Unpopular Opinions

[glowlights]

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?

 

Apparently there were two issues at play:

- Twain set the manuscript aside after Huck and Jim missed the Ohio River (is that a spoiler?) because he was now out of the geographical and social realms he was familiar with and had basically written himself into a corner; he picked it up three years later and stalled again right around (iirc) the episode with Colonel Sherburn (sp?); and then picked it up years later and wrote the final chapters all at once, a tacked-on ending to get it over with

- Twain's publisher did want Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn to be the same length, which is why the first published versions of the latter omitted what should have been chapter 16; however I don't think the publisher's constraints re: page count had an impact on the quality of the final chapters, that was purely writer's frustration

 

Can I offer an incredibly unpopular opinion? I don't care for Tolkien. And by "don't care for" I mean The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings were the the only assigned reading I ever skipped. This has fed my aversion to J.K. Rowling, another UO. But I adored the Narnia series, does that make up for it?

[Pickles Aplenty]

I would give Rowling a chance.  I don't like Tolkien either, but I love Rowling.  Her world is so much more interesting to me.

[nodorothyparker]

I managed to muddle through The Hobbit, both as assigned reading and later in an effort to do a read along with my husband.  It's maybe the very longest short book I've ever read.  It's still mind boggling to me that Peter Jackson managed to get three movies out of it.

 

Because my husband is such a huge Tolkien fan, I've tried repeatedly to read The Fellowship of the Ring.  I've never gotten past the first chapters which seem to go on for about a million pages on the virtues of pipeweed.  I've tried and I just can't.  I really love the LOTR movies and so every couple of years feel compelled to take another crack at it, but even trying to skip ahead a bit can't seem to make any progress.  Yet I managed and really enjoyed George R.R. Martin just fine.

[Joe]

 

It's still mind boggling to me that Peter Jackson managed to get three movies out of it.

He brought in a bunch of stuff from the backstory/Tolkien's notes. Even then it feels stretched thin, like butter scraped over too much bread.

[nodorothyparker]

Yeah, that's pretty much what my husband said too.  Some parts of the book I honestly couldn't remember enough to be sure if it was in there or not.

[Crs97]

At one two-year period in college I had three separate classes that each assigned Huckleberry Finn. I remember one of the English professors saying that when Huckleberry says his decisive "no" regarding slavery, Mark Twain panicked and abandoned the novel for years. When he returned to the novel he brought Tom into the story. That was 20 years ago (ouch!) so I don't know if her theory holds up now.

[glowlights]

At one two-year period in college I had three separate classes that each assigned Huckleberry Finn.

 

Yikes. I hope each professor brought something new to the reading and you weren't just caught in an academic Groundhog Day.

 

I'll give Rowling a try. I did enjoy the first Harry Potter movie - it was light fun.

[Crs97]

Yikes. I hope each professor brought something new to the reading and you weren't just caught in an academic Groundhog Day.

Did I mention that I have never liked Huckleberry Finn? I just remember it as a painful time.

[galax-arena]

At one two-year period in college I had three separate classes that each assigned Huckleberry Finn.

I ended up losing track of how many times I had to read “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman for high school and college. At least that was just a short story.

 

And I did like the story the first time I read it, but you know, after dissecting the SYMBOLISM and FEMINIST THEMES for the eleventeenth time…

Edited December 1, 2014 by galax-arena

[bosawks]

I hate The Good Earth.

I was rooting for the locusts.

[BathKol]

I managed to muddle through The Hobbit, both as assigned reading and later in an effort to do a read along with my husband. It's maybe the very longest short book I've ever read. It's still mind boggling to me that Peter Jackson managed to get three movies out of it.

Because my husband is such a huge Tolkien fan, I've tried repeatedly to read The Fellowship of the Ring. I've never gotten past the first chapters which seem to go on for about a million pages on the virtues of pipeweed. I've tried and I just can't. I really love the LOTR movies and so every couple of years feel compelled to take another crack at it, but even trying to skip ahead a bit can't seem to make any progress. Yet I managed and really enjoyed George R.R. Martin just fine.

