Who Is The Worst Writer Ever?

[Delta40]

Barbara Cartland (ugh!)

[stlukesguild]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bloom's Western Canon only contains twenty six writers. You took ten years to read that?

Actually, the "canon" itself is a list of some 2000+ books added as an appendix to the back of the book of the same title.

i consider Joyce one of the great minds btw and Ulysses one of the greatest books

I don't question this. There are passages... whole chapters in Ulysses that I found absolutely brilliant. His writing, however, never engaged me as much personally or emotionally as Proust, Kafka... or even Faulkner.

[chipper]

Richard Dawkins is an acquired taste... i never acquired it

[Intuition]

Actually, the "canon" itself is a list of some 2000+ books added as an appendix to the back of the book of the same title.


Homer I never got to as Bloom left it out of the top 26.

I know the Canon itself is massive, I don't question that. But our colleague here was claiming that he was reading what Bloom considered to being the central part of the canon. Which would also be why he never read Homer because it was left out of the top 26 whom Bloom centralized around. I'm inclined to believe he was alluding to these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Western_Canon:_The_Books_and_School_of_the_Age s

[prendrelemick]

I was about to leap in with my usual J D Salinger, but I realise it is his novel I hate. That's not the same thing.

I can't think of any literary writers who are bad, compared to people like Dan Brown or Susan Hill.

[siamesecat]

I've always thought that people obscenely overrate Kafka too.

I agree.

Barbara Cartland is the worst. Who reads her books?? :sick:

[Intuition]

The fact that he has inspired the word, "Kafkaesque" proves that his impact on Western Literature was profound.

For that alone he should be recognized, if nothing else; but it would be insolent to claim that The Metamorphosis is merely "just another classic."

[Emil Miller]

Barbara Cartland is the worst. Who reads her books?? :sick:

She is said to have sold over a billion copies worldwide. It would be interesting to know what percentage of her readers are male, if any.

[Mr.lucifer]

Why can't we list truly horrible writers?

[breathtest]

The worst writer that I have read has to be William Burroughs. I am a great fan of the beat movement, but most of his novels simply do not make sense. He writes so cryptically that we are supposed to think of him as a genius and that is that. Having said that, I haven't read Naked Lunch or Junky, two of his most linear novels. I have them both, but haven't gotten around to reading them.

[cyberbob]

Get over yourself. Using cheap personal insults like "I doubt they'd waste a bullet on you" just because someone doesn't like modernism and postmodernism?

I agree with how he described Faulkner's style as an excuse for inability and think that this applies doubly to Delillo. It doesn't surprise me that Delillo has a Master's in Literature and in fact I would expect him to hav a Ph.D. by how boring and self important his writing is.

[ScribbleScribe]

I don't think I have any hated authors. I got over my hatred of dean koontz after the 30th book I read of his.

Now let's see here.

Kafka
Ayn rand
Charles dickens
James joyce
Ernest Hemingway

These authors seem to have a lot of people against them on this thread. So perhaps it is fair to say they are controversial.

[Intuition]

Get over yourself. Using cheap personal insults like "I doubt they'd waste a bullet on you" just because someone doesn't like modernism and postmodernism?

Calling William Faulkner as "dumbed down" literature will invite personal insults. Whereas, if he would have said "I do not enjoy modernism, although William Faulkner may be a good modernist writer," I would have no disagreement.


I agree with how he described Faulkner's style as an excuse for inability and think that this applies doubly to Delillo.

If you claim that his insult of Faulkner's writing was a "description" of his style, then you are being ignorant yourself. As to Delillo, I merely claimed he is a postmodern author which does not deserve to be considered as the worst of critically acclaimed writers.


by how boring and self important his writing is.

For those who aren't in search of cheap entertainment, "boring" should never be a part of their vocabulary.

[stlukesguild]

I know the Canon itself is massive, I don't question that. But our colleague here was claiming that he was reading what Bloom considered to being the central part of the canon. Which would also be why he never read Homer because it was left out of the top 26 whom Bloom centralized around. I'm inclined to believe he was alluding to these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wes...ol_of_the_Ages

Of course Bloom has written other books as well. In Genius he gives a brief bio and critical response to 100 writers whom he places at the center of Western Literature. Certainly Homer deserves a spot on nearly any list of the most influential works of literature in the West. Glancing over Bloom's list of 26 I find that I have read something by all except George Eliot. The arguments over the "canon"... this notion of some universal, never-changing list of books that represent without question the greatest works of literature... are fed by the recognition of the giants left off the list that would make for reading no less rich:

