That moment when the book turns terrible

[TofuTuesday]

You know when you are reading something great, and then the character says or does something beyond belief, or a character appears, or the dialogue fails? I’ve just hit it with the book I’m reading. I’m now in the ok this is stupid phase, and making myself read it.

Absolutely! It was utter drivel. Her first few Scarpetta books were so good, then that clunker. I think we used it as a firelighter in the end. It might as well have been useful.

The ending of Crawdads made a mockery of the whole book too.

Dare I ask for more details...? This sounds hilarious...

Oh trust me, it got far far worse.

Yes!! I was really enjoying it. My friend said “you’ll never see the big twist coming” .Too bloody right I didnt! I was furious.

As a general observation I get very annoyed when:
The detective just ‘sudddenly realises” who did it.
When people blink. “ He blinked”. “She blinked”. I mean its hardly essential to the plot to write that is it?

I didn't like the ending of Gone Girl, and did feel it ruined the whole thing.

I only finished The Slap because, very foolishly, it was the only book I took with me on a holiday to quite an isolated place. It was absolutely awful. You think the first character is written to be such a misogynist deliberately, but then it turns out it is just a very misogynistic book. You may (sensibly) have not got this far, but the point where a teenage girl sticks a shampoo bottle up her and the author clearly believes this is a realistic depiction of female masturbation is a very low point.

Honestly, I'm sorry-not-sorry that I've blanked out most of this pish from my memory, but I remember that parts of the book were written from the cat's point of view, and there was something about it receiving clues (I think) from a flashing light on the top of a nearby building. 😔

But hey, what do I know? Patricia Cornwell is presumably absolutely minted and I'm not, so presumably some people loved it 😂

Didn't get that far @TheRealMagic thank goodness!
I try to pack two wildly different books. One Booker type, one Rebus, Ruth Galloway or something.

I was given a first edition of the first Harry Potter book before anyone had really heard of JK Rowling but thought that the writing was so awful that I gave it away to someone…

Recently read a book that described eating a slither of cake it just tainted the whole thing for me - how does something like that get past extensive edits and proof reading?

how does something like that get past extensive edits and proof reading?

I once read a book published by a reputable publisher in which the dialogue was punctuated wrongly throughout. Basic primary school level stuff that got through editing. It was really irritating and distracting.

I have given up on it, halfway through I just realised it was too annoying although good for an idea.

I have a trick now of looking up a book I'm hating on Good Reads, and checking out the 2 and 3 star reviews. I often find that they reflect what I'm thinking and makes it easier to abandon.

I read an interview with the author when her latest book came out, she sounded extremely up herself

I did see the twist in We Are All... quite early on, I must admit. I managed to finish it in the end but didn't enjoy it.

In fact, that was the book that made me realise that just because everyone is raving about a new book it is no guarantee that it's not going to be complete garbage. I'm doing quite a lot of re-reading atm

I read a book by Prue Leith the main character was left a single mother but just took her baby to her office job and tucked her under her desk! I had a same age baby at the time and was 🙄🙄 at the utter implausibility!!

You actually guessed the sister was a chimpanzee?

The year of the locust made me so cross! I loved I Am Pilgrim so was really looking forward to it, but as another pp says, it was like two different books stuck together! Load of old shite.

I hate it when I know an area well and the author clearly hasn't been there or bothered to research.
She walked past Greggs and into the train station..... no, she really didn't!

On the other side of the coin, I love it when it is well researched and even if I haven't been there, I feel like I have.

I started off loving her books, decades ago, but they got more and more repetitive and just not credible. I wish she’d just started with new characters and a new series.

Then I completed gave up on her when she decided that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper

The fact the sister was a chimp was telepgraphed from page one, I think everyone who read it got it immediately?

I’ve just finished Katabasis, was taken out of it by the fact the English character got ill in third grade. I can only assume it’s deliberate to leave it in for all the editions, maybe it’s cheaper. Is Babel no good then? I do like her writing style.

I once threw a book across the room because the protagonist petted a dog and it was sweaty. NO. Famously, dogs don’t sweat!! That was the end for me.

I read a non-fiction book once in which the author said he'd got a degree from Oxford but the college he mentioned only exists at Cambridge.

Also a history book which presented something about the navy as fact, which I explored further and turned out to be a myth.

I found it hard to trust either book after that.

I hate it when I know an area well and the author clearly hasn't been there or bothered to research.

First Cormoran Strike book. He needed to travel from St John's Wood to Bromley. She sent him via the Blackwall Tunnel.

I started reading a Regency romance in which a character lived in Charing Cross Road. No, he didn't. I didn't read any further.

And I think I mentioned this one on another thread recently - when a character got a train from Victoria to travel to NE England.

Well not me obviously?

The Snakes - at the end. Just wtaf

Also a history book which presented something about the navy as fact, which I explored further and turned out to be a myth.
I found it hard to trust either book after that.

I once ploughed through a well reviewed book about the outbreak of the First World War, what was going on in the various governments, what diplomatic activity was taking place. Got to the last chapter and the author said Winston Churchill was First Sea Lord. So I was left wondering, if the author could be wrong about something so well known, what else had he got wrong that I wouldn't have known.