Unpopular Opinions

[starri]

Well, if you're worried about A Song of Ice and Fire never reaching its conclusion, The Last Lion: Defender of the Realm managed to come out, a mere 24 years and the death of the author after the previous volume.

[GaT]

4 hours ago, Black Knight said:

Nowadays I generally won't start a heavily-serialized series until it's finished, but not out of fear (even though I've been waiting half my life for GRRM to finish) - it's more a memory issue. I find the max I can go without needing to re-read all that came before is about a year, which even authors who do put out their sequels quickly and regularly can still easily miss by a couple months (and, of course, I also need to get to reading the latest book - it's pretty easy for stuff to sit in my to-read pile for months).

Some authors are better than others about managing to include enough recap in their latest book that it isn't necessary to go back and re-read. However, I have recently realized it's possible to go too far in that direction. I love Seanan McGuire's October Daye series, which has reached double digits, and good lord, lately those installments feel like they are one-third recap of the series. She has many recurring characters, every one of whom upon first appearance in any new book gets their backstory and relationship to Toby explained, so the plot is constantly coming to a screeching halt, and at this point I wish she'd just write an appendix.

I've pretty much stopped binge reading for just this reason. I would just read the books in a series one after another, but I just kept getting so annoyed by being told the same exact things in each book over & over again, that now I try to read a book or two from a series & then switch to something else for a couple of books. Sometimes I feel like I'm only getting a short story in each book because of how much gets repeated.

[Hanahope]

I need to switch authors every 2-3 books because  I just need a change for on their writing style.  I read a couple Phillipa Gregory books, then need to switch to a couple Anne Perry books, then I’ll read a Janet Evanovich, then a couple Lisa Scottiline, then a Felix Francis, etc. and eventually I’ll go back to Gregory and read a couple more in the series. 

[Ceindreadh]

On 10/4/2017 at 10:13 PM, Black Knight said:

Nowadays I generally won't start a heavily-serialized series until it's finished, but not out of fear (even though I've been waiting half my life for GRRM to finish) - it's more a memory issue. I find the max I can go without needing to re-read all that came before is about a year, which even authors who do put out their sequels quickly and regularly can still easily miss by a couple months (and, of course, I also need to get to reading the latest book - it's pretty easy for stuff to sit in my to-read pile for months).

 

I read the first book in the series The Clifton Chronicles by Jeffrey Archer.  I was so pissed off that it ended on a cliffhanger that I refused to buy/read any future books in the series until they were all published.  (and then I went and binge-read them all over about a week...which wasn't great either)

[ratgirlagogo]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:04 PM, starri said:

Well, if you're worried about A Song of Ice and Fire never reaching its conclusion, The Last Lion: Defender of the Realm managed to come out, a mere 24 years and the death of the author after the previous volume.

Pish-tosh, V C Andrews only finished seven books (and maybe part of two more) while she was alive.  But WOW!  Almost eighty books since she died!  That's the real can-do spirit!

[Wiendish Fitch]

5 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

Pish-tosh, V C Andrews only finished seven books (and maybe part of two more) while she was alive.  But WOW!  Almost eighty books since she died!  That's the real can-do spirit!

Literally!! (rimshot)

or

That's why it helps to have a ghost writer! (rimshot)

Sorry, I'll stop.

[Haleth]

Booooo!

[starri]

On 11/17/2017 at 2:13 AM, ratgirlagogo said:

Pish-tosh, V C Andrews only finished seven books (and maybe part of two more) while she was alive.  But WOW!  Almost eighty books since she died!  That's the real can-do spirit!

I thought the only ones people were sure she'd started and finished were the first three Dollenganger books and My Sweet Audrina.

I'm a bit too young to have been swept up in the Flowers in the Attic mania, and so I've never actually read one of her books, although I think people were still passing them around when I was in high school (early-mid 90s).  I should probably get a bottle of red wine and read one some rainy day.

[Snow Apple]

On 11/18/2017 at 8:28 AM, starri said:

I thought the only ones people were sure she'd started and finished were the first three Dollenganger books and My Sweet Audrina.

