# Reading > General Literature >  Who Is The Worst Writer Ever?

## 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:

----------


## mono

Hmm, what a difficult question to answer! I try to find a respect for all authors, published or unpublished, but I have come across a few writers who . . . well, I can understand how other people like them, but they just seem to write literature I cannot really enjoy.
I unintentionally offend people with questions like these since I have read VERY few science-fiction and fantasy books I enjoyed (_Stranger in a Strange Land_ by Robert Heinlein, being the only I can think of presently), but I hope not to upset anyone.
In works other than science-fiction and fantasy, however, I never cared a lot for Gore Vidal's writing. So much of his work seems too ambiguous and fashionably dark, if that makes sense.

----------


## Sitaram

Well, Mono, I must say! You have pressed all of my buttons, and I am now quite angry!

(just kidding)

Funny that mention should be made of Dean Koontz. Recently, I struck up a conversation with someone who was reading "Seize the Night" because I was curious about their reading preferences, and they GAVE me the book, saying they were finished with it. 

I have never really read any popular current authors, so I was most curious to see what such a book might be like.

It looks like fun, at first glance. 

My big "hang-up" is that I want everything that I read and write to explode with profound insight. I realize that such expectations are unrealistic. I have tried to rehabilitate myself through a number of clever tactics. One, of course, is to read all of Mono's posts (just kidding again, can you tell how angry I am, still!?)....

Seriously folks, being at this forum has opened my eyes to a whole new world, another world of reading interests. And now, this thread makes me realize that I must begin to dislike the Dean Koontz book which I received for free through an act of divine providence. I am so impressionable!

I actually visited Dean Koontz' website. I guess all famous authors have a website these days (even the dead ones). I know that I do (have a web site, that is).

I was reading a lot about Hemingway a little while back. Someone commented that the very last book to be published (posthumously) under Hemingway's name, from notes just before his death, is the worst writing to ever bear his name. I imagine Ernest was feeling a bit under the weather at the time. We cannot be at our best all of the time. Even God rested on the seventh day.

This suggests to me yet another forum thread, to debate the "Worst of the Best:" pick all the best writers and list their worst books. Note, the converse of that notion is unfeasible. We cannot pick all the worst writers and then list all their best books ("A Best of the Worst") for if they have at least one good book, why, then they were not so bad after all (ipso facto, q.e.d.)

Now, it suddenly occurs to me that IF there were only one person in the history of the world to ever write, and if they wrote only one book (and then moved in with Harper Lee), why, by definition, they would be both the best and the worst writer the world has ever known. Libraries would be very small. Book-of-the-Month clubs would be unknown.

But, if there were only TWO people in the history of the world to ever write a book, then one would have to be the best, and the other would win second prize as the worst.

Let us suppose, now, for the sake of argument, that there are an infinite number of universes (we shall call them, collectively, the Multiverse), tucked one inside another (in black holes), and in each universe there are an infinite number of inhabited worlds, but, in each of those worlds, there has appeared one and only one author, who writes one and only one book, which is perceived by that world to be both the best and the worst ever written. BUT, ruling over this hefty Metaverse of ours, with an all-seeing eye of omniscience (the other eye is covered by a pirate's patch), is a Supersoul Divinity, whose essence is all those little souls in all those worlds which ever were or will be (just as you and I are all the cells of our body which ever were or will be.) Now, the souls of all those one-and-only-authors who wrote those best-worst books comprise the MIND of the SuperSoul Divinity. These authors are eternally ranked and reaaranged in the Judgment-Day mind of our friendly neighborhood Divinity, from best to worst (and sometimes, from worst to best), but since they are infinite in number, this task takes some time. In fact, come to think of it, it is ceaseless. And this ceaseless activity is a form of circulation or resperation for the SuperSoul.


Ok... back from our trip to the critics' Twilight Zone.

----------


## nothingman87

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

----------


## Sitaram

Sinclair's mother confided to me once that she rather like some of it.

Milan Kundera worships Kafka (or so it seems from "The Art of the Novel") and Nabokov liked Kafka too. We could compile a list of the worst writers beloved by excellent writers (or or authors who are simply "O.K.")

----------


## Scheherazade

That would be me, me thinks.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

all that writing sitaram and still no answer to whom you think is the worst writer ever...

 :Banana:

----------


## whereismymind

I agree with Kafka. I don't know if i'd say he was the worst, but he's one of the few that I've read and extremely disliked.

----------


## Scheherazade

I love Kafka.

----------


## mono

> Well, Mono, I must say! You have pressed all of my buttons, and I am now quite angry!


I am SO sorry, Sitaram. Being so admittedly . . . finicky with my taste in literature, as I mentioned, I know many people disagree with my specific palate and often fickleness. Hence, I would, by no means, intend any offense towards anyone's preference in literature. I greatly admire, and try to own, a fair amount of reverence for art (especially literature), but my pride must show somewhere.

----------


## subterranean

How do you all define the word "worst"?

----------


## Shea

I really think its just a matter of perspective, but then again I just got through reading David Hume's "Of the Standard of Taste" for my literary criticism class (interesting, but droll). Usually, I may like an author's writing method, but hate the message. I hated The Awakening by Kate Chopin because of my personal morals, but I did like her writing style.

I'm not really sure that we as the public can know who the worst writer is, because if someone is that bad, they would never be published anyway, right?

----------


## baddad

I'll have to think about my vote for a little while, but my standard of the 'worst book ever' will be a book I would not pass on to another. I was going to say 'worst' would be a book that I would have no qualms destroying, throwing away, or burning (ala Bradbury), but I could not bring myself to perform such an act on even simple drivel...


....Ok, I've decided. I read a 'Harlequin Romance' once (the absolutely, positively, only book on the entire train)...and it really, really, really sucked........a lot........immensely bad.......putrid, decayed, mushy, rot. I may have burned that one.....if I hadn't been on a train....and the writing Gods would have forgiven me I'm sure....

----------


## Isagel

I think I have to qoute myself from an earlier discussion on most boring book ever. I hereby nominate Kenji Siratori . This is my evidence , the first lines of Blood electric: 

" &lt;&lt;I record the vital-icon+our chromosome form escape of the suck=blood chromosome::the horizon of the body fluid= murder like the dog that was done to nude gene= TV/spasm// " 

Yes. It goes on like that.

----------


## Jay

And you kept reading... for how long? I'm pretty sure I'd close the book in disgust after reading these first lines and randomly checking that he keeps that up for all the book...

----------


## baddad

EEEeeeewwwwww.......sounds positively horrible!! Gonna be tough to top that as the worst book ever...







> I think I have to qoute myself from an earlier discussion on most boring book ever. I hereby nominate Kenji Siratori . This is my evidence , the first lines of Blood electric: 
> 
> " &lt;&lt;I record the vital-icon+our chromosome form escape of the suck=blood chromosome::the horizon of the body fluid= murder like the dog that was done to nude gene= TV/spasm// " 
> 
> Yes. It goes on like that.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

worst writer just means who do YOU think is the worst writer ever.


 :Banana:

----------


## hellodolly

worst writer considered literary? saul bellow...all the taste was in his mouth! ugh!

----------


## Miss Darcy

Ah guys, you'll never get anywhere *this* way....Just kidding!  :Biggrin: 

I haven't any read Kafka yet, but I've heard he has an excellent reputation and...hmm...that Kafkaesque describes for a "nightmarish and oppressive atmosphere"....but that doesn't mean anything. Apparently he's often regarded as a comic writer, and he was an "acutely sensitive individual", and wrote from allegorically, lyrically, and lucidly, to plain matter-of-factly. Whoa that's long. But I would defend him if I had read him.  :Smile: 

But worst writer ever...hard...there's so many bad, bad writers out there....many of which I haven't read one word, but have esteemed bad simply because they ARE. I think....I'd be fighting over Bill Bryson (ugh...my dad reads him...I don't like books where you can't read one page without stumbling over at least one taboo word), um........I'll tell you the rest later, can't remember them!

What a very helpful post. *Sighs*

Miss Darcy

----------


## Koa

Wow, for the first time I find someone else who admits to dislike Kafka! Thanks guys, you made my day...I can't stand him! Though I wouldnt define him as "the worst"

I don't know how to choose my worst...worst in topics, or worst in writing? If it's for topics, I'd mention Danielle Steele, I think it was the name, and her pathetic novels about beautiful girls and love stories... But I dont rmemeber her writing being particularly bad. But there are authors whose way of writing is boring or in some case even just bad, sort of illiterate...I read some essays that frankly I could have written in better form when I was at primary school...

----------


## EAP

> Who is the worst writer ever?


Objectively, the writer of the 'Eye of Argon'.  :Tongue:  

Subjectively - Terry Goodkind.

----------


## dumptruckrabbit

do you read a lot of borges sitaram?
i cant help but laugh out loud when reading kafka, i think his writing is brilliant for its matter of fact delivery of what is frustratingly absurd, i think its the same sort of humour as S. becket, where tension is created through lack , that is you take a man whos woken up as a bug, dont explain it just have him accept it and try to get on with life, or you take a person arrested, dont explain why just have him accept it and get on with life- or like becket have two people sitting on a log waiting for somone who never comes, have someone working for an employer they dont know or see and dont know why they are there. i love the huge gaps, because i relate to that feeling of emptiness, absurdity and lack of meaning.
anyway, as for the actual topic in question- the worst writer- i think all of that romance, thriller, crime, all of that popular stuff written by the truckload (i do not here mean to denegrate the entirity of the above listed genres, just the stuff that takes the formula and joins the dots and banks the cheque.)
The most overrated writer in my opinion is dickens. bleagh.

----------


## Sitaram

I love Borges. Jorge Luis Borges was simply amazing! I guess I see your point about Dickens. Though "A Christmas Carol" , Scrooge, all that, is utterly amazing, as a story.

----------


## 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!

----------


## Capnplank

I could definitely agree about Theodore Dreiser. "An American Tragedy" had a fair amount to say, but it was just poorly written, with no style whatsoever. Repeating, awkwardly worded phrases... blah. I recently read somewhere that many literary critics referred to it as something like "The best worst novel ever", or along those lines and couldn't help but chuckle over the accuracy of that.


As for Kafka, I enjoy what works of his I've read. I do think that it would be hard for me to really hold his writing against him as, unless I'm mistaken, it is all translated into English when I read it so it loses a lot of whatever flavor he might have given it. But then again maybe he wrote it in English... ?

----------


## RyuKid

I can tell your right now a lot of posts in this thread will be contriversal.
In my opinion I would have to say R.L. Stine. Yes he is a childrens author, but it would be nice to see if his books challenged kids to read at a higher level (like Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling).

----------


## IWilKikU

He wrote a real book for adults once and I heard it wasn't much better. Just more graphic and grusome.

----------


## lhaeber

If it wasn't for R.L. Stine, my son would never have begun reading. His stories are the present representations of the Hardy Boys, etc. Inspired my son to read John Bellairs, Louis Sachar (Holes) and Kenneth Oppel, all children's novels, yes, but so much more amazing than what I had as a youth. He went on to read The Chrysalids ( I mention this book so much) at eleven yrs. old and loved it. So when I found the book for adults, Superstition, by R.L. Stine, I happily grabbed it and hunkered down for a good read...let's just say it now props up an indoor plant. He should stick to kids' work. My least favorite author is Victor Pelevin, his writing drives me nuts. But by saying least favorite, it's probably because I can't "get him", like iwilkiku wrote about kafka and metamorphisis, I should go back and try to read "the life of insects", where I happen to think Pelevin is trying too hard to be like Kafka's Metamorphosis...wonder which plant it's under?????

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

totally agree about r l stine, his series of goosebumps books entitled "night of the living dummy" which goes on for something like 5 parts, could easily be the title of his biography as a writer. 

nice to see saul bellow burned too. 

 :Banana:

----------


## Kilini

Once read Goosebumps in Chinese. Pretty entertaining, but I was young (11/12). The translator might also have done some work...

----------


## ajoe

Wow, I don't actually know Kafka and Sitaram, but I would nominate Ray Bradbury and Ayn Rand. Deep down I also don't quite like Hemingway's style but I'm probably gonna get butchered for saying that.

----------


## bobthejeep

I am not a big Hemingway fan either. I hated Old Man and the Sea, but A Farewell to Arms wasn't so bad. Still, I doubt I'd read it again.

The first bad author that came to my mind was Dan Brown, followed by that chick who wrote the Lovely Bones. 

But then, what can you expect from bestsellers?

----------


## lhaeber

Oh, I so hated the Lovely Bones, over-rated, cannot believe it was a bestseller. I also read the Dogs of Babel, that one was over-rated too.

----------


## q0987

I'm sorry everyone but I have been told on good authority that I am the worst writer. I have poor grammer, poor spelling, poor visualization, poor use of wordage, ect, ect.. Matter of fact the only good news is that I have no where else to go but up.  :Smile:

----------


## Molko

I really dislike Tim Winton - we have to read one of his novels for English class, and Im absolutely hating it!!!!!  :Frown: 

*hmmm...I feel bad for saying that he is a bad author  :Frown:  *

----------


## ajoe

> I am not a big Hemingway fan either. I hated Old Man and the Sea, but A Farewell to Arms wasn't so bad. Still, I doubt I'd read it again.
> 
> The first bad author that came to my mind was Dan Brown, followed by that chick who wrote the Lovely Bones. 
> 
> But then, what can you expect from bestsellers?


Really? I thought Life of Pi was awesome, and it was a bestseller.
I also was going to read The Lovely Bones, but maybe I should skip it? What is it about anyway? As for Dan Brown himself, I'm not really sure how to judge him. I didn't mind him in The Da Vinci Code, but didn't like him at all in Angels and Demons.

----------


## lhaeber

I agree Ajoe, D.B. not soooo bad a writer. Life of Pi was good, but everyone talks and talks and talks about these books just 'cause Madame Oprah speaks of them, or they appeared on Martha Stewart for some ungodly reason, like an overplayed song on the radio. Tiring.
I read The Lovely Bones because ( I am so ashamed of this) the book cover was this soft, taunting blue. A young girl is murdered and she tells the story of the lives she left behind whilst seeing them from heaven. That's on the backcover, so don't fear I'm saying too much. To me, it was slow, I wanted to shake the book to speed up the dispension of words into my head and just get it the hell over with.

----------


## PistisSophia

Katherine Ann Porter......snore....snore....

----------


## Fango

Well, from the modest number of books I've read, I'd say Catherine Coulter's writing were so far the corniest.

----------


## baddad

Uhhh.....yeah, okay.......I notice a few disparaging remarks concerning E. Hemingway in this thread........a few of which have gone unnoticed (by me) for several months.....so I'll just note my two cents worth at this point in time and hope the scattering shot catches you all.......... *sticks out tongue*

----------


## mono

> Uhhh.....yeah, okay.......I notice a few disparaging remarks concerning E. Hemingway in this thread........a few of which have gone unnoticed (by me) for several months.....so I'll just note my two cents worth at this point in time and hope the scattering shot catches you all.......... *sticks out tongue*


Agreed here, baddad.  :FRlol: 
I can easily respect anyone's opinion, especially while, myself, having a taste in literature that rarely appeals to others. I could never grow tired of Ernest Hemingway, the little I have read of his (only one novel and most short stories), but I realize how readers could not fully enjoy his work, his style seeming so unique.

----------


## AlucardArg

If we are trying to see which one of the most famos authors sucks the most (Prestige Vs. Quality).... i would have to say George Orwell...

1984 is not sciense fiction, as is generally classified. If you want to classify it as Sci Fi, then you need to know that it has thousands of "genre errors" that were pointed out at their time by Asimov, Clarke, Card, among others. There is no scientiffical base whatsoever in NOTHING that he says in this book, and his foresight was really bad.

Regarding his other big work, Animal Farm, i regard it as a very very cheap metaphore, and i see absolutely no value in it.

Talking about both his works at the same time, Orwell just strived to find new ways to attack communism, he tried in sci fi... he sucked. He tried in "metaphore" he sucked. And i really dont see any point in basing a life's work in attacking communism.