I found that I loved the Hobbit as a book but am not really impressed with the movies. I'll read anything if it is I interesting but, like you, I found LotR impossible to read as books but gloriously well adapted as movies. I guess all that source material allowed the directors and such to build s concrete storyline.

On the other hand Peter Jackson is stretching Hobbit pretty thin...because it's a prequel and there aren't a bunch of hobbits and elves and men and wizards and orcs and stuff. The movies are good to watch but not enough to make me want to constantly rewatch.

On the other hand I am so over the whole post apocalyptic teen novels. When it was Twilight it was 15,000,000 incarnations of sparkly vamps. Werewolves never really caught on as much as I thought - I love 'Blood & Chocolate' and the cheezy movie, too, but I guess that's a good thing? It seems the latest trend now in YA fiction is medieval Renaissance stuff with everybody all over Game of Thrones. I want to read one of the books someday, though the TV show disturbs me. Ew.

[BathKol]

He brought in a bunch of stuff from the backstory/Tolkien's notes. Even then it feels stretched thin, like butter scraped over too much bread.

Or trying to put oil paint on tissu paper. Ain't gonna happen.

To me, Hobbit is just another mega cash cow for probably some future project Jackson is working towards; studios have a tendency to do this before they start production on complicated years long films. I think they'd done better to adapt the Silmarilon (did I spell that right???) than the Hobbit, which is either rumored to be on the table or was originally the direction Jackson was going before TPTB suggested Hobbit as a Christmas Family Adventure Trilogy.

[Joe]

I think they'd done better to adapt the Silmarilon (did I spell that right???) than the Hobbit, which is either rumored to be on the table or was originally the direction Jackson was going before TPTB suggested Hobbit as a Christmas Family Adventure Trilogy.

That'll never happen. Christopher Tolkien owns the rights, and is very anti-movie. And when he dies, he'll pass the rights on to someone with the same views. If further Tolkien movies are ever made, it will be when the rights pass into the public domain.

[BathKol]

That'll never happen. Christopher Tolkien owns the rights, and is very anti-movie. And when he dies, he'll pass the rights on to someone with the same views. If further Tolkien movies are ever made, it will be when the rights pass into the public domain.

I am not trying to offend or anything. A lot of people thought this was on the table so I just kind of threw it out there - I'm not a diehard Tolkien fan so I just stay on the fringes of the gossip. The only thing I want is that beautiful illuminated copy that a German ??? art student created for his degree. I've also been meaning to read the book since it gives a general outline to the world but never seem to get around to it.

[SkinnieMinnie]

1. John Green is not the savior of YA lit. He isn't writing anything that a million other YA authors haven't already done, he just gets more credit for it because he's Writing While Male. He is YA's version of Nicholas Sparks, only with added pretension.

Hi,this is my first post I lurked about twop for about a year never posting and have been lurking here since it closed down. I really wanted to comment on this since im 16 the target demographic for his books and i have never found him that great.I think he starts off well and like the characters but then he starts pushing his ideas in the books and they all start talking like him.His books drive me mad cause he starts off well but then gets lost and the second half is just crap.

[Joe]

I am not trying to offend or anything. A lot of people thought this was on the table so I just kind of threw it out there - I'm not a diehard Tolkien fan so I just stay on the fringes of the gossip.

Yeah, I get you. Just thought I should let you know what the deal is. :)

[BathKol]

Yeah, I get you. Just thought I should let you know what the deal is. :)

Thank you, Joe! I was just worried because in another forum a poster seemed to have gotten upset about something I said in fun only. ;-)

[Haleth]

BathKol, if you found LotR difficult to get through The Silmarillion may be impossible.  It was written like an ancient archaic text so it is not something that can be read casually.  The stories are marvelous and the history of this world is stunning, but you know any novel that starts with the creation of the earth is going to be dense.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Haleth

[BathKol]

BathKol, if you found LotR difficult to get through The Silmarillion may be impossible. It was written like an ancient archaic text so it is not something that can be read casually. The stories are marvelous and the history of this world is stunning, but you know any novel that starts with the creation of the earth is going to be dense.

That's what I was worried about, Haleth (pretty username btw). I just like to try no matter what, because on a recent trip to the bookstore I purchased a copy of Tolkien's short stories and loved them! It took me by surprise. I had a problem with all the characters in LotR vs. the actual story/setting. I don't think Frodo and company had left the shire till about what, chapter 38???? I couldn't take it anymore.

