Books you feel like you're supposed to like, but don't

[Alchemist]

Name of the Wind. I tried reading it three times, and got 50, then 100, then 150 pages but just didn't fall in love. It was pretty good, but I found something about it off-putting.

Farseer Trilogy. I read the first one and liked it, but I just don't get the love of this series. I see it as a quality read, but nothing great. Plus, the names are just annoying.

 

[Sfinx]

It's hard to know just how revered the Thomas Covenant books are. I know that Donaldson gets listed along with Brooks and Kay as writers who helped birth the fantasy boom of the 70's and 80's (and now I've done it; I've unthinkingly uttered an incantation that will summon KatG to tell me that there was never a fantasy boom in either the 70's or 80's, as fantasy had always sold quite well even before then).

...the symmetry with an unfortunate Haruchai uttering the name "Nom" was deliberate I suppose

 

[farseer2]

Farseer Trilogy. I read the first one and liked it, but I just don't get the love of this series. I see it as a quality read, but nothing great. Plus, the names are just annoying.

What do you mean about the names, FitzAlchemist?

 

[KatG]

Kinda the latter. I often feel a bit out of the loop as there are many "big books" of the genre that I have yet to read and I want to be able to at least talk about them like I know whereof I speak. I actually liked The Wheel of Time (despite being very aware of its flaws), so that's why I've read that series, but for a while I had this idea that I need to finish any series I start, unless I literally hated it from the get-go. That's why I kept reading until I was midway through Soul of the Fire in Goodkind's series, and finally couldn't take it anymore.

Well, most of them are "big books" because they were popular. There are too many of them to get to. (For instance, I only ended up getting around to reading The Man in the High Castle a few years ago.) So if you check out the big one that is usually the first one in a series and it's a no go for you, it would make perhaps more sense to stop and move on to the next "big book" rather than try to keep reading through a series that isn't working for you and is slowing you down on your reading list. There isn't going to be a geek exam, and fantasy series can go on for decades.

It's hard to know just how revered the Thomas Covenant books are. I know that Donaldson gets listed along with Brooks and Kay as writers who helped birth the fantasy boom of the 70's and 80's (and now I've done it; I've unthinkingly uttered an incantation that will summon KatG to tell me that there was never a fantasy boom in either the 70's or 80's, as fantasy had always sold quite well even before then).

There was a huge fantasy expansion in the 1980's, all sectors, which I've told you before. It started in the late 1970's. The growth of fantasy in the 1970's, while an extension of the 1960's and the paperback market in general, was fueled more by the 1960's authors -- LeGuin, McKillip, Moorcock, Norton, LOTR, etc. By the time we got to the 1980's, it was a free for all -- Donaldson, Brooks, Feist and Janny Wurts, Terri Windling, Charles de Lint, Emma Bull, Stephen Brust, Tim Powers, John Crowley, David Eddings, Zelazny, C.J. Cherryh, Pratchett, Piers Anthony, Jo Clayton, Barbara Hambly, Tom Holt, R.A. MacAvoy, MZB, Clive Barker, Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Robert McCammon, James Blaylock, K.W. Jeter, Peter Ackroyd, Robert Asprin, Diana Wynne Jones, Colin Dann, Jonathan Carroll, Tanith Lee, Laurence Watt-Evans, Jack Vance, Robert Holdstock, Angela Carter, Octavia Butler, Isobelle Carmody, Gene Wolfe, Orson Scott Card, Anne Rice, Brian Jacques, J.G. Ballard, Diane Duane, Terry Bisson, Patricia Wrede, Lisa Tuttle, etc. Plus all the sixties and seventies authors still publishing most of them. And the Japanese stuff that started to come in. And the tie-in novels and the Conan reboots, some of which were written by Robert Jordan. If you concentrated on just the 1980's books, that would probably be too big a pile to get through.

Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series was seminal and one of the biggest selling around -- it sold more than Shannara at the time, and pushed Donaldson into phenom territory, though not quite to that level. The second book in the series, however, was the best-selling novel of the entire year, all types of fiction, in the U.S. and the series traveled fairly well globally. It was widely known in general fiction. It was also seen as a dark, gritty, edgy series that was an anti-Tolkien, as it had a grumpy, misanthropic, suicidal middle-aged leper as its protagonist, who thinks he's hallucinating and does some bad things. It was seen as being a bit of an acid trip fantasy coming out of the seventies and a nod to Joseph Conrad and Faulkner. It was a continuation of stuff that fantasy writers were doing in the 1970's, but it played very well in the 1980's. When Donaldson did Mordant's Need, that was a shift to less dark fantasy, but also were big bestsellers.

