Book Snark: Books that Disappointed for One Reason or Another

[alias1]

Back to disappointing books.  I've never read anything by Kent Haruf previously, but he is highly praised in so many circles that I decided to read his last book, Our Souls At Night.  There is nothing to this book.  It's unbelievably simple, and I know he died before it was finished but the end is absolutely, annoyingly abrupt.  If this is his basic style, it does not compel me to read any of his earlier books.

[Eegah]

After slogging my way through all of Go Set A Watchman, I'm now even more pissed off than I was before. Because the book's moral is literally "Just because someone's a racist, that doesn't mean they're a bad person." Something tells me this thing is going to be quoted by Twitter trolls for years to come.

[Pickles Aplenty]

So, I read The Fault In Our Stars over a year ago and I thoroughly enjoyed it then, but now?  I think I hate it.  It's not because of the hype or the movie (never saw it), it's the fact that I can't remember a damn thing about the story or the characters.  I went back and re-read passages to see if it would affect me the way it did the first time, but instead I developed a flaming hatred over every pretentious-hipster-douchebag thing Hazel and Augustus said/did, and I realized that they are cardboard cutouts who are BORING to read about.  I feel bad saying this because  CANCER, but just because characters have cancer, that doesn't mean they are fully-formed and interesting.  I feel like this book was written for the sole purpose of making people cry, and that there isn't any substance to it.  It's amazing how my feelings for this book have actually dropped...that's a rare thing for me.

[BatmanBeatles]

Funny, when my daughter and I watched and read A Fault In Our Stars, we found Gus's friend Isaac more interesting. We both think that Nat Wolf (who played Isaac in the movie) is cuter than the guy who played Gus.

[Eegah]

My initial reaction upon hearing about the book was that the cancer was a kind of emotional entrapment, like John Green was thinking "Even if anyone doesn't like the book, they won't say so because they'll look like an asshole."

[Sandman87]

I picked up a boxed set of Anne Rice vampire novels from the used book store last week. I'm finishing the third one right now. I figured that I'd like them because they were popular with the crowd that I used to hang around with back in the day, but they're hilarious in all the wrong ways. Such melodrama!

Anyway, here are alternate titles I've assigned based on my impressions of the books:

Book 1 - Interview With J. Alfred Prufrock

Book 2 - The Mary Sue Lestat (aka Count Retcon-ula)

Book 3 - The Queen of the Man Haters

[Joe]

If you didn't like the first three, there's no need to continue. I felt there was a serious drop in quality between QOTD & Body Thief.

[nodorothyparker]

I was convinced the original Vampire Chronicles were possibly the most profound thing I'd ever read when I was a moody broody teenager, which happened to coincide with the height of their popularity.  I didn't get anything close to the same feeling when I went to skim back through them last year in preparation for the release of Prince Lestat because while there was still some really fun stuff and and some interesting ideas ... just ... yeah.

 

They were hugely influential in making modern vampire/supernatural/paranormal lit a thing though.  And they were pretty hit or miss after the original three.

Edited July 30, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[Sandman87]

I suppose I should also mention that I did see the movie of Interview with the Vampire a number of years ago. I figured that the flaws in the movie were due to the usual problems involved with adapting a book for a movie, but now that I've read the book I think that the movie was better. Usually I prefer books over movies.

 

Incidentally, I will always think that putting Brad Pitt on the screen with Antonio Banderas, Tom Cruise, and Kirsten Dunst is hilarious. He had no presence at all compared to those three scene-stealers.

[GreekGeek]

Re-reading this thread, I'm glad to see there are other people who did not enjoy Wolf Hall and quit on it early. A friend whose opinions I respect adored it, then paid premium prices to see the Broadway adaptation and adored that. At first I thought the problem was that I was reading it on an i-book and it was harder to flip back to the list of characters (which include multiple Thomases and Henrys--aarggh.).. So I got a hardback copy out of the library. Still not feeling it.

