everyone said I should read this because???

What the heck! The curious incident of the dog in the night time? Seriously? It wasn't terrible but I could have done without. Don't waste your time on this just because someone else said it was good. Trust me

Ive got a better one: Dont read any new books by Jonathan Kellerman! it is awfull.... boring to the point of wanting to chew wrists off!

I agree about both The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time and Catcher in the Rye (and I haven't read anything by Jonathan Kellerman). I had nothing against The Curious Incident... and would happily have read it even if it wasn't popular, but I don't know what everyone is raving about. I thought it was an okay or maybe even good book, but not great. The main thing that stuck out about it is that he was supposed to be amazingly good at minesweeper, but his best time for expert was one that even I've achieved.

Catcher in the Rye I just didn't like. It was a quick read, but not particularly interesting, and not much seemed to happen. I'm glad I read it, but only because it's a book that people always refer to. If it weren't for that, I'd want my time back.

(By the way, it's extremely irritating to me that The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time won't touchstone with a hyphen in it, but the name that shows up in the touchstone list does include the hyphen, as it's supposed to.)

I've struggled through many 'recommended' novels, then struggled again to say anything nice about them to the 'suggester'. As a consequence I avoid most modern fiction for the sake of my own sanity.

I have a friend I love to bits BUT she will keep pushing Stephen King on me, despite the fact that I hate horror. Another friend is a wonderful person but loves books I know I'll hate; Anne Rice and Fantasy novels. Luckily I have a huge list of books TBR, so I don't have to offend either of them by not taking up their suggestions.

I really liked The curious incident of the dog in the night time, perhaps because I've taught children with Asperger's, perhaps because I found it darkly witty and perhaps because teens really love it - hooray, a book teens will read willingly.

Definitely The Da Vinci Code and The Fountainhead as a close second behind it. Although I only struggled through about 120 pages of the latter before giving up, I mourn every minute I invested in it.
Both were books highly recommended to me by not one but several friends.

MrKris - go back and see just where the facts page appears in the book.

i think the point is that it's a novel... so "facts" don't exist outside of the world of the story as such... do they?

about 10yrs ago i developed a huge interest in Christian history, especially the more obscure and controversial stuff. not many people were aware of the theories around. when dan the man published his infamous book i was initially stoked that more people would be exposed to the research the theologians have been performing for centuries... but instead, his book has made a mockery of this field of historical research and interest. i never dare tell people it's a field of interest for me 'cos they smirk and roll their eyes!

The point is exactly as you stated MrKris. It's a novel. And the 'facts' page appears AFTER the title page. That's what's so funny about people getting all bent around the axle about the facts page. If Brown had included this same list before the title page or after 'the end', it would be a different issue and everyone would have reason to complain, but the page is in with the novel and is also just as fictional as everything else. It makes me laugh every time.

Whew, I should know better by now than mentioning The Da Vinci Code anywhere on LT. A heated, long discussion is bound to follow. And all I did was list it as one of the books I thought was awful, but that came highly recommended to me. And just for the record, I didn't mind about the false "facts" because this is a novel, nothing more. I didn't like it because it was so poorly written and I just don't like books that have 2-page chapters that each end with a cliff-hanger. But that's just my opinion, I respect everybody who likes the book. They probably hate books I love. Everybody's taste is different and it would be quite boring if it weren't so.

Agreed Thalia, it wasn't a great novel - unspectacularly written and easily unraveled (these people were supposed to be geniuses??), but it moved right along and kept me reading despite its flaws. I'll keep the copy I have (gasp, yes I actually own it), but probalby won't read it again. It's fun to chat about though and watch the polarization. If you hear Dan Brown speak about this book, he'll tell you that this was why he wrote it - to get people talking. He sure did succeed.

Well, same here. I speed-read it in a day and I also still have the copy on my shelf. I will definitely not read it again though.
But, even though I raced through it, when I closed it after the last page, I was sitting there asking myself, "and this is supposed to be a good book why?"
Another flaw I forgot before is the ending. I just didn't like it and was shaking my head the whole time I was reading the last few pages. To me it just seemed like he couldn't think of anything better or more original to end it.

It's always disappointing to read a book that is otherwise fairly good and then in the last chapter feel like the author got tired of the story or couldn't figure out a good way to wind things up. So he did the first thing that came to mind whether it made a lot of sense or not.

Ah sadly, the point is missed.

well, moving away from the davinci code, i must say i was disappointed by My Sister's Keeper. albeit a touching story, it just simply wasn't worth the fuss that was made over it.

Ha I once encountered someone who was trying to get the original version of
S. Morgenstern's book.

