The Worst Writer Ever?

[Don Quixote Jr]

The current (June) issue of Smithsonian has an interesting article on the "uniquely dreadful" Amanda McKittrick Ros "the greatest bad writer who ever lived" according to author Nick Page. The (abridged) article is posted online at http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/44732892.html
Personally I doubt if most of her detractors (including Mark Twain) are really qualified to dub her the worst writer ever in any language other than english, but I suppose even holding that distinction is quite a...dishonor?
I've never heard of Ms Ros previously, but I'm curious to see who else the Lit Network members might care to nominate as the worst writer ever, in english or any other language.

[Silas Thorne]

I'd vote for the Dundee poet William Topaz Mcgonagall.
See the information here http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/ where you can find some really dreadful poems, like the Tay Bridge Disaster. Here it is, read by sock puppets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WAqj9QZCac

[higley]

That's too funny. I can't pinpoint anybody particularly, but somehow I imagine the worst author ever has probably penned a romance novel or two, or five, or seven. I only read a little bit of that Twilight book but Stephanie Myers stands out as a contender. :/

[kelby_lake]

That's too funny. I can't pinpoint anybody particularly, but somehow I imagine the worst author ever has probably penned a romance novel or two, or five, or seven. I only read a little bit of that Twilight book but Stephanie Myers stands out as a contender. :/

Agreed :)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Dan Brown has to be an obvious contender.

Made a huge amount of money from awful, awful writing. His novels also bring out really annoying people who champion them as fantastic reads.

[Stargazer86]

Dan Brown has to be an obvious contender.

Made a huge amount of money from awful, awful writing. His novels also bring out really annoying people who champion them as fantastic reads.

:lol: soo true! I remember when I used to work at the bookstore we would joke about things like this.

Traditionally what I avoid and tend to consider as potentially awful reads are anything from Oprah's book club, or whatever "young adult" or "teen" series is popular. After seeing several certain kinds of people buy these books and hearing from them how "wonderful" they are, it's usually just best to avoid all together.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Traditionally what I avoid and tend to consider as potentially awful reads are anything from Oprah's book club, or whatever "young adult" or "teen" series is popular. After seeing several certain kinds of people buy these books and hearing from them how "wonderful" they are, it's usually just best to avoid all together.

Yes that is a good idea too. The UK version of Oprah's book club, from what I can gather, is the Richard and Judy book club who are (were?) daytime drivel presenters. Anything they consider good must be god awful, and yes I have read a few of them as I had to do for a module once and believe me they were bad.

For more information on books to avoid check out the following:http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/R/richardandjudy/book_club/book_club.html :thumbs_up

[Stargazer86]

Yes that is a good idea too. The UK version of Oprah's book club, from what I can gather, is the Richard and Judy book club who are (were?) daytime drivel presenters. Anything they consider good must be god awful, and yes I have read a few of them as I had to do for a module once and believe me they were bad.

For more information on books to avoid check out the following:http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/R/richardandjudy/book_club/book_club.html :thumbs_up

For the most part those do look like total crap :P But the Time Traveler's Wife looks kind of interesting. I'd heard of it before. The concept is cool so it might be worth checkign out. There's nothing worse than the subject of a book being interesting, but the writing and storytelling absolutely ruining it.

[sixsmith]

Yes that is a good idea too. The UK version of Oprah's book club, from what I can gather, is the Richard and Judy book club who are (were?) daytime drivel presenters. Anything they consider good must be god awful, and yes I have read a few of them as I had to do for a module once and believe me they were bad.

For more information on books to avoid check out the following:http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/R/richardandjudy/book_club/book_club.html :thumbs_up


Cloud Atlas is one of my favourite books. My credibility just took a hit.:D Damn you Richard and Judy.

[Eryk]

There are important literature writers that a lot of people can't stand reading. Dreiser gets mentioned a lot. Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Gerard Manley Hopkins are on my list. But they didn't write garbage.

I like mysteries, so I tried to get into the first Sookie Stackhouse book, but it didn't do anything for me in terms of writing style, characters or suspense. Or originality: heroine falls in love with a vampire? And he's pale, handsome and brooding? Wow, really?

[Dr. Hill]

Traditionally what I avoid and tend to consider as potentially awful reads are anything from Oprah's book club

Anna Karenina? lol

[higley]

There are important literature writers that a lot of people can't stand reading. Dreiser gets mentioned a lot. Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Gerard Manley Hopkins are on my list. But they didn't write garbage.

I like mysteries, so I tried to get into the first Sookie Stackhouse book, but it didn't do anything for me in terms of writing style, characters or suspense. Or originality: heroine falls in love with a vampire? And he's pale, handsome and brooding? Wow, really?

Really? :D How original. While nosing through a store I spotted a book titled "Vampirates" over my shoulder. The figure on the cover was--wait for it--a vampire pirate.

[Uberzensch]

Anna Karenina? lol

I was thinking the same thing!

As far as worst writer, how about Ayn Rand? (And, no, that's not because of her politics or philosophy.)

[mona amon]

I've never heard of Ms Ros previously, but I'm curious to see who else the Lit Network members might care to nominate as the worst writer ever, in english or any other language. - Don Quixote Jr

There must be far more bad writers than good writers, but to get the unique distinction of being the worst writer ever, I think, one will need some really special qualities. Now I want to read Ms Ros!

[Lokasenna]

I'd vote for the Dundee poet William Topaz Mcgonagall.
See the information here http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/ where you can find some really dreadful poems, like the Tay Bridge Disaster. Here it is, read by sock puppets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WAqj9QZCac

Agreed. Bloody awful poetry, but somehow hideously compelling!

I also think Barbara Cartland should get a mention - she essentially regurgitated the same crappy romance novel over and over for decades.

[wessexgirl]

Neely, R & J do have some good books amongst the dross. I am currently reading The Suspicions of Mr Whicher, a non-fiction, Victorian murder book, whose main character was said to have influenced Dickens, Collins and the birth of detective fiction. I had decided to read it as it sounded good, and had won a few book awards, not because it was on their list. It had been in the spotlight before their championiong of it. They do seem to drop a few "goodies" amongst their lists, whether by chance or design, I'm not sure, but I have to say that I don't really take much notice of them, the majority of their choices being of the popular and bestselling (especially after they have recommended them) type of books. I bet the authors they champion love them though! If you dismiss them out of hand, you might be doing a decent author a disservice, so I always look at what they've got on there, although I wouldn't run out and buy them all, like many people do.

Higley, Vampirates is a childrens/YA series of adventure books, which are very popular. I wouldn't class them amongst the sort of cr** you mentioned.

Oh and I definitely agree with Barbara Cartland and Dan Brown. Utter rubbish.

[kelby_lake]

I use 'Richard-and-Judy book' as a derogatory term for an overhyped badly-written book :)

[Emil Miller]

I use 'Richard-and-Judy book' as a derogatory term for an overhyped badly-written book :)

Being an inveterate avoider of all things 'popular,' I had never heard of Richard and Judy until a female colleague said that she was going to curl up with a cup of coffee on her leave day and watch Richard and Judy. The colleague, I might add, was addicted to detective novels and would read two or three a week as she was divorced with no children. Then, it appears Richard and Judy hit upon the idea of 'reviewing' books to justify their raison d'etre and Hey presto! They are being used to sell whatever suits the programme producers to give a puff to. The same is happening in the US where someone called Oprah Winfry ( can you believe it? ) is giving her literary opinion on what probably amounts to the American equvalent of UK drivel with, of course, the occasional semi-serious work thrown in to give some semblance of reality. One has to laugh because the alternative is:brickwall

[wessexgirl]

Being an inveterate avoider of all things 'popular,' I had never heard of Richard and Judy until a female colleague said that she was going to curl up with a cup of coffee on her leave day and watch Richard and Judy. The colleague, I might add, was addicted to detective novels and would read two or three a week as she was divorced with no children. Then, it appears Richard and Judy hit upon the idea of 'reviewing' books to justify their raison d'etre and Hey presto! They are being used to sell whatever suits the programme producers to give a puff to. The same is happening in the US where someone called Oprah Winfry ( can you believe it? ) is giving her literary opinion on what probably amounts to the American equvalent of UK drivel with, of course, the occasional semi-serious work thrown in to give some semblance of reality. One has to laugh because the alternative is:brickwall

Patronising post on all counts Brian. I'm no fan of R & J, but as you've made a point about not watching tv, it's a bit rich to be so snotty about them. Your colleague obviously enjoyed watching them, and reading detective novels, so why be so sneering? I enjoy detectives too, and here's the news, they aren't all drivel. There are some fine writers in the 'genre'. But even if what she reads is rubbish, that's up to her. Your subtext seemed to be quite condescending towards her. Why is the fact that she's alone relevant to her reading matter? You're knocking the presenters for giving their literary opinion on books, but so what? You're giving an opinion on tv you haven't seen. At least they've read the books.