I'm a bit too young to have been swept up in the Flowers in the Attic mania, and so I've never actually read one of her books, although I think people were still passing them around when I was in high school (early-mid 90s).  I should probably get a bottle of red wine and read one some rainy day.

She wrote the first two Heaven books too. I remember when the third book was published and I noticed the decline in quality right away. I was very puzzled until I found out she had passed away.

[galaxygirl76]

I loved the Harry Potter books but I never managed to finish the 7th book. Somewhere around the never ending camping I lost interest and stopped reading.

 

I tried to read Pride and Prejudice but realized about half way that I just didn't care about any of it, plus I wasn't retaining any of the information presumably because of me not caring.

 

I loved the first Kay Scarpetta books, though some parts were definitely annoying but I gave up on them when the writer started using third person perspective while all the previous books had been from first person perspective.

 

I love Dan Brown's books. I'm fully aware it's not deep thinking literature but I like reading them anyway.

 

Loved the Maze Runner and the two sequel books but could not got into the prequel.

[GaT]

2 hours ago, galaxygirl76 said:

I tried to read Pride and Prejudice but realized about half way that I just didn't care about any of it, plus I wasn't retaining any of the information presumably because of me not caring.

 

Try Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, that's a pretty good book. :-)

[OtterMommy]

I know she's popular, but I really do not care for Jodi Picoult.  She's the Lifetime Channel of books.

[truthaboutluv]

I've only read two of her books - Nineteen Minutes and The Pact. I did enjoy the former but The Pact was really awful and stupid in many ways.

[SmithW6079]

I read the first three books of "The Expanse" series and enjoyed them, for the most part (with the exception of the introduction of a character that induced in me a hatred of a book character that I never had before). However, I had to force myself to finish the fourth book, and I could get only halfway through the fifth. They're not very good books. (I'm quite enjoying the TV series.)

I've read my share of historical fiction, but now I find myself annoyed when authors use real historical figures in their novels as main characters (not as secondary figures). I hate it even more when said real-life people are put into situations that would have never, ever happened -- like Eleanor Roosevelt or Queen Elizabeth I solving mysteries. Why does no one write roman à clefs anymore? Or just create your own world based on the real world? Guy Gavriel Kaye does that all the time:

Quote

 Many of his novels are set in fictional realms that resemble real places during real historical periods, such as Constantinople during the reign of Justinian I or Spain during the time of El Cid.   

but he's not bound by real life (although, given the way some authors play fast and loose with the facts of actual historical people, they don't bind themselves to real life either).

I enjoy reading gay romance novels (either by a small independent press or self-published), but I can almost always tell when a woman writes one. And while I'm grateful for romances with two male characters, invariably, the gender roles are male/female, even if the two main characters are both male. Usually, the "male" character is big and muscular and dominant, while the "female" character is smaller and more delicate and submissive. (But kudos to the women for their fascination with the mechanics of gay sex.)

Edited June 9, 2018 by SmithW6079

[Haleth]

9 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

I read the first three books of "The Expanse" series and enjoyed them, for the most part (with the exception of the introduction of a character that induced in me a hatred of a book character that I never had before). However, I had to force myself to finish the fourth book, and I could get only halfway through the fifth. They're not very good books. (I'm quite enjoying the TV series.)

I've read my share of historical fiction, but now I find myself annoyed when authors use real historical figures in their novels as main characters (not as secondary figures). I hate it even more when said real-life people are put into situations that would have never, ever happened -- like Eleanor Roosevelt or Queen Elizabeth I solving mysteries.

I so agree with you on both points!

I just finished The Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon.  It had been recommended numerous times with good reason.  Wonderful story of passion, betrayal, and revenge.  It's a gothic mystery about a young man determined to unravel the secrets of a dead author whose books are being systematically destroyed.  I'm looking forward to reading the other two books in the series.

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 4/11/2018 at 6:41 PM, OtterMommy said:

I know she's popular, but I really do not care for Jodi Picoult.  She's the Lifetime Channel of books.

