Book Snark: Books that Disappointed for One Reason or Another

[NewDigs]

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.

I'd bet money that there are readers today who think she's still alive.

[millennium]

Anne Rice is still alive and she can't even find her own voice nowadays.

I just read Merrick.   Pure garbage. 

The Vampire Chronicles gets its very own Mary Sue.

[nodorothyparker]

Oh, Rice has a voice.  She uses it in the last Lestat book to aggressively hawk iPhones and various luxury goods of choice among the undead.  I hope Apple compensated her well for that.

I actually really liked the premise and at least the first half of The Wolf Gift.  There was something pretty audacious about the idea of a 70-something year old star author reinventing herself with the creation of an accidental werewolf vigilante superhero.  Somewhere in the latter half, though, she pulled a classic Anne Rice and ground all the action to a screeching halt so characters could sit around a table and discuss the Larger Meaning of it All.  I still haven't been able to bring myself to read the sequel.

[millennium]

5 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Oh, Rice has a voice.  She uses it in the last Lestat book to aggressively hawk iPhones and various luxury goods of choice among the undead.  I hope Apple compensated her well for that.

In Merrick, I think she must have had a deal with a manufacturer of silk shirtwaist dresses.

I enjoyed Interview With The Vampire when I first read it back in the 80s.   But Rice's later forays in that vein have all been (for me) dismal.  Part of the problem, I suppose, is that I left IWTV with a distinct dislike for Lestat.   My empathy was with Louis and Claudia.   You can imagine my joy when she took the least likeable character and made him the star of the whole series.

It was mildly interesting to encounter Louis again in Merrick, and to get a little backstory on the events of IWTV, but all of that was overpowered by the detestable presence of her newer vampire character, David -- a simpering, self-absorbed ninny -- and his pandering to the titular character, a rather uninteresting drunk whom all the vampires flock to like gay guys on Madonna.

[nodorothyparker]

I'm realizing I only vaguely remember Merrick.  That was in the back half of the Vampire Chronicles when she got the bright idea to merge the series with the Mayfair Witches, right?  There was a lot of starting and stopping for me in those middle and later books.  Too many maudlin memoirs by characters I don't really care all that much about will do that.

I'll cop to just adoring Lestat when I was an angsty depressive teen in the late '80s when The Vampire Lestat and then The Queen of the Damned came out.  It was all just so profound the way these characters were all so tortured over the Meaning of It All.  That of course was before I would come to realize that happened in every single one of her books or that she is the biggest fangirl of her own creations.  

[SmithW6079]

On 4/3/2016 at 7:40 PM, NewDigs said:

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

It's already crossed generations of readers.

I'm not sure what that says.

People are fascinated by incest? 

[Hanahope]

Quote

Anne Rice is still alive and she can't even find her own voice nowadays.

I was reading this thriller/action type book that was set in New Orleans, and had the bad guy living at this 'huge house in the garden district of the city that used to be owned by a novelist who wrote vampire books'.  I chuckled to myself, "gee, I wonder who the author is talking about?"  Does Anne Rice still live in NO?

Edited May 11, 2016 by Hanahope

[Athena]

On 5 mai 2016 at 3:49 PM, Hanahope said:

I was reading this thriller/action type book that was set in New Orleans, and had the buy guy living at this 'huge house in the garden district of the city that used to be owned by a novelist who wrote vampire books'.  I chuckled to myself, "gee, I wonder who the author is talking about?"  Does Anne Rice still live in NO?

No she moved out of NO over a decade ago. She sold her NO properties.  I feel like this is not the first time she's been referenced in a novel about NO. 

[GaT]

HA HA HA ha ha Ha ha!!!! Veronica Roth has a new book called "Carve the Mark" coming out, the first of a series or trilogy, or whatever. Did you think I would forget about ALLEGIANT Veronica? Did you think I would forget about the complete rewrite of the story & what you did to Four? The only mark that's getting carved is the word stupid in my forehead if I ever read your books again.

[hendersonrocks]

I realize I'm a little behind the times here, but Fates and Furies was so disappointing. I kept waiting for it to get really good, and it just never did. 

[NewDigs]

On May 24, 2016 at 0:56 PM, hendersonrocks said:

I realize I'm a little behind the times here, but Fates and Furies was so disappointing. I kept waiting for it to get really good, and it just never did. 

I started it and realized it wasn't working for me and took it back to the library. I had kind of enjoyed Arcadia so thought I'd give it a try. Thanks for confirming my initial impression.

As cherrypj noted in the Books We Never Finished thread:

"You know, there are thousands of books published every year. There are millions of books available now. Why would anyone stick with a book they weren't enjoying? Just drop it in the fire. Go on with your life. Pick up a book you do enjoy."

And I couldn't agree more.

[alias1]

I almost didn't finish Fates and Furies because I didn't really like it.  I'm glad I did because I did get to see the other side.  That still didn't make it a good book, but at least I feel like I can legitimately criticize it.  

I gave up on The Nest.  It felt pointless to me. 

I have Arcadia on hold.  We'll see.

[Neko]

1 hour ago, SierraMist said:

I almost didn't finish Fates and Furies because I didn't really like it.  I'm glad I did because I did get to see the other side.  That still didn't make it a good book, but at least I feel like I can legitimately criticize it.  

I gave up on The Nest.  It felt pointless to me. 

I have Arcadia on hold.  We'll see.

I couldn't stand Arcadia.  I felt so detached while reading it, I couldn't connect with it at all.  That was a problem.

