land that you can't even think of NAMES for? "Hmmm. I think I'll call the lands to the east the Eastlands, and the land to the west the Westlands, and the land to the south the Southlands. Now what should I call the lands to the north. . ?"

AAAAAAiiiiiiggghhhhhhhh!


I forgot the other poor Terry fantasy writer.

Terry Goodkind and Terry Brooks both stink.

[Don Beegles]

Never read Goodkind, but I have to agree about Brooks. I can't put my ifnger on it, but his books always strike me as sub-par. I don't hate them, but, like Austen, I don't really like them either.

Well, geek, the only other Terry fantasy writer I know is Terry Pratchett, and if he gets mnetioned in thei thread, I'll burn someeon's house down.

[ladybright]

I HATE the Thomas the unbeliever series. I felt that the story was surprising only in how poorly written it was .I am fine with an atihero now and then but the central character is downright evil and shows no remorse about raping a woman and then that woman's daughter. He gives me more icky fealings than The Yellow Prince(I forget who wrote it. It was one on Lovecraft's major influences) and Lovecraft together. :-X :-X

I enjoyed C.S. Lewis's theological writings especialy The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity. I did not enjoy his Narnia series because even when I was 10 I felt like he was trying to manipualte his readers.


I'm probably going to get gang-beaten, but I've never been too impressed with Neil Gaiman. Alone, though, he rambles, and he is far, far too impressed with the coolness of the things he writes. When motivations are given for a character's actions, they seem flat and without merit. People don't seem to speak or act out of any internal drive, but rather because Gaiman wants them to say and do cool stuff. The plot winds and doesn't really go anywhere until Gaiman says OKAY IT'S DONE TIME NOW and it ends. Um.
As a member of the cult of Gaiman I forgive you.;) Your dislike is well expressed even though I like using reference matereals when I read some of his work. The archatypes are fun and the humor delicious for me. You might want to check out Princess Monnonoke(he wrote the english script) or Mirrormask from the library or video store.

[Zophiel]

Michael Moorcock knows nothing about punctuation or sentence structure. I only finished his first book about that Elric character because I had absolutely nothing else to read at the time. To this day, that's the only book I've felt bad about giving to someone else or donating to a library (I don't recall which I did with that one). It's not because I wish I had held on to the book, but because it means that horrible abomination of the written word may very well have found a new victim as a result.

[Dudukain]

I dislike David Eddings & Leigh Eddings. The first series was decent, but the characters in the sequel became caricactures, and the dange/suspense was forced. His later works to the best of my knowledge is nothing more then him recycling old characters and situaions.
What do you mean by immature? Personally his stuff is hit and miss, but he does write mostly adult material...

Read american gods. Using the F word in every other sentence and asking someone if they wanted to have sex with a zombie is not what I typically what I view as "mature"-

[LooseCannon]

Books I dislike? The Mists of Avalon, and ANYTHING by Margaret Atwood. Uh, I didn't care for Moby **** either. The Wheel of Time series is probably the most overrated piece of crap I have ever read.

[Zaggab]

Tolkien and his books. So overrated.
The latest David Eddings books
Religious books

[Roland St. Jude]

Hmm, well, nothing comes to mind. I mean, there's some stuff I like less than other stuff, but, wait!

Here it is: audiobooks by Anne McCaffery. I like her books okay, but I tried to listen to one of her books on tape - as read by Anne herself - yikes! It was unlistenable. Do not even attempt it unless you have a high pain threshold.

[Don Beegles]

Just out of curiosity, Flaming DOom, and I don't really want to stray too far into forbidden ground so don't get too indepth with your response, are religious with a dislike for religious books, or not religious with a dislike for religious books?

[Monkeypaws]

Like everyone else who has mentioned Robert Jordan I dislike his books (other than the first 3) with a passion. Books 4 & 5 weren't bad but you could definitely notice the series was going downhill and book 6 confirmed it. I somehow trudged through 7 & 8 before giving up entirely.

I get my fantasy fix from George R.R. Martin now. He does all the things to his characters I wish Jordan would do with his. No one is safe from getting maimed, killed or whatever else you could imagine happening in a brutal world.

[Flabbicus]

Yes! George R. R. Martin is great at making the nitty gritty, disgusting, and amazing low-magic fantasy. His last book was a little bit short though.

That's all I have to say.

[Alarra]

I too have become disenchanted with Robert Jordan. I used to love him. I really liked the first several books, but then when -nothing! absolutely nothing!- happened in the what entire 11th or 12th book? I can't remember which, I got really annoyed with him. I can see you needing some filler once in awhile, especially in a series as massive as that. But there is no excuse for an entire book of filler. I haven't even read the most recent, (even though like the sucker I am, I bought it, in hardcover, as soon as it came out-I will have the whole collection darn it, it's just been sitting on my shelf for months), because I don't want to find myself more disappointed in him.

Gaiman, I love, but I can definately see people's criticisms of him. If you haven't read the comics, I would recommend at least looking at them. They're really excellent and have a completely different feel from his novels.

Dan Brown is also not a good writer. He has good ideas, interesting plots, and fun connections, and he's great at research. His writing, however, was extremely lacking. He had the stiffest conversations, some of the least accessible characters I've come across, and his characterization/visualizatins was practically non-exsistant. It saddens me that so many people seem to love him.

For those that are anti-Jane Austen, I can sympathize with your points as well, but have to say that when you read her prose within the context of her time and look at the social connotations that her books contained, you'll really see her writing in a new light. Comparing her work to modern authors isn't really fair.

And also, I loved the Mists of Avalon

And since people are talking about George RR Martin, even though this thread is supposed to be about books and authors you -don't- like....I have to throw out an overwhelming approval of him. He is one of my absolute favorite authors. Although I was a bit less than thrilled with his latest book than those previous. I found myself not actually compelled to read it every waking second, which was saddening. I think a fair bit of it had to do with the abundance of new voices he introduced that I didn't really have a connection to, and the fact that most of my favorite characters were left out of it.

[Moribundus]

Ok folks, this thread is why I bothered to come out of the shadows.
egad! books I don't like... well lets see The Fallenby David Eddings re-****ing-tarded the only book I have ever thrown away on purpose. I hated it and I could not finish it.
also the LotR series... by far the most overrated books I have ever read, I did enjoy them... slightly.

what is with bashing J.V. Jones? I really like the Bakers Boy et al.

I am relieved that no one mentioned Garth Nix in a negative manner... i think I have liked all of his books.

[Eloco]

Ok on a more serious note...

I dont hate any specific author, well excpet for a few politicians turned authors. However I find that I like most authors first few books a lot better than any of the later ones. I also find this true for music. It seems that thier first work is original, has purpose and passion. While often the last books in a series seem to only have been put together to finish things up or make more money. Mr King is a prime example, loved the early stuff, but now hes just not worth the paper they print his stuff on...

Eloco

[BelkarsDagger]

The Well of Darkness. Has waaaaaay too much sex.

[Umbilical_Lotus]

As a member of the cult of Gaiman I forgive you.;) Your dislike is well expressed even though I like using reference matereals when I read some of his work. The archatypes are fun and the humor delicious for me. You might want to check out Princess Monnonoke(he wrote the english script) or Mirrormask from the library or video store.

I've seen Princess Mononoke! This is actually a bit of a deal as I almost never see movies. It was enjoyable! I didn't know he wrote the english script for it, but looking back with that knowledge I can see it. Perhaps his more visual stuff comes out better than his written stuff. If his comics make themselves available to me I'll check them out (the school library at my old high school had them, and now I feel kind of dumb as I spent more time getting suspended than going to the library back then).

As for George R.R. Martin... well, I'm torn. See, he does write well. He has a tangible felicity of style, something GOD DAMN REFRESHING in modern fantasy, and his characters and setting feel distinct and real. There were several I really latched on to and... well, that's part of the problem. I got through the first book okay and halfway through the second before I just couldn't continue. I wasn't enjoying reading it anymore. I mentioned there were several characters I really liked: Daenerys was one, as was Arya, Tyrion, and Eddard. And when what happens to Eddard... well, does (I dislike using the spoiler tag), everything just got so depressing that I couldn't keep reading much along after. There were no pick-me-ups, no change in tone after that, nothing to suggest that every character I loved wouldn't die in a horrible manner. In fact, the continuing Daenerys storyline just sort of reinforced the fact that I would be continuing the entire series being constantly depressed. And, while maybe good writing, I can't consider that a good read.

As for Dan Brown: His writing is absolutely terrible and no sane editor could pass over that manuscript without setting something aflame. At the same time, no publisher could resist it. It's practically guaranteed to make everyone extremely rich and famous. I hate the writing (especially how he writes women), but it's smartly marketed.

[Ryujin]

I'm surprised that no one's mentioned Dennis L. McKiernan.

[The_Librarian]

Or any mention of Mills and Boon...
For the uninitiated, Mills and Boon are cheap paperback romances (they're pulp, basically). Most UK libraries are well stocked with them because they seem to be very popular amongst older women, to the extent that the libraries I've worked in have even taken great pains to provide them in large print.
I've skimmed over one. Perhaps that wasn't a fair assessment, but what I read had me blushing so much that I swore never to do so again, and I still squirm a little when people bring piles of them to the counter to be loaned.

@V :D

[Charity]

Or any mention of Mills and Boon...
For the uninitiated, Mills and Boon are cheap paperback romances (they're pulp, basically). Most UK libraries are well stocked with them because they seem to be very popular amongst older women,
Yeah my mother, she gets a bulk delivery every month. It makes me hopelessly sad just thinking about it.


what I read had me blushing so much that I swore never to do so again, and I still squirm a little when people bring piles of them to the counter to be loaned.

Mills n Boon made you Blush I will have to careful what I say in future, I could bust a blood vessel or something.

[Dudukain]

The "Left Behind" series

I haven't read them, but as far as I can tell, it's basically all the bad people being brutally tormented during the end of the world....

[Argent]

Mercedes Lackey and Laurel K. Hamilton. Neither of these ladies has any sense of style, plot or character. How either one of them has a publishing contract is still a wonder to me.

Not a fantasy author, but John Grisham. Gah. His books are SO BAD. Stilted dialogue, no depth to the characters, and plot twists visible half a book away.

Tom Clancy. Loved everything up to and including Rainbow Six... then just took a tumble. He needs to get away from the Ryan family and write something completely different.

Any of the Dragonlance novels or collections after Tales I. When they got up to the eighteenth Tales book and started in on Fifth Age, the sound of whacking (due to beating the dead horse) just became deafening.

[straphael]

Seconded on John Grisham. I started with The Firm and it was fine. But his later books are crappier and some of the endings just don't explain enough and leaves me with a feeling that the novel's not finished.

