Unpopular Opinions

[wallflower75]

*cough*

 

*steps up to microphone and clears throat*

 

Um...my unpopular opinion is that I don't like Little Women anymore.  I read the book a long, long time ago and thought it was okay.  I watched the movie with Winona Ryder and loved it.  Recently, however, I listened to the audiobook and barely made it through.  The book is so preachy and pretentious--it seemed like every other chapter ended with a sermon.  I haven't seen the movie since finishing the book, but I really hope it doesn't ruin my feelings for the movie, because I loved it so much.  But I know I won't read the book ever again.

 

*runs away from rotten tomatoes*

[Brn2bwild]

I agree that Little Women is overrated.  It has some nice moments, but not only does it have that totally unnecessary "Americans are better than British people" chapter, but it also has that huge, tedious section on Daisy and Demi, aka "Girls are always good and boring and Boys are always mischievous and interesting."  

 

The 1994 movie basically took everything that was good about the book and also threw in some real-life details about the Alcott family, elevating it above the source material, in my opinion.

[Crs97]

My UO is that I cannot stand dystopian literature. I blame it on my sophomore year of HS when I had to read Animal Farm, 1984, and Farenheit 451 back to back to back. We also read Red Badge of Courage that year. Yep, lots of laughs in that class.

I enjoyed Gone Girl, but I never thought of it as anything more than a beach read. I cannot believe people were trying to equate Amy and Nick. She was beyond compare, and I am firmly in the camp that he stayed only for the baby.

Wuthering Heights is a horrible book, and I judge harshly anyone who tells me it is romantic in any way. I feel the same way about The Scarlet Letter.

When I was 16 I decided I should spend the summer reading the classics. I started with The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. I stopped after those two.

Shakespeare and Jane Austen - always and forever

[Brn2bwild]

 

When I was 16 I decided I should spend the summer reading the classics. I started with The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. I stopped after those two.

 

J.D. Salinger is beyond overrated.

[Sharpie66]

If you guys think that Little Women is preachy, try reading any number of her other books, like Jack and Jill or Eight Cousins. I actually like Eight Cousins in small doses, but it does get bogged down in her dissertations on the proper way to teach young girls.

[Sandman87]

When I was 16 I decided I should spend the summer reading the classics. I started with The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. I stopped after those two.

Lucky. My sophomore year high school English teacher decided that we didn't have enough angst in our lives, and proceeded to inflict stuff like Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies on us. I can't help but wonder how many of my classmates were turned off of reading forever by the experience.

[Kris223]

Don't forget Ethan Frome. Maybe there should be a topic - books we had to read in high school that could've turned us off from reading entirely.

 

And I don't know if this is unpopular or not, but I really didn't like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - the book or the movie.

[psychoticstate]

Lord of the Flies and 1984 . . . I thought both were excessively overrated.  I had to read both for high school and I think that's why I strayed from the classics for a while.

 

I remember reading I Never Promised You a Rose Garden in high school and it made my brain hurt.  I am stymied that it's considered a classic.

[Jamoche]

I read an abridged version of Little Women, then tried to read the unabridged version and bounced hard. Sounds like it got - and needed! - the Princess Bride "good parts" treatment.

[Melgaypet]

Wuthering Heights is a horrible book, and I judge harshly anyone who tells me it is romantic in any way. I feel the same way about The Scarlet Letter.

 

I love Wuthering Heights. It's one of my favorite books, but do I give major side-eye to anyone who raves about it as a love story. Talk about missing the point! It's a horror story.

 

It's actually kind of weird that I love that book so much, since I usually hate books where no one is likable, and is there ever a dearth of sympathetic characters in Wuthering Heights. But I guess the writing just sucks me in.

 

The Scarlet Letter, on the other hand, is just incredibly dull. I feel the same way about anything by Dickens, especially Great Expectations. We did that book for sophomore English class and oy. Painful. I never thought I'd hate a book so much until college and Heart of Darkness. That book is the absolute worst, but I don't know that that's an unpopular opinion. I've never actually met anyone who honestly liked it.

[kikaha]

My UO: with a few exceptions, I have never liked novels written by women.  (I'm a man.)  The male characters rarely come across as real to me; and the plots/action rarely suck me in. 

