Genesia said:

It's pretty good. Although I don't like the pretty rushed tying up of ends at the end.

Beloved by Toni Morrison.
Tried twice couldn't get into it at all.

JDInteractive said:

i only read that book for the plot. writing is brutal.
i made the mistake of reading his next one, angels & demons and it nearly killed me to finish it.

"Father's Day" which was supposed to be a political thriller. It sucked so bad. The president is caught by his wife having an affair with a female Senator. She leaves him, and basically the guy spends the whole book dying of a broken heart. Meanwhile, the VP is trying to stage a coup.

It all comes to a head when the president, with the last gasp of life he has left, tells the Secret Service to do their duty and shoot the VP.

Here is a spot-on review:



Do you want to know how bad this book is? You can buy it for $0.01 on Amazon. But what's worse is that you would be over-paying.

i picked this up at a bookmarket for 5 cents and it intreagued me
that someone would almost give it away just to get rid of it.

it's one of those romance novels that bored old ladies read whilst
they chew down a box of bonbons with a glass of port on their sofa.

it's about cleopatra and it was just total trash writing, although
i have to admit that some of the mark anthony sex scenes were just
beyond porn and a total turn on lol.

regarding the more serious side of literature, i've read a great deal
of (supposed) classics and found something positive to take away from
all of them. except kafka's "the castle".

i absolutely loved "the trial" so on reading and discovering what an
absolutely horrible experience "the castle" is, i was sincerely and
somewhat surprisingly shocked.

but hey, kafka himself gave up on it and intended to never finish it
so there's a clue for ya.

the only thing that sort of redeems the experience is finding out at
a later date what kafka wrote to Max Brod about a possible ending:


K., the book's protagonist, would continue to reside and die in the
village; the castle notifying him on his death bed that his "legal
claim to live in the village was not valid, yet, taking certain
auxiliary circumstances into account, he was permitted to live and
work there"

although, even if the text had been finished with that ending, it
would have been a case of "too little too late" after the horrendous
drag of the preceding pages.

some of it was really good but for the most part it felt like it was
a labyrinth. and not one the author carefully constructed but instead
one that he outlined and later proceeded to get lost in.

RodeoSchro said:

IstenSzek said:

OMG, I love you, Lars.

I think Midnight by Dean Koontz is the worst book I can remember finishing. It made me appreciate Stephen King much much more!

littlemissG said:

I had that on good recommendation, and I couldn't get through it either. I never wanted to admit it because everyone always praised it so much.

NDRU said:

OMG, I thought Odd Thomas was one of his best books ever, and one of the best books written in the mystery/horror genre.

The sequal, Forever Odd, was the worst Koontz book I'd ever read.


Koontz isn't Stephen King, that's for sure.. But I think it's like comparing apples to oranges. But given that, Forever Odd was just aweful. I mean it was the worst softmore effort for the series you could imagaine.

Lukily, the book that came after, I'm told, is really good.

Imago said:

i find dean koontz to be a bit hit or miss. i agree with you about the odd thomas books. first one rocked, second one was weird, third book was about 75 percent as good as first book

XxAxX said:

I really need to finish the third book. I love the characters in the Odd Thomas world.


Have read the fourth book yet? It's still a hardcover.

XxAxX said:

I've only read the one book by him. It was so uninspired, so uncreative. I can barely remember it at this point, but it just had no style at all. I was a little surprised since he's so huge. Those authors usually have something going for them.

Imago said:

Midnight was right out of S.K.'s world, that's why I couldn't help but compare the two.

It just had nothing of any interest in 400 pages. I must have been really bored at the time I read it, considering I actually finished it. I suppose it was readable. That's one nice thing I could say about it.

NDRU said:

he is all over the map. some of his work is riveting, some less so

Imago said:

i love the odd thomas character too! i keep hoping mr. koontz will find some way to re-unite him with his beloved you-know-who (spoiler ruse, for those who haven't read any of these books)

fourth book? i haven't read it yet. i'm a strictly paperback book reader 'cause the hardcovers weigh too much and smack me in the face, bruising my nose when i fall asleep reading them.

XxAxX said:

I think reuniting him with you-know-who for you-know-what, won't work cause of you-know-why. But a cameo appearance under you-know-what conditions to help him along the way like Elvis does from time to time would be sweet and touching, but would imply you-know-who still lingered on tormented by you-know-what event.

For me , I think if he found a new interest and wrestled with moving on or holding on--that would make a great subplot to an upcoming story.

Seems like Koontz realizes he struck a chord with Odd Thomas--there may be many books to come.

Probably the one and only James Patterson book I've ever read. Can't remember the name but it was garbage. His writing is garbage too.

Danielle Steel is trash too.

NDRU said:

I had to read it twice and after the second time, I actually got it. She's a great writer, but not always at her best.

Imago said:

well, of course you-know-who is you-know-what, and it would be better for our hero to deal with the event of her you-know-what, but let's just say something happens to Odd, and he joins her and elvis you-know-where. perhaps the story could go on in that way. it would be a fun literary device to have a character in a state of you-know-what

Empress said:

It's possible it was just more work than I was up for at the time. That's kind of how I felt about Love in the Time of Cholera. Great writing, but it didn't really hold my interest.

NDRU said:

That's funny because Love in the Time of Cholera is one of my all time favs. I've read that 3 times and love it more each time. Although, I must admit that 100 Years of Solitude bored me to tears.

Empress said:

We spend a lot of time with a book, I guess we need to be in the right mindset for it. Can't just plow through it if you're not ready for it. I read Beloved and LOTTOC a long time ago. I could easily see myself liking them now.

The Old Testament.

NDRU said:

True! I love re-reading books that I read years ago. In fact, I just reread Roots. It's so amazing. I read it for the first time about 20 years ago and loved it, but it was even better this time around. Also, Sophie's Choice is a book that you might have to read more than once. I've read it twice and it's also one of my absolute favs.

G0d said:

Why are you so mean in it?

G0d said:

How in the hell were you able to determine which kids were jewish and wish ones weren't when you went on that killing spree for Moses in Egypt?
Certainly not all the circumcized boys were Jewish--there are sometimes medical reasons to get the procedure done, right?
I mean, it just seems kind of like sloppy killing to me.

Genesia said:

Co-sign. I was about 75% through that book when I decided I just didn't care any more. And that book got recycled - I'm usually a book hoarder.