Timewaster's Guide Archive

Departments => Books => Topic started by: The Jade Knight on July 23, 2005, 09:23:16 PM

Title: What not to read
Post by: The Jade Knight on July 23, 2005, 09:23:16 PM

This thread is where you post books you've recently read and would recommend others NOT read.  I'll start:


The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield.

The philosophy and science of it had holes, and the narrative itself was absolutely awful.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on July 24, 2005, 03:49:46 AM

The Neanderthal Parallax books by Robert J. Sawyer.

The first one won a Hugo, but the books are a straw-man attack on everything our civilization holds dear, like agriculture, religion, the nuclear family, heterosexual cohabitation...

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: JP Dogberry on July 24, 2005, 06:19:53 PM

General Fiction, in general.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: scAri on August 02, 2005, 03:13:48 AM

Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn

You have to accept the premise of a Bible-bashing conservationist ninety-year-old telepathic gorilla, for cryin' out loud.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: JP Dogberry on August 02, 2005, 04:34:02 AM

Seems entirely normal to me - I met an Anarchist Liberal  Environmentalist vegetarian polygamist Giraffe the other day.

His name was Charles.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Spriggan on August 02, 2005, 04:42:57 AM

I don't know if it's a legitimate comparison or not but many people compare Daniel Quinn to David Icke who's one of the new age, aliens are among us, Illuminati people.

http://www.davidicke.com/

And for those that want another view
http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/IckeBackgrounder.htm

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: scAri on August 02, 2005, 04:59:41 PM

Interesting.

I'm not quite sure if Quinn is the same kind of person, however. As far as I know (and I'm going off of just one book and the constant praise of an irrationally-Green English prof I had), he's just really really really concerned about humans being egocentric and depleting all of the earth's resources before we realize what we're doing...

Here's the Ishmael Community site, in case you have the time/desire to prove me wrong:
www.ishmael.com



The book comes highly recommended by high school students, it seems, and had I read it a year ago, it would have changed my life. But now that I'm no longer 18, I think very little of it.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: scAri on August 02, 2005, 05:05:13 PM

After being overcome with obsession and locking myself into impossible circular arguments with others who have been likewise infected, I'd like to make another suggestion. Don't read this if you wish to have a life afterwards:

Harry Potter and the 0.5-Blood Prince by J.K. (Just Kidding? Jade Knight?) Rowling

It will invade your brain cells and make them lyse by the millions (assuming you're one who's got that many neurons).

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: fuzzyoctopus on April 05, 2006, 04:36:53 PM

Sweet, baiting an entire message board for no reason other than "that should get a response".  Man, I love trolls.  Makes me feel so much better about my life that I don't have to stoop to their level.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: allie_gurl on April 13, 2006, 06:07:55 PM

the wish list by Eoin Colfer....very boring :-/TEXT

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 17, 2006, 09:08:39 AM

/me makes a demand for less colored text

/me waves his hand and tells everyone to ignore the color of the "/me" command text.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Entsuropi on April 17, 2006, 10:15:43 AM

TEXT IS FUN HAPPY HAPPY FUN FOR ALL YOU WILL HAVE TEXT FUN FUN FUN TEXT IS FUN HAPPY HAPPY FUN FOR ALL YOU WILL HAVE TEXT FUN FUN FUN TEXT IS FUN HAPPY HAPPY FUN FOR ALL YOU WILL HAVE TEXT FUN FUN FUN TEXT IS FUN HAPPY HAPPY FUN FOR ALL YOU WILL HAVE TEXT FUN FUN FUN TEXT IS FUN HAPPY HAPPY FUN FOR ALL YOU WILL HAVE TEXT FUN FUN FUN

[/color]

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Mad Dr Jeffe on April 17, 2006, 11:28:52 AM

Anything by Ann Rand jumps to mind.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Parker on April 17, 2006, 12:28:12 PM

I actually quite liked The Wishlist as I recall.  What was boring to you about it, allie?  I mean, it wasn't like it changed my life or anything, but it was fun fantasy-lite.  Typical Coifer, it seemed to me.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: JenaRey on April 17, 2006, 01:20:34 PM

