Usually, there's this huge mismatch between how interesting the subject of the paper is, and how interesting the paper itself is.
The worst example of this, I think, is The Hollywood Meme, which proposes an anthropological framework for analyzing transnational, cross cultural adaptation of media properties in the 20th century and beyond.
Basically, it recasts modern pop culture as folklore (great!) and then gives repeated examples of the ways that things that appear to be adaptations or remakes are often so completely transformative as to really only use the American property as a kind of set dressing to tell an entirely new story (Wonderful!) and then the paper goes in to a deep dive on several films from multiple countries and compares the way each region's adaptations of American properties served as a reflection of their cultures and their economic situation and ...
It should be a slam dunk. Everything about this book should be a slam dunk.
But it's so MECHANICAL. "In this chapter I will X, Y, Z." followed by X, Y, Z, followed by "In the preceding chapter, I gave examples of X, Y, and Z, and in the following chapter we will explore how this can be complicated by A B and C." Over and Over again forever.