Most disappointing book

[Piltdown13]

Another vote for an Anne Rice book

"Interview with the Vampire." I had read Rice's "The Mummy" and really liked it, and had also heard really positive comments about "Interview." Unfortunately, it was completely not to my taste at all -- the characters just didn't do anything for me.

 

[epepke]

Hmmm...

Lord of the Rings and associated works like The Silmarilion, which is even more opaque, seem disappointing today because they worked. Tolkien's whole point in writing them was to gather together a mythology for England and, by extension, for English-speaking people. This had never been done before. Although there were plenty of Continental European mythologies, and there were snatches of mythology in England, the Roman occupation and later the Norman Conquest shattered any coherent English mythology. Because Tolkien's attempt works, we're now steeped in it and take it for granted.

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is a bit of a different story. It is burlesque, a kind of indirect speech that many find difficult or undesirable to approach. The writing is, I admit, terrible, but the fact that the "hero" is a complete waste of skin, lacking even the minor sympathetic elements of the antihero of the 50s and 60s, is the central point. There's no :shrug: smilie, but it would be appropriate here. Some people get into that kind of thing; some people don't.

 

[Chaos]

Here is a shrug smiley, by the way:

Hope this helps

 

[Hannibal]

I love LOTR and always will, but I am painfullt aware of the shortcomings in possesses. Yes it is wordy and is essentially a very straightforward plot. Yes it does seem to drag in places. But it was such a trailblazer it still has impact today. The films are great - I love the take on Gollum and his internal dialouge in T2T. The film lends a great deal of sympaty to the character that was slightly absent from the book.

I also find it hilarious that anybody would name a child "Grimer Wormtongue" and expect them to lead a rich and fulfilling life

 

[Mark]

I love LOTR and always will, but I am painfullt aware of the shortcomings in possesses. Yes it is wordy and is essentially a very straightforward plot. Yes it does seem to drag in places. But it was such a trailblazer it still has impact today. The films are great - I love the take on Gollum and his internal dialouge in T2T. The film lends a great deal of sympaty to the character that was slightly absent from the book.

I also find it hilarious that anybody would name a child "Grimer Wormtongue" and expect them to lead a rich and fulfilling life

Grima was his name. Wormtongue was a derogatory name given to him by the people. Straightforward plot? It meanders all over the place! The barrow wights are a perfect example. The Pukel Men are another. Herbs and stewed rabbit. Denethor. Theoden. Eowyn and Faramir. Tom Bombadil. Sub-plots galore!

I love it. I have read the book over and over again; I can't understand how anyone could not love it. And yes, I have actually kissed a girl.

 

[Hannibal]

Easy Tiger! lol

It is quite simple as far as most plots go. The flavour of the sub-plots add to the book, but even in themselves they are not especially convoluted. The narrative switches lots, but that's not the same thing. Tolkien was a man with a vision of creating a mythos and LOTR is but one episode from within that mythos. A bloody long one I grant you, but still only one tale. A bit like Star Wars...

Like I said before though, I love it and I always will.

 

[Mark]

Easy Tiger! lol

It is quite simple as far as most plots go. The flavour of the sub-plots add to the book, but even in themselves they are not especially convoluted. The narrative switches lots, but that's not the same thing. Tolkien was a man with a vision of creating a mythos and LOTR is but one episode from within that mythos. A bloody long one I grant you, but still only one tale. A bit like Star Wars...

Like I said before though, I love it and I always will.

I admit I am confused (it's early and I haven't had my caffeine). Maybe if you give me an example of something that you feel does have a complicated plot (compared to LOTR) I'll understand your point better. The most common complaint I have heard about the book is that it is too complicated. So much so, if they ever make a movie of it, it'll probably take 3 films to do it...with a lot of details left out entirely!

Btw, I am enjoying this discussion very much.

 

[Glory]

Easy Tiger! lol

It is quite simple as far as most plots go. The flavour of the sub-plots add to the book, but even in themselves they are not especially convoluted. The narrative switches lots, but that's not the same thing. Tolkien was a man with a vision of creating a mythos and LOTR is but one episode from within that mythos. A bloody long one I grant you, but still only one tale. A bit like Star Wars...

Like I said before though, I love it and I always will.

I think I know what you mean. Regardless of the side trips and scale of the adventure, the story is actually a very straightforward good versus evil, stop the bad guys kind of tale. We know who is good and who is bad. We know that if the heroes prevail, the world will be a better place and if they fail, the world will suck. Wer even know exactly what must be done in order for the heroes to win. There aren't any grey areas here. The most confusing characters are the various nonhumans because they are alien to the reader. We don't always fully understand their motives because they have different priorities but, ultimately, they are all either on our side or they aren't and which is which is always crystal clear.