[MeloraH]

I wasn't expecting Pride and Pejudice and Zombies to be great; I thought it would at least be fun but it was not. It was so weirdly detached from either the P+P story or the zombie fighting. A lot of conversations that have potential to be witty were just summarized by the narrator. The zombies aren't really a threat at all, they're just like super-easily-killed background noise. I also didn't like that they were all trained in Asian fighting methods in Asia (like the Bennets have the means to all travel to China?) but there were no Asian characters except for references to their fighting masters and Lady Catherine's anonymous army of ninjas.

If you think the concept sounds interesting just read Soulless by Gail Carriger.

[Eegah]

Yeah, you can really feel the author struggling with the concept, where the whole joke is simply that the whole book exists. Though the follow ups Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, and Android Karenina, are both huge improvements with genuinely clever twists on the original stories to give them a more legitimate reason for existing.

[Sandman87]

I decided to reread The Belgariad last week, since I originally read it long enough ago (high school) that I couldn't remember anything about it. For the most part it's a perfectly serviceable "epic quest" fantasy series, with some minor flaws. But there's one big, gigantic problem that made me frequently want toss the whole thing:

Spoiler

Her name is Polgara, aka Aunt Pol.

If ever there were a Mary Sue, she's it - She's absolutely perfect in every way, which we know because everyone keeps saying how wonderful she is, because they love her! The phrase "the most beautiful woman in the world" gets applied to her repeatedly! Birds fly down to perch on her shoulders and sing for the sheer joy of seeing her (this happens more than once)! Even the bad guys want her! She's a nearly omnipotent immortal sorceress! She's been everywhere! She knows almost everything about almost everything! She's a perfect cook! She's the best singer in the world! She's secretly a member of the nobility! She's the ideal mother! She's always right! She's also a bullying, manipulative, conniving, smothering, emasculating, passive-aggressive, hypocritical shrew who takes great pleasure in telling other people how wrong they are, but none of the characters can see any flaw in her other than maybe that she's slightly overprotective.

[methodwriter85]

The sequel to Me Before You, After You, had so much potential. I could not fathom why, instead of showing Louisa Clark living adventures after the death of Will Traynor, JoJo Moyes instead chose to show her playing mother/babysitter to Will Traynor's soap opera reveal long-lost daughter, who was such a self-centered little bitch that the reveal that she took care of a rooftop garden did little to make me care about.

I think the point was supposed to be that Louisa Clark wanted to take care of other people than take care of herself, but I was pissed that the bit at the end, where she plans on going to New York as a nanny, is what we SHOULD have had this sequel be about, not about her playing nanny to a character that was just pulled out of a thin air to give people some sort of relief that at least part of Will Traynor would live on.

[Athena]

51 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

The sequel to Me Before You, After You, had so much potential. I could not fathom why, instead of showing Louisa Clark living adventures after the death of Will Traynor, JoJo Moyes instead chose to show her playing mother/babysitter to Will Traynor's soap opera reveal long-lost daughter, who was such a self-centered little bitch that the reveal that she took care of a rooftop garden did little to make me care about.

I think the point was supposed to be that Louisa Clark wanted to take care of other people than take care of herself, but I was pissed that the bit at the end, where she plans on going to New York as a nanny, is what we SHOULD have had this sequel be about, not about her playing nanny to a character that was just pulled out of a thin air to give people some sort of relief that at least part of Will Traynor would live on.

I regret reading the sequel and I choose to believe it is fanfiction. It is actually worse than a lot of fanfic I have read.

[methodwriter85]

20 hours ago, Athena said:

I regret reading the sequel and I choose to believe it is fanfiction. It is actually worse than a lot of fanfic I have read.

I wouldn't say I regret it, because there were parts I liked, but it just tried too hard to replicate Louisa's pre-Will life by putting her into such a needlessly pathetic place. Why didn't Louisa use her money for school or training or anything else? She was a thoughtful person but we're supposed to believe that she just basically blew through all the money partying and traveling, putting her in a place where she needs to take another waitress job. That's not consistent with the Louisa that we got to know in Me Before You. And then don't get me started on Will's long-lost daughter. I have never wanted to slap a character as much as I did her. And it was such "bad fanfic" territory.

You mean to tell me that a 20-year old woman (and we're talking somewhere in the 1990's because I think this novel is set somewhere around 2010-2011) who gets pregnant by a guy from a VERY rich family isn't going to sue his ass for child support? What the fuck? This isn't Victorian England where a woman couldn't prove she mothered the lord's bastard child. That character made absolutely no sense to me, and the fact that she took up so much of that book pissed me off. If they had taken out that storyline, and instead focused on Louisa and the sexy medic and her grieving process, the book would have been vastly better. The daughter was such a painfully obvious plot device to keep Louisa in the Traynor's orbit, and to "keep a part of Will" alive. (And, oh look, she herself was also a victim of sexual exploitation!)

If they go ahead with a sequel, which might be possible because while the movie hasn't been a blockbuster here, it has had pretty solid success, they need to take out the daughter. Point. Blank. Period.

Edited July 20, 2016 by methodwriter85

[katha]

I'm not sure "disappointed" is the right term, but I'm re-reading Little Women and Good Wives and the things that are irksome about it are really, really irksome. Marmee is the worst, though. And that her self-righteous, sanctimonious lecturing is held up as good parenting...it's really a product of its time in that sense and that hasn't aged well, and because it's such a big part of the books it's constantly spoiling things. I'd forgotten about that episode where she "taught" the girls that being lazy is bad for you, which included not feeding a bird that Beth had forgotten to feed until it starved to death. Wow. Way to be a cruel jerk, Marmee. And there's a constant smugness about her, as if she's only waiting for the girls to mess up so she can rejoice in their failures and bask in her own superiority. I know it's not meant to be taken that way, that she's supposed to be a pillar of virtue, but the writing and the mores of the time just don't translate very well for modern readers. Or at least it doesn't translate for this reader.