Jodi Picoult is not only a formulaic hack, but I feel like she's antagonizing me personally, because she just loves to use tropes that make me physically ill: Rape as Drama (especially incest and pedophilia, lovely), Parental Neglect, the Magical Negro, and Good Girls Avoid Abortion, just to name a few. 

So, yeah, I'm not a fan. 

[Spartan Girl]

On April 11, 2018 at 6:41 PM, OtterMommy said:

I know she's popular, but I really do not care for Jodi Picoult.  She's the Lifetime Channel of books.

As is Nicolas Sparks, whom I also can't stand.

[Dr.OO7]

And Danielle Steel. Same thing with all the tropes. Her blatant Double Standards regarding her types of characters is infuriating--no matter what a hero/heroine does, it's perfectly okay if not wonderful, but when a villain does the same thing, it's despicable. And her May/December romance fetish. Not that there's anything wrong with an age difference in relationships, but you would think no other types of couples exist from the way her books are written. And I don't appreciate the downright creepy and inappropriate extremes she's taking it to--depicting a 49-year old man falling in love with--and fucking--his daughter's 15-YEAR OLD best friend as a grand romance? Are you FUCKING kidding me? Disgusting.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Camille

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, Camille said:

And I don't appreciate the downright creepy and inappropriate extremes she's taking it to--depicting a 49-year old man falling in love with--and fucking--his daughter's 15-YEAR OLD best friend as a grand romance? Are you FUCKING kidding me? Disgusting.

Oh man! I knew she was bad but I had no idea she was that bad! I've never read her stuff because it's just overhyped Harlequin IMO. When I was a teen and read romance novels I still never read her stuff. I tend not to want to read very popular authors for some reason. Maybe it's some kind of personal rebellion. lol

[Wiendish Fitch]

2 hours ago, Camille said:

And Danielle Steel. Same thing with all the tropes. Her blatant Double Standards regarding her types of characters is infuriating--no matter what a hero/heroine does, it's perfectly okay if not wonderful, but when a villain does the same thing, it's despicable. And her May/December romance fetish. Not that there's anything wrong with an age difference in relationships, but you would think no other types of couples exist from the way her books are written. And I don't appreciate the downright creepy and inappropriate extremes she's taking it to--depicting a 49-year old man falling in love with--and fucking--his daughter's 15-YEAR OLD best friend as a grand romance? Are you FUCKING kidding me? Disgusting.

 

Da fuq?!?!

Edited June 11, 2018 by Wiendish Fitch

[Dr.OO7]

It's one of the subplots in the novel Family Album. Awful. The perpetrator--it's statutory rape no matter how you spin it--and the victim use the same excuses that real life criminals use--"She/he is very mature for her/his age", "She/he looks much older than she/he is", etc. When her family finds out and threatens to press charges, THEY are the ones vilified. They marry as soon as she turns 18 and when the book ends 15 years later, they are still blissful together and the parents of 5.

 

Meanwhile, in another book, a villain (the heroine's cheating ex-boyfriend) is said to look "like an idiot" with his younger girlfriend, even though she's only 15 years his junior. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Camille

[Wiendish Fitch]

1 hour ago, Camille said:

It's one of the subplots in the novel Family Album. Awful. The perpetrator--it's statutory rape no matter how you spin it--and the victim use the same excuses that real life criminals use--"She/he is very mature for her/his age", "She/he looks much older than she/he is", etc. When her family finds out and threatens to press charges, THEY are the ones vilified. They marry as soon as she turns 18 and when the book ends 15 years later, they are still blissful together and the parents of 5.

 

Meanwhile, in another book, a villain (the heroine's cheating ex-boyfriend) is said to look "like an idiot" with his younger girlfriend, even though she's only 15 years his junior. 

Welp, I need to take another shower.

Let's hope Danielle Steele and Jodi Picoult never collaborate. They could conceivably disgust us out of existence. 

