Unpopular Opinions

[Mabinogia]

never read Of Mice and Men, have no interest in it, but I agree about Great Gatsby. I think, in it's time, it was probably amazing but it doesn't hold up. I hated everyone in it including the hypocritical narrator who kept bitching about the "privileged" while so desperately envying Gatsby who was the biggest dick of them all. At least Daisy and Tom were honest about being shallow and selfish. I did love the movie though, because it was visually stunning.

I just don't know if I read it and got out of it what was intended. I thought Gatsby himself to be the villain of the piece.

My UPO would be that I hate book series. I love mysteries but it is so freaking hard to find a mystery that is a one off and not part of some ongoing detective series.

[Browncoat]

I hate every Steinbeck book I've been forced to read.  I even hated the one I read by choice. 

[OtterMommy]

Very unpopular opinion here, but I detest Jane Austen.

[Melgaypet]

Mark Twain agree with you: “Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”

As for me, it's Dickens I can't stand.

[nodorothyparker]

While the myth that Dickens was paid by the word may not be true, he was paid by the installment and it shows.  It was in his best financial interest to drag out his stories as serializations.   People weren't trying to slog through David Copperfield all at once but over the period of a year or two.

[proserpina65]

On ‎02‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:23 AM, nodorothyparker said:

While the myth that Dickens was paid by the word may not be true, he was paid by the installment and it shows.  It was in his best financial interest to drag out his stories as serializations.   People weren't trying to slog through David Copperfield all at once but over the period of a year or two.

Even his most readable novel - A Tale of Two Cities - was drawn out more than it really needed to be.  But less so than many of his others, which is probably why its the only one I liked.  Well, that and A Christmas Carol, which is more of a short story.  For Dickens anyway.

[GreekGeek]

On 3/1/2017 at 3:06 PM, proserpina65 said:

Even his most readable novel - A Tale of Two Cities - was drawn out more than it really needed to be.  But less so than many of his others, which is probably why its the only one I liked.  Well, that and A Christmas Carol, which is more of a short story.  For Dickens anyway.

Have you read Hard Times? It's relatively short, without pages and pages devoted to those one-note "comic" characters.

[OtterMommy]

45 minutes ago, GreekGeek said:

Have you read Hard Times? It's relatively short, without pages and pages devoted to those one-note "comic" characters.

I read that back in college during a summer term in England and....it wasn't my favorite.  Admittedly, I haven't read a lot of Dickens (and I was also taking a class on the Brontes--who I love!--at the time), but I really felt like I was slogging through HT.

[wanderingstar]

Quote

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. 

My Neil Gaiman unpopular opinion is that I think American Gods is just ok. In fact, I think it goes on way too long, drags quite a bit in the middle and has a pretty anti-climatic climax. That said, I am looking forward to the Starz adaptation of the book, which I hope can address some of the issues I had with the novel.

[OtterMommy]

After reading the last few posts on what people are currently reading, I have another UO.  I really didn't like Truly, Madly, Guilty by Liane Moriarty. I've had better success with some of her other books (I haven't read them all, but I'm sure I'll get to them at some point), but that one just really fell flat for me.  It seems to be one of those books that people have strong feelings about, either way.  I mean, I don't know of anyone who has read it and was just "meh" about it.  I am glad that there are people who enjoyed it as I did enjoy most of her other books (but not The Last Anniversary.  That one had some very strange problems....), but I guess I just fall into the camp where it did not work.

[luna1122]

I don't care about Harry Potter, Divergent, Hunger Games, Tolkien or Game of Thrones. I've read some of them. I've seen some of the movies based on them. I liked some, didn't like others. But I have no interest in reading the books, other than what I already have.

I don't like historical fiction, like, hardly at all.

I don't like book series. There are definitely books I'd like a sequel to, that I love so much I want more, but by and large, once I'm finished with a book/story, I don't need six more of them.

I hated "Wuthering Heights'. I have never read Jane Austen.

[SmithW6079]

I don't know if this is necessarily a UO, but I'm a fan of a lot of self-published books on Amazon Kindle, particularly sci-fi. I'm not indiscriminate -- if something is full of typos and poorly edited, I'll pass or drop the book -- but I've discovered and enjoyed a lot of good books that way.

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 3/6/2017 at 3:39 PM, luna1122 said:

 

I hated "Wuthering Heights'.

