Post what book/short story you absolutely loathe (preferably that you've read, but maybe not) and explain why you couldn't stand it.
 

~Jinx
 

Trouble is, I wanted to learn from it. OSC thought my scenes should be longer. May be . . . but not Stephen-King long!
 

Which pretty much covers why I hated it. I'm no cutthroat feminist, but that book set my teeth on edge.

I also dislike strongly the Philip Pullman series, which I understand is Major Mojo for young adults - but as a young adult, I threw it against the wall so hard I made a dent, and then set about erasing the details of what I disliked so thoroughly that I now remember only the sense of utter betrayal the book evoked in me. I gather the storyline cleverly "twists" a lot of YA stock material; apparently it twisted too hard for me.

And I developed a strong dislike of both Piers Anthony and L. Ron Hubbard at a young age because they used too many exclaimation points. (Which still annoys me. It's so damned condescending.) As I've aged I've developed both dislikes on more solid moral and craft-related grounds.

[This message has been edited by KatFeete (edited December 18, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by KatFeete (edited December 18, 2005).]
 

Also, any Robert Jordan books that have come out in the past 10 years have sucked horribly.
 

For instance, from what Kat says about Dextra, I wouldn't have gotten past the first sex/nekkid scene, and (again, going by what she says) that probably would have meant I put it down in less than five minutes.

I'm a sensitive sort, there are lots of things I just can't stand. But despite that, I find plenty of books I like a lot. So...I don't worry about it.
 

Lots of good bitching there, mainly about interminable high fantasy series like Robert Jordan's Waste of Time
 

It started out great, but just turned into a pointless sex-fest by the end. I kept reading simply because the book is so often highly praised. I figured it HAD to redeem itself by the end. It didn't.
 

I mean, the stupidest things happened. Since when teams on alien ships don't worry if one of them is missing?

'Oh, don't sweat it, we'll find her after the long creepy night ends. She'll be ok, so what if her radio isn't working. Maybe she pulled out the batteries and stuffed them into her IPod.'

Yeah, it was so unrealistic I stopped reading. Devoid of human emotions, to be precise.

MG
 

Two books come to mind. (1) "The Catcher in the Rye," which I had to read for school (never a good way to enjoy a book). I thought the lead character was an idiot studying to be a moron, his life problems didn't impress me, and the whole thing reeked of a descent into sordidness and stupidity. (2) "Finnegan's Wake," which I got partway into and it became the only book I've ever flung across a room (I was in the school library at the time, too). Unintelligible nonsense.

I suppose it's possible, if I picked them up today, they might have improved (or I've acquired the depth to appreciate them).
 

quote:

---

which I got partway into and it became the only book I've ever flung across a room

---

That sounds terribly satisfying. I'm going to have to try that some time.
 

I think that any writer needs to know what they dislike so that they can strive to do better. So once I started writing I have tried to read (and dissect) bad novels as well as good ones, so as to learn by others' mistakes.

Many bad works come to mind, some famous and overly hyped, others just bad. But the absolute worst one I can recall was The Scandalous Summer of Sissy Leblanc by the former television writer Loraine Despres.

How bad was it?

Let me give an example. I recall some years ago I played tennis with a serious player, a fellow who had played intercollegiate singles. Halfway through the match he threw down his racquet and stomped off the court saying I was so bad I had ruined his game forever. (He was a little bit overly dramatic.)

This novel was so bad I threw down my reading glasses and wept. I couldn't read for nearly a month after I finished it.

Seriously the story had one redeeming virtue. It was as readable back to front as front to back.

djvdakota, I must admit you're right. I have never quite understood why such a great writer as RAH liked to write such bizarre endings for his adult stories.

Robert Nowall, Add Tropic of Cancer and you have a trio of critically acclaimed stories which defy rational thought.

[This message has been edited by keldon02 (edited December 19, 2005).]
 

I agree about the ending of Stranger in a Strange Land. But I loved the first half of the book so much, I took the ending in stride. I looked at it as a display of why Martian philosophy and human physiology don't mix well in practice--people take to lounging about and having random sex. Now, some might call this the human race actually getting things right, but really. Such a group couldn't survive without leeching off of those who actually work. No wonder everyone else revolted against them! (And no, I don't think that's the message Heinlein was going for--we're supposed to be on Michael's side I think--but it just didn't work for me.)

