What supernatural element is a turnoff, or you just don't like to read about?

[Sherry]

I should add here that what I really enjoy are the subtle hints of supernatural in the Norah Lofts books, and novels by Barbara Michaels.

[Jim]

Sherry wrote: "Is it not okay for me to simply choose not to read the supernatural genre?..."

The group is dedicated to the genre, you know.
;-)

Personally, I like speculative fiction. I'm terrible with pigeon-holing books into a particular genre, even fact or fiction can be pretty dicey in some cases. I know one guy who swears that any book with faster than light travel (FTL) is fantasy or 'supernatural'. I always thought it was SF, but who am I to argue?

SF & Fantasy were the first genres that I read. I don't find most 'horror' too horrible. So much of it relies on things that I have no belief in. I like supernatural fantasy more for the action & freedom of setting. I loved the first 10 or so of the Anita Blake series - until it turned into bad romantic porn. I'm not against romance or porn, but nothing happens.

[[deleted user]]

I enjoyed the DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. Those did not bother me at all. I believe I own both books which I got from a book club I belonged to when they came out. Those were not scary to me. I thought they were total fantasy.

Now Gad's Hall is just on the edge for me. Sometimes it scares me silly but no nightmares so far from reading it. I have never been able to get thru Dracula yet.....talk about a demon! Straight from the bad place IMO!

[Sherry]

I've tried The DaVinci Code three times. I can't get past the priest's self-flagellation. It is just too disgusting for me.

[Glenn]

Man I feel bad. My next novel is about zombies :) Mine might be different though, as it takes places in the future where society has fallen. Didn't know zombies was such a popular topic though, popular enough for people to get sick of it.

For me, my "eh" area is the young vampire theme. Give me nasty, dangerous vampires. Not fashion model vampires.

[Becca]

I can't remember if this has been mentioned already or not, but I'll stick it in here anyway.
I'm really getting tired of the character who has some supernatural gift, that suddenly starts to 'grow' in power. And then that person is 'something no one's seen before' or 'has so much power that everyone wants to control that person'. I guess this might be more of a plot or theme issue.

[Carolyn]

Glenn wrote: "Man I feel bad. My next novel is about zombies :) Mine might be different though, as it takes places in the future where society has fallen. Didn't know zombies was such a popular topic though, p..."

Glen, don't feel bad. Plenty of people still love zombies and will enjoy your book.

[Sherry]

Not to make anyone feel bad, but I think zombies and vampires are just silly and I don't read those books at all. I really enjoy the novels that have a subtle "tease" about the ghosts...and I end up wondering, was it a ghost or wasn't it?

[Jim]

Sherry wrote: "Not to make anyone feel bad, but I think zombies and vampires are just silly and I don't read those books at all...."

Each to their own. I've never cared what a family member or a friend thought of my reading choices much less a stranger.

--------------

I wish I could remember the name of a zombie book I read about 25 years ago. Ace Charter did some paperbacks in similar covers. I picked up a few & wanted more since they looked good, but I didn't have the money. One was Neuromancer, the first time I'd ever seen it. Of course, it turned out to be a classic, especially to someone like me. Another was Necromancer Nine, which was also very good, although I didn't care for where that trilogy went.

The other book I purchased was a zombie book, but like no other I'd ever read. I think it took place in the deep south & was an SF take on creating a zombie. As I recall - poorly - it seemed to have elements of an updated Frankenstein or "Flowers For Algernon". The creation being more human than the creators & a similar tragedy. There was a supernatural undertone, too. Was it really science that reanimated the person - maybe. I still have the other two books, but this one seems to have disappeared. Does it ring any bells with anyone?

I think that was the best book buy I've ever made of three completely unknown books. I wish I hadn't lost the last.

[Jackie]

Jim wrote: Each to their own. I've never cared what a family member or a friend thought of my reading choices much less a stranger.

I like what I like, no explanations necessary.