[Emil Miller]

Patronising post on all counts Brian. I'm no fan of R & J, but as you've made a point about not watching tv, it's a bit rich to be so snotty about them. Your colleague obviously enjoyed watching them, and reading detective novels, so why be so sneering? I enjoy detectives too, and here's the news, they aren't all drivel. There are some fine writers in the 'genre'. But even if what she reads is rubbish, that's up to her. Your subtext seemed to be quite condescending towards her. Why is the fact that she's alone relevant to her reading matter? You're knocking the presenters for giving their literary opinion on books, but so what? You're giving an opinion on tv you haven't seen. At least they've read the books.

As a matter of fact I did subsequently did see a bit of the Richard and Judy show, although I admit I didn't switch it on deliberately but just caught it when setting up a video one morning. They were discussing something or other and the conversation was just simply banal so I didn't watch more than about 5 minutes. I have nothing against detective stories although many of them, with notable exceptions, are equally banal. I mentioned my former colleague in order to point out that R&J are likely to appeal to those readers who not very discriminating and the point about her being alone was merely to highlight the fact that she had sufficient time to read so many books.
When I have occasionally seen a poster advertising a book with R&J's recommendation on it, the blurb only reinforces my view that their opinion is no more valid than anybody elses. Why two mediocre interviewers should be taken seriously as book critics is beyond me.

[Nightshade]

For the most part those do look like total crap :P But the Time Traveler's Wife looks kind of interesting. I'd heard of it before. The concept is cool so it might be worth checkign out. There's nothing worse than the subject of a book being interesting, but the writing and storytelling absolutely ruining it.
It was actually quite good, the writing wasn't that bad at all. Far from the worst book Ive ever read. You do need to pay attention in parts though.



Neely, R & J do have some good books amongst the dross. I am currently reading The Suspicions of Mr Whicher, a non-fiction, Victorian murder book, whose main character was said to have influenced Dickens, Collins and the birth of detective fiction. I had decided to read it as it sounded good, and had won a few book awards, not because it was on their list. It had been in the spotlight before their championiong of it.
.
A fact I am hugely glad of since I have to read there book list, haven't started this year's yet but I did enjoy A quiet belief in Angels last year.
I am fairly certain the tenderness of wolves which was what last years costa book? was on the R&J list the summer before. I didnt like it, but most people did.
and I did enjoy the Time traveller's wife 3 or 4 years ago now :eek2:, interestingly the author only wrote it so publishers would accept her real book/. A picture book called the Three incestuous sisters. I rember the library was so thrilled with the issues on the time travellers wife they advance ordered her next book in bulk without realising what it was, I hink I was working t the day it arrived... :lol: there was such a flap over what to do with those books. and I dont think they were ever borrowed just sat there on the shelf for 2 years. :rolleyes:


I generally don't like anything hyped up, part of the reason I avoid the Booker, Pulitzer, and noble winners. Unless I pick them up and start reading them before realizing what they are.
But I have to read the R&J books for work and most of the Orange long list. Oh and the huge kids books, parents often want guarantees about whats inside them before they will let the kids read borrow them. And it saves me from having to speed read half a dozen books in one week because the complaints about their ratings start pouring in. And its around this time of year too, so Id best get ahead of the game really as it were, now that I think of it.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I have to agree with Kelby about Stephenie Meyer. Although I won't say she's the worst ever...I haven't read enough books in my life to be able to say something like that :D

I'm also wary of R&J's and Oprah's recommended novels, however I will still read the reviews about them. If it was recommended by the afore mentioned presenters there will be A LOT of reviews guaranteed. If you read a handful of them you'd usually be able to gauge wether or not it's worth a read. If it sounds interesting I will try it, because not all the recommendations are total rubbish. However I will never buy a book just because it was on their shows! I once talked to a manager of a very popular large book chain store, and he said whenever Oprah endorsed a book it would be sold out the next day. I think that's silly...

I'm also cautious when a book has won an award. Sometimes those books can be like oscar winning movies...not always chosen because they're the best...

[kelby_lake]

For the most part those do look like total crap :P But the Time Traveler's Wife looks kind of interesting. I'd heard of it before. The concept is cool so it might be worth checkign out. There's nothing worse than the subject of a book being interesting, but the writing and storytelling absolutely ruining it.

I might pick it up again one day. It's one of those books that you don't seem to lose anything by not finishing.

[sixsmith]

Names like Dan Brown, Ken Follet and Dean Koontz spring to mind but there is probably going to be guys (girls) out there who can out schlock, can out drivel the worst of what we know. Its a known unknown as Rumsfeld would say. I remember reading a book a girl gave me (that her boyfriend had given her) about a guy who for reasons i cant recall, learns kung fu and goes on a revenge killing spree. Needless to say, the less than sophisticated narrative wasn't saved by style.

I think you can probably divide this kind of question up. Worst writers ever period or Worst writers who lay claim to being 'literary' or writers of literary fiction (crude, i know).

[Emil Miller]

:goof:
Names like Dan Brown, Ken Follet and Dean Koontz spring to mind but there is probably going to be guys (girls) out there who can out schlock, can out drivel the worst of what we know. Its a known unknown as Rumsfeld would say.


I couldn't resist giving the whole quote:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.":goof:

[Scheherazade]

Once again, I am going to repeat my surprise at some people's plain refusal to buy or read a book because it has appeared on, say, Oprah.

Wihtout going into why and how Oprah or similar shows are watched by millions of people (because that is irrelevant at the moment), we have to accept that that they are popular. When something appears on a show like that, it is bound to reach millions of people and hence the increase in demand and sales.

It is not because it is Oprah but because it is a widely watched show. I would not consider depriving myself of a good book just because this or that celebrity endorses it... What's more, I would still go and read a book that interests me even if I happen to hear about it on Oprah first.

I simply do not understand this attitude.

Would you stop eating Godiva chocolates if they were endorsed by Britney Spears? Or refuse eating Cheerios if Madonna's picture was on the box?

[meh!]

i 2nd topaz

[Emil Miller]

The offices of Supascope Entertainments NYC:

Jake Melrose (President): You know Morry I can't help thinking that these accusations that Oprah's show is dumbing down the viewers' idea of real entertainment could be damaging.

Moritz Wetzel (Vice President): Yeah, what we need is some new twist to give the show an intellectual stance. Say! I've got an idea. How about we get her to review books on the show?

Jake Melrose: I don't think she can read.

Moritz Wetzel: What's that got to do with it? We could get someone to read them and tell her what they are are about.

Jake Melrose: Well I haven't read a book in years so what kind of books are we talking about?

Moritz Wetzel: Neither have I, but it doesn't matter. Any books will do as long as they have just come out and are being reviewed in the media, and we could also get some of those literature guys to put in their two cents worth.

Jake Melrose: Say! I think you've got something there. If we play our cards right, we could hit the jackpot. We could invest in the publishing groups that produce the books and get her to OK them or even go into the publishing biz ourselves which would be even better. I'll get Buck Peterson to look into it today. Now what about this idea of getting Britney covered in Godiva chocolate for her latest video? If you really think it'll work, I'll take a block holding in Godiva this afternoon.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Once again, I am going to repeat my surprise at some people's plain refusal to buy or read a book because it has appeared on, say, Oprah.

Wihtout going into why and how Oprah or similar shows are watched by millions of people (because that is irrelevant at the moment), we have to accept that that they are popular. When something appears on a show like that, it is bound to reach millions of people and hence the increase in demand and sales.

It is not because it is Oprah but because it is a widely watched show. I would not consider depriving myself of a good book just because this or that celebrity endorses it... What's more, I would still go and read a book that interests me even if I happen to hear about it on Oprah first.

I simply do not understand this attitude.

Would you stop eating Godiva chocolates if they were endorsed by Britney Spears? Or refuse eating Cheerios if Madonna's picture was on the box?

The thing is they are endorsed by these people with the target audience in mind and are chosen because they will have mass appeal. I happen to distrust most things which favour mass appeal. It doesn't mean that it is not possible to have mass appeal and quality, but in my experience the two don't often go hand-in-hand, especially with the target audience comprising of people who enjoy watching daytime television! As a result of this a book with a Richard and Judy sticker on (or another of that type) would put me off immensely.

As I have said before I had to read a couple of that ilk and there is little joy to be found there. In the past I have read 100's of books, maybe 1000's, which were little more than pointless dross, throwaway books - I simply don't have time to waste with books of that kind anymore, life is too short. I would rather spend the whole year reading one book of quality like, Milton’s Paradise Lost for example, as opposed to wasting my time with a 100 Richard and Judy type books.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I would not consider depriving myself of a good book just because this or that celebrity endorses it... What's more, I would still go and read a book that interests me even if I happen to hear about it on Oprah first.

