Which Fantasy Author Did You Find Most Disappointing? Showing 751-800 of 1,088

[Mike (the Paladin)]

I don't like the entire Zelazny book list. Unlike many or most I'm not impressed by Lord of Light and some of his others. I love the FIRST Amber series, not so swept away by the second. Really liked Madwand and Changeling though he died before he completed the series. His books are sort of a mixed bag.

[Becky]

I own Lord of Light, but I haven't read it yet. I'm not sure if I will... I'll take an Eastern Religions class and then I might be ready. =\

I've read This Immortal and A Night in the Lonesome October and... the amount of exterior knowledge required just makes it really hard to enjoy the story. It should stand on its own, in my opinion. If I need to know classical Greek references to piece together a main character's, well, character, then that's a fail to me.

In my review of This Immortal (which was my first Zelazny), I mentioned that this was a shortcoming on my part, and that I don't feel authors should dumb down their work... but after reading Lonesome October, I decided that using the classics as something of a crutch seems to be his style. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's pretty clear to me that someone who hasn't read classic horror isn't going to get much out of Lonesome October. Zelazny assumes you have, and if you haven't, then you're not going to get the picture he's painting. I have read a fair bit of classic horror, and I didn't get a LOT of it.

I am not saying that alluding to other works or classical references is wrong, but the book should be able to stand on its own two feet and be enjoyable despite them. *shrug*

[mark]

loved Madwand and Changeling!

also Dilvish the Damned and The Changing Land (i think that's what the latter is called).

[Mike (the Paladin)]

Oh yeah...you know I still have Delvish and TCL on my shelf unread. I have to get to those.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Becky wrote: "I own Lord of Light, but I haven't read it yet. I'm not sure if I will... I'll take an Eastern Religions class and then I might be ready. =\

I've read This Immortal and A Night in the Lonesome Oct..."

Which probably reflects a certain education system bias towards 'classics.' For older generations, traditional classical works were a given as a common base in the educated adult. Now significantly less so. No value judgement implied, just saying that it is indicative of the audience.

[Becky]

I shore do hait be'un unedgumkated. ;)

You may have a point, actually, Carol, but still, I think it's risky on the part of an author to assume such a background of their readers. It's one thing to use an unfamiliar word and expect someone to look it up if they don't know it, but understanding someone's personality or role in a book is something that should be part of the book, not reliant on external knowledge.

For example, JK Rowling used a lot of references from mythology and history in the Harry Potter books, but if you didn't know Minerva's mythological significance, it didn't change your experience of the book, because Professor McGonagall was a well-written, full character on her own. Knowing about Minerva is a bonus, not a requirement for understanding or enjoyment.

With Lonesome October, if it wasn't for having read the book with a friend who'd read it several times and was willing to take the time to explain each chapter/day and all the references therein, I'd have been completely lost, or probably thought the book was an utter flop. Even WITH his help I still felt that way, just to a lesser extent.

But that's just my preference. I know that there are many who enjoy this kind of style. I read for enjoyment primarily, but I'm not uneducated. I just don't like feeling like my lack of having read every book ever written is being shoved in my face. =\

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Becky said: "But that's just my preference. I know that there are many who enjoy this kind of style. I read for enjoyment primarily, but I'm not uneducated. I just don't like feeling like my lack of having read every book ever written is being shoved in my face. =\ "

Well, I certainly wasn't implying either, and I really doubt Zelazny was 'shoving it in' anyone's face. I'm just making a historical point--Lords of Light was published in 1967 according to GR, which means people who were educated in the school system of the 40s and 50s were the first target audience. American public schools have come a looooong way since then to opening up the "canons" of what is considered mandatory literature. There was a point in time when reading Greek texts was a given--can't say it every happened by the time I was in school, although I remember 'Madea.' Now the canon would include books by Alice Walker, Frederick Douglass, MLK, etc., so the range of what we all share is more limited.