Glory

 

[Mark]

I think I know what you mean. Regardless of the side trips and scale of the adventure, the story is actually a very straightforward good versus evil, stop the bad guys kind of tale. We know who is good and who is bad. We know that if the heroes prevail, the world will be a better place and if they fail, the world will suck. Wer even know exactly what must be done in order for the heroes to win.
Glory

This is a common complaint, but, really, it is only true if you ignore:

Denethor: A wise and benevolent leader for decades until---at the very end of his life---he gave into fear and failed.

Saruman: Also started off as good.

Boromir: A good man who only gave in to evil briefly, and immediately and deeply regreted it (and died, indirectly, as a result).

Gollum/Smeagol: who very clearly still retained a bit of goodness in him, as evidenced by his internal debate regarding Shelob. In fact, the "good" Smeagol would have won the debate, had not Sam woken up and verbally attacked him.

Sam, and, in fact, most Hobbits in general, who, while "good" are also shown to be quite often arrogantly ignorant and proud of it.

Not as black and white as people think.

 

[Glory]

This is a common complaint, but, really, it is only true if you ignore:

Denethor: A wise and benevolent leader for decades until---at the very end of his life---he gave into fear and failed.

Saruman: Also started off as good.

Boromir: A good man who only gave in to evil briefly, and immediately and deeply regreted it (and died, indirectly, as a result).

Gollum/Smeagol: who very clearly still retained a bit of goodness in him, as evidenced by his internal debate regarding Shelob. In fact, the "good" Smeagol would have won the debate, had not Sam woken up and verbally attacked him.

Sam, and, in fact, most Hobbits in general, who, while "good" are also shown to be quite often arrogantly ignorant and proud of it.

Not as black and white as people think.

First off, I don't offer the observation as a complaint nor as praise. Just an observation about the type of story it is.

Second, good men becoming corrupt is one of the central themes of the stories. Also, good men can have faults and bad men can have virtues. Tolkien did not write simplistic characters. That does not change the straighforward nature of the story. Each character is pretty much what he appears, to the reader, to be including all the ones you mention.

Third, I never took Gollum for an evil character. He is not evil, he is a victim. He pursues the ring and his own survival to the exclusion of all else. Pathetic and pittiful and even menacing and dangerous are not synonomous with evil.

I don't think the books are simplistic. The story is simple, however. Will Frodo get the ring into the volcano or won't he? That is the central question. Everything else serves as window dressing or a as distraction for Sauron to buy Frodo time.

 

[Mark]

First off, I don't offer the observation as a complaint nor as praise. Just an observation about the type of story it is.

Second, good men becoming corrupt is one of the central themes of the stories. Also, good men can have faults and bad men can have virtues. Tolkien did not write simplistic characters. That does not change the straighforward nature of the story. Each character is pretty much what he appears, to the reader, to be including all the ones you mention.

Third, I never took Gollum for an evil character. He is not evil, he is a victim. He pursues the ring and his own survival to the exclusion of all else. Pathetic and pittiful and even menacing and dangerous are not synonomous with evil.

I don't think the books are simplistic. The story is simple, however. Will Frodo get the ring into the volcano or won't he? That is the central question. Everything else serves as window dressing or a as distraction for Sauron to buy Frodo time.

Well, I disagree. Except for Gollum. Interesting discussion, though.

Cheers.

 

[Rosencrantz]

I don't think Lord of the Rings is disappointing. However, I freely admit that I skim large parts of it every time I read it. I think Tolkien could have left large parts of his story in the appendices and perhaps in footnotes -- that's how I read aloud, anyway. I skip huge sections and summarize what happened, because the audience gets bored otherwise.

I've never been able to get through The Silmarillion, though. I wouldn't say it's disappointing, just not my cup of tea.

I'm struggling to think of a disappointing book, actually. I don't usually read something I'm not already interested in. How about Orson Scott Card's First Meetings? I enjoyed it, but it seemed pitifully short afterward. I was sad there wasn't more. I guess that's disappointing.

 

[Glory]

Well, I disagree. Except for Gollum. Interesting discussion, though.

Cheers.

Okay. Yeah.

Glory

 

[Glory]

I don't think Lord of the Rings is disappointing. However, I freely admit that I skim large parts of it every time I read it. I think Tolkien could have left large parts of his story in the appendices and perhaps in footnotes -- that's how I read aloud, anyway. I skip huge sections and summarize what happened, because the audience gets bored otherwise.

I've never been able to get through The Silmarillion, though. I wouldn't say it's disappointing, just not my cup of tea.

