Books You Should Like But Don't

I was not a big fan of Erikson's Malazan books. A good friend gave me most of the series and I read nine of them in all. I didn't dislike them but I would not recommend them to anyone.
The Wheel of Time series was a huge let down for me too. I had heard good things but I did not enjoy the few books that I read in the series.
Another book that was suggested to me that I really didn't like was The Deed of Paksenarrion. The writing was fine but I just found the book way too slow.
I really loved Robin Hobb's first three trilogies but her Solder Son series was so bad it is hard for me to believe that she wrote the books. Book one, Shaman's Crossing, started out slow but it was a masterpiece compared to the final two books.
 
Darkness That Comes Before - by R.Scott Baker, I just couldnt get into it at all. I hate to not finish a book but I couldn't help it.

Same here, but I intend to give it another go as I skipped ahead and quite liked his writing in the latter stages

I loved the Fellowship of the Ring but the next two bored me witless in the main, thought I persevered to halfway through book 3

The 2nd series of Thomas Covenant dragged for me and struggling still with Deadhouse Gates but so want to get past it to the next one as I can imagine it is as amazing as everyone says

Oh and Wheel of Time had me giving up at book 8, I was gutted as I loved it to begin with but it was just too dross to continue

I also still haven't read the final half of the last book of the Dark Tower, I think it was King apologising to fans for the ending that put me off
 
I'm about a third of the way done with Stranger in a Strange Land and I have to say that I'm not very impressed thus far. I'm going to tough it out, but I certainly hope it gets better.
 
Im about 80% through the first Thomas Covenant book.

I really dont see what all the praise is for. So far I have found it rather boring and shallow and the leprosy thing just isnt clicking, rather its becoming annoying.

The Dark Tower series.

Been a few years since I tried to read it but from what I recall the first book was unreadable.
 
Im about 80% through the first Thomas Covenant book.

I really dont see what all the praise is for. So far I have found it rather boring and shallow and the leprosy thing just isnt clicking, rather its becoming annoying.

The Dark Tower series.

Been a few years since I tried to read it but from what I recall the first book was unreadable.

The first book was dreadful but mercifully it was thin, it did get better from there but went downhill again lol
 
J-Sun
Yep - I'm almost positive I read only one of them and my recollection was that I was very bored - overcome by the slow-going-ness. I recall it being a vigorous exercise in world building (and society building, too, I guess) but it was almost a tour de force and lacked something core to me - though I could well have just missed it or, if it was the second one I read, maybe that's just a no-no. I want to say it was Winter. Whichever that was.
If it was "Helliconia Winter", then that was the last volume of the trilogy. Perhaps that affected your enjoyment somewhat?
 
Brunner - Stand on Zanzibar
Delany - any and every thing, especially Dhalgren
Miller - A Canticle for Leibowitz
Panshin - Rite of Passage
Simak - City (this is probably okay, but I don't like it as 'much' as I 'should')
Niven - Ringworld

Agree on these. Or at least of the ones I've read. Some more I wasn't as impressed with that typically rate high.

Dangerous Visions - ed. by Harlan Ellison
The Martian Chronicles - Bradbury
Neuromancer - Gibson
 
I think I'm going to be adding "Stand on Zanzibar" myself. I'm now over 200 pages in and I'm just not enjoying it. I'm baffled by the high praise that is near universally lavished upon it. If it wasn't for that, I would have abandoned it already. I'm doggedly pushing on for now hoping that I will evenually see the light...
 
One series of books I disliked was the Second Foundation series (3 books written by Gregory Benford, Greg Bear and David Brin.) I have read (and re-read) all of Asimov's books several times and I never tire of them but I never took to that series.

The first (Foundation's Fear) was a bit of a slog and quite unlike the Asimov style and I saw little point in parts of it like using simple minded creatures. I felt it was annoyingly long and dwelled too much on minor plots which didn't progress the tale.

The second (Foundation and Chaos) was the best of the three as it was most similar to Asimov's style and didn't get side-tracked like Benford's book.

The final book (Foundation's Triumph) is similar to Asimov's style again but the plot was a bit weak but he was left with a large abundance of sub-plots to tie up (which he tried to do and almost succeeded) but I feel that the book was not really necessary to the flow of the works.
 