Of course, Senator MacCarthy thought this was VERY functional, along with all the other Commie Haters in the US and the world at that time, and thought "Hey, this is a nice book for our kids to read so they can learn to hate Stalin"... so they bloated up this books, as Anti-Commie propaganda, and it became famous just because the guy could write two sentences in a row and hate communism at the same time... which is a long way from being a good writer.

Of course, when we read 1984 today... and we see things that are slowly appearing on reality, its Capitalism the one that's doing them... ironic, huh?

I want to clarify that im not against neither capitalism or communism (In this thread, im just against George Orwell)... not trying to make politics here...

----------


## Maxos

No, me boy, it isn't correct at all.
1. Orwell is one of the authors who managed to raise the very low level of post-war fiction, ok, he is not Joyce, but there are so many writers worse than him, today every one becomes a writer, even the Pope!!!

2. He attacked stalinism, not communism (a difference that your very politicians DO KNOW SO WELL!!!)
Communism is not a political nor economic theory but a particular social sistem Karl Marx regarded as the final consequence of capitalism.
Most of Marx's economic theories is nowadays shared by the whole world; there is no capitalism against socialism, there have been two different ways to look at society and economy, and one has failed, it wasn't better or worse, it just ended; anyway the second is living its decadence, you know: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

----------


## Razeus

James Joyce

Hands down.

----------


## baddad

On George Orwell.......[QUOTE=AlucardArg].....and it became famous just because the guy could write two sentences in a row and hate communism at the same time... 

Ouch!!.......thats gotta hurt......even if your dead.......

----------


## Snukes

I'm with Razeus here. I must confess to finding Joyce impenetrably slow and dull. Some of his short stories were less terrible, but I fine it hard to understand how Ulysses manages to top so many lists of "best books ever."

----------


## Maxos

Simple! Form, style and structure reflect the torn personality of twentieth century modern man, sufficitne?

Try and read "Finnegans wake", and you'll see.

P.S. Joyce's humour is quite amusing, if you read V. Woolf you will be able to see the difference, she is boring.

----------


## Snukes

Hehe. We've successfully turned a thread about bad writing into a thread about authors we don't like. Hmmmm...

----------


## Snukes

Hehe. We've successfully turned a thread about bad writing into a thread about authors we don't like. Hmmmm...

To be fair, the more I learn about any author and their works, the more I tend to appreciate and respect them. I'm willing to concede that I just don't know enough about Joyce to be able to fully appreciate his merrits.

----------


## arlecchino

I have to say Evelyn Waugh. Mostly because i despise Brideshead Revisited. There is no doubt that Waugh was a very capable writer, I've heard good things about Snap! and A Handful of Dust, but i can't bring myself to read them. My main problem with the book is it's bull**** nostalgia. It's set in the early decades of the Twentieth Century and describes the lives of very privileged and wealthy Oxford educated toffs through rose-tinted spectacled eyes. It's as if all the social problems of those years, The Great Depression etc, have been neatly folded away as the action unfolds. It's such a promoter of a class system that should be flushed down the toilet forever. Not only is this conservatism shown in content, but it is mirrored in style also. The book is written almost like a Victorian novel, ridiculously archaic. Considering it was published within ten years of Finnegan's Wake and The Road to Wigan Pier, this is unforgivable.

But he has got a girl's name, so it's easy to laugh at him!

----------


## genevie

Ha Ha, such a good comment on the evil old Evelyn Waugh!

----------


## tudwell

> Hehe. We've successfully turned a thread about bad writing into a thread about authors we don't like. Hmmmm...


I don't see the difference....

----------


## Bakiryu

Stephen King and Dickens. I ended up throwing my copy of Great Expectations during a fit of rage!

----------


## JBI

Terry Goodkind

----------


## Geoff Shipley

I once picked up a novel called Beijing Doll by Chun Sue simply because it sounded interesting. I was quite young and the shock value of it being banned in China probably apealed to me as well. In the forward she prattles on about how no one would publish the novel so she eventually had a friend do it for her. On completion i realized why she had to have a friend publish it for her. She wrote like the uneducate angsty 16 year old that i found out she was. Honestly the worse book i ever read, and probably the only book i couldn't find something, anything worthwhile to take away from. And this isn't to say that the young and uneducated can't or shouldn't write.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> Terry Goodkind


I agree....horrible stuff. :Sick:

----------


## jon1jt

Danielle Steel. ugh.

----------


## Reccura

Umm.... Me?

----------


## manolia

> Stephen King and Dickens. I ended up throwing my copy of Great Expectations during a fit of rage!


Stephen King i can understand (although i personally like his books) but Dickens?? Why? I guess tastes differ  :Smile:  

For me the worst author is probably Coehlo.

----------


## Nossa

> Stephen King and Dickens. I ended up throwing my copy of Great Expectations during a fit of rage!


You're reading my mind..I was about to say these two lol
I hate Dickens gloomy world, he just makes me..wanna kill myself  :Sick:  
And King..well, lets put it this way, I'm better off watching the movies than reading the actual book.

----------


## kilted exile

I can understand people not liking dickens (dont agree however) he does have a tendency to be verbose and use 20 words where maybe 2 will suffice (only part of this can be blamed on the magazine style publication). He is however a master of character development and is hilariously funny. One thing I have never understood is people disliking dickens and liking tolkien who rambles just as much if not more than dickens does.

Even if you do dislike him though, worst writer in the world is taking things to the extreme. As an example I detest reading Austen but I wouldnt call her the worst writer ever, I am sure it is relevant to some people (and therefore has merit making it impossible to be worst) just not to me.

I dont know about the worlds worst writer in general, but a scotsman named William McGonagall is generally considered to be the worlds worst poet.

----------


## Logos

> a scotsman named William McGonagall is generally considered to be the worlds worst poet.


hahaa! thanks for that! he's now on the list of authors to be added to the site  :FRlol:

----------


## kilted exile

> hahaa! thanks for that! he's now on the list of authors to be added to the site


Well he was second to only shakespeare in the quality of his verse.......

----------


## Aiculík

> I can understand people not liking dickens (dont agree however) he does have a tendency to be verbose and use 20 words where maybe 2 will suffice (only part of this can be blamed on the magazine style publication). He is however a master of character development and is hilariously funny. One thing I have never understood is people disliking dickens and liking tolkien who rambles just as much if not more than dickens does.


For me, the fact that the author "rambles" does not matter as much as the reason why he does so. In Tolkien's work, it's a part of style - he tried to create myth, not a novel. In Dickens - it's just innability to express himself better.  :Biggrin:  

I just had to explain this.  :Biggrin:  

But I don't dare to say who is the worst author ever. The number of the book I've read is relatively small, only few thousands, and the number of authors is even smaller...

----------


## kilted exile

> For me, the fact that the author "rambles" does not matter as much as the reason why he does so. In Tolkien's work, it's a part of style - he tried to create myth, not a novel. In Dickens - it's just innability to express himself better.


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.

----------


## weepingforloman

Dickens is okay, Tolkien is better, Hemingway is the worst.

----------


## Turk

The worst writer ever already forgotten.

----------


## Stieg

> The worst writer ever already forgotten.


And one of their incarnations is John Saul, if some people feel critical about Stephen King, Saul is liable to give one a sheer fit of madness by which mobs will storm their local bookstores with a can of charcoal lighter fluid and have a bonfire C/O the shameful space his books have emptied. No kidding.

No offense intended to anyone whom has recommended the author just once you're more familiar with more works it becomes extremely evident Saul has written himself into a hole in the wall.

----------


## kandaurov

If Paris Hilton ever writes a book about her life, I'll have an answer for you _then_ :P

----------


## Turk

> And one of their incarnations is John Saul, if some people feel critical about Stephen King, Saul is liable to give one a sheer fit of madness by which mobs will storm their local bookstores with a can of charcoal lighter fluid and have a bonfire C/O the shameful space his books have emptied. No kidding.
> 
> No offense intended to anyone whom has recommended the author just once you're more familiar with more works it becomes extremely evident Saul has written himself into a hole in the wall.


 :FRlol:  I've never read John Saul. But i played a game named Blackstone Chronicles when i was young. It was one of the most scary games i've ever played. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Aiculík

> 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.


_Wonderfully real_? Seems our view on Dickens couldn't be more opposite.  :Smile:

----------


## Niamh

> If Paris Hilton ever writes a book about her life, I'll have an answer for you _then_ :P


 :Brow:  the sad thing is it would be a best seller! Personally i hope she doesnt write a book because then i'd have to refuse to sell it to customers, with is a bad thing because i'm all about customer service in work.

Cecilia Ahern :Sick:  only got published cause shes the Taoiseachs daughter.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> the sad thing is it would be a best seller! Personally i hope she doesnt write a book because then i'd have to refuse to sell it to customers, with is a bad thing because i'm all about customer service in work.
> 
> Cecilia Ahern only got published cause shes the Taoiseachs daughter.


But you know, I can find an element of pity in my heart for the Paris Hiltons & the Anna Nicole Smiths of this world, who either offer themselves up to or get picked up by the media, after which whatever hope they may have had for a spontaneous, autochthonous life is forever lost.

Effing media! They're almost more of a threat to our liveliness than the Christian right!

----------


## Niamh

I think the way the media is these days is a disgrace. But what annoys me more is the fact that people LOVE to read the crap that gets written in the media as if it was gospel! rediculous! you have one minute celebs, practically nobodies, lavishing in the limelight the media ctreates for them and write biographies about themselves like people care!

----------


## Argyroneta

Hundreds of currently employed journalists.

----------


## quasimodo1

Oliver Goldsmith and all the other restoration literature dillitantes

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> I ended up throwing my copy of Great Expectations during a fit of rage!


Hear Hear!! I'm all for describing a door, but must you describe it for four pages? Does a four page description of a door develop character, further plot, or enhance theme? I think not. GET TO THE POINT, MAN!

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> If Paris Hilton ever writes a book about her life, I'll have an answer for you _then_ :P


Wait wait! Paris Hilton knows how to hold a pen? I'm astounded. :Eek2:

----------


## Stieg

The synopsis of John Saul books are as classic as his writing. Enjoy!


Suffer the Children 
Dell, 1977 

A novel of unnatural passion and supernatural terror. 
One hundred years ago in Port Arbello a pretty little girl began to scream. And struggle. And die. No one heard. No one saw. Just one man whose guilty heart burst in pain as he dashed himself to death in the sea. 
Now something peculiar is happening in Port Arbello. The Children are disappearing, one by one. An evil History is repeating itself. And one strange, terrified child has ended her silence with a scream that began a hundred years ago. 

Punish the Sinners 
Dell, 1978 

The dark rapture of a medieval terror has come back to claim the young and innocent one by one . . . by one.
Italy, 1252: Inquisition. Accusation. Fear. Torture. The guilty and the innocent dying for sins real and imagined, in the flames of the burning stake... 
Neilsville, 1978: Peter Balsam has come to this sleepy desert town to teach its youth, and finds a mystery of mounting horror. Something is happening to the young girls of St. Francis Xavier High School--something evil. In bloodlet and terror a suicide contagion has swept the town...while a dark order of its holy men enacts a secret medieval ritual. 
Is hysteria manipulating these innocent children into violent self-destruction? or has a supernatural force, a thirteenth-century madness, returned to...Punish the Sinners. 

Cry for the Strangers 
Dell, 1979 

And the Little Children Shall Lead Them, from Terror...to Terror...to Terror. 
Could such a lovely little town hold something so evil? 
Clark's Harbor was the perfect coastal haven, jealously guarded against outsiders. But now strangers have come to settle there. And a small boy is suddenly free of a frenzy that had gripped him since birth... 
His sister is haunted by fearful visions... And one by one, in violent, mysterious ways the strangers are dying. Never the townspeople. Only the strangers. Has a dark bargain been struck between the people of Clark's Harbor and some supernatural force? 
Or is it the sea itself calling out for human sacrifice? A howling, deadly...Cry for the Strangers. 
Comes the Blind Fury 
Dell, 1980 

A child cried out...in torment. In terror. From out of the past, from out of the mists, a terrible vengeance is born. 
Amanda: A century ago, a gentle blind girl walked the cliffs of Paradise Point. Then the children cametaunting, teasinguntil she lost her footing and fell, shrieking her rage to the drowning sea... 
Michelle: Now Michelle has come from Boston to live in the big house on Paradise Point. She is excited about her new life, ready to make new friends...until a had reaches out of the swirling miststhe hand of a blind child. She is asking for friendship...seeking revenge...whispering her name... 

When the Wind Blows 
Dell, 1981 

Out of the night, out of the past, the terror comes...When the Wind Blows 
The children were waiting. Waiting for centuries. Waiting for someone to hear their cries. 
Now nine-year-old Christie Lyons has come to live in the house on the hillthe house where no children have lived for fifty years. 
Now little Christie will sleep in the old-fashioned nursery on the third floor. 
Now Christie's terror will begin...When the Wind Blows the children must die! 

The God Project 
Bantam, 1982 

Something is happening to the children of Eastbury, Massachusetts...Something that causes healthy babies to turn cold in their cribs. Something that strikes at the heart of every parent's darkest fears. Something unexplained that is taking the children, one by one. 
Sally Montgomery has just lost her beautiful little baby girl. Lucy and Jim Corliss, bitterly divorced, have been reunited by the sudden disappearance of their son. An entire town waits on the edge of panic for the next child to be taken. They all know there must be a reason for the terror. 
But no one ever expected...The God Project. 

Nathaniel 
Bantam, 1984 

From the blood of the past, evil rises to seek undying vengeance... 
Prairie Bend. Brilliant summers amid golden fields. Killing winters of razorlike cold. A peaceful, neighborly village, darkened by legends of death? 
Who is Nathaniel? 
For a hundred years, the people of Prairie Bend have whispered the name in wonder and fear. Some say he is simply a folk talea legend created to frighten children on cold winter nights. Some swear he is a terrifying spirit returned to avenge the past. And soon...very soon...some will come to believe that Nathaniel lives stilldarkly, horrifyingly real. 
Nathaniel. 
For young Michael Hall, newly arrived in isolated Prairie Bend after having lost his father to a sudden tragic accident, Nathaniel is the voice that calls him across the prairie night...the voice that draws him into the shadowy depths of the old, crumbling barn where he has been forbidden to go...the voicechanting, compellinghe will follow faithfully beyond the edge of terror...Nathaniel. 

Brainchild 
Bantam, 1985 

La Paloma...once home to a proud Spanish heritage...now a thriving modern community high in the California hills...where a boy named Alex is about to become the instrument of a terrible, undying vengeance... 
Alex needs a miracle. 
Alex Lonsdale was one of the most popular kids in La Paloma. Until the horrifying car accident. Until a brilliant doctor's medical miracle brought him back from the brink of death. 
Now Alex has come back. 
He seems the same. But in his eyes there is a terrible blankness. In his heart there is a coldness. And if his parents, his friend, his girlfriend could see inside his brain, if they could see his dreams, they would be terrified. 
Now the people must die. 
One hundred years a go in La paloma a terrible deed was done; a cry for vengeance pierced the night. In dark and secret places in La Paloma that evil lives still, that vengeance waits. Waits for Alex Lonsdale. 
Waits for the ...Brainchild 

Hellfire 
Bantam, 1986 

Pity the dead. 
For one hundred years the old mill has stood silent, its dread secrets locked away and barred from view. Still, the people of Westover, Massachusetts, rememberremember and whisper of that fateful day when horrifying flames claimed eleven innocent lives. The day the mill's iron doors slammed shutforever. 
Pray for the living. 
Now, Westover is a sleepy town tucked away beyond the Interstate, all but forgotten. Now, the last of the once-powerful Sturgess family dreams of reopening the mill. Now Philip Sturgess is about to unlock the doors to the past...and unleash an elemental fury. For beyond those doors, padlocked for so many years, deep within the dark, abandoned building, a terrible vengeance waits. 
A vengeance conceived in...Hellfire. 