That's putting it mildly. I think there are only five people in the world who have actually read the Silmarillion cover to cover and one of them was charged with finishing it.

I'm struggling to think of a disappointing book, actually. I don't usually read something I'm not already interested in. How about Orson Scott Card's First Meetings? I enjoyed it, but it seemed pitifully short afterward. I was sad there wasn't more. I guess that's disappointing.

I am having problems with Card lately. The Mormon thing is starting to really grate on me. He can't seem to imagine characters that don't want to get married. His protagonist is always a romantic virgin who dutifully falls in love and marries and never has even a thought of fornication. Any sexual attraction leads to a desire to marry rather than just desire. There is always some convenient reason they don't have sex and this just doesn't resonate with me. His writing is to wholesome for a slut like me.

Glory

 

[Rosencrantz]

I am having problems with Card lately. The Mormon thing is starting to really grate on me. He can't seem to imagine characters that don't want to get married. His protagonist is always a romantic virgin who dutifully falls in love and marries and never has even a thought of fornication. Any sexual attraction leads to a desire to marry rather than just desire. There is always some convenient reason they don't have sex and this just doesn't resonate with me. His writing is to wholesome for a slut like me.

Interesting. In counterpoint, who/what would you recommend? I like sex in literature, but I prefer if it seems realistic and contributes to the story in some way. With Card, perhaps the reason sex is written that way is that from a story perspective, it's as a means to children (like Ender's parents). Are there a few less wholesome authors you would suggest that treat sex as you describe? (Please don't say Piers Anthony! )

 

[Glory]

Interesting. In counterpoint, who/what would you recommend? I like sex in literature, but I prefer if it seems realistic and contributes to the story in some way. With Card, perhaps the reason sex is written that way is that from a story perspective, it's as a means to children (like Ender's parents). Are there a few less wholesome authors you would suggest that treat sex as you describe? (Please don't say Piers Anthony! )

Funny you should mention Ender's parents as I am currently reading Shadow Puppets, the third in the Bean series. It starts off with a Petra wanting to marry Bean and bear his children. These characters are teenagers now! Hormones raging and all Petra is thinking about is having Bean's children, legitimately. It's always love and marraige instead of the lust that we all know is far more common. He is idealizng these kids as perfectly in line with his morality. They aren't believable to me any more as a result. I now find Harry Potter and his cronies more believable.

I honestly can't think of a single author who handles sex well, as rule, IMHO. Anthony has the sensibilities of a horny teenager. Heinlein put way too much incest in his books although the sexual freedom he espouses is very appealing to me. There are various authors who are glorified romance novelists which I find fun but boring after a short time. Oddly, I like Stephen King's use of sex in The Stand. Some of the scenes are hot yet sweet and some of them are really yucky. It's a fascinating juxtaposition artfully presented.

I don't need a book to brimming with sex in order to enjoy it but I find that if I don't know anything about the sexual desires of a character, I don't feel as though I really know them. It is just such a huge part of who we are as people. A lot of this is connected to my theory that sex is the driving force behiond all human achievment.

Glory

 

[Rosencrantz]

Hmm. I've been considering your reply, and trying to think of an example where the characters are more like you suggest, and I can't think of one. It's led me to ponder something I'll try to put into words.

Perhaps authors can't describe how characters think about sex because it seems too puerile? Like, for example, in Shadow Puppets, Card describes Petra thinking about sex in terms of legitimacy and having children as you describe, and doesn't describe Bean thinking about sex at all (that I can recall), because Card thought their internal monologues would read something like "Wow, he's hot." "Wow, she's hot. I'd hit her." "Wow, I wish we could fool around. But we probably can't. We've got too much to do." "Wow. Okay, back to work."? I mean, really, aren't those the kind of thoughts that just sort of flit in and out, but don't really contribute to a story?

Also, it's complicated by the fact that Card's characters started out as children. I haven't read enough of them to start thinking of them as adults yet. I mean, it's like how I keep reading about how Harry Potter's going to get more "sexy" in the next movie. These are still kids! We're fighting some rather firm cultural taboos when we start writing about people under the age of 18 -- or 14 -- thinking about sex.

In fact, I wonder if that's why Card has found most of his success with children? Because he isn't expected to deal with sex when his protagonists are as smart as adults but haven't reached puberty yet? I admit, I can't think of any authors that describe sex realistically, even with adults. At least, who describe sex in a way that I think is realistic. I mean, it's either fantasy/romance over the top down to the choreography, or it's something like "so we went and, um, did stuff, and I'm not going to tell you about that part." Am I just not reading the right authors? Yet you can't seem to think of any either. Hmm.

