Who Is The Worst Writer Ever?

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.