"Good" books you didn't like

[ErikW]

I got this idea for a thread after reading your lists of favorite movies and books and finding some I did not like.

Which popular and/or criticially acclaimed books did you dislike? Y'know, rubbed you the wrong way or left a bad taste in your mouth, that sort of dislike.

Catch-22 annoyed the hell out of me for some reason. I just couldn't put up with it and gave up on it halfway through, though I really don't want to leave any book unread.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance droned on and put me to sleep.

[Rich Bagoly]

The first time I read Catch-22 I hated it.  I quit well before I got halfway.  I tried it again about 10 yrs. later, and really liked it.  The first time I read it, I got hung up on not knowing any of the characters.  Years later, I was able to sit back, and wait for each character to be revealed.

Heinlein pisses me off.  I think that I have read just about everything he wrote.  I had to keep going.  There is no question, the man had a gift, but his later works really bend me the wrong way.  His world is just too different from mine.

[Duane Thomas]

Heinlein's career went through several distinct stages. He started out doing juveniles, novels for young boys. The thing about Heinlein's juveniles was that, while they could be and were enjoyed by youngsters as just cracking good adventure yarns, there was enough craft, excellent characterization, and real, serious thought under the surface that they could be and were enjoyed by adults as well.

Then Heinlein got out of writing juveniles and into writing serious adult fiction. The transition novel, the "bridge" between those phases of his career, was STARSHIP TROOPERS. On a surface level it reads like a hardass SF combat story of the Mobile Infantry, i.e. space Marines, but it's really a meditation on political systems.

His next major novel, his first book aimed squarely at the adult marketplace, was STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. Either you love this book or hate it. I love it. I've read it, oh, five times, but I'm young yet.

A couple more novels and then we hit the one many people consider the best Heinlein of all, THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS. I've never much liked it, myself.

Then Heinlein had a stroke, the first draft of his next novel, I WILL FEAR NO EVIL, completed but not rewritten at all. In order to satisfy contractual obligations, Heinlein's wife Virginia, in the absence of her husband's ability to make the decision himself, sent in the raw manuscript to the publisher. By this time Heinlein had signed a contract with a no-edit policy. He got away this because he was Heinlein. IWFNE is thus a very long novel, and many people will say this was the first truly bad novel Heinlein ever wrote. I disagree. IWFNE is a novel that absolutely depends for its success on the reader falling in love with its main character. I did, and if you do, the book's not long enough. It's one of my favorite Heinlein's.

TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE doesn't really start to crank until you're about halfway through the book - and it's a LONG book, the longest Heinlein ever wrote - but once it does kick in, it's absolutely primo stuff.

THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST is without a doubt the worst book Heinlein ever turned out. It sucked hardcore. By now in Heinlein's career we're beginning to see a serious degradation in the quality of his writing that would persist - with one exception - through to the end of his life. Why this is the case is a topic of some discussion among Heinlein fans. Some point to the aftereffects of his stroke - Heinlein had to have brain surgery - and perhaps he just couldn't focus the way he had in his younger days. That may have been a contributing factor, but I think it was mainly the result of his no-edit clause. Reading, for instance, STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND in the originally published version which was cut by about a third, by editorial edict, from Heinlein's initially submitted manuscript, and then reading THE UNABRIDGED STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, I am forced to the conclusion that Robert Heinlein was an innately prolix writer who benefited from the attentions of a good editor. Unfortunately that's not something he had working for him in the latter part of his career.

The "one exception" I mentioned earlier, the one true bright spot in Heinlein's later career, was FRIDAY. This book stands out from the rest of Heinlein's post-TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE work, in me 'umble opinion, like a diamond in a field of coal.

So yeah, most of his later stuff was not the greatest. That doesn't change the fact that in the earlier part of his career, Heinlein wrote enough truly great books for just about any other ten authors.

(Edited by Duane Thomas at 1:31 pm on June 26, 2002)

[GunRunner]

Hey Duane, thanks for the info on Heinlein.

