What Do Critics Know? (apparently more than me)

[McMurphy]

Have any of you ever read a fantasy or science fiction novel and readily dismissed it as merely literary garbage only to find out later that it is, instead, a critically acclaimed piece of work?

My example would have to be The Iron Dragon's Daughter by Michael Swanwick. I read the novel a couple years ago, and it was only today during a session of mindlessly browsing through amazon.com did I find out that, not only was the book well received, it was written by a Nebula Award winning author (for Stations of the Tide).

Wow, I was wrong on that one!

I would also be interested in hearing everyone's opinions and feelings on The Iron Dragon's Daughter.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Honestly, if I discover that a book is "critically acclaimed", that generally sends me running for the hills as fast as I can. That is because I have found most critics to have their heads up their.....well, you know. My feeling is that the critics, or at least most of the leading critics and academic types, too often think that their opinion is definitive, and that anyone who doesn't share their tastes is ignorant.

My own personal feeling is that each person's opinion is just that - their own opinion. And I weigh it as that, no matter who the critic is. This is true, no matter what is being reviewed. Just because "the critics" like a book does not mean that I need to like it. On the other hand, when a book gets bad notices, I am often tempted to read it even if it wasn't something I would pick up ordinarily, just to see if it is as bad as all that. Often, it isn't. This holds true for films as well. I often like films that have gotten bad reviews, and sometimes can't figure out why films that got good reviews got those reviews.

So, I don't think you should consider that you were wrong if you disagree with a book's notices. Your opinion just differs from that of the reviewers. I can't comment specifically on the book you name in your post, as I haven't read it - haven't even heard of it, as a matter of fact.

 

[dwndrgn]

I agree wholeheartedly with LittleMiss. Generally I'll read a book mainly based on either the plotline, the author or a recommendation from a friend.

 

[riffraff]

who was it who wrote "the bridge", "consider phlebas", "the wasp factory" etc. because he got very good reviews- but I just find his books mindlessly cruel and quite boring- like sade- rather than meaningful or insightful

 

[fallenstar]

"The Iron Dragon's Daughter"? I have that book, my friend got it from our school library for free (somehow she managed to do that). But she didn't read it, and when I was questioning about that book she said I could just take it. So I took it but never actually read it. Is it that good? I mean I know it's written by a Nabula Reward winning author, but I didn't find Le Guin's book that interesting, and she is an award winning author as well. My opinion is that the book that wins award does not necessary to be good, and the author who won some rewards by one book and people enjoyed it does not always write good books..so far I only thought Le Guin's "Tales from Earthsea" are not so good even though I know she is a award winning author. Others like Herbert, I enjoyed a lot.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

who was it who wrote "the bridge", "consider phlebas", "the wasp factory" etc. because he got very good reviews- but I just find his books mindlessly cruel and quite boring- like sade- rather than meaningful or insightful

Iain Banks. Don't know about critics, but I really liked The Wasp Factory. And his Sf work, too. Still, each to their own.