I say the book I dislike most that I actually finished reading would be Marian Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon. That book has got to be the strangest I've ever read in the following respect: First of all, the only reason I read through the whole thing is because a friend begged me to, and since she indulged me enough to read one of my favorite books, I agreed. Despite the fact that it was the most god-awful boring book I'd ever struggled through, not counting LotR. (No offense, LotR was a great concept, but it was written like a history text, not a story!) If you want hundreds of pages of women plotting against eachother a bit, but mostly reminiscing about their youth and looking at their sagging breasts, then by all means pick this paperweight up and have at it.

But here's the strange part--I almost cried when I put it down. I don't know how, but despite its sheer dullness, I actually got to know these characters. Seeing their downfall (or at least, their end) was like having a friend move away or die or something. Granted, had it not been for the pressure of my own friend I would never have read enough to reach the point of caring for these women, but there you have it. I just couldn't believe it when my stomach started fluttering and my eyes started burning a little. I thought I must be crazy.
 

[This message has been edited by Smaug (edited December 20, 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Its a short story that my class read in lit a long time ago called 'The Most Dangerous Game'

---

I liked that story. Of course I read it in junior high school or high school 25 or more years ago. I don't think it was quite as unfresh at the time. I'll have to reread it. I often think it would be fun to go through and critique some stories that have been included in lit anthologies over the years.

Another book that I couldn't stand was called The Last Ship by William Brinkley. Here is just a sampling from the first page of the book: "The words needed little more than whispers in the undivided quiescence that reigned everywhere. I stepped out on the starboard bridge wing, the ship brought now line abreast to the land. Not a breath of wind stirred the morning. The last stars paled in the sky, the silent waters stretched away in a vast mirror, glittering in the oncoming sunlight, bringing with it the softened sky of the low latitudes, sea and sky so deliquescing into one that I would have had difficulty taking a sextant bearing, making a horizon.

The book goes on and on in his wordy and unintelligible banter for pages at a time. I haven't ever finished it, even though my dad recommended it. I'd better finish it so I don't hurt his feelings, but it will hurt me deeply to do so.

[This message has been edited by Smaug (edited December 20, 2005).]
 

Did anyone else have this problem with POLARIS?
 

And keldon02, I've never read "Tropic of Cancer," though naturally I've heard a lot about it over the years. Also, a lot of Heinlein's later works (any novel after "Stranger in a Strange Land") were what one would call "difficult reads," so it's hardly surprising people would have trouble with some of them. As I also say elsewhere, start somewhere else...and if you do get Heinlein fever you'll want to look into the others...
 

What I couldn't stand was the main characters mantras: "I'm not worthy".... "I can't use my power because <enter another lame excuse here>"... "I can't make a decision or act because my hand is stuck to my forehead in the shape of an 'L' ..."

That is the only book series I have ever thrown in the trash after I had finished reading it.

 

The conversations between the MC and his wife are always verging on ridiculous. I think they're supposed to be funny, but I just found them sickeningly stupid.

The premise of the story is that the MC's grandfather predicts 5 horrendous days in the future that will affect the MC. In actual fact, there is absolutely no reason for this stupid plot wrapper, apart from to put the story in the category of having an almost supernatural theme instead of thriller. But, there is just no reason for the plot device, at all. And it is never explained how come the grandfather had the predictions in the first place.

After you read about the events of the first prediction, you can most likely predict the theme of the others. Also, one or 2 of the dates of the predictions are off anyway, and so the events come a few days before they were expected. Which in my view deems the plot device redundant yet again. All that it seems to serve is to add a bit of suspense / foreboding. But not adding to the story.

The MC is described as being a clumsy lummox, but this is never shown in the story. It's just told to us now and again so that Koontz can show us that this guy has some kind of weird character trait.

I thought the book was awful, and has put me off reading another Koontz book ever again. However, there are several folks on Amazon that disagree with me. Strangely, my 1 star review of the book on that site was never published.

Plus - anyone ever notice how most of the book reviews start out with the reviewer revealing how quick a reader they are --

"I read this on a 4 hour business trip on the plane..."

"I read this in a couple of nights, couldn't put it down...."

Thanks, right, Yawn - just tell us your misinformed impression of the books will you.

How about David Eddings? I liked the Belgariad books, but then he tries to tell the same story again with the Mallorean! He even rationalizes it into the plot. There's a friggin' REASON for him to tell the same story twice featuring nearly the same characters in nearly the same situation. The gall!
 