[Sandman87]

Sounds like some of you might be interested in Michael Moorcock's somewhat famous essay on why he doesn't like Lord of the Rings: "Epic Pooh"

[BathKol]

Sounds like some of you might be interested in Michael Moorcock's somewhat famous essay on why he doesn't like Lord of the Rings: "Epic Pooh"

Wooh, that's a lot to swallow. I don't agree with his God/Christian ranting (if that's what he's on about?) and since he seems to be a big fan of Philipp Pullman, whose books I tried to re read before donating, so unfortunately I don't think we're on the same page exactly. I just found LotR a bit complicated and massive and vast...

[GreekGeek]

Yes, I don't quite get what is so bad about fantasy with a conservative worldview. And I don't agree that LoTR has a contrived happy ending.  

Frodo post-quest can never go back to the "eat, drink, and be merry" Hobbit lifestyle. Sam, the plucky sidekick, gets to settle into comfortable domesticity, but not Frodo.

[BathKol]

Yes, I don't quite get what is so bad about fantasy with a conservative worldview. And I don't agree that LoTR has a contrived happy ending.

Frodo post-quest can never go back to the "eat, drink, and be merry" Hobbit lifestyle. Sam, the plucky sidekick, gets to settle into comfortable domesticity, but not Frodo.

Agree. I could not read LotR for enjoyment, but I did read many parts to compare to the movies and found the last book, Return of the King, heartbreaking for Frodo.

I don't consider myself conservative by any means (does being Eastern Orthodox count?), but I don't like fantasy novels that are dogmatic in their anti this/that views. I tried to read 'Mists of Avalon'. I decided to browse through the book when I got home and some of the scenes with Morgase I believe and Arthur were...strange. Okay pornographic. But creepy. I threw the book out and was pissed I had wasted $21 on that crap. I'm not a goody two shoes either - when I was younger I used to read grimories and spell books and tarot cards because I was an idiot and was angry with my dad and thought that was a solution to my problems. Nope.

Edited December 10, 2014 by BathKol

[Athena]

I didn't know where else to put this, but it's more of a guilty confession. I didn't like the Twilight books and I really have issue with some of the things Meyer says and does to her characters (especially the female ones), but I really liked The Host. I even liked the movie which was long and overwrought, but actually captured some of the things I liked from the book. Part of me wishes Meyer would write more of the series, but I also know her track record is not great and she'd probably ruin it in subsequent books. I'm glad I was able to let that out.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I hate, with every fiber of my being, Edward Rochester from Jane Eyre.

 

That's right, I hate him. Hate. I don't think he's a wronged, misunderstood, romantic Byronic hero. I think he's a lying, abusive, downright creepy monster. What he did to Bertha is unforgivable; only circus animals get treated as shabbily as poor Bertha. Locking her up, with a diet of porridge and only a senile drunk like Grace for company? I wouldn't wish that on anyone. At the time Jane Eyre was written, mental institutions were actually improving, they weren't quite the snake pits they were before.

 

And not only was it cruel what Rochester did to Bertha, it was stupid. Bertha is a danger to herself and others, and she has escaped wreaked havoc more than once. She could have, very easily, murdered Jane, Mrs. Fairfax, or little Adele (who I believe is Rochester's daughter, by the way) in their sleep whenever she wanted, and came pretty damn close when she started a damn fire. 

 

Even worse, Bertha isn't always crazy. It's stated in the book she has periods of lucidity, which means she's fully aware of what's being done to her... but this is always glossed over in the film adaptations, lest we lose sight of the alleged "dreaminess" of Rochester (ugh). It's also amusing how the film versions never have that lovely part from the book where he disguises himself as a gypsy woman in order to trick Jane into revealing her feelings for him. Um, the hell?

 

He claims Bertha was a bad wife and that he was tricked into marrying her... even though all he has done up to this point is lie, lie, and lie some more, not to mention omit crucial information to Jane, the woman he supposedly loves. All we have is his word, and it hasn't exactly been all that reliable, has it? How do we know that Bertha was a bad wife? Or didn't go crazy until she was locked up against her will? Or that Rochester wasn't a bad husband (he hasn't exactly been doing a bang-up job at it so far)?