[Joe]

I'm reading a pair of books at the moment that are good, but not all they could be. First, the Knowledge, by Lewis Dartnell. It's about how to rebuild society and technology in the aftermath of an apocalyptic disaster. My problem is, it doesn't go into enough detail.Like, shear a sheep, turn its wool into thread to make clothes. So how do you shear a sheep? How do you turn the wool into thread? There are pictures, but no diagrams. In the event of an apocalypse, you could do worse than this book. But you could also do better.

 

Second, a Clash of Eagles, by Alan Smale. Alt-history. The Roman Empire survived into the 12th century, and a legion is sent into America in search of gold. The legion is wiped out except for the general, who is taken in by the Cahokia people. He starts teaching them Roman ways and builds Roman technology while learning their ways too. Makes a good go of it. The problem is, it runs into Mighty Whitey territory. Look how good the white man is in among the barbarians. It's not that different from the central part of James Cameron's Avatar. Entertaining, certainly page-turning, but not what it could be. I'll finish it, but will I come back for the next one? That I don't know.

[SmithW6079]

Not really a disappointing book, but it's snark. I saw a TV commercial with James Patterson, and he's rattling off some plot points and then says the title of his new book, and all I could think was we just saw how he writes his books nowadays: spouts off a few ideas and then it's his co-author's job to flesh out those plots into a book with dialogue and descriptions; basically, write the book.

[Joe]

As someone who is slogging away at the page day after day, every day, always working it in the back of my mind, I really bloody hate that. I have a million good ideas, but it's the slogging that turns good ideas into good books. It's not right for one person to take credit for another's slog.

[SmithW6079]

As someone who is slogging away at the page day after day, every day, always working it in the back of my mind, I really bloody hate that. I have a million good ideas, but it's the slogging that turns good ideas into good books. It's not right for one person to take credit for another's slog.

I'm not implying that Patterson has always done this. I'm sure he wrote his own books from idea inception to polished manuscript in the early days of his career. I think he's reached that point, like Tom Clancy, where the author becomes the brand, and the demand for the brand's books are so intense, these writers hire co-authors to help fulfill that demand.   

 

This two-year-old story from the BBC illustrates what I'm saying: Why Are Novelists Turning to Co-Authors?

Edited August 10, 2015 by SmithW6079

[nodorothyparker]

Confession:  I've never read a James Patterson book.  It's not a genre that really appeals to me anyway, but I'll admit his reputation as a paint by numbers and let someone else fill it all in kind of author is a huge turnoff.

[Joe]

That article doesn't help at all. If the real writer's name isn't on the cover, then it's not a collaboration, it's ghost-writing. I will never buy anything from 'James Patterson' or 'Wilbur Smith' until they start crediting those that did the real work. Admittedly they've never written anything I want to read, which makes it easier.

[Janet Snakehole]

I have never wanted to throw a book across the room more than Tana French's In the Woods. Unlikeable characters, obvious "twist", and one of the most frustrating endings I have ever read.

[callie lee 29]

I have never wanted to throw a book across the room more than Tana French's In the Woods. Unlikeable characters, obvious "twist", and one of the most frustrating endings I have ever read.

I just read the wiki article on "In The Woods"... that book sounds horrible.  The ending, the people, pretty much everything would make me rage about the time wasted reading it. You have my utmost sympathy!

[scatteroflight]

I finally got around to reading The Rosie Effect and I hated it. Any charm that The Rosie Project had completely evaporates in the second book. I never thought The Rosie Project was a literary masterpiece, but I found it entertaining and at times, humorous. In contrast, The Rosie Effect is just... depressing. Don's idiosyncrasies become more annoying than amusing, and I found Rosie just plain mean, selfish, and inconsiderate. The best thing that I can say about it is that it was a fast read, so at least it was over quickly.

[glowlights]

The Passing of Starr Faithfull by Jonathon Goodman, who calls himself "one of Britain's foremost true crime historians", is pissing me off like very few books ever have.

 

For those who don't recognize the name, Starr Faithfull was the real life inspiration for the character of Gloria Wandrous in John O'Hara's Butterfield 8. Her story was also fictionalized in Some Unknown Person by Sandra Scoppettone (a very good novel, btw) and The Memory Book of Starr Faithfull by Gloria Vanderbilt. Her body was found washed ashore on a Long Island beach on June 8, 1931. Originally ruled a suicide by the first examiner, the DA quickly ordered a second autopsy and the cause of death was changed to homicide. The story was an instant media sensation and dominated headlines on both sides of the Atlantic, with juicy rumors involving drug and alcohol abuse, molestation, sexual exploitation, hush money, and a very prominent Boston politician. Her case remains open and unsolved to this day.

