Books That You're Supposed To Like But Don't...

[L'Sana]

[quote name='Un-Yearded Pita' post='1313978' date='Apr 14 2008, 14.45']I must tell you that Children of Hurin, to me, is better than The Lord of the Rings. Not only are the illustrations breathtaking (Someone choked me to get at my book, once), but the story is very good, without the historicalness of silmarillion or the much-copied Lord of the Rings, but an actually very creative tale with a very flawed hero. I think you'll like it if you read it.[/quote]

I do know the story of Turin and Nienor, since I've read their (excessively long, IMHO) chapter in Silmarillion. My reaction to it was, "Why? Who cares?" Given that, would you still recommend that I give CoH a shot? If so, I'll work on tracking it down. I [i]want[/i] to like it. I [i]want[/i] feel joy at reading a new Tolkien novel. I just don't think I will.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Galactus' post='1314092' date='Apr 14 2008, 18.58']On the comic-book front I don't "Get" JMS writing: I can see where it should be good but it just ends up flat for me.[/quote]

Oh you're right on here. JMS is pretty much terrible when it comes to comics. Lots of ideas, little decent execution. [i]Rising Stars [/i]was a mess. Midnight Nation was tedious (Gary Frank art is the only redeeming quality). Personally I think his Spider-Man stuff is over-hyped and not overly original, as many seem to think it is.

Good call.

[matt b]

[quote name='L'Sana' post='1316996' date='Apr 16 2008, 15.34']I do know the story of Turin and Nienor, since I've read their (excessively long, IMHO) chapter in Silmarillion. My reaction to it was, "Why? Who cares?" Given that, would you still recommend that I give CoH a shot? If so, I'll work on tracking it down. I [i]want[/i] to like it. I [i]want[/i] feel joy at reading a new Tolkien novel. I just don't think I will.[/quote]

I'd probably avoid it if I were you, doesn't sound like your cup of tea. I loved the Children of of Hurin but I'm also one of a minority of Tolkien fans who likes the Silmarillion every bit as much and possibly more than the Lord of the Rings. Turin's story was also by far my favorite story from the Silmarillion, so it was very obviously right up my alley. If you're already saying you thought the Turin chapter was excessively long, then it sounds like that's definitely not what you're interested in.

[Mossman]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1308019' date='Apr 9 2008, 15.57']At least read Wizard & Glass. It's a really great book. After that, it goes downhill a bit, then alot. But the first 4 are very good.[/quote]


Funny. I'm stuck n the middle of [i]Wizard and Glass[/i] and can't keep going. The "Susan Delgado" stuff is excruciatingly boring. I put the book down several months back and just can't bring myself to read it, though I enjoy the series.

Also didn't like [i]Gardens of the Moon[/i]. Can't make it through, and like some of the other posters, I'm starting to not feel bad about it.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Mossman' post='1317571' date='Apr 16 2008, 22.45']Funny. I'm stuck n the middle of [i]Wizard and Glass[/i] and can't keep going. The "Susan Delgado" stuff is excruciatingly boring. I put the book down several months back and just can't bring myself to read it, though I enjoy the series.[/quote]

Oh the book is SLOW as shit. It's got that good western feel though. And the ending, imo, is absolutely awesome.

[The Wolf Maid]

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1307632' date='Apr 9 2008, 23.53']Gormenghast. I know it's a great fantasy classic etc etc, but boy was it a struggle. By the end of the second book I'd just started to get into it, and then got smacked round the head by the weirdness that was [i]Titus Alone[/i] :stunned: - after all that, to fall at the final hurdle...[/quote]
OH YES. I couldn't just get into it, no matter how hard I tried.

And oh, I just couldn't get the [i]Name of the Wind[/i] love. I could stand Malazan, but not that book.

[beniowa]

[quote name='Jaxom 1974' post='1317041' date='Apr 16 2008, 15.10']Oh you're right on here. JMS is pretty much terrible when it comes to comics. Lots of ideas, little decent execution. [i]Rising Stars [/i]was a mess. Midnight Nation was tedious (Gary Frank art is the only redeeming quality). Personally I think his Spider-Man stuff is over-hyped and not overly original, as many seem to think it is.

