the worst writer ever is the writer that never writes because they are self conscious...
Printable View
the worst writer ever is the writer that never writes because they are self conscious...
ah...me
I don't know about THE worst, but...
I will probably be lynched for saying this, but I have a sincere loathing for Jane Austen.
... and furthermore the earlier posts about Sinclair and Kafka being the worst authors... I have decided to regard as jokes.
but your other two choices are way off base. Dreiser and Wister are two well recognized American authors writing about unrelated subjects. 'Sister Carrie" and 'An American Tragedy' are examples of early 20th century realism and are very good reads. Owen Wister's 'The Virginian' is one of the best renditions of the life of the American cowboy and has been made into many movies and a television series. You are from Wales, I see; perhaps you don't understand these authors of Americana, or you may be very young and not be able to digest such novels as of yet.
But to cast a vote, I vote for Parson Weems, the author of the "Life of George Washington", who promoted the apocryphal 'toss of the silver dollar' or 'the chopping down of the cherry tree'.
i have to say kafka,he is overrated and i never liked his work
Samuel Richardson
I am tempted to say Joseph Conrad but I suppose that would not be entirely fair at this point, I haven't given him much of a chance.
So I think I am going to have to go with Robert Penn Warren. I read two of his books, and they were both bloody awful to get through. They are extremely slow, and dull, and leave me wanting to just pull out my hair after a couple of pages. They are torture to read.
How can Sinclair be on this thread? Seriously guys? (well just one guy from what I read) Did you read anything other than The Jungle?
I personally loved The Jungle. I thought it was fabulous
I don't think anyone who is relatively famous nowadays should even be considered. If they're famous it means that someones likes them and if someone likes them that means that there must be something in the story worth liking, which means that it can't be the worst story ever. Sure there may be stories that you or I don't like, yet others do, so that means that the story cannot be universally called "The worst." To be the worst, a story has to be hated by everyone, and all published, famous pieces of work must've been liked by someone to get that far, so you can't say there the worst. You may dislike a book, which is perfectly fine, but not one person can accurately say what is the worst book ever and who is the worst author.
However, there are certainly books that were hated by everyone who read them, which not surprisingly, meant that the book never got far and became completely forgotten. Those kinds of books, i feel, are the only ones worth nominating as the worst.
One author who constantly wrote books like these was Amanda McKittrick Ros. She has my vote.
Fame does not = talent, especially not in this day and age. Just because something can be sold to the public does not make it good writing.
And as far as this thread is concerned, I think the whole point is that it is the "worst" writing according to the person posting. Obviously we are not all going to agree.
As well just because a book does not gain fame does not by default make it bad, and when it comes to books being hated by the majority such could be for reasons beyond the actual value and worth of the prose. If you consider the time in which the book was written it may have been hated because it was considered too controversial.
There are writers who have fallen into obscurity but it is not because of the quality of the writing.
I second the appreciation for The Jungle in particular and Upton Sinclair in general!
"BY the way, my nomination is Jeffrey Archer".
I'd second that ... First Amongst Equals is the only novel I have been unable to finish and I have never read another of his novels.