 

Notable exceptions:  Joy Luck left me crying by the end... and Octavia Butler's Patternmaster series fills me with awe for the soaring ideas and beautiful writing.  Oh, and I liked Interview with the Vampire.

[FozzyBear]

I caved and started reading Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin. I don't read a lot of chick lit, so this is a first for me. Anyway, the character of Rachel doesn't make much sense to me. She is a thirty year old lawyer living in Manhattan, yet she is completely and utterly passive when it comes to her dating life, and really seems to hate the woman who is supposed to be her best friend of some twenty-odd years. You would think the type of woman who had the balls to climb the ladder and become a successful lawyer wouldn't be such a wuss when it came to her social life. Also, she seems to be the only woman on earth who values men for their personalities, rather then their good looks; Darcy is constantly telling her to go out with hot guys, and so is every other female friend she has. None of them can wrap their heads around why she would prefer a guy with a great personality who doesn't look perfect, Rachel is the only woman around who isn't shallow and re-living her sophomore year of high school. What the hell? Is this an attempt on Giffin's part to give Rachel some sort of depth? Because it's contrived and lame and not realistic, at all. Again, this character is a total mystery to me.

Don't even get me started on Dex. Douchebag. I know I'm supposed to root for this guy, but it took him all of two drinks to fuck Rachel behind his fiance's back, so you know he's the kind of sleaze who secretly had it churning in his brain for quite some time. But no, he's the perfect man! BARF.

Oh you poor dear. Put the book down and run. Run very fast. It only gets worse.

Here's a big UO. I don't like The Diary of Anne Frank. Now wait, stop damning me to hell. I get it. I get why it's an important book. I get why it's an important artifact of a huge event in history and why it gets assigned and why everyone should read it at least once. But as just a book without any historical baggage attached. No, not so much. It reads like what it is to me, a teenage girl's diary. It can get slow, and self involved, and whiny, and just plain boring. Like a real diary, which it is so I get that this is an odd criticism, but I don't enjoy reading it. It's my general problem with the entire diary/letters/memoirs genre. Huge history buff I may be, but I just think most of them don't make very good books on their own. Better to place them in a book than make them the whole book.

[wanderingstar]

The Scarlet Letter, on the other hand, is just incredibly dull.

 

 

I love the Scarlet Letter, but I never think of it as romantic. It's reads more like a slow-burn psychological thriller to me.

[nodorothyparker]

I don't like The Diary of Anne Frank. Now wait, stop damning me to hell. I get it. I get why it's an important book. I get why it's an important artifact of a huge event in history and why it gets assigned and why everyone should read it at least once. But as just a book without any historical baggage attached. No, not so much. It reads like what it is to me, a teenage girl's diary. It can get slow, and self involved, and whiny, and just plain boring. Like a real diary, which it is so I get that this is an odd criticism, but I don't enjoy reading it. It's my general problem with the entire diary/letters/memoirs genre. Huge history buff I may be, but I just think most of them don't make very good books on their own.

 

This is exactly how I've always felt about it as well.  I absolutely understand its importance historically but I just don't find it particularly interesting reading.  While the family's story is indeed interesting, the ramblings of a teenage girl about it often just aren't.  I've always felt like I'm supposed to feel bad because I don't think it's just amazing.  I caught hell from at least a couple of friends for only giving it I think two stars on Goodreads.

[Brn2bwild]

Reminds me of this really good TV movie several years ago about the Frank family (Ben Kingsley played the father).  It portrayed their life from the time before they went into hiding until after they were caught and sent to camps.  By the time the father is given the pages of Anne's diary, he just throws them up in the air, because what's the fucking point of some pages his daughter wrote when she's dead?  It's interesting to see her in-the-moment thoughts about her situation, but more interesting to get a fuller perspective about the family from other sources. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Brn2bwild

[Pickles Aplenty]

My people.  I stopped reading The Diary of Anne Frank halfway through because it just didn't keep my interest.  I was sure that a special seat in hell would be reserved for me for doing so, but now I know I'm not alone.

