Book Haven discussion
Suggestions
>
Anti-suggestion: Do NOT read these books!
Cate wrote: "^^ Some people, including myself, dislike Twilight based on its own merits. (Of course, comparing it to HP is an insult to HP as it is LOL.) It's just all around BAD. Story, characters, and GRAM..."One of the things that got me about Twilight was spelling mistakes! With all the editors in the world, how is it possible to get spelling mistakes in books? But sadly it happens more than it should.
Shiran wrote: "Across the Universe by Beth Revis - Good idea but there were way too many holes in the story, the technology stuff was ridiculous (they can build a ship that can fly..."Speaking to the Anita Blake series... they don't get any better. I wouldn't even bother.
Anagha wrote: "I can't say I love or hate Dickens. It's the specific books- I LOVE Great Expectations, but I can't stand A Tale of Two Cities"I tend to agree with you. I liked Great Expectations, LOL. Tale of Two Cities was just ok for me, haven't read any of the rest yet, but there are several more on the 1001 list, so I'll get around to them sooner or later...
Trina wrote: "Anagha wrote: "I read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy a while ago, and didn't much care for it. I mean I didn't HATE it. Just meh. But that's probably because it's a little too "out there" for..."Hitchhiker's Guide was pretty funny & pretty out there. I read the first 2 books, then it just got lame for me.
PS I Love You I thought was really sweet overall, & written in a very realistic tone, from her own experience. I don't think it's supposed to be great literature, more of a memoir of the times & the things you have to do to reach children like that, which is why it's disturbing at times. I have it in the old condensed Reader's Digest hardcover :)
Thalia wrote: "Of Mice and Men was a huge letdown.I don't understand the Twilight hate. Yeah, it's not Harry Potter, but it doesn't have to be. I wish everybody would stop comparing the two of them; ..."
I wasn't comparing the 2, they are nothing alike except that they are the 2 most popular YA series in the world right now. They couldn't be more different. Rowling's world has depth, it's realistic(mostly anyway), the characters have depth, they grow, they are good kids, so it's a more "wholesome" series overall. By contrast, Twilight is simply another teen romance series with completely unbelievable characters with major issues.
Lisa Anne wrote: "Scarlett ... The ultimate "give the reader what they think they want of Scarlett and Rhett" guilty pleasure. Except it's not a pleasure at all. Scarlett becomes completely another p..."LOL, I have this book, & I enjoyed it. I thought it was interesting that she left to explore her own family, & that they eventually came back together in the end. I'd have been disappointed if someone hadn't attempted it :) However, there is a companion book about Rhett too, by Donald Caig, called Rhett Butler's People. That gives you Rhett's backstory, which I found interesting as well :) You might like that one better than Scarlett.
Lisa: I'm saying that, in general, people compare Twilight to Harry Potter and that's their reason for it "sucking" or whatever. I just get tired of posts that say stuff, like Bella has no right be such an upset heroine because she never had to go through anything like Harry. Just because they're both popular doesn't mean they need to be compared. I don't know why Twilight is as popular as it is, but it was an entertaining read for me, and having never read a vampire novel before, I really liked it. No, it's not Harry Potter, but Harry Potter isn't the only good series in the world. More of a comment in general; not directed at you specifically, Lisa, so don't take anything I say personally. x)
This is why I love Goodreads, it's so interesting to hear people's opinions about why they love or hate a book. Several of the books mentioned, namely Dark Lover, Kiss Of Midnight, I Am Number Four and Hush, Hush, I personally loved! I do like the Twilight saga, but I'm not a twihard and recognize that there is far better YA paranormal romance out there. So as for books I hate.Marked by P.C. and Kristin Cast. Puke, the book was boring as all get out and I could not stand the whole anti-Christian thing either. I'm not saying she has to agree with Christianity, but she shouldn't bash Christianity and nor should she paint us all with the same bigoted brush.
Guilty Pleasures by Laurell K. Hamilton. Again, boring as all get out. And Anita rubbed me the wrong way. Plus I've read about how the later books devolve into really bad porn with nonsensical plotlines.
This Heart Of Mine by Susan Elizabeth Phillips. This book sucked so hard on so many levels. The only reason I even finished this was for a really freaking excellent secondary romance, the main romance was convoluted and frenetic and was just plain bad and I didn't really like the hero and heroine either.
