# What books have you 'snobbed'?



## Caballo (Mar 19, 2009)

Hmmm... I enjoy fantasy novels but usually you have to sift through an enormous amount of fluff to find anything of substance.  I find myself unable to read some of the more poorly written ones --- I didn't think this was unusual until one of my friends called me a 'book snob'.

Am I the only one out there that's like this?  If I don't like the author's writing style, I can't take the story seriously, and unless it's some hugely acclaimed need-to-read book, I just can't force myself through it.

Just recently I attempted to read "The Snow Queen" (maybe it was "The Ice Princess"... I don't remember) by Mercedes Lackey (who is supposed to be one of the most prominent female fantasy authors out there) and I just could *not* do it --- the plot was so generic, the writing so cliched, etc. etc. etc.

I forced myself through the DaVinci Code (though because of it's interesting plot, it did manage to carry itself most of the time).

Anyone Else?


----------



## moderan (Mar 19, 2009)

I avoid entire subgenres because of that syndrome. Most of them are fantasy-oriented. Because my kids-in-law liked them, I had to read a slew of YA urban fantasy/paranormal romance books. I don't think I'll ever read another. They were uniformly awful in all respects and ruined vampires for me forever.
"High fantasy" is so cliche-ridden in general that I don't go anywhere near it. One can only take so many castles, dragons, elves, etc., before one is driven sane by the exposure. Blame Terry Brooks
I've never read an out-and-out romance novel, and don't think I ever will. Just seeing the covers and reading the blurbs makes me suspect that may be the worst genre for quality of writing, ever.


----------



## Caballo (Mar 19, 2009)

oh oh oh!  I totally agree with you --- 95% of romance novels are horrendous (even those written by people who are supposed to be 'masters of the craft', like Danielle Steele).  

But, don't write off romance until you've read 'Outlander' by Diana Ga-something or other.  Really good (if long and slightly "mary-sue"ish at times).  It's like the romance book that could just be a normal book... lol.


----------



## SevenWritez (Mar 19, 2009)

A Farewell to Arms and Rebecca were both excellent; I consider them romance novels. Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, if a novel is offering me little, I will quit reading it regardless of the accolades. I remember enjoying Catch-22 for the first hundred-something pages, until it occured to me that Heller was re-writing the same manner of joke over and over. I stopped laughing, I lost interest, the characters bored me and I put the novel down. 

I can't imagine trying fantasy, though. I've skimmed through a few, and the skim was enough.


----------



## moderan (Mar 19, 2009)

Outlander is Diana _Gabaldon_. My girlfriend has the entire series. I tried to read some of it and it doesn't hold my interest. It's a "historical romance" with some faux sci-fi/fantasy elements thrown in, somewhat inferior to similar period pieces like DeCamp and Pratt's Compleat Enchanter or Dickson's Dragon books.
It does seem to have a good deal of historically accurate detail though, especially concerning the early Scots and Picts. She really likes it. Not for me though.
Seven, part of the idea behind Catch-22 is that repetitive nature of things. I understand what you're saying, but there are subtle differences each time around. Not the best book in the universe, but a good one. Something Happened also has some moments, but Good as Gold was awful.
Fwiw, I liked the DaVinci Code the first time around.


----------



## The Backward OX (Mar 19, 2009)

_[ot]I would be rather suspicious about the overall thought processes, the general mental condition, of people who write phantasy [/ot]_


----------



## The Backward OX (Mar 19, 2009)

DaVinci was no more than some clever cashing-in on the non-fiction _The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail._


----------



## Edgewise (Mar 19, 2009)

The Backward OX said:


> DaVinci was no more than some clever cashing-in on the non-fiction _The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail._


 
Fooled me.  I thought it was cleverly cashing in on the too-sophisticated-not-to-read-but-too-retarded-to-read-anything-with-actual-substance crowd.  Dan Brown may have ruined history forever.  People actually use that book as a historical source for their retarded conspiracy babbling.  Then again, I've met people who think that the film 10 Commandments is biblicaly sound (apparently Charlton Heston gunned down Pharaoh's armies with an AR-15), and that Enemy at the Gates is proof that the Soviets forced their men to charge by the thousands into enemy tanks and machine guns without being armed.  So I guess Browns book was simply operating in reverse.


