I'm so relieved to see the negativity toward American Gods; I couldn't get past the first hundred pages, and for the longest time figured there was something fundamentally uncool about me.

More for this thread: The Man in the High Castle, by Philip K. Dick, is based on the premise that the Axis won WWII and the US is divided up between Germany and Japan. Awesome idea, worse than horrible execution. I kept reading it because I figured it had to get better, somehow. I didn't realize at the time that he came up with all of his (bizarre) plot points via repeated consultation of the I Ching. Really ridiculous.

Well, if the Sookie series is the best of the lot I will certainly stay away from the rest of Charlaine Harris. I've read five of them now and I'm not reading anymore. She writes with cliches and very predictable language and the whole device of the word of the day calendar to explain why Sookie 'an uneducated barmaid' suddenly knows new words is trite and boring. I am however very anxious for the new season of True Blood. It's the only show I'm really following right now and I can't wait to see what HBO's excellent writers do with Harris's characters.

And I feel the complete opposite! I've never read Janet Evanovich, so I can't compare Charlanie Harris to her. But I love reading the Sookie Stackhouse series. I think Harris writes her so well, has created a really interesting supernatural world, and she's so good at turning a phrase, getting so many points across in one sentence. But I watched the first season of TrueBlood, and thought it was really dumb, and that Anna Paquin played Sookie like a screeching harpy. And I've also read 2 other Charlaine Harris series, and they were no where no as good as the Sookie series. To read how Sookie has changed from book 1 (where she agonized over doing anything immoral) to book 7 (where she took a "savage pleasure" in a friend killing an enemy for her, in cold blood, not self-defense) is fascinating to me.

Does anyone else watch TrueBlood? I was so excited to read the Charlaine Harris novels since the show is excellent. Big disappoinment.She writes like janet Evanovich, only more forced with less command of how to integrate plot and desciption. Really not worth the time..

Conrad wrote: "Abigail, you're absolutely right about American Gods. Neil Gaiman always has great ideas, but his writing is stilted and silly.

I really liked Sandman but Gaiman's prose is just the worst. I don't necessarily need high literature but his stuff is 9th grade reading level at best. American Gods was a total waste of potential.

Anna wrote: "..I kind of loathe myself for having read Da Vinci Code."

I have read a lot of rubbish in my time, one of the dangers of being a voracious book worm, so I can forgive myself for that.
I can't believe I bought it. Having read Holy Blood Holy Grail my mother thought it would be interesting. What a mistake!

Mary wrote: "Heather wrote: "Mary, I actually liked The Da Vinci Code. Yes, Dan Brown is a terrible writer, but the plot lines were great."

Exactly!! Great idea, terrible writing. Isn't that what we're talki..."

I kind of loathe myself for having read Da Vinci Code. I knew I was going to feel dirty after I read it, and I did. Religious conspiracy theory has been done so much better by so many other people....

Heather wrote: "Mary, I actually liked The Da Vinci Code. Yes, Dan Brown is a terrible writer, but the plot lines were great."

Exactly!! Great idea, terrible writing. Isn't that what we're talking about in this thread? I've read
The Da Vinci Code twice and it's a page-turner but at the same time I'm groaning aloud to myself at some of the more awkward, hackneyed bits.

That is true, but you don't notice them when you are as young as I was when I first read it. I was fifteen, so it was easier for me to overlook the holes.

Heather wrote: "....I actually liked The Da Vinci Code. Yes, Dan Brown is a terrible writer, but the plot lines were great. ."

Dan Brown's plots resemble Gruyere cheese. Unfortunately unlike Gruyere the enormous holes do not add to the charm.

I thought the same of The Time Traveler's Wife. Had it been written by someone who had a little experience and could write well, it would have been a much better story.
Mary, I actually liked The Da Vinci Code. Yes, Dan Brown is a terrible writer, but the plot lines were great.

What? No one has mentioned The Da Vinci Code? Lets' face it--this book is the epitome of a great idea that was poorly written. And don't even get me started about the movie.

Gonnna have to go with A Long Way Down by Nick Hornby. Good idea, absolutely TERRIBLE characters and writing style.

I can´t say I agree with WICKED though. I thought it was good, going to re-read soon.

I thought that Harry Potter actually got better as it went along (until the last book, which sucked). I can't bear to read the first 3 anymore. They're way to childish.