I completely agree with everything you've said, but especially the above quote. It seems a bit snobbish ohterwise.

Neely, tsk tsk, for being like that about people who watch daytime television. It's like saying everone who reads horoscopes believes they will come true...

[wat??]

The worst writer ever was likely never published.

[TurquoiseSunset]

The worst writer ever was likely never published.

Well, I suppose it's implied that we are looking for the worst writer ever published, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a discussion...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely, tsk tsk, for being like that about people who watch daytime television. It's like saying everone who reads horoscopes believes they will come true...

Daytime television is a waste of electricity.

[wat??]

Well, I suppose it's implied that we are looking for the worst writer ever published, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a discussion...

Nah the thread is about the worst writer who is widely read.

If it were the worst ever published, nobody here would have read that either.

[Scheherazade]

Here is a selection of Oprah's Reading list:

2008
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski
A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle

2007
The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett
Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel García Márquez
Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides
The Road by Cormac McCarthy
The Measure of a Man by Sidney Poitier


2006
Night by Elie Wiesel

2005
A Million Little Pieces by James Frey
Light in August by William Faulkner
The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner

2004
The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez

2003
Cry, The Beloved Country by Alan Paton
East of Eden by John Steinbeck

http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahsbookclub/pastselections/20080701_orig_list

It doesn't mean that it is not possible to have mass appeal and quality, but in my experience the two don't often go hand-in-hand, especially with the target audience comprising of people who enjoy watching daytime television!
So, you were saying? :D

I actually like the fact that someone popular like Oprah would endorse these books and encourage people (especially those who would not otherwise) at least to give them a try. This is a good cause and Oprah deserves a pat on the back even if she gets 10% of her audience reading.

By the way, Neely, maybe you should watch Oprah... Who knows? Next, they might be reading Paradise Lost. :D

[Emil Miller]

Daytime television is a waste of electricity.

Night-time television is a waste of electricity.

[jekan blazer]

Well, I suppose it's implied that we are looking for the worst writer ever published, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a discussion...


Night-time television is a waste of electricity.


television is not a waste of energy!!! they are for video games!!!:flare:

[Lokasenna]

Here is a selection of Oprah's Reading list:

2008
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski
A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle

2007
The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett
Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel García Márquez
Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides
The Road by Cormac McCarthy
The Measure of a Man by Sidney Poitier


2006
Night by Elie Wiesel

2005
A Million Little Pieces by James Frey
Light in August by William Faulkner
The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner

2004
The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez

2003
Cry, The Beloved Country by Alan Paton
East of Eden by John Steinbeck

I actually like the fact that someone popular like Oprah would endorse these books and encourage people (especially those who would not otherwise) at least to give them a try. This is a good cause and Oprah deserves a pat on the back even if she gets 10% of her audience reading. :D

Out of interest (as I genuinely don't know), how many books a year are covered by Oprah? Sure, there might be some good stuff there, but if she's doing a book a week, then 3 or 4 decent works out of 53 isn't much to write home about.

That said, I've no problem with Oprah or R&J endorsing books, even if they're fairly naff. At least its getting people to read - their target audience, presumably, would be the part of the population least expected to read for pleasure. Melvyn Bragg might spend his days recommending works of great literature to high-minded individuals, but his audience share is almost certainly a lot lower than theirs.

[Emil Miller]

television is not a waste of energy!!! they are for video games!!!::

Well they can't be worse than watching the programmes.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Here is a selection of Oprah's Reading list:
So, you were saying? :D

I actually like the fact that someone popular like Oprah would endorse these books and encourage people (especially those who would not otherwise) at least to give them a try. This is a good cause and Oprah deserves a pat on the back even if she gets 10% of her audience reading.

By the way, Neely, maybe you should watch Oprah... Who knows? Next, they might be reading Paradise Lost. :D

Well at least she throws classics in so as to make her audience seem intellectual! :D Richard and Judy books have names like:

A Quiet Belief In Angels by RJ Ellory, A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini, Random Acts of Heroic Love by Danny Scheinmann, The Rose of Sebastopol by Katharine McMahon, When Will There be Good News? by Kate Atkinson, :lol:The 19th Wife by David Ebershoff, The Bolter: Idina Sackville - The Woman Who Scandalised 1920s Society and Became White Mischief's Infamous Seductress by Frances Osborne??? and so on, I'm not making these up by the way.

Which sounds tempting if you are a lone female who likes knitting and cats.:D


That said, I've no problem with Oprah or R&J endorsing books, even if they're fairly naff. At least its getting people to read - their target audience, presumably, would be the part of the population least expected to read for pleasure. Melvyn Bragg might spend his days recommending works of great literature to high-minded individuals, but his audience share is almost certainly a lot lower than theirs.

Yes I've not got a problem with non-readers cutting their teeth on books like this, I would agree with you that it is a good thing to get people reading who wouldn't normally do so, however I won't be tuning in to get advice, I've already read too much rubbish when I was younger and I don't need to go back to that.

I'm sure that they are not all rubbish anyway, I'm sure that there are some that are only slightly rubbish. ;)

[LitNetIsGreat]

*Must see* clip of Richard and Judy in action. Expresses perfectly what I was saying above. :lol::lol::lol: Got to 3 minutes and had to stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZfARvUHyo

OK, I will stop taking the Mick now.

[Scheherazade]

That said, I've no problem with Oprah or R&J endorsing books, even if they're fairly naff. At least its getting people to read - their target audience, presumably, would be the part of the population least expected to read for pleasure. Melvyn Bragg might spend his days recommending works of great literature to high-minded individuals, but his audience share is almost certainly a lot lower than theirs.Exactly my sentiment... I think this is reason enough to get Oprah nominated for a Nobel peace prize or something!
Which sounds tempting if you are a lone female who likes knitting and cats.:D Hey, now! Leave the cat and my knitting out of this... :mad:

:p
Yes I've not got a problem with non-readers cutting their teeth on books like this, I would agree with you that it is a good thing to get people reading who wouldn't normally do so, however I won't be tuning in to get advice, I've already read too much rubbish when I was younger and I don't need to go back to that.
You don't have to get their advice but there is no reason to dismiss books appearing on these shows or people reading the books recommended by them.

[LitNetIsGreat]

:pYou don't have to get their advice but there is no reason to dismiss books appearing on these shows or people reading the books recommended by them.

Have you seen the clip posted above, there's reason there?

[Emil Miller]

Have you seen the clip posted above, there's reason there?

My God you are so right. At 1.47 of 'My Best Friend's Girl' I'd had enough and had to stop watching. The indestructible MIlls and Boon wagon continues to roll.

[Nightshade]

Well at least she throws classics in so as to make her audience seem intellectual! :D Richard and Judy books have names like:

Wait are you judging books by there names? They've actually had some fairly decent books on there lists in the past, the books they recommend tend to range in genre, quality and style. They try and cater for the majority of people and try and get people out of a reading rut. I mean if everyone only read books they knew were 'worthy' books, then how would anything new ever get discovered?

2004

Monica Ali - Brick Lane
Martina Cole - The Know
William Dalrymple - White Mughals
Zoe Heller - Notes on a Scandal
David Nicholls - Starter for Ten
Joseph O'Connor - Star of the Sea
Alice Sebold - The Lovely Bones (winner)
Asne Seierstad - The Bookseller of Kabul
Nigel Slater - Toast: The Story of a Boy's Hunger
Adriana Trigiani - Lucia, Lucia
2005

William Brodrick - The Sixth Lamentation
Paula Byrne - Perdita: The Life of Mary Robinson
Justin Cartwright - The Promise of Happiness
Karen Joy Fowler - The Jane Austen Book Club
Chris Heath - Feel: Robbie Williams
David Mitchell - Cloud Atlas (winner)
Audrey Niffenegger - The Time Traveler's Wife
Jodi Picoult - My Sister's Keeper
Andrew Taylor - The American Boy
Carlos Ruiz Zafón - The Shadow of the Wind
2006

Julian Barnes - Arthur & George
Richard Benson - The Farm
Geraldine Brooks - March
Michael Connelly - The Lincoln Lawyer
Martin Davies - The Conjurer's Bird
Nicole Krauss - The History of Love
Anchee Min - Empress Orchid
Kate Mosse - Labyrinth (winner)
Eva Rice - The Lost Art of Keeping Secrets
Andrew Smith - Moondust
2007