 

One thing is certain: in life, Starr was exploited from the age of eleven, both by her abuser and by her grifting family. Kent State University Press chose to exploit her in death by reissuing this book with a gruesome cover photo that is a closeup of her dead face, taken when she was found on the beach, her still eyes open, her skin discolored, and sand caked in hair. This smacks of the crassest sensationalism and egregious disregard for the victim. And the book doesn't improve once you open the cover....

 

Goodman is, to date, the only author to provie a nonfiction account of Starr's case. I can't quibble with his research - he obtained access to the NYPD's complete case file and made an exhaustive review of contemporary news accounts. Unfortunately, the research is buried under Goodman's cluttered, fussy style which is as disorganized as it is self-congratulatory. Not to mention tone deaf. You can practically hear Goodman laughing at his own snide jokes throughout, such as when he accuses a stenographer of having a learning disability, guffaws at the very thought of American students being taught English composition, and makes endless quips apropos of nothing but his own need to inject himself into almost every paragraph. One gets the impression that Goodman thinks the whole story is hilarious. Did I mention florid? Goodman never uses three words where thirteen could be squeezed in, and must have been glued to a thesauraus during the writing of this mess. Worst of all, the book is so poorly structured and details are strewn so willy-nilly through his convoluted timeline and irrelevant asides (look how much research he did, y'all! he wants you to know every little thing he read about! also he's the new Oscar Wilde!) that I need to keep notes to sort it all out. In revenge, I have taken to gouging at his author's photo with a blue pencil. Editing, what a concept.

 

Poor, poor Starr. Her story deserves so much better.

[bubbls]

 I can't believe being a true crime junkie I'd never heard of Starr until now! "The Aspirin Age” by Morris Markey and “The Girl on the Lonely Beach” by Fred Cook are cited as nonfiction accounts, but good luck finding them.

[glowlights]

Hi bubbls,

If you're into true crime, the story of Starr Faithfull is a real doozy. And sorry, you're right, it would have been more accurate for me to say Goodman's is the only complete, investigative account. I haven't bought The Aspirin Age but Markey is excerpted and discussed in Goodman's book. Markey's original article, "Murder In The Family" can be found in the New Yorker's online archive, if you have access: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1931/06/27/murder-in-the-family

 

The Skeptical Inquirer ran an interesting article a few years ago, wish I could find it again.

 

I should order The Girl On The Beach. My understanding is the author didn't do much more than repeat what had already been reported, but could be pleasantly surprised. This is what is so maddening about Goodman's book - he provides more facts and angles than anyone else I know of, but it's lost in his pompous blather and weird tangents. I was most interested in the opinion of the modern expert who Goodman enlisted to review Starr's second autopsy. Forty pages still to go. What a slog. :(

[alias1]

I finally got around to reading The Rosie Effect and I hated it. Any charm that The Rosie Project had completely evaporates in the second book. I never thought The Rosie Project was a literary masterpiece, but I found it entertaining and at times, humorous. In contrast, The Rosie Effect is just... depressing. Don's idiosyncrasies become more annoying than amusing, and I found Rosie just plain mean, selfish, and inconsiderate. The best thing that I can say about it is that it was a fast read, so at least it was over quickly.

I just read this post and i couldn't agree more.  What a waste of time that 2nd book is.  I won't even defend it because it might be a quick read.  It actually has clouded my enjoyment of the first book. 

[proserpina65]

I just read this post and i couldn't agree more.  What a waste of time that 2nd book is.  I won't even defend it because it might be a quick read.  It actually has clouded my enjoyment of the first book. 

That's exactly how I felt about Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.  Bridget Jones' Diary was fluff, but it was entertaining fluff.  The sequel was just blech.