Sherri S. Tepper's "Beauty"

Not for those that love fairytales by any stretch of the imagination.  I hated this one so much that I took it camping and used it for firestarter.  Fortunately I'd only paid about 15 cents for it at a yard sale and that was 16 cents too many.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 17, 2006, 01:44:25 PM

we burned a book of Jewel poetry on a camp out once. My friend who's a radio DJ said they'd done something like it on a show a while back. THe rule was, read the poem, then tear it out and throw it in the fire. It lasted most of hte night.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Parker on April 17, 2006, 02:02:26 PM

Oh--just thought of one.  James Patterson's Pop Goes the Weasel.  He manages to be ignorant about both role playing games and online groups (the serial killer bases his victims on an online role playing game he plays via email.  Yup.)  Patterson's popular, but I never have any desire to read one of his books again.  Blech.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: fuzzyoctopus on April 17, 2006, 05:09:57 PM

Coetze's "Foe".  Sure, it won a Nobel prize, but it's a pile of trash.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Tage on April 17, 2006, 05:59:26 PM

I just finished The Three Musketeers.

Don't ever bother reading this book. I was astonished at how horrid it was, especially given that The Count of Monte Cristo is my all-time favorite book. I don't even want to believe both of these novels came from the same author.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Nessa on April 17, 2006, 06:13:10 PM

"Crossing to Safety" by Wallace Stegner....yawn.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Tink on April 17, 2006, 07:23:53 PM

Quote

I just finished The Three Musketeers.

Don't ever bother reading this book. I was astonished at how horrid it was, especially given that The Count of Monte Cristo is my all-time favorite book. I don't even want to believe both of these novels came from the same author.

Oh, yeah. I read that in high school and totally agree. It was incredibly boring, incredibly long, and I admit I didn't understand what was going on half the time (of course I was reading it for an assignment and was trying to rush through it).

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Parker on April 18, 2006, 01:54:36 AM

As far as Three Musketeers goes, a lot depends on the translation.  That might be why you noticed such a difference between the two books.  I read it back in high school and really enjoyed it.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 18, 2006, 09:36:21 AM

I *liked* 3 Muskateers.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Tage on April 18, 2006, 12:55:24 PM

Actually, I don't think it depends on translation at all. No matter what words you use, d'Artagnon and friends are all selfish, worldly, spoiled pigs. They treat their servants worse than dogs, and women worse than that. They don't have a single "adventure" that isn't motivated by greed or lust.

In short, there is nothing admirable about them. I simply cannot see the draw of the book at all.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Parker on April 18, 2006, 01:00:55 PM

Aha.  Well, that's a different argument than the one I thought you were making.  When you said the book was "horrid," I interpreted that to mean you felt the writing was bad, slow, disjointed, etc.  And for that, I stand by my statement about the translation.  However, if you meant the characters were horrid--as in horrid individuals--then that's something I can't remember clearly enough to talk about one way or another.  I recall enjoying the book and not being put off by any of it, but again, I was in high school, so I was likely motivated to adventure by the same two things: greed and lust.   ;)

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Mad Dr Jeffe on April 18, 2006, 01:03:54 PM

Quote

Actually, I don't think it depends on translation at all. No matter what words you use, d'Artagnon and friends are all selfish, worldly, spoiled pigs. They treat their servants worse than dogs, and women worse than that. They don't have a single "adventure" that isn't motivated by greed or lust.

So they're the archtypical RPG group... awesome!

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: The Jade Knight on April 25, 2006, 11:45:23 PM

I also rather enjoyed Three Musketeers, which I've read both in English and French.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Archon on April 26, 2006, 12:25:25 AM

Quote

Anything by Ann Rand jumps to mind.

Don't want to seem like I am nitpicking, but Ayn Rand, not Ann Rand. As for your recommendation, I politely disagree. I have read Atlas Shrugged, and I am working on the Fountainhead, and so far, I have really enjoyed both of them.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 26, 2006, 09:25:44 AM

And I'm going to repeat what I said last time you said that.