What about movies that properly capture characters' sexual desires? Do you think any art form ever does it justice?

 

[Brian]

Heinlein put way too much incest in his books although the sexual freedom he espouses is very appealing to me.

Glory

I've seen this complaint from time to time. I don't understand. R.H. spells it out several times. There is no logic in an inate dread of having sex with a close relative. When Lazarus Long humps his mom, who knows that he's related in some way, she says that the only reason incest is bad is when it could harm a baby. She's already got one in the oven from her swinger husband, so no chance of pregnancy, no problem. What's left is just a taboo.
He also says that the "families" of the longevity experiment would approve a brother and sister to marry before some unrelated couples, based entirely on their genes.
He did the same with cannablism. Dead is dead, meat is meat. Why the revulsion of the practice, as long as you don't commit murder to get the meat. Just another taboo.
Same with multiple spouse arrangments. If everyone agrees and no jealously erupts, there is no need for public scorn. Just a taboo.
Of course, this stuff wouldn't fly in the real world. But I liked that aspect of his writing. Many of these taboos are codified by religon.

 

[Glory]

I've seen this complaint from time to time. I don't understand. R.H. spells it out several times. There is no logic in an inate dread of having sex with a close relative. When Lazarus Long humps his mom, who knows that he's related in some way, she says that the only reason incest is bad is when it could harm a baby. She's already got one in the oven from her swinger husband, so no chance of pregnancy, no problem. What's left is just a taboo.
He also says that the "families" of the longevity experiment would approve a brother and sister to marry before some unrelated couples, based entirely on their genes.
He did the same with cannablism. Dead is dead, meat is meat. Why the revulsion of the practice, as long as you don't commit murder to get the meat. Just another taboo.
Same with multiple spouse arrangments. If everyone agrees and no jealously erupts, there is no need for public scorn. Just a taboo.
Of course, this stuff wouldn't fly in the real world. But I liked that aspect of his writing. Many of these taboos are codified by religon.

Well, my feelings may very well be dictated by the taboos and rules of the society in which I was raised but my main issue with the incest is that I can't relate to it. I do not want hop into bed with my dad. I don't want to hop into bed with any of the women in my family either, for that matter. (Funny that Heinlein never explored homosexuality in that Long family clusterf**k, at least not that I recall.) I am not sexually interested in my father so I can't really relate to someone who is sexually interested in hers.

Heinlein has put his favourite family into a utopian bubble that is free of all the things which make it not a good idea to have sex with your parents and siblings. He not only accounts for the bad baby threat, but has created characters that are free from all the power dynamics that are part and parcel of the parent/child relationship. Parents and children are truly equals and everyone in the family is a bonafide genius. Have you ever noticed that all the stories are about people falling in love with one or more of the Longs and never about one them being rejected? I can't remember a single instance of a Long's love being unrequited. Must be nice but it ain't anywhere close to my experiences with my family.

I enjoyed reading about them but as far as finding a good and somewhat realistic portrayal of sexuality, the story of the Long family doesn't count.

Glory

 

[Brian]

Well, my feelings may very well be dictated by the taboos and rules of the society in which I was raised but my main issue with the incest is that I can't relate to it. I do not want hop into bed with my dad. I don't want to hop into bed with any of the women in my family either, for that matter. (Funny that Heinlein never explored homosexuality in that Long family clusterf**k, at least not that I recall.) I am not sexually interested in my father so I can't really relate to someone who is sexually interested in hers.

Heinlein has put his favourite family into a utopian bubble that is free of all the things which make it not a good idea to have sex with your parents and siblings. He not only accounts for the bad baby threat, but has created characters that are free from all the power dynamics that are part and parcel of the parent/child relationship. Parents and children are truly equals and everyone in the family is a bonafide genius. Have you ever noticed that all the stories are about people falling in love with one or more of the Longs and never about one them being rejected? I can't remember a single instance of a Long's love being unrequited. Must be nice but it ain't anywhere close to my experiences with my family.

I enjoyed reading about them but as far as finding a good and somewhat realistic portrayal of sexuality, the story of the Long family doesn't count.

Glory

I agree with you %100. Al HR's heros are supermen and superwomen. They don't exist in the real world. He was using it as a device to comment on taboo. That's all, I think.
I remember in Friday at the end, Friday's daughter gets knocked up at 14 (and 16 and 18) the family doesn't even come close to freaking out. They see it as natural and are not only supportive but enthusiasitc about the children coming into the world. It's an idealistic portrayal of sexuality and human nature.
He lived in a real world where you could get sneared at for living with a person of the opposite sex and not be married.
He also looked forward to a time when humans got over jealousy. And maybe all "animal" instincts.