Browns site says this about the priory “hints at a shocking historical secret which allegedly has been guarded since 1099 by a European secret society known as the Priory of Sion.” No matter that it really was founded in the 1950's in france by a politcal radical. Who's founder admitted to it's fabrication and that it has been proven more than once to be a complete hoax. And yet the Priory of Sion was a central element in the plot and logic (so to speak) of The Da Vinci Code.

And right in the front of that book it states that the Priory of Sion was a real society blah blah blah.

I hated that book, he tried to make people with beliefs feel belittled, like he was laughing behind his hand at anyone who may have thought differently. Talk about an author that betrays his readership.
One hint to authors of fiction, don't right fiction and then claim it is true after all.

Also, I have to agree with the post about Thomas Covenant the Unbeleiver. But I also hate it because finally when he starts to actually use his powers, finally when things are starting to work out, right at the end, and after all that other stupid crap you had to go through, He kills the main character. It was pure Crap.

[This message has been edited by eclectic skeptic (edited December 21, 2005).]
 

Sad. It doesn't say much for LDS readers, does it?

I wonder what Deseret Book publishers would do if a truly talented LDS writer dropped a manuscript on their desk. It seems all the really talented LDS authors publish elsewhere.

As you say, it has its problems, though the storyline itself isn't it one of them, IMHO. As I've been reading it though, I'm finding that I too could've written it--at least I think I could and without as many of what I'd call mistakes. But guess what? I didn't write it, and kudos to the man who did and made some serious cash off of it.
Part of being a writer is seeing a project through to its end and he did that. There are some fine LDS writers out there, but one of the problems I see is that they get too close to boundaries, and major LDS publishers don't want to risk that. Then, the writer is stuck with a book with no market. And you have to look at it this way, if any writer has the talent, they want to go mainstream. That's really the only way to make a living at it.

[This message has been edited by Smaug (edited December 22, 2005).]
 

[This message has been edited by keldon02 (edited December 23, 2005).]
 

Like anyone who will call themselves a writer, I HATE Jordan's Wheel of Time cashcow of paperpulp and ink.

For completely different reasons, I have nothing but contempt for Laurell K Hamilton and her treatment of a woman's sexuality in both of her series. Anyone who removes the williness to have sex from a woman by making it a neccesity is condoning a form of rape.
 

My least favorite book of all time was Rama II. The first half of the book was overwhelmingly boring. I could care less about the politics of doing the space flight, and the characters doing whatever on earth. Get to Rama, for crying out loud. Build the characters through their actions on the flight to Rama and when they get there. I litterally skipped reading entire chapters of that book, and to this day I do not regret it.
 

In short, it sucked. I've found more excitement reading my Jeep Owner's Manual.

Another one that I got thuroughly bored with was The Silmarillion. I thought it would be neat to read the backstory and history to Tolkien's middle-earth. I was wrong.

And Piers Anthony is okay, but he seems obsessed with every one of his character getting laid. It's almost formulaic: Joe Nobody finds himself in wierd situation, meets girl somebody, bangs her, then saves the day.

And I used to love Robert Asprin. But I recently picked up another book and after reading it was struck with the painful realization that I loved Asprin when I was 12.

I'm not 12 anymore.

I DO like Koontz, but I have noticed he has a very annoying tendency to spell out for me every single thing that I already know. It drives me nuts. He could cut a 100 pages from "Strangers" if he would drop the obvious and let me just enjoy an otherwise outstanding story....

Z
 

There is one other relatively large publisher, Covenant. A third publisher that was a bit "edgier", Signature, went under a couple of years ago.

My attitude is that if the book is good apart from appealing to an LDS audience, I'll have to take my chances with non-LDS publishers.
 

My biggest issue is the repetition. The author will repeat the same thing in three consecutive sentences, changing the wording minutely. There was a part in the book where the main character (Brian, I think) encounters a bear. I'm not entirely sure if the repetition occurs here or not, but seeing as it happens almost every few sentences, I am fairly sure it does. Assuming the repetition does occur here, this is what the paragraph would contain.

"Brian was scared of the bear. It was very scary. The bear made him very scared. He was afraid of what the bear would do, it was so scary."

I mean, it wouldn't sound exactly like that, but it would not be dissimilar. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, however you think about this book) I don't have on hand to provide you with an exact quote, but I don't know how easy it would be for me to look through it to find one. That book holds horrible memories for me. ~shivers~

If only I could have joined those in this forum who have flung horrible books across the room. Probably would have gotten me suspended.
 

