Unpopular Opinions

[Crs97]

Is that unpopular, SmithW? To continue on that theme, I want her to stop telling me what she wishes she could change now. The books are now canon for me. Telling me Ron and Hermione should never have been a couple just makes me mad, and I am not a shipper. The books are published; stop tinkering.

[nodorothyparker]

Every time I see yet another article about what Rowling would have changed or here's some new factoid that you probably didn't know about the third kid in the third year of Slytherin, I want someone to tell her that if she's changed her mind and wants to write more Harry Potter stories after all that she's perfectly able to do that.  Nobody's stopping her and I promise that nobody will think any less of her if she decided to continue the series just because she insisted she was done forever however many years ago.  But continuing to blather now about she should have changed this or that doesn't enhance my enjoyment of the series at all and makes me think she's unable to let go despite having a fairly successful writing career beyond Harry Potter.  It actually kind of makes me sad for her.

Edited November 10, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[BookWoman56]

I'm fine with Rowling admitting that she screwed up with the Hermione/Ron pairing, because that ending soured me on the last book. I am not a fan in any way of having virtually every character end up marrying their high school crush. And by the end of the series, I pretty much loathed Ron, so I had to make up an alt ending in my head where 10 minutes after the final book scene, Hermione informs Ron she's filing for divorce. My UO is that I wish more authors would admit they should have done something different, because to me that indicates they've reflected on the book and recognized its faults instead of just taking the attitude that it sold a gazillion copies, so it was obviously perfect.

 

I do wonder though if it's less that she's not moving on as much as it is journalists and so forth always asking her about the HP series and what she would have done differently if she had it to do over. It's been a while, but years ago I used to work with many authors, and a constant complaint was how reporters (and fans to some extent) would ask the same stupid questions over and over again, and how the ones who did essentially no prep work prior to interviewing would fall back on the most famous book to ask about, as opposed to the new one. So a lot of interviews that were supposed to be about their new book would end up being 30 seconds of token questions about the new book (How is this book different from your famous book ABC?), followed by 10 minutes of questions about the more famous book. It's lazy journalism, but it's similar to interviews with musicians. My favorite band is from Finland, and they've been performing for about 20 years with several CDs, multiple tours in Europe and the U.S., and yet almost every interview I've seen with them includes the reporter asking the lead singer if it's true that he used to work in his father's sex shop in Helsinki (when he was 17 or 18, not recently, and not a damn thing to do with his music anyway), followed by rote questions about how the new album is different from an earlier album, etc. Very rarely do the interviewers do enough prep work to focus on current work only, and instead they go to the more famous book/album from the past.

[SmithW6079]

Every time I see yet another article about what Rowling would have changed or here's some new factoid that you probably didn't know about the third kid in the third year of Slytherin, I want someone to tell her that if she's changed her mind and wants to write more Harry Potter stories after all that she's perfectly able to do that.  Nobody's stopping her and I promise that nobody will think any less of her if she decided to continue the series just because she insisted she was done forever however many years ago.  But continuing to blather now about she should have changed this or that doesn't enhance my enjoyment of the series at all and makes me think she's unable to let go despite having a fairly successful writing career beyond Harry Potter.  It actually kind of makes me sad for her.

I agree. If she wants to continue to write in the Harry Potter universe, then do so. I imagine there are tons of stories she could write about the Ministry of Magic or the any of the professors or the first war of the wizards (whatever it was called).

 

While no writer is every truly satisfied with what they write, the books are done and published. It cheapens what she produced to say now she would have changed this or rewritten that. Or if she wants, let her rewrite the whole series. I believe David Wingrove, a British writer known for the "Chung Kuo" series of an alternate Earth where the Han Chinese control the world, had plans to rewrite the entire series.

