A book I'm thinking of in particular is Bill Baldwin's The Helmsman, which is part of a space-opera-ish sci-fi series. Parts of it I thought were fine, but the dialogue was abyssmal. Killed the book for me.
What do you guys think?
See that post for details.
(I read it as a school assignment---nothing kills a kid's interest in a book faster than being required to read it. I remember only two things out of "Anna Karenina," and two things out of "The Old Man and the Sea," for example. But I don't view them with disdain.)
(P.S. the preachy thing doesn't bother me that much. They lecture overly much on right and wrong ect. for many books, but it bothers a lot of other reviewers more than me. Just thought I'd point that out though)
Then, much to my utter dismay, I realized that a large part of the fantasy that is out right now has all that sort of trash in it. And then I got to thinking, is this what the publishers think we fantasy fans want to read? Overly disgusting violence and smut all over the place?
I know there are, sadly enough, some people that enjoy that, but come on! There are those of us who don't want to read that stuff! What happened to "good, clean" fantasy like LoTR, The Chronicles of Narnia, etc, etc? Don't get me wrong, I have read some fantastic fantasy novels lately that were for the most part free of "objectionable content," but for every one of those, there are about two, maybe three, maybe more, fantasies filled with crap (for a lack of a better word).
It disgusts me, it really does, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it besides writing my own novels that counter those. I know that the authors that write those books are perfectly allowed to, but still! My word! Some of the stuff that goes on...
Not only that, but they're more often than not horribly written as well, with clichéd plots, uninteresting, stereotypical characters, and awful, awful dialog. Where did all the good fantasy novelists go, I wonder?
Okay...okay. I'm done ranting now.
BUT, having a really bad guy telling the story can work. The first half or so of the Mission Earth books by L. Ron Hubbard is told from the perspective of a totally evil man, but it works (mainly because he loses and loses and loses and we like it). I think the problem is when there are no sympathetic characters in the story to care about.
I stopped watching Seinfeld when George's fiance died licking all those cheap envelopes and got poisoned. The characters reacted so awfully that I didn't like any of them anymore.
I restored my faith in the possibility that not all fantasy being published now is generic and intended for lowest-common-denominator readers.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited October 21, 2005).]
It's early. Chances are, though, that, sooner or later, someone will bring up a book that means the world to someone else.
In my Internet Fan Fiction period, I read a lot of stuff that struck me as "hold-your-nose" bad. Plenty of good, but a lot bad. (Only slushpile readers have read more and worse than me, I suspect.) I'd rather not name names...but in nearly every example that showed up on my screen, I found something interesting or worthwhile, sometimes even fascinatingly so. It kept me going quite a ways.
The critic Edmund Wilson once said something along these lines: No matter how awful some work or some type of work may seem to us, if somebody finds value in it, we must take them at their word. (You wouldn't know it from his review of "The Lord of the Rings," but he once argued for that position as I've misquoted it.)
[This message has been edited by Leaf II (edited October 21, 2005).]
I'll be sure to check it out.
Stephen King: Hearts in Atlantis. Brilliant book, one of his best.
A few years later he brings out Dreamcatcher, which is a complete turd of a book.
Another Stephen, this time British SF author Baxter. Raft, his debut novel. Stunning. The best movie I've ever read. CGI was invented in order to bring this book to the silver screen. But, again, the same author later did Voyage, an utter turgid novel cry-babying about how we could have gone to Mars in the mid '80s. Whatever. Gave up after 200 pages. Talk about dead prose, man, but it made '39 Steps' look like the pinacle of literature!
Hey, I got another one? What about guilty pleasures? Books you know you shouldn't like and are otherwise embarrassed to admit that you do?
I'll go first:
Chick-lit -
- I simply love Jane Green and Lisa Jewell.
Also -
Piers Anthony's Bio of a Space Tyrant. *shrug* What can I? I really liked it... 
"The Inheritors": I didn't buy into his portrait of Neanderthan Man. I don't think something that stupid would have lasted long enough to get to that point, whether Homer Sapiens was on the scene or not.
"Lord of the Flies": again, something I didn't buy into. If a gang of [British] schoolkids were trapped on an island, I'm not so sure the descent into barbarism would've been inevitable...and if they did, I don't think they'd've developed the rites and rituals in the manner they did.
(My memory is hazy in the details...it was, mmm, close to thirty years ago when I read them. But my dislike of them remains with me.)
Lets see... nearly anything published by TSR usually stinks it up pretty bad (I used to like R. A. Salvatore, but after 9087 Drizzt books, it got a little lame).
Any of the Rama books after the first one were horrible. ACC should be ashamed!
In school we had to read Margaret Atwood (growing up in Canada isn't all good ). She is a man-hater, and as such, her books suffer for it. Handmaiden's Tale was a joke.
Huxley's "Brave New World" sucked, I thought. 1984 is a vastly superior distopian novel. Huxley was so caught up in that drug nonsense, it bogged down his book.
Jordan's last 345 books have all sucked. The first 3 WoT books were good, but now they are horrible.
Anywho, that's all for now.
Ronnie
Cat's Eye and the The Robber Bride were terrific!!
True, I also had a problem with The Handmaid's Tale as it had none of her razor-sharp humor. (Actually, it had no humor at all, which made it a very dull read.)
Her volume of stories Wilderness Tips is one of the best collections I've read -
- and her latest novel, Oryx & Crake, is one of the funniest science fiction novels I've read. Yes, that's right, it's SF (though both she and her publishers would vehemently deny that!) It was criminally ignored by the SF community which, bizarrely, had fawned over her much earlier and inferior SF novel, the aforementioned The Handmaid's Tale.
Totally agree about the 'Rama' sequels - cringingly bad! The last volume ought to have been titled Rama Vaguely Hinted At.
Also his 'novel' The Hammer of God. As the critic John Clute pointed out is was more a collection of notes-towards-a-novel than an actual novel itself. Besides, the 'hammer' never fell. Should have been called A Slap on the Wrist from God.
[This message has been edited by Paul-girtbooks (edited October 24, 2005).]
I started Handmaid's Tale but managed to mislay it somehow. I will Get Around To It someday.
