the worst book you have ever come across

[cacian]

and why?

Lots of books appear to have a sense of originality about them but as soon as you pick them up and start reading they may end in total disappointment because the beginning ,middle or end is simply not good enough.


so what is according to you the worse book you have picked up and felt like throwing across the room?
one of the many I have encountered is

the girl with a pearl earring I thought it waste of paper.
the worst of it all it was made into a film which I thought was even more duller then dullest itself.

[Mutie]

I was just thinking the other day,

2 books I have abosolutley no memory of reading (though i finished them)

Popcorn by ben elton

Vernon god little, by i forget

I read VGL 6 years ago at the same time I read To Kill a Mockingbird. I have read neither since, I could not tell you a single thing about the story of VGL yet I could quote exact lines from Mockingbird.

[AlysonofBathe]

Twilight

It may be fashionable to hate it, and I may hate being fashionable, but I just can't comprehend the love for this book. I get tweens don't have developed reading tastes, I didn't when I was a tween, but this is something altogether different. I won't rant about it, it's been done, it's gotten old, but I do recommend this (http://theoatmeal.com/story/twilight) excellent comic via The Oatmeal explaining the stupidity that is Twilight.

Cheers,
Alyson

[hawthorns]

Pretty much all my school textbooks. Learning disabilities aren't fun...

[cacian]

Pretty much all my school textbooks. Learning disabilities aren't fun...

I can just imagine the dullness of it all. Sorry to hear about it.
What books do you prefer?

[cacian]

Twilight

It may be fashionable to hate it, and I may hate being fashionable, but I just can't comprehend the love for this book. I get tweens don't have developed reading tastes, I didn't when I was a tween, but this is something altogether different. I won't rant about it, it's been done, it's gotten old, but I do recommend this (http://theoatmeal.com/story/twilight) excellent comic via The Oatmeal explaining the stupidity that is Twilight.

Cheers,
Alyson

Yes I agree.

[cacian]

I was just thinking the other day,

2 books I have abosolutley no memory of reading (though i finished them)

Popcorn by ben elton

Vernon god little, by i forget

I read VGL 6 years ago at the same time I read To Kill a Mockingbird. I have read neither since, I could not tell you a single thing about the story of VGL yet I could quote exact lines from Mockingbird.

How interesting. I tend to do something like that too.
I can read a book outloud all the way through and I still could not tell you anything about it. It is amasing how I can just see and read words but don't actually know what I am actually reading. I could not tell you teh story. This is only with books I am not interested in.

[kasie]

....the girl with a pearl earring I thought it waste of paper.
the worst of it all it was made into a film which I thought was even more duller then dullest itself.

This made me smile because my first thought when I read the book was that it looked like an exercise from a creative writing course! You know the sort of thing: 'Look at this picture - what do you think is the story behind it?'

The worst book I've read in a very long time has to be The Cairo Diary by Maxim Chattam. I picked it up when I was collecting background reading for a trip to Egypt and wanted some fiction to leaven the factual books; the blurb was promising but oh dear, what a mistake - sloppy grammar, ludicrous characters, an unbelievable plot, so many twists to the tail you could have opened a wine bottle with it - sheer bad writing. I apologise for even mentioning it on a Literature Forum but you did ask! It makes Dan Brown look like literature - need I say more?

[ave d]

Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes. Mediocre writing geared single-mindedly towards its obvious and simplistic moral. Plus all the characters are so annoyingly well-adjusted. For entertainment value I'd prefer the other (reactionary) kind of after-school-special book, that's at least bad in a sensationalistic and ridiculous way.

The Mysteries of Udolpho. I read it because it's parodied in Northanger Abbey (which I liked), and I wanted to get the jokes. The main joke is that the heroine is useless and the bad-guys and setting are cardboard cutouts. The prudish sensibility of the author and her mechanical prose gets old pretty fast, however, and that leaves you with 600+ pages of sheer boredom.

For well-respected classics, one that I could not get into was Don Quixote. There are some quasi-interesting meta-textual devices throughout: Don Quixote acts out fantasies based on books he's read; every other character he meets seems to have read Cervantes' book about him and plays along with his fantasies; in the second part he meets a doppelganger out of an "unauthorized sequel"; it's a frame narrative with large portions of plot devoted to travelers telling each-other stories on the road. Unfortunately it's very long (my copy was almost 900 pages) and lavishes most of its attention on its two worst themes: 1) blunt cruelty inflicted on the main character ("practical jokes" include knocking out most of his teeth, hanging him out by his wrist out of a second-floor window, and unleashing feral cats on him when he's in bed), and 2) tedious pastoral sentimentality (seemingly all the people who play those pranks on Don Quixote alternate their brutal, mind-numbing acts of sadism with sappy, mind-numbing discussions on the virtues of the simple, peaceful lives led by shepherds!).

[irinmisfit92]

The book is titled Ugly. I thought it would be a good book as I suffer from lack of self esteem and I want to see how she goes through it, but the book was written in such a c*appy manner such that I couldn't stand it anymore.

Precious was also a bad movie that was a waste of time.

[cacian]

Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes. Mediocre writing geared single-mindedly towards its obvious and simplistic moral. Plus all the characters are so annoyingly well-adjusted. For entertainment value I'd prefer the other (reactionary) kind of after-school-special book, that's at least bad in a sensationalistic and ridiculous way.
It makes you think about the publishing establishement and how poor it is.