But very few fantasy authors are "revered" and those are usually quite older authors like Lovecraft, Tolkien and White. And even the "revered" ones you don't have to like. If you made everybody love the "big" fantasy books, then fans would not have nearly enough to argue about. It's that lots of fans are in deep disagreement about them that helps in part to keep them seen as big or historic in the field.

 

[J.Rainey]

Interview with the Vampire comes to mind. My mother was and is a huge Anne Rice fan, and all of my friends in high school were crazy about The Vampire Chronicles, too. So, I've always been judged for not being the biggest fan. Her prose just does not grab me at all. It is SO purple. I feel like the every few pages, I would read a sentence that just made me say, "Really? REALLY?" out loud.

That said, I really like the movie. Go figure.

 

[David Plantinga]

Yes, this thread is inspired by my ongoing struggle to read Tad Williams's Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. Everyone I know who's finished it loves it. But I'm halfway through the second book and I'm finding myself making excuses to not read or having my attention wander when I do. Usually this is a sign that I need to put it down and move on, but I feel like it's one of those landmarks you have to visit.

Any books like this out there for you all?

There's no point in pushing through books you don't enjoy. Those other readers didn't enjoy them because they finished them, they finished them because they enjoyed them.

 

[mylinar]

I've never posted over on this side of the site, but I saw the title to the thread and it hit home. I read about 1/2 of Game of Thrones and put it down. There was nothing per se wrong with it that I could put a finger on but it really didn't grab me. Maybe overly wordy but I've read plenty of other wordy books. I watched the first 5 episodes of the TV series with my wife, but I had the same problem. They had to take some liberties with the book to fit it into a series so I can't claim it was also wordy. She still wants to continue with it, though probably restart now that it has been a long time yet I keep pushing it off.

 

[Kingsman]

I don't feel like I'm supposed to like any book, but some books / authors that have quite a number of fans, so the odds would be in favour of me liking them - but I don't (much)*:
- Kingkiller Chronicle; Rothfuss
- Iron Council, The Scar; Mieville (did very much enjoy Perdido though..)
- Michael Moorcock
- Neil Gaiman

* excluding all the YA-like fantasy such as MST, WoT, Riftwar, Covenant, Farseer etc. etc. which I liked a lot - at the time I read them

Are you just calling those authors you've excluded YA-like because you read them when you were young? If not how is Kingkiller Chronicles any different to them? My mind is boggled.

 

[Carolyn Denman]

Writing styles are evolving so rapidly now. Ideas that fascinated me 20 years ago have now become drowned out by more modern story-telling techniques. How do you go back to Shannara after you've just binge-watched Firefly? It seems heart-breaking that I feel this way about the beloved books I've grown up with. Inevitable in a way, I guess. There is so much material out there that only the best and freshest will succeed. Our own standards are bound to be raised as a result. Not a bad thing really. Just a bit sigh-inducing because I really did want a fire-lizard once...

 

[Vasher]

Tolkien, for sure. The Hobbit bored me to tears and I couldn't even make it through Fellowship. Although I don't know if I feel like I'm supposed to like his work, so much as I feel I should read it whether I like it or not. I watched the LoTR movies and thought they were just okay, and I knew enough going in that the books would be even less to my taste.

Somebody I feel like everybody likes and who I honestly, truly expected to be one of my favorite authors before I actually started reading his work is Ray Bradbury. I enjoyed his short story collections, although I wouldn't say they blew me away for the most part. Something Wicked This Way Comes is one of the worst, most infuriating books I've ever read. Every single sentence of description is full of clunky, unusual metaphors that don't paint any sort of clear mental picture at all, and the boys are flat archetypes of children with no actual personality of their own. Some of the most stilted dialogue I've ever read is in that book. Even his short stories have problems with stilted dialogue to varying degrees, depending on the story.

 

[Sfinx]

Name of the Wind. I tried reading it three times, and got 50, then 100, then 150 pages but just didn't fall in love. It was pretty good, but I found something about it off-putting.

On entering the bedroom last evening, I saw a book lying on the floor. Presumably, either the cleaning lady or the cat (the latter a lot more probable, the former, somewhat worrying) caused it to tumble out of the bookcase. And lo and behold - 'twas The Name of the Wind...now feel cosmically compelled to give the thing another go. Currently at page 30 or so. Some good bits sofar, but already wondering whether I'll finish this time round..

 

[Woofdog2]

Not sure they're that revered - they will feature in most fantasy top-100 lists but seldom in top-25s. Donaldson does tell an interesting tale though imo, with an original protagonist and some very strong side-characters and a grand scope. But for sure, it is not without its faults. For me the repetitiveness, the mostly predictable actions of Covenant and the simplistic depiction of Lord Foul were my main objections.