 

Yet we're supposed to be thrilled that Jane and Rochester get together at the end. Yeah, they'll live happily ever after... until, y'know, Jane has a raging case of PMS, then she'd better train herself to make a sheet ladder, because Rochester will lock her ass up. Why not? He's done it before. But hey, he's been played by the likes of Michael Fassbender, Timothy Dalton, and Toby Stephens, why shouldn't we trust him? 

 

Rochester is a disgusting, reprehensible character who reminds me of that sick bastard in Austria who locked his daughter in a room for 27 years. I've expressed this UO many times in the past, and I've actually had people send me nasty, sanctimonious emails lecturing me on how stupid I am, how I just "don't get it", how Rochester is a "complex character" that I just don't understand. I'm sick of how "complex" now just means "evil and horrible, but because he/she is so charismatic/cool/good looking, we're going to overlook it". You can all tell me I'm wrong, that's your right, but I'm going to stand by my opinion 'til the very end. Since I'm sure I did a lousy job expressing myself (as I'm wont to do), I urge, urge, urge you all to track down John Sutherland's insightful, meticulously researched and written subversive essay, "Can Jane Eyre be Happy?". It may not change your mind, but it might make you think.

[proserpina65]

I hate Jane Eyre just in general.  Even picturing Nathaniel Parker as Rochester (since he played the character in Wide Sargasso Sea) didn't help.  In fact, I hate everything I've ever tried to read by the Brontes.  Blech.

 

{I never particularly thought of Rochester as some kind of romantic hero, but I also think Jane is an insufferable prig.  I disliked them both.  They deserve each other.}

Edited April 21, 2015 by proserpina65

[anony mouse]

2. Amy and Laurie made more sense than Jo and Laurie, and totally belonged together.

 

Another Amy and Laurie fan here! To me, they really fit and made so much sense together, and this is coming from a huge Jo fan. Jo and Laurie never would have worked. But I always wished Jo could have ended up with someone better than preachy Bhaer.

 

And like a lot of you, I LOATHE Jane Eyre. Hated it with every fiber of my being every time I had to read it in school. It's grown on me, and I've come to really like Jane as a character, but ugh, Rochester is such a creep and I always have to stop reading before she returns to him. I was so rooting for her. She's unbroken by her cruel family, that terrible school, and when she discovers Bertha, she goes marching right out to the moors. When she finally came into money, even if it was contrived, I was like "You go, Jane!" because I wanted her to really make something of herself. And then she goes back to that creep. UGH. He should have died in that fire. Who in the world locks up their wife?!

[Wiendish Fitch]

Another Amy and Laurie fan here! To me, they really fit and made so much sense together, and this is coming from a huge Jo fan. Jo and Laurie never would have worked. But I always wished Jo could have ended up with someone better than preachy Bhaer.

 

And like a lot of you, I LOATHE Jane Eyre. Hated it with every fiber of my being every time I had to read it in school. It's grown on me, and I've come to really like Jane as a character, but ugh, Rochester is such a creep and I always have to stop reading before she returns to him. I was so rooting for her. She's unbroken by her cruel family, that terrible school, and when she discovers Bertha, she goes marching right out to the moors. When she finally came into money, even if it was contrived, I was like "You go, Jane!" because I wanted her to really make something of herself. And then she goes back to that creep. UGH. He should have died in that fire. Who in the world locks up their wife?!

 

What's frustrating is that I want to like Jane Eyre. I find introverted characters intriguing, so I want to love Jane... but then she runs back to Rochester, who I know will make her miserable, and I just have to throw my hands in the air in frustration.

 

If you want a more palatable version of Jane Eyre, I highly recommend Margot Livesey's marvelous retelling The Flight of Gemma Hardy. The "Rochester" in that story does do something bad... but it's nowhere near as horrible as Bronte's Rochester, and a million times more forgivable.

[HoodlumSheep]

I have no idea if this is an unpopular opinion...I don't think that 'The Great Gatsby' is so great. Gatsby is just so, so desperate. i just wanted to ring his neck and yell at him to get over Daisy and move on with his life because she was never going to risk divorcing her rich jerky husband.