The Mysteries of Udolpho. I read it because it's parodied in Northanger Abbey (which I liked), and I wanted to get the jokes. The main joke is that the heroine is useless and the bad-guys and setting are cardboard cutouts. The prudish sensibility of the author and her mechanical prose gets old pretty fast, however, and that leaves you with 600+ pages of sheer boredom.
oh dear I would rather write my own book now and read it.

For well-respected classics, one that I could not get into was Don Quixote. There are some quasi-interesting meta-textual devices throughout: Don Quixote acts out fantasies based on books he's read; every other character he meets seems to have read Cervantes' book about him and plays along with his fantasies; in the second part he meets a doppelganger out of an "unauthorized sequel"; it's a frame narrative with large portions of plot devoted to travelers telling each-other stories on the road. Unfortunately it's very long (my copy was almost 900 pages) and lavishes most of its attention on its two worst themes: 1) blunt cruelty inflicted on the main character ("practical jokes" include knocking out most of his teeth, hanging him out by his wrist out of a second-floor window, and unleashing feral cats on him when he's in bed),
and tedious pastoral sentimentality (seemingly all the people who play those pranks on Don Quixote alternate their brutal, mind-numbing acts of sadism with sappy, mind-numbing discussions on the virtues of the simple, peaceful lives led by shepherds!).
Very brave of you to have read Don Quixote. I could not would not read it.
Interesting what you said about the tedious pastoral sentimentality.
It reminds me of the nazis, whilst they massacred thousands of innocent people they were able to carry on as if nothing had happened and they engaged in ceremonila discussions about art and listened deeply to classical music. Let's say they understood the importance of expensive taste but they were the very cheap of everything else.

[cacian]

The book is titled Ugly. I thought it would be a good book as I suffer from lack of self esteem and I want to see how she goes through it, but the book was written in such a c*appy manner such that I couldn't stand it anymore.

Precious was also a bad movie that was a waste of time.

Oh no sorry about this
That reminded me of the series of Ugly Betty isn't that part of it by any chance?
I would not buy books with titles such as these because I just know they are going to really poor.
Also it makes you thing about the book and wether they were actually ugly themselves to write and call a book ugly. They must be and they can't write on top of it..sounds really ugly.

[ave d]

It makes you think about the publishing establishement and how poor it is.

I think Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes is probably a case of the industrial education system making a big market for books that contain simple messages or life-lessons that are easy to teach.

I used to work summers on the grounds crew of a public school system, and I found the book discarded in the high school parking lot. I didn't expect to like it but I read it to pass the time one day when there wasn't any work to do. The thing is, these books do what they're supposed to. They're very easy to read and understand. It wasn't the sort of tedious chore that bad or primative "entertainment" books like The Mysteries of Udolpho can be and it's much shorter. They're just really dumb and the fact that the book probably only exists in the name of a lousy education is kind of irksome to me.


Very brave of you to have read Don Quixote. I could not would not read it.

Why do you think you couldn't or wouldn't read it? (I mean apart from my extremely persuasive negative review :coolgleamA: ;))

I personally wouldn't recommend Don Quixote to most people or feel like I'm a smarter or anything for having read it, but I think it's worth it overall to be open to finding enjoyment in classics (or just about any type of book, really).

[fb0252]

For me it's a tie: Of Mice And Men and White Noise, although I only made it through 50 pages of the latter. I never tire of knocking them either.

[Frohmankf1]

Pretty much all my school textbooks. Learning disabilities aren't funhttp://www.subeducation.info/avatar2.jpg

[cacian]

For me it's a tie: Of Mice And Men and White Noise, although I only made it through 50 pages of the latter. I never tire of knocking them either.

Haha....I agree how they get written and get given literary recommendation is beyond me.
I would include the Sound and the Fury. Pointlessly aimeless for me anyway.

[Currer Bell]

Hmmm...let me see.

The Stranger by Albert Camus. Why? Because the author makes everything seem pointless from the very beginning! Why bother reading it? (Obviously, I'm far from existential in my thinking).

Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce. Can't even get through a page without wondering where my brain is (or the author's at that).

Other than that, I guess I could say that in general I don't care for modern/pulp/present day fiction at all. I'm stuck in the 1800's. :)

[ariella]

Anything by Jackie Collins - pure garbage.
Ham on Rye - made me feel sick, really don't care for that type overhyped rubbish if you know what I mean. Same with Phillip Roth 'portnoy's complaint'.
These (to me) are far, far worse than of Mice & men and white noise, which were perfectly acceptable in my own personal opinion.

[KCurtis]

Haha....I agree how they get written and get given literary recommendation is beyond me.
I would include the Sound and the Fury. Pointlessly aimeless for me anyway.
I'm glad your opinions are just opinions!! Of Mice and Men is a wonderful story, and that is my opinion and one of many others.

[Scheherazade]

the girl with a pearl earring I thought it waste of paper.
the worst of it all it was made into a film which I thought was even more duller then dullest itself.I read a digital copy on my ereader so it wasn't so bad...

[Paulclem]

The worse book I ever came across was a lit crit book on postmodernsm. It made me really annoyed because it was unreadable. I wish I had kept some photocopies of this awful book as a demonstration of how not to write, or the title. It was truly awful, and perfectly clear why they were doing lit crit and not novels.