I've come to realize a lot of what is read really doesn't stand the test of time and is more applicable to society at that moment. Some early sci-fi and fantasy seems particularly challenging to me because of it. Likewise, some 'second-generation' fantasy/sci-fi that was written in response to the first (MZB Darkover series or Andre Norton's Witch World, for instance, Jack Chalker's Dancing Gods series) doesn't resonate as well.

[Robert]

I don't know. I wouldn't go out of my way to include such references in my work simply to be clever or cryptic. But I don't see any reason to reduce the work to the level of least common understanding amongst the readership. If I come across a reference to literature, history, mythology, or the like in something I am reading, I generally look it up if the author hasn't provided a lot of detail and is assuming certain knowledge among the readership. There are all sorts of details in any given book that may reference subject matter more familiar to some readers than others. I don't have a problem with that, particularly with the internet close at hand.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

Many writers from "earlier eras" writings are full of classical and even Biblical references. It wasn't a shot at anyone or an unwarranted assumption at the time these books were written. The education system has changed. I made sure my kids were at least exposed to some of the classics...

We miss so very much if we don't know the basis of things.

[Robert]

I agree, Mike, and I don't see anything wrong with such allusions. Heck, there are episodes of Family Guy with jokes you won't get unless you have a certain knowledge of classic literature, film, or other aspects of popular culture.

[Razmatus]

Kiri wrote: "Re: the Thomas Covenant series... I did get past the rape, and I did enjoy the further books (through the second trilogy - were there more?), but I completely respect the difficulty with that aspec..."

I might give that series a go... seriously, I got over ASOIAF and characters like Ramsay Bolton, so I think I will be ok

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

I do see anything wrong with allusions to classical or greek lit...

...but Becks is right in that it can alienate some readers. Now, if a book was written in the 60s then I can expect that I may have to do some research or something. But more recently written books that depend too much on outside knowledge are...using the wrong register at times. This causes the work to become inaccessible. Just to be honest, writers are competing for more than just my money. They are competing for my time. So when a book comes to my hands that causes some consternation (and there is a lack of a glossary)...the most likely reaction from me is a shrug and moving on to the next book.

Of course, if I went into the book expecting that kind of mental exercise, it's a different story. I'm still working on the Phaedo and I've had no complaints. I'd be annoyed if the same register from Phaedo is used in Pawn of Prophecy.

[Becky]

Carol, I wasn't implying you were implying anything. I was just responding. ;) I don't think RZ was shoving anything in my face intentionally - I didn't even know the guy - but that's how I felt reading it. If I had read A, B, C, D, E... etc, I'd probably have liked it better, and I recognized that while reading, so it wasn't an enjoyable experience to just read HIS book. *shrug*


R. Scott, I absolutely DO NOT think that authors should "reduce the work to the level of least common understanding amongst the readership" and have never said anything like that. That's how we got into this YA trend we're in right now... *shudder*

I actually agree with you, in that if I don't know something that's referred to in a book I'll look it up. But references are easy to look up - allusions are more difficult - Google's amazing, but sadly it's no better than I am at knowing who "Jack" is supposed to represent.

I don't expect authors to dumb down their work. Zelazny wrote the books he wanted to write, and if he was satisfied, then it's for the reader to either get it or not, like it or not. I, unfortunately, did not enjoy my experience while reading his books, and therefore I don't think they are for me.

[Robert]

Those are good points, Becky. I think if the author provides enough context so, for example, I know that the allusions are to Sumerian mythology or something, then I can look it up readily enough. If the allusion is so bare that you either get it or you don't, then it is important the the story not hinge on understanding the allusion.

A good example of this would be Nabokov's "Lolita." It is a brilliant book and so full of wide ranging allusions that I doubt any single reader gets them all. But getting them is kind of like being in on a joke here and there, and while it is rewarding you don't fail to understand or enjoy the story for having missed a few.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Connie Willis' To Say Nothing of the Dog is definitely in the vein of "you will like this a hundred times better if you have read Victorian literature and mysteries." I'm pretty sure that reading a lot of PG Wodehouse, Agatha Christie and that sort helped set the stage for me getting a lot of the little jokes and allusions. It gently mocks a lot of it, but if you don't know the source, it's that much less funny.