[cherrypj]

All the Ugly and Wonderful Things is the same way. Vile. 

[OtterMommy]

3 hours ago, cherrypj said:

All the Ugly and Wonderful Things is the same way. Vile. 

There are no words for how much I hated that book.

Well, there are words...but I used them all up at my book club discussion.

[Dr.OO7]

What happens? I can't find a recap anywhere.

[OtterMommy]

4 minutes ago, Camille said:

What happens? I can't find a recap anywhere.

It's basically a lot of romanticizing of child molestation.

[Mabinogia]

I went on goodreads to see what it was about and OMG there are people who are defending it. I can understand defending the book as I think it is good to shed light on dark topics like this because this shit happens, but they are defending the romance. WTF?!?!?!?!!

[Wiendish Fitch]

Is it now a law written in stone tablets by God Himself that current adult fiction can only be acclaimed and considered good if it involves sexual violence? Even in lighthearted fare like the sequel to Me Before You (which enraged me so passionately I stopped reading the book and anything by Jojo Moyes thereafter), rape in fiction is so prevalent that I don't think anyone bats an eyelash at it anymore. Lest I be accused of being a prudish, censoring member of the Thought Police, let me be clear: I am not trying to dictate what others write. What I am saying is that I wish writers would stop, take a breath, and seriously ask themselves if sexual violence is absolutely, 100% necessary to make their story work. Too often it's used as a cheap tactic to elicit emotion, when literally anything else will do. Unless you have something truly pertinent to say about this sensitive issue that happens all too often in real life, maybe you should utilize a plan B. Rape in fiction should not (IMO), be used:

1. As drama (looking at you, Jodi Picoult)

2. As a "rite of passage" for the (typically) young female character that happens and then casually forgotten about (shame on you, Eva Moves the Furniture)

3. As a tragic backstory to make us care about your character (Jojo Moyes, you manipulative hack)

[SomeTameGazelle]

3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Even in lighthearted fare like the sequel to Me Before You (which enraged me so passionately I stopped reading the book and anything by Jojo Moyes thereafter), rape in fiction is so prevalent that I don't think anyone bats an eyelash at it anymore.

I haven't read the sequel, but in Me Before You rape was also part of the plot.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Just now, SomeTameGazelle said:

I haven't read the sequel, but in Me Before You rape was also part of the plot.

That I knew, I didn't like it then, but I was willing to shrug it off. The sequel, well... the less said, the better.

[Dr.OO7]

It's a major problem with Danielle Steel too. There was time when it was guaranteed that the heroine or someone close to her was going to experience one of the Rape Tropes. It's especially bad in the book "Accident". The heroine is already going through hell--daughter badly injured in a car accident, husband leaving her for another woman, etc. So of course, let's throw in the fact that she was sexually abused by her father. I absolutely hated that--it had no bearing on the story whatsoever.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I haven't loved all of Robin McKinley's stuff (I find she can be humorless and long-winded), but I've got to hand it to her: she loves her May/December romances, but she handles them well (for the most part), and in Deerskin, rape not only has bearing on the plot, but the consequences are dealt with, and the victim isn't treated like an emotional prop.

 

Lest we get carried away with this controversial subject matter, I'm going to carry this over to a new topic. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Wiendish Fitch

[scarynikki12]

Deerskin was a solid exploration of how the victim is usually blamed for the rape. 

[justcris]

I tried to read Kerouac's On The Road when I was 18/19 and was immensely bored by it.

I'm not sure how unpopular this opinion is, but I had to get it out there.

[JAYJAY1979]

On 6/11/2018 at 9:33 AM, Camille said:

And Danielle Steel. Same thing with all the tropes. Her blatant Double Standards regarding her types of characters is infuriating--no matter what a hero/heroine does, it's perfectly okay if not wonderful, but when a villain does the same thing, it's despicable. And her May/December romance fetish. Not that there's anything wrong with an age difference in relationships, but you would think no other types of couples exist from the way her books are written. And I don't appreciate the downright creepy and inappropriate extremes she's taking it to--depicting a 49-year old man falling in love with--and fucking--his daughter's 15-YEAR OLD best friend as a grand romance? Are you FUCKING kidding me? Disgusting.

