# Disappointing Authors



## Violanthe

So, you've been hearing about a certain author for months—or maybe even years. Not only is there general hype, but credible sources have recommended this author. However, when you finally get around to reading the author, the books are a huge disappointment. Has this ever happened to you? Which authors and books?


----------



## Mike

The author: Christopher Paollini

The book: Eragon

Someone named this their "favourite book ever." Another person said "it's not that bad."

It was.


----------



## HLGStrider

Brian Jacques and (Waits for the attack) J. K. Rowling. I just found the first boring and it really really bugged me that there were rats driving in a wagon pulled by horses because the scale thing was all off. Someone pointed out that they were rat sized rats in a wagon sized wagon and they had stolen it from someone but then, are there humans around? And if so don't they notice these highly advanced rodents scurrying about wearing clothes, building castles, and sailing ships? Plus I just couldn't get into the description of how the beautiful female mouse was so beautiful and all that. . .

I mean, I don't mind talking animals if they behave as animals somewhat. I read Watership Down and Narnia, but I just didn't like Redwall.

Anyway, J. K. Rowling I resisted for a long time because the plot just sounded so typical. I started reading, and yeah, the plot was typical but I could see the draw to twelve-year-olds. The humor was fun and the action was fast . . .but the writing wasn't really that good and I didn't like a single character. I'm very character driven in my reading, and I can look past a lot of plot gaps and slow spots if I love the character . .. probably why my second favorite author is Dosteovsky and my sixth is Alexander McCall Smith. There is a lot of talking in Dosteovsky's works that can get a bit long, but I adore his characters. Not a ton happens in Smith's works and for mysteries they are very low suspense, but I love his characters (and sense of humor . . .).

This doesn't really count as a recommendation, but I think it illustrates why some people will really love and some will really hate the same books. 

I maintain a large sprawling Amazon.com wishlist which I used to aid my family (because I'm living out of state now) and my husband (because he is often gift buying challenged) with birthdays and such. Anyway, for my birthday, Matt and my grandparents picked out the Bartimaus (probably misspellling that) trillogy by Jonathan Stroud. Matt got me one and two (plus Gail Carson Levine's "Fairest" . . . oh, I adored that book.) and my grandparents got me three plus a few other things. I had put them on there because the story and plot looked interesting and I wanted to try them out. I had no idea how I would like them. 

Because I started "Fairest" first, Matt took the opportunity to pick up book one and it drove me crazy because every five minutes he would burst out laughing . .. and Matt is not usually a laugh out loud kind of guy. Very low key in his expressions. I would say, "What?" and he would say, "You will have to read it. I won't make sense."

Anyway, he had that book done by one am that morning when I tapped him on the shoulder to tell him I was going to bed and he said, 'Just one more chapter . . ." even though he had to get up at six am. So I wasn't surprised when the next day I came home from work to find him half way through the second which he also finished that night and then last night he rounded off the third, still laughing at intervals. So I thought, "Ah, these books must be hilarious. . ."

Not terribly.

I just started the second last night. They are a bit dark for me and (again) I don't really like any of the characters, so it is slower going for me than it was (obviously) for Matt. He asked me how I liked them when I finished the first and I said they were good but I didn't think they were that funny for all the guffawing he had been doing. He said, "But they are so sarcastic . . ."

Ah . . .

My sort of funny is also hard for him to comprehend. I read "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" the other day and started cracking up over the 'accident with the time machine and the contraceptive' joke and the marine biologist and pyshcologist who had to be summoned to convince the rock star that he wasn't a fish . . . I read both these sections to Matt and got a polite, 'Huh-ha." 

People are very different creatures.


----------



## Starbrow

> Brian Jacques - I just found the first boring and it really really bugged me that there were rats driving in a wagon pulled by horses because the scale thing was all off. Someone pointed out that they were rat sized rats in a wagon sized wagon and they had stolen it from someone but then, are there humans around? And if so don't they notice these highly advanced rodents scurrying about wearing clothes, building castles, and sailing ships? Plus I just couldn't get into the description of how the beautiful female mouse was so beautiful and all that. . .