What I don't like is when I get 'the face' for my choices, as if my choices are less than theirs. We all have different tastes, and that should be good enough.

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Jackie, I totally agree!

[Saytchyn]

Rene, can you be more specific? I'm very interested in the YA vs adult paranormal question.

[[deleted user]]

Sherry wrote: "I've tried The DaVinci Code three times. I can't get past the priest's self-flagellation. It is just too disgusting for me."

I agree that is very sick but he was mentally ill anyway. I managed to overlook it.

[[deleted user]]

The thing I don't like is if it gets too gory. Some just seem to dwell on that. (movies are even worse) I like beautiful things and I like it if the ghost is misty or full of moonlight. I don't like it if there is too much grossness about the skull, etc. Some vampire stories really make me sick on this point. They just go too far. I stop reading them promptly. Why feel nauseous?

I also will stop reading if the writer cannot control his bad language. I will be glad when the pendulum swings back from that trash. The latest book I can think of which I stopped reading for this reason was Heart Shaped Box. It was just pointless IMO.

Another thing I try to avoid are the ones who play on my phobias. I went with my son years ago to see Interview with the Vampire. It was too horrifying. I would have tried to stop him from reading anymore of those books but my ex let him read them. Of course he doesn't have the phobias that I do so was probably not affected. I just read most of Queen of the Damned and it was awful. I like Charlaine Harris so much as she introduces an element of humor. Her writing can be delightful. What an imagination for the good.

[[deleted user]]

Jackie wrote: "Jim wrote: Each to their own. I've never cared what a family member or a friend thought of my reading choices much less a stranger.

I like what I like, no explanations necessary.

What I do..."
I sure agree! I quit doing many of the listopias due to endless snobbish comments about their superior reading material. Somewhere I found some great quotes about the Readers Rights! We have the right to read what we want. We have to right to stop reading. We have the right to read the end if we want. There were about ten of them and THEY ARE GREAT POINTS IMO. Will try to copy and paste them here if I can manage it.

There are way too many snobs on goodreads. It can get quite tiresome.

[[deleted user]]

Sherry wrote: "Is it not okay for me to simply choose not to read the supernatural genre? I find plenty to read without going out of my way to read things that are unbelievable to me. Please, the question was w..."

But Sherry, you liked Ghost Riders and that is partly supernatural. I loved it. Thanks for recommending it for me.

[[deleted user]]

think I managed a cute and paste of the Readers Bill of Rights (so good)
owing 1-25 of 25)
sort by

↑ top
up
position
down
↓ bottom

"Reader's Bill of Rights

1. The right to not read

2. The right to skip pages

3. The right to not finish

4. The right to reread

5. The right to read anything

6. The right to escapism

7. The right to read anywhere

8. The right to browse

9. The right to read out loud

10. The right to not defend your tastes"
— Daniel Pennac

[[deleted user]]

I have to read over this every now and again to remind myself on goodreads that I am NOT taking a college course for which I am going to be graded. I am NOT having to do a boring paper on some book I loathe. I am retired now and I read for FUN. I waited a good part of my life for this time to read what I want to read for FUN. But look at this great list I found under quotes:

Reader's Bill of Rights

1. The right to not read

ABOVe

[Jackie]

Lady Alice wrote:Somewhere I found some great quotes about the Readers Rights!

I hope you find it, I would love to keep a copy of that!

Lady Alice also wrote:I also will stop reading if the writer cannot control his bad language.

Personally, I feel that profanity is to be used only to illustrate a particular emotion or feeling. If a characters says it once to twice in the entire book, then it shows me just how upset, angry, disgusted, etc., they are. But when they use it constantly, it loses all meaning and I can't stand to read it. A major turn off.

[[deleted user]]

I also dislike some logic errors. That bugged me most in The Time Traveler's Wife which I read for my Red hat group. I do not see how it is possible that a person could be a double from his past in place in his future. There are some strange things that happen but that was just beyond me.

If anyone can explain this to me so that I can grasp it, thanks!