Still to spell it out for people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_document.

and vaguely along the same lines.

http://www.bobkaye.com/ilibertine.html

Thanks for keeping me laughing about the facts page. Brill.

Hey, when I first read The Princess Bride I really thought it was an abridgement! Admittedly, that was in elementary school, but still....

I HATED My Sister's Keeper. I thought it was sappy drivel. The kind of crap you see on Lifetime. I abhored this book, however most people I know really enjoyed it. Just not my cup of tea.

I was enjoying My Sister's Keeper through most of the book, until I got to the end. What a letdown! I actually threw the book on the floor (gently, since it was a library book), and exclaimed, "I can't believe I just wasted my time on this!" My impression was that the author got tired of writing the book, so she just killed off the main character so she wouldn't have to write anything else about her. It will be awhile before I try any other books by Picoult.

Im amazed at the speed that this specific conversation is growing. Now i need to know if anyone else has read anything by Tami Hoag, specifically Ashes to Ashes. Im not sure as to what the fuss was about with this one....Its not very, uhm, whats the word...... 'gripping'

>27 hobbitprincess:

Please be sure to mark a post with SPOILER if you post the ending - even if you didn't like the book. Thanks.

What I liked about The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time was its depiction of the thought processes of an autistic. I was amazed that the author could do that so well.

hobbitprincess (#27) -- I felt exactly as you did about My Sister's Keeper until I re-read the introduction in preparation for leading my book club discussion. It says something along the lines of "When you conceive a child for a specific purpose and that purpose is obtained, then the child ceases to have value". Picoult usually writes fiction about a unique but timely issue (this one was about conceiving a child specifically to help one already living) that leads to much often heated discussion in book clubs.

Yes, spoiler warnings please!

Kageeh: #30 I totally agree. I thought the author did a fantastic job of depicting the main character's thought processes.

its depiction of the thought processes of an autistic. I was amazed that the author could do that so well....etc...

kageeh and radiantarchangelus: How do you know? I am not being facetious or smart-alec, I seriously want to learn how one knows whether an author is a genius or completely whacko in depicting the thoughts of some person or animal who is incapable of describing their own thought process. (I have not read the Curious Incident...)

Nobody nowhere and Donna Williams's other books are as good a guide to the autistic mind as you are likely to get. In Autism an inside out approach she says of her ability to write normally and I paraphrase "Other people call this an islet of ability, I call it useful"

I suppose, technically, I don't know. I read somewhere - an interview, I believe - that the author works with autistic children. I read about that after reading the book. In particular, the "otherness" of the way the main character thought/interacted with the other characters was very convincing to me. Also, the way the main character's emotions were disconnected to the point of nonexistence (except for fear) were compelling.

>28 Sue.k.:

I read Ashes to Ashes about once a year, but it seems now that I've read more of Tami Hoag's work, it's not her best. It's part of a two part series and I remember I finished A to A right before Dust to Dust was printed.

I don't know how much Hoag you've read, but I've found that if I don't "grow" with an author, their earlier works don't seem to grab me.

I agree that we can't know for sure how anyone else thinks, let alone an autistic, yet there are clues. Temple Grandin is another "literate autistic" that has written several books about animal behaviour. Donna Williams books are fascinating, too. I have a niece with Aspergers and I loved Curious Incident.

Mark Haddon's captured a typical Asperger's internal voice very well. It's a myth that Aspies are incapable of describing their own thought process; they're just not very good at reading other people and reacting to 'external' thought processes. Someone with AS who has worked hard at it can do just as well at describing what goes on in their head as the average neuro-typical, in fact usually better because they have the facility to be self-critical and analytical in ways that most NTs are (taught to be) shy of. They're far more likely to give you the detailed and unedited version of their thoughts, without euphemism or delicacy. ;-)

(I speak from years of experience on this one.)

Mark Haddon gave me a very good description of a child I worked with for several years. Although that child was not autistic he was about halfway between definitely autistic and definitely normal.

Thank you all for the insight. Forgive my ignorance, but this subject is just outside my experience.

I jwas just remembered how clear Edgar Rice Burroughs' tntroduction made it that A Princess of Mars was a true account.

And dont you think C s Lewis' refusal to reveal how he got hold of the Screwtape Letters was equallyin the introduction to that book was suspicious?

Simon

Artisan (#34) -- People who have worked with autistic individuals and have read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time have agreed it depicts the thought processes of many autistics. I also know well a young man with Asperger's who can describe how he thinks. I'm not saying Mark Haddon is a genius (I wouldn't know that) but he did a great job with this story. It was different from other books and made me think. That, to me, is one sign of a good read.