I completely agree with you. The characters have to be believable. Have you read anything by Jane Austen, my 3rd favorite author? She has delightful, complex characters in her novels.


----------



## Hobbit-GalRosie

It half happens all the time. I'll often read a book recommended by someone with taste for the most part very similar to mine and think, "It's ok, nothing special." Books that are just plain over-hyped and bound to be not what I like, such as Harry Potter, I refuse to read in the first place, so it's like, "It's such a shame that someone who I agree with on everything else likes that too," instead of me being bothered to actually be disappointed after assuming it'll be better than it is.

Perhaps a purer form will occur once I get the chance to read Paollini, since I do intend to eventually.


----------



## Majimaune

There was one I cant think of his name...oh yeah....Shakespeare!!

Last year we had to do Midsummer Night's Dream and after that we realised that Shakespear only had two endings. He either married everyone off or killed everyone off. I mean Hamlet he kills everyone Midsummer Night's Dream everyone gets married. He's not all he's cracked up to be.


----------



## HLGStrider

I like some Shakespeare for the language, but really one shouldn't read him for plot. For one thing, half of his story lines aren't his. They are A. Historical happenings twisted for the stage B. Favorite stories of other people twisted for the stage. Only a handful of his plays were original ideas (Merry Wives of Windsor being one, I think.). Others were simply him taking ideas and stories that were already popular and putting dialog to them.


----------



## Mike

> Last year we had to do Midsummer Night's Dream and after that we realised that Shakespear only had two endings. He either married everyone off or killed everyone off. I mean Hamlet he kills everyone Midsummer Night's Dream everyone gets married. He's not all he's cracked up to be.



Uh...how much Shakespeare have you read? 

I never did like "A Midsummer Night's Dream", but I came to love Shakespeare's other works--"The Tempest" being my favourite. He had an amazing breadth of work, and saying he only has two endings and isn't "all he's cracked up to be" is ignoring a lot of his writings. You can't make a generalization like this unless you've read it all.

Or, rather, seen it. Because Shakespeare's plays are meant for the stage, and that's how you're supposed to experience them. And some of his sonnets are excellent...others not so much.

He was just like any other writer; not everything he wrote was great. But a good portion of it was.



> half of his story lines aren't his. They are A. Historical happenings twisted for the stage B. Favorite stories of other people twisted for the stage.



I'll add C. taking Italian plays and writing them in English. (i.e. The Taming of the Shrew). To be fair, most of his rewritten plays were better than the original, and this sort of thing wasn't frowned upon back then.

Your (A) and (B) aren't really that damning, though. Isn't this what most Historical novelists do, except "twisting them for books"? And (B) has been done by many other writers since then, sometimes very well.



> but really one shouldn't read him for plot



Depends which play you're reading.

Yeah, I'm a Shakespeare defender. Though, like Tolkien, I was dissapointed in MacBeth when the trees didn't actually march to the castle.

Cheap trick. Bah.


----------



## Majimaune

We also read the Tempest and some of the Taming of the Shrew and another one. Cant think of the name.


----------



## HLGStrider

I wasn't saying it was a bad thing or even a dishonest thing. Definitely not dishonest because everyone would have known what he was doing, and that sort of thing is very common today with films. Take a classic, change the setting, modernize it, get a hit movie that sort of smiles on its own plagurism. It's been done to Crime and Punishment, Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Oliver Twist . . . 

Fairy tales and myths get this treatment all the time. It's most rampant in movies but authors do it too, and Shakespeare was very good at writing to the crowd. Picking an already beloved story was a certain way to get published. Other than that, a lot of his characters were written with specific actors in mind. He wrote plays by royal requests. He wrote in a way that a lot of modern authors would look down upon, but I would boil down the desire to write into two parts: The desire to speak and the desire to be heard. Shakespeare knew how to make himself heard and when you get the audience you can pretty much do whatever you want.


----------



## Rhiannon

*has devotedly collected all of the Redwall books since she was maybe 7*

That ridiculous Eregon kid was the worst let-down _ever_, which is probably why I must despise him forever now. If I didn't already have an arch-nemesis....

I was also disappointed in George R. R. Martin--wanted to like him, couldn't stay engaged in his books. 

