Books you SHOULDN'T like but DO!!!

[Connavar]

Actually, I think you're being a little unfair. You left out "and run out of town on a rail".....

Hmmm. For my entry here, I suppose I'd have to list some of Brian Lumley's work. Pure pulp, and not of the higher end of the pulps. Yet, for some reason, I still tend to read Lumley and enjoy a goodly amount of his work. True, occasionally, he has something that really is good; but those are rare. Mostly, his work is... literarily wanting, to put it kindly; but I still have an affection for it -- and, having seen him in an interview or two, a definite liking for Lumley himself.

Is he for you an entertaining writer who you think isnt too strong writing ability wise ?

I mean we all have those and i wonder where does you shouldnt like come in i wonder in your eyes ?

I mean there is few authors i dont respect their writing too much but who i read for light,fun entertainment. I like them for what they are. I dont see a shouldnt like anywhere.

A shouldnt like is for me only crap i regret for example Dan Brown, John Grisham,Salvatore horribly written stories. I dont ever go near them. They are books i shouldnt like and i DON'T.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I think the issue is the way it's often used as a dismissive way of avoiding having to address legit criticism.[....]
Thus you tend to see the term thrown around in a vicious circle of mental midgets incapable of intelligent debate that just resort to using it as an insult to imply it's the other person who's being unreasonable when it's usually both of them.

I agree with that. The issue is, indeed, the way that the terms are frequently used. And because they are almost always used in such fashion, I have grown to dislike them. Simply because, 9 times out of 10, when a person accuses someone of being a "hater" or, conversely, a "fanboy" it is in the context of attempting to summarily dismiss the opinions of one who merely happens to hold a contradictory point of view.

Besides, I think both of those terms can actually be done away with, since the simple word "biased" would seem to suffice. Some people hold a bias against a person and/or entity (i.e. "hater") while others lean towards having a positive bias (i.e. "fanboy").

A shouldnt like is for me only crap i regret for example Dan Brown, John Grisham,Salvatore horribly written stories. I dont ever go near them. They are books i shouldnt like and i DON'T.

In keeping with the theme of the thread, I actually like John Grisham. Well, I used to. I was a big fan of his early works, but his later books were pointless and dull. The last time I tried to read one was nearly two years ago, and I didn't enjoy it one bit. I think it was The Associate.

But his earlier works, like A Time to Kill and The Firm, were quite enjoyable.

 

[j d worthington]

Is he for you an entertaining writer who you think isnt too strong writing ability wise ?

I mean we all have those and i wonder where does you shouldnt like come in i wonder in your eyes ?

I mean there is few authors i dont respect their writing too much but who i read for light,fun entertainment. I like them for what they are. I dont see a shouldnt like anywhere.

A shouldnt like is for me only crap i regret for example Dan Brown, John Grisham,Salvatore horribly written stories. I dont ever go near them. They are books i shouldnt like and i DON'T.

Lumley is an odd one for me. As I said above, now and again he has put out a really good piece of writing; but most of his work is, as the critic in me has assured me time and again, pulp trash. It is overinflated (especially the Necroscope series), often extremely stereotypical, unduly graphic and gory, full of writing flaws that make me wince, and loaded with absolutely risible situations, characters, and dialogue.

And yet... I find I go back to one or another of his works again and again over the years, and have done so since I first discovered his early Lovecraftian pieces, back in the mid-1970s. Perhaps its the sheer joy in going completely out in left field that he seems to exhibit; or perhaps it's the same thing which keeps me going back to those really cheesy sf/horror films of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s now and again, often with genuine relish. Whatever it is, a goodly portion of Lumley's work is something which, to me, I shouldn't like, but nonetheless I do....

 

[Jeni]

Not sure about books I shouldn't like, but I read some vampire books earlier this year that I definately didn't expect to enjoy nearly as much as I did.
My interest in all things vampire related has been, until reading these books, exclusively screen based. But, after getting a Kindle in August I downloaded The Radleys by Matt Haig, and Moon Dance (Vampire for Hire #1) by J. R. Rain because firstly, although I watch a fair amount of vampire stuff on screen it occurred to me that I had never actually read a vampire novel - or had any urge to either, and secondly, the price was right (less than £3 for The Radleys and Moon Dance was free ).
I really enjoyed them, and raced through both - and the following three Vampire for Hire books (not free, but worth every penny!) in just a few days . They weren't lengthy tomes by any stretch of the imagination, but I only usually average 1-2 books during a working week.

 

[chongjasmine]

Except for book 1 of the chainfire trilogy and the book that focus on Richard's sister, I quite enjoy Terry Goodkind's sword of truth series. I shouldn't be enjoying it, looking at the number of negative reviews for it, but I do.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Spy Dog/Spy Pups by Andrew Cope - I don't care it's junior fiction they are the best books I've read in ages. (I think they are loosely fantasy as it's a dog that can do things dogs usually can't).