#34
"its depiction of the thought processes of an autistic. I was amazed that the author could do that so well....etc...

kageeh and radiantarchangelus: How do you know?"

artisan, thats a good question. I read the book and loved it. I have a nephew with autism. I can't vouch for what his though processes are like, but the character in the curious incident really struck a chord. He seemed very realistic to me, after having spent a lot of time with my nephew over the years.

There have been several books written by high-functioning autistic people, and by people with Aspergers' Syndrome, which is a bit like a mild form of autism. Of course, their thought processes do differ depending on their personality, and communication tends to be a weak area for people with autism, so it is hard to generalise even on the basis of such books. I just felt that the novel captured something quite unique about people with autism.

>29 Morphidae: & 32

Why wouldn't someone "spoil" a book that they think others should not bother reading, particularly when it's the ending that makes it not worth reading. There are only so many vague references that a person can tolerate. :)

It's not so much about the spoiling itself but the warning. Add a *SPOILER ALERT* to the top before you actually tell the ending of a book, regardless if you liked the book or not. I'm sure there are others who would like to read the book despite some people not liking it, and would therefore appreciate it if they weren't told the ending. Then I can decide for myself if I want to know the ending before I actually read the book. You can still tell you didn't like the book before the spoiler warning and then go into the reasons.

imaginelove: unfortunately i havnt read any other Tami Hoag novels. But usually if i don't like the first book i pick up by a specific author, then i just dont want to try anything else by them.

ExVivre says (#45) "Why wouldn't someone "spoil" a book that they think others should not bother reading, particularly when it's the ending that makes it not worth reading."

Wow -- I am amazed that you would say this. Anyone reading these groups can easily see that "some people like nuts and some don't". Why would you want to spoil a book that others may love just because you did not feel the same way? Isn't it just a wee bit arrogant to assume others agree with you and equally want to ruin the story for others? That seems just plain mean.

I, too, intensely disliked the ending of My Sister's Keeper when I first read it but I was able to clearly express my dismay at the ending and why without forecasting what exactly what that ending was. Read any negative review in a newspaper and you will discover that paid reviewers can also do this easily. If they instead blurted out the endings to books they hated, they would quickly lose their jobs.

I think it's terribly bad form to spoil the ending of a film or story. Even if it's a stinker, let others discover that for themselves.

Do you know, if anyone had told me the ending of We need to talk about Kevin before I got to it, I would have scratched their eyes out (and I'm a pacifist). The ending knocked me sideways: I really didn't see it coming. Then, I couldn't guess who Pip's benefactor was in Great Expectations, much to everyone's derision.

White Oleander.

My mother loaned it to me - "you will just LOVE this book!" were her exact words.

Oh, how she lied. What an unutterable piece of crap that was.

Xenalyte- White Oleander was actualy a very beautiful, heart wretching story. and i on the other hand loved the book. the movie was just as beautiful.

But, to each his own.

Xenalyte I couldn't stand White Oleander either nor did I like Lovely Bones. SueK I gave both of these books to a friend of mine and she loved them.

One of my friends keeps trying to push Dean Koontz on me. I finally gave one a try and just couldn't finish it.

Sue.k. said, in part: heart wretching story

Is it possible she is of two minds about this book? :-)

Ok, someone will probably be pissed at me, but Eragon. The book was basically the bastard child of the Lord of the Rings. I know its written by a teenager, and its his first book. Honestly I think its pretty well written after about chapter two or three, its just completely unoriginal, except for the Dragon-Rider thing, although there's very similar things in Dinotopia if anyyone has ever read that.

My wife loves Eragon and its sequel. Personally, it looks very derivative to me. I mean, there's only so much that can be done with fantasy, and I don't fault the author for that (in fact, I applaud him for his success at such a young age), but as was the case with Harry Potter, everyone acts like these concepts are brand new. We're going to see the movie this weekend, and I'm sure I'll probably enjoy it, but I have no plans to read the book.

I've never gotten all the hype for the Da Vinci Code. Almost everyone I knew raved about whereas I tried reading multiple times and never made it through page 20.

Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace is one of the most overrated works of 1990s serious fiction. It is too long by 800 pages. It's screamingly nihilistic and tries to excuse that by insinuating that it's all a parody of screaming nihilism in our society (if you are an artist who devalues your art to comment on the devaluation of art, you are part of the problem). It is peppered with unecessary gross-out images. Wallace is unsympathetic towards his characters. There is little insight besides a sort of limp anti-consumerism. The jokes aren't funny. Nothing relevant happens. Parts of the book are quite well-written, but any prose-poetry is quickly buried beneath an avalanche of canned cynicism. The whole thing left me feeling depressed. Not depressed in a sweet-sad-story-empathetic-tear-jerker sort of way but rather in a grossed-out-creeped-out-slaser-movie-I-need-to-lie-down sort of way. Don't believe the critics or the hype! Infinite Jest is awful! Srry about the exclamation points, but I really hated the book with passion.

