Series you were disappointed with...

[Observer]

Red Pyramid. I resisted reading it for obvious reasons, but eventually decided to give it a go.

It's the first book I've read that didn't fall under the two categories: Can't put it down, and Occasionally take a break.

I couldn't read more than a chapter at a time.

"Wise Man's Fear" was great for me until Ferulian. I had to skim a whole third of the book before it resumed its greatness

Eragon. Bleuck.

Hunger Games, though most of my reasons have already been stated

Maximum Ride. Oh, how I loved this series. I think it was around book three where I started to lose interest. Nothing new hapened, and every book felt like a rehash. I really do hope it gets better, though I doubt it will.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Observer

[Harbinger]

Well, the Belgariad was written in the 80s. Things were different then, and fantasy was still, essentially, in it's infancy. Additionally, it is not really a story about defeating the big bad. As with all stories that follows the Hero's Journey archetype, the story is about the journey, and how the characters grow and change over the course of the adventure. The big bad is not the goal, just the obstacle they have to overcome.

Yes I grasp the concept of the Hero's Journey and fiction writing in general. Protagonist versus antagonist with opposing goals and the conflict that ensues because of those goals. Garion's goal and "destiny" as I recall was to save the world, obviously not to defeat the big bad, but the big bad was the conflict he had to defeat in order to save the world. So his main goal in the series was to defeat this big bad in order to save the world. My quibble wasn't about the big bad not being the goal but about their "epic" conflict lasting a mere few pages and being underwhelming.

It would be like Luke Skywalker in the Return of the Jedi easily killing both Darth Vader and the Emperor in a matter of minutes of screen time, minus the epic lightsaber duel and the extensive spiritual inner conflict he dealt with along the way. Hence one reason I found the Belgariad to be rather disappointing.

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

Yes I grasp the concept of the Hero's Journey and fiction writing in general. Protagonist versus antagonist with opposing goals and the conflict that ensues because of those goals. Garion's goal and "destiny" as I recall was to save the world, obviously not to defeat the big bad, but the big bad was the conflict he had to defeat in order to save the world. So his main goal in the series was to defeat this big bad in order to save the world. My quibble wasn't about the big bad not being the goal but about their "epic" conflict lasting a mere few pages and being underwhelming.

It would be like Luke Skywalker in the Return of the Jedi easily killing both Darth Vader and the Emperor in a matter of minutes of screen time, minus the epic lightsaber duel and the extensive spiritual inner conflict he dealt with along the way. Hence one reason I found the Belgariad to be rather disappointing.

You're basing your entire disappointment on a story by its end? How was the rest of the story, might I ask? How did the writer make you feel about the characters? With stories like the Belgariad, as Shiver said, it's not about the destination that matters. Whether the final fight is an epic, 100-page fight or not, the one thing that really matters is the journey we took, watching the characters develop and grow, learn from mistakes and gain knowledge, strength, support, find love(?), kindle desires out of duty they never would've thought they had.

If in the course of this journey the hero discovers a weakness they can exploit it's plausible your last battle might only last minutes. Most heroes have dealt with their inner conflicts by this time (read: The Gathering Storm) and enter the conflict confidently.

The fact that Skywalker took so long to defeat his opponents was because he spent more time whining about everything than actually learning something. So by the conclusion he still had unsettled feelings. And oh yeah, by the way "Luke, I am your father." Nice curveball.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Lyrebon

[Shivertongue he/him]

Additionally, Jedi do not kill unless they have to. Luke Striking down Vader and the Emperor would have been exactly what the Emperor wanted, as it would have likely led Luke to the Dark Side.

[Observer]

The Only Ones.

The whole book is written the way I'd write a flashback. It totally wrecked any impact the story may have had. Plus, every 50 pages or so you get a "Mysterious" interlude with nameless people saying intentionally confusing things. ALl that did was irritate me. It didn't get me wondering, it didn't leave me intrigued, it left my annoyed.

[Aminar]

Additionally, Jedi do not kill unless they have to. Luke Striking down Vader and the Emperor would have been exactly what the Emperor wanted, as it would have likely led Luke to the Dark Side.

But all the storm troopers(and the death star).

I'm giving Malazan another go. I find myself constantly visiting the wiki while I read because there are so many non-memorable characters showing back up. In all honesty though, I think the biggest problem is that series has no center. In The Wheel of Time the center is Rand, Mat, and Perrin. In A game of Thrones the center is generally considered to be Jon and Dani. In Malazan book 2 has almost no characters from book 1, and the ones that are there aren't in book 3. Then book 4's entire first act is a seemingly minor character you meet in book 2 telling how he got there and you don't have any of the important characters from book 3. It has books that keep flopping between Storylines in a very non-linear fashion and it does nothing to explain this to you.

[Shivertongue he/him]

But all the storm troopers(and the death star).