I think that happened in Family Album... and the daughter had the gall to be mad at her mother for expressing reservations that she wanted to date someone so much older.

[lianau]

On 2/6/2016 at 7:32 PM, BookWoman56 said:

Much of what bugged me about Ron Weasley was his whinging about being poor. And I realize it sucks to be poor, especially when you are attending school with rich kids who mock you. But the other Weasley kids were just as poor, and they for the most part did something about it by working hard. Bill and Charlie had already left home after finding jobs. Percy, despite being pompous and condescending at times, did work  hard to have high grades so he could find a good job after Hogwarts. Fred and George obviously didn't excel in the classroom, but had a strong sense of entrepreneurship and poured their energy into creating the items that ultimately were sold in their joke shop. Ginny is more of a cipher, but nothing in her character indicated she was going to wallow in self-pity about being poor. OTOH, Ron bitched and moaned about being poor, put minimal effort into his classes, and showed no signs of having any initiative the way Fred and George did. I hate the moment when the trio goes to the joke shop and Ron scoops up a load of goods, expecting that he won't have to pay for them.

 

bringing this back . I felt for Ron because he doesn't really have a spot in his family in a way . He's not the oldest son , not the cool guy with dragons , not the teacher's pet , he doesn't have a twin brother and he's not the long awaited girl . He's just there , another mouth to feed . His clothes are hand me downs as is his pet and wand before he breaks it .  And then he befriends the brain of the class and Harry Potter . THE Harry Potter , the most famous kid he could form a friendship with . And not only is he famous but also owns a vault full of gold . No wonder Ron's insecurities eventually get the best of him . 

[kathyk24]

2 hours ago, lianau said:

bringing this back . I felt for Ron because he doesn't really have a spot in his family in a way . He's not the oldest son , not the cool guy with dragons , not the teacher's pet , he doesn't have a twin brother and he's not the long awaited girl . He's just there , another mouth to feed . His clothes are hand me downs as is his pet and wand before he breaks it .  And then he befriends the brain of the class and Harry Potter . THE Harry Potter , the most famous kid he could form a friendship with . And not only is he famous but also owns a vault full of gold . No wonder Ron's insecurities eventually get the best of him . 

I hated Ron Weasley. He was a slacker who never tried to be good at anything. Harry's money didn't protect him from a sadist like Vernon Dursley. Harry also had to cope with losing every adult who ever loved him. Hermionie also had to cope with the prejudice against Muggles especially in the Deathly Hallows.

[starri]

UO:  I'm glad Hermione ended up with Ron, and I think Rowling only backtracked on it because she was tired of people complaining about it.

[Spartan Girl]

5 hours ago, starri said:

UO:  I'm glad Hermione ended up with Ron, and I think Rowling only backtracked on it because she was tired of people complaining about it.

I don't think she was backtracking; her "maybe Harry should have ended up with her" stuff just sounded hypothetical. But yeah, given all the crap fired towards her for this and that, I'm sure she just gets sick of it. 

Ron could be an asshole, but he did mature towards the end. I gotta give him that.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Spartan Girl

[Mabinogia]

Here's my unpopular HP opinion. I actually liked Ron best out of the main three. Hermoine could work my nerves like nobody else and I never like the characters born to be the savior/hero of the story because I never feel like they really earned it. I thought Ron was an every kid, just an awkward little goofball who was never quite smart enough or athletic enough of good enough, got mostly overlooked in his large family or in comparison to his genius female friend and HERO best friend. Of the three I related most to him. 

Of course I also loved Snape from the beginning and always felt there was more to him than just the bad guy, and I hated Dumbledore for all the head games he played with Harry and his superiority complex so what do I know. lol

[katha]

On 1.7.2018 at 2:53 AM, Mabinogia said:

Here's my unpopular HP opinion. I actually liked Ron best out of the main three. Hermoine could work my nerves like nobody else and I never like the characters born to be the savior/hero of the story because I never feel like they really earned it. I thought Ron was an every kid, just an awkward little goofball who was never quite smart enough or athletic enough of good enough, got mostly overlooked in his large family or in comparison to his genius female friend and HERO best friend. Of the three I related most to him.

