I went through my Goodreads reviews and noticed that I haven't really given that many books a rating below 3 stars. I was curious to see which books I gave a rating that I consider sub-par. And I am giving myself a challenge to re-read some of these books to see if I still hate them. It turns out that some of them are books I read a long time ago--maybe I'll like them now? Some are books I couldn't seem to get through.
I hate the idea of an author spending years of their life creating and writing a book, only for me to hate it. So I'm giving some of them a second chance--a few don't deserve a second chance quite yet, though ;) I don't even remember why I didn't like most of them.
These aren't in any particular order:
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown. I read this in 2010, so not that long ago. I wasn't impressed. It was much better suited to a movie. The only two things I found redeeming were the fact that it was a quick exciting read, and Silas. He was basically the only realistic character, even though he was the most extreme. I won't be re-reading this anytime in the next quarter century.I actually really like my review I wrote on Goodreads, important parts highlighted:
"I honestly and sincerely started reading this book with an open mind. I began with the knowledge that some people love it, and some people hate it. I entered the world of the Da Vinci Code with the expectation that I would be entertained, and perhaps a little enlightened on a few things. Instead, I was directed to every point the author wanted to make, and bashed over the head with it in each chapter. Dan Brown repeats himself OVER and OVER, as if I can't remember what I was just told in the chapter before, or heaven forbid, two chapters ago. I stopped counting how many times he informed me that the "Rose" had roots to the "rose" on a map. I felt like Dan Brown was in charge of my reading experience, not myself. By taking so much control, he limited my imagination, and limited the personal experience I could have had with the book
On top of that, I think Dan Brown is a little close-minded himself. The moral of his story seems to be that we need to open our eyes to the truth of history and the symbols and true meanings of things around us. BUT, he completely dismisses any other possibilities except for those "truths" he presents.
I found his style very "young adult." There's a pattern, identify a secret, let the characters talk about it without informing the reader, and then inform the reader in the next chapter. Seems to me to be the simplest form of mystery writing.
I came away feeling the most sympathy and connection with Silas, surprisingly. I felt no connection to Robert Langdon, and hardly any for Sophie. Silas only wanted to get out of his hole. He was abused as a child, forced into a life he should never have had to experience, and miraculously rescued by a good person (no matter his religion). He started a new life, with a new family and purpose, that no one can presume to call evil, if a little misguided and sensational. He was taken advantage of, manipulated. And he lost everything. All that remained of him at the end of the story was a white body lying in the park. He deserved more."
Next time I get the chance, I'm going to take 2 minutes and read it again. I'm sure there's something good about it. I mean, kids love it, right?
The first half of the book is like reading a really convoluted dream sequence. I couldn't even tell if the main character was male or female for like 30 pages. Everything is from the point of view of the main character, Mai, who is a Vietnamese immigrant in her senior year of high school. On top of the hardships that go along with immigration, she's dealing with her mother's failing physical and mental health, the regular mother-daughter misunderstandings, as well as the sorrow of an unidentified event leaving her only remaining family member in Vietnam.
If I was going to rate this book on IDEAS alone, I would give it 3, maybe 4, stars. But the organization and flow of the content is frustrating, slow at points, and jumbled. And although the book was written in first person, I felt like I got to know Mai's mother by her journal entries better than I got to know Mai through her narrative.
I recommend refreshing your memory on the vietnam war before reading this book. You'll be a lot less confused once you do. The book doesn't remind you itself who was on who's side, or the history and timeline in plain terms. So be prepared to remind yourself of who fought the war, what each side stood for, the major battles, and the geography of Vietnam.
Beyond the organizational and structural items that bothered me, by the time I finished the book, I found Mai's main conflict to be satisfying. Throughout the book, she is confused about how to interact with her mother. This is in the normal way mothers and daughters have a hard time understanding each other's goals, desires, history, and life. But there's the added conflict between Mai and her mother that her mother is stuck in traditional Vietnamese ways, while they are living in America and Mai is willing to adapt. They are growing much further apart than I believe they would have if Mai had grown up only in Vietnam. In the beginning, Mai is resistant to her mother's ways and lifestyle centered around Karma. But by the end of the book, although there is a bitter end in some ways, Mai learns to appreciate her mother's ways and apply them to her life in ways she can accept. While I don't agree that her mother HAD to do the things she did in order to give Mai a Karmatic "fresh start," I can appreciate Mai's appreciation, because she needed to learn her mother's heart. There are often very visual metaphores and analogies that I found quite impressive.
If someone asked me if they should read this book, I would probably say yes. But more in a "go for it and see what you think" way. I would recommend that they stick around for the end, and try to read the book in 1 or 2 sittings to not get dragged down. Everything comes together in the end.
"All I could think the whole time was, "Have I read this before?" So much like Pride and Prejudice, and even like the beginning of Emma so far. Maybe I'm not sensitive enough to discern the subtleties? I was liking it in the beginning, getting to know the characters, discovering Marianne wasn't going to be with Willoughby, and that Elinor was losing her "true love." But it felt like it dragged on in the middle. There was waaay too much detail about the depression Marianne fell into for Willoughby. I liked Pride and Prejudice. Why didn't I like this one? I wonder if I went back and read P and P again, if I'd like it a second time... I sort of feel like I've discovered what Jane Austen's style is like, and now I've read them all. I think I'll give Emma a chance and keep reading though... I didn't feel like anything was a shock, even the end when Edward really isn't married, I feel like I already knew. Maybe I've seen the movie and just can't remember.
I wish Edward would have been explained better. And why Elinor likes him. I didn't even know she liked him until like half way through, and then it was hard to believe she cared. It ended with a happy ending, but not the happy ending it could have been if we would have REALLY seen Elinor suffering. She would have been fine without him. She was ready to move on.
I don't know if it was just this book, or if I'm really beginning to be turned off by Jane Austen, but it really started to get on my nerves how often Austen doesn't specify which "she" she's talking about. Or which "Miss Whoever." She'll bring up a character you've never met before and talk about them as if you should know who they are, and then explain who they are a page later. Normally I love the style from this time period, but there seemed to be a lot of talking about nothing in this book."
Well, that's it. What about you? Do you feel similarly about any of these books? Think I should give any of them a second chance? Do you have any books you should give a second chance??