The Unwanted 
Bantam, 1987 

Cassie Winslow is sixteen. 
Cassie has just lost her mother in a terrible accident. Now Cassie, lonely and frightened, has come across the country to live with the father she barely knows and his new family in tiny False Harbor on Cape Cod. 
For Cassie, the strange, unsettling dreams that come to her suddenly in the dead of night are merely the beginning. For very soon, Cassie Winslow will come to know the terrifying powers that are her gift. 
And in the village of False Harbor, nothing will ever be the same... 

The Unloved 
Bantam, 1988 

The House: 
Lush and deceptively tranquil, with its pristine beaches and blossoming vegetation, the island basks in splendid isolation off the South Carolina coast. Here, where sudden storms unleash the murderous rage of wind and sea, stands the Devereaux mansion, a once-great plantation house now crumbling amid ancient oaks dripping with Spanish moss. Here, Marguerite Devereaux, fifty and childless, has cast off her dreams to care for her aged, demanding mother. 
The Family: 
Now, for the first time in twenty years, Kevin Devereaux has returned home to this secluded place with his wife and two children. They have come to visit Kevin's motherhated, frightening Mother, with her slash of red lipstick, mask of bone-white powder, and a tongue that has always cut to Kevin's heart...and into his darkest nightmares. She said she was illbut is that the real reason the old woman summoned the son she has not seen in so many years? 
The Horror: 
Suddenly, horribly, Mother dies inside the locked nursery. And now there will be no escape. For now, all the secrets of this once-proud southern family emerge like tortured spirits from the sinister past to wrap their evil around the unsuspecting children. Until, in the shadowed corridors and dust-covered rooms of this decaying old house, they learn the true terror of The Unloved. 

Creature 
Bantam, 1989 

To the Tanner family, Silverdale beckons as a marvelous opportunity. For here, in this serene picture-postcard-pretty town nestled high in the majestic Rockies, a job promotion awaits Blake; new friends and activities beckon Sharon. And in the windswept mountain air, their shy, nature-loving son, Mark, will have the ideal opportunity to overcome the physical frailty an illness has caused. 
Silverdale. It is the perfect town. Even Silverdale High School seems perfect--a model school where well-behaved students make their parents and teachers proud. And the football team nevereverloses. 
But soon, too soon, Sharon Tanner will come to doubt the sanctuary of her family's perfect new surroundings. Too soon she will begin to suspect the things she cannot yet know: 
The secret rituals masked as science to which Silverdale's innocent children are unwittingly subjected... 
The hidden places in deep cellars where steel gleams coldly against the darkthe steel of cages built to contain an unimaginable evil... 
The sudden violence that turns a loving child murderous... 
Soonperhaps too lateSharon Tanner will realize that beneath Silverdale's perfect facade a terrible presence watches...and waits. Through sleepless, fear-racked nights she will listen to an eerie cry of unfathomable rage and pain. A wail so horrifyingly unearthly it could belong to no living thing, animal or human, she has ever known. 
And then, with crushing suddenness, Sharon will knowknow that within Silverdale, perhaps within her own home, a monstrous evil is harbored, and evil so unspeakable it has no name except...Creature. 

Second Child 
Bantam, 1990 

Secret Cove. Ruggedly beautiful and remote, bordered by dark woods and deserted beaches, this postcard-perfect village harbors the mansions of the wealthyfamilies who have summered in splendid seclusion at Secret Cove for generations. Here, one hundred years ago, on the night of the annual August Moon Ball, a shy and lovely servant girl committed a single, unspeakable act of violencean act so shocking its legacy lives still. 
And now, long after the horror of that night has faded to a tale whispered by children around summer camp fires, an unholy terror is about to be reborn. 
Now, one family is about to feel the icy hand of supernatural fearas Melissa Holloway, shy and troubled and just thirteen years old, comes to know the blood-drenched secret that waits behind a locked attic door... For in the dead of night a Secret Cove sleeps unaware, a soul-chilling presence slowly begins to enact a terrifying vengeance. 
Second Child: It is unspeakable evil merely Melissa's nightmares made horrifyingly real? Is it the manifestation of deadly fury risen from the grave? Or is the heart-stopping horror soon to be unleased in Secret Cove something even more insidious--something unimaginably evil...and alive? 

Sleepwalk 
Bantam, 1991 

Borrego, New Mexico. A peaceful little desert town. Except for one thing. Somebody here hates teenagers. 
Hates them. These troublemakers, these rebels, have to be controlled. 
Silenced. Forever. 
Now he has discovered an insidious way to strike back at them. In their sleep. In their waking hours. Anytime. He is a madman with terrifying powers. And soon, he will draw Borrego's children beyond the brink of night... 

Darkness 
Bantam, 1991 

The Andersons left the town at the edge of the swamp long ago, never meaning to return. There was something not quite right about the vast cruel lowlands of Villejeune...something murky, menacing, hostile...an influence too malevolent to be natural. But the Andersons' dream of a new life in Atlanta faded away with Ted's lost job and sixteen-year-old Kelly's emotional problems. Now, hoping a change of scenery might help their troubled daughter put her life back together, Ted and Mary Anderson have decided to come home. Home to Villejeune. 
But something waits for them. 
Something evil. 
Far from the prying eyes of civilization, beyond the reach of human law, a mysterious unknowable society lives by its own rules. They have their own customs, their own ceremonies and blood ritesdark rituals of altars and infants, of candle, spirit and knife. Now the Andersons' return has completed a circle of destiny begun long ago. Now they must face a deadly drama of unholy ceremony and secret horror, of ancient greed preying upon young life, of unutterable depravity. For, like the other children of Villejeunechildren without mercy, without tearsKelly Anderson is about to be drawn into a darkness so terrible it spares no life, no soul... 

Shadows 
Bantam, 1992 

They call it The Academy. 
Housed in a secluded, cliff-top mansion overlooking the rugged and picturesque Pacific coast, it is a school for special children. Children giftedor cursedwith extraordinary minds. Children soon to come under the influence of an intelligence even more brilliant than their ownand unspeakably evil. For within this mind a dark, ingenious plan is taking form. A hellish experiment meant to probe the ultimate limits of the human brain. 
Computer whiz kid Adam Aldrich lives for his exploration of virtual reality. Lured ever deeper into his video fantasy world, he does not imagine that his reality will soon become a living nightmare. Until the moment he sees the blinding light. Adam's fate will be called a tragic midnight accident. But is it something far worse? 
Amy Carlson, serious and shy, is fascinated by human behavior. But when she volunteers for an experiment in choice making, she unknowingly narrows her own options. When Amy's fate is sealed, will it be suicideor murder? 
For Josh MacCallum, brilliant but lonely, Amy's cry for help leads to a frightening knowledge. Soon Josh will suspect that Amy's desperate plea comes from the depths of darkness, from a blackness so horrifying that not even he with his genius-lever IQ could envision it. Soon Josh will uncover the terrifying truth about The Academy. 
And he will come to understand that no one will believe him. Not unless he can pit his young mind against an intellect so powerful, so evil, so cunning, that nothing can resists its seductive invitationinto the shadows... 

Guardian 
Fawcett, 1993 

A telephone ringing in the dead of night signals the beginning of a journey into fear as Mary Anne Carpenter, newly separated and struggling to raise her two children alone, hears the shocking news: two thousand miles away, her friends, the Wilkensons, are suddenly, inexplicably dead, their only child, Mary Anne's godchild, abruptly orphaned. Even as Mary Anne rushes to embrace her young charge the disturbing questions mount. Was it merely a chancethough tragicmishap that took these lives? Or was it murder? 
Soon Mary Anne will begin to suspect an even more sinister force at work. For Joey Wilkenson, a sad and silent adolescent, seems to harbor secrets beyond her most nightmarish imaginings. 
Soon, as early winter closes in on the majestic, lonely spot where the Wilkensons have built their beautiful ranch, transforming the mountain landscape into a forbidding place of blinding storms and dangerous darkness, Joey's sly secretiveness, his volatile temper, begin to turn Mary Anne's tender feelings to icy fear. 
And soon, as a series of horrific murders draws ever closer to her young familykillings that suggest some raging animal, or worse, and defy solution by a desperate police forceMary Anne begins to know the true meaning of terror. 
In Guardian, the forces of nature and the forces of evil combine chillingly in a complexly-woven novel of psychological suspense, as a peaceful haven becomes a prison where, alone in the howling winter whiteness, Mary Anne Carpenter must guard her children against an unseen, ever more insatiable killera killer who is closer than she thinks... 

The Homing 
Fawcett, 1994 

It will be the sweetest kind of homecoming for Karen Spellman. After years of living in Los Angeles, the pretty, young widow and her two daughters are leaving urban chaos behind to return to the lush countryside of Karen's childhood: Pleasant Valley, a verdant, fertile place where Karen will rediscover not only the bounty of the land, but love. For Karen is going home to marry her high school sweetheart. 
But something sinister awaits the Spellmans. Something as primal as nature itself. Something so hideous it seems not earthly, but spawned in hell. For here, long ago, amid placid rolling fields, a shadowy menace once stalked the innocent. Dormant, it waits or summer's heat to shimmer over the valley in a suffocating wave, waits for the arrival of its perfect victim. 
And now, with the dizzying descent of a nightmare, Karen's homecoming will become a confrontation with terror, as she struggles to protect her vulnerable daughters from a menace that seems to rise from the very earth itself, like a swarm of insects stirred in the frenzy of a monstrous homing a malign, preternatural force that must satisfy its gruesome thirst for its unsuspecting prey... 
John Saul weaves a dark web of psychological suspense and all-consuming evil in a novel as richly atmospheric, as riveting and chilling, as any he has ever produced. 

Black Lightning 
Fawcett, 1995 

For five years Seattle was seized in the terrifying grip of a monster as black as evil itself. A sadistic serial killer methodically lured his victims to grisly deaths in order to satisfy a twisted passion for life, leaving a trail of mutilated bodies across the nation. 
For five years journalist Anne Jeffers stuck to this gruesome story like a shadow through the killer's capture, trial and appeal doggedly keeping the wheels of justice churning toward the electric chair, despite the prisoner's reasoned claims of innocence. 
Then came the day of execution. The police and the public, especially Anne, thought the five-year nightmare was over. 
But it was just beginning... 
Someone or something is murdering again, mirroring a sociopath's lurid desire to hold life in the palms of his hands. Despite mounting doubts, Anne Jeffers is determined to prove that the guilty man was indeed executed. Yet what she finds is a sinister, powerful force that defies even death. Now pure evil has taken a new form, and it longs for Anne.... 
In Black Lightning, John Saul strikes with a novel as electrifying as a jagged bolt from a pitch-dark sky, proving once again that he is a genius at both nail-biting suspense and the spine-tingling macabre. 

The Blackstone Chronicles, The Serial Novel 
Ballantine, 1997 

From the top of Blackstone's highest hill the old Blackstone Asylum casts its shadow over the village. Built in the 1890s, the Asylum has stood vacant for decades. But now, the wrecker's ball is about to strike, smashing into stone--and unleashing a terrible evil, an unholy fear long locked within these walls. Soon, strange gifts will begin to appear on the doorsteps of Blackstone's finest citizens. Each bears a mysterious history. Each brings a horrifying power to harm. Each reveals another thread in the suspensefully woven web of The Blackstone Chronicles. 
The Presence 
Ballantine, 1998

A strange archaeological discovery.* Secret medical experiments on an island paradise.* A scientific theory torn from today's headlines.
Beyond the sparkling Hawaiian beaches, masked by the deceptive beauty of the rainforest, evil awaits sixteen-year-old Michael Sundquist and his mother, Katharine, an anthropologist who has come to the Islands to study the unusal skeletal remains unearthed on the volcanic flanks of Haleakala, Maui.
Yet far below the black depths of the pacific a mysterious substance snakes through undiscovered fissures in the ocean floor, as nature itself seems to portend the terror to come.
Then, with the sudden, unexplained death of Michael's friend, a disturbing truth dawns: the corporation that is funding Katharine's dig has a far greater investment than she ever imagined--an investment in medical terror.* And her son may be part of their hideous grand plan... 

The Right Hand of Evil 
Ballantine, 1999

When the Conways move into their ancestral home in Louisiana after the death of an estranged aunt, it is with the promise of a new beginning.* But the house has a life of its own.* Abandoned for the last forty years, surrounded by thick trees and a stifling sense of melancholy, the sprawling Victorian house seems to swallow up the sunlight.* Deep within the cold cellar and etched into the very walls is a long, dark history of the Conway name--a grim bloodline poisoned by suicide, strange disappearances, voodoo rituals and rumors of murder.** But the family knows nothing of the soul-shattering secrets that snake through generations of their past.* They do not know that terror awaits them.* For with each generation of the Conways comes a hellish day of reckoning... 

Nightshade
Ballantine, 2000

NIGHTSHADE is the terrifying story of an innocent teenager who must confront the sins of the past-and a corrupting evil that threatens to consume his entire world.... Fifteen-year-old Matthew Moore seems to have it all: a loving mother, Joan; a caring stepfather, Bill, who treats Matt like has own son; residence at a sprawling estate in New Hampshire; and a growing relationship with the most beautiful girl at school. All signs point to a bright future. Until fate intervenes. A sudden fire leaves Matt's ailing grandmother homeless. After moving in with the family, the caustic Emily insists on re-creating the bedroom of her deceased daughter, the favored child who died tragically more than a decade ago. Joan and her older sister had always shared an uneasy bond-and a shameful secret that would forever join them...even from beyond the grave. Then Matt's life insidiously begins to change. He starts to smell his aunt's pungent perfume, so strong and immediate that it is as if she has returned from the dead. At night, he finds himself haunted by nightmares of unimaginable terror. While his grandmother drives a wedge between his once devoted parents, Matt transforms from a gregarious teenager to a hostile one, tortured by chilling memories and prone to fits of range. Then a shocking tragedy shatters the family beyond repair, propelling Joan and Emily into a final, explosive confrontation...a showdown in which old wounds will be viciously torn open-and a horrific shadow from the past will spring an implacable life of its own, clawing toward Matt with the ferocious inevitability of death itself. 

Manhattan Hunt Club
Ballantine, 2001

MANHATTAN HUNT CLUB You are invited you to descend to chilling new depths of darkness-and discover a secret, savage world that exists beneath our very feet. The promising future of New York City college student Jeff Converse has suddenly been shattered by a nightmarish turn of events. Falsely convicted of a brutal crime, Jeff sees his life vanishing before his eyes. But someone has other plans for Jeff, in a far deadlier place than any penitentiary. He finds himself beneath the teeming streets of Manhattan, in a hidden landscape of twisting tunnels and forgotten subterranean chambers. Here, an invisible population of the homeless, the desperate, and the mad has carved out its own shadow society. But they are not alone. The pitch-dark tunnels and abandoned subway stations are haunted by the unmistakable sounds of predators in search of game. Someone has made this forsaken civilization beneath the city a private killing groundand the hunt is on. Trapped in a treacherous underground maze, cut off at every turn by ragged gangs of sinister "gamekeepers," and stalked relentlessly by unseen hunters, Jeff faces overwhelming odds in the race to reach salvation and elude capture. With no weapon but his wits, and an unimaginable threat lurking around every dark corner, Jeff must somehow move heaven and earth to escape from a living hell. 

