"Classic" books/series/authors that you just don't connect with

[RHWright]

---

Lychii wrote:

I love most of fantasy and sci-fi, but there are two notable exclusions:

Tolkien: I just couldn't drag my mind through LOTR, I found it so insanely stuffy and boring.

Douglas Adams: I've read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but just barely. The book is supposed to be clever or funny or something, but I just found it awkward and weird in a bad way.

---

This is exactly why I started this thread!

I couldn't disagree with you more. But it seems all over the internet, people who have a different opinion or taste in something too often get shouted down and called names because they dare to have a contrary opinion. And about something as arbitrary, individual, personal, and ultimately inconsequential as which books they like.

Maybe I'm weird, but I like to hear when people don't like things and the reasons why. Not a real fan of the drive-by generalizations—it sucked, that was so stupid, etc—but if something is a little more cogent, I don't mind. I may still disagree.

I find Hitchhiker's hilarious. You don't see the humor that I and others do. Who am I to tell you your sense of humor is "wrong" and mine is "right"?

There are plenty of people, movies, books, etc. that others find funny that I just don't "get." Dave Chappelle. Dumb & Dumber. Terry Pratchett I find amusing, but I just don't take to him like so many other do.

It's generally OK to not be a fan of something, but the flack people get when they consider themselves a fan, but have opinions that deviate from the mainstream within that community...

Try saying JK Rowling is a good storyteller, but only an average writer...

or that Gene Roddenberry was a man of limited personal talents who could bring out (sometimes bully out) the talent in others...

[fill in your own experience here]...

I admire the ability of everyone on this board to take all opinions in stride. It's a rare thing these days.

[deesy58]

---

RHWright wrote:

---

I admire the ability of everyone on this board to take all opinions in stride. It's a rare thing these days.

---

   

[patgolfneb]

Mine is Philip Dick. I think his ideas were genius, but his actual writing skills ordinary. Saying so can put you at physical risk in a class discussion of science fiction movies. I also find Heinleins later novels self indulgent and frankly not very interesting.

[paulgoatallen]

---

patgolfneb wrote:

Mine is Philip Dick. I think his ideas were genius, but his actual writing skills ordinary. Saying so can put you at physical risk in a class discussion of science fiction movies. I also find Heinleins later novels self indulgent and frankly not very interesting.

---

Agreed about Heinlein – I find some of his work sadly sexist and racist.

[Pavel]

Not sure what's considered "classic," but I could not get into Song of Ice and Fire. Read the first two books and gave up. The ending of the first one was a big turn off for me, but I felt there was enough there to stick around. Didn't feel that anymore after two. Interesting, but just too unruly. Wheel of Time was kind of a mess with all the character views, but Ice and Fire made Jordan's books seem neat and hopping.

[deesy58]

What do you think of Zelazny's "Amber" series?

[MacMcK1957]

---

deesy58 wrote:

What do you think of Zelazny's "Amber" series?

---

I thought the first series (Corwin) was magnificent, the second (Merlin) decent but not great..

[Pavel]

---

deesy58 wrote:

What do you think of Zelazny's "Amber" series?

---

You know, I actually breezed through the whole thing pretty quickly and for the most part enjoyed myself. Zelazny's tone appeals to me.

[MacMcK1957]

BTW I'm a bit bothered that a prequel to the Amber series (written by someone else after Zelazny's death) is available for ebooks, but the series itself is not.

[Omnigeek]

I can see why some would find Heinlein's works sexist but racist?  How?  Yes, he built on SOME stereotypes -- but they weren't offensive ones and most of his books argued against species-ism muchless racism.  Friday and later works assumed racial mixtures were not only the future norm but were largely a good thing (read the part where he pokes at Friday's New Zealand family's latent racism).  There is a very big difference between the stereotypes of Chinese migrants Heinlein used (e.g. Hong Kong Luna) and the stereotypes Mel Brooks poked fun at in "Blazing Saddles".

[dhaupt]

The Road  

I know, I know but it's just I HATED IT

[MacMcK1957]

---

dhaupt wrote:

The Road  

I know, I know but it's just I HATED IT

---

I'm with you.  Also, frankly, so many non-SF readers seemed to think this was a remarkably original and insightful concept.  Excuse me?  Dystopian post-apocalyptic fiction is not an innovation; it's an entire genre.  The themes in this one were awfully familiar.

[Ya_Ya]

---

RHWright wrote:

Try saying JK Rowling is a good storyteller, but only an average writer...

---

Yeah, I did this once.  Only once.  

I, too, don't love Dune - although I rarely admit that - and the Hitchhiker's Galaxy books were entertaining, but not on my must re-read shelf like Brave New World.

I'd also - the horrors! - rather watch Peter Jackson's LOTR films than re-read Tolkien.  I'd rather see the deviations from canon than read all of the (to my mind) overdescription in the novels.  

/ducks and runs.

[HoosierJoe]

dhaupt wrote:


The Road



I know, I know but it's just I HATED IT


I'm with you. Also, frankly, so many non-SF readers seemed to think this was a remarkably original and insightful concept. Excuse me? Dystopian post-apocalyptic fiction is not an innovation; it's an entire genre. The themes in this one were awfully familiar.

_____________________________________________________________________

I read it.  I didn't "hate" it.  But it was depressing, interminably long, and seemed to have no purpose or goal.  It was also silly logically.

I mean, OK nuclear fallout has wiped out all animal and vegetable life except humans. And it happened around 8 years before the story took place.  Yet, we hear a dog at one point.  And the author describes the characters as walking through tall grass at one point and other places talks about trees and leaves.  Where did this stuff come from?  And even if it is dead grass it would not likely still be there eight years later.  Also, they find some apples still edible at one point.  Really?

I would give it a two star rating. 

[HoosierJoe]

patgolfneb wrote: Mine is Philip Dick. I think his ideas were genius, but his actual writing skills ordinary. Saying so can put you at physical risk in a class discussion of science fiction movies. I also find Heinleins later novels self indulgent and frankly not very interesting. Agreed about Heinlein – I find some of his work sadly sexist and racist. "There never can be a man so lost as one who is lost in the vast and intricate corridors of his own lonely mind, where none may reach and none may save..." – Isaac Asimov, Pebble in the Sky ______________________________________________ Yes, his basic ideas are great. His writing was not, in my opinion. Do Androids ... was a silly book to read. It only slightly resembles the movie. It was written almost tongue in cheek. And not very adventuresome with little action.

[DCLOVELL]

Isaac Asimov for me.  I totally respect his writing but I could never get past a chapter or two of his books.  Just did not click.