Book(s) that left you underwhelmed?

Seasons greetings, Girlybooks friends! I was wondering if you have read any books that were critically acclaimed or word-of-mouth hyped that you read and then asked yourselves, "Why?"

Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. I read it when I was in high school and couldn't believe anyone thought it was any good.

Different type of book: Pride and Prejudice. Maybe it's just that I've spent much of my life working and not being rich, but I couldn't get myself to care about any of the characters' problems.

My vote goes to Swamplandia! So much critical acclaim for a book I absolutely abhored. Only one member of my 6 - person book club liked it.

weener - I can't stand Victorian Era literature. Yuck.

Gone Girl comes to mind.

>4 MsNick: Pride and Prejudice wasn't Victorian era. It was published in 1813.

I was underwhelmed by Stacy Schiff's book on Cleopatra, but I could tell both why many people liked it, and why I did not.

>2 weener: I am with you on Jane Austen etc. Just not my thing no matter how elegant the language.

I let people persuade me to read Girl With a Pearl Earring. I couldn't stand the narrative voice. I had a terrible problem with The Unbearable Lightness of Being, too, totally bored. When the best you can say about the book is "I learned something about making paints" or "I have more information on the history of Eastern Europe now" and that's not the main point of that book, well ...

Most recently-

Divergent

Outlander

>9 vwinsloe: Wow, have to agree with both of those. I didn't even finish Outlander.

>3 MsNick: I had a copy of Swamplandia on Mount Tbr but after reading and hating St Lucy's home for girls raised by wolves, I gave it away. I like magical realism and fantasy but Russell's stories just didn't work for me.

>5 sturlington:: I couldn't agree with you more about Gone Girl!

>6 southernbooklady:: I was off a couple of decades, but I hope the group got the gist of what I was saying. Jane Austen, the Brontes, etc., Nope. Can't read any of it.

Fall on Your Knees: I've tried to start it a few times because people whose taste I respect keep recommending it. For me, tho, it's unreadable.

As an Austen fanatic, Pride and Prejudice's being here just . . . well, I'd have to talk like Lady Catherine De Bourgh to really express how I feel.

>11 Sakerfalcon: Sakerfalcon & MsNick, I absolutely agree about Karen Russell.

I guess the thread is about books, but I've been disappointed by everything I've read by Hillary Mantel, Anita Brookner, or Sarah Dunant.

>12 MsNick: I was off a couple of decades, but I hope the group got the gist of what I was saying. Jane Austen, the Brontes, etc., Nope. Can't read any of it

No, I get it, although I'll admit to me Austen and Bronte write completely differently. But I feel pretty much the same about any novel with a designer name in the title.

been trying to think of one that hasn't been mentioned. i couldn't stand the shipping news. disliked it enough to probably have to try again sometime. (sigh.)

> 15: I can appreciate that. It's not that I dislike all classics, though, I swear. :)

Another one just came to mind: Fear of Flying. I can understand the uproar when it was first published, but having finally read it this year, it seemed dated at best.

>14 nohrt4me2:: Hillary Mantel is completely hit or miss with me. I either despise what she's writing & can't finish it or I gobble up every word like its chocolate. My experience with the other authors you name is exactly like yours.

>16 overlycriticalelisa:: Don't return to The Shipping News! That was unreadable for me, too.

>18 MsNick:: how sad about Fear of Flying. That was one of my favorite books to sneak during early adolescence. It's probably good that I haven't read it since.

Read The Unit by Ninni Holmquist after it was enthused about here, and found it totally
underwhelming. Maybe it was meant as satire rather than straight SF dystopia but neither the
story nor characters stood up for me.

There isn't much writing out there that examines why readers may not like a particular book. Lev Grossman, a literary critic for Time magazine who is also himself an author, wrote this essay a couple of years ago.

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/07/25/i-hate-this-book-so-much-a-meditation/

Food for thought.

>21 vwinsloe: Thanks for that! Good read and mitigates my dislike of Grossman's novels.

And with that, I think I'll bug out of this thread, worthy as it may be.

Maybe it's because I'm feeling older and more marginalized myself, but I'm feeling very protective about some of the Victorian women writers dissed here. I think of them all those years ago with nothing but pen, ink and paper, all squished up in corsets and hairdos that hurt their necks and scalps, trying to tell their stories to us across the centuries.