And Robert Jordan. I feel bad for hating him, since he's apparently very ill now, but his books turned into parodies of themselves and the plot never ever went anywhere. 

Phillip Pullman--in my opinion (which I know is a minority) everything went kaput halfway through _The Amber Spyglass_. It would be a spoiler to give you my reasoning about why, though...and I didn't enjoy the other books I tried to read by him.

Diana Wynne Jones. This is an awkward one, because I could read _Howl's Moving Castle_ over and over again, and just restart every time I finished it (I read it three times last year--major comfort book), and I enjoyed _Castle in the Air_ (it's semi-sequel), but the two Chrestomanci books I read struck me as so-so, I was befuddled by _Fire and Hemlock_, which everyone else seems to love, I didn't get very far into _The Dark Lord of Derkholm_ at all, and _Hexwood_? What happened with that book? I want to love Jones, but apparently I'm missing the gene. 

Tamora Pierce. Hasn't held up for me, I always get disappointed in her handling of her characters halfway through a series, and I don't think that all of her books are appropriate for the reading level they're written at--an isolated, personal hang-up, I know, but it really bothers me. If a books target audience is 8-12, I don't want to be questioning the morality of the main character. 12-15+, I think tougher subjects and more adult content (within good taste) become fair game.


----------



## Majimaune

Rhiannon said:


> *has devotedly collected all of the Redwall books since she was maybe 7*


Something we have in common. Not sinse I was seven though. Maybe ten?



Rhiannon said:


> Phillip Pullman--in my opinion (which I know is a minority) everything went kaput halfway through _The Amber Spyglass_. It would be a spoiler to give you my reasoning about why, though...and I didn't enjoy the other books I tried to read by him.


I would have to agree with you there. The first one Northern Lights (The Golden Compass) was good and then the second was was alright. Not as good as the first one because I cant even remember what it is called.


----------



## Rhiannon

Well, maybe not seven--maybe seven was when my brother started to collect them, and a few years later I bought out his collection (Redwall-The Bellmaker for $12) and continued it. I even met Jacques when he was touring for _Marlfox_ and got it signed. 

Phillip Pullman...I think he tried too hard, poor man.


----------



## Majimaune

Rhiannon said:


> Well, maybe not seven--maybe seven was when my brother started to collect them, and a few years later I bought out his collection (Redwall-The Bellmaker for $12) and continued it. I even met Jacques when he was touring for _Marlfox_ and got it signed.


Thats pretty cool. I had to build my collection for myself. Still down on Marlfox, Ledgend of Luke, Outcast of Redwall and Loamhedge. BTW is Jacques still alive? do you know?



Rhiannon said:


> Phillip Pullman...I think he tried too hard, poor man.


Very possible. He certianly did something wrong.


----------



## Rhiannon

Jacques is still alive, and still producing Redwall books--According to Redwall.org he'll be doing a 20 year Celebration Tour through the UK and US later this year.

In my innocent and reckless youth, long before I came here, I was part of a long-standing Redwall RPG. Ah, youth.


----------



## Majimaune

Why can't he come down to Oz. I mean its better then most places.

Was the last book he came out with Triss?


----------



## Rhiannon

The most recent one is actually called High Rhulain--I haven't it, but I'm behind by about three books, so I can't tell you anything about it. It's just sitting there on the Redwall shelf...looking neglected...


----------



## Noldor_returned

On the topic of disappointing authors, I found Brian Jacques a little less than what I expected. Several people I knew loved them. I tried a few, and none worked for me. He just avoided the main point, I found. Or something...it was many years ago.


----------



## Majimaune

Noldor_returned said:


> On the topic of disappointing authors, I found Brian Jacques a little less than what I expected. Several people I knew loved them. I tried a few, and none worked for me. He just avoided the main point, I found. Or something...it was many years ago.


Yeah but you liked those rip-off books that some one wrote didnt you? Well they werent rip-offs but they were very similar with the whole talking animals and all that. The only difference was there was humans in it. Then again it might not have been you, might have been one of my other friends.