Also Terry Brooks. I like the first ones but when next series came out, it got repetitive pretty quickly. The plot was like "Go find (insert magical item) at (insert a new location)" :)

[LooseCannon]

Argent, you hit the nail on the head with LK Hamilton. Her books are nothing but fantasy porn twisted in disgusting ways (depending on the series you're reading).

I figured out which author I absolutely detest: R.A. Salvatore. His books are the finest in mass-produced peon crap. It's like the 2000s book form of Scooby-Doo. The exact same plot recycled over and over, with constantly decreasing entertainment values.

Plus he killed Chewie.

[Argent]

Argent, you hit the nail on the head with LK Hamilton. Her books are nothing but fantasy porn twisted in disgusting ways (depending on the series you're reading).

I figured out which author I absolutely detest: R.A. Salvatore. His books are the finest in mass-produced peon crap. It's like the 2000s book form of Scooby-Doo. The exact same plot recycled over and over, with constantly decreasing entertainment values.

Plus he killed Chewie.

No doubt. I liked Salvatore's Drow trilogy but everything other than that, blech. Recycled and way too drawn out.

[King_of_Oz]

I agree with you about Salvatore's plots

[Quincunx]

This is going to hurt to say. Margaret Atwood is a very good writer, and most of the crawly feeling her books give me is from their underlying subjects instead of her writing style (the characterization is so strong that, at first, I confused the two and transferred my loathing directly to the author), but so long as she writes about those crawly, underlying, women's topics, she'll never be a great writer.

Double-dog-dare-seconded for John Knowles and A Separate Peace. I laughed for five minutes straight when The Simpsons took a pot-shot at it. Also on the "required reading" list, Henry James, can't even remember the titles. I tried revisiting him several years later and still couldn't find the redeeming values. . .or the characterization. . .the description. . .the plot. . .

[Nasrudith]

I hate all of Edgar Allen Poe's works with a passion. If I wanted to hear the ravings of a madman I'd work at an asylum.

Silas Mariner is so dull and badly written reading it is an epic level challenge. I chose it as one of the three choices along with Of Mice and Men for summer reading assignment. I selected it because the description of its plot made it sound more interesting then the other choice which was yet another depression era book. My school district seems to be having some sort of torrid affair with the literature of the era). However description lied. I have no clue how it became considered a classic and not antique toiletry. George Elliot howeve does haver a talent that leaves me mystified. She (George Elliot is a penname) manages to provide both too much and too little description in the same book! She wastes description on stuff that doesn't matter and is pretty dull. Yet she leaves many characters without a modicum of description. Introductions are sudden and because of the aforementioned lack of descriptions. So far the protaginist is the only one who recieved a half decent physical description. The end result of her writing is the reader wondering who in the world that person is that was suddently introduced.

[Trog]

Before I start I'd like to to put out a big HYPOCRITE! to all the previous posters who said they hate Tolkein after posting this on a comic site, based off of DnD, which was originally based off of Tolkein's version of fantasy. Noticed the homocidal little guy in green in the comics? Yeah. He's a hobbit!! Sheesh! What...ever.[/totally called for rant]

Ahem. An author I hate.

Anne Rice

Now I own a bunch of Anne Rice books and have read most of them. And let me let you in on the exact point where you, too, will put down her books forever. Pick a book. Any of her vampire books, I mean. Got one? Great. Read it. Get absorbed in it. Finish it. Pick up another. Finish it. Another. Finished. Seeing the pattern yet? The moment you will stop reading is when yet another tertiary character is introduced and is asked to "tell his story," meaning his life story, how he became a vampire, etc. and STOPS THE FRICKIN PLOT DEAD.

Rice does a good job at description and a moderate job at characterization, I'd say... but... that...FORMULA!? Ugh! :P

[reorith]

ethan frome. grrr i hated that book. the best part is when a cat breaks a pickle dish!

[Serpentine]

I hate all of Edgar Allen Poe's works with a passion. If I wanted to hear the ravings of a madman I'd work at an asylum.
I'm curious as to why this is so. I really liked much of his writings, especially his poems, especially especially The Bells. The way he has with rhythm...
It was mentioned earlier, but the thing you really have to remember about Shakespear is that he was never meant to be read. He was always supposed to be performed. I think I must be one of the few people in the world who never studied the Bard. Never. Not so much as a glance. The really annoying thing is we could have done it in year 11 and 12, but the teacher instead chose Gattaca (not a bad movie), some soppy thing about cancer and dying and euthanasia (not too bad, but not my sort of thing, and I was already completely sick of those debates before the class) and, most depressingly, an award-winning slice of utter tripe called The Divine Wind. It's full of controversy and issues that were shoved in for their own sake and for the sake of that stupid prize it won. Grahg.
I don't remember hating Mists of Avalon, but I never finished it. Just sort of put it down one day and never picked it up again.
Robert Jordan has already been mentioned, but I'd just like to specify why I didn't get past I think 4 or 5 books: the characters. The women are all coniving cows and the men are all selfish little twerps.
I actually managed to get through Cecilia Dart-Thornton's series starting with The Ill-Made Mute, but I came out at the end despising her. She uses most of a page and words I've never heard of (and I think I have a reasonable vocabulary) just to describe a field of flowers, she killed off the only promising character, and I found that once the event happened to the main character at the end of the first book occurred I completely lost interest in the person. Useless, useless author.
I've liked most of the Anne McCaffery books I've read, but Dinosaur Planet 2 is terrible, though this may be partly because I didn't read DP1. It's only a little book and I still couldn't finish it.
I've never read The Power of One, but I get the impression I wouldn't enjoy it. My mum bought it with the specific intention of getting me off fantasy for some reason, read it first, and decided it probably wouldn't be a good idea to make me read it. Somewhat depressing, I gather.
Also, I refuse to read The DaVinci Code until I can get it second-hand, and even then I'll be starting with Angels and Devils and taking everything with a grain of salt and a history book.

[Shadow_of_Light]

I've never read The Power of One, but I get the impression I wouldn't enjoy it. My mum bought it with the specific intention of getting me off fantasy for some reason, read it first, and decided it probably wouldn't be a good idea to make me read it. Somewhat depressing, I gather.

Parts of it are depressing, yes. It was based around the time of Hitler (at the beginning of the book, at least). It also has its share of good moments. I found that book was very, very good at evoking strong emotions.

My parents occasionally try to get me off fantasy, too. ;) That's one of the few outside the genre I've read. I'd recommend it, but it's probably not everyone's cup of tea (no book is).

[Closet_Skeleton]

Shakespeare's genius is in his stories. I recommend seeing them in theatre rather than trying to read all of those thees and thous.

Yeah, the stories he borrowed. Some people say he stole stories from other places. I think really it is just a case of Shakespeare being so famous we can't imagine him as the kind of playwright who wrote adaptions of stories. When someone adapts a story for the stage today he either gets his deserved praise (whatever it may be) or gets ignored and the original author gets the praise. When people find out that Shakespeare did it they say "what, he stole ideas, I'm so dis-illusioned". Shakespeare can be a pretty bad read, but it isn't meant to be read but spoken.

I hate Charles Dickens, I didn't find it dull, I didn't find the writting bad, I just had no idea what the heck he was saying.



Yeah my mother, she gets a bulk delivery every month. It makes me hopelessly sad just thinking about it.

Mills n Boon made you Blush I will have to careful what I say in future, I could bust a blood vessel or something.

1. Woman meets rich handsome abusive git.

2. Woman gets abused by rich handsome git.

3. Woman sees something worthwhile in rich handsome git.

4. Woman lets rich handsome git abuse her.

I'm disgusted anyone likes that. My own mother likes it but she wastes away unless she reads something, gives them to charity shops (actually, that's quite sadistic) when she's finished and reads better stuff the moment it is available.

[Steward]

I'm disgusted anyone likes that.

You'd hate 'Lifetime: Television for Women'.

Regarding Shakespeare: He's not as bad people make it seem. The man's got a way with words. I used to like his work, but he hasn't written anything new in a while. I hate it when these famous authors start resting on their laurels.

[Closet_Skeleton]

You'd hate 'Lifetime: Television for Women'.


I'll take you advice, not that I watch television much anyway.

[Serpentine]

Regarding Shakespeare: He's not as bad people make it seem. The man's got a way with words. I used to like his work, but he hasn't written anything new in a while. I hate it when these famous authors start resting on their laurels.
Him and the guy who wrote Z for Zacchariah. Lazy bum didn't even tell anyone whether he'd finished writing the book!

[Mr._Blinky]

This is going to hurt to say. Margaret Atwood is a very good writer, and most of the crawly feeling her books give me is from their underlying subjects instead of her writing style (the characterization is so strong that, at first, I confused the two and transferred my loathing directly to the author), but so long as she writes about those crawly, underlying, women's topics, she'll never be a great writer.

Double-dog-dare-seconded for John Knowles and A Separate Peace. I laughed for five minutes straight when The Simpsons took a pot-shot at it. Also on the "required reading" list, Henry James, can't even remember the titles. I tried revisiting him several years later and still couldn't find the redeeming values. . .or the characterization. . .the description. . .the plot. . .

Yeah, I read A Separate Peace in school, and finished it at about two a clock in the morning, since it was a weekend. The next morning my parents asked how what I thought, and I said I liked it. Then I reread the last fifty or so pages and decided it wasn't very good after all.

The moral of the story being that reading late at night is hazardous for you judgement. Though in all fairness I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be. I definately don't think I should have been required to read it for school, but it wasn't horrible.

[LordOfNarf]

i've only really ran into 2 books that i really don't like, first, LotR, i have started it 3 times, never finished it. The Hobbit was exellent, i always get bored around halfway trough Two Towers.

Second War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy,it took me a month to read 100 pages of it, and it was so unbelivably boring, i dont think i will ever read through that book.

[Ted_Stryker]

*some WoT spoilers below*

RJordan has been mentioned several times, but I'll name him yet again. I really liked the first 5-6 books, but the whole thing just landed in the crapper after that. Books 4-5 expanded the plot in scope, but the stories were still all about the major players. Bit players actually came and went, or drove the story temporarily (I'm thinking of Couladin in particular with this point). Now? Not so much.

The other thing is that the most interesting character by far (IMHO) has been dead-but-coming-back for like 6 books now. Bring her back, already.

[reorith]

the hitch hikers guide. like back in middle school, there were only a couple of us that had read it and found it funny and refrenced it everynow and then. then i went to college and you know how some people have the bible? there were a few people that were mad obsessed and i felt bad havving a common interest with them. the sorta people that catch you on your way to the shower and assume you have a tin of biscuits just because you have a towel! grrrrrz

[Closet_Skeleton]

Hitch Hikers is a crap book anyway. It is still funny in book form but I am going to be a radio series purist on that one. Everything gets like that if it gets quoted over and over again though, you can't blame something for being popular.

[bosssmiley]

]<trim>

Ahem. An author I hate.

