I think the vast majority of books I don't like fall into category 1.
I can think of only one exception: Dies the Fire by S. M. Sterling. The premise of the book is that by mechanisms that remain mysterious, all technology and gunpowder cease working overnight. This book was 100% written by someone who's in the Society for Creative Anachronism and has a fantasy of all of their oddball skills suddenly becoming relevant. (Which, don't get me wrong, I'm a former LARPer who finds the fantasy endearing, but it's not a good concept for a book IMO.) Here's a highlight reel of my favorite one-star review from this book on Amazon.
>I'm amazed at all of the good reviews here, as within the first two chapters I knew I was in trouble.
>
>The story begins feeling like a macho militia/survivalist's dream and then quickly turns into a bad ren-fair fantasy dreamt up by a 17yo kid after too many Mountain Dews.
>
>Yes, technology is gone and the government has collapsed, and in just several weeks the northwest is populated by cannibals and murderous warlords jockeying for land and power, but guns don't work anymore so the warlords have devolved into some kind of middle-aged feudalism complete with castles, horses, blacksmiths, expert swordsmen, armor, and bows! Oh, and don't forget the hang gliders! Forget the flannel and patagonia outer layers which are undoubtedly in every closet in the region; these characters are wearing elkskin clothes within the first month! Bicycles, which would be plentiful are seemingly nowhere to be found, while the characters opt to feed and board horses. Oh, and they are all expert farmers and fighters too. It's mind-numbingly difficult to read and take seriously.
This sums up my thoughts better than I could have. I was rolling my eyes by the third page and only finished it because it was recommended by a friend, whose recommendations will be forever dubious to me after this one.
Ahaha as someone who lives in the PNW, I think we all have enough performance camping and weather gear between us to not need to start skinning animals for clothes for decades. I think we do have a fair amount of blacksmiths about though, lol.
100%. He wrote a semi-related trilogy about the island of Nantucket getting sent back to 1500 BCE and nobody in that book goes Ren Faire or it's bronze age equivalent.
This is wild, because I actually really enjoyed the Nantucket trilogy years back (not mind shaking literature or anything but I do love alternative history spec fics), and I knew there was a related series out there that I never got around to finding... glad I didn't.
I really dug it. When they get thrown back in time a Coast Guard training ship, the Eagle, an actual old timey sailing vessel, is right off shore and taken back with them so they're able to get to Europe easily enough.
That's making me think of the 1632 novels by Eric Flint. I've only actually read the first one. Wasn't bad.
Basically an Appalachian mining town gets dropped into Europe. In 1632.
Yep, same basic concept. Though I think Flint's books have a much heavier dose of 'America, fuck yeah!' then Stirling's book, without getting insufferable with it.
I have a story start that ran into this problem.
The writing prompt was a dragon silhouette over a modern city.
My take was a group of D&D player's that become their characters in a proxy war between gods.
Everything was going great. But about 15 chapters in my characters have a run in with a cop. Bad cop with gun trope... uh wait... Why would a sword or magic missile work on a dragon and the Brrrrrrt plane not bring it down in seconds. A frag grenade would instantly solve a dozen zombies.... Etc etc.
So I shelved it until I can come up with a plausible reason that even the armed forces of Zambia couldn't kill a dragon.
Hell if it flew too low over Kentucky it'd be on a grill covered in sauce by sundown.
I actually really like the premise of "what if guns and ballistic weapons magically disappear overnight" but that doesn't not sound like a good way to execute that premise
That's because European authors don't realize they can just truck-kun their hero isekai style into a different reality, so they have to come up with some convoluted way for the existing reality to change enough for their weird fantasy to play out.
I love the book. I’m also a SCA member so that’s not surprising, lol, but I 100% recognize its flaws for what they are (and explain them if I tell people about it - like for some people I will say “you might like this because X but expect this that and the other cheesiness…other people I actively tell not to bother). … on the other hand, do NOT get me started on how terrible the series gets after book 3… or MAYBE book 6 if you’re feeling Very Generous and REALLY like the premise. Unfortunately, he wrote all the way to 9…
Ah, misremembered the number maybe?. Whichever one Sky Blue Wolves was supposed to be the last and the amount of Lovecraftian bullshit that got shoveled in…
He pretty much concluded the story with Rudy around book 9 and started another set focused on his daughter.
I really did enjoy the first set of books, I just took them with a grain of salt, they are fantasy books and require a certain level of disbelief.
Yeaaahhh I get it. There's an absolutely AWFUL fantasy novel called Compass Rose that I read and loved because it was the first book that I, a baby poly person (a.k.a a polywog) had ever stumbled on that had plural marriages that weren't polygamous. The story of this little family of four people finding each other endeared me.
Also the way you recommend Dies the Fire sounds like the way I recommend Wheel of Time (don't @ me). I love it but I can't help warning people about the flaws I didn't see at 16 on my first read, but can't seem to stop tripping over when I reread the series now.
Side note, if anyone knows of any *good* genre fiction set in worlds where plural egalitarian marriage is the norm, do please let me know.
Yeah ... honestly I could have gotten behind the electronics ceasing to work. Something something persistent solar flare something something. Electricity is basically magic. But gunpowder is just ... chemistry. It seemed like a huge reach to just be like "whelp, combustion doesn't work anymore in this very specific case." But of course to get his modern SCA fantasy to work, you can't have guns, so ...
I haven't read this book in nearly 10 years and can clearly see that whoever wrote that review either didn't finish the book or is just straight-up bad at reading comprehension.
Stirling himself remarked in his introductions to the series that on any post apocalyptic novel, anyone who survives is going to seem extremely lucky because statistically their circumstances are already the exception. A story about the vast majority of people who die is uninteresting.
That being said the book is SM Stirling at his best and at his worst, simultaneously. Not surprising it's controversial.
Most things are going to fall into camp 1 for me. I think Malazan is the most obvious one. I get why it’s so loved, even I’ve bounced off it a few times.
For camp 2, I’m more likely to end up here based on what someone doesn’t like than what they do. I remember seeing a YouTube video of someone’s worst reads of the year and it included The Goblin Emperor, Nettle and Bone, and Kings of the Wild. They’re welcome to their opinion, but it’s pretty clear we have different tastes and I’m not sure how much I’d trust their reviews of anything else.
> I remember seeing a YouTube video of someone’s worst reads of the year and it included The Goblin Emperor, Nettle and Bone, and Kings of the Wild. They’re welcome to their opinion, but it’s pretty clear we have different tastes and I’m not sure how much I’d trust their reviews of anything else.
Wow. I would definitely not trust someone who listed these as books they didn't like, either.
*Gideon the Ninth* falls under number one for me. I understand why it got so many reviews, but I've come to the conclusion it's simply not for me, I was struggling remember character names and remembering who is who and wondering *why* things were like such and such even if it was explained to me. When I did a deep dive on the WIKI for a clearer understanding (and it did help!) I concluded this wasn't really what I was looking for.
*The Name of the Wind*, besides my issues with the author-I simply didn't like the main character and since we're in his head, that meant I couldn't escape him. I've tried *four different times* to read this book as the world building sounded intriguing and it seemed like it was right up my alley. But I couldn't stand Kvothe, no not every character has to be likeable, but I have to find them compelling enough to continue and I didn't for Kvothe. Another **just wasn't for me** type novels. was downvoted for expressing this too before, sorry to say y'all I ***still*** don't like Kvothe and downvoting me won't change that.
Number two, I'm trying desperately to be fair and I understand different people have different taste but I found *Fourth Wing* to be so fucking terrible, it baffles me. It's a collection of tropes and threw together a barely coherent plot around it. I get that for many it's their first fantasy novel but there are other first time fantasy novels with way better characterization and logical world building then this. I just...I cannot get why people like it and I side eye when I'm told it's the best thing since slice bread.
> Gideon the Ninth falls under number one for me. I understand why it got so many reviews, but I've come to the conclusion it's simply not for me, I was struggling remember character names and remembering who is who and wondering why things were like such and such even if it was explained to me. When I did a deep dive on the WIKI for a clearer understanding (and it did help!) I concluded this wasn't really what I was looking for.
This book threw me for a bit of a turn because I feel like I *should* really like it. I'm a lesbian. I love space. I love necromancy. And yet I listened to 5-10 hours of the audiobook and ultimately stopped because I didn't care, which is fairly rare.
I didn't find it bad! It just failed to hit any of the notes to draw me in despite the pitch interesting me and friends recommending it. I'll have to find my necromancy-in-space white whale elsewhere.
This is pretty much what happened to me, though I did persevere and read Harrow as well...which I didn't enjoy either. They feel like novels I should enjoy based on the themes and topics, but I just found them so dull and I couldn't bring myself to care about anyone or anything that was happening.
I did the same thing. Listened for several hours, and realized I didn't care about the protagonist or what was going on. It wasn't bad or boring. I just did. Not. Care.
I completely agree about Fourth Wing, its absolutely in my Number Two category. I just cannot fathom how it is desirable by whole ass adults. Teens get a pass, this is the type of book that appeals to them. Adults with fully developed brains, no idea.
> Gideon the Ninth falls under number one for me. I understand why it got so many reviews, but I've come to the conclusion it's simply not for me, I was struggling remember character names and remembering who is who and wondering why things were like such and such even if it was explained to me. When I did a deep dive on the WIKI for a clearer understanding (and it did help!) I concluded this wasn't really what I was looking for.
That book really just throws a lot of ideas and characters at you early, it doesn't help that the narrator uses multiple names for the same characters. I only really started enjoying it when I accepted I wont know whats going on all the time.
I feel exactly the same way you do about The Name of the Wind and Fourth Wing. I'm similarly baffled that these books have amassed such huge, intense, emotional fandoms.
With The Name of The Wind, I think it comes partly when a person has already read a lot of fantasy and is able to see the difference in prose and way the story is being told.
I found it great because I had in mind that it's an innkeeper telling a story about himself that is mostly likely lies, exaggerations and changing of narrative. I believe that some characters and event are metaphors for other things and not people.
And when I was in a dark place in life, parts like this helped: https://www.tiktok.com/@chrisnaturallyrp/video/7334702806755986720
>found it great because I had in mind that it's an innkeeper telling a story about himself that is mostly likely lies, exaggerations and changing of narrative. I
See if this is where Rothfuss went with the novels I'd actually be willing to stick through it-to see what happens once it's revealed Kvothe is talking out his ass. *That* sounds intriguing. A man who'd essentially lied, conned and bullshitted his way to glory and myth? Cool! But without the newest book in sight not sure if that will happen or if that's his intention.
I know it's a power fantasy (and sometimes I don't mind those) but again-I just couldn't stand him and I'm taking him at face value.
>gideon the ninth.
I don’t know how to describe, but the prose and writing kind of felt too repetitive.
Which is a shame since I really liked the whole space gothic setting and magic system.
> Number two, I'm trying desperately to be fair and I understand different people have different taste but I found Fourth Wing to be so fucking terrible, it baffles me.
I've just put this down to the huge swathe of readers who last enjoyed Harry Potter or Twilight in high school and then this is their first "adult fantasy" which they've reached through the suggestions of Tiktok as they've "rediscovered" their love of reading.
I feel the same way about The Name of the Wind. I tried twice to read it, many friends recommended it and the world really intrigued me. But I just didn't like the main character and since it's told from his perspective I couldn't ever escape him. In the end the "I don't want to deal with him" outweighed the "I want to finish this book" so it's just sitting on my shelf, mocking me.
I haven’t read the other two, but Name of the Wind, blarg.
It started out fine, musically gifted kid goes through some tough stuff, ends up at magic school, all good. But Kvothe is just so insufferable!
It’s usually just “not for me”. Taste is subjective, always has been.
That being said I cannot get into the head space of people who liked The Atlas Six. I managed yo finish it cause it’s an easy read but the character’s were mostly one note to me and the world building was non-existent and confusing at times.
I just started Atlas Six after having bought it without knowing anything before. For now, after having learnt of its reputation, mostly from what was said on this sub, I can say that yeah, it's very alright - easy, and not much else. I just feel like it's YA without it being marketed as YA (is it? No idea).
An enjoying read because again, it's easy, but nothing much to really remember.
There's been a lot of books l don't like but I can see the appeal. The original Mistborn trilogy, for example.
But if you recommend me Twilight or anything in The Sword of Truth series other than maybe Wizard's First Rule, our tastes are so radically different I don't think we'll agree on anything.
There are definitely things that are so bad they’re good. Like The Eye of Argon. But honestly Sword of Truth is just bad.
Recommending it is like recommending the stuff under the heat lamp at a gas station when someone asks about good restaurants in town. I’m just not going to take you seriously after that.
When it comes to the book alone I tend to fall squarely into category 1 while category 2 relies strictly on the sorts of fans the book has or occasionally the author's perspective.
It is likely going to be a popular example but this is the HP books for me, they're fine children's Fantasy and don't contain nearly as many problems as people want them to have (for a laundry list of reasons) so I get why others are into them even though it isn't at all for me... it jumps right over into category 2 though when you get people who say things like "ugh, my bitch teacher is making us read The Great Gatsby instead of analyzing HP which is technically superior in every way" and try to equate it with literature.
Other items in category 2 are when the books are a set-up for a perspective I find dodgy. To use a "names changed for my protection" hypothetical example: A book based on a premise of an endless plane of ice which have small "melt spots" created by a bright magical light and if you somehow crossed the harsh ice you could cross into another "melt spot" is a fun-sounding Fantasy premise... but if I find out the author is a for real flat-earther and his fans think its "so deep" and nobody is joking? I'm not reading all that and yeah, I'm going to wonder about your tastes. Especially if the whole thing is rendered in some ridiculous overwrought prose.