Shakespeare..........Spenser, Donne, Calderon, and Racine
Dante................... Virgil or Homer
Chaucer................ Boccaccio or The Arabian Nights
Cervantes.............. Ariosto and Tasso
Montaigne.............. Plato
Molière.................. Rabelais
Milton.................... William Blake
Dr. Samuel Johnson... Boswell
Goethe.................... Leopardi and Rousseau
Wordsworth.............. Keats
Jane Austen.............. Lawrence Stern
Walt Whitman............ Baudelaire
Emily Dickinson........... Tennyson
Charles Dickens.......... Flaubert
George Eliot............... Melville
Tolstoy..................... Dostoevsky
Henrik Ibsen............... Checkov
Freud........................ Thomas Mann
Proust....................... Walter Pater, R.M. Rilke, and Oscar Wilde
James Joyce............... T.S. Eliot, W.B. Yeats, and Lewis Carroll
Virginia Woolf.............. Eugenio Montale
Franz Kafka................ Hermann Hesse and
Jorge Luis Borges......... Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Julio Cortazar
Pablo Neruda............... Federico Garcia Lorca, Cesar Vallejo, and Rafael Alberti
Fernando Pessoa........... Jorge Guillen, Antonio Machado, and Miguel Hernandez
Samuel Beckett............. Jean Paul Sartre

I think what turns people off the notion of a "canon" is the idea that there is some universal list of essential reading and that one cannot be thought to be well read until he or she has conquered this. It also misrepresents the notion of critical discussion with regard to literature. Stating that "Shakespeare is greater than Dante" (or the reverse) is essentially as useless as ridiculous claims as to how "boring" Faulkner is or how "overrated" Kafka is. Shakespeare and Faulkner and Kafka and all the writers who are deemed as "classics" or part of the "canon" are thought of as such for a reason. Any individual reader may dislike or feel ambivalent about any given writer... but that doesn't mean that said writers are "overrated" or "boring"... It simply means that the individual reader didn't connect with that writer.

Seriously, I'd like to see posters make some attempt at defending absurd blanket statements such as "Kafka is overrated" (Oh really? Why? What arguments can you make in support of this statement of fact?)... Such would at least be more interesting than the usual comments worthy of the highschool freshman: "Dude! This Shakespeare guy sucks!":sosp:

[Vonny]

The worst writer ever is Stephen King. I will NEVER recover from Pet Cemetery. All I could think was, I wish I had that, and I'd take advantage of that pet cemetery, no matter the consequences. But it was a horrible thing to contemplate.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm pretty sure that the worst writers in the world don't get published. Though, there is Stephanie Meyer. . . .

The worst writer ever is Stephen King. I will NEVER recover from Pet Cemetery. All I could think was, I wish I had that, and I'd take advantage of that pet cemetery, no matter the consequences. But it was a horrible thing to contemplate.
This would seem to suggest King is a great writer, no? If he can evoke such emotion and contemplation, he's doing something right.

[cyberbob]

Calling William Faulkner as "dumbed down" literature will invite personal insults. Whereas, if he would have said "I do not enjoy modernism, although William Faulkner may be a good modernist writer," I would have no disagreement.



If you claim that his insult of Faulkner's writing was a "description" of his style, then you are being ignorant yourself. As to Delillo, I merely claimed he is a postmodern author which does not deserve to be considered as the worst of critically acclaimed writers.



For those who aren't in search of cheap entertainment, "boring" should never be a part of their vocabulary.

The whole point of entertainment is to prevent boredom. Being boring will always be a perfectly legitimate criticism of any form of art.

Faulkner purposely tries to make his work confusing. I can't respect an author who tries to make his work look like more than it is by muddling things up.

And DeLillo is somewhat like that, although he doesn't go about it by using confusing prose. He takes the typical postmodernist approach of placing style over substance. Saying a very simple thing in a terribly long-winded and boring way that it must be artistic and important.

I wouldn't say that either is the worst writer--that's a title reserved for someone who's absolutely incompetent at crafting a story. The criticisms they reserve, however, are, in my opinion, warranted.

And there is a big difference between disagreeing with somebody and insulting them.

[Vonny]

I'm pretty sure that the worst writers in the world don't get published. Though, there is Stephanie Meyer. . . .

This would seem to suggest King is a great writer, no? If he can evoke such emotion and contemplation, he's doing something right.

I do remember being riveted by this book. But I don't think I'll read another of his soon!

I think that more and more the worst writers do get published. Virginiawang has been published apparently. I think more and more any decent author who comes along will get buried underneath a heap of that ...um, I don't know what to politely call it. And there are a gazillion of those awful authors who write for women now - all that "chick lit."

[Jack of Hearts]

Now there are certain to be writers out there who are technically inferior in their craft. And recently this reader has been made aware of what 'fan-fiction' really is (a three way assault on intellectual property, written language and human decency)... so the category must be narrowed.

There've been dry books, and boring books, and dense books. Even stupid books. But reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand was, for this reader, a put-the-book-down-in-disgust, seriously-are-you-serious kind of awful. So put another chalk mark on the Ayn Rand side of the board.

As an interesting side note, this reader did finish it, and is still awaiting her posthumous apology.