I agree with Twilight being in this thread, though I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the idea wasn't all that great or original either. I mean really, a girl falling in love with an amazingly handsome vampire? Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, in just about every vampire romance novel ever written.

And I'm also going to agree with Wicked being on here. Great idea, terrible writing.

And right now, I'm reading (or trying to read) The History of the End of the World, which is a book about how Revelations has shaped history, usually in some not-so-great ways. It seems like a really cool book as far as non-fiction goes, but the writing is just not engaging at all and he never really seems to make his point. I'm like 20 pages in and I feel like I'm still reading the introduction. So it's a really cool topic, but really bad writing.

"Twinkie, Deconstructed..." could have very well been interesting, but was written so poorly I actually laughed within the first few pages with his attempted quirkiness.

I like Twilight, yes. But it's not the genre of a book that draws me to it, really. It just has to be ... good. And I didn't think Harry Potter was that good. But plenty of ppl like both; I don't think it necessarily has to do w/genre.

I haven't read lord of the rings ... well, i read the hobbit, and it was okay. i'm not sure if i ever finished it. i read most of it, anyway.

I just sort of reread HArry Potter, and I'll have to say I'm not sure I like them anymore, which isn't to say they're bad, I think I've just grown past them. My favorite were one and three, and two was still better than 4,5, and six, and seven I thought tied things up good.

I'll have to reread them a bit more to really see whether I still like them or not.

I also don't like Twilight. Maybe it's a genre thing, Brigid. You like Twilight, I believe, but don't get the hype about Harry Potter. I'm the exact opposite XD Do you like LotR? I think I remember you saying you didn't. I do. So, maybe it IS a difference in people and genres!

Twilight seemed like a clean version of a harlequin romance, and it wasn't THAT clean!

I can't really think of any more books I hate that had good concepts right now. Weird. I guess it just doesn't happen too often to me. I usually at least get SOMETHING out of a book, even *shudder* Twilight. Then again, I get stuff out of badly written fanfiction, so I guess that's no surprise.

Yeah ... I don't like Harry Potter. I just don't get the big deal.

The Harry Potter series. It started out great and the story idea is fantastic. But the more JK Rowling writ the worse it got. I mean I couldn't wait to read the books when they came out, but I recently re-read the series and I imedatley found a ton of things that could have and should have been written better.

This is funny...I loved Never Let Me Go. It was wild and interesting and it made me cry. I like not being able to figure things out and having to think on them for awhile. Whereas with The Remains of the Day I kept waiting for something to happen. Anything. It's worth the wade, but that was tough read for me.

Masha - I agree with your comment on Twilight. The story was at times interesting and at times really pulled me in, but all of the other times I was really turned off by the quality of the writing.

I know this is for books, but...

Has anyone seen the movie Ginger Snaps Back??? Not Ginger Snaps, but Ginger Snaps Back??????? It was a good attempt, but the ending seemed like they were running the last half hour on the last day before it was due. WARNING: DO NOT WATCH.

So I was just reading through the comments here when I saw the name "Wicked" come up. I was so joyed because that is my favorite Broadway musical. I am awfully disappointed though that the book was so terrible.

I'm so glad for this specific topic because there is this one book that is perfectly described by this. TWILIGHT. I'm 12 and I feel I could have written a better book.

A Pale View of Hills is also really worth it - it's a little more surreal than his other novels. Ishiguro is a little bit of a one-trick pony, but it's a hell of a trick.

Oh, I can't recommend it highly enough, Kate. Ishiguro is one of my favorites.

I have always wondered about Remains of the Day - from what I have heard of it, it seems more accessible. I'll put it on my (unrealistically long) list!

Abigail, you're absolutely right about American Gods. Neil Gaiman always has great ideas, but his writing is stilted and silly.

I have to disagree with y'all about Kazuo Ishiguro, though. In a world where the things are legal that are legal in Never Let Me Go, people wouldn't spend all day thinking about it. It would have been a far worse novel if there had been a page or two of exposition or worse, a timeline, instead of the narrator's peek-a-booing. Tom's right - TROTD is great.

My own nomination for this thread: Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower. I'm sure she could've come up with an interesting way to tell that story. Instead, the prose is laughable.

Don't give up on Ishiguro without reading THE REMAINS OF THE DAY. Forget the sweetened up film version, the novel is much less pretty. I think it is one of the very few works of art I'd refer to as being "perfect."