I started the Mill on the Flos....zzzzzzz......... sorry, once, but couldn't get on with it. I can't say it was the worst book I ever read because if it doesn't cut it for the first few chapters, then I'm afraid I'm onto something I really want to read. I have read books I didn't like for courses and stuff, but now - well I've got no time to waste on dislikeables.

[G L Wilson]

The Bible is the worst, it is also one of the best.

[Quintus Ennius]

My Antonia and Atlas Shrugged, I had to read both of them for school, though. My Antonia- nothing happened and the writing wasn't that great. Atlas Shrugged- just about everything in the whole book was terrible. Maybe I should read The Fountainhead, though.

[tomingram]

White Noise was hilarious. Up there with A Confederacy of Dunces.

The worst: Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead is only better to the extent that it is shorter, so not very much better. Anything interesting Rand had to say had already been said incomparably better by Nietzsche. Anything else Rand said was rubbish. And she was just a poor writer. That d'Anconia speech covers, what, 70 pages? Ridiculous.

Another that was terrible, by an author who is worth reading, is Jack Kerouac's Sartori in Paris. I guess by the time he wrote it, he was too old and flung over on alcohol to rise to the occasion. Big Sur was masterfully sad; Paris was just unreadable. Almost as bad as his last novel, Pic. It's a shame, too. This is the same guy who wrote the unthinkably brilliant The Subterraneans.

[hawthorns]

Anything written by Donald Trump

[Tallulah]

Oh, I can't believe Of Mice and Men and My Antonia have been mentioned! I like both of those. I like anything by Steinbeck really and I thought My Antonia was a beautifully written story.

My least favorite (right off the top of my head anyways) is The Leopard by some author I've forgotten. It was so incredibly boring. I can't tell you exactly what I didn't like about it because I don't actually remember the book at all, which shows how boring I found it.

[Desolation]

Story of the Eye by Georges Bataille.

I read about half of it before violently throwing it out the window (literally). It's easily the most depraved disgusting thing I've ever encountered, and I have a pretty high threshold for that kind of stuff.

[Francie]

'twilight' and anything by James Patterson. My parents love those books, but when I tried to read one I didn't get past page ten.

[stlukesguild]

I read about half of it before violently throwing it out the window (literally). It's easily the most depraved disgusting thing I've ever encountered, and I have a pretty high threshold for that kind of stuff.

Yes... Bataille's Story of the Eye is pretty damn disgusting. Be glad you didn't get to the last chapter and the scene with the priest. You don't wanna know what they ultimately did with that eye.:sick: I'd advise you steer clear of deSade as well. More of the same... but even more repetitive, monotonous, and poorly written.

[_Paul]

Whilst they were good books in themselves I could never enjoy anything I studied in school/college courses.

Also, there have been a lot of books I have stopped at the 50 page mark. The most recent of which was A Handsmaid Tale. Although I suspect this was far more due to personal taste than it being an, objectively speaking, 'bad' book.

[Oblivion]

Fight club

[Babyguile]

White Noise was hilarious. Up there with A Confederacy of Dunces.

The worst: Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead is only better to the extent that it is shorter, so not very much better. Anything interesting Rand had to say had already been said incomparably better by Nietzsche. Anything else Rand said was rubbish. And she was just a poor writer. That d'Anconia speech covers, what, 70 pages? Ridiculous.

Rand once said the only philosopher who ever influenced her was Aristotle, or some other Greek, but certainly not Nietzsche. I doubt she just brushed over him in complete ignorance :nonod:

But if what you say IS true, and Rand is so needless, why are her novels compulsory reading in US schools (as it sounds like they are)? I'm not arguing your point (I've haven't read Rand yet), I'm just curious because I always hear COMPLETELY polar opinions on her.

[mal4mac]

I though Rand was only "compulsory" for Wall Street illiterates? Where do you get the impression that she is taught in school? Have things got that bad?

[Seasider]

Kalooki Nightsby Howard Jacobson. Unlike Jacobson, I am not a Jew, but if I were I would mortally offended by it.

[Babyguile]

I though Rand was only "compulsory" for Wall Street illiterates? Where do you get the impression that she is taught in school? Have things got that bad?

It is just an impression, but someone in this thread said they had to read her in school and a few other people from the US said she's also on their syllabus.

[hawthorns]

Personally, I rather enjoyed The Fountainhead. Then again, I read it at 18, when I was a great deal more (impressionable?). Atlas Shrugged I couldn't get into at all--way too pedantic. But I can at least appreciate the spirit of her work. The business owners I know thank their lucky stars they aren't operating in a communist/socialist regime. Writers, inventors, artists, successful business people, etc. should have the liberty to be nonconformist and hold personal standards/aspirations in their work. Still, spirit is where it ends with me, especially as I grow older. The consequences/practicalities of practicing Objectivism on any large scale would be disastrous--except for small businesses who can say FU to their entire client bases simply because they have 1 Gordon Gecko "in the bag." And don't even get me started on its application to love/relationships. Warped worse than spacetime.

[Darcy88]

Saw thread title, immediately thought of Ayn Rand, clicked on it, now see I need not state the obvious.

[Darcy88]

Rand once said the only philosopher who ever influenced her was Aristotle, or some other Greek, but certainly not Nietzsche. I doubt she just brushed over him in complete ignorance :nonod:

But if what you say IS true, and Rand is so needless, why are her novels compulsory reading in US schools (as it sounds like they are)? I'm not arguing your point (I've haven't read Rand yet), I'm just curious because I always hear COMPLETELY polar opinions on her.