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie - Half of a Yellow Sun
William Boyd - Restless
A.M. Homes - This Book Will Save Your Life
Lori Lansens - The Girls
James Robertson - The Testament of Gideon Mack
Griff Rhys Jones - Semi-detached
Jed Rubenfeld - The Interpretation of Murder (winner)
Catherine Ryan Hyde - Love in the Present Tense
2008

Danny Scheinmann - Random Acts of Heroic Love
Katharine McMahon - Rose of Sebastopol
Roger Jon Ellory - A Quiet Belief in Angels
Patrick Gale - Notes from an Exhibition
Joshua Ferris - Then We Came to the End
Mark Slouka - Visible World
Lloyd Jones - Mister Pip
Tim Butcher - Blood River
Peter Ho Davies - The Welsh Girl
Khaled Hosseini - A Thousand Splendid Suns (winner)
2009

Jesse Kellerman - The Brutal Art
Kate Summerscale - The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher
Andrew Davidson - The Gargoyle
Kate Atkinson - When Will There Be Good News
David Ebershoff - The 19th Wife
France Osborne - The Bolter: Idina Sackville-The Woman Who Scandalised 1920s Society and Became White Mischief's Infamous Seductress
Joseph O'Neil - Netherland
Beatrice Colin - The Luminous Life of Lilly Aphrodite
Elizabeth H Winthrop - December
Steven Galloway - The Cellist of Sarajevo
Summer Book Club 2004

Jennifer Donnelly - A Gathering Light
P. J. Tracy - Want to Play?
Cecelia Ahern - PS, I Love You
Maile Meloy - Liars and Saints
Ben Richards - The Mermaid and the Drunks
Bella Pollen - Hunting Unicorns
2005

Karen Quinn - The Ivy Chronicles
George Hagen - The Laments
Anthony Capella - The Food Of Love
Susan Fletcher- Eve Green
Ben Sherwood - The Life and Death of Charlie St Cloud
David Wolstencroft - Good News, Bad News
2006

Jim Lynch - The Highest Tide
Sam Bourne - The Righteous Men
Victoria Hislop - The Island
Dorothy Koomson - My Best Friend's Girl
Elisabeth Hyde - The Abortionist's Daughter
Elizabeth Kostova - The Historian
2007

Kim Edwards - The Memory Keeper's Daughter
Simon Kernick - Relentless
Kate Morton - The House at Riverton
Paul Torday - Salmon Fishing In The Yemen
Jane Fallon - Getting Rid of Matthew
Mark Mills - The Savage Garden
Jonathan Tropper - How to talk to a Widower
Mary Lawson - The Other Side of The Bridge
2008

Sadie Jones - The Outcast
Linwood Barclay - No Time for Goodbye
Julia Gregson - East of the Sun
John Hart - Down River
Margret Cezair - The Pirate's Daughter
Rebecca Miller - The Private Lives of Pippa Lee
Toni Jordan - Addition
James Bradley - The Resurrectionist

2009
Julian Fellowes - Past Imperfect
Dave Boling - Guernica
Stephen L. Carter - Palace Council
Charles Elton - Mr Toppit
Jill Dawson - The Great Lover
Bateman - Mystery Man
Sue Miller - The Senator's Wife
Janice Y. K. Lee - The Piano Teacher

Now granted I am not really looking forward that much to reading this years books, but just because I don't like hem, or they are no considered especially literary doesn't make them bad.

As to My best friend's girl, it wasn't half as bad as they make it out to be. Imuch preferred Marshmallows for breakfast, but my best friends girl wasn't that bad. Certainly neither were mind blowingly awe inspiringly amazing. But they are good at what they are and don't pretend to be anything else chicklit.
Also it wasn't published by Mills and Boons, from whose 'wagon' incidentally Jack London was launched amongst other greats, it was published by TimeWarner. And aside from the fact Mils and Boons isn't even called Mills and Boons anymore, officially as a company the imprint still exists, you do realise they are one of the most successful publishers of all time?

[wessexgirl]

Good post Night. Most of the books on the R & J list are not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to dismiss them all. As someone whose job is to get people into reading, as is yours, I find this constant sneering quite disheartening. I admit I personally can't read utter drivel, (*cough* Dan Brown), but there is something quite condescending about attempts to get people to read. Literacy levels are shockingly low, and what do we do when attempts are made, successfully, to get people reading, but sneer at them. It's like the same syndrome with exams. Every year when the results come out, what are the headlines? Exams are getting easier.......the students do well, after working hard, and then they're knocked :crash: What are they supposed to do? Sorry if that seems off-topic, but it's a similar thing. Whingers and moaners slagging off any attempts to do anything positive. For people who aren't avid readers, are we supposed to scare them off with critically acclaimed, worthy fiction, when it's an achievement to get them to read something?

The clip was excruciating, but because that was bad, and the book sounded awful, it doesn't mean that every book that's been reviewed was. The knock-on effect of these programmes is on the whole positive. They get people interested and we can see the results in bookshops and libraries which are inundated with shoppers for the books. Who knows, get people in and they may progress onto more "quality" literature, but if they don't, so what? If they enjoy the books they've tried, who are we to sneer?

[Jozanny]

Well, since there was talk of nominating Oprah to SCOTUS--not joking--I am sure she'll form her own world government soon and we'll all be happily surprised at the strength of Winfrey utopia!:D But before Sche raps my knuckles for faux political statements:p, she does do her followers a good turn with her book club. I have not liked some of the selections (not that I've read many of them), like Poisonwood Bible, or White Oleander, both of which suffer from plodding, stretching the plot development like salt water taffy, but they aren't the worst white-girl novels in the world. Kingsolver, especially, if she had a better editor, would have a stronger voice. And The Corrections, which I believe is one of her picks, isn't so bad for a non-academic reader to try. It is not the great American novel either, but Frazen does a fairly decent character study of a typical messed up family.

[kevinthediltz]

Cant we all just decide on Dan Brown and leave it at that? :lol:
That or Stephinine Myre (spelling? Oh well, I dont care.)
Friggin Twilight anyway.

[LitNetIsGreat]

For people who aren't avid readers, are we supposed to scare them off with critically acclaimed, worthy fiction, when it's an achievement to get them to read something?


Yep said that:


Yes I've not got a problem with non-readers cutting their teeth on books like this, I would agree with you that it is a good thing to get people reading who wouldn't normally do so, however I won't be tuning in to get advice, I've already read too much rubbish when I was younger and I don't need to go back to that.

I'm sure that they are not all rubbish anyway, I'm sure that there are some that are only slightly rubbish.

However my thoughts on Richard and Judy remain the same.
__________________

[Nightshade]

like Poisonwood Bible
:sick:I hated that book!So much so I got to the last 70 pages and gave up. Which isn't as bad as Jane Eyre which I suffered all the way to Reader I married himand then gave up. Mostly because I already knew how it ended and couldn't stand a moment more with annoying characters ( although that was 6 years ago so am going to try again this summer seeing as recent rereading of Tale of Two cities and Wuthering Heights have cured e of my unreasonable hatred for both of them. :D

Good post Night. Most of the books on the R & J list are not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to dismiss them all. As someone whose job is to get people into reading, as is yours, I find this constant sneering quite disheartening. I admit I personally can't read utter drivel, (*cough* Dan Brown), but there is something quite condescending about attempts to get people to read. Literacy levels are shockingly low, and what do we do when attempts are made, successfully, to get people reading, but sneer at them. It's like the same syndrome with exams. Every year when the results come out, what are the headlines? Exams are getting easier.......the students do well, after working hard, and then they're knocked :crash: What are they supposed to do? Sorry if that seems off-topic, but it's a similar thing. Whingers and moaners slagging off any attempts to do anything positive. For people who aren't avid readers, are we supposed to scare them off with critically acclaimed, worthy fiction, when it's an achievement to get them to read something?

The clip was excruciating, but because that was bad, and the book sounded awful, it doesn't mean that every book that's been reviewed was. The knock-on effect of these programmes is on the whole positive. They get people interested and we can see the results in bookshops and libraries which are inundated with shoppers for the books. Who knows, get people in and they may progress onto more "quality" literature, but if they don't, so what? If they enjoy the books they've tried, who are we to sneer?

Every Book its reader and Every reader his book eh? One of the Collection development principles for people not in the know. the as is yours bit is directed at me right? Cause yeah I also find the sneering annoying. My flatmate who has been a librarian for 15 years only reads Historical romances. Well she will read modern romances but I can't understand her criteria for choosing modern romances. I inevitably bring back the wrong ones for her.
Anyway the point is the woman is highly intelligent and all that but she just loves romances, so why shouldnt she read them? Course it is frustrating and I am constantly trying to slip something else like chicklit past her, to no avail, as it would make getting her books that much easier for me. I do find sneering annoying, I got sneered at my a member of staff at a library in Manchester for asking for a romance author. I was horrified, that is almost fireable offence at work, or it should well be.
See you get someone started on romances, then you move them on to the Original modern romance E.M. Hull ( or was it Dell? :confused: ) The sheik ( I thought it an awful book by the way but interesting point of view on arabs, similar to the view in E.R Burroughs, Son of Tarazan. Then you go you know what how about Austen??
And voila building reader confidence 101.
But like my flatmate you will always get confident strong readers, who have read the classics and the worthy books for years and decided you know what ? They like the romance novels so they are going to read romance novels. And that is perfectly OK.

