We've all had those moments. <__< You know, when you pick up a book hoping it'll blow your mind away....only to find out that you couldn't stand it, or that it bored you to tears. D: Has there been any books or series that you found painful to read or experience? Discussions encouraged........but don't be jerks about it. :s

Hmm...I actually don't know. In all honesty, I really haven't read that many books, and what ones I have read I've enjoyed at some point. I suppose the only one I've read that I just decided right off the bat I didn't like was Eldest by Christopher Paolini. I admit that I thought Eragon was decent when I read it through the first time, but anything beyond that and it's just too...I dunno. Don't like either of the books anymore. I don't have a problem with his writing style or anything, it's just that the story itself is...lacking. Or is silly.

I remember not liking Shannara too much, but I don't remember much of it. My brother's a fan of it and has most of the books, so I might borrow them someday because I don't remember much of Shannara to say that I didn't like it.

*shrugs*. Yeah. I really don't know otherwise. >.>. If I remember any more (or run across some. D= .) I'll post it up.

I read quite a bit. Anything I can get my hands on is devoured within a day or so. Oddly enough, I have enjoyed most of the books I have read.
I will admit, I do not like those Stephanie Meyer books. the first one, Twilight, was alright, but after that, I think the only hype about the books was the fangirlism about Edward. My friend keeps telling me the new one, that has yet to come out, will get me more into them, but now, I believe I only read them to see what happens next, although they are a tad predictable.
I also stopped enjoying Harry Potter by the fifth one.

Eh, maybe I should quit reading books aimed towards preteens and teenagers, but until my next Earth's Children book comes out, or Jacqueline Carey comes out with her new series, I will continue reading whatever falls into my lap.

True that. D: J.K. Rowling is an awful writer, and her ideas for dialogues can be so poor. The 5th book was when I realized that my enjoyment for the series was waning, and...I don't know...I was maybe growing up? Harry Potter was a good read while I was still relatively young.

I also hated the books by Pullman. >__< The Golden Compass series, I mean. I only read The Amber Spyglass, but it was just dripping with cheeze. I mean, seriously? 10 year olds falling in love? Thank god they got separated. They probably grew out of love by the time they're 13....not to sound bitter or anything.

There was also this other book called the Hounds of the Morrigan. Awful awful book. It was long, dragged, and the book itself had no real purpose. It was crap.

Haha, I just remembered some more!

Stupid romance novels. Like Danielle Steel, or Nora Roberts. Everybody has smokey black or piercing green eyes, they are all rich and gorgeous, and so predictable!
I just cannot respect somebody who comes out with 50 books a month. Especially when they are all the same with different names. I believe for a book to be somewhat good, it needs to have some actual thought and time put into it. At least a wee bit.

I never truly got into Harry Potter. When I first started with the series it was at book four (and I was ten I think. Actually, I think I was younger, but I don't remember) and I only really liked it for the bad guys. I never could get past the first chapter because of the Death Eaters (they scared ikkle ol' me). Now obviously when I read back at the part, it seems silly for me to have even gotten scared, but most of that was because I was, at that time, adding in more things from my imagination and not just what I was reading.

Quite frankly I dislike Harry, Ron, Hermione...most of those good guys. Harry reminds me too much of my brother (who keeps getting told he looks like Harry, so that doesn't help), and yeah...I dunno. Don't like him, at all. I wish he'd have *died at the end of book seven. *I realize he did technically die, but he should have stayed dead. He's too cocky and self-righteous to live. D= .\

I think her characters are good (for the most part) and the general idea for the story was alright (well...I think loads of it could have been better. Bad guys like Voldemort and Bellatrix could have received a bit more treatment I think, and some of the plot itself was either silly/ridiculous or just not really thought out well enough), but otherwise I think what's so great about the series is that it sparks the imagination. I mean, little kids are obviously going to go into fangasms at the mention of the series, but some of her characters are really good (Bellatrix, though she was neglected too much and there seriously was a lot that could have happened with her) and readers can plot their own rendition of what *should have happened with people like her. ...If you know what I mean.

