Who Is The Worst Writer Ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tudwell

Oh no, I'm sure she would dictate it. If she could say dictate without chuckling...

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

:lol: :lol: :lol:

---

Most likely she would just pay someone to write it. Though I don't think her career is that exciting; her claim to fame was exposing herself in a graphic hardcore pornographic movie. If that is what it takes to be famous these days, I have concluded I don't want to be famous.

Ill nominate Ayn Rand. Ill let you teach me, illuminate me, whatever, but you better entertain me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woland

Ill nominate Ayn Rand. Ill let you teach me, illuminate me, whatever, but you better entertain me.

---

Which Ayn Rnd did you read? I read Anthem in High School and it remains one of the most entertaining books I have ever read. The Fountainhead, however did little for me.

I also have to be amazed that so many people do not get Dickens. Some of the best writing I have ever read takes place in the early stages of Great Expectation and David Copperfield when Dickens is painting the world from the eyes of a child but allowing adult conclusions into the text that the narrator misses because of his youth. Those conclusions allow the story to develop in a subtle manner while still giving the main character a backstory from youth. Of course my wife agrees with those of you who do not like how long winded Dickens is. I found him unreadable when I was a teenager but now (in my thirties) I like him very much.

As far as the worst writer I would have to say its a tie between Tolkien and Frank Herbert. Both writers created richly imagined universes and yet both writers seem absolutley unable to organize their stories. Try reading some of those books and see how they jump around. They add events into the narrative that happened in the past and explain them like a footnote and yet the whole direction of the book changes. Its almost like they had a new idea for the story but were too lazy to rewrite so they added them in a disjointed manner. In addition, major moments of the book are glossed over in just a couple of lines while pointless exposition goes on forever.

Just my two pennies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JADJARHD

As far as the worst writer I would have to say its a tie between Tolkien and Frank Herbert. Both writers created richly imagined universes and yet both writers seem absolutley unable to organize their stories. Try reading some of those books and see how they jump around. They add events into the narrative that happened in the past and explain them like a footnote and yet the whole direction of the book changes. Its almost like they had a new idea for the story but were too lazy to rewrite so they added them in a disjointed manner. In addition, major moments of the book are glossed over in just a couple of lines while pointless exposition goes on forever.

Just my two pennies.

---

If poor organization would make the worst writer ever, then many of the current fantasy writers are higher on the list than Tolkien or Herbert. Dan Simmons' Endymion is so badly organized that it isn't a novel, and Neil Gaiman can't write a story.

Although you apparently didn't see it, The Lord of the Rings is very well organized. The sequence of events is reasonable, and all but one of the subplots is brought a conclusion, and the one complication that wasn't brought to a conclusion was handled reasonably well.

I never had any problems whatsoever with Herbert's organization. Of course it's difficult to write a series spanning thousands of years over six books, however, I feel that he's done quite well and never had any problems with comprehension due to time jumps since they tend to occur from novel to novel rather than throughout each novel (For the record, I'm on book five right now). That said, I'm unfamiliar with his other work so I can't speak of the quality of that, but I've heard mostly good comments on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

I never had any problems whatsoever with Herbert's organization. Of course it's difficult to write a series spanning thousands of years over six books, however, I feel that he's done quite well and never had any problems with comprehension due to time jumps since they tend to occur from novel to novel rather than throughout each novel (For the record, I'm on book five right now). That said, I'm unfamiliar with his other work so I can't speak of the quality of that, but I've heard mostly good comments on it.

---

Actually I was talking about Tolkien more than Herbert with the time jumps, although Herbert does it a little. Herbert's Dune books are almost unreadable to me. It is very disjointed and does not flow very well. I don't think Dune is a very well written book. What I did like were the prequels written a few years ago by Frank Herbert's son and another guy based on Herbert's notes. Those were really good.

Herbert (like Tolkien) gets an A for imagination, but a D for writing.

I find that very ironic since the vast majority of fans hate those later books and criticize those writers for not having the same 'gift' as Herbert did and tend trudge through them just for the background story taken from his notes rather than for literary quality. I personally never had any issues with finding his novels disjointed.

