Are you not confusing 'liking' a work with 'thinking it good'. I'm not sure what criteria go into your evaluation, but perhaps those criteria are different from the ones other people are using?

> objectively bad

Well that settles that, then.

The new reality for a lot of young people I find is that there is no objective reality. Its a dangerous and stupid idea but there is still an objective reality, even if you want to ignore it.

It took a bit but by the end it had grown on me. I agree it's technically not great but maybe I'm just used to that from reading sci-fi, most of which feels technically bad. That said my reaction to the first quarter was mostly "uhh?". Big disagree on N.K. Jemisin though, I enjoyed reading those. Books 2 and 3 of the three body problem series feel like what you're describing to me. Never got why those were popular, the first one had the interesting cultural revolution flashback element but the sequels did almost nothing for me.

Filling-in-the-gaps-books wise, it's hard to do better than Earthsea in my mind. They're quite short books, yet I found myself far more engrossed in the world and the goings-on than some thousand page Sanderson tomb I snoozed through.

I already felt pretty annoyed with the first Three Body Problem book.

But a big part of the problem is that after looking into space colonisation etc a bit, the aliens in most alien invasion stories feel utterly stupid to me.

I can still live with 'War of the worlds': their aliens only come from Mars not from the stars, and I can suspend my disbelief over eg its theory of how the planets formed: it's just a fantasy world where outer planets formed earlier and are older.

But the Three Body Problem tries to be current-ish with modern technology. And its aliens have enough technology to just build orbitals or terraform Mars or so. Or just kill off all the humans from space with an orbital bombardment or a killer virus. Instead of whatever clunky and ineffective methods they use in the book.

I did like the start though, when things were still kept behind the curtain. Also the Cultural Revolution flashbacks, too.

War of the Worlds never lifts that curtain for sure. Everything stays fairly mysterious, and the narrative only gives us some limited speculation from the narrator who clearly has also only a limited view on things.

> interesting cultural revolution flashback element

Interestingly this section either appeared in the beginning or somewhere in the middle depending on the translation/version (I forget how the distinction was made) due to it being so different from the rest of the book.

It was in the beginning when I read it years ago and I think it took a bit for its context to make sense but I also read many lost interest during it.

I enjoyed all the books. (spoilers incoming) I actually enjoyed the love story elements, how a star given to someone would play such an important role later. How he survived in the end and communicated the three fairy tales, and enjoyed each in turn. I've never seen a story span such a vast amount of time nor remember one that took us literally to the end.

... or maybe it's not objectively bad, and you're bouncing off it for some reason?

Per the parent comment, it does a lot with very little. And it's heady and literary and beautiful. Not everyone is into that. But a lot of people are.

Guh, NK Jemisin :Q I tried getting through a few chapters of three of her books and haven't felt so... Pushed? Talked at? Bored? Hadn't grimaced internally and externally as much with an author in a while.

They feel juvenile, trying SO hard. Using a different person perspective in one of them to hamfisted effect, as opposed to someone like Tamsyn Muir who integrates that device for good reason and to brilliant effect.

I gave NK a solid try and was appalled at how in the world anyone could think these are engaging.

Time War is NOT hard Sci-Fi. It’s a wartime romance that uses divergent technical evolution to create cultural distance and time travel to engineer social collisions.

The combination is fantastically human.

Try to learn to be less self-centered. Something isn’t objectively bad because you don’t like it. People aren’t tricked into liking something just because you don’t like it. People’s tastes vary and different people like different writing styles. Try something like “I think the books are very poorly written and I just cannot understand how they continue to be so popular. Seriously, what is the appeal?” Not only are you presenting your viewpoint, not as some arbiter of truth, but you are inviting discussion and an opportunity to learn something you don’t currently know i.e. what people enjoy about those books that makes them popular.

If a belief needs to assume most people are stupid compared to you, it's basically guaranteed to be wrong.

Talk to more people, you'll find they can think too.