[Becky]

R. Scott wrote: "Those are good points, Becky. I think if the author provides enough context so, for example, I know that the allusions are to Sumerian mythology or something, then I can look it up readily enough. If the allusion is so bare that you either get it or you don't, then it is important the the story not hinge on understanding the allusion. "

Yes. This is exactly it. :)

[Becky]

Carol wrote: "Connie Willis' To Say Nothing of the Dog is definitely in the vein of "you will like this a hundred times better if you have read Victorian literature and mysteries." I'm pretty sure that reading a..."

This is good to know, Carol. I have To Say Nothing of the Dog on my Nook... so I'll hold off on that one until I've read more of the other books you mention. Thanks!

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Accessibility is really important to me. I have a blind cousin and through her I learned how inaccessible the world is. It's also yet another reason to loathe DRM. Especially .epub DRM. *shudder*

/digression

So, while I love reading books that I can "get the inside joke" I dislike books that are inaccessible on purpose. (inaccessible ≠ difficult)

[Joshua]

Very disappointed in Susanna Clarke's Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell. So many things wrong with that book to me, it's hard to figure out where to begin.

[Becky]

Joshua wrote: "Very disappointed in Susanna Clarke's Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell."

Agree. For me, it was just boring and very, very overlong.

[Joshua]

Becky wrote: "Joshua wrote: "Very disappointed in Susanna Clarke's Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell."

Agree. For me, it was just boring and very, very overlong."

Yep. Way too long. And I ended up skipping the footnotes about halfway through...

[mark]

i guess it is opposite day for me again. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is one of my favorite books. brilliant from beginning to end! one of the very few books that i would call perfect in every way.

[Becky]

I know quite a few people who love it, but I was just bored by it. Though, I did at least finish that one, which is more than I can say for The Magicians. LOL

[mark]

now there's a book that i agree was highly problematic! ugh, Quentin, so toxic.

[Becky]

LOL "Highly problematic". I like that term. Yeah... I decided enough was enough when we got to the 1am rooftop geese-making session. I'd been struggling to find ANYTHING to like in it, and then... that. It just seemed completely pointless, unnecessary, and gratuitous to me.

[Michael]

Joshua wrote: "Very disappointed in Susanna Clarke's Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell. So many things wrong with that book to me, it's hard to figure out where to begin."

It's not an 'easy read' the footnotes alone are an issue and make it even harder. I actually did end up enjoying the book...but I also felt like I had to "struggle thorugh it." I think it helps to read it with the right mindset...for me that meant on cold afternoons with a cup of tea and for short periods.

Becky wrote: "I know quite a few people who love it, but I was just bored by it. Though, I did at least finish that one, which is more than I can say for The Magicians. LOL"

Sorry to hear that - I have The Magicians on my radar. I think based on your comment I may let it sit awhile longer.

[Dawn]

Becky wrote: "LOL "Highly problematic". I like that term. Yeah... I decided enough was enough when we got to the 1am rooftop geese-making session. I'd been struggling to find ANYTHING to like in it, and then... ..."

LOL, it's just funny because I loved the geese part. Different strokes and all :)

[Jalilah]

Joshua wrote: "Very disappointed in Susanna Clarke's Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell. So many things wrong with that book to me, it's hard to figure out where to begin."

I was somewhat disappointed too in the sense that I expected it to be a page turner for me and it wasn’t. I liked the idea very much and I found the premise to be original, but the footnotes drove me crazy! I definitely struggled with parts.
Some times when there is a lot of hype about a book the expectations are higher, thus the more critical one becomes when they are not met. On the cover was a quote from Neil Gaiman saying it was: “Unquestionably the finest English novel of the fantastic written in the last seventy years."
Well, certainly not for me!