What I don't get is how Cathy is considered a "heroine". I don't mean the generic term for "female protagonist", I mean "heroic character". 

WHY?!?!

And before anyone gets on my case, I'm not talking about Cathy's personality. Characters don't always have to be "nice" or "likable" to be heroic, but, looking past the fact that Cathy is a destructive, selfish, social climbing, textbook narcissist... what the hell does she accomplish?! 

She doesn't make anything, rise above anything, save anyone or anything, what in the world does Cathy do to be considered a "heroine"? She's not even a good anti-heroine like, say, Becky Sharp, she's just a hateful little idiot who relievedly dies before she can hurt anyone else!

[raven]

47 minutes ago, SmithW6079 said:

I don't know if this is necessarily a UO, but I'm a fan of a lot of self-published books on Amazon Kindle, particularly sci-fi.

I haven't found a lot of sci-fi, but I've taken chances on some horror and dramatic stuff and gotten generally good results.   Sometimes a $1.99 or $2.99 pickup is just fine.  There's been some bad and I don't bother if the reviews talk about typos, etc. but I think it's a good way to get a decent read inexpensively. 

 

On 3/4/2017 at 1:35 PM, Gillian Rosh said:

My Neil Gaiman unpopular opinion is that I think American Gods is just ok.

It does meander quite a bit.  I think Anansi Boys is better.  I do love Neverwhere and I really enjoy NG's short stories; I think his method of storytelling lends itself better to a tighter format.

More UO?  Ron Weasley is one of my favorite characters in the HP series.

[Melgaypet]

I love "Wuthering Heights." But I am consistently baffled at how it has been branded some kind of grand love story. It's not a romance! It is Gothic horror! The "love story" is between two selfish, awful people whose mutual obsession destroys themselves and everyone around them! That is the whole point!

(I'm not yelling at any of you guys, btw. Like I said, I love it, but I can totally get why someone wouldn't. It's just super weird to me how the cultural perception of this book is just so, so off from what it actually is. I wonder how that happened.)

[Wiendish Fitch]

29 minutes ago, Melgaypet said:

I love "Wuthering Heights." But I am consistently baffled at how it has been branded some kind of grand love story. It's not a romance! It is Gothic horror! The "love story" is between two selfish, awful people whose mutual obsession destroys themselves and everyone around them! That is the whole point!

(I'm not yelling at any of you guys, btw. Like I said, I love it, but I can totally get why someone wouldn't. It's just super weird to me how the cultural perception of this book is just so, so off from what it actually is. I wonder how that happened.)

Your perspective is refreshing to say the least, Melgaypet. I agree with you completely.

I blame all the film adaptations (especially the 1939 version with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon) because they all miss the damn point. They try to make Cathy and Heathcliff tragic, star-crossed lovers when in fact they're deranged sociopaths who do humanity a friggin' service by croaking. The pathetic thing is, even in the most sanitized film versions, I still hate the principal couple, because nothing can disguise the fact that Cathy is a greedy, fickle, selfish brat (too kind a word, I know), and Heathcliff can't be described without shuddering. 

Have you ever read John Sutherland's essay "Is Heathcliff a Murderer?"? I highly recommend it to anyone who either hates Wuthering Heights, or who likes Wuthering Heights, but has the good sense not to see it as a sweeping romance for the ages.

[Mabinogia]

I have never read Wuthering Heights because I thought it was some sad Romeo and Juliette kind of thing which didn't interest me at all, but now you've got me intrigued. Funny how much the movie adaptations have changed the perception of a book.

[OtterMommy]

23 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I have never read Wuthering Heights because I thought it was some sad Romeo and Juliette kind of thing which didn't interest me at all, but now you've got me intrigued. Funny how much the movie adaptations have changed the perception of a book.

Honestly, the darker world view you have going into it, the more you'll enjoy it. 

(I loved it....)

[MeloraH]

3 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Honestly, the darker world view you have going into it, the more you'll enjoy it. 

(I loved it....)

This is really accurate. I liked it a lot. I'd seen the Tom Hardy/Charlotte Riley version on Masterpiece before I read it and I read it as "Assholes Who Ruin Each Others Lives". Like even the least toxic characters in it are pretty toxic. 

[Mabinogia]

21 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Honestly, the darker world view you have going into it, the more you'll enjoy it. 