Anne Rice

Now I own a bunch of Anne Rice books and have read most of them. And let me let you in on the exact point where you, too, will put down her books forever. Pick a book. Any of her vampire books, I mean. Got one? Great. Read it. Get absorbed in it. Finish it. Pick up another. Finish it. Another. Finished. Seeing the pattern yet? The moment you will stop reading is when yet another tertiary character is introduced and is asked to "tell his story," meaning his life story, how he became a vampire, etc. and STOPS THE FRICKIN PLOT DEAD.

Rice does a good job at description and a moderate job at characterization, I'd say... but... that...FORMULA!? Ugh! :P

Seconded on the Anne Rice dislike. But there's another vampire author who's even worse: Poppy Z. Brite. Talk about self-indulgent, poorly-written epitome of everyhting that's rancid in the 'vampyre' genre.

Yes Miss Brite, you really like skinny, pale bad boys who like...other...skinny bad boys. We get it. Now get over your sub-otaku yaoi fixation and learn to write something interesting. ::)

[Kriel]

At the moment, Bernhard Schlink. Mind you, great author, great books, but I spent all of last week scouring the web and my university's library for a research paper on him and to be quite honest I've had more than my fill of him thanks to that. Normally, though, hmm... J.D. Salinger. Catcher in the Rye still leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it's been eight years since I've read it.

[Closet_Skeleton]

J.D. Salinger. Catcher in the Rye still leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it's been eight years since I've read it.

I believe you may have found the whole darn point.

I call that a succesful book, but it is probably hateable in that way.

[sapphail]

The Thomas Covenant books. Crap writing, stupid plot, revolting character/s.

Angels and Demons - imagine a draft of the DaVinci Code, except without the plot (in fact, it degenerates into absolute absurdity in the first thirty pages) and writing from a twelve year-old's school essay.

David Eddings - I actually enjoyed the Elenium/Tamuli, but then tried to read the Belgariad/Malloreon and realised that the two series are exactly the freakin' same! You only need to exchange character names and it's the same book. Also, the plot lines and writing style (down to the dialogue) get incredibly predictable if you've read more than one or two of his books. Plus the irritating characters (who else wanted to slap that smugness out of Aphrael?).

[Mr._Blinky]

The Thomas Covenant books. Crap writing, stupid plot, revolting character/s.

I actually liked the first series, and I thought it was better written than a lot of fantasy out there (of course, that's not saying much). The second series, and now the third, are entertaining reads, and not bad in their own rights, but you get the feeling that they really didn't need to be written.

[Annalia]

You know, I really find it hard to hate a book. I did have some difficulties starting The Lord of the Rings but that's because I tried to read the Prologue on my very first time. Worst idea ever. I swear.

But seriously, when I decided to skip it and get on with the story, I totally loved it. Must've read his book 10 times. At least.

Oh, and:

The Well of Darkness. Has waaaaaay too much sex.
Ever read Jean M. Auel? Can't give you the exact title of her series (because I didn't read it in english) but it should be something like 'The Children of the Earth'. A lot of sex. And I mean it. And I still loved the books because she'd done a lot of research on prehistorical tribes and there was a story behind it and whenever a sex scene started I skipped the pages.

All in all, I've yet to find a book I don't like. Of course, I haven't read most of what's been named here. And I don't think I'm quite hard to please. :)

[The_Logic_Ninja]

Terry Goodkind. Fantasy Ayn Rand... with the same. Damn. Plot. Over. And. Over.

...and I liked the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Damn good writing. The first book in the Second Chronicles may be the best of all.

[Mattaeu]

I motion the first two Harry Potter books...if i had time to waste, not spend, then maybe i would read the others so i could just say i dislike the series. :P

reasons: probably something like the parody (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=253). and i don't know if it changes, but in those two, it feels like J.K. Rofling thinks she needs to keep reminding us that it's fantasy.

Runnus Awayus!

[Tom_Violence]

Dan Brown is also not a good writer. He has good ideas, interesting plots, and fun connections, and he's great at research. His writing, however, was extremely lacking. He had the stiffest conversations, some of the least accessible characters I've come across, and his characterization/visualizatins was practically non-exsistant. It saddens me that so many people seem to love him.


I've gotta agree with you about Dan Brown there. His ideas could make very good books, if only he got someone else to write them for him. But the main problem that I've had with his books is that the conclusions to them are always so blinding obvious. Given that they all seem to heavily revolve around a long series of puzzles and whatnot, its very frustrating having to wait for his characters to ham-fistedly work something out several chapters after the reader. Its pretty much the equivilant of wanting to scream at the TV when an actor does something blatantly silly. And the fact that pretty much all of his characters are meant to be geniuses doesn't really help either.

I also can't help but get the impression that Dan Brown is an academic who desperately wants to be James Bond, as all his books seem to be just him writing out that fantasy. They all have some guy, usually a university professor, who gets swept up into some rollercoaster adventure, jetsetting all over the place solving mysteries and fighting bad guys. And then at the end, of course, he get the token Most Beautiful Woman In The WorldTM. Alas, the result is usually less James Bond and somewhat more Teen Agent.

Another writer who I can't stand, despite having only read one of his books, was John Grisham (I think). Out of sheer boredom I picked up one of his books that was lying around the house and it was about a lawyer or something and I remember thinking, after a handful of chapters (here comes a spoiler), god I really hope it doesn't turn out that his brother stole all the money so he could put himself into rehab. I threw the book out the window at the end.

[ZombieRockStar]

I also must agree on Dan Brown. Forget the conspiracy theories, he is just simply a very bad writer.

I reserve a particularly nasty place in the balckness that is my heart for David Eddings. The Belgariad was sexist and the Elenium was racist. Annoying characters who are all identical to one another (I really hate his genius child characters), and humour stolen from the crappy stand-up comic from wednesday night at the bar.

In terms of the classics, I dislike Mark Twain. Something about folksy 19th century southern US doesn't sit well with me. Well, shucks...

[Were-Sandwich]

I dislike Harry Potter in general. It just defies logic. The complete isolation between the wizard world and the muggle world makes no sense. Don't you think wizards would have TV's. Or at least radios. And guns, the wizards shoudl use guns. Its so much simpler.

[Malachi, the Lich King]

Glen Cook's "Black Company" series. Worst stuff I've ever read.

Dan Brown- I couldn't put the books down but "Angels & Demons" got so darn ridiculous about a third of the way in and just got stranger after that. Really hard to keep that suspension of disbelief.

Salvatore- When I'm desperate for something to read. At least I know what I'm getting.

R Jordan- I got disgusted after the third book. I found almost every character thoroughly unlikeable.

[Tom_Violence]

Dan Brown- I couldn't put the books down but "Angels & Demons" got so darn ridiculous about a third of the way in and just got stranger after that. Really hard to keep that suspension of disbelief.


Oddly enough I couldn't put Digital Fortress down. Its undoubtedly the worst book I've ever read, but for some reason I read it pretty much all the way through in one sitting. It might've helped that there was nothing else to do at the time, but I think the main thing was that I couldn't help thinking "it just has to get better at some point!"

[Nasrudith]

Oddly enough I couldn't put Digital Fortress down. Its undoubtedly the worst book I've ever read, but for some reason I read it pretty much all the way through in one sitting. It might've helped that there was nothing else to do at the time, but I think the main thing was that I couldn't help thinking "it just has to get better at some point!"

Dan Brown does a pretty good job of keeping the reader hooked and want to read more from my experience with the Da Vinci Code. It must work even if the reader is not enjoying it from your experience.

[Steward]

Dan Brown does a pretty good job of keeping the reader hooked and want to read more from my experience with the Da Vinci Code. It must work even if the reader is not enjoying it from your experience.

For me, it's more like a horrible four-car pileup that you just can't look away from.

[LordOfNarf]

For me, it's more like a horrible four-car pileup that you just can't look away from.

FOUR! thts nothing, I'd only stop and stare at something that is 8+ cars.

And, you get hooked, but there is no reason for anyone to pick up another book again, so you lose out on future sales of other books. Its not good practice to put all of your eggs in the same basket.

[Tom_Violence]

For me, it's more like a horrible four-car pileup that you just can't look away from.

Yep, that's pretty much the best way I can think of describing it. In fact, I'm sure that I said that to my housemate when he asked why I was still reading that damn book.

[Zalathar]

I truly and utterly hate Dean Koontz, I've tried 3-4 of his books and found each one utter drivel.

I would like to echo that the Eragon books were ridiculously transparent, but decent, especially considering they were meant for juvenilles.

I hate to join the, "Tolkein = Meh" club, but I just never found myself riveted by his books, enjoyed them, yes, but not the best ever (*cough George R.R. Martin FTW *cough*).

Also, Terry Pratchett does nothing for me.

And the guys who wrote "Rule of Four" , blech.

If I ever see Robert Jordan on the street I plan on donkey punching him and then emptying his wallet as compensation for wasted time.

That's about all that I can think of right now, the list of greats overwhelmingly outweighs the list of not-greats, but these are the low-lights I remember.

[sapphail]

I also can't help but get the impression that Dan Brown is an academic who desperately wants to be James Bond, as all his books seem to be just him writing out that fantasy. They all have some guy, usually a university professor, who gets swept up into some rollercoaster adventure, jetsetting all over the place solving mysteries and fighting bad guys. And then at the end, of course, he get the token Most Beautiful Woman In The WorldTM.

Actually, he is a professor, and teaches at one of the top universities in America (can't remember which one, or what he teaches, I'll try and find out). Which makes it all the more frustrating that the writing is so unbelieveably awful. I wonder what his students think of his books. ;D

[Tom_Violence]

Actually, he is a professor, and teaches at one of the top universities in America (can't remember which one, or what he teaches, I'll try and find out). Which makes it all the more frustrating that the writing is so unbelieveably awful. I wonder what his students think of his books. ;D

I sincerely hope its not English Lit.

And yeah, I did know that he was a teacher of some sort. That was pretty much the point behind my post really. i.e. I just can't shake the feeling that he's simply writing out his little daydreams of how he wishes his life is. :P

[Mr Croup]

Actually, he is a professor, and teaches at one of the top universities in America (can't remember which one, or what he teaches, I'll try and find out). Which makes it all the more frustrating that the writing is so unbelieveably awful. I wonder what his students think of his books. ;D

Actually, he isn't. His sole profession is as a writer. He was a teacher at a boarding school, but has never taught at a collegiate level.

[LordOfNarf]

One Author I simply cannot stand is Brian Herbert. He has been trying to create more Dune books and build of of his fathers legacy. It isn't working. His books a filled with bad storylines, poor dialouge, thouroghly contemptible charachters who only develop into more thouroghly contemptible charachters, and a complete lack of the intracate detail that made the original Dune Books so inspiring.

[Chunklets]

Terry Goodkind. Fantasy Ayn Rand...

Ain't that the truth. I read the first couple of Goodkind's books, and then went away to scrub myself with steel wool. I mean... eeew.