[Jackie]

Wow that was fast, Lady Alice! You're awesome! I'm keeping a copy.

[Sherry]

Lady Alice wrote: "Sherry wrote: "Is it not okay for me to simply choose not to read the supernatural genre? I find plenty to read without going out of my way to read things that are unbelievable to me. Please, the..."

Yes, and all of McCrumb's books have an element of supernatural which seems to reflect my own experiences. I just don't want my nose rubbed in it. It's like gratuitous obscene language or sex scenes. Good writing shouldn't need that. Look at books from years ago when those things were not permitted (Rebecca; Forever Amber). Books that were great successes without resorting to degrading language and imagery.

[[deleted user]]

Jackie wrote: "Wow that was fast, Lady Alice! You're awesome! I'm keeping a copy."

So glad you liked it. I was going over quotes one night and found that.

[[deleted user]]

Sherry wrote: "Lady Alice wrote: "Sherry wrote: "Is it not okay for me to simply choose not to read the supernatural genre? I find plenty to read without going out of my way to read things that are unbelievable ..."

I agree with you completely.

[Jim]

lavender, my grandfather & mother used to trash my books & I got quite thick skinned about it. I have been known to tease people about what they're reading, but always had a policy to let the kids read what they wanted.

I will say, I liked HP, but am not a Twilight fan. I read the first book & quit although we had all of them. My daughter read them all & we joke about sparkly vampires.
;-)

[[deleted user]]

Jim wrote: "lavender, my grandfather & mother used to trash my books & I got quite thick skinned about it. I have been known to tease people about what they're reading, but always had a policy to let the kids..."

I plan to wear sparkles in Forks as it seems to be the "done" thing. I even wore them to the first movie.

[Miranda]

I really don't like Fae. I can't quite articulate why, I guess the whole thing just sounds a little silly. I just don't find the subject all that interesting. My favorites, however, are vampires and angels.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

My recent "pet peeve" (and I know Werner doesn't agree, LOL) and Friendly, cute, romantic" and/or good vampires. By this, I'm not saying others need to go along with me, or agree with me...but for me it's a pretty quick way to get me to drop a book. So far I've stayed with Rob Thurman's Landros books, but other than those I tend to drop a book as soon as a synopsis mentions anything like that.

I'm a sort of "stake 'em and move on type". LOL

[Jim]

You mean it's not OK for people to be food?
;-)

I know what you mean, but I manage to work around it fairly often since most paranormal-urban fantasies now feature vampires, often as good or at least as ambiguous as normal humans.

I just finished reading Shadow Kiss (Vampire Academy #3) where there are two kinds of vampires; live ones who can live in the sunlight & dead ones who have no soul. The latter kind are the real predators, although the live ones are mostly spoiled, powerful & rich, so they have their own evils.

The story is told from the heroine's POV. She is a dhampir - half good vampire & half human or dhampir (either cross equals a dhampir). She is training to be a body guard to a 'good' vampire.

Needless to say, this is quite a change to the standard vampire folklore, but I've been surprised by how good it has been & this book has been the best so far. Somewhat like the Harry Potter, it started off as definitely YA, but has gained depth as the heroine ages. I'm tempted to give it 4 stars, but think I'll settle for 3.5.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

I'm "sort of" reading a series that features a "dhampir" character (sort of, in that I haven't gotten around to picking it back up after the second, though the third is on my shelf)(Barb and J.C. Hendee's Noble Dead series). This writer treats the dhampir as a human, but born of a vampire father "right after he was turned". I play around with a character who is "touched" by a vampire's attempt but is still human. There are various versions of the "half-vamp". That doesn't gnaw at me as much as the "romantic vamp". Again though, as I said, that's just me.

[Jim]

I've read a couple of Hendees' series. They're not bad but it took a long time for me to get the 3d, I think. Too long. I'd forgotten too much about the first two or maybe I read the 2d & 3d before I got the first. Something like that messed it up for me & I didn't feel like going back & rereading. I have them stashed for a reread in the future, though.