My world view is pretty dark. This might become my new favorite book. lol I loaded it onto my Kindle. Big storm headed my way. Sounds like the perfect day to cuddle up and read about assholes ruining each others lives. (great description)

[MeloraH]

Oh and FYI the Hardy/Riley version is on PBS this Sunday. I think they're showing a bunch of old adaptations before the spring masterpiece stuff debuts. Northanger Abbey with Felicity Jones was on last weekend.

Then to keep on topic of unpopular opinions I can't bring myself to read any Rainbow Rowell. So many people who I generally share book taste with like her stuff I feel like it must be good but it just seems too cutesy so I refuse to try. 

[OtterMommy]

4 minutes ago, MeloraH said:

Then to keep on topic of unpopular opinions I can't bring myself to read any Rainbow Rowell. So many people who I generally share book taste with like her stuff I feel like it must be good but it just seems too cutesy so I refuse to try. 

I like YA Rainbow Rowell, but Landline was a big disappointment for me--and so many people (like with you--people with whom I generally share book taste) just LOVED it.  And, I'm sorry, I can't with "Carry on."  I liked the whole Simon Snow thing in Fan Girl and I like the idea of the source coming after the fictional fanfic, but I just can't with that....

[garnet207]

  Speaking of Rainbow Rowell, I recently finished Carry On, and while I did finish it, I thought it was disappointing, considering I quite like Eleanor & Park, and Fangirl--haven't gone near Landline, at this point. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by garnet207

[partofme]

I also hated everything about Landline.  It was the second and last Rainbow Rowell book that I've read. 

[Snowball II]

Landline pissed me off.  The husband in that book was a petulant little baby who relied on his wife to make him happy, and I wanted her to leave him for the guy friend who was in love with her.  I liked Fangirl and Eleanor and Park a lot more.  Attachments was sweet, too, but Landline?  Ick.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Hrairoo

[Qoass]

I clicked on this topic by mistake because so many of the posts hurt my heart but the last four about Rainbow Rowell are right on the money for me.

[Katy M]

My UOs"

I hate The Time Traveller's Wife.  Agatha Christie is not the best mystery writer ever.  John Saul's books are better than Stephen King's. 

In the Wicked series, my favorite book is A Lion Among Men, and most people seem to hate that one.

I hate The Three Musketeers.  With a passion.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Though I loved The Miraculous Journey of Edward Toulane, I find Kate DiCamillo, for the most part, insufferable as a writer. She's obnoxiously twee in her prose, and strikes me as very up her own ass. I shake my head at her pile of Newbery Awards.

The appeal of the Harry Hole novels eludes me. He's such an uninteresting, cliched character. Broody loner? Check! Loose cannon on the force? Check! Smoker? Check! Drinking problem? Check! Women near and dear to him are either raped or killed, because women in these kinds of books exist solely to have awful things happen to them to motivate the hero for any reason? CHEEE-YECK!

Edited May 10, 2017 by Wiendish Fitch

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

The appeal of the Harry Hole novels eludes me.

But, his name is Harry Hole! How is that not appealing? hahaha Actually, never heard of him, and the books sound horrible, but that name makes my inner 12 year old crack up.

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

I hate The Time Traveller's Wife. 

I'm with you on this one.  It recently came up again in one of my book groups and it just rekindled my hatred all over again.  

[Katy M]

4 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

I'm with you on this one.  It recently came up again in one of my book groups and it just rekindled my hatred all over again.  

I'm still mad at my sister about this one.  I hate time travel.  So, I obviously had no interest in reading this in the first place.  She told me it was great.  I said, "but I hate time travel."  "It's not about time travel."  Well, one, that's a lie.  It is about time travel. I don't know what kind of drugs she was on while reading the book.  And, two, it was just awful even without the time travel.  Not sure why she loved it so much..  Other than that's she's weird:)

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, Katy M said:

I'm still mad at my sister about this one.  I hate time travel.  So, I obviously had no interest in reading this in the first place.  She told me it was great.  I said, "but I hate time travel."  "It's not about time travel."  Well, one, that's a lie.  It is about time travel. I don't know what kind of drugs she was on while reading the book.  And, two, it was just awful even without the time travel.  Not sure why she loved it so much..  Other than that's she's weird:)

If your sister doesn't think this book is about time travel, there may be something wrong with her.  Worse yet, it is sloppy time travel.  I don't mind time traveling novels, if they make sense...this one didn't.