[Joshua]

Jalilah wrote: "Joshua wrote: "Very disappointed in Susanna Clarke's Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell. So many things wrong with that book to me, it's hard to figure out where to begin."
I was somewhat disappoin..."
I agree on all counts. Lots of potential that just didn't work for me. I didn't care for either protagonist. The only interesting parts were Stephen Black, the man with the thistle down hair and Norrell's servant.
I actually wish I would have just put the book down and moved on.

[Becky]

Heh... That's interesting. I thought The Man With The Thistle Down Hair was a completely pointless character. But then, I'm not much in the way of a fan of (view spoiler)[fairies (hide spoiler)], so...

[Joshua]

I thought he was interesting and had a pretty cool evil element about him. The problem is that there was a lot of setup with little payoff.

[Carly]

I'm struggling through Rothfuss' Wise Man's Fear and I feel like I must be missing something. I can't get past the protagonist; he seems such a Mary Sue that I find him infuriating. The characterization of women (e.g. Denna and Felurian) also bothers me a lot. But it's such a well-regarded book, and it's very well-thought of by reviewers and authors I respect. I keep wondering if there's a meta-joke or a deeper layer I'm just not getting.

[Becky]

I haven't read WMF yet... I read and enjoyed NOTW, but have had zero urge to pick up the next book. I'm not sure why... it's just not calling me.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Carly wrote: "I'm struggling through Rothfuss' Wise Man's Fear and I feel like I must be missing something. I can't get past the protagonist; he seems such a Mary Sue that I find him infuriating. The characteri..."

Felt like that with book 1. And I agree about the MC.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Carly wrote: "I'm struggling through Rothfuss' Wise Man's Fear and I feel like I must be missing something. I can't get past the protagonist; he seems such a Mary Sue that I find him infuriating. The characteri..."

I know I read a review from one of my friends that addressed this issue, but now I can't find it. I completely agree, it was somewhat less absorbing than the first book; the first section completely rehashes the last book, and the characterization of females is becoming a serious barrier. Add to that (view spoiler)[his time with the 'primitive tribe' that sure seems like it is taking the 'magical native who is closer to the earth' viewpoint and I find myself less than enamored.

So I'm not sure that there is a deeper layer as much as those aren't issues on many people's radar. (hide spoiler)]

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Wait. How many kings have been killed? Any as yet?

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Ha! (view spoiler)[ Forty-two. Wait, that's another book. (hide spoiler)] Are you sure you want to know?? (view spoiler)[None. (hide spoiler)]

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Carol wrote: "Ha! [spoilers removed] Are you sure you want to know?? [spoilers removed]"

*snicker*


For some reason I was thinking that...

[Becky]

I read all the spoilers.

[Becky]

Yeah, that's the mood I'm in today. O_o

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Becky wrote: "I read all the spoilers."

*GASP*

Et tu, Becks?

Becky wrote: "Yeah, that's the mood I'm in today. O_o"

[Becky]

*nod* Yup.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

I can never resist spoilers. I'm a peeker.

[Becky]

Not me. I usually never ever want to know anything. I'm just in a weird mood today. Plus, WMF is pretty low on the priority scale for me, so probably by the time I get to it, I'll have forgotten... (view spoiler)[that no Kings were harmed or killed in the writing of the novel. ;) (hide spoiler)]

But probably not. :P

[Michael]

@Carly - what you describe I've seen many of other people say as well, so you are not alone. I'm not a fan of Denna and I did enjoy NOTW but I've not picked up WMF as of yet. I'm kind of waiting for the last book so I can do them togehter.

[Traci]

In agreement. I loved The Name of the Wind but the second...shrug. Written well but boring. And the story seems to be going nowhere. With only one more book to go.

[Carly]

@Michael and MrsJoseph--Wow, that's encouraging. All I've seen are rave reviews, and I just keep feeling like I'm not getting it--like listening to a conversation in a language I'm not very familiar with. I tend to read for characters, and I got so annoyed with Kvothe that I put him thru the original Mary Sue test and he scored a 197--(to quote the test: "71 or more: Irredeemable-Sue. You're going to have to start over, my friend. I know you want to keep writing, but no. Just no.")