I would not contend that the prequels had a high value of literary merit, they were just readable. The original Dune books themselves (at least the first two) were a disorganized mess of bad writing in my opinion. But I guess to each his own. If you liked them, that is fine. I would never contend that liking those books somehow makes you a person of bad taste or anything like that. In fact you are in good company and I am in the minority.

And I didn't mean to dispute your position. Just wanted to point out that I found it ironic since the majority of the Dune fans find those latter books horrible (as in, unreadably bad).

I have a few on my shelf but I haven't read them yet, so I'll withhold my personal judgment until I do. It may take a while before that happens, though... ;)

I liked them because of all the backstory they give on Gurney, Duncan, Leto, and the Baron. For instance, the Baron starts out very slim and athletic (like Feyd.) There is a reason he turns into the nasty specimen you get in Dune. (I won't spoil it.) However, its not like they are masterpieces of sci-fi or anything. If those books were not a part of the Dune universe they would be meaningless. I have only read the three prequels (House Atriedes - House Corrino) I have not read the other stuff.

Like I said, the richness and imagination of Herbert impress me, it was just his writing that turned me off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_noel_y2k

Who is the worst writer ever? And to make it interesting rather than have everyone say Dean Koontz, who is the worst writer ever who is considered to be literary?

I'd nominate either Matthew Gregory Lewis, Theodore Dreiser, or Owen Wister.

:banana:

---

I read The Monk (lol) and although I have to say it had its entertainment value, it was certainly more than a little over the top. And the characterisation was so weak. Nonetheless, whilst I can't say it was the worst book I've read, it's not the best written either.

Paris Hilton DID write/dictate/whatever a book. I work at Books-A-Million, so I have to put up with that. It's called Confessions of a Heiress. In fact, she is the author of a few.
http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/bo...hilton&x=0&y=0
:p
I've flipped through one before and they are ATROCIOUS.

Dreiser's boring, but he isn't that bad. An American Tragedy's a favorite of mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JADJARHD

Actually I was talking about Tolkien more than Herbert with the time jumps, although Herbert does it a little. Herbert's Dune books are almost unreadable to me. It is very disjointed and does not flow very well. I don't think Dune is a very well written book. What I did like were the prequels written a few years ago by Frank Herbert's son and another guy based on Herbert's notes. Those were really good.

Herbert (like Tolkien) gets an A for imagination, but a D for writing.

---

...you're serious?

When Dune came out it was widely praised for elevating the science fiction genre by giving it new literary dimensions and standards. The prequels his son and Anderson wrote are fan fiction garbage. I've only been able to read two Brian Herbert books all the way through: Man of Two Worlds (written with Frank Herbert) and his "biography" on his father (It would be more accurately be described as a memoir, having more to do with Brain than Frank from the moment in the book when Brian was born.) I barely made it through that one; Frank Herbert may ramble sometimes, but he rambles about high philosophical ideas in a poetic fashion; Brian rambles about casual dinner dates in veritably prosaic prose. The writing style alone made me hate reading for a few days. Its like his approach to writing is to talk into a microphone after slamming down three or four high balls.

Frank Herbert was reading Shakespeare at 12 years old, and announced his ambitions to be a writer at age 8. Brian Herbert was an alcoholic as a teenager that didn't even bother reading his own father's novels, and, from the quality of his writing, I assume he didn't read much else either. He started writing in his early twenties, right around the time his father hit the big time. Ever since he has been a shameless leech on the Herbert legacy, and has nowhere near his father's talent or intelligence. Frank Herbert is lauded for the smooth prose with which he delivers his incredibly complex stories. Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, on the other had, offer choppy, repetitive, dull hack, simplifying and sometimes altering the history Frank labored so hard to develop. It's like they took a proud naval flagship and turned it into a cruise liner. They are dragging the series through the mud; just look at the director they hired for the upcoming Dune movie.

I know that post was over a year ago, but criticism of Frank Herbert's writing and praise for his son's? That's like saying R.L. Stine is superior to Edgar Allen Poe. He can't even hope to fill his father's shoes; Herbert wore a size twenty to Brian's meek two.