I knew there had to be some reason for his latter day works.

I think the reason many don't like some (if not all) of his works is that they often go in a direction the reader doesn't want them to go in. That was my objection to Friday, I never finished it but then i may have not been in the proper frame of mind for it at the time. I will try it again later on.  I have to agree with you on The Number of the Beast. He just went all over with it.

As for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, i loved it. I feel its next in line after his Masterwork, Stranger... which i also have read several times and will read several more.

When i was younger i really didn't care for Heinlein except for Stranger and Moon, prefering Assimov for my SciFi. But i grew into his works. Maybe when i'm old n senile i'll grow into Number.  

mike

(Edited by GunRunner at 4:41 pm on Nov. 28, 2001)

[Duane Thomas]

Actually, I think you'd HAVE to be old and senile to like that book. It only begins to get interesting toward the very end when Lazarus Long and his family show up....and by then I just couldn't hack it anymore. I never even finished the book, the only instance in which I can say that of Heinlein.

[Al Capizzo]

Good lord, this thread ought to test some friendships!  Is this the "Hate" forum with a literary twist?

Here we go.

I read two books by Ayn Rand at the insistance of a friend. Thought they were trite, transparent, heavy handed. Are we clear on this?  Maybe pretty cool when they were written, but why would we still read them?

Tried to read "Hunt For Red October" and something else from Clancy.  Not for me.

I loved Catch-22.  I think I was 13 years old when my brother gave it to me, maybe if I read it now I'd change my mind (Good God, just realized thats 36 !!! years ago, no wonder I'm senile and ranting).

Heinlein,  I'll admit , I've only read 2 of his books and thought they were pretty good.  And considering I don't like "science" fiction thats saying alot.

Anyone tried to read " Labyrinth of Solitude"?  This is supposed to be the definitive book on Mexican people and culture. Well, I was disappointed. Maybe its over my head.  This is a situation where the author is a recognized artist, and Mexican, and I am neither. Doesn't give me very substantial grounds to argue with the guy, but I don't think he got the whole picture. Am I arrogant or what?!

Hey this is FUN!

[ErikW]

You've got to read Ayn Rand realizing fiction is just her way of presenting her philosophy and deconstructing others. It's not about plot or character development or beautiful prose. I find it hard to admire some of her characters, and their relationships are really twisted. I mean, what's up with the heroic protaganist of The Fountainhead being a rapist!? She did manage to make the most evil villain anywhere, Ellsworth Toohey. Anyway, that book and Atlas Shrugged are must-reads for people living in the U.S. today.

Back to my original thread idea, Captain Corelli's Mandolin was a great book for 9/10ths and then just slowly ground to a halt.

Here's something else for you, in Cold Mountain, which is probably the most beautifully-written book I've ever read, men and women have different interpretations of the ending, which seems cut and dried to me. (Spoiler Alert!.) It's not a happy ending, but some women think everyone lives happily ever after.

[Dowter]

I like Heinlein.  I've read _Stranger in a Strange Land_, _Starship Troopers_, and _Podkayne of Mars_.  The last before realizing it was a kids book but I still enjoyed it.  Even though Verhoeven's movie barely had anything to do with the book, I greatly enjoyed his parodying of Heinlein's thinly veiled fascist leanings.

I'm actually very sympathetic towards much of Ayn Rand's philosphical positions (her political ones, her epistemology is widely ignored except for only the most die hard objectivists.)  I don't think all charity is bad but I am definitely sympathetic to the the idea that mandatory charity(e.g. I pay taxes that pay for other people's welfare checks) is a mild form of slavery.  I don't mind giving to charity BUT I should be the sole arbitrar as to who gets my money and how much.  

Having said that - Ayn Rands books "The Fountain Head" and "Atlas Shrugged" are some of the most absolutely poorly written books that I have ever read.   The people in her books are very creepy robots, and the sex scenes are about as fun as watching your parents have sex(the last part - I'm just presuming).  I know that her fiction was just a vehicle for her philosophy but thats still no excuse.