In her book For the New Intellectual I think it is she offers up her understanding of certain key aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy. Her grasp of Nietzsche's philosophy was so crude and simplistic I actually burst out laughing when I read that book. Much of her philosophy really does come off as Nietzsche dumbed down, an average mind messily regurgitating the ideas of a great mind. Maybe it was just her inability to write well, her vapid prose, I don't know, but damn was that ever a bad read.

[mona amon]

I read a lot of Ayn Rand a long time ago, when I was a teenager, and though I was never a big fan like my sister, I thought the novels were quite OK. I was reading far worse books at the time like Mills and Boon romances and Sydney Sheldon.

The worst book I've ever read is The Cleft by Doris Lessing. I didn't quite make it to the end but read quite a bit of it for the 11 new books challenge. I've read New Moon by Stephanie Meyer and The Da Vinci code but this beats them all because obviously the only reason it was published is because Lessing was a nobel prize winning author, and not because of any literary or commercial merit whatsoever. This bit of mindless drivel does not have even the cheap popular appeal of the other two I mentioned.

[PoeticPassions]

I refuse to read Ayn Rand... or well, maybe I should just so that I can broaden my tolerance.

I generally try not to read 'bad' books, so if I really dislike a book, I won't finish it.. but for some ungodly reason I read all of The Notebook, by the unbearably awful and cheese-infused Nicholas Sparks. It kills me that he makes so much money writing such crap....

[Svidrigailov]

The worst book I've ever read is The Cleft by Doris Lessing. I didn't quite make it to the end but read quite a bit of it for the 11 new books challenge. I've read New Moon by Stephanie Meyer and The Da Vinci code but this beats them all because obviously the only reason it was published is because Lessing was a nobel prize winning author, and not because of any literary or commercial merit whatsoever. This bit of mindless drivel does not have even the cheap popular appeal of the other two I mentioned.

Well, what possessed you to start with a book written when the author was pushing ninety and couldn't be expected to be at her best? Practice due care when introducing yourself to literary luminaries, and your reading will suffer the less for it. There's a reason The Golden Notebook is so renowned, and even if it is long(and might fit uneasily with a reading challenge) it should be the first point of entry for anyone other than sci-fans, who could dive into the Canopus in Argos quintet instead. The Golden Notebook is quite episodic, with a timeline that jumps around a lot, so it needn't be read all at once; just sampling a few chapters would reassure most readers that they're on sure ground with Lessing and can trust her writerly instincts. Otherwise, there's The Summer Before the Dark or Briefing for a Descent Into Hell for those wanting shorter lead-ins to her oeuvre.

[Seasider]

I think Lessing's best book is The Four Gated City. It is the last book in herChildren of Violence series. It begins with the young heroine coming to England after the end of WW2. It much resembles Lessing's own experiences in post-War Britain.

[rubsley]

Ulysses, by James Joyce.

The Da Vinci Code, obviously.

Although probably the worst written of all was this sub-Mills and Boon dirty romance I picked up off a market stall in India for about 30p. The writing was ridiculous, the sex hilarious. And if I remember rightly it just ended in the middle of a sentence.

Still, it had comedy value.

Other 'classics' I saw little merit in: Midnight's Children; The Great Gatsby; The Catcher in the Rye; A Thousand Years of Solitude; The English Patient.

[hanzklein]

Although probably the worst written of all was this sub-Mills and Boon dirty romance I picked up off a market stall in India for about 30p. The writing was ridiculous, the sex hilarious. And if I remember rightly it just ended in the middle of a sentence.

Still, it had comedy value.
That was called "Finnegans Wake" by James Joyce.

[Svidrigailov]

I think Lessing's best book is The Four Gated City. It is the last book in herChildren of Violence series. It begins with the young heroine coming to England after the end of WW2. It much resembles Lessing's own experiences in post-War Britain.

I was captivated by Walking in the Shade's account of Lessing integrating into 1950s London society, so I expect I'm destined to love The Four Gated City too. Is the series best read in sequence, or is it similar to the breakdown books(which all work as standalones)?

[CarpeNixta]

I remember when I was in middle school I was made to read some books of Carlos Cuauhtemoc Sanchez, they were awful just emotional blackmail for teenagers.

[Seasider]

I was captivated by Walking in the Shade's account of Lessing integrating into 1950s London society, so I expect I'm destined to love The Four Gated City too. Is the series best read in sequence, or is it similar to the breakdown books(which all work as standalones)?

When I read it I had only read Martha Quest but found no handicap in that. It's a long time since I read it but I think the narrative stretches over 15 or so years. Hope you enjoy it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ulysses, by James Joyce.

The Da Vinci Code, obviously.

I think you, like so many others, are making the faulty correlation of not liking a book equalling the book being bad. The thread isn't titled "what book did you least enjoy," but what was the worst book you read. Putting Ulysses and Da Vinci Code in the same category of quality makes me question your core literary sense.

[msmoonlite]

Anything by Nicholas Sparks. He makes me gag.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I refuse to read Ayn Rand... or well, maybe I should just so that I can broaden my tolerance.

No, I think you were correct first time. I also refuse to read, or even think about Ayn Rand. I have never read a page. I know nothing about it and it will stay that way.


