Big Named Authors That Disappointed You?

[MeanMachine]

To keep this short, all the 'big name' authors I have read so far have disappointed me. Goes double for TG and RJ, and triple, nay, quintuple for GRRM.

The only, notable exception for me is Mr. Terry Pratchett. Maybe it has something to do with his books each being a self-contained story.

If dead 'big named' authors also apply, Tolkien also never dissapointed me.

 

[Tostador]

George RR Martin, I couldn't get past the first chapter of ASOIAF.
Patrick Rothfuss, in the Wise Man's Fear. I liked the first book, but the second one...

 

[gingerwoman]

But take Misery for example -- I'd say at least a third of that book (from what I remember) is the guy thinking about escape plans. Introspection. Internal monologues. Random pages of thoughts upon thoughts. I don't know, maybe I'm not remembering it correctly. What I do remember is skimming large passages because the character's doing nothing but think.

But when the plot takes hold, he's incredible.

That book minus the gore and gross out bits, is very intellectual and literary in places. I loved all that. Um yes the protagnoist spent a lot of time alone thinking, in between being tormented by his "number 1 fan", but it wasn't exactly boring, he was planning escape.
Plus I read it just after reading On Writing, so there was a lot of reflection about being a writer in both books that was fascinating to me. Misery is a masterpiece in my opinion.

I really hated The Notebook and thought the bits where Sparks went back in time to Noah's younger days were poorly written and tedious.
Maybe I wouldn't have hated it quite so much, if my own mother hadn't died of Alzheimer's though. I'm not sure if that made me hate it more.

 

[J.H. Stevenson]

Ludlum. I read The Bourne Identity, and I finished it, but it's the closest I've come to throwing a book. The writing was shockingly poor quality; it seemed like he had an idea of what he wanted to happen in his head, but had no plan for getting it to the page. All of his fight scenes were filled with words like "moved" and "pivoted" and "spun" and "shoved", as if he were choreographing an obscure dance only he was privy to.

William Faulkner remains the only author I've given up on for reasons of obfuscating density. I tried reading The Sound and the Fury and just couldn't make head or tail of it. After eighty or a hundred pages I honestly had no idea what had happened.

There are one or two authors (Dickens and Tolstoy spring to mind, and Dumas a little bit) who I cannot enjoy while reading them, but only retrospectively, thinking back on the book when it's done. Being in the midst of it I'll find myself yearning for the epilogue, and only when the silly thing's finished will I realise how much I loved it.

 

[Yorkist]

Audrey Niffenegger. I freaking loved The Time Traveler's Wife. Loved. It. Sci-fi plus tender romance? I am so down.

Her follow-up was dramatically disappointing. I was with her for the first two thirds, but the last veered into serious WTF suck territory.

 

[bearilou]

Stephen King. Loathe his novels, love his short stories and novellas. But if I never see another reference to his book On Writing as being The Definitive Book On Writing, I'll be a happy bearilou. I read it, I enjoyed it, I felt he had a lot of good, positive and encouraging things to say. But he's not the definitive answer on how to write. Not judging by his novels.

China Mieville. Anything ever. No blurb I've read of his has even remotely intrigued me or enticed me to pick up his book. Any book. And I want to just to see the love everyone else has for him. I can't make myself pick the books up and act even just a little interested.

Brandon Sanderson. Like Stephen King's On Writing, if I have to see one more kiss-fest over his ability to create magic systems/laws/rules I'mma hurt someone. He and his magic just don't do it for me. Never has, no matter how hard I try to see his genius magic writing. It's not there.

Leaving aside his repugnant political views, Orson Scott Card and especially Ender's Game has never, ever, ever in the slightest interested me, even though it is apparently his crowning achievement in writing.

 

[rwm4768]

I read mostly fantasy.

George RR Martin. I wouldn't say I hated A Game of Thrones, but I don't see what the big deal is. It was good enough that I'll get around to the others. But what makes it so special? As far as fantasy goes, that first book didn't really do anything original (unless you count making you read about characters you can't stand original).

Also in fantasy, Steven Erikson. I keep trying on the Malazan Book of the Fallen, and I keep not really caring. He has not managed to make me care about a single character, mainly because the narration is so distant. I have no idea who these people are or why I should care about them. I also frequently have no idea what's going on.

 

[gingerwoman]

I read mostly fantasy.

George RR Martin. I wouldn't say I hated A Game of Thrones,

I've only read a third of it, and.....there doesn't seem to be much magic in it? Is there more magic later?