I personally found The Da Vinci Code an amusing read; a wild tale. It wasn't all that good, but it wasn't horrible either.

Digital Fortress on the other hand, was awful, and should be left well alone. Dan Brown proves he has absolutely no clue on how crypto or computers work, and when those two are the basis for most of the book... It doesn't help that the characters are unbelievable and the plot is wacky.

Angels and Demons is also amongst the worst books I've read, most of the premises for the plot are "completely bonkers" and doesn't make much sense. You also see his brilliant grasp of physics in the scene where the day is saved; the technique described would do just the opposite of whats written. (I hope that didn't spoil it for anyone).

Oddbert: WORD on Infinite Jest-if you ask me,the jest is that the thing got published to acclaim.
I have no love for Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell-it took tons of awards and i just don't get it. I don't hate it-i just don't get it.

Leennadine (#60) -- Don't flagellate yourself that you don't get it. It's just more of that post-modernist crap like The History of the World. I get it just fine but I do not consider it good literature. As I've said before re PM writers, don't play with my books. Is it so hard to write a book with a narrative, plot, and character development?

Leennadine and Kageeh - I didn't really get that book either. I love Jane Austen, fantasy, alternate universe etc but I found it really boring. I didn't finish it, dropped it after over 200 pages, which is unusual for me.

Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale was one I could have given a miss. Quite a few people in my bookclubs wee telling me I HAD to read it. Eventually I gave in and had the most agonizing read of my life! I'm thinking it's just Atwood's writing style, but people have boo'ed me for saying I didn't like the book.

I think the story was pretty ingenious, I just don't like the style it was written in.

Kageeh-I don't mind postmodernism on the whole, I think that the problem with Jonathan Strange is that it's an sort of imitation to an actual period novel that doesn't work very well.-but I feel better now that I know I'm not the only one.The History of the World however,is just a long journey into nowhere.

#61 - Jonathan Strange is not a postmodern novel, it is simply a fantasy. They are not the same. Postmodern works 'play' with language and narrative.

Having said that, the novel has some major flaws. What I would like to know is who started comparing this work with Jane Austen and Henry James. What were they on at the time? Have they ever read an Austen or James?

63 - I, too, hate the writing style of The Handmaid's Tale. It's a terrifying story, and I do think everyone should read it, if only for the warning (kind of like 1984 or Fahrenheit 451).

The Red Tent by Anita Diamant had such wooden dialogue I just couldn't handle it. I didn't finish it, so maybe it's not fair for me to bash it, but...ugh. Does it get any better?

I totally agree with you about The Lovely Bones. It was great until the end. She got VERY Sweet Valley High with that ending.

The Corrections by Jonathon Franzen. There was heaps of hype when it came out but I thought it was just painful American angst - a bit like Catcher in the Rye which I agree also belongs on this list.

#67 cat.ennis -- I loved The Red Tent but to each his/her own. The ending was beautiful.

Twice I started Ender's Game because everyone said it was so great, but it was so juvenile I didn't get very far. I think it was written for 12-year-olds.

I recall many years ago throwing Kafka's The Castle across the room.

A Room of One's Own by Virginia Woolf. Boo hoo.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Ugly, sick movie.

No exit. Hell is other people. Okay. So tell us, Jean-Paul, why do hang around them? And why write a book about them if nothing matters?

Nihilistic anti-humanist literary theory -- and that covers most of the past 50 years or so, esp. Derrida, Foucault, Lacan...all the rest, all of it mental masturbation.

Stephen Donaldson - *yaaaawwwwn*

71 - Can't agree with your description of Foucault as nihilistic, antihumanist or even literary theorist. Haven't really read much Derrida or Lacan.

Really? I definitely dug the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. It's this author's attempt to write from the perspective of an autistic child. Who knows if he really accomplished it; but I enjoyed the experience of reading it.

I enjoyed The Corrections but couldn't get into Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. I also felt manipulated by The Kite Runner, which made me extra angry because of the subject matter.

Actually, "Early Kellerman" is pretty good and well worth reading. But - like many authors - success leads to writing for money only. Cussler, Piers Anthony, and Tom Clancy, and specially that guy who wrote the lawyer books all follow the same pattern....

Actually, Angels and Demons was his best book.... In my opinion better than the "copy Angels and Demons" Da Vinci Code...