----------



## Rhiannon

Brian Jacques is chock-full of flaws and inconsistencies and things that just weren't thought out, but so is Narnia (how does a beaver use a sewing machine? how big are talking beavers, since four human children can fit into their dam? I'm sure I don't know)--I enjoy the stories and the writing enough to ignore the rest. It's also a matter of what book you start with--some of the books written just prior to and just after Brian Jacques' stroke are not as good as his earlier works.


----------



## Majimaune

I'm in the same mind. I didnt like Rakkety Tam that much. His books are getting darker. Flesh-eating lizards and stuff like that.


----------



## Noldor_returned

I first tried Redwall...something about it just didn't rest well...it didn't capture my attention.


----------



## Majimaune

Thats because you tried the wrong book. You tried Redwall. You should've tried Martin the Warrior of Mossflower or something like that.


----------



## Halasían

Rhiannon said:


> I was also disappointed in George R. R. Martin--wanted to like him, couldn't stay engaged in his books.


I agree. My sentiments exactly. With so many people of whom I respect saying his Ice & Fire is such a good book series, I made several attempts to read Game of Thrones. I finally gave up for good.


----------



## Noldor_returned

I think I may throw another name in the mix. David Belgaraid was...not up to standard. People raved about him. I raged back saying he should not give up his day job.


----------



## Majimaune

Hang on...Who?

Paowini was majorly disappointing after all the hype for him.


----------



## Violanthe

Halasían said:


> I agree. My sentiments exactly. With so many people of whom I respect saying his Ice & Fire is such a good book series, I made several attempts to read Game of Thrones. I finally gave up for good.


 
I'm curious, what precisely turned you off to SOIAF?


----------



## Rhiannon

I'm not Halasian (I don't think I am, anyway--but stranger things have happened), but my problem with SOIAF was the pacing. It was very difficult for me to stay engaged with the book--and I really did want to, I liked the characters, the universe, and the writing, although I wasn't into the crushing unhappiness as much--when the third-person perspective changed with every chapter. And it didn't just change often, it changed between a vast cast of characters and a vast array of plot-lines and every chapter ended with a cliff-hanger, but to you wouldn't come back to that character for another sixty pages, and by then, after being in the heads of three other characters and seeing _their_ cliffhangers, I could remember what exactly happened to Character A, so I would have to flip back. It made reading it a chore, because you had to process so much _stuff_ just to stay on top of what was going on. But because of the leaps from character to character, you would go long stretches without making progress in the individual plot lines. 

It was very frustrating for me as a reader--I just don't process books that way. When I read fantasy, unless my interest is academic and I'm being intentionally detached, I really want to be able to immerse myself and feel enveloped in a different world. Reading SOIAF felt too much like work.


----------



## Violanthe

I can see how that would be a problem. There were a lot of characters that annoyed me, and I'd end up skimming their chapters to get to a character that I liked.


----------



## Starbrow

I'm reading Game of Thrones right now. I had gotten before I read these reviews. I don't mind the changing points of view so much, but it's not a fun read. "Crushing unhappiness" as Rhiannon says. While I'm reading, I'm thinking to myself, "I don't want to read anymore." Yet, I can't put it down. At least it keeps me interested in what is happening to the different characters.


----------



## Eledhwen

I also did not enjoy Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy (though I'll be fascinated to find out how it translates to film). The quality of his writing was sound enough; but the story was unpleasant. I have just finished reading the 'Funny Harry Potter Quotes' thread on this forum; I think you'd be hard put to make one for the PP trilogy - dark and heavy.

I also didn't enjoy the Raymond Feist book I read (claiming to transcend Tolkien!!!) as the 'world' in which it was set was not well realised (no 'bigger picture' outside the storyline) and the main character was dull company.

To Rhiannon, re Narnia: read The Magician's Nephew to find out about the talking animals' sizes.


----------



## Violanthe

I'll also be interested to see how the film version of Pullman's series turns out.


----------



## Halasían

Apologies to Vio for not responding here, or visiting ARWZ in quite some time.

Rhiannon summed up the basic issues I have with SOIAF. It would lose me from chapter to chapter and character to character. I would plow along, and as Starbrow said, _"I don't want to read anymore."_ & I would put the book down and not have a desire to pick it up again because of how much work it was to read. I may have found a way to get through it though. I am in the brocess of making a deal with a guy on another message board who is the 12th person to try and talk me into reading it. He will read The Black Company (which most people hate), & I will read SOIAF. We will quiz each other to make sure the other actualy read it, so Vio, your method of picking chapters and characters wont work. 