[Joe]

The Maze Runner. With a name like that, you'd think it would mostly about running around in a maze, right? Wrong! Nearly all the action takes place in a community next to the maze. I'm not saying it's a bad book as such, but it didn't live up to its name. I started book 2, got a couple of chapters in. No maze at all. I stopped reading book 2.

 

Basically, I have a problem with misleading titles. Give me a bloody great maze, have people spend most of the time running around in it! I'd write my own, if only I had a plot.

[Lovecat]

That's exactly how I felt about Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.  Bridget Jones' Diary was fluff, but it was entertaining fluff.  The sequel was just blech.

Don't read the third one, then!  I mean, I know I did it to myself, but that's several hours of my life I'll never get back...

[BookWoman56]

A friend and I both got persuaded by a mutual friend to read The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss. It's an epic fantasy, which I normally enjoy. It has gotten good reviews. However, both my friend and I have the same reaction to it: the writing style in and of itself is fine, although a bit derivative of Robert Jordan. At least some of the characters are interesting. But the story itself? I feel like I've read the story a dozen times before, to the point where I could predict major plot points early in the book and sure enough, those events would occur. This is the first book in what is supposed to be a trilogy and so I read the second book just to see if the storyline improved or became original in any way. It's a formula that has been done many times: a disillusioned hero who has chosen to go undercover in a rural setting tells the story of his life, with the requisite items of being orphaned in a vicious attack, spending time living by his wits in poverty, going to a university to learn how to do somewhat magical things, and so forth. Of course he is the brightest student there in addition to being a wonderful musician; of course the only student who dislikes him is a rich guy who spends way too much time/energy giving him grief; of course there is a mysterious/elusive love interest, who will undoubtedly betray him, or be killed in front of him, or both, before this trilogy ends. The people who are listening to him tell his story are trying to convince him that bad things are happening once again, and they need a big damn hero to save the day. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

I don't dislike the book but it was hyped so much I had higher expectations of it, and it did not meet those expectations. I'm a completist, so I'll probably finish the trilogy. I just find the main character boring and predictable, and am now reading for the secondary characters.

[Crs97]

I just finished Colm Toibin's Brooklyn.  I loved the movie trailer and picked up the book to see it's been twice short-listed for the Booker Prize.  I was engaged and interested for 3/4 of the book, but it implodes so badly that now I don't even want to see the movie for fear it will be faithful to the novel.  So disappointing on so many levels!

[Athena]

I just finished Colm Toibin's Brooklyn.  I loved the movie trailer and picked up the book to see it's been twice short-listed for the Booker Prize.  I was engaged and interested for 3/4 of the book, but it implodes so badly that now I don't even want to see the movie for fear it will be faithful to the novel.  So disappointing on so many levels!

 

I really liked this book. He telegraphed the ending early on. It's looking like it will be faithful to the book so you're probably wise to stay away. I'll report back to you if it changes. Nick Hornby adapted the screenplay and he tends to have more poignant endings. I didn't mind Brooklyn's ending, but it did feel abrupt even though I knew it would happen.

[Crs97]

Athena, which part did you think was telegraphed? Where I thought the book imploded was

her behavior in Ireland by dating and kissing Jim (I lost all sympathy for her then) and then Nelly Kelly having pictures of her with Jim (took it to soap opera territory for me.

. Were you expecting those things?

Edited October 10, 2015 by Crs97

[Athena]

Athena, which part did you think was telegraphed? Where I thought the book imploded was

her behavior in Ireland by dating and kissing Jim (I lost all sympathy for her then) and then Nelly Kelly having pictures of her with Jim (took it to soap opera territory for me.

. Were you expecting those things?

 

Having seen the trailer before reading the book,

I knew she'd have at least a flirtation with another man other than Tony. I do believe she did love and care for Tony, but she had her doubts about him too. When she went back home, I wasn't surprised how she changed. I was mildly surprised that she went that far with Jim, but I think she was really living on the edge in a way. She'd changed dramatically and the old version of her would have never done those things, but after Brooklyn, she was able to act out. Similarly, it represented her toying with the idea of returning to Ireland so I wasn't shocked by her leaving the country. Yeah, I wasn't crazy about the pictures and the gossipy ending part.