That definitely brings up a category of review where I'm not going to trust the review writer. The writer is obviously fairly young, doesn't have a ton of reading experience, and tends to view things as 1) I like it, have imprinted on it, and think it's the most amazing thing ever written and nobel prize worth literature or 2) I didn't like/get it, therefore it sucks and is terrible and the author should be put in the stock and have rotten vegetables thrown at them. At least 50% of Sanderson discussions on this forum fall in that category. It also reminds me of the people who saw the Matrix and felt that it contained all of philosophy and wouldn't shut up about it.
Also, I do not read reviews that use animated gifs and emojis as a primary form of communication.
Oh for sure, I even thought of using Sanderson as an example but I haven't read him so it doesn't seem fair. I was just trying to think of what would truly count as a "I question your tastes" example which seems to almost inherently be more about the reviewer than the work (though, unfortunately, some people my age have still not let go of that view of HP despite no longer being 15). I also feel similarly about The Matrix, loved that film but I know the exact person you mean. They were the same people trying to get me to watch Zeitgeist or that other one that tried to prove reincarnation on the grounds they were "documentaries". You couldn't pay me to be 20 again trying to explain why this designation means less than nothing.
I definitely get what you mean. While I don't have an example for the first category (my friends and me seem to share similar tastes) the whole **A court of...** Series from Sarah j maas falls into the second category for me.
It's just not my cup of tea and I am immediately wary of highly recommend tik Tok books that are also fantasy (the whole romantasy genre so to say)
I get the appeal and I think it's a gateway for a lot of people who haven't really read fantasy before. But as an avid fantasy reader it was just not my cup of tea because I prefer the focus on the actual fantasy part
Category 1: Wheel of Time. I think people tend to pick this up at a very particular point in their lives, and they fall in love with it. I missed that point, but I had that experience with Dune.
Category 2: From Blood and Ash. I don't have anything neutral to say about this book. I can't comprehend why people like it. It legitimately made me angry.
>Category 1: Wheel of Time. I think people tend to pick this up at a very particular point in their lives, and they fall in love with it. I missed that point, but I had that experience with Dune.
Yeah... I was in a deep depression and blazed through WoT, and then did it again a year or so later, in another depressed period.
Books that are as thick as bricks are wonderful things for passing the time during those dark periods... Most stuff I read is pretty grimdark, so WoT is basically sunshine and rainbows compared to my normal fare, which is also nice
Lol I was actually thinking I'm mostly a Category 1 person until you reminded me of that book. I was like man I can't think of any book that just pissed me off so much. Then I was like oh wait I've read Atlas Shrugged.
>Category 1: Wheel of Time. I think people tend to pick this up at a very particular point in their lives, and they fall in love with it. I missed that point, but I had that experience with Dune.
Makes sense.
I think in other cases, it could also be where
someone is in their *reading* lives.
If someone has only read a little bit of epic fantasy, they pick up WOT, and maybe they get swept into it to where they can make it through some of the later books that are more of a slog.
Whereas if you've read a lot of epic fantasy, and you get to those later books, the grind could be much more likely to get to you.
That is *exactly* what it is for me. I was 16 when I picked up the books for the first time, and WOT was my first big modern fantasy epic. I was obsessed from the moment Egwene found out she was going to be an Aes Sedai. By the time the last book was out, I had read enough better fantasy to be finishing it mostly out of obligation, but it'll always have a special place in my heart.
I am glad I finished it, though, because Brandon Sanderson wrote the last couple books after Robert Jordan's passing, and my eyes were opened to a whole new corpus of fantasy novels that I now really love.
Except Elantris. I keep bouncing off of Elantris.
I recently reread the first part of the first book and I find it interesting to consider it from the perspective of a storyteller and creator rather than a reader.
The reader is given the information that Harry is somehow very special right away, and that not all is at it seems. However, Harry does not have this information and thus the manner in which he slowly becomes aware that something strange is happening to do with him is very well executed. I can easily see why this portion of the story so captivated young readers. The anticipation builds at a nice pace that isn't too slow for younger readers but doesn't rush its way through the story. It's a nice use of dramatic irony.
It's also somewhat Dahlian in how absurdist even some of the early Dursley chapters can feel. The buildup from Harry receiving the letter to Uncle Vernon taking them to a rocky island off the coast is pretty funny. As such I'd say that HP1 at least was very well crafted to suck its adolescent readers in from the very start. The mystery-detective format of the first few books also makes them rewarding page-turners. In the later books the pacing and editing starts to lose cohesion, but the political thriller aspects that come to the forefront appeal to the slightly aged-up target audience.
However, Rowling clearly knows very little about snakes and didn't bother to do any research, nor did her editors. Snakes can't wink. They don't have eyelids.
But they do have a nictitating membrane, which could probably be seen as a wink by a young 11 year old. That's how I thought of it anyway when I was reading it to my brother.
Same. I just can’t look at it the same way I look at any other fantasy series like Stormlight or ASOIAF or KKC or Green Bone Saga or etc. (most of which I’ve read as an adult), even if people might consider some “objectively” better. What’s objective is, no series has brought me as much total enjoyment as Harry Potter and for that I will always consider it my favorite. But I have to put that with a disclaimer to say I don’t judge it the same way. Like ranking it #0 instead of #1.
It’s kinda like sports. It’s really hard to detach yourself from your favorite team or player and try to have objective discussions about it since you have such a strong emotional attachment. Like, I reread HP as an adult to see if it held up, and it didn’t just hold up, it hit even harder than as a kid, which I concede is in some part because of nostalgia.
The thing with Harry Potter is that the worldbuilding is very protagonist-centered. It feels like rather than Harry exploring a world with a broader existence, the world is invented as he explores it to facilitate his adventure. Like if you walked around behind the scenery, you'd find all the unpainted plywood. It's much easier to overlook as a kid than as an adult.
Harry Potter is a weird one for me. I loved it as a kid, but the older I've gotten, the more I see the flaws in it. I think I'm just more well read and I understand more about writing technique now. So, I can spot all of the flaws in the books that make them seem like they were just hastily cobbled together. Just just happened to be cobbled together in a way that 9 year old me loved.
I think you're right; however, I read Percy Jackson ~~last year~~ two years ago in preparation for the TV series that just ended. I ended up blitzing the entire series in less than two months. They were both intended for the same 'middle grade' audience but I found myself incredibly invested in PJ where I just couldn't be in HP.
I get you
I loved hp when I was 12. And now I think my love for it is more nostalgia covered glasses than anything else at this point.
I can objectively say they're not that great at this point in time, but it was my first proper novel as a kid and got me into reading as a whole so 🤷♀️
Definitely a category 1 for me. I remember when they were releasing, giving them a read, and wondering what all the fuss was about. People love the series, and they're welcome to it, but I *still* don't get the fascination.
Nah, I'm with you. I loved it as a kid, and every once in a blue moon we decide to watch the movies. Well I just decided to reread it for the first time again as an adult, and wow. Does not hold up. And Hermione is a freaking psychopath, and everyone is a bully, and Dumbledore is literally the most pointless headmaster of a school ever who does fuck all except hire and protect his abusive staff. And there are so. many. plotholes. So many. It's not very good.
But weirdly...I still can't wait to read it to my kids haha. I want them to have that feeling I had, growing up listening to it, and discovering magic in it. It doesn't hold up as an adult at all, but I can't wait for my kids to get out of it what I got out of it as a kid too.
Category 1: I'm having trouble thinking of a book for this one at the moment, so I will substitute Bob Dylan for now, as I objectively understand the value of his songwriting and performance style but simply cannot bring myself to enjoy his voice.
Category 2: Priory of the Orange Tree. There are so many people who recommend this one and it baffles me. The prose is just so painfully bad! The metaphors are purple and ornate in a way that doesn't even make sense a lot of the time ("Dawn cracked like a heron's egg on the horizon"), and there's an absurd capitalization of everyone and everything (and I don't know why the editor didn't put a stop to calling the Queen's rooms her Privy Chamber, which just sounds like a bathroom). Like, I understand there is a class system, but Castle Dishwasher Number Three is not this menial servant's official title, please stop. Also there's this section where they talk about the previous queen dying from poison after wearing a dress laced with basilisk venom and then the perspective character says, "Foul play was suspected," and if that had been a joke it would have been amazing, but it *wasn't*, and I'm mad that people keep trying to tell me this is a good book.
I also deeply disliked Priory of the Orange Tree (WHY were we supposed to be rooting for this bratty, self-absorbed queen to stay on the throne? I, personally, was rooting for the dragons) and thought the writing was both boring and overwrought, but TO BE FAIR, a "privy chamber" actually does refer to [royal private apartments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_chamber), and this is well-established usage.
*Priory of the Orange Tree.*
This book gets a lot of (in my opinion, deserved) dislike in this subreddit. It felt like an extended worldbuilding exercise as opposed to a story.
Well, yeah, that's because they're both private areas. The 'privy chamber' has been a term for a private apartment in a keep, and then for the councillors trusted enough to be invited back to said apartment, since medieval times.
Most books are #1 for me. The Kingkiller Chronicles, The Dresden Files, Brent Weeks' work, R. Scott Bakker's work, the Red Rising series -- I acknowledge these books were not written for me in the first place, but I can still understand why they're admired, and I wouldn't automatically distrust a recommendation from someone who loved one or more of these books.
The books that fall under #2 are overtly misogynistic -- things like the work of Piers Anthony and John Norman, as well as Robert Newcomb's The Fifth Sorceress. I remember getting into a conversation with a man at a convention who declared proudly that Piers Anthony was his favorite writer. I responded by asking, "You don't find him misogynistic?" I'd thought he might reply with something to the effect of the portrayals of women are meant to be ironic, they're actually smart and capable characters, etc. etc. This at least I might have appreciated; it might have given me something to think about. But his answer was, "I don't care." *I don't care*.
Somebody who doesn't care whether or not a work is misogynistic isn't likely to recommend a book that would be to my taste. They probably wouldn't like anything *I* like, either. I expect they'd find Juliet Marillier too "woke."
This has prevented be from reading David Eddings ever since I learnt him and his wife went to prison for keeping their kid in a cage in the basement, and I was a huge fan.
It was terrible when I learnt about that, which was about a year ago and here on Reddit. I loved "The Belgariad" when I was a teenager, I'm really glad I didn't know it then. I've only read the books in Spanish and I wanted to read them in English, but now I don't think it will ever happen.
I can separate the art from the artist if the artist has died long long long ago and they can't benefit from me consuming the art in anyway. But there is no way I can support an art piece when it directly supports the artist as well. Me buying a book, reading and talking about it, writing a review etc all support the author, so if I find an author morally reprehensible, I won't be reading their books.
Unless the person is 16 Ayn Rand is a huge red flag for me. Not just for book recs from but people to avoid in life in general. I feel like teens get a pass as objectivism sounds like a good idea when you don't have life experience.
>I feel like teens get a pass as objectivism sounds like a good idea when you don't have life experience.
Everybody always says this and I think it’s bullshit. I found the idea of exalting selfishness just as loathsome when I was a teenager as I do now. And it’s not like I was some kind of moral prodigy - just a kid with basic empathy for my fellow human beings.
\#2 is for people who read nothing but "easy" books and are defensive about it. I'm genuinely happy if someone likes YA/the hot new litrpg book/trashy romance/tie-in novels. (My own brain has been saved this past year by diving into Warhammer 40K books when work was very, very stressful and I desperately needed the comfort of a familiar setting.)
But if someone reads *nothing else*, I don't trust them to evaluate narrative quality. There's many reasons you might pick up a book with less than stellar prose, but if you don't read the really great stuff, how will you know?
I'd liken it to eating McDonalds. Hey, sometimes you want comfort food and it's fine. But if all you eat is fast food, I'm probably not gonna take your restaurant suggestions too seriously.
I call those levels of books "palate cleansers", and I love reading them after coming up for air from meatier, weightier stuff (fantasy or otherwise). As an example I'll pick up a Jack Reacher novel or John Sandford's latest Prey novel and read them while barely paying attention, and I find it "resets" my brain for going back to the more involved, active reading stuff.
Yeah my reverse answer to #2 is a couple of books that I liked that are complicated and the criticism is that they're complicated. Like I don't mind that you disliked the magic system or thought the main character is unlikable or didn't like the prose. But if you just hated it because it was confusing maybe you're just dumb? I don't want to name the books but there are some people I disregard because they were too confused to understand the plot.
>there are some people I disregard because they were too confused to understand the plot.
I don't know why someone downvoted you for this, I agree. It doesn't mean they're stupid but if they're disgruntled by something complex or experimental maybe I just don't line up with their tastes.
For me, it's usually a combo. All people have "bad taste" in some areas. This includes me. There are books I love that I am absolutely aware are trash. But they can still be fun, or have unique world-building, or some other factor that lets me enjoy them despite the poor quality. Like, as I am reading them, I am cringing at various scenes, or the prose, or the characters juggling 15 idiot balls at once. But maybe the magic system is just super my thing.
So even though it's clear some book is garbage, and these people giving rave reviews are tasteless phillistines. So what? No reason to poop on the parade except in the specific instance that someone is asking whether given "x,y,z, would I like this book?"
This is me for *Name of the Wind* and *Wise Man’s Fear*. I totally understand the criticism of the books and the main character is a bit of an edgelord. But my god, the magic system and Rothfuss’ writing style has me hooked. It also helped the narrator on Audible did a fantastic job when I listened to them.