I think you, like so many others, are making the faulty correlation of not liking a book equalling the book being bad. The thread isn't titled "what book did you least enjoy," but what was the worst book you read. Putting Ulysses and Da Vinci Code in the same category of quality makes me question your core literary sense.

Indeed, as is evident in the vegetable thread (no offense...).

I think if you were to walk into just about any book shop and close your eyes nearly 99/100 would be poor books (unless your blind man's buff stumbled upon the classics section). The skill is therefore not to choose your reading wearing a blindfold.

[Volya]

A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket.
I read the entire series and it was awful. It just leads you on and on and it never actually gets anywhere, and the ending was awful.

[Insane4Twain]

The Da Vinci Code, obviously.Quite.

[kelby_lake]

I generally don't think much of these type of threads (shouldn't it be "worst" anyway?). It encourages people to bash books instead of trying to understand them. There's a difference between understanding why a book has become a "classic" yet not liking it personally, and shutting yourself off to a book that you may later enjoy. Some books need to be read more than once in order to appreciate them. Obviously some of the more pulpy fiction doesn't apply to the rule but classics are classics for a reason.

Also, the influence of popularity makes a dislike of a book a complete hatred. I've been very guilty of this in the past and I think a negative attitude to reading takes away some of the enjoyment and makes reading passive rather than active. Even some of the books that I don't think much of (To Kill A Mockingbird, for example).

After the rant, the worst book I've ever read has to be this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/All-American-Girl-Ready-Not/product-reviews/0330438344/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

[cacian]

there is nothing worse then a'' worst'' book and by the look of this thread there are many.
an impression is still an impression and a book with a bad impression can be lastingly bad on a person, so it is better to air it out once and for all hence the purpose of this thread.

[cacian]

I think you, like so many others, are making the faulty correlation of not liking a book equalling the book being bad. The thread isn't titled "what book did you least enjoy," but what was the worst book you read.
How do you equal something you do not like especially a book?


Putting Ulysses and Da Vinci Code in the same category of quality makes me question your core literary sense.
Taste is entirely subjective and not reliant on a lables or medals.
Surely it is down to the individual to decide on whether what they have read is deemed good or bad and not the doner of merits.

[kelby_lake]

How do you equal something you do not like especially a book?


Just because somebody doesn't like something doesn't necessarily make it a bad book. There's no point in saying a classic is "the worst book you've ever read" without any other reason apart from the fact that you personally didn't like it.

I agree with Mutatis-Mutandis. The thread's title indicates something objective whereas the answers here have tended to be entirely subjective.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No, I think you were correct first time. I also refuse to read, or even think about Ayn Rand. I have never read a page. I know nothing about it and it will stay that way.



Indeed, as is evident in the vegetable thread (no offense...).

I think if you were to walk into just about any book shop and close your eyes nearly 99/100 would be poor books (unless your blind man's buff stumbled upon the classics section). The skill is therefore not to choose your reading wearing a blindfold.
Vegetable thread?

Just because somebody doesn't like something doesn't necessarily make it a bad book. There's no point in saying a classic is "the worst book you've ever read" without any other reason apart from the fact that you personally didn't like it.

I agree with Mutatis-Mutandis. The thread's title indicates something objective whereas the answers here have tended to be entirely subjective.

To cacian: That ^

[Delta40]

Prince Of The Desert by Penny Jordan (Mills & Boon)

As the child of a promiscuous father, Gwynneth has vowed she will never become a slave to passion! But one hot night in the Kingdom of Zuran has left her fevered and unsure: did she really share a night of unbridled lovemaking with a stranger from the desert?

But Gwynneth doesn't realise she shared a bed with Sheikh Tariq bin Salud -- and that he is determined to make her his own…

[Calidore]

Vegetable thread?


To cacian: That ^

I tend to agree with cacian: Books are art, and art is subjective. An author's look and feel works for you or it doesn't. Some vilify Stephen King as genre crap, some praise his skill and depth, and some take the middle road and call him quality genre crap.

[stlukesguild]

Surely it is down to the individual to decide on whether what they have read is deemed good or bad and not the doner of merits.

And surely you'd be wrong. It is indeed up to each individual to decide whether he or she likes or dislikes a given work of art, but it is rather naive if not juvenile thinking to presume that the individual's opinion in the same as judgment as to whether a work is "good" or "bad"... let alone deserving of its reputation.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I tend to agree with cacian: Books are art, and art is subjective. An author's look and feel works for you or it doesn't. Some vilify Stephen King as genre crap, some praise his skill and depth, and some take the middle road and call him quality genre crap.
I never disputed that.

See the following:

It is indeed up to each individual to decide whether he or she likes or dislikes a given work of art, but it is rather naive if not juvenile thinking to presume that the individual's opinion in the same as judgment as to whether a work is "good" or "bad"... let alone deserving of its reputation.

[stlukesguild]

kelby-lake: I generally don't think much of these type of threads (shouldn't it be "worst" anyway?). It encourages people to bash books instead of trying to understand them. There's a difference between understanding why a book has become a "classic" yet not liking it personally, and shutting yourself off to a book that you may later enjoy. Some books need to be read more than once in order to appreciate them. Obviously some of the more pulpy fiction doesn't apply to the rule but classics are classics for a reason.