 

[rwm4768]

I've only read a third of it, and.....there doesn't seem to be much magic in it? Is there more magic later?

No. There isn't a whole lot of magic. But I've heard that magic and other fantasy elements become more apparent as the series go on.

 

[shaldna]

I've only read a third of it, and.....there doesn't seem to be much magic in it? Is there more magic later?

No. There isn't a whole lot of magic. But I've heard that magic and other fantasy elements become more apparent as the series go on.

A lack of magic does not mean something is not fantasy.

Just sayin'

 

[rwm4768]

A lack of magic does not mean something is not fantasy.

Just sayin'

I wasn't saying it isn't fantasy. It just isn't fantasy for people who are looking for a lot of magic.

It's what you would call low fantasy, rather than high fantasy.

 

[ishtar'sgate]

JK Rowling. I thought A Casual Vacancy may have just been a sort of cathartic kind of book for her - venting really. But I just finished the Cuckoo's Calling. Although somewhat less dreary, it was only marginally so. It was easy to put down, never a good sign. I had to force myself to read the whole thing because I simply didn't care all that much about anyone in the story. It was slow, very slow which I don't mind at all if there's some sort of tension throughout. I didn't feel it. And I found her ad nauseum use of F*** quite tedious. It's as if there were no other adjectives, adverbs, verbs or expletives in the English language for a single character - except maybe for Robin, Striker's temp. Just thinking about reading another one of these things makes me tired. Too bad too because she really is a gifted writer.

 

[AgentCooper]

Dean Koontz. There have been exceptions and books of his I've even enjoyed to an extent, but mostly I feel vastly let down when I pick up one of his books.

There was one in particular, The Strangers, which I was enthralled by for the first, oh, 3/4 of the book. Then he completely ruined it, and seemed to me just to be phoning it in. It's just lazy.

 

[Devil Ledbetter]

Michael Chabon. He has developed a wicked case of thesaurusitis while trying to be impressive. Just write, dude. It's supposed to be about the story, not about how you're smarter than everybody. Conspicuous erudition sucks.

Ian McEwan. I absolutely hate the manipulative way he creates a story question, then forces you through 19 pages of deadly boring landscape description before getting back to the plot. In Atonement he went on for something like 78 words (yes, I was so pissed I counted!) describing the "filigreed lacework of grease" in a pan of roasted potatoes that had no bearing on the plot. This, while small children had gone missing in the night. It's sheer douchebaggery, I tell you!

 

[usuallycountingbats]

I have loved every Terry Pratchett book so far. So when someone suggested I read The Long Earth, I went with it. I finished it because I was sure I was missing the point. Nope, it's just dull and a bit pointless. Very disappointing.

I have Possession by A S Byatt on the shelf because every so often I convince myself that *this* will be the time I read it. It never is.

 

[ebbrown]

I practically worship Anne Rice but Blood Canticle was a huge disappointment.

Me too. But I was reluctant to say it for fear of risking a rain of angry minions upon my head.

 

[RedWombat]

*mumble* You're all gonna judge me for ever having loved them, but I was eleven and really into anthropology and...well...

Jean Auel.

First two books rocked my tiny world. I'm not saying they were great, but holy crap, right book, right time. Third was...okay. Fourth was sex and National Geographic Guide To Ice Age Plants. Fifth was forgettable.

I have chosen to disbelieve that there was ever a sixth book, and if you tell me there was, I will stick my fingers in my ears and yell "I can't hear you!

Sigh.

 

[ZachJPayne]

Okay, Let's get started:

Most of the Classical Victorian shit -- your Brontes, your Austens, and everything in that general category. I had to read it for school, and I just hate, hate, hated it. Dry, boring, pedantic, completely unappealing. Pretty much anything written in English between Shakespeare and Tolkien is a complete anathema to me.

F. Scott Fitzgerald -- just can't The Great Gatsby, haven't tried reading anything else.

Stephen King -- loved On Writing, think he's an amazing and creepy dude, just can't get into his prose.

Kathy Reichs -- kind of the same thing. I love the TV show BONES, but her books never hooked me. I even tried her Young Adult series, and it didn't click.

The Existentialists -- Jesus Friggin' Christ, man. Seriously.

A lot of the Indie/Self-Pub YA and NA books you see these days -- some of it was so terrible. I read this one book at my sister's suggestion, it was low quality, pretty sure it was POD, unedited, and the body of the text was type-set in a sans-serif font, Arial, if I remember correctly and trust my eye. I've tried reading it on occasion, and most of the time, it's been a proven waste of my $0.99

James Patterson -- He wrote the Maximum Ride series, right? I actually kind of enjoyed the story, but the writing was tedious.

