Way to ruin a book

I probably still will at some point. Maybe. Hopefully.

 

I'm going to get pounded by hate posts, but...

Twilight had a great plot premis, Stephanie Meyer failed in presenting it. So much potential, wasted. I mean really, you could have done so much, but you had to make Edward sparkle, and Bella a hapless romantic, helpless, and a klutz. Why? Prolly to give Edward a reason to stick around her, God knows it wasn't for the personality. I mean really the first big flaw I had with that series (stopped less than half way through the fan fic of a last book) wasn't that the vampires could be out in the day, I read some of that previously, plus it's a town where it's cloudy most of the time, so they are safe from the sun, but that they didn't have fangs, I mean really, that was the FIRST problem the second was the sparkling, the 3rd was the lack of human ability to kill, or more specificly the lack of weakness. They could only kill eachother or be killed by a shape shifter. Bella's helplessness when Edward wasn't around (including turning into an adrenaline junkie just so she could "see" him). I could go on for quite some time on this topic.

~Phantom

 

^If you've read any posts about Twilight at all on this forum, you'll know that you're not going to get pounded by hate posts. Most of the people here either really hate Twilight or bash it to fit in.

 

Ruin a book? Simple, make a sequal to it that makes others think the first book is just as bad

I could named sooooo many books

 

I meant because I thought it had such potential, and even sort of enjoyed the first book (though I bash it a bit)

~Phantom

 

The "cliffhanger ending" - bar none the most irritating way to end a novel. Ever.

There are ways to leave a book open for a sequel, and keep the reader wanting more, without leaving them hanging. I hate it when a book just ends - and it's obvious that the author is either vying for a sequel from the publisher, or already working on one that won't be available for a couple more years.

Ugh. Please stop doing that, authors. You know who you are. . .

 

Cliffhangers seem like money-grabbers to me, because it usually means there will be a sequel or two.

 

The Forest of Hands and Teeth -- I hate reading books with poor attention grabbing skills.

In my reading group last summer, several of us despised this book because of the blunt fact that it sucked. At first, I was beginning to believe that I was the only one not interested and quite disappointed about the story line and attention grabbing skills, but come to find out, my friend - as well as several others in the group, disliked the book as well. The fact that we all disliked it convinced me that it was a very poor story.

I stopped reading the story within the third or fourth chapter because reading it was just a bunch of word gebberish.

No offense to Carrie Ryan (the author) but she could've done a lot better with this novel. I love reading and I love books, but this is the ONLY book I've ever read that I DO NOT recommend to anyone. It was a bunch of rubbish if you ask me.

 

I agree. I think that even if a book is part of a series, there are still ways to resolve a storyline within the current novel that still leave the reader wanting to know what happens in the overall story arc, without resorting to cliffhangers.

 

Ironically that makes me want to read it, just to see how bad it really is.

 

When a story ends with a big deus ex machina. It's like, "Oh no, insurmountable problem! Whatever shall we do? Oh wait, let's throw in this perfect little event/person/thing, now it's all solved, and no suspense either!"

 

I always hate that! Every time I read a really good book, once I've reached the end, bam! There's a cliffhanger and you'll have to wait for a really long time for it to come out. Sometimes I even thought that they really don't need a sequel and that the story is fine.

 

Even worse is when you wait for the sequel and it ends up not being worth the wait.

 

Starting a series with one or two strong books, then letting the series continue indefinitely, never coming to a resolution (I'm looking at you, fantasy authors).

 

Fake science should sound reasonable, and people without a scientific base shouldn't try to create reasonable fake science because they'll most certainly fail.

However, I think it's important to separate the "almost real" science one should use for Science Fiction from the "not too stupid" science one could use in all kinds of fantasy, including fantasy thriller or horror.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how does the novel explain the topic of the relation between an old man and a teen girl. And "but the old man has a young body so it's not wrong" doesn't really work for me.

 

Well, I like the Pendragon Series by D.J McHale. But it just boggles my mind how stupid Bobby can be.

 

A book I never liked the ending for was The Hobbit. It is such a brilliant novel but at the end, during the Battle of Five Armies, Bilbo is knocked unconscious and none of it is really described? Really annoying!

 

I've just started Game of Thrones, and have already noticed:

• Clunky, contrived exposition (people asking about stuff they surely already know, just so the reader can listen in to the explanation); and
• A golden sword. Gold is arguably the worst possible substance from which to make a sword. Anything else that would be as bad at keeping its edge (or, indeed, its shape) in battle would be lighter, or at least cheaper to throw away to get rid of the encumbrance. I'd excuse it if it were just hung on a wall for decoration, but this wasn't.

I am less than impressed.

 

The Earth isn't made up of mostly water. By my calculations, Earth is only about 0.12% water. The water's spread out over much of the surface, but once you get inside there's hardly any.

 

J.K Rowling had clearly run out of good ideas by the time deathly hallows came. It was, imo, by far her worst book in the series. There was a lot of moaning from Harry, and it felt rushed and waffly at times. The final battle at the end had me cringing no end with the likes of all the house elves running around everywhere and joining in the battle. Crrrrrinnnnnnnggggge

 

B-but Bill Nye the Science Guy told me the Earth was made up of 70% water.

HAVE I BEEN LIED TOO!?








Anywhoo, I'm starting on that Origins thing. Very interesting. It'll be something for me to work through for the summer as I'm bored as frell.

 

Well yeah. But I am pretty sure that it was meant as the earth's surface is 70% COVERED by water. I actually think I remember that episode.

That seems like a rather weak book ruiner. But you know come to think of it. I don't remember him ever actually using the sword in battle. I mean I know he carries it around him but I can't for the life of me remember it being mentioned along that he ever used it. But then it's only mentioned as being gold a few times throughout the book series.

 

It's probably just gilded steel anyway; like Jaime's armour, y'know?

 

It's just an example of what seems to be a general sloppiness, preferring cliché to substance. (Yes, he does use it to kill somebody, very early on, and why would anybody carry such a thing around? It would weigh about two-and-a-half times as much as a steel sword, would be useless and effort would have to be wasted guarding it. I meant what I said about encumbrance.

 

Hmm there is that. Was it ever described as being solid gold?

Was the sword described as being solid gold or just a golden sword? Because Ice Queen brings up a good point. It could just be gilded steel. A waste? Yeah. but these are Lannisters. Gold is easy to come by.

But yeah perhaps it's more cliche and sloppiness. But I would agrue that it's more of a reminder of who Jaimie is and what house he belongs to. Which is a weapon in of itself. House Lannister is perhaps the strongest and richest house in all of Westros and they enjoy reminding people of it.