I don't even much mind Amy and Laurie, whatever. Amy as a character is fine with me and I can perhaps see where she and Laurie might find common ground. But some of their scenes play through this tiresome trope that the text brings up constantly anyway: Women are babysitters for men, they must "make" them good, that is their main goal in life. Nah, men have agency of their own and they are responsible for their own actions. The end. Laurie is well enough drawn as a character and it's established that underneath his peevishness and temper tantrums he's a good person who wants to do what's right. And in the end he finds his own motivation to change.

Also, Beth is such a flat character. It's all goodness and self-denial and sacrificing for others and being quiet. And everyone falling all over themselves to praise her, including the text. It's not interesting to read, since there's no conflicts, no chance for character growth. She's just there to be saintly and die.

LOL, this reads as if I hated the books. I don't, I'm fond of them for the most part. But the stuff that I find bad is really prominent in them.

[DrSpaceman73]

I just recently read Little Women for the first time. 

To me it read like if Full House was a book set in the 1860s, for much the reasons you mentioned.  There is a conflict, Marmee teaches a lesson, they all do it, resolved in 22 minutes like a typical sitcom.  Makes parenting seem very easy.  You make a speech or do a little lesson and you kids learn for the better, then thank you for pointing out the error of their ways.  Everyone learns their lesson and never errors again.

Its glurgy, smug, self righteous, out of date.  I can even overlook the out of date nature, but its the type of "every story has a happy ending" writing, except for Beth, that just makes me nauseated by the end of it.  And even with Beth, as you point out, they just make her into a saint that dies. 

Its so over the top unrealistic, I would think, even for the 1860s, I was actually bit taken aback when I first started reading it.  I was expecting something different.  Its not in depth or nuanced writing or characters. 

Enjoyable?  Sure.  But it could have been enjoyable in about half the length. 

[DrSpaceman73]

On the other hand, don't get me started on Madame Bovary. 

At least Little Women was superficially enjoyable. 

Madame Bovary, I kept wondering, WHY do men keep putting up with this woman?  He may be a jerk, but Rudolphe is the smartest one of all with her.  Just cut ties once the crazy starts showing. 

Childish, petulant little twit of a woman. 

[OtterMommy]

On 5/24/2016 at 9:56 AM, hendersonrocks said:

I realize I'm a little behind the times here, but Fates and Furies was so disappointing. I kept waiting for it to get really good, and it just never did. 

Fates and Furies didn't work for me either.  

My book club has a habit of choosing popular "book club favorites" and I usually end up being the sour puss at the discussions.  So far, I've been the raincloud for Dietland, Where'd You Go, Bernadette, and The Interestings (which, ironically, was my choice).

Two more recent titles I had eagerly anticipated but didn't pan out for me were Truly Madly Guilty by Lianne Moriarty and Commonwealth by Ann Patchett.

[Snowball II]

I thought Daisy Goodwin's Victoria was awful.  Victoria seemed to get dumber and less mature as time passed, to the point where I wanted to smack her for her selfishness and idiocy.  I did not warm to her as a character at all, or to anyone else, for that matter.  I'm sure the miniseries is better, but the book is crap.

[Haleth]

I was so excited when I heard Christopher Tolkien was going to publish Beren and Luthien.  I thought he was going to complete the prose version as a stand alone story as he did The Children of Hurin, but that's not what it is.  He only compiled the various versions previously seen in other books into one volume.  There's nothing new.  I feel cheated, like old Chris is milking that LOTR cash cow once more before he dies.  Although it will look nice on the shelf next to Hurin.

[AltLivia]

Finished Pretty Is by Maggie Mitchell and it was the worst book I've read this year. It's fiction. Two kidnapped girls are returned unharmed. As an adult, one writes a book about it under a pseudonym. The other is an actress who goes on, bizarrely, to star in the book's film adaptation.

It's just empty, badly written and predictable. Half of the thing is the character's "novel" and her struggle to produce a sequel while dealing with a laughably villainous student obsessed with the case.

[Cherry Cola]

I read Her Fearful Symmetry by Audrey Niffenegger.  I liked the descriptions of places, it made things seem so real.  But, when I finished the book, I was left with the question, what the hell did I just read?  Anyone else feel that way?

[MargeGunderson]

On 4/1/2018 at 8:52 PM, Cherry Cola said:

I read Her Fearful Symmetry by Audrey Niffenegger.  I liked the descriptions of places, it made things seem so real.  But, when I finished the book, I was left with the question, what the hell did I just read?  Anyone else feel that way?

Yes! I didn’t dislike it per se, but I didn't enjoy it. Plus, the end result was...creepy.

Edited April 17, 2018 by MargeGunderson

[Cherry Cola]

19 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

Yes! I didn’t dislike it per se, but I did t enjoy it. Plus, the end result was...creepy.

Very creepy! It took me by sursprise, that's for sure! 