Everyone Worth Knowing by Lauren Weisberger. The Devil Wears Prada was pretty good, but man Everyone Worth Knowing was not. I read this years ago, and I remember not being very impressed by it at all. It's a bad retread of The Devil Wears Prada. I'm just glad I got a copy from the library and didn't waste my money.
Prep by Curtin Sittenfeld. Nothing happens! This is one of the most boring books I have ever read! I gave up on this midway through (and I almost never give up on a book) and I'm glad I did. Because this book crawls in reverse, that's how slow and boring it is.
And Falling Fly by Skylar White. She tried to make this really haunting and atmospheric and deep and give you something to think about. She failed majorly on all accounts. The characters could not hold my interest and the plot made me go, huh?! More than a few times before I finally gave up about 200 pages in. It's also a really bizarre book. I personally liken this book to a really bad LSD trip.
Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley. My personal most hated book ever! She utterly destroyed it! I read this book 4 or 5 years ago and I can still remember my reaction: rack and ruin. And that is exactly what this book is. Gone With The Wind is one of my most favorite books ever and I just could not get over she butchered the characters, the setting, the plot, everything! The O'Hara my round, rosy, behind!
That's all I can think of for now.
Thalia, if you've never read a vampire story before, LOL, & that was your only exposure to one, let me be the first to tell you, those are in NO way true to the real vampire mythos. I'd highly recommend you go back to the source of the vampire phenomenon & read Bram Stoker's Dracula :) That was the one that started it all. It's dark, sensual, detailed, richly set, it's a sweeping tale, & it has SO much more to offer than Twilight! I'm sure that others here can also recommend good vampire stories, I also liked The Historian, it's also much more true to the backstory & the mythology. It's too late now for me to go through my shelves & pick through the REALLY good ones to recommend, but I can work on that tomorrow I think...
I loved The Historian, Lisa. And I agree---anyone interested in vampires should start with the classic Dracula. I've loved vampires since I first started watching "Dark Shadows" in the 60s, and I've done a lot of research on them. I have never once come across any myth in any region of the world that has sparkly vampires. That is just too silly beyond words.I'd also recommend Sheridan Le Fanu's "Carmilla," the first lesbian vampire novel.
Well, I'm not "interested" in vampires, and most vampire books tend to be filled with lust/sex/all that stuff, which I stay away from as a whole. I only read Twilight in the first place because Stephanie Meyer is of my same religion. And I liked that it wasn't "normal" vampires. I just get irked when people say that authors need to be creative and have new ideas, and then totally dump on Meyer because she wasn't "classic". It's like a double standard.
Kerri wrote: "Shiran wrote: "Across the Universe by Beth Revis - Good idea but there were way too many holes in the story, the technology stuff was ridiculous (they can build a sh..."Haha, thanks Kerri! I'm so glad to hear that someone agrees with me. Everyone seems to be obsessed with Anita Blake and it makes me doubt their sanity :P I think I'll be giving the rest of the series a BIG no thank you.
Thalia wrote: "Just because they're both popular doesn't mean they need to be compared. I don't know why Twilight is as popular as it is, but it was an entertaining read for me, and having never read a vampire novel before, I really liked it. .."It's just a very good vampire novel, it strays so far from the vampire legend that it's insulting. Pixies sparkle not vampires. Vampires are blood thirsty creatures not the kid next door. Kresley Cole(I hope I got the name right. lol) does a great variation on the vampire legend without getting crazy with it.
Trina wrote: "One of the things that got me about Twilight was spelling mistakes! With all the editors in the world, how is it possible to get spelling mistakes in books? But sadly it happens more than it should. "And it's pretty consistent throughout the 4 books. All of them have spelling AND grammar errors. Especially the last one. Geez. It was so bad.
Twilight is NOT a good starting point if you are new to vampire fiction. Or YA. Post-Twilight, I haven't read a YA novel that I really enjoyed. Shame.
I really can't get involved in the Twilight argument as I just read the back of the book and had my friend describe some of it to me before I decided I couldn't read it. My friend loves the books however, also dragged her boyfriend to see all the films (having seen the trailers I see him with a new light of respect)I think the avoidance may have to do with the fact that I always loved vampires and read Bram Stoker's Dracula at an early age then continued on to grab any good vampire book I could so the new idea of these Twilight Vampires would be a bit too much out of field for my mind to handle. My friend has never read Dracula or many other vampire books so was relatively new to it all and so absolutely loved the whole idea of vampires and werewolves (I did then buy her an abridged version of Dracula but she said it was too boring and didn't stick with it :O).