----------



## The Backward OX (Mar 19, 2009)

Edgewise said:


> I've met people who think that the film 10 Commandments is biblicaly sound (apparently Charlton Heston gunned down Pharaoh's armies with an AR-15), and that Enemy at the Gates is proof that the Soviets forced their men to charge by the thousands into enemy tanks and machine guns without being armed.


 
This is possibly just the tip of a large mass of ice that has broken away from a glacier and floats in the sea with the greater part of its bulk under the water.

In my own family _(((shudder)))_ there are two people who, respectively, have read a work of fiction and believed it to be true, and have watched a short TV mini-series featuring a well-known native Australian and believed it to be a documentary on his life.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Mar 19, 2009)

There's definitely plenty of historical fact in Enemy At The Gates (loosely interpreted).  It's based on the real guy who racked up all those kills, and there was a woman in his team who did quite well, although I don't think they really include her in the movie.  Been along time since I watched it.  I'll take your word abuot the charging soldiers.

I "snob" most books.  DaVinci code is an obvious one.  I couldn't even read it the first time I tried, but after reading Angels and Demons (still poorly written and executed, but fun to read) I came back to it and finished it.  Yeah, it sucks, but it's a good book to read on a plane or something I guess.  And everyone knows he stole it from those three other guys' book, Bruce.

I'm trying to think of others.  Harry Potter, obviously.  I read the first book a couple years ago because I heard so much praise for it, expecting something wonderful, and it was just a mediocre children's book.  There's a trilogy about scientists cloning Jesus from DNA discovered on the shroud or turin that alot of my fraternity friends raved about, but I couldn't get through more than twenty pages.  Horrible, horrible writing.  Makes Dan Brown look like Hemingway.  I ended up reading the the first two books of the trilogy later anyway, but couldn't get any farther.  Any fantasy book besides Wheel of Time I snob.  I snobbed Lord of the Rings the first time I read it.  Sci-fi I also snob.  And those dime novels with pictures of Fabio shirtless on the cover.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Mar 19, 2009)

There was a government-sponsored project to drain the Red Sea (can't remember which government) and find all the gold and treasures left down there by Pharaoh's army.  They spent tens of millions on it.

Oh, so I guess I snob the Bible too.  Poorly written tripe.

EDIT: And, yes, I've actually read most of the Bible.  My grandfather has read it like four times or something ridiculous like that.  No idea how he can stand it.


----------



## T.N. Kettman (Mar 19, 2009)

I am reading Twilight because my sister really enjoyed it, and she wants to watch the movie with me when it comes out on video.  (She's 28 btw.  Goes to show you this book has captured readers of all ages.)  I am almost finished, and thought the plot is keeping my attention, I really grit my teeth at some of the poor, cliche writing.  But then I remind myself, hey, Stephanie Meyer (is that her name?) is published, and I'm not really, so maybe I can learn something from her.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Mar 19, 2009)

I half-snob Atlas Shrugged.  Too long, preachy, repetitive of Fountainhead, stupid at parts, and over-rated.  Fountainhead is one of my favorites, though.


----------



## moderan (Mar 19, 2009)

Don't understand why you snob sci-fi, Doc. The bulk of it is better-written than any other genre and has more ideas per square page. Perhaps it is that you tend to take things literally.
Couldn't get through Wheel of Time. Overhyped.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Mar 20, 2009)

I have the Dune books, just never read them.  Maybe they'll change my mind about Sci-Fi.  Someone gave me Wheel of Time when I was in highschool, and I'd never heard of it, thought it would suck, and was incredibly surprised.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Mar 20, 2009)

Okay, you got me thinking about it, moderan.  I love Dick, enjoy some of Bradbury's stuff, and I had an audiobook of Asimov's which I never finished listening to, but didn't hate.  And the Star Wars original three are probably my favorite movies.  And it wouldn't be too hard to argue that Clockwork Orange is sci-fi, although I've never viewed it as such.  Love that one too.