James Frey, AKA Pittacus Lore -- I started reading The Lorien Legacies, despite the blatant Tolkien rip-off. I liked the premise, but damn it if the writing didn't get worse and worse.


---

I have to say, I'm surprised by all the negativity toward GRRM -- I'm not one for a great deal of sex and violence and blood, but I really did enjoy the books, though I'll admit, I did watch the first few episodes before I picked up the books, just to get through the "who the f--k are all these people?" stage. (I literally went onto my tumblr, wrote down descriptions of the people ["Boromir, Boromir's Wife, Fat King, B--chy Queen, Ken-doll knight"] and had my friends make me a character reference list).

But once I got in, I was hooked. I especially enjoyed Daenerys and Tyrion's stories once they got going. But to each their own, I suppose

 

[Lord of Chaos]

Okay, Let's get started:

Most of the Classical Victorian shit -- your Brontes, your Austens, and everything in that general category. I had to read it for school, and I just hate, hate, hated it. Dry, boring, pedantic, completely unappealing. Pretty much anything written in English between Shakespeare and Tolkien is a complete anathema to me.

F. Scott Fitzgerald -- just can't The Great Gatsby, haven't tried reading anything else.

Stephen King -- loved On Writing, think he's an amazing and creepy dude, just can't get into his prose.

Kathy Reichs -- kind of the same thing. I love the TV show BONES, but her books never hooked me. I even tried her Young Adult series, and it didn't click.

The Existentialists -- Jesus Friggin' Christ, man. Seriously.

A lot of the Indie/Self-Pub YA and NA books you see these days -- some of it was so terrible. I read this one book at my sister's suggestion, it was low quality, pretty sure it was POD, unedited, and the body of the text was type-set in a sans-serif font, Arial, if I remember correctly and trust my eye. I've tried reading it on occasion, and most of the time, it's been a proven waste of my $0.99

James Patterson -- He wrote the Maximum Ride series, right? I actually kind of enjoyed the story, but the writing was tedious.

James Frey, AKA Pittacus Lore -- I started reading The Lorien Legacies, despite the blatant Tolkien rip-off. I liked the premise, but damn it if the writing didn't get worse and worse.


---

I have to say, I'm surprised by all the negativity toward GRRM -- I'm not one for a great deal of sex and violence and blood, but I really did enjoy the books, though I'll admit, I did watch the first few episodes before I picked up the books, just to get through the "who the f--k are all these people?" stage. (I literally went onto my tumblr, wrote down descriptions of the people ["Boromir, Boromir's Wife, Fat King, B--chy Queen, Ken-doll knight"] and had my friends make me a character reference list).

But once I got in, I was hooked. I especially enjoyed Daenerys and Tyrion's stories once they got going. But to each their own, I suppose

Thank God someone else mentioned F. Scott Fitzgerald. I was forced to read The Great Gatsby in school and got to the end and thought I'd just got off a month long acid trip. My girlfriend loves the book but I usually have an identic memory when it comes to what I read and I couldn't recall a single aspect of that book's plot.

Going on that line of thinking, A Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne was an absolute bore for me despite how everyone loves to say it's a great work of literature. 30 pages of how the customs office ran (literally the only part of the book I can recall) drove me insane wondering how it had any bearing on the plot whatsoever.

I'm also firmly in the camp of loving GRRM. While getting the family relationships of all the people in chapter one (not the prologue, which despite breaking every rule I know of for writing prologues I found so absolutely rivitting I knew I needed to read more) took a little time I absolutely devoured the book.

 

[Brightdreamer]

Seen a couple I agree with already...

Several older "classics" lose a little something, IMHO, without the context of the era in which they were written. Mary Shelly's Frankenstein had some great ideas, but I barely got past the heavy writing and the over-the-top fits of agony that perpetually plagued the doctor, not to mention page after page of dense, crawling prose. Similarly, I wanted to push the characters in Bram Stoker's Dracula to make them move and actually do something, instead of fret and angst and repeat what they'd just told me half a chapter ago. I also wanted to backhand more than one of them, particularly Van Helsing: at least one death in that book lay squarely on his shoulders for not spitting out what he knew in time to do something about it. It also reeked with Christian overtones of damnation and salvation, themes that Stoker's contemporary audience would lap up but which struck me, a modern reader, as borderline nauseating.

