Overrated Books

In the case of haunting of The Hill of Hill House. I found the book to be colossally underwhelming. It's not suspenseful , not very atmospheric, it isn't the least bit scary and I didn't care about any of the characters. This book is downright dull.

Argh. Excuse me. I have to go gnaw on my arm now.

Toby and I have danced this dance before, so I'll let it go at that. Instead I'll nominate what I view as an overrated book that will probably get a similar response from other readers here: Enders Game. Card takes a Twilight Zone-ish short story concept and expands it to novel length, with a "trick" that I figured out early on and thought, no, he's not going to do that. He's clever enough to come up with ... Nope. That's what he did:
It's not a game!

Whoopie.

Only mitigating factor is that it made Speaker for the Dead possible.

Randy M.
 
if this man ever comes back, I'm buying him a cigar and a cake for this observation. Everybody I know that reads fantasy looks at me like I smoke crack for hating Jordan's stuff.

I muscled my way through the gag reflex inspired by Jordan's "work" in order to get to the books written by Sanderson. Hearing that he was finishing the series gave me hope that he would salvage. How wrong I was. After wading through the effluvia I found myself reading the only Sanderson books (at least so far) that I will never read a second time.
 
Peter F has always been wordy, not David Weber level but still wordy..
A scale
Wordiness..
Tolkien
Weber
Hamilton
... Rest of the pack
 
And now I'll go gnaw my other arm, too.

Randy M.
(geez, I hope I don't end up needing a third arm.)
Oh come on, its a dreary book made up like entries in a diary. It starts interesting enough and is just about readable. But its hard to believe that this huge mythos has grown out of this ordinary gothic horror story.
 
Surprised how much Eragon is mentioned here... was that ever really rated highly in the first place? As to Harry Potter, I think there's an oddity there in that the first 2 books are significantly more childish than the ones that came after. So I definitely see how fans tipped into obsession given that the books kept improving and Rowling is actually an excellent mystery writer, which made her books unexpected page-turners. On the flipside, I understand why hardcore fantasy fans that pick up book one can't stand Harry Potter and think it's childish fantasy for the masses.

I will probably make heads explode, but my picks are:

Game of Thrones. A one-trick shock pony, and the shock wears off once it happens so many times you just know nothing good will ever happen to anyone in this world ever. It also seems clear that in his efforts to surprise people, he wrote himself into a corner he will never get out of and this series will not be finished.

Mistborn. Another insufferably powerful urchin has to train for world salvation. The action is like Dragon Ball-Z only put to page and less interesting. The main character endlessly repeats how brutally lonely life on the street is and how nobody can be trusted. But of course, they immediately trust their future mentor and move right in with his nefarious gang. The awful, AWFUL romance-in-the-making with the edgy guy who's rich powerful and handsome but not a jerk about it and you know this because he's reading a book at the ball. Then the author went back for a SECOND ball and I couldn't take it anymore. If I want to read Twilight, I'll read Twilight.
 
Asimov's Foundation. I managed to plow through the first 3 volumes but wondered why I'd bothered. Tried to read Foundation's Edge years later, didn't get very far. There's very little of what I'd call SF, very little story in fact. Too much politicing and waffle. That was my impression back then but I plan to try again some time, see if my view has changed
 
I never liked The King of Elfland's Daughter, mainly because there was no dialogue or character development. It's too "cute" for me as well.
 
Oh come on, its a dreary book made up like entries in a diary. It starts interesting enough and is just about readable. But its hard to believe that this huge mythos has grown out of this ordinary gothic horror story.

I'll grant that it's been many years since I read it, but when I read it, I thought the first 1/3 or so of Dracula was like a clinic in how to build suspense. Then there's the obligatory Victorian stuff about mannerly dealings with women and what frail creatures they all are, and then we return to the good stuff, the hunt for the vampire, and so on.

While I prefer Le Fanu's Carmilla, I do think Dracula is one of the more readable Victorian horror novels.

Randy M.
 
Dracula may get additional kudos for being among the first of its kind, don't you think?
 
That's not enough for me. On bookmooch it went. Castle of Otranto was a far better read. So was The Keep by F. Paul Wilson

The Castle of Otranto?!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHH ! !! :eek: Reading that book is the literary equivalent of nails down a chalkboard ! :eek:
 
I liked Vathek but haven't felt the fortitude to try Otranto yet.
I am not a fan of Dracula though.
Team Frankenstein all the way!


"Nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose - a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye."
 
I liked Vathek but haven't felt the fortitude to try Otranto yet.
I am not a fan of Dracula though.
Team Frankenstein all the way!


"Nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose - a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye."

Clark Aston Smith greatly admired Vathek. There was chapter of the book that wasn't included with the original manuscript when it was published. Curiously when the book itself was first published , it was done so in French . The Third Episode of Vathek: The Story of Princess Zulkais and the Prince Kailah Smith Translated it from French to english and expanded on it. You can find it among short story collections and also on the Eldritch Dark Website .
 

Similar threads


Back
Top