Unpopular Opinions

[Pickles Aplenty]

On 8/17/2019 at 3:50 PM, slf said:

Amy earned that trip to Europe with Aunt March in Little Women.

I agree.  Also, Amy burning Jo's writing was pretty bad, but I don't think it makes her completely unlikable for the rest of the book.

[Wiendish Fitch]

2 hours ago, Billina said:

I agree.  Also, Amy burning Jo's writing was pretty bad, but I don't think it makes her completely unlikable for the rest of the book.

Burning Jo's manuscript was a shitty thing to do, but it is something a temperamental kid would do, so we can't hold it against Amy (heck, Jo didn't).

Edited August 19, 2019 by Wiendish Fitch

[peacheslatour]

2 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Burning Jo's manuscript was a shitty thing to do, but it is something a temperamental kid would do, so we can't hold it against Amy (heck, Jo didn't).

Plus she heartily regretted it. In fact, I think she and Jo were closer after that.

[slf]

And most adaptations kind of gloss over, or omit, that Jo knew the ice was thin and chose not to warn Amy in retaliation which is beyond awful. I hate that the argument always gets reduced to, "Amy burned her manuscript!" because while she does, yes, she's a young child and Jo did far worse. 

[Dr.OO7]

On 7/11/2019 at 5:55 PM, Mabinogia said:

I am such an ebook reader that when my friend lent me a book I went and bought it on kindle so I could read it. 

Whenever I read a physical book, anytime there's a word I don't recognize, I press my fingers to the page and can't understand why I'm not getting the dictionary pop-up.

[Dr.OO7]

I thought Sally J. Freedman was an annoying little brat, her mother was a hysteric and an idiot, and the both of them needed to be slapped.

[Snow Apple]

14 hours ago, Camille said:

Whenever I read a physical book, anytime there's a word I don't recognize, I press my fingers to the page and can't understand why I'm not getting the dictionary pop-up.

I've, unthinking, try to make the words and pictures bigger on physical paper books.

[LBS]

23 hours ago, Camille said:

I thought Sally J. Freedman was an annoying little brat, her mother was a hysteric and an idiot, and the both of them needed to be slapped.

That used to be my favorite book as a kid and I haven't thought of it in years!  Off to the library to check it out and see if my opinion changes!

[Snow Apple]

42 minutes ago, LBS said:

That used to be my favorite book as a kid and I haven't thought of it in years!  Off to the library to check it out and see if my opinion changes!

That's still one of my comfort books. I even notice a lot more details as an adult.

Her mother *was* a nervous nellie, but WWII ended not too long ago and she lost relatives. Her son also had health issues which made him secretive. I don't think she was too bad except being afraid to try new things.

[SmithW6079]

RE: "Little Women"

I thought Marmee was overbearing and manipulative with her daughters.

[dubbel zout]

RE: The Potterverse. STAHP, J.K. Rowling.

[Homily]

On 8/17/2019 at 6:50 PM, slf said:

Amy earned that trip to Europe with Aunt March in Little Women.

Yeah I never got the Amy hate that was certainly prevalent back when I was a kid and discovering Little Women for the first time.  Yes she got to marry the prize guy (not that there was a lot of competition) but only after Jo turned him down and all of them grew up a bit more and moved on with their lives.  Amy was a pretty normal kid really and turned out to be a nice woman.

On 8/20/2019 at 2:36 PM, Camille said:

I thought Sally J. Freedman was an annoying little brat, her mother was a hysteric and an idiot, and the both of them needed to be slapped.

The only Judy Blume books I liked were the Fudge books.  I couldn't stand her books aimed at tween girls - even when I was a tween girl.

[BookWoman56]

In retrospect, I find a lot of the YA books I read as a pre-teen or adolescent very preachy and much too directed at convincing girls that having sex one time would almost always result in pregnancy, saying absolutely nothing about the pros of using contraception, and implying to girls that even unplanned and unwanted pregnancies would ultimately lead them to end up in a marriage earlier than planned but a happy one. The two that come to mind are Too Bad About the Haines Girl and Mr. and Mrs. BoJo Jones. In the first one, a high school student gets pregnant, almost has an abortion (illegal at that time) but refuses because of the unsanitary conditions, and ultimately tells her parents that she's pregnant. They of course are completely supportive and understanding. In the second one, the girl gets pregnant and marries her BF, but their child dies when it is born prematurely. Everybody's parents then want them to separate and pursue their original plans of attending college, but they decide they really do love each other and end up in college housing for married students, poor but happy. 