I guess I am at a loss as to how one can enjoy reading a book if one has to skim chapters to get to ones to like. Again, it doesn't sound enjoyable to me at all.


----------



## Violanthe

That is the danger. There are a lot of characters I really didn't care much about. But when I read the most recent ASOIAF I remedied this problem by skimming the less interesting chapters.


----------



## Starflower

I quite liked George R R Martin - in the beginning. Now, I have finished A Feast of Crows and it's getting a bit much. So many things happen in the books to all the characters, it is getting a bit mindnumbing. It would have been better I think to compress the story into fewer books.

Was taken by Christopher Paolini's first book, Eragon, thought it a pretty story of a boy and his dragon. But then I read the second one and was VERY disappointed, it was just ... awful. 

Also, was somewhat disappointed in Terry Pratchett's latest (gasp), Making Money. Although he is my all-tim favourite author, I just didn't find the book half as funny as the previous ones.


----------



## Eledhwen

It could be that these authors are getting too rich and comfortable to produce the stuff they once did. Thankfully Rowling did not suffer this malady; and possibly Paolini only had one book in him.


----------



## Majimaune

Eledhwen said:


> and possibly Paolini only had one book in him.


And which one was that?


----------



## Eledhwen

Majimaune said:


> And which one was that?



Heh heh, you're cruel, Majimaune. Truth is, I haven't read any of his books and I didn't see the film either (I'm fussy, and the reviews weren't good); but his first book did make his fortune, so I will have to give him that one.


----------



## Majimaune

I try to be cruel to Paolini, I, you could say dislike but it probably wouldn't be strong enough. In personal opinion the second book of his was marginally better. Good story line for both just not written well.


----------



## HLGStrider

I think it would be hard to start publishing a story before you have at least a good portion of the last book written out, though I know a lot of authors with long series have obviously started publishing the first book as soon as it was finished despite that there are sequels, part threes, and even more than that. 

In my own writing I have found that the first book can go incredibly well, the second book is shorter, the third book shorter still. Most _published_ authors seem to have the opposite going on. The first book is often the shortest in their series. 

In Paolini's case his first book established a problem and a hero, gave the hero a weapon, and let him have some minor victories. Pretty typical. Then in the next book it was as if he wanted to see how much he could make go wrong for the characters. Again, this isn't that unusual, but I think he may have overdone it, and perhaps now he is finding a hard time wrapping up ALL the threads into one coherent book. Perhaps it would've been better for him not to publicize this so widely as a trillogy. There is no reason a four part saga wouldn't be as acceptable. After all, as far as the publisher is concerned, more books, more money, right?


----------



## Majimaune

Thats true Elgee. More books, more money...


----------



## Mike

Nah, better if he has a nervous break down trying to tie up all the loose threads in one book and gives up writing altogether. Then the third book will never appear, and Paollini will never get such a big contract again, and, I'm sure, if he embarks on another book he'll have to attempt a much better job before the publishers will even go near it with a 130-foot pole.


----------



## Violanthe

Starflower said:


> I quite liked George R R Martin - in the beginning. Now, I have finished A Feast of Crows and it's getting a bit much.


 
I agree. Feast of Crows did seem a bit much. Especially due to all the new characters. Why do we need so many new characters at this point in the series?


----------



## HLGStrider

By the way, I WAS right. Paolini is doing a fourth installment. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.


----------



## HLGStrider

Thought I'd add something to my lists:

1. I mentioned that Redwall was on my list but I forgot to fill out why. 

When I read the Redwall book, as mentioned (I did start with Redwall, maybe that was wrong), I didn't really get into it, but I will have the ability to finish a book of that size in three hours so I might have considered keeping on with the series just for ease of reading them . . . had not, that night, I had the weirdest nightmare that I couldn't remember, only that it somehow vaguely involved talking animals and that I woke up in a cold sweat. I shrugged it off and a little later picked up Mattimeo (sp?). Same thing. Not really impressed with the work, but oh well. That night, nightmare, couldn't fall back asleep for an hour because someone was going to kill the baby animals. After that I solidly avoided the series . . .and I was at least 14 when this happened and had read much darker fiction so I don't exactly know why I found these books so subconsciously terrifying. 

