• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Disappointing Authors

V

Violanthe

Guest
So, you've been hearing about a certain author for months—or maybe even years. Not only is there general hype, but credible sources have recommended this author. However, when you finally get around to reading the author, the books are a huge disappointment. Has this ever happened to you? Which authors and books?
 
The author: Christopher Paollini

The book: Eragon

Someone named this their "favourite book ever." Another person said "it's not that bad."

It was.
 
Brian Jacques and (Waits for the attack) J. K. Rowling. I just found the first boring and it really really bugged me that there were rats driving in a wagon pulled by horses because the scale thing was all off. Someone pointed out that they were rat sized rats in a wagon sized wagon and they had stolen it from someone but then, are there humans around? And if so don't they notice these highly advanced rodents scurrying about wearing clothes, building castles, and sailing ships? Plus I just couldn't get into the description of how the beautiful female mouse was so beautiful and all that. . .

I mean, I don't mind talking animals if they behave as animals somewhat. I read Watership Down and Narnia, but I just didn't like Redwall.

Anyway, J. K. Rowling I resisted for a long time because the plot just sounded so typical. I started reading, and yeah, the plot was typical but I could see the draw to twelve-year-olds. The humor was fun and the action was fast . . .but the writing wasn't really that good and I didn't like a single character. I'm very character driven in my reading, and I can look past a lot of plot gaps and slow spots if I love the character . .. probably why my second favorite author is Dosteovsky and my sixth is Alexander McCall Smith. There is a lot of talking in Dosteovsky's works that can get a bit long, but I adore his characters. Not a ton happens in Smith's works and for mysteries they are very low suspense, but I love his characters (and sense of humor . . .).

This doesn't really count as a recommendation, but I think it illustrates why some people will really love and some will really hate the same books.

I maintain a large sprawling Amazon.com wishlist which I used to aid my family (because I'm living out of state now) and my husband (because he is often gift buying challenged) with birthdays and such. Anyway, for my birthday, Matt and my grandparents picked out the Bartimaus (probably misspellling that) trillogy by Jonathan Stroud. Matt got me one and two (plus Gail Carson Levine's "Fairest" . . . oh, I adored that book.) and my grandparents got me three plus a few other things. I had put them on there because the story and plot looked interesting and I wanted to try them out. I had no idea how I would like them.

Because I started "Fairest" first, Matt took the opportunity to pick up book one and it drove me crazy because every five minutes he would burst out laughing . .. and Matt is not usually a laugh out loud kind of guy. Very low key in his expressions. I would say, "What?" and he would say, "You will have to read it. I won't make sense."

Anyway, he had that book done by one am that morning when I tapped him on the shoulder to tell him I was going to bed and he said, 'Just one more chapter . . ." even though he had to get up at six am. So I wasn't surprised when the next day I came home from work to find him half way through the second which he also finished that night and then last night he rounded off the third, still laughing at intervals. So I thought, "Ah, these books must be hilarious. . ."

Not terribly.

I just started the second last night. They are a bit dark for me and (again) I don't really like any of the characters, so it is slower going for me than it was (obviously) for Matt. He asked me how I liked them when I finished the first and I said they were good but I didn't think they were that funny for all the guffawing he had been doing. He said, "But they are so sarcastic . . ."

Ah . . .

My sort of funny is also hard for him to comprehend. I read "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" the other day and started cracking up over the 'accident with the time machine and the contraceptive' joke and the marine biologist and pyshcologist who had to be summoned to convince the rock star that he wasn't a fish . . . I read both these sections to Matt and got a polite, 'Huh-ha."

People are very different creatures.
 
Brian Jacques - I just found the first boring and it really really bugged me that there were rats driving in a wagon pulled by horses because the scale thing was all off. Someone pointed out that they were rat sized rats in a wagon sized wagon and they had stolen it from someone but then, are there humans around? And if so don't they notice these highly advanced rodents scurrying about wearing clothes, building castles, and sailing ships? Plus I just couldn't get into the description of how the beautiful female mouse was so beautiful and all that. . .