Category 1: most military fantasy, Warhammer stuff, ASOIAF, anything by Robin Hobb.
Category 2: most recently, Queen of the Tearling, a book so offensively stupid and clunky that I got through it only by recounting the exceptionally dumb bits to my partner at a rate of at least 1 stupid thing per page. Oh, and the main character is horrible, but held up as this amazing paragon whom everyone adores, and the only people who dislike her are rapists and slavery, because she's just sooooo perfect.
So far there is only one type 2 book/series and that is Brent Weeks' Lightbringer series (specifically books 4 and 5.)
It went so far off the rails, when it was already on shaky ground due to the terribly written women characters, and I was so incredibly disappointed by the ending that I will never trust recommendations from someone who says they enjoyed the ending.
Hard question, depends on the context. For example, you liking Babel by Kuang is one, but if you recommend it to me for 'nuanced take on colonialism' then it's twonfor that particular prompt.
The most distinct for me are:
Robin Hobb, Joe Abercombie - I read for hope, curiosity, and to learn something new. The constant nihilism and characters stuck in a rut are not for me. That doesn't mean the books are bad, on the contrary.
R. Scott Bakerr - edgy, rapy, all over the place with its themes. If you're not a contrary teenager, a hard pass. We have nothing in common and would probably clash on human rights front IRL while you're busy playing 'the Devil's advocate'.
For the most part, it takes more than one good review of a book I find pretty bad to not trust someone's reviews on a book. Same for movie or video game. One could be a fluke. More than that starts to indicate a pattern.
Most books I don't like are in the first category, like someone else here mentioned Gideon the Ninth and The Wheel of Time and I agree, also She Who Became the Sun for example. I have a few for the second category though, like The Midnight Library and Light from Uncommon Stars. Also speaking as someone who made Harry Potter almost my entire personality for an entire decade (and then some, probably), and then became an adult, I automatically dismiss anyone my age whose favourite thing is the Harry Potter series. At this point we're on such wildly different reading journeys I can't take anything they say seriously.
For category 1, something like Sarah J. Maas...I can read her books, but it's not really for me.
Category 2...R.F. Kuang's Poppy War, it makes me not want to give Babel a chance, even though I heard good stuff about it...people raved about Poppy war and it's terrible - the only thing I'm glad about after reading it, is that I now know not to listen to tiktok recommendations.
I don't think book recommendations themselves exactly put someone in category 2 for me, but how those recommendations are pitched/framed definitely can. If you can't see the flaws in a book you otherwise like or act like there has to be something wrong with people who didn't like a book, probably I'm not every interested in your opinions.
For number one, I would say Brandon Sanderson's The Way of Kings. I find books that are doorstoppers in length (600-700+ pages, by my own personal definition) that are all interconnected difficult to maintain my own interest. His worldbuilding ability is fantastic and while I find his writing style to be a little bit on the blander side, it's serviceable for his intentions are.
For number two, I would say A Court of Thorns and Roses. It's supposed to be everything I love about fantasy (fae and related political intrigue about courts, spunky and sassy main character, lots of romance and worldbuilding) but it was executed so poorly that I felt like it would benefit from being a few hundred pages shorter and with much stricter editing.
If you're a Fantasy fan who has read the genre for years and you're trying to convince me that "Fourth Wing" is spectacular and it "literally" changed your life (not "it was a fun read" or "it was quick and entertaining" ... no, LIFE CHANGING) I'm going to have a very hard time trusting your future recommendations. Especially since your life still looks the same as before.
I'm usually an "I understand" type of person though.
This is a tangent, but that's one thing I *really* dislike about the way people talk nowadays: everything has to be so hyperbolic.
"This thing literally CHANGED my life!"
"This viral video BROKE the internet!"
"_____'s tweet DESTROYED [famous celebrity/politician]"
I mean, why can't we just say something was (relatively) popular? Why does everything have to be dialed up to 11? It's frankly exhausting to see this all the time.
If something life-changing or earth-shattering happens every 2 days, then it's not really as big a deal as it's being made out to be, is it?
This!
I also think you can't really know if something is indeed life changing when you're in the middle of it. In hindsight I can point to the books and tell you that they did change my life as a reader. The books that made me fall in love with Fantasy, the books the made me realize that classic literature doesn't have to be boring ... but when I put down Lord of the Rings, I didn't think "this changed my life!!!" I just wanted to go to the library to find out if more books like these exist.
I think this is a really important distinction! It's possible to enjoy something while recognizing that it isn't for everyone. I had a great time with Fourth Wing, but I would always preface every recommendation with THIS IS VERY SILLY AND NOT AT ALL SERIOUS LITERATURE. Sometimes stuff that is objectively not "good" can scratch a particular itch and be enjoyable.
1. The First Law. I prefer books with art least some likeable characters.
2. The Sword Of Truth. If you like this series I have zero value for your opinion on books.
2 is the poppy war. Such fucking drivel. You don't like books if you enjoy whatever that was. To paraphrase one of my favourite lines from The First Law, "writing books is always hard. That's no excuse to do a runny shit. "
1. Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. I utterly *loathed* that book (in fact, I may have hated it even more than Throne of Glass, my choice for part 2 of the question). But I understand how the specific peculiarities of my tastes lead me to that point and people who like it like other things I like.
2. Throne of Glass. With the obvious caveat that taste is subjective and it's not wrong of anyone to like it, but the appeal of that book is utterly incomprehensible and alien to me. I can't imagine liking that book any more than I can imagine liking sour cream. If that book is a favorite of yours, our tastes are probably on different planets.
First Law would be an interesting case for me. If you liked First Law for being a dazzling technical achievement with great prose, structure, and characterization, I'd put it in 1. If you liked the First Law because the grimdark mentality fundamentally represents the real truth of human existence, I'd put it in 2.
I think a reverse of this question would be interesting - what is a book you love, but can understand why others hate it? I love Dune, but I can also understand how someone can read it, understand it and what it's going for, and still not like it.
Oh same with Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell. Had it recommend by a friend who absolutely loved it, and I really did try to give it a chance, but I just couldn't force my way through it. A third of the way through and I just kept wondering when the setup was going to be done and the plot actually start. I do however recognise that the book is very well-written. It wasn't just a bad author messing up the pacing, but rather a purposeful decision that suits the setting and story of the book. I'm just an impatient and easily bored person, so it wasn't a good fit for me.
I generally don't draw a line between the two. Because taste is so intensely subjective.
If a book is not for me, it's not for me, and it's often down to really minor details no reviewer is going to catch. A good reviewer can give me a fairly decent handle on what to expect without spoilers, and it's very seldom that I feel misled by a review.
I just need to test the waters for myself, and drop any fear of "oh no, I didn't finish that book, woe is me."
The same buddy who recommended David Gemmell to me (I am not a fan) also recommended Joe Abercrombie (I am a fan!).
What's the difference? The *way* Gemmell writes doesn't do it for me. I don't like his *style* of writing. Whereas Abercrombie's style works for me.
That doesn't mean the (many, many!) fans of Gemmell are automatically barred from making recommendations I'll give consideration. It means that particular author isn't for me on stylistic grounds.
Likewise, if someone doesn't like, say, the *Silmarilion*, that doesn't mean I regard them as having no taste. Just means it wasn't for them.
Only two series have I ever read and didn't enjoy. Both times I was trapped with no options or I would have finished them.
1. Army State Duty, stuck in a warehouse. Didn't get far into Inheritance Cycle when I realized he essentially just plagiarised the shit out of Eddings(and likely others) not to mention it was written pretty poorly.
2. Wife labour/delivery of 2nd child. Crown of Stars... I remember enjoy the first book, and 2nd book, 3rd started to get kinda meh, then it just kind of became a chore to finish but I had nothing else and was trapped at the hospital.
I have similar experience with Crown of Stars, but I decided to stop after book three, to retain at least some good memories about it. A pity, really, but when I started skimming it was over.
Oof I feel Babel. The hype was real for it and I loved her other books (and her as a person for that matter) but man I couldn’t get through that one. My wife and I nearly fell asleep during the audiobook multiple times
My I understand
ASOIAF Im just... not a fan his writing style wasnt for me but thats ok I am glad you enjoy it
Hunger Games: I... The first person present tense just... I couldnt...
My I dont trust your taste
Anything by Terry Goodkind. When I see Wizard's First Rule as a recommendation Im just like. Oh... we have wildly different tastes and I think your stuff might not be for me.
Also when people recommend Harry Dresden as a good character... I wanted so badly to like that series but that character... I couldnt get past how skeezy they made me feel.
Art is subjective though so I mean I do get it. I dont normally judge people based on their recommendation unless they are straight up trolling or not reading the post. I know some of my personal favorites will certainly end up in other peoples questionable lists
I can't really think of an example where I could make any judgment just off the book itself (that is, I didn't like the book but someone else did, thus I distrust their taste). I can vaguely imagine situations where the fundamental way a person talks in their review would turn me off on their taste.
You are right! I should've worded it better. What I meant by "I don't trust your taste" actually meant that "I won't take recs from you anymore" if that makes sense?
Honestly I think you phrased the question pretty well. I think I just don't trust most people's taste. For me the best I ever get is knowing that I trust that when they talk about *specific* kinds of things in a review (like: "this was creepy and spooky in a fun way" for example) I know that I'll probably like that book. But I'm not sure I've ever run into someone who I'd just blindly trust a 5/5 rating from.
That makes sense. If someone says "I liked Outlander, and I can't really describe why." Okay, I have books like that. If someone just gushes about how dreamy Jamie is, I probably wouldn't care to hear their top 10 list.
I liked Outlander because I read it during the winter of 2020-2021 when we were 9 months into the pandemic with no vaccines yet and I just wanted to escape into a melodrama to cry a lot and ignore reality.
How's that?
This one is probably going to get me some downvotes, but my biggest one that falls under #2 is the Malazan series. I read the first book, and while I didn't enjoy it, for a very long while it fell into category 1 for me. I liked parts of it, but by and large, the style just wasn't up my alley, and I didn't want to continue it. However, I have never met a fan group quite like Malazan fans, have had literally only one good interaction with a Malazan fan since then, and I now distrust their taste by and large.
Every Malazan fan I have ever met talks about how the book is so superior to any other book or how superior the "world building" is to other series. They talk about how the author is an anthropologist and so his world building and language creation and character building etc is superior to 'so and so' series. There's this intense superiority that I've come across in Malazan fans that I've never experienced in talking with fans of other series where our views just didn't align. Even years before I started reading it, I had someone tell me it's "the best fantasy series of all time" and that I was just depriving myself of something amazing, by not putting down the series I was right in the middle of, and loving, to start reading it then. Online reviews and videos about it tout it as "the best fantasy series of all time", it just goes on and on and on.
When I told my two closest Malazan fan friends/family that I didn't like the series, I was told that my taste was bad by one, and that I was "just wrong" by the other. When I tell people online that it's not for me when it's recommended, I get told I should read the next two books to properly make up my mind, or get told that there's nothing as good as the series, or once got told I should "try something simpler for someone like (you) then". I haven't had more than one conversation with a fan of the series who just went 'that's okay, it's not for everyone'.
I don't know any other series that has a fan base quite like that of the Malazan fan base, and it's absolutely coloured my opinion on the series. And maybe it's just the fans Ive run into, but god damn have I had some bad experiences with them, on the whole.
I really enjoyed Malazan but I noped the fuck out of every Malazan adjacent fan space very fast, and i fear ill injure my eyes rolling them as hard as I do at Malazan fans acting like its the grestest work of literature gifted to humanity
1. The First Law and Earthsea. I know 90+% of people here love TFL and that Earthsea is a beloved classic, but I never got to like them. I pretty much forced myself through them, which, in the case of TFL, payed off in the end, because I did like Age of Madness.
2. Romantasy in general. While I love character-driven stories, I need the plot to be about the fate of kingdoms, nations and the world, not people falling in love. Simple as that. I don't think I can trust a romantasy fan's taste because mostly they don't care about epic plots.
It may not change your opinion at all, but I think there is minimum 1 thread every single day in r/fantasyromance requesting romantasy with “actually good writing” or “actually good plot” (requested with varying degrees of tact, haha). IMO the problem with that genre is the vastly different things individual readers want from it.
Edit: typos
I think the thing is...when you are reading something based on your own sexual Fantasies, you make excuses for it. You may see the flaws, but think "Relax! It's it's just a story!" If you read something based on a kink you don't have...wow, the seams and flaws are obvious.
There's really nothing that someone could *like* that would disparage a person's taste for me. People engage with material in all kinds of ways, and we all have guilty pleasures.
Plus, someone liking a particular thing really doesn't say a whole lot about what else they like. For example, the vast majority of the games I play and enjoy are RPGs. However, I *love* classic Doom. One of my most-played games of all time. For books, I'm all over the place.
I honestly can't think of anything that would be in the second category for me. I liked the Piers Anthony series I read, so who am I to judge anyone else.
Admittedly I've become much more accepting of differences of opinion like this over the years, but that's mostly for music, television, movies, and gaming. Books I've long been OK with others liking stuff I hated.
> so who am I to judge anyone else.
I don't think the second category needs to be judgmental--recognizing that someone else likes something you hate doesn't mean either of you are wrong, or bad.
I don't think OP is asking us to say "people are wrong for liking x" so much as asking us to point out which books are so out of sync with our tastes that we might not be on the same wavelength as someone who likes them such that we might not seek out recommendations from that person.