How anyone can think that Ayn Rand had some good ideas is beyond me. Let alone how they can think the writing was anywhere near decent.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Entsuropi on April 26, 2006, 10:45:14 AM

I read fountainhead once. I seem to remember thinking it was acceptable. As in, I enjoyed reading it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to read it again.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Bookstore Guy on April 28, 2006, 02:40:05 AM

The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova

the pacing is terrible, and the motivation behind Dracula's evil plan made me laugh incredibly hard...until i realized she was serious - i then threw the book across the room.

I discourage people from buying it at my store.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Entsuropi on April 28, 2006, 07:01:36 AM

I read most of the historian. Got to the last quarter, then just lost interest - the pacing was bad, like you said, and the way she'd written it made me lose interest in the most important of the plot-lines.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Eagle Prince on April 28, 2006, 07:51:39 AM

Are you sure 3 Musketeers and Monte Cristo were written by the same person actually?  From what I understand, Dumas had lots of other people write most of his books for him and then would go over them to add his own touches.  I should go look that up.  Could be that both were written by the same ghostwriter though, but that might be hard to prove unless Dumas himself said they were both from the same person.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: darkjetti81 on April 30, 2006, 01:52:48 AM

Lullaby, by Chuck Palahniuk

I enjoyed reading "Fight Club" and "Survivor," but I thought "Lullaby" had a terrible ending.
It was an interesting plot, but it started dragging at the end, and it left you feeling frustrated.

"Salem's Lot", by Steven King

Yep, I said it.  I had been told how "great" this novel was, so I decided to read it.  Umm...  SUCKED.  This is the fourth novel I've read by him, and I am growing more and more unimpressed by King.  In short, I think he's "pop-culture" and over-rated.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on April 30, 2006, 07:25:35 PM

Quote

Are you sure 3 Musketeers and Monte Cristo were written by the same person actually?  From what I understand, Dumas had lots of other people write most of his books for him and then would go over them to add his own touches.  I should go look that up.  Could be that both were written by the same ghostwriter though, but that might be hard to prove unless Dumas himself said they were both from the same person.

Wikipedia says:

Quote

Dumas made extensive use of the aid of numerous ghostwriters of which Auguste Maquet was the best known. It was Maquet who outlined the plot of The Count of Monte Cristo and made substantial contributions to The Three Musketeers and its sequels, as well as several of Dumas' other novels. When working together, Maquet proposed plots and wrote drafts, while Dumas added the details, dialogues, and the final chapters.

So it would seem they're by the same guys.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: fuzzyoctopus on May 01, 2006, 12:25:41 AM

I agree, Salem's Lot did nothing for me. Even when I tried to go back and read it for the Dark Tower tie-ins, I just couldn't stomach it.  Of course I never really liked "Carrie" either.  I think his writing has improved vastly over the years.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: darkjetti81 on May 02, 2006, 05:03:30 PM

Yeah.  I mean, you can't negate the fact that he did write "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile."  Those movies Rocked!  
I guess I just expected more from his novels.  But I HAVE only read four of them out of the hundred or so that he's published.  :)    

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on May 03, 2006, 08:59:31 AM

The only King I've ever liked reading was (kinda) The Green Mile. I liked it, but I wasn't wowed. Salem's Lot and The Stand did more than disappoint me. Well, SL just disappointed. The Stand bothered me so much I wanted to cut each page into the shape of Stephen King and burn it in effigy.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Lieutenant Kije on May 08, 2006, 10:09:20 PM

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: EUOL on May 10, 2006, 10:51:53 AM

Seconded.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on May 10, 2006, 12:27:16 PM

All in fvor?

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: fuzzyoctopus on May 10, 2006, 01:03:14 PM

Well, can I still watch the movie?

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Spriggan on May 10, 2006, 02:29:03 PM

Only because it has Tom Hanks in it.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: fuzzyoctopus on May 10, 2006, 02:36:35 PM

Don't like Tom Hanks much, but it has Amelie in it.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: EUOL on May 11, 2006, 07:06:16 AM

I'm actually very curious to see what Ron Howard does with the book.  There were a few very lame parts, and I'm hoping that he will be able to smooth them out.  Without Brown's clunky writing and occasional lapses in logic, this could actually be a good story.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: darkjetti81 on May 12, 2006, 03:48:09 AM

You know I did enjoy the book's story and provacative plot-line..  But I must agree that Brown is lacking.  He just isn't *that* great of a writer.  