----------



## Stewart (Mar 23, 2009)

I tend not to read novels that are actively marketed as part of a genre, preferring novels that are deemed literary - whatever that really means - over things like sci-fi, fantasy, and romance. Sometimes there are crossovers - magical realism being a branch of fantasy, for example - and while I would prefer to take a book on the Wildean premise of it being good or bad, that is all, but those awful covers, titles, and reams of never ending series sing _bad_ before you've even picked them up. I _like_ the idea of being a 'book snob', it shows I'm discerning.


----------



## Hoot08 (Mar 23, 2009)

I've snobbed the Harry Potter series. It may just be the movies which have put me off and makes me unable to get into any of the novels. I hate those movies, me and my girlfriend went to the first one in seventh grade and we both fell asleep during it, no joke. Though I guess I shouldn't snob a book based on the movie or for the fact that I haven't read it. I don't know there is just something that makes me wary of Harry Potter.


----------



## moderan (Mar 23, 2009)

Possibly the hype? I snob Potter as well, though I did read most of the first one. It just seems like a mishmash of l'Engle and CS Lewis with a big helping of those preteen-aimed Scholastic novels and stuff like the Groovy Goolies for seasoning.
Doc, you know I like me some scifi and I don't think I've steered you wrong with recs over the last year or so. The first Dune book is exemplary if a little slowmoving, the second two decent enough, and from the fourth on they lessen in quality. You seem to like near-future stuff from that list, try some Gibson or Stephenson. Neuromancer, Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon are highly recommended. Also Gibson's Pattern Recognition, which straddles the border between sf and litfic. 
Burgess' Clockwork is dystopian sf by my definitions.


----------



## Katastrof (Mar 23, 2009)

I don't really snob anything but romance and high fantasy, but mod's right about Stephenson; the guy can write pretty damn good novels. I even read the entire Baroque Cycle from start to finish and enjoyed it alot (Quicksilver can be a little boring at first if you don't appreciate Newton and what he did for science, but it gets a whole lot better.)


----------



## SparkyLT (Mar 23, 2009)

There are several authors - Judy Blume is one (a kid's writer, I know, but I didn't like her when I was a kid) - that I don't like, and I put it down to their style. Agatha Christie, Daneille Steele, Pamela Dean, Cormac McCarthy (so kill me) - for various reasons, I have officially snobbed these people.


----------



## Katastrof (Mar 23, 2009)

By-the-way Sparky the avatar is an Alien from Alien. (I know it's off-topic, and random, but I was reading some older posts and I saw that I had not replied to you. So now I did.:smile


----------



## moderan (Apr 3, 2009)

Katastrof said:


> I don't really snob anything but romance and high fantasy, but mod's right about Stephenson; the guy can write pretty damn good novels. I even read the entire Baroque Cycle from start to finish and enjoyed it alot (Quicksilver can be a little boring at first if you don't appreciate Newton and what he did for science, but it gets a whole lot better.)


 
Hmm. I haven't read the Baroque Cycle, though I have it in my bookpile. I've been busy snobbing self-help books and anything recommended by Oprah.
Today I also snobbed rockstar biographies, tomorrow I'll find something else (though perhaps not as badly-written as those). It is much more satisfying, I believe, to turn one's nose up at entire subgenres than to single out any individual practitioner. True Crime, perhaps, tomorrow.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Apr 3, 2009)

I snob Palahniuk for the most part.  I like his style, and some of his stuff is great, but his overall body of work is way overrated in my opinion.  I'm starting to snob Hunter Thompson too.  He's a great journalist and columnist, but he's not much of a novelist.

I can't imagine anyone not liking Judy Blume.  I reread Superfudge for like the thirtieth time last year and enjoyed it as much as I did as a kid.

I guess I'll have to check out Stephenson since you guys both recommend him.