[Emil Miller]

Also it wasn't published by Mills and Boons, from whose 'wagon' incidentally Jack London was launched amongst other greats, it was published by TimeWarner. And aside from the fact Mils and Boons isn't even called Mills and Boons anymore, officially as a company the imprint still exists, you do realise they are one of the most successful publishers of all time?

Mills and Boon didn't become exclusively purveyors of "Romantic" fiction until later in their existence. Originally they were publishers of straight fiction; hence Jack London and others. It doesn't matter who actually publishes chicklit, Mills and Boon has become a generic indicator of the genre.
I do realise they are one of the most successful publishers of all time but, by the same token, Barbara Cartland is one of the most successful writers of all time, and here's why:

Racing around Tesco the other day, my trolley dash was brought to an unexpected halt by the sight of a striking couple whose compelling appearance snagged my attention.
The man was tall, lantern-jawed, the expression on his ruggedly handsome face unreadable but utterly mesmerising.
Edging closer, I could see the fragile blonde by his side thought so too; for though the upward tilt of her delicate chin hinted at defiance, the way she leaned into his muscular body was suggestive of a woman almost liquid with desire.
The chemistry between the two was so electrifying that suddenly all thoughts of my weekly shop were abandoned and replaced instead by a desperation to know how such a captivating partnership had come to pass.
And so with one fluid movement, I grabbed the Mills and boon paperback on which they were cover stars and quickly concealed it in my trolley as though it were a topshelf magazine.


As I have said before on this thread, one has to laugh because the only alternative is :brickwall

[Nightshade]

Mills and Boon didn't become exclusively purveyors of "Romantic" fiction until later in their existence. Originally they were publishers of straight fiction; hence Jack London and others. It doesn't matter who actually publishes chicklit, Mills and Boon has become a generic indicator of the genre.
I do realise they are one of the most successful publishers of all time but, by the same token, Barbara Cartland is one of the most successful writers of all time, and here's why:

Racing around Tesco the other day, my trolley dash was brought to an unexpected halt by the sight of a striking couple whose compelling appearance snagged my attention.
The man was tall, lantern-jawed, the expression on his ruggedly handsome face unreadable but utterly mesmerising.
Edging closer, I could see the fragile blonde by his side thought so too; for though the upward tilt of her delicate chin hinted at defiance, the way she leaned into his muscular body was suggestive of a woman almost liquid with desire.
The chemistry between the two was so electrifying that suddenly all thoughts of my weekly shop were abandoned and replaced instead by a desperation to know how such a captivating partnership had come to pass.
And so with one fluid movement, I grabbed the Mills and boon paperback on which they were cover stars and quickly concealed it in my trolley as though it were a topshelf magazine.


As I have said before on this thread, one has to laugh because the only alternative is :brickwall
Heh. Ok I hate to assume but I am going to on this occasion assume that you have never read either a M&B or a chicklit book, that is other than maybe a quick look at one to confirm your opinion.
Now Ive got to say they are NOT intercchangable as genres. The M&Bs and especially mills and boons imprint, are formulaic. You can tell exactly what will happen by the colour of the cover. Bluey-green medical romance. Dark blue modern/contemrary Romances. Pink, are those corporate romancces. Drak purple is Inruge and also HIstorical romances and so on anyway.
Mills and boons operate a formula style the book has to fit into one of the established frame works. And for the most part to quote my course mate " the women are all tiny, beautiful and the men are all Good noble brave and gorgeous." actually she was talking about Feehan and the like, but the principle stands.
Chicklit on cthe other hand is much more varied and take themselves less seriously than proper romances. Off the top of my head I cant think of a perfecct example other than the Book lover which was kind of wierd but had a brilliant ver literatry book list on the front.
Oh I know some of the Margret AtTwoods are chicklit. :nod:
:D
( can you tell I have been in charge of the romance section in the libray for the last 3 and a half years?) :rolleyes:
Speaking of which if I dont get on I will be late, Ill think of better examples while I am working. :D

[Emil Miller]

Well I was using chicklit in its broadest sense but I won't argue that there may be different degrees of competence within the genre. However, I think you will enjoy the Mills and Boon cover designs on the link below.
They are absolutely hilarious but No.3 must take the cake for both title and picture,have you ever seen a guy wearing a leopardskin with a haircut like that?



www.guardian.co.uk/books/gallery/2008/nov/27/mills-and-boon-covers

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well I was using chicklit in its broadest sense but I won't argue that there may be different degrees of competence within the genre. However, I think you will enjoy the Mills and Boon cover designs on the link below.
They are absolutely hilarious but No.3 must take the cake for both title and picture,have you ever seen a guy wearing a leopardskin with a haircut like that?
www.guardian.co.uk/books/gallery/2008/nov/27/mills-and-boon-covers

:lol: Wonderful, no.3 spot on! Didn't they make no.6 into a carry on film too? Agatha Christie missed out on no.7 big time, that sure had potential.

[kelby_lake]

What's with Number 1?! And Number 2 she's rubbing up against him...

[Scheherazade]

www.guardian.co.uk/books/gallery/2008/nov/27/mills-and-boon-coversThese are excellent!

:D


Romance Goes Tenting

WAAF to Wife

Grace Before Meat

:D:D:D

[Nightshade]

wait a second some of those are real titles! :lol:
Pleae tell me they arent all , though I wouldnt put it past them. I Love mills and boons titles, they are almost always garnteed to cheer me up on a horrible day :nod:

[Lynnwood]

I recently had the misfortune of picking up a book to read from a dusty collection I found in my closet. This was two weeks ago. It was so awful I searched for it on the internet to see if anyone had heard of it.

It's called Silk and Steel by Ron Miller.

Luckily, or maybe unluckily, someone on Livejournal not only heard of the book but made a blog entry about it. http://vandonovan.livejournal.com/1088311.html


I also read the Twilight series not too long ago as part of a reading challenge with a couple of friends, so......I'm going to also vote for Stephenie Meyer. I think what made me most irritated about those books is that she started out with an interesting enough concept, but it's as if when writing it she simply didn't care about character development, plot structure, continuity, canon rules, word repitition, purple prose, dues ex machinas etc etc. She either doesn't care, or has no idea what those are.

All that wasted potential made me cry. T_T

[Xylophanous]

As to Amanda McKittrick Ros, yes, she perplexed most conventional readers, but you must admit that there is a certain perverse brilliance to a book that begins


Have you ever visited that portion of Erin's plot that offers its sympathetic soil for the minute survey and scrutinous examination of those in political power, whose decision has wisely been the means before now of converting the stern and prejudiced, and reaching the hand of slight aid to share its strength in augmenting its agricultural richness?

Another author worthy of mention here, since he is frequently described as "the worst ever", is the American mystery writer Harry Stephen Keeler. Again, I cannot help but recognise his peculiar genius:


For it must be remembered that at the time I knew quite nothing, naturally, concerning Milo Payne, the mysterious Cockney-talking Englishman with the checkered long-beaked Sherlockholmsian cap; nor of the latter's 'Barr-Bag' which was as like my own bag as one Milwaukee wienerwurst is like another; nor of Legga, the Human Spider, with her four legs and her six arms; nor of Ichabod Chang, ex-convict, and son of Dong Chang; nor of the elusive poetess, Abigail Sprigge; nor of the Great Simon, with his 2163 pearl buttons; nor of--in short, I then knew quite nothing about anything or anybody involved in the affair of which I had now become a part, unless perchance it were my Nemesis, Sophie Kratzenschneiderwümpel--or Suing Sophie!

[StefR]

I haven't read everything in existence, but the first 30 or so pages of Twilight are pretty bad.

[Emil Miller]

For people who aren't avid readers, are we supposed to scare them off with critically acclaimed, worthy fiction, when it's an achievement to get them to read something?
The knock-on effect of these programmes is on the whole positive. They get people interested and we can see the results in bookshops and libraries which are inundated with shoppers for the books. Who knows, get people in and they may progress onto more "quality" literature, but if they don't, so what? If they enjoy the books they've tried, who are we to sneer?