Small wonder. The man is a genius and the books of the New, Long, and Short Sun are his best work. Solid characters, each sentence a compact work of art, thought provoking themes, multiple intertwined storylines, exotic settings and intrigue & adventure....there is quite a bit to like!

The one I really, really tried to like is Michael Moorcock. Somewhat of a hero in the genre, good reviews, lots of prizes, interesting themes - should be fine. But Jerry Cornelius was a horrible read, and I didn't fare much better with the Eternal Champion or von Bek (although strangely enough i did very much enjoy the first instalment of the latter series: The War Hound and the World's Pain).

Some context may be of use on Donaldson's early work - at the time the first series was published, it was certainly among the best non-LOTR fantasy on the bookstore shelves. the three books were published in the late 70s, so it was a much, much smaller available pool of fantasy book choices, period. if you were reading fantasy then, odds were very good you at least picked up the first book. memory isn't as clear but I want to say it was also the only or nearly-only fantasy series that diverged from the heroic fantasy approach. Covenant was badly flawed and often unlikable.

That said, I think Donaldson improved greatly in the following decades. The Gap Series (sci-fi) is one of my favorite sci-fi series, period.

I have not read moorcock since I was a teenager (at that point almost all his published works were novelizations of his serial fiction I think). From what I remember I doubt I would enjoy it nearly as much now, but I sure liked it then.

 

[Randy M.]

Somebody I feel like everybody likes and who I honestly, truly expected to be one of my favorite authors before I actually started reading his work is Ray Bradbury. I enjoyed his short story collections, although I wouldn't say they blew me away for the most part. Something Wicked This Way Comes is one of the worst, most infuriating books I've ever read. Every single sentence of description is full of clunky, unusual metaphors that don't paint any sort of clear mental picture at all, and the boys are flat archetypes of children with no actual personality of their own. Some of the most stilted dialogue I've ever read is in that book. Even his short stories have problems with stilted dialogue to varying degrees, depending on the story.

I can sympathize with not liking Something Wicked This Way Comes. It has annoyed me every one of the 5-6 times I've read it, though for different reasons, and I expect it to bug me again the next time I reread it. Seriously, it's flawed but there's something about it that still appeals to me even though it doesn't exactly satisfy me.

I can also sympathize with not enjoying Interview with a Vampire. Writing from the American South can get a bit florid at times and that one was written when Rice still had to listen to her editors. I found the novel interesting and at times evocative but not engaging enough that I've read anything else by her.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis didn't inspire me to continue, either. In part I think I was too old but not old enough -- in my early 20s, too old to appreciate work for younger readers, not old enough to transcend my 20-something limitations. But also everything I've read by Lewis (his s.f. trilogy, The Screwtape Letters) seems to be preaching to a choir I'm not part of.

Another classic that fell flat for me was G. K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday. This surprised me since I've enjoyed other things by Chesterton -- the Father Brown stories, mainly. Again, preaching to the choir, but also the hugger-mugger of the plot fell flat. I may reread this someday and see if it was just me at the time. Oddly, I'm rather glad I read it all the same. Both Heinlein's "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag" and Neil Gaiman's American Gods play off of it, I think, and I wouldn't have known that otherwise.

Friends expected me to like Eddings The Belgariad, and certainly it was enormously popular at the time so I tried it, even finished it. Problem is, Eddings' prose is bland, his characters made of cardboard and I had a sense that as soon as a setting was done with a crew broke it down, folded it up and stored it until the next writer needed it.

Randy M.

 

[Vasher]

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis didn't inspire me to continue, either. In part I think I was too old but not old enough -- in my early 20s, too old to appreciate work for younger readers, not old enough to transcend my 20-something limitations. But also everything I've read by Lewis (his s.f. trilogy, The Screwtape Letters) seems to be preaching to a choir I'm not part of.

You have no idea how preachy he gets, then. The Last Battle had me uncontrollably laughing as everyone gathers to be judged by Aslan and the faithful get to go to the real Narnia (heaven) as the old one is destroyed and all the kids die in a train accident in the real world except Susan, because she got old enough to explore her sexuality and isn't allowed in heaven anymore after that.

If you ever do feel like reading one, I recommend The Silver Chair. It's not at all preachy iirc, mostly just a standard fantasy tale in the vein of The Chronicles of Prydain that's pretty light and enjoyable. The Horse and His Boy is my personal favorite, mostly because it has nothing to do with the main kids, although there's some passive racism in there that's a bit off-putting.