Good call.[/quote]
I thought [i]Rising Stars[/i] was pretty good though I agree with you on his later stuff. I never understood why he did [i]Supreme Power[/i] since it was basically a [i]Rising Stars[/i] clone. :unsure:

[Eponine]

I didn't like His Dark Materials either, although I don't consider it a book that I'm supposed to like. Perhaps because I read it as an adult, knew about the controversy, and immediately found it moralistic and reactionary. I don't like the anti-religion message in a child's book for the same reason that I don't like hidden religious messages. It's manipulative and seeks to influence children by their emotions. And if you're going to write a book that's influenced by a series that you disagree with, at least make your book better. Overlooking the religious aspects in both, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was magical; HDM was meh.

[Angalin]

[quote name='Eponine R' post='1317689' date='Apr 16 2008, 23.26']The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was magical[/quote]
Oooh yes. Just thinking about clawing off the dragonskin makes my arms itch!

[The Wolf Maid]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1314351' date='Apr 15 2008, 11.06']I also think Dan Brown has some redeemable qualities. My stance on him is "he's great for what he is." I think a lot of [i]us[/i], dislike him because the douchebag accross the cubicle read a book for the first time since high school lit and is bragging about how deep the book was.[/quote]
QFT.

(Hm. This remark fits another author, but I can't remember which one is it).

[Tears of Lys]

[quote name='deedles' post='1314142' date='Apr 14 2008, 19.43']Some of Dickens. I adore some stuff, but "The Pickwick Papers", yawn![/quote]


I didn't much care for that either. It's actually radically different from any of his other books. Tale of Two Cities didn't really set me on fire either, but all of the others were great, IMO. If I'd been made to read them in school, tho, I'd have hated them.

[Fitz Farseer]

Mainstream Lit:

Lolita -- Vladimir Naabakov

The guy knows how to craft a sentence, but it has taken me months to finish this one.

[Wrex]

The Lord of the Rings. I just find it so fucking borng.

[delete this account pls]

[quote name='beniowa' post='1317629' date='Apr 17 2008, 13.24']I thought [i]Rising Stars[/i] was pretty good though I agree with you on his later stuff. I never understood why he did [i]Supreme Power[/i] since it was basically a [i]Rising Stars[/i] clone. :unsure:[/quote]

I thought Rising Stars started well, the characters were interesting and the various mysteries intriguing, but it dropped off a lot for the middle third. It rallied a bit towards the ending, but I still have mixed feelings about how it wrapped up. Haven't read much of JMS' other comics stuff, except his Doctor Strange mini, which was pretty bad.

[Chas Warren]

I am a lifelong fantasy and SF fan, as is most of my family and all of my friends, so I am "supposed" to like certain authors and books that I really can't stand.

I can't stand:

R.A. Salvatore
Alan Dean Foster
Marion Zimmer Bradley
Dean R. Koontz
Piers Anthony
Christopher Stasheff
Ed Greenwood
Terry Brooks
Star Trek novels
Star Wars novels
Laurel K. Hamilton after she started writing porn
Dan Brown
Andre Norton
Robert Jordan

Randomly, some of the above authors will produce/have produced something that I like. Some of the above authors I feel guilty for not liking, much in the same way that I couldn't stand Christopher Reeve as an actor, but, post-accident, I felt guilty for not liking him. Some of these authors I recognize as iconic. But I'd rather eat ground glass than chew through their tortured prose.

I normally read about 150 novels a year, and find 10 of them to have been worth reading. Half of those I will eventually re-read, usually no fewer than five years later. I admit, I'm harsh. But we don't seem to have as many prose stylists as we used to, and too many of the novels have degenerated into romances with pseudo-fantasy trappings.

Okay, I've finished grumbling.

[Chas Warren]

[quote name='The Wolf Maid' post='1317620' date='Apr 16 2008, 19.14']OH YES. I couldn't just get into it, no matter how hard I tried.

And oh, I just couldn't get the [i]Name of the Wind[/i] love. I could stand Malazan, but not that book.[/quote]

[i]Name of the Wind[/i] was my favorite novel in any genre for the past five years, speaking conservatively. Oddly, I shouldn't have liked it. I generally despise novels that begin with our hero sitting in a pub -- like a bad D&D novelization -- but this one worked for me.

