What is the most god awful book you have ever read?

[ZiggyStardust]

Besides Twilight! :arf:

[Seasider]

A Forum's Book of Lists

[Big Dante]

Fiona Mcintosh - Odalisque.
It was just terrible, I almost laughed at some parts.
I must say I did like some parts of it but it was just.....

[MystyrMystyry]

Can't recall its title nor author, but I remember the opening sentence was three paragraphs long and contained fifteen spelling errors, one on the first word

[Dimitra]

Bataille's The story of the Eye.

[TacoButt]

#3 DaVinci Code
#2 Celestine Prophesy
#1 Catcher in the Rye

[ZiggyStardust]

#3 DaVinci Code
#2 Celestine Prophesy
#1 Catcher in the Rye

Ah, yes, the DaVinci Code. I wonder which one is worse- the book or the movie?:puke: I'm assuming you hated Catcher in the Rye because the main character is moody, right? I've heard that one come up a lot


Can't recall its title nor author, but I remember the opening sentence was three paragraphs long and contained fifteen spelling errors, one on the first word

Was it a legit book?! :smilielol5::goof:

[ZiggyStardust]

by the way, Tacobutt, I like your name!

[TacoButt]

by the way, Tacobutt, I like your name!

Thanks, Ziggy. I like your's too because it reminds me of a ceramics class I took where the instructor played Bowie records every day.

I disliked Catcher because it seemed like it was (yet another) informercial for Freudian Psychoanalysis. Everything was cleared up thanks to unlocking the secrets of the unconscious in the therapeutic context.

The same complaint with Hitchcock's South by Southwest. The conspiracy theorist in me suspects that there were covert pro-psychoanalysis efforts going on in the post-war years.

Catcher was the only book I ever LITERALLY THREW OUT OF AN OPEN WINDOW when I got to the last page. :cuss:

[Three Sparrows]

Worst book ever- Angels and Demons. The Woman in White was pretty terrible too, but Brown is just...:reddevil:

[ZiggyStardust]

Thanks, Ziggy. I like your's too because it reminds me of a ceramics class I took where the instructor played Bowie records every day.

I disliked Catcher because it seemed like it was (yet another) informercial for Freudian Psychoanalysis. Everything was cleared up thanks to unlocking the secrets of the unconscious in the therapeutic context.

The same complaint with Hitchcock's South by Southwest. The conspiracy theorist in me suspects that there were covert pro-psychoanalysis efforts going on in the post-war years.

Catcher was the only book I ever LITERALLY THREW OUT OF AN OPEN WINDOW when I got to the last page. :cuss:

I like that you dislike the book for a more complex reason, rather than the fact that you thought that Holden was a brat. I agree with the fact that Catcher in the Rye was an advertisement for Freudian Psychoanalysis, however, I'm not entirely sure that that is what it's ALL about. You got sexual oppression going on and everything, but there are some other themes, such as superficiality in the adult world, and "Phoniness" (as Holden puts it).

As for the window incident- I hope to god you were only on the second story xD hahaha! :smilielol5:

[ZiggyStardust]

Worst book ever- Angels and Demons. The Woman in White was pretty terrible too, but Brown is just...:reddevil:


He's pretty awful, and so is Tom Hanks (at least in those movies) :puke:

[MystyrMystyry]

Was it a legit book?! :smilielol5::goof:[/QUOTE]


Sadly yes (think I've put a mental block of sadness on it), though printed professionally it was a cheap publisher whom I correctly predicted would soon be out of business. It had a washed out crap blue and white watercolour sketch - no detail - and was about a seamonster terrorising a city

The story was crap, the telling was crap, and upon completion I felt like crap - no-one won


(Actually, thinking about it just then made me question it - was it perhaps an ultra-ultra-quickie for the purposes of legitimising the name of a two dollar company for the purposes of tax evasion? If not, it's still a superior plot)

[TacoButt]

As for the window incident- I hope to god you were only on the second story xD hahaha! :smilielol5:

'Twas! I can't do that out of disgust anymore because I read books on my iPod. :arf:

By the way, Zigg...what's on your worst list?

[TheChilly]

For me, it's a tie between the following: Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons", and Jonathan Kellerman's "Bad Love".