It bothers me when people despise books for being "immoral" or "insulting." If Dan Brown's cardboard characters were the problem, then maybe that's a valid criticism of the book . . . but if it's just his ideas about Christianity that bother you (the same goes for Phillip Pullman's trilogy) then is that really a fair artistic judgment? If promiscuous sex or rampant sacreligion bother you, don't read about them, of course, but can a book really be faulted for presenting either?

As one poster pointed out, even though a book might have flaws, it did get published, while the books of many people here have not been. It just seems ignorant to me when people bash accepted classics like The Catcher in the Rye for trivial reasons. If you are personally annoyed with Holden's ideas, that's your perogative, but the book is still widely read and discussed. It's obviously meaningful to a lot of people.

And heck, what about sheer entertainment value? If Robert Jordan's repetitive subplots help some people unwind after a hard day, why fault the work? Back to Dan Brown--if some people just want a thriller, or something to shake up longheld beliefs, then what do characterization or symbolism really matter? I believe that no book is completely pointless or without value, and that books are all equal the same way an orange is no beteter than a chair. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, but they are serving different purposes, so it's silly to criticize either.
 

It is my impression that many participants on these forums expect authors to adhere to their moral preferences; I am not sure how widespread that expectation is beyond these boards. Personally, I find it far more interesting when authors do not simply affirm my own world view, but explore territory that I am not so familiar with.

To each their own; it's a big world, with lots of books in it.

quote:

---

I thought the Da Vinci Code was appalling. Clumsy writing, cardboard characters, implausible plot twists, stupid stupid stupid bad awful horrible writing, but I coudln't put the damn thing down. Still pisses me off.

---

I'm still trying to decide whether it was an Idea story Milieu story, probably Idea, but it sure as hell wasn't a character story. They only needed to be cardboard characters. Plus, you can't call it stupid stupid stupid bad awful horibble writing AND claim to have not been able to put it down. Now that's appaling!
 

I completely agree that it's appalling that I hated everything about DVD but could not put it down. Completely.

 

I may read something and then never read it again because it really didn't strike a chord with me but that doesn't mean I hate it.

As long as you take something useful away from what you read you have enjoyed the writing.

Best,

Nevyan
 

There are no sentences like this in HATCHET. Not even close. Paulson may have been channeling Hemingway, but he writes better than that.

Fourth grade? That's probably too young for the book.
 

". . . and he heard a noise to his rear, a slight noise, and he turned and saw the bear.

He could do nothing, think nothing. His tongue, stained with berry juice, stuck to the roof of his mouth and he stared at the bear. It was black, with a cinnamon-colored nose, not twenty feet from him and big. No, huge. It was all black fur and huge."

etc. I can see a little repetition, but certainly not "The bear was very scary. The bear made him very scared."
 

I started reading Eldest and was growing bored until the book switchs POV to Eragon's stepbrother, Roran. Now usually this is where people are turned off because their hero's story is cut off by some subplot that becomes part of the main plot. However, in this instance, the problem was reversed. Roran was a fully developed character capable of greater emotions than Eragon, a more pressing story followed him, and Roran seemed to have more flow. By flow, I mean Eragon's actions did more "touching base" than anything. For example, Eragon's growing up is shown by his animal lust for some good-looking witch, which just felt like Paolini got lazy. So every other chapter, a switch occurs in POV and rather than building suspense for both sections, Paolini made me only want to arrive at Roran's story and then trudge through the ridiculous tale of Eragon.

Now overall, I hate Christopher Paolini. Not because of his writing, but because of who he is. He gives all young writers a horrible person to aspire to because he is the geekiest human being I have ever heard of. He actually admits in a Time magazine interview he spends all his time alone in the mountains, hates people, cares little for the opposite or same sex(I frankly don't care if he is gay, but I want to see an author who takes an interest in something), and has poor hygiene, which I gather by his photograph. Schoolkids are going to think that as long as they can write, they can be disgusting introverts.
 

Mystic, perhaps consciously, has hit on the fundamental problem some people are going to have with a book like Hatchet. It relies heavily on the "natural" response to the story of an isolated human surviving in an untamed wilderness. But there are a lot of humans with little experience of anything wild and thus no appreciation of it. And such are unlikely to appreciate the story. To them, wildness is something distasteful, a matter of poor hygiene and anti-social behavior.