Midnight Voices
Ballantine, 2002

MIDNIGHT VOICES What if insidious evil flourished in the one place where you feel most safe? The chilling answers comes fro New York Times bestselling master of suspense John Saul-in a new novel that reminds you there is no place like homefor sheer terror. The sudden, tragic death of her husband leaves Caroline van alone in New York City to raise an eleven-year-old son and a twelve-year-old daughter on little money and even less hope. But then she meets and marries handsome, successful Anthony Fleming, who wins her heart and embraces her children. When Caroline settles her family into Anthony's spacious apartment on Manhattan's Central Park West, her fears of an uncertain future give way to a sense of abundant happiness. But soon, new terrors will come home to roost. In the luxurious, exclusive building named The Rockwell. Midnight voices whisper of a cruel and hungry presence that also calls the Rockwell home. First Caroline's daughter begins to suffer from recurring nightmares of strangers in her room at night. Then her son insists that a neighbor's recently deceased child isn't dead at all-but being held captive somewhere in The Rockwell. And when Caroline discovers a startling secret about Anthony's past, it seems she, too, is falling victim to the creeping paranoia infecting her family. Should she doubt her perfect husband, their kindly fellow tenants, or her own sanity? Does someone-or something-in her new home have sinister designs on the Caroline and her children? Is her new life charmed or cursed? Ste; across the threshold of The Rockwell-and into the dark realm of John Saulin a spine tingling novel that will haunt you wherever you live. 

Black Creek Crossing
Ballantine, 2003

Black Creek Crossing The dark history and dire secrets of a peaceful small town are summoned from the shadows of the past. Unholy forces are stirred from long slumber to monstrous new life. And two young misfits discover the chilling art of turning persecution into retribution. With these eerie ingredients, bestselling master John Saul once again works his unique brand of sinister magic to conjure an unforgettable tale of unspeakable terror. For most of her young life, fifteen-year-old Angel Sullivan has been on the outside looking in, enduring the taunts of cruel schoolmates and the angry abuse of a bitter father. Then Angel's family moves to the quaint town of Roundtree, Massachusettswhere a charming home is available, a promising job awaits Angel's unemployed father, and most of all, the chance to make a brand-new start beckons to the shy, hopeful teenager. But when she is shunned by her new classmates, Angel falls deeper into despair. Until she meets Seth Baker, a fellow outcastand a fateful kinship is forged. It's Seth who tells Angel about the legacy of murder that hangs over her family's homeand the whispered rumors that something supernatural still dwells there. Uncertain whether the stories are true, and desperate to escape the torment of their daily lives, Angel and Seth devote themselves to contacting whatever restless soul haunts the dark recesses of Black Creek Crossing. But once they have begun, there is no turning back. Guided by an anguished and vengeful spirit, they uncover the shocking events and centuries-old horrors, that lay buried beneath the placid veneer of Roundtree. And along with the ghastly revelations comes a terrifying powerone that feeds upon the rage of the victimized, turning the basest impulses and most dangerous desires into devastating weapons,. Now, the closer Angel and Seth are pushed toward the edge by their tormentors, the deeper they descend into the maelstrom of dark forces they've unleashedand the more unspeakable the hour of reckoning will be. 

Perfect Nightmare
Ballantine, 2005 

If you open your house to strangers, who knows who might come in? And what they might be after? Or who? Now, ponder the unthinkable, and surrender to your darkest dread, as sinister storyteller extraordinaire John Saul weaves a heart-stopping tale of lurking terror and twisted intent. 
Every parent's nightmare becomes reality for Kara Marshall when her daughter, Lindsay, vanishes from her bedroom during the night. The police suspect the girl is just another moody teenage runaway, angry over leaving her school and friends behind because her family is moving. But Lindsay's recent eerie claim-that someone invaded her room when the house was opened to prospective buyers-drives Kara to fear the worst: a nameless, faceless stalker has walked the halls of her home in search of more than a place to live.
Patrick Shields recognizes Kara's pain-and carries plenty of his own since he lost his wife and two children in a devastating house-fire. But more than grief draws them together. Patrick, too, senses the hand of a malevolent stranger in his tragedy. And as more people go missing from houses up for sale, Patrick's suspicion, like Kara's, blooms into horrified certainty. 
Someone is trolling this peaceful community-undetected and undeterred-harvesting victims for a purpose no sane mind can fathom. Someone Kara and Patrick, alone and desperate, are determined to unmask. Someone who is even now watching, plotting, keeping a demented diary of unspeakable deeds . . . and waiting until the time is ripe for another fateful visit.

IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT
Ballantine Books, 2006

IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT Summer vacation becomes a season in hell for an ordinary family who unwittingly stir something invisible, insidious, and insatiable from its secret slumber-unleashing a wave of horror only the darkest evil could create, that only a master of spine-tingling terror like John Saul could orchestrate. For deep in the shadows in the dark of the night lurks something as big as life . . . and as real as death. 
It has waited seven years for someone to come back to the rambling lakeside house called Pinecrest, which has stood empty since its last owner went missing. For upscale Chicago couple Dan and Merrill Brewster, the old midwestern manse is an ideal retreat, and for their kids, Eric and Marci, it's the perfect place to spend a lazy summer exploring. Which is how Eric and his teenage friends discover the curious cache of discarded objects stowed in a hidden room of Pinecrest's carriage house. The bladeless hacksaws, shadeless lamps, tables with missing legs, headless axe handle, and other unremarkable items add up to a pile of junk. Yet someone took the trouble to inventory each worthless relic in a cryptic ledger. It has all the makings of a great mystery-whispering, coaxing, demanding to be solved.
But the more the boys devote themselves to restoring the forgotten possessions and piecing together the puzzle behind them, the more their fascination deepens into obsession. Soon their days are consumed with tending the strange, secret collection-while their nights become plagued by ever more ghastly dreams, nightmares that soon seep into reality. And when a horrifying discovery surfaces, so does the chilling truth-about the terrifying events that rocked the town seven years before, the mysterious disappearance of Pinecrest's last resident, and a twisted legacy with a malevolent life of its own . . . and a bottomless hunger for new victims.

----------


## tudwell

> Wait wait! Paris Hilton knows how to hold a pen? I'm astounded.


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## JBI

> 


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.

----------


## Woland

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

----------


## JADJARHD

> 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.

----------


## PeterL

> 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## JADJARHD

> 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.

----------


## Dark Star

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.

----------


## JADJARHD

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.

----------


## Dark Star

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...  :Wink:

----------


## JADJARHD

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.

----------


## Jane's Nemesis

> 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.


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.

----------


## moose gurl

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
 :Tongue:  
I've flipped through one before and they are ATROCIOUS.

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

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

----------


## GatsbyTheGreat

> 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:   :FRlol:  )

----------


## 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 !!!

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## raider60

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--

----------


## Jozanny

> 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.

----------


## Leabhar

> 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.

----------


## integrity

> 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.

----------


## ThousandthIsle

> 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.




> 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.

----------


## kareem33

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.

----------


## Equality72521

> 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.

----------


## stlukesguild

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.

----------


## EricP

Ayn Rand.

----------


## Genie

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.

----------


## Equality72521

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.

----------


## Pillowmint

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.

----------


## 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...

----------


## GatsbyTheGreat

> 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.







[email protected]#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:

----------


## Equality72521

> 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!

----------


## Melmoth

> 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.



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.

----------


## Melmoth

> 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.



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.

----------


## johann cruyff

> 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.

----------


## Melmoth

> 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?

----------


## johann cruyff

> 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.

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## Melmoth

> 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.

----------


## Carpalim

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_.

----------


## 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.


Am I freaking out or I believe I never said Kafka was to be considered one of the worst writers ever???? :Sick:  

I just professed an opinion on his style. I'm glad with the way he faces such surreal situations and in fact, I will never discredit that, I actually enjoy his originality. The fact, though, is that, for me, and perhaps only for me as I gather  :Bawling:  , his style might be sometimes redundant and tends to squeeze the situation a bit too much. 

Yes, I know you'll tell me, that's Kafka. Ok, then that's just my opinion. Do not thnik, though, I will not take any of his books again. In fact, I'll follow Johan Cruyff's advice on which of his works to read as soon as I can.

----------


## Carpalim

> Am I freaking out or I believe I never said Kafka was to be considered one of the worst writers ever???? 
> 
> I just professed an opinion on his style. I'm glad with the way he faces such surreal situations and in fact, I will never discredit that, I actually enjoy his originality. The fact, though, is that, for me, and perhaps only for me as I gather  , his style might be sometimes redundant and tends to squeeze the situation a bit too much. 
> 
> Yes, I know you'll tell me, that's Kafka. Ok, then that's just my opinion. Do not thnik, though, I will not take any of his books again. In fact, I'll follow Johan Cruyff's advice on which of his works to read as soon as I can.



Let me say that I for one wasn't responding specifically to your post; there were three or four other posters who really did _hate_ K - hence my defence! 

I agree, though, that at times, his exposition can become so complex as to be hard to follow - e.g in the long dialogues in the latter part of 'The Castle'.

However, for those detractors (not yourself there, Melmoth) who dismiss Kafka for such instances of 'verbosity' or 'denseness', I'd say that personally if I get stuck in a passage like that I merely criticise my own powers of comprehension for failing to follow where a superior intellect is trying to lead me.

----------


## R.A

Feilding Joseph Andrews, is the worst...

many useless events...characters and descriptions!!!

S aweful for me...

----------


## Etienne

> 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.


I think such reasoning is missing the point (while of course you can still dislike it) literature is not about saying as much as possible in as short as possible, as for The Process, I guess you mean The Trial?

----------


## kelby_lake

I can't understand most of what Kafka's saying- I only understood A Hunger Artist and The Metamorphosis  :Smile:

----------


## librosdesangre

> I am not a big Hemingway fan either. I hated Old Man and the Sea, but A Farewell to Arms wasn't so bad. Still, I doubt I'd read it again.
> 
> The first bad author that came to my mind was Dan Brown, followed by that chick who wrote the Lovely Bones. 
> 
> But then, what can you expect from bestsellers?



It's the same as Giorgio Faletti. I bought that book called "I kill" because I thought it was good, I mean a lot of people bought it and I heard and read some good reviews about it. But I forgot completely that it was a bestseller. At least it wasn't very expensive :Yawnb: 
In fact, I was about to buy another book by him, but after reading "I kill" I will never spend any cent on any book written by him

So I vote Giorgio Faletti.

----------


## kelby_lake

It's David Mamet. Awful.

----------


## ponypal772

all these old time writers. they are soooooo boring! I mean who reads that stuff!

----------


## stlukesguild

all these old time writers. they are soooooo boring! I mean who reads that stuff!

People who enjoy reading more than trolling around on the net.

----------


## stlukesguild

oops... double post :Blush:

----------


## mortalterror

> It's David Mamet. Awful.


Did you not like Glengarry Glen Ross?

----------


## Novelist

I would have to say Ernest Hemingway. Upon reading his novel, _The Old Man and The Sea_, I drew an instant dislike for it. I found it rather dull and unable to capture my attention thoroughly as a writer does to a reader. Then again, I was an eighth grader and may have found little appreciation for such classical novels. I still find myself shy of him afterwards, though this is only my opinion, as I know some value Hemingway's writing to be genius.

--Novelist.

----------


## Carpalim

QUOTE: Kelby Lake: "David Mamet. Awful."

'Glengarry Glen Ross' awful?

----------


## johann cruyff

> all these old time writers. they are soooooo boring! I mean who reads that stuff!


Yeah,like... You're sooo right! 

Huh, it turns out sarcasm really doesn't work that well on paper.

----------


## Carpalim

> all these old time writers. they are soooooo boring! I mean who reads that stuff!


Right, man. Not enuff action and too many, like, _words_ an stuff, 'at's right. And no pictchures. Why wade through dat we got movies now where you can like see what's happenin an stuff.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Did you not like Glengarry Glen Ross?


I didn't read that- after reading about 3 pages of American Buffalo and Sexual Perversity in Chicago I realised that it wasn't going to get much better and he just throws in lots of swear words to sound cool and edgy. He just sounds sick.

----------


## Carpalim

> I didn't read that- after reading about 3 pages of American Buffalo and Sexual Perversity in Chicago I realised that it wasn't going to get much better and he just throws in lots of swear words to sound cool and edgy. He just sounds sick.


But maybe he throws in the swear words to reflect what he hears about him? (one of the tasks of literature) It's difficult if you hate these words, I agree. But if they're used realistically as they are in Glengarry Glen Ross, then this is not a sign of sickness - the exact opposite in fact. Any play or novel which would claim to realistically portray the language spoken in a modern city, but which leaves out the ubiquitous offensive language is in something of a sick state of denial, I'd say.

Mamet's characters may be 'sick', but it doesn't follow that Mamet is.

----------


## Equality72521

Nietzsche. Sorry, had to throw that one out there.

----------


## johann cruyff

> Nietzsche. Sorry, had to throw that one out there.


Huh...  :Confused:  Why Nietzsche? His writings aren't really classical fiction, they merely serve the purpose of showing his philosophical ideas through symbolism.

Anyway, I haven't checked the entire thread, but I'm surprised I've seen no mention of De Sade.

BTW, shouldn't the thread title say something like: "Who is the worst famous writer ever"? I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm far worse than any name mentioned in this thread  :Smile:  The title of the worst writer ever is ridiculous, we can't possibly know that - we can only look for overrated ones amongst the ones we've read.

----------


## Equality72521

> Huh...  Why Nietzsche? His writings aren't really classical fiction, they merely serve the purpose of showing his philosophical ideas through symbolism.


I know that he doesn't technically qualify as classical lit. but the guy spent most of his life in a mental institution and people think that he's a good source to listen to? That's where that's coming from.

No offense to you Nietzsche fans or w/e but I just don't like his writings, on top of the previous stated reasons.

----------


## kelby_lake

> But maybe he throws in the swear words to reflect what he hears about him? (one of the tasks of literature) It's difficult if you hate these words, I agree. But if they're used realistically as they are in Glengarry Glen Ross, then this is not a sign of sickness - the exact opposite in fact. Any play or novel which would claim to realistically portray the language spoken in a modern city, but which leaves out the ubiquitous offensive language is in something of a sick state of denial, I'd say.
> 
> Mamet's characters may be 'sick', but it doesn't follow that Mamet is.


Okay, fair enough. But he seems to go in for the idea that if you shove a lot of four-letter words into a play it makes it 'gritty'. 
Sure, have some, but theatre isn't reality. I don't want to watch characters on stage that are just like the kind of idiots I try to avoid in real life.

----------


## Carpalim

> Okay, fair enough. But he seems to go in for the idea that if you shove a lot of four-letter words into a play it makes it 'gritty'. 
> Sure, have some, but theatre isn't reality. I don't want to watch characters on stage that are just like the kind of idiots I try to avoid in real life.


That's an interesting point there at the end. I've thought about it before; it raises odd questions for people like me who enjoy reading a character like the foul-mouthed lout Begbie in 'Trainspotting', while wishing for his real-life counterparts to be raised up from the feral loathsomeness of their behaviour. Perhaps it's to do with exorcising our demons or something - the fascination with evil is, after all, pandered to somewhere in most works of literature.

----------


## kelby_lake

Actually I say I dislike swearing in literature but I do like a play called East- written in a mixture of shakespearean language/70's cockney.

----------


## librosdesangre

> all these old time writers. they are soooooo boring! I mean who reads that stuff!


tell me, who is for you an old time writer?

----------


## dafydd manton

I had to read War and Peace in the original Russian, for a course I was doing, and I still bear the scars. No other book has made me so bored that my jaw started to ache. I've never had the heart to read it in English.

----------


## mystery_spell

I really dislike Stephenie Meyer (of the _Twilight_ saga). I really don't think she writes well at all.

----------


## Gretchen

J.K.Rowling, Nicholas Sparks, Robert Silverberg and Terry Pratchett.

----------


## Zee.

I think the worst writers in the world are the ones that bore you.

A writer doesn't have to be a wonderful writer to entertain you. Even the greatest of the great make me feel like jumping off the next building in to a fiery pit of hellish, skin licking fire. Cough, Dickens, cough.

----------


## jon1jt

Worst writers would include every pop novelist and spiritual guru whose books are thoroughly stocked in commercial book sellers around the world.

I'll be back with more.

----------


## Zee.

Go to the psycho *psychology, section at borders.

There's a section on incest.
THAT is terrible.

----------


## Zee.

Dirty Dickens.

----------


## Mopey Droney

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."

Those who agree with this are fundamentally ugly people.