In general enjoy Atwood - "manhater" or no. I particularly like her response to an interview question. She waas asked why her main characters tended to get killed. Her
answer was along the lines of "the story isn't over until everyone in it is dead".
As for books that suck - well, the only book in the last ten years that I've thrown away because it was so bad as "Magic", by Tami Hoag. The POV bounced back and forth between the two protagonists about seven times in succession, sentence by sentence, and that, coupled with cliched description and what looked like it was going to be an utterly obvious plot, actually made me physically throw the book away.
Going further back, I recall reading one of L E Modesitt's "Recluce" stories (I can't remember which - I think it was the first published over here). The back cover went on about the fantastic and innovative approach to magic, and the detailed writing. The "fantastic and innovative" approach seemed to be that chaos/black magic was actually "good" and order/white magic was actually "evil". Well, you could have knocked me down with a battering-ram. And the detailed writing mostly appeared to be about the main character selling an inordinate number of chopping-boards at markets. I like detail and verisimilitude in my fantasy, but, really...
I literally cringed when I saw him writing those sequels for Dune. As much as I loved that series I couldn't bring myself to even read the cover.
I'm not sure I can put my finger on why he's bad (and it's been awhile so he might be better). He writes a lot of fan fiction that gets published somehow. For that one Star Wars trilogy he wrote, the climax happened, like, in the middle of the second book! Maybe he can't structure a story. It was kinda shallow too, if I remember right.
Still, it may be a better book to teach than read. There's lots to talk about. I can understand the problems some folks have with the book. Technically its SF too, ya know.
Compare that to the elegant and careful use of the moon in "Lord of the Rings"...
I just rememberd another book I though was rotten, (this one will get me lynched here, I just know it).
Ready?
Here goes!
RINGWORLD. For all the talk of Niven as a great writer, I say "Ba-Humbug!" Niven had an awesome IDEA, but his execution of that idea was mind-numbing. His characters were horrible, as was the overall story. Niven had a good idea, but not a good novel.
Contrast this to the wonderful Kim Stanley Robinson (not including the dreadful "Martians"). The Red / Green / Blue Mars books were superb. Robinson is super-intelligent (like Niven) and can convey ideas and stories in a very well thought out way (unlike Niven).
Which Asimov story was it, where there was a secret, super-important document which turned out to be the Declaration of Independence? THat was a pretty crummy story as well.
Now, lets hear it! Tell me how wrong I am!
Ronnie
[This message has been edited by rcorporon (edited October 24, 2005).]
Oh, and the Asimov novel is "The Stars, Like Dust---" His second novel. He had to rewrite and start over several times at (book) editorial direction---then add that bit (was it the Declaration or the Constitution?) at further (magazine) editorial request. In Asimov's memoirs, he mentions the novel as his least favorite because of all this.
--Mel
I can't believe I just did that. I love Harry Potter. But I'm angry. I feel cheated.
I've gotten several friends (including my girlfriend) into the Potter books. What I loved about them is that they reminded me of why I loved reading in the first place. I rediscovered the joy of reading! You find yourself smiling all the way through them, such a pleaure are they to read -
- and then along comes 'Order of the Phoenix'...
Sure, it came out, like, three years ago or something, but there was other stuff I wanted to read and I was kinda saving it up.
So this summer I began reading it aloud in bed to my girlfriend, who had already read it, late in the evenings before we would both settle down for the night.
This little routine went on for several weeks. Eventually I stopped just over half-way through it.
Why?
I was bored. It sucked. Nothing happens! And to think, I thought Baxter's novel 'Voyage' was turgid!
The problem is that 'Phoenix' has no central storyline, no place toward which it moves: no philosopher's stone to be retrieved, no chamber of secrets to be discovered or triwizard tournament to conquer. No nothing! Just a series of snippets, vignettes. A patchwork quilt of nitpicking little incidents. Dozens of them - hundreds!
In the UK the b-format edition is over 760 pages. I quit around 425. The UK mass-market pocket paperback edition is 930 pages.
Come on!
Who on earth writes a 930 page children's book in which nothing terribly involving happens for over 400 pages!
If Rowling had only been moderately successful then there is no way her publishers would have allowed her to release such a leviathan.
The whole Potter phenomenon started to gather momentum between books 3 and 4. It's no coincidence, then, that the first three were relatively short. Book 4's length didn't bother me, precisely because the book had a central storyline.
Where's the story in 'Phoenix'?
The whole thing cries out Editors, people! Editors, please! Quickly!! Chop, chop!!!
[This message has been edited by Paul-girtbooks (edited November 10, 2005).]
This one dragged for me for the first half, then kinda picked up in the last 3 chapters.
Like a Jordan novel .
Ronnie
And Left Behind. Blah! Yuck! and shame, shame, shame! I didn't get past book two. Very sad. What a waist of trees. But a great example of marketing.
Try to look at it as if it were either (a) a new book without a rep or famous author, or (b) part of a series that hasn't gotten near the attention.
But to give Rowling the benefit of the doubt, the first novel had to be considered as part of a series. That first chapter might have some bearing on the rest of it.
Does it?
The Matrix Trilogy.
Nevermind that the acting was so horrible; the writers hardly had any control over that. I am convinced that, had the casting agent gotten the best actors on the planet (which is FAR from the truth), they still would have looked horrible, because the dialogue was SO bad. There isn't a believable line of dialogue in the entire trilogy. From Morpheus's ridiculously overwrought speeches to Neo's horribly stilted lines (which may have at least something to do with Keanu Reeves, but the lines themselves are also bad). Mix that in with all the incomprehensible technobabble (did anyone know what the hell the architect was talking about in part 2?), and you've got terrible dialogue which leads to completely unbelievable characters. The bad writing does much more to harm the believability of the characters than the fact that they can fly and dodge bullets.
That being said, the premise of the movies was cool enough and the special effects interesting enough to make them good movies.
It's true about book 5 though. It really lags out until Harry finally arrives at the school something like 300-400 pages in.
As for book 6. Personally I found it to be a page turner. I think I finished it in 2 days.