And it's not that the books were completely unrealistic; there were arguments and hurt feelings, and concerns about money and crushed dreams. But I think about the people I knew who did get pregnant in high school and got married, and their reality was often quite different. There were parents who were horrified and threw their daughters out of the home, or forced them to go to homes for unwed mothers, or insisted on having a pro forma marriage with the father so the child wouldn't be illegitimate. There were parents who were convinced that the girl had gotten pregnant deliberately to trap their son, and harassed the girl. There were couples who got married because of an unplanned pregnancy and were divorced within a couple of years. I can think of exactly one girl from my high school whose path seemed to mirror what was in these books, and the last time I saw her she had two toddlers by age 20 and not the slightest expectation of ever having a paying job, when prior to the accidental pregnancy she'd been considered very bright and definitely planned on going to college. Who knows, maybe 5 years down the road she decided to get her GED or something and go to college, but I'll never forget the look on her face when I saw her last. She was looking at her two kids and she obviously loved them, but there was more than a hint of being resigned to a life quite different from what she'd envisioned just a few years prior to that. 

I know there are books now that give a more realistic and diverse view of sexuality in high school kids, the problems with marrying solely because of a pregnancy, emotionally abusive parents, and so forth; I also know that the books I read reflected some societal attitudes of that period. But I can't help feeling that with those books, and so many similarly themed books (don't go steady with someone because things will get too "serious;" don't be in a hurry to grow up because you should stay a child as long as possible, etc.), the intent was less to explore a character and more to be propaganda. 

[dubbel zout]

Those books also totally blamed the girl for getting pregnant. Ugh. The sperm didn't just magically get beamed into her vagina.

[LucidDreamer]

Apparently very unpopular opinion -- I liked Leigh Bardugo's first Grisha trilogy but I have never been able to get into SIX OF CROWS (or subsequently, CROOKED KINGDOM). Looking on Goodreads, it's obvious that these books are sooooo beloved by so many, but... I just don't like it when all the main characters are cruel, murderous, mean, etc. 

Honestly, I do not get the love for Kaz Brekker AT ALL. He's a jerk who's mean to his supposed friends, kills without remorse, and is all angsty all the time over HIS problems, (while other people in the book have equally bad or worse pasts). I just want to kick him in the teeth, but apparently he is the new "ideal" book boyfriend. Gah!

[Dr.OO7]

Putting aside the books rose-colored glasses view of slavery and Reconstruction days. . .

I don't hate Scarlett O'Hara.

[peacheslatour]

1 hour ago, Camille said:

Putting aside the books rose-colored glasses view of slavery and Reconstruction days. . .

I don't hate Scarlett O'Hara.

Neither do I. She was a product of her time and she did the best she could with the resources she had.

[HazelEyes4325]

2 hours ago, Camille said:

Putting aside the books rose-colored glasses view of slavery and Reconstruction days. . .

I don't hate Scarlett O'Hara.

I actually don't either.  I don't think she's a stellar human being, and she does do some supremely shitty things,  but damn if she isn't interesting!  I actually think she's one of the more fascinating characters in American Literature.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, Camille said:

Putting aside the books rose-colored glasses view of slavery and Reconstruction days. . .

I don't hate Scarlett O'Hara.

I always thought that Margaret Mitchell was making fun of the whole "Lost Cause" mythos with the book.  Scarlet has no time for any of that, she was too practical and had too many mouths to feed.  Scarlet had no idea that her husband and Ashley were involved with the Klan until it was too late.  I really felt like Frank's death while necessary to the plot was also a way for Margaret to poke fun at the Klan and the backwards thinking of its members.  

[Mabinogia]

4 hours ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

I actually don't either.  I don't think she's a stellar human being, and she does do some supremely shirtty things,  but damn if she isn't interesting!  I actually think she's one of the more fascinating characters in American Literature.

I'm pretty sure I would hate her if she were real and I had to interact with her on a daily basis, but yes, as a character, she if fascinating. For me she is possibly the greatest example of "you don't need to like the character to love the character". I loved reading her story though if she were a real person I don't think I'd like her at all. Maybe as a casual "see her once a year at the ball" kind of acquaintance, but if I had to deal with her to get my work done or something I might kill her. (metaphorically, I wouldn't do well in jail so I'm not killing anyone literally.) 

[proserpina65]

On ‎10‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 10:43 AM, Camille said:

Putting aside the books rose-colored glasses view of slavery and Reconstruction days. . .

I don't hate Scarlett O'Hara.

I don't hate her as a character.  As a real person, I probably would, but as a character she's fascinating.

[andromeda331]