Both books were just... incredibly boring, poorly overwritten...

I think I'm not going to say any more.

[Delta40]

Rosemary Rogers - Sweet Savage Love. Gawk, eek, spew. Never, ever read contemporary, historical romance, laced with passionate sex. Its like five years of Mills & Boon releases condensed into one book.....enough to make one feel as pink and fluffy as Barbara Cartland!

[Delta40]

#3 DaVinci Code
#2 Celestine Prophesy
#1 Catcher in the Rye


Yes but have you read the VaDinci Cod? much more entertaining...

[Babak Movahed]

I know there is going to be someone who is going to completely flip out because of this, but the worst book I've ever read was Brave New World by Huxley. I had quite a high expectation for it, but was thoroughly let down by the end of the novel.

[MystyrMystyry]

I really enjoyed it, but I'm not an epsilon minus.:yikes:

But you're right - a lot of the classics don't have quite as big a sonic boom as you'd been expecting. I guess it's why they just miss out on the approbation that others receive

Without going into 1984, its entirely anti-climactic (intentionally) anti-climax was worse and there's people on here who love it.

Great people all of them, and our differences are what make the planet spin, but I just don't get their partiality. Perhaps because it's so different for something of it's status, and also even in general terms?

I just think a stronger ending for it would have been to...

[stlukesguild]

I don't mean to sing the praises of Brave New World or 1984... both of which I feel are deserving of their status as "classics"... but both of which are surely highly overrated... especially among younger readers. What I mean to ask, however, in light of the comments on the anticlimactic endings of these books, is since when is a grandiose climax a measure of the success or failure of a work of literature? Such seems a necessity for most Hollywood blockbusters and most thriller and horror novels... but serious literature. I've always thought that the point of reading, perhaps not unlike life itself, is found not in the destination or the conclusion... but in the journey.

[Rores28]

I really enjoyed it, but I'm not an epsilon minus.:yikes:

But you're right - a lot of the classics don't have quite as big a sonic boom as you'd been expecting. I guess it's why they just miss out on the approbation that others receive

Without going into 1984, its entirely anti-climactic (intentionally) anti-climax was worse and there's people on here who love it.

Great people all of them, and our differences are what make the planet spin, but I just don't get their partiality. Perhaps because it's so different for something of it's status, and also even in general terms?

I just think a stronger ending for it would have been to...

In line with the rest of the story I honestly can't imagine a more horrifying (and better) ending for 1984.

I know you are a reader and not necessarily a writer but could you throw out some hypothetical endings that you think would be in better accord with the themes of the book, or one that is more emotionally evocative?

[MystyrMystyry]

Please ignore my tardiness - I did


Because of the risk of spoiling it for others (and it's too difficult to completely flatten something that may be the trigger for a lifetime's enjoyment) I held back, and also because I'd already criticised and a half a couple of others in this thread

But just say for example that Winston returns to his cell, having satisfied his tormenters that he genuinely believes in the number of fingers (and perhaps he does), and is eventually allowed to go home.

But in a Clockwork Orange way the process awakens something else inside him and only then does he truly see the world and his situation for what it is, and has to live with it forever to the point that he becomes his own tormentor


I've said it elsewhere on Litnet recently that the book is a criticism of Stalinist Russia - the omnipresent posters of Big Brother being the key - and the behavior of Stalin, the KGB and the Red Army stank a high stench.

For their crimes against humanity they have a lot to answer for, and the torture and murder of millions of innocents (far more millions of Soviets died under Stalin's Iron Fist than everyone in both World Wars combined)

Winston's fate is relatively minor as he is but one of many who suffered, but I feel Orwell was unaware of the sheer size of Stalin's scythe

And to think that Uncle Joe started out as a poet - not too dissimilar to another trumped up little psychopath who wanted to be a painter, really

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't mean to sing the praises of Brave New World or 1984... both of which I feel are deserving of their status as "classics"... but both of which are surely highly overrated... especially among younger readers. What I mean to ask, however, in light of the comments on the anticlimactic endings of these books, is since when is a grandiose climax a measure of the success or failure of a work of literature? Such seems a necessity for most Hollywood blockbusters and most thriller and horror novels... but serious literature. I've always thought that the point of reading, perhaps not unlike life itself, is found not in the destination or the conclusion... but in the journey.