Twilight - as well as a good share of vampire fiction out there today - has its own twist on the vampire lore. Crap, Twilight broke through everything we know about vampires actually... so much so that it looked ridiculous. I LOVE vampires, Dracula, Nosferatu, and all that jazz. But once authors begin to introduce their own twist on things, I tend to lose interest. I did like "The Historian" though. :)
Yes, people are totally entitled to their own opinions of the book. The problem is that I can't distinguish people who actually gave it a fair shot from the people who hate it just because it was popular, in a lame attempt to be hipster or something. And then, of course, the people who complain that nobody is ever creative enough and reuses too many ideas, and then Meyer got "too" creative and ruined everything. I just don't get that. It sucks to deem a book terrible because it's unfamiliar.
Cate wrote: "Trina wrote: "One of the things that got me about Twilight was spelling mistakes! With all the editors in the world, how is it possible to get spelling mistakes in books? But sadly it happens more ..."It bugged me so much! You can kind of understand one or two errors, you know, editors aren't perfect people either, but consistent errors are just awful.
I still have yet to have someone give me a good definition of what hipster actually IS, LOL, so I can't comment on that aspect. I simply found it to be a ridiculous book/series, even though I did read all of them. The plot lines were lame, & predictable, the spelling/grammar errors were unreal, like they were using a 5th grader to proofread, the characters themselves were wholly unbelievable. I have read a few vampire novels where there were daywalkers & able to tolerate the sun for a while during the day, but Meyer makes hers out to be completely normal people who just happen to have different dietary needs, LOL. Plus, the whole sparkly thing was insulting. Like someone above mentioned, Pixies & some other Fae sparkle, not vamps! Plus, the whole baby thing is ridiculous too. Vampires can only procreate by the exchange of blood. They are DEAD, bottom line, & a dead man cannot impregnate a human woman, he has no sperm! About the only thing she did get right is the animosity between the vamps & the lycanthropes.I'm not saying it's terrible because it's unfamiliar. I'm saying it's terrible because of the reasons listed above.
It didn't bother me that Stephanie Meyer created vampire babies (LJ Smith actually has vampires being a whole new dominate race that can reproduce vampire young) what bothered me was how she did it. First, was the very shoddy science explanation that men's bodies remained stagnant while women's bodies had to change to develop life - if Edward's body was remaining stagnant producing semen (and sperm) would be impossible. Second, these vampires couldn't eat or produce tears, but they can produce ejaculate?! Come on! Third, she could have created vampires who could cry and change and produce semen and give birth - I mean she made vampires sparkle and be mild mannered and with the ability to go out into the sun. Most of this just goes to show her characters and storyline were not well thought out. Also, she wasn't even that original with her ideas on vampires (she does have claim to the sparkle - which is now a word I avoid). LJ Smith has nice vampires that fall in love with humans as does Amelia Atwater-Rhodes (though hers are a bit more violent) and hers can go out in the sunlight as well.
Also, for those who wanted to take a red pen to Twilight:http://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com/
That tumblr is all kinds of awesome!
Changing the subject a bit, I wanted to point out two other awful books to stay away from. One was DESTINY by Sally Beauman. It was promoted as a wonderful love story. Only the couple involved were an uncle and his niece! Yeah, so they didn't know they were related, but the reader sure does! High on the ick factor here!The other one was La bicyclette bleue, 1939-1942 by Régine Deforges (the Blue Bicycle. Had to put up the French version since apparently GR doesn't have the English version in its database). This is basically "Gone With the Wind" against the backdrop of the Second World War. Only instead of a cotton plantation it's a vineyard. Really nothing new in this book. Just give Scarlett, Rhett, Ashley and Melanie French names and you've got the book.
And yes, those are legitimate reasons to not like Twilight. I'm talking about the hipsters (people who "pride" themselves on not being like everyone else to a point where they go out of their way to prove that they don't like anything mainstream) who are like, "TWILIGHT SUCKS BECAUSE IT'S POPULAR".When I read, I don't tend to look into the "plot holes" or what makes sense and what doesn't. I mean, the first book was definitely the best compared to the rest (even as a fan of the series, Breaking Dawn was a major DISLIKE for me because it really did make no sense). I mean, I do notice what doesn't make sense, but not to a point where I'm like, "Edward shouldn't be able to enjaculate" (because the baby thing was dumb overall; I did tend to want to skip that part of the book), but rather the first books were enjoyable.