>22 nohrt4me2: I'm feeling very protective about some of the Victorian women writers dissed here.

The fact that they were published at all suggests they were equal to the task of making their own voices heard. Jane Austen (still, not Victorian! :)), George Eliot, and the Bronte women were many things, but not noticeably doormats.

>23 southernbooklady: I hope I didn't imply they were doormats. Just hate seeing them unappreciated.

You didn't. I just found the idea that they need protecting kind of funny because I think Charlotte Bronte could take me in a fight. I'm sure Jane Austen could!

>25 southernbooklady: well, I guess saying I feel protective of them sounds nicer than saying I'd like to bitch slap readers who have no historical appreciation for the contributions early women novelists made to the form and ensured that the female voice was heard.

As for holding their own, I'm pretty sure Austen would wither them with an arch observation. Bronte might just dump them out on the moor all night with just a thin sweater to keep warm. Anne Radcliffe would just wall them up in a crumbling monastery. That'd fix their wagons!

I am impressed, though, by how different this thread is than many that trash a certain book or books. How often have I seen here on LT a post that says, "This book sucks." I have had that happen a couple of times to books that I truly loved, and I couldn't help but take it personally. To me, it is like saying that whoever thinks this book is good is an idiot. I have gotten really hurt and angry when that happens. Lev Grossman wrote a piece about this too:

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/02/08/beyond-good-and-awful-literary-value-in...

At least here people seem to recognize that the fault MAY BE in themselves. Not everyone is going to relate to every experience or every character. It could just be a question of mood or personal focus or taste at that point in the reader's life. It could be the writing style or the tone of the work that a person doesn't find appealing. Some are more patient readers than others. I still can't Pearl Rule a book, personally. If I think that I may be undervaluing a book that others have praised, I will go do a little research to see if I am missing the point. For others, life is too short, and I respect that.

Just please don't say that a book that I love "sucks!"

Just please don't say that a book that I love "sucks!"

I have a friend who is a high school English teacher, and he bans that phrase from his classroom because it says nothing. He wants his students to apply some critical thinking and language skills and say WHY they dislike the book. "It sucks" gets a failing grade from him. So now when you see that, you can say (if only to yourself), "well, you fail!".

I actually don't see "this book sucks" anywhere that I go on LT, so you might want to look around for some different groups and see if you can find readers who think more like you do.

Everyone in my book club loved Water for Elephants but I thought it was just awful.

>29 Nickelini: I agree with your assessment. It was a deliberately gloomy book that seemed too pretentious.

I was also disappointed with March by Geraldine Brooks. I thought the characters sensibilities were modern and rang false to the historical figures from whom they supposedly derived.

>26 nohrt4me2: Whatever anyone personally thinks of writers like the Brontes, George Eliot and especially Jane Austen, there is no denying the powerful impact they made and are still making on our culture. For me, Austen has the status of Shakespeare in that sense.

I personally did not care for Wuthering Heights but I respect it, and I actually own a nice copy with the thought that I will likely return to it at some point for another read. Right now I am reading Cold Comfort Farm, in which one of the characters is writing a book attempting to prove that Branwell Bronte actually wrote all the Bronte sisters' books in order to keep his drunken, domineering sisters supplied with alcohol. I had a good chuckle at that, but then googled it unfortunately and found that there are people who still think Branwell really did write Wuthering Heights, at least.

I did not like Eliot when I was first exposed to her in college, but I'm willing to concede it may have been me and where I was at that point. I am going to give Middlemarch a good go. I have it sitting on my bedside table.

>19 susanbooks:
someone else hated the shipping news??? i can't believe it! thank you. (still, anything i feel that strongly about - good or bad - usually needs to be revisited. one day, probably.)

>21 vwinsloe:
great article, thanks.

>25 southernbooklady: I think Charlotte Bronte could take me in a fight. I'm sure Jane Austen could!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKXNThJ610

>24 nohrt4me2: Just hate seeing them unappreciated
i am a huge fan of austen and the brontes, but didn't think this was the place to say it. ;)

I have only read one book by Elizabeth Gaskell, North and South but for some reason I am more attracted to her plots than Austen and the Brontes, even though their writing is beautiful, as I said earlier.