In fact, I nominate Brian Herbert as very possibly the worst writer I've ever read. I'm not just saying that because of what he's doing to Dune; prejudices aside, he just isn't any good as a writer.

(As you can see I'm pretty passionate on this subject:flare: :lol: )

A year ago someone, who obviously didn't know me very well, gave me a books by Cecilia Ahern. As it was a present and the person kept asking if I had had a chance to read it, I did what I shouldn't have done. I read it.

I don't remember the title, and thankfully I have forgotten most of the story. Something about a woman, a child and a ghost or fairy (male). Which confuses the hell out of me. (fairy ? a man ? and he kept akting like he was five years old). Anyway I've forgotten. It was the worst kind of soppy romantic (and I consider myself to be a romantic, just not in the "Ahern" way) clap-trap, you could come across.

So please, stay away !!!

Basically most celebrities: Geri Halliwell, Katie Price...

The "worst" writer is too hard to quantify, IMO. I love Dreiser's honesty and enjoy most of his books, on the other hand, I can't stomach Jane Austen and would rather jam bamboo shoots under my fingernails than read anyof her books again--

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GatsbyTheGreat

When Dune came out it was widely praised for elevating the science fiction genre by giving it new literary dimensions and standards.

---

I grew up on the Frank Herbert Dune novels, and I fell in love with Paul which was a neat trick since he doesn't have an ontological existence, so I cannot pan them too badly, but now that I'm grown up, there is a difference between fictional ambiguity and finding out that there is no Moby Dick, even after you've been chasing the whale for over a thousand pages.

I am not saying Paul should have had *powers* like graphic novel heroes, but the Reverend Mothers terror over having a male born like themselves never quite seems realized. You do not get a foreboding about *The Scattering* in the first Dune, and in Dune Messiah there is no clear cut reason why Paul has to topple himself. Yes, he realizes his children will surpass him, but we never really see how LetoII rules.

I do not deny there are shadings, but exactly why is he a Tyrant? What was so terrible about this nearly all powerful worm child? Then the Mothers come back into the picture and reunite with the renegades--and then Chapterhouse Dune sort of just tells the reader that Herbert has a love affair with his own take on visionary Judaism. Bravo, but I wanted all these deaths and conflicts between the mothers and aliens of various skills to offer me some slight degree of coherence.

The series just doesn't interweave very well, and some characters become appendages for no reason that I can see. LetoII's sister just seemed to be around so Leto wasn't an only child in Children of Dune.

I am not trying to be too harsh, and still remember my early enthusiasm, but there is better science fiction, even when it depends on mythical tropes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IWilKikU

I didn't like Kafka after reading 'Metamorphasis' the first time, but I went on and read 'The Great Wall of China', which followed in my penguin classics edition, and it was amazing. When I went back and gave 'Metamorphasis' another try I thought it was great!

But worst? I think that publishers have better sense than to publish that because presumably they would read this theoretical 'worst' manuscript every and be like 'this is the worst manuscript ever... I think I'll not publish it.' And by the glorious process of publication we are spared from the worst writer ever. Although, I had a friend in highschool who published a story on an N*SINC fan fiction page. I bet you could find some crappy writers on sites like that!

---

Or the "glorious process of publication" has let some of the worst writing slip through and let some the best be forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leabhar

Or the "glorious process of publication" has let some of the worst writing slip through and let some the best be forgotten.

---

Hear, hear!

The worst piece of writing I read in the past decade is the beginning chapters of the book The Ruins. I forget the name of the author, but he also wrote A Simple Plan -- a book that I haven't read, but I have heard is quite good. Don't know what happened with The Ruins. I couldn't get past like thirty pages. It was excruciatingly bad. In every sense. From the story line to character development to the actual writing. Just bad, bad, bad. It was so bad, that it was the only book I took upon myself to review on Amazon, just to vent about it and get it out of my system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nothingman87

Without a doubt it's Upton Sinclair.
I've always thought that people obscenely overrate Kafka too.