I had a similar experience to the protagonist and while I never did what she did in the ending, I understood that radical transformation and alteration in behavior. She was also a very passive character which influenced her actions (or lackthereof) for most of the book.

[Crs97]

I saw the trailer before, but 

I didn't realize she would marry Tony before she headed back to Ireland. I totally expected the decision of where home truly is would be paramount, but I thought it would be better handled if they were only seriously dating or, at most, engaged when she went back to Ireland.

 

Thanks for your input!  I don't have anyone to discuss the book with yet.

[Danny Franks]

The Walls of Byzantium by James Heneage. It should be right in my wheelhouse. Historical fiction set in the late 1300s, about the last days of the Byzantine Empire. Sadly, it reads like a young adult novel at best, and like mediocre fan fiction at worst.

 

Just... bad. There's no flair, no depth. The characters are as flat as pancakes and either clearly evil and scheming or utterly pure and good. The writer continuously falls back on passages like, 'Damian glared at Luke with pure hatred. Luke saw this and realised Damian was a threat' (paraphrasing). It's all tell, no show, and I've given up on it after 100 pages. How Heneage got a three book deal for this drivel is beyond me.

[Queena]

I'm pre-disappointed with the sequel to My Sweet Audrina by V.C. Andrews. Why after almost 30 years? I know that the movie comes on January 2016, but why a sequel now?

[Hanahope]

Not specific as to any one book, but what really disappoints me is starting a book trilogy or series that is clearly meant to be one whole story, reading the first 2 (of 3) or several (of a series) that came out fairly quickly, and then having to wait years and in one particular case I think its now never, for the final book(s) to come out on the story.  Its annoying when the author goes off and writes a bunch of other stuff rather than finishing the story he/she's already started.  Sometimes I wonder if the author had a great idea that filled a couple of books and now just doesn't know how to end the story, or knows the ending in general, but doesn't know how to write a whole book to get to that end point. 

 

I know the big one for me, and many people is Game of Thrones, but it has also occurred with Melanie Rawn (her Exiles trilogy that I don't think will ever be completed) and it now seems to be the case with Patrick Rothfus.(are we ever going to see the third book?).  Its just gotten so bad that I'm swearing off starting any new trilogy or series until the whole thing is done.  I don't mind waiting a year, even two, for the next book, but come on, 5 years or more is just ridiculous.  Its why I've started to prefer 'stand alone' stories, where even though its a recurring character, each book is a whole complete story.

[NewDigs]

I'm pre-disappointed with the sequel to My Sweet Audrina by V.C. Andrews. Why after almost 30 years? I know that the movie comes on January 2016, but why a sequel now?

Not specific as to any one book, but what really disappoints me is starting a book trilogy or series that is clearly meant to be one whole story, reading the first 2 (of 3) or several (of a series) that came out fairly quickly, and then having to wait years and in one particular case I think its now never, for the final book(s) to come out on the story.  Its annoying when the author goes off and writes a bunch of other stuff rather than finishing the story he/she's already started.  Sometimes I wonder if the author had a great idea that filled a couple of books and now just doesn't know how to end the story, or knows the ending in general, but doesn't know how to write a whole book to get to that end point. 

 

I know the big one for me, and many people is Game of Thrones, but it has also occurred with Melanie Rawn (her Exiles trilogy that I don't think will ever be completed) and it now seems to be the case with Patrick Rothfus.(are we ever going to see the third book?).  Its just gotten so bad that I'm swearing off starting any new trilogy or series until the whole thing is done.  I don't mind waiting a year, even two, for the next book, but come on, 5 years or more is just ridiculous.  Its why I've started to prefer 'stand alone' stories, where even though its a recurring character, each book is a whole complete story.

$$$$$$$$$

Might be the same reason so many series continue beyond their sell-by/buy dates.

[SmithW6079]

I had forgotten about Patrick Rothfus. I liked his first book; the second was just OK; but that's right, there was supposed to be a third.