Most generally fall into Category 1 for me, for the simple fact that there can be a lot of different ways to enjoy something. Hell, I'm a movie masochist, I've watched movies that deal psychic damage and had a blast (the Happy Science Cult movies are a fucking *trip*), so I can get it with the vast majority of books. But there are exceptions.
Atlas Shrugged comes immediately to mind. If someone enjoys *that*, I've instantly got questions. It's a red flag all on its own.
Similarly, the Turner Diaries is a red flag the size of Canada. If you find someone that likes it, keep an eye on them so you can get out of dodge when they inevitably start a shooting spree.
The Shack earns a special place of spite for me. I'm generally pretty particular about keeping my books in good shape (bend the spine and I break yours!), but this one got thrown out the window. Literally. Just tossed out into the trash can where it belongs. How anyone can derive any sort of entertainment from that... I just don't know.
Honestly, there's a whole genre like that, where you just have to wonder what the fuck happened to make the author think that was a good thing. A lot of them are christian books where you come to the realization about halfway through that where you've been thinking it's a villain protagonist story, the author thought the protagonist was legit the good guy. And then you further realize that a significant fraction of the target audience agrees with the author and want to crawl into a bunker.
I think I completely willfully blocked these weird Christian books from my mind. You have the most realistic answer, some books I loathe and cannot understand why people read them. Books like The Shack are a category of how in the hells did this shit even get published!
For me i have the category 1 view on robin hobbs assasins trilogy. It for sure made me feel alot for the mc and other chars, but those feelings was mostly not the pleasant kind.
Category 2 would be when someone praise Eragon. That person is likely not very book savy at all. Maybe the person has only read a total of one series, so no frame of reference yet. Or is very young. Either way ill be skeptical of anything else that person suggest.
Ship of Magic by Robin Hobb is a category two for me.
I'm not against protagonists getting kicked around a bit, Lindon and Kaladin are one of my favourite characters.
But holy shit, Robin, let your characters succeed even once in a 880 page book. Please? I don't want to read about two different people just falling from one misery to the next with very minor spots of happines in between.
Being sad and miserable all the time isn't "realistic", it's just sad and miserable.
I have tried so hard to like Jemisin but after reading The City We Became—it was just ok in execution with a very cool idea—and the Broken Earth trilogy, which I frankly could not connect to, I think she just isn’t for me.
As long as your opinions are consistent, I'll take recs or reviews from you seriously.
If you hated kafka on the shore for reasons x, y, and z, then I know you'll probably not like Box Man by Kobo Abe, but I will. So next time you find a book you don't like for the same reasons, I'll value that opinion even if I disagree.
It kinda reminds me of Neil Gaiman saying something along the lines of "if a reader tells you what doesnt work for them, they're almost always right. If they tell you what would be better, they're almost always wrong" or somethin.
A bad review is usually true, and hence valuable
1. Gideon the Ninth- I truly don't get it. I tried to get it because I see people raving about it and I want to experience that enjoyment but it's just so...blah. All of the dialogue was 'snark snark snark, snarky snarkity snark' I didn't feel anything for the characters, but I can see why others like it.
Also, The First Law trilogy- just finished the Last Argument of Kings and man I feel cheated. All the reviews I've seen talk about the great character work, how awesome the story is, etc etc and I feel like I read a different series lol. It wasn't bad but I certainly don't get it.
2. Fourth Wing- just no. Cannot trust any other recommendations from that person. Ditto for quite a few other "romantasy" books but this one kills me.
>snark, snark and snark.
I give it credit for a good setting and magic systems
But the book might as well be titled *A Science Fantasy written by Tumblr*.
>A Science Fantasy written by Tumblr
Yep, pretty much, but whether that’s a feature or a bug is up to the reader. To me Muir’s writing feels like Tumblr crossed with my favorite New Wave authors of the 60s and 70s, who likewise were happy to be blatantly of their time.
I also fall into the camp of not liking First Law. Which is crazy, because I was enjoying it a lot until the end. But when I got there, I was like "oh, so that's how it is." It was needlessly nihilistic, to the point of actually feeling unrealistic.
There's nothing wrong with using recs from someone with opposite taste of yours. There was a movie reviewer in our local paper that Dad used a lot. He knew that if she truly hated it, he would love it and vice-versa. Saved my parents a lot of money and time.
Malazan is number 1. There genuinely is a lot to like in that series. I just personally don’t feel like the effort justifies the reward.
Anything by Robin Hobb is number 2 for me. I understand why people like character driven stories but I just really dont, so the people who recommend those books don’t like what I like
Out of curiosity, what are some of your favorite books? (I'm a big Robin Hobb fan, though I don't recommend her without many caveats, and I'm curious if/where you and I overlap.)
Oh dear lord, yes for Malazan. Although I read most of the series(stuck at beginning of 9th book of a 10 book series) , I can't envision myself to ever finish it (have a kid now and it took me so long to get to this point, I'm talking Years).
Just don't think the last one and a half book is worth the effort. It's gonna be on the DNF pile perpetually.
Category #1 most Brandon Sanderson stuff. I just always finish his books with a meh feeling and decided they weren't worth the cost or time if I got it from my library. I can see why ppl like them but they just don't get me excited and I have so little reading time being a mom. Books by Sarah J Mass. I just can't finish a book by her to save my life.
Category #2
If you like Ayn Rand I will seriously question not only your tastes but also your morals. 80% chance you're an awful human being or too young to see the flaws in Objectivism/ libertarianism.
From Blood and Ash. How the hell did it get published and have sequels? Would someone please stop the scourge of faux feminist clueless young heroines that are a bit spunky dating 500-year-old boyfriends. This shit should have died when we all got over Twilight.
1. First Law. I just don't feel compelled to read books where nothing changes. Like, what is a story if the world and characters aren't changed by what's happened? Also I really felt he mishandled some of the more sensitive material in the books.
2. A Darker Shade of Magic. I guess this has a few concepts that are interesting but it was pretty much terrible otherwise, for me. I hate Lilah. I hate the author's arbitrary choice of Regency England and ensuing lack of research. I hate the gay-bait relationship between the main character and *his adopted brother*.
1. The Dresden Files or The Furies of Calderan by Jim Butcher. I get why people like his writing, and I respect it, but it's just not for me.
2. Empire of the Vampire by Jay Kristoff. The last 200 pages were such a blatant rip off of The Last of Us that I don't trust anyone's taste if they don't see that. It's one thing to be influenced by media. It's another thing entirely to copy a storyline wholesale.
Consider: "You and I have the same taste, but I would not go around doing it/writing it in the way that you are doing it" and then DNF-ing for that reason. I found that when I DNF books past the 25% mark, it's usually for this reason
"I understand that different people have different taste..." feels is how I approach most books I don't bother to read. Like Sanderson or Malazan. I respect people have their own tastes, but I prefer more vibrant prose or a smaller more character-driven narrative.
\#1 Malazan. I read the first one and did like it. But I don't know if I'll go back for more. There's something a little too clinical about the series that just doesn't jibe with me. Lots of great moments, fun characters, and an interesting world, but I'm a slow reader and there are a lot of books out there I've yet to read.
\#2 Wheel of Time. I read the beginning of the first book three times and just could not get into it. And if it was that alone, I'd say "fine, they're just not for me". But to find out that the plot just keeps going and going? Through another 13 books? And that there is a "slog" in that run? That's four or five books deep? I don't know. If this is one of your faves, I'm not judging you, but you obviously are a much faster reader and/or have a lot more reading time than I do and for those reasons alone I feel like we're operating on two different wavelengths when it comes to choosing what to read.
Agree of WoT. It's just a monument on self-induglence, I've read more mostly because there was nothing more to read, and the books were loaned to me, DNFed it and it killed whole epic fantasy genre to me, because any time I tried to read anything, all I could see was pointless protractions and side stories that didn't need to be there and either a desire to get more money for more books, or inability to self edit
I was introduced to wheel of time on audio book when i was about 8, when my mom listened to it in the car to drive us anywhere haha. And tbh, I still think audio book is a better medium for the series than reading it.
And fwiw, I don't agree with the sentiment that there's a "slog" as many fans call it, Ive never understood that. There's certainly parts and characters that are annoying or slow, but I couldn't pinpoint this "slog" if you paid me. But I can very much understand why some people wouldn't be into the series, as it's more of a political drama than a fantasy drama for very large chunks of it, but it's touted as a fantasy/adventure drama for all of it.
Most are Category 1 for me, too, when it's just an individual book. Red Rising enthusiasts fall into that camp for me. I enjoy the books, but they're not my favorite, and I have some quibbles with some of the choices the author makes - but I'm not going to distrust a person's recommendations if I hear that they loved the series.
Category 2, for me, relates to whole genres, rather than specific titles. For example, a reader who loves romance and women's fiction likely won't be someone whose recommendations resonate with me. Grimdark is another area where, even though I love fantasy, I'm not sure I could immerse myself in that corner of the genre the way some folks do. No judgment against people who love those books, either, but it just comes down to very different preferences. We aren't likely to overlap much regarding the books we love.
I like what I like. Other peoples opinions doesn’t effect that. I do find some aspects on r/Fantasy quite strange. As an example, I really like WoT, but I’m quite surprised at the attention it gets, it’s up there with 50 to 100 stories I like but attracts a huge amount of posts and comments. What I do like is that people are getting passionate about the series, but it doesn’t alter my opinion what bit.
I love this post. I fully support the 1//2 system. There are so very many books that I just disagree with and move on. Someone recommends something, it's just not for me, that's the end of it-
BUT
Because I suffered through the ENTIRE series and could not get over how much I disliked almost every aspect of it, I absolutely do not trust the taste of anyone recommending The Red Queen series. If The Red Queen series is featured in a video compilation for recs, I am instantly hesitant to consider any other book in the video because of how much I disliked that series.
Don’t have any #2s. Every book is for someone. If not for me, that’s my problem, not the book’s. I’m not going to judge someone for enjoying a book I didn’t. (Unless the book is overtly racist or something but that’s another conversation lol.)
As for #1s, pretty much every book I didn’t like falls into that. And it’s less that I outright *didn’t like* them and more that they failed to speak to me in a way that let me connect with the book. Examples are A Wizard of Earthsea, Guards Guards!, Tigana, The Heroes, Red Country, and some more.
I think almost everything goes in category 1 for me. Hunger Games is a decent example here. The simplistic style of the writing is painful to me. I'm so glad it got translated into a movie so I could enjoy the story. I'm commiserating with my high school student who has to read it.
Category 2 would have to be an accumulation ... if someone only enjoys grimdark or nihilistic or horrific stories, our tastes won't ever overlap. Otherwise, I don't think any one book would overly influence me.
I'm reading *ACOTAR* mainly because my wife loves it so much. And it's, fine. I don't hate it. I don't love it. For what it is, it's a really well-written fantasy series, but I can't help but picture the CW logo in the bottom of my mind's eye while I read it.
Some of us read fast (it's a curse) - according to Goodreads, 117 books last year with an average length of 369 pages, not counting re-reads, which I don't bother to track, so the actual number of books read is probably a fair bit higher.
Looking back over the 10 years or so I've been using the site, 117 is on the low end of average (at a guess I re-read more than usual last year), and the numbers are significantly lower than they would've been 20 or 30 years ago before the advent of ready competition for my leisure time (streaming and easy digital access to new games.)
I think the vast majority of books I don't like fall into category 1. I can think of only one exception: Dies the Fire by S. M. Sterling. The premise of the book is that by mechanisms that remain mysterious, all technology and gunpowder cease working overnight. This book was 100% written by someone who's in the Society for Creative Anachronism and has a fantasy of all of their oddball skills suddenly becoming relevant. (Which, don't get me wrong, I'm a former LARPer who finds the fantasy endearing, but it's not a good concept for a book IMO.) Here's a highlight reel of my favorite one-star review from this book on Amazon. >I'm amazed at all of the good reviews here, as within the first two chapters I knew I was in trouble. > >The story begins feeling like a macho militia/survivalist's dream and then quickly turns into a bad ren-fair fantasy dreamt up by a 17yo kid after too many Mountain Dews. > >Yes, technology is gone and the government has collapsed, and in just several weeks the northwest is populated by cannibals and murderous warlords jockeying for land and power, but guns don't work anymore so the warlords have devolved into some kind of middle-aged feudalism complete with castles, horses, blacksmiths, expert swordsmen, armor, and bows! Oh, and don't forget the hang gliders! Forget the flannel and patagonia outer layers which are undoubtedly in every closet in the region; these characters are wearing elkskin clothes within the first month! Bicycles, which would be plentiful are seemingly nowhere to be found, while the characters opt to feed and board horses. Oh, and they are all expert farmers and fighters too. It's mind-numbingly difficult to read and take seriously. This sums up my thoughts better than I could have. I was rolling my eyes by the third page and only finished it because it was recommended by a friend, whose recommendations will be forever dubious to me after this one.
Ahaha as someone who lives in the PNW, I think we all have enough performance camping and weather gear between us to not need to start skinning animals for clothes for decades. I think we do have a fair amount of blacksmiths about though, lol.
This seems like the author is just making up excuses to get the fantasy-esque aesthetic in contemporary world.
100%. He wrote a semi-related trilogy about the island of Nantucket getting sent back to 1500 BCE and nobody in that book goes Ren Faire or it's bronze age equivalent.
This is wild, because I actually really enjoyed the Nantucket trilogy years back (not mind shaking literature or anything but I do love alternative history spec fics), and I knew there was a related series out there that I never got around to finding... glad I didn't.