2. I finally read "The Golden Compass" because the previews to the film looked so absolutely gorgeous. 

I don't know if I was really disappointed because I have never liked Pullman quotes about C.S. Lewis and such. He seems to bad mouth things without really understanding them. 
Still, the characters were not at all appealing and the story barely held interest. The end of the book left more questions than answers but also didn't leave me with the desire to read the second book.


----------



## Eledhwen

HLGStrider said:


> 2. I finally read "The Golden Compass" because the previews to the film looked so absolutely gorgeous.
> 
> I don't know if I was really disappointed because I have never liked Pullman quotes about C.S. Lewis and such. He seems to bad mouth things without really understanding them.


I read the whole trilogy, because the book has been slated by Christians and I like to form my own opinions. Having read them, I agree with the Christians. Pullman, as an atheist, simply doesn't understand the supernatural, and so his depiction of it came across to me, a Christian, as wooden; I found myself thinking "Hmmm!" more than "Wow!"

REDWALL: Interesting! I tried to get my kids to read this series (they like LotR, HP, Peretti, etc) but so far they haven't asked me for any sequels. When I bought them the Charlie Bone book 1, I was pestered for the rest of the series very quickly, and am currently being pestered for the rest of the Percy Jackson books; but not Redwall. Says something.


----------



## Josephine

This isn't really an author as a whole, but I was deeply disappointed by "The People of Sparks" and "The Prophet of Yonwood", the two books Jeanne DuPrau wrote after "The City of Ember". The first book is good. Okay, not everything is completely new, and not everything seems to be thought through properly, but it's a good read. 

Only recently I found out that there are two more books in the series, and I was so excited that I bought them at once. Big mistake. The storylines are feeble compared to "The City of Ember" and filled with stuff no one really needs to know. While it was still kind of interesting to see how humanity had developed in "The People of Sparks", "The Prophet of Yonwood" was plain boring and incredible (Which mother would let her daughter skive off school for weeks and send her away with an aunt, just because the daughter wants it?). I stopped caring what would happen after about ten pages, and I only read the rest because I hoped it would get better. 

The fourth book in the series will come out soon, and I don't think I'll read it. "The City of Ember" is one of those books that should have remained stand-alones.


----------



## HLGStrider

I liked "The City of Ember" enough that I read the "People of Spark" but didn't bother continuing after that. I felt that the first book had some moral points to it but didn't really slam them in your face. The second book was just preachy, and really how many times do I need to be told by the entertainment industry to "just get along" and "just because someone is different doesn't mean they are bad?" Seems I've heard that before . .. somewhere . .. somewhere's. . . repeatedly.

That said, the characters became less likable and the story was less interesting in the second book. The first was just a nice bit of escapism for a few hours.

Though I am trying to write a story about an underground city and with the movie coming out for the above mentioned book, no one is going to believe that I had the idea BEFORE I read the City of Ember. This ALWAYS happens to me. . . but my city is different and they know they are underground because it is a mining colony and the Airn are basically enslaving the Delvers to keep them there. Completely different.


----------



## Aisteru

About 6 or 7 years ago I was introduced to Ernest Hemingway. I was dissapointed, to say the least. After reading such amazingly descriptive works by Tolkien and the like for so long, I had gotten used to it and thus forgot how to appreciate simple literature. I looked at its simplicity as a lack of insight and depth to his writing.

I recently began reading a collection of Hemingway's short stories in a book entitled _Winner Take Nothing._ I now realize what ana amazing author he is. 


However, full on dissapointment with Ken Follet. I read Pillars of the Earth, World Without End, and part of Code to Zero. Now there's an author who writes way too much. The plethora of characters goes from being entertainingly (word?) entwined to confusingly complex. There's just too much going on for my taste.


----------



## e.Blackstar

Eragon and Harry Potter.

Haven't read Twilight, don't plan to.


----------