Greg Bear - The Forge of God, he just can't get past the presidents stupidity and the irritating banter between people that does nothing for the story.

GRRM - AGOT, I have finally given up on this, even though I thought I enjoyed it but alas it seems to drag too much for me and is not getting anywhere. I will try and brave the HBO version and see if I missed anything.
 
George r r martin is the most overrated fantasy author of all time. He doesn't write fantasy. He writes soap operas and most of them don't have plots. They rest entirely on shock value.
 
George r r martin is the most overrated fantasy author of all time. He doesn't write fantasy. He writes soap operas and most of them don't have plots. They rest entirely on shock value.

Amen to that :)

He is not terrible but he is overrated because reading soap opera in fantasy form is easy. But his fans act like the series is a masterwork just because its fun to read.....
 
Amen to that :)

He is not terrible but he is overrated because reading soap opera in fantasy form is easy. But his fans act like the series is a masterwork just because its fun to read.....

I agree, he has a good writing style but I also feel he is overrated. A lot of the chrons say that his books are better than LOTR but I can't seem to pick up on that. LOTR was entertaining, I just don't find that with AGOT.
 
I really loved Robin Hobb's first three trilogies but her Solder Son series was so bad it is hard for me to believe that she wrote the books.

Agreed. Hobb's characters in the Six Duchies books are engaging, but no matter how I tried I couldn't drum up any sympathy for the protagonist in Soldier Son. I can't even remember what his name was...

One of these days I have to have another go at Thomas Covenant. I tried reading it when I was quite young, and to this day it remains the only book I have never finished reading. I think perhaps now I could enjoy the books, but a part of me struggles with the idea of trying...

I'll add my voice to those mentioning Rowling, Meyer and Prachett. Rowling I have tried, and I give the nod to her for carving a niche into mainstream "cool" culture for both genre fiction and literature in general, however I can't help but feel patronised by her tone. Meyer's preaching gets my back up. And anyway - Lestat is a vampire, Edward is a pansy. I read Guards! Guards! a couple of years ago and while I found it amusing and diverting, it left me with no desire to read any of Prachett's other work. Interesting, because the tone of the humour he uses reminds me of Hitchhiker's, and I loved those books.
 
Bloody Pratchett. He's basically been knocking out a smug, unfunny fantasy version of The Life of Brian for what seems like Deca-millenia now. You know, where little gnomes (or whatever) go around saying things like 'Sod it' because its like, you know, nowadays but fantasy, see? And thats why its hilarious, yeah?

And if you scratch at the surface, the Discworld reeks of Daily Mail-esque, Middle England conservatism.

Plus he never gets a round in, so I hear. Bloody Pratchett.

Sorry. I better have a lie down.
 
I agree, he has a good writing style but I also feel he is overrated. A lot of the chrons say that his books are better than LOTR but I can't seem to pick up on that. LOTR was entertaining, I just don't find that with AGOT.

I would like to eat my words, apologies as I am now officially hooked on AGOT. I sat down and read quite a bit of this book now and can safely say just stick with it and hang in there it picks up very nicely and apparently (compared to where I am in the book) I ain't seen nothin' yet. :eek:
 
George r r martin is the most overrated fantasy author of all time. He doesn't write fantasy. He writes soap operas and most of them don't have plots. They rest entirely on shock value.

An interesting perspective. I struggled with GRRM as well. I fought through the first 1.5 books and felt much the same... there were interesting characters and intriguing plots, but a lot of it felt like soap opera melodrama that took FOREVER to unfold. However, the battle of King's Landing was incredible, as was the 3rd book. Then the 4th stunk again. I'm pretty well done with this series. The plot twists were getting to be increasingly implausible and it began to annoy the crap out of me. It became almost the opposite of a Bond film... instead of the villian having Bond trapped and in certain defeat only to escape and turn the tables last moment, you have the bad guys on the ropes only to have some miracle that allows them to escape and the good to die. This pattern repeats over and over.

Not to say he hasn't got talent, I just don't think these merit the praise they get. I honestly think it's only because of his genre... I read a lot of hard-boiled detective fiction, so a brutal world with grey characters where good doesn't always triumph is nothing new to me. I think it's far more rare in sci-fi/fantasy and thus GRRM seems earth-shattering for the genre.
 

Back
Top