Goodreads Singapore discussion
talking about books
>
Critically-acclaimed books that you dislike
date
newest »



I read that Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' is a much better written book on the same topic. I want to see the differences for myself soon.

I attributed my boredom, and everyone else's fascination, with the fact that, when I lived in Singapore, I traveled a great deal and had been to India several times. I didn't need all that description to "take me there." I read the book in a book club once I moved back to the U.S. No one else in the book club had been to India so it held an "exotic" fascination for them.
It only goes to show how important the reader is to the work, as with all art.

Maybe it's because of how America and Maxon seemed like a good pair, but I cannot seem to figure out why. Sure, America spent months in the castle with her beloved prince (who, by the way, is a mary sue), but most of the time he is usually away and they barely had any time to converse with each other, so clearly their relationship will not be a strong one.
Then came "The One". Personally, I did not really understand a few scenes from the plot, such as the death of a few characters and the true identity of one character.
The entire series had been really confusing to me as I found myself liking it and also not liking it. Still, it would not be a book that I would highly recommend to others.
Also, this is one of my first comments in the Goodreads Forum and I have been reading a lot of books these days, including those are highly rated but unfortunately I cannot seem to enjoy.
Feel free to discuss without hesitation; nobody should be judging here, and really, to each their own.
I'll start: 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins
Nope, doesn't work for me. I know that Dawkins is an authoritative figure in the field of evolution, but I just can't get into this book. He states clearly in the preface that he writes for three different readers: the student, the scientist and the layman. That's a good intention, but that's also probably not a good one.
It's just too dreary to read his exhaustive explanation. He actually tries to spell out the smallest detail for each of his ideas, which I know is for the benefit of his readers. But no, it simply renders his texts too dull.
Slamming the book that spawned many other science books on evolution / economics / biology / psychology / every other nonfiction does seem outrageous. I still give credit to Dawkins for proposing his idea, and I guess this is a book that people should give his book a try. But I must warn you: it's not going to be an easy read.