I'm interested in hearing how you felt manipulated by Kite Runner Windy. I loved it, and taught it to a high school class. All but one of 25 kids loved it, too. I could never get that one girl to explain why she hated it so much!

Also, after torturing myself with The Pilot's Wife and Seaglass, I have decided the next time I try to read anything by Anita Shreve, I should just choke myself instead.

I was advised to read Nelson DeMille's Up Country, Patrick Robinson's Hunter Killer and David Baldacci's The Camel Club.

I read all three, or should I say more accurately I tried to read them. They range in size from 650 pages to about 400 pages. And most of them witter on endlessly about pretty much nothing at all, most of the time.

I know that hardback books are expensive, but I don't think that means they should be stuffed with mindless banter, as processed meat is stuffed with water, to make it appear to be more substantial than it is!

Also boring - all the new James Patterson, and Lee Childs. Is it because I read too much of these type of books? But really, when you can figure out the plot after the first chapter. The writing isn't good enough to make you read more and definately dosen't make you want to finish the book.

Someone called me oldfashioned yesterday, because I was standing in the thriller section of my local library, and asked another thriller reader if he thought that Edgar Wallace and John Buchan's Thirty Nine steps, along with Graeme Green's Third Man were excellently written and thin/short books. He agreed that both descriptions were true, but added they were written ages ago! Things have moved on since then!

Things might have moved on in terms of politics, I agree. We're not in WW2 as Greene and Buchan were! True! But that doesn't mean we want to read 600 pages of waffle!

#3, Its nice to find someone who agrees with me. I read this book during highschool, and honestly I was bored out of my mind.

What a strange criteria - anything written more than xx years ago is out of date? That seems a particularly odd attitude to novels. Love everything by Greene, but I've never really liked the 39 steps - the hero is just too absurdly macho - a bit like Matthew Reilly's hero in The Ice Storm.

I never did find out exactly how the chap's mind worked. He dashed off to meet his wife. But he did tell me that as a retired person his passion had now become reading thriller novels. And he said that he travels around to libraries looking for the latest ones.

I'm not quite sure what he was aiming at. I got a vague impression that modernity/contemporary issues featured more highly for him that writing style. (Which I suppose is one method of choosing reading books.)

Oh my gosh - has to be The Da Vinci Code. It is so poorly written and the author throws in everything but the kitchen sink. What really makes me cringe, though, is when someone talks about how much he or she learned from reading the book.

Well I learned a lot from The Da Vinci Code:

1. Stop reading things written by Dan Brown
2. How easy it is to get dreck published and make tons of money
3. How gullible people are
4. How to get away with plagarism (Read Holy Blood, Holy Grail to see if you think Brown should have lost the case)

I just finished Time Traveler's Wife last month and am very sorry to say that I don't get what all the hype was about. While it was an interesting concept, I only continued to read it so that I may perhaps find out why everyone loved it. And I'm afraid I'll never know, cos I really didn't "love it".

artisan - I learned your first three points when I worked in a public library, and all everyone wanted to read was the latest Danielle Steele. They always wanted to know what it was about and I was always tempted to say, 'the same things that her last seventeen books were about'.

#85 - Brown won the case because the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail insisted their book was factual. You cannot be guilty of plagarism if you use an ideal in the public domain. If the authors of HBHG had admitted their book was a work of fiction Brown would have been guilty.

Plagarism doesn't relate to ideas of any sort. It only relates to content. You can't copyright literary ideas, only texts themselves.

Physical patents are a different matter. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll get off this subject now!

By the way, I meant 'idea' in post 88, my brain creaked for a moment.

#89 - that was the point of the case, Brown had taken the plot virtually lock, stock and barrel from the other book but because they insisted it was factual he couldn't be found guilty. If it had been fiction Brown would have found himself very much lighter in the pocket.

85: I wish I'm trying to get my dreck published...:)

Jmnlman
Strategist's Personal Library
http://jmnlman.blogspot.com/

91: What does your dreck look like?

92: hostages in Africa, mercenaries and a sexy flightattendant. And that's just chapter one. :)

91: Got a sample chapter posted on a webpage?

Nope not yet...but I'll keep you Informed.

I am in 'the crying of lot 49' and I'm not into it. I know judgement should be held until a title is finished but I wanted to add input!
Hated 'the corrections', first book in YEARS i just put down with like 150 pgs left!
Love Frank McCourt.
not into Cheever, Wapshot Chrobicles is half finished on my nightstand and will remain that way for a bit.
Also didn't like 'Stiff'

Wow I hope you lot are much nicer when I bring my book out!! lool

Marley and Me by John Grogen....ugh!