Anyway, I recently read my first ever Clive Cussler novel (Black Rain), and it actually had me laughing out loud in disbelief. Ok, it had the usual assortment of villains who are nothing but variations on the general theme of "scary foreigner," and aesthetically pleasing heroes who talk like out-takes from a George W. Bush speech, but the crowning glory of it was the fact that Cussler wrote himself into his own novel. In third person. And we're not talking about a Hitchcockian cameo; the author actually had himself show up and rescue the heroes from great and probably lethal danger. It was... special.

[LordOfNarf]

He does that in every single Dirk Pitt novel, Black Rain is one of the most recent ones, you should start reading the old Dirk Pitt novels, they are (imo) better that some of the newer stuff, though it is all good.

[Ulicus]

]Before I start I'd like to to put out a big HYPOCRITE! to all the previous posters who said they hate Tolkein after posting this on a comic site, based off of DnD, which was originally based off of Tolkein's version of fantasy. Noticed the homocidal little guy in green in the comics? Yeah. He's a hobbit!! Sheesh! What...ever.

Uh, what? How does enjoyment of fantasy = enjoyment of the way Tolkien writes fantasy?

Tolkien bored me to tears.

Brilliant mind, no question – but the world he created was wasted on his writing style and the Lord of the Rings was essentially told through the eyes of friggin hobbits.

Unless homocidal like the Mr Bitterleaf you mentioned, Hobbits don’t interest me, since, as a general rule, I don’t identify with midgets with hairy feet. The fact that they had a tendency to burst into song every second page was also pretty annoying.

Bear in mind that the following is likely to be an incredibly inaccurate depiction of Tolkien's writing style, but it's how I remember him:

“And Frodo, son of Blahdo, son of Dedo, son of Blahdo 1st, adopted son of Bilbo set off on his merry, adjective, adjective, adjective quest upon the road of noun’s noun’s noun that had seen the feet of many a adjective traveller before him. Including the venerable whocares, the blah of dede blah, the high king emperor of seven sultans who was the second cousin of the fourth maiar of bullcrap and the seventh child’s son of mulan’s kingdom’s aches lar de dar daughter dum de. And he sang and verbed and verbed, and as the adjective, adjective, small hobbit did so, he verbed across a song of merriment and adjective and adjective, passed down to him by nounbo noungins, who was known for being a merry sort of chap who drank wines and brandies and had once made pocket watches long ago. Speaking of pocket watches, it is a known fact that hobbits like to eat pocket watches. This tradition dates back to the Minus Third Age, when the great, old Blunderbus Meeargan ate some watches that had accidentally fallen into his porridge. And Frodo's merry adjective song went:

I’m singing a boring song,
About some crap,
I’ve stumbled upon,
Do you care?
Like hell you do,
This scans like crap
Doobie dooooo.”

Basically, the only times it held my interest were when it left the hobbits behind. Which was never long enough.

Besides, DnD wasn't "based off Tolkiens version of fantasy". Certainly, it took the main races so as to get LotR fans interested in the product - but it owes more to Jack Vance and Michael Moorcock and a host of other fantasy writers. At least if you believe wikipedia.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

This scans like crap
Doobie dooooo.”



"Earendil was a mariner
who tarried in Avernien;
He built a boat of timber felled
in Nimbrethil to journey in;
Her sails he wove of silver fair,
Of silver were her lanterns made;
Her prow was fashioned like a swan,
And light upon her banners laid.

In panoply of ancient kings,
In chainéd rings he armored him;
His shining shield was scored with runes
To ward all wounds and harm from him..."

That doesn't just scan well, but it's got an awesome rhyme scheme--every odd line rhymes with the middle of the next line, plus the even lines rhyme with each other.

[LordOfNarf]

Besides, DnD wasn't "based off Tolkiens version of fantasy". Certainly, it took the main races so as to get LotR fans interested in the product - but it owes more to Jack Vance and Michael Moorcock and a host of other fantasy writers. At least if you believe wikipedia.

Because Tolkein really came up with those races himself. [/sarcasm]

He ripped almost every race in his books out of ancient mythologies.

[Trog]

Besides, DnD wasn't "based off Tolkiens version of fantasy".
You can try to deny his work's influence on the game but you'd be wrong. Halflings would never have been included as one of the major races if it had not been for Tolkein. Also in Forgotten Realms there is much made of the elves leaving for their ancient homeland, their numbers dwindling (at least there was in the FR's inital incarnation). I'm sure that there were influences by other authors but Tolkein's contribution was a big one.

And you're right. You don't have to enjoy Tolkein to enjoy reading fantasy. ::) I guess.


Because Tolkein really came up with those races himself. [/sarcasm]

He ripped almost every race in his books out of ancient mythologies.
I would hardly say it's fair to say he "ripped them off." True, he used various mythologies and fairy tales as a basis for his work but I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time finding elves that exist in the manner that Tolkein has created in something that predates his work. Also while you're at it find where hobbits as a race existed before then. Dwarves? Fine. He ripped them off. But they don't exactly take a front row seat like the elves do.

[Supagoof]

You can argue that any writer has indeed ripped off other writers for most of fiction. I won't get too far into the ones that do, (JKR for example), but it is how they use the characters and images borrowed from - mythologies and ancient gods/religions etc... that makes them truly a great writer.

I once heard the comparison that writing a good book is a lot like composing a song on the piano. Very often, you use the same key sequence as used by musicians of old, but it's not the keys you use, it's the way you use them.

In todays day and age, it is very difficult to find something truly original in a piece of writing or really any art for that matter. But it is nice to find those that can manipulate the words in inspire imagination and create a realm that is unique, even if characters in it are not.

The giant himself is evolving into the very same type of mastery, where his characters are clearly based on...something else...but his storyline of where they go and how they get there keeps bringing us back every few days. No, Tolkein should not be berated for his usage of elves, orcs, dwarves and dragons, but should be respected for his storyline that brought them together. Nor should it be said that D&D is based of LotR, but does share similarities.

My 2 cents.

[Ulicus]

*snip*
That doesn't just scan well, but it's got an awesome rhyme scheme--every odd line rhymes with the middle of the next line, plus the even lines rhyme with each other.

Yeah, you're right.

Like I said, I was probably really inaccurate, but it’s how I remember it. I’ve not read any of the stuff for yonks.

Maybe I’d love it now but I don’t really feel like sitting through all the early hobbit stuff *ever* again. :)



You can try to deny his work's influence on the game but you'd be wrong. Halflings would never have been included as one of the major races if it had not been for Tolkein.

Selective quoting? :P I *said* that DnD took some races as they were known from LotR so as to capitalise on its popularity. I didn’t deny the work’s influence on the game – I flat out *gave* its main influence on the game. Races.

As far as I'm aware, elves had always been faerie-like creatures until Tolkien came along and hobbits = the original DnD halflings (though they seem to have moved away from that sort of look now).

And, as for the point about the Forgotten Realms borrowing aspects of LotR... I'm going to have to be pedantic. That's a Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting, not Dungeons and Dragons itself.

It’s one thing to say that Dungeons and Dragons has a similarity to Lord of the Rings, and was influenced by it which I’d agree with, but it’s entirely another to say that it was “based off it”.


And you're right. You don't have to enjoy Tolkein to enjoy reading fantasy. ::) I guess.

There’s no need for the eyeroll.

I enjoy reading about Tolkien’s world through other writers – in the numerous “Guide to Middle-Earths” and whatnot - I just find his prose to be rather dull.

That you (and the majority) disagree is fine with me, my not enjoying the books in no way detracts from your enjoyment of them.

It is simply *wrong* to say someone is a hypocrite for enjoying fantasy if they don’t enjoy Tolkien, which is what annoyed me.

(My grammar has gone to hell... damn)

[Trog]

It is simply *wrong* to say someone is a hypocrite for enjoying fantasy if they don’t enjoy Tolkien, which is what annoyed me.
My apologies. You might have said so in the first place.

And fine, influenced instead of based off it. You're arguing semantics here as far as I'm concerned. We both seem to mean the same things.

As for the DnD vs Forgotten Realms thing: I regard them as being the same, as intertwined as they have become. If you don't that's fine.

[Argent]

I also must agree on Dan Brown. Forget the conspiracy theories, he is just simply a very bad writer.

I reserve a particularly nasty place in the balckness that is my heart for David Eddings. The Belgariad was sexist and the Elenium was racist. Annoying characters who are all identical to one another (I really hate his genius child characters), and humour stolen from the crappy stand-up comic from wednesday night at the bar.


While I'm with you on the repetitive nature of Eddings' writing (the Malloreon being essentially the Belgariad with different names C&P'ed in), how is the Belgariad sexist? The book had strong female characters (Polgara, her mother, most of the kings' wives who took over running their kingdoms while the war was on, the growth of Ce'Nedra as a character) who had a very tangible impact on the outcome of the story. I don't see that as sexist at all.

Annoying authors: the aforementioned Dan Brown, John Grisham (blech), Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Terry Brooks (cute concepts but gets too cutesy and repetitive)... but my true ire is saved for Piers Anthony. Takes a neat idea like Xanth, beats it to death with a rock over the course of about fifty-eight books, said books becoming tired excuses to spout puns. And the last couple of books I read seemed to like their kid characters just a little too much, if you know what I mean. Creepy.

[Mattaeu]

I don't see that as sexist at all.
So...sexist is only applicable to books that put women down? Something's not connecting here. :-/ (haven't read the book, nor any of these posts entirely, but i can still bring up this item.)
is the book unfavorable/degrading/discriminatory to either sex?

[Don Beegles]

Good point, Mattaeu, about the definition of sexism, though that is the most commonly used application, so it's understandable that it would be interpreted that way. I really don't think The Belgariad was sexist in either direction so blease, Zombie, pray explain.

[Argent]

So...sexist is only applicable to books that put women down? Something's not connecting here. :-/ (haven't read the book, nor any of these posts entirely, but i can still bring up this item.)
is the book unfavorable/degrading/discriminatory to either sex?

That's not what I'm saying. Sexism is not the same thing as "putting women down". To me, it implies negative treatment of women in general, and/or the implication that women are not equal to men. (Or vice versa.) In the Belgariad, the women characters are portrayed in much the same way the men are -- flawed but human, and ultimately heroic. So unless there's a cite which shows sexist treatment in the series, I question that charge.

[Don Beegles]

But Mattaeu's point, if I understand him, is that sexism is not 'putting women down' or in fact, impling that women are not equal to men, it is implying that one gender is not equal to another. Generally it is used to mean Men>women, but that is not necessarily the definiton, which was what he was saying.

[Argent]

I think we're getting mired in semantics here and don't want to continue the hijack further -- let's just say I would like to see evidence of sexism in the Belgariad and leave it at that.