Anyway, my point wasn't that you couldn't not like Twilight or whatever. It just seems to me like somehow, Twilight and Harry Potter are always connected back to each other and I hate when that happens. For instance, on Tumblr last night, I saw a post of Harry Potter references on shows, and somebody comments "TAKE THAT TWILIGHT", like Twilight was totally relevant, when it completely was not.
LOL, I guess I notice medical details like that because we are a medical family :) My husband is a Trauma/Critical Care RN, & I was a Navy Hospital Corpsman for 14 years. I taught 1st & 3rd trimester & childbirth classes :) So yeah, I notice details like that, & tend to pick apart stuff that is glaringly silly :)
Bahaha, nice. x) That would be a reason why you'd notice! Teenager girls like myself; we don't really try to look too close at that. XD
I just hated Twilight because I thought it sucked. I enjoyed the first one a bit when I read the first time, the second time I read it however I completely loathed it. I try to take a book as it is and not compare it while reading which I managed to do through out all of them, but the books just put in my horrible moods probably because I found it very cliche and a little unhealthy on Bella's part. Plus I read vampire books like I breathe air so I wasn't thrilled with the new take Meyer had and I usually enjoy new vampire ideas.
Lisa Anne wrote: "Also, for those who wanted to take a red pen to Twilight:http://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com/
That tumblr is all kinds of awesome!"
LMAO my co-worker actually took a red pen to Breaking Dawn. For real! We could hear her groans and laughter in the break room when she was on it.
I always regarded Twilight as a Mary-Sue piece. Hell, even RPattz who is IN THE MOVIE thinks so.
What I hated about Twilight is that if you take away all the "what passes for vampire qualities" in Meyer's world, what you get is an abusive relationship between a jerk of a guy and a doormat of a girl. It's the typical bad boy/good girl relationship and a very unhealthy one at that. Bella is a lousy role model for teen girls.
Nancy wrote: "What I hated about Twilight is that if you take away all the "what passes for vampire qualities" in Meyer's world, what you get is an abusive relationship between a jerk of a guy and a doormat of a..."Nancy, when you break it down to bare bones, that is exactly what it is! I agree with you 100%!!!!
It's all about Marketing, Who's Got Friends in High Places & what's been made into a movie. & perhaps Oprah? I've read a few of the bestsellers, Oprahs' Book Club & then a few more & wondered...WTH?? I Love Stephen King but there is a few out there that don't & it's cool. We All Have Our Own Individual Tastes..I never would have read H.P. if my daughter hadn't dragged me to the movies. (which I think are not as good as the books BTW..LOL)
And this sounds completely crazy; but I attribute part of S.K's success to having 'John Travolta' in the original movie
I was a teenager & So In Love w/Travolta. I read the book before going to see the movie. I never would have gone if JT hadn't been part of the cast.
Nancy wrote: "What I hated about Twilight is that if you take away all the "what passes for vampire qualities" in Meyer's world, what you get is an abusive relationship between a jerk of a guy and a doormat of a..."I agree with this post 100%
I like SK. I enjoyed his earlier works, then he got lost with that whole Dark Tower series, which I personally thought was terrible. Too broody & confusing for my taste, it was less horror than it was sci fi, & that was highly disappointing. Then when the Bookmobile was still running, the lady asked me if I'd read the then new release of his, which was Duma Key. I said no, read the cover, & thought it sounded good, which it WAS. It was horror, but not bloody, pointless, slasher horror, it's psychological, which I REALLY liked.
I hated The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz. I couldn't get into it at the start. I plugged through it hoping it would get better but it didn't. I couldn't relate to the character. His reactions to certain situations just was so against how I would feel. I don't understand why this book was on the New York Times Bestseller List for as long as it was.
I think it's really funny and sad in a way just how rabid Twilight fans are about the books. They act like it's Holy Writ and should not be criticized by anyone. How dare we not like Twilight! I can understand the tweens and teens liking the books. What I don't understand is grown women in their 30s and 40s going ga-ga over the books. I guess maybe I'm one of those horrid hipsters who goes out of her way not to like anything mainstream. I never thought I'd live to see the day when sparkly vampires became mainstream. Poor Dracula and Bram Stoker have got to be turning over in their graves.
Nancy wrote: "I think it's really funny and sad in a way just how rabid Twilight fans are about the books. They act like it's Holy Writ and should not be criticized by anyone. How dare we not like Twilight! I ca..."I agree with you, it's a bit crazy!