I absolutely agree. It seems rather immature thinking to assume that if we personally dislike something it must be bad. I will be the first to admit that I'm not overly fond of James Joyce. There are passages I greatly admire... but as a whole his work has never really clicked with me. Yet I understand that in spite of this Joyce may actually still be a great writer. There are more than a few authors I greatly admire who were profoundly inspired by Joyce, and there are more than a few well-read individuals who are deeply enamored of Joyce. To come out an declare that Joyce is a "bad" writer (let alone the "worst") or overrated seems rather like dismissing (if not insulting) the opinions of everyone but myself. Considering such, I largely agree with Kelby Lake that such threads... such discussions... seem rather useless and negative.

[Insane4Twain]

Okay, allowing for some variety in tastes and quirks, sometimes a book is just banal, inane and stupid. One such book is required in many high schools to blunt criticism that most reading focuses too much on Dead White European Males.

And that is the only reason I can speculate why such a clumsy, incompetent piece of nonsense like House on Mango Street is foisted on young readers.

There are a hundred ways a book can go wrong, and Sandra Cisneros managed to find 99 of them. It's a combination of e.e. cummings's disregard of punctuation, the hilarity of Yoko Ono, Julia "Sweet Singer of Michigan" Moore's march toward sobriety and Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.

It's not prose, exactly, so I tried to judge it by its poetic content, that is, the use of similes and metaphors and tightly-controlled imagery. Unfortunately, the imagery was clumsy and unclear: ugly like bare feet in September; prettier than a yellow taxicab; sunflowers big as flowers on Mars; laughter like tin; dusty hollyhocks thick and perfumy like the blue-blond hair of the dead; I closed my eyes like tight stars; they smelled like Kleenex or the inside of a satin handbag; weeds like so many squinty-eyed stars.

There's no accounting for such snobby rubbish or, as I call it, snubbish. It's the kind of trash that folks like Nikki Giovanni or Maya Angelou produce because they know nobody will call them on it. They're invincible, these darlings of diversity and textbook writers.

[JuniperWoolf]

I once found a thick *** book with the intriguing title of The Shortest Book in the World. I opened it, and it was nothing but blank pages. I guess that was inarguably inane, but it was an alright gag I guess.

[cassbee]

I'd say "Mrs Dalloway" ugh...

[dark desire]

I'd say "Mrs Dalloway" ugh...

I recently gave my father the story "Lord Arthur Saville's Crime" by Oscar Wilde. While he was reading it I was sitting in the same room and I found him enjoying it. But when he finished it he said it was heavy and told me not to give any more such things to read.

Without going into details about him, I'd say it was only his limitations (he is a strong moralizer and Wilde says a moralizing man is a hypocrite) that he could not enjoy reading Wilde. It is pity that one cannot enjoy reading Wilde.

D. H. Lawrence once said one of the defining traits of Modernist writing is that it is difficult to read. So it is, very difficult to read indeed. But it is the effort that one makes in reading modernist writings that opens up the mind to new worlds of reading, reading becomes more exciting that ever. I'd suggest start with Lawrence and also read commentary on modernist writings and modernism on the side.

I'm finding Mrs Dalloway difficult to read too. It is like eating food that slow that satisfying hunger no longer remains the purpose and all that remains is to savour the taste.

[kelby_lake]

Prince Of The Desert by Penny Jordan (Mills & Boon)

As the child of a promiscuous father, Gwynneth has vowed she will never become a slave to passion! But one hot night in the Kingdom of Zuran has left her fevered and unsure: did she really share a night of unbridled lovemaking with a stranger from the desert?

But Gwynneth doesn't realise she shared a bed with Sheikh Tariq bin Salud -- and that he is determined to make her his own…

Ah, Mills and Boon are hilarious :D You have to love a sexy foreigner/brutish boss/arrogant millionaire.

[Paulclem]

kelby-lake: I generally don't think much of these type of threads (shouldn't it be "worst" anyway?). It encourages people to bash books instead of trying to understand them. There's a difference between understanding why a book has become a "classic" yet not liking it personally, and shutting yourself off to a book that you may later enjoy. Some books need to be read more than once in order to appreciate them. Obviously some of the more pulpy fiction doesn't apply to the rule but classics are classics for a reason.

I absolutely agree. It seems rather immature thinking to assume that if we personally dislike something it must be bad. I will be the first to admit that I'm not overly fond of James Joyce. There are passages I greatly admire... but as a whole his work has never really clicked with me. Yet I understand that in spite of this Joyce may actually still be a great writer. There are more than a few authors I greatly admire who were profoundly inspired by Joyce, and there are more than a few well-read individuals who are deeply enamored of Joyce. To come out an declare that Joyce is a "bad" writer (let alone the "worst") or overrated seems rather like dismissing (if not insulting) the opinions of everyone but myself. Considering such, I largely agree with Kelby Lake that such threads... such discussions... seem rather useless and negative.

I disagree. We all read classics we don't like whilst still acknowledging their classic status. In my case it's Austen, who is a good, classic writer, but who does not write upon a subject I'm interested in. There are plenty of people to defend Austen, and it's a good way to wind them up... i mean provoke interesting argument.

I agree that just saying a book is rubbish because I think that it is is a bit pointless, but on the other hand there are those who are somewhat precious about particular works - we can all be a bit like that - and it's good to appreciate a balance of views. The fact that a book is labelled a classic does not mean I or anyone is going to like it. The interestng thing is why some like a book and other not - perhaps for the selfsame reasons.