---

One of my lit teachers described Sinclair as "an important writer, not a good writer." His name carries on because he is historically significant... Which still doesn't make him a good writer, but something to take into consideration. He's out of "the league" as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Gonna have to disagree here, Dickens was perfectly able to express himself succinctly (see hard times which is by no means a long novel). Dickens verbosity was a definite part of style, just as much as tolkiens rambling was a part of his. It was Dickens verbosity which allowed him to create his wonderfully real characters.

---

I've heard that it was because his writing was released serially in magazines... the longer he could stretch out a story = more publication = more money.

That's just what I've heard though (a high school English teacher) - have never read Dickens myself.

I believe that's true, Thou. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the great literary writers of Dickens' time published their stories in magazines and newspapers, instead of publishing houses.

As for my pick, maybe it's because im a guy, but i just don't get the appeal of Emily Dickinson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guinivere

A year ago someone, who obviously didn't know me very well, gave me a books by Cecilia Ahern. As it was a present and the person kept asking if I had had a chance to read it, I did what I shouldn't have done. I read it.

I don't remember the title, and thankfully I have forgotten most of the story. Something about a woman, a child and a ghost or fairy (male). Which confuses the hell out of me. (fairy ? a man ? and he kept akting like he was five years old). Anyway I've forgotten. It was the worst kind of soppy romantic (and I consider myself to be a romantic, just not in the "Ahern" way) clap-trap, you could come across.

So please, stay away !!!

---

it wasn't P.S. I'm sorry you have to read this suck, was it? (a.k.a. P.S. I Love You)...good movie...but otherwise...ugh



And Kareem, I'm female and I don't get the appeal of Emily Dickinson, so it's definately not that.

As for my pick, maybe it's because im a guy, but i just don't get the appeal of Emily Dickinson.

Uh... what exactly does being a guy have to do with the appeal or lack of appeal of Emily Dickinson? If you think she is some lightweight, sentimental, feminine writer, you have seriously missed something. She is undoubtedly one very strong poet... a writer of perfectly structured, knotty, rigorous little poems that twist and turn in a way not expected... and that demands some effort to wrap your mind around.

Ayn Rand.

J.K Rowling's books are an utter bore. Her Harry Potter book series, is just too non-sequitur, in my opinion.

Tolkien may be an imaginative writer, but his ideas bore the hell out of me as well.

I also might add I found Orwell to be a bore. I still recognize that his ideas were phenomenal, but I guess I can't manage to enjoy his writing.

I love Ayn Rand. Hence the user name....lol

J.K. Rowling book were okay at first, I really did like, them, love them actually, then they became overrated and all I cared about was seeing if in the 7th book Harry would be like tripping on acid or something. I was hoping it was all some elaborate hallucination. Well, hoping isn't the word, fantacising with a bunch of my friends at the wakiest endings possible.

Tolkein and Orwell are actually writers that I enjoy, Orwell more than Tolkein, but both are good in my opinion.

Personally, I really didn't like the book that Richard P. Feynman wrote. I respect him a physicist and all, but I would his writing incredibly boring. I am sure there are weaker writers out there then him though.

I have to say Nora Roberts. Well, she is a well-known romance author but I just don't like her works. Her novels are full of erotism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I grew up on the Frank Herbert Dune novels, and I fell in love with Paul which was a neat trick since he doesn't have an ontological existence, so I cannot pan them too badly, but now that I'm grown up, there is a difference between fictional ambiguity and finding out that there is no Moby Dick, even after you've been chasing the whale for over a thousand pages.

I am not saying Paul should have had *powers* like graphic novel heroes, but the Reverend Mothers terror over having a male born like themselves never quite seems realized. You do not get a foreboding about *The Scattering* in the first Dune, and in Dune Messiah there is no clear cut reason why Paul has to topple himself. Yes, he realizes his children will surpass him, but we never really see how LetoII rules.

I do not deny there are shadings, but exactly why is he a Tyrant? What was so terrible about this nearly all powerful worm child? Then the Mothers come back into the picture and reunite with the renegades--and then Chapterhouse Dune sort of just tells the reader that Herbert has a love affair with his own take on visionary Judaism. Bravo, but I wanted all these deaths and conflicts between the mothers and aliens of various skills to offer me some slight degree of coherence.