If you can dream it up, you can find it on youtube.

Emily Bronte wouldn't have to beat me up. She could just glare at me and I'd be slinking off into another room to cry.

>25 southernbooklady: And, of course, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2PM0om2El8

>31 sturlington: I too could not face Middlemarch in college, but plan to give it another try.

>35 southernbooklady: I picture Emily cauterizing her hand to intimidate people.

>22 nohrt4me2: I wasn't trying to attack the classics, I promise. I WANT to like so many of them, but have had limited success finding books I could finish. Sorry if my examples offended.

I disliked Prep although it seemed to be quite zeitgeist-y when it came out. Other underwhelming books... Anything by Ayn Rand (ugh), The Hobbit (not buy a woman, I know, but I used to love SF/fantasy and I really couldn't get through anything that Tolkien wrote), The Well of Loneliness and Fingersmith. The latter two I really wanted to enjoy, but I had to give up after a few chapters.

I couldn't get into Cross Stitch - now called Outlander - by Diana Gabaldon. In fact I couldn't even finish it which is almost unheard of for me! I was bored and the story moved at a snails pace.

>39 lemontwist:

totally agree about sarah waters, also had a lot of trouble with the well of loneliness. the fountainhead is tied for favorite book of mine, though; but i'm not offended. ;)

I probably read Atlas Shrugged at least 10 times in high school and college. I am on the other end of the political spectrum, but I read Rand's message as being about celebrating and rewarding the good in people. I know now that she thought very differently than I do, but I was enchanted at the time. I always thought helping poor people get an education and helping them through hard times with food and jobs would good for all of us. I still believe that. I guess I twisted Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" to fit that paradigm. Oh well...

i, too, am way on the other end of the political spectrum from rand and the uber republicans who spout her in the us, but find a lot to value in the fountainhead and also, although not as much, in atlas shrugged. i keep rereading the fountainhead thinking i won't like it nearly as much because i'm so opposed to her theory and her politics, but every single time i think it's just amazing. (and quite astoundingly written for someone for whom english wasn't her first language. it's so precise in its language.) the story is fantastic and the cultural commentary ageless. and atlas shrugged helped me turn down medical school in favor of art and obscurity. so i have big love for those books, but always feel like i need to wear a sign that says that i don't align with her politics when i talk about them...

Oh I can't take to Sarah Waters either, glad there are a few other people!

>42 krazy4katz: >43 overlycriticalelisa: I totally agree about The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and I'm a Massachusetts-born democrat.

I found nothing to like in Gone Girl and thought that The Goldfinch was far too wordy.

I thought of a couple as soon as I read the title of the thread.

The first is The Witch of Portobello. It's written by a man, but many women recommended it to me as deeply spiritual. I found it as subtle as a baseball bat. It was like a lecture, and the characters were ideas rather than people.

The second is The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society

What I wrote when I read it in 2008: Not my thing. Too full of cutesy eccentric characters who aren't 'real' feeling at all. Basically a romance with WWII horrors to offset all of the quaintness.

In both cases, it seems that I found the characters unbelievable and therefore disliked the book. That is generally true for me. A single exception is The Night Circus where the circus itself lit up the book and stays in my mind long after I read it.

>46 nancyewhite:

which reminds me of the alchemist (just underwhelming overall) and ishmael (talk about a lecture to make your point) and most definitely the celestine prophecy (astoundingly badly written). i like the ideas in these books but not the execution, but i'm particularly critical...

which reminds me of the alchemist (just underwhelming overall) and ishmael (talk about a lecture to make your point) and most definitely the celestine prophecy (astoundingly badly written). i like the ideas in these books but not the execution, but i'm particularly critical...


Interesting selection. I read The Alchemist about 10 years ago and thought that maybe I would have liked it as a teenager. So I kept it for my daughters if I thought they were of that bent, but so far . . . no. Have never heard of the second book you mention. As for the Celestine Prophecy, I got a free copy a few years ago, and because I go by the "I can read anything" manifesto, I made it to page 32. I couldn't dump it in the charity bin . . . it had to go straight into recycling. That's a book that needs to be unwritten.