Have you read "Digital Fortress" (by Dan Brown)?   Terrible, Sloppy, and bad ending.   :P
In other words - Don't read it!  

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Harbinger on May 12, 2006, 11:30:59 PM

Ugh, yes. The ending was horribly drawn out. I figured out the solution ten pages before the main characters did, and was more than once tempted to skip ahead.
That and the ending was pretty dumb. I don't remember much about the rest of it, which is probably a good thing.

Title: Re: What not to readA
Post by: blcdrayco on May 19, 2006, 12:39:38 AM

ANY book by Dan Brown-  He dosn't reserch, he writes poorly, and he manages to be massivly ignorant about any subject he mentions.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Harbinger on May 19, 2006, 01:59:29 AM

I can't wait for his autobiography.  ;D

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: darkjetti81 on May 19, 2006, 03:48:52 PM

Like I said, he isn't the *best* writer..  But you have to admit that the boldness of the Davinci Code was rather genius, because look how many copies it's sold!
Hell, everytime someone raises another fuss, sues him, or starts a protest the damn thing sells another million copies!  
I suspect that he knew that would happen, and that's why he put a lot of contraversial stuff in his book.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Parker on May 19, 2006, 07:38:28 PM

I sort of doubt it.  Da Vinci Code is a phenomenon.  I don't really thing you can "plan" to make one of those.  They just sort of take off, like Harry Potter.  Trying to write one on purpose probably happens all the time, but actually having one work is very rare.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: 42 on May 24, 2006, 04:59:05 AM

The Leadership Effectiveness Manual that I have lying around at work. I tend to avoid anything with the words "based on the seminal work of L. Ron Hubbard" printed on the cover.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on May 24, 2006, 01:03:08 PM

Sounds like one that might come in handy if you want to start a cult.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: darkjetti81 on May 25, 2006, 02:02:20 AM

I have some business or finance books to list.  Save your money!

"Rich Dad Poor Dad" - and *anything* spawned from this series.  All it teaches is attitude after a lengthy introduction from hell.  Then later on you find out how the author an his wife really made their money - by selling those books!!!    Don't read them!  :P

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Tink on May 25, 2006, 12:58:07 PM

Quote

I have some business or finance books to list.  Save your money!

"Rich Dad Poor Dad" - and *anything* spawned from this series.  All it teaches is attitude after a lengthy introduction from hell.  Then later on you find out how the author an his wife really made their money - by selling those books!!!    Don't read them!  :P

I would like to say I disagree. Mainly because I know a millionaire who used Kiyosaki's information to become a millionaire. But you don't have to believe in Kiyosaki's teachings. I, however, will trust the millionaire. ;)

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: darkjetti81 on May 25, 2006, 07:49:20 PM

Well I read four of his books, but it's just the same principles being taught over and over again.
In "Your Guide to Investing," for example:   I wanted details on how the market worked according the author's perspective, and advice on how to proceed.  
Halfway through this thick book, he finally tells you: "this book isn't about investing, it's about the attitude the invester needs to have."  I was a little pissed off to say the least, especially because when you read back and do a skim of the chapters, you would have been convinced that was the books entire purpose.  Nope..   He just taught the same principles that were taught in "Rich Dad Poor Dad."  

No Offence, but I'm just not a millionare yet.  I need specifics, and I felt frustrated that he wouldn't cover the simplest aspects of calling a broker, how to research a stock or realestate investment, basic economic theorie, etc.

I know a couple of wealthy people too, and they all made it before these books were written so who knows...


 

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Rak-O-Latern on June 04, 2006, 06:17:47 AM

I would seriously advise not to read a dictionary, because it is really boring. Seriously though, I thought Jack Higgins' "Toll for the Brave" was rubbish. ;D

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Harbinger on June 04, 2006, 12:30:50 PM

Quote

I would seriously advise not to read a dictionary, because it is really boring.