Ron isn't the smartest guy (though he can be quick and witty), he's not the most popular, not the most attractive and he's kind of overlooked in his very loud family which has many larger than life personalities. And then he becomes friends with Harry and Hermione. The Boy Who Lived and the smartest witch her age. And he's once again not as exceptional as they are, at least he doesn't feel like it. So he becomes insecure and sometimes even mean and does stupid crap at times, because he doesn't always know how to handle it. But I always think being best friends with Harry and Hermione is probably all you really need to know about Ron's character. The thing is: His life could be so much easier if he stayed away from them. Yeah, Harry is the chosen one, but that often leads to mortal peril and social isolation at Hogwarts, not to mention dealing with his understandable trauma and bad moods. Hermione can be so high-handed and self-righteous it makes your teeth ache, not to mention dismissive and hurtful towards anyone who doesn't agree with her. Ron would have a much easier life if he was friends with say...Sean or someone. But he stays loyal to them, even though he is arguably the only one of the trio who could have a "normal school experience."  I don't know if I liked him best, but he was very well written and has a lot of admirable qualities.

My UO: I like Austen's "Mansfield Park" and yes, Fanny is dreary and can be annoying, but considering her circumstances, it's probably understandable that she clings to the little security she has. But what I find totally unbelievable is the ending: Henry Crawford would have never behaved as stupidly as he did and eloped with Maria Rushworth. And I suspect that Austen knew that this would strain credibility, which is why she had it happen off stage. I know it was necessary to get to the "happy ending" (though I guess how "happy" it really is can also be discussed...), but I never buy it. But then, the alternative would have been an unhappy marriage between Fanny and Crawford and well, this isn't Tolstoy, I guess. Which, in a way, perhaps speaks to the modern aspects of that particular novel, it has so many complexities that the ending, which tries to bring it back to a more pat solution, doesn't ring true anymore. At least not for me.

[truthaboutluv]

My issue with Ron was his constant whining and feeling sorry for himself and the petty behavior he exhibited at times despite other people having problems too. It felt very, "me, me, me" at times. I'm poor, I'm not as famous as my best friend, I get ignored, wah, wah. Yeah, well Harry could have whinged about having no parents, being abused for the first 11 years of his life (and let's be clear, the Dursleys abused that kid, no matter how light J.K. tried to write it at times) and of course his life always being in danger. But it wasn't until OOTP that we finally saw Harry have some type of emotional reaction to all the shit happening in his life. I know many hated all caps Harry but my unpopular opinion is that I loved it because I felt like it was the first time Harry seemed to be reacting like a normal person would with all the shit he'd been through. 

I guess for me, fair or not, Ron's problems seemed so much more minor than other issues happening in the book, it made me have little patience for his incessant whinging. Especially since despite them being so minor compared to all the larger shit to worry about, he just never seemed to shut the fuck about it. And then he was so damn petty at times, that I just couldn't. I hated the number of times he was a shit friend to Harry, the number of times he led the charge in mocking Hermione's intelligence while making use of it for his own benefit. Ron was okay enough but I hated how at one point it became about how much Ron didn't have, like things were so awful for him. I cannot tell you how many times I read that lame ass argument in support of the Hermione and Ron pairing - Ron is poor and not the chosen one and never wins anything so he can't lose the girl too, to his famous best friend. Like Hermione was some consolation prize to make Ron feel less inferior. Despite the fact that he's the one who ridiculed her constantly but oh sorry, it was all part of their deep and abiding passionate relationship.