Have you read any of P.N. Elrod's books? Bloodlist is the first one & it's about a reporter who becomes a vampire in the 1930's. He's a good vampire, though. Still, I really liked it. Good characters & world.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

No, my guess would be that I looked at the synopsis and passed it by. I know some enjoy the "good-guy" vamp, but for me that blurs a line I actually build on in what I write, so not my cup of tea. I'm aware that it's not so in your writing, but the mythos I use basically says when a person "becomes" a vampire the human is gone. I think it makes the theology in my fiction work better for me.

So, enjoy, but it's not only not my cup of tea...it kind of bugs me when I run across it in a book. Just me. Enjoy.

[Jim]

I mentioned Elrod because I thought you were in the HCC &/or Pulp groups. Elrod's stuff reads a bit like the old pulp mysteries with the supernatural addition. The vamp & his human partner are private detectives, but I see you're not in either group. Whoops.

I think half the vampire books I run across today have at least one good vampire in them. Even Saberhagen's Vlad series portrays the Count as a rational, fairly decent person, although otherwise Saberhagen sticks very close to the original myths. He tells the story of Vlad Tepes life & death, including Stoker's Dracula from Dracula's POV in one book. That's actually a lot of fun as he shows how Harker & all jump to conclusions & he leads them on a merry chase.

In Thorn, Vlad comes across a mystery & a painting in the present day (1970?) that leads him to remember his living days in a series of flashbacks when he rubbed elbows with the Medicis, Da Vinci & such. That is my favorite book in the series. These books are probably why a 'good' vampire doesn't bug me.

[Jim]

BTW, I'm not trying to convert you to the dark side, Mike.
;-)

[Werner]

Mike wrote, "...the mythos I use basically says when a person 'becomes' a vampire the human is gone. I think it makes the theology in my fiction work better for me."

We all have different attitudes, perspectives and life experiences that can shape our tastes very differently. There's no "right" or "wrong" in those kinds of subjective perceptions; it's just fun to explore the differences! Mike, you and I share a similar theology, since we're both Christians (unlike Jim and others, who naturally approach things from a more secular perspective); but for me, the idea of vampires who retain their human personality and have moral free will in how they deal with their dietary requirements actually fits better with my theology. I agree that vampirism can be a powerful symbol of sin, which is rooted deeply in our fallen nature and leads us to say and do horrible things; but the essence of the Christian gospel is that God has the power to defeat sin inside of us, not just outside. And because I'm a staunch Arminian (I once remarked that I believe so strongly in free will, I think even vampires ought to have some :-) ), I believe it's our choices that locate us in our relationship to God vs. evil, not any kind of blind force that makes us automatons; and literature at its greatest level is about those choices. So to me, vampires like Stoker's Dracula, though they may be powerfully portrayed, aren't really round or three -dimensional characters; from a purely literary standpoint, they're a lot less interesting (as well as less likable) than one like, say, Edward Cullen.

To some readers, who have a strongly-ingrained sense that "vampire = evil, no ifs, ands or buts, case closed!" portraying vampires in a more nuanced way probably comes across as deliberately perverse and warped, like the writer is deliberately proclaiming, "Evil is good!" But that's a matter of presupposition --for writers (and readers) who don't presuppose "vampire = evil," it's usually not saying anything of the sort.

[Jim]

Werner, your last post made me think of 'Sympathy for the Devil'. Not just the song, but the idea that some writers often draw me so far in to the character that I can understand their base desires - evil, if you will. One case is A Night in the Lonesome October where the story is told from the POV of Jack the Ripper's dog. Jack does 'bad things so worse won't happen'. (view spoiler)[ Count Dracula shows up as a last minute ally. Both he & Jack are 'closers' trying to keep the evil, old 'gods' from finding their way into our world. (hide spoiler)]. Of course, a person's dog loves them & is loyal, no matter what, so the reader always sees Jack in the best light.