Jo turning down Laurie in Little Women. I didn't like it the first time I read the book and watch the movie. But its something I've really come to like in countless re-reads and re-watching. Its not something you see often in books, TV or movies. Sure we see a lot of breaks up and turning down proposals. But that usually never lasts. Its usually the "problem" or conflict they have to over come. Whether its change like in Pride and Prejudice, or we were on a break or misunderstanding, miscommunication, something. Jo turning down Laurie and having it stick and her reason is still vary rare. She doesn't want to marry him. She loves him but not in the way of loving a spouse. She loves him like a best friend and/or brother. Its so rare. They do have a lot in common, they have a lot of fun together, been close for so many years and seem like they would be a perfect fit.  But she doesn't love him. She knows they would be miserable married. And she's not wrong. They both a have tempers and as adults its easier to see why they wouldn't work out and why Amy is a better choice for him. They both love the rich lifestyle, the balls, the clothes, everything. Jo doesn't she has zero interest in that. But because we see it so often. When we see rejected proposal in books, TV and movies. The woman/girl usually gets the endless why did you do that? That was stupid? Are you crazy? Friends and family trying hard to convince her that she made a mistake and we're use to them being right. That eventually he or she will figure it out and go try to get them back and does. No one ever accepts that she might have been right to reject the proposal. Months and years later they'll still be telling him or her that they made mistake and we are so use to that being the case. No matter how annoying that is or that they always end up being right. Or if it doesn't then there's always a bunch of signs that it'll never work out. But that doesn't happen here. At first yes her sisters are surprised which makes sense they've seen Jo and Laurie playing together, hanging out and being inseparable its not surprising their surprised. But Jo never changes her mind or regrets her decision. She's sad of course. She cries. She knows things will never be the same, their friendship won't go back to what it was before he proposed. But she never regrets it. When she goes off to New York she does well. She makes friends, writes her stories, and goes to the theater a lot. She's happy. Not secretly miserable, not trying to throw herself into life or bury her feelings or grief. She moves on with her life. Amy worries that Jo will but hurt and/or angry when she marries Laurie. But she's not. She's happy for them. Jo and Laurie restore or probably more correctly figure out what their relationship always was. Friends and family. Its so rare to see. Its also so rare for the reason that the girl turns the guy down is because she's not in love with him and it sticks. It would be nice to see a little more of that. Not every guy and girl who become friends, best friends end up falling in love. A lot remain friends.

Edited December 29, 2019 by andromeda331

[Wiendish Fitch]

34 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Jo turning down Laurie in Little Women. I didn't like it the first time I read the book and watch the movie. But its something I've really come to like in countless re-reads and re-watching. Its not something you see often in books, TV or movies. Sure we see a lot of breaks up and turning down proposals. But that usually never laughs. Its usually the "problem" or conflict they have to over come. Whether its change like in Pride and Prejudice, or we were on a break or misunderstanding, miscommunication, something. Jo turning down Laurie and having it stick and her reason is still vary rare. She doesn't want to marry him. She loves him but not in the way of loving a spouse. She loves him like a best friend and/or brother. Its so rare. They do have a lot in common, they have a lot of fun together, been close for so many years and seem like they would be a perfect fit.  But she doesn't love him. She knows they would be miserable married. And she's not wrong. They both a have tempers and as adults its easier to see why they wouldn't work out and why Amy is a better choice for him. They both love the rich lifestyle, the balls, the clothes, everything. Jo doesn't she has zero interest in that. But because we see it so often. When we see rejected proposal in books, TV and movies. The woman/girl usually gets the endless why did you do that? That was stupid? Are you crazy? Friends and family trying hard to convince her that she made a mistake and we're use to them being right. That eventually he or she will figure it out and go try to get them back and does. No one ever accepts that she might have been right to reject the proposal. Months and years later they'll still be telling him or her that they made mistake and we are so use to that being the case. No matter how annoying that is or that they always end up being right. Or if it doesn't then there's always a bunch of signs that it'll never work out. But that doesn't happen here. At first yes her sisters are surprised which makes senses they've seen Jo and Laurie playing together, hanging out and being inseparable its not surprising their surprised. But Jo never changes her mind or regrets her decision. She's sad of course. She cries. She knows things will never be the same, their friendship won't go back to what it was before he proposed. But she never regrets it. When she goes off to New York she does well. She makes friends, writes her stories, and goes to the theater a lot. She's happy. Not secretly miserable, not trying to throw herself into life or bury her feelings or grief. She moves on with her life. Amy worries that Jo will but hurt and/or angry when she marries Laurie. But she's not. She's happy for them. Jo and Laurie restore or probably more correctly figure out what their relationship always was. Friends and family. Its so rare to see. Its also so rare for the reason that the girl turns the guy down is because she's not in love with him and it sticks. It would be nice to see a little more of that. Not every guy and girl who become friends, best friends end up falling in love. A lot remain friends.

Excellent analysis, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I realize that Jo marrying Professor Bhaer has always been controversial, but it never bothered me that much. Granted, that could be my own bias talking (I'm married to a brainy German myself). I still think the best Professor Bhaer was in the 1994 film version (I love Gabriel Byrne).

[OtterMommy]

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Jo turning down Laurie in Little Women. I didn't like it the first time I read the book and watch the movie. But its something I've really come to like in countless re-reads and re-watching. 

I'm the same way.  Jo turning down Laurie is one of the best things in classic literature, in my mind.  When I first read the book as a tween, I was shocked by it and it took my a loooong time to forgive Amy for marrying him.  Now, I realize the best thing Jo did was turn down Laurie and, while I don't feel any need to forgive Amy, I do think she probably deserved better than Laurie.