[Tom_Violence]

And you're right. You don't have to enjoy Tolkein to enjoy reading fantasy. ::) I guess.

Seems to me that that's like saying that you have appreciate the early episodes of The Simpsons in order to enjoy the later ones. :P And we all know how truely terrible those were.

Given that its possible for someone to get into reading fantasy without ever having even heard of Tolkein (unlikely, but possible) let alone having read it, then I guess its pretty obvious that someone can enjoy fantasy without enjoying Tolkien.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

The Belgariad wasn't so much "sexist" as "full of worn-out gender sterotypes."

[Serpentine]

“And Frodo, son of Blahdo, son of Dedo, son of Blahdo 1st, adopted son of Bilbo set off on his merry, adjective, adjective, adjective quest upon the road of noun’s noun’s noun that had seen the feet of many a adjective traveller before him. Including the venerable whocares, the blah of dede blah, the high king emperor of seven sultans who was the second cousin of the fourth maiar of bullcrap and the seventh child’s son of mulan’s kingdom’s aches lar de dar daughter dum de. And he sang and verbed and verbed, and as the adjective, adjective, small hobbit did so, he verbed across a song of merriment and adjective and adjective, passed down to him by nounbo noungins, who was known for being a merry sort of chap who drank wines and brandies and had once made pocket watches long ago. Speaking of pocket watches, it is a known fact that hobbits like to eat pocket watches. This tradition dates back to the Minus Third Age, when the great, old Blunderbus Meeargan ate some watches that had accidentally fallen into his porridge. And Frodo's merry adjective song went:

I’m singing a boring song,
About some crap,
I’ve stumbled upon,
Do you care?
Like hell you do,
This scans like crap
Doobie dooooo.”
You should totaly write fantasy, just like that. I'd read it.

Regarding Tolkien in D&D: What the hell? Does it matter? Frankly, I think that as a historian and world-builder he reigns supreme - I'm awe-struck every time I think of the detail in Middle Earth - but as a story-teller he is cold and uninteresting, and sorely in need of a real editor (at least in LotR, I enjoyed the Hobbit). Yes, he borrowed from mythology, and yes, D&D borrows from him, but in both cases it's the WORLD that matters. D&D takes the best parts of the world Tolkien created, and the best parts of the worlds of traditional mythology and other fantasy older and newer than Tolkien, and hands it over to us to do what we will with it. THAT's what D&D is about: it doesn't matter where it comes from, just what we do with it.

Speaking of snagging stuff from elsewhere, Cecilia Dart-Thornton uses bits and pieces of folklore all over the place, often practically word-for-word. It could have been an interesting and effective technique, if only it had been a part of a wider, more interesting and better-written whole. As it is, it just seems lazy to me.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

D&D takes the best parts of the world Tolkien created, and the best parts of the worlds of traditional mythology and other fantasy...
Yeah, uh, not so much.

[Serpentine]

If you're gonna get snarky, you could at least explain yourself. Or are you just commenting on the quality of D&D or its selections or the mythology it's based on?

[The_Logic_Ninja]

D&D certainly didn't take the "best parts" of anything.

[Serpentine]

"most appropriate", then? Of course, that's the beauty of the game: if there's anything you prefer, you can just shunt it in.

[Murky_Pool]

EDIT - Pointless, unecessary comment. I'll shut up now

[Kesnit]

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, for opposite reasons.

Lewis is a fantastic writer, but the material he uses is so transparently dogmatic that it infuriates me.


I agree with you about Lewis's non-Narnia books. (I felt like my brains were flowing out through my eyeballs trying to read some of them.) As for the Narnia books...

Did you read them as a child or an adult? True, an adult is going to see the overbearing religious overtones. Kids are iffy. I'd read "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" many times for years before I finally (at age 13) caught the overtones. "The Magicians Nephew" is obviously creation, but doesn't parallel Gensis very well, IMO. "The Last Battle" is Revelation, but since I hadn't read Revelation as a pre-teen, I knew that only on a general basis.

I was in my late 20's (after not reading them for many years) before I caught the overtones in some of the other books.

[Kesnit]

I can't stand Jane Austen and the like - her heroines just seem so... vacant.

Ah yes, another author that makes me feel like my brain is turning to water. I've tried reading several of her books, but I got to the point all I could do was cry at how vapid they are.

[AmbrMerlinus]

The first two trilogies that R.A.Salvatore wrote are some of my favorite books ever. After that, though, when

SPOILERSPOILERSPOILER

Drizzt becomes a philosopher and Wulfgar dies'n'comesbackwithmoreangstthaneverbefore and Bruenor dies'n'comesbackbutwisheshewasstilldead and Catti-brie is like "forget Wulfgar I <3 Drizzt even though he was clearly in love with Alustriel at the end of Halfling's Gem" and... *brainexplode*

I don't mind Jane Eyre, it's got a whimsical teaparty feel to it, but the physical book I had to read was torture. Turn the page, page falls out. Turn the page, page falls out. Old books bad!

And don't get me started on Christopher Paolini.

[Kesnit]

The "Left Behind" series

I haven't read them, but as far as I can tell, it's basically all the bad people being brutally tormented during the end of the world....

I started reading them, but couldn't finish the series.

The first few books took about a year each. "OK," I thought, "seven years, so seven books." Then there was a book that covered a week. And it was more "preachy" than every book before combine.

I gave up.

My mother managed to finish the series, though she said she did so only because she had read so far she couldn't see not finishing. She also admitted she'd never read them again.

[Alarra]

Same.

I don't remember how many of them I read.....I think I'm on Desecration, I've had it forever, never had any desire at all to read it or finish the series.

I liked it originally though.

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

I would like to go on record saying that Brave New World is the single most boring, poorly written, poorly edited, and poorly concieved piece of literature I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

Of course, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings wasn't exactly enjoyable either. More like having your male anatomy ice-skated on. Hey, Maya, I know too! The caged bird sings because THERE IS NOTHING ELSE FOR IT TO FLIPPING DO! It can't fly, it can't mate, and I'm pretty sure it can't read any of the newspapers it craps on all day. And to think I figured that out with out getting raped.

[Caillach]

I hate Terry Goodkind. His first book was decent, but all his other books ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!!!
Get a new plot you hack! (oh and stop useing your books for some "subtle" rightwing propaganda)

[Serpentine]

Really? Where? Maybe if I'd read them recently I'd see it, but I haven't, so what's this propaganda you speak of?

[The_Logic_Ninja]

"Faith of the Fallen" was basically "Communism Sucks".

Yeah.
WE KNOW.
Shut up already.

[sapphail]

The Belgariad wasn't so much "sexist" as "full of worn-out gender sterotypes."

I have to agree here. Most of the female characters in this series are hideously stereotyped. If we want to talk about sexism try reading Belgarath the Sorcerer. The way he treats most of the female ancestors of Garion is basically, 'You're going to marry this guy. You're going to have his baby. You will do it in the end, so don't bother protesting. (see in particular his treatment of the original dryad princess).' He basically treats them as breeding stock.

[Democratus]

The Bible.

Poorly written. Disjointed. Contradictory.

And it's caused far more trouble than "Catcher in the Rye".

[Orrmundur]

The Bible.

Poorly written. Disjointed. Contradictory.

And it's caused far more trouble than "Catcher in the Rye". I'm quite surprised this didn't come sooner.

I'd like to defend Brave New World. It's one of my favourites, but not for everyone. Not even for most folks but it's good, just different.

As for books I dislike, The Silmarillion is one awful piece of trash. It's like LotR except without all the things that made it good. Why my friends kept insisting I read I'll never understand.

Also, Anne Rice should never write anything. Ever. Why does a book about an ancient Babylonian spirit have to have a first-person narrative of an old guy thinking about said spirit's pubic hair? It was like reading trashy softcore erotica with a fantasy theme.

I'd put more but I don't really read that much. Comic books and various internet articles excluded.

[Steward]

I'm quite surprised this didn't come sooner.

Probably because no one wanted this thread to get locked because of a religious argument.



As for books I dislike, The Silmarillion is one awful piece of trash. It's like LotR except without all the things that made it good. Why my friends kept insisting I read I'll never understand.

I think it's because it centers too much on the elves, which I consider to be Tolkien's least interesting creation.



Also, Anne Rice should never write anything. Ever. Why does a book about an ancient Babylonian spirit have to have a first-person narrative of an old guy thinking about said spirit's pubic hair? It was like reading trashy softcore erotica with a fantasy theme.

Wait till you get to the Lestat books. Talk about Mary Sues in fiction. And she doesn't skimp on the incestuous paedophilic homoeroticism either, no matter how boring and monotonous it is.

Speaking of boring and monotonous eroticism, anyone ever read Earth's Children? It has everything I can't stand in fiction -- impossibly and effortlessly powerful protagonists, caricature villains, relentlessly artificial feminist proselytising, and a plodding sort of pace that makes Robert Jordan look almost interesting. It's one of the few times that I've seen someone actually pad a book with seven or eight DETAILED sex scenes that are EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ONES BEFORE THEM!

Don't like that.



Ah yes, another author that makes me feel like my brain is turning to water. I've tried reading several of her books, but I got to the point all I could do was cry at how vapid they are.

I think it's because of the time period.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

Anne Rice used to write gay porn.

...she should've stuck to that.

[Steward]

Anne Rice used to write gay porn.

...she should've stuck to that.

You mean the vampire stuff? Yeah.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

No, as a matter of fact, I don't.

[Trog]

Anne Rice used to write gay porn.

...she should've stuck to that.
That would explain a lot.

[AmbrMerlinus]

My friend and I work at the local library, and during one particularly slow day we came up with a list.

Authors that make Librarians want to Scream, and Why:

Mary Higgins Clark-- wrote too many books, all with the same plot. For the longest time I thought she had written my old favorite Wait 'Til Helen Comes, but then I discovered this was untrue. That served to make me hate her even more.

Carol Higgins Clark-- ^ her daughter or something? Regardless, she's not allowed to write. There are too many Higgins Clark books and they are all bad.

James Patterson-- formula writing kills puppies.

Nevada Barr-- look, we just don't care about your stupid desert any more.

Nora Roberts-- too many books, books are all the same, and she also writes other multiple stupid books that are all the same under another name: J.D. Roberts.

Tom Clancy-- same crap as all of the above, but for boys.

Janet Evanovich-- thousands of formula-writing books with numbers for titles. Numbers are painful to alphabetize, because half of your brain wants to put them in numerical order and libraries are done in alphabetical order and numerical order and alphabetical order are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Louis L'Amore-- wrote far too many books, but nobody checks them out so it's not so bad.

Nicholas Sparks-- too many, all the same, all a little dumb.

Lilian Jackson Braun-- we don't care what the cat did. We just don't care. (Incidentally, there is a parody of Lilian's books, titled The Cat Who Killed Lilian Jackson Braun.)