#77 jmgallo, it's hard to articulate why I felt manipulated by The Kite Runner. I think the author is an accomplished wordsmith and all, but I think the book hits the reader over the head with a hammer with the rich/poor inequities. If this was a work of non-fiction, it would not have offended me so. I think it's the idea of using such a personally repugnant subject to sell a novel. And it is not a great novel, one that will change the world and how we treat children and the poor, it's clearly written for entertainment and the author's own self aggrandizement.

Hi 77
I've seen that done with homelessness. I've had various contacts with the author. And, not wishing to start an online battle with him, I've not asked him what percentage of his sales he's donating to a shelter! That's not a subject which he's yet mentioned.

I suspect that there are ways to use a book for charity. But when I wrote a book on child poverty in Russia though, two charities consulted me on it, and neither followed through.

So, literature and politics don't always sit together well, in my experience.

Just finished Infinite Crisis and while it wasn't bad, I seriously doubt it's going to be the comics classic everyone keeps blathering about. It relies too much on knowledge of recent DC events, and takes a while to really build up steam. As a sequel to Crisis on Infinite Earths, though, it fits better than anything else they've ever tried before.

But seriously. A classic story shouldn't require me to read three other books first. Which I'm probably going to do anyway.

When discussing The Botany of Desire a wonderful book, imho, I was given Natural History of the Senses in which at the end of every chapter, the last line seemed to work so hard to be a compelling statement on the world. I reviewed it on amazon and lovingly called it pap. I stand by this statement to this day. No, I won't torture you with some of her final lines as I happily gave the book back.

A lot of stuff by James Patterson is pure dreck. He could have hired a 5th grader to write something better. I like reading mysteries, but, man, most of his are incredibly lame.

Whenever I tell people I studied philosophy, they just have to mention Ayn Rand. Please. Don't waste my time. More dreck.

And I agree that Catcher in the rye is unworthy of notice.

As for DaVinci Code, I haven't read it. Just not my cup of tea. But I loved one reviewer who said the novel was the 'heuristic equivalent of painting the Last Supper on velvet'. That is one of the best metaphors I've ever heard.

Getting back to Da Vinci Code:

I don't understand all the hub bub. The only thing he says in the beginning is that the Priory of Sion is/was a real organization, Opus Dei is a real organization, and that the "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals" are accurate. "Secret rituals" does not target a single organization. They are accurate depictions of real "secret" rituals that have happened.

No Earth shattering heresy or boldface lie there. Doesn't say that the organizations kidnap nonchristians and eat them or anything outrageous.

Nothing different from saying Skull and Bones is real, Masons are real, etc. Poetic license comes in the telling of the story - one in which was the only book to ever stay only in hardback as long as it did (selling as many copies as it did too). That's what made that book phenomenal.

#104 - But only Opus Dei is real, everything else is rubbish!

Priory of Sion

Although I don't like to quote Wikipedia due to its many 'truthiness' problems - the fact is that Brown didn't invent the Priory. The claims of it being over a thousand years old are documented in nonfiction books (to each his own) but I tend to believe that it was created in the fifties - neverless it is/was a real organization, for what that's worth. Brown didn't create the history of the Priory.

Point in case: Get a bunch of backwoods hippies together once a week for a month to worship an inanimate rod and, now or a thousand years later, they still existed. Did King Arthur exist? Makes me think of that Ramtha woman who claimed to be a 35,000 year old Atlantian man. Believe her story or not, she still exists.

As for the rest being rubbish, does that include the artwork, architecture, etc as well? I tend to believe in the Mona Lisa although I've never seen the original.

I always found the protests around Brown's work of fiction a bit odd, or as Shakespeare put it, "Methinks thou doest protest too much." Why?

I love David Foster Wallace, but some of his novels are a bit...expansive.

Nick Hornby, though, is the big one people keep insisting I read. I've tried. I actually fell asleep reading About a Boy.

Juliebean, Ayn Rand is not philosophy. Don't worry about it.

Nick Hornby is very good, very funny, and above all, very honest. Granted, his books are never going to be classics, but he never dresses them up as "high literature". I'm particularly partial to a couple of his books, "Fever Pitch" and "High Fidelity", which are very, very good, and have more soul and truthfulness than the offerings of more "literary" darlings (e.g Zadie Smith, Will Self).

Atlas Shrugged isn't too bad; you've just got to treat it as a mystery novel and not philosophy. I plowed through 900(?) odd pages just because I had to find out the answer to the question, "who is John Galt?".

Nick Hornby's first two books, Fever Pitch and High Fidelity are both great. After that there was a distinct drop off in quality, tho.