The series just doesn't interweave very well, and some characters become appendages for no reason that I can see. LetoII's sister just seemed to be around so Leto wasn't an only child in Children of Dune.

I am not trying to be too harsh, and still remember my early enthusiasm, but there is better science fiction, even when it depends on mythical tropes.

---

!@#SPOILER ALERT#@!

















Hmm... I'd have to disagree that "there is no Moby Dick". A lot of readers seem to view Paul and his monstrous son as typical heroes. Even the movies portray Paul as a man turned God rather than a man playing god. Herbert can to some extent be blamed for this, as the novels did not make it perfectly clear that the Atreides were anti-heroes, and many readers followed the atrocious deeds committed in their names with the same fanatical enthusiasm as the Fremen they manipulated (myself included). Together they reduce a proud, powerful, age old warrior culture to dust in a matter of millenia (not such a long time through the eyes of the farsighted inhabitants of Herbert's world), massacre countless people on countless planets, ensnare the known galaxy in a dictatorship that lasts some 3500 years and ultimately fail in their endeavor, leaving a civilization with its teeth pulled to contend with the wild ravages of the masses returning from the scattering. There is your Moby Dick.

As for you other points, I could contend some and concede others, but I'd be going on for pages and pages so I'll just tell you I respect your opinion. Unless you think Brian Anderson... I mean, Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson have done a better job telling the story than the creator... that just grinds my gears, they are both horribly sophmoronic in style (sp error intentional). One thing I will say is that, unlike a lot of people it seems, I felt "Dune" wove, flowed and unfolded beautifully once I got on friendly terms with the millenia-long background story. Just my op :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clumsy angelle

I have to say Nora Roberts. Well, she is a well-known romance author but I just don't like her works. Her novels are full of erotism...

---

I concur...Add Julie Garwood to that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_noel_y2k

Who is the worst writer ever? And to make it interesting rather than have everyone say Dean Koontz, who is the worst writer ever who is considered to be literary?

I'd nominate either Matthew Gregory Lewis, Theodore Dreiser, or Owen Wister.

:banana:

---

M.G. Lewis???? Are you serious???? Have you read The Monk???? Do you know he was scarcely 20 when writing it? Come on!!

I always thought Hemingway was really overrate.... though I don't specially dislike what I've read by him...

As for Kafka... I believe the same things he says in 200 pages could be equally said in 100... it seems to me his style might be 'counter-effective' -if you allow me the expression- at times... take, let's say, The Process as an instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_noel_y2k

Who is the worst writer ever? And to make it interesting rather than have everyone say Dean Koontz, who is the worst writer ever who is considered to be literary?

I'd nominate either Matthew Gregory Lewis, Theodore Dreiser, or Owen Wister.

:banana:

---

M.G. Lewis???? Are you serious???? Have you read The Monk???? Do you know he was scarcely 20 when writing it? Come on!! :flare:

Oh Gothic Readers from the world, ARISE!!! He he...

I always thought Hemingway was really overrate.... though I don't specially dislike what I've read by him...

As for Kafka... I believe the same things he says in 200 pages could be equally said in 100... it seems to me his style might be 'counter-effective' -if you allow me the expression- at times... take, let's say, The Process as an instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melmoth

As for Kafka... I believe the same things he says in 200 pages could be equally said in 100... it seems to me his style might be 'counter-effective' -if you allow me the expression- at times... take, let's say, The Process as an instance.

---

The same way the trial itself could have been over in a day, ending with a meaningful verdict for Jozef K., but it dragged on and on instead?

That's bureaucracy for you - what can be done promptly usually takes 10x more time, usually with the ending that you hadn't exactly hoped for. Having said that, I think the book was written in a perfect way, fulfilling its purpose of showing a man tangled in red tape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johann cruyff

The same way the trial itself could have been over in a day, ending with a meaningful verdict for Jozef K., but it dragged on and on instead?

That's bureaucracy for you - what can be done promptly usually takes 10x more time, usually with the ending that you hadn't exactly hoped for. Having said that, I think the book was written in a perfect way, fulfilling its purpose of showing a man tangled in red tape.