Danielle Steel-- four-hundred and fifty-one degrees Fahreinheit is the temperature at which these books should be stored.

AVALON ROMANCE-- the very definition of formula writing. Also, too many of them. You know the entire fiction section? It's as large as that. And we don't even own all of them. Sometimes we get them from other libraries. It's maddening.

Any Book Where The Author's Name Is Printed In Larger Lettering Or In A More Prominent Position On The Book's Cover Than The Title Of The Book Itself-- this means you, Mr. Stephen King.

[jewellissa]

I think the author's name is larger than the title is a bit arbitrary. Whenever an auther has alot of cache with people (or a specific group of people) and they come out with a new book you are basically selling that book to people based on who the author is. I will buy almost anythign written by Stephen King (sorry. ;D ) because i know what he has written and I like it. Same with Terry Pratchett and others.

My most dislike author is Ayn Rand. I cant stand her view point but I also find most of her books boring. I enjoy the story she crafts but she includes these long diatribes in the form of radio address or conversation that I find mind-numbing and in the wrong format.

The other funny part is telling Objectivists this. Because they think the educational propoganda is the central and only reason to read the books. I enjoy tell them I read Atlas Shurgged and skipped the "Who is John Galt" speech and that other than that the story was ok.

This will drive objectivists nutty. =)

[Steward]

No, as a matter of fact, I don't.

Which ones? I've only seen her vampire stuff and her witch stuff and it was entirely porn with a feeble, flailing plot in the middle.

[ZombieRockStar]

The Belgariad wasn't so much "sexist" as "full of worn-out gender sterotypes."


I'm going to jump back in here and say that that's what I meant when I said sexist. I'm going to have to pick my words more carefully from now on. A strong female character is not just an aggressive female character, it's a character with her own personality. All of Eddings' women are manipulative whiners with PMS. Of course, all of his male characters are spineless fools completely whipped by the women, so at least his stereotyping is equal-opportunity :P.

The Elenium was racially stereotypical in the same way. You had one religious sect that were obviously allegorical Jews portrayed as victims of persecution while acting superior to the group that was representing Christians. And the sect that was symbolizing muslims were all blind fanatics, and it was written before 9/11. To me, it's obvious Eddings has never met a jewish person, or a muslim, or a strong woman for that matter.

If you want to know what a truly strong female character is, I'm going to be a drooling fanboy and tell you to go watch Buffy. Joss Whedon is one of the few men out there that knows how to write for women.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

But, uh... Buffy stops being "a strong woman" and starts being "abusive" in season 6. Much as I love the show, Buffy herself isn't always the best role model. :P

[ZombieRockStar]

Okay, I've only watched up to season 4; I'm a little behind. And I didn't say she was the best role model. I said that she was a woman with her own personality. The point is she's a fully-formed character who doesn't fall into a gender stereotype.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

Well, yeah, but that's less "Joss Whedon rocks" and more "the very basics of characterization".

[Democratus]

Which ones? I've only seen her vampire stuff and her witch stuff and it was entirely porn with a feeble, flailing plot in the middle.

For a mild example, try "Exit to Eden".

Ugh.

[kriklaf]

about Anne Rice--Also 'Cry to Heaven'--very heavy on the gay sex, although fairly interesting for the history (largely embroidered, no doubt) on Italian castrati.

In a similar vein, anyone read Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake novels? Her first one, Guilty Pleasures, was just that--a quick, wicked read that was fun and superficial in all the best senses of the words. I like a good vampire book. But five books into the series, she descends into seriously unnecessary and descriptive porn. What made the story interesting (ie, the whole vampires are among us and they want the vote! plot, the fact that the main character was something of a prude and raised the dead for a living) has gotten completely buried in a harem of new lovers for Anita and weird sex domination vampire lineage and intrigue. Bah. I'm not interested.

I throw my wholehearted support behind fellow Terry Goodkind haters, as well. What a load of crap. Not an original thought or character anywhere. Mind you, one can do wonders with archetypes (for instance, Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn), but he does nothing of the sort. Nothing but stereotype after stereotype. Further, I was never, not for one moment, not in any corner of my mind, held in suspense or worried for the main character. And finally, I have a pet peeve about the word 'rage.' I can't stand hearing people natter on about how they're 'rage-filled' when what they're filled with is petulance. The fact that whatsisface used his 'rage' to make his sword powerful, or some such, just drove me batty.

I also reserve some strong disdain for Austen, the Bronte sisters and their ilk. Pride and Prejudice...euch. Ick. Ick. I have zero interest in caste wars and well-bred romance, especially when couched in flowery prose.

[slapdash]

Wow, I've never managed to read a book written by...Brooks, Salvatore, Tolkien, McCaffrey, Goodkind...am I even allowed to play D&D?

Countering what some folks said earlier, I think George RR Martin is trash. His prose is painful, his dialogue banal and nearly every character feels identical. I got through the first one, then gave the second one back to my friend when I realized I was reading only one or two characters chapters, and skipping the rest because there's no one to like in the whole damn series.

I can understand people like it because it's different from the standard Mary Sue fantasy stereotype, where the favorite characters are safe or always delivered by a deus ex machina, but character death does not a good series make.

Anne Rice is awful. I got through three of her books before realizing that I was forcing myself through each chapter. I rue the time wasted!

Also, Stephen King. It's a normal thing but it's not really normal - it is, in fact, evil! Oh, guess I have to tack an ending onto this thing.

[eggy_goodness]

Terry Goodkind's godawful Sword of Truth crap. That fellow does not have any idea of comic relief, it's just bad situation gets worse, worse situation get worser, worser situation gets worserer. I read the first two books, and have no intention of reading any more.

spot on mate! They also get more disgusting as you read through them.

[Steward]

Anyone ever read Wizard's First Rule?

First book I ever hated.

[Argent]

Anyone ever read Wizard's First Rule?

First book I ever hated.

I didn't start hating Goodkind till about the fourth book in the series - that's when the creepiness just got way out of control. Much like Robert Jordan -- it took a couple of books for the suck to reach overwhelming proportions.

[Durin_Deathless]

Cant stand the way Robert Jordan portays the women (and some men, but mostly the women) in his books it drives me nuts.


Love R.A. Salvatore

[Steward]

Any of you guys ever ran into a little curiosity known as The Legend of Rah and the Muggles?

[Herbert_West]

Wow, Almost every author I enjoy has been trashed, The sad bit is, most of it was right.

I am a little surprised no one has mentioned Lovecraft. I liked most of his stuff, but considering the other authors that have been shot down, I thought that someone would have mentioned him by now.

[Deckmaster]

Oh, whatsisname. That "Alternative History" guy. I tried to read one of his books and got about halfway through before I realized it wasn't getting any better.

[Herbert_West]

Eh, it's not for everybody. In the Cthulhu Mythos usually not alot happens until the middle of the story.
Some of his other works are less work to get through though.

[endoperez]

Wow, Almost every author I enjoy has been trashed, The sad bit is, most of it was right.

I am a little surprised no one has mentioned Lovecraft. I liked most of his stuff, but considering the other authors that have been shot down, I thought that someone would have mentioned him by now.

Pretty much the same for me.
I liked Eddings, but his series were some of the first ones I read. LotR is great, but all the details of the world, the history, the mythology and the languages seep into the story, slowing it down. Scourging of the Shire, though... Oh, how I waited to see it on the film. :-/ Yes, it mocks industrialization, but for me, it finally showed what had happened to the hobbits that had left their homes so long ago.
Anne Rice's ideas were new, but started getting old fast. Earth's Children was good, but as young as I was reading it, I started wondering how just one female lead could: invent supreme slinging technique, crafting fire with flints, atl-atls, superior atl-atl darts, fletching... She also domesticated a "Dire Lion", then horses, learned to ride (with both!), taught the horses to pull stuff, tamed a wolf which became a very loyal dog that seemed to understand speech, etc etc.
Silmarillion wasn't a good as in it wasn't filled with highly imaginative, but the origin of some of the stories, and the reasons they were written, and the information they gave was interesting, and most of them were good reads (at least when I read them long ago).
I read Robert Jordan, and then I got bored. I was at book 12 or 13 of the Finnish translation. They divided all books to two or three parts at translation, so the first part of book 10 is book number 22 in here. It's surprisingly fitting...

Keep in mind, all of these are disLIKES. Not hate, not anger, not rage. All of these are pretty minor, as well. The only book I would rather forgot would be the fourth book of the Earthsea trilogy. While I wouldn't mind reading a one-shot book about the world of Earthsea and of a strong woman's role in it, I didn't enjoy reading about the hero of the earlier books and how he had to cope with the loss of his powers. He had sacrificed his powers, once; that'd have been a fitting, tragic end for a hero.

[Caillach]

I didn't start hating Goodkind till about the fourth book in the series - that's when the creepiness just got way out of control. Much like Robert Jordan -- it took a couple of books for the suck to reach overwhelming proportions.

One of the things that really really pushed me over the edge with Goodkind (other than the true crapness of it all) was his god damn picture on the back of the book. My god! Someone has a serious stick up his ass and he think that it makes him look cool.

[Logic]

i read alot of books about star trek, and one i happened upon and never finished was "Shadows on the Sun." it was terrible from the beginiing, but about a quarter of the way through it, one of the characters says (not quite a quote, its close though) "They are assasins. they dont pick and choose their contracts, they just do them whenever someone wants someone else killed."
I put the book down immediatly thereafter, completely disgusted. it was written by Michael Jan Friedman.

[Herbert_West]

Pretty much the same for me.
Scourging of the Shire, though... Oh, how I waited to see it on the film. :-/

Man, through the whole bloody movie I was thinking about that. Come on, get to the hobbit militia!
You got farther than I did in Wheel of Time though, its like the dude tried to cram every idea he ever had into every single chapter.

[Beleriphon]

BANYTHING by Margaret Atwood.

Statement: I concur.
Hatred: She stinks, can't stand the writing style, subject matter, or that she's Canadian. Dammit.... gives us a bad name.

[Alarra]

Anyone ever read Wizard's First Rule?

First book I ever hated.

First and only negative book review I've ever written on amazon.com was about that book. Although I can't say I -hated- the series until about book 5. Why did I read through book 7 or something when I knew they were bad? No idea.

[Chris_Chandler]

I really have no time for Michael Moorcock. I've read a few of his books, and, just ugh. It might just be me, but I just cannot see the appeal. I know that much fantasy is really pulp, but I can usually go into one of those with no expectations and come out reasonably entertained. Moorcock, though - It was hard to finish.

Lovecraft is what Lovecraft is. He's got an interesting style, and his ideas are not always translated as well as one might home, and, again, he wrote for pulp magazines. It isn't high art, but it paints a good picture. I like Lovecraft, knowing that his work is responsible for some of the better horror (but also conceding that he's the root of most bad horror, too).