Oh, and I read the first Harry Potter book (or most of it at least) expecting it be something really good since I've heard so much about how "adults love it too!" but I was sorely dissapointed.  It's basically just what moderan said.  Now I just look at it as a kids' book in a genre I didn't even like as a kid.


----------



## moderan (Apr 3, 2009)

I started snobbing Thompson @Generation of Swine, which was some time ago. His novels and letters are just extremely uninteresting and he burned his talent away long before he died. Still think Campaign Trail was his high-water mark. He should have done more sportswriting. 
Stephenson can be a really fun read. You do sometimes have to get past his patting-myself-on-the-back-for-my-own-cleverness stylings but his plotting is soooo Byzantine and his characters behave more or less humanly. Haven't read much Pahlaniuk but I put him in the class of writers I just don't care to read, along with Don DeLillo, Cormac McCarthy, and some others. They're probably great and all but I don't really care about what they have to say. It's the hype (again) that throws me off. I have a built-in hype repulsor, and tons of people liking something can make me not like it in a _hurry_.
Plus I thought Fight Club (the movie) was transparent and stupid. We used to do Irish standoffs when I was a teenager. Most of us grew up. People don't seem to be maturing much anymore *shakes head sadly* but that's an entirely different hobbyhorse.
Love the new sigquote, Doc.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Apr 3, 2009)

Irish standoff?  Google returned nothing on it (except, coincidentally a rugby article about a Malone).

Stole the sig quote from the new Nader docu.


----------



## moderan (Apr 3, 2009)

You stand there and I swing at you and try to knock you down. You return the favor. First one to hit the ground loses.


----------



## Ungood (Apr 3, 2009)

Caballo said:


> Hmmm... I enjoy fantasy novels but usually you have to sift through an enormous amount of fluff to find anything of substance.  I find myself unable to read some of the more poorly written ones --- I didn't think this was unusual until one of my friends called me a 'book snob'.
> 
> Am I the only one out there that's like this?  If I don't like the author's writing style, I can't take the story seriously, and unless it's some hugely acclaimed need-to-read book, I just can't force myself through it



I would say your friend has no clue what they are talking about, if you tried to read something and did not like it, then you are not a snob.

If you turn your nose to something before you even give it a chance, then you are.

So with that in mind, I pretty much will give anything one chapter, if I like it, I'll *TRY* to read the rest of it.


----------



## Jinn Master (Apr 3, 2009)

For those of you who do not enjoy fantasy, read The Chronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny. 

I have yet to meet someone who hasn't liked that series.



As for the books I've snubbed- Twilight comes to mind. So does the Inheritance trilogy, the Redwall books, and anything by Kevin J Anderson.


I don't know if you could call it snubbed, but I have, to date, found myself unable to forge through the Gormenghast trilogy, even though it is very, very good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gormenghast


----------



## moderan (Apr 4, 2009)

Anything by Zelazny is good (and a good portion of his oeuvre is transcendant). "Amber" lessens in quality toward the end but what series doesn't? Good rec as far as "high fantasy for those who dislike high fantasy". Another is Lord Dunsany, if you can find the books.


----------



## Ghost.X (May 18, 2009)

I'm surprised to see so many snobby comments in the unpublished internet community. No really I am.


----------



## Robosquad (May 21, 2009)

I confess, I just plain don't like genre stories. I don't read books for a dirty thrill. I want substance and subtlety. 'Cause I'm a snob like that.

I know there's some legitimate, literary sci-fi out there. But weeding through the crap is just too hard. And even then it has the potential to become so overwrought.

As for fantasy and mystery...eh. Just....eh. I'm sure their useful for studying craft...or feeding bonfires or something.



> I'm surprised to see so many snobby comments in the unpublished internet community. No really I am.


Being an upublished writer doesn't discredit your opinions of published material. When you have that first half-written story rotting in your hard drive, do you suddenly lose your ability to determine good and bad writing? Does your sense of good taste evaporate? 

That's an absurd statement. I know plenty of people who can't write worth a damn but have an excellent sense of what genres and books are and are not worth reading. I'm guessing you can't direct a film as well as Uwe Boll, but that doesn't mean you'd be wrong for saying his films are crap.