Nancy wrote: "I think it's really funny and sad in a way just how rabid Twilight fans are about the books. They act like it's Holy Writ and should not be criticized by anyone. How dare we not like Twilight! I ca..."The Twilight Moms are the SCARIEST. Actually, the older ones are the more rabid fans in a fandom. And they scare me. (They drove me out of the Adam Lambert fandom, so far that I'm not a fan of Lambert anymore.)
For me characters make or break a book. If I can't get into the characters, if I can't like them or at least feel empathy for them, then I can't enjoy the book. One book that immediately comes to mind is George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. I loved the plot, since I love epic fantasy that has a lot of political intrigue. However, the only character that I really liked gets killed off in the first book. After he died I realized that I didn't like any of the other characters and that I didn't care what happened to them. I knew that I wouldn't be reading the rest of the series.
If you don't like Twilight for real reasons, like it just didn't appeal to you, or you read it and you didn't think the writing was good, that doesn't make you a hipster. Hispters are people who liked it before it got popular and then said they hated it with every fiber of their being once other people started to notice it, too.And not all Twilight fans are totally rabid. I mean, even I don't like the rabid Twi-fans, and I actually liked Twilight! It's kind of psychotic to wish Edward/other characters were real life people. >>
And Cate, if you don't mind my asking, why did the other Lambert fans drive you away from liking him? Just because people you didn't like liked something meant you couldn't like it anymore?
Thalia, everyone who likes/dislikes a book has a reason for doing so and they are all equally valid. You like Twilight and the reasons are valid to you. I may not understand them, but they are your reasons. Conversely, I don't like Twilight and my reasons are valid to me. You might not understand them, but the reasons are valid to me.I used to work at Books a Million and at the customer service desk we were able to print out the current NY Times Bestseller list for customers. One customer used that list in order to decide what books she was going to read. For me, that wouldn't be a valid reason for me to decide whether or not a book was worthy of my reading it. But for her, using the list was perfectly valid. I also learned early on at BAM that if Oprah featured a book on her show or had it in her bookclub that we'd better have plenty of copies, because everyone and her sister was going to come into the store to buy the book. Everything that Oprah says is set in stone, right? Again, not a valid reason for me to get a book, but for plenty of other people it was plenty valid.
I went through the same thing myself in 1992 when The Bridges of Madison County came out. There were those of us who adored the book (and I still do) and devoured it in one sitting, and those who detested it. I've been reading romances for almost 40 years now and still have plenty of people tell me that they are trashy, soft core porn for women, smut, blah, blah, blah. I'll listen to people's criticisms of the books that I like and sometimes I'll defend my reasons. Most of the time I just shrug and keep on reading.
Nancy, I totally get what you mean. But how can "I despise this because it's popular" be a valid reason for disliking something by anyone's standards?Angel, trust me, rabid fans aren't fun even for us regular fans! And Twi-Moms who want to leave their husbands for their own Edward Cullen are reeeally creepy, too.
As for characters, I totally know what you mean. I couldn't stand reading If I Stay because I couldn't stand any of the characters, while everyone else seemed to adore it. Usually, I'll just decide to read a book depending on its summary and if I think I'll like the story or not (and/or if I've found out it's a "clean" book or not). Or if it's anything having to do with King Arthur history. I love me some Arthurian reading, hahaha.
Thalia wrote: "And Cate, if you don't mind my asking, why did the other Lambert fans drive you away from liking him? Just because people you didn't like liked something meant you couldn't like it anymore?"I know that. But every time I go to an event about him - concert, appearance - they're there and they ruin it for everyone else by being aggressive and they feel more entitled because "Adam knows we/our group exists". I was once accosted by erm... older lady fans (plural) at the ticket line to his concert because they overheard me saying that I saw Adam from his Wicked (musical) days, demanding I give them proof that I did in fact saw him. Then upon knowing I didn't buy the "best seat" ticket to his show, one of them indirectly said that I wasn't as big of a fan as she. If I were immature as she was, I would've said "At least I saw him first" but she's as old as my mother so I didn't bother.
Eventually, I associated Lambert himself with his rabid fans (I fully know that he can't do anything to tame them or calm them down because fans are fans). From there, I lost all interest.
I'll still listen to his music, but I'll never go to his events ever again.
Ahhh, I thought you were implying that you wouldn't even listen to him now because of it.