I'm a firm believer in free will, but I also believe that a person is driven by their base (bodily?) desires. I often find vampires who fight too much against their natures to be either unbelievable or stupid. At the very least, I can't sympathize with them. Like a teenage boy who refuses to have sex when he has a lot of chances. I guess some would or could, but I just can't believe in it so the story is ruined for me.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

As you must know I to believe in free will, it's just a difference in "take" on the character. Obviously I disagree with your take Werner, but that doesn't mean I think it's wrong or less. I've read books with at least "non-evil" vamps (Rob Thurman for example) they're still not to my taste. I see vamps (and again as Jim said I'm not trying to convert you to my point of view, just explaining how I picture and write vamps) as complete characters, but totally alien to humans. The human being the victim and freed as it were, the vamp having no power over the person who's body they took when the person died. The vamps are total predators who must control the number of their kind they bring into being "here" (that refers to a plot point and I won't go into that) shepherding their young along from being young vamps (who think mostly about feeding) to older vamps who have gained better control over the physical brain they now use. Older vampires become very powerful masterminding plots and plans of deep and of course long implications. They see humans mostly as "kine" or herd animals. Sort of like Spike from Buffy who referred to humans as "happy-meals" with legs. LOL

Again that's just the "take" I use.

Jim...I read the first of Saberhagen's Vlad tapes...it's one of my pet peeves (LOL). I never liked his "re-imagining" of the characters making Vlad the sympathetic one, going with another of my BIG pet peeves the (from whole cloth) love affair between Vlad and Mina. (Stoker never even got close to that). He repaints Van Helsing as a sort of small minded dangerous idiot... I failed to see how anyone who really liked Dracula (as I do) could have gotten into it. But obviously many did.

Again...just my take. I'm not trying to convince, just explain.

[Saytchyn]

Jim,

So many people have told me how much they loved the Vampire Academy series, but when I tried to read the first one, I failed. So you're saying it pays off in later books?

[[deleted user]]

Werner wrote: "Mike wrote, "...the mythos I use basically says when a person 'becomes' a vampire the human is gone. I think it makes the theology in my fiction work better for me."

We all have different attitude..."

Very interesting thoughts Werner. I tend to believe more in predestination as my grandparents believed in it and I have the old church book from 1847 which if falling apart and have read it a few times and typed up which was sure difficult due to old writing and spellings.

I do like it that Edward Cullen has so many deep thoughts about what is right and wrong and feels he is doomed to hell. I keep hoping that Stephenie will be able to go back to writing Midnight Sun as I like reading about his arguments with himself about what is right. The books about the purely evil vampires make me feel physically sick and disgusted. They are like demons. I cannot read those books altho I did make it thru a few Ann Rice books. (horrible)

[[deleted user]]

Saytchyn wrote: "Jim,

So many people have told me how much they loved the Vampire Academy series, but when I tried to read the first one, I failed. So you're saying it pays off in later books?"

I purchased the first Vampire Academy and still have it in order to do quiz questions. I will NOT buy another one. I do like the Sookie Stackhouse vampires as at least there are a few laughs. I actually like Bill Compton, Edward Cullen altho he is mentally ill poor thing, Emmett, Jasper, Alice, Rosalie, Dr. Carlisle and Esme. I don't care for the character of Eric in Charlaine Harris books or for the characters in Vampire Academy. (not sure why really) Maybe some characters are just too dark?

[Saytchyn]

I don't mind dark, but I was so bored trying to read Vampire Academy. I've tried to pinpoint why. It may be because everything in their world was familiar to them, and there was no sense of wonder. I do remember a mundaneness or something, in spite of it being an unfamiliar world to me. It just didn't hold my interest.

[[deleted user]]

Hi Saytchyn, I was also bored but did read it all. If you figure it out let me know please. Often I do not understand why I love one book and hate another one. If I really like a character that helps.