Of course, as any English major will tell you, the worst book ever is Oroonoko (http://eserver.org/fiction/oroonoko/). The only reason that it is in the canon is that Aphra Behn was the first woman who was a professional writer. That link goes to the actual text of the book. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Caillach]

Statement: I concur.
Hatred: She stinks, can't stand the writing style, subject matter, or that she's Canadian. Dammit.... gives us a bad name.


Lawrence is worse, but for all the same reasons.

[TheTick]

i read alot of books about star trek, and one i happened upon and never finished was "Shadows on the Sun." it was terrible from the beginiing, but about a quarter of the way through it, one of the characters says (not quite a quote, its close though) "They are assasins. they dont pick and choose their contracts, they just do them whenever someone wants someone else killed."
I put the book down immediatly thereafter, completely disgusted. it was written by Michael Jan Friedman.

He's TERRIBLE for Star Trek books. One of the early ones he (and the editor I suppose) call transporting 'teleporting'. Did they just not watch the shows at ALL??

I know the mention of Brian Herbert obliquely impugns KJA, but Kevin J. Anderson needs his own post. After the Zahn SW trilogy got me interested in reading (and watching) Star Wars again, KJA's succeeding trilogy crapped upon not only the George Lucas created characters, but even the ones Zahn created. He ripped their brains out and replaced them with teh stupid. He couldn't even get the catch phrases right. Ugh.

[happyjenn97]

Dune. I had to read it for a Sci-Fi & Fantasy English class and didn't like it at all.

[Drizzt_Fanboy_74]

I hold a special hatred for the Grapes of Wrath. So tedious and boring, I could scarcely believe it came from the same author as The Pearl.

Ok. One book I can't stand. The Amber Wizard by David Forbes. I picked it up because I was in a hurry and needed a cheap read with which to kill time. BIG MISTAKE. I started it, and within the first few pages some red flags went up. The book is badly written to be sure, but it is also a grand-scale rip-off. It copy-pastes races and cultures from authors I really like and who write really good fantasy (George RR Martin and Tad Williams) and makes them simple and one-dimensional. Allow me to point these rip-offs out.

At the beginning, there is a prologue involving the ancient races of the book's world. The one race is the Sithi from Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn. Exactly the ******* same. THey have witchwood staves, have vaguely asian names, and the main character who comes back as a powerful demi-god-esque spirit later on ((plot rip-off from MSaT)) is named Teluko. The base character (from a great series) is named Ineluki the Storm King. Teluko is a Storm King. This is blatant, transparent, and poorly written.

The George RR Martin ripoff is readily apparent with the ruling house bearing the standard of a black and gold stag (crowned or not, I can't remember).

There are others, but I can't remember.

Maybe these really are coincidences, but they are damn close and this guy can't write for crap.

[LordOfNarf]

Dune. I had to read it for a Sci-Fi & Fantasy English class and didn't like it at all.

Gahh. Gack. Garrr. Waaa?

I wish I had had classes like that, how could you not like Dune?? It is my all time favorite book ever.

[Borvo]

I personally find the works of R. A. Salvatore to be trite and uninteresting after you've read one or two. I have a similar complaint with Raymond E. Feist. It seems that he only has one plot for his trilogies.

[Serakus_DeSardis]

This is my first post to the forum after a long time of reading. Yay!~

I'm kind of appalled that anyone could not like Tolkien. I mean, yeah its hard to choke down, his writing style was descriptive almost to a fault, but in his overabundance of explanation and background, he created the template for modern fantasy. Most of us wouldn't love fantasy like we do if not for him. Mostly because 90% of what came after Tolkien wouldn't exist. I'm not saying he spawned the genre, but he definetly gave it a form. I think of him as the foster-father of mythology and history, he took so much of our collective pasts and intertwined them, and then took our imaginations and plunged it all into this churning pot that ended up making a tasty stew for our minds. Tolkien is by no means an easy read, I can grind out a popular novel in a few days, Tolkine takes me weeks, I have to read slowly and deliberetly. I still love it. And as a gamer, Tolkien taught me what it takes to World Build. He created Middle-Earth from the tattered remains of our past and our imagination and in turn gave millions of people the doorway to the promised land that is Fantasy. Without it many of us would be lost to the drudgery of the real world, which in this day and age is sadly in poor shape. LOTR covered everything, from high adventure, to sadness, to the depths of evil and depravity and to the grim reality of life. He wrought a world of the fantastic while keeping an air of realism, so that no matter how miraculous an event is, it always feels possible. I wish I had one tenth of the writing chops that man had, and all of the wordly knowledge.

As for Shakespeare, I can understand why some would find his work over the top, and irritating. I personally love it, but not all of his works were "good". He transcends normal standards because of his acomplishments for theater and playwrighting. In my humble opinion, even if you don't enjoy his work you have to respect his contribution.

As for authors I dislike, I found Terry Brooks (please don't hurt me) to be a tad dull. Actually alot dull. I liked the concepts but his books seemed to drag on for me.

Oh and Dan Brown gets knocked on alot, and I really do think Da Vinci plays off this age's yearning to be told that our secrets fears about the Church are true. But I respect the work because he made it an involving and interesting read, and he threw alot of information at you. His style tends to voerwhelm you much like Micheal Chrichton does. I love authors that do extensive research, and I lvoed Da Vinci. I don't love that some people take it too seriously. On the other hand, he has a underlying point which rings true to me, you cannot trust the organized religions as absolute truth, they are swayed by those in power's own personal goals.

I've only read the Elenium from Eddings, and I loved it. Perhaps I might not have enjoyed it as much if I had read his other works. The villian from the Elenium was so cool and mysterious.

[Caillach]

His style tends to voerwhelm you much like Micheal Chrichton does.

That man is brilliant, but boy does he scare the sh*t out of me.

[Serakus_DeSardis]

I personally find the works of R. A. Salvatore to be trite and uninteresting after you've read one or two. I have a similar complaint with Raymond E. Feist. It seems that he only has one plot for his trilogies.

I'd have to disagree, Salvatore's Drizzt series (yes I know it is cliche to refer to them) are ultimetly about the internal struggle of the main character, and the affect it has on his social situations. Drizzt is an amazingly powerful character but its not all about the action. He is not invincible, which Salvatore might have lost sight of a few times, but ultimetly the struggles with Artemis Entreri and the later struggles as The Hunter are in my eyes, some of the best character driven work I've ever seen. He also has a knack for interesting supporting characters and good comic relief. Rumblebelly for King of Mithral Hall!
Also I think his action sequences are well written and very exciting, he involves alot of specifics that make the scenes much more vivid. Drizzt would not be nearly as entertaining if not for the amount of time Salvatore spends articulating his movements and fighting style. I love reading a good scene and then suddenly he throws out the old staples of the globe of darkness and the summoned cat ally. I'm being vague as to not ruin it for any of the unknowing.

I used to hate the beginings of new sections in his work, because it always had a monologue of Drizzt's thoughts. I found as I grew up I learned alot from the concepts he presents in these words. Real world lessons I can apply to real life interactions. It doesn't hurt that I identify with Drizzt a great deal.

[Serakus_DeSardis]

That man is brilliant, but boy does he scare the sh*t out of me.


Brown or Chrichton?

I love Chrichton, but he doesn't always give us a good topic for his story.

[Firrerreo]

I personally find the works of R. A. Salvatore to be trite and uninteresting after you've read one or two. I have a similar complaint with Raymond E. Feist. It seems that he only has one plot for his trilogies.


Wow, I completely agree! I've taken so many bashings from my friends because I can't stand these two authors either. Nice to know I'm not the only one.

I might have to also throw in David Eddings . I've only tried to read one of his books, Polagara, but damn, I tried reading it on 3 separate occasions across a span of about 6 years and I could never get passed the 10th page. Sooooo baaaad....

[JellyPooga]

I might have to also throw in David Eddings . I've only tried to read one of his books, Polagara, but damn, I tried reading it on 3 separate occasions across a span of about 6 years and I could never get passed the 10th page. Sooooo baaaad....

I've not read Polgara, but I have read the Belgariad and the best part of the Mallorean (the first two series he wrote for the setting) and they were really good, I thought. I've had friends who've read all of Eddings' stuff and said that all of it except the two that I've read are terrible, so I never read any of the other stuff.


Gahh. Gack. Garrr. Waaa?

I wish I had had classes like that, how could you not like Dune?? It is my all time favorite book ever.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw that post...

On topic...all the books and authors associated with Dune except the original book - I haven't read all of it, but I've read enough...urgh!

[Caillach]

Brown or Chrichton?

I love Chrichton, but he doesn't always give us a good topic for his story.

Chrichton. Dan Brown's books don't make me go "ewww!" or, "oh, good lord ! Why?!"

[SilveryCord]

I can't stand the hideous, vile, depressing, sugar-bowl-related stories in the Series of Unfortunate Events. No matter what you do, do not read these horrible books by Lemony Snicket.

[Don Beegles]

Just out of curiosity SilveryCord, is that meant to be sarcastic, because if I recall correctly much of the series is spent saying 'Don't read these books". OR do you really jsut hate them? I mean, I wouldn't have called them classics of Childrens Literature, but they weren't bad.

About your view on Tolkien, Serakus, The Logic Ninja wrote a big post about why liking fantasy doesn't necessarily mean liking LotR even though he is the father. I'll see if I can find it.

Regarding Tolkien in D&D: What the hell? Does it matter? Frankly, I think that as a historian and world-builder he reigns supreme - I'm awe-struck every time I think of the detail in Middle Earth - but as a story-teller he is cold and uninteresting, and sorely in need of a real editor (at least in LotR, I enjoyed the Hobbit). Yes, he borrowed from mythology, and yes, D&D borrows from him, but in both cases it's the WORLD that matters. D&D takes the best parts of the world Tolkien created, and the best parts of the worlds of traditional mythology and other fantasy older and newer than Tolkien, and hands it over to us to do what we will with it. THAT's what D&D is about: it doesn't matter where it comes from, just what we do with it.

Now that I read that it deals more with DnD than fantasy in gnereal but the point stands. Just because we like fantasy that came from Tolkien doesn't mean that we need to like him as an author. We can recognize him as the father of the genre without thinking that his books are particularly good.

I always say about Tolkien taht he has all the necessary talents of a great fantasy writer: cartographer, poet, linguist, historian, world-builder. HIs only fault was that he wasn't in fact a great writer.

[SilveryCord]

Meant to be sarcastic :)

In fact, you are correct. Almost every page there is some comment about how bad the books are, and how you should read <insert children's book here> instead.

[Arian]

Any book that tells you to read other books has at least one redeeming feature. :)

- This thread is long. Let's see:

I agree with some of you. I disagree with some of you. Someone said 'Tolkien' when he meant C.S. Lewis, and someone else said 'C.S. Lewis (and wife)' when he meant David Eddings. I don't agree that Jane Austen's protagonists are vapid, and I do think her books include some of the best examples of understated humour in the English language.