Also, I just don't understand the appeal of the book as a whole. Yeah, yeah, "somethin' somethin' American Dream somethin'"

I'm also not buying into the oh so great love story that is Meggie and Ralph from 'The Thornbirds.' Yeah, some can argue that it wasn't romantic love until Meggie was olderish, but I just find it plain creepy. Especially when it describes how attached to Meggie Ralph is when she's like 8.

[Black Knight]

I've read the book and watched the miniseries, but since I was a kid for both, I don't know if the following perception is necessarily right: Wasn't most of the Thornbirds fan craze really about Richard Chamberlain, and treating Meggie as a self-insert, than about the actual couple of Meggie and Ralph? (I do distinctly remember the butt shot of Chamberlain. Heh.)

[Brn2bwild]

I've read the book and watched the miniseries, but since I was a kid for both, I don't know if the following perception is necessarily right: Wasn't most of the Thornbirds fan craze really about Richard Chamberlain, and treating Meggie as a self-insert, than about the actual couple of Meggie and Ralph? (I do distinctly remember the butt shot of Chamberlain. Heh.)

Their inconsistent accents (weren't they both supposed to be Australian?) didn't help.

 

 

My unpopular opinion?  It's not exactly about books, but I can't think of where else it would go.

 

I read recently that only four universities across the United States require English majors to take a Shakespeare course.  People in my historical writers group were outraged, and I... just don't care.

 

Shakespeare is important and influential and overrated.

 

I'm sick of people claiming that the plays are so relatable even today.  Sure, if you believe in witches... or arranged marriages... or faking your own death... or that spousal abuse equals love.  While aspects of Shakespeare remain profound, let's not kid ourselves: usually, the plays are only successfully "updated" by cutting a significant number of scenes and rearranging dialogue.

 

I took a required Shakespeare course in college and I'll be damned if I remember 10% of it now.  Maybe it's turned me into a better person, but I really don't know.  I just don't think the sky is going to fall on Western Civilization because universities acknowledge that they have finite resources and that students might also find enlightenment reading other authors.   

Edited April 26, 2015 by Brn2bwild

[Black Knight]

I think that a person getting a degree in English certainly needs to be familiar with much of Shakespeare's work. I'm not a big fan of him either, but it's not about whether his work is really as genius as is said. A degree in English is partly about the history of literature, and Shakespeare is unquestionably a major figure in the history of literature, so without coverage of him, the education of an English major would have a serious gap.

 

But people in your historical writers group don't get it. English majors need to have familiarity with Shakespeare's major works, at least, yes. But there doesn't need to be a required course in Shakespeare to accomplish that. Students will already have read at least a couple of the major plays in high school, and then during college they'll read more, because various English courses will include at least one of his works on the reading list. So to have an entire course devoted to nothing but Shakespeare is largely redundant. That's why most universities don't require it. If a student plans on specializing in Shakespeare, or really loves Shakespeare, then a Shakespeare-only course is appropriate for them. But that's not the majority of English majors, and it doesn't make sense to force them to use one of their slots on a Shakespeare course when there are so many other authors they also need to familiarize themselves with. Shakespeare is on so many reading lists for high school and college courses that he's basically the very last author who needs to have a course devoted entirely to him to ensure that people are familiar with him.

[ulkis]

4. Pride & Prejudice is boring.  Great novel, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean it isn't boring.  I would much rather read the Bronte sisters than Jane Austen.

 

I don't think it was boring per se, but I definitely don't think Pride and Prejudice is good for a re-read. I like watching Jane Austen adaptations better than reading her books. I feel like that in general about Jane Austen. I liked reading them once (well all except one) but I don't have the urge to read them again. I did want to read all her books and only have one left (Mansfield Park) but Sense and Sensibility was such a slog that I haven't been able to bring myself to pick it up yet.

 

Speaking of the Bronte sisters, I read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall for the first time two years ago and I loooved it. Is it a UO to say it's my favorite Bronte book by far? It goes on a bit too long in the middle but otherwise it is so great. I don't get why they don't sell that one in stores but they do Anne's other book, Agnes Grey, which was disappointing after "Tenant".