Also, I just got back from seeing the new movie, which was fantastic--probably the best version I've seen.  However, it's definitely a movie for those who have read and loved the book.  My daughter, who is still working through the book (but has seen the musical and read a modern graphic version) was a bit lost in it.

[truthaboutluv]

I never cared about Jo turning down Laurie because I didn't ship Jo and Laurie, so it was like "eh, whatever". That said, it still didn't make me like him and Amy at the end and I still don't to this day. And it's not because I disliked Amy, it's just the whole thing read as creepy and pathetic as hell.

Weirdo neighbor boy obsessed with the March sisters and willing to take any one of them that would have him. Lucky for poor Beth that she passed because he'd have probably proposed to her too. And Alcott's own writing basically confirmed that's exactly what this was when Laurie himself gave his whole speech about feeling like it was his right to be a part of the March family.

Like I wasn't sure how I was supposed to feel about this. The whole thing just read as creepy as fuck to me. When I was a kid and first read the book, Laurie and Amy ending up together was a "huh, where did that come from" to me. It was as I got older and re-read that I grasped the full creepy and randomness of it. 

How I felt about Laurie and Amy is the same way I felt about Harry and Ginny in the Harry Potter series and felt like it in a sense was that same creepy obsession with a family and need to fully belong to said family. In the HP series case, that was of course the Weasleys. J.K. wrote it in such a way that at some point it felt like Harry and Hermione's whole identities became wrapped in having to become a full fledged Weasley. FOR WHY? 

That aspect of the series was where I saw the influence of the Classics on J.K.'s writing because it was very Romantic/Victorian period.  Except we were supposed to believe the Harry Potter series existed in the 90s. And as much as I didn't understand or empathize or connect with Laurie's creepy ass obsession with the March sisters, I wasn't here for the everyone becomes a Weasley shit in the Harry Potter series either.

Edited December 28, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[Black Knight]

I was upset as a kid at Jo and Laurie not getting together, but I was only about ten at the time and it was the first novel I read, I think, where romances were part of the story. Now I appreciate the writing choice.

I only wish Alcott had been able to take it all the way; instead, her publisher insisted that Jo be married by the end. Jo was Alcott's stand-in, and Alcott herself was a lesbian who never married.

Alcott did get to, in the third and fourth books, write another Jo-like character, and this time not marry her off. The final book closes with the assurance that Nan stayed unmarried just as she'd always wanted. She became a doctor.

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, Black Knight said:

I was upset as a kid at Jo and Laurie not getting together, but I was only about ten at the time and it was the first novel I read, I think, where romances were part of the story. Now I appreciate the writing choice.

I only wish Alcott had been able to take it all the way; instead, her publisher insisted that Jo be married by the end. Jo was Alcott's stand-in, and Alcott herself was a lesbian who never married.

Alcott did get to, in the third and fourth books, write another Jo-like character, and this time not marry her off. The final book closes with the assurance that Nan stayed unmarried just as she'd always wanted. She became a doctor.

I wish she had too. Jo never showed any interest in marriage. Meg and Amy yes but not Jo. She wasn't interested. That was half the reason I never bought her relationship with Bhaer. She never seemed interested in him more then a friend. She seems like she'd be happiest writing, reading, going to the theater and other things, having a circle of friends and family. Probably traveling. In the book when she had enough money she took Beth to the beach. That seemed to fit more. I could see her taking more trip sometimes with friends or family and other times on her own. I wish they had kept her single. The other half I didn't like him being so dismissive of the stories she wrote for one as she pointed out those stories paid. She needed the money to support herself and send money home. But even without that Jo loved writing those kinds of stories. She had so much fun writing them and they sound like great stories. 

[Ohiopirate02]

On 12/28/2019 at 8:32 PM, LucindaWalsh said:

My UO is that I avoid everything on Oprah's list. And now I have found out that I also have to avoid Reese Witherspoon's list. Can't remember the book title but it was about a woman who befriends another woman and wrecks her life but in reality nothing is as it seems. The premise was okay but the writing was all kinds of dumbed down dreck. I later found out it was a RW recommended book. She lavished praise up the wazoo over it. Only made me think that she is not very bright nor does she value depth in a book. 

 

I have never actually seen a great well-rounded literary celebrity book club.  Oprah, Reese, Jenna Bush Hager, even Emma Watson all have in my opinion disappointing book club selections.  All of their book clubs are designed to highlight Big 5 published authors in order to sell more books.  Most of the authors they pick will sell thousands of copies without the endorsement.  Colson Whitehead did not need Oprah's endorsement for The Underground Railroad nor does Jojo Moyes needs Reese's.  They are not choosing authors from small presses or self-published authors, nor are any of the books doing anything to shake up the status quo.  Rarely do they choose a book by a queer author, or a graphic novel, or push the non-hearing impaired reader to try an audiobook, or a novel in translation, etc.  

