I have tried her books a few times and I agree. First of all, for someone that is supposed to be a world-class forensic anthroplogist, she collapses in tears everytime she has to deal with death.
Secondly, the plots are stupid, there have been a few times that I am literally yelling at the book what the solution is and no one seems to be getting it for pages and pages…
I realize I should’ve given up on them right away, but my husband bought me a few for Christmas and I decided to slog through…
My father annotated this book with cross-referenced biographies of every artist mentioned in it, and cassette tapes of every song mentioned in it. Since “Don’t You Forget About Me” isn’t on an album he could find, he rented The Breakfast Club to see if he could tape it off that.
He’s a teeny bit obsessive.
Another vote for the The Kite Runner. Starts off with some promise with vivid childhood scenes of Afghanistan life and culture then not so slowly turns into a steaming pile. You’re actually angry at the book for turning so shitty and the time you’ve wasted by the idiotic end.
The first is rough, perhaps, the roughest. Generally speaking, he is over-descriptive to a fault which makes his books difficult to get through sometimes. I’ve read them all except for the latest and will say that some were…very bad, while some were…very good.
This was all quite some time ago, however. In my fantasy period. Oh High School. How I miss thee…
Shouldn’t that be “Dreckology?” I read them all, waiting for the story to get good. It never did. It’s my #1. #2 is “Wicked.” Seriously. Hated it. Got to the last 30 pages and never finished it.
I dun understood it and I ain’t stupid!
Why? Why did you do that to me? Please let me have those 3 seconds back!
Another vote for Jonathan Livingston Seagull - which I also read and enjoyed when I was a pretentious 10-year-old. I never bothered to read it again as an adult because I know that I only liked it because it was awful and I was 10.
Another vote for The Shack, too. My grandparents (who are super religious) were all about this book and they asked if I wanted to read it, and I said I would just to not be a jerk. I made it about 50 pages in before I gave up on it, and gave it to my mom (who is more religious than me). I haven’t heard anything from her about it…I don’t think she read it either.
And, I’ll throw in for Timeline. A guy I was really in to once told me I had to read this book, it was AMAZING. I read it, waiting for the amazing, and it never came. I guess I’m glad we’re no longer on speaking terms.
I’ve only read the first of Jeff Lindsay’s DEXTER books (on which the TV series is based), but a friend who read them said they were great until Lindsay completely threw a curve ball. You find out eventually that Dexter’s need to kill comes not from the fact he’s a psychopath with an odd sort of conscience substitute, but because he’s possessed by an ancient spirit who was once worshiped as a god in rituals that involved human sacrifice. She stopped reading the series at this point (not for any religious objections but for WTF? objections).
I thought the Harry Potter series was clever and entertaining until we got the last book. That was horrific.
Twilight - I have the complete series, but so far have only read two, finished New Moon a couple of months ago. I was less than thrilled with New Moon and set it aside for about 4 months (if not more) before finishing it. I feel obligated to read the other 2 since I bought them, but I’m not chomping at the bit to do it.
The Anita Blake Vampire series. I HATED it.
Textual Intercourse (awesome Dopername, BTW), what is your math background? If you know enough math so that the square root of -1 does not scare you, you are far ahead of most readers of BHOT. If you, like 99.999% of the general public, don’t know what the square root of -1 is, can you tell me what you think Hawking meant by “imaginary time”?
I have a PhD in physics, so I knew what Hawking meant, but nobody in the general pubic - Hawking’s supposed target audience - would have a clue from BHOT on its own. And he provided no references, no guide for further reading. :rolleyes:
See post 74 upthread. I’m with Stink Fish Pot on this one. Hawking may be a good physicist, but he’s a terrible science populizer.
You’ve never read DK’s Tick Tock, then. I thought that was very good. Hilarious in places.
I had already decided the series was much better- even than the first book when I hit that supernatural themed one. WTF?? However, he does return more to the real Dexter in the next book- but you can tell the author has gotten all he can out of the idea, better left to the TV writers now.