Actually, I was going to say High Fidelity would be on my list of worsts.

Also, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, The Secret Life of Bees, and of course The Da Vinci Code.

I read The Quantity Theory of Insanity and Grey Area, and while there were bits I enjoyed, it was a real struggle to finish either, with good reason. I think it's because Will Self has good ideas, but his writing is rather tedious.

I read Wicked and I tried, oh, I tried to like it, because a lot of my friends do. But man, I hated that book.

I think it would have been much better if it had been its own story, not thinly based on something else. Most of it had nothing to do with the Wizard of Oz, anyway.

*waves at blue*

#111 and #112 - I also tried to like Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. I started reading it, put it down, tried again. I simply could not make myself like it.

I bought Jonathon Strange at an airport when the flights were delayed due to weather conditions. Despite an intriguing beginning, I soon found myself snoozing. If you can't read a book while stranded in an airport for hours, it has to be bad...or at least it was for me. This site is a reflection of personal taste, so arguments about books seem to be a waste of time. I do like to read other people's opinions, which often are at odds with my own. Keep writing. I'm reading you guys more than the books I should be reading.

About Wicked, two things I thought were strange.

1. It followed the plot of the Baum book instead of the movie even though most people are way more familar with the film version.

2. By definition a prequel end where the original work began. So why the heck did this one go all the way through end of the Wizard of Oz? That made absolutely no sense.

I too hated Wicked. I never saw what point he was making. I disliked it so much I'll probably never read any of his other works.

If this is about bad books, I tried to read the first in the Left Behind series, and I forced my way through the last one, just to see how they described it. But what horrible writing. Two dimensional characters at best, petrified dialogue. But they gave believers what they want. I wonder what will happen to all that money when the authors are raptured away?

A few weeks ago, I finished reading Ian Rankin's Knots and Crosses. It was booo-ring. Apparently, it's supposed to be really good because of its descriptions of Edinburgh, which most reviewers were nostalgic of because they were exact. Well, I've never been there, so maybe that was the problem. The scenic descriptions were good but the plot was bad.

My sister loved Little Women. I tried many, many times to get past page 50.
I was bored to pieces. Why did I love Little Men? I read that book multiple times.

#90:
100 percent correct.
I had to MAKE myself finish the book.
IMHO it was a rewrite by someone who just got lucky.
I was shocked when Brown won the case. The "decideres"
did not read Holy Blood, Holy Grail or read it with their
eyes closed.

Actually GertrudeTonks, he won the case because the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail did not market their book as fiction. Because of that, anyone could have written a fictional novel around their non-fiction research and won the case.

#14 Mr.Kris, I'd have to agree on Feist. A friend loaned me Magician: Apprentice and Magician: Master telling me they were pretty good fantasy. I found Apprentice pretty dull and generic; things pick up a bit in Master, what with all the sci-fi elements, but a bigger problem arises. This is the sort of "epic" where your main character(s) goes from humble beginnings to being Total Ass-Kicker of the Universe. It's the sort of story line that I found boring even back in high school in R.A. Salvatore's Cleric's Quintet. Whenever I encounter that in a work of fantasy, I begin to suspect that the author's ideas of "character development" have more to do with XP and d20s than concepts such as motivation or personal growth.

Overall, this is the main weakness of Magician: it reads as if it was written by a roleplayer. He fails to convey any sense of the exotic from dwarves or elves. (They talk and think just like humans.) His romantic subplots are poorly developed. (Actually, I found them cringeworthy and started skipping them.) For a story of "epic" proportions, there's no sense of the epic that you might get from Tolkien.

And he's tone deaf with character names. Lovecraft gave his Great Old Ones strange names like Cthulhu or Nyarlathotep. Feist names his Ashen-Shugar. It sounds more like a law firm then an ancient demigod, and it makes me wonder if his sister's name is Brauen.

I agree - I think Wicked is one of the worst books ever written! Not my cup of tea at all.

Little Children. I was seriously disappointed. It's a domestic drama, but with very little new to say or any new way to say it. What's the big deal? Updike, Richard Ford, Atwood, they all do this better. And so do loads of others. Why make a movie out of it?

I read Wicked earlier this year after having it VERY strongly recommended to me by a good friend. She is absolutely in love with the book (though I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that she is even more in love with the musical based on said book) but it failed to make the same impression on me. While it certainly isn't up there as one of the worst books I've ever read, I found it failed to inspire me. I found a lot of the characterisation to be fairly thin and the plot to be uninspired and full of holes. I don't think the author had a proper sense of his characters and how they would react in certain situations...some of the scenes and interactions felt very false.

However, what I really wanted to write about was the two points brought up by perlle in post #115.