 

[Wiendish Fitch]

I didn't like Looking for Alaska. I get- and greatly appreciate- what John Green was going for (a parable about not idealizing people, and not designating the girl you like as your Manic Pixie Dream Girl), but I feel that in the end...

Spoiler

 

He seems to go back on it, and that Alaska is just Miles's MPDG after all, because he dramatically claims he'll always love her, and she died taking flowers to her mom's grave. Okay, first off, Miles knew Alaska for a few months at the most, she wasn't his girlfriend at all (they were both with other people), and they kinda sorta fooled around once. Second, Alaska's death is indeed tragic, it shouldn't have happened, and she definitely had some serious issues that needed attention... but in spite of the Colonel calling Miles out for idealizing her, it feels like the book goes ahead and does that, anyway. Third, I hated Miles's snotty essay that takes adults to task about mocking teens for thinking they're invincible, then saying that they (teens) are, because they're not afraid to try and fail, they're not old and afraid like us mean adults.

I call bull. Lots of teenagers are afraid to try things, and Alaska's death is proof positive that no one is invincible, even teenagers. I mean, I sometimes welcome narratives where kids are right and adults are wrong, but I feel John Green muffed this one.

 

 

[Athena]

5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I didn't like Looking for Alaska. I get- and greatly appreciate- what John Green was going for (a parable about not idealizing people, and not designating the girl you like as your Manic Pixie Dream Girl), but I feel that in the end...

  Hide contents

 

He seems to go back on it, and that Alaska is just Miles's MPDG after all, because he dramatically claims he'll always love her, and she died taking flowers to her mom's grave. Okay, first off, Miles knew Alaska for a few months at the most, she wasn't his girlfriend at all (they were both with other people), and they kinda sorta fooled around once. Second, Alaska's death is indeed tragic, it shouldn't have happened, and she definitely had some serious issues that needed attention... but in spite of the Colonel calling Miles out for idealizing her, it feels like the book goes ahead and does that, anyway. Third, I hated Miles's snotty essay that takes adults to task about mocking teens for thinking they're invincible, then saying that they (teens) are, because they're not afraid to try and fail, they're not old and afraid like us mean adults.

I call bull. Lots of teenagers are afraid to try things, and Alaska's death is proof positive that no one is invincible, even teenagers. I mean, I sometimes welcome narratives where kids are right and adults are wrong, but I feel John Green muffed this one.

 

 

I agree. I read The Fault in the Stars and then Looking for Alaska. I get on some level why teenagers like his style, and the former is better than the latter because of the points you've made. Alaska was too much of a cipher and MPDG. Miles was a bit too Holden Caulfield at times. I didn't get the hype and have basically not read John Green since. 

[truthaboutluv]

Completely agree with both of these posts. Read Looking for Alaska and Paper Towns and DID NOT GET IT. And I thought both were essentially the same damn story. Guy idolizes girl he barely knows, places her on some ridiculous pedestal. Seems to eventually come to a realization that he didn't really know her and no, she's not this super amazing being he thought, only to regress and decide to still be obsessed at the end. The whole thing is so tedious and repetitive.

[OtterMommy]

4 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Completely agree with both of these posts. Read Looking for Alaska and Paper Towns and DID NOT GET IT. And I thought both were essentially the same damn story. Guy idolizes girl he barely knows, places her on some ridiculous pedestal. Seems to eventually come to a realization that he didn't really know her and no, she's not this super amazing being he thought, only to regress and decide to still be obsessed at the end. The whole thing is so tedious and repetitive.

My brother has quite the take on John Green, with which I completely agree.  "His books are seas of mediocrity with only the occasional buoy of excellence."  

I read The Fault in Our Stars and Paper Towns, and couldn't really get on board with either one of them.  My niece (the daughter of above mentioned brother) steered me away from Looking for Alaska.  I believe she thought that I wasn't cool enough to understand John Green's genius.  I had to remind myself that she was 17 at the time and no one over 18 is cool enough for a 17 year old.

[Anduin]

Brandon Sanderson. I've tried a few times over the years, both in print and audio. It's just the bloody terrible characters and performances in the audio version of Way of Kings. He seems to be a pretty decent guy, and I want to enjoy his stuff. A prolific writer of epic fantasy is right up my alley. But ultimately, it has never clicked for me.

[SophiaD]

I have never understood the point or the meaning of "Is That You, Miss Blue?"  

Phyllis Anderson Wood should be much more broadly read.  "I've Missed a Sunset or Three" is a great depiction of adolescent depression, especially from a male lead's POV - although his issues are resolved a bit too effortlessly.  

(These aren't necessarily unpopular, I've just never heard them expressed one way or another!)