I'm giving Malazan another go. I find myself constantly visiting the wiki while I read because there are so many non-memorable characters showing back up. In all honesty though, I think the biggest problem is that series has no center. In The Wheel of Time the center is Rand, Mat, and Perrin. In A game of Thrones the center is generally considered to be Jon and Dani. In Malazan book 2 has almost no characters from book 1, and the ones that are there aren't in book 3. Then book 4's entire first act is a seemingly minor character you meet in book 2 telling how he got there and you don't have any of the important characters from book 3. It has books that keep flopping between Storylines in a very non-linear fashion and it does nothing to explain this to you.

I'm actually making the same attempt, to give me something else to read so I don't finish my Wheel of Time reread too quickly. I'm about 200 pages into Gardens of the Moon, and like you, I've found myself constantly going to the Malazan wiki just to remember who random people are.

I agree that there seems to be no focus to the story. Additionally, as a writer, Erikson does things that through me out of the story on a craft-level. The naming patterns, for one; Genabackis, for example, has no naming patterns. On this continent, you have cities with names like Darujhistan, Pale, and One Eye Cat. Character names don't follow any sort of pattern, and I'm increasingly convinced that names were decided on whenever Erikson came up with something that sounded cool. Now, this could very well be a matter of mixing cultures - for all I know, Genabackis is a sort of melting pot for the world, despite the appearance that the level of technology and cultural development doesn't seem to be at this stage. It makes sense for the Malazan Empire, of course - they've apparently conquered so many different peoples, I'm fine with the apparent cultural bleed.

Of course, this could all be explained in later books for all I know. But right now, it's throwing me out of the story.

[Observer]

Honor Among Thieves. Couldn't stand it. It felt like every moment things started to drag, the author just dumped a whole load of unnecessary curses that went on for a few pages and hoped they'd fill the space well enough. Likewise, the storyline felt rather predictable. (Pleasedon'tflameme?)

Edited September 3, 2012 by Observer

[Cracknut he/him]

But all the storm troopers(and the death star).

I'm giving Malazan another go. I find myself constantly visiting the wiki while I read because there are so many non-memorable characters showing back up.

I'm actually making the same attempt, to give me something else to read so I don't finish my Wheel of Time reread too quickly. I'm about 200 pages into Gardens of the Moon, and like you, I've found myself constantly going to the Malazan wiki just to remember who random people are.

Maybe its because you read last book year ago or something? Because I've read first two books quickly and I only once visited wiki and I don't even remember why... Had 2 month pause on those books but still remember pretty much every character...

Yeah I agree its a bit hard to follow because it doesn't has center but thats one of the most interesting and entertaining things there... Its like Pulp Fiction but epic fantasy.

Edited September 3, 2012 by 213

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

That's where our opinions differ and why it's so difficult to empathise with any of the characters. Personally, I don't like stories that flit around without giving you a chance to get your bearings. I don't like stories that are hard to follow because of poor authorial choices (I like intelligent, thought-provoking stories that puzzle you, not confusingly muddled ones).

[chongjasmine]

I am disappointed with the kingfisher series.

Cannot get past the first book.

Heard so much praises for this series, and yet it was so boring for me.

[Observer]

Argh, I can't remember for the life of me what the kingfisher series is >_>

Edited September 19, 2012 by Observer

[chongjasmine]

I was disappointed with the sword of truth series.

Two of the books in the series turn me off.

[Trizee]

The Farseer by Robin Hobb, I couldn't get through the first book. I read about a hundred pages and nothing interesting had happened yet.

Gardens of the Moon, though I understood its worth pushing through (couldn't finish it the first time), and I plan to try again sometime.

Nine Princes in Amber by Roger Zelazny. It was just badly written. The main character sees all these spectacular thing and it doesn't seem to phase him. I put down the book when the author mentioned in passing that a T-Rex walked across the road, and the main character didn't blink an eye.

[Observer]

This is the part where I say "The Hobbit", "Lord of the Rings", "Weel of Time", or some other beloved fantasy book and earn myself a few thousand downvotes. Thankfully, I liked the above, so instead I'll just say that series I picked up for who knows why: "Gone". It defies description what they've done to what could have potentially been a good idea. Plus I hate superpower books, truth be told.

[McCullough he/him]

I loved the Liveship books. My favorite trilogy of Hobb's.

I could not like the Soldier Son books though. I stopped after the first one. When the huge plague hit and everyone was dying, I realized I simply did not care.

I had to slog through to the finish of the Soldier Son trilogy. I just can't leave a book unfinished. The series was so depressing that the end just really didn't do it for me. It seemed like she was just piling on. I mean, yeah, there needs to be opposition, but wow, she took it up a notch.