I've read through the first 5-6 of the Sword of Truth books by Terry Goodkind, and while in general I tend to enjoy them, I almost stopped dead in the series in (book 4 was it?) The Soul of Fire. The problem that was at least half of the book, (and a good chunk of the beginning. Perhaps the first third of the book) takes place in a region we haven't seen before as readers yet, with completely new characters, and a new POV character that, frankly, was boring. It takes probably 300-400 pages before the reader gets any indication how this has ANYTHING to do with the story of our main heros.
And the real annoying thing is, that when all is said and done, it doesn't really matter. Honestly, I think you could take out this new POV character (Fitch for those who've read it) and in the end, not a whole lot would change from our main characters' perspectives.
I was slightly dissapointed with a later book The Pillars of Creation for the same reason, the ENTIRE book (minus maybe the last 100 pages) was about a new character. The difference was that I liked this character. The character you knew from the beginning would end up mattering to our heros, and she does. So once I stopped expecting the next chapter to start back with my old familiar heros and really got into hearing this new character's story, it was a good book.
But in general, I find that approach very annoying. I don't read, "The Story of John the Wizard - book 8" to find out what happens to someone I've never heard of for 800 pages and then at the end have them meet John. I read book 8 because I want to find out what happens to my old friend, the hero, after the conclusion of book 7, and after an entire novel of reading, I still don't have an answer for that.
First of all, I have to say that at one time I recommended The Sword of Truth series to every fantasy reader I knew. I never considered it particularly well-written (in fact, Goodkind's writing sometimes makes me cringe), nor did I find the storylines very engaging or original, but I had just fallen in love with the characters and, to me, that made the books worth reading.
I'd still recommend the first four books (Soul of the Fire was actually the fifth book, AstroStewart) to fantasy readers, but beyond that, I think the series has just fallen apart. Richard and Zedd were my two favorite characters in the series, and in the later books you very rarely get to see them, let alone get any information from their POV. Plus, Richard has become a pretentious jackass who is more inclined to preach for pages at a time, as Leaf II made note of, than actually do something.
And it's not just Richard anymore...it's as if Goodkind himself feels like he has such elaborate ideas that he has to explain, in detail, EVERYTHING to his readers (then clarify, then re-explain, then, just to be sure, tell them one more time). I really can't even think of any specific examples, but it has made me stop dead in the middle (actually, a little closer to the beginning) of Chainfire. I honestly don't know if I'm going to be able to finish this book.
In addition to all this, nothing ever happens. It's been the same villain for...what? Eight books now? And the man is still alive. Little minor bad guys have been disposed of along the way, but, come on...enough is enough. Kill Jagang and end the series, or kill Richard and end the series. One way or the other, I'm ready for it to be finished. Pre-Soul of the Fire, I thought Goodkind actually had a story to tell. Now, I think he's just milking the series.
Hmm...maybe this is a contribution to "Books that stuck."
quote:
did anyone know what the hell the architect was talking about in part 2? - Ref: Matrix
Too often we get "eat sh#t, mother..." well, you get it.
And the Brothers don't write as bad as Lucas... there is some brutal dialgue in the Eps 1 - 3.
Maybe we can say they're tied in badly-written-ness... it could be a word. This late at night when I'm this tired anything could be a word. =P
I liked Lucas's latest "Star Wars" trilogy---just not as much as I liked the first one in the seventies---or as much as I liked "The Lord of the Rings" movies---which I didn't like as much as I liked the book. It's all a relative thing.
The last movie I went to the movies to see that I didn't like was "Pearl Harbor"---which I consider three hours of my life I'll never get back, and had to go home and watch "Tora! Tora! Tora!" on DVD again to get the taste of "Pearl Harbor" out of my mind. But I'm sure there were those who did like it---certainly I read a few positive reviews, and unless they got under-the-counter money for it, I'm sure they were telling the truth...
I read the first three books of the series, then skipped ahead to Faith of the Fallen. What I found was the same plot device used in three out of the only four books I had read, namely Richard being "kidnapped" by a strong female character and being forced into a lifestyle he didn't believe in or want. Huh. There were some elements of the books that I did like, but primarily found them to be sophmoric in writing and concept. I found several scenes that left me wondering if Goodkind had read what he had written previously. Example, in the first book Richard attends a ritual with the Mud People in which the spirits of dead ancestors appear. In the second book, Richard again attends the same rite, and lo and behold, the spirit of Darken Rahl, his dead father, arrives despite not being specifically summoned. Made me wonder why none of Richard's other dead relatives made an appearance in either ritual to help or interfere with his quest. Hmmmm. And how was it Violet was able to torture Richaed with Cara's agiel when the device will only work for someone who's been trained with it?
Well, perhaps I overlooked something in reading the books.
quote:
o.k, several things here are not making sense. first of, this is a DISCUSSION. we are supposed to pick a topic and stick with it for at least five posts. (I know I am doing the same thing here. I am a hypocrite sometimes. doing this to get us back on track.) the only time I have seen this is with the Harry Potter five series. and that was just to dis it, wich you never want to do if the writer is filthy rich. and another thing: NEVER DIS GEORGE LUCAS! sure, His latest three bombed but never forget the clasics that make four of them. (the first and second dont count.) Harry Potter five may have bombed in storyline and about every other aspect of the book, but what killed it for me was WHO WAS KILLED!!!!! I cannot believe that she did that! never seen the matrix or trinity, but I can understand the "long-winded-speech-just-after-you-stab yourself-or-do-whatever-it-takes-to-die" thing. three words: Antony and Cleopatra. it took every person who did die over ten minutes to. that killed what was otherwise a violent and well-written play.
The enter key is your friend.
About Lucas, I agree that episoe IV was good (but the dialogue is HORRIBLE! "But I want to go to buy power converters!"). Empire wasn't written OR directed by Lucas, and ROTJ had Ewoks, who sucked and nearly ruined the entire movie.
Lucas is lucky to be surrounded by fanboys.
I've never read the SOT books, and I think I'll stay away now.
Why can't the people out in Hollywood realize that it is the story, not the special effects, that makes a movie fun to watch?