[AnnaMayWong]

I started reading HP when my son was reading them back in primary school (he wanted me to and I'm the kind of mom who's happy to see what their kids' interests are and to debate them with them). He stopped somewhere near the start of the second book but I had already read it and, because I had bought the next one, for him, one evening when I had nothing else to read, I started reading that third volume. And it was The Prisoner of Azkaban that really draw me, as an adult. I think it was mostly the idea of the Dementors, who suck all happy memories out of people, that I found very powerful, in a way I'm not sure would have struck a tween. I was also touched by the characters who were ostracized because of their dual nature (werewolf, shapeshifter). I'm sure that the intended audience has probably felt it in a different way, but as an adult with an unconventional life behind me that book really struck a chord. I then went on to buy and read the whole series (my son never did!) but still think that third book is the absolute best of the lot.

This is similar to my introduction to the series.

My Cutie Pie wanted me to 'read along' while he was in primary school. He partially read the first book while I continued to read the entire book. I became hooked(hahaha!) and proceeded to read the entire series WITHOUT the 'participation' of my son.

[whatsatool]

The only thing I remember from English are the poems I was forced to memorize. Thanks William Cullen Bryant.

[Sandman87]

This has to be a UO: I actually liked a lot of the stuff we read in HS sophomore English class: Chaucer, Didion, T.S. Eliot, Melville, and so on. Much more interesting than what they inflicted on us during the other three years.

 

Pity that the teacher was such a tool. Some outraged parents got him fired after his first year.

[GreekGeek]

This has to be a UO: I actually liked a lot of the stuff we read in HS sophomore English class: Chaucer, Didion, T.S. Eliot, Melville, and so on. Much more interesting than what they inflicted on us during the other three years.

 

Pity that the teacher was such a tool. Some outraged parents got him fired after his first year.

I mentioned upthread that I actually liked most of the books I read in high school that are generally considered too difficult or dull for kids. I didn't read in high school any of the authors you mentioned except Chaucer, and that was in senior year. I'm curious what Didion you read.

[Sandman87]

I'm curious what Didion you read.

The White Album. Anyone who's ever suffered from a migraine headache will appreciate "In Bed."

[annzeepark914]

Speaking of Joan Didion, I must say that The Year of Magical Thinking was truly laborious for me to read.  She was still grieving when she wrote this and it needed some editing (where are the editors today?).  I think she should have waited a few years.  Good Lord, the woman lost her husband and then her daughter.  But it's widely admired.  People rave about it.  

[BookWoman56]

Based on comments I'd heard about J K Rowling's The Casual Vacancy, I expected to dislike it, but instead liked it quite a bit, although I could see where other readers might not. For people familiar with the HP universe but not this book, if you imagine an entire small village populated by the Dursleys and their ilk, that's the setting. Watching these generally unpleasant people interact with each other over a brief political campaign was entertaining, and the book reminded me in odd ways of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, in the sense that Miss Marple never deluded herself about just how ugly the characters in small villages could be. There was one minor plot point that I thought was a bit forced

three different teens hacking into a village website to post negative things about one of their parents

, but the motivation was established well and rang true. The ending had some tragic elements that seemed to be the almost inevitable culmination of actions up to that point, as opposed to some random events that were there for shock value. Finally, the book had a certain amount of social commentary and attitudes that seemed very on point, while not being preachy.

[psychoticstate]

I was bored by the audiobook of The Martian and didn't finish it.  (running to hide)

[tenativelyyours]

I liked the movie more than the book (The Martian).  Something I almost never say.  Though as much as I liked Matt Damon as Mark and thought he did a good job, in my mind it was odd to watch the movie and see Sebastian Stan as another character since he was so along the exact lines of how I envisioned Mark in the book.

[partofme]

I quit reading The Kind Worth Killing about 50 pages in because I couldn't stand all of the misogyny and describing women based on their body parts.

[kili]

I don't think Molly Weasely is a good parent. Sure, Harry Potter features a rogue gallery of truly bad parents and she isn't in it, but she is definitely on the bad side of average. Yes, I will admit that she loves her kids and will do anything to defend them. And I won't argue against the claim that she serves as a good mother figure for Harry.

 

She never listens to her kids. She has no interest in their hopes or dreams. She only focuses on what she wants them to do. The entire family has to constantly walk on egg-shells around her and scheme behind her back to do what they need to do. The way she treats her son's fiancé is just horrible. Get over yourself, lady.