True, but the ending does have to count for something, no? For me, a bad ending can ruin a book, and a great ending can make an otherwise mediocre book very good.

As for my worst book, I don't really know. I rarely keep reading a book I dislike, and I have a bad memory on what I've read. Plus, I'm sure I read a lot of bad literature when I started reading that I wouldn't be able to get through now. I read a TON of Star Wars books in high school, and while some of them were quite good and well-written, many of them were undoubtedly schlock. But, back then, if it had a lightsaber in it, I was content.

I guess if I had to pick, it would be Angels and Demons, which is odd, because I really enjoyed The Da Vinci Code. (SPOILER) When he jumps out of the plane (or whatever flying vehicle it was) and survives was just too much. And then the explosion. And all that ridiculous pseudo-science. Just bad.

[ZiggyStardust]

'Twas! I can't do that out of disgust anymore because I read books on my iPod. :arf:

By the way, Zigg...what's on your worst list?


I would have to say the Witching Hour by Anne Rice is one of my least favorite books. I don't have any problem reading really long books if an author knows how to WRITE a really long book. Anne Rice can't...so It was going nowhere fast for me, and I couldn't push on :arf:

[ZiggyStardust]

Thus far I think Dan Brown is winning. xD

[ZiggyStardust]

I don't mean to sing the praises of Brave New World or 1984... both of which I feel are deserving of their status as "classics"... but both of which are surely highly overrated... especially among younger readers. What I mean to ask, however, in light of the comments on the anticlimactic endings of these books, is since when is a grandiose climax a measure of the success or failure of a work of literature? Such seems a necessity for most Hollywood blockbusters and most thriller and horror novels... but serious literature. I've always thought that the point of reading, perhaps not unlike life itself, is found not in the destination or the conclusion... but in the journey.


To me, something that determines the success or failure of a book is if I can take anything away from it. For example, I was able to take a lot away from John Steinbeck's East of Eden. Twilight, however, had nothing to offer me other than Nosferatu (who underwent cosmetic surgery) swimming around in a pool of sparkles, and a teenage version of...well, Playgirl (in all honesty).

[tomt]

I have a handful of titles I can't believe I actually wasted my time on. Two of note were A Thousand White Women (so bad I don't even know who wrote it) and Princes of Ireland by Edward (?) Rutherford. I think I was waiting for some of those gals to be scalped but it never happened. As far as Rutherford's rubbish - seriously Ed? 1100 pages of post-Druid clan fighting? Somebody get that man a Guinness so he'll stop typing.

[andy13]

The Magicians by Lev Grossman. Marketed as "a fantasy book for adults", it is just awful. It's a mix of Harry Potter/The Chronicles of Narnia, but to make it seem original and to perhaps hide the stories that he took from, he adds rampant swearing and sex.

The characters are very poorly conceived; there's no hero, as you hate every character, but no anti-hero or even antagonist as they're not evil or bad enough. The characters are thus very awkward as they're just there in the book.

[Hyacinthine]

There are the obvious ones like The Da Vinci Code, course. Then there are the one's I should probably be embarrassed not to like. There are several works where I simultaneously recognize their greatness and find them torturous.

Great Expectations -- I much liked Hard Times, but somehow was annoyed by Great Expectations. It had its moments, but I also found it overly sentimental, contrived, and... grating.
The Iliad -- War stories aren't my thing, especially when the war is about something so, excuse me, asinine. I did enjoy the tender moment between Hector and his son and also the passages of nature metaphors.

[bohn]

Most awful book.. Catch-22.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The Magicians by Lev Grossman. Marketed as "a fantasy book for adults", it is just awful. It's a mix of Harry Potter/The Chronicles of Narnia, but to make it seem original and to perhaps hide the stories that he took from, he adds rampant swearing and sex.

The characters are very poorly conceived; there's no hero, as you hate every character, but no anti-hero or even antagonist as they're not evil or bad enough. The characters are thus very awkward as they're just there in the book.

I've heard so much conflicting views on this book, and each side comments on what you just did, though some like it, and, obviously, some don't. I still plan to read it (honestly, posts like these make me want to read it more, lol).


Most awful book.. Catch-22.

Why?