Books Loved by Critics Hated By You

[BAYLOR]

What books that the critics love and praise , do you dislike and why?

 

[hitmouse]

Underworld Don DeLillo. I had really looked forward to this one after the delerious reviews, but found it turgid, overlong, and contrived.

 

[The Bluestocking]

Anything by Donna Tartt. Her style and stories just don't resonate with me. Too pretentious by half.

 

[VALIS13]

Rowling.

 

[Randy M.]

"Hate" is probably a bit strong for describing my feelings on some of these. "Apathetic" or "ambivalent" might be closer.

Heinlein novels. I enjoy his short stories still, but SF fans and quite a few critics love at least a portion of Heinlein's novels and the three I've read didn't work for me. Podkayne of Mars was fun but not great, Starship Troopers has a debatable premise, and Friday, which was supposed to be a return to form, I found very nearly reprehensible for its shallow portrayal of a competent woman.

Cold Mountain by Charles Frasier. I stopped 50 pages into it and have not gone back. I rarely, rarely do this. I read Faulkner, I admire Eudora Welty, I respect if not exactly like Flannery O'Connor, and William Gay was a major find for me about 8-9 years ago, so it's not like I don't enjoy Southern story-telling. But Frazier's writing struck me as willfully dense and turgid rather than necessarily so, straining to provide that feeling of epic that Faulkner achieved with apparent effortlessness. (Well, effortlessness on Faulkner's part though maybe not always on the reader's part.)

The Natural by Saul Bellow. Not bad, but not as powerful as I'd have guessed from what I've read about it. Can't say that I've enjoyed what little I've read by Bellow, the other thing being the short novel Seize the Day which was a very long short novel. (See also, William Styron's The Long March, which seemed like a long, long, long slog.)

The Heart of the Affair by Graham Greene. I kept wanting to yell at the main male character, "Get over yourself!!!!" He was depressive with a martyr complex.


Randy M.

 

[Vince W]

Rowling.

e

Amen. I think I got about 25 pages into the first potter book and then binned it.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Like Randy, I think hate is too strong a word for my feelings on the book for my choice. I just didn't enjoy reading it. I wasn't even sure if I was supposed to enjoy it. I followed it and of course the English was great, but...

It is Saturday by Ian McEwan. The landlord of a pub I have spent a great deal of time being propped up in, lent it to me with the question 'what is this all about?' When I came back the only way I could describe it was 'middle class w**k'

I just didn't get it - it did not engage or pull me in, I was reading it and thinking 'is this what great modern literature is all about now?' Please tell me, that there are much better literary works being produced.

It got it's own back on me though. My dad got it for my Christmas. So it's on a shelf somewhere in the flat, laughing at me...

 

[J-Sun]

Heinlein novels. I enjoy his short stories still, but SF fans and quite a few critics love at least a portion of Heinlein's novels and the three I've read didn't work for me. Podkayne of Mars was fun but not great, Starship Troopers has a debatable premise, and Friday, which was supposed to be a return to form, I found very nearly reprehensible for its shallow portrayal of a competent woman.

This is off-topic here as everyone's supposed to post what they hate and should probably do so without backtalk but I can't resist noting that Starship was intended as a juvenile that was rejected by Scribners (who published his first 12 juveniles), that Podkayne was a belated juvenile four years after that (when the Scribners had come out annually) whose original ending was rejected by that publisher, and that Friday, while perhaps the closest of the late Heinleins to early Heinlein, was still late Heinlein, which many fans either rate below early Heinlein or actively dislike. In other words, that wasn't The Ultimate Heinlein Novel Pack. I'd recommend one of the first dozen juveniles such as Starman Jones, along with something like Double Star for a good early non-juvenile. But, at the same time, nobody has to read anything, of course, and giving him three tries ought to be more than enough, anyway, so I could certainly understand your having no interest in trying more. Just thought I'd mention it anyway.

As far as being on-topic, for me, it's pretty redundant. The critics and I are usually at odds, at least when either of us are really fired up about something.

 

[dask]

STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. Not sure the critics loved it but it seemed the most popular paperback at the time. Very disappointing. Loved the first half, could hardly stand the second.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Catcher in the Rye. Bleurgh. Started it loads of times, failed to finish it every time.