[stlukesguild]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN9iXlfxpxI

I truly dislike this. I can't imagine being forced to listen to more than a few seconds of it without losing my mind. But I can't fairly say that it is bad because I know virtually nothing of the art form in question. I cannot make a fair comparison or offer a logical explanation as to why it is "bad" or "good". To simply make declarations that this or that work of art is "bad" based solely upon personal opinion is rather like the half-literate teenager opining "Shakespeare sucks."

In no way am I suggesting that the "classics" are sacrosanct and beyond criticism... but if criticism is to have any value it must be constructed of more than personal likes and dislikes or comments that say more about the reader ("boring", "too long"...) than the book. No one can question me if I say I hate Chinese opera, Lima Beans, and "The Red Badge or Courage". Such is simply a statement of facts of my personal experience. But it is quite different if I declare, "Chinese Opera is pure noise; Lima Beans taste like sh**, and "The Red Badge of Courage" is one of the worst stories ever written." Now I am presenting personal opinions or experiences as if they were objective facts.

As Shelby_Lake suggested: "There's a difference between understanding why a book has become a "classic" yet not liking it personally, and shutting yourself off to a book that you may later enjoy." I would take this further and suggest that there's a difference between appreciating why a given book is considered a classic or even simply appreciating a given classic text... and actually liking it. I was in virtual disagreement with everything that Plato had to say in The Republic... I continually wrote scathing commentary in the margins... but I also recognize just why that book is so clearly a classic if only due to its ability to challenge and provoke our thinking several thousand years after it was written. But in no way would I say I enjoyed reading Plato.

[Delta40]

Ah, Mills and Boon are hilarious :D You have to love a sexy foreigner/brutish boss/arrogant millionaire.

Yes, well.... but it wasn't funny at the time ok? And he lied to me!

[cyberbob]

I think the "you can't say it's bad, only that you personally don't like it" idea only holds up if you apply it to all forms of art, not just the classics.

That's simply because what is a classic is decided basically by opinion. I mean, it's not decided by some formula or scientific principle or something like that. So there's nothing real dividing classics from non-classics, so you have to extend the objectivity of criticism to all kinds of literature.

[mona amon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN9iXlfxpxI

I truly dislike this. I can't imagine being forced to listen to more than a few seconds of it without losing my mind. But I can't fairly say that it is bad because I know virtually nothing of the art form in question. I cannot make a fair comparison or offer a logical explanation as to why it is "bad" or "good". To simply make declarations that this or that work of art is "bad" based solely upon personal opinion is rather like the half-literate teenager opining "Shakespeare sucks."

To be fair to the half literate teenager who declares that Shakespeare sucks, he/she is more like "you read him if you think he's great. Why am I being forced to read this crap?"


In no way am I suggesting that the "classics" are sacrosanct and beyond criticism... but if criticism is to have any value it must be constructed of more than personal likes and dislikes or comments that say more about the reader ("boring", "too long"...) than the book. No one can question me if I say I hate Chinese opera, Lima Beans, and "The Red Badge or Courage". Such is simply a statement of facts of my personal experience. But it is quite different if I declare, "Chinese Opera is pure noise; Lima Beans taste like sh**, and "The Red Badge of Courage" is one of the worst stories ever written." Now I am presenting personal opinions or experiences as if they were objective facts.

As Shelby_Lake suggested: "There's a difference between understanding why a book has become a "classic" yet not liking it personally, and shutting yourself off to a book that you may later enjoy." I would take this further and suggest that there's a difference between appreciating why a given book is considered a classic or even simply appreciating a given classic text... and actually liking it. I was in virtual disagreement with everything that Plato had to say in The Republic... I continually wrote scathing commentary in the margins... but I also recognize just why that book is so clearly a classic if only due to its ability to challenge and provoke our thinking several thousand years after it was written. But in no way would I say I enjoyed reading Plato.

I mostly agree, but sometimes we come across a classic which we just do not get, whichever way we look at it (For me it's Dorian Grey), and it's fun to trash the books that you expected to be good but turned out to be a waste of time as far are as you are concerned.

Of course it helps if the poster gives some reasons for disliking the work, and sometimes, when the reasons are outlandish or outrageous, they make for very entertaining posts. And there's a better chance of being taken seriously if your general literary standing is good. Nobody takes the high school kid who trashes Shakespeare seriously, but if Tolstoy says "Shakespeare sucks", everyone sits up and listens with interest. :D

[Paulclem]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN9iXlfxpxI

I truly dislike this. I can't imagine being forced to listen to more than a few seconds of it without losing my mind. But I can't fairly say that it is bad because I know virtually nothing of the art form in question. I cannot make a fair comparison or offer a logical explanation as to why it is "bad" or "good". To simply make declarations that this or that work of art is "bad" based solely upon personal opinion is rather like the half-literate teenager opining "Shakespeare sucks."

In no way am I suggesting that the "classics" are sacrosanct and beyond criticism... but if criticism is to have any value it must be constructed of more than personal likes and dislikes or comments that say more about the reader ("boring", "too long"...) than the book. No one can question me if I say I hate Chinese opera, Lima Beans, and "The Red Badge or Courage". Such is simply a statement of facts of my personal experience. But it is quite different if I declare, "Chinese Opera is pure noise; Lima Beans taste like sh**, and "The Red Badge of Courage" is one of the worst stories ever written." Now I am presenting personal opinions or experiences as if they were objective facts.