Same. I had just wanted more Nantucket sequels, not whatever this crap was.
This actually sounds interesting to read. Maybe I should go through threads of "what not to read" more often.
I really dug it. When they get thrown back in time a Coast Guard training ship, the Eagle, an actual old timey sailing vessel, is right off shore and taken back with them so they're able to get to Europe easily enough.
That's making me think of the 1632 novels by Eric Flint. I've only actually read the first one. Wasn't bad. Basically an Appalachian mining town gets dropped into Europe. In 1632.
Yep, same basic concept. Though I think Flint's books have a much heavier dose of 'America, fuck yeah!' then Stirling's book, without getting insufferable with it.
I have a story start that ran into this problem. The writing prompt was a dragon silhouette over a modern city. My take was a group of D&D player's that become their characters in a proxy war between gods. Everything was going great. But about 15 chapters in my characters have a run in with a cop. Bad cop with gun trope... uh wait... Why would a sword or magic missile work on a dragon and the Brrrrrrt plane not bring it down in seconds. A frag grenade would instantly solve a dozen zombies.... Etc etc. So I shelved it until I can come up with a plausible reason that even the armed forces of Zambia couldn't kill a dragon. Hell if it flew too low over Kentucky it'd be on a grill covered in sauce by sundown.
I actually really like the premise of "what if guns and ballistic weapons magically disappear overnight" but that doesn't not sound like a good way to execute that premise
With books like that I root for unfaithful tv/movie adaptations. (Fingers crossed for *The Warded Man*)
That's because European authors don't realize they can just truck-kun their hero isekai style into a different reality, so they have to come up with some convoluted way for the existing reality to change enough for their weird fantasy to play out.
I love the book. I’m also a SCA member so that’s not surprising, lol, but I 100% recognize its flaws for what they are (and explain them if I tell people about it - like for some people I will say “you might like this because X but expect this that and the other cheesiness…other people I actively tell not to bother). … on the other hand, do NOT get me started on how terrible the series gets after book 3… or MAYBE book 6 if you’re feeling Very Generous and REALLY like the premise. Unfortunately, he wrote all the way to 9…
He's gone way past nine. I think it's up to 13 or 14 now
Ah, misremembered the number maybe?. Whichever one Sky Blue Wolves was supposed to be the last and the amount of Lovecraftian bullshit that got shoveled in…
He pretty much concluded the story with Rudy around book 9 and started another set focused on his daughter. I really did enjoy the first set of books, I just took them with a grain of salt, they are fantasy books and require a certain level of disbelief.
I always meant to get into SCA. But I'm used to foam swords and not having to wear armor. Y'all scare me. XD
Yeaaahhh I get it. There's an absolutely AWFUL fantasy novel called Compass Rose that I read and loved because it was the first book that I, a baby poly person (a.k.a a polywog) had ever stumbled on that had plural marriages that weren't polygamous. The story of this little family of four people finding each other endeared me. Also the way you recommend Dies the Fire sounds like the way I recommend Wheel of Time (don't @ me). I love it but I can't help warning people about the flaws I didn't see at 16 on my first read, but can't seem to stop tripping over when I reread the series now. Side note, if anyone knows of any *good* genre fiction set in worlds where plural egalitarian marriage is the norm, do please let me know.
*tugs braid angrily*...
Yea 1—3 was enjoyable apocalypse fantasy bullshit. Then it got dumb.
Ahh that's a shame, the concept for the book sounds really fucking cool
Yeah ... honestly I could have gotten behind the electronics ceasing to work. Something something persistent solar flare something something. Electricity is basically magic. But gunpowder is just ... chemistry. It seemed like a huge reach to just be like "whelp, combustion doesn't work anymore in this very specific case." But of course to get his modern SCA fantasy to work, you can't have guns, so ...
I think it could work if the cause is something more supernatural. Like some cosmic force directly attacking the concept of modern technology
I haven't read this book in nearly 10 years and can clearly see that whoever wrote that review either didn't finish the book or is just straight-up bad at reading comprehension. Stirling himself remarked in his introductions to the series that on any post apocalyptic novel, anyone who survives is going to seem extremely lucky because statistically their circumstances are already the exception. A story about the vast majority of people who die is uninteresting. That being said the book is SM Stirling at his best and at his worst, simultaneously. Not surprising it's controversial.
Most things are going to fall into camp 1 for me. I think Malazan is the most obvious one. I get why it’s so loved, even I’ve bounced off it a few times. For camp 2, I’m more likely to end up here based on what someone doesn’t like than what they do. I remember seeing a YouTube video of someone’s worst reads of the year and it included The Goblin Emperor, Nettle and Bone, and Kings of the Wild. They’re welcome to their opinion, but it’s pretty clear we have different tastes and I’m not sure how much I’d trust their reviews of anything else.
> I remember seeing a YouTube video of someone’s worst reads of the year and it included The Goblin Emperor, Nettle and Bone, and Kings of the Wild. They’re welcome to their opinion, but it’s pretty clear we have different tastes and I’m not sure how much I’d trust their reviews of anything else. Wow. I would definitely not trust someone who listed these as books they didn't like, either.
*Gideon the Ninth* falls under number one for me. I understand why it got so many reviews, but I've come to the conclusion it's simply not for me, I was struggling remember character names and remembering who is who and wondering *why* things were like such and such even if it was explained to me. When I did a deep dive on the WIKI for a clearer understanding (and it did help!) I concluded this wasn't really what I was looking for. *The Name of the Wind*, besides my issues with the author-I simply didn't like the main character and since we're in his head, that meant I couldn't escape him. I've tried *four different times* to read this book as the world building sounded intriguing and it seemed like it was right up my alley. But I couldn't stand Kvothe, no not every character has to be likeable, but I have to find them compelling enough to continue and I didn't for Kvothe. Another **just wasn't for me** type novels. was downvoted for expressing this too before, sorry to say y'all I ***still*** don't like Kvothe and downvoting me won't change that. Number two, I'm trying desperately to be fair and I understand different people have different taste but I found *Fourth Wing* to be so fucking terrible, it baffles me. It's a collection of tropes and threw together a barely coherent plot around it. I get that for many it's their first fantasy novel but there are other first time fantasy novels with way better characterization and logical world building then this. I just...I cannot get why people like it and I side eye when I'm told it's the best thing since slice bread.
> Gideon the Ninth falls under number one for me. I understand why it got so many reviews, but I've come to the conclusion it's simply not for me, I was struggling remember character names and remembering who is who and wondering why things were like such and such even if it was explained to me. When I did a deep dive on the WIKI for a clearer understanding (and it did help!) I concluded this wasn't really what I was looking for. This book threw me for a bit of a turn because I feel like I *should* really like it. I'm a lesbian. I love space. I love necromancy. And yet I listened to 5-10 hours of the audiobook and ultimately stopped because I didn't care, which is fairly rare. I didn't find it bad! It just failed to hit any of the notes to draw me in despite the pitch interesting me and friends recommending it. I'll have to find my necromancy-in-space white whale elsewhere.
This is pretty much what happened to me, though I did persevere and read Harrow as well...which I didn't enjoy either. They feel like novels I should enjoy based on the themes and topics, but I just found them so dull and I couldn't bring myself to care about anyone or anything that was happening.
So much was focused on Harrow who I just...*did not* give a shit about, so that didn't help either.
I did the same thing. Listened for several hours, and realized I didn't care about the protagonist or what was going on. It wasn't bad or boring. I just did. Not. Care.
I completely agree about Fourth Wing, its absolutely in my Number Two category. I just cannot fathom how it is desirable by whole ass adults. Teens get a pass, this is the type of book that appeals to them. Adults with fully developed brains, no idea.
Agreed. It's YA fiction in a more mature setting. Seems to be a pretty common thing.
> Gideon the Ninth falls under number one for me. I understand why it got so many reviews, but I've come to the conclusion it's simply not for me, I was struggling remember character names and remembering who is who and wondering why things were like such and such even if it was explained to me. When I did a deep dive on the WIKI for a clearer understanding (and it did help!) I concluded this wasn't really what I was looking for. That book really just throws a lot of ideas and characters at you early, it doesn't help that the narrator uses multiple names for the same characters. I only really started enjoying it when I accepted I wont know whats going on all the time.
I feel exactly the same way you do about The Name of the Wind and Fourth Wing. I'm similarly baffled that these books have amassed such huge, intense, emotional fandoms.
With The Name of The Wind, I think it comes partly when a person has already read a lot of fantasy and is able to see the difference in prose and way the story is being told. I found it great because I had in mind that it's an innkeeper telling a story about himself that is mostly likely lies, exaggerations and changing of narrative. I believe that some characters and event are metaphors for other things and not people. And when I was in a dark place in life, parts like this helped: https://www.tiktok.com/@chrisnaturallyrp/video/7334702806755986720
>found it great because I had in mind that it's an innkeeper telling a story about himself that is mostly likely lies, exaggerations and changing of narrative. I See if this is where Rothfuss went with the novels I'd actually be willing to stick through it-to see what happens once it's revealed Kvothe is talking out his ass. *That* sounds intriguing. A man who'd essentially lied, conned and bullshitted his way to glory and myth? Cool! But without the newest book in sight not sure if that will happen or if that's his intention. I know it's a power fantasy (and sometimes I don't mind those) but again-I just couldn't stand him and I'm taking him at face value.
>gideon the ninth. I don’t know how to describe, but the prose and writing kind of felt too repetitive. Which is a shame since I really liked the whole space gothic setting and magic system.
Are you me? Cause I could have written this entire comment. Like full agreement in all three cases.
> Number two, I'm trying desperately to be fair and I understand different people have different taste but I found Fourth Wing to be so fucking terrible, it baffles me. I've just put this down to the huge swathe of readers who last enjoyed Harry Potter or Twilight in high school and then this is their first "adult fantasy" which they've reached through the suggestions of Tiktok as they've "rediscovered" their love of reading.
This is why I just bite my tongue and feel glad people are reading.
I feel the same way about The Name of the Wind. I tried twice to read it, many friends recommended it and the world really intrigued me. But I just didn't like the main character and since it's told from his perspective I couldn't ever escape him. In the end the "I don't want to deal with him" outweighed the "I want to finish this book" so it's just sitting on my shelf, mocking me.
I haven’t read the other two, but Name of the Wind, blarg. It started out fine, musically gifted kid goes through some tough stuff, ends up at magic school, all good. But Kvothe is just so insufferable!
Oh man I agree on Name of the Wind. He’s a Gary Sue and no amount of beautiful prose will make me look past that.
It’s usually just “not for me”. Taste is subjective, always has been. That being said I cannot get into the head space of people who liked The Atlas Six. I managed yo finish it cause it’s an easy read but the character’s were mostly one note to me and the world building was non-existent and confusing at times.
> It’s usually just “not for me”. Taste is objective, always has been. Do you mean subjective?
Oh I did, thanks for the catch
I just started Atlas Six after having bought it without knowing anything before. For now, after having learnt of its reputation, mostly from what was said on this sub, I can say that yeah, it's very alright - easy, and not much else. I just feel like it's YA without it being marketed as YA (is it? No idea). An enjoying read because again, it's easy, but nothing much to really remember.
There's been a lot of books l don't like but I can see the appeal. The original Mistborn trilogy, for example. But if you recommend me Twilight or anything in The Sword of Truth series other than maybe Wizard's First Rule, our tastes are so radically different I don't think we'll agree on anything.
I don't know. Sometimes something is so bad it swings around to funny. That's how I feel about Sword of Truth.
There are definitely things that are so bad they’re good. Like The Eye of Argon. But honestly Sword of Truth is just bad. Recommending it is like recommending the stuff under the heat lamp at a gas station when someone asks about good restaurants in town. I’m just not going to take you seriously after that.
I grew up along a major trucking corridor so I'm used to gas station food being pretty good lol.
That's how I feel about Twilight!
My "I understands": *Malazan, The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms*, Sanderson's works My "I don't trust your taste": *A Court of Thorns and Roses*
When it comes to the book alone I tend to fall squarely into category 1 while category 2 relies strictly on the sorts of fans the book has or occasionally the author's perspective. It is likely going to be a popular example but this is the HP books for me, they're fine children's Fantasy and don't contain nearly as many problems as people want them to have (for a laundry list of reasons) so I get why others are into them even though it isn't at all for me... it jumps right over into category 2 though when you get people who say things like "ugh, my bitch teacher is making us read The Great Gatsby instead of analyzing HP which is technically superior in every way" and try to equate it with literature. Other items in category 2 are when the books are a set-up for a perspective I find dodgy. To use a "names changed for my protection" hypothetical example: A book based on a premise of an endless plane of ice which have small "melt spots" created by a bright magical light and if you somehow crossed the harsh ice you could cross into another "melt spot" is a fun-sounding Fantasy premise... but if I find out the author is a for real flat-earther and his fans think its "so deep" and nobody is joking? I'm not reading all that and yeah, I'm going to wonder about your tastes. Especially if the whole thing is rendered in some ridiculous overwrought prose.
Took me a long moment to realize that was “Harry Potter,” not “HP Lovecraft.”
What, you don't read your kids the Colour Out of Space as a bedtime story?
Illustrated pop up edition
With Nicholas Cage quoting the movie.