[GaT]

These few posts remind me of the Seinfeld episode where everyone is scandalized that Jerry was making out with a girl during Schindler's List :-)

[Qoass]

I am reminded of the time I loaned an anthology of women's memoirs to a co-worker which included a good portion of The Diary of Anne Frank.  After reading, she confessed to me that she had never known that Anne died at the end.  Spoiler alert?

[Snow Apple]

I read The Diary of Anne Frank several times as a youngster and was really into it. When I reread it as an adult, I was had the same reaction as above. There were interesting passages, but mostly I was bored. If I read about Anne and the others, I prefer biographies and I remember liking Miep Gies's book and her version of events.

[potatoradio]

I really, really hated The Secret Life of Bees and The Help. I found them both chock full of stereotypes (black and white)/stock characters and either purple prose (SLOB) or really flat, boring language (the Help). Can't remember which one kept getting compared to To Kill a Mockingbird, but that comparison absolutely fried my noodle.  Sit the f*ck down with that BS. At least The Help tried to inject a little humor here and there, but it just came off as ridiculous and stupid, while SLOB was so pretentious I gritted my teeth until I finished and then promptly took it to the used bookstore to sell for fifty cents.

 

 

 

I haven't cared for a single Jodi Picoult book I've read.  There, I said it.

 

Can I sit at your table? I've tried to read her books as mild entertainment and they don't even provide that, they're so badly written and the characters are so flat. I couldn't stand the author herself after reading an interview where she described how many readers were just in love with her detective character and how enthralled she was with him, too -- um, OK, so you're a cliche in real life, too? Awesome! Because I've NEVER seen an emotionally damaged cop become the unattainable romantic interest of lonely women. Original, Jodi. 

 

I think, as pure entertainment, Joy Fielding amazes me. Her characters are not exactly 3-D, but they have some vulnerabilities and real quirks that at least make them engaging. And her plots keep me guessing and her writing is decent - I'm not tripping over sixteen adjectives or reading six pages of exposition about a character or a plot.

 

 

I think it's prejudice against her obsessive fans rather than against the author herself.

 

I am guilty of refusing to read books because obsessive fans tell me I'm not fit for writing society unless I do so. Therefore, I will resist reading Alice Munro, Jane Smiley and any more Louise Erdrich unless I find myself stranded in an airport on a long layover and it's a choice between one of those and, say, Jodi Picoult.

 

I thought the Weasley family in the Harry Potter series was pretty annoying, not warm and goofy as they were supposed to be. And what did Hermione see in Ron? Talk about settling...sheesh...

 

 

 

 

 

[Anna Yolei]

The HP epilogue got mentioned, and I'd have to say in retrospect. ..it really doesn't bug. My biggest complaint about Harry and Ginny as a couple was that Ginny never got a really flesh out personality so it was hard to figure why Harry HAD to date her; nor do I consider that throwaway line in book two about Ginny having a crush to be any kind of reason to pair them up at the end. But given all they've been through, it's not a surprise that Harry and Hermione would marry into the Weasley family.

That, and it's a kids' book about wizards taking down a sociopath, so the romance was of tertiary importance to me anyway, espevially when Harry has defeted the baddie anyway.

[Kris223]

potatoradio I didn't really like The Help either. It was compared to To Kill a Mockingbird? Seriously?

[psychoticstate]

Can I sit at your table? I've tried to read her books as mild entertainment and they don't even provide that, they're so badly written and the characters are so flat. I couldn't stand the author herself after reading an interview where she described how many readers were just in love with her detective character and how enthralled she was with him, too -- um, OK, so you're a cliche in real life, too? Awesome! Because I've NEVER seen an emotionally damaged cop become the unattainable romantic interest of lonely women. Original, Jodi.

 

 

Yes, come join me!   I have not heard of the interview you mentioned but now I can say that not only do I not care for Jodi Picoult's books but she now annoys me in general too. 

 

I am guilty of refusing to read books because obsessive fans tell me I'm not fit for writing society unless I do so.

 

 

I am with you there.  Back in the day, I worked part time at B&N.  My skin would literally crawl with all the women that came in to buy that stupid, brainless book "The Rules" . . . because Oprah said everyone should.  I actually begged people NOT to buy it because it was such crap.  Not one person elected not to buy it after my warning but a few people did bring it back because (wait for it) it was a piece of crap. 

