I slogged through half of Stranger before putting it to rest.

Robert Jordan left me absolutely cold. I couldn’t get beyond 100 pages.

Regarding LOTR I enjoyed the movies more than the books though I must say that the Hobbit was a pleasant surprise.

I expected to enjoy The Graveyard book by Gaiman but it turned out to be a stone cold dud. Ditto with the sandman series by Richard Kadrey.

All in all I have mostly stopped reading epic fantasy or any series that goes beyond a trilogy. I think three books ought to be enough to tell a good story.

I think reading at whim is the best thing to do. The moment I feel as if I am not enjoying a book I put it away and start something else without the slightest hesitation.

As for the books:

Let’s see, I didn’t think much of “Stranger in a Strange Land” when I read it, I didn’t like “Dune” either for that matter (shock horror!). I read the short story “Lobsters” before I read “Accelerando” and I found the short story really gripping. I loved it. But thought, as the book continued, that it just got worse.

I liked “Lord of the Rings”, but I doubt I’ll ever read it in full again. Rather just skipping all the boring bits and reading the exciting books. (I’ve never bothered to see the movies, I don’t think they’ll do much for me.)

I’m sad that I’ve not read many of the other books mentioned. I need to read more, take me to a library.

One of the things I find interesting, especially when I read these similar posts over on Ian Sales’ site, is that works like Asimov’s Foundation series continue to impress new readers today. Every year I find people reading Asimov for the first time and some are disappointed but I find many that feel that spark in the work, issues of the era aside, that turned readers on back when they were originally published.

I think the biggest problem I end up having with articles like this is that it is easy for the writer(s) to go from “what I didn’t like” and why, to “this novel sucks” which is given as a more blanket statement presented with the kind of language as if the person’s opinion will brook no arguments to the contrary.

I don’t know about most of the books discussed above (aside from Asimov – all the comments are true, but I don’t care) and I have to say I haven’t read them. Even “Dhalgren” but only because I can’t find a copy locally when I have the urge to read Delaney.

My first response to the posts above were “quit picking on some of my favorite books, you’re just not giving it a chance!”. I read further, and my response was “hell yeah that book sucked, I can’t believe anyone liked that piece of garbage!”.

Of the books I’ve read that the authors above mentioned, I’m split about 50/50 on loved it/can’t understand why anyone enjoys it.

we’re not all going to love the same stuff, and it’s interesting to see what everyone enjoys and doesn’t. For the record, I’m an utter Heinlein fangirl. I’ve read Stranger in a Strange Land twice, and started it again probably half a dozen more times. I read the first half, love it. . . get to the second half and usually put it down.

Stranger in a Strange Land is a prize-winning dud, like most talky books where the author has one or more stand-ins arguing for his or her suspect opinions against opposition that can barely fog the mirror.

Similarly, books that are schematic diagrams of a clod getting a well-deserved comeuppance/painful education are a major drag. The Malacia Tapestry and The Magus being two sad examples.

Character issues would probably be the biggest reason I stop reading or barely struggle through many books. A cast of just plain unsympathetic and grating characters (especially the ones that you can tell the author thinks are really hip) will make me set a book aside and never pick it up again. With Ian McDonald, if I’m lucky I can find one or even two characters I will keep reading to find out more about. In some cases, like Necroville/The Terminal Cafe, I can’t even find one and give up quickly. Characters that are so overwrought and melodramatic that they seem like cartoons can spoil things, as can characters that are flat as cardboard. Even worse, the characters can veer from flat to overwrought and back (I’m thinking of The High House as an example).

I’m a fan of Matthew Woodring Stover’s Caine books, in spite of the extreme violence they contain (usually involving warriors), but for the most part repetitive scenes of sadistic violence against the helpless (animals, children, prisoners/captives, the physically weak or old or disabled) spoil a book for me (just thinking now of The Captain’s Witch, a recent read).

All of the above books mentioned have been praised or named as favorites by other readers, so take this all with a grain of salt.

I loved reading this. Kudos on it!

That said, I’d actually like a spin on this one: What things have these (or other authors) read that they wish they hadn’t. The disturbing things that haunt them. (_Dr. Rat_, anyone?)