NoTW isn't in my local library, so I figured that by reading WMF directly, I was maybe missing out on a running gag. I mean, the guy tells us himself that he is incredibly precocious, has magical colour-changing eyes, incredible intelligence, close to the strongest magic out there, not to mention the (ugh) vaunted sexual prowess...I can't quite believe his perfection isn't part of a bigger joke. Maybe I just read too much Pratchett to take uber- heroic heroes seriously.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

I've read some interesting theories as to the unreliable status of Kvothe's tale - but my take on it, then, is sort of "then what's the point?"

I mean, we're told that this is his story as it happened - the truth behind the legend, more or less. He admits to some embellishing, as anyone would do, but if he's such an unreliable narrator that we can't really believe most of it then, as I say, what's the point?

Anyway - I also found Kvothe an insufferable Gary Stu and didn't really dig the first book. What I'm hearing about the second doesn't make me wish to continue.

And then there are the theories that there are actually two trilogies and the first trilogy will be all backstory and we won't even get into the 'present-day' story (the part I liked best in the first book), until the second trilogy.

Anyway - I haven't written off the possibility of finishing the series, but I'm definitely waiting to hear reports from book 3 before deciding.

***

As to the OP, there have been so many books I've read that I've been disappointed in, I have a hard time thinking of one that was the most disappointing.

I think it's one that I had the highest hopes for going in that end up being the most disappointing, though. Things like Name of the Wind I knew might not be quite my cuppa before embarking, as it were, but something like, erm, the Bartimaeus trilogy seems like something I should've liked.

Oh, one series I will mention, though, was because of the ending - A Series of Unfortunate Events. Talk about a craptastic cop-out of an ending!

I mean, I liked the series to start with... it was kind of clever and fun, but also a bit dark and wry. By about book 5 or 6 it started becoming overly repetitive as the plotlines were essentially the same, but new characters and subplots kept getting added. But I stuck it out.

And the ending. Oh my gods, that ending! One of the few times I wanted to actually tear apart a book with my bare hands.

It's poisoned the entire series for me, and I actively warn people away from it now.

[Michael]

Traci wrote: "In agreement. I loved The Name of the Wind but the second...shrug. Written well but boring. And the story seems to be going nowhere. With only one more book to go."

That seems to be the overall impression I've gotten from others. Many have mentioned that the story really didn't move much...and there is a lot for the last book. There is even some speculation that Rothfuss will split the last book into two. But I don't know how true that is.

@Carly, I've heard cries of Mary Sueism in regards to Kvothe. I really didn't get that impression regarding Kvothe from the first book, but freely admit that my Mary Sue radar may be at a much higher threshold then some. I did enjoy Name of the Wind...and I do plan on reading the last two. In some ways, it's good that I'm going in without soaring expectations, as those are the times when I'm the most disappointed.

@Colleen - I too like the "present" day stuff much more than the retelling of the past - it is this that I really want to know more about. Especially as there is "real danger" - after all we know he survived any obsticles that came before ;-)

I actually liked Bartimaeus, although I only read the first one. I've also never finished Series of Unfortunate Events, but based on your feedback that may have been a good thing.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Carly wrote: "Carly (dim_pwnc) | 2 comments @Michael and MrsJoseph--Wow, that's encouraging. All I've seen are rave reviews, and I just keep feeling like I'm not getting it--like listening to a conversation in a language I'm not very familiar with. I tend to read for characters, and I got so annoyed with Kvothe that I put him thru the original Mary Sue test and he scored a 197--(to quote the test: "71 or more: Irredeemable-Sue. You're going to have to start over, my friend. I know you want to keep writing, but no. Just no.") "


I totally felt Kvothe is a horrible Gary Stu. THere's gonna have to be a lot of kings killed to get me to pick it up again.