 

I am absolutely not kidding when I say that some people would come in to get Oprah's newest recommended book and would have no idea what the title was or who the author was.  Once I got "well, it's a blue book. . . .  I think." 

 

Great that people wanted to read but mindblowing (to me anyhow) that they were going to read something just because Oprah said to.  Why not read a book because you like the author or want to read about the subject matter? 

Edited November 6, 2014 by psychoticstate

[Pickles Aplenty]

 

I am absolutely not kidding when I say that some people would come in to get Oprah's newest recommended book and would have no idea what the title was or who the author was.  Once I got "well, it's a blue book. . . .  I think." 

 

Great that people wanted to read but mindblowing (to me anyhow) that they were going to read something just because Oprah said to.  Why not read a book because you like the author or want to read about the subject matter?

Probably because they don't read at all unless Oprah tells them to.  I worked with a woman who wouldn't pick up a book unless Oprah or Dr. Phil gave their stamp of approval because reading in general "wasn't her thing", but she devoured any and every book they recommended.  It was weird.

 

 

I didn't really like The Help either. It was compared to To Kill a Mockingbird? Seriously?

Oh, this makes my stomach hurt, just a *tiny* bit.  There is no way in hell that contrived, barely passable piece of fluff is on the same level with To Kill a Mockingbird.  Just, no.

[COESpiral]

I went the opposite route and wouldn't so much as touch a book that Oprah recommended.  It might be the greatest piece of literature ever written, but I guess I'll never know, it got promoted by Oprah.

 

I loathe every overhyped book by Dan Brown.  I regret ever buying The Da Vinci Code...I nearly damaged my drywall from throwing it when I finished.

[psychoticstate]

I liked Twilight.  (runs away and hides)

 

I read the first book to see what all the hype was about and then read all the sequels.  Granted, it's not fine literature or the best writing but for pure entertainment and storytelling ability, I liked it.  It was enjoyable.

[potatoradio]

I checked -- it was "Secret Life of Bees" that was compared to "TKAM", not the Help, which still galls me, but it's more plausible than a comparison with "The Help"

[Beezel]

Although I loved the HP series, I disliked the Epilogue at the end. It just seemed so predictable- Ginny ends up with Harry, Ron with Hermoine, etc. These were high school crushes, not everyone ends up with the person they like at 18. There certainly was a larger wizard world beyond Hogwarts school.

 

I always hated that she coupled characters in this way, except for when it would have been totally perfect (*cough*Luna and Neville). Admittedly a lot of this is outside of the book, but I found myself even kind of annoyed that George according to Rowling ends up with Angelina Johnson, Fred's school girlfriend.  Seriously? Even after his brother's death, George still can't be his own character/form new adult relationships? Great. Speaking of Rowling's post-novel musings, I think I would have actually liked Harry and Hermione to be end game (though I always weirdly felt more of a draw towards Harry/Luna). I didn't hate Ron, but still don't see how that would have worked long term and I'm far from crazy about couplings where the parties bicker 24/7.  Maybe Rowling will decide that Harry and Hermione later got bored with their Weasley entanglements and had a secret love child named Mona Tonks Minerva. :/ Wouldn't be surprised really. For the most part, Rowling really sucked at writing about romantic relationships. 

 

Other unpopular opinions, I was completely bored by all the Austen I tried to read, except Pride and Prejudice. I do find that book to be more glorified fluff than anything, but I truly enjoy the humor. And the addition of zombies was enjoyable. 

 

Loved it as a youngster but Jane Eyre is the Bronte story that disturbs me most of all. I mean, I suppose it was

less frowned upon to lock your insane wife in the attic back then. 

But I now find it really hard to root for those crazy kids because I don't find Rochester nearly as sympathetic as Bronte would wish. 

 

Is it truly unpopular to find Ethan Frome to be a snore-fest? I remember I was assigned that in the summer time and had to slowly make my way through it. At least it was short. Also, I recall I wrote that Huck Finn should be banned (truly, I don't believe in book banning these days) just because I was so upset that

stupid Tom Sawyer had to come in a ruin the development between Jim and Huck.

