Over the years, I’ve come to appreciate dystopian books more and more—probably since leaving school and rereading Orwell without the pressure of assignments hanging over me. When I picked up Public Domain: Sons of Shikago written by Shale Nelson (I was able to read this book in advance thanks to NetGalley and the publisher), the decision felt easy. The plot sounded compelling enough to win me over completely.
And yet… while the ideas were there, the execution left much to be desired.
I rarely put books down unfinished; part of me always holds out hope for that "click" moment where everything comes together. But with this one, I came close to giving up. There were parts I genuinely liked: certain aspects of the narrative style and the world-building, which was exceptionally solid. The characters were well-crafted, vibrant, and full of potential.
But then came the scenes and statements that threw me completely off. Some moments felt blatantly racist or overly prejudiced in ways that derailed my experience. It’s not about always agreeing with what I read—I don’t expect that—but I do believe that authors owe readers thoughtful character portrayals without falling into stereotypes or harmful tropes.
What frustrated me most was that the strong world-building and well-developed characters were overshadowed by these issues, alongside pacing that lacked urgency and dragged in parts. My high expectations weren’t dashed by the core ideas or the setting, but by the stylistic choices that felt poorly executed.
It’s such a shame because this book had real potential to be something great.
Have you ever felt this way about a book? One where you saw so much promise but couldn’t fully enjoy it due to certain missteps? How do you handle books like this—do you keep reading, or do you put them down?
by inabookhole
5 Comments
When I feel that way about a book that I should love based on concepts I usually just DNF early and try again later. Plenty of DNFs have been 5/5 with a different mood, conscious or not.
I felt this way about the Silo series. I read them because I felt the plot was truely interesting but I kept waiting for the writing to get better. If anything it just seemed to get worse with each book. The characters were flat and it’s oh so obvious it was self published. I think the author had so much success with the original short story, but didn’t have the ability to flesh it out into a whole series properly.
Bury your Gays by Chuck Tingle – It’s a horror story about the titular “Bury your Gays” trope and how queer people deserve happy endings too.
I really liked the ideas in the book and it made me question the media I consume, but I didn’t enjoy actually reading it. It’s so full of tropes and terrible dialogue. The MC is the only character that has any depth.
I think the characters were so tropey to play with the whole premise of the book but it still doesn’t make it any more enjoyable.
The change of genre after the first two thirds didn’t help either.
I started Swimming in the Dark, because a story about love between two men in a communist Poland sounded very interesting. Unfortunately the book was bad. I think I expected too much and was disappointed. I found it rushed and passionless. But it must just be me, because the book has a lot of 5 and 4 starts reviews on Goodreads.
Yeah, Endymion and a lot of the other writing by Dan Simmons I’ve seen. Dude is clearly a mechanical thinker and puts a lot of effort in his word building/ plot devices, but almost every single book of his I read needed a better/ more strong willed editor, aside from maybe the first 2 Hyperion books