[scarynikki12]

The resolution to the I Feel Pretty series by Jenny Han was such a disappointment.  For those who haven't read them, the basic premise is that Belly falls for brothers, Conrad and Jeremiah, at different points in her life.  I enjoyed the first two books fine, as I read it as Han presenting Belly as needing to grow up, figure out who she really is and what she really wants, and stop caring about what everyone else thinks.  When the third started I thought this would be the resolution to that arc but then it became apparent that the story really was going to end with Belly picking a brother.*  I think this story (accidentally as it turns out) does a great job of setting up an ending where Belly realizes that she needs to move on from both brothers as love interests.  Thanks to flashbacks, we see that she grew up knowing that their mother (whom she adores and wants to please) wants her to marry on of them, that she worshiped Conrad to (IMO) an unhealthy degree, and that she was oblivious to Jeremiah's worship of her.  We see enough of her relationship with each brother to see that each treats her like shit (Conrad plays mind games and dismisses her feelings while Jeremiah cheats) yet she just takes it and is a passive participant until they decide to end things.  When I was reading all of this I kept coming back to the mom telling Belly that she wanted her to marry one of them and I think this would have been way better if Belly had come to realize that she'd been trying to please her (the mom dies during the series) and that it's ok to not do what you were told as a kid.  But no, instead we get

Spoiler

Conrad continuing to play his mind games by telling Belly that he still loves her mere days before she's set to marry Jeremiah, Jeremiah dumping Belly just before the ceremony after reading a letter his mom wrote to Conrad (she put it in the wrong envelope) that talks about how much he loves Belly, and then a smash cut to a newly married Belly and Conrad with a few sentences to explain that they reconnected while she was studying abroad and that Jeremiah attended their wedding.  Lazy.  It makes me wonder if Han (and maybe her publisher) realized that there really isn't a way to adequately wrap up a story where an emotionally immature protagonist goes back and forth between brothers who treat her badly and then ends up with one.  At least, there isn't a way based on what's already written.  If the story had begun with Belly and Conrad reconnecting while she was abroad, and then we got some history between them along with a demonstration that she's grown up and he's treating her better, then maybe them ending up together would have worked.  But, based on what is actually in these books, there is no way Belly and Conrad don't end up divorced.  We have no evidence that she's grown up, that he's stopped playing mind games, and that she no longer cares (at all or as much) about what other people think (including the dead mom who wanted her to marry one of her boys).  Realistically, they will be married a couple of years, have a kid, and then the stress of parenting coupled with her immaturity and his asshattery will result in a divorce before the kid's out of diapers.  No way does this couple stay together, I don't care how strong Belly's hero worship is or Conrad's "feelings" are.  Jeremiah's at the wedding but we don't know if he's grown up either.  Did he go because he felt family pressure?  Did a part of him think Conrad would call it off and humiliate Belly the way he usually does and wanted to comfort her if he did?  Did he, Conrad, and Belly figure out a way to repair their relationships and he's fully on board with their marriage?  WE DON'T KNOW.  Once I realized that Belly was going to end up with Conrad, the book became a "I just need to finish" situation.

If I were a filmmaker or showrunner I would totally option this series and change the ending.

Spoiler

*Probably the most infuriating thing is that Belly doesn't actually choose.  In three books, the major relationship decisions are made by the brothers while Belly is a mere passenger.

 

On a more positive note, I did enjoy Han's Lara Jean series a lot and that story wrapped up really well. 

[scarynikki12]

I'm feeling snarky towards romance novels today.

I loved the early Malory books but then Lindsey decided that Tony and, in particular, James needed to be front and center of every story so they lost their appeal. Also she only focused on the Malorys who were blonde or had the black hair/blue eyes look (one exception: Judy) and ignored the rest. If there were to be a Malory series I'd like to see all of them get their time to shine. We know two years went by before Clare met Walter and that Diana met her husband almost immediately. I'd like to see why Clare, member of the prominent Malory family, didn't get married during that time when you'd expect eligible young men (or their parents at least) to be eager to join the family. Her father is constantly described as being a genius with money so anyone who joined the family would be in a prime position to expand their wealth yet two years go by and nothing. Lindsey made it clear that, other than Jason's marriage to Frances, all the Malorys marry for love. Maybe there was interest in Clare but she was holding out for love and that's why it took two years. We get almost nothing about her point of view, only that she was unhappy that two years had gone by since her debut and that she later married a man named Walter, so this is just speculation on my part. We also get almost nothing on Marshall and Travis other than Marshall asking Regina to use her "matchmaking talents"* on him while Travis isn't ready to settle down. Then there's no follow through on either so we can only assume they became confirmed bachelors.

*I used quotes around Regina being a matchmaker because that's something we're told but isn't shown. What she really does is support a couple she can clearly see is in love and nothing else. A real matchmaker would meet the two parties separately, introduce them, and then arrange situations for them to interact so they can get to know each other and fall in love. Tony and Roslynn, James and Georgina, Derek and Kelsey, Amy and Warren, Jason and Molly, Jeremy and Danny, the Andersons and their wives (don't care enough to check the names), that random couple who aren't Malorys yet got a book wasted on them, Judy and her husband, and Jack and hers; none of them were matched by Regina. All of them met and fell for each other without her assistance and, in most cases, before she even met half the couple! What she really was was a Class A gossip and solved many problems for her family members so that they wouldn't lose their standing in polite society.

I have the same issue with Lynsay Sands' vampire series. I enjoy the early books and then they just get boring. I think it comes down to reading the same formula over and over. And it doesn't have to be this way! She's writing about vampires yet all of the couples get together at lightning speed. The human/baby vampire may express reservations about being declared the other vampire's soulmate less than 24 hours after meeting but the supporting characters always swoop in an convince them to accept the truth. Even the rare obstacle like a character being married is quickly dispensed with (she resists cheating but then they get divorced and he turns out to be the soulmate of another vampire and everyone's happy) when it should be a super interesting story.

I've mentioned that the formulaic approach had made reading newer Nora Roberts books a bit of a chore but at least she's smart enough to make them research porn so I can focus on that if the romance isn't doing it for me. She also likes to have supporting character romances and a lot of those end up being more interesting than the main couple so there are other benefits to reading her books.