Wessex, I know that you set great store by George Orwell so I thought you might like to read an extract from his essay 'Bookshop Memories'. His indignation is nothing short of hilarious and it might be instructive to read the whole essay. I think it would provide a great laugh for anyone who contributes to this site.



Our shop stood exactly on the frontier between Hampstead and Camden Town, and we were frequented by all types from baronets to bus-conductors. Probably our library subscribers were a fair cross-section of London's reading public. It is therefore worth noting that of all the authors in our library the one who 'went out' the best was – Priestley? Hemingway? Walpole? Wodehouse? No, Ethel M. Dell, with Warwick Deeping a good second and Jeffrey Farnol, I should say, third. Dell's novels, of course, are read solely by women, but by women of all kinds and ages and not, as one might expect, merely by wistful spinsters and the fat wives of tobacconists. It is not true that men don't read novels, but it is true that there are whole branches of fiction that they avoid. Roughly speaking, what one might call the average novel – the ordinary, good-bad, Galsworthy-and-water stuff which is the norm of the English novel – seems to exist only for women. Men read either the novels it is possible to respect, or detective stories. But their consumption of detective stories is terrific. One of our subscribers to my knowledge read four or five detective stories every week for over a year, besides others which he got from another library. What chiefly surprised me was that he never read the same book twice. Apparently the whole of that frightful torrent of trash (the pages read every year would, I calculated, cover nearly three quarters of an acre) was stored for ever in his memory. He took no notice of titles or author's names, but he could tell by merely glancing into a book whether he had 'had it already'.

[Lokasenna]

Well I was using chicklit in its broadest sense but I won't argue that there may be different degrees of competence within the genre. However, I think you will enjoy the Mills and Boon cover designs on the link below.
They are absolutely hilarious but No.3 must take the cake for both title and picture,have you ever seen a guy wearing a leopardskin with a haircut like that?



www.guardian.co.uk/books/gallery/2008/nov/27/mills-and-boon-covers

Sometimes, you really should judge a book by its cover...:lol:

[Seraphina]

Anne McAffrey. The woman's horrific. Melodrama on every page, half her stuff, even down to character names, pilfered from better writers (case in point, half the names in Dragons Dawn are more or less copy-pasted from Dune), and it just came across...cheap. Best way I can describe it.

[emily00]

1 Jeffrey Archer
2 Stephen King
3 Racine (Yes, yes, I know, I'll get shot down in flames - but the guy was responsible for a lot of pain. He wasn't nicknamed 'Rancid' for nothing).

[kelby_lake]

Racine sounds nice in translation. Phedre is a great play.

[Red-Headed]

Don't forget Jeffrey Archer.

[Andrea Beaumont]

kamila shamsie.

so pretentious.

[Emil Miller]

1 Jeffrey Archer
2 Stephen King
3 Racine (Yes, yes, I know, I'll get shot down in flames - but the guy was responsible for a lot of pain. He wasn't nicknamed 'Rancid' for nothing).

This must be the only time in history that Racine has been linked with Jeffrey Archer and Stephen king.

[kelby_lake]

Poor Racine :( I think Phedre is a wonderful piece of theatre.

[Taliesin]

I think that the worst writer is someone whom everybody has forgotten since the author is just so worthless.
Another possibility is that there is no worst writer since you can always find a worse one.

[Stargazer86]

Once again, I am going to repeat my surprise at some people's plain refusal to buy or read a book because it has appeared on, say, Oprah.

Wihtout going into why and how Oprah or similar shows are watched by millions of people (because that is irrelevant at the moment), we have to accept that that they are popular. When something appears on a show like that, it is bound to reach millions of people and hence the increase in demand and sales.

It is not because it is Oprah but because it is a widely watched show. I would not consider depriving myself of a good book just because this or that celebrity endorses it... What's more, I would still go and read a book that interests me even if I happen to hear about it on Oprah first.

I simply do not understand this attitude.

Would you stop eating Godiva chocolates if they were endorsed by Britney Spears? Or refuse eating Cheerios if Madonna's picture was on the box?


I wouldn't refuse to read a book just because Oprah endorsed it. Traditionally though, what she endorses is dime a dozen crap. She's had some okay and good ones, but that's not often the case.
If I hear someone fawn over how wonderful a book is or how wonderful it looked just because they saw something about it on Oprah, that would never inspire me to gravitate towards the book. Perhaps it's the majority of the overzealous Oprah followers who tend to kill it for me. Many of them (at least at the bookstore where I worked) bought and read these books ONLY because Oprah endorsed it and wouldn't endorse anything else. If she promoted a favorite author of mine and I heard about it, I'll still read it. But, for example, Marly and Me and The Secret, I avoided after hearing about them from about 102308709 different people on almost a daily basis.

That's a big difference from just eating something that has a wrapper or commerical with a certain celebrity and sitting and reading a book. But no, I probably wouldn't eat a Godiva with Britney Spears on the wrapper. Cheerios with 80's Madonna though, I probably would :p

[TurquoiseSunset]

It's the funniest thing! I just bought a magazine, and it had a free Mills & Boons book in the plastic bag. So I opened the book and the dedication says, "For the unknown man I soaked while driving through a puddle."

Ahahahahaha!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Who writes stuff like that??

The title is Blind-Date Marriage... oi, you can just tell it'll be a winner :p

[Vitruvius]

A really bad writer? Hm... Could be very difficult. I read somewhere that you can learn more from a bad book, than from a good one, but still you can't learn how to do good from a bad book. I haven't read that many poorlywritten books. I remember one cheesy novel, its action set in texas, written by a grand anonymous lady, can't really remember the name of the author, but i remember the main character's name was Zane - that annoyed me so much!!! I ended up ripping the book apart. I also think John Saul is a bad writer, not the worst though. Who else? Hm... I found Gabriele d'Annunzio bloody awful, yet still not the worst. I keep thinking of cheesy lovenovels and just can't say the classic authors are worse than those rubbishbooks.

[amarna]

I found Gabriele d'Annunzio bloody awful, yet still not the worst.
I absolutely agree. I read "Fire" and found it confused and pompous gibberish. I'll never understand why people made such a fuzz about d'Annunzio.

[kelby_lake]

But he was who Mussolini got his style off.

[PeterL]

But he was who Mussolini got his style off.

Was Mussolini's fiction style also poor? I haven't read Mussolini's novel yet, but I plan to.

[Desolation]

Mussolini wrote a novel? :confused:

[PeterL]

Mussolini wrote a novel? :confused:

Yes, he did. It was initially serialized in a newspaper that he worked for. In 1929 it was published in book form. From what I have read about it, it had all of the flaws of a serialized novel, but it wasn't very good either.

[King Mob]

Paulo Coelho

[JJackman]

Friends, I take you back to the start of this thread. Lots of you are merely complaining about genres you don't like or average/mediocre writing, or styles that don't suit your taste. And I think bad poetry has to be in a separate class (though there I'd vote for Samuel Wesley - John Wesley's father).

But Amanda McKittrick Ros really does take the flag for just amazingly, outrageously bad awful writing -- a different class altogether than some mentioned here. If you haven't read any of her writing before responding, you should -- it will reset your standard for dreadful.

[kelby_lake]

Was Mussolini's fiction style also poor? I haven't read Mussolini's novel yet, but I plan to.

I meant his basis for Fascism. But Mussolini's writing is dreadful. I'm sure D'Annunzio's was at least...amusing.

Quite possibly the worst poem ever:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,737876,00.html

[JJackman]

Ah, but try "On A Maggot:"

http://www.nickpage.co.uk/worstweb/Wesley/maggots/maggot.html

[Mathor]

Terry Goodkind. Easily. Worst.

[prendrelemick]

Some books are so bad they become more and more entertaining as you read on. Andy McDermott's The Hunt for Atlantis (borrowed in error) is so bad its good.

[DarkStormyNight]

The current (June) issue of Smithsonian has an interesting article on the "uniquely dreadful" Amanda McKittrick Ros "the greatest bad writer who ever lived" according to author Nick Page. The (abridged) article is posted online at http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/44732892.html
Personally I doubt if most of her detractors (including Mark Twain) are really qualified to dub her the worst writer ever in any language other than english, but I suppose even holding that distinction is quite a...dishonor?
I've never heard of Ms Ros previously, but I'm curious to see who else the Lit Network members might care to nominate as the worst writer ever, in english or any other language.

:lol: Wow, that link has some terrible examples.

Personally, I love bad writing. Maybe it just makes me feel better about myself.
Anyway, my favorite piece is "The Eye of Argon", a legendary awful piece of fanzine fantasy writing. http://www.rdrop.com/~hutch/argon

Just for a sample of its supreme wretchedness

Grignr's emerald green orbs glared lustfully at the
wallowing soldier struggling before his chestnut swirled mount.
His scowling voice reverberated over the dying form in a tone of
mocking mirth. "You city bred dogs should learn not to
antagonize your better." Reining his weary mount ahead, grignr
resumed his journey to the Noregolian city of Gorzam, hoping to
discover wine, women, and adventure to boil the wild blood
coarsing through his savage veins.

