Books to avoid like a bookworm on a diet

Busi_Girl08 · 07-09-2009 8:19pm

To be honest, I read Catcher in thr Rye...and I can not remember any of it...It really didn't stand out to me at all.

chenguin · 07-09-2009 8:27pm

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

To be honest, I read Catcher in thr Rye...and I can not remember any of it...It really didn't stand out to me at all.

Exactly!
Whats the point in a book that you cant remember?

dr.bollocko · 07-09-2009 8:29pm

What really knocks me out is a book, when you're all done reading it, you wished the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it.

Plowman · 07-09-2009 10:56pm

This post has been deleted.

PADRAGON · 08-09-2009 1:23am

Could'nt get through twilight.I might get slaughtered for this but i found it
very girly.Just too much "his pale beauty" and "oh the embarassment".
The gorgeous cullens can suck my a*se.:rolleyes:

Coriolanus · 20-09-2009 1:45am

dr.bollocko wrote: »

What really knocks me out is a book, when you're all done reading it, you wished the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it.

And then you read the author biog and find out he's already dead.

I swear I nearly cried when I finished Contact.

Redd Rose · 20-09-2009 1:56am

anything by maeve binchy.

BeatNikDub · 20-09-2009 2:48pm

Shaybo wrote: »

Labyrinth by Kate Mosse - an absolute disgrace that this ever saw the light of day and a real indictment of the media mafia in the UK that Mosse's (who's a literary biwig at the Sunday Times and in the UK in general) book has been so lavishly praised. Bady written, badly plotted and badly edited.

Absolutely, couldnt agree more.

I would add Kazohinia to this list also.
I jumped into this book with so much excitement and it ended up being one of the worst books I have ever read. The lead character is quite possibly the most annoying and blood boilingly irritating person to have ever graced the pages of a book - EVER.

WesternNight · 20-09-2009 2:57pm

Again, Labyrinth by Kate Mosse is terrible. Just...terrible.

Would also agree that Rule of Four is bad too.

femur61 · 20-09-2009 4:01pm

I am glad is was not just me that thought Labyrinth by Kate Mosse was missing something. I couldn't get into this book at all I hate when i waste money on books that have had great reviews. :mad:

turgon · 20-09-2009 8:52pm

Join BookMooch, give it away and get a book in return!

thebadmonkey · 11-10-2009 12:51pm

I like most of Koontz books. Alot of them are similiar though..

Any of Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series.. or Steve Erikson's 'Malazan' series...initially thought they were amazing but that rapidly turned into abject hatred

SecondTime · 16-10-2009 12:53pm

decies wrote: »

Midnight Children .Salmon Rushdie
Threw it into recycle bin this morning.
Couldn,t get into it at all.

Damn, I just got that and was planning on starting it as soon as I've finished reading my current book - I'll still have to give it a go tho'

theCzar · 16-10-2009 1:21pm

I've complained about this thread a few times already but again I feel compelled.

Midnights Children is not a "Book to avoid" everybody's taste is different, I'll hate some books you love and vice vearsa but it doesn't neccessarily make them bad books. Hell, I like some bad books.

There are plenty of bad books out there, Midnights Children is not one of them even though its far from one of my favourites.

KateC92 · 20-10-2009 1:02am

PADRAGON wrote: »

Could'nt get through twilight.I might get slaughtered for this but i found it
very girly.Just too much "his pale beauty" and "oh the embarassment".
The gorgeous cullens can suck my a*se.:rolleyes:

I am a twilight fan, but I totally respect your point. It is a brilliant book but only for a select audience of girls aged 12-18. Mainly because if you fall in love with Edward Cullen, you fall in love with the book, but otherwise it will probably make you puke. Unfortunately I did fall in love with him and now it means no lad will ever be good enough because Edward is so perfect and unrealistic.

KateC92 · 20-10-2009 1:08am

Earthhorse wrote: »

Lord of the Rings - the template for fantasy literature and a seminal book but it's lack of proper characterisation coupled with the infinite detail makes for a slow and uninspiring read.