----------



## moderan (May 22, 2009)

Ghost.X said:


> I'm surprised to see so many snobby comments in the unpublished internet community. No really I am.



Why are you surprised? And who's unpublished? I'd guess that _you_ are...in high school probably. Come back when your ears are dry.


----------



## Edgewise (May 22, 2009)

moderan said:


> I started snobbing Thompson @Generation of Swine



Thank you.  That shit was awful.

Things They Carried.  Overhyped, poorly written garbage.  Fallen Angels, which is pretty much a throwaway 'Nam novel, is better than that piece of crap.


----------



## mi is happy (May 22, 2009)

Yes I am a book snob too. I usually stomach my way through them, just to find if I was right about the ending or not. I'm right most of the time. It drives people crazy when they try to make me read a mystery and I already know who the killer is half way through. 
I never touched some of the books my mom bought me when I was younger. I usually read half way through before stopping. I hated kids books so much back then (and I still do). The minute they introduced some cute creature that talked in third person, I was done. It then went to the automatic "I'l read this later" pile.


----------



## Patrick (May 22, 2009)

Snobbery is the highest form of insecurity. =;

I've never "snobbed" anything in my life. I've highlighted what I believe to be weaknesses but I decline to assess any work of art with the view that my criteria for judgement is the correct one. It isn't, nor can it ever be. There is no right way of judging. It's better to learn from authors who are published, even the ones you consider poor. Learn from their strengths and weaknesses. All writing has weaknesses because writing is not an exact science and thank God for that.

The title for this thread should also read: "which books" and not "what books" as you are asking for select examples from a wider range. :lone: I guess the important thing to remember is that while snobbery may get you off, it's pretty hurtful to the writer who has spent a great deal of their time writing something they believe in, at least as far as the artistic merit of it is concerned.

There is nothing wrong with firm criticism but this idea of snobbery is not really to my liking. When you have earned the countless millions of a J.K.Rowling and are adored for your writing by a similar number of people, you can be a snob, until then, you're an aspiring writer who should have some kind of respect for those who have made a success of their writing. Whether you like it or not, you're being very bitter if you fail to acknowledge established authors and just brush them off as: "shit" or any other equally meaningless claim.


----------



## Like a Fox (May 22, 2009)

I keep snobbing Dan Brown.

I have no justification, I've no doubt I will enjoy his books when I get around to reading them. They just always fall to the very back of my GIANT "to read" pile


----------



## MEShammas (May 22, 2009)

Dr. Malone said:


> I have the Dune books, just never read them.  Maybe they'll change my mind about Sci-Fi.  Someone gave me Wheel of Time when I was in highschool, and I'd never heard of it, thought it would suck, and was incredibly surprised.



Fantasy and sci-fi has some of the best material a novel can have.


----------



## k3ng (May 22, 2009)

Why snob something? 

Honestly, I find it encouraging to read stuff that's 'below standards' sometimes just to see what's possible. I mean, come on... if a book that you think is crap can get published, isn't that indication that you are more likely to get published as well?

But that's sidetracking a little I guess. We're talking about reading preferences here aren't we? At least I think so.

For me, I often take a research point of view when I read nowadays. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I do. I tend to see and dissect the book to see what made it into, well.. novel material. Which was the only reason why I ever read Harry Potter - to find out what made it so successful. 

I agree that Fantasy has been stretching a little for quite some time now, but I still read it just to see what makes it have that power of continuity. (Drizzt anyone?) 

The one and ONLY book I've ever snobbed in that sense is Eragon. Not gonna read it.


----------



## Patrick (May 22, 2009)

Fantasy has its roots in Ancient Greece. There's a wealth of depth to it even if magic and so on is a fairly common sight in fantasy novels. It's effectively timeless and will continue to allow authors to portray big ideas and big tragedies in a palatable way. Done well, there's nothing better.