I also think JK should have abandoned the whole "I'm writing for kids" thing with a children's book and actually expanded upon the series, explaining plot devices and characters more. It should have been much darker than it was. I do know it was meant to be from Harry's perspective, but there was still a lot she could have done with the other characters regardless. I dunno. I just think she should have taken even more time with the books. Sure, everyone didn't want to wait, but...they could have been a lot better.

Suffice to say, I skimmed through the last book, and that was only to see what happened to Bellatrix. So disappointed, even though I can at least appreciate the scene at some level.

So yeah, I dunno. Her books aren't that bad (considering who the *actual* readers were supposed to be), but they could have been better. But whatever. =P.


I don't really mind the books by Philip Pullman either. In all honesty, I mostly skimmed through The Amber Spyglass in the first place. I think the first two books are where it's at (first mostly. Second was alright). But yeah, I'm in agreement with Apple. Having ten-year-olds falling in love and speaking as if the world's going to end tomorrow when they find out they can't be together is silly.\

As far as Harry Potter goes, I think J.K. had a good idea, but the execution was lacking... good imagery, good character ideas, bad character development, poor story-line progression, One of the few redeeming factors of the of the movies was the casting: Maggie Smith, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Walters, Jason Isaacs, Imelda Staunton, Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltraine, Helena Bonham Carter, And Richard Harris; although she won another round of "How can Rowling possibly ##### this up?" with a couple of cast members, Yelly McYellerson ie. Michael Gambon. Not even Evel Knievel could make the leap from a quiet, 78 year old Richard Harris, to an overly energetic, 68 year old man with a severe volume control deficiency...
*deep breath*
The only truly redeeming factor to her books is that they teach young minds that reading is a good thing, and to let your imagination be free...

As for the Paolini, He can burn for all I care... The reason his books seem lacking is because he took a basic mixture:
Stereotypical fantasy/Rpg story-line + Water + Water + Water + Water = Any of his books...

I apologize if I offended anyone, but I respond very passionately to the release of any fantasy/sci-fi reading material... good or bad, in turn.

I think we can grow to love movies even more when we get older, even though we enjoyed them as children. I probably enjoy The Wizard of Oz more now than I did when I was a kid. But that doesn't seem to be the case with books. I felt the same with Harry Potter. I kind of...grew out of it. I used to read the Redwall series too. Needless to say, I don't read about mice swordfighting with an axe wielding badger. Oh, those were the days. XD

I stopped reading Harry Potter after the Goblet of Fire...whichever book number that was. I think I enjoy the movies better. How horrifying. Also...I really wasn't a big fan of The Lord of the Rings. I heard about the movies, so I read the book series before I saw anything. Perhaps I was too young to understand it fully, I may have to read it again. But I didn't quite understand it, I ended up skipping a lot since I felt so bored. I wasn't much of a fan of all the singing. And don't get me started on the Hobbit. Actually...I probably can't because I've tried so hard to forget. I'll never get that time back.

Oh wait! There was one series I loved, but I forgot the name of it. It was a weird sci-fi kind of one. It was where a bunch of teenagers could turn into different kinds of animals. And there were bad guys who were leeches. And if the leeches got inside your ear, then they could control you...or something. I sound like a wackjob but that was the premise. I can't remember the title of the series though. I need help otherwise it'll drive me insane.

^^ Animorphs. It was indeed a great series, but the ending was really stupid. What was worse was the author’s overtly preachy explanation/ excuse behind it after so many people complained about it.

I really liked Harry Potter, but as others have said here, character development was very lacking. The only change I noticed in Harry was that he just got taller, moodier and started liking girls. Now, though I know it’s a book aimed to all ages, but kids in general, I thought the portrayal of growing teenagers was a little unrealistic, since they still acted too childish and...err...chaste...Also, Hermione just got on my last nerves.