For those who have encountered the wild, such a story is entirely different. Which is just to say, different strokes for different folks.
 

We try for a good hook in the first thirteen lines but James Joyce couldn't hook me in 360 pages. If James Joyce had Hatrack available, he could have spent time on Fragments and Feedback for critiques that would have helped him hone his skills. :-)

[This message has been edited by Calligrapher (edited December 29, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Calligrapher (edited December 30, 2005).]
 

Donladsons first book Lord Foul's Bane is one of the few books to make me actually toss it down in disgust, not just once, but each and EVERY time I tried to read it. I've tried to read this book at least 5 times and each time as I got to page 62, or maybe 67 (in the paperback) where he rapes the young women that helps him, I've tossed the book down and said never again. Congratulations to Donaldson for creating such an irredeamable character that I have NO interest in reading more. Something about the combination of no moral compass and constant whining made this character dead in my opinion.

Imagine my surprise when I scrolled down further and saw the post regarding PAolini's Eldest...I at first was shocked since Eldest was a FAR better book that Eragon. After reading the complaint it made more since. Eragon is Star Wars with Dragon riding Jedi, Eldest breaks out of that mold, but in the process the main character, which was only mildly interesting to begin with becomes even more of a caracature. The main characters cousin Roran though is engaging and interesting and honestly the only part of the book worth reading. I hope it is indicative of what Paolini is capable of.

Jordan has a similar problem in his WOT books, in that the Rand story has become boring and the Mat and Perrin stories have become engaging, and in the last book (Knife of Dreams) Egwenes story actually becomes pretty interesting.

 

Oh, and I remember now that coincedentally, Paolini's parents are publishers & just happen to own the company that published Eragon.

Just goes to show--it's not always what you know...
 

First, I've remembered another book: Pyromancer. I got all excited when I saw it in a used book store I'd wandered into, and promptly paid the four-something for it. When I got home, I read twenty or so pages of a world that would make Walt Disney sick (everything spoke and moved! Furniture, eating utensils, lamps. . .) and I put it on my bookshelf and never picked it up again.

Second: I'd hate to correct you, benskia, but although Paolini's parents own a self-publishing company, that's only part of the reason for his success.

After printing up his own books, he took them on tours across the country (at book faris, schools, et cetera), and sold enough that Knopf got interested, and picked it up.

So he must have had some skill.
 

I enjoyed E. E. "Doc" Smith's "Lensman" series when I first read it...then picked up a reprint of "Triplanetary," Vol. One in the series awhile ago, and---well, it wasn't anything to write home about. I'm aware of its importance in the Scheme of Things Science Fictional, but I guess I have less tolerance for Smith's handling of dialog and character than I did way back when. (I'd hoped to pick up others in the series as they were reprinted (as I recall, the meat of the series lies elsewhere, in volumes three through six) but, to my knowledge, they have yet to come out.)
 

I also hate the short story "Contents of the Dead Man's Pockets," for being badly written, having a contrieved plot, and a character who's realistic for .5 sentences.
 

Salvatore's Dark Elf books were awful. I found the main character initially interesting, but everything else was cookie-cutter fantasy with far too many endless sword fights described in excruciating detail.
 

quote:

---

Salvatore's Dark Elf books were awful. I found the main character initially interesting, but everything else was cookie-cutter fantasy...

---

Keep in mind that Salvatore's fiction is "cookie-cutter fantasy" in the same way that some people dismiss Tolkien. It's only "cookie cutter" because we have seen so many people imitating him.

Salvatore MADE the cookie cutter, when it came to the concept of dark elves. His books about Drizz't were unique when they were first published. Like you, I favored the first few books but tired of the series after awhile. It became far too graphically violent for my tastes. But that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge Salvatore's contribution to fantasy.

[This message has been edited by Elan (edited December 31, 2005).]
 

Rand's characters have this tendency to whip out the old soap box, time and time again. Granted, the purpose of the book was for Rand to expound her philosophies. I expected some of this. But these speeches go on, literally, for dozens of pages at a time. In a single quote!

And they all sound exactly the same. Her intriguing alternate-history setting would dissolve, leaving only Rand herself lecturing directly to the reader. Yawn!