[DearEvette]

5 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

I'm feeling snarky towards romance novels today....

Cosign your post 100%.

There is a point when it becomes a state of diminishing returns to drag a series along until it just becomes boring or annoying.  Do something new for goodness sakes!  Start a new series with new people.

There are so many series bailed on because it got to the point where the later books become nothing but revolving doors to remind the readers of the earlier, already happily put together couples and short-changes the new central couple to the point they are nothing but card-board place holders in their own book.  So you never get a chance to get invested in them and thus the book just feels hollow and uninteresting.

As much as I love Shelly Laurenston, her Pride series is just like that.  After The fifth book (Blayne and Novikov's) the rest of the books became like a constant huge cast reunion.  Then she introduced the Jean-Louis Parker family I hated them so hard!  I bailed after that. But I still read the first five because they are quite good.  Meanwhile her Norse Gods/Ravens series and her new series are nice palate cleansers.

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

On 10/17/2020 at 3:07 PM, scarynikki12 said:

I'm feeling snarky towards romance novels today.

I loved the early Malory books but then Lindsey decided that Tony and, in particular, James needed to be front and center of every story so they lost their appeal. Also she only focused on the Malorys who were blonde or had the black hair/blue eyes look (one exception: Judy) and ignored the rest. If there were to be a Malory series I'd like to see all of them get their time to shine. We know two years went by before Clare met Walter and that Diana met her husband almost immediately. I'd like to see why Clare, member of the prominent Malory family, didn't get married during that time when you'd expect eligible young men (or their parents at least) to be eager to join the family. Her father is constantly described as being a genius with money so anyone who joined the family would be in a prime position to expand their wealth yet two years go by and nothing. Lindsey made it clear that, other than Jason's marriage to Frances, all the Malorys marry for love. Maybe there was interest in Clare but she was holding out for love and that's why it took two years. We get almost nothing about her point of view, only that she was unhappy that two years had gone by since her debut and that she later married a man named Walter, so this is just speculation on my part. We also get almost nothing on Marshall and Travis other than Marshall asking Regina to use her "matchmaking talents"* on him while Travis isn't ready to settle down. Then there's no follow through on either so we can only assume they became confirmed bachelors.

*I used quotes around Regina being a matchmaker because that's something we're told but isn't shown. What she really does is support a couple she can clearly see is in love and nothing else. A real matchmaker would meet the two parties separately, introduce them, and then arrange situations for them to interact so they can get to know each other and fall in love. Tony and Roslynn, James and Georgina, Derek and Kelsey, Amy and Warren, Jason and Molly, Jeremy and Danny, the Andersons and their wives (don't care enough to check the names), that random couple who aren't Malorys yet got a book wasted on them, Judy and her husband, and Jack and hers; none of them were matched by Regina. All of them met and fell for each other without her assistance and, in most cases, before she even met half the couple! What she really was was a Class A gossip and solved many problems for her family members so that they wouldn't lose their standing in polite society.

Oh can I sit at your table? Please? Please?

I will always be bitter that we never got a story for Percy! Yes, Percy! That loveable, always confused (Except when we first met him in Love Only Once (Regina and Nick) idiot, and he was such a doofus, and always opening his mouth when it should have been shut! I couldn't care less about that idiot who fell in love with George, being a pirate when he was actually someone of the peer or his story line with that idiot girl; or any of the other Andersons, quite frankly.

What really got my goat and had me seeing red though was giving Tony a daughter that he didn't know about, just like James already had Jeremy without any retcon; that whole story line undermines and erases that Roslyn was the love of Tony's life, because if not for the interference of what'sherface's family, Tony would have married what'sherface. All I recall is she got together with one of the Andersons. Drew? Boyd? So, Tony wouldn't have become a rake? PUHLEAZE. What would he have done if had married what'sherface and then met Roslyn? I hate that so, so, so, sooo much. Because I fell in love with Tony when we first met him, and enjoyed him in his own book and seeing him in James'

Why no, I haven't read these books so many times that I remember most, and just don't care to remember the others which aren't up to par as the first few.

It's the same with Julia Quinn, who is just scraping the bottom of the barrel with the Bridgertons--the prequels, now a generation before? or on another branch of the tree? I don't know because I wasn't interested.

At least Anne Stuart knows when to stop. Like she did with the Rohans.

Edited October 21, 2020 by GHScorpiosRule

[scarynikki12]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

What really got my goat and had me seeing red though was giving Tony a daughter that he didn't know about, just like James got Jamie; that whole story line undermines and erases that Rosslyn was the love of Tony's life, because if not for the interference of what'sherface's family, Tony would have married what'sherface. All I recall is she got together with one of the Andersons. Drew? Boyd? So, Tony wouldn't have become a rake? PUHLEAZE. What would he have done if had married what'sherface and then met Rosslyn? I hate that so, so, so, sooo much. Because I fell in love with Tony when we first met him, and enjoyed him in his own book and seeing him in James'

That pisses me off too. My theory is that two things happened after that book came out: 1) she changed her mind about the pairing and, especially, 2) she sacrificed Roslyn at the altar of James and George. She clearly enjoyed the brotherly relationship between Tony and James so he was allowed to remain generally consistent as he tagged along in all the subsequent books but Roslyn only ever showed up to get annoyed or angry with him and undercut the relationship from their individual book.