I completely agree with you. The characters have to be believable. Have you read anything by Jane Austen, my 3rd favorite author? She has delightful, complex characters in her novels.
 
It half happens all the time. I'll often read a book recommended by someone with taste for the most part very similar to mine and think, "It's ok, nothing special." Books that are just plain over-hyped and bound to be not what I like, such as Harry Potter, I refuse to read in the first place, so it's like, "It's such a shame that someone who I agree with on everything else likes that too," instead of me being bothered to actually be disappointed after assuming it'll be better than it is.

Perhaps a purer form will occur once I get the chance to read Paollini, since I do intend to eventually.
 
There was one I cant think of his name...oh yeah....Shakespeare!!

Last year we had to do Midsummer Night's Dream and after that we realised that Shakespear only had two endings. He either married everyone off or killed everyone off. I mean Hamlet he kills everyone Midsummer Night's Dream everyone gets married. He's not all he's cracked up to be.
 
I like some Shakespeare for the language, but really one shouldn't read him for plot. For one thing, half of his story lines aren't his. They are A. Historical happenings twisted for the stage B. Favorite stories of other people twisted for the stage. Only a handful of his plays were original ideas (Merry Wives of Windsor being one, I think.). Others were simply him taking ideas and stories that were already popular and putting dialog to them.
 
Last year we had to do Midsummer Night's Dream and after that we realised that Shakespear only had two endings. He either married everyone off or killed everyone off. I mean Hamlet he kills everyone Midsummer Night's Dream everyone gets married. He's not all he's cracked up to be.

Uh...how much Shakespeare have you read?

I never did like "A Midsummer Night's Dream", but I came to love Shakespeare's other works--"The Tempest" being my favourite. He had an amazing breadth of work, and saying he only has two endings and isn't "all he's cracked up to be" is ignoring a lot of his writings. You can't make a generalization like this unless you've read it all.

Or, rather, seen it. Because Shakespeare's plays are meant for the stage, and that's how you're supposed to experience them. And some of his sonnets are excellent...others not so much.

He was just like any other writer; not everything he wrote was great. But a good portion of it was.

half of his story lines aren't his. They are A. Historical happenings twisted for the stage B. Favorite stories of other people twisted for the stage.

I'll add C. taking Italian plays and writing them in English. (i.e. The Taming of the Shrew). To be fair, most of his rewritten plays were better than the original, and this sort of thing wasn't frowned upon back then.

Your (A) and (B) aren't really that damning, though. Isn't this what most Historical novelists do, except "twisting them for books"? And (B) has been done by many other writers since then, sometimes very well.

but really one shouldn't read him for plot

Depends which play you're reading.

Yeah, I'm a Shakespeare defender. Though, like Tolkien, I was dissapointed in MacBeth when the trees didn't actually march to the castle.

Cheap trick. Bah.
 
We also read the Tempest and some of the Taming of the Shrew and another one. Cant think of the name.
 
I wasn't saying it was a bad thing or even a dishonest thing. Definitely not dishonest because everyone would have known what he was doing, and that sort of thing is very common today with films. Take a classic, change the setting, modernize it, get a hit movie that sort of smiles on its own plagurism. It's been done to Crime and Punishment, Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Oliver Twist . . .

Fairy tales and myths get this treatment all the time. It's most rampant in movies but authors do it too, and Shakespeare was very good at writing to the crowd. Picking an already beloved story was a certain way to get published. Other than that, a lot of his characters were written with specific actors in mind. He wrote plays by royal requests. He wrote in a way that a lot of modern authors would look down upon, but I would boil down the desire to write into two parts: The desire to speak and the desire to be heard. Shakespeare knew how to make himself heard and when you get the audience you can pretty much do whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
*has devotedly collected all of the Redwall books since she was maybe 7*

That ridiculous Eregon kid was the worst let-down ever, which is probably why I must despise him forever now. If I didn't already have an arch-nemesis....

I was also disappointed in George R. R. Martin--wanted to like him, couldn't stay engaged in his books.

And Robert Jordan. I feel bad for hating him, since he's apparently very ill now, but his books turned into parodies of themselves and the plot never ever went anywhere.