 I do wonder how I would feel rereading that book.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Beezel

[wanderingstar]

I should be getting ready for work right now, but I’m seeing a lot here I want to react to (and, possibly, I just like to procrastinate)

 

I really, really hated The Secret Life of Bees and The Help.

 

 

Never read Secret Life of Bees, but I didn’t like The Help at all. I can’t even say I hated it, because it was so boring, I couldn’t even bring myself to feel that strongly about it.

 

I did, however, hate The Kite Runner. I kept seeing accolades for it, but when I read it I didn’t get it. Aside from the first few chapters, it’s boring and ridiculously tropey, with some stupidly heavy-handed dialogue. I felt the same way about Little Bee. In fact, the more time passes, the angrier that book and its White Savior Complex tendencies make me.

 

My biggest complaint about Harry and Ginny as a couple was that Ginny never got a really flesh out personality so it was hard to figure why Harry HAD to date her;

 

 

This is why I never got the hate for Ginny. What was there to hate? She was such a non-entity of a character, I can’t remember one thing about her, except her pairing with Harry.

 

Finally, on the subject of Game of Thrones, I have one friend who is telling me I simply must read that series, while another friend has told me she couldn’t make it through the first book because it’s extremely tropey and (her word) schlocky. What to do, what to do…

 

ETA:

 

(though I always weirdly felt more of a draw towards Harry/Luna)

 

 

YES! I thought I was alone in this!

Edited November 13, 2014 by Gillian Rosh

[Joe]

Finally, on the subject of Game of Thrones, I have one friend who is telling me I simply must read that series, while another friend has told me she couldn’t make it through the first book because it’s extremely tropey and (her word) schlocky. What to do, what to do…

Do you watch the series? I feel that the books are better, if you can handle the size of them. There's some great prose in there that just doesn't make it to the screen. Also, schlocky? I don't see that at all.

[Crs97]

After reading A Thousand Splendid Suns and The Pearl that Broke Its Shell , both for book club, I am just going to skip any other meetings discussing a woman's plight in Afghanistan.  Too more bleak books I cannot fathom.

[truthaboutluv]

This is why I never got the hate for Ginny. What was there to hate? She was such a non-entity of a character, I can’t remember one thing about her, except her pairing with Harry.

 

 

You're right, for the longest time she was too much of a non-entity to hate. Hell, half the time I forgot Ginny existed. That was until JK realized she'd pretty much made Harry's supposed great love wallpaper for four books and decided to force some new magical personality on her and cram it down the readers' throat. Full disclosure, one of my greatest pet peeves is when I feel like a writer is forcing something down my throat - be it a book, television show, etc. Whenever I feel like I'm being told "you must love this character, you must love this couple, etc." I stubbornly reject it.

 

So that already predisposed me to hate "new and improved" Ginny when she showed up in OOTP supposedly sporting this new personality. But what ended up truly bugging me and making me really dislike the character, was that after all that, JK still couldn't be arsed to actually have her do anything interesting. Instead she just wasted a bunch of page space having damn near every other character tell the reader how beautiful, how smart, how talented, how amazing super Ginny was while still making her a completely pointless entity to the story who simply existed for no other purpose than to bear Harry's children. 

Edited November 14, 2014 by truthaboutluv

[Beezel]

YES! I thought I was alone in this!

 

 

Nope, I'm right there with you! J.K. actually did a pretty good job building a legitimate connection between those two, which I think really benefited from the fact that she wasn't writing it to be romantic, so it wasn't sabotaged by all the cliche things she put into writing the *real* romances (the raging hormones and internal monsters). Admittedly Harry still thought Luna was weird, but he really seemed to value and accept her after book 5. Also, I thought it was so interesting that Luna played a significant part in helping Harry deal with his grief

both after Sirius's death and the scene in DH with Dobby

. Both of those just made me feel like, "dude, you're obviously going to be dealing with peoples' untimely deaths forever, so you might as well get with Luna who really knows her stuff!"

 

Plus, I thought Daniel Radcliffe and Evanna Lynch had really good chemistry in the films! So that didn't help. 