Sometimes, though, you need more. I saw an old movie ("Delta Force") the other week. For the first hour, it was the best movie about terrorism I'd ever seen. The second hour, though, flagged, coming to a more conventional action-movie end. It could be said to fit within the "good guys and bad guys" kind of resolution as above, but it lacked the gut-wrenching intensity of the first hour. (I can see why...real life hasn't yet offered a resolution for this particular plot.)
Look at GRRM's Fire and Ice books. THey are not "good guys win, bad guys die" and are very, very popular.
In fact, I'd say that they are the opposite of "good guys win, bad guys die."
It's quite refreshing.
On books that suck--Orwell's 1984 heads my list. I also can't stomach science fiction novels that get so into the technology that they put that ahead of the story. I can't remember a specific one, but there are many and I tend to forget the titles because I don't want to read them ever again (maybe that's a good argument for remembering the titles!).
Shendülféa, your comments were at the beginning of this thread, but this is my first peek here, so let me bring them down:
quote:
is this what the publishers think we fantasy fans want to read? Overly disgusting violence and smut all over the place?
At a writer's conference where I had sent 20 pages to be critiqued, the editor who critiqued my pages was super positive. He had nothing but complimentary comments and had written across the top of my chapters that he wanted to see the whole book. We spent the 10 or 15 minutes talking about how I had come to write my story. However, his very first question when we sat down had been, "Does it have any sex in it?" I could see he was disappointed when I said it didn't. He even mentioned a female SF writer who was writing sex into her SF.
He ultimately rejected the story, and I have to wonder if it would have flown had it been a lurid tale. That's not me, though. Like you, I don't want to read that stuff and I certainly won't write it. In fact, I read so little now because too many books are permeated with off color junk. What I do read, I have to skim as I go. (How could I have forgotten this on the "Do You Read Every Word" thread?)
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited February 18, 2006).]
Anything written by and for TSR. Or, I should just say any story that's a complete bite from JRR Tolkein's work.
The WHOLE "Rama" series was abysmal, such a let down where the ideas could've been GREAT if he would just stretch realistic science just a fraction more. It was so dry I couldn't get past book two and the thing that really turned me off of book two was the heavy Catholicism bent with one of the characters. I don't mind religion being a part of the character's lives and hence, part of the story, but I dislike reading over two chapters nearly devoted to religious theology. Not crucial to the story, either (at least, I thought). "Imperial Earth" was another horribly dry and unimaginative peice of do-do, though I imagine in his hayday that was the top poop.
The "I, Robot" series. Once again, another dry one. Although I enjoyed the FIRST book, the second, however was the last straw and I don't think I'd be able to stomach another one. It was so bad I actually PREFER the MOVIE over the book, for a change!
Yes, I must not forget "The Wheel of Time"! Oh, barf! Honestly, talk about an author that bites off others! Not only are there obvious Tolkein bites, but I've run across several books that predate his "ideas" that led me to believe there was no other possible source for those same "ideas" in his own work. Gosh, end the stupid series already! Don't get me started on his other works...
"Harry Potter". Although I like the books, I do have to say the plot lines are starting to look stale. Boy lives with his relatives (that you hope and hope and hope he'll just kill off!), goes to Hogwarts to face another year, meets challenge by villain and comes out triumphant. Okay, maybe not, but it's getting old already. Maybe she should've ended the series with book four?
Terry Brooks' "Shinara" series. Aside from the aformentioned bites, I despise prequals. I think that's the quickest way to ruin a good series, go BACK in time before the first book you just read...
Speaking of prequals, "Star Wars" ranks up there with the most. I love the movies, but after seeing them a couple times, the new ones actually poked more holes in his own story than anything else. Plus, the information on the official site is so convoluted and saturated with detail it acts as paint thinner to the whole story/universe. Major problems come with letting others write in your universe as extensively as Lucas has. Another thing that ends the beauty of it. I'd rather have seen him do work AFTER Episode 6 than go back and find out *gasp* that vader was a pompous, know-it-all, emotionless pansy. He falls to the dark side, do we really need to SEE it? We already KNOW what's going to happen.
Anything involved with "Star Trek". If I wanted to be bored with talking during action sequences I'd have hired Al Gore to read the names from the phone book while in the middle of the LA riots. That would've probably been more interesting. Those Trekkies really need some help...
For movies, I'd have to say Jackson's "adaptation" of "Lord of the Rings". Ack, I've seen hack jobs before but this was... unforgivable. He said in an interview that he "kept things true to the book". His nose should've impaled someone's eye out in the audience! What a crock! Sauruman WASN'T allied with Sauron intentionally, orcs DIDN'T crawl on walls, Gandalf was never an overly HAPPY character... on and on and on... there are so many things wrong with it that even the cool effects, wardrobe and style leave it gasping for breath on the floor after having trampled Tolkein's vision afresh just like prior attempts before him. Thanks so much, Jackson, now we'll have to deal with a butt-load of admirers who simply GUSH about how "brilliant" you made it for at LEAST 50 years!
Lastly, "The Matrix". Barf. My friend and I sat in the theater PREDICTING the "flowery" dialogue and wondering why, if this is a universe where your thoughts can control the environs, then why NOT go Dragon Ball Z on the whole flipping lot of them? Bad acting, although I WILL say that Keanu Reeves did an EXCELLENT job "emptying his mind" for training. Not necessarily a difficult task for him, if you've seen his other movies...
Anyway, I'm done now. Please, this is just my opinion! Don't shoot me for it! :-)
quote:
The WHOLE "Rama" series was abysmal, such a let down where the ideas could've been GREAT if he would just stretch realistic science just a fraction more. It was so dry I couldn't get past book two and the thing that really turned me off of book two was the heavy Catholicism bent with one of the characters. I don't mind religion being a part of the character's lives and hence, part of the story, but I dislike reading over two chapters nearly devoted to religious theology. Not crucial to the story, either (at least, I thought).
I thought that the first Rama book was simply awesome. Mysterious and engaging.
However, the other books were TERRIBLE.
I read them because I simply wanted to finish the story, but they were BRUTAL.
I can't believe somebody said 1984. That is one of the most relevant political books ever written! For shame!!
Every time I look at it, I think, "If a book like that can get published, then so can mine."