J

[Emil Miller]

Publishing is first and foremost a business and publishers know their customer base is largely composed of people who are not concerned with 'literature' per se; which explains the myriad examples of pulp fiction that fill the bookstores and online publishing outlets. Many respected writers were frequently rejected before being published, which begs the question as to how many good writers are still being rejected ( see list below). Conversely, now that millions of people have a word processor at there disposal, the number of poorly written but saleable books awaiting publication must be monumental. Somewhere among them lies the book whose author will live up to the title of this thread.

http://www.examiner.com/book-in-national/30-famous-authors-whose-works-were-rejected-repeatedly-and-sometimes-rudely-by-publishers

[osho]

This is the worst question I have ever heard.

[Intuition]

I think what turns people off the notion of a "canon" is the idea that there is some universal list of essential reading and that one cannot be thought to be well read until he or she has conquered this.

There is no reason to dislike the "canon." It is necessary when preserving World Literature, or "highlighting" select pieces of literature. Hopefully I did not imply (somehow) that I do not find the "canon" essential.


Stating that "Shakespeare is greater than Dante"

Arguing that one author is greater than another is not necessarily unsound of mind. Although an argument of whether or not "Shakespeare is greater than Dante", or the reverse-- would take two posters a great deal of articulation, and effort, to present their arguments notably (which is not likely to happen on a thread created for the sole purpose to condemn acclaimed writers, as if they were revealing the names of heretics to be burned at the stake).



Shakespeare and Faulkner and Kafka and all the writers who are deemed as "classics" or part of the "canon" are thought of as such for a reason. Any individual reader may dislike or feel ambivalent about any given writer... but that doesn't mean that said writers are "overrated" or "boring"... It simply means that the individual reader didn't connect with that writer.

Correct in every sense, although I'm sure the author of this thread (for some reason) made this thread in order for individual readers to express their ambivalence towards writers who have established themselves as part of history.



Seriously, I'd like to see posters make some attempt at defending absurd blanket statements such as "Kafka is overrated" (Oh really? Why? What arguments can you make in support of this statement of fact?)...

I doubt you really would like to see how most posters would defend that statement. Take a look at one of them said in defense of claiming that Faulkner was overrated:


The whole point of entertainment is to prevent boredom. Being boring will always be a perfectly legitimate criticism of any form of art.

Art can exist for art's sake, not for the sake of entertainment. When someone claims that a novel is "boring," what they are really claiming is that they do not have the "tolerance" for that specific novel.


Faulkner purposely tries to make his work confusing. I can't respect an author who tries to make his work look like more than it is by muddling things up.

All I educed from this is that you dislike stream of consciousness.


And DeLillo is somewhat like that, although he doesn't go about it by using confusing prose.

I will again state, that I have not read DeLillo in ages, although it seems that the only resemblances they have to you is that you disagree with their reputation.


placing style over substance
There is nothing wrong with placing style over substance. Those are essentials of modernism and postmodernism; by claiming you dislike style so much you have just exemplified on the fact that you dislike modernism and postmodernism, making you biased.


The criticisms they reserve, however, are, in my opinion, warranted.

And there is a big difference between disagreeing with somebody and insulting them.
These criticisms they receive, bringing back an old example of Faulkner being "dumbed down" literature, are just as warranted as my insults, then. For if the writers were alive they would be insulted even more so than the readers I have insulted.


Publishing is first and foremost a business and publishers know their customer base is largely composed of people who are not concerned with 'literature' per se; which explains the myriad examples of pulp fiction that fill the bookstores and online publishing outlets. Many respected writers were frequently rejected before being published, which begs the question as to how many good writers are still being rejected ( see list below). Conversely, now that millions of people have a word processor at there disposal, the number of poorly written but saleable books awaiting publication must be monumental. Somewhere among them lies the book whose author will live up to the title of this thread.

http://www.examiner.com/book-in-national/30-famous-authors-whose-works-were-rejected-repeatedly-and-sometimes-rudely-by-publishers

I found the response to Nabokov comical, also-- it seems like Kipling didn't know how to write. The shock the San Francisco Examiner experienced when they found out that he was the youngest person to receive the Nobel (in literature) would have been priceless to view.

[stlukesguild]

There is no reason to dislike the "canon." It is necessary when preserving World Literature, or "highlighting" select pieces of literature. Hopefully I did not imply (somehow) that I do not find the "canon" essential.

What many dislike in the "canon" is the idea that it is a universally agreed upon list as opposed to an abstract idea that varies according to the reader. What is "essential reading" for the English language reader is not necessarily the same as what is "essential reading" to the French or German... let alone Persian, Indian, or Chinese reader. Bloom's "canon" is a good list of books of real merit... but certainly not the last word on what books are or are not "classics".

Arguing that one author is greater than another is not necessarily unsound of mind. Although an argument of whether or not "Shakespeare is greater than Dante", or the reverse-- would take two posters a great deal of articulation, and effort, to present their arguments notably (which is not likely to happen on a thread created for the sole purpose to condemn acclaimed writers, as if they were revealing the names of heretics to be burned at the stake).

The notion of suggesting that this or that "classic" is the "worst book ever" and the author is "the worst author ever" seems to reveal far more about the reader than it does about the presumably "bad" author.

