I’ll second O’Brien. I loved Forster’s books (not just the Hornblower ones), but stayed away from O’brien, mainly because his were much more expensive (for no good reason I could see). When the movie Master and Commander came out, I read the first three books. There’s a lot there, but, dammit, they’re too much work to read. I get no enjoyment from them.
Another is Charles Harness, a science fiction writer I hadn’t heard of until a few years ago. His stuff is praised by a lot of the Big Guns in SF, but I find him boring as hell, and not very innovative or scientific.
You’re not the only one. I read sci-fi/fantasy stuff a lot so I figured I’d give Pratchett a try. I can’t remember which book I gave up on either. That being said, I did enjoy The Long Earth, which Pratchett co-wrote with Stephen Baxter.
I was also disappointed by J.K. Rowling. Again with my usual tastes in books I looked forward to reading the first Harry Potter book. I gave up on it halfway through and never even tried to read another. I don’t know what it was, I just couldn’t get into it.
Tried the “Game of Thrones” books author. Did not like.
DeLint should be right in my wheel house, but I can’t get into any of his books. just find his writing boring.
and maybe I should be ashamed to admit it, but the only Terry Pratchett books I like are 3 of his books for younger readers - the wonderful Johnny Maxwell series which is NOT set in discworld.
As far as I can tell, the only good book Mr. Beagle has ever written is The Last Unicorn. I’ve read TONS of his other stuff, and it was all “meh”. But TLU makes me cry every time.
Mr. Gaiman is, IMHO, a fine idea man, and a terrible writer. How he managed to take an idea as interesting as American Gods and make it into such a tepid book is astonishing to me.
Well, nothing too major, but I was excited to see that Robert Zubrin, who’s done a lot of work championing manned Mars exploration, including one non-fiction book describing a Mars surface-expedition simulation that I rather enjoyed, had written a novel about a Martian expedition, I was quite enthused.
…and by sheer force of will, I managed to finish it. Ecch. I mean, I don’t think I can call it the worst book I’ve ever read—if only because I may be blocking out memories of worse ones. Or I might be jinxing myself—but, well…
I’ve never seen anything featuring “My Little Pony” characters that more badly written than that book.
Anything.
Another vote for Terry Pratchett. The books of his I’ve read were funny in places, but the stories were just not very interesting or well-plotted.
Let me chime in as yet another Pratchett-disliker. Virtually every message board that I’ve encountered – not only this one – has seemed stuffed to the gills with Pratchett devotees. With many people of intelligence and taste, thus being keen fans, I have sometimes wondered whether the fault must be with me. I long felt strongly, though, that what I’d heard / read second-hand about his stuff, seemed to me, very off-putting. After many years, I gritted my teeth and actually tried to read one of his more-renowned novels (I forget which); save for a couple of faint chuckles, that very greatly reinforced all my prejudices on the matter. IMO, lead-heavy, ponderous, and very un-amusing “humour”. And the author strikes me as so smugly, preeningly pleased with himself as the, obviously, funniest writer ever.
As for those Pratchett fans whose affectation it is, to call him “Pterry” – sorry, but I want to take a machete to those people.
Having heard many good things about Asimov, I was disappointed in what I read of his material. A few things he came out with, appealed to me; but on the whole, his stuff struck me just as mediocre and nothing very special. A bit as with Pratchett – I got the impression that Asimov was highly pleased with himself as the wise old doyen of sci-fi, and that the devotees would just automatically laud to the skies, anything that came from his pen.
His “Foundation” stories – I was not greatly taken with them, by reason of the space-and-intergalactic stuff being, seemingly, an incidental and unimportant backdrop: what was mostly focused on, was politicking and other standard human interactions, as enacted on Earth for millennia. My feeling was, why make your writings supposed “science-fiction”, when they are mostly unconnected with the “science” element?
de Gustibus and all. I’d gladly argue your characterization of Asimov and his writing, but I’d really like to point out that I actually do like Asimov’s writing. It’s certainly not the case that I think I like it because I feel I ought to like Asimov because he’s supposed to be a great science fiction writer.
Judging by the current thread o n L. Ron Hubbard, a lot of people actually seem to like some of his writing. He certainly had a rep in his earlier years. But I can’t stand his stuff. And that’s completely independent bof his later history.
Same here. In theory, I should love his books. But I just don’t. I’ve tried, and they just don’t appeal to me for some reason.
Wow! I can’t believe so many dopers know Charles de Lint and feel the same way as I do.
Charles is actually one of my neighbours, so when I heard that he was a successful writer I decided to check out his work. I started reading Moonheart but just couldn’t get into it and moved on to something else instead.I really thought that a book set in my hometown in a neighbourhood I am very familiar with would intrigue me but it wasn’t enough. A few years later, I tried* Wolf Moon,* same result*.*
If it’s any consolation to you, in person he’s equally boring and unengaging, his wife, on the other hand is delightful and pleasant.
Philip Pullman anyone? My wife recommended I read the trilogy since she had heard they were making a movie.
Larry Niven - Ringworld was good, wish he hadn’t written the other two.
I agree. I tried him years ago when “everybody” read him and talk about him, but I was never entertained, I didn’t finish the book I started with.
Plenty of folk do, for sure, genuinely like Asimov on his merits – he just didn’t tick my personal boxes. The “great author / other artist who can do no wrong – and by God he knows it – cohorts of knee-jerk adoring fans” meme, is a bit of a hot button for me, re which I fear I can at times be unfair and not 100% rational.
Talking of “not rational”, perhaps – what I’ve always most associated L. Ron Hubbard with, is the Scientology thing; which has caused me from the first, to wish not to touch him with a bargepole – and I never have done. Plenty other fish in the sea !
Call me dim; but I can’t seem to find the L. Ron Hubbard thread – not in “Cafe Society”, unless I’m totally blind?
Simon Sebag Montefiore has, I think, a good reputation as a popular historian, though I haven’t read any of his books. So I was excited to see that he’d written a historical novel, Sashenka. The cover art looked good, the description interesting, and the reviews good.
I finished it, but yikes - not a very good writing style. Dull, wooden, unintentionally funny in places. Not worth it.
I really enjoyed Charles de Lint… when I was 13. I felt like I outgrew them.
For the OP, this has happened to me with SO MANY authors… I really wanted to like Ann Patchett, for example, but I disliked Bel Canto AND State of Nature. I really wanted to like Eugenides, but I couldn’t get into Middlesex after three or so tries. I really wish I could love Pynchon but it’s not emotionally resonant enough for me. I want to love Neal Stephenson but it’s just too “masculine”. I want to love David Foster Wallace but Infinite Jest DEFEATS me. I love books but I stumbled over all of those hurdles. You can’t read 'em all…
Have you ever wondered if there are such things as “soul mates?”
As a fantasy fan I gave Phillip Pullman a try. At this point I am NOT ashamed to say I find him and his writing to be a pretentious bore.
Thanks.
Re “Pterry” – ha ! Glad it’s not just me.
Definitely not. It’s just one of those buttons I have. The affectation is so achingly manufactured.