[Chas Warren]

[quote name='Guinevere Storm' post='1310616' date='Apr 11 2008, 10.42']As much as I love the story of LotR, the writing style just doesn't do it for me. Glad I'm not the only one. The His Dark Materials trilogy doesn't deserve the press it got either, IMO. 'Important' works of literature that English professors drool over usually bore me (except Jane Eyre...I liked that one).[/quote]

I have dozens of books that I like equally with His Dark Materials, but none that I like better (okay, maybe Shadowland, by Peter Straub).

[L'Sana]

[quote name='matt b' post='1317241' date='Apr 16 2008, 17.31']I'd probably avoid it if I were you, doesn't sound like your cup of tea. I loved the Children of of Hurin but I'm also one of a minority of Tolkien fans who likes the Silmarillion every bit as much and possibly more than the Lord of the Rings. Turin's story was also by far my favorite story from the Silmarillion, so it was very obviously right up my alley. If you're already saying you thought the Turin chapter was excessively long, then it sounds like that's definitely not what you're interested in.[/quote]

Maybe you can explain Turin to me then. You say you liked the Silmarillion; I did too, though not more than LoTR. My problem with Turin was that he didn't seem part of it. Turin's life, while tragic, didn't seem to affect the overall movement of the story at all, for good or for ill. If he had never been born, the quest for the silmarils and the battle with Morgoth would have all unfolded pretty much the same way. It was as if, in the middle of The Two Towers, Tolkien had suddenly decided that what we needed was a 100 page description of the short and tragic life of Theoden's son.

So what was the appeal of Turin's story for you? How did you see it fitting into the overall plot of the Silmarillion? I'm very curious as to what I'm missing.

[matt b]

[quote name='L'Sana' post='1321991' date='Apr 20 2008, 19.47']Maybe you can explain Turin to me then. You say you liked the Silmarillion; I did too, though not more than LoTR. My problem with Turin was that he didn't seem part of it. Turin's life, while tragic, didn't seem to affect the overall movement of the story at all, for good or for ill. If he had never been born, the quest for the silmarils and the battle with Morgoth would have all unfolded pretty much the same way. It was as if, in the middle of The Two Towers, Tolkien had suddenly decided that what we needed was a 100 page description of the short and tragic life of Theoden's son.

So what was the appeal of Turin's story for you? How did you see it fitting into the overall plot of the Silmarillion? I'm very curious as to what I'm missing.[/quote]

You know, I've never really thought of the story in those terms before. But that might be because I've never thought of the Silmarillion as a single work with a single plot in the same way that the LotR is. I'm not sure that Tolkien did either. From the earliest conception of his mythology, there were essentially 3 stories: Turin's, The Fall of Gondolin, and Beren & Luthien. Obviously he fleshed things out more than that and filled in those gaps, but even in the published form of the Silmarillion those 3 stories are the longest and most full by far. Asking how Turin's story fits into the overall plot seems almost backwards to me, the question should be how the rest of the Silmarillion fits into Turin's story (and with the other 2 I mentioned).

But you are right, if Turin had never been born, the rest of the story would have unfolded exactly the same way. That's never really bothered me, although as I said, I hadn't thought about it before. I think the real reason why I love Turin's story is so much is because it is so tragic, and I'm a sucker for tragic heroes. I can't read that scene when Hurin and Morwen reunite at their children's graves without tearing up. For me, this is Tolkien at his most heartfelt and emotional. It doesn't really affect the overall movement of the story, no, but to me that's irrelevant because the Silmarillion isn't 1 overall story, but many.

[veni_vici]

[quote]Also didn't like Gardens of the Moon. Can't make it through, and like some of the other posters, I'm starting to not feel bad about it.[/quote]

I had a similar experience. I was really looking forward to getting into these books... and then I started reading them. Throughout the entire book I kept telling myself that Erikson was just trying to establish the story, and it would get better later. Nope. Fans of the series say it really starts making sense around book four. My thoughts are if it takes four books to establish the story, he either took too many lessons from Robert Jordan or its just not that great of a series.