I'm sure the author of this thread (for some reason) made this thread in order for individual readers to express their ambivalence towards writers who have established themselves as part of history.

Again... I see nothing wrong with stating, "I really hated As I Lay Dying." That's a simple statement of personal opinion... one's own experience with a writer. To make what passes for a factual statement of judgement, however, "Faulkner is boring" demands some sort of logical argument.

I doubt you really would like to see how most posters would defend that statement. Take a look at one of them said in defense of claiming that Faulkner was overrated:

If an individual can't offer a strong argument as to why a given writer is overrated, then they probably should make such value judgments.

The whole point of entertainment is to prevent boredom. Being boring will always be a perfectly legitimate criticism of any form of art.

OK... let's start with the initial presumption. Is all art... in this case all literature... nothing more than entertainment? Personally, I am of the camp of Walter Pater, Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, and Gautier and as such I thoroughly embrace the notion that a central value of art is pleasure... but do we assume that all derive pleasure from the same sources? Some individuals find pleasure or are entertained by struggling through the New York Times crossword puzzles. Others need car chases, explosions, and scantily dressed girls on the big screen. Boredom is not a valid criticism unless it is defined... (Boring according to whom? by what standards?) and examples should be provided.

Faulkner purposely tries to make his work confusing. I can't respect an author who tries to make his work look like more than it is by muddling things up.

Is that seriously his goal? Again... according to what standard. Shakespeare was criticized by the French for his subplots and diversions. Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, Sterne's Tristram Shandy, and Byron's Don Juan are almost wholly constructed of diversions. Is Faulkner really that difficult? Considering it was As I Lay Dying that was initially mentioned how difficult is that book? A tale is being told by different members of the same family. The artist has abandoned the single omnipotent narrator and presents the narrative from the point of view of a variety of individuals. Is this idea really so difficult to grasp? Perhaps the author employed this form as a means of reinforcing the notion that any story is never as simple as it seems. It changes according to who is telling it... their agenda... their grasp of the facts... etc... This makes more sense than to suggest that the author is simply trying to be "difficult".

...placing style over substance...

This assumes that "substance" or "content" and "style" or "form" are two separate things. The reality is that in a successful work of art the two are so interwoven so as to be insuperable. Let's go to Shakespeare again. What is the substance of the majority of his sonnets. As one wag famously suggested, it is little more than "when I think of you, I feel blue". On one level this analysis is true... if we accept a grade-school approach to reducing a work of art to a simple "meaning" not unlike a dictionary definition. To me this seems akin to reducing a marvelous meal to the recipe. As Walter Pater pointed out, in Art, as in life itself, it is the experience not the end... not the "meaning" that matters. Reduced to the essentials, the meaning/content/substance of Shakespeare's poems is not profound. But as one recognizes that style... the language... the form is all part of the substance... of the whole experience... they become so much more.

Again, it is fully fine to admit I don't like that particular style of writing: "I don't like stream of consciousness" or "I don't like the use of multiple narrators". This is different from suggesting that the work is an example of style over substance when style and substance are essential to all art.

[cyberbob]

Correct in every sense, although I'm sure the author of this thread (for some reason) made this thread in order for individual readers to express their ambivalence towards writers who have established themselves as part of history.



I doubt you really would like to see how most posters would defend that statement. Take a look at one of them said in defense of claiming that Faulkner was overrated:



Art can exist for art's sake, not for the sake of entertainment. When someone claims that a novel is "boring," what they are really claiming is that they do not have the "tolerance" for that specific novel.



All I educed from this is that you dislike stream of consciousness.



I will again state, that I have not read DeLillo in ages, although it seems that the only resemblances they have to you is that you disagree with their reputation.


There is nothing wrong with placing style over substance. Those are essentials of modernism and postmodernism; by claiming you dislike style so much you have just exemplified on the fact that you dislike modernism and postmodernism, making you biased.



These criticisms they receive, bringing back an old example of Faulkner being "dumbed down" literature, are just as warranted as my insults, then. For if the writers were alive they would be insulted even more so than the readers I have insulted.

I agree that art can exist for its own sake. That doesn't mean that it can't be boring. You're the one who said that boring should not be used to describe by those not looking for "cheap entertainment" implying that it is some form of entertainment.

And I never claimed I disliked style at all. Style is fine. Even placing style over substance is fine as long as you still have some substance and don't use style to create the illusion that there is more substance than there really is (which I believe Faulkner does).

And I do not dislike all modernism and postmodernism, and even if I did, that would not make me biased against it. If that were the case, I could just say that you are biased in favor of Faulkner because you like him. See how pointless that is?

James Joyce is one of my favorite writers and I even like Hemingway and Fitzgerald. I also love some postmodernists like McCarthy. My beef is with the particular techniques Faulkner uses to deliberately make his writing more difficult to understand. I am not just talking about stream of consciousness. I'll put up some examples later on.

[JCamilo]

In art style is substance.