Edited September 26, 2012 by McCullough

[Harbinger]

Yeah I'll second the Farseer books by Robin Hobb, I actually slogged through the first 2 and most of the 3rd before I just put it down one day and moved onto something else, it wasn't a conscious decision, I just was so bored with it I didn't care. Still don't know how it ended, and well... meh.

I know part of the problem I had was that considering the word "assassin" is in the title of all three he never really does anything "assassiny" except maybe one or two times. I remember thinking for someone supposedly trained since childhood to fight and kill he was pretty bad at it. You'd think an assassin would be subtle and quiet but he'd run around slashing people like Jason Vorhees.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Harbinger

[dyring]

I read most of Hobbs books, but not a clue why. Can´t stop once I started I supose. I was really disapointed by them, feels like half the book is the main character whining in a depressing manner:p. The ones Iv liked the least among the book(s) I´v finished I think.

[Harbinger]

Yeah and it's one of those series that always seems to end up on "Best Fantasy" lists, and I'm always wondering why.

[Arachiel she/her]

I don't remember what the series is called (I only read book #1) but the City of Bones was waaaay worse than I thought it'd be. I'd heard it was good, but meh. It went on for too long; I thought most of the characters were mean; it was dumb how the author threw in a homosexual character just to push an agenda; and it really disturbed me that

Clary and Jace are related. Of course, I heard that later on they find out that this isn't true, but just the fact that they were going to stay together still believing they were siblings really turned me off.

However, if you liked his book, don't let my opinions turn you around. It just wasn't my thing.

 

And yes, the Sword of Truth series as well.

 

The Hunger Games started great (I really liked book1), and then by book 3 it was bleh.

[Quiver he/him]

Sword of Truth [/bandwagon]

Ignoring the gratuitous sexual violence, the pacing and plotting of those books threw me off. I described the second book to a friend thusly:

There's a magic McGuffin that the villain needs. The heroes don't find out it exists until 100 pages from the end- and they STILL win!

Of course, I'm obsessive-compulsive about finishing series, so I need to get the next one soon.

EDIT: Actually, gratuitous is the wrong word, since it implies there's a degree of it which is acceptable. I don't want to get into the fairly explicit stuff, but after a point, it begins to read as Goodkinds personal fantasy.

Similarly, I was disappointed with certain chapters of A Feast for Crows, which kind of gave a vibe of Martin writing to indulge himself, though that was, arguably, still more important than the mord sith.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Quiver

[Gamma Fiend he/him]

I'll admit it. I'm prepared for the onslaught of downvotes.

Didn't really care too much for the Hobbit. And can never make it more than 2 chapters into Lord of the Rings.

I acknowledge and respect the books for what they are and what they accomplished in the fantasy world, and props to JRR Tolkien, but I just don't dig the writing. Too dry for me.  I know it did the dwarves and elves and all that before it was the cliche thing, but I just don't really like the plot all that much.

The Worldbuilding is fantastic and superb, and that's great. I love that part of it. Just not the story itself.

Meh, I'm weird like that.  :/

[Moogle]

I'll admit it. I'm prepared for the onslaught of downvotes.

Didn't really care too much for the Hobbit. And can never make it more than 2 chapters into Lord of the Rings.

I acknowledge and respect the books for what they are and what they accomplished in the fantasy world, and props to JRR Tolkien, but I just don't dig the writing. Too dry for me.  I know it did the dwarves and elves and all that before it was the cliche thing, but I just don't really like the plot all that much.

The Worldbuilding is fantastic and superb, and that's great. I love that part of it. Just not the story itself.

Meh, I'm weird like that.  :/

 

I for one don't blame you. I highly enjoyed The Hobbit, but LOTR was just... okay. Tolkien has been praised to the ends of the earth by Sanderson and and Robert Jordan, but I just don't see it. He pioneered the genre, for which I'm grateful, but the books were lacking in quite a few ways.

[GreyPilgrim he/him]

I will not sit down for this blasphemy, the two of you! Feel the wrath of the Grey Pilgrim!

Just kidding. I love Tolkien's work, and totally respect your opinions. I do agree that the opening of the Lord of the Rings is a little dry the first time through. I really respect the world and mythology though. But again, nothing against you for not liking it.

More on topic, I have never been able to get in to the Narnia books. Maybe it's all the religious allegory. I don't know.

[Gamma Fiend he/him]

Whew. I thought for sure dem hobbitses would flock in and defend their preciouses.

Jokes aside, I do respect the hell out off the Middle Earth lore and depth of the world. But getting off of Hobbit bashing...

I didn't really like the Hunger Games trilogy. Felt too... generic to me. Take Orwellian totalitarianism and mash it with battle royale/Richard Bachman Running Man or any death games scenario. Katniss was just a pain to read. She was so morose and whiny. Not to mention her opiate struggle in the latter half. And apologies for no spoiler tags, but I don't think it's a surprise that she's a reluctant, half-assed symbol for a simplistic revolution in an implausible society.