This explains so much.

;) Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: chunktile on July 26, 2006, 03:09:12 AM

Whispers by Dean Koontz. Very, very, methodical/explicit.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: stacer on July 26, 2006, 03:36:25 AM

Quote

I would seriously advise not to read a dictionary, because it is really boring.

I actually tried to do this in the 4th grade. I thought if I read the dictionary and memorized all the words, I'd be able to win the national spelling bee. I did get runner-up in the school bee in 8th grade (still kicking myself over forgetting the C in acquaintance--and it's an A word!), but I never really got through the As, given that I got beat up by the neighbor kids who thought I was too geeky. (Yes, I was, but hey, at least I had goals--I wanted to be the smartest kid in the world!)

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Archon on July 26, 2006, 03:53:58 AM

Hey, I have read sections of the dictionary a time or two, and I almost went to a national spelling bee. I took fourth place in a state spelling bee one year. Did you really get beat up for that?

Just to sound on topic, I will add that I thoroughly despised Pilgrim at Tinker Creek by Annie Dillard. If you like description, snapshots, and imagery, this is the book that will ruin them all for you. It has all of those. Actually, I should say that it has nothing but those for hundreds of pages. Oh yeah, and it has a plot that takes up ten pages or so, cumulatively.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: neiana on July 30, 2006, 03:24:27 AM

The Assassins of Tamurin by S.D. Tower... seriously... don't.  The premise was good enough, but the actual storytelling was rather pathetic in my opinion.  It dragged where it should have been quicker, it went too fast where it should have been slow, had no emotion, and was poorly realized as a whole.

Also, those who said don't read Dan Brown, I wholeheartedly agree.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: chunktile on July 31, 2006, 02:59:42 PM

The Tommyknockers by Stephen King.

If he had just shortened the descriptions and content of the first two parts of the book, it would have made a really fun read; however, for the first two thirds of the book it's just drug on and on with no real interesting points until the final section.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Sigyn on July 31, 2006, 04:07:38 PM

Tinker by Wes Spencer.  I loved the world and the characters but it becomes saturated with R-rated material.  So unnecessary.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Atreas on August 10, 2006, 08:23:30 PM

So I just went to my bookshelves to find titles to list here.  (Suchaloser.)

Under no circumstances do I suggest either book:

Eldon Thompson's The Crimson Sword

or Monument, by Ian Graham.

The first one has the most predictable and cliche plotline I think I've ever seen.  And though Graham had a semi-decent sort of an idea, the story crawls alone.  I mean like would-do-well-to-finish-the-hundred-yard-dash-by-next-century crawls.

Of couse, this is just my opinon.  Feel free to argue.   :)
 

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Nessa on August 20, 2006, 02:54:58 AM

Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife by Linda Berdoll.

A sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Over-wrought and under-plotted, this raunchy book—while staying true to the characters (mostly)—has no real focus and meanders along, with a few tradgedies, inexplicable side-character behavior, and other sundry goings on.

I gave up on the book when I got a little over halfway. The prose is dreadful (I mean really, how many times can you say "betwixt" without sounding ridiculous?), although there is some witty dialogue.

Jane Austen would be scandalized if she were alive to read what others are writing about two of the most believed characters in fiction.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Kuntrey_Pilgrum on August 20, 2006, 05:58:48 PM

 The Oran trilogy books by Midori Snyder, because of the R-rated stuff in an Early Teen book. Also, join boycotting Jude Fisher with me. I just can't believe how much I had to stop reading her book to adjust from the latest evil. Some people enjoy books Hitler would feel comftorable with, but not me.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: PixelFish on August 28, 2006, 10:58:07 PM

I'm gonna put Elizabeth Haydon's Rhapsody on this list. Rhapsody is the canonical Mary Sue* to end all Mary Sues. I started the book twice before I was able to actually read it, and the entire time I kept shouting comments into the next room to my boyfriend. And I think the book got thrown a few times across the room as well.