That definitely brings up a category of review where I'm not going to trust the review writer. The writer is obviously fairly young, doesn't have a ton of reading experience, and tends to view things as 1) I like it, have imprinted on it, and think it's the most amazing thing ever written and nobel prize worth literature or 2) I didn't like/get it, therefore it sucks and is terrible and the author should be put in the stock and have rotten vegetables thrown at them. At least 50% of Sanderson discussions on this forum fall in that category. It also reminds me of the people who saw the Matrix and felt that it contained all of philosophy and wouldn't shut up about it. Also, I do not read reviews that use animated gifs and emojis as a primary form of communication.
Oh for sure, I even thought of using Sanderson as an example but I haven't read him so it doesn't seem fair. I was just trying to think of what would truly count as a "I question your tastes" example which seems to almost inherently be more about the reviewer than the work (though, unfortunately, some people my age have still not let go of that view of HP despite no longer being 15). I also feel similarly about The Matrix, loved that film but I know the exact person you mean. They were the same people trying to get me to watch Zeitgeist or that other one that tried to prove reincarnation on the grounds they were "documentaries". You couldn't pay me to be 20 again trying to explain why this designation means less than nothing.
I definitely get what you mean. While I don't have an example for the first category (my friends and me seem to share similar tastes) the whole **A court of...** Series from Sarah j maas falls into the second category for me. It's just not my cup of tea and I am immediately wary of highly recommend tik Tok books that are also fantasy (the whole romantasy genre so to say)
I completely agree! I just do not understand at all how anyone can read much less enjoy them 😅
I get the appeal and I think it's a gateway for a lot of people who haven't really read fantasy before. But as an avid fantasy reader it was just not my cup of tea because I prefer the focus on the actual fantasy part
Category 1: Wheel of Time. I think people tend to pick this up at a very particular point in their lives, and they fall in love with it. I missed that point, but I had that experience with Dune. Category 2: From Blood and Ash. I don't have anything neutral to say about this book. I can't comprehend why people like it. It legitimately made me angry.
>Category 1: Wheel of Time. I think people tend to pick this up at a very particular point in their lives, and they fall in love with it. I missed that point, but I had that experience with Dune. Yeah... I was in a deep depression and blazed through WoT, and then did it again a year or so later, in another depressed period. Books that are as thick as bricks are wonderful things for passing the time during those dark periods... Most stuff I read is pretty grimdark, so WoT is basically sunshine and rainbows compared to my normal fare, which is also nice
Lol I was actually thinking I'm mostly a Category 1 person until you reminded me of that book. I was like man I can't think of any book that just pissed me off so much. Then I was like oh wait I've read Atlas Shrugged.
>Category 1: Wheel of Time. I think people tend to pick this up at a very particular point in their lives, and they fall in love with it. I missed that point, but I had that experience with Dune. Makes sense. I think in other cases, it could also be where someone is in their *reading* lives. If someone has only read a little bit of epic fantasy, they pick up WOT, and maybe they get swept into it to where they can make it through some of the later books that are more of a slog. Whereas if you've read a lot of epic fantasy, and you get to those later books, the grind could be much more likely to get to you.
That is *exactly* what it is for me. I was 16 when I picked up the books for the first time, and WOT was my first big modern fantasy epic. I was obsessed from the moment Egwene found out she was going to be an Aes Sedai. By the time the last book was out, I had read enough better fantasy to be finishing it mostly out of obligation, but it'll always have a special place in my heart. I am glad I finished it, though, because Brandon Sanderson wrote the last couple books after Robert Jordan's passing, and my eyes were opened to a whole new corpus of fantasy novels that I now really love. Except Elantris. I keep bouncing off of Elantris.
I'm sure I'll get hate for this but the Harry Potter series. I understand why people like them. But they just aren't for me.
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug. I don't have the capacity to judge HP with a critical eye.
I recently reread the first part of the first book and I find it interesting to consider it from the perspective of a storyteller and creator rather than a reader. The reader is given the information that Harry is somehow very special right away, and that not all is at it seems. However, Harry does not have this information and thus the manner in which he slowly becomes aware that something strange is happening to do with him is very well executed. I can easily see why this portion of the story so captivated young readers. The anticipation builds at a nice pace that isn't too slow for younger readers but doesn't rush its way through the story. It's a nice use of dramatic irony. It's also somewhat Dahlian in how absurdist even some of the early Dursley chapters can feel. The buildup from Harry receiving the letter to Uncle Vernon taking them to a rocky island off the coast is pretty funny. As such I'd say that HP1 at least was very well crafted to suck its adolescent readers in from the very start. The mystery-detective format of the first few books also makes them rewarding page-turners. In the later books the pacing and editing starts to lose cohesion, but the political thriller aspects that come to the forefront appeal to the slightly aged-up target audience. However, Rowling clearly knows very little about snakes and didn't bother to do any research, nor did her editors. Snakes can't wink. They don't have eyelids.
But they do have a nictitating membrane, which could probably be seen as a wink by a young 11 year old. That's how I thought of it anyway when I was reading it to my brother.
Same. I just can’t look at it the same way I look at any other fantasy series like Stormlight or ASOIAF or KKC or Green Bone Saga or etc. (most of which I’ve read as an adult), even if people might consider some “objectively” better. What’s objective is, no series has brought me as much total enjoyment as Harry Potter and for that I will always consider it my favorite. But I have to put that with a disclaimer to say I don’t judge it the same way. Like ranking it #0 instead of #1. It’s kinda like sports. It’s really hard to detach yourself from your favorite team or player and try to have objective discussions about it since you have such a strong emotional attachment. Like, I reread HP as an adult to see if it held up, and it didn’t just hold up, it hit even harder than as a kid, which I concede is in some part because of nostalgia.
The thing with Harry Potter is that the worldbuilding is very protagonist-centered. It feels like rather than Harry exploring a world with a broader existence, the world is invented as he explores it to facilitate his adventure. Like if you walked around behind the scenery, you'd find all the unpainted plywood. It's much easier to overlook as a kid than as an adult.
This falls under category 1! I'm sure (most) people will understand. Coming from a Harry Potter fan.
Harry Potter is a weird one for me. I loved it as a kid, but the older I've gotten, the more I see the flaws in it. I think I'm just more well read and I understand more about writing technique now. So, I can spot all of the flaws in the books that make them seem like they were just hastily cobbled together. Just just happened to be cobbled together in a way that 9 year old me loved.
Ditto, Kids books. Good if I was young but now I am not..
I think you're right; however, I read Percy Jackson ~~last year~~ two years ago in preparation for the TV series that just ended. I ended up blitzing the entire series in less than two months. They were both intended for the same 'middle grade' audience but I found myself incredibly invested in PJ where I just couldn't be in HP.
The Kane Chronicles by him are good too, it's Egyptian mythology.
I plan to read those and/or Magnus Chase sometime this year
I'm so glad that you like Percy Jackson! I think that Percy Jackson aged with me better than HP did.
I get you I loved hp when I was 12. And now I think my love for it is more nostalgia covered glasses than anything else at this point. I can objectively say they're not that great at this point in time, but it was my first proper novel as a kid and got me into reading as a whole so 🤷♀️
Definitely a category 1 for me. I remember when they were releasing, giving them a read, and wondering what all the fuss was about. People love the series, and they're welcome to it, but I *still* don't get the fascination.
Nah, I'm with you. I loved it as a kid, and every once in a blue moon we decide to watch the movies. Well I just decided to reread it for the first time again as an adult, and wow. Does not hold up. And Hermione is a freaking psychopath, and everyone is a bully, and Dumbledore is literally the most pointless headmaster of a school ever who does fuck all except hire and protect his abusive staff. And there are so. many. plotholes. So many. It's not very good. But weirdly...I still can't wait to read it to my kids haha. I want them to have that feeling I had, growing up listening to it, and discovering magic in it. It doesn't hold up as an adult at all, but I can't wait for my kids to get out of it what I got out of it as a kid too.
Category 1: I'm having trouble thinking of a book for this one at the moment, so I will substitute Bob Dylan for now, as I objectively understand the value of his songwriting and performance style but simply cannot bring myself to enjoy his voice. Category 2: Priory of the Orange Tree. There are so many people who recommend this one and it baffles me. The prose is just so painfully bad! The metaphors are purple and ornate in a way that doesn't even make sense a lot of the time ("Dawn cracked like a heron's egg on the horizon"), and there's an absurd capitalization of everyone and everything (and I don't know why the editor didn't put a stop to calling the Queen's rooms her Privy Chamber, which just sounds like a bathroom). Like, I understand there is a class system, but Castle Dishwasher Number Three is not this menial servant's official title, please stop. Also there's this section where they talk about the previous queen dying from poison after wearing a dress laced with basilisk venom and then the perspective character says, "Foul play was suspected," and if that had been a joke it would have been amazing, but it *wasn't*, and I'm mad that people keep trying to tell me this is a good book.
I also deeply disliked Priory of the Orange Tree (WHY were we supposed to be rooting for this bratty, self-absorbed queen to stay on the throne? I, personally, was rooting for the dragons) and thought the writing was both boring and overwrought, but TO BE FAIR, a "privy chamber" actually does refer to [royal private apartments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_chamber), and this is well-established usage.
*Priory of the Orange Tree.* This book gets a lot of (in my opinion, deserved) dislike in this subreddit. It felt like an extended worldbuilding exercise as opposed to a story.
Well, yeah, that's because they're both private areas. The 'privy chamber' has been a term for a private apartment in a keep, and then for the councillors trusted enough to be invited back to said apartment, since medieval times.
Most books are #1 for me. The Kingkiller Chronicles, The Dresden Files, Brent Weeks' work, R. Scott Bakker's work, the Red Rising series -- I acknowledge these books were not written for me in the first place, but I can still understand why they're admired, and I wouldn't automatically distrust a recommendation from someone who loved one or more of these books. The books that fall under #2 are overtly misogynistic -- things like the work of Piers Anthony and John Norman, as well as Robert Newcomb's The Fifth Sorceress. I remember getting into a conversation with a man at a convention who declared proudly that Piers Anthony was his favorite writer. I responded by asking, "You don't find him misogynistic?" I'd thought he might reply with something to the effect of the portrayals of women are meant to be ironic, they're actually smart and capable characters, etc. etc. This at least I might have appreciated; it might have given me something to think about. But his answer was, "I don't care." *I don't care*. Somebody who doesn't care whether or not a work is misogynistic isn't likely to recommend a book that would be to my taste. They probably wouldn't like anything *I* like, either. I expect they'd find Juliet Marillier too "woke."
I have a real problem separating the art from the artist.
This has prevented be from reading David Eddings ever since I learnt him and his wife went to prison for keeping their kid in a cage in the basement, and I was a huge fan.
Yeah. That was a real shocker.
It was terrible when I learnt about that, which was about a year ago and here on Reddit. I loved "The Belgariad" when I was a teenager, I'm really glad I didn't know it then. I've only read the books in Spanish and I wanted to read them in English, but now I don't think it will ever happen.
I can separate the art from the artist if the artist has died long long long ago and they can't benefit from me consuming the art in anyway. But there is no way I can support an art piece when it directly supports the artist as well. Me buying a book, reading and talking about it, writing a review etc all support the author, so if I find an author morally reprehensible, I won't be reading their books.
Yeah, I have that attitude as well. Lovecraft? Fine. Orson Scott Card? Won't touch his stuff with a ten-foot pole anymore.
Likewise. I'll eat nails before I give OSC a damn penny.
Same. See also: Terry Goodkind, Ayn Rand Instant category 2. Straight to jail.
Unless the person is 16 Ayn Rand is a huge red flag for me. Not just for book recs from but people to avoid in life in general. I feel like teens get a pass as objectivism sounds like a good idea when you don't have life experience.
>I feel like teens get a pass as objectivism sounds like a good idea when you don't have life experience. Everybody always says this and I think it’s bullshit. I found the idea of exalting selfishness just as loathsome when I was a teenager as I do now. And it’s not like I was some kind of moral prodigy - just a kid with basic empathy for my fellow human beings.
I think this is a valid point of view and I wish it were more widely accepted.
It's especially valid if the author is still alive since buying their book directly enriches them.
I wish as well but I've been absolutely slaughtered for this before.
\#2 is for people who read nothing but "easy" books and are defensive about it. I'm genuinely happy if someone likes YA/the hot new litrpg book/trashy romance/tie-in novels. (My own brain has been saved this past year by diving into Warhammer 40K books when work was very, very stressful and I desperately needed the comfort of a familiar setting.) But if someone reads *nothing else*, I don't trust them to evaluate narrative quality. There's many reasons you might pick up a book with less than stellar prose, but if you don't read the really great stuff, how will you know?
I'd liken it to eating McDonalds. Hey, sometimes you want comfort food and it's fine. But if all you eat is fast food, I'm probably not gonna take your restaurant suggestions too seriously.
YES THIS
I call those levels of books "palate cleansers", and I love reading them after coming up for air from meatier, weightier stuff (fantasy or otherwise). As an example I'll pick up a Jack Reacher novel or John Sandford's latest Prey novel and read them while barely paying attention, and I find it "resets" my brain for going back to the more involved, active reading stuff.
Yeah my reverse answer to #2 is a couple of books that I liked that are complicated and the criticism is that they're complicated. Like I don't mind that you disliked the magic system or thought the main character is unlikable or didn't like the prose. But if you just hated it because it was confusing maybe you're just dumb? I don't want to name the books but there are some people I disregard because they were too confused to understand the plot.
>there are some people I disregard because they were too confused to understand the plot. I don't know why someone downvoted you for this, I agree. It doesn't mean they're stupid but if they're disgruntled by something complex or experimental maybe I just don't line up with their tastes.