Edited July 29, 2018 by truthaboutluv

[kathyk24]

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 9:40 AM, truthaboutluv said:

My issue with Ron was his constant whining and feeling sorry for himself and the petty behavior he exhibited at times despite other people having problems too. It felt very, "me, me, me" at times. I'm poor, I'm not as famous as my best friend, I get ignored, wah, wah. Yeah, well Harry could have whinged about having no parents, being abused for the first 11 years of his life (and let's be clear, the Dursleys abused that kid, no matter how light J.K. tried to write it at times) and of course his life always being in danger. But it wasn't until OOTP that we finally saw Harry have some type of emotional reaction to all the shit happening in his life. I know many hated all caps Harry but my unpopular opinion is that I loved it because I felt like it was the first time Harry seemed to be reacting like a normal person would with all the shit he'd been through. 

I guess for me, fair or not, Ron's problems seemed so much more minor than other issues happening in the book, it made me have little patience for his incessant whinging. Especially since despite them being so minor compared to all the larger shit to worry about, he just never seemed to shut the fuck about it. And then he was so damn petty at times, that I just couldn't. I hated the number of times he was a shit friend to Harry, the number of times he led the charge in mocking Hermione's intelligence while making use of it for his own benefit. Ron was okay enough but I hated how at one point it became about how much Ron didn't have, like things were so awful for him. I cannot tell you how many times I read that lame ass argument in support of the Hermione and Ron pairing - Ron is poor and not the chosen one and never wins anything so he can't lose the girl too, to his famous best friend. Like Hermione was some consolation prize to make Ron feel less inferior. Despite the fact that he's the one who ridiculed her constantly but oh sorry, it was all part of their deep and abiding passionate relationship.

I think you read my mind. I loved Harry trashing Dumbledore's office since it pointed out how stupid he was for leaving Harry in the care of a sadist. I hated Ron for walking away when they were camping. If Hermione had done that she would have been never able to live it down. I also don't believe that a high achiever like Hermione would be happy with a slacker like Ron. Ginny and Harry had a mutual love of Quiddich so they had something in common without involving Ron.

[Dr.OO7]

I thought Pippi Longstocking was a stupid, rude, annoying brat, a belief that's only heightened as I've gotten older.

I hated Elizabeth Wakefield and thought she was self-righteous to the point of cruelty.

[starri]

6 hours ago, Camille said:

I hated Elizabeth Wakefield and thought she was self-righteous to the point of cruelty.

She was a doormat and Jessica was a sociopath.

[Dr.OO7]

2 hours ago, starri said:

She was a doormat and Jessica was a sociopath.

That's true too.

[scarynikki12]

Jessica was a total sociopath but still way more fun than sanctimonious hypocritical asshat Elizabeth.

Lila was always my favorite Sweet Valley character anyway.

[Wiendish Fitch]

May I join the "Jessica and Elizabeth were equally horrible" table? I sometimes marvel at the garbage I read in my youth...

6 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

Jessica was a total sociopath but still way more fun than sanctimonious hypocritical asshat Elizabeth.

 

Elizabeth was also a hack writer with a lame boyfriend. 

[starri]

I guess I have the UO of the UO.  I wouldn't have voted to convict if Elizabeth had finally snapped and flat-out murdered Jessica.

Their romantic partners were the worst, though.  The only person who ended up with a decent guy was their brother.

[Wiendish Fitch]

38 minutes ago, starri said:

I guess I have the UO of the UO.  I wouldn't have voted to convict if Elizabeth had finally snapped and flat-out murdered Jessica.

 

Tee! That's more than fair. :)

Honestly, I don't know who bothered me more: sociopathic bimbo Jessica, or self-righteous drag Elizabeth. 

In retrospect, I think Elizabeth came off best in the Sweet Valley Twins series. One book where Elizabeth truly comes off as fully human and someone to root for (i.e. possessing the qualities the writers claim she has) is A Christmas Without Elizabeth (an obligatory It's a Wonderful Life ripoff). Not only does Elizabeth get some deluxe snarky lines, but her guardian angel calls her out on her crap (and Elizabeth, to her credit, grudgingly owns it).

Edited August 10, 2018 by Wiendish Fitch