Basically, the titular main characters wangsts all the time about how nobody loves her and how ugly she is, despite the fact that she is drop dead gorgeous. The author spent way too much time telling us how kind and wonderful Rhapsody is, and how she can pick up magic just like that *snaps fingers* and how men crash their carts in the market place when they see her. It was VERY ANNOYING. And the constant over-the-top stupidity-induced modesty was cringe-worthy.

Also, there were some weird chronological issues with the story, involving large chunks of time passing. I kept having to refer to chapter and section starts to figure out what year we were in, and my brain kept asking if that was really consistent with the established timeline mentioned in dialogue. It kept dragging me out of the story.  

*Those unsure what a Mary Sue is can refer to this handy Wiki entry:

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

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: fuzzyoctopus on August 29, 2006, 02:27:26 AM

I agree with that review of Rhapsody.  I'm always annoyed when Amazon recommends it to me.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Shrain on August 29, 2006, 08:30:15 PM

Me three. I tossed my pb copy of Rhapsody not long after she starts running from her ex-sugar daddy. What really sickened me was the seemingly unecessary prologue wherein a 14-year-old boy is "spliced" back in time by this cruel Meridion time-editor dude so that the kid can have sex (described quite provacatively) with a 13-year-old girl, whereafter the boy is wrenched back to his own time and learns that the girl never left the island that got destroyed by some cataclysmic tectnonic disturbance or something. it was disturbing, especially because what was the point? Was it is to show us that these evil time-editors exist?

Okay, okay, maybe you really had to read the rest of the book. Yet it gave me such a creepy feeling at how idyllic and "right" this sex was between these young kids. not only that but just the fact that Rhapsody was an ex-prostitute didn't bode well for me. I *rarely* swear off a book once I've begun. Yet I gave it another try or two and just kept feeling uneasy and distanced from the female protagonist.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: PixelFish on August 29, 2006, 09:54:30 PM

Rhapsody spoilers below.....:
..

..

..

..
This will not be a surprise, but Rhapsody is that 13 year old girl. See, she was disappointed that her boyfriend never came to fetch her, and ran away from home trying to find him, and eventually had to turn to prostitution.

She eventually meets up with her soulmate under a different name and guise, and you basically want to smack them, because he's so attracted to her (as an adult) that he feels like he's cheating on his long-lost love (still her).




So yeah. The idiocy of these characters knows no bounds.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Shrain on August 29, 2006, 10:20:22 PM

Oh bruh-ther. (insert eye rolling here). I cared far less about her than the black-clad warrior dude who was betraying his master. Still, no regrets at tossing the book now that I know the "secret" of Rhapsody's identity.

I actually thought they couldn't be the same person because of certain historical cues--I guess my decoder ring was malfunctioning. But... how could they meet up again if the boy is put back in his own time, several hundred/thousand years in the future?? In fact, doesn't that oracle woman tell him that his girlfriend didn't escape the earthquake catacylsm thing?

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: PixelFish on August 29, 2006, 11:32:42 PM

Yeah, the die hard fans of the series seem to be all about the Achmed. (Me, I couldn't get over his name. Nor over Rhapsody's, for that matter.)


Ah, yes, the time jumping:


There's a prologue starting with Rhapsody barely turning fourteen and boinking her Soul Mate, who has been yanked out of time by mysterious forces.

Soul Mate comes from a future a thousand years after the destruction of Rhapsody's homeland. Seven years later, she's done her speed courses in prostitution and super mad Naming magic and beating up guys twice her size. (There seem to be a whole slew of chronological mishaps concerning these seven years, as sometimes she implies that she's been out of prostitution for a certain period of time. I get the dates from the chapter headings though.)

Rhaps travels along a temporally whacky tree root through the center of the earth with her two Bolg buddies. At some point she becomes a born-again virgin after travelling through dragonfire or something like that. Then she picks up a mythical and magical and totally-lost-in-the-mists-of-time sort of sword called the Clarion Daystar.