I’ve only read the book once but did she even get a POV when the news broke about Toby’s surprise daughter? I remember Judy being thrilled and the retcon that Tony actively wanted to marry her mother but nothing from Roslyn. At least nothing that made an impression on me. I do remember she was all but written out of Judy’s book (chronic seasickness was the reason I think?) so that’s more evidence that Lindsay just didn’t care for the character. She could have written Tony and Roslyn both going on adventures with James and George and being couple BFF so the choice not to speaks volumes. It seemed like they would go that way in James’ book since Roslyn took to George right away and was amused by the relationship similar to Tony. Then she started getting increasingly left out of the stories even when her presence would have been an asset. If these weren’t romance novels I think she’d have been killed off or written as getting a divorce.

[GHScorpiosRule]

49 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

I’ve only read the book once but did she even get a POV when the news broke about Toby’s surprise daughter? I remember Judy being thrilled and the retcon that Tony actively wanted to marry her mother but nothing from Roslyn.

Glutton that I am, I think I read this book three times. No Choice But Seduction. And it was Boyd Anderson. The Youngest. Who from the beginning was known and told to be the calmest of the brothers. But noooo. Here? He's the one with the hottest temper. Not Warren, but Boyd. 

My memory is so weird that I suddenly remembered that.

But to your more important question? No. Roslyn didn't get a POV at all. We have Tony whaling into James because Roslyn's angry at him. Again. Because James took Judy aboard his ship or something. We had one scene where she accused him of cheating on her because of this...well, it was the 1800s, so I'll say it: because of his bastard daughter. Then we have to read while Tony and James talk; go to the elders, Jason, I think, and then back track to the "one who broke Tony's heart and caused him to turn into a rake" bullshit.

I don't think Roslyn and Katey* ever shared any scenes together. Or if they did, I've blanked it out.

Because, you know, it was all about Tony.🙄 And I say that as someone who loves him!

*I admit it, I went to amazon to find out what the twat's name was.

I guess I should be grateful that Jeremy's story was worth the wait and there was no SORASing involved!

Edited October 21, 2020 by GHScorpiosRule

[scarynikki12]

31 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I guess I should be grateful that Jamie's story was worth the wait and there was no SORASing involved

Jeremy. But yes I love his story. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Jeremy. But yes I love his story. 

D'OH! I knew that didn't look right! Hell's Bells!

[ParadoxLost]

On 10/17/2020 at 3:21 PM, DearEvette said:

Cosign your post 100%.

There is a point when it becomes a state of diminishing returns to drag a series along until it just becomes boring or annoying.  Do something new for goodness sakes!  Start a new series with new people.

There are so many series bailed on because it got to the point where the later books become nothing but revolving doors to remind the readers of the earlier, already happily put together couples and short-changes the new central couple to the point they are nothing but card-board place holders in their own book.  So you never get a chance to get invested in them and thus the book just feels hollow and uninteresting.

As much as I love Shelly Laurenston, her Pride series is just like that.  After The fifth book (Blayne and Novikov's) the rest of the books became like a constant huge cast reunion.  Then she introduced the Jean-Louis Parker family I hated them so hard!  I bailed after that. But I still read the first five because they are quite good.  Meanwhile her Norse Gods/Ravens series and her new series are nice palate cleansers.

Aargh.  I'm admitting I read too much romance now.  Yes to the Malory books.  Yes to Shelley Laurenston for exactly those reasons.

Some other good series that suffered the same fate. 

Kresley Cole's Immortals After Dark was very good for a long time but it started dragging along like it was treading water not wanting to get to a few anticipated characters stories. 

JD Robb's In Death series, I really liked but they kind of did everything already and it got to the point where it was formulaic enough and uninspiring enough that most of the reviews debate whether Nora Roberts is still writing it. I think its at over fifty books or something like that.  I always thought it would make a good crime TV show. 

Alanea Alder writes a series of books where she gets distracted by the heroine from the first book and forgets to write about the couple the book is supposed to be about in every other book and it just gets worse the longer it goes unless the new heroine is a near clone of the first heroine.  I'm still reading it although I often don't know why.

Laurann Dohner got sick of New Species before her audience did and now she writes other series she is more interested in and her audience is less interested in and randomly puts out a New Species short story that is more frustrating or not.  Although there was a lot of behind the scenes stuff with her publisher that maybe there are other reasons for that.  And  I know I should be glad she gave up on it before she ruined it but darn it there are characters she introduced that were supposed to get their turn.

Despite this being a snark thread.  I think Penny Reid did a good job of wrapping up and shifting focus on the Knitting in the City and Winston Brothers series.  And its a miracle I like those because I find first person to be unreadable but it somehow did not bother mehere.

One on going one I'm not sick of is Nalini Singh's Psy/Changeling and Guild Hunter series.  I think she's about the best I can think of at carrying off a series of books that do a good job of balancing books that focus on a couple and an ensemble and moving things forward.

On 10/17/2020 at 3:07 PM, scarynikki12 said:

I have the same issue with Lynsay Sands' vampire series. I enjoy the early books and then they just get boring.

I couldn't even read this series because the first vampire novel was so subpar compared to compared to her earlier historical novels which were really funny.  The historical that she has put out since the Vampire series are so awful that I'm convinced they are ghost written.

I did have that problem a while ago.  All the historical  romance authors I read switched over to mystery/suspense/paranormal and they were very good at the former and not good at the latter.  Garwood,  Coulter. Sands.  Etc.

 

 

 

[scarynikki12]

5 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I guess I should be grateful that Jeremy's story was worth the wait

Quoting again because, with the benefit of hindsight, I think she should have ended the series with Jeremy. We get to know him and see him grow up starting with Regina's book so wrapping it all up with his own story would be a nice bookend. Plus he's James' son so his presence makes sense and doesn't take over like we see in the subsequent books. I guess it's the last story for me since it's where my rereads always end. I don't hate Drew's story, and actually find it amusing that he'd fall for a pirate, but I can live without it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, scarynikki12 said:

Quoting again because, with the benefit of hindsight, I think she should have ended the series with Jeremy. We get to know him and see him grow up starting with Regina's book so wrapping it all up with his own story would be a nice bookend. Plus he's James' son so his presence makes sense and doesn't take over like we see in the subsequent books. I guess it's the last story for me since it's where my rereads always end. I don't hate Drew's story, and actually find it amusing that he'd fall for a pirate, but I can live without it.