[Blergh]

Wuthering Heights: Instead of just making the tiniest asides to Hareton Earnshaw's budding romance with the widowed Cathy Linton Heathcliff with them being engaged (with the certainty that HE would be master of both estates via being her husband due to the same legalities that Heathcliff had used  to orginally deprive  Cathy[his daughter-in-law] of the entirety of her father's inheritance) and Cathy teaching Hareton literacy via flirtation while going into excruciating detail before/ and AFTER this postscript  got mentioned of Heathcliff's decline, death then being believed by the locals to be reunited with Catherine Earnshaw Linton afterwards, I wish Emily Brontë had expanded on Hareton's and Cathy's growth and renewal. It would have been great if she had perhaps even had written a sequel about their lives together with Hareton making the joint holdings (that Heathcliff had ruined for his own angst), a thriving, happy community AND Hareton being a bridge between the gentry and the laborers since he had been both all along (as well these Earnshaws as being the progenitors of a large family and living to ripe,healthy old ages). 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Blergh

[Anduin]

A few more fantasy authors whose works I don't like. Robert Jordan, Patrick Rothfuss, Joe Abercrombie, Tad Williams, Scott Lynch, Neal Stephenson, Steven Erikson. Outside of Lynch, they all seem like perfectly good people. I'd happily hang out with them, talk about all kinds of subjects. Just don't force me to read their books again.

I know I should try a few more books from authors who aren't white men. However, I am and my top four favourite are, so that's why I keep returning to the same well.

[Katy M]

On 6/4/2020 at 9:52 AM, Blergh said:

Wuthering Heights: Instead of just making the tiniest asides to Hareton Earnshaw's budding romance with the widowed Cathy Linton Heathcliff with them being engaged (with the certainty that HE would be master of both estates via being her husband due to the same legalities that Heathcliff had used  to orginally deprive  Cathy[his daughter-in-law] of the entirety of her father's inheritance) and Cathy teaching Hareton literacy via flirtation while going into excruciating detail before/ and AFTER this postscript  got mentioned of Heathcliff's decline, death then being believed by the locals to be reunited with Catherine Earnshaw Linton afterwards, I wish Emily Brontë had expanded on Hareton's and Cathy's growth and renewal. It would have been great if she had perhaps even had written a sequel about their lives together with Hareton making the joint holdings (that Heathcliff had ruined for his own angst), a thriving, happy community AND Hareton being a bridge between the gentry and the laborers since he had been both all along (as well these Earnshaws as being the progenitors of a large family and living to ripe,healthy old ages). 

The book was about Heathcliff and Cathy senior, not Hareton and Cathy Jr.  I think we got a good enough glimpse.  As for writing a sequel, I don't thinkshe had time before she died.

[Vanderboom]

The Weasley Twins were not funny, and Molly Weasley's characterization was weird.

Throughout the series, readers are constantly being reminded that Molly's biggest fear is that Voldemort and his followers will kill her family.  She's already lost her brothers and can't bear the idea of losing her children. Yet she doesn't seem to worry about Ron's adventures with Harry, which are increasingly life-threatening. She even seems to favor Harry over Ron; l get that she wants to be compassionate toward Harry,  but what about Ron's safety? In the Final Battle,  it seems as if losing Fred wasn't nearly as important to Molly as almost losing Ginny.

[Gif of people dancing under a sign that says "What up with that?"]

[proserpina65]

On ‎08‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 10:15 PM, Anduin said:

A few more fantasy authors whose works I don't like. Robert Jordan, Patrick Rothfuss, Joe Abercrombie, Tad Williams, Scott Lynch, Neal Stephenson, Steven Erikson. Outside of Lynch, they all seem like perfectly good people. I'd happily hang out with them, talk about all kinds of subjects. Just don't force me to read their books again.

I know I should try a few more books from authors who aren't white men. However, I am and my top four favourite are, so that's why I keep returning to the same well.

I liked the first book in Jordan's The Wheel of Time series, but found no reason why it should have one sequel, let alone a gazillion.

On ‎08‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 7:56 AM, Vanderboom said:

The Weasley Twins were not funny, and Molly Weasley's characterization was weird.

Throughout the series, readers are constantly being reminded that Molly's biggest fear is that Voldemort and his followers will kill her family.  She's already lost her brothers and can't bear the idea of losing her children. Yet she doesn't seem to worry about Ron's adventures with Harry, which are increasingly life-threatening. She even seems to favor Harry over Ron; l get that she wants to be compassionate toward Harry,  but what about Ron's safety? In the Final Battle,  it seems as if losing Fred wasn't nearly as important to Molly as almost losing Ginny.

[Gif of people dancing under a sign that says "What up with that?"]

Aw, I thought the twins were very funny.  But I agree about Molly.

(You can't go wrong with What Up With That?, however.)

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't know if this is unpopular (I couldn't find a thread for it and wouldn't know what title to use), but I know that I seem to be the only one these kinds of...mistakes/lack of continuity, go stabby. I'm talking about books that are connected or a series. When an author tells me a character has black hair and blue eyes, I expect that character or characters to still have black hair and blue eyes when they show up again in future books! And no, the change in hair color isn't due to coloring their hair! It's like they don't remember or know how they set up the characteristics of their characters. It drives me NUTS. For those authors that have copy editors, I say fire 'em and find one who will take the trouble to read the previous books to make sure they're aren't any continuity gaffes, either! Like how many years have passed between books, and that the characters haven't been SORAS'D* or DE-SORAS'D.

*Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome

[Anduin]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't know if this is unpopular (I couldn't find a thread for it and wouldn't know what title to use), but I know that I seem to be the only one these kinds of...mistakes/lack of continuity, go stabby. I'm talking about books that are connected or a series. When an author tells me a character has black hair and blue eyes, I expect that character or characters to still have black hair and blue eyes when they show up again in future books! And no, the change in hair color isn't due to coloring their hair! It's like they don't remember or know how they set up the characteristics of their characters. It drives me NUTS. For those authors that have copy editors, I say fire 'em and find one who will take the trouble to read the previous books to make sure they're aren't any continuity gaffes, either! Like how many years have passed between books, and that the characters haven't been SORAS'D* or DE-SORAS'D.

*Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome

I used to have straight blond hair and blue eyes. My hair curled, turned light brown and then grey. My eyes are more green these days.

Actually, yeah. Given the prevalence of wikis and superfans, the biggest authors shouldn't screw up like that. I know GRRM has a couple of superfans he contacts for fact-checking.

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, Anduin said:

I used to have straight blond hair and blue eyes. My hair curled, turned light brown and then grey. My eyes are more green these days.

That's different. I was born with pitch black hair. It turned a light brown with reddish highlights, when I was four; then black again when I went through puberty.

I'm talking about ADULTS, in these books! Historicals! Characters I met when they were 10 at the youngest! The eye color is a confuzzling mess in and of itself. I can tell this one particular author looooves having grey eyes/black hair for her heroes. Even when his parents have green (Mum) and his father, blue. The biggest stabby factor for me is when the author makes a HUUUUUGE deal about the color of eyes, and then changes them in the next book where the character returns as a follow up. As the previous book was THEIR story.

So, Proud, ANAL-RETENTIVE me, when reading, just imagines them with the ORIGINAL description said author gave them.

[Anduin]

2 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

That's different. I was born with pitch black hair. It turned a light brown with reddish highlights, when I was four; then black again when I went through puberty.

I'm talking about ADULTS, in these books! Historicals! Characters I met when they were 10 at the youngest! The eye color is a confuzzling mess in and of itself. I can tell this one particular author looooves having grey eyes/black hair for her heroes. Even when his parents have green (Mum) and his father, blue. The biggest stabby factor for me is when the author makes a HUUUUUGE deal about the color of eyes, and then changes them in the next book where the character returns as a follow up. As the previous book was THEIR story.

So, Proud, ANAL-RETENTIVE me, when reading, just imagines them with the ORIGINAL description said author gave them.

Oh no, I had blue eyes into adulthood. I only noticed a change in my 30s. But yeah, I take your point. I know authors forget things, everyone does. But they should really go back and look them up. Otherwise it's sloppy work.

[dubbel zout]

Or just keep a master style sheet in the files to add to/send along. It's not that hard.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Or just keep a master style sheet in the files to add to/send along. It's not that hard.

Especially since most of the books are released within months of each other. Which means the author wrote them all within the same period. Just whip out the master sheet if you're spacing out the books on a yearly basis. Two of the authors that I read that did this--one changing the hair color (and she was very sweet and did a D'OH! Brain Seizure comment back to me), and the other author was when she made the hero age up four years when only a year had passed in the timeline. I met her at Nora's book signing last September, but she was very gracious and admitted she's terrible at continuity (which, she generally really isn't except for this new series and one earlier one, where she had the hero of the first trilogy age 10 years in a three year period! (Bow Runners series)).

Now, I wasn't obnoxious when I asked her about it and pointed it out. She laughed and then let me get a few pictures with her.

I know how to read a room, er, know if I can ask the question!

Sherrilyn Kenyon is also an author I used to read and I met her at several signings. When she asked what I thought, well, I let her know that I thought that Nick was a big, giant, whining sack of shit, and why doesn't he die already? (from her Dark Hunter series). This was back in 2007. All her other sycophantic fans gasped as if I'd uttered the worst sort of Blasphemy.

Sherrilyn? She signed the books to me as being "the most honest fan" While I stopped reading her because she decided one of the WORST characters, evil, narcissistic, deserved his own story and happy ever after by writing an anthology that his previous life he was a poor and honest warrior who was murdered. Nope. Uh-uh. No WAY. Bad enough one of the better villains was turned into a whiny manboy with Daddy issues when she wrote his story. But I still read the earlier stuff, which was and is still pretty good. And she's a NICE person.