 

ETA: I just racked my brain trying to remember stuff about Ginny as a character and aside from her bitchiness towards Fleur and  her preference of Gryfindor Quidditch boyfriends, I'm coming up pretty empty. 

 

she showed up in OOTP supposedly sporting this new personality.

 

 

I was so annoyed by that. I mean, fair enough that she gained more confidence, but I found it kind of irritating she had become Mary Sue-levels perfect before Harry even gave her a second thought. I mean she is apparently gorgeous and witty and sporty and popular. She's a little fiery and her parents are poor and  she did make some mistakes as an 11 year old, but where are her flaws? Where are the things that give her any depth?  What, aside from Harry's involvement with her family, gives her and Harry any real draw to each other? Apparently, it's not important at all the lead's love interest be well defined as long as she resembles his mother. Bleh.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Beezel

[truthaboutluv]

I completely agree and co-sign the Luna love. This is why I stated in another thread that despite the glaring Hermione/Ron signs, I understood why some people still shipped Harry with Hermione because she, along with Luna, were the only girls in the series we ever saw Harry have any type of emotional connection with. I loved Harry as a character but let's be honest, he was a little emotionally withdrawn at times and it was made glaringly so during that brief mess with Cho. But that made sense - Harry was by every definition an abused kid. Dude had a pretty crappy life especially for his first 11 years and well you can say even after he went to Hogwarts he did too, what with Voldemort always trying to come back and kill him. 

 

And sometimes I've actually felt that maybe that's why Harry ended up with Ginny and why the reasons JK seemed to give for his feelings for her seemed so superficial and juvenile - she was beautiful, she was a great Quidditch player and she wasn't a crier. Maybe with all the shit he'd been through in his life, Harry would settle for something that was easy and simple. He got some girl who was apparently the hottest girl in school, she was great at his favorite sport and she didn't cry, not to mention marrying her meant officially being a member of his pseudo-family....great.

 

Thing is, everytime I've heard JK talk about the couple (and she's defended it often because Ginny is quite possibly one of the most divisive characters in the Harry Potter world - some people love her and some people really hate her and I guess some are indifferent) she seems pretty adamant that it was some amazing love story and that they were each other's soulmates who just got each other like no one else and everytime I'm like "did you actually read what you wrote or are you just talking about the story you planned on writing but didn't."

 

And even if her intention was the above, to give Harry some prototype male fantasy girl (sporty, snarky, super hot, etc.) because after all he'd been through something easy made the most sense, I call even more bullshit on that and makes me remember that opinion piece that argued about the lack of feminism in the series that got JK all hot under the collar. I know some people have said they didn't mind how the romances played out because the series was supposed to be children's books but I don't agree. Whether or not they were categorized as children's books, the series touched on such heavy topics as abuse, neglect, death, racism, classism, war, etc. After all that, I think JK could have and should have given her hero who went through so much crap a romance that was emotionally resonant on some level rather than the superficial piece of crap she pulled out with him and Ginny.

Edited November 14, 2014 by truthaboutluv

[Pickles Aplenty]

I can't get on board the Harry/Luna ship.  Luna was sweet, but so dreamy and flaky I just can't see her with Harry, doing the day-to-day.  Ginny, though underdeveloped, is a better fit for that.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Billina

[Janet Snakehole]

I liked Mockingjay. It was messy and not as good as the first two Hunger Games books, but Katniss had major PTSD and I liked that Suzanne Collins didn't write her as a TradeMark Strong Female Kickass character. Most people would be a mess. I was also ok with all the sadness and bleakness and death, it was war.

[proserpina65]

Finally, on the subject of Game of Thrones, I have one friend who is telling me I simply must read that series, while another friend has told me she couldn’t make it through the first book because it’s extremely tropey and (her word) schlocky. What to do, what to do…

 

If anything, GOT is anti-tropey.  Maybe so much that anti-tropiness becomes tropey?  Schlocky, well, there are bits and pieces here and there, but not so much in the first book.  I have a friend who really doesn't care for fantasy and sci fi at all, and she ended devouring all five books in rapid succession after I made her start watching the series.  My suggestion: try the first book and see what you think.  We won't feed you to the White Walkers if you end up not liking it.  :-)

[AuntiePam]

Game of Thrones got a lot of people interested in epic fantasy.  Other writers had gone dark and gritty before Martin, but Martin sent readers looking for "more like this please".  Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun came first, and Joe Abercrombie's books came after.  They're even bloodier than GoT.  Possibly better written as well, but there's room for everyone in this genre.