I'm with you on that one. It took me three goes to make it through Fellowship of the Ring, and it was like climbing a mountain- I was proud when I finished it, but regreting wasting so much time at it.
Obviously Tolkien is a very talented author, but it was just way to slow. The movies were brilliant though.

DEVEREUX · 20-10-2009 1:22am

Dont know if its been mentioned already but i finally got through the drivel that is City At The End Of Time by Greg Bear. I was a huge fan of most of his work until this woeful peice of **** came into my life, I kept going back to it hoping it would turn around at some point. Theres six months of my life i'll never get back!!!

KateC92 · 20-10-2009 1:26am

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is doubtless a book with load of potential and had magic, mystery and action.

It was also incredibly, mind numbigly boring. I forced myself to read it and can't rememeber any of the last book except for "Sam forced Frodo to eat a whole wafer of their precious lembas bread" or something. It was just overly detailed which took away from the essential action of book.

First few chapters was Frodo just humming and hawing about whteher or not he should leave.

I loved the Hobbit, it was far less cluttered with description. Most of us only need the bare bones of a description and we can compose the rest ourselves in our heads.
.

I agree with every word. THANK YOU!

KateC92 · 20-10-2009 1:28am

chenguin wrote: »

I have to say I really don't see the appeal of catcher in the rye. I found it really boring.

I'll second that, I heard it was one of those must-rea books, but in the end I was just glad that it wasn't very long.

Aard · 20-10-2009 2:17am

I started reading "Lolita" by Nabokov, but got bored about half-way through. It just seems to go on and on with the repetitive "she's so pretty, but I mustn't let her mother know I want to touch her" stuff. Perhaps not worthy of the title of this thread, but up there nonetheless.

Muffin top · 28-10-2009 12:00am

The Catcher in the Rye is a great book. I really enjoyed it.

The Alchemist, awful!
Bram Stokers Dracula; it's not often that I put a book down before reading it cover to cover, however, I couldn't manage this.

Eliot Rosewater · 28-10-2009 7:15pm

I think those who criticize Tolkien in some of the ways said above - for example that he is too descriptive - fail to understand what he was trying to do. Tolkien is a huge influence on fantasy, true, but unlike the vast vast majority of fantasy writers he was trying to create a Complete Mythology.

Tolkien was highly interested in Celtic and Cornish mythology, and worked on the Oxford Dictionary. He wasn't about publishing some fast paced fantasy novel. Also, as another posterhere said in some other place, LoTR is riddled with biblical influences. Comparing it with The Wheel of Time and that long line of fantasy work is frankly an insult. Its a totally different work, with a totally different goal.

scriba · 28-10-2009 11:01pm

It's amazing how much taste can differ. Three of the books on this page denounced for being overly descriptive, too slow, or boring are in fact some of my favourites (Dracula, Lolita, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy). All three books I have read many times (LOTR i have read at least once a year for the last twenty years without fail).

Books to avoid that I have come in contact with in the last couple of years are:

Ken Follett's 'The Pillars of the Earth'
Graham Swift 'Waterland'

and...

John Banville's 'The Sea' - a book no doubt praised for its strong descriptive prose, but that prose for me reached out of the book and wrapped its arms around my neck. I gave up with about seventy pages to go, and I'm normally quite stubborn with a book. But this...

Aard · 29-10-2009 1:23am

Yes, I do concede that Lolita is well written. Perhaps I'd more descibe it as "overrated", rather than "to avoid like a bookworm on a diet"! And, definitely, tastes differ greatly amongs readers.

Also, fwiw, Cornish is Celtic.

femur61 · 29-10-2009 9:06am

scriba wrote: »

Ken Follett's 'The Pillars of the Earth'
...

I am wading through the follow up "Worlds end" at the moment. Brilliant but huge not just literally but physically, find reading in bed I can't hold it.

Mark Hamill · 30-10-2009 7:53pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think those who criticize Tolkien in some of the ways said above - for example that he is too descriptive - fail to understand what he was trying to do. Tolkien is a huge influence on fantasy, true, but unlike the vast vast majority of fantasy writers he was trying to create a Complete Mythology.