That'll do. :)

[Casualgamer]

Dunno if anyone already said it, but anything by Anne Coulter should be read only for humorous purposes. Or perhaps shredded and used as tinder.

There is nothing that woman says that isn't offensive. She's in favor of racial profiling, forced conversion of Arab countries to Christianity along with their invasion and execution of leaders, and insists that anyone who doesn't agree with her is gay.

Oh yeah, she's a terrible writer. Plagarism ever two pages... outdated information... weak lines of logic, you name it, she's got it. What an idiot.

EDIT: I forgot to slam the Dark Tower series and Catcher in the Rye.

The Dark Tower Series: A Summary:

After and outstanding first book, Stephen King decides that he wants to write a book with a plot even HE doesn't know is going and mix this is the most bizzare circumstances and happenings that he tries to sell off as "artsy". Couple this with the worst ending ever, and we have a thoroughly disgusting mass of pseudo-literature.

Catcher in the Rye: A Summary:

HOLDEN CAULFIELD IS AN INFANTILE EMO. I GET THE POINT.

Geez, why does ANYONE like that book?! Teen angst my ass! It's a book that boils down to a characterization of a terrible character... and thus is a terrible book.

[Serakus_DeSardis]

Just out of curiosity SilveryCord, is that meant to be sarcastic, because if I recall correctly much of the series is spent saying 'Don't read these books". OR do you really jsut hate them? I mean, I wouldn't have called them classics of Childrens Literature, but they weren't bad.

About your view on Tolkien, Serakus, The Logic Ninja wrote a big post about why liking fantasy doesn't necessarily mean liking LotR even though he is the father. I'll see if I can find it.

Now that I read that it deals more with DnD than fantasy in gnereal but the point stands. Just because we like fantasy that came from Tolkien doesn't mean that we need to like him as an author. We can recognize him as the father of the genre without thinking that his books are particularly good.

I always say about Tolkien taht he has all the necessary talents of a great fantasy writer: cartographer, poet, linguist, historian, world-builder. HIs only fault was that he wasn't in fact a great writer.


I understand that stance to a point, but I'm not sure if I can swallow it myself. I found alot of his work to be interestign an entertaining. I loved the songs and poems.
I really think what Tolkien's works lacked wasn't neccesarily his skill as an author, but the skill of a good editor. In today's day, a book like his would see many revisions to make it more managable and easier to comprehend. I think the work just suffers from the lack of modern editing. (Fairly modern that is)

[LordOfNarf]

That's exactly what I thought when I saw that post...

On topic...all the books and authors associated with Dune except the original book - I haven't read all of it, but I've read enough...urgh!

Actually, If you can take six books straight of Frank Herbert's ...... Unique writing style, then the books he wrote are really good IMO, though some people say that messiah is the beggining of a long hill down, I will say that God emporor is moderately boring, and is the low point of the seires, bu tits all great.

However DO NOT read the bullstuff written by his son, its B puld ficton at best, he should be arested for mutilating his fathers work.

[Athanatos]

Lovecraft.

I'm going to write about a LARGE SQUID-THING. And you will be TERRIFIED.

[Tormsskull]

Oh man. So much hatred for authors.

I think Robert Joran and his Wheel of Time series is very good, though I do agree he seems to be dragging it out. I'm currently waiting for the next one in the series to come out.

The two books I have read by Dan Brown (Angel's & Demons and the DaVinici code) were both awesome, but that could be because I already knew about a lot of church corruption so they harmonized with me.

George R.R. Martin writes fantasitc books, though they are a bit dark, which I personally like. Reading his books keep me interested because I know that anything can happen to anyone at anytime.

R.A. Salvatore made famous Mr. Drizzt, he has a lot of loyal fans (me among them) and I liked his contributions to the Star Wars series as well.

Tolkien I respect highly, consider the father of modern fantasy, but quite frankly his writing style seems over-descriptive and a little on the boring side.

Anne Rice's vampire novels started off great (with Interview) and then descended into garbage. I got through Queen of the Damned, and I doubt I'll read another of her books unless there is absolutely nothing else out there.

[Athanatos]

I think Robert Joran and his Wheel of Time series is very good, though I do agree he seems to be dragging it out. I'm currently waiting for the next one in the series to come out.

I got plot spoilers for ya: You'll have to wait for the next book.


The two books I have read by Dan Brown (Angel's & Demons and the DaVinici code) were both awesome, but that could be because I already knew about a lot of church corruption so they harmonized with me.

Hah! Taking Da Vinci Code as anything else than light, fluffy entertainment is deluding themselves. Is there conspiracy within the Catholic Church? Of course. But Brown just takes it to a ridiculous level. E.G. The Priory of Sion is a known hoax invented by a pair of Frenchmen in the 1960s.


R.A. Salvatore made famous Mr. Drizzt

You say this as if it's a good thing.

[Shoemaker]

Ah! And I thought I was going the be the first person to bash Anne Coulter.

I agree with everything you said, Casualgamer. There's something seriously wrong with that woman.

I keep trying to force myself to choke down her screed, so's I can make fun of it...but I just can't do it.

I made it about 30 pagesw into Godless before i had to get rid of it and wash my eyes.

Robert Jordan: I agree entirely with hte consensus. The first three or four books were excellent. Then they started dragging, going downhill, and introducing swarms of minor characters that nobody is ever going to care about.

The pace of the novels has slowed to a painful crawl. But there's one more bbok to grow.

Terry Goodkind: I forced myself through Wizard's First Rule. And I couldn't read anything more of his unless I was paid. A lot.

Salvatore: Liked his early stuff. Then it just dissolved into repetition.

However, Tolkein and Shakespeare are some of my faves.

Also, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity hurt my brain with all their lies.

[Serpentine]

About your view on Tolkien, Serakus, The Logic Ninja wrote a big post about why liking fantasy doesn't necessarily mean liking LotR even though he is the father. I'll see if I can find it.

Now that I read that it deals more with DnD than fantasy in gnereal but the point stands. Just because we like fantasy that came from Tolkien doesn't mean that we need to like him as an author. We can recognize him as the father of the genre without thinking that his books are particularly good.
Uh, I think I said that. Hurrah, I'm read, quoted, paraphrased and interpreted! ^_^
Also, as I've mentioned repeatedly elsewhere, I get to do an assignment on aliens and how they built the pyramids. Okay, not just that, but anyways, I grabbed a mostly-relevant book I saw for sale, and mein Gott 'tis awful. Someone mentioned pages of plagiarism? This book has at least TEN PAGES (it's under a pile of crap at the moment so I can't check exactly how many) of a QUOTE of someone else's work! I mean really, that's just tragically lazy. Then, of course, there's the stupidity of the arguments ("The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids because no primative people could build something that big." THEY WEREN'T BLOODY PRIMATIVE). Oooo this is gonna be a fun assignment. Now to get all the smelly boring ones out of the way.

edit: I just realised I didn't say what the book was, so I dug it up. It's 'The Secret Forces of the Pyramides: The most fantastic occult puzzle of all time!' by Warren Smith. Also, I found that "quote". It goes for 13 pages and consists of a slab from a book called 'Isis Unveiled' by Madame Blavatsky, psychic.

[Democratus]

"Print is dead."
-Dr. Egon Spengler

[Casualgamer]

Ah! And I thought I was going the be the first person to bash Anne Coulter.

I agree with everything you said, Casualgamer. There's something seriously wrong with that woman.

I keep trying to force myself to choke down her screed, so's I can make fun of it...but I just can't do it.

I made it about 30 pagesw into Godless before i had to get rid of it and wash my eyes.


What stamina!

[Nostrabel]

Quite true

...
ub
..
deqodk
...
ab
...
WHAT!?!??!?!!!!?!?!??!!??!?

I admit he does ramble... but... but... but...


(A little tear falls)

I dislike Ernesto Sabato (from Argentina) and his novel "El tunel" (the tunnel)... I'll be back with more

[Herbert_West]

Lovecraft.
I'm going to write about a LARGE SQUID-THING. And you will be TERRIFIED.
mrph.
What about the Dream-Cycle?
Alright, Call of Cthulhu was a little out there. I thought it was very well written. It helps to think like the people who were reading it for the first time too. Nobody had ever written anything like that before.
And he was kinda crazy.

[Don Beegles]

Uh, I think I said that. Hurrah, I'm read, quoted, paraphrased and interpreted! ^_^
Also, as I've mentioned repeatedly elsewhere, I get to do an assignment on aliens and how they built the pyramids. Okay, not just that, but anyways, I grabbed a mostly-relevant book I saw for sale, and mein Gott 'tis awful. Someone mentioned pages of plagiarism? This book has at least TEN PAGES (it's under a pile of crap at the moment so I can't check exactly how many) of a QUOTE of someone else's work! I mean really, that's just tragically lazy. Then, of course, there's the stupidity of the arguments ("The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids because no primative people could build something that big." THEY WEREN'T BLOODY PRIMATIVE). Oooo this is gonna be a fun assignment. Now to get all the smelly boring ones out of the way.

edit: I just realised I didn't say what the book was, so I dug it up. It's 'The Secret Forces of the Pyramides: The most fantastic occult puzzle of all time!' by Warren Smith. Also, I found that "quote". It goes for 13 pages and consists of a slab from a book called 'Isis Unveiled' by Madame Blavatsky, psychic.

Ah, yup, I just checked and it was you. Sorry for the mistaken reference. TLN was the one who posted that poem by Tolkien because it doesn't 'scan like crap', which was amost exactly not waht you were trying to say.

[Serpentine]

'sallgood. I'm just glad I wrote something memorable and note-worthy ^_^

[Tormsskull]

Hah! Taking Da Vinci Code as anything else than light, fluffy entertainment is deluding themselves. Is there conspiracy within the Catholic Church? Of course. But Brown just takes it to a ridiculous level. E.G. The Priory of Sion is a known hoax invented by a pair of Frenchmen in the 1960s.

You say this as if it's a good thing.


Well, as far as the Priory of Sion, I won't get into it in detail, but remember that it is a fiction book, it wasn't supposed to be 100% reality. I said I liked the book because church corruption is something I knew about. If you believe a certain politician is corrupt, and someone publishes a book about that politician's (mis)deeds, you'd be more likely to read it, yes?

Dude, Drizzt is very cool. Other than people talking about him all the time, or players trying to imitate him, or whatnot, what do you dislike about him/the series?

[Serpentine]

I've been told he's all "angst angst angst, oh woe is me I'm a good drow how terribubble" but I haven't read any of his books, or any DnD books at all for that matter. Except possibly a choose-your-own-adventure thingy, and maybe Ravenloft? Does it keep featuring a vampire in his own little world you get through via mist? I kinda liked the couple of those books I read but I can't remember what they are. One had a depressed elven vampire.