And I do mean "yawn" in the painfully literal sense. Painful, because I like to read most when I go to bed and I'm about to fall asleep. The combination of sheer mass and boredom made for a dangerous reading experience. More than once, the book slipped from my unconscious fingers and rudely slapped me upside the head. If that's not a clear indication that the book has problems, I'm not sure what is.

Rand could have told the same story in about 1/50th as many words, for a much more riveting experience. I'm sympathetic to her philosophies somewhat, but I found myself dreading the nightly reading. I forced myself to finish it, rewarding myself with a stack of dusty old Asimovs afterward.
 

However, after book 124 I stopped caring. TSR needs to move on.

I hated Atlas Shrugged when I read it, but in hindsight I'm glad I did. Her philosophy has made me far less...how to put it? Hippy-ish?
 

I also didn't like:
David Eddings (a trilogy...something about a throne in the title)
Ice Nine by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Everything I read by Gregory Benford (too into the science not enough into plot and character)
Song of Fire and Ice by George R. R. Martin (my husband actually likes this...one of our few points of disagreement when it comes to literary matters)

Books I couldn't finish:
--the Thomas Covenant series
--The Camber of Culdi series
--The Shanara series
--David Eddings everything
--The last couple of books by James Michner (although I did plug through Hawaii, Centennial and some book about Alaska)
--Some book about Robin Hood by an author who couldn't have the MC move without having him run his fingers through his long locks... after the twentieth rendition I was ready to upchuck
--The seventh prequel book to Dune by Brian Herbert
--The last couple of books of the Dune series by Frank Herbert
--The last two books of the Clan of the Cavebear/Earth Children series
--anything by Ursula LeGuin
--The Silmarillion
--The last couple of books of the Narnia series
--Anything after the first book of the Robert Jordan "Waste Of Time" series

I read a lot of Edgar Rice Burroughs as a boy. Then put him down when I was a teenager, discovering Asimov and then OSC. The first time I picked up a Tarzan novel after becoming an adult I couldn't believe how terrible the writing was.

Same thing with Thomas Covenant series. I read these when I was in Jr. High, early High School. I attempted a second read a few years ago and couldn't believe what I was reading. Great story, terrible execution.

A more recent book that I can't stand is the final installation to King's 'Dark Tower' series. The constant reader deserved better. Roland deserved better. Ka indeed. Ka-ka is more like it.
 

The Baroque Cycle is a very difficult read, but it is worth the investment, you just need to struggle past the first 1/3 of the first book and the story picks up.

Quicksilver, Confusion and System of the World are really good examples of 2 books, fused together. The 2 stories are very different. The Daniel Waterhouse story is very hard to read, the Jack Shaftoe story is the opposite.
 

But then, that's probably how some felt about books I detest.
 

The only book I've read all the way through that I hate is The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. This shocked me because I loved Of Mice and Men, but I despised Grapes for the characters in the family. Nearly all of them had some despicable characteristics--the only one I liked was the mentally retarded brother, and he disappeared halfway through the book. The interlude chapters between the family story were more interesting, but they so rarely had anything to do with the main plot other than backstory.
 

Not that I couldn't stand it (some parts are actually quite fascinating), I could just never finish it.
 

There are many reasons for not being able to finish a book, and hating it is only one of them.

So I don't know if you could count the Bible in this case.
 

And yet another reason for putting down a book...I just started "American Gods" but had to put it down for a semi-complex reason. I "read" my books on tape or in large print. (For those who don't know, I'm legally blind.) In this case, it was on tape, and the use of the "F" word a dozen times in the first ten minutes forced me to send it back to the library unfinished. I am not personally offended by the cussing, but I have this new baby and the rules of the game have changed. There are many movies I will not be able to watch for many years now, either.

Unfortunately, getting scifi or fantasy books in large print is almost impossible, and this case is no exception. There are always headphones, but then I can't get up and move around and besides, he's getting into his grabby stage. I don't think they'd stay in my ears very long.

I've also put down books because something better to read came along and I couldn't wait to read the second book. Usually, I get back to the first but in a few cases I have not, especially when the beginning was slow as in the case of Ringworld by Larry Niven. (Niven?...I think that's right) I started reading it, Harry Potter 6 came out, I put it down and failed to pick it up again the next week. Oh well. I guess that goes to show the importance of a good, memorable hook.

Re: Quicksilver. 1/3 of the book is over 300 pages! Sigh...I'll think about it. Meanwhile, I moved on to another book.

[This message has been edited by Christine (edited January 05, 2006).]