[Intuition]

What many dislike in the "canon" is the idea that it is a universally agreed upon list as opposed to an abstract idea that varies according to the reader. What is "essential reading" for the English language reader is not necessarily the same as what is "essential reading" to the French or German... let alone Persian, Indian, or Chinese reader. Bloom's "canon" is a good list of books of real merit... but certainly not the last word on what books are or are not "classics".

I agree completely; but as you have seen, some posters have the audacity to outright claim that some of the writers do not deserve the reputation they have gained from critics and give simple answers as to why they believe so.


The notion of suggesting that this or that "classic" is the "worst book ever" and the author is "the worst author ever" seems to reveal far more about the reader than it does about the presumably "bad" author.


No disagreement there.


Again... I see nothing wrong with stating, "I really hated As I Lay Dying." That's a simple statement of personal opinion... one's own experience with a writer. To make what passes for a factual statement of judgement, however, "Faulkner is boring" demands some sort of logical argument.


The former is not a statement I dislike, but it is usually fused with the latter when asked for a reason.


If an individual can't offer a strong argument as to why a given writer is overrated, then they probably should make such value judgments.

I agree completely; but the one individual I was in debate with claimed that another individual disliked modernism because "it is boring." Which is what brought us to this stalemate.


I agree that art can exist for its own sake. That doesn't mean that it can't be boring.

Of course that does not mean it cannot be boring for certain individuals who require a "certain pace."


You're the one who said that boring should not be used to describe by those not looking for "cheap entertainment" implying that it is some form of entertainment.

If it does happen to be some sort of entertainment, it does not exist upon entertainment; chances are that if someone in search of greater literature will not care to search for the novel that will entertain, but rather-- enlighten.


Even placing style over substance is fine as long as you still have some substance and don't use style to create the illusion that there is more substance than there really is (which I believe Faulkner does).

Elaborate on this illusion you speak of. How does Faulkner give you this idea? Your retorts are far too broad.


And I do not dislike all modernism and postmodernism, and even if I did, that would not make me biased against it

If you dislike the entirety of the movement then you are bound to be biased.


If that were the case, I could just say that you are biased in favor of Faulkner because you like him. See how pointless that is?

Firstly, in this case, Faulkner is a single writer; modernism is a movement.
Secondly, I do not champion every single piece of literature Faulkner has written, but he has written (what critics refer to as) masterpieces. The latter I hold as great pieces of 20th century literature.

You claim that "even if you did" dislike modernism in its entirety, you would not be biased. Modernism encompasses a large amount of authors. To dislike them all, is simply biased.

The only pointless thing about that was you claiming that championing Faulkner was tantamount to containing malice for modernism.


James Joyce is one of my favorite writers and I even like Hemingway and Fitzgerald. I also love some postmodernists like McCarthy. My beef is with the particular techniques Faulkner uses to deliberately make his writing more difficult to understand. I am not just talking about stream of consciousness. I'll put up some examples later on.

You must articulate what those techniques are, until then we cannot defend upon what you consider to be "boring," and "dumbed-down," and what we do not believe exists.

Chances are what you're referring to, as I've said before, is his stream of consciousness/interior-monologue. There is a famous example in The Sound and the Fury in which the Harvard attendee Quentin is severely depressed. Towards the end of his monologue his mind is at the state of being completely deteriorated, and this is what causes the rambling paragraphs devoid of grammar. In my experience, most students discontinue reading the novel here.


In art style is substance.

Thank you.

[Vavasor]

I get the impression that many would put Edward Bulwer Lytton on the list of the worst ever. That he was the one who prompted Dickens to change the ending of GREAT EXPECTATIONS which according to George Gissing in CHARLES DICKENS: A CRITICAL STUDY is otherwise the perfect first person narrative. He also may have played a role in the fall out between Dickens and Thackeray which doesn't help his popularity. I've never actually read any of his works so I can't personally provide a judgment on that.

I think many regard Anthony Trollope as a writer of little merit because of the narrative tone and what Gissing calls a capital crime of fiction, acknowledging within the narrative that he his writing fiction. This opinion I am certainly not in agreement with. I've read several of his novels and have been quite impressed with them, for the psychological depth of characters, and Trollope's aptitude for complex social situations.

George Bernard Shaw, cannot be called a bad writer because as a playwright he is quite brilliant and philosophically deep, BUT, the novels he wrote very early in his career (I've read the two that were published in his lifetime) are somewhat lacking, I think in literary value, as the author himself acknowledged.

An argument could probably be made for James Fenimore Cooper.

I'm not willing to give a name because the worst writer ever is probably someone I've never read, but the worst writer I've read might be Clara Reeve, who produced a fairly cheap and uninspired offspring of Horace Walpole's THE CASTLE OF OTRANTO a few years after Walpole's novel was published.

[ariella]

Jackie Collins by far. Ok she isn't exactly considered 'literary'; but how the **** is she the most widely sold author?!?! Eh?
Chuck Palahniuk, another trendy jump-on-the-bandwagon author IMO. Though not as bad Jackie.