 

Book 2 really soured me on her. She has a total "Home Alone" moment where she leaves her 12 year old son in a train station and doesn't even notice. She's kept the entire family isolated, so he really doesn't have a clue how to function in the real world. He just knows he needs to get to school or she'll be angry. Sure, he makes a dumb decision about how to resolve the issue, but he is only 12. Her only reaction is to yell at him anyway. Then, when his idiocy results in his old, crappy wand getting broken, she does not replace it. We're not talking about something frivolous like an X-box here. How is he supposed to do his course-work without a wand? Plus, it is clearly dangerous to him and the other students. This would be the real world equivalent of making him go to school without glasses he desperately needs while making him carry a computer that could electrocute him at any moment. I know money was tight for the family, but borrow some money, sell something, request a donation from your rich Aunt, borrow a wand from the ministry, do something to get him a replacement freakin' wand. The stupid thing ended up blowing up a cave that nearly crushed him and Harry. I'd blame Ron's dad too, but Molly completely controls him and situations like this so he's a lost cause. He should have stood up to her more, but he's probably got Stockholm syndrome after years of living with her.

 

Then, there is the thing with the Yule Ball robes. Playing favourite's much? Your son has to go to the ball and your daughter does not (she would only go if invited, but his attendance is mandatory). You buy her the nice robes and him laughing stock robes. That locket in the last novel knew the deal.

 

It wouldn't bug me so much if she wasn't always being heralded as the best parent ever when she so clearly has some very big flaws. 

[BookWoman56]

I don't think Molly Weasely is a good parent. Sure, Harry Potter features a rogue gallery of truly bad parents and she isn't in it, but she is definitely on the bad side of average. Yes, I will admit that she loves her kids and will do anything to defend them. And I won't argue against the claim that she serves as a good mother figure for Harry. [snip]

 

It wouldn't bug me so much if she wasn't always being heralded as the best parent ever when she so clearly has some very big flaws. 

There were a few things about Molly that bugged, but I have wondered if she became that way after years of living with her husband, who seemed good-natured but pretty ineffectual. Tricking out a Muggle car with various magical functions seems a bit risky, especially given his job. It's possible she became increasingly screechy over time as she watched him do similarly stupid things.

 

However, I'll go one further in UOs about HP characters. I think Ron is pretty much the worst friend ever. His role in the first book seemed to be exposition fairy, to give Harry some insight into how the wizarding world worked. He seemed fairly useless after that. But to me he became increasingly unlikable as the series went on. He was an asshat to Harry in the GoF book, refusing to believe Harry (who was supposed to be his best friend) when Harry said he had not put his name into consideration for the championship competition. In one of the later books, he essentially calls his sister a slut because she has had more than one boyfriend, at an age where it's common for teen couples to break up after a month or two and find new BF/GFs. But the final straw was in DH, when the trio is on the run from the Death Eaters et al, hiding in the middle of nowhere. They are supposed to be on a mission to destroy the horcruxes so they can prevent Voldemort from rising to complete power again. It's a dangerous situation. But Ron bails on Harry and Hermione because he misses his mommy's cooking. So, first off, Ron, if you don't like Hermione's cooking, then try cooking your own damn food. Second, if you're tired of depending on food from the forest, then figure out a way to go into a Muggle town and buy some supplies, using the Muggle money that Hermione brought along.

 

Somewhere in that scene where Ron is getting ready to desert his two BFFs there's a sentence where Harry looks at Ron as if he is seeing the real Ron for the first time ever. And I agreed. Ron was a lazy, unmotivated brat who constantly tried to use Hermione's homework because he couldn't be bothered to do his own, and had very few redeeming qualities. The fact that he would leave Harry and Hermione, knowing how dangerous the situation was, seems like one of those moments in a friendship that you can't recover from. So, even though I knew it was coming, the epilogue in DH where it is revealed that Ron and Hermione are married made me cringe. I remember reading that and thinking, after being married to Ron for 15 or 20 years, Hermione is going to turn into Molly Weasley just out of pure exasperation at his bumbling ineptitude.