Totally agree with this. And I loved the parallel of how Jeremy and James' stories. Sort of. Except that Jeremy didn't prolong it and make Dani think he thought she was a boy, when he knew immediately she was a girl. Though I always laugh when George tells James she's "allergic" to him because she thinks her attraction and lust for him as nausea!

And I know I'm biased, but I've read Nora/JD for so long, and I know that Nora does her own research, doesn't rely on any assistants, etc., and writes every single one of her books. She's a very prolific writer and she works damn hard at it. The only time she couldn't write--was after the scandal that exposed Janet Daily had plagiarized not just one of her books, but multiple books. 

So I'm protective of her, even though she'll tell you herself she doesn't need anyone to , defend her. Nora doesn't suffer any fools.

But back to the topic? After I got weary of the Malory series, I thought her Marriage Most Scandalous was a refreshing change.

I loved Man of My Dreams and Love Me Forever, but The Pursuit was such a disappointment and more about the uncles, than Melissa!

[DearEvette]

24 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

One on going one I'm not sick of is Nalini Singh's Psy/Changeling and Guild Hunter series.  I think she's about the best I can think of at carrying off a series of books that do a good job of balancing books that focus on a couple and an ensemble and moving things forward.

Also cosigning thing 100%.  She has done an excellent job of continuing those two series... moving them along and and creating real seismic shifts in the plot so she just isn't treading water.

I think the plot development over the entirety of the Psy/Changeling series is so smart. After Kaleb's book when he makes that huge announcement

Spoiler

that Silence has fallen

it was a major shift in the story and the aftermath she set up was believable.  It was a new world order.  Some people simply could not adjust, some people became resentful, some people were happy, a power vacuum opened and other unforseen issues cropped up.  The story possibilities splintered all over the place.  It is great.

And ditto to the structure of the Guild Hunter series where she has 'couple' books here and there but interwoven are the books that are just about the overall arc and still feature Raph and Elena as the central characters.  I LOVE the Raph and Elena books, even this last one which was super dark and about half of it was basically war, war, war...

So uh... back to snark.... I discovered Kristen Ashley in 2012 and went on a major book bender.  There was something about her books (The Burg series, her Dream Man series, her Chaos series) that were like crack and yet she was kinda of a really bad writer technically.  I mean we'd get five paragraphs long describing an outfit.  After I came up for air and got over my addiction, I realizes that she wrote the same book over and over again.  She is still a very prolific writer with a huge fanbase but I think the last book of hers I read was in 2016.  I haven't even been tempted to pick up another one. Tho I will go back and read Motorcyle Man if I am ever in the mood.

[ParadoxLost]

14 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I know I'm biased, but I've read Nora/JD for so long, and I know that Nora does her own research, doesn't rely on any assistants, etc., and writes every single one of her books. She's a very prolific writer and she works damn hard at it. The only time she couldn't write--was after the scandal that exposed Janet Daily had plagiarized not just one of her books, but multiple books. 

So I'm protective of her, even though she'll tell you herself she doesn't need anyone to , defend her. Nora doesn't suffer any fools.

Good to know.  I still think that the In Death books are dragging lately.  It feels like they are about two out of three don't do much but tread water.  It may be realistic for the Roarke/Dallas to be more settled but I miss the dynamic from the early books ( like the first thirty or forty, so not that early).

[BlackberryJam]

Mentioning the Malory series, I came to hate James for taking away every woman’s name and making it male. I kept wanting someone to refer to him as Jane, Jeremy as Jemina, Tony as Theodosia and so on. 

The books completely started to drag around Jeremy/Dani. Also pale hair and violet eyes is a hard NO for me.

I loved Roslyn in her book with Tony and hated to see her sidelined.

I enjoyed the Bridgertons, but got sick of them around Gregory. No one is better than Penelope Featherington. 

I enjoyed some, but not all, of the Jude Devereaux books. I have a special place in my heart for Twin of Ice and River Lady. And I think it’s The Raider where the hero wears a fat suit to disguise himself.

At some points the plots of the books get thin and silly and I go back and read the first and second in the series and think, “What happened to the author who wrote that?”

Of course, there are many, many of these romance novels that I loved as a teen that I just can’t tolerate as an adult. Fern Michaels, I think, was one in particular. 

[ParadoxLost]

4 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

So uh... back to snark.... I discovered Kristen Ashley in 2012 and went on a major book bender.  There was something about her books (The Burg series, her Dream Man series, her Chaos series) that were like crack and yet she was kinda of a really bad writer technically.  I mean we'd get five paragraphs long describing an outfit.  After I came up for air and got over my addiction, I realizes that she wrote the same book over and over again.  She is still a very prolific writer with a huge fanbase but I think the last book of hers I read was in 2016.  I haven't even been tempted to pick up another one. Tho I will go back and read Motorcyle Man if I am ever in the mood.

I read her Rock Chick series and a handful of others that didn't make me pick up any others. And I get what you mean by her books being like crack but technically really bad writing. For some reason as much as I liked the Rock Chick books I can't finish reading the last one.  I'm pretending that its because its like 600 pages long when it doesn't need to be 600 pages long rather than it not adhering exactly to the formula.

