• Café Life is the Colony's main hangout, watering hole and meeting point.

    This is a place where you'll meet and make writing friends, and indulge in stratospherically-elevated wit or barometrically low humour.

    Some Colonists pop in religiously every day before or after work. Others we see here less regularly, but all are equally welcome. Two important grounds rules…

    • Don't give offence
    • Don't take offence

    We now allow political discussion, but strongly suggest it takes place in the Steam Room, which is a private sub-forum within Café Life. It’s only accessible to Full Members.

    You can dismiss this notice by clicking the "x" box

Books we didn't like, and why

Status
Not open for further replies.

E G Logan

Full Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2018
Location
Liguria, Italy
LitBits
50
Italy
We've done books we loved. Now can I suggest: Books we didn't like, and why..?

Before anyone jumps in to suggest this sounds rather ungracious of me, I would point out that my aim is two-fold:
1. to explain why these books don't work for you; i.e didactic, and
2. to save anyone else from ploughing through them, as I did; i.e. humanitarian.

To kick off: Wylder's Hand by Sheridan le Fanu. I've just read this.

Le Fanu is best known for (Victorian) ghost stories, mostly short and very well-regarded*, but he also wrote Gothic works, in the case of Wylder's Hand, a novel.

I came on this via a mention in another book, under the heading of 'Works unjustly overlooked'. Hmm. I beg to differ.

In mitigation:
-- This style has not aged well. But the book is what it is, a product of its time. In particular, the title has almost completely lost its impact. In Victorian English, however, one meaning of hand, now fallen out of use, would have been handwriting, very important here. That play on words no longer works.
-- The basic, underlying plot is simple and sound. It's the execution that lets it down, in fact almost completely torpedoes it.
-- The Gutenberg (free) version I was reading does Le F no favours. It is dotted with typos and the layout peculiarities often magnify the existing uncertainty over who is speaking in the many great blocks of dialogue.

In my view:
-- It's much too long. More than a short story but definitely no more than a novella. Should have been cut.
-- It's sloppily, self-indulgently written. In fact, I wondered if the good people at Gutenberg might have been working from a draft -- that is what it reads like. This means that: it's hard to keep track of the admittedly (and unnecessarily) complex plot, partly because it's difficult to see who is speaking. Le F clearly dislikes using 'he said/she said', and rarely does, but in a narrative that moves forward via a great deal of dialogue, this is a huge weakness.
-- The point of view wanders. There is mostly a 1st person narrator, but a lot of action is also reported to him, including by letter or newspaper article. That makes it easy to lose the thread.
-- The characterisation is inconsistent and just plain odd. Dorcas Brandon must be, unintentionally, one of the weirdest female characters in fiction, passive to the point of practically catatonic.

But, hey! You may think it's great.

[* M R James, no less, once described Le Fanu's The Familiar as one of the greatest ghost stories ever.]
 
I haven't read many books I didn't like at all because if a book doesn't interest me I don't get past the first few pages.

Generally I believe that every book has something to offer. Of the two books I've just finished:

Dune (William Herbert) - had some excellent world building, characterisation and great scene tension through well executed multiple POV. However, I felt it wasn't very well plotted and seemed to pack in a lot of action at the very end of the book and the conclusion was very abrupt.

The Black Sun (James Twining) - I found it very clichéd on all angles and at times made some incredible story leaps. Conversely the plot moves at an exceptional pace and he's really good at keeping the reader engaged.

I don't believe that there is a perfect book.

As a reader I enjoy the best bits and the writer in me analyses what I like and don't like with the aim to learn from it.
 
I just finished two books back-to-back. They're current, so I'd prefer not to mention them by name, but I've never had 2 books teach so much.

I mean, every book teaches me something, but these really hit home. I thoroughly enjoyed the character interaction (despite the occasional confusing bit a good CP would have picked up). But the characters led me to try the second book.

Oh, what a mistake. Suffice to say, block bits of narrative is not my cup of tea (80% of the book). I like character interaction and white space, coupled with some narrative.
 
Dune (William Herbert) -
I think you'll find that was Frank Herbert...
However your analysis matches mine - not enough going on of interest in the first 3/4 of the book. But then I did go on to read the others in the series so I can't have been that put off by it.

Recent books I have felt let me down are-

The Fox by Fredrick Forsythe, it's just a series of short events that all resolve themselves in much the same predictable way and then at the end the 'problem' just goes away. Dissapointing and not a patch on The Day of The Jackal.

The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. 150 odd chapters in 400 pages! Really! Some chapters were only about half a page. It made me so mad I threw it at the floor a couple of times. It was so fragmented it was like trying to piece together a smashed vase. Definitely not his best.
 
I had to put down Tom Hanks' collection of short stories just a few pages in. There was a love scene which referred to their "wonderful parts."

NO. NO. NO.

Also, I've become extremely sceptical of novels where the main character is a writer. There has to be a REALLY good reason for it plot-wise. We're just not that interesting. Or at least not interesting enough to merit the disproportionate number of novels representing writers.

Same goes for the marital problems of wealthy people, especially if they live in Manhattan.
 
I think you'll find that was Frank Herbert...
However your analysis matches mine - not enough going on of interest in the first 3/4 of the book. But then I did go on to read the others in the series so I can't have been that put off by it.

Recent books I have felt let me down are-

The Fox by Fredrick Forsythe, it's just a series of short events that all resolve themselves in much the same predictable way and then at the end the 'problem' just goes away. Dissapointing and not a patch on The Day of The Jackal.

The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. 150 odd chapters in 400 pages! Really! Some chapters were only about half a page. It made me so mad I threw it at the floor a couple of times. It was so fragmented it was like trying to piece together a smashed vase. Definitely not his best.

Whoops, no idea where I got William from???
 
I was underwhelmed by Rachel Kong's Goodbye, Vitamin. I didn't actively dislike it, but I certainly didn't like it as much as the celebrities and critics who praised it to the skies.

Although there were moments of humour, the way that it's written as a memoir by a naïve woman whose father is suffering with dementia begins to grate as it wanders from one incident to another without making a point. What's meant to be endearing is irritating. I finished it with a weary exhalation of breath, saying "Well, what was all that about?"

It's a triumph of marketing over content: the right sob story, the protagonist is the right age and gullible, the cover is colourful and the author is attractive. It felt targetted in a knowing way. The publisher did everything right. Oh, and it's short at 208 pages, so it's not intimidating.
 
"It's a triumph of marketing over content"
I love that! Too much marketing or everyone raving about a book tends to make me avoid the purchase and doubt it's appeal. Perhaps I'm just too stubborn.
 
King of Ashes - Raymond E. Feist.
I've loved his previous books and was really looking forward to this one. Unfortunately it feels as though they accidentally published an early draft. Typos, inconsistencies, a very pedestrian plot and less-then-original premise. 545 pages of it.
 
...
Also, I've become extremely sceptical of novels where the main character is a writer. There has to be a REALLY good reason for it plot-wise. We're just not that interesting. Or at least not interesting enough to merit the disproportionate number of novels representing writers.
...
That counts out a lot of what Stephen King has written then...;)
The Shining, Misery, etc.
 
That counts out a lot of what Stephen King has written then...;)
The Shining, Misery, etc.
I think misery has a good plot reason for it. But his other books? Yeah. I am a King fan but the writer is always the handsome one who gets the girl...
 
Also, I've become extremely sceptical of novels where the main character is a writer. There has to be a REALLY good reason for it plot-wise. We're just not that interesting. Or at least not interesting enough to merit the disproportionate number of novels representing writers.

I think this very much comes from writing about 'what you know'. Most writers know about writing, therefore it's easy to write about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top