[Snow Apple]

While I don't hate Molly, I don't like her either. One thing that wasn't mentioned was when Ron got his head boy letter and she made such a fuss about how all her son were head boys. The twins called her out about forgetting they were her children too (a comment which she of course ignored). They make it sound like they were joking, but wow, I'm sure it stung.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Snow Apple

[Crs97]

I was always bothered by how Molly would make decisions for Harry and demand that everyone, including Harry, obey her. Maybe he liked her maternal nature, but I found it high-handed and uncomfortably possessive.

[kathyk24]

I thought I was the only one who hated Ron Weasly. I hate slacker characters and he's the worst. Why didn't you ask Harry or Herminoie how they felt about each other? I love the twins because they gave Dudley and Umbridge a taste of their own medicine.

[TheGreenKnight]

I think Rowling and the books themselves are very aware of Molly's flaws as a parent. Several things come to mind, like how, in the early books, she is the one rewarding Percy for behaving arrogantly, and then there was her fight with Sirius at the beginning of OotP where everyone was against her. Another key moment for me was in Goblet of Fire, when she's cold to Hermione because of Rita Skeeter's stories, even after she saw what Rita Skeeter wrote about Arthur following the Quidditch World Cup.

 

Still, I thought the Weasleys felt realistic as a family because they are all so flawed. I find Molly, Percy, the twins, Ron, and Ginny all contemptible at points throughout the story. While Arthur never does anything cruel, he is such an absent father. Even when present, he never exerts much authority over the children.

[BookWoman56]

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

 

I am generally meh on Molly Weasley but agree that overall, the family seemed realistic because of their flaws. With Arthur, it wasn't just that he was an absent father; he also seemed to undermine Molly and act like one of the kids at times, urging them not to let Molly find out about what they had done.

 

In re-reading the series quickly over the last couple of weeks, I find Harry a lot less sympathetic than I did the first time around. Once he got to Hogwarts, he was very curious about his father, but I cannot recall a single instance of him asking anyone, such as professors, Hagrid, Sirius or Lupin, what his mother was like. I can fanwank that lack of curiosity as being a byproduct of setting up the big reveal regarding Snape's love for Lily, but it does seem odd that he never once asked anyone about who her friends were, her personality, etc. It also baffled me that he blamed Snape for Sirius's death. The entire time Snape was attempting to teach him occlumency, Harry put virtually no effort into practicing the way Snape had told him. Snape and others warned him that Voldemort could try to plant false ideas and visions in his head, and yet Harry still did not try very hard to get better at keeping Voldemort out of his head. And while Snape should have kept tutoring Harry even after the incident with the pensieve, I can't blame Snape for being furious with Harry; that was a serious invasion of privacy. Given Harry's lack of effort with occlumency, I'm not sure that even if Snape had continued the lessons, it would have done any good. So after being warned that Voldemort could trick him with false visions, Harry still takes his friends with him into a trap, resulting in his friends being injured and necessitating a rescue attempt that got Sirius killed. Although Bellatrix was directly responsible for that death, I find Harry at least indirectly responsible for it. Yet his reaction is to be angry at Snape, with very little consideration of his own culpability in that event. I still like Harry overall, but his flaws seem a bit more pronounced after binge-reading the series.

[kathyk24]

I wish Harry had a chance to meet Lily's childhood friends at Hogwarts like he did James. I think Harry's mood changed in Order of the Phoenix as a result of the part of Voldemort inside of him growing stronger. He also was probably still traumatized from the events of Goblet of Fire. As for Harry not learning from Snape I blame Snape. He made no secret of his contempt for Harry ever since he came to school so why should Harry trust him now? Harry knows Sirius can't stand Snape so he is following is his footsteps.

[Crs97]

That is a great point, kathy, and a failing of the book. Harry only gets to learn about his mother as her story relates to James. The only people who could talk about Lily in her own right are Petunia and Snape, Neither of whom would be willing to share any such knowledge with Harry. (Is it crazy that I can hear Dumbledore's voice gently chiding me, "Professor Snape?")