Ayn Rand can't write a sentence to save her life and has the most disgusting philosophy I've ever heard. It is not enough to say that it is stupid and incorrect, it is also completely _evil_. One of her heroes rapes a girl to win her love. He also blows up a public housing project. This is the man Objectivists praise as an ultimate example. How she brainwashed millions of teenagers into becoming her foot-soldiers worldwide I'll never know. Luckily I first read Rand when I was 18 and was already familiar with the basic history of philosophy. Rand's ideas taking root are dependent on her hope that her reader will be a fresh young adolescent who can't pronounce "Kant".


Other views:
"Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term." - Whittacker Chambers, National Review

"This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force." - Dorothy Parker on Atlas Shrugged

"The Fountainhead is Rand's best novel, which is not to say that it is good." - Mark Kingwell

"Ayn Rand writes bad prose." - George Saunders

"No. I am not--and have never been--influenced by Ayn Rand. In fact, I pity anyone who is influenced by Ayn Rand. It's almost as bad as being influenced by Dan Brown." - Salman Rushdie, when asked if he was influenced by her work.

----------


## oopsycandy

I'm going to have to say Tolkien too. I just can't read Lord Of The Rings I have tried three times in the last ten years.  :Brickwall:  I admit defeat  :Smile:

----------


## kelby_lake

> I really dislike Stephenie Meyer (of the _Twilight_ saga). I really don't think she writes well at all.


I agree! I probably would enjoy her books if she made them much much shorter! Then I could forgive her atrocious writing and bland characters and just go 'ooh, it's getting juicy!' occasionally. But no...

Also, pretty much every abuse-autobiography. They always have names like 'Please, Uncle, no more!' or 'Just a child' or 'Why did Daddy hit me?' or variations. We have too many, and although it's wonderful that these people now have the courage to write a book, we have too many of them.

----------


## AJ.

> I really dislike Stephenie Meyer (of the _Twilight_ saga). I really don't think she writes well at all.


I've been unfortunate enough to have read one of those books. Needless to say, I was extremely underwhelmed. Stephanie Meyer is the epitome of inadequacy.

I also came in here expecting to see some Ayn Rand hate, and it's nice to not be disappointed, haha.

----------


## Zee.

I like Ayn Rand

----------


## ajane

First, I'd like to say that I completely agree that the Twilight series has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Secondly, though I'm not sure that he is considered a literary writer (he shouldn't be), I think that Nicolaus Sparks has to be the most awful writer of all time. He's like the Thomas Kinkade of novelists. This is kind of interesting, though not exactly on the subject. I read a transcript of a speech Faulkner gave to some college students in which he reportedly told them that he believed that Hemingway wrote without courage.

----------


## Zee.

Mmhm, Hemingway makes me feel like i'm about to have a seizure.

----------


## Joreads

> Mmhm, Hemingway makes me feel like i'm about to have a seizure.


STOP reading him Lim before you have one.

----------


## Joreads

> I'm going to have to say Tolkien too. I just can't read Lord Of The Rings I have tried three times in the last ten years.  I admit defeat


I am on that little red wagon - I have tried several times and given up.

----------


## snhettich

> _I think the worst writers in the world are the ones that bore you._


Fortunately, not everyone is the same. Therefore, unfortunately for the writer, he/she cannot entertain everyone, because everyone is entertained differently. I happen to love Dickens (though I find your comments about him amusing  :Smile:  ). His humor is dry and "between the lines", but it is entertaining. 

The worst writer: Stephanie Meyer.

She may mean well, but she could have done 1,000,000,000,000 times better writing and editing her books. (for example, why rewrite the series from Edward's perspective? Couldn't she have included his perspective from the very beginning?)

----------


## Zee.

Mhm, when I said "bore you" I was speaking specifically of our individual selves  :Smile: 

Ha - amusing as in stupid?

I have a lot to say about Mr Dickens. Not many people here like my comments about him. But they can climb a tree and chill with the monkey's for all I care.

----------


## jon1jt

Yeah Dickens sucks big time, I agree limes

----------


## Zee.

Yeah exactly. Like I said, dirty Dickens.

----------


## jon1jt

> Yeah exactly. Like I said, dirty Dickens.



There are rabid Dickens fans here...they may burn us at the stake for this.  :Tongue:

----------


## dafydd manton

Dickens Sucks? Egad,Sir, e'en as we speak, ranks of disgruntled Englishmen, armed with pikestaffs and arquebuses are massing by the white ccliffs od Dover, incensed that such a great English tradition should be thus maligned. Dash it all, sirrah, we have our traditions, such as warm, flat beer, the Roast Beef of Olde Englande, and sending gunboats in when insulted. Do not be surprised, Sirrah, if you wake up in the morning to find a big red double-decker bus (right-hand Drive, of course) parked outside your home, full to the gunwales of gentlemen in bowler hats with sharply pointed umbrellas and copies of The Times as shields, about to assail your personage. Damn' poor show what!

----------


## Mopey Droney

:FRlol: 
Awesome.

----------


## kelby_lake

:Smile:  Great!

Can I add that Melville must have been the most boring person ever...Moby Dick had about 10 million chapters on species of whales...the best bit of the book was when Ishmael and Queequeg were sharing a bed and Ishmael watched Queequeg undress, and I don;t think melville intended that to be the highlight...

----------


## snhettich

> Ha - amusing as in stupid?


No, I didn't mean stupid. I mean amusing as in, they made me chuckle. I didn't get _that_ worked up about what you said about Dickens. It's all in good fun.

----------


## dafydd manton

I think, gentlemen, I can help you. My last novel has, thus far, sold a total of about 23 copies, several of those to an asylum for the criminally insane. The remainder have been sold to friends, most of whom have not spoken to me since. Indeed, many have actually crossed the road, to avoid me. That being the case, there is a possibility that the Worst Writer Ever is me. I can say this, safe in the knowledge that nobody east of Skegness, a seaside town in England, has ever heard of me, except a certain person in New Jersey that I met in Berlin 23 years ago, to whom I owe 5 Dollars and 25 cents. I offered to settle the debt with a copy of my latest book, but I regret that I cannot post his reply. The permissive age is not that liberated yet. Thank you.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> I think, gentlemen, I can help you. My last novel has, thus far, sold a total of about 23 copies, several of those to an asylum for the criminally insane. The remainder have been sold to friends, most of whom have not spoken to me since. Indeed, many have actually crossed the road, to avoid me. That being the case, there is a possibility that the Worst Writer Ever is me. I can say this, safe in the knowledge that nobody east of Skegness, a seaside town in England, has ever heard of me, except a certain person in New Jersey that I met in Berlin 23 years ago, to whom I owe 5 Dollars and 25 cents. I offered to settle the debt with a copy of my latest book, but I regret that I cannot post his reply. The permissive age is not that liberated yet. Thank you.


Sounds better than Dan Brown. :FRlol: 

Hey, I notice you are from Sheffield too, rock on!  :Wave: - Skegness brings back horrible memories, it's such an awful place, worst holiday resort of all time, nightmare, would rather stay at home or go to the Tesco for a holiday or something, vile.

----------


## kiz_paws

> There are rabid Dickens fans here...they may burn us at the stake for this.


Well, I am a fan of Dickens -- though I've read only a smattering of what's out there. Nonetheless, love it!  :Nod: 

But then, I have been accused of being eclectic -- no, no Harlequin romances **shiver** but a varied selection of reading schtuff! Yes, including S.King and the ilk. 

**stomps foot**

----------


## dafydd manton

Skegness is a bit like Bournemouth. Hoardes of people think "I'm not feeling well, I think I,m going to keel over in the next few weeks, let's move to Skegness". The cemeteries are full of people who went there from places like Sheffield in order to snuff it - and found out that even when you're dead it's cold and uncomfortable. 
Noticed on one of your earlier posts that you like to hide in the Peak district. Go past Fox House, past Toad's Mouth and park in the next car-park on the right. Up in the hills is a natural seat made of stone, which is a great place to take a book (and a bottle if someone else is driving). You're out of the wind, but you can't hear a sound from your surrounds. Well worth a try.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Skegness is a bit like Bournemouth. Hoardes of people think "I'm not feeling well, I think I,m going to keel over in the next few weeks, let's move to Skegness". The cemeteries are full of people who went there from places like Sheffield in order to snuff it - and found out that even when you're dead it's cold and uncomfortable


 :FRlol:  
Bournemouth oh god that's another one, been there, done that, so miserable - can't wait till I can afford to go abroad again. Scarborough and Whitby are about the best around Yorkshire for coastal kicks.




> Noticed on one of your earlier posts that you like to hide in the Peak district. Go past Fox House, past Toad's Mouth and park in the next car-park on the right. Up in the hills is a natural seat made of stone, which is a great place to take a book (and a bottle if someone else is driving). You're out of the wind, but you can't hear a sound from your surrounds. Well worth a try.


Hey yes I like to hide in the Peaks during summer, not much last year because summer was cancelled of course. Yes I go past Fox House (and in it, great pub) Toad's Mouth rings a bell but I don't know it off-hand, I will look out for that though thanks, I don't have a car so drinking and driving is not an issue, just get there on the little bus full of walkers and pensioners, roll on summer.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## dafydd manton

If you go past Fox House and keep going, there is sharp left-handed bend, with a strange shaped rock on the right. It's shaped like a Frog's Cakehole, hence the name. The car-park in question is about 500 yards beyond it. Usually an ice-cream van in there, so you can freeze your tonsils when it's about minus 5!! Remember, you can always tell a Sheffield summer - the rain is that tiny bit warmer!!

----------


## kelby_lake

> Sounds better than Dan Brown.
> 
> Hey, I notice you are from Sheffield too, rock on! - Skegness brings back horrible memories, it's such an awful place, worst holiday resort of all time, nightmare, would rather stay at home or go to the Tesco for a holiday or something, vile.


Don't diss Tesco!  :FRlol:

----------


## wessexgirl

> Dickens Sucks? Egad,Sir, e'en as we speak, ranks of disgruntled Englishmen, armed with pikestaffs and arquebuses are massing by the white ccliffs od Dover, incensed that such a great English tradition should be thus maligned. Dash it all, sirrah, we have our traditions, such as warm, flat beer, the Roast Beef of Olde Englande, and sending gunboats in when insulted. Do not be surprised, Sirrah, if you wake up in the morning to find a big red double-decker bus (right-hand Drive, of course) parked outside your home, full to the gunwales of gentlemen in bowler hats with sharply pointed umbrellas and copies of The Times as shields, about to assail your personage. Damn' poor show what!


 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  love it! Don't mess with Dickens lovers  :Thumbs Up: . 

Not so sure about Tescos Kelby, I didn't have a local one, in spite of them buying up every square inch of the country, but guess what, they've opened 2 more relatively near to me now....being a Tesco-free zone has come to an end  :Frown: .

----------


## dafydd manton

> love it! Don't mess with Dickens lovers . 
> 
> Not so sure about Tescos Kelby, I didn't have a local one, in spite of them buying up every square inch of the country, but guess what, they've opened 2 more relatively near to me now....being a Tesco-free zone has come to an end .


Tesco are the only company I know, that when you buy a packet of eggs, in a transparent box, there is a label that says "Allergy Advice. Caution. Contains Egg. Other than that, I don't have a beef - one man's meat is another man's mad cow disease!

----------


## Infinitefox

I don't read enough of anyone I dislike to consider them the worst writer. I try two or three books of an author, and if I dislike them, then I won't say they're the worst ever, because I don't read enough of anyone who I think sucks to accurately say that.

----------


## promtbr

I have to assume a BIG MAJORITY of the posted responses are based on the following premises:

1) You have read maybe less than 15 works that could by consensus be called "literature"

2) You read exactly 1 of this author's work.

3) You did not choose which work to start reading from this author, it was "chosen" for you in an anthology or in required reading in school.

4) You didn't read the part of the first post that the original poster stated "*that is generally regarded as LITERATURE*"...

It really is unfortuanate that a lot of authors generally held up as being regarded as having written a piece of literature have had a certain work "pigeon holed" and foisted on first time readers of literature as an intro to their work in all the anthologies or "Surveys Of Literature". 

If the young reader becomes bored (is not entertained) or has been told such and such a piece should be admired as being "important".... well of course you are going think the writer sucks....

Its too bad really.  :Bawling: 

That said, of course EVERY reader WHATEVER age has come across writers that are just not their cup of tea or style of writing appalls them...that what makes it 'inarestin 

But I do suggest that when you get older, come back to some of the writers that you have "written off" and especially a different work than in the anthologies....you may find they become your favorite authors :Biggrin: 

After the venting :Crash: 

I can't read Paul Auster.

BTW, I love your signature Mopey...I have that DFW quote above my PC. We lost a great one there.... :Frown:

----------


## jekan blazer

the worst writer ever is the writer that never writes because they are self conscious...

----------


## GX4146

ah...me

----------


## jekan blazer

> I don't read enough of anyone I dislike to consider them the worst writer. I try two or three books of an author, and if I dislike them, then I won't say they're the worst ever, because I don't read enough of anyone who I think sucks to accurately say that.


 :Nod: 

very wise statement...

----------


## Mariamosis

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.

----------


## dfloyd

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'.

----------


## Greekish

i have to say kafka,he is overrated and i never liked his work

----------


## regularjoe

Samuel Richardson

----------


## Dark Muse

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.

----------


## kevinthediltz

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?

----------


## Dark Muse

I personally loved The Jungle. I thought it was fabulous

----------


## Chilly

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.

----------


## Dark Muse

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.

----------


## Uberzensch

I second the appreciation for The Jungle in particular and Upton Sinclair in general!

----------


## emily00

> Hmm, what a difficult question to answer! I try to find a respect for all authors, published or unpublished.


Er...why? Some of them are monumentally talentless.

BY the way, my nomination is Jeffrey Archer.




> 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.


 Very true.

----------


## JohnMelmoth

"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.

----------


## Chilly

> 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.


You know, you're right, I take back what I said. I was not thinking of people's reactions in the present day, and today's views are of course extrememly different from a hundred years ago (which is the time frame i had in mind). I would never say that Dan Brown, Stephany Meyer, Robert Ludlum and the likes are actually worthwhile, and i didn't notice how controversial (to my own opinions) what I said sounded.

What I was trying to say was how, a century ago, not many people could read and even fewer tried to write. Back then, everyone who read had the same understanding of how books should be written and how they should sound. Since everyone shared the same basic opinion, if one person didn''t like a book most people wouldn't end up liking it either.

Of course, that doesn't apply today.

----------


## metal134

> Fame does not = talent, especially not in this day and age.


Agreed %1000. Millie Vanillie had a #1 record. Enough said.

----------


## kelby_lake

> i have to say kafka,he is overrated and i never liked his work


You can't say Kafka is the worst writer ever just because you don't like him, silly.

----------


## dfloyd

Owen Wister, Theodore Dreiser, Kafka, just are either nor interested in the subjects these writers pursued or were just not up to digesting their style. The Virginian, An American Tragedy, and The Trial are certainly three books which should be on everyone's reading list. Also, The Jungle (Upton Sinclair) should be read by most everyone.

With that said, the writer who I definitely didn't enjoy Is Virginia Wolf. To the Lighthouse and Orlando are just not my cup of tea, but this doesn't mean she wasn't a good writer.

----------


## Dr. Hill

Kafka is amazing, all you haters :P

I always thought, if we're going by renowned authors, James Joyce. There's just something about him that screams practical joke and I don't find it funny.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Owen Wister, Theodore Dreiser, Kafka, just are either nor interested in the subjects these writers pursued or were just not up to digesting their style. The Virginian, An American Tragedy, and The Trial are certainly three books which should be on everyone's reading list. Also, The Jungle (Upton Sinclair) should be read by most everyone.
> 
> With that said, the writer who I definitely didn't enjoy Is Virginia Wolf. To the Lighthouse and Orlando are just not my cup of tea, but this doesn't mean she wasn't a good writer.


I thought I'd like To The Lighthouse but she doesn't have an interesting style of writing.