A lot of folks talk positively about a first books of a series then gripe about the rest. What does that teach us?
One good book leads to a dozen bad?
Know when to stop beating a dead horse?
(But I imagine those advance checks are so additive!)
Don't we all wish we were at a point where others can complain we had sold out?
Readers and editors share one thing in common: They want more and more and more of the same.
If we buy books not because we hope they will be something new but because they will be something the same, who do we blame?
Is the failing in the writers, the editors or the readers?
Ah come on Constipatron! I think it's all in your vision of Tolkien's books. While some dramatic license was taken by Jackson(as you mentioned--and other things like no Tom Bombadil, and Frodo not being naked at the last etc.) The overall feel, IMHO was true to Tolkien's tale. In fact, Tolkien could've done a bit of improvement on his writing style--waay too much world-building, not enough introspection and character development. Still I love Tolkien's books, and Jackson's rendition. Any yes, since I'm planning on living until my eleventy-first birthday (at least) you'll be hearing about it for far LONGER than 50 years!!!!
With the LotR movies, I think that Jackson stayed as true to the books as the medium would allow him. He had to think about time constraints (the reason why Tom Bombadill amongst other things were not included and even then the movies were quite long, not that I am complaining or anything--I think anything shorter than the 3 hours each that they were would have been less effective). These time constraints are what affected the trueness of the movies to the books more than anything. That's why there's no "Scouring of the Shire," and why, because of that, Saruman was stabbed by Wormtongue and then killed from a fall from the top of Orthanc (in the Extended Version).
I also don't think that there was any one proper way to interpret Tolkien's characters. He didn't characterize them well enough for one to do so. Take Gandalf, for example. Constipatron said that he was "never an overly HAPPY character." Tolkien, I think, never developed his character enough in order for anyone to determine whether or not he was an "overly happy character." On the other hand, I don't even recall him being "overly happy" in the movies. He was, I would say, optimistic, but not "overly happy." (However, near the end of RotK, we see him lose his optimism. Pippin asks him, "Is there any hope, Gandalf, for Frodo and Sam?" To which Gandalf then replies, "There was never much hope. Just a fool's hope." At another point, he comments, "I've sent [Frodo] to his death." We see here that Gandalf has lost hope for the quest and that he is no longer so optimistic about it.)
Anyway, before I start babbling on for too long, that's my two cents.
Maybe twenty, twenty-five years from now, somebody else will take another crack at it, with improved special effects. But for here-and-now, it will do.
Besides, if I'd been critiquing the MS for Tolkien, I'd've told him to cut Bombadil and the Barrow Downs out. Enjoyable as they are, they play little or no part in further developments.
Am I the only one who loved that guy?
Mention of "Christopher and Co." reminds me of the "Histories of Middle Earth," those posthumous works Christopher Tolkien has edited into shape from the mass of disorderly manuscripts Tolkien left behind him. I recently reread the volumes devoted to the writing of "Lord of the Rings," and found it fascinating---but sometimes I thought Christopher Tolkien often misunderstood. For instance, mention is made of the end of the book giving the appearance of being written in one long burst of activity. Christopher Tolkien seemed at a loss to account for it---but, being a writer myself, I can see that J. R. R. Tolkien simply saw that the end was at hand and pushed on to it in a hurry. All my finished novels ended that way.
Okay, back to books that suck. Mayor of Castorbridge
). Anyway, so that I don't cause us to go off topic once again, one of the books that I hated in high school (and still do) is The Scarlet Letter. Yes, it is considered a classic, but it was just so dry and boring, I could hardly bring myself to read it. It didn't help that it was for my honors American Lit class and we had to analyze the pieces out of it, but even so, I do not think that had I read outside of class I would have enjoyed it any better.
Other books I hated: The Baker's Boy, by JV Jones. I could never get past the first few chapters. Yawn. Also The Sword of Shannara, by Terry Brooks. I've tried to read that book I don't know how many times, and every time I get to the same place and have to quit. It's the loooong lecture of irrelevant history that does me in.
And finally, the one book I just can't stand: Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse. It's just a bit too trite for me.
Now I'll go back into hiding, and let the rest of you tear me to shreds...
</rant>
I had one high school class where we read five books that were, more or less, SF. (As close as I ever came to studying one of my favorite subjects in school.) One I had read already and liked. (Clarke's "Childhood's End.") I only remember two titles among the others (Golding's "The Inheritors," and, predictably, Orwell's "1984.") There was a lot of discussion about the different cultures in these books, and I remember thinking---I could go to my bookshelf and pull five straight SF books that would illustrate this concept better. I could still. And I really didn't like the other books. (I'm pretty sure I read "1984" before hand, but didn't like it---you've got to admit it describes a depressing future---but, more recently, I picked up a couple of other Orwell books, and liked "Homage to Catalonia" very much.)
Oh, and Smaug comes close to one point about the "Lord of the Rings" movies---you might not like (or hate) the movies very much if you hadn't read the books first. To an extent, if you haven't read the books, you might not understand what was going on. (Another SF movie that had that trouble, even more so: "Dune.") I don't know the opinions of anybody who hadn't read the books (like or hate them)---I've never read a review or talked to anybody who hadn't done so. Anybody here seen the movies but not read the books?
=raises hand= I haven't read the books, and I've seen the movies. I'm going to try, since my friend has been telling me that they're really good, but I have book 3 and I couldn't get into it. At all.
Skip "The Silmarillion" and everything else of Tolkien's unless you do get really hooked. Though I bought and read "The Silmarillion" when it first came out, I "didn't get it" until many years later.
However, if you mean avoid all the "Histories of Middle-Earth" books, then I agree completely, unless you get really hooked into the LotR world. Getting through those is not for the faint-hearted.
I read the first one, and LOVED it.
The 2nd, and 3rd though I hated, and stopped reading them after that.
To add to the list, unsure if it's already been mentioned, but The Outsiders...it was horrid. We're being forced to read it in class, although I finished it a while ago. Everyone says that they loved it. I hate the author...she's not very good, IMNSHO. The plot isn't terrible, I liked it a bit, but the author brought the story down a ton.
