the worst book you have ever come across

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubsley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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)?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Svidrigailov

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubsley

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.

Anything by Nicholas Sparks. He makes me gag.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubsley

The Da Vinci Code, obviously.

---

Quite.

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...owViewpoints=1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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 ^

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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cassbee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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…

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dark desire

... 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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

:lol:

Good effort. I didn't like it either.

The Truth about Whatisname

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!