Cate wrote: "Thalia wrote: "And Cate, if you don't mind my asking, why did the other Lambert fans drive you away from liking him? Just because people you didn't like liked something meant you couldn't like it a..."Fans like that are very annoying and more then a little scary. HIM (band from Finland) fans can be just like that too, and I've seen quite a few girls and women get down right nasty with each other over whose been a fan longest, etc. Even seen a few fights over it, which were just stupid. I'm an extreme HIM fan but never would I go that far, personally it makes me think they are unstable.
I've had the issue with Twilight fans too. It started as the raving about how magnificent the book was. Having read it already and found it okay, I was starting to think I'd missed out on something so I read it again. I hated it. I don't know if it was the negative feeling of having a bunch of girls squealing over how amazing it was when it clearly wasn't that made me start paying attention to plot holes and such but I noticed it all. Some of my friends are kind of this way and I'm literally terrified to tell them I think the series is terrible.
It's funny to read these and either really agree, or really disagree! I'm a stickler about reading any 1 star ratings on amazon for this very reason!"Wuthering Heights": I was so depressed and bored 20 pages in I gave up.
"Jane Eyre": I hate Jane. I think she's beyond stupid, and the love interest is an abusive, high-handed jerk.
"Their eyes were watching God." Now, I might hate this book thanks to my 10th grade English teacher. She made us read it in class and I finished it in under 2 class periods, so I was forced to re-read it over and over for 2 weeks.
"Lord of the Rings": As a die hard fantasy reader in high school I tried, but this story just dragged. I survived and enjoyed the Hobbit though.
As a fantasy fan I've tried to drag myself through some "urban fantasies" lately that made me want to gag. I read so many rave reviews for Jeanine Frost and I hated her heroine and hero from page 1.
Some series I started liking and now can't stomach: "Twilight", Kim Harrison's Hollows series, Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series and Evanovich's Stephanie Plum. Plots either became recycled, issues never got resolved or the author lost the characters voice.
My worst failure: I have tried repeatedly to read Lord of the Fading Lands. A good friend recommended it to myself and 2 other friends. They all love it. I can't even read the first page all the way through without getting bored. It's still on my shelf but I wince when I look at it.
Michelle wrote: "I've had the issue with Twilight fans too. It started as the raving about how magnificent the book was. Having read it already and found it okay, I was starting to think I'd missed out on something so I read it again. I hated it. I don't know if it was the negative feeling of having a bunch of girls squealing over how amazing it was when it clearly wasn't that made me start paying attention to plot holes and such but I noticed it all. Some of my friends are kind of this way and I'm literally terrified to tell them I think the series is terrible. "I feel this way towards The Hunger Games. It is by no means BAD; it's actually quite good. But the crazy ass hype ruined it for me. I enjoyed the first one but lost interest in the other two. All my friends were raving about it... that's it's the best book they've read EVEERRRRR. But when I read it, it was just okay. At the most. I've voiced my opinions to them one time and all I got was "AOSFLDGFJGJHK;GH;;L YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!" That. Came from 20-30 year old people. I just... *puts the trilogy back on the bottom shelf*
As for Twilight... I've learned to stay away. At least my friends who started out liking the "saga" still stand by their decision even if they do admit that the books are bad.
For me, staying away from a book that is popular is a perfectly valid reason not to read it. I stay away from whatever happens to be on the NY Times Bestseller lists. Yes, I've read books that were bestsellers, but this was long after all the hype about the book was finally over with. I don't want to be one of the herd. I like being out in left field, reading books that I find interesting or entertaining. To me reading a book because "everyone else" is reading it or because it was popular or because it was a bestseller is simply not a reason to read a book.
I completely understand. I think people should put more effort in to empathy. I mean I love some of the series that people post on here but I am capable of seeing exactly why they don't like it because of the most part their opinions are fairly true, it's just how you personally see that particular aspect. I enjoy lots of details like in LOTR and Vampire Chronicles but I also know that it's a huge amount of details and that it can bog a person down and drag on. I guess a lot of people aren't really capable of it, or they don't try but it makes me want to stop reading anything anyone is talking about.
Book Haven
Books mentioned in this topic
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland / Through the Looking-Glass (other topics)Allison Hewitt Is Trapped (other topics)
Pretty Is as Pretty Does (other topics)
The Forest of Hands and Teeth (other topics)
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Madeleine Roux (other topics)Lewis Carroll (other topics)
Debby Mayne (other topics)
Carrie Ryan (other topics)
Chuck Palahniuk (other topics)
More...
I'm not a fan of Les Mis either. I like the musical but it takes me forever to go through the book.