[GaT]

Not specific as to any one book, but what really disappoints me is starting a book trilogy or series that is clearly meant to be one whole story, reading the first 2 (of 3) or several (of a series) that came out fairly quickly, and then having to wait years and in one particular case I think its now never, for the final book(s) to come out on the story.  Its annoying when the author goes off and writes a bunch of other stuff rather than finishing the story he/she's already started.  Sometimes I wonder if the author had a great idea that filled a couple of books and now just doesn't know how to end the story, or knows the ending in general, but doesn't know how to write a whole book to get to that end point. 

I can't give you enough likes. It seems that at some point, book publishers got some kind of trilogy fever & now everything has to be part of a trilogy when a lot of times, it shouldn't. It really annoys me when I have to wait a couple of years for a book, & then it's not even good. The story should be the driving factor behind how many books there are, not fitting in with a fad.

[Hanahope]

Speaking of trilogies, one that did get completed, but the final book was such a disappointment is Alligient, from the Divergent trilogy.  I held off reading it for a long time when I heard about the main character. I did finally read it, and I have no idea why she wrote it that way, she didn't have to, it was certainly not a 'required' ending for that character and could easily been avoided.   I've heard many assume the author wanted to "be different" or "be cutting edge", but I thought the ending was just stupid, and frankly I have no desire to read anything more by this author.  And to think that not only is it getting made into a movie, but being split into 2 movies is just ridiculous, seemingly just because they did that for HP and Twilight (hey, you know who didn't have to do that?  LOTR - but yes, somehow they made one book, the Hobbit, into 3 movies). There's going to be so much 'action' filler in these two movies, I know it.  And no, I will not pay directly to see them, I will wait for Netflix (as I have the first two).

[Hanahope]

Ok, here's a good one about Rothfus.  I don't read author's blogs all that often, frankly, I want to read their books, not their tales of what they do with their free time when their obviously not writing their books.  I do "like" certain authors on Facebook in order to keep up to date on what they're doing. 

 

So today I got a FB update about some interview Rothfus gave.  I went to read it, hoping there'd be some info about when the third Kingkillers Chronical book would come out.  There wasn't.  I added a comment to the FB update about how about telling us when Book 3 would come out.  Someone responded saying "donate to his charity and he'll write the book (faster)."  I clicked on the link taking me to his blog where he says just that.  Apparently right now he wants to play Fallout 4 and only write 3 hours a day (plus do all his other stuff, like go to monthly cons).  But whoever donates the most can tell him how to use 3 'extra' hours of his day to either write or play a game.

 

This annoys the hell out of me.  You want me to pay for your charity (which I'm sure is a good and worthy cause), so you'll spend a tiny bit more time doing your job (which is still a lot less time than I have to spend at my job - that pays me far far less because, I admit, I don't have your talent), so you can finish a book I then have to pay for.  Wow, talk about ego.  I'm so glad you are lucky enough to have a talent that now allows you the time to spend half your day playing a game instead of working.  I sure can't do that (write a book or play a game for half my day - some of us have jobs).

 

He's annoyed because people complain about the lack of book 3 and he posts to others that support him because they say they have to be patient.  I'm sorry, waiting 2 or even 3 years is patience.   Its been over 5 now and patience is wearing very thin.  Get with the writing and/or don't expect me to buy any book from you again (unless its a complete series/stand alone book, in which case, I'll think about it).

[BookWoman56]

I just finished The Drowning Game by LS Hawker, and I'll admit what made me buy it was the title and it had fairly good reviews on Amazon. It wasn't horrible, but I loathe books where a character does all sorts of horrible things and then at the end, those things are just waved away as being at least somewhat justified because the character was trying to "protect" someone. In this book, the main character is trying to figure out why her recently deceased father kept her essentially a prisoner all of her life.

He kept her locked in her room every night, allowed her only minimal contact with other people so she has no clue how to interact with people, left an insurance policy that will give her the money only if she agrees to marry her father's friend who is much older than she is and an abusive jerk, and threatened that if she does not agree within 30 days after his death to marry this friend, that she has met only a few times, he will have documents released that will result in her being committed to a mental institution. He does all this because when she was a toddler, a stalker from her mother's past kidnapped and murdered her mother, and he is afraid that someday the stalker will try to kill the daughter. Um, maybe the better solution would have been to let the daughter know the history there so she could stay away from this stalker and take precautions. Instead, because she has been kept in ignorance by her father, she comes to the erroneous conclusion that the stalker is in fact her bio dad, and tracks him down. Of course, he then tries to kill her.