The DaVinci Code
God it stinks. There is a great writing lesson in this book about how not to write. I am studying this book cover to cover and quantifying the badness in all its glory.
I think that Mr. Brown is not a great writer, but he's something that most of us here aren't:
RICH and PUBLISHED.
Good for him, I say.
Another book I hated... "Heart of Darkness." It may just be a matter of taste, but I was cringing through the entire story.
This book was really hard for me to get into and read all the way through. I cant put my finger on why I didnt like it, but I didnt.
What really annoys me about this book, is that its *just* intriguing enough that I want to find out what happens and finish the series.
ok. Sigh. Im just OCD about finishing books. I can't not finish a book.
I dont understand how I loved his Otherland series so much, and Can't get into this one.
Eagle
If you have a copy of _Gerald's Game_ that you are lucky enough not to have read, burn it, then scatter the ashes into the ocean, then scoop up that part of the ocean and drop it into a volcano, then launch that whole volcano into the sun.
There was some really lame Star Wars novel with Prince Xizor or something like that, but it was so bad I didn't even get half way through before I stomped on it and threw it into the trash. There weren't any volcanoes near by.
Re: LOTR movies -- I didn't like the Aragorn dissing Arwen thing. He would NEVER have treated her like that. She would never have even considered leaving him. /shrug
I didn't like the Covenant books. But then I hate whiners.
Dune ... it gets better once you get to the last couple of books (the ones with Miles Teg in them), which are really a different story, with a fascinating ending (I thought). The "prequels" are awful, we bought them but I can't bring myself to read them.
I have yet to find a Star Wars book I liked. They are all pretty boring. And I love Star Wars.
RE: Wheel of Time. I have to say I like the series. All of it. Even the newest one. I have them all. BUT, it needs to end. Soon. I'm starting to wonder if Jordan hasn't written himself into the proverbial corner and doesn't know how to end it. Even thought I like the series, if he doesn't end it soon, I'm going to have to give up on it.
RE: Harry Potter. Read it, loved. Even though I have really enjoyed the whole series, I'm really glad there is a definite end coming. If for some reason Rowling doesn't end on 7, I will be really dissappointed.
I like series, having familiar characters and all, but somehow they need to end! These series that never end have got to stop!
A recent movie that I was really dissappointed in was "The Weather Man." I watched the whole thing waiting for 'it' to happen. You know, the good part. Never came.
I used to read a bit of Grisham and in every book he had these sleeping subplots that never went anywhere. I guess looking back it was an indication that he overwrote something. In The Chamber it was the mother. In The Rainmaker it was the lawyer he originally worked for. In The Testament it was the missionary organization that handled all Rachel's temporal affairs. I think it may be that in A Time to Kill he has such a figure that something actually happens too. The mickey mouse impersonator or something like that.
I loved the Covenant novels. My dad showed me them when I was around 12 years old and I ate them up! THOMAS COVENANT IS AN ANTI-HERO! As I read everyone's critiques of those books, I wanted to scream that.
He does things that shouldn't be done. That is what compells you to read. Also, read Mirror of her Dreams and A Man Rides Through, best plot I have ever read. I was 16 while reading them, The first one is development, the second I finished in a day
My favorite book, tied with Ender's Game which I recently read for the 5th time in two years, is 1984. It is not just SF, it is the story of totalitarianism and revolution. I cannot get enough of that book. Please tell me others loved it as well.
Second of all, Wetwilly, I was 17 when I read Scarlet Letter, and I admit it was tough to get through. I reread it recently, now 18, and I LOVED IT. His use of prose and symbolism practically inspired me. Of course, I was in a class where we analyzed his writing and symbolism. I urge you to reconcider such a fine book.
Chaucer, Orwell, Emerson, Thoreau, and Poe prevail!
But, unfortunately, the vast majority of people only ever read the canon in high school, so they never learn to appreciate it. They just learn that they hate it in high school and never give it another chance when they're mature enough to appreciate it. I think a lot of potential readers are turned off to reading in high school and never come back.
Am I the only one here who was forced to read "The Northwest Passage"? The teacher made us read it IN CLASS. I can't even remember what it was about, I just remember the deep horror I felt every time I saw the cover. My book had so much drool on it the pages crimped, because I kept falling asleep on it. Fourth period...right after lunch. I nearly failed the class, because every time I turned the page, I couldn't remember what I had just finished reading. Each new page was like starting a dreadful, new, incomprehensible story.
And she followed this one up with "Tess of the D'Urbervilles." (Heavens...I don't think I spelled that right, but I'm too lazy to look it up.)
After reading some of these posts, I wonder if I'd feel differently about these two books, should I find the energy to read them now.
[...did a rewrite 'cause of a pathetic attempt to underline titles...]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited June 22, 2006).]
Amongst everything else on my list, I'm currently reading Jordan's WoT series, and am currently on the 3rd installment. I've read some negative feedback on his books following the 3rd. What's wrong with them? What is lacking? Or did I miss something?
Good Writing
[This message has been edited by Verdant (edited June 23, 2006).]
Do I think it's enjoyable? Not particularly. Derivative, and slow, with characters who don't engage my interest.
Do I think you can learn from reading it? Yes. It is, after all, hugely successful. For it to be so, it must have elements of merit, elements that make people want to come back time and time again. Personaly, I don't find it an enthralling world to be part of. But clearly, hundreds of thousands of people do.
I think the reason it has taken 94 books to cover a week or so's time is because of the massive number of REAL characters, both main and supplemental, and the reactions to each other's actions...
I am a huge fan of WOT because of Jordan's ability to create a genuine world with genuine characters. It is one of the things I strive to do in my writing and something hopefully I'll learn from him one day.
quote:
"Lord of the Flies": again, something I didn't buy into. If a gang of [British] schoolkids were trapped on an island, I'm not so sure the descent into barbarism would've been inevitable...and if they did, I don't think they'd've developed the rites and rituals in the manner they did.
Oh, dang, it's happened! Lord of the Flies is one of my all-time favorites. I adore that book.
Everything by James Patterson except Along Came a Spider and Kiss the Girls. How does this guy churn out 6 books a year?