Michael Crichton, I've always thought should be rated on two different scales: the idea and the execution. He tended to have some neat ideas, with some science to back them up, but the execution often bored me to tears.

I saw James Patterson mentioned as a big name who seriously disappointed. Ditto for me, though I suppose my complaint's probably with whoever actually wrote the book. Trite storyline, cardboard characters, flimsy writing, and a lame cliffhanger.

Orson Scott Card... that's a toughie. I still find useful advice in his book on writing science fiction. I liked Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow, but the other stuff by him I've read (the rest of the original Ender series) grew increasingly focused on politics and philosophical debates , where the characters became mouthpieces.

Someone mentioned Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl; ITA that the books grew progressively weaker. I think he should've stopped after Book 3, which made a great finale; I stopped reading after Book 4. I don't know that I'd call Colfer disappointing on the whole, however; it's more of a case of series outrunning itself. In a similar vein, Stephen Brust should've quit his Jhereg/Vlad Taltos series when he was ahead, IMHO. And don't get me started on Anne McCaffrey and Pern...

A +1 to whoever mentioned Ursula K. LeGuin. I've pushed through two of her Earthsea books, and while they aren't particularly bad, I just cannot get into her writing style. On a similar note, Patricia A. McKillip has a strong following, but I find her prose too heavily embroidered with silk and gilding and fancy laces for my taste.

Authors whose names I haven't seen (though I've admittedly skimmed):

I've read one book by James Rollins, and was very disappointed by both the story and the writing quality.

I couldn't get into Raymond Feist's popular Riftwars series; I barely crawled through the first book.

Stephen King's first Dark Tower book did not favorably impress me, especially after years of hearing how great the series was, though I'd be willing to try another book by the author before deciding whether it was him or the story that left me cold.

The first book in the Dragonlance series (Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, IIRC) was plenty for me. Just not my cup of cocoa.

I'd hoped for better out of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, too; while I've read worse, I just couldn't see what made it so different from other epic fantasies.

And, last but not least, Diana Gabaldon's Outlander... possibly one of the bigger big-name disappointments I've read.

There are probably others, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

 

[chompers]

As already mentioned, Nicholas Sparks. Terrible, terrible, terrible. I read The Notebook because I so love the movie. I only finished it to the end to see how it compared to the movie. It took a lot of willpower.

When I see someone who writes as poorly as he does getting constant movie deals, it upsets me to know that much more talented writers aren't.

 

[blacbird]

Thank God someone else mentioned F. Scott Fitzgerald.

You have friends here. I read a lot of serious (~"classic") literature, and I CANNOT abide Fitzgerald. His appeal to other readers just baffles me. And I greatly admire writers such as William Faulkner, Joseph Conrad, Ernest Hemingway, Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, John Steinbeck. In comparison with those, Fitzgerald comes across as a prissy shallow pretender with maybe decent verbal skills but really little to say. I guess you can make a movie with important actors wearing really good suits out of Gatsby, but really, in the end, who gives a shit?

caw

 

[phantasy]

My so-far list:

Terry Prachett - I cannot get into him at all. I want to be a fantasy writer so it's kind of disappointing. His work can be very conceptual but I just can't get into it in his fantasy. I never care about his characters either.

Brandon Sanderson - Hit and miss with this books. Only book I could finish was the first Mistborn and I cannot understand the insane love people have for him. Half his world concepts run like video games to me, which isn't bad and has gotten me through some of his books but in the end I just can't care about this characters. They are usually imo, nerds. I like usually like nerds but his bore me. They also have high specialties about their very technical worlds. I know you're supposed to write about characters with strong talents but his are just plain not my cup of tea. I guess every subculture needs its power fantasy.

I like Rothfuss's character work better even though they are also too talented to relate to. He needs to write another world to prove to me he isn't a one note author.

Dune was a no. Orson Card was a no.

As with all my not-liking, I always try to give all these books and authors more chances. I'll always go back and try to get into them again. So if I fall in love with any of these later...don't be annoyed with me.

 

[blacbird]

Terry Prachett - I cannot get into him at all. I want to be a fantasy writer so it's kind of disappointing. His work can be very conceptual but I just can't get into it in his fantasy. I never care about this characters either.

Mr. Tulip is going to ___ing come after you.

caw

 

[phantasy]

Mr. Tulip is going to ___ing come after you.

caw

If he can convince me to enjoy Prachett, I'd say bring him on. I really want to like him.