I blame both Snape and Dumbledore for Harry's inability to learn occlumency. There had to be another person to teach him. McGonagall? Lupin in secret? Someone else? He had to know Snape and Harry were doomed to fail.

[kili]

I blame both Snape and Dumbledore for Harry's inability to learn occlumency. There had to be another person to teach him. McGonagall? Lupin in secret? Someone else? He had to know Snape and Harry were doomed to fail.

 

Yes, that was one of the many truly stupid things that Dumbledore did. LIke putting Harry in private lessons with Snape was ever going to be anything less than a disaster.

 

Was occlumency ever going to work anyway? Harry wasn't dealing with normal mind-reading here. He was dealing with a piece of Voldermort in his head.

 

Dumbledore should have skipped the lessons with Snape and made a small effort to make sure Harry didn't feel completely isolated that year. Give the child some information or at least stop making the child feel like a loser because he can't do something it's impossible for him to do anyway all while being abused by Snape.  Give him an adult figure he could trust (and I know Dumbledore didn't want it to be him, so have it be McGonagall).

 

Throughout the series I thought Dumbledore was kind of naïve and negligent for letting things in the school spiral out of control, allowing Snape to be on staff bullying children, for allowing idiotic usless Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers and for leaving things get so bad that Harry/Ron/Hermione had to save the day every year.  

 

The last book convinced me that Dumbledore was not naïve or negligent, he was a manipulative user who had no problem putting young, untrained children at risk and mind-screwing everybody. UO: Book 7 made me severely dislike Dumbledore.

[kathyk24]

I stopped thinking Dumbledore was a force for good after he failed to help Sirius clear his name. Dumbledore knew that he was innocent yet did nothing to help him get a new trial. I think Dumbledore wanted to control Harry's fate and if Sirius could become Harry's guardian that couldn't happen.

[pigs-in-space]

Dumbledore feels mostly like a plot device to me.

[GreekGeek]

I blame both Snape and Dumbledore for Harry's inability to learn occlumency. There had to be another person to teach him. McGonagall? Lupin in secret? Someone else? He had to know Snape and Harry were doomed to fail.

Maybe Snape was the only one nearby who happened to know occlumency. It's supposed to be achievable only by very few, which is why it wasn't part of the standard Hogwarts curriculum. The antagonism between Snape and Harry might have actually been a plus, since the whole point of it is to keep someone else from getting inside your head while you work on getting into theirs. The last thing Harry wanted was Snape reading his thoughts, and vice versa.

[Reghan]

I hated the following books.

 

Black Boy by Richard Wright

The Old Man and The Sea by Ernest Hemingway

Great Expectations 

Animal Farm 

TKAM(We All know this)

All of the Lord Of The Rings books

Summer of the monkeys

A Separate Peace(Reminded me of On My Honor which was better)

The Pearl

Johnny Tremain(UGH)

The Great Gatsby

 

I really don't mind Twilight, I don't think it's as awful as everyone makes it out to be.

 

I LOVE Flowers In The Attic, even though a lot of people hate it...couldn't get through the fourth book though. Too far.

 

Pretty Little Liars books need to end. I stopped reading after the fifth one. 

 

I liked The Lying Game books better than Pretty Little Liars.

[Kalliste]

I just finished reading 1984. I thought it was a massive waste of my time. Most of the time it was putting me to sleep with how boring it was.

[SmithW6079]

I just finished reading 1984. I thought it was a massive waste of my time. Most of the time it was putting me to sleep with how boring it was.

"1984" is my favorite book; I reread it every year. More and more I'm convinced Orwell was a prophet, as America descends into an oligarchy whose goal is to enrich itself while keeping the hoi polloi paranoid, fearful, and hate-filled.

[GreekGeek]

I don't want to get too deeply into politics here, but I thought Orwell was writing about the Soviet Union under Stalin rather than trying to create a vision of the future. Not that "1984" isn't still worth reading as a cautionary tale, but Aldous Huxley came much closer to imagining life today in "Brave New World." The eternal youthfulness, the sexual promiscuity, the drugs, and especially the high-tech mindless entertainment were all anticipated by him.