[Vavasor]

I'd like to evaluate some of the nominations I've seen (for the record I consider myself extremely well read when it comes to eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth century literature, but know almost nothing about literature after about 1920 so there are a lot of choices I can't evaluate).

I've seen a few people nominate Jane Austen. I'm surprised that they aren't more, because to really understand Jane Austen (more so than with other authors) you really need to slow it down a little bit and enjoy the irony in some of her sentences. I know a few people who enjoy her novels for the plots. I don't, but I love the novels because of the ambiguity. A good critic can make the case that MANSFIELD PARK is an anti-Jacobin novel, while another good critic can consider it to have the exact opposite orientation. Some have aligned her with Edmund Burke, others with Mary Wollstonecraft, still others with Godwin. To me that's the mark of a good work of art.

Samuel Richardson's nomination I can understand. I enjoyed PAMELA in the early chapters because of its perversity. You could legitimately claim that it lacks subtlety and psychological complexity. On the other hand, the novel was still a very new literary form at that point and he made some impressive contributions to the epistolary novel form.

Charles Dickens, while I would argue he isn't quite Thackeray's equal in genius, his sentences are beautiful and profound, and his characters memorable. As to comments about the serialization process, it had its disadvantages, but Dickens insisted it was the best way to create his art. It must be noted that many well known nineteenth century novels were written that way. I recommend reading George Gissing's book on Charles Dickens, because Gissing goes into depth on the serialization process and the impact that it had on each individual novel. I also think that not enough people have read THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP and BLEAK HOUSE.

I would be interested to know why the person who nominated Oliver Goldsmith considers him to be lacking in Literary Merit.

[kiki1982]

I think many regard Anthony Trollope as a writer of little merit because of the narrative tone and what Gissing calls a capital crime of fiction, acknowledging within the narrative that he his writing fiction. This opinion I am certainly not in agreement with. I've read several of his novels and have been quite impressed with them, for the psychological depth of characters, and Trollope's aptitude for complex social situations.

Can't agree with that either. Not because I have read Trollope (I should start on him really), but because it's a stupid argument. Adn I really mean 'stupid'.

I remember Austen 'hastening to a happy conclusion' (in Northanger Abbey?), I remember Saramago saying something about returning from a digression with a clever stroke of writers' craftmanship (what a horribly arrogant thing to say!). How are both of them not essentially great novelists? Both admit writing fiction and deconstruct to some extent their function as a writer: it is manipulative, without them we woudn't know what the characters are going to do, but we as readers are also at their mercy. We could then say that Austen and Trollope (if not many more) were way before their time instead of committing a sin.

Stupid argument, as I said.

[tonywalt]

I am going to go with Dick Francis. I feel some guilt as he was resident of Grand Cayman, but to hell with it.:coolgleamA:

[Maren123]

... always remember .... "if everybody would do that same thing now" and you´re aways watched be an independant eye/brain combination ... " Greetz to Dick :aureola:

Maren

---------------------------------------
http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m546/chuchipuchi/1.gif (http://versicherungen1.org/)
http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m546/chuchipuchi/1.gif (http://vergleichprivatekrankenversicherung1.de/)

[Paul Cutty]

I have just reviewed 3 books from an American author, 3 books I found in my daughters bedroom hidden under her bed (yes I know its wrong to snoop) I was surprised by how truly bad these books are, they seem to be some sort of trilogy and the subject matter is sick, perverted and morally WRONG! The name of this barbarian with a type writer is Dr. Adam Ireland, his books are the Interzone series and my daughter bought them off of lulu, I have banned this author's books in my home henceforth. I have a proud Christian family and every word in his books are offensive to my values as a good Christian. My daughter has told me it was peer pressure that made her buy these evil books, saying that all the kids at school are reading them and she assures me she never read them but only bought them because all her friends had done the same. I am morally outraged by this author. I would suggest to all of you that if you value your relationship with Jesus then please DO NOT buy his books.:reddevil:

[Calidore]

I have just reviewed 3 books from an American author, 3 books I found in my daughters bedroom hidden under her bed (yes I know its wrong to snoop) I was surprised by how truly bad these books are, they seem to be some sort of trilogy and the subject matter is sick, perverted and morally WRONG! The name of this barbarian with a type writer is Dr. Adam Ireland, his books are the Interzone series and my daughter bought them off of lulu, I have banned this author's books in my home henceforth. I have a proud Christian family and every word in his books are offensive to my values as a good Christian. My daughter has told me it was peer pressure that made her buy these evil books, saying that all the kids at school are reading them and she assures me she never read them but only bought them because all her friends had done the same. I am morally outraged by this author. I would suggest to all of you that if you value your relationship with Jesus then please DO NOT buy his books.:reddevil:

Looking at lulu, it's interesting that every review talks about how appalling and offensive this book is, yet most give it five stars. Those and the authors blurb seem to use its offensiveness as a selling point. Which makes me think, based on that and the above being the poster's only post, that this is actually reverse-psychology spam.

[G L Wilson]

Socrates was the worst, he never wrote.

[Darcy88]

Socrates was the worst, he never wrote.

