Anonymous
Post 02/24/2022 11:49     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Confederacy of Dunces. There was a reason this wasn’t published when the author was alive. It’s probably worst book I ever read. I have to finish every book I start, and I thought this would be the one to break me. It was a Herculean effort to finish it but I was motivated to so I could definitively talk about how bad it is.


+1


Ha! I loved this book.
Anonymous
Post 02/24/2022 11:32     Subject: Re:Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:A Wrinkle in Time. I get what it's supposed to be, but between the labored writing, the implausible dialog, and the many plot holes, I just don't get the appeal. It needed a continuity editor badly.


Agree. Whenever I think of it, it’s not as a story; just disconnected images, tesseract and Charles Wallace.
Anonymous
Post 02/24/2022 11:30     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:Here’s one I haven’t seen mentioned yet: The Martian.

Thought the narrator was an ass. I could barely stomach his conceit one-third off the way through the book. One of the rare cases where I thought the movie was so much better than the book. (Matt Damon came off so much less cocksure than the book version.)


What? It was amazing. The narrator is a science nerd, biologist astronaut. He’s on Mars alone, macgyvering and growing food in his own shit. He has a bit of dark humor, a lot of genius, and definitely funny talking about the first one to do all this stuff.
Anonymous
Post 02/24/2022 11:08     Subject: Re:Books you "should" love, but just don't
All Shakespeare. I hate it, all of it.

My high schooler complains about having to read Shakespeare in school and all I can do is nod and sympathize.

Also Dickens. The man was paid by the word. So he was effectively paid to write out as much crap as possible. Awful. Just awful.
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 23:51     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Add me to the list for The Secret History. I couldn't get into, and never finished it.


Agreed and the Goldfinch was a slog to get through. I think the writing is pretentious, and she needs an editor to help bring her books in under 509 pages.


That was my takeaway from the Goldfinch. Interesting story, but she really, really, really needed an editor.
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 23:23     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I've tried multiple times to get through The Satanic Verses but can't get past the first couple chapters, despite liking other Rushdie novels.

I like Salinger, Austen, Vonnegut. Agree with others on Tartt, I kind of liked The Secret History but agree with the critiques and really thought the Goldfinch was a slog.

All the Light we Cannot See was pretty good overall but I found the ending to be unsatisfying.


I agree with most everything you said here. I tried many times to get through Rushdie's Midnight's Children, but he writes as if he gets paid per word.


I loved Midnight's Children, Rushdie is so gifted with language. Although I agree it could have been edited. I also loved The Goldfinch even more than The Secret History.
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 22:05     Subject: Re:Books you "should" love, but just don't
WOLF HALL IS THE WORST BOOK EVER
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 21:53     Subject: Re:Books you "should" love, but just don't
A Wrinkle in Time. I get what it's supposed to be, but between the labored writing, the implausible dialog, and the many plot holes, I just don't get the appeal. It needed a continuity editor badly.
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 21:52     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This might get tomatoes thrown my way, but here it is anyway: The Mists of Avalon.


At a whopping 876 pages, I can understand why No tomatoes incoming, you're safe.

Oof. I love it, but maybe because I first read it at 20. I need to go back and read it again for the fourth time.
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 21:36     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:Confederacy of Dunces. There was a reason this wasn’t published when the author was alive. It’s probably worst book I ever read. I have to finish every book I start, and I thought this would be the one to break me. It was a Herculean effort to finish it but I was motivated to so I could definitively talk about how bad it is.


+1
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 20:58     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Here’s one I haven’t seen mentioned yet: The Martian.

Thought the narrator was an ass. I could barely stomach his conceit one-third off the way through the book. One of the rare cases where I thought the movie was so much better than the book. (Matt Damon came off so much less cocksure than the book version.)
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 20:43     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:Add me to the list for The Secret History. I couldn't get into, and never finished it.



I've read The Secret History many times. I loved it. I wish they would make a movie out of it. The casting would make or break it.
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 20:41     Subject: Re:Books you "should" love, but just don't
Cold Mountain. I don't remember reading a book that took 50 pages just to get to some dialogue. I actually liked the movie better. Jude Law is easy on the eyes.
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 20:29     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Anonymous wrote:This might get tomatoes thrown my way, but here it is anyway: The Mists of Avalon.


At a whopping 876 pages, I can understand why No tomatoes incoming, you're safe.
Anonymous
Post 02/23/2022 15:59     Subject: Books you "should" love, but just don't
Agree with the PP above who loved The Sympathizer but thought the Committed was awful!