Almost everything by Terry Goodkind. Wizard's First Rule was decent enough just to make me pick up the second book, and I hate starting a series and not seeing it all the way through.
The Dune serise. Ditto.
LOTR, I found it very boring.
Books I LOOO-OO-OO-OO-OO-OO-VE:
The Dark Tower Series by Stephen King.
A Song of Ice and Fire series by Martin.
Anything by Bret Easton Elis.
As for TWOT, all I liked about it was the prologue of book 1.
I really want to give this series a chance after hearing so many rave reviews regarding the first 1-5 books, but can't find the same pace and sense of action as in that one prologue. Every time I get into the first few chapters I fall asleep. Does anything in the series capture the same feeling of the prologue?
On comparing Tolkien to other writers...few, if any, of the commercial fantasy writers have Tolkien's technical expertise on the history of language and the English language, and this shows up (I realize long after I first read the book) in so many different places.
A sidebar on "Lord of the Flies"...Somewhere, I once saw a commentary on how the writer (William Golding?) had the moon rise after the sun set, then set before the sun rose again, and put it through a few more convolutions as well. I did not notice this when I read it, not being savvy enough at that age...but it's the sort of thing that Tolkien went to great lengths to get right in his work.
While not a huge fan of the book, I was highly interested in the thoughts behind it, and I always wondered if they would have slipped that quickly into their behaivors.
A British TV channel had the same question, so they set it up. They bought/rented a house and put 15 or so random boys in it, and let them lose. the cameramen were there, but couldnt intercede unless one of the boys was going to get Seriously hurt.
It was an interesting show. They descended pretty quickly. Wish I could remember the name of the show
Eagle
On the "Lord of the Flies"-like show you mention---well, you make it clear that their lives were never in danger. I also have to wonder about food and clothing. Shelter is clearly provided. And they "descended" in the full presence of a camera crew. I'm sure it was interesting...but was it "reality?"
David Eddings - just about anything he wrote. Snore. Haven't read anything he wrote with his wife, because all the stuff that came before was so ridiculously stupid.
TWOT I am definitely beginning to loathe. It should have ended in many previous places. I only keep reading because I care about what happens to *one* character - and when a major plot point involving her was handled in the most unbelievable, stupid way ever, I almost gave up entirely.
Piers Anthony. Bad times. How many dorky puns can be worked into one novel? How many dorky puns can be worked into HUNDREDS? Let's find out!
Eragon, of course. Just bad all around.
Fantasy I love: ASOIAF - I'm a fan of dark fantasy, anyway, but George Martin really knows how to make characters and surprise you with his stories. Man - Tyrion Lannister and Petyr Baelish have to be the coolest fantasy characters _ever_.
Hart's Hope - such a cool way to write a book. The story's great, too. I think every writer should read it, just to see how the storytelling conventions can be bent.
There's lots more that I love, but I just woke up and my horrid sunburn is distracting me.
quote:
Lord of the Flies -
While not a huge fan of the book, I was highly interested in the thoughts behind it, and I always wondered if they would have slipped that quickly into their behaivors.
It's an allegory. I don't think realism is what Golding was going for.
As far as Eragon: it's YA Lit. Of course it's one giant cliche. That's what YA Lit is. Keep in mind, your average ten-year-old has fairly limited knowledge. They don't know it's a cliche, so to them, it isn't. Why bother writing something new if your audience isn't familiar with the old stuff?
[This message has been edited by wetwilly (edited July 02, 2006).]
Thomas Covenant was a big influence on me.
Just thought I would throw that into the fray...
I must say too, that I used to own a game shop. Ninety hours a week surrounded by D&D, ShadowRun, RuneQuest, Traveller, Rifts, Warhammer, Vampire the Masquerade, Whitewolf, Magic the Gathering [-- name just about any other game -- devotees totally did-my-head-in toward anything that even remotely whiffs of being RPG derivative.
Even now, anything with a kenda, halfling, vampire, ogre, troll, orc, paranoid central computer, genestealer, tinker gnome, bearded dwarf female or intelligent spell-casting dragon, makes me wretch.
But I still like Covenant.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited July 20, 2006).]
quote:
As far as Eragon: it's YA Lit. Of course it's one giant cliche. That's what YA Lit is.
Oh, come on! You can say the same thing about mysteries, sci-fi, horror, thriller, fantasy, or any other genre. You could even call all literature one big cliche, and could make a good case of it, but it's bull.
Every genre has its own little quirks, and YA is no different. The style is simpler, often more concise, but that's not a detriment. The stories are just as unique and diverse in that genre as it is in any others.
Eragon wasn't awful because it was YA lit. It was awful because Paolini isn't that good a writer. There are many other successful pieces in YA that are very original and really good reads. I think of Cornelia Funke, Diana Wynn Jones, Garth Nix, and J.K. Rowling, just rattle off a few. And just because the YA audience can read it, doesn't mean that the more mature audience can't enjoy the stuff that's written there. Sometimes they can appreciate the stories more because of their older age.
Drivel. Utter Drivel!
And I have this to say about Eragon. It is cliche, it is predictable, but that doesn't mean it cannot be enjoyable. Originally I was quite critical as I read through the two books on the recommendation of friends... then I realized I was being more critical on him than I am even with my own work. It is no great masterpiece, it probably is over-rated, and I disagree with the vast majority of Paolini's presented philosophies [such as his justification for vengeance] HOWEVER---as a novice I give him respect that his career is beginning.
Card himself once said "I am a little embarassed when my first novel gets dragged out," the point is we as humans--and authors--improve. I have confidence in paolini's potential to create future literature, and I think there's something to be said for his being both published and sucessful. Maybe that is completely due to 13 year old girls who eat into his characters and want to marry him---but that's an audience I doubt I could get to buy my books, so I give him credit for that. He's no great author, but he's not terrible either. As for unoriginality I give him credit for the rules with which he constricts his magic. If Rowling (who is a better author) would govern her magical world with rules, limits, and gave us the clarity and scope Paolini does I know I'd enjoy Harry Potter more.
So, at the risk of sounding like a jealous young writer, Paolini isn't amazing but it isn't dreadfully awful. I enjoyed his books fine and believe he will improve over time. If my first novels publish I certainly hope my readers will have similar faith in me.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited August 06, 2006).]
The Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky translation is the best I've read. The Constance Garnett translation is not good, but it is unfortunately the most popular, so I'm guessing it's probably the one you read in High School. (Yes, I've read multiple translations...does that make me a loser?)
The dreadful writing definitely has to be chalked up to the translator. Keep in mind it was originally written in Russian, so any English version you have is not going to be anywhere close to the original book, at least on a language level.
quote:
And the perverted idea of using the story of "laserus" from the bible to symbolize and defend the idea that a murderer [without a cuase] can be redeemed so easily for such a horrible [and lacking in motivation] crime.
Don't blame Dostoyevsky for that one; I'm afraid this failing is on your part. You missed the point of the novel by a pretty long shot. Possibly you didn't give it the thought it deserves because you were turned off by the bad writing of the translation, which is certainly understandable.
It's a great novel. You're missing out if you write it off too quickly.
[This message has been edited by wetwilly (edited August 07, 2006).]
At the end of the day my point is I am glad you appreciate the book but I don't feel like I am compelled to honor it as genius.
quote:Einstein was an undisputable genius because many of his theories have a solid foundation in terms of empyrical evidence and math. They are supported a million times over in real-life and so they have proven themsleves and thus his genius is proven. But to say that Dostoyevski's (forgive the horrible spelling) theories and ideas about life and man are genius is completely relative. Thought provoking perhaps, but not proven genius nor is my opinion "flat wrong."
utter drivel is a pretty strong statement and flat wrong. The man was a genius.
You're still wrong, though
On Hemingway...I didn't like "The Old Man and the Sea," (had to read it for school) but liked "The Sun Also Rises," "For Whom the Bell Tolls," "A Farewell to Arms," and many of his short stories and articles (read them years later, after I'd left school.) I liked what I read of his Scribners contemporaries, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Thomas Wolfe (again, came to them on my own). (Some of this was set off by reading a thorogoing biography of their joint editor, Max Perkins.)
Other examples...I didn't like Orwell's "1984" (read first in school), but did like his "Animal Farm" (found in the school library at the same time).
I read and liked Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" about five years before I had to study it in a high school class (and was quietly amused by the teacher missing a point about racism in South Africa that comes up in the narrative).
I read two books by William Golding in school ("Lord of the Flies" and, I think, "The Inheritors"---the latter in the abovementioned high school class), didn't like either, and haven't been tempted to read anything else Golding wrote. (I can't think of any titles.)
I shudder to think what my reaction to Heinlein or Asimov would have been if I had first been assigned them to read in school. (A short story by Asimov was in one grade school textbook of mine, but it wasn't assigned reading.) Being used as textbooks in schools might do wonders for your royalty statements, but it's not going to endear you to a generation of readers.
[Edited for...would you believe I misspelled "Heinlein"?]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited August 08, 2006).]
And in recent times, I've never read worse schlock than the "Left Behind" series, which I understand was written by a variety of contract authors. Ugh! Ouch! Oi! OK, I read the first one and it was an interesting concept. I read the second one and wondered who the audience was - 3rd graders? I got to the third one and determined that no, the target audience was kindergartners and anyone with an extreme devotion to the Christian Right (the ones that make conservative me look middle-leaning-left). I'm ashamed to say I still have them because I don't want to embarrass myself by trading them in at the used book store (which has shelves of them already). I'm not sure I consider these books "real" writing, but they certainly are an excellent "how not to" tutorial.
My apologies to anyone who is thrilled with the "Great American Writers," but I could never slog my way through an entire book written by Hemingway and I absolutely detest Steinbeck. I read to be entertained, to disappear into another world - I do NOT want to be taught a lesson, or have to decipher some underlying meaning the author is trying to convey and I most certainly don't want to read something that makes me depressed. If I want to get depressed, I can go talk to my teenagers.
Re GRRM ASOIAF series - I have to say I love 'em. So much that I sprang for the hard cover copy of "A Feast for Crows." He's wordy. He takes off on tangents. He is not a "tight" writer. But I am so enthralled with the characters and the various story lines that I forgive him all of that. I mistakenly thought it was a trilogy, got to the end of Book #3 and literally screamed when I realized that wasn't the end. What happens to...? And....? Got my 20-year-old son hooked. He called me after finishing the first book and said "There's no way you can NOT read the second book, after the way the first one ends."
Well talk about wordy - and this is my first post in this forum, too! LOL
[This message has been edited by JulieW8 (edited August 10, 2006).]
Another thing, why do so many think that Tolkein was a bad writer? that guy is considered by everyone in my family to be a classic.
never read LotF, but I can see where you might be angry with the guy.
hated Dune.
Besides, most readers---including us (but not me in this particular case 'cause I haven't read it yet and may never)---we wouldn't know when he wrote it from what's on the printed page itself. We might hazard a guess...
Another book which dissapointed me recently was, Lies of Locke Lamora. A friend said it was in the same league as Erikson and Scott Bakker, I manged 100 pages of that.
just been reading and learned another thing: HOW MANY PREQUALS TO DUNE ARE THERE?
I read Her Majestys Wizard over the weekend and HATED IT!! the descriptions where awfull, there was no logic, and the people where like the Simpsons, they never learned!!
reading The Man in the Iron Mask right now, like it so far.
orson scott card's "homecoming series". loved enders game, liked most of the rest of that series, but these books? self-indulgent claptrap with two-dimensional characters, predictable plots, repetitive conflicts, and plodding, plodding pace.
a sense of duty saw me through, but that was all. obviously the publishers saw something i didn't see.
<sigh!>
Too many books, too little time.
(In other words, don't keep reading something that you don't absolutely HAVE to keep reading, for whatever reason--life is too short and there are too many other books out there that you will find reason to HAVE to read instead.)
I do know that I never finished 1984 or ATLAS SHRUGGED or LOST BOYS, but I stopped each one for different reasons.
Just this last week while cleaning up in my home, I found under the debris of my life this book---SF novel, self-published, I believe---that a friend (and non-SF reader) gave me, that I never got past Page One of.
Of course that pales before the long list of books I've never read...