----------


## Dostoyevsky

C.S Lewis is the worst writer I have ever read.

----------


## PeterL

> I always thought, if we're going by renowned authors, James Joyce. There's just something about him that screams practical joke and I don't find it funny.


I think that there are good reasons to think that _Finnegans Wake_ was a joke, but it also is an interesting experiment in writing.

----------


## Hurricane

Don DeLillo. Maybe I'm not giving him enough of a chance because I've only read a couple of his books, but seriously, no thanks. 
I thought _The Jungle_ (because, honestly, that's the only Sinclair I've read) to be kind of silly, but I would hardly count him or Kafka as worst writers ever. I consider it also something that should be read by most people and very important, disregarding the sillyness. 
If we're "allowing" famous and generally not considered good authors, then I'll toss in Stephanie Meyer and Clive Cussler.

----------


## Raphael Lambach

What is worst to you can be better to me....

----------


## Madame X

God, I love Kafka. It follows, however, that any person claiming his/her stylistic tendencies to be in the vein of Kafka is, certifiably, the worst writer ever.  :Nod:

----------


## Dionido

Federico Moccia

----------


## andave_ya

ok, a thought. Worst writer because of grammar or of content? or of style, even?

----------


## cyberbob

> 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 know I shouldn't be bumping such an ancient thread and I've only read the first Dune so I may not be in a good position to judge, but I agree that it is badly written. 

Sci-fi books are for the most part plain spoken and unambitious with their prose but, in Dune, it seems like Herbert wanted to use language more creatively but to me it seems flowery and not well done.

----------


## Desolation

Ayn Rand.

----------


## Ecurb

It's a close race between prickly_pete and GL Wilson.

----------


## cyberbob

Actually, I think the first page got it right with Kenji Siratori.

----------


## kiki1982

My husband says Colin Forbes. 

And we both agreed on Harold Rob_bins_ (for everyone who gets the joke  :Biggrin: )

----------


## conartist

pi 0

He's a contemporary poet who must have the most inane motives to create in the history of art. His work includes a book called 'Number Poetry', which is what it sounds like - pages and pages of numbers.

----------


## dfloyd

Seinfeld or Karl Marx of the Marx brothers.

----------


## MarkBastable

Archer is peerless as a bad writer. Utterly and relentlessly devoid of talent in every department.

----------


## serhanbener

stephen king

----------


## Desolation

> Seinfeld or Karl Marx of the Marx brothers.


Really? I quite like Seinfeld...His "show about nothing" is fantastic post-modern television.

----------


## Ecurb

Here is Paul Fussell on Graham Greene:




> : EXAMINATION: English 345, Expository writing
> 
> : The following passages have been written by Mr. Graham Greene in his book "Ways of Escape." They have been passed by his editors and approved by his publishers, who assert that Graham Greene is "the most distinguished living writer in the English language." Rewrite each passage as directed. 
> 
> : 1. Correct the grammar:
> 
> : a. "I am not sure that I detect much promise in [Orient Express] except in the character of Colonel Hartep, the Chief of Police, whom I suspect survived into the world of Aunt Augusta and TRAVELS WITH MY AUNT."
> 
> : b. "In my hotel the Ofloffson..., there were three guests besides myself: the Italian manager of the casino and an old American artist and his wife -- a gentle couple whom I cannot deny bore some resemblance to Mr. and Mrs. Smith of [THE COMEDIANS]."
> ...

----------


## logophile

If we can include poets, I would like to put forward Carol Anne Duffy. After several lengthy discussions on the subject with friends and lecturers, we have decided that the only possible reasons for her being given the position of Poet Lauriet are those two awful poems on the GCSE english syllabus (now one, after education for leisure was removed). I cannot think of a single redeeming feature of her work. It is awful.

----------


## Emil Miller

The question is pointless unless one has read all of the books ever printed, but if we restrict it to our own limited reading, in my case it would have to be L.Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame (infamy?) whose book Fear was appallingly bad (tautology?) as befits all those who seek to control the ingenuous. I read it at the behest of a bartender who had read one of my novels and who had an ultra diverse weltanschauung.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

> Archer is peerless as a bad writer. Utterly and relentlessly devoid of talent in every department.


He's also a dreadful speaker if not person. He drops down to the Southern-most Hemisphere on occasion trying to promote his latest opus (I think it's in the contract) and hits the talkshow circuit. As a self-righteous pompous prig he's unmatched, with his self-heroic chivalric tales of his survival as an honoured guest of Her Majesty: how he talked junkies out of their addiction and convinced habitual murderers to not lose hope...

And of course not to seem to betray their trust he claims to only have written about them on tiny scraps of paper in pencils he kept up his arse in the dark after he was certain everyone was asleep

And then in an effort to seem blokey he tries on a joke about the cricket wars as though he's genuinely interested, and, worse, as though anyone is.

But the thing is, everyone with a full set of marbles despises him, and he just doesn't get it...



Okay, favorite bad writer of the week goes to - Robert G. Barret 'And De Fun Don't Done'

As an Australian butcher turning to butchering the language instead (apparently he's on continuous loan in the prison system) he's created an off beat hard boiled private eye who, in this one at least, winds up in Jamaica- 

And de fun don't start...

----------


## logophile

> The question is pointless unless one has read all of the books ever printed.


And also holds relevance only to our own biased opinions. Some people find lengthy metaphor intollerable. Others love it. At the end of the day, these sorts of discussions are really just for us to discuss our own little prejudices. At the end of the day, I think we all realise that there isn't going to be one answer to this sort of question, but it's fun to see what others think on the subject.

----------


## Babak Movahed

Personally, I believe Henry James is the worst author who is "considered literary." In my opinion James spends far to much time trying to create an identical replication of real life, which I understand considering he's part of the realist movement. However, his preoccupation in overly complicated diction, and obsession with exposition is unbearable. It seemed like James was under the idea that everyone who read his stuff was too dumb to understand the story. Some people may like him, but there are far more talented writers then Henry James.

----------


## hanzklein

> pi 0
> 
> He's a contemporary poet who must have the most inane motives to create in the history of art. His work includes a book called 'Number Poetry', which is what it sounds like - pages and pages of numbers.


Sounds interesting. I want to know more about him

----------


## fb0252

mine are--tie--delillo, steinbeck, or, did i already post that before?

----------


## libernaut

kilgore trout

----------


## dwdean

> It's a close race between prickly_pete and GL Wilson.


love it

----------


## Aubergine

> kilgore trout


He's an interesting author, though. I believe his works (bad enough to be quite good) are to be read in context of his authorship. Vonnegut implied that notion quite strongly.

----------


## PoeticPassions

There are a lot of bad writers/authors that sell a lot of books. Now, it depends on what we (as a society) call literature... I am sure that Nicholas Sparks wouldn't be considered lit, but he makes a lot of money.
I never much liked Paulo Coelho... it's entertaining, but slightly one-dimensional. Never liked Hemingway either, but then again most women don't. 
None of these are awful though... I never read the ones that are. 

oh and how can you say steinbeck?? why? oh why!!??  :Banghead:

----------


## fb0252

very easy. of mice and men is the single worst book for me ever that i finished. the first 50 pages of White Noise are right in there, then trash can. :Flare:

----------


## PoeticPassions

But, but... East of Eden is one of the best books ever written.

----------


## fb0252

u kid? right?

----------


## Tournesol

NO, not Steinbeck! The man is a brilliant author. I studied 'The Pearl', and I also taught it, and I cantell you that the symbols and motifs are so carefully crafted, and yet throught such simple language - his work is really good. 

Now, a woman like Cecelia Ahern will leave you ripping your hair out. 

Her writing is slow, the dialogue is predictable, and characterisation is so poor. 

I had seen the movie 'P.S. I Love You', and so naturally I wanted to read the novel - BIG MISTAKE! Let's just say that the screenwriters and director of the movie did a HUGE improvement to that novel. I didn't even finish reading the novel. Terrible.

----------


## ChicagoReader

I'm definitely on the side who appreciates Steinbeck. I'm surprised you hated Mice. I thought it was a brilliant short novel but to each his own. I would have to say Mark Twain is my least favorite. I wouldn't say worst ever because obviously that's not true but I have never liked a shred of any of his works.

----------


## dwdean

author's such as Khaled Hosseini (The Kite Runner) frustrate me.
i enjoyed the first work as brain fluff, the second was EXACTLY the same plot. different names, different area, same plot. sadly, this is seen in many contemporary writers. though i've read none of them, i have heard that the 1st harry potter book was quite well written. once the fame hit, however, quality was traded for quantity and cash. if writers continue this trend, there will be few "classics" coming out of my generation.

----------


## Insane4Twain

> James Joyce
> 
> Hands down.


What are the odds? I came to this site because I was looking for an on-line version of Thoreau. Out of curiosity, I looked at the forum and found this thread. I had to register just to nominate this very author.




> Moby Dick had about 10 million chapters on species of whales


That brings to mind book I cannot praise too highly - The Cruelest Miles, by Gay and Laney Salisbury. It is the gripping story of the race to deliver the life-saving diphtheria serum to a remote Alaskan village. The format of the book is similar to that of Moby Dick, only it's more interesting.

----------


## Ome

Jack London.  :Willy Nilly:

----------


## G L Wilson

Richard Dawkins. The man's sick in the head, he thinks that he's some sort of nineteenth century sage for Christ's sake. He's a puppet feeding pap to the masses. I hate him.

----------


## Alexander III

> Richard Dawkins. The man's sick in the head, he thinks that he's some sort of nineteenth century sage for Christ's sake. He's a puppet feeding pap to the masses. I hate him.


I wouldn't say I hate him, or that he is sick in the head, but I do not approve of his work; his atheistic propaganda is little more than the religious equivalent of incense and candles for the masses. He is uneasily aggressive, and uncomfortably to similar in mindset to many religious fundamentalists.

His debates always seem childish, especially when he is next to Stephen Fry or Christopher Hitchens who are able to debate like intelligent men.

----------


## G L Wilson

> His debates always seem childish, especially when he is next to Stephen Fry or Christopher Hitchens who are able to debate like intelligent men.


Spot on, Alex, childish is the word for it. The man's a moron.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> very easy. of mice and men is the single worst book for me ever that i finished.


You need to read more books.

----------


## lowradiation

Beginning to lose my faith in humanity at the post condemning White Noise and Mice and Men on the previous page.

White Noise is one of the best things written post-war...

----------


## fb0252

i can only give my personal opinion. there's zero accounting for taste, as they say. if u think white noise is the best whatever u think, so be it. after 60 pages I abandoned my usual perseverance with mediocre writing and found good cause to practice my basketball toss with WN right into my kitchen dumpster. as for mice, I do poorly with dumbed down literature e.g. As I Lay Dying where I'd posted u're unable to find an intelligent sentence with a search warrant (later proven wrong when someone did post a couple of decent lines), and also with the sort of distasteful, to me, sexual innuendo. i am quite satisfied with my opinion of these which, contrary to above posting, is based on fairly broad comparisons.

----------


## Intuition

> i can only give my personal opinion. there's zero accounting for taste, as they say.


If you're going to attempt to write with punctuation please don't stop half-way. It's more obnoxious than being entirely without punctuation. 




> I abandoned my usual perseverance with mediocre writing and found good cause to practice my basketball toss with WN right into my kitchen dumpster.


It sounds as if you're in the habit of reading "mediocre writing" quite a bit. Although I have not read _White Noise_ , it is written by one of the most prominent postmodernist authors, and like another poster here said, it is easily one of the greater postwar works of literature. That being said, one of the greater postwar works of literature can be anywhere from the single best, to the hundredth best. The latter position is still an achievement. As you endeavored to only read one-fifth of the novel, you have no right to criticize it. 

The fact also, that you decided to practice playing basketball instead of read, is another choice which illustrates your character.




> I do poorly with dumbed down literature e.g. As I Lay Dying where I'd posted u're unable to find an intelligent sentence


"Dumbed down" literature? Modernism. It is called modernism. Because the literary techniques and intelligence of the novel completely eluded you, does not mean that Faulkner did not write a brilliant novel. 




> i am quite satisfied with my opinion of these


You have low standards to be satisfied by _that_.

----------


## stlukesguild

i can only give my personal opinion. there's zero accounting for taste, as they say. if u think white noise is the best whatever u think, so be it. after 60 pages I abandoned my usual perseverance with mediocre writing and found good cause to practice my basketball toss with WN right into my kitchen dumpster. as for mice, I do poorly with dumbed down literature e.g. _As I Lay Dying_ where I'd posted u're unable to find an intelligent sentence with a search warrant (later proven wrong when someone did post a couple of decent lines), and also with the sort of distasteful, to me, sexual innuendo. i am quite satisfied with my opinion of these which, contrary to above posting, is based on fairly broad comparisons.

Remember that personal opinion and value judgments are not one and the same. 

*Personal Opinion:* "I don't like X"

*Value Judgment:* "X is an example of "dumbed-down" writing"

Personal opinion is not open to challenge. I may disagree with your opinion of the work in question if you state "I didn't like _As I Lay Dying_"... but I cannot challenge your opinion. If you say you dislike it, then you dislike it. End of story.

You open yourself to challenge, however, when you make value judgments... especially if they go against the accepted opinion. Why do imagine that Of _Mice and Men_ or _As I Lay Dyin_g are dumbed-down? Do you assume that because you don't like something or don't get something that it is immediately "dumb". I don't particularly like James Joyce. He's never grown on me in spite of the fact that I love any number of other Modernists. Not for a moment, however, do I assume his writing is "dumbed-down". If anything, it is the exact opposite. 

Again... I am not questioning your right to an opinion... your dislike of something I... or even the vast majority like. But calling something "dumb" simply because it didn't work for you is not much of a step above the teenager complaining that "Shakespeare sucks" after being assigned _Romeo and Juliet_ for reading homework.

very easy. of mice and men is the single worst book for me ever that i finished.

You need to read more books.

Perhaps he or she has read nothing but Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, Virgil, Tolstoy, and such... :Biggrin5:

----------


## fb0252

interesting, as noted, am content to remain minority of one in personal scorn for Steinbeck, and in particular Delillo, and to lesser degree Faulkner. Harold Bloom has chapter on Faulkner in his book Genius which I will be interested to read. and, curiously also high praise for Delillo. Wondering if Bloom has actually read Dellilo, an experience that I'd take again maybe if someone put a gun to my head.

----------


## Intuition

> I don't particularly like James Joyce. He's never grown on me in spite of the fact that I love any number of other Modernists.


Joyce is usually one of the least cherished modernists. I remember reading him back when I was a great deal younger and I found it very unconventional. Reading _Finnegan's Wake_ a few years later made me realize that _Ulysses_ was actually quite conventional. 

I believe that aside from subjective opinion of the novel, there are a few things that _Ulysses_ has set in stone.

It immortalized Dublin (which is a minor point, actually).
It extensively used stream-of-consciousness in almost an impressionistic sense of expressing the interior of a character. (Although there were precursors to this in literature, such as Dujardin).
And then there's the abundance of allusions and puns.
It spawned countless amounts of foreign renditions, one of them being _Berlin Alexanderplatz_.

All in all it makes it one of the most "influential" novels of the 20th century-- although this tirade of mine is pointless, I realize you said that you believe that Joyce is the "exact opposite" of "dumbed down." The only reason I state this is because I remember seeing somewhere on this thread that many agreed to disagree of Joyce's literary recognition.




> Perhaps he or she has read nothing but Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, Virgil, Tolstoy, and such...


I doubt this, though. If he happens to be in the habit of reading great literature he would most likely address them properly.




> an experience that I'd take again maybe if someone put a gun to my head.


No one is going to _waste_ any bullets on that head of yours.