[Katy M]

12 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

If your sister doesn't think this book is about time travel, there may be something wrong with her.  Worse yet, it is sloppy time travel.  I don't mind time traveling novels, if they make sense...this one didn't.

I do like that his clothes didn't time travel with him.  I wonder what would happen if he had fillings or something.  I also wonder how he kept his job.  But, when the best thing I can say about a book is that I'm glad some guy is naked because that's about the only part that makes sense, well, that's a bad book.

[starri]

15 hours ago, Katy M said:

Agatha Christie is not the best mystery writer ever

She is not.  PD James is.

[Wiendish Fitch]

14 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

But, his name is Harry Hole! How is that not appealing? hahaha Actually, never heard of him, and the books sound horrible, but that name makes my inner 12 year old crack up.

The author, Jo Nesbo, and and the character are Norwegian, so "Hole" is pronounced differently than it is in English. Still, don't think the unintentional humor was lost on me. :)

Seriously, I read the first 2 books in the series, and they manage to be simultaneously dull and smutty. I don't expect my lead characters to be perfect, but I do expect a certain degree of humor, or warmth, or charm, or something I can latch onto emotionally or otherwise. Hell, I like Becky Sharp from Vanity Fair, and she's almost pure evil, but at least she's fun and her actions are framed in a snarky light. Harry Hole is such a boring, cliched cardboard cutout that I just can't get invested.

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I don't expect my lead characters to be perfect, but I do expect a certain degree of humor, or warmth, or charm, or something I can latch onto emotionally or otherwise.

Yes. I don't want my characters perfect because perfect is usually pretty boring. I tend to latch onto humor, wit, charm. I will suffer through bad plots more easily than I will suffer through boring characters.

[die Frau]

I don't know if I would go so far as to say I hate the book Heidi but I'm no fan of the main character. I'm sure she's probably supposed to be full of “child like innocence,“ but she comes off as moronic, especially when she's in Frankfurt (the kittens, hoarding the white rolls, giving Peter's mother her hat, as if it would really fit, etc.) While I know that she was not brought to Frankfurt under the nicest of circumstances, she could have been nicer there. It wasn't Klara's fault (I remember preferring Klara even when I was younger.)

I also hate Peter's Grandmother and her constant complaining and passive aggressive put-downs toward Peter and his mother (“I'm glad you can read, Heidi. If only Peter had learned....“)  She so did not deserve her white rolls.

I think the Alps are great, but not nearly as much as the author, who apparently thinks that they are full of healing powers. The Alps and dear little St. Heidi as well.

“Fun fact:“ The English translation is...not perfect. They have Heidi's full name as Adelaide instead of Adelheid. How would the name “Heidi“ come out of Adelaide? It also puts in the word “gape“ instead of “yawn“ (Klara “gapes“ when she is bored in school.) Additionally stupid things are added like a mention of Heidi's “angel face,“ which is absolutely not in the German edition.

[psychoticstate]

On 5/10/2017 at 4:42 PM, Katy M said:

I'm still mad at my sister about this one.  I hate time travel.  So, I obviously had no interest in reading this in the first place.  She told me it was great.  I said, "but I hate time travel."  "It's not about time travel."  Well, one, that's a lie.  It is about time travel. I don't know what kind of drugs she was on while reading the book.  And, two, it was just awful even without the time travel.  Not sure why she loved it so much..  Other than that's she's weird:)

I really enjoy time travel but I thought The Time Traveler's Wife was a massive, steaming POS.   I have hated it for years and every time I see the title, it makes me seethe.  

I'm really not understand how your sister, or anyone, could think a book with "time travel(er)" in the title isn't about time travel.  It was supposed to be a romance too and not strictly sci fi but yeah, the time travel part was a huge aspect.  And done terribly.

[Blergh]

By virtually all accounts, Stephen King appears to be a very nice, amiable person but I'm rather puzzled as to why he writes such disturbing stuff. I know he can write whatever he wants and there's a market for it but, really, was there truly a need to revisit a tale about an evil clown who terrifies children  on  a horrific scale in an otherwise nostalgic small town? What's most unsettling here is that, like the "Star Wars" novelizations, this seems to be reveling in evil and sadism rather than focusing on having good triumph over evil.

[DrSpaceman73]

Stephen King did write Stand by Me, or at least The Body, which is the book the film is based on, so its not like he can't write other stuff. 