 

[Takoren]

If you ever do feel like reading one, I recommend The Silver Chair. It's not at all preachy iirc, mostly just a standard fantasy tale in the vein of The Chronicles of Prydain that's pretty light and enjoyable. The Horse and His Boy is my personal favorite, mostly because it has nothing to do with the main kids, although there's some passive racism in there that's a bit off-putting.

Well, it does explore the idea of belief and a thinly-veiled attack on the logic of non-believers, including the caveat that many of those who espouse such logic actually do believe but don't want others to.

However, I am a believer, so nothing in the series bothers me the way it does you.

 

[Carolyn Denman]

On entering the bedroom last evening, I saw a book lying on the floor. Presumably, either the cleaning lady or the cat (the latter a lot more probable, the former, somewhat worrying) caused it to tumble out of the bookcase. And lo and behold - 'twas The Name of the Wind...now feel cosmically compelled to give the thing another go. Currently at page 30 or so. Some good bits sofar, but already wondering whether I'll finish this time round..

I recommend giving it one more shot. The real gold is yet to come. Pat's 'world-building excercise/novella' Slow Regard of Silent Things may just be my fav book of all time. It is nothing less than art. Not for everyone, I'm sure, but it touched a chord in me.

 

[Vasher]

Well, it does explore the idea of belief and a thinly-veiled attack on the logic of non-believers, including the caveat that many of those who espouse such logic actually do believe but don't want others to.

However, I am a believer, so nothing in the series bothers me the way it does you.

Can't say that I recall that, but I'll take your word for it, Lewis was a preachy man, guess it's too much to assume any of his books didn't try to slip some sort of lesson in there. Certainly flew over my head, which is how it should be. No reason to beat your readers over the head with your personal views, regardless of what they are. A little subtlety and restraint and a focus on writing an entertaining story first is always appreciated.

Also, nothing bothers you? Really? Not even the way Susan is left behind to deal with the trauma of losing her entire family simply because she found out sex and makeup are enjoyable things, as every healthy girl of 21 does? You can be a person of faith and still find that disgusting. I find the implication that Peter, a year older, gets to go to heaven because he has no interest in sex an equally unhealthy message. Or maybe he gets to go because it's okay for men to be interested in sex but not women, this was just prior to the sexual revolution after all. Either way, it's messed up.

 

[Takoren]

Can't say that I recall that, but I'll take your word for it, Lewis was a preachy man, guess it's too much to assume any of his books didn't try to slip some sort of lesson in there. Certainly flew over my head, which is how it should be. No reason to beat your readers over the head with your personal views, regardless of what they are. A little subtlety and restraint and a focus on writing an entertaining story first is always appreciated.

Also, nothing bothers you? Really? Not even the way Susan is left behind to deal with the trauma of losing her entire family simply because she found out sex and makeup are enjoyable things, as every healthy girl of 21 does? You can be a person of faith and still find that disgusting. I find the implication that Peter, a year older, gets to go to heaven because he has no interest in sex an equally unhealthy message. Or maybe he gets to go because it's okay for men to be interested in sex but not women, this was just prior to the sexual revolution after all. Either way, it's messed up.

It's been years since I read it, but I recall that the bigger problem with Susan wasn't as cut-and-dried as you're making it sound. The bigger issue was that she stopped believing Aslan and Narnia even exist.

But I'm not looking for a debate on this topic. While the books were favorites of mine growing up, they've lost a bit of their lustre now that I'm a middle-aged man. Also, I agree that Lewis could be preachy and unsubtle with his themes, and that does irritate me, even as a Christian.

 

[DurzoBlint]

A few books that I don't care for:

1. JRR Tolkien. I read them when I was a young kid and feel that they are YA at best. Nothing wrong with the books just don't see the appeal or need to place them on a pedestal.

2. GRR Martin. Really liked Game of Thrones and the rest of the series was fair to middling. I plan on reading the next book in the series but if I never did, I'd still be okay. Other books that I have read by Martin have been quite good and I feel they are overshadowed by ASOIAF.

3. Robert Jordan. I made it to Lord of Chaos and could go no further. It just felt like I was reading the same thing over and over by that point in time.

I'm sure there are more but these were the first that came to mind.

 

[Takoren]

2. GRR Martin. Really liked Game of Thrones and the rest of the series was fair to middling. I plan on reading the next book in the series but if I never did, I'd still be okay. Other books that I have read by Martin have been quite good and I feel they are overshadowed by ASOIAF.

This one is odd since the complaint I here is most often the reverse of this; that the first book is slow-moving and "nothing happens" (translation; this is fantasy, where's the swordplay and magic, dammit), and that the other books are more kinetic and therefore more interesting.

I love the first three books in total, and I think I might love the fourth and fifth if I ever get around to reading them as one giant novel rather than as two separate ones.