----------


## fb0252

intution that none will be wasting any bullets on this old carcass is good to see in print but am thinking u change ur screen name, as your "intuition" is a little off. have spent much of the last 10 years marking off Bloom's Western Cannon one by one including several reads of Shakespeare, a couple of times through Middlemarch etc., which may help explain my views on such as Delillo. Homer I never got to as Bloom left it out of the top 26. i consider Joyce one of the great minds btw and Ulysses one of the greatest books, whatever that is worth. St. L. G. i'd agree with ur general characterization, but "dumbed down" as in Faulkner, I more read as an excuse for inability. I'd doubt Faulkner on his best days could touch James Joyce on his worst, personal opinion that I'd also stand by as a value judgment  :Smile:  Edit: Q--do men and women see books in differing ways--am unable to think a woman enjoying Montaigne e.g.?

----------


## Intuition

> intution that none will be wasting any bullets on this old carcass is good to see in print but am thinking u change ur screen name, as your "intuition" is a little off.


Intuition
1. Immediate cognition without the use of conscious rational processes.
2. A perceptive insight gained by the use of this faculty.

You proved that my instinctive knowledge was correct.




> have spent much of the last 10 years marking off Bloom's Western Cannon one by one including several reads of Shakespeare, a couple of times through Middlemarch etc., which may help explain my views on such as Delillo. Homer I never got to as Bloom left it out of the top 26.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but _Bloom's Western Canon_ only contains twenty six writers. You took ten years to read_ that_?

Secondly, I do not have a strong liking of Delillo, only that he happens to be an above average novelist who still lives. 

I will not disagree, _Middlemarch_ is an absolutely brilliant novel, not much of a point in comparing it to postmodern literature.




> I'd doubt Faulkner on his best days could touch James Joyce on his worst


If that were so, then_ Dubliners_ and _Finnegans Wake_ would have to be greater than The Sound and the Fury.




> Q--do men and women see books in differing ways--am unable to think a woman enjoying Montaigne e.g.?


If that isn't obvious I'm not sure what is. Ask yourself this: do the majority of men that you know enjoy Jane Austen?

----------


## Delta40

Barbara Cartland (ugh!)

----------


## stlukesguild

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bloom's Western Canon only contains twenty six writers. You took ten years to read that?

Actually, the "canon" itself is a list of some 2000+ books added as an appendix to the back of the book of the same title.

i consider Joyce one of the great minds btw and Ulysses one of the greatest books

I don't question this. There are passages... whole chapters in Ulysses that I found absolutely brilliant. His writing, however, never engaged me as much personally or emotionally as Proust, Kafka... or even Faulkner.

----------


## chipper

Richard Dawkins is an acquired taste... i never acquired it

----------


## Intuition

> Actually, the "canon" itself is a list of some 2000+ books added as an appendix to the back of the book of the same title.





> Homer I never got to as Bloom left it out of the top 26.


I know the Canon itself is massive, I don't question that. But our colleague here was claiming that he was reading what Bloom considered to being the central part of the canon. Which would also be why he never read Homer because it was left out of the top 26 whom Bloom centralized around. I'm inclined to believe he was alluding to these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wes...ol_of_the_Ages

----------


## prendrelemick

I was about to leap in with my usual J D Salinger, but I realise it is his novel I hate. That's not the same thing.

I can't think of any literary writers who are bad, compared to people like Dan Brown or Susan Hill.

----------


## siamesecat

> I've always thought that people obscenely overrate Kafka too.


I agree.

Barbara Cartland is the worst. Who reads her books??  :Sick:

----------


## Intuition

The fact that he has inspired the word, "Kafkaesque" proves that his impact on Western Literature was profound. 

For that alone he should be recognized, if nothing else; but it would be insolent to claim that _The Metamorphosis_ is merely "just another classic."

----------


## Emil Miller

> Barbara Cartland is the worst. Who reads her books??


She is said to have sold over a billion copies worldwide. It would be interesting to know what percentage of her readers are male, if any.

----------


## Mr.lucifer

Why can't we list truly horrible writers?

----------


## breathtest

The worst writer that I have read has to be William Burroughs. I am a great fan of the beat movement, but most of his novels simply do not make sense. He writes so cryptically that we are supposed to think of him as a genius and that is that. Having said that, I haven't read Naked Lunch or Junky, two of his most linear novels. I have them both, but haven't gotten around to reading them.

----------


## cyberbob

Get over yourself. Using cheap personal insults like "I doubt they'd waste a bullet on you" just because someone doesn't like modernism and postmodernism?

I agree with how he described Faulkner's style as an excuse for inability and think that this applies doubly to Delillo. It doesn't surprise me that Delillo has a Master's in Literature and in fact I would expect him to hav a Ph.D. by how boring and self important his writing is.

----------


## ScribbleScribe

I don't think I have any hated authors. I got over my hatred of dean koontz after the 30th book I read of his.

Now let's see here.

Kafka
Ayn rand
Charles dickens
James joyce
Ernest Hemingway

These authors seem to have a lot of people against them on this thread. So perhaps it is fair to say they are controversial.

----------


## Intuition

> Get over yourself. Using cheap personal insults like "I doubt they'd waste a bullet on you" just because someone doesn't like modernism and postmodernism?


Calling William Faulkner as "dumbed down" literature will invite personal insults. Whereas, if he would have said "I do not enjoy modernism, although William Faulkner may be a good modernist writer," I would have no disagreement. 




> I agree with how he described Faulkner's style as an excuse for inability and think that this applies doubly to Delillo.


If you claim that his insult of Faulkner's writing was a "description" of his style, then you are being ignorant yourself. As to Delillo, I merely claimed he is a postmodern author which does not deserve to be considered as the worst of critically acclaimed writers.




> by how boring and self important his writing is.


For those who aren't in search of cheap entertainment, "boring" should never be a part of their vocabulary.

----------


## stlukesguild

I know the Canon itself is massive, I don't question that. But our colleague here was claiming that he was reading what Bloom considered to being the central part of the canon. Which would also be why he never read Homer because it was left out of the top 26 whom Bloom centralized around. I'm inclined to believe he was alluding to these:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wes...ol_of_the_Ages

Of course Bloom has written other books as well. In _Genius_ he gives a brief bio and critical response to 100 writers whom he places at the center of Western Literature. Certainly Homer deserves a spot on nearly any list of the most influential works of literature in the West. Glancing over Bloom's list of 26 I find that I have read something by all except George Eliot. The arguments over the "canon"... this notion of some universal, never-changing list of books that represent without question the greatest works of literature... are fed by the recognition of the giants left off the list that would make for reading no less rich:

Shakespeare..........Spenser, Donne, Calderon, and Racine
Dante................... Virgil or Homer
Chaucer................ Boccaccio or The Arabian Nights
Cervantes.............. Ariosto and Tasso
Montaigne.............. Plato
Molière.................. Rabelais
Milton.................... William Blake
Dr. Samuel Johnson... Boswell
Goethe.................... Leopardi and Rousseau
Wordsworth.............. Keats
Jane Austen.............. Lawrence Stern
Walt Whitman............ Baudelaire
Emily Dickinson........... Tennyson
Charles Dickens.......... Flaubert
George Eliot............... Melville
Tolstoy..................... Dostoevsky
Henrik Ibsen............... Checkov
Freud........................ Thomas Mann
Proust....................... Walter Pater, R.M. Rilke, and Oscar Wilde
James Joyce............... T.S. Eliot, W.B. Yeats, and Lewis Carroll
Virginia Woolf.............. Eugenio Montale
Franz Kafka................ Hermann Hesse and 
Jorge Luis Borges......... Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Julio Cortazar
Pablo Neruda............... Federico Garcia Lorca, Cesar Vallejo, and Rafael Alberti
Fernando Pessoa........... Jorge Guillen, Antonio Machado, and Miguel Hernandez
Samuel Beckett............. Jean Paul Sartre

I think what turns people off the notion of a "canon" is the idea that there is some universal list of essential reading and that one cannot be thought to be well read until he or she has conquered this. It also misrepresents the notion of critical discussion with regard to literature. Stating that "Shakespeare is greater than Dante" (or the reverse) is essentially as useless as ridiculous claims as to how "boring" Faulkner is or how "overrated" Kafka is. Shakespeare and Faulkner and Kafka and all the writers who are deemed as "classics" or part of the "canon" are thought of as such for a reason. Any individual reader may dislike or feel ambivalent about any given writer... but that doesn't mean that said writers are "overrated" or "boring"... It simply means that the individual reader didn't connect with that writer. 

Seriously, I'd like to see posters make some attempt at defending absurd blanket statements such as "Kafka is overrated" (Oh really? Why? What arguments can you make in support of this statement of fact?)... Such would at least be more interesting than the usual comments worthy of the highschool freshman: "Dude! This Shakespeare guy sucks!" :Sosp:

----------


## Vonny

The worst writer ever is Stephen King. I will NEVER recover from Pet Cemetery. All I could think was, I wish I had that, and I'd take advantage of that pet cemetery, no matter the consequences. But it was a horrible thing to contemplate.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm pretty sure that the worst writers in the world don't get published. Though, there is Stephanie Meyer. . . .



> The worst writer ever is Stephen King. I will NEVER recover from Pet Cemetery. All I could think was, I wish I had that, and I'd take advantage of that pet cemetery, no matter the consequences. But it was a horrible thing to contemplate.


This would seem to suggest King is a great writer, no? If he can evoke such emotion and contemplation, he's doing something right.

----------


## cyberbob

> Calling William Faulkner as "dumbed down" literature will invite personal insults. Whereas, if he would have said "I do not enjoy modernism, although William Faulkner may be a good modernist writer," I would have no disagreement. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim that his insult of Faulkner's writing was a "description" of his style, then you are being ignorant yourself. As to Delillo, I merely claimed he is a postmodern author which does not deserve to be considered as the worst of critically acclaimed writers.
> 
> 
> 
> For those who aren't in search of cheap entertainment, "boring" should never be a part of their vocabulary.


The whole point of entertainment is to prevent boredom. Being boring will always be a perfectly legitimate criticism of any form of art. 

Faulkner purposely tries to make his work confusing. I can't respect an author who tries to make his work look like more than it is by muddling things up. 

And DeLillo is somewhat like that, although he doesn't go about it by using confusing prose. He takes the typical postmodernist approach of placing style over substance. Saying a very simple thing in a terribly long-winded and boring way that it must be artistic and important. 

I wouldn't say that either is the worst writer--that's a title reserved for someone who's absolutely incompetent at crafting a story. The criticisms they reserve, however, are, in my opinion, warranted. 

And there is a big difference between disagreeing with somebody and insulting them.

----------


## Vonny

> I'm pretty sure that the worst writers in the world don't get published. Though, there is Stephanie Meyer. . . .
> 
> This would seem to suggest King is a great writer, no? If he can evoke such emotion and contemplation, he's doing something right.


I do remember being riveted by this book. But I don't think I'll read another of his soon! 

I think that more and more the worst writers do get published. Virginiawang has been published apparently. I think more and more any decent author who comes along will get buried underneath a heap of that ...um, I don't know what to politely call it. And there are a gazillion of those awful authors who write for women now - all that "chick lit."

----------


## Jack of Hearts

Now there are certain to be writers out there who are technically inferior in their craft. And recently this reader has been made aware of what 'fan-fiction' really is (a three way assault on intellectual property, written language and human decency)... so the category must be narrowed.

There've been dry books, and boring books, and dense books. Even stupid books. But reading _The Fountainhead_ by Ayn Rand was, for this reader, a put-the-book-down-in-disgust, seriously-are-you-serious kind of awful. So put another chalk mark on the Ayn Rand side of the board.

As an interesting side note, this reader did finish it, and is still awaiting her posthumous apology.






J

----------


## Emil Miller

Publishing is first and foremost a business and publishers know their customer base is largely composed of people who are not concerned with 'literature' per se; which explains the myriad examples of pulp fiction that fill the bookstores and online publishing outlets. Many respected writers were frequently rejected before being published, which begs the question as to how many good writers are still being rejected ( see list below). Conversely, now that millions of people have a word processor at there disposal, the number of poorly written but saleable books awaiting publication must be monumental. Somewhere among them lies the book whose author will live up to the title of this thread.

http://www.examiner.com/book-in-nati...-by-publishers

----------


## osho

This is the worst question I have ever heard.

----------


## Intuition

> I think what turns people off the notion of a "canon" is the idea that there is some universal list of essential reading and that one cannot be thought to be well read until he or she has conquered this.


There is no reason to dislike the "canon." It is necessary when preserving World Literature, or "highlighting" select pieces of literature. Hopefully I did not imply (somehow) that I do not find the "canon" essential.




> Stating that "Shakespeare is greater than Dante"


Arguing that one author is greater than another is not necessarily unsound of mind. Although an argument of whether or not "Shakespeare is greater than Dante", or the reverse-- would take two posters a great deal of articulation, and effort, to present their arguments notably (which is not likely to happen on a thread created for the sole purpose to condemn acclaimed writers, as if they were revealing the names of heretics to be burned at the stake).





> Shakespeare and Faulkner and Kafka and all the writers who are deemed as "classics" or part of the "canon" are thought of as such for a reason. Any individual reader may dislike or feel ambivalent about any given writer... but that doesn't mean that said writers are "overrated" or "boring"... It simply means that the individual reader didn't connect with that writer.


Correct in every sense, although I'm sure the author of this thread (for some reason) made this thread in order for individual readers to express their ambivalence towards writers who have established themselves as part of history. 




> Seriously, I'd like to see posters make some attempt at defending absurd blanket statements such as "Kafka is overrated" (Oh really? Why? What arguments can you make in support of this statement of fact?)...


I doubt you really would like to see how most posters would defend that statement. Take a look at one of them said in defense of claiming that Faulkner was overrated:




> The whole point of entertainment is to prevent boredom. Being boring will always be a perfectly legitimate criticism of any form of art.


Art can exist for art's sake, not for the sake of entertainment. When someone claims that a novel is "boring," what they are really claiming is that they do not have the "tolerance" for that specific novel. 




> Faulkner purposely tries to make his work confusing. I can't respect an author who tries to make his work look like more than it is by muddling things up.


All I educed from this is that you dislike stream of consciousness. 




> And DeLillo is somewhat like that, although he doesn't go about it by using confusing prose.


I will again state, that I have not read DeLillo in ages, although it seems that the only resemblances they have to you is that you disagree with their reputation. 




> placing style over substance


There is nothing wrong with placing style over substance. Those are essentials of modernism and postmodernism; by claiming you dislike style so much you have just exemplified on the fact that you dislike modernism and postmodernism, making you biased.




> The criticisms they reserve, however, are, in my opinion, warranted.





> And there is a big difference between disagreeing with somebody and insulting them.


These criticisms they receive, bringing back an old example of Faulkner being "dumbed down" literature, are just as warranted as my insults, then. For if the writers were alive they would be insulted even more so than the readers I have insulted.




> Publishing is first and foremost a business and publishers know their customer base is largely composed of people who are not concerned with 'literature' per se; which explains the myriad examples of pulp fiction that fill the bookstores and online publishing outlets. Many respected writers were frequently rejected before being published, which begs the question as to how many good writers are still being rejected ( see list below). Conversely, now that millions of people have a word processor at there disposal, the number of poorly written but saleable books awaiting publication must be monumental. Somewhere among them lies the book whose author will live up to the title of this thread.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/book-in-nati...-by-publishers


I found the response to Nabokov comical, also-- it seems like Kipling didn't know how to write. The shock the San Francisco Examiner experienced when they found out that he was the youngest person to receive the Nobel (in literature) would have been priceless to view.

----------


## stlukesguild

There is no reason to dislike the "canon." It is necessary when preserving World Literature, or "highlighting" select pieces of literature. Hopefully I did not imply (somehow) that I do not find the "canon" essential.

What many dislike in the "canon" is the idea that it is a universally agreed upon list as opposed to an abstract idea that varies according to the reader. What is "essential reading" for the English language reader is not necessarily the same as what is "essential reading" to the French or German... let alone Persian, Indian, or Chinese reader. Bloom's "canon" is a good list of books of real merit... but certainly not the last word on what books are or are not "classics".