But maybe I'm just not born that way.

#47 and 48

Oops! All interesting, but doesn't belong on this group or thread. Sorry!

#46 ooh I forgot about the Guernsey pie book - I felt lectured to, because it's not like no one ever knew about the occupation of the Channel Islands until that book got written. Again, hyped like mad, everyone loved it ... meh.

>46 nancyewhite:: What you said. I was barely able to finish The Witch of Portobello.

>50 LyzzyBee: I liked the book - probably, because I knew nothing about the Channel Islands occupation.

I liked the Potato Peel book too, but perhaps I liked it because I really didn't expect to--my expectations were low. It was a pleasant surprise.

>38 MsNick: Please, no harm done. God knows I'm no Little Mary Sunshine, but this thread seems kind of negative, and with the holidays and all that dysfunction coming up, I figured this wasn't the best time for me to be in on this discussion. Enjoying the comments, though.

>53 Nickelini: my expectations were low

Instead of "low" I like to say that my expectations are "open." It just sounds better. ;)

>52 LoisB: >53 Nickelini: >55 southernbooklady: I'm now thinking about the ways in which expectations color my experience of a book. Sometimes hype makes me think it will be good and then it isn't. Sometimes I think that hype means it will be bad and then find myself pleasantly surprised. I'm going to think about this as I read next year.

i try so hard to keep my expectations "open" but struggle. i'm almost always disappointed by books that i expect to like and almost always pleasantly surprised by those i don't have high hopes for. so i actively try not to go in wanting to love a book but it can be hard for me.

i like your phrasing, though >55 southernbooklady:.

>57 overlycriticalelisa: . i'm almost always disappointed by books that i expect to like and almost always pleasantly surprised by those i don't have high hopes for

I suppose because I'm a book reviewer, I'm hyper-aware of my expectations and more to the point, where they come from. And it's not like I approach every book like it is a blank slate. If it is nonfiction, my expectations are colored by how much I already know about the subject, or the standards I think apply to journalism and research. Like Rick Bragg's book on Jerry Lee Lewis -- which I expected to be a rocking good story (it was) and not a good biography (it wasn't). If it is fiction, it may be colored by any number of things--such as what I thought about other books by the author, or even the book I read just prior. I remember last winter being almost afraid to pick up another book after having spent a couple weeks diving into Bruno Schulz's work. I was sure anything that followed wouldn't measure up.

But one thing I do relentlessly push to the bottom of my list of expectations is what others have thought of it. Popularity will put a book "on my radar," so to speak but that's about the extent of it. There are a couple people in my life who I know well enough, and they know me well enough, that we trust each other's recommendations -- my mother is one of them, I'll read anything she suggests to me. But "hype" is completely unimportant. I've always considered the term "overhyped" to be a judgment not on the book, but on its readers.

>47 overlycriticalelisa: My daughter's friends were all infatuated about The Celestine Prophecy during high school. Rose was completely underwhelmed and I was so proud of her not being caught by that low-brow excuse for philosophy.

>47 overlycriticalelisa: >59 2wonderY: Definitely agree on The Celestine Prophecy. I've never read The Alchemist, but I've sworn of anything by Paulo Coelho since some years ago when I read The Witch of Portobello, which reminded me very much of The Celestine Prophecy.

>58 southernbooklady:

i try very, very hard to discount the hype - either what i've heard from society at large or from whoever recommended the book to me, or from myself - but often struggle with it. luckily i'm usually so far behind in my reading that it's mostly just my own hype that seeps in, so less to have to dampen, although that's the strongest. and also what you said - if i've just read an amazing book there is almost always a hangover effect for the next book, which isn't fair. i have even less chance of fighting this. for some reason the opposite isn't always true (but often is) - if i've read a book that i thought was terrible, it impacts the next book less than a great book does.

>59 2wonderY:

speaking of hype, i remember being so turned off by the statement on the cover that said, "THIS BOOK WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE." so presumptuous. i mean, most books change my life to some extent, but i don't think that's what they meant.

Can we bring this discussion back? Because I always love hearing what books (especially popular books) people weren't fans of, and why.

I myself was kind of underwhelmed by The Handmaid's Tale.