[Chilly]

Atlanta nights by Travis Tea.

hears the links: http://critters.critique.org/sting/
http://web.cs.du.edu/~aburt/StingManuscript.pdf

[The Comedian]

Wow, lota choices out there. But I'll go with me, The Comedian, as the worst writer ever.

[Griffith]

Kafka, the most hyped writer ever.

[Chilly]

possibly, but that doesn't make him the worst.

[Griffith]

possibly, but that doesn't make him the worst.

Did you already read all the writers of the world?

[Chilly]

Did you already read all the writers of the world?

No, what I meant by that is that just because he is "overly hyped" does not mean he is the worst. I doubt you have ever read every writer in the world either, so the same question can be asked of you.

I'm sure that you may find someone more overly hyped then him in the future.

Anyways, I don't want to argue about it.

[Griffith]

No, what I meant by that is that just because he is "overly hyped" does not mean he is the worst. I doubt you have ever read every writer in the world either, so the same question can be asked of you.

I'm sure that you may find someone more overly hyped then him in the future.

Anyways, I don't want to argue about it.

I understand your point. What i tried to clarify is that this "pool" is unproductive due to the impossibility to know which writter is worse.

[Abracadorfman]

Stephanie Meyer, for me.

[Griffith]

Stephanie Meyer, for me.

Good choice, dude. Twilight is excessively obnoxious, without deepness, with those fantasies of impossible love between a vampire and a human one. Only dreamer girls consider it a good book.

[bigben]

Did anyone ever read Michale Gorbachov's book on the new Russian Communism? Neither did I, but I tried. I know it's not originally in English, but it stank in Russian, too. The most turgid, tedious text ever.

[rimbaud]

worst writer
it may be just me, but I really really don't like Dan Brown :s

[yuna]

Adding the vote for Meyer

[Desolation]

The title's got to go to either Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard. I know that it's tempting to say Stephanie Meyer. She's in the spotlight right now, so we're all excited about her. But in a few years, we will have all forgotten about her, and the only time we'll ever hear about her or her Twilight series will be on VH1's "I Love the Naughties"(2000s) special. But, Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard will probably be around for a while to come.

[stlukesguild]

Hey! We agree on this one, Desolation.:nod:

[Desolation]

I think it's happened often enough that we can safely call our quarrel over.

I've decided to let go of my misguided and childish views on Shakespeare(even though he still doesn't really interest me), after all.

[onioneater]

I would have to say Virginia Woolf or Henry James. I loathe them both!

[dfloyd]

It seems that she had a philosphy which can only be embraced by right-wing talk show hosts. In spite of all the accolades given her by pedagogues and critics, I've never finished a book by Virginia Wool. Maybe I'm Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

[Emil Miller]

It seems that she had a philosphy which can only be embraced by right-wing talk show hosts. In spite of all the accolades given her by pedagogues and critics, I've never finished a book by Virginia Wool. Maybe I'm Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Maybe her style of writing isn't to your taste. We don't all identify with the same writers and ( leaving aside the overhyped ) as reasonably intelligent readers we will usually agree on some books while disagreeing on others. I have never read Woolf either and, from what I know of the Bloomsbury group, probably never will; the exception being E.M. Forster whose books, excluding Maurice and A Passage to India, I read years ago.

[Lord Bas]

I wouldn't say worst, but I really dislike Old and Middle English literature such as the writers of Beowulf,Gawain and the Green Knight, writers such as Chaucer, and so on.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh, I love this thread, love it, "writers such as Chaucer" I mean Chaucer? The grandfather of English literature, or Woolf, one of the greatest writers of the 20th century? :brickwall Of course, personal opinion and taste must apply to literary works, but we must learn to step back from personal aesthetics and appreciate the overall value and merit of the text from a more critical viewpoint.

I dislike Dickens, in a sense, but he is still one of the greatest writers in English and I can fully acknowledge his talents as a writer. My personal grind would in no way stop me from reading any of his works and properly evaluating it from a critical stance.

I mean just take Woolf, not a barrel of kicks at a first skim, but read her in the light of a little understanding of modernism and with a subtle eye and she just blows the living hell out of you. Mrs Dalloway :eek:.

Anyway...carry on, that Milton, waffles on doesn't he?

[Pollopicu]

Dan Brown has to be an obvious contender.

Made a huge amount of money from awful, awful writing. His novels also bring out really annoying people who champion them as fantastic reads.

I'm beginning to resent people who judge anyone who liked Dan Brown. Personally, I've only read "Da Vinci Code", and for what it is (just a contemporary fiction novel) I enjoyed it. And let me add that I DESPISE "NY Times best sellers" list and the "Oprah book club"...despise them! I would never in a million years read, "Twilight", Or "Lord of the Rings". I came across Dan Brown when it first came out, and I wanted to see..I tried it, had a good time reading it, but wasn't rushing to read any other of his novels.
..However, just because I enjoyed it, doesn't mean I have less literary worth.
Dan Brown's Critics are the culprits of his ill-deserved notoriety. It's like making a big deal about how Danielle Steel is NOT a good writer. :argue:
Why do people go out of their way to point out that Dan brown is especially not a good writer?

It seems to me..(jmo) that people who do this are trying to prove how intellectually above his work they are. Who said he was such an amazing writer to begin with? It was just a great suspenseful novel. You read it, you like it...or you don't, and you put it away.
More annoying are the people who must point out, every chance they get, how Dan Brown is NOT a good writer. ugh. I can't think of anything more annoying in literary topics and conversations.

What does it say about you when you have to compare your literary status and worth to the talent (whatever that may be) of Dan brown?

I continue to be confused by this.

[Chilly]

And let me add that I DESPISE "NY Times best sellers" list and the "Oprah book club"...despise them! I would never in a million years read, "Twilight", Or "Lord of the Rings".

First of all, LotR is not in Oprah's book club and I seriously doubt it's in the NY times best sellers list (it was written in the forties after all). Also, you list it alongside Twillight as if it is the worst trash imaginable...which I don't agree with at all.
Secondly: this comes off as very hypocritical. You say that people shouldn't judge Dan Brown and although he is new he shouldn't be treated more harshly than other modern authors (which I agree with but will get too in a second). But the part where you say "Despise them! I would never in a million years read Twilight" sounds like some serious pre-judging. Your upset that people heartlessly bash Dan Brown, yet you do the same to other books?


I'm beginning to resent people who judge anyone who liked Dan Brown.

Dan Brown's Critics are the culprits of his ill-deserved notoriety. It's like making a big deal about how Danielle Steel is NOT a good writer. :argue:
Why do people go out of their way to point out that Dan brown is especially not a good writer?

More annoying are the people who must point out, every chance they get, how Dan Brown is NOT a good writer. ugh. I can't think of anything more annoying in literary topics and conversations.

What does it say about you when you have to compare your literary status and worth to the talent (whatever that may be) of Dan brown?

I continue to be confused by this.

I agree. It seems like the majority of people on this site hate Dan Brown. Even if they disagree on every other else, they somehow agree on this.

He is hated far beyond what he should be.
He's not a bad writer. Of course he isn't a great writer either, but he makes his words flow into understandable paragraphs with fewer grammar/spelling mistakes than some other writers, his scenes are imaginable, his characters somewhat real, and he does entertain the reader. He is, in short, a much better writer than I and millions of others are (including Audrey Niffenegger and this other published author I was reading, whose name I can't remember, and whose book almost made me want to puke).
If Dickens and Dostoevsky are Grand-Masters of Literature, I would call Dan Brown a journeyman.

As for why he is picked on the most, my guess is as good as yours. Maybe it's how much his books have made. I think he has 70-90 million dollars making very skillful writers who are virtually unknown very jealous. Or it is the fact that he lied by saying the book is based on facts and millions believed him. Or it's the fact that Christians are upset about exactly what he lied about and hold a grudge against him, although I don't think it's that one because I'm pretty sure not many Christians are on this forum.

Actually, I also really want to know exactly why Dan Brown is so hated?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm beginning to resent people who judge anyone who liked Dan Brown. Personally, I've only read "Da Vinci Code", and for what it is (just a contemporary fiction novel) I enjoyed it. And let me add that I DESPISE "NY Times best sellers" list and the "Oprah book club"...despise them! I would never in a million years read, "Twilight", Or "Lord of the Rings". I came across Dan Brown when it first came out, and I wanted to see..I tried it, had a good time reading it, but wasn't rushing to read any other of his novels.
..However, just because I enjoyed it, doesn't mean I have less literary worth.
Dan Brown's Critics are the culprits of his ill-deserved notoriety. It's like making a big deal about how Danielle Steel is NOT a good writer. :argue:
Why do people go out of their way to point out that Dan brown is especially not a good writer?

