Who Is The Worst Writer Ever?

[Darcy88]

Socrates was the worst, he never wrote.

He did write something once. A lyric poem or something. I remember reading about it. And even if he never wrote that doesn't make him the worst writer. He wasn't illiterate as far as we know. A man with a mind like his could probably write well if he wanted. He had other reasons for not writing.

[G L Wilson]

He did write something once. A lyric poem or something. I remember reading about it. And even if he never wrote that doesn't make him the worst writer. He wasn't illiterate as far as we know. A man with a mind like his could probably write well if he wanted. He had other reasons for not writing.

A man with a mind like his is a demon.

[Featchy]

Without a doubt, Ayn Rand. Terrible prose, built upon a terrible ideology.

[Kingbob]

Worst is a difficult definition，as there is no award for it like the Golden Raspberry Awards in films. Maybe one day it can be founded，haha

[PeterL]

Worst is a difficult definition，as there is no award for it like the Golden Raspberry Awards in films. Maybe one day it can be founded，haha

That's a great idea.

There is the Museum of Bad Art, and the Razzies that you mentioned, and the Ignobel Prizes, so it would make sense for the worst novel of the year to get something. Unfortunately, the worst ones never get published, but there are some really, really bad things that do get published. I wonder about some of those editors. I would bet that the winner would come from the evangelical Christian publishers most years.

[G L Wilson]

I know that there is an award for the worst purple prose.

[aliceinoz]

Ayn Rand: She wrote endless, gushing, repetitive prose featuring one-dimensional characters, presented as rare moral paragons, paraded out in doorstop-length novels of pretentious political and economic drivel.

Ray Bradbury: Never wrote a sentence, let alone a story or novel, that didn't irritate me with its clumsy, moralizing self-importance. Moreover, his style overflows with metaphors that seem literary, until you think about them, and realize they evoke nothing. There's more to being a great writer than pioneering a niche genre.

[Ser Nevarc]

Everybody who writes the top 100 pop music

[El Viejo]

Something inside me wants to design a graph on which we could chart writers according to how imaginative and interesting their ideas and characters are, on how well they are able to present them, how technically capable they are in constructing their work, to what degree they respect their readers, and so on. Something along the lines of the political compass graphs for composers and music. That would be nice.

But then we'd need a similar, complementary tool we could use to rate ourselves, a graph that shows us what kind of reader we are. Can we appreciate and thoughtfully consider different or opposite viewpoints? Are we capable of changing our minds? Are we willing to do so? Can we put ourselves in the shoes of a character we don't like? How willing are we to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story? And on a more nuts and bolts level, how sophisticated is our vocabulary, comprehension, and how sticky our retention? Oh, and we'd need to be rated on how widely read we are, as that breadth and depth of exposure is what makes us able to truly taste the subtleties, richness, and texture of an author's work, or the lack of it. To be rated as a reader would be fun. And humbling.

It's easier to just say what I like and don't like. I've liked far more than I've disliked. I have enjoyed the odd work by authors I otherwise don't care for ("The Old Man and the Sea"), and have been unable to finish works even though I enjoy how they're written (Nicholas Nickleby). Some works that I've enjoyed very much I've seen both panned and praised by different authorities ("Moby Dick") making me wonder if it was good or not, and if it mattered. Sometimes I've force-fed myself a book that I ended up liking better long after I'd read it ("Raintree County"). Some books have been enjoyable despite their weaknesses because the idea of the story fascinates me ("When Worlds Collide"). This latter mechanism, my harmonic response to something in the writing, is the main factor in my deciding which writers are better than others, no matter what my technical sense says.

[AliSundquist]

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

[TheFifthElement]

Surely it's got to be E. L. James? I've not read the dreaded 'Grey' books but picked up a snippet via Amazon and my 12 year old son writes better.

Plus she ought to get an award for female mind control 'cos I don't know what she's put in those books but it's having a significant impact on the mental capacities of most of my female friends and acquaintances.

Not 'literary' of course but I have lost track of the number of people who have referred to it as the 'best' book they've 'ever' read

[Alexander III]

Something inside me wants to design a graph on which we could chart writers according to how imaginative and interesting their ideas and characters are, on how well they are able to present them, how technically capable they are in constructing their work, to what degree they respect their readers, and so on. Something along the lines of the political compass graphs for composers and music. That would be nice.

