Quote:
Originally Posted by Ea
I don't think an "it was better in the old days" explanation is enough, and I don't think it covers my case. One thing I enjoy about "Lord of the Rings" (an obvious example) is the slow pace, and in general I find that a book does not necessarily have to be fast paced for me to enjoy - I even find I enjoy a slow pace more and more, so I can enjoy the prose and the multiple layers in it. In this case, I find the prose flat, bland and boring, and honestly only suited to bring the story forward. And when the story is developed as slowly as it is, and with fairly flat characters, too, I've found very little in it to enjoy. It's not "bad", just "meh".
|
That is my opinion too, and the reason I stopped reading it. I can't judge the story because I didn't read enough into the book, but the story is not what interests me in a book anyway. I do like believable characters with a depth of their own and that you can identify with (even the villains), and from the little I've read I'm not sure this book offers them.
But really I'm just chiming in to say that it's hard to judge a book from what others say about it, because there are so many different aspects to books, and different people will enjoy, or expect, or dislike, different aspects. Even among the people who didn't much like this book, we do it for different reasons, so that doesn't mean that we will all like or dislike the same books generally.
I think someone here, or in another thread, mentioned Pillars of the Earth, and although I did read it through, I thought it was OK but rather clumsily written. Just an example that mileage will differ