It seems to me..(jmo) that people who do this are trying to prove how intellectually above his work they are. Who said he was such an amazing writer to begin with? It was just a great suspenseful novel. You read it, you like it...or you don't, and you put it away.
More annoying are the people who must point out, every chance they get, how Dan Brown is NOT a good writer. ugh. I can't think of anything more annoying in literary topics and conversations.

What does it say about you when you have to compare your literary status and worth to the talent (whatever that may be) of Dan brown?

I continue to be confused by this.

I would agree with you that the Dan Brown topic is becoming tiresome, because I have made my feelings clear regarding him, as well as quoting from his Da Vinci Code some truly awful writing to back up my points, several times. This is one of the reasons why I have not, and will not, comment on the new Dan Brown thread, I've really said all I want to say on the matter.

Unfortunately in this world people do make snap judgements, most people get their job within 3 seconds at an interview based on looks, as opposed to a CV, that is just the way it works, the same as you probably made a judgment of me. However, there are only few statements in terms of literature that I would make such judgements, as all considered literature is such a diverse and engaging, and complex dialogue, there are few closed opinions in literature, and I do hate any closing of dialogue (and therefore the art) but with statements of praise for Brown or "Shakespeare sucks" comments, I have to make an exception to the rule. In short I distrust those who find merit in Brown, and those who find no merit in Shakespeare.

[Pollopicu]

First of all, LotR is not in Oprah's book club and I seriously doubt it's in the NY times best sellers list (it was written in the forties after all). Also, you list it alongside Twillight as if it is the worst trash imaginable...which I don't agree with at all. I didn't think they were part of the popular reading clubs. I was making a point that I don't read books which happen to be popular contemporary. I can see how that came off, and I certainly don't want to be one of those kind of people.



Secondly: this comes off as very hypocritical. You say that people shouldn't judge Dan Brown and although he is new he shouldn't be treated more harshly than other modern authors (which I agree with but will get too in a second). But the part where you say "Despise them! I would never in a million years read Twilight" sounds like some serious pre-judging. Your upset that people heartlessly bash Dan Brown, yet you do the same to other books?
Books? yes, not people. There are many books I'll pre-judge. However i don't judge the people who read the books as do the critics of Dan Brown books. I feel like i constantly have to defend myself when I tell people i read and enjoyed DV.



Unfortunately in this world people do make snap judgements, most people get their job within 3 seconds at an interview based on looks, as opposed to a CV, that is just the way it works, the same as you probably made a judgment of me. However, there are only few statements in terms of literature that I would make such judgements, as all considered literature is such a diverse and engaging, and complex dialogue, there are few closed opinions in literature, and I do hate any closing of dialogue (and therefore the art) but with statements of praise for Brown or "Shakespeare sucks" comments, I have to make an exception to the rule. In short I distrust those who find merit in Brown, and those who find no merit in Shakespeare.


The thing about Dan brown is that if you read his work, and you didn't like it, I whole-heartedly respect that. You're certainly allowed not to like it. My problem only lies in the trashing of people who did enjoy his book/s. It seems unfair to be judged by one author, especially when you've read so many wonderfully acclaimed books everyone else (for the most part) agrees on. It's really a shame.
I wouldn't read Dan brown again (unless I was in prison and had a poor selection of books)
I get bored with the redundancy of the style of one author, and when I finished his book, I knew his M.O.

[Drkshadow03]

I didn't think they were part of the popular reading clubs. I was making a point that I don't read books which happen to be popular contemporary. I can see how that came off, and I certainly don't want to be one of those kind of people.



I know, all those horrible books Oprah keeps championing like Gabriel Garcia Marquez's 100 Years of Solitude and Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon and Anna Kerenina by Tolstoy and The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner and East of Eden by John Steinbeck.

What was she thinking forcing that crud down reader's throats? Doesn't she know those books are complete garbage! Oprah is clearly dumbing down America!

[Pollopicu]

I know, all those horrible books Oprah keeps championing like Gabriel Garcia Marquez's 100 Years of Solitude and Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon and Anna Kerenina by Tolstoy and The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner and East of Eden by John Steinbeck.

What was she thinking forcing that crud down reader's throats? Doesn't she know those books are complete garbage! Oprah is clearly dumbing down America!
I didn't say all the books she chooses are ****. I'm just saying that I wouldn't read what she thinks I should run out and read. I like to get to my own books. I like to make my own choices.

[Desolation]

I think that I understand Pollopicu's point...There are many people out there that would go out and buy whatever Oprah may endorse no matter what it is. Some people even say that Obama won because of Oprah's endorsement. So, it's kind of like Oprah's book club represents a puppet-master situation(if you really over-exaggerate it).

It also represents the status quo, and what's cool and popular.

[sixsmith]

I don't think you should sever a relationship on the basis of a person reading and enjoying 'The Da Vinci Code'. It's ok to read crap and it also ok to enjoy it to some extent IMO.

That said, i think that there is a danger in adopting a 'Well 6 million (or however many people cant be wrong' or 'I like it so don't judge it' approach. I think Brown's success is part of a wider slide toward mediocrity and superficiality (see popular music here also) and that its important people point out his relative lack of talent. Now i know the halcyon days of Borges and Nabokov being at the top of the best-sellers lists are fantasy. But i fear that, with the way publishing is going, these mega-selling types will eventually sweep aside everything that can't compete in sales and the output of ambitious and compelling literature will dry up to nearly nothing. Alarmist maybe but why take the chance.

[Drkshadow03]

I think that I understand Pollopicu's point...There are many people out there that would go out and buy whatever Oprah may endorse no matter what it is. Some people even say that Obama won because of Oprah's endorsement. So, it's kind of like Oprah's book club represents a puppet-master situation(if you really over-exaggerate it).

It also represents the status quo, and what's cool and popular.

Wait, you don't obey everything Oprah tells you to do?! She'll soon know of this, my friend . . .

[Desolation]

Wait, you don't obey everything Oprah tells you to do?! She'll soon know of this, my friend . . .I expect that the officers will come to take me to the camp by tomorrow morning.

[Drkshadow03]

I expect that the officers will come to take me to the camp by tomorrow morning.

Yes, but look at it this way, you'll get a free helicopter and ferrari under the chair of your brainwashing machine. So it's not all bad.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't think you should sever a relationship on the basis of a person reading and enjoying 'The Da Vinci Code'. It's ok to read crap and it also ok to enjoy it to some extent IMO.

That said, i think that there is a danger in adopting a 'Well 6 million (or however many people cant be wrong' or 'I like it so don't judge it' approach. I think Brown's success is part of a wider slide toward mediocrity and superficiality (see popular music here also) and that its important people point out his relative lack of talent. Now i know the halcyon days of Borges and Nabokov being at the top of the best-sellers lists are fantasy. But i fear that, with the way publishing is going, these mega-selling types will eventually sweep aside everything that can't compete in sales and the output of ambitious and compelling literature will dry up to nearly nothing. Alarmist maybe but why take the chance.

I'm not severing a relationship because someone reads Brown, just that I wouldn't trust their critical opinion if they thought it is good. I don't really get the enjoy reading/eating/drinking crap business though, I just can't really understand it.

I don't think that the state of literature is that bad either, quality literature is not going anywhere, it is still marketable on the basis of students alone and will be into the distant future.

[kelby_lake]

I think that I understand Pollopicu's point...There are many people out there that would go out and buy whatever Oprah may endorse no matter what it is. Some people even say that Obama won because of Oprah's endorsement. So, it's kind of like Oprah's book club represents a puppet-master situation(if you really over-exaggerate it).

It also represents the status quo, and what's cool and popular.

In Britain, we have the Richard and Judy book club, which is filled with the latest popular trash that you'd pick up cheap to read on a plane. They never recommend classics.

[Three Sparrows]

Umm...book clubs aside, I think Neil Gaimen is the worst writer ever, even though there seem to a lot of people who love him.:( Stardust was a huge let down, and I didn't feel the least incentive to finish American Gods. My Muse just doesn't like him.

[Nightshade]

Oh come now! Stardust wasn't his best,( and don't even get me started on how the film is a completly different story) but American Gods was good, as was Neverwhere ( although on concideration I preffer the tv series or rather watching the tv series helps makes sense of thinsg tahat didnt makes sense in the book, but that was probably becasue the tv series came first) and Anasi Boys, loved that.. Actually American Gods was really good. And Graveyard tale was great fun too.