As Shelby_Lake suggested: "There's a difference between understanding why a book has become a "classic" yet not liking it personally, and shutting yourself off to a book that you may later enjoy." I would take this further and suggest that there's a difference between appreciating why a given book is considered a classic or even simply appreciating a given classic text... and actually liking it. I was in virtual disagreement with everything that Plato had to say in The Republic... I continually wrote scathing commentary in the margins... but I also recognize just why that book is so clearly a classic if only due to its ability to challenge and provoke our thinking several thousand years after it was written. But in no way would I say I enjoyed reading Plato.

I agree with you - particularly about the whimsical opinion of one person against the studied opinion of many. Perhaps we just differ in whether there is mileage in a thread like this. :smile5:

[mal4mac]

... I'd say it was only his limitations (he is a strong moralizer and Wilde says a moralizing man is a hypocrite) that he could not enjoy reading Wilde. It is pity that one cannot enjoy reading Wilde.

Why not read Kipling in front of him? When he asks, "why are you reading an Imperialist, when you are such a Wilde reading liberal?" you can argue that you can get a lot out of a writer you disagree with. (And Kiplings Indian tales are wonderful, as an aesthetic experience...)

[Calidore]

Why not read Kipling in front of him? When he asks, "why are you reading an Imperialist, when you are such a Wilde reading liberal?" you can argue that you can get a lot out of a writer you disagree with. (And Kiplings Indian tales are wonderful, as an aesthetic experience...)

And you can also debate the musical merits of the songs they inspired: "Wilde Thing" vs. "Kipling Me Softly"

[Insane4Twain]

Boy, I needed something to read because I sort of ran out of books and all. I really did! I sort of asked my son suave as hell if he had any god**** books. He took a lot of crumby English classes and passed, just like the god**** main character in Catcher in the Rye. I tried to read it before, I really did, but I sort of quit reading by the third god**** chapter. Boy! It was sort of corny and all with those phony characters and phony dialogue. They kill me! But I sort of decided to keep reading like a madman and all.

It was sort of a challenge. Holden sort of reminded me of a corny kid at god**** summer camp who tries to fit in with crumby older boys with corny words and all. He’s sort of stupid, he really is, and sort of gets kicked out of his god**** school. He kills me! There are 26 god**** crumby chapters in this god**** book. He sort of takes 21 chapters to go from leaving his god**** school to get home. He really did! In between he sort of does absolutely nothing except really smoke like a madman and sort of tries to get people to talk, but nobody wants to. It kills me! Probably because he’s so god**** boring and all. I’d rather talk to an undertaker. I really do!

I sort of understand making a corny character talk really suave as hell who doesn’t want to be phony. Boy, I really did! But maybe I couldn’t get interested in this crumby thing because it’s sort of like reading a god**** appliance warranty. Boy, I can’t believe I squandered three god**** days on this really puerile nonsense, I really don’t. It was dumber than House on Mango Street. I sort of wanted to punch the god**** author in the god**** nose, I really did, but he’s dead now, and I have no one to blame but myself for this.

[Paulclem]

Boy, I needed something to read because I sort of ran out of books and all. I really did! I sort of asked my son suave as hell if he had any god**** books. He took a lot of crumby English classes and passed, just like the god**** main character in Catcher in the Rye. I tried to read it before, I really did, but I sort of quit reading by the third god**** chapter. Boy! It was sort of corny and all with those phony characters and phony dialogue. They kill me! But I sort of decided to keep reading like a madman and all.

It was sort of a challenge. Holden sort of reminded me of a corny kid at god**** summer camp who tries to fit in with crumby older boys with corny words and all. He’s sort of stupid, he really is, and sort of gets kicked out of his god**** school. He kills me! There are 26 god**** crumby chapters in this god**** book. He sort of takes 21 chapters to go from leaving his god**** school to get home. He really did! In between he sort of does absolutely nothing except really smoke like a madman and sort of tries to get people to talk, but nobody wants to. It kills me! Probably because he’s so god**** boring and all. I’d rather talk to an undertaker. I really do!

I sort of understand making a corny character talk really suave as hell who doesn’t want to be phony. Boy, I really did! But maybe I couldn’t get interested in this crumby thing because it’s sort of like reading a god**** appliance warranty. Boy, I can’t believe I squandered three god**** days on this really puerile nonsense, I really don’t. It was dumber than House on Mango Street. I sort of wanted to punch the god**** author in the god**** nose, I really did, but he’s dead now, and I have no one to blame but myself for this.

:lol:

Good effort. I didn't like it either.

[ennison]

The Truth about Whatisname

[bounty]

arguments of subjective or objective aside:

yes---catcher in the rye sucked!

and moby dick sucked!

I don't see the attraction to "stream of consciousness" books---so mrs Dalloway sucked! (was glad to see someone else mentioned this)

ive tried twice to read zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance and couldn't get through it either time.

and some seemingly little known book that my goodness how did this happen, won a Pulitzer prize, the accidental tourist by anne tyler. I think there might have only been a few chapters left to go and I still gave up on it.

can I have a five way tie for "worst?"

honorable mention to vanity fair and tom jones.

for you haters (im teasing) from many years ago, I loved the da vinci code and twilight too!