While we're on the subject of dystopias, Ira Levin, best known for "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Stepford Wives," wrote a very underrated novel of the future called "This Perfect Day."

[SmithW6079]

I don't want to get too deeply into politics here, but I thought Orwell was writing about the Soviet Union under Stalin rather than trying to create a vision of the future. Not that "1984" isn't still worth reading as a cautionary tale, but Aldous Huxley came much closer to imagining life today in "Brave New World." The eternal youthfulness, the sexual promiscuity, the drugs, and especially the high-tech mindless entertainment were all anticipated by him.

While we're on the subject of dystopias, Ira Levin, best known for "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Stepford Wives," wrote a very underrated novel of the future called "This Perfect Day."

Yes, "1984" is a thinly veiled story of the Soviet Union. My point is that so many of the points he brought up seem applicable to the evolution (devolution) of the political process in the US, especially the embrace of proto-fascist Trump.

I loved "This Perfect Day" (although I thought the ending was a little weak). There's a society where conformity and inoffensiveness are run amok.

[Kalliste]

I kind of feel like many governments have been the same, granted as someone who isn't an American my knowledge of American politics would be less.

 

But it mostly seems to be about power and paranoia, especially in times of war.

 

I might check out the other books mentioned. I keep meaning to read Stepford Wives but never get around to it.

[Chairperson Meow]

This has to be a UO: I actually liked a lot of the stuff we read in HS sophomore English class: Chaucer, Didion, T.S. Eliot, Melville, and so on. Much more interesting than what they inflicted on us during the other three years.

 

Pity that the teacher was such a tool. Some outraged parents got him fired after his first year.

I liked that stuff too. I also liked The Good Earth, Ethan Frome. I went on to actually read Age of Innocence on my own.

[Pepper Mostly]

While we're on the subject of dystopias, Ira Levin, best known for "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Stepford Wives," wrote a very underrated novel of the future called "This Perfect Day."

I still have my beat up copy of This Perfect Day that I probably bought at the drugstore or Woolworth's or someplace, and re read from time to time. Agree that it is underrated, its a fave of mine. "thank Uni" shudder.

[Jazzy24]

I just finished reading 1984. I thought it was a massive waste of my time. Most of the time it was putting me to sleep with how boring it was.

I didn't care for it much when I read it but I finished it.

There were parts that scared the hell out of me though and read more like horror.

[Winter Rose]

Jumping on board with having enough of JKR's post-HP interviews. Instead of dictating how I should interpret the books, just let me enjoy them. And in writing, because there's no one right way to do something, for every choice you do make, there's always a different way it could've gone instead. Had JKR actually put Harry/Hermione together, I wouldn't be surprised if she then would've wondered "what if" about Ron/Hermione. But to express doubts years and years after deeming them not enough to change anything, after making all her money - ultimately not hurting anyone who likes the books the way they are but appeasing the people who wanted something else - in my opinion was cowardly.

 

I also found Dumbledore's excessive use of good guesses, and he's so smart, so obviously he's right about everything, to be a lazy way of moving the plot along.

 

And I don't know how popular or unpopular of an opinion this is but I hate, hate, HATE that Molly Weasley was the one to kill Bellatrix. And not just out of thinking Neville was by far the more fitting candidate to do it or even that cringing "Not my daughter you bitch!" What really makes my blood boil is after how awful Molly was to Sirius in OOTP, about being in Azkaban, that she gets to kill the person who killed him.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Winter Rose

[BlackberryJam]

My unpopular opinion is that I don't think the Harry Potter books deserve any more analysis. They were nice enough. They are done. I'd be happy to never hear about them again. I don't want to be sorted. I don't want to read essays where other literary characters are sorted and I don't think the world was interesting enough to be continued. It was a nice enough meal, now easily forgotten.

Edited September 11, 2016 by BlackberryJam

[Joe]

I was never into Harry Potter much to start with. Maybe I was just too old to start with when they were released, but the style never really clicked for me.