He did write something once. A lyric poem or something. I remember reading about it. And even if he never wrote that doesn't make him the worst writer. He wasn't illiterate as far as we know. A man with a mind like his could probably write well if he wanted. He had other reasons for not writing.

[G L Wilson]

He did write something once. A lyric poem or something. I remember reading about it. And even if he never wrote that doesn't make him the worst writer. He wasn't illiterate as far as we know. A man with a mind like his could probably write well if he wanted. He had other reasons for not writing.

A man with a mind like his is a demon.

[Featchy]

Without a doubt, Ayn Rand. Terrible prose, built upon a terrible ideology.

[Kingbob]

Worst is a difficult definition，as there is no award for it like the Golden Raspberry Awards in films. Maybe one day it can be founded，haha

[PeterL]

Worst is a difficult definition，as there is no award for it like the Golden Raspberry Awards in films. Maybe one day it can be founded，haha

That's a great idea.

There is the Museum of Bad Art, and the Razzies that you mentioned, and the Ignobel Prizes, so it would make sense for the worst novel of the year to get something. Unfortunately, the worst ones never get published, but there are some really, really bad things that do get published. I wonder about some of those editors. I would bet that the winner would come from the evangelical Christian publishers most years.

[G L Wilson]

I know that there is an award for the worst purple prose.

[aliceinoz]

Ayn Rand: She wrote endless, gushing, repetitive prose featuring one-dimensional characters, presented as rare moral paragons, paraded out in doorstop-length novels of pretentious political and economic drivel.

Ray Bradbury: Never wrote a sentence, let alone a story or novel, that didn't irritate me with its clumsy, moralizing self-importance. Moreover, his style overflows with metaphors that seem literary, until you think about them, and realize they evoke nothing. There's more to being a great writer than pioneering a niche genre.

[Ser Nevarc]

Everybody who writes the top 100 pop music

[El Viejo]

Something inside me wants to design a graph on which we could chart writers according to how imaginative and interesting their ideas and characters are, on how well they are able to present them, how technically capable they are in constructing their work, to what degree they respect their readers, and so on. Something along the lines of the political compass graphs for composers (http://www.politicalcompass.org/composers) and music (http://www.politicalcompass.org/music). That would be nice.

But then we'd need a similar, complementary tool we could use to rate ourselves, a graph that shows us what kind of reader we are. Can we appreciate and thoughtfully consider different or opposite viewpoints? Are we capable of changing our minds? Are we willing to do so? Can we put ourselves in the shoes of a character we don't like? How willing are we to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story? And on a more nuts and bolts level, how sophisticated is our vocabulary, comprehension, and how sticky our retention? Oh, and we'd need to be rated on how widely read we are, as that breadth and depth of exposure is what makes us able to truly taste the subtleties, richness, and texture of an author's work, or the lack of it. To be rated as a reader would be fun. And humbling.

It's easier to just say what I like and don't like. I've liked far more than I've disliked. I have enjoyed the odd work by authors I otherwise don't care for ("The Old Man and the Sea"), and have been unable to finish works even though I enjoy how they're written (Nicholas Nickleby). Some works that I've enjoyed very much I've seen both panned and praised by different authorities ("Moby Dick") making me wonder if it was good or not, and if it mattered. Sometimes I've force-fed myself a book that I ended up liking better long after I'd read it ("Raintree County"). Some books have been enjoyable despite their weaknesses because the idea of the story fascinates me ("When Worlds Collide"). This latter mechanism, my harmonic response to something in the writing, is the main factor in my deciding which writers are better than others, no matter what my technical sense says.

[AliSundquist]

I'd nominate either Matthew Gregory Lewis, Theodore Dreiser, or Owen Wister.

[TheFifthElement]

Surely it's got to be E. L. James? I've not read the dreaded 'Grey' books but picked up a snippet via Amazon and my 12 year old son writes better.

Plus she ought to get an award for female mind control 'cos I don't know what she's put in those books but it's having a significant impact on the mental capacities of most of my female friends and acquaintances.

Not 'literary' of course but I have lost track of the number of people who have referred to it as the 'best' book they've 'ever' read :nonod:

[Alexander III]

Something inside me wants to design a graph on which we could chart writers according to how imaginative and interesting their ideas and characters are, on how well they are able to present them, how technically capable they are in constructing their work, to what degree they respect their readers, and so on. Something along the lines of the political compass graphs for composers (http://www.politicalcompass.org/composers) and music (http://www.politicalcompass.org/music). That would be nice.

But then we'd need a similar, complementary tool we could use to rate ourselves, a graph that shows us what kind of reader we are. Can we appreciate and thoughtfully consider different or opposite viewpoints? Are we capable of changing our minds? Are we willing to do so? Can we put ourselves in the shoes of a character we don't like? How willing are we to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story? And on a more nuts and bolts level, how sophisticated is our vocabulary, comprehension, and how sticky our retention? Oh, and we'd need to be rated on how widely read we are, as that breadth and depth of exposure is what makes us able to truly taste the subtleties, richness, and texture of an author's work, or the lack of it. To be rated as a reader would be fun. And humbling.