Arguing that one author is greater than another is not necessarily unsound of mind. Although an argument of whether or not "Shakespeare is greater than Dante", or the reverse-- would take two posters a great deal of articulation, and effort, to present their arguments notably (which is not likely to happen on a thread created for the sole purpose to condemn acclaimed writers, as if they were revealing the names of heretics to be burned at the stake).

The notion of suggesting that this or that "classic" is the "worst book ever" and the author is "the worst author ever" seems to reveal far more about the reader than it does about the presumably "bad" author.

I'm sure the author of this thread (for some reason) made this thread in order for individual readers to express their ambivalence towards writers who have established themselves as part of history. 

Again... I see nothing wrong with stating, "I really hated _As I Lay Dying_." That's a simple statement of personal opinion... one's own experience with a writer. To make what passes for a factual statement of judgement, however, "Faulkner is boring" demands some sort of logical argument.

I doubt you really would like to see how most posters would defend that statement. Take a look at one of them said in defense of claiming that Faulkner was overrated:

If an individual can't offer a strong argument as to why a given writer is overrated, then they probably should make such value judgments. 

The whole point of entertainment is to prevent boredom. Being boring will always be a perfectly legitimate criticism of any form of art.

OK... let's start with the initial presumption. Is all art... in this case all literature... nothing more than entertainment? Personally, I am of the camp of Walter Pater, Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, and Gautier and as such I thoroughly embrace the notion that a central value of art is pleasure... but do we assume that all derive pleasure from the same sources? Some individuals find pleasure or are entertained by struggling through the New York Times crossword puzzles. Others need car chases, explosions, and scantily dressed girls on the big screen. Boredom is not a valid criticism unless it is defined... (Boring according to whom? by what standards?) and examples should be provided.

Faulkner purposely tries to make his work confusing. I can't respect an author who tries to make his work look like more than it is by muddling things up.

Is that seriously his goal? Again... according to what standard. Shakespeare was criticized by the French for his subplots and diversions. Pushkin's _Eugene Onegin_, Sterne's _Tristram Shandy_, and Byron's _Don Juan_ are almost wholly constructed of diversions. Is Faulkner really that difficult? Considering it was _As I Lay Dying_ that was initially mentioned how difficult is that book? A tale is being told by different members of the same family. The artist has abandoned the single omnipotent narrator and presents the narrative from the point of view of a variety of individuals. Is this idea really so difficult to grasp? Perhaps the author employed this form as a means of reinforcing the notion that any story is never as simple as it seems. It changes according to who is telling it... their agenda... their grasp of the facts... etc... This makes more sense than to suggest that the author is simply trying to be "difficult". 

...placing style over substance...

This assumes that "substance" or "content" and "style" or "form" are two separate things. The reality is that in a successful work of art the two are so interwoven so as to be insuperable. Let's go to Shakespeare again. What is the substance of the majority of his sonnets. As one wag famously suggested, it is little more than "when I think of you, I feel blue". On one level this analysis is true... if we accept a grade-school approach to reducing a work of art to a simple "meaning" not unlike a dictionary definition. To me this seems akin to reducing a marvelous meal to the recipe. As Walter Pater pointed out, in Art, as in life itself, it is the experience not the end... not the "meaning" that matters. Reduced to the essentials, the meaning/content/substance of Shakespeare's poems is not profound. But as one recognizes that style... the language... the form is all part of the substance... of the whole experience... they become so much more.

Again, it is fully fine to admit I don't like that particular style of writing: "I don't like stream of consciousness" or "I don't like the use of multiple narrators". This is different from suggesting that the work is an example of style over substance when style and substance are essential to all art.

----------


## cyberbob

> Correct in every sense, although I'm sure the author of this thread (for some reason) made this thread in order for individual readers to express their ambivalence towards writers who have established themselves as part of history. 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you really would like to see how most posters would defend that statement. Take a look at one of them said in defense of claiming that Faulkner was overrated:
> 
> 
> 
> Art can exist for art's sake, not for the sake of entertainment. When someone claims that a novel is "boring," what they are really claiming is that they do not have the "tolerance" for that specific novel. 
> ...


I agree that art can exist for its own sake. That doesn't mean that it can't be boring. You're the one who said that boring should not be used to describe by those not looking for "cheap entertainment" implying that it is some form of entertainment.

And I never claimed I disliked style at all. Style is fine. Even placing style over substance is fine as long as you still have _some_ substance and don't use style to create the illusion that there is more substance than there really is (which I believe Faulkner does). 

And I do not dislike all modernism and postmodernism, and even if I did, that would not make me biased against it. If that were the case, I could just say that you are biased in favor of Faulkner because you like him. See how pointless that is? 

James Joyce is one of my favorite writers and I even like Hemingway and Fitzgerald. I also love some postmodernists like McCarthy. My beef is with the particular techniques Faulkner uses to deliberately make his writing more difficult to understand. I am _not_ just talking about stream of consciousness. I'll put up some examples later on.

----------


## JCamilo

In art style is substance.

----------


## Intuition

> What many dislike in the "canon" is the idea that it is a universally agreed upon list as opposed to an abstract idea that varies according to the reader. What is "essential reading" for the English language reader is not necessarily the same as what is "essential reading" to the French or German... let alone Persian, Indian, or Chinese reader. Bloom's "canon" is a good list of books of real merit... but certainly not the last word on what books are or are not "classics".


I agree completely; but as you have seen, some posters have the audacity to outright claim that some of the writers do not deserve the reputation they have gained from critics and give simple answers as to why they believe so.




> The notion of suggesting that this or that "classic" is the "worst book ever" and the author is "the worst author ever" seems to reveal far more about the reader than it does about the presumably "bad" author.


No disagreement there.




> Again... I see nothing wrong with stating, "I really hated As I Lay Dying." That's a simple statement of personal opinion... one's own experience with a writer. To make what passes for a factual statement of judgement, however, "Faulkner is boring" demands some sort of logical argument.


The former is not a statement I dislike, but it is usually fused with the latter when asked for a reason.




> If an individual can't offer a strong argument as to why a given writer is overrated, then they probably should make such value judgments.


I agree completely; but the one individual I was in debate with claimed that another individual disliked modernism because "it is boring." Which is what brought us to this stalemate.




> I agree that art can exist for its own sake. That doesn't mean that it can't be boring.


Of course that does not mean it cannot be boring for certain individuals who require a "certain pace." 




> You're the one who said that boring should not be used to describe by those not looking for "cheap entertainment" implying that it is some form of entertainment.


If it does happen to be some sort of entertainment, it does not exist upon entertainment; chances are that if someone in search of greater literature will not care to search for the novel that will entertain, but rather-- enlighten.




> Even placing style over substance is fine as long as you still have some substance and don't use style to create the illusion that there is more substance than there really is (which I believe Faulkner does).


Elaborate on this illusion you speak of. How does Faulkner give you this idea? Your retorts are far too broad. 




> And I do not dislike all modernism and postmodernism, and even if I did, that would not make me biased against it


If you dislike the entirety of the movement then you are bound to be biased.




> If that were the case, I could just say that you are biased in favor of Faulkner because you like him. See how pointless that is?


Firstly, in this case, Faulkner is a single writer; modernism is a movement.
Secondly, I do not champion every single piece of literature Faulkner has written, but he has written (what critics refer to as) masterpieces. The latter I hold as great pieces of 20th century literature. 

You claim that "even if you did" dislike modernism in its entirety, you would not be biased. Modernism encompasses a large amount of authors. To dislike them all, is simply biased.

The only pointless thing about that was you claiming that championing Faulkner was tantamount to containing malice for modernism.




> James Joyce is one of my favorite writers and I even like Hemingway and Fitzgerald. I also love some postmodernists like McCarthy. My beef is with the particular techniques Faulkner uses to deliberately make his writing more difficult to understand. I am not just talking about stream of consciousness. I'll put up some examples later on.


You must articulate what those techniques are, until then we cannot defend upon what you consider to be "boring," and "dumbed-down," and what we do not believe exists.

Chances are what you're referring to, as I've said before, is his stream of consciousness/interior-monologue. There is a famous example in _The Sound and the Fury_  in which the Harvard attendee Quentin is severely depressed. Towards the end of his monologue his mind is at the state of being completely deteriorated, and this is what causes the rambling paragraphs devoid of grammar. In my experience, most students discontinue reading the novel here.




> In art style is substance.


Thank you.

----------


## Vavasor

I get the impression that many would put Edward Bulwer Lytton on the list of the worst ever. That he was the one who prompted Dickens to change the ending of GREAT EXPECTATIONS which according to George Gissing in CHARLES DICKENS: A CRITICAL STUDY is otherwise the perfect first person narrative. He also may have played a role in the fall out between Dickens and Thackeray which doesn't help his popularity. I've never actually read any of his works so I can't personally provide a judgment on that. 

I think many regard Anthony Trollope as a writer of little merit because of the narrative tone and what Gissing calls a capital crime of fiction, acknowledging within the narrative that he his writing fiction. This opinion I am certainly not in agreement with. I've read several of his novels and have been quite impressed with them, for the psychological depth of characters, and Trollope's aptitude for complex social situations. 

George Bernard Shaw, cannot be called a bad writer because as a playwright he is quite brilliant and philosophically deep, BUT, the novels he wrote very early in his career (I've read the two that were published in his lifetime) are somewhat lacking, I think in literary value, as the author himself acknowledged. 

An argument could probably be made for James Fenimore Cooper.

I'm not willing to give a name because the worst writer ever is probably someone I've never read, but the worst writer I've read might be Clara Reeve, who produced a fairly cheap and uninspired offspring of Horace Walpole's THE CASTLE OF OTRANTO a few years after Walpole's novel was published.

----------


## ariella

Jackie Collins by far. Ok she isn't exactly considered 'literary'; but how the **** is she the most widely sold author?!?! Eh? 
Chuck Palahniuk, another trendy jump-on-the-bandwagon author IMO. Though not as bad Jackie.

----------


## Vavasor

I'd like to evaluate some of the nominations I've seen (for the record I consider myself extremely well read when it comes to eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth century literature, but know almost nothing about literature after about 1920 so there are a lot of choices I can't evaluate). 

I've seen a few people nominate Jane Austen. I'm surprised that they aren't more, because to really understand Jane Austen (more so than with other authors) you really need to slow it down a little bit and enjoy the irony in some of her sentences. I know a few people who enjoy her novels for the plots. I don't, but I love the novels because of the ambiguity. A good critic can make the case that MANSFIELD PARK is an anti-Jacobin novel, while another good critic can consider it to have the exact opposite orientation. Some have aligned her with Edmund Burke, others with Mary Wollstonecraft, still others with Godwin. To me that's the mark of a good work of art. 

Samuel Richardson's nomination I can understand. I enjoyed PAMELA in the early chapters because of its perversity. You could legitimately claim that it lacks subtlety and psychological complexity. On the other hand, the novel was still a very new literary form at that point and he made some impressive contributions to the epistolary novel form. 

Charles Dickens, while I would argue he isn't quite Thackeray's equal in genius, his sentences are beautiful and profound, and his characters memorable. As to comments about the serialization process, it had its disadvantages, but Dickens insisted it was the best way to create his art. It must be noted that many well known nineteenth century novels were written that way. I recommend reading George Gissing's book on Charles Dickens, because Gissing goes into depth on the serialization process and the impact that it had on each individual novel. I also think that not enough people have read THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP and BLEAK HOUSE. 

I would be interested to know why the person who nominated Oliver Goldsmith considers him to be lacking in Literary Merit.

----------


## kiki1982

> I think many regard Anthony Trollope as a writer of little merit because of the narrative tone and what Gissing calls a capital crime of fiction, acknowledging within the narrative that he his writing fiction. This opinion I am certainly not in agreement with. I've read several of his novels and have been quite impressed with them, for the psychological depth of characters, and Trollope's aptitude for complex social situations.


Can't agree with that either. Not because I have read Trollope (I should start on him really), but because it's a stupid argument. Adn I really mean 'stupid'. 

I remember Austen 'hastening to a happy conclusion' (in _Northanger Abbey_?), I remember Saramago saying something about returning from a digression with a clever stroke of writers' craftmanship (what a horribly arrogant thing to say!). How are both of them not essentially great novelists? Both admit writing fiction and deconstruct to some extent their function as a writer: it is manipulative, without them we woudn't know what the characters are going to do, but we as readers are also at their mercy. We could then say that Austen and Trollope (if not many more) were way before their time instead of committing a sin. 

Stupid argument, as I said.

----------


## tonywalt

I am going to go with Dick Francis. I feel some guilt as he was resident of Grand Cayman, but to hell with it. :CoolgleamA:

----------


## Maren123

... always remember .... "if everybody would do that same thing now" and you´re aways watched be an independant eye/brain combination ... " Greetz to Dick  :Aureola: 

Maren

---------------------------------------

----------


## Paul Cutty

I have just reviewed 3 books from an American author, 3 books I found in my daughters bedroom hidden under her bed (yes I know its wrong to snoop) I was surprised by how truly bad these books are, they seem to be some sort of trilogy and the subject matter is sick, perverted and morally WRONG! The name of this barbarian with a type writer is Dr. Adam Ireland, his books are the Interzone series and my daughter bought them off of lulu, I have banned this author's books in my home henceforth. I have a proud Christian family and every word in his books are offensive to my values as a good Christian. My daughter has told me it was peer pressure that made her buy these evil books, saying that all the kids at school are reading them and she assures me she never read them but only bought them because all her friends had done the same. I am morally outraged by this author. I would suggest to all of you that if you value your relationship with Jesus then please DO NOT buy his books. :Reddevil:

----------


## Calidore

> I have just reviewed 3 books from an American author, 3 books I found in my daughters bedroom hidden under her bed (yes I know its wrong to snoop) I was surprised by how truly bad these books are, they seem to be some sort of trilogy and the subject matter is sick, perverted and morally WRONG! The name of this barbarian with a type writer is Dr. Adam Ireland, his books are the Interzone series and my daughter bought them off of lulu, I have banned this author's books in my home henceforth. I have a proud Christian family and every word in his books are offensive to my values as a good Christian. My daughter has told me it was peer pressure that made her buy these evil books, saying that all the kids at school are reading them and she assures me she never read them but only bought them because all her friends had done the same. I am morally outraged by this author. I would suggest to all of you that if you value your relationship with Jesus then please DO NOT buy his books.


Looking at lulu, it's interesting that every review talks about how appalling and offensive this book is, yet most give it five stars. Those and the authors blurb seem to use its offensiveness as a selling point. Which makes me think, based on that and the above being the poster's only post, that this is actually reverse-psychology spam.

----------


## G L Wilson

Socrates was the worst, he never wrote.

----------


## 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  :Nonod:

----------


## 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  :Wink:  )




> 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.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I also hear that Anne Rice's Sleeping Beauty trilogy is pretty racey, but not having read it I can't verify that.


It is, and it's also BDSM. Sometimes I wonder why certain things attain mainstream popularity and others don't. It doesn't bother me like it does others for some inexplicable reason, but I _am_ curious: why did the Grey series explode like it did, and not the Sleeping Beauty trilogy? Why the Twilight series and not the Vampire Chronicles (although they were very popular, but not to the same extent or to the same wide-ranging audience as Twilight). Hell, there's a ton of vampire literature out there, from the highest high brow to the lowest low brow, why _that_ one, out of all of them? I always kind of figured it might be just because the covers are pretty. 



Do those Grey books have eye-catching covers too?

----------


## ennison

This blast from the past was an entertaining thread. Number 1 of the worst! Best of the worst! No clear winner of course.

----------


## sandy14

William McGonagall


Poetry for Vogons.

----------


## ennison

The better we our houses do build the less chance we have of being killed. 
Written by the third little pig? No but Mr WMcG. Ach there is harmless fun in him. He's a street balladeer and on that basis not bad at all.

----------


## Francis Meadows

"Les gouts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas," as the French say. So this is obviously highly personal.

I absolutely struggled with the Earth's Children series by J.M. Auel. Never made it past the first chapter of The Mammoth Hunters. Boy does she take her time to narrate things.

Francis

----------