[Beezel]

He got some girl who was apparently the hottest girl in school, she was great at his favorite sport and she didn't cry, not to mention marrying her meant officially being a member of his pseudo-family....great.

 

I always hate when authors/television show runners have these grand ideals about a couple that just aren't evident in the material. I actively tried to like Ginny/Harry and see where she was coming from, but I just don't see how or why they are suppose to work as soul mates when every facet of their relationship seems so forced.  I actually would have respected the series more if she didn't have the blinders on and instead wrote it so Harry did choose Ginny because she was beautiful and safe, only to realize that he wasn't happy later. Given Harry's past, it would have  make sense. I can understand her wanting to give Harry an easy and simple life since he did have such a particularly terrible time until the age of 17. That being said,  I hate the notion that his life post-DH is so very safe and bland in a lot of ways, at least as it's presented in the Epilogue

(And let's be honest, that's what matters. It is totally a misstep that Harry being an auror is only an afterthought). Not to say that getting married and having kids has to be boring or can't be an adventure. But it's just tied up so neatly.

I understand that the events of DH give Harry a good bit of closure, but I still don't see him being able to completely do away with all those years of abuse and pain or feeling emotionally withdrawn.

Whether or not they were categorized as children's books, the series touched on such heavy topics as abuse, neglect, death, racism, classism, war, etc.

 

 

Exactly! This is what I love about the series and undoubtedly why kids adore it, cause it doesn't condescend to them but is instead bold and dark and  most of the fantasy touches on universal issues. That's why I feel like making everything so tidy in the end is a huge cop out really, because it's as if JK is saying that Harry has overcome having to deal with any of these complexities as an adult just because the war is over. Which is terrible message, since what sucks about war is that they never really end for people, win or lose. Which is exactly why I agree with Janet Snakehole, that Mockingjay's ending works so well. It doesn't completely deny this truth for the sake of a clear cut happy ending.  

Edited November 15, 2014 by Beezel

[truthaboutluv]

Which is exactly why I agree with Janet Snakehole, that Mockingjay's ending works so well because it doesn't completely deny this truth for the sake of a clear cut happy ending.

 

 

While I definitely think Mockingjay had its problems and I found it a much slower read than the first two,  I loved the ending, even including the big death (won't mention any names because don't want to spoil anyone who hasn't read the book) as heartbreaking it was because it was all true to the horrors and realities of war. I especially loved the ending chapter/paragraphs. I know some people felt it was rushed but honestly it worked for me. In those brief paragraphs Collins perfectly captured how broken and damaged these two people were from all they'd been through and how slowly, over time they found their way back to each other and were able to heal each other on some level. But I liked that she made it clear that the horrors of what they'd been through never completely left. They just learned to live with them and find some kind of peace. 

[Janet Snakehole]

I never even thought to compare/contrast THG and Harry Potter in that way, but it does make sense that the epilogue for me in Harry Potter was too neat when I liked the outcome of THG. Both dealt with extremely dark themes and Katniss and Harry both went through experiences that would break most people; and even though I think Harry Potter as a series will stand the test of time more so than THG, THG's ending reasonated more with me. Perhaps we need a comparative YA lit thread?

[FozzyBear]

I liked Mockingjay. It was messy and not as good as the first two Hunger Games books, but Katniss had major PTSD and I liked that Suzanne Collins didn't write her as a TradeMark Strong Female Kickass character. Most people would be a mess. I was also ok with all the sadness and bleakness and death, it was war.

I LOVE how much Cathching Fire and Mockingjay deal with PTSD. It's my favorite part of the last 2 books and I was very disappointed how much Cathching Fire:the Movie cut out about it. I loved that the author actually dealt with the aftermath of The Hunger Games and how all the victors are messes. Addicts, prostitutes, just straight up crazy. I even love how Mockingjay makes the point that war changes people, and not always for the better. And I loved at the end Katniss chose the intellectual and the peace maker not the warrior, without passing judgement on the warrior.