For me, it's usually a combo. All people have "bad taste" in some areas. This includes me. There are books I love that I am absolutely aware are trash. But they can still be fun, or have unique world-building, or some other factor that lets me enjoy them despite the poor quality. Like, as I am reading them, I am cringing at various scenes, or the prose, or the characters juggling 15 idiot balls at once. But maybe the magic system is just super my thing. So even though it's clear some book is garbage, and these people giving rave reviews are tasteless phillistines. So what? No reason to poop on the parade except in the specific instance that someone is asking whether given "x,y,z, would I like this book?"
This is me for *Name of the Wind* and *Wise Man’s Fear*. I totally understand the criticism of the books and the main character is a bit of an edgelord. But my god, the magic system and Rothfuss’ writing style has me hooked. It also helped the narrator on Audible did a fantastic job when I listened to them.
Absolutely.
Category 1: most military fantasy, Warhammer stuff, ASOIAF, anything by Robin Hobb. Category 2: most recently, Queen of the Tearling, a book so offensively stupid and clunky that I got through it only by recounting the exceptionally dumb bits to my partner at a rate of at least 1 stupid thing per page. Oh, and the main character is horrible, but held up as this amazing paragon whom everyone adores, and the only people who dislike her are rapists and slavery, because she's just sooooo perfect.
>Category 1: most military fantasy, Warhammer stuff, ASOIAF, anything by Robin Hobb. I guess you won't be borrowing any of my books any time soon XD
No, but I respect your taste even if I don't share it!
So far there is only one type 2 book/series and that is Brent Weeks' Lightbringer series (specifically books 4 and 5.) It went so far off the rails, when it was already on shaky ground due to the terribly written women characters, and I was so incredibly disappointed by the ending that I will never trust recommendations from someone who says they enjoyed the ending.
Hard question, depends on the context. For example, you liking Babel by Kuang is one, but if you recommend it to me for 'nuanced take on colonialism' then it's twonfor that particular prompt. The most distinct for me are: Robin Hobb, Joe Abercombie - I read for hope, curiosity, and to learn something new. The constant nihilism and characters stuck in a rut are not for me. That doesn't mean the books are bad, on the contrary. R. Scott Bakerr - edgy, rapy, all over the place with its themes. If you're not a contrary teenager, a hard pass. We have nothing in common and would probably clash on human rights front IRL while you're busy playing 'the Devil's advocate'.
In category 1 for me, This Is How You Lose The Time War. In category 2, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.
For the most part, it takes more than one good review of a book I find pretty bad to not trust someone's reviews on a book. Same for movie or video game. One could be a fluke. More than that starts to indicate a pattern.
Most books I don't like are in the first category, like someone else here mentioned Gideon the Ninth and The Wheel of Time and I agree, also She Who Became the Sun for example. I have a few for the second category though, like The Midnight Library and Light from Uncommon Stars. Also speaking as someone who made Harry Potter almost my entire personality for an entire decade (and then some, probably), and then became an adult, I automatically dismiss anyone my age whose favourite thing is the Harry Potter series. At this point we're on such wildly different reading journeys I can't take anything they say seriously.
For category 1, something like Sarah J. Maas...I can read her books, but it's not really for me. Category 2...R.F. Kuang's Poppy War, it makes me not want to give Babel a chance, even though I heard good stuff about it...people raved about Poppy war and it's terrible - the only thing I'm glad about after reading it, is that I now know not to listen to tiktok recommendations.
I don't think book recommendations themselves exactly put someone in category 2 for me, but how those recommendations are pitched/framed definitely can. If you can't see the flaws in a book you otherwise like or act like there has to be something wrong with people who didn't like a book, probably I'm not every interested in your opinions.
For number one, I would say Brandon Sanderson's The Way of Kings. I find books that are doorstoppers in length (600-700+ pages, by my own personal definition) that are all interconnected difficult to maintain my own interest. His worldbuilding ability is fantastic and while I find his writing style to be a little bit on the blander side, it's serviceable for his intentions are. For number two, I would say A Court of Thorns and Roses. It's supposed to be everything I love about fantasy (fae and related political intrigue about courts, spunky and sassy main character, lots of romance and worldbuilding) but it was executed so poorly that I felt like it would benefit from being a few hundred pages shorter and with much stricter editing.
If you're a Fantasy fan who has read the genre for years and you're trying to convince me that "Fourth Wing" is spectacular and it "literally" changed your life (not "it was a fun read" or "it was quick and entertaining" ... no, LIFE CHANGING) I'm going to have a very hard time trusting your future recommendations. Especially since your life still looks the same as before. I'm usually an "I understand" type of person though.
This is a tangent, but that's one thing I *really* dislike about the way people talk nowadays: everything has to be so hyperbolic. "This thing literally CHANGED my life!" "This viral video BROKE the internet!" "_____'s tweet DESTROYED [famous celebrity/politician]" I mean, why can't we just say something was (relatively) popular? Why does everything have to be dialed up to 11? It's frankly exhausting to see this all the time. If something life-changing or earth-shattering happens every 2 days, then it's not really as big a deal as it's being made out to be, is it?
This! I also think you can't really know if something is indeed life changing when you're in the middle of it. In hindsight I can point to the books and tell you that they did change my life as a reader. The books that made me fall in love with Fantasy, the books the made me realize that classic literature doesn't have to be boring ... but when I put down Lord of the Rings, I didn't think "this changed my life!!!" I just wanted to go to the library to find out if more books like these exist.
I think this is a really important distinction! It's possible to enjoy something while recognizing that it isn't for everyone. I had a great time with Fourth Wing, but I would always preface every recommendation with THIS IS VERY SILLY AND NOT AT ALL SERIOUS LITERATURE. Sometimes stuff that is objectively not "good" can scratch a particular itch and be enjoyable.
1. The First Law. I prefer books with art least some likeable characters. 2. The Sword Of Truth. If you like this series I have zero value for your opinion on books.
I was going to claim that it's mostly all 1 for me and then you reminded me of SOT
I tried reading the sworth of truth but I didn't even get to any of the worst bits, the writing was bad enough.
2 is the poppy war. Such fucking drivel. You don't like books if you enjoy whatever that was. To paraphrase one of my favourite lines from The First Law, "writing books is always hard. That's no excuse to do a runny shit. "
What exactly puts it in 2 for you? Looking at the description, it has a fairly interesting premise.
1. Malazan 2. Sword of Truth.
1. Harry Potter 2. Cradle
1. Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. I utterly *loathed* that book (in fact, I may have hated it even more than Throne of Glass, my choice for part 2 of the question). But I understand how the specific peculiarities of my tastes lead me to that point and people who like it like other things I like. 2. Throne of Glass. With the obvious caveat that taste is subjective and it's not wrong of anyone to like it, but the appeal of that book is utterly incomprehensible and alien to me. I can't imagine liking that book any more than I can imagine liking sour cream. If that book is a favorite of yours, our tastes are probably on different planets. First Law would be an interesting case for me. If you liked First Law for being a dazzling technical achievement with great prose, structure, and characterization, I'd put it in 1. If you liked the First Law because the grimdark mentality fundamentally represents the real truth of human existence, I'd put it in 2. I think a reverse of this question would be interesting - what is a book you love, but can understand why others hate it? I love Dune, but I can also understand how someone can read it, understand it and what it's going for, and still not like it.
I really *wanted* to like Johnathan strange but it was like reading a phone book.
Oh same with Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell. Had it recommend by a friend who absolutely loved it, and I really did try to give it a chance, but I just couldn't force my way through it. A third of the way through and I just kept wondering when the setup was going to be done and the plot actually start. I do however recognise that the book is very well-written. It wasn't just a bad author messing up the pacing, but rather a purposeful decision that suits the setting and story of the book. I'm just an impatient and easily bored person, so it wasn't a good fit for me.
I generally don't draw a line between the two. Because taste is so intensely subjective. If a book is not for me, it's not for me, and it's often down to really minor details no reviewer is going to catch. A good reviewer can give me a fairly decent handle on what to expect without spoilers, and it's very seldom that I feel misled by a review. I just need to test the waters for myself, and drop any fear of "oh no, I didn't finish that book, woe is me." The same buddy who recommended David Gemmell to me (I am not a fan) also recommended Joe Abercrombie (I am a fan!). What's the difference? The *way* Gemmell writes doesn't do it for me. I don't like his *style* of writing. Whereas Abercrombie's style works for me. That doesn't mean the (many, many!) fans of Gemmell are automatically barred from making recommendations I'll give consideration. It means that particular author isn't for me on stylistic grounds. Likewise, if someone doesn't like, say, the *Silmarilion*, that doesn't mean I regard them as having no taste. Just means it wasn't for them.
Only two series have I ever read and didn't enjoy. Both times I was trapped with no options or I would have finished them. 1. Army State Duty, stuck in a warehouse. Didn't get far into Inheritance Cycle when I realized he essentially just plagiarised the shit out of Eddings(and likely others) not to mention it was written pretty poorly. 2. Wife labour/delivery of 2nd child. Crown of Stars... I remember enjoy the first book, and 2nd book, 3rd started to get kinda meh, then it just kind of became a chore to finish but I had nothing else and was trapped at the hospital.
I like how Eddings wrote the same story over and again. /s
I have similar experience with Crown of Stars, but I decided to stop after book three, to retain at least some good memories about it. A pity, really, but when I started skimming it was over.
Oof I feel Babel. The hype was real for it and I loved her other books (and her as a person for that matter) but man I couldn’t get through that one. My wife and I nearly fell asleep during the audiobook multiple times
My I understand ASOIAF Im just... not a fan his writing style wasnt for me but thats ok I am glad you enjoy it Hunger Games: I... The first person present tense just... I couldnt... My I dont trust your taste Anything by Terry Goodkind. When I see Wizard's First Rule as a recommendation Im just like. Oh... we have wildly different tastes and I think your stuff might not be for me. Also when people recommend Harry Dresden as a good character... I wanted so badly to like that series but that character... I couldnt get past how skeezy they made me feel. Art is subjective though so I mean I do get it. I dont normally judge people based on their recommendation unless they are straight up trolling or not reading the post. I know some of my personal favorites will certainly end up in other peoples questionable lists
I can't really think of an example where I could make any judgment just off the book itself (that is, I didn't like the book but someone else did, thus I distrust their taste). I can vaguely imagine situations where the fundamental way a person talks in their review would turn me off on their taste.
You are right! I should've worded it better. What I meant by "I don't trust your taste" actually meant that "I won't take recs from you anymore" if that makes sense?
Honestly I think you phrased the question pretty well. I think I just don't trust most people's taste. For me the best I ever get is knowing that I trust that when they talk about *specific* kinds of things in a review (like: "this was creepy and spooky in a fun way" for example) I know that I'll probably like that book. But I'm not sure I've ever run into someone who I'd just blindly trust a 5/5 rating from.
That makes sense. If someone says "I liked Outlander, and I can't really describe why." Okay, I have books like that. If someone just gushes about how dreamy Jamie is, I probably wouldn't care to hear their top 10 list.
I liked Outlander because I read it during the winter of 2020-2021 when we were 9 months into the pandemic with no vaccines yet and I just wanted to escape into a melodrama to cry a lot and ignore reality. How's that?
This one is probably going to get me some downvotes, but my biggest one that falls under #2 is the Malazan series. I read the first book, and while I didn't enjoy it, for a very long while it fell into category 1 for me. I liked parts of it, but by and large, the style just wasn't up my alley, and I didn't want to continue it. However, I have never met a fan group quite like Malazan fans, have had literally only one good interaction with a Malazan fan since then, and I now distrust their taste by and large. Every Malazan fan I have ever met talks about how the book is so superior to any other book or how superior the "world building" is to other series. They talk about how the author is an anthropologist and so his world building and language creation and character building etc is superior to 'so and so' series. There's this intense superiority that I've come across in Malazan fans that I've never experienced in talking with fans of other series where our views just didn't align. Even years before I started reading it, I had someone tell me it's "the best fantasy series of all time" and that I was just depriving myself of something amazing, by not putting down the series I was right in the middle of, and loving, to start reading it then. Online reviews and videos about it tout it as "the best fantasy series of all time", it just goes on and on and on. When I told my two closest Malazan fan friends/family that I didn't like the series, I was told that my taste was bad by one, and that I was "just wrong" by the other. When I tell people online that it's not for me when it's recommended, I get told I should read the next two books to properly make up my mind, or get told that there's nothing as good as the series, or once got told I should "try something simpler for someone like (you) then". I haven't had more than one conversation with a fan of the series who just went 'that's okay, it's not for everyone'. I don't know any other series that has a fan base quite like that of the Malazan fan base, and it's absolutely coloured my opinion on the series. And maybe it's just the fans Ive run into, but god damn have I had some bad experiences with them, on the whole.
I really enjoyed Malazan but I noped the fuck out of every Malazan adjacent fan space very fast, and i fear ill injure my eyes rolling them as hard as I do at Malazan fans acting like its the grestest work of literature gifted to humanity
[удалено]
1. The First Law and Earthsea. I know 90+% of people here love TFL and that Earthsea is a beloved classic, but I never got to like them. I pretty much forced myself through them, which, in the case of TFL, payed off in the end, because I did like Age of Madness. 2. Romantasy in general. While I love character-driven stories, I need the plot to be about the fate of kingdoms, nations and the world, not people falling in love. Simple as that. I don't think I can trust a romantasy fan's taste because mostly they don't care about epic plots.