 

I guess it does involve a dead body and barfing, but more tame than his other stuff

[DearEvette]

On 2/6/2017 at 6:45 PM, OtterMommy said:

Very unpopular opinion here, but I detest Jane Austen.

Oh, God.  Me too.   The only thing I ever liked that was related was the movie Clueless.  And modern day Stacey Dash has even retroactively ruined that for me.

On 2/18/2017 at 10:40 PM, Melgaypet said:

Mark Twain agree with you: “Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”

As for me, it's Dickens I can't stand.

Not as colorful as Twain, but that quote kinda reminds me of the twitter fight Twilight fans had with Stephen King because he said Stephanie Meyer couldn't writer worth a damn.  Ha.  I don't disagree.  I could barely make it through Twilight. Needless to say my contributions to the discussion of my book club for that book was waaay snarky.

But Ditto Dickens.

 

On 3/11/2017 at 7:24 PM, SmithW6079 said:

I don't know if this is necessarily a UO, but I'm a fan of a lot of self-published books on Amazon Kindle, particularly sci-fi. I'm not indiscriminate -- if something is full of typos and poorly edited, I'll pass or drop the book -- but I've discovered and enjoyed a lot of good books that way.

Agree.  You really do have to wade through some terribly amateurish stuff.  But I have found some really good ones across genre.  In SFF I really enjoyed Michael Sullivan's Riyria Revelations series (it was self pubbed originally but was bought by Hachette and repackaged).  Also liked Lindsay Buroker's Emperor's Edge series which she originally self pubbed.

[Katy M]

7 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Oh, God.  Me too.   The only thing I ever liked that was related was the movie Clueless.  And modern day Stacey Dash has even retroactively ruined that for me.

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:40 PM, Melgaypet said:

Mark Twain agree with you: “Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”

As for me, it's Dickens I can't stand.

Not as colorful as Twain, but that quote kinda reminds me of the twitter fight Twilight fans had with Stephen King because he said Stephanie Meyer couldn't writer worth a damn.  Ha.  I don't disagree.  I could barely make it through Twilight. Needless to say my contributions to the discussion of my book club for that book was waaay snarky.

But Ditto Dickens.

I love Dickens and I like two of Jane Austen's books.  But, I think I do have my own UO about Jane Austen.  One time a friend asked me what my favorite type of book was. I said historical fiction.  She immediately said I should read Jane Austen, who of course isn't historical fiction but classic, but that's OK, because I like classics.  Anyway, I had coincidentally just finished Pride and Prejudice.  So, I said I liked that book.  My friend then told me to read Sense and Sensibility.  I said that I had read that a few years earlier and didn't like it as well.  She told me I was wrong.  Sense and Sensibility was better.  Always nice to be told your opinion is wrong.  But, this friend moved away 10 years ago and I haven't kept in touch.  I wonder how she would feel knowing my favorite Jane Austen book is Mansfield Park, which I gathered from the foreword that one is supposed to hate this book.

[OtterMommy]

41 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Agree.  You really do have to wade through some terribly amateurish stuff.  But I have found some really good ones across genre.  In SFF I really enjoyed Michael Sullivan's Riyria Revelations series (it was self pubbed originally but was bought by Hachette and repackaged).  Also liked Lindsay Buroker's Emperor's Edge series which she originally self pubbed.

And, every once in a while, a self-published book takes off.  The Martian started off as a self-published book (on a blog, even before it was available on Amazon).  Of course, so did Fifty Shades of Grey....  Two sides to every coin...

[SmithW6079]

I generally dislike book series. There's nothing worse than finding a book that looks interesting and then discovering it's number 25 in a series of 75 or somesuch and you need to have read all 24 previous editions to understand what's going on in this one.

[Browncoat]

53 minutes ago, SmithW6079 said:

I generally dislike book series. There's nothing worse than finding a book that looks interesting and then discovering it's number 25 in a series of 75 or somesuch and you need to have read all 24 previous editions to understand what's going on in this one.

And trilogies have really gotten out of hand.  I'm to the point where if I pick up an interesting looking book and find out it's the first of a trilogy, I'll put it right back down.  I think the Divergent trilogy soured me on trilogies forever.

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

And trilogies have really gotten out of hand.  I'm to the point where if I pick up an interesting looking book and find out it's the first of a trilogy, I'll put it right back down.  I think the Divergent trilogy soured me on trilogies forever.

I somehow keep ending up with book 3 out of 4.  So, I read it.  I don't know what happened before and I don't know how it ended.  Oh well.