 

[Randy M.]

This is off-topic here as everyone's supposed to post what they hate and should probably do so without backtalk but I can't resist noting that Starship was intended as a juvenile that was rejected by Scribners (who published his first 12 juveniles), that Podkayne was a belated juvenile four years after that (when the Scribners had come out annually) whose original ending was rejected by that publisher, and that Friday, while perhaps the closest of the late Heinleins to early Heinlein, was still late Heinlein, which many fans either rate below early Heinlein or actively dislike. In other words, that wasn't The Ultimate Heinlein Novel Pack. I'd recommend one of the first dozen juveniles such as Starman Jones, along with something like Double Star for a good early non-juvenile. But, at the same time, nobody has to read anything, of course, and giving him three tries ought to be more than enough, anyway, so I could certainly understand your having no interest in trying more. Just thought I'd mention it anyway.

As far as being on-topic, for me, it's pretty redundant. The critics and I are usually at odds, at least when either of us are really fired up about something.

Yeah, I've often thought that I probably should try a couple of the novels that have better word of mouth. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has always looked shiny, and The Puppet Masters has dangled its strings from my shelves without me grabbing hold for many, many years.

One of these days ...


Randy M.
(by the way, I expect backtalk)

 

[Rodders]

The Lord Of The Rings. Got halfway though and stopped. I haven't regretted it.

 

[martin321]

STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. Not sure the critics loved it but it seemed the most popular paperback at the time. Very disappointing. Loved the first half, could hardly stand the second.

Same here. I borrowed the book from the library and enjoyed the first part, but stopped liking it at some point past the halfway mark. I gave up about three quarters of the way through the book and returned it to the library.

 

[Extollager]

It is Saturday by Ian McEwan..... I was reading it and thinking 'is this what great modern literature is all about now?' Please tell me, that there are much better literary works being produced.

Interesting... a few years ago I read his Atonement and wasn't much impressed. I figured it was something lots of book clubs would pick up, but I wondered if anyone much would reread it. Skippable.

 

[Vince W]

I've been reading Leviathan Wakes. So far I'm underwhelmed.

 

[Bick]

Doctor Zhivago
To the Lighthouse

Regarding Heinlein, who's been mentioned. I have to say, that while I've enjoyed a fair few, he's not my absolute favourite either. I think his writing 'voice' can come across as a bit austere or fatherly. A bit clinical or lacking in engagement, perhaps. Contemporaries, like Asimov, Clarke or Simak seem to write with a warmer tone. I'm finding it hard to describe what I mean, and you may be scratching heir heads at this, but is anyone with me?

 

[BAYLOR]

Dahalgren by Samuel Delany . I know its considered a classic, Ive tried to read it , but could not make heads or tales of it.

 

[Rodders]

Brian Aldiss' Heliconia books. I read one, but really struggled with it. I will concede that it was a very interesting idea.

 

[Toby Frost]

Saturday left me pretty cold, too. I think the landlord had a point, although it did have a couple of astute political observations (although in those days, having half a brain was astute by comparison with some of the stuff being said). Frankly, you could learn as much from Lucky Jim or a Raymond Chandler crime novel and have fun in the process too. But then "literary" novels aren't supposed to be fun.

A lot of Golden Age stuff feels a bit thin to me now, but in those days good characterisation wasn't really seen as very necessary, so it's hard to blame the authors (with the huge exception of Dune). I suspect that the flaws of some novels (Starship Troopers and to a much lesser extent 1984) are overlooked by people who like what the books have to say.

My main issue here isn't with books that are bad so much as books that are overhyped. The First Law is a very good trilogy indeed and does a lot to push fantasy towards being a genre of genuinely good novels, but it just doesn't deserve the slavish, undiluted praise that it gets in some quarters. Likewise Scott Lynch and (from what I've read of him) George R R Martin. I'd say the same thing about The Lord of the Rings, too: yes, it's a very great achievement, and no, it's not perfect.

 

[The Judge]

To the Lighthouse

Oh, good lord, yes. And Mrs Dalloway.