[CouchPotatoLady8]

I don't think Jojo Moyes' Me Before You should've been made into a movie. I love Chloe Grace Moretz, but I hated the book, even the 2nd installment (After You). There are so many other books that could've been funded to turn into a movie instead of this one. Such a waste of time and talent. #UnpopularOpinion

[Wiendish Fitch]

What does it say about me that I never thought Don Quixote was an admirable, heroic character? He's a senile, deluded old man who basically bumbles his way from one situation to another, makes an ass of himself, and achieves nothing! Yet I've heard people praise the character, for "following his dream", "defying convention" (which is admittedly easier to do if you're deluded and senile), and "following his heart". How are we supposed to look up to a character, who most of the time, is barely aware of what he's doing?

Mind you, I'm sure Cervantes never meant for us to admire the character, but damned if modern audiences know that. 

[truthaboutluv]

On 9/27/2016 at 9:54 PM, CouchPotatoLady8 said:

I don't think Jojo Moyes' Me Before You should've been made into a movie. I love Chloe Grace Moretz, but I hated the book, even the 2nd installment (After You). There are so many other books that could've been funded to turn into a movie instead of this one. Such a waste of time and talent. #UnpopularOpinion

Chloe Grace Moretz wasn't in Me Before You. She was in If I Stay. 

[SherriAnt]

I know a lot of people practically worship Neil Gaiman, but I really can't get into any of his books. I read a lot of fantasy, both other world and urban, and he just doesn't grab me at all.

[scarynikki12]

Speaking of, every Neil Gaiman fan I know is obsessed with Neverwhere.  Like, they go hunting for hardcover first editions and it's their first choice for him to sign kind of obsessed.  Meanwhile, I've read it and think it's fine but I would place it at the bottom of my Gaiman list.  If he hadn't written it, I think it would be one of those books I immediately forgot after I finished.  And he knows it too, to the point that he expressed surprise when me, my bestie, and the two people in front of us in line all had different books for him to sign when he was on tour a few years back. 

[Danny Franks]

On 23/01/2017 at 6:02 AM, scarynikki12 said:

Speaking of, every Neil Gaiman fan I know is obsessed with Neverwhere.  Like, they go hunting for hardcover first editions and it's their first choice for him to sign kind of obsessed.  Meanwhile, I've read it and think it's fine but I would place it at the bottom of my Gaiman list.  If he hadn't written it, I think it would be one of those books I immediately forgot after I finished.  And he knows it too, to the point that he expressed surprise when me, my bestie, and the two people in front of us in line all had different books for him to sign when he was on tour a few years back. 

I like Neverwhere, and think it's influenced a lot of urban fantasy since, but I'm not surprised that Gaiman isn't as keen on it as his readers. He didn't even write it as a novel, to begin with. It was a ropy, typically-BBC-low-budget TV series, with the novelisation released as a tie-in, but designed by Gaiman to address some of the issues he had with the way the TV show was turning out. So... its genesis was a bit of a mess.

Generally, I enjoy Gaiman's books, and would say I'm a fan, but I rarely feel like I want to reread one I've read before. There's always a dark undercurrent to them that I find difficult to completely fall into.

[Hybridcookie]

On ‎22‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 6:13 PM, SherriAnt said:

I know a lot of people practically worship Neil Gaiman, but I really can't get into any of his books. I read a lot of fantasy, both other world and urban, and he just doesn't grab me at all.

I'm the same, he seems like a nice guy from what I've seen of him, but I'm not a huge fan of any of the books of his I've read (Good Omens, Neverwhere, The Graveyard Book), I didn't mind American Gods so much.

I did like his Doctor Who episode though

[afterbite]

I hated The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. Hated it.

Also, I love Pratchett and Gaiman, but wasn't wowed by Good Omens.

[cherrypj]

4 hours ago, afterbite said:

I hated The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. Hated it.

Same here. I can't believe it's sold so many copies. Is it a Dan Brown bestseller or a LOTR bestseller?

[Haleth]

I couldn't get through The Alchemist.  It was just too boring.

[Cherry Cola]

The Great Gatsby and Of mice and men, I hated them both.  I thought to myself, these are supposed to be some of the Classics? Must reads? I don't see what is so great about either, honsestly.