However, when Rhapsody ends up down in the core of the earth and travelling along some time-warping tree root, she pops out 1400 years after destruction of said homeland. Soul Mate should be about 400 years old, which shouldn't really be a problem as he is conveniently half-Lirin too, and his grandmama is an immortal dragonspawn, but still, he happens to be best friends with a 58 year old lord who can conveniently remember a childhood where the Soul Mate and Ye Olde Lord played as children. Similar chronological inconsistencies abound.

If you followed that....well, you are a better person than I am. I had to double check chapter headings repeatedly to put it all together. The author pulls this chronological whackiness all the time, maybe because it is Cool(TM).

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Shrain on August 30, 2006, 02:10:06 PM

Holy chron-oly! That's incredibly obnoxious not to mention ridiculous. I'm amazed you could even summarize that mess! Whew. You know, it annoys me that two-bit books like this still get published when there are so many good, unpublished authors in the world. :P

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on August 30, 2006, 02:12:22 PM

like me.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Spriggan on August 30, 2006, 03:40:05 PM

I do like the term "Time-Editor" though.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Chimera on August 30, 2006, 03:43:39 PM

If you pay me $50 I'll start addressing you so.  ;)

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on August 30, 2006, 04:48:45 PM

That's...astounding.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Shrain on August 30, 2006, 05:43:53 PM

Quote

If you pay me $50 I'll start addressing you so.  ;)

Oh no you don't, ChimChim! I believe it was *I* who coined that particularly catchy term. And my fee is $75. ;D  So, Sprigg, would you prefer to be known solely as "Time-Editor" or "Time-Editor Dude"?

Of course... if E. Hayden claims she created it, don't believe it. I traveled back in time and made it up before she was out of diapers.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Kuntrey_Pilgrum on August 30, 2006, 05:59:08 PM

That summary made my brain hurt!!!  I saw it on amazon, and almost bought it cause it came with a
nuther book,[I almost never pass up cheap books]
but now i'm glad I didn't!!!!! :o

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Spriggan on September 01, 2006, 04:18:15 PM

Quote

Oh no you don't, ChimChim! I believe it was *I* who coined that particularly catchy term. And my fee is $75. ;D  So, Sprigg, would you prefer to be known solely as "Time-Editor" or "Time-Editor Dude"?

Of course... if E. Hayden claims she created it, don't believe it. I traveled back in time and made it up before she was out of diapers.

Neither really, I'm not an editor.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Shrain on September 05, 2006, 08:39:11 PM

Hmm. True. Okay, the title is still up for grabs, people.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Rocnerd on September 11, 2006, 12:43:19 PM

Not exactly a recent read of mine, but it fits the subject matter; Ann Rice's "The Witching Hour".  I thought it was pretty good and had finished most of it when she lost me with the littany of family history.  I mean, this person was gay and that person had sex with his daughter and mother and they had a baby who eventually married his sister.  Give me a break.  It is the only book I have started that I haven't actually finished reading.  

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Swiggly on September 23, 2006, 02:23:40 AM

The Secret Country by Pamela Dean.

Basically a bunch of kids make up a different world where they're princesses and sorcerors and stuff. Basically nothing happens. Its actually irritating.

Spindle's End by Robin McKinley

Like sleeping beauty. Basically nothing happens. Don't let that disuade you from reading her other books. They're actually quite good.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Swiggly on September 23, 2006, 02:28:21 AM

Quote

Oh--just thought of one.  James Patterson's Pop Goes the Weasel.  He manages to be ignorant about both role playing games and online groups (the serial killer bases his victims on an online role playing game he plays via email.  Yup.)  Patterson's popular, but I never have any desire to read one of his books again.  Blech.

Well, I've never read that one. But I do like When the wind blows, The Lake House, Maximum Ride: The Angel Experiment, and Maximum Ride: School's out forever.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on September 23, 2006, 12:53:04 PM

I thought Spindle's End was pretty good, though the ending was a bit odd.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Chimera on September 25, 2006, 12:43:47 PM

I also liked Spindle's End. But it is long--not nearly as tight as her other books. Feels more "fairytale" to me in that it meanders and there's some bizzare magical happenings.

Title: Re: What not to read
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on September 25, 2006, 01:45:14 PM

Which one was it where fish could not possibly exist? I thought that was pretty hilarious.