[John Dunn]

Just finished reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand...what a chore that was. Did a search and found this thread.

I am very sympathetic to the underlying moral of the story...essentially that it is bad to be a looter or a moocher, and that by working for your own self interest you benefit society more than a bleeding heart ever could. That an overly centralized government is a recipe for disaster. All that is great.

What absolutely killed me were the endless and repetitive diatribes, i.e. John Galt's 60 page radio address toward the end of the book. I'll confess to reading about 5 pages of it, skimming ten or so, then skipping to the end of the chapter. The book would have been much better at 600 pages rather than 1,000+.

The other thing I kept thinking was, who the heck did Ayn Rand pal around with? Anyone? The main characters, Hank Reardon, John Galt and Dagney Taggart were so similar as to be boring. I liked Ragnar the best because, hey, who doesn't love a pirate? I got the feeling Ayn got picked last for kickball in school.

Didn't like The Fountainhead too much, either.

I think now I'll reread a Louis L'Amour book about the Sackett's.

[SA Friday]

Acid Test by Ross LaManna. OMG! What a POS. I was so looking forward to this novel, the hero was an OSI agent. This guy spent weeks at an OSI det to learn the aspects he would use in the book. About the time the hero clicked the safety off of his P226, I decided to burn the book. We carry P228's. I won't even address clicking the safety off... Pretty much the rest of it was just shallow.

OK, maybe not a good book, but it was SUPPOSED to be...

Edited January 19, 2008 by SA Friday

[Nik Habicht]

I think now I'll reread a Louis L'Amour book about the Sackett's.

Now there's a good way to spend an afternoon --- may I recommend "The Sackett Brand" or "Milo Talon?" Of course if you're willing to abandon the Sacketts and their cousins the Talons, "Bendigo Shafter" and "Flint" remain favorites.....

[wide45]

I think now I'll reread a Louis L'Amour book about the Sackett's.

Now there's a good way to spend an afternoon --- may I recommend "The Sackett Brand" or "Milo Talon?" Of course if you're willing to abandon the Sacketts and their cousins the Talons, "Bendigo Shafter" and "Flint" remain favorites.....

I started out enjoying Louis L'Amour's work, but after a dozen or so, they were all the same.

[SiG Lady]

From the You-Never-Know-Where-Your-Next-Book-Recommendation-Might-Come-From Department:

As Jail Librarian I have access to literally thousands of paperbacks of all kinds and am subject to occasional requests from inmates (either formally by document or verbally by chit-chat) about materials they either like or want. Dean Koontz is popular as are Louis L'Amour westerns. Frankly, they read a little of everything. And I've found some good material just poring thru my stockpiles and have seen new ideas for reading projects.

One of the female inmate requests became MY latest project: The Red Mars/Green Mars/Blue Mars trilogy (Kim Stanley Robinson). I managed to acquire all three from three sources and am reading them in that order (am about halfway thru Red Mars) and am finding it to be many-faceted and assumes that the reader will dig in and make a long-term commitment to reading the trilogy--which I'll do). It delves into the long-term psychology and relationships of the Mars explorers as much as the technical positions they occupy and their technological evolution. I'll know more as I go along.

I began reading Heinlein as a kid. I was a SF fan since day one. Many trips to the library for his stuff and others. Lots of good recommendations coming from people HERE on the forum, too. Thanks to jhgtyre, I totally pigged-out on Allen Steele there for a while. Very addictive stuff.

I've read several Ayn Rand. She does tend to "go on" a bit, yes...... Brevity was definitely not her thing. The works seemed at once surreal, film noir and sci-fi like. Anthem, in fact, was brief and very sci-fi, if anyone recalls that one........

[zhunter]

Da Vinci Code

Started and put it down.

[Jim Rusert]

Read the The Da Vinci Code. I felt so used . . .

[bierman]

"Moby Dick". Can't seem to get through the first chapter. I also despise "The Scarlett Letter". I had to read that one in school and I thought I would never get through it. Oh yeah, and anything ever written by Al Franken.