So after spending most of the book believing her father did all these things because he was BSC, she more or less forgives him because he was trying to protect her. And I cannot escape the conclusion that his attempts to protect her left her instead much more vulnerable to danger than if he had told her the truth. So in many ways this is more a book that made me angry at the stupidity than a book that disappointed.

[GaT]

I just finished The Drowning Game by LS Hawker, and I'll admit what made me buy it was the title and it had fairly good reviews on Amazon. It wasn't horrible, but I loathe books where a character does all sorts of horrible things and then at the end, those things are just waved away as being at least somewhat justified because the character was trying to "protect" someone. In this book, the main character is trying to figure out why her recently deceased father kept her essentially a prisoner all of her life.

He kept her locked in her room every night, allowed her only minimal contact with other people so she has no clue how to interact with people, left an insurance policy that will give her the money only if she agrees to marry her father's friend who is much older than she is and an abusive jerk, and threatened that if she does not agree within 30 days after his death to marry this friend, that she has met only a few times, he will have documents released that will result in her being committed to a mental institution. He does all this because when she was a toddler, a stalker from her mother's past kidnapped and murdered her mother, and he is afraid that someday the stalker will try to kill the daughter. Um, maybe the better solution would have been to let the daughter know the history there so she could stay away from this stalker and take precautions. Instead, because she has been kept in ignorance by her father, she comes to the erroneous conclusion that the stalker is in fact her bio dad, and tracks him down. Of course, he then tries to kill her.

So after spending most of the book believing her father did all these things because he was BSC, she more or less forgives him because he was trying to protect her. And I cannot escape the conclusion that his attempts to protect her left her instead much more vulnerable to danger than if he had told her the truth. So in many ways this is more a book that made me angry at the stupidity than a book that disappointed.

Wow, I've never heard of this book, but that spoiler was some of the most stupid plot I've ever read.

[psychoticstate]

I'm pre-disappointed with the sequel to My Sweet Audrina by V.C. Andrews. Why after almost 30 years? I know that the movie comes on January 2016, but why a sequel now?

 

If this was written by the real V.C. Andrews I'd be giddy over this but her ghostwriter seems to churn the same crap out time and again so I don't have much hope for it.

[truthaboutluv]

It's not because of the hype or the movie (never saw it), it's the fact that I can't remember a damn thing about the story or the characters.

 

 

This happened to me with 13 Reasons Why. I know I read the book, I remember doing so but other than the general synopsis, I actually cannot remember any specifics and details about it. Like I honestly cannot remember any of the 13 reasons why Hannah killed herself. I will say that this may be because I remember while reading it and when I was done thinking that I didn't really get why exactly she did it. Like I don't remember ever feeling like there was ever a truly poignant, powerful or compelling reason given for why she felt helpless and hopeless enough to take her life. But as I said, being that I can't even remember the reasons, maybe there was something but I just forget what it was. 

[wanderingstar]

I generally like Neil Gaiman, but I found American Gods to be a bit of a mess and way too long. That said, I still totally plan to watch the television adaptation of it.

[Queena]

If this was written by the real V.C. Andrews I'd be giddy over this but her ghostwriter seems to churn the same crap out time and again so I don't have much hope for it.

He's been at for 20 years, if not more.

[NewDigs]

He's been at for 20 years, if not more.

Actually, closer to thirty.

Wow.

[Queena]

Actually, closer to thirty.

Wow.

Oh my! It's time for the family to hire a new ghostwriter. I bet that they could keep VCA style, while adding a fresh new twist.

[NewDigs]

Oh my! It's time for the family to hire a new ghostwriter. I bet that they could keep VCA style, while adding a fresh new twist.

That's one sweet money-maker of a franchise.

It's already crossed generations of readers.

I'm not sure what that says.

[Snow Apple]

Yeah, that ghostwriter did not capture V C Andrew's voice. I remember buying and reading the third Heaven book when it first came out and noticed a decline in quality right away. It wasn't until years later that I learned Ms. Andrew had died which explained so much.