When the movie version of Eragon came out, there were a lot of people and advertisements telling me to read this book because...you guessed it...he was only 15 when he wrote it!!! So, when I read it I thought it was pretty good. Then eventually I got around to finding “anti websites” like Anti-Shurtugal that debunked all the myths about Christopher Paolini and pointed out the infinite number of flaws in his books. After getting all the facts straight, I concluded that Paolini’s success is a major insult to all inspiring young authors, me included. Not to mention that ridiculous pro-Atheism speech in Eldest. I wasn’t offended by it, but the way it was handled was so tacky. Not to mention that Paolini himself seems to have quite a lot of social and emotional issues.

Another book was The Devil’s Arithmetic. Its intention and concept was good, but the way it was played out was real disappointing. It was just made up of bland characters and had hardly any explanation to how and why things happened, especially the girl’s vision, which was the whole focal point of the story. Then, there was its equally bizarre, unofficial sequel/ rip-off: Anne Frank and Me. It’s....best I don’t get into it, unless you are very morbidly curious.

Paolini started writing it when he was fifteen, but he didn't finish editing/etc. and publish it til he was nineteen or something like that, if I recall correctly.

I just think it's a bad selling point when people advertise a book for you to read because of something the author did (ie: begin writing it when he was 15) instead of the contents of the book. When I'm reading a book, I don't care about the author, I care about the book (well...I care to know who wrote it afterwards, but while I'm reading I really don't pay attention). =/

God, I began writing before that, and my godawful writing is better than his.

Also, The Fountainhead was terrible. I heard so many people telling me how great it was and how it defined their life and et cetera. I mean, one of the characters in A Scanner Darkly decides to kill himself with a copy of this book to make a statement about his life - but dear god. Objectivism is retarded. It has a major loophole in it's theory of people having to do everything for themselves, the very fact that doctors exist and make discoveries in medicine, not because they feel like doing it, but because they need to do it for the sake of other people. The whole ##### book forgot doctors in general - going on to say that philanthropists are parasites on humans simply because they don't do things for themselves. It's an insult. You know something? Not everyone has the natural talent that Ayn Rand's perfect man does, so there's no way that everyone can live as he does. Her vision is flawed as ##### and I don't see how anyone could take her seriously, ever.

Not to mention she failed at editing herself. Journal at the end of the book mentions how she needs to omit weaking adjectives and avoid using certain words or describing "he thoughts she thoughts" which she never bothered with. Her descriptions were superfluous to the story, and every time Dominique showed up she had to tell me what she was wearing, which never comes up again, doesn't add to the mood of anything, and just shows that Ayn Rand is a female and has to talk about the pretty dresses all the time - that's... not trying to be sexist, but Rand clearly put too much emphasis on what Dominique wore without it having any bearing on the story. The lesson of the book could've been encapsulated in 300 pages at most, if she just took out the useless stupid ##### she wanted to include that gave me a book double the length and triple the boredom. The only decent person in the book gets portrayed worse and worse, even though Howard Roark, Ayn Rand's perfect man is a ##### rapist, and he can't justify it with some sort of pseudotelepathy by saying she wanted it, whether she wanted it or not isn't possible for him to know. But of course it is. ALL the objectivists share each other thoughts in this book - see how Dominique and Roark and Wynand and Mallory understand each other so well, which is the most ironic thing of all due to her hate for ideas of collectives.

This book is what we in the business call "#######".

I'd like to agree with Dragon Brigade and say that the content of the book is more important than the author, but the content of this book was the author's ##### brain babbling about retarded psychology and business ethics and sex, all her opinions, complete with 20 page speeches about nothing. I don't even want to touch Atlas Shrugged because John Galt's 60 page speech will make me want to shoot myself, since NO ONE should be allowed to speak for THREE HOURS without interruption unless it's Dostoyevski. She's way too optimistic about speeches.