[JimmyZip]

I also cut my teeth on Heinlein. I was reading that stuff in the 3rd grade. WOW! Louis L'amour, another addiction after RH, There was one about a fighter pilot, stuck in Siberia that was part Indian that I really liked. I even liked the Casca series by Barry Sadler( Ballad Of The Green Berets fame)

Tom Clancy,his books have never survived a re-read with me. Below the tech stuff, they are just too cut and dried which is strange because L'amour used the same plot dozens of times and if I go on a plane ride or a car trip, he's one I will always pick up.And who can forget Stienbeck? I loved his books in junior high,

Mexican culture? Lluvia Del Oro. Post WWI fiction? A Soldier Of The Great War.Gabriel Garcia Marquez,Coontz, Harold Coyle, W.E.B Griffith, funny thing though, now I just really like historical books. So many crazy things have actually happened that you don't have to invent them.

But here goes, thought that I would like to get into shootin again, bought Brian's book and I hated it . Then after burning through several thousand rounds and a dozen matches of frustration , that damn book kept coming back to me. Then it became kind of like a manual for understanding. That book has helped me see some things that have nothing to do with shooting. Weird huh? Now, I must say that I have even suggested it to friends who shoot. Being aware in the moment has made a big difference.

[XRe]

By far the worst one for me is Catcher in the Rye... If Holden Caulfield were here, I'd strangle that little bastard.. Sheesh... I read it for the first time just, like, 4-5 months back. Horrid. The book should be burnt, but not because it gives kids the wrong values or anything like that... Just cause it sucks rocks...

Heinlein - Stranger, Moon, Starship Troopers were all enjoyed. In fact, I like Moon quite a bit. The others of his I've read ... not so much.

Another one that annoys me to some extent is Phillip K. Dick - you can just feel the amphetamines oozing out of this guy's writing. With an occasional bright point, many of his stories take this wildly accelerating path, only to just drop dead right at the end with some sort of lame excuse for a plot wrap-up. One of the few instances where I've grown to think that a writer's ideas for stories have turned out better than their actual depictions of the ideas (ie, the movies are better than the books, for me....). Still, he's got some decent stuff in there... Second Variety is a hoot, for instance

[AK74]

Any book by Kurt Vonnegut.

[ChrisStock]

I was a huge fan of Vonnegut 30 odd years ago as a kid in school. I haven't picked up anything from him in recent years as a lot of it is too damn depressing.

Tolstoy's "War and Peace" took me over 25 years to read. I am a voracious reader, mind you, often reading multiple books simultaneously, but this is one I could not stomach. I started it literally dozens of times and kept putting it down. I finally finished it a few years ago and don't plan on repeating the experience.

[shred]

A friend just lent me "The Ruins" audiobook. Had a big "best book, EVER!" (or something) by some Famous Author on the cover. Not great literature in any case, but geez, if it was my CDs they would have been skeet before I got halfway through.

Plot summary: "College kids get trapped with a monster. Allegory ensues.

Everybody dies.

"

[AlamoShooter]

I hated "Wicked" =I was trapped 1,500 miles from home and 20 hrs to drive it in by my self. Audio Disk

the first 1+1/2 hrs I stopped it ready to throw it out the window , but it was a loaner from a friend. 2hrs later with concern for my driving attention. I put it back in and thin I hatted that I could not stop Listening to it. My brain was trapped in some strange place with bad politics, and bad morals.

Dang I hate that I liked it.

[Coach]

For Whom the Bell Tolls - E. hemingway. Action story with little action.

Also anything by John Steinbeck. The Grapes of Wrath should have resulted in a prison sentence because reading it was like one.

[Tengu]

"2001: A Space Odyssey" has to top my list of books that I couldn't get into... thank God I never saw the movie "The Scarlet Letter" is another one for which I have painful memories. "Atlas Cut the Cheese" is a modern classic waiting to be written