Since you mentioned Laurenston, have you read her Dragon Kin series under pen name GA Aiken? I can not figure out what it is that I don't like about that one but I can't get into it.

[ParadoxLost]

6 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

Of course, there are many, many of these romance novels that I loved as a teen that I just can’t tolerate as an adult. Fern Michaels, I think, was one in particular. 

When I was a teen to early twenties, I read Diana Palmer.  A lot of them.  But I got to one book and the time she spent describing the novelty of flying on a plane was so ridiculous and so wrong that I thought I might be reading something from a  ninety year old who despite having a prolific writing career was a hermit who had never left her very small out of the way town.  It stuck in my memory.  It was that bad.  I stopped reading her over it.  There was no wikipedia then.  Apparently she wasn't ninety years old.  That was just a terrible piece of writing.

 

[DearEvette]

10 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

Since you mentioned Laurenston, have you read her Dragon Kin series under pen name GA Aiken? I can not figure out what it is that I don't like about that one but I can't get into it.

Yes.  I think I've read most of her work.  And she has some very identifiable writing markers:  she writes strong women, great female friendships and she has this great bent sense of humor.  She also writes very over-the-top characters.  It feels like she shows restraint in the first few books of the series and then loses complete control of her characters so their wild zani-ness overshadows romance and story.

I think her G.A. Aiken pseudonym was supposed to be for her more fantasy (as opposed to paranormal) writing and was supposed to showcase  somewhat darker themes.  The first couple of the Dragon Kin books I liked.  I especially liked the first book.  But it is like she forgot she was writing as G.A. Aiken and let the Laurenston craziness take over. I  lost interest in that series after book three because once again I think she lost control of her characters and overall arc.

I am enjoying her newest series so far, The Blacksmith Queen written as G.A. Aiken.  Again the first book has some pretty dark themes, but still spiked with her customary humor.  I got an ARC for the second book in the series which officially releases at the end of November and so far it hasn't run off the rails.  LOL.

[GHScorpiosRule]

11 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

When I was a teen to early twenties, I read Diana Palmer.  A lot of them.  But I got to one book and the time she spent describing the novelty of flying on a plane was so ridiculous and so wrong that I thought I might be reading something from a  ninety year old who despite having a prolific writing career was a hermit who had never left her very small out of the way town.  It stuck in my memory.  It was that bad.  I stopped reading her over it.  There was no wikipedia then.  Apparently she wasn't ninety years old.  That was just a terrible piece of writing.

 

She is HORRIBLE. I don't know why the reviews credit her with being "prolific" as every single one of her heroes and heroines are the SAME. I mentioned in the other thread--What authors are you reading, that whenever I want to punish myself, I pick up a Diana Palmer. Because in every damned book, if the heroine enjoys the kisses and foreplay and "lets" the "hero" "take liberties" then she's a whore; if they have sex before marriage, she's a whore; if she doesn't, then she's a prude, or not attractive enough for him to even THINK about marrying her. There's always at least 14-18 years difference in age, where the youngest was 19 to the Hero's 34. But that was okay, because she didn't look 19.

And only the "hero" can make the heroine like kisses and foreplay, because with HIM, it's wonderrrfuuuuuul and intimate. With other men, it's "disgusting."

All her "heroes" are misogynistic ASSHOLES, but the readers should ignore that, because they're REAL MEN ,don'tchaknow.🙄

Ahem.

I'm blaming @scarynikki12! I opened up to read Gentle Rogue last night!🥰😁

As a side note, I always pictured that Percy found himself someone who was as dimwitted as he was. That would have made for such a funny novella!

Okay, let me get back to work now...

[BlackberryJam]

I often wonder if I have some fucked up ideas about relationships and sexuality based on reading super trashy romance novels when I was 12. My parents weren’t big on boundaries.

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

She is HORRIBLE. I don't know why the reviews credit her with being "prolific" as every single one of her heroes and heroines are the SAME. I mentioned in the other thread--What authors are you reading, that whenever I want to punish myself, I pick up a Diana Palmer. Because in every damned book, if the heroine enjoys the kisses and foreplay and "lets" the "hero" "take liberties" then she's a whore; if they have sex before marriage, she's a whore; if she doesn't, then she's a prude, or not attractive enough for him to even THINK about marrying her. There's always at least 14-18 years difference in age, where the youngest was 19 to the Hero's 34. But that was okay, because she didn't look 19.

And only the "hero" can make the heroine like kisses and foreplay, because with HIM, it's wonderrrfuuuuuul and intimate. With other men, it's "disgusting."

All her "heroes" are misogynistic ASSHOLES, but the readers should ignore that, because they're REAL MEN ,don'tchaknow.🙄

Ahem.

I'm blaming @scarynikki12! I opened up to read Gentle Rogue last night!🥰😁

As a side note, I always pictured that Percy found himself someone who was as dimwitted as he was. That would have made for such a funny novella!

Okay, let me get back to work now...

Yes, thank you! I read a few Diana Palmers as a teen because they were popular so I assumed that mean they were good. Nope they were horrible. They were all the same. The male heroine was always so horrible and so much older then his love interest which was creepy. He always treated her like such crap. 

[scarynikki12]

9 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I'm blaming @scarynikki12! I opened up to read Gentle Rogue last night!🥰😁

Then my work here is done.

Seriously, though, I did check to see if Tender Rebel (WHERE did she get these titles??) was available on ebook from my library but there's a wait. I own Jeremy's book so I'll probably just reread that while I wait my turn.

7 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I often wonder if I have some fucked up ideas about relationships and sexuality based on reading super trashy romance novels when I was 12.

I blame my mom since the books were hers.