It's easier to just say what I like and don't like. I've liked far more than I've disliked. I have enjoyed the odd work by authors I otherwise don't care for ("The Old Man and the Sea"), and have been unable to finish works even though I enjoy how they're written (Nicholas Nickleby). Some works that I've enjoyed very much I've seen both panned and praised by different authorities ("Moby Dick") making me wonder if it was good or not, and if it mattered. Sometimes I've force-fed myself a book that I ended up liking better long after I'd read it ("Raintree County"). Some books have been enjoyable despite their weaknesses because the idea of the story fascinates me ("When Worlds Collide"). This latter mechanism, my harmonic response to something in the writing, is the main factor in my deciding which writers are better than others, no matter what my technical sense says.


I like you. You should post more often.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Surely it's got to be E. L. James? I've not read the dreaded 'Grey' books but picked up a snippet via Amazon and my 12 year old son writes better.

Plus she ought to get an award for female mind control 'cos I don't know what she's put in those books but it's having a significant impact on the mental capacities of most of my female friends and acquaintances.

Not 'literary' of course but I have lost track of the number of people who have referred to it as the 'best' book they've 'ever' read :nonod:

Women like porn, just like men. That's why it's popular. I've considered reading it just to see what the big deal is, and how graphic it really does get.

[Old Crow]

The literary book I've read and least enjoyed is easily "Herzog" by Saul Bellow. I can handle unlikeable protagonists without issue. I can even handle a certain level of the old "I'm isolated and trapped by my intelligence" attitude that seems to go hand in hand with many characters experiencing existential despair. What really killed Herzog for me was that the author, rather than slyly using his narrative to expose the utter lack of perspective his protagonist exhibits, seems to idolize him as though he were experiencing some kind of heroic struggle. Ugh.


Women like porn, just like men. That's why it's popular. I've considered reading it just to see what the big deal is, and how graphic it really does get.

Interesting point regarding the Grey novels. I've heard harlequin romance novels described before as being an equivalent to pornography for a number of women, and from what I understand those books don't rise above the level of erotica. The problem is that it's not even particularly good erotica from what I've heard. I don't really get what propelled those books onto the bestseller list.

[TheFifthElement]

Women like porn, just like men. That's why it's popular. I've considered reading it just to see what the big deal is, and how graphic it really does get.
I have no issue with porn, but if I'm going to read it I'd like it to be at least well written. From what I've seen of Grey, it's remedial level English at best. If women want to read porn, that's fine. But at do yourself a favour and read something decently put together like Delta of Venus or, if BDSM is your genre, The Story of O which is pretty graphic. Flippin' heck, Black Lace is probably better and no one's under any illusion that any Black Lace book is highbrow literature. I also hear that Anne Rice's Sleeping Beauty trilogy is pretty racey, but not having read it I can't verify that.

Anyway check out the first few pages on Amazon, you'll see what I mean. Many of the reviews are better written (and incredibly funny...or at least the ones on Amazon.co.uk are anyway. Not as funny, of course, as the reviews for Veet for Men which are the best, best, best on the web. And probably more graphic than Grey ;) )



Interesting point regarding the Grey novels. I've heard harlequin romance novels described before as being an equivalent to pornography for a number of women, and from what I understand those books don't rise above the level of erotica. The problem is that it's not even particularly good erotica from what I've heard. I don't really get what propelled those books onto the bestseller list.

That's what I heard too - one of the girls at work who is reading it said that Cosmopolitan magazine is significantly more graphic.

[JuniperWoolf]

I also hear that Anne Rice's Sleeping Beauty trilogy is pretty racey, but not having read it I can't verify that.

It is, and it's also BDSM. Sometimes I wonder why certain things attain mainstream popularity and others don't. It doesn't bother me like it does others for some inexplicable reason, but I am curious: why did the Grey series explode like it did, and not the Sleeping Beauty trilogy? Why the Twilight series and not the Vampire Chronicles (although they were very popular, but not to the same extent or to the same wide-ranging audience as Twilight). Hell, there's a ton of vampire literature out there, from the highest high brow to the lowest low brow, why that one, out of all of them? I always kind of figured it might be just because the covers are pretty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1d/Twilightbook.jpg/250px-Twilightbook.jpg

Do those Grey books have eye-catching covers too?

[ennison]

This blast from the past was an entertaining thread. Number 1 of the worst! Best of the worst! No clear winner of course.

[sandy14]

William McGonagall


Poetry for Vogons.

[ennison]

The better we our houses do build the less chance we have of being killed.
Written by the third little pig? No but Mr WMcG. Ach there is harmless fun in him. He's a street balladeer and on that basis not bad at all.

[Francis Meadows]

"Les gouts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas," as the French say. So this is obviously highly personal.

I absolutely struggled with the Earth's Children series by J.M. Auel. Never made it past the first chapter of The Mammoth Hunters. Boy does she take her time to narrate things.

Francis