----------



## Beja-Beja (May 22, 2009)

Under The Tuscan Sun was the last book I remember snobbing. I picked it up ad started reading it by mistake and thought it was terrible. I can see why people would snob Dan Brown but I'm not ashamed to say I like him.

The first book I can remember snobbing after I became interested in reading was The Fire Within which is at the same time probably the worst book ever published and the reason I decided to write myself.


----------



## RoundEye (Jun 7, 2009)

I guess by all definitions in this thread I’m a book snob. Truth be told though, I have such eclectic taste in books I don’t stick to any one genera. I doubt I’ll ever pick up any romance or self-help books though. 

_The Lord of the Rings_, I didn’t make it through the first chapter of that book. I’ll try someday to read it again but probably in the distant future. I like the movies so much I bought a 12 DVD box set (the U.S. version has over 11 hours of video). By adding in the deleted scenes it made an already long trilogy of movies even longer. 

The only genera I’ve been trying to stick to lately is quasi cult classics, my latest book being _1984_.


----------



## Tom88 (Jun 8, 2009)

Just Twilight, and then _gasp! _I started reading it.

I've an adolescent friend-that's-a-girl who was tired of me criticizing it every time it came up in conversation. She said my pre-emptive judgement wasn't justified, and that my opinion was mere speculation until I read the damn thing.

200 pages into the first (I'm not reading the rest of the series), and my opinion has been more than validated. The writing is just god-awful. It's so flat, and riddled with cliches. I understand her market, but christ! 
I think she was hoping that if I read it I would be swayed and converted, but all its done is given me fuel for the fire. I do get a morbid kind of enjoyment texting her any given passage of overwrought melodrama, I don't even have to take the piss out of it, it basically insults itself. 

I'm not the bitter asshole I come across as, and I think it's unfair to pass off high standards as snobbery. I don't like sitting through a shit film, so why would I want to read something that's similarly awful, and hard to digest? Books require more investment, so one has a right to high standards.

But what do I know? I'm unpublished.


----------



## Niko90 (Jun 11, 2009)

I have a thing for snobbing "mainstram" books. I started reading the Harry Potter series nack then, when it wasn't popular, and I thought it was ok; however, when it became too popular, I found lots of mistakes and bullcrap, and stopped reading them.

Same with Twilight. When my sister read it, I thought about reading it too, but then nobody would shut up about it on my school, so I forgot about it.

So, point is, I mostly enjoy "obscure" books, that means, books that nobody talks about that much. Because they have really new ideas and are incredibly entertaining. Try comparing Baxter's _Time Odyssey_ with Simak's _City _(Simak isn't well known in mainstram SF, sadly)


----------



## moderan (Jun 11, 2009)

It's because the sf boom years of the 70s ended. Lots of worthy writers fell by the wayside, victimized by del Rey's promotion of half-assed high fantasy (Brooks, Donaldson, et al, as noted earlier in this thread) and ST/SW clone/retreads, Terry Carr retiring as an editor and then passing away, some other factors.
The sales figures for some people were still decent but they were tossed aside anyway because their ideas weren't in vogue. I could make a list a yard long here but all you need to do is go to the bookstore and look at the titles and authors, and note that sf and fantasy are now lumped together, where in the heyday of sf sales (roughly 1968-1977) they weren't.
But a good used store will have City and Ring Around the Sun and Shakespeare's Planet and many others.


----------



## Ghost.X (Jun 13, 2009)

I'm surprised people actually responded to my comment instead of falling to obscurity like it probably should have.



moderan said:


> Why are you surprised? And who's unpublished? I'd guess that _you_ are...in high school probably. Come back when your ears are dry.



And I'm surprised you already know so much about me. Damn, you must be fucking psychic or something.


----------



## RogueGunslinger (Jun 13, 2009)

I snob most things I read. I'm a terrible reader, really. Only finish a few books a month if I'm lucky.


----------



## Ghost.X (Jun 13, 2009)

My standards are usually high and I tend to take a pro literary view on things. Yet lately I stopped caring and I read whatever in hopes of just enjoying a good story.

Chocolate chip cookies anyone?


----------