Darcie, I had the same experience with Ishiguro. I felt like it was all way over my head but I think maybe the way he writes about the world was so unlike my experience of it I was confused about where I was.

Lazygal- you're the kind of reader that I'd like to be (no snarky sarcasm here, promise) but I can't. I started reading Never Let Me Go and thinking it was cool that he was using a narrow focus. But I very quickly got to the point where I was skipping entire pages, scanning forward to a point where he explained anything about surgeries or society.

I've learned that I simply can't read Kazuo Ishiguro. I can't accept the worlds that he creates as-is. I need much more.

I am not sure if Shadow was such a dull character, or if his (?ex?)-wife was the problem. She really put him in a negative, one-dimensional light.

I'd have to say American Gods for this one. Shadow was a completely dull character to follow. And I kept feeling like there should be pictures so that you would know what the hell was going on.

I think that Cell by Stephen King was a great concept, but it seemed to me like he didn't put the effort that one usually finds in his literature. I think that someone else could have done way better on the concept of cell phones turning people into zombies. I would have liked Neil Gaiman to have made it into a graphic novel, but that's just me.

Darcie, not sure I agree. Part of the enjoyment of the book (for me - YMMV) was that you didn't know what happened or how that that society had evolved. Maybe it's me, but sometimes tying up all the loose ends makes the book longer and less satisfying than allowing the reader's imagination to take over.

I vote for Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. It's an amazing idea for a novel, even just the little slice that he focuses on in the book. But gah! I want to know how it happens! Why did it happen? How long did it take for society to accept this?

It absolutely infuriated me that, with such a wonderful subject to play with, he focused on a little teen popularity battle.

I agree with Wicked and The Historian. Amazing ideas who have fallen into the hands of authors who can't bring them to their full potential.

I agree with Wicked, although I liked Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister. I'm so curious to see the musical Wicked, though because it seems like someone managed to infuse some life into what was often a joyless novel.

I thought The Historian was a great idea for a novel, but found it painstakingly boring to read.

I agree with Tom about Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West; had it not been a good / compelling idea, I would not have bothered to read it to the end, despite being angry at how the author wasted this great idea by the middle of the book. Reading this to the end was TORTURE.

Tom, I'll see your WICKED and raise you Maguire's CONFESSIONS OF AN UGLY STEPSISTER. Same complaint: poor writing ruined a good idea.

Vampirates, by Justin Somper. I liked the idea of vampire pirates, even though I'm not a vampire or pirate person,which may contribute to why I don't like the books, but the second and third books were so bland. Drawn-out and pointless and FAKE. So FAKE. In my oppinion. I thought the first one was alright, which is why I went on to the second, and I read the third because I usually hate seconds anyway. It didn't help. The third was BLAH. I can't believe I wasted my time.

I've posted on this elsewhere. I think that Gregory Maguire's WICKED is a wonderful idea that is rather undone by the uninspired writing. I like the story, and the way Maguire absolutely refuses to pretty up the story, I just wish a more interesting writer had made the story come alive a bit more. Someone like the late Angela Carter, who I'm convinced is stamping her foot in the afterlife at not having had the idea herself.

The Heroines: A Novel by Eileen Favorite was a tremendous disappointment to me. The book has heroines from literature arrive at a b&b for respite from their troubles at a difficult time in their stories. The b&b is run by a woman with a 13-year-old daughter, and the story is told from the daughter's point of view. The list of heroines is impressive. The premise is terrific. The story is flat, and although it's not un-readable, it made me sad because it's such a cool idea!

Bwaha, I just commented in my thread on The Giver about this. Anyway, I won't drag that discussion in here *points down* if you want to see, go read the thread.

Castaway's of the Flying Dutchman by Brian Jacques (author of Redwall) looked like a totally awesome book and even though I never liked Redwall the book sounded so cool that I wanted to read it anyway. Well, the whole book besides the idea behind it was awful and I basically had a permanent cringe on my face through the whole thing.

Don't you just hate it when you're reading something and it is actually a really good idea/story - but it's written so badly or conveyed in such a poor way that it renders the whole thing rubbish?

Two that come to mind are the old classics - Dracula and Frankenstein. Fantastic idea, fantastic concept and that probably why they became so popular.

But I hated the way each one was written. Frankie sounded so pretentious and fake and Dracula read like the author got bored during long intervals of writing.

Gah!