Firstly, it makes more sense to base a novel on a previous book than a film, simply because there is usually more depth on the page than the screen due to things like time constraints etc. Book worlds tend to be more fully realised.

As to your second point, Wicked is not a prequel. It is the story of the Wicked Witch of the West, which obviously goes up to the point where she dies. That this territory was covered by L Frank Baum's book is immaterial - this story is meant to complement The Wizard of Oz and show another side to the story. I hope that explains it for you and shows that even if the book wasn't that great, there is at least an internal logic!

dreamlikecheese- I totally agree with your points about Wicked.
I think the author's idea was to tell the Wicked Witch's story in the most believable way possible. He really took the Oz world and treated it as though it were not fantasy, but a realistic story. He took pains to give explanations and back story that made the Oz world as ambiguous and devoid of clear cut lines between good and evil as our world.
That is an interesting idea, but it didn't make for the most interesting read. When characters are created really in service to an over arching idea, they tend to be flat.

However, I LOVED Johnathan Strange and Mr. Norell. I didn't think it was at all post-modern, it was just working in a particular historical literary style. I found it equal parts Jane Austen, Master and Commander, and Neil Gaiman. It was long, so if it didn't click with you I could see it getting tedious.

And for anyone who hasn't read Ender's Game try not to be put off by the sci-fi or the fact the the protagonists are children and adolescents. The story really deaves into very adult themes and is well worth the read.

I'm with y'all on Wicked, seemed like a great idea that should have been wrapped up in a story half the size... before it got both boring AND confusing.

reminded me of 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear which simply would...not...end!!!

Popular books I didn't like: Everything is Illuminated, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, I Am the Messenger, Lovely Bones, most of John Grisham's books, and most of James Patterson's books. Oh, and I can't believe I almost forgot to mention it-- I hated (hated) Middlesex. What was all the fuss about?!

I thought The Curious Incident of the Dog In The Night Time was okay. I enjoyed A Spot of Bother much more. I thought it was hilarious and I highly recommend it to anyone put off by The Curious Incident.

#27 hobbitprincess: I had the same response to My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. I will read more, but hope they are better than this one.

>123 citygirl:: citygirl.
I agree with you about Little Children. It was just another mediocre novel about infedelity. The movie came across the same way, which doesn't surprise me, given the material. Perrotta has a new novel out, and I have zero interest in picking it up.

#2 Sue k. Absolutely agree with you on Jonathan Kellerman. I've only read one book by him which was Flesh and Blood and it was the most boring book I've ever read. Others have told me not to give up on him, but after that book, I'm afraid of his others.

I also suggest that no one read Heidi. The book was just way over-the-top. How can a little girl have THAT much power over people as to healing the sick and so on. Whatever!

I’ll never forgive Margaret Atwood for the pitiful conclusion of Alias Grace. My friend recommended it to me so I read it and what a mistake that was! At the start of the book we’re told that Grace has been convicted of the brutal murders of two people, her employer and his mistress but that she is innocent. Throughout the book the evidence presented against her seemed to become more and more damning, I kept thinking how clever Atwood must be to be able to wriggle out of this, come to think of it, how was she going to get out of it? Then, after soldering bravely through a book that really was pretty bad to start with, just to hear the interesting ending it turns out that Grace really did do it but it wasn’t her fault, she had been possessed by the spirit her dead friend. That’s just cheating.

I always feel a general obligation to read anything recommended to me by friends and family because I endlessly recommend books to them. Sometimes, they're great suggestions. My sister-in-law recommended Curious Incident of the dog as a way to suggest to me that I needed to get my son evaluated for autism, which was a brilliant move. However, she then recommened Let me hear your voice and I wanted to throw the book out the window and smack the author repeatedly.

Other great disappointments that I was told I'd love:
House of Leaves
Anything by Stephen King or Anne Rice
Little Women
The Historian

Yes, 'The Davinci code' is so badly written. Never mind how good, how thrilling the story, how interesting the theories ...

I do agree that The DaVinci Code was poorly written. I could not get connected with the characters at all. I felt like I was reading an encyclopedia for The Last Supper and The Holy Grail. Blah!

I cant seem to get past chapter 4 or 5 .....in my two attempts to read when rabbit howls...I love books others find disturbing.. or dark.. ...I just cant read the book...and what good is an unreadable book....lol..I must comment on curious incident of the dog in the night... as a mother of two autistic sons... the book was right on so perfectly....I couldnt believe the author isnt autistic...at all... for those who didnt like the book...think of it this way... your now aware of autism and what it is... and awareness.. is half the battle when it comes to any disorder.. or disease...