[peacheslatour]

6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't know if this is unpopular (I couldn't find a thread for it and wouldn't know what title to use), but I know that I seem to be the only one these kinds of...mistakes/lack of continuity, go stabby. I'm talking about books that are connected or a series. When an author tells me a character has black hair and blue eyes, I expect that character or characters to still have black hair and blue eyes when they show up again in future books! And no, the change in hair color isn't due to coloring their hair! It's like they don't remember or know how they set up the characteristics of their characters. It drives me NUTS. For those authors that have copy editors, I say fire 'em and find one who will take the trouble to read the previous books to make sure they're aren't any continuity gaffes, either! Like how many years have passed between books, and that the characters haven't been SORAS'D* or DE-SORAS'D.

*Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome

I'm even pickier, I go nearly ballistic if the illustrator gets the details wrong. At least read the fucking book if you're hired to illustrate or do the cover art.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Especially since most of the books are released within months of each other. Which means the author wrote them all within the same period. Just whip out the master sheet if you're spacing out the books on a yearly basis. Two of the authors that I read that did this--one changing the hair color (and she was very sweet and did a D'OH! Brain Seizure comment back to me), and the other author was when she made the hero age up four years when only a year had passed in the timeline. I met her at Nora's book signing last September, but she was very gracious and admitted she's terrible at continuity (which, she generally really isn't except for this new series and one earlier one, where she had the hero of the first trilogy age 10 years in a three year period! (Bow Runners series)).

Now, I wasn't obnoxious when I asked her about it and pointed it out. She laughed and then let me get a few pictures with her.

I know how to read a room, er, know if I can ask the question!

Sherrilyn Kenyon is also an author I used to read and I met her at several signings. When she asked what I thought, well, I let her know that I thought that Nick was a big, giant, whining sack of shit, and why doesn't he die already? (from her Dark Hunter series). This was back in 2007. All her other sycophantic fans gasped as if I'd uttered the worst sort of Blasphemy.

Sherrilyn? She signed the books to me as being "the most honest fan" While I stopped reading her because she decided one of the WORST characters, evil, narcissistic, deserved his own story and happy ever after by writing an anthology that his previous life he was a poor and honest warrior who was murdered. Nope. Uh-uh. No WAY. Bad enough one of the better villains was turned into a whiny manboy with Daddy issues when she wrote his story. But I still read the earlier stuff, which was and is still pretty good. And she's a NICE person.

I admire your guts to to tell her what you thought. There's a few authors I'd liked to do that. Not to be mean but just to be honest and/or ask questions on why they did certain things. But I'm not sure I'd ever do that in person.

[DearEvette]

7 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Or just keep a master style sheet in the files to add to/send along. It's not that hard.

I think it was Nalini Singh, an author who writes several long running Urban Fantasy and Paranormal romance series, who spoke about the very extensive and intricate bible she keeps on her characters for her series. And I believe her.  Her characters in her books are from every race and background all over the world.  In her Psy/Changeling series, there is a character who first appears in about the second book as a fairly minor-ish character and there is a throwaway line about him that as you read you wouldn't even pick it up it was so throw away.  Fast forward to book #12 and he is a huge, major character and that tiny little throw away line from book 2 becomes a huge plot point in his book. It wasn't til I went back and re-read from the start that I picked up on the little line and realized it's significance.  I love stuff like that.

I love it when you are reading a series and you are five or six books in an things start to click from the earlier books and you realize the author had a plan and it is starting to pay off.  It is like following a treasure map.  Another author that did that with one of their series was Lynn Viehl and her Darkyn series.  I got to book #5 and a light-bulb went off and I was like "ok... It all makes sense now!!'

OTIOH, you notice real quick when they don't and they are making up shit as they go along.

 

5 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

But I still read the earlier stuff, which was and is still pretty good. And she's a NICE person

It sounds like you have some pretty good luck with your in-person meetings with authors?  That is cool.  I think my unpopular opinion (not sure if it is) but as much as I adore an author's work (I have a long list or authors who I have loved most of their bibliography) I have no desire to meet or interact with them.  I get weirded out if they even comment on a goodreads review and I have had several do so.  I will say the ones who have commented, even on the negative reviews have been very nice.  But still I see one and go GAH!  On the upside, one author loved my review of her first book so much she sent me ARCs of all the rest in the series whenever a new book came out. With no expectation of a good review. 

[auntlada]

30 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I love it when you are reading a series and you are five or six books in an things start to click from the earlier books and you realize the author had a plan and it is starting to pay off.  It is like following a treasure map.

This is why I didn't like when they renumbered the books in The Chronicles of Narnia. It was nice to get to later books and read something and think, "That's how that got there!"

[dubbel zout]

4 minutes ago, auntlada said:

This is why I didn't like when they renumbered the books in The Chronicles of Narnia. It was nice to get to later books and read something and think, "That's how that got there!"

I first read the books in the original order, and then once they renumbered them, I reread them that way. I really liked stuff coming up later—even a book or two later—rather than everything in correct chronological order. Each book can stand alone the way it is, IMO.