But then we'd need a similar, complementary tool we could use to rate ourselves, a graph that shows us what kind of reader we are. Can we appreciate and thoughtfully consider different or opposite viewpoints? Are we capable of changing our minds? Are we willing to do so? Can we put ourselves in the shoes of a character we don't like? How willing are we to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story? And on a more nuts and bolts level, how sophisticated is our vocabulary, comprehension, and how sticky our retention? Oh, and we'd need to be rated on how widely read we are, as that breadth and depth of exposure is what makes us able to truly taste the subtleties, richness, and texture of an author's work, or the lack of it. To be rated as a reader would be fun. And humbling.

It's easier to just say what I like and don't like. I've liked far more than I've disliked. I have enjoyed the odd work by authors I otherwise don't care for ("The Old Man and the Sea"), and have been unable to finish works even though I enjoy how they're written (Nicholas Nickleby). Some works that I've enjoyed very much I've seen both panned and praised by different authorities ("Moby Dick") making me wonder if it was good or not, and if it mattered. Sometimes I've force-fed myself a book that I ended up liking better long after I'd read it ("Raintree County"). Some books have been enjoyable despite their weaknesses because the idea of the story fascinates me ("When Worlds Collide"). This latter mechanism, my harmonic response to something in the writing, is the main factor in my deciding which writers are better than others, no matter what my technical sense says.

I like you. You should post more often.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Surely it's got to be E. L. James? I've not read the dreaded 'Grey' books but picked up a snippet via Amazon and my 12 year old son writes better.

Plus she ought to get an award for female mind control 'cos I don't know what she's put in those books but it's having a significant impact on the mental capacities of most of my female friends and acquaintances.

Not 'literary' of course but I have lost track of the number of people who have referred to it as the 'best' book they've 'ever' read

Women like porn, just like men. That's why it's popular. I've considered reading it just to see what the big deal is, and how graphic it really does get.

[Old Crow]

The literary book I've read and least enjoyed is easily "Herzog" by Saul Bellow. I can handle unlikeable protagonists without issue. I can even handle a certain level of the old "I'm isolated and trapped by my intelligence" attitude that seems to go hand in hand with many characters experiencing existential despair. What really killed Herzog for me was that the author, rather than slyly using his narrative to expose the utter lack of perspective his protagonist exhibits, seems to idolize him as though he were experiencing some kind of heroic struggle. Ugh.

Women like porn, just like men. That's why it's popular. I've considered reading it just to see what the big deal is, and how graphic it really does get.

Interesting point regarding the Grey novels. I've heard harlequin romance novels described before as being an equivalent to pornography for a number of women, and from what I understand those books don't rise above the level of erotica. The problem is that it's not even particularly good erotica from what I've heard. I don't really get what propelled those books onto the bestseller list.

[TheFifthElement]

Women like porn, just like men. That's why it's popular. I've considered reading it just to see what the big deal is, and how graphic it really does get.

I have no issue with porn, but if I'm going to read it I'd like it to be at least well written. From what I've seen of Grey, it's remedial level English at best. If women want to read porn, that's fine. But at do yourself a favour and read something decently put together like Delta of Venus or, if BDSM is your genre, The Story of O which is pretty graphic. Flippin' heck, Black Lace is probably better and no one's under any illusion that any Black Lace book is highbrow literature. I also hear that Anne Rice's Sleeping Beauty trilogy is pretty racey, but not having read it I can't verify that.

Anyway check out the first few pages on Amazon, you'll see what I mean. Many of the reviews are better written (and incredibly funny...or at least the ones on Amazon.co.uk are anyway. Not as funny, of course, as the reviews for Veet for Men which are the best, best, best on the web. And probably more graphic than Grey )

Interesting point regarding the Grey novels. I've heard harlequin romance novels described before as being an equivalent to pornography for a number of women, and from what I understand those books don't rise above the level of erotica. The problem is that it's not even particularly good erotica from what I've heard. I don't really get what propelled those books onto the bestseller list.

That's what I heard too - one of the girls at work who is reading it said that Cosmopolitan magazine is significantly more graphic.