UO: I actua think the hunger games is really interesting YA lit. It has its issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the series that stands the test of time of all the current TA dystopian fiction. It consistently makes very interesting points about the nature of violence and what it means to grow up in a war or as a disposable person.

[Etta Place]

 

Finally, on the subject of Game of Thrones, I have one friend who is telling me I simply must read that series, while another friend has told me she couldn’t make it through the first book because it’s extremely tropey and (her word) schlocky. What to do, what to do…

I am not a fantasy reader, but I decided to read the book(s) for a more in-depth telling of the story. I rolled my eyes a lot, and laughed out loud at some of it (not at things that were intentionally funny). I was bored sometimes, annoyed sometimes ... but I finished the first one because I wanted to know what happened. It was one of those things for me where the story is enough to pull me through the writing. I've since read the second and third ones, which I'd characterize as "okay." I'm glad I've read them because it enables me to watch the show and fill in some blanks for my husband, but I haven't exactly been anxiously anticipating picking up the next one.

[nicepebbles]

The only John Steinbeck book I like is Of Mice and Men. I've read the Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden. I skipped whole chapters. Way, way, WAY too much description. That's why I don't like Jodi Picoult either. It's like "get on with it already." I can't stand books that are stuck in its own minutiae. Boring!

[truthaboutluv]

I've read the Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden. I skipped whole chapters. Way, way, WAY too much description.

 

 

I read East of Eden about two years ago and I have to agree with you on that comment. My friend made fun of me for long I seemed to be taking because I was determined to read the entire thing but yeah all the focus on the physical environment was exhausting. That said, I found that East of Eden was one of those books that you have to stick with because once it really got going, it was really interesting and I did come away loving the story.

[Anna Yolei]

Also, I recall I wrote that Huck Finn should be banned (truly, I don't believe in book banning these days) just because I was so upset that 

stupid Tom Sawyer had to come in a ruin the development between Jim and Huck. 

 I do wonder how I would feel rereading that book.

From what my 11th grade English teacher told me, that actually isn't sn uncommon sentimen at all about that particular plot point. I wouldn't say it ruins the book, but the tone of the book afterwards changes, and not for the better. I mean, did Mark Twain's publisher insist upon this?

[kathyk24]

I really wanted Harry and Hermionie together. I loved the chapter in Deathly Hallows when they visited Harry's parents graves. I don't mind the epilogue. Throughout the books Harry longed for a family rather than being rich or powerful and in the end he got what he wanted.

[bubbls]

Oh my, my people. Pulling up a chair at the Anne Frank table. I forced my way through it decades ago because I wanted to know why it was a big deal and to check it off my bucket list, so to speak. Boring. I've often wondered how Anne felt about everyone being basically good at heart by the end of her very short life. I'd like to ask her. But that'd be mean, wouldn't it? 

 

Here's another unpopular book opinion. Harry Potter: ZZZZZzzzzz. I much prefer Susan Cooper's Dark Is Rising series.

Edited November 21, 2014 by bubbls

[GreekGeek]

From what my 11th grade English teacher told me, that actually isn't sn uncommon sentimen at all about that particular plot point. I wouldn't say it ruins the book, but the tone of the book afterwards changes, and not for the better. I mean, did Mark Twain's publisher insist upon this?

I don't know what Mark Twain's publisher wanted, but I agree the last third of Huckleberry Finn is weak because of the reappearance of Tom Sawyer. Maybe Twain was going for irony--how far Huck has progressed from the "boy's adventure story" world that Tom represents (but he plays along with Tom anyway). 

[proserpina65]

Here's another unpopular book opinion. Harry Potter: ZZZZZzzzzz. I much prefer Susan Cooper's Dark Is Rising series.

 

I enjoyed the Harry Potter series a lot, but agree that Susan Cooper's books are vastly superior without having to be so over the top in their world-creating.  Because, honestly, J.K. Rowling's work can get rather twee with that shit.

Edited November 25, 2014 by proserpina65