Tolkien was highly interested in Celtic and Cornish mythology, and worked on the Oxford Dictionary. He wasn't about publishing some fast paced fantasy novel. Also, as another posterhere said in some other place, LoTR is riddled with biblical influences. Comparing it with The Wheel of Time and that long line of fantasy work is frankly an insult. Its a totally different work, with a totally different goal.

I dont understand how this is actually a counter to peoples claims about Tolkien. Sure, you can say that he wasn't aiming for a fast paced adventure and wanted to flex his vernacular muscles and go for a Complete Mythology but that doesn't recognise that, to a lot of people, he failed to make that mythology particularly interesting because of his writing style.

Eliot Rosewater · 31-10-2009 9:21pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

to a lot of people, he failed to make that mythology particularly interesting because of his writing style.

Thats fair enough, but I think it all hinges on how you phrase it. You may not in your opinion have liked Tolkien because you didn't find his work interesting/engaging and thats obviously understandable. However people saying hes bad, and that he doesn't compare well to other 'fantasy' writers is where people misunderstand what hes about, I think. And fundamentally it seems that people equate not being interesting with being bad.

I think he compares a lot more with Lady Gregorys Celtic Mythology translations than the fantasy works to which he is usually judged.

Its really all a matter of taste, at the end of the day. Lots of people say the Council of Elrond is one of the most boring things theyve ever read. Which is fair enough because its not thrilling. However imo its one of the best parts of the book because its where the depth of world inherent to Tolkein really shines through.

Aard wrote: »

Also, fwiw, Cornish is Celtic.

I know that but in Ireland it seems "Celtic mythology" "Gaelic mythology" and "Irish mythology" are interchangeable terms to describe the same thing. If you said Celtic mythology to a standard Irish person they would recall Cuchulain.

Mark Hamill · 04-11-2009 7:56pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Thats fair enough, but I think it all hinges on how you phrase it. You may not in your opinion have liked Tolkien because you didn't find his work interesting/engaging and thats obviously understandable. However people saying hes bad, and that he doesn't compare well to other 'fantasy' writers is where people misunderstand what hes about, I think. And fundamentally it seems that people equate not being interesting with being bad.

To a lot of people, though, a book or author not being interesting is bad. I could tell from reading Tolkien what he was trying to do with his story. But I can also tell that, in my opinion, he was bad at doing it while also trying to keep an interesting narrative going on.

AudreyHepburn · 05-11-2009 1:45pm

I'm surprised to see that Crime is being listed here as a genre to avoid because I adore any murder mystery especially anything Jonathan Kellerman!

And how anyone can class Tolkien or Dickens as unreadable is beyond me.

But hey different strokes for different folks.

That said I really really can't stand chick lit. And this is coming from a woman.

I mean it's always the same old story, attractive feisty heroine in great job with gorgeous boyfriend, shopping, fashion, sex, etc etc. There's rarely any depth to it that I can see and there's only so many ways of writing the same plot.

emeraldstar · 07-11-2009 2:34pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm surprised to see that Crime is being listed here as a genre to avoid because I adore any murder mystery especially anything Jonathan Kellerman!

And how anyone can class Tolkien or Dickens as unreadable is beyond me.

But hey different strokes for different folks.

I would rate Dickens far far higher than Tolkien. Tolkien: The Hobbit was enjoyable, but LOTR I found far too long and slow and boring. I finished it alright but only because I made myself because I felt I should rather than because I wanted to. (And at times I really didn't want to!)

Dickens, on the other hand, I always find fabulous: hilarious, meaningful, heart-rending, deeply interesting page-turners; eminently readable no matter the length of the book. In fact, the longer the better IMO! (Which is a good thing as they do tend to be verrry weighty

)

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That said I really really can't stand chick lit. And this is coming from a woman.

I mean it's always the same old story, attractive feisty heroine in great job with gorgeous boyfriend, shopping, fashion, sex, etc etc. There's rarely any depth to it that I can see and there's only so many ways of writing the same plot.

Me too. Chick lit = boring drivel

Books to avoid like a bookworm on a diet

Comments