It didn't hold my interest either which is why I will not buy another one. I did just see on goodreads that its going to get some type of award and was amazed! Everyone is sure different. There is no accounting for different tastes and mine are usually very different.

[Saytchyn]

I think I'm figuring it out, in general. I seem to fall hard for atmosphere, and if the atmosphere of a book is good enough, I can forgive a lot. For instance, I understand your dislike for Anne Rice's books, because I did sometimes feel nuanced annoyance with her if that makes any sense. But her worlds were so rich and I could lose myself in them. And I loved several of her characters, so character would be a close second for me in reading requirements. I also loved the Twilight series and have recently been hooked on the Werewolves of Mercy Falls series when I have no interest in werewolves at all. My favorite book ever was Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, because the atmosphere and characters danced perfectly together. I can even read straight up mainstream if the atmosphere is right. And the atmosphere I read in VA was any old campus, in spite of the vampires. Now, on the other hand, we have Hogwarts...

[Jim]

Saytchyn wrote: "Jim,
So many people have told me how much they loved the Vampire Academy series, but when I tried to read the first one, I failed. So you're saying it pays off in later books?"

I doubt it, if you didn't like the first one. I just checked my ratings & I gave the first one 4 stars which means I thought it was the good start to a series. (I'm a little surprised by that.) I gave the 2d & 3d 3 stars, which means they're pretty good, but not world shaking.

IOW, I liked the series from the start. If you didn't, I wouldn't try again. There are a lot of books out there that probably fit you better. You might want to look at my Paranormal-Urban book shelf & see what I thought of other books of this sort. That might give you a better idea of how my tastes run. (I'm eclectic - OK, weird.)
;-)

[Jim]

I just started reading Fevre Dream by George R.R. Martin. Apparently I read it before, probably when it first came out. I recall parts of it. Lots of atmosphere in it. It's pre-Civil War riverboats.

[Werner]

Re Saberhagen's Dracula series, I read the second book, The Holmes-Dracula File some years ago (I didn't know it was a series at the time); but though I liked it well enough to give it three stars, one reason it didn't get more from me was the drastic revisionist approach to Stoker's original. IMO, if you're going to write a pastiche or fresh treatment of a classic, you should have enough respect for the original not to essentially stand it on its head in a way that's false to the original author's vision.

[Werner]

Jim, on the subject (Message 87) of whether or not it's realistic to imagine vampires or teenage guys (or teen girls) resisting bodily drives, we had a discussion of that back in June 2009 on the "Supernatural movies and TV" thread, in the context of the Twilight series. If anyone wants to read that, it's best done by clicking on "discussions" and then using the "search discussion posts" function --I used Twilight as the search term. (It's in frame 3 of the result list.)

Yes, a lot of "horror" (and other) literature can take you into the mind of an evil character and help you understand what makes him/her tick --and that's a perfectly legitimate function of fiction, IMO. I haven't read A Night in the Lonesome October, but it's in one of my piles of unread books. (Some people have a TBR mountain; I have a mountain range!)

[Mike (the Paladin)]

That was the one big thing that "creeped me out" about that book. Jack the Ripper as "good-guy" (so to speak).

[Jim]

I found that to be one of the finer points of the book, Zelazny's ability to create 'good' motivations & characters that caused so much evil as well as the reverse. As I've mentioned before, one thing I detest is when a huge number of people are threatened & the hero puts down his gun because the bad guy is threatening his girl friend or a kid. It's not a supernatural element that turns me off, but a logical one, in that case.

Werner, I didn't see it. If you could give the message number, that would be easier for me to find.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

I've got to agree with you on that score Jim. Some "bad-guy" puts a gun to "the girl's" or "the child's" head and tells the "police officer, marshal, soldier, hero" to drop his/her gun and he/she does...I'm yelling at the TV (or book) now he can kill you AND them. It makes no sense. The proper response is "the only thing keeping you alive is that they aren't hurt" etc. Yes, very frustrating plot device.