[ulkis]

 

I hate Jane Eyre just in general.  Even picturing Nathaniel Parker as Rochester (since he played the character in Wide Sargasso Sea) didn't help.  In fact, I hate everything I've ever tried to read by the Brontes.  Blech.

 

{I never particularly thought of Rochester as some kind of romantic hero, but I also think Jane is an insufferable prig.  I disliked them both.  They deserve each other.}

 

I just posted it, but I recommend "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" by Anne Bronte if you haven't tried it, and even if you hate the other Brontes. I actually enjoyed "Wuthering Heights" and "Jane Eyre" in a "this is interesting, I wanna keep reading to see what happens next" kind of way but I really actually wasn't that invested and when I was done with them I wasn't actually interested in re-reading either of them. In "Tenant" I actually cared about the characters and go back and re-read favorite bits.

Edited May 3, 2015 by ulkis

[Athena]

Speaking of the Bronte sisters, I read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall for the first time two years ago and I loooved it. Is it a UO to say it's my favorite Bronte book by far? It goes on a bit too long in the middle but otherwise it is so great. I don't get why they don't sell that one in stores but they do Anne's other book, Agnes Grey, which was disappointing after "Tenant".

 

While I did enjoy Jane Eyre, Anne is by far my favourite Bronte. She's a better writer than Charlotte and Emily. She's more mature, her characters are real (often depressingly so), and her prose is just better IMHO. I enjoyed Agnes Grey as well.

[ulkis]

While I did enjoy Jane Eyre, Anne is by far my favourite Bronte. She's a better writer than Charlotte and Emily. She's more mature, her characters are real (often depressingly so), and her prose is just better IMHO. I enjoyed Agnes Grey as well.

 

I think I would have liked it better if I had read it first. But like I said, I loved "Tenant", so it came across as kinda boring to me after that.

[wanderingstar]

While I liked Pillars of the Earth, there came a point (I think it was page 600), where I was like, why is this story still going. I mean, once

the cathedral gets built,

I kept thinking, can we wrap this up? Also, I grew very tired of The Great Love of Jack and Aliena. By the time their love story resolved, I had stopped caring.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Gillian Rosh

[ulkis]

While I liked Pillars of the Earth, there came a point (I think it was page 600), where I was like, why is this story still going. I mean, once

the cathedral gets built,

I kept thinking, can we wrap this up? Also, I grew very tired of The Great Love of Jack and Aliena. By the time their love story resolved, I had stopped caring.

 

Reading Pillars of the Earth was like eating cotton candy. I couldn't put it down while I was reading and when I reached the end I was like . . . . that had no point. It was like I ate all this junk food and then I felt hungry. Or sick. What have you.

 

Aliena and Jack's love didn't bother me so much as Jack himself. God forbid Aliena didn't have another suitor who wasn't a complete asshole. I thought Alfred was going to get to be more than a cardboard cut-out for one minute but nope, he was a complete jerk too.

[wanderingstar]

Aliena and Jack's love didn't bother me so much as Jack himself. God forbid Aliena didn't have another suitor who wasn't a complete asshole. I thought Alfred was going to get to be more than a cardboard cut-out for one minute but nope, he was a complete jerk too.

 

Yes! It seemed that Alfred's biggest crime was that he wasn't Jack. Jack was definitely a Marty Sue. Now that I think about it, there was a lot of lazy characterization in that book.

[Danny Franks]

This may qualify as an unpopular opinion, but it's really more of a question: Why do so many new, supposedly 'literary' works of fiction have such stupid little gimmicks with the prose? Like just writing without speech marks, or arranging the text in odd ways or using odd combinations of present and past tense suddenly makes your book more 'worthy'?

 

It's so irritating, when I pick up a highly rated new book, and find myself gritting my teeth, just scanning over a random page, because it's so inaccessible. Is it a badge of honour to have dug through the gimmick and made sense of the book? Is that why critics hail them as something special?

[AuntiePam]

Danny Franks, re quotation/speech marks, I'm okay with leaving them out.  If the author's doing her job right, the marks aren't necessary.  If the characters are fully developed, we'll know who's talking.  It took me awhile to get used to it, but now, if there's a lot of dialogue, I'm finding the and dialogue tags annoying. 