---

As an (un)civil servant I know what bureaucracy is about... perhaps that's why I find Kafka sometimes dense... I suppose I need to have a try at any of his other works and see what effect it has upon me... any suggestion, Johan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melmoth

As an (un)civil servant I know what bureaucracy is about... perhaps that's why I find Kafka sometimes dense... I suppose I need to have a try at any of his other works and see what effect it has upon me... any suggestion, Johan?

---

No problem... The Metamorphosis is often immediately recommended, but I'd wait with it until you have read The Castle and some short stories first. Also, there's Amerika, but that's the least kafkaesque work of the lot, so I'd read that once you're done with everything else, because you wouldn't really get to know the real Kafka through that novel.

As for the short stories, you can probably find a complete collection, but if you're only looking for the cream of the crop, I suggest In the Penal Colony, A Hunger Artist, A Letter to the Academy, A Little Woman, The Judgment, and, although often considered to be one of his lesser works, Description of a Struggle. Then again, you know what? Read them all, every short story of his is worth reading.

Is it just me or is The Judgement exactly like Amerika?
There's no one quite like Kafka ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johann cruyff

No problem... The Metamorphosis is often immediately recommended, but I'd wait with it until you have read The Castle and some short stories first. Also, there's Amerika, but that's the least kafkaesque work of the lot, so I'd read that once you're done with everything else, because you wouldn't really get to know the real Kafka through that novel.

As for the short stories, you can probably find a complete collection, but if you're only looking for the cream of the crop, I suggest In the Penal Colony, A Hunger Artist, A Letter to the Academy, A Little Woman, The Judgment, and, although often considered to be one of his lesser works, Description of a Struggle. Then again, you know what? Read them all, every short story of his is worth reading.

---

Thanx for the recommendations, Johan. I'll have a go with them.

I'm aghast that Kafka's name has even appeared in a thread devoted to bad writing!

And I wonder if some of the dissatisfaction comes from Kafka's rejection of the realistic psychological novel in favour of dream-like parable. The characters and their thoughts are bizarrely - but absolutely deliberately - two-dimensional, or even one-dimensional (consider how Gregor Samsa doesn't once ask himself how he came to be turned into a beetle - it's one of the story's most disturbing, yet hilarious, ideas). In place of characters we can 'relate to', Kafka dangles strange puppets, rigid marionettes dancing ridiculously before the Great Mystery ('The Trial' goes beyond mere matters of red tape or state tyranny!). This strategy provides an astonishing and utterly compelling vision of the absurdity of existence not achieved by any writer before or surpassed since. A more valid contribution to the pool of human thought and expression there has never been.

And plus it's funny!! I mean, some of the funniest writing extant! (the homeless K attempting to live with his girlfriend and his two assistants in a makeshift tent in the middle of a school classroom, with the class and hateful schoolteacher present). There are stories of Kafka crying with laughter while reading out his work to friends. His sense of the absurd alone secures his reputation as one of the greatest writers of all time.

But... if you are comfortable in your own skin, and are sure a loving God will look after you for eternity, and you like characters you can really 'get to know', then it's odds on Kafka's not for you. But for me, he's the only author I've re-read five times ('The Castle', and I'm still not finished with it), so eternally nourishing do I find him.





Over-rated classic authors: can't really think of any - there's Hemingway, I suppose. Over-rated commercial writers: thousands, of course, but the guy who perpetrated that Angels and Demons and DaVinci Code drivel deserves special mention. The bloke's barely able to put a sentence together. And when he does, we get gems like: 'Her smile was magic,' and 'But it was too late' (he likes this one; he uses it over and again). Makes James Herbert look like Joseph Conrad. His 'work' combines the deathliest cliches with the deadest language conceivable, like: 'I'm dreaming, he told himself. Any minute now I'll be waking up.' Only as consciously camp trash could the following ever have any value for humanity: '... Vittoria dropped effortlessly to the ground. Every muscle in her body seemed tuned to one objective - finding the antimatter before it left a horrible legacy.' But he's serious, apparently... Pulp writing doesn't have to be this bad; the fellow should pick up an Ian Fleming novel and get a lesson in craftsmanship.