That one had me laughing to the point of tears by the end of it.
Thank you, sir. Math background = I received a G.E.D. with a high score. No college degree’s. Took a couple of (what you would consider rudimentary) math courses en route to a B.A. in Liberal Arts at various community colleges (never received one but I’m OH SO CLOSE.) Most of what I know about anything, I know from reading whatever books I could get my hands on.
The square root of -1 (or even -2, -3 AND -4) does not scare me. Nor do square roots of positive numbers. As far as I can remember, the square root of -1 is an imaginary symbol represented by “I.” I could be way off on this as it’s been quite some time since I’ve read Hawking. If this is the case, please enlighten me.
As for what Hawking meant by “imaginary time,” I’ll have to re-consult the text. Rather than Googling now, I’ll go straight to the source and see what I can see. I have a vague recollection of it, but as I’ve just said, it’s vague. Don’t wanna make a clears throat dope out of myself by giving a terrible interpretation. The book is at home…I hope. It will be consulted after work.
It’s interesting to note (How I love this phrase. Used it twice today already) that Hawking wrote a second book by the name of “A Briefer History of Time.” He likely realized the consensus on the understandability of “A Brief History of Time,” and felt that something should be done about the matter.
You probably recognized “i = square root (-1)” as the source of the word “imaginary” in Hawking’s phrase “imaginary time”, which saved you the giant confusion that most readers of BHOT went through. That was an excellent application of your math background, demonstrating my own theory that people who come to education later in life than their peers appreciate education more than their peers.
But why would Hawking want to use an imaginary number for measuring time in his equations? Mathematically, one of the things imaginary numbers can do for you is make function that is not cyclical into a cyclical function. The core idea for this is discussed on this wiki page, but I don’t know how clear that will be for people who don’t have complex analysis already in their heads. (BTW, “complex” numbers are sums of real numbers and imaginary numbers. Not at all complex to us, but the mathematicians who first worked on them banged their heads for a while.)
If you trust me on the fact that imaginary numbers can get you a cyclical function where you did not have one before, then I can justify Hawking’s “imaginary time”. He wanted to have the time component of his equations to be cyclical, so he could deal with time in a similar way to dealing with a closed or finite universe. He could set boundaries on the equations, and set conditions on those boundaries - a very useful method for solving equations at Hawking’s level.
Textual Intercourse, let us know if Hawking makes any attempt to explain his “imaginary time” concept. My recollection is that he did not. I think that lack of explanation stopped most of his readers in their tracks.
I guarantee you that this book will beat anything else named here. Anything else here might be not to your taste – it might be hacky, even (Dan Brown) – but this is truly just awful writing. Seriously, read a bit of it if you ever get a chance. It’s truly the worst written book you’ll ever see, and I believe I’d put money on that. Were it not for the New Agey mystical tie-in, this would NEVER have been published. It’s so bad that it clearly never had any sort of editing. What do I mean by bad? One thing I remember is a constant introduction of new characters who would literally disappear and never be mentioned again after a few pages. You began to realize that none of the characters mattered very quickly, because they were just meant to pop up and deliver a little exposition or some mystical advice, blah blah.
Ugh.
Did I mention I read it when I was 11? And even then, realized, “Wow, this is really bad!”.
Dreamcatchers, Duma Key…
But Pillars of the Earth makes me angry…very angry, indeed!
This came so highly recommended; “it makes you feel like you’re in the Middle Ages”. I read it- took forever to slug through it- if makes me feel like I’m in a not particularly imaginative Renaissance Faire enthusiast’s notions of the Middle Ages + softcore porn + cut and pasted textbook details on church architecture and had the most cardboard characters ever (evil bishop, the girl who runs away because she doesn’t want to marry the nobleman in an arranged marriage, etc.).
Add Under the Dome to that short list.