 

But when the author hasn't given the characters distinct personalities, no amount of quotation marks or tags will help.  They all sound the same.  That was really evident in The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova.  Her characters traveled all over Europe, meeting people of different backgrounds and nationalities, and every one of them spoke the same way.

 

I'm not a good enough grammarian to know when tenses are mixed, so that doesn't bother me.  :-)

[proserpina65]

I think Hemingway was a dreadful writer whose style never really progressed from that of newspaper writing with its reliance on simple sentences.  And I'd stab my own eyeballs out rather than ever read The Old Man and the Sea again.

Edited May 8, 2015 by proserpina65

[OakGoblinFly]

I think Hemingway was a dreadful writer whose style never really progressed from that of newspaper writing with its reliance on simple sentences.  And I'd stab my own eyeballs out rather than ever read The Old Man and the Sea again.

 

 

Can I sit next to you?  When I mention that I don't like Hemingway some people react rather, um, unpleasantly. 

[Enigma X]

Taking a seat at the table with the people who think Hemingway was a crap writer! Wine, please?

[HoodlumSheep]

Concerning the talk about P&P (which i love, but I won't say anything about it), I think I actually like "Mansfield Park" better (The protagonist is a sweetie), and I think "Emma" is extremely overrated (and no, it's not that I find Emma unlikeable--I like her just fine).

[Wiendish Fitch]

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 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? 

 

THANK. YOU.

 

Your post brings back awful memories of my days as Barnes & Noble/library employee. It frightened me how people were such sheep about books. They didn't want to read them because they were genuinely interested, they wanted to read them because they were new, popular and someone on TV told them to read them.

 

My UO is that I never ask for book recommendations. Nope, never. I know what I like, I know my interests, so I always know what I want to read, and why. 

[bubbls]

Another UO is I detest fiction written in the first person and won't read it most of the time. It has to be a subject I'm fascinated by for me to overcome my aversion. I'm currently reading "Zoo" only because of the subject and author. I was SO disappointed when I started it.

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.

I never got far enough in HP. It was a long while ago, but I don't think I made it past two chapters. While both are YA, Susan Cooper doesn't seem to be as juvenile as HP. At least the first two chapters, haha.

Edited June 13, 2015 by bubbls

[SmithW6079]

My UO is that I never ask for book recommendations. Nope, never. I know what I like, I know my interests, so I always know what I want to read, and why.

I know my own interests too and what I like to read, but I'm always happy to hear recommendations -- sometimes, that has opened up a new area of interest for me, and that's what learning is all about.

...as juvenile as HP.

"Harry Potter" opens with his parents murdered at the hands of an evil wizard, Harry relegated to living in an under-the-stairs closet with an abusive aunt and uncle. Over the course of the series, several young people die, and a magic war between good and evil breaks out. Those aren't exactly juvenile subjects. Edited June 14, 2015 by SmithW6079

[bubbls]

"Harry Potter" opens with his parents murdered at the hands of an evil wizard, Harry relegated to living in an under-the-stairs closet with an abusive aunt and uncle. Over the course of the series, several young people die, and a magic war between good and evil breaks out. Those aren't exactly juvenile subjects.

I meant the writing style. Best I can come up with is HP seemed like it was written for a younger fan base than Susan Cooper's series. From what you've described HP is more violent than the other, but what little I read was written in a more juvenile style. It was a huge step down for me having read "The Dark Is Rising" series. I was so disappointed. I love nothing better than anticipating thousands of pages of good reading.

[anony mouse]

I meant the writing style. Best I can come up with is HP seemed like it was written for a younger fan base than Susan Cooper's series. From what you've described HP is more violent than the other, but what little I read was written in a more juvenile style. It was a huge step down for me having read "The Dark Is Rising" series. I was so disappointed. I love nothing better than anticipating thousands of pages of good reading.

I find the style becomes more complex as the series moved along - the first two books were certainly written for children around 8-9 years old, I think (although I loved them anyway even as a teen reader!). As the books progressed, I found the writing style grew more complex, with the exception of that epilogue. However, although the style was more complex, I found the later books would have benefitted from tighter editing, as I think JKR's success made her editors more lax.