I have really liked some series, though.  The Kent Chronicles and to a lesser extent Outlander.  But, curses on George RR Martin.

[GaT]

1 hour ago, SmithW6079 said:

I generally dislike book series. There's nothing worse than finding a book that looks interesting and then discovering it's number 25 in a series of 75 or somesuch and you need to have read all 24 previous editions to understand what's going on in this one.

I like book series personally, I'm currently reading the In Death series by JD Robb, & so far, that series has 44 books so it looks like I may be reading them for a while. That said (why I emphasized the word "may"), too many times authors are just writing for the $$$$$ & the books suck. You just want the series to finally end, but you've invested too much time into to stop before it does (I'm talking to you Sookie Stackhouse series). I find that extremely annoying, if a series is done, just finish it already!

I also hate when an author just doesn't seem to be able to write another book in the series, but keeps talking about it like it's going to happen (Harry Dresden series) & you keep waiting & waiting for the next book. If you've got nothing to write, move on & stop making promises you can't keep

I actually read the Myron Bolitar series by Harlan Coben because I picked up the 11th book in the series, Home, because I didn't realize it was part of a series. Luckily it turned out to be one of my favorite books, & even though I got the sense that there was backstory I didn't know about, I had no problem understanding everything that happened. After I finished it, I bought & read all the other books from the beginning.

36 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

And trilogies have really gotten out of hand.  I'm to the point where if I pick up an interesting looking book and find out it's the first of a trilogy, I'll put it right back down.  I think the Divergent trilogy soured me on trilogies forever.

I totally agree. I don't have words for how much I hated Allegiant, that was such a bad book that they couldn't even finish the theatrical movie series, they're making it a TV movie instead. I'm sure it's the publishers asking for trilogies, every book that gets written can't possibly need 2 more books to finish the story.

[Hanahope]

2 hours ago, Browncoat said:

And trilogies have really gotten out of hand.  I'm to the point where if I pick up an interesting looking book and find out it's the first of a trilogy, I'll put it right back down.  I think the Divergent trilogy soured me on trilogies forever.

At least the damn thing had an ending...looking at you GRRMartin, Patrick Rothfuss and Melanie Rawn who start series/trilogies and don't finish them.  I've vowed never to start a series that doesn't have an end book.  And by series, I mean an overall story arc, as opposed to an ongoing series with the same characters, but separate self-contained stories (like Coben's Myron Bolitar - which I love).

I do start to get really tired of ongoing series that after the 20th book are just so repetitive, but part of me wants to know the tidbit that moves the characters a bit further in their overall development.  But I have to say, after the latest Laurell K. Hamilton and Janet Evanovich books, I'm ready to give up on those and just read the synopsis on Wikipedia.  I have to clean out at least one of my five bookcases at home and I'm looking at getting rid of those series, I don't think I'll ever read them, nor do I think I'd recommend them to my kids (who I don't think would like them anyway).

Edited October 3, 2017 by Hanahope

[nodorothyparker]

I think George RR Martin has ruined a lot of people on starting unfinished series that don't show any realistic signs of someday not being unfinished.  He hasn't scared me off the series altogether, but I know he's changed how I evaluate whether to take a chance on one.  If the author is a Rowling who can be counted on to regularly put out a book a year and clearly knows where she's going or even a Gabaldon who may take several years in between books and throw a project or two in between but still puts out work with some regularity, fine.  But when I encounter a series now that I know isn't finished, I look at the dates each of the books were released and how long it's been since the last one.  Do the reviews of the later books show that the series is clearly driving toward something or are there complaints of meandering and continued world building when that universe should be contracting and moving forward?  I've enjoyed Martin's writing, but he's made me jaded.

There have been series I've liked a lot like Winston Graham's Poldark Saga or the above mentioned Kent Family Chronicles, where you know going in how many books there are and that you're going to be following more than one generation.  They're like comfort food that I may string out for years between other books.  But then there are series where the author has clearly run a character into the ground but seems to keep going for no other reason than they know people will keep buying a recognizable brand.  James Lee Burke, for example, is a hell of a writer.  He really is.  That said, when he seemingly killed most famous creation Dave Robicheaux several books ago, he should have let him stay dead instead of resurrecting him to continue implausibly kicking bad guy ass and recycling plots well into his 70s.

[Black Knight]

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

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

Edited October 4, 2017 by Black Knight