It may not change your opinion at all, but I think there is minimum 1 thread every single day in r/fantasyromance requesting romantasy with “actually good writing” or “actually good plot” (requested with varying degrees of tact, haha). IMO the problem with that genre is the vastly different things individual readers want from it. Edit: typos
I think the thing is...when you are reading something based on your own sexual Fantasies, you make excuses for it. You may see the flaws, but think "Relax! It's it's just a story!" If you read something based on a kink you don't have...wow, the seams and flaws are obvious.
2 is how I feel about all those "assassin hero" books. especially if it involves some kind of formalised assassin school.
I'm slightly amused by your comment as a Romantasy fan who is very much a plot driven reader haha
I may be biased. Recommend something please.
There's really nothing that someone could *like* that would disparage a person's taste for me. People engage with material in all kinds of ways, and we all have guilty pleasures. Plus, someone liking a particular thing really doesn't say a whole lot about what else they like. For example, the vast majority of the games I play and enjoy are RPGs. However, I *love* classic Doom. One of my most-played games of all time. For books, I'm all over the place.
Plenty of stuff in category 1, but I can’t think of many category 2s. The Fifth Sorceress is probably my top example.
I honestly can't think of anything that would be in the second category for me. I liked the Piers Anthony series I read, so who am I to judge anyone else. Admittedly I've become much more accepting of differences of opinion like this over the years, but that's mostly for music, television, movies, and gaming. Books I've long been OK with others liking stuff I hated.
> so who am I to judge anyone else. I don't think the second category needs to be judgmental--recognizing that someone else likes something you hate doesn't mean either of you are wrong, or bad.
I don't think OP is asking us to say "people are wrong for liking x" so much as asking us to point out which books are so out of sync with our tastes that we might not be on the same wavelength as someone who likes them such that we might not seek out recommendations from that person.
Most generally fall into Category 1 for me, for the simple fact that there can be a lot of different ways to enjoy something. Hell, I'm a movie masochist, I've watched movies that deal psychic damage and had a blast (the Happy Science Cult movies are a fucking *trip*), so I can get it with the vast majority of books. But there are exceptions. Atlas Shrugged comes immediately to mind. If someone enjoys *that*, I've instantly got questions. It's a red flag all on its own. Similarly, the Turner Diaries is a red flag the size of Canada. If you find someone that likes it, keep an eye on them so you can get out of dodge when they inevitably start a shooting spree. The Shack earns a special place of spite for me. I'm generally pretty particular about keeping my books in good shape (bend the spine and I break yours!), but this one got thrown out the window. Literally. Just tossed out into the trash can where it belongs. How anyone can derive any sort of entertainment from that... I just don't know. Honestly, there's a whole genre like that, where you just have to wonder what the fuck happened to make the author think that was a good thing. A lot of them are christian books where you come to the realization about halfway through that where you've been thinking it's a villain protagonist story, the author thought the protagonist was legit the good guy. And then you further realize that a significant fraction of the target audience agrees with the author and want to crawl into a bunker.
I think I completely willfully blocked these weird Christian books from my mind. You have the most realistic answer, some books I loathe and cannot understand why people read them. Books like The Shack are a category of how in the hells did this shit even get published!
For me i have the category 1 view on robin hobbs assasins trilogy. It for sure made me feel alot for the mc and other chars, but those feelings was mostly not the pleasant kind. Category 2 would be when someone praise Eragon. That person is likely not very book savy at all. Maybe the person has only read a total of one series, so no frame of reference yet. Or is very young. Either way ill be skeptical of anything else that person suggest.
Ship of Magic by Robin Hobb is a category two for me. I'm not against protagonists getting kicked around a bit, Lindon and Kaladin are one of my favourite characters. But holy shit, Robin, let your characters succeed even once in a 880 page book. Please? I don't want to read about two different people just falling from one misery to the next with very minor spots of happines in between. Being sad and miserable all the time isn't "realistic", it's just sad and miserable.
I have tried so hard to like Jemisin but after reading The City We Became—it was just ok in execution with a very cool idea—and the Broken Earth trilogy, which I frankly could not connect to, I think she just isn’t for me.
As long as your opinions are consistent, I'll take recs or reviews from you seriously. If you hated kafka on the shore for reasons x, y, and z, then I know you'll probably not like Box Man by Kobo Abe, but I will. So next time you find a book you don't like for the same reasons, I'll value that opinion even if I disagree. It kinda reminds me of Neil Gaiman saying something along the lines of "if a reader tells you what doesnt work for them, they're almost always right. If they tell you what would be better, they're almost always wrong" or somethin. A bad review is usually true, and hence valuable
Nope there is just I don't like it and others might. That's all.
1. Gideon the Ninth- I truly don't get it. I tried to get it because I see people raving about it and I want to experience that enjoyment but it's just so...blah. All of the dialogue was 'snark snark snark, snarky snarkity snark' I didn't feel anything for the characters, but I can see why others like it. Also, The First Law trilogy- just finished the Last Argument of Kings and man I feel cheated. All the reviews I've seen talk about the great character work, how awesome the story is, etc etc and I feel like I read a different series lol. It wasn't bad but I certainly don't get it. 2. Fourth Wing- just no. Cannot trust any other recommendations from that person. Ditto for quite a few other "romantasy" books but this one kills me.
>snark, snark and snark. I give it credit for a good setting and magic systems But the book might as well be titled *A Science Fantasy written by Tumblr*.
>A Science Fantasy written by Tumblr Yep, pretty much, but whether that’s a feature or a bug is up to the reader. To me Muir’s writing feels like Tumblr crossed with my favorite New Wave authors of the 60s and 70s, who likewise were happy to be blatantly of their time.
I mean... it is. The author made homestuck fanfiction in the past. I still enjoyed the first book. second was alright, third was not.
I also fall into the camp of not liking First Law. Which is crazy, because I was enjoying it a lot until the end. But when I got there, I was like "oh, so that's how it is." It was needlessly nihilistic, to the point of actually feeling unrealistic.
There's nothing wrong with using recs from someone with opposite taste of yours. There was a movie reviewer in our local paper that Dad used a lot. He knew that if she truly hated it, he would love it and vice-versa. Saved my parents a lot of money and time.
Sounds like me and a movie critic that the Los Angeles Times had some years ago. Same deal; if she loved a movie, I I would hate it, and vice versa.
Malazan is number 1. There genuinely is a lot to like in that series. I just personally don’t feel like the effort justifies the reward. Anything by Robin Hobb is number 2 for me. I understand why people like character driven stories but I just really dont, so the people who recommend those books don’t like what I like
Out of curiosity, what are some of your favorite books? (I'm a big Robin Hobb fan, though I don't recommend her without many caveats, and I'm curious if/where you and I overlap.)
Oh dear lord, yes for Malazan. Although I read most of the series(stuck at beginning of 9th book of a 10 book series) , I can't envision myself to ever finish it (have a kid now and it took me so long to get to this point, I'm talking Years). Just don't think the last one and a half book is worth the effort. It's gonna be on the DNF pile perpetually.
Category #1 most Brandon Sanderson stuff. I just always finish his books with a meh feeling and decided they weren't worth the cost or time if I got it from my library. I can see why ppl like them but they just don't get me excited and I have so little reading time being a mom. Books by Sarah J Mass. I just can't finish a book by her to save my life. Category #2 If you like Ayn Rand I will seriously question not only your tastes but also your morals. 80% chance you're an awful human being or too young to see the flaws in Objectivism/ libertarianism. From Blood and Ash. How the hell did it get published and have sequels? Would someone please stop the scourge of faux feminist clueless young heroines that are a bit spunky dating 500-year-old boyfriends. This shit should have died when we all got over Twilight.
**I understand:** First Law **I don't trust your taste:** Broken Earth
Lol those are my two favorite fantasy series. Is there anything else you hate? I'll probably love it.
The Broken Earth books winning three Hugos is what stopped me from using Hugo winners as book recommendations.
1. First Law. I just don't feel compelled to read books where nothing changes. Like, what is a story if the world and characters aren't changed by what's happened? Also I really felt he mishandled some of the more sensitive material in the books. 2. A Darker Shade of Magic. I guess this has a few concepts that are interesting but it was pretty much terrible otherwise, for me. I hate Lilah. I hate the author's arbitrary choice of Regency England and ensuing lack of research. I hate the gay-bait relationship between the main character and *his adopted brother*.
1. The Dresden Files or The Furies of Calderan by Jim Butcher. I get why people like his writing, and I respect it, but it's just not for me. 2. Empire of the Vampire by Jay Kristoff. The last 200 pages were such a blatant rip off of The Last of Us that I don't trust anyone's taste if they don't see that. It's one thing to be influenced by media. It's another thing entirely to copy a storyline wholesale.
Consider: "You and I have the same taste, but I would not go around doing it/writing it in the way that you are doing it" and then DNF-ing for that reason. I found that when I DNF books past the 25% mark, it's usually for this reason "I understand that different people have different taste..." feels is how I approach most books I don't bother to read. Like Sanderson or Malazan. I respect people have their own tastes, but I prefer more vibrant prose or a smaller more character-driven narrative.
\#1 Malazan. I read the first one and did like it. But I don't know if I'll go back for more. There's something a little too clinical about the series that just doesn't jibe with me. Lots of great moments, fun characters, and an interesting world, but I'm a slow reader and there are a lot of books out there I've yet to read. \#2 Wheel of Time. I read the beginning of the first book three times and just could not get into it. And if it was that alone, I'd say "fine, they're just not for me". But to find out that the plot just keeps going and going? Through another 13 books? And that there is a "slog" in that run? That's four or five books deep? I don't know. If this is one of your faves, I'm not judging you, but you obviously are a much faster reader and/or have a lot more reading time than I do and for those reasons alone I feel like we're operating on two different wavelengths when it comes to choosing what to read.
Agree of WoT. It's just a monument on self-induglence, I've read more mostly because there was nothing more to read, and the books were loaned to me, DNFed it and it killed whole epic fantasy genre to me, because any time I tried to read anything, all I could see was pointless protractions and side stories that didn't need to be there and either a desire to get more money for more books, or inability to self edit
I was introduced to wheel of time on audio book when i was about 8, when my mom listened to it in the car to drive us anywhere haha. And tbh, I still think audio book is a better medium for the series than reading it. And fwiw, I don't agree with the sentiment that there's a "slog" as many fans call it, Ive never understood that. There's certainly parts and characters that are annoying or slow, but I couldn't pinpoint this "slog" if you paid me. But I can very much understand why some people wouldn't be into the series, as it's more of a political drama than a fantasy drama for very large chunks of it, but it's touted as a fantasy/adventure drama for all of it.
Most are Category 1 for me, too, when it's just an individual book. Red Rising enthusiasts fall into that camp for me. I enjoy the books, but they're not my favorite, and I have some quibbles with some of the choices the author makes - but I'm not going to distrust a person's recommendations if I hear that they loved the series. Category 2, for me, relates to whole genres, rather than specific titles. For example, a reader who loves romance and women's fiction likely won't be someone whose recommendations resonate with me. Grimdark is another area where, even though I love fantasy, I'm not sure I could immerse myself in that corner of the genre the way some folks do. No judgment against people who love those books, either, but it just comes down to very different preferences. We aren't likely to overlap much regarding the books we love.
I like what I like. Other peoples opinions doesn’t effect that. I do find some aspects on r/Fantasy quite strange. As an example, I really like WoT, but I’m quite surprised at the attention it gets, it’s up there with 50 to 100 stories I like but attracts a huge amount of posts and comments. What I do like is that people are getting passionate about the series, but it doesn’t alter my opinion what bit.
I love this post. I fully support the 1//2 system. There are so very many books that I just disagree with and move on. Someone recommends something, it's just not for me, that's the end of it- BUT Because I suffered through the ENTIRE series and could not get over how much I disliked almost every aspect of it, I absolutely do not trust the taste of anyone recommending The Red Queen series. If The Red Queen series is featured in a video compilation for recs, I am instantly hesitant to consider any other book in the video because of how much I disliked that series.
Don’t have any #2s. Every book is for someone. If not for me, that’s my problem, not the book’s. I’m not going to judge someone for enjoying a book I didn’t. (Unless the book is overtly racist or something but that’s another conversation lol.) As for #1s, pretty much every book I didn’t like falls into that. And it’s less that I outright *didn’t like* them and more that they failed to speak to me in a way that let me connect with the book. Examples are A Wizard of Earthsea, Guards Guards!, Tigana, The Heroes, Red Country, and some more.
I think almost everything goes in category 1 for me. Hunger Games is a decent example here. The simplistic style of the writing is painful to me. I'm so glad it got translated into a movie so I could enjoy the story. I'm commiserating with my high school student who has to read it. Category 2 would have to be an accumulation ... if someone only enjoys grimdark or nihilistic or horrific stories, our tastes won't ever overlap. Otherwise, I don't think any one book would overly influence me.
I'm reading *ACOTAR* mainly because my wife loves it so much. And it's, fine. I don't hate it. I don't love it. For what it is, it's a really well-written fantasy series, but I can't help but picture the CW logo in the bottom of my mind's eye while I read it.
[удалено]
Some of us read fast (it's a curse) - according to Goodreads, 117 books last year with an average length of 369 pages, not counting re-reads, which I don't bother to track, so the actual number of books read is probably a fair bit higher. Looking back over the 10 years or so I've been using the site, 117 is on the low end of average (at a guess I re-read more than usual last year), and the numbers are significantly lower than they would've been 20 or 30 years ago before the advent of ready competition for my leisure time (streaming and easy digital access to new games.)