Phillip Pullman--in my opinion (which I know is a minority) everything went kaput halfway through The Amber Spyglass. It would be a spoiler to give you my reasoning about why, though...and I didn't enjoy the other books I tried to read by him.

Diana Wynne Jones. This is an awkward one, because I could read Howl's Moving Castle over and over again, and just restart every time I finished it (I read it three times last year--major comfort book), and I enjoyed Castle in the Air (it's semi-sequel), but the two Chrestomanci books I read struck me as so-so, I was befuddled by Fire and Hemlock, which everyone else seems to love, I didn't get very far into The Dark Lord of Derkholm at all, and Hexwood? What happened with that book? I want to love Jones, but apparently I'm missing the gene.

Tamora Pierce. Hasn't held up for me, I always get disappointed in her handling of her characters halfway through a series, and I don't think that all of her books are appropriate for the reading level they're written at--an isolated, personal hang-up, I know, but it really bothers me. If a books target audience is 8-12, I don't want to be questioning the morality of the main character. 12-15+, I think tougher subjects and more adult content (within good taste) become fair game.
 
Rhiannon said:
*has devotedly collected all of the Redwall books since she was maybe 7*
Something we have in common. Not sinse I was seven though. Maybe ten?

Rhiannon said:
Phillip Pullman--in my opinion (which I know is a minority) everything went kaput halfway through The Amber Spyglass. It would be a spoiler to give you my reasoning about why, though...and I didn't enjoy the other books I tried to read by him.
I would have to agree with you there. The first one Northern Lights (The Golden Compass) was good and then the second was was alright. Not as good as the first one because I cant even remember what it is called.
 
Well, maybe not seven--maybe seven was when my brother started to collect them, and a few years later I bought out his collection (Redwall-The Bellmaker for $12) and continued it. I even met Jacques when he was touring for Marlfox and got it signed.

Phillip Pullman...I think he tried too hard, poor man.
 
Rhiannon said:
Well, maybe not seven--maybe seven was when my brother started to collect them, and a few years later I bought out his collection (Redwall-The Bellmaker for $12) and continued it. I even met Jacques when he was touring for Marlfox and got it signed.
Thats pretty cool. I had to build my collection for myself. Still down on Marlfox, Ledgend of Luke, Outcast of Redwall and Loamhedge. BTW is Jacques still alive? do you know?

Rhiannon said:
Phillip Pullman...I think he tried too hard, poor man.
Very possible. He certianly did something wrong.
 
Jacques is still alive, and still producing Redwall books--According to Redwall.org he'll be doing a 20 year Celebration Tour through the UK and US later this year.

In my innocent and reckless youth, long before I came here, I was part of a long-standing Redwall RPG. Ah, youth.
 
Why can't he come down to Oz. I mean its better then most places.

Was the last book he came out with Triss?
 
The most recent one is actually called High Rhulain--I haven't it, but I'm behind by about three books, so I can't tell you anything about it. It's just sitting there on the Redwall shelf...looking neglected...
 
On the topic of disappointing authors, I found Brian Jacques a little less than what I expected. Several people I knew loved them. I tried a few, and none worked for me. He just avoided the main point, I found. Or something...it was many years ago.
 
Noldor_returned said:
On the topic of disappointing authors, I found Brian Jacques a little less than what I expected. Several people I knew loved them. I tried a few, and none worked for me. He just avoided the main point, I found. Or something...it was many years ago.
Yeah but you liked those rip-off books that some one wrote didnt you? Well they werent rip-offs but they were very similar with the whole talking animals and all that. The only difference was there was humans in it. Then again it might not have been you, might have been one of my other friends.
 
Brian Jacques is chock-full of flaws and inconsistencies and things that just weren't thought out, but so is Narnia (how does a beaver use a sewing machine? how big are talking beavers, since four human children can fit into their dam? I'm sure I don't know)--I enjoy the stories and the writing enough to ignore the rest. It's also a matter of what book you start with--some of the books written just prior to and just after Brian Jacques' stroke are not as good as his earlier works.
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top