# Reading > General Literature >  The Worst Book You've Ever Read?

## yellowfeverlime

Name the worst books, in your opinion, in the world. One nomination per member, and please just say the book, and the author it's by. Also, please, if you have enoguh time, include a brief summary of the book. and why it's so bad.

----------


## PeterL

Das Kapital by Marx and Engels. Not only is it a load of inaccurate drivel, but there are people who actually believe the drivel.

----------


## ArcherSnake

The Lovely Bones by Alice Seabold. Basically all it is is a murder, young teenage sex, and dead people posessing other people's bodies with no explaination of how or why whatsoever. Alot of people are in love with this book; I don't know why. It leans more toward bizzare and sickening.

----------


## yellowfeverlime

> The Lovely Bones by Alice Seabold. Basically all it is is a murder, young teenage sex, and dead people posessing other people's bodies with no explaination of how or why whatsoever. Alot of people are in love with this book; I don't know why. It leans more toward bizzare and sickening.


I heard that that was the best book of the year.

----------


## mickeymack

Buenas Noches Buenos Aires by Gilbert Adair is a real stinker and to be avoided at all costs! Basically it's the story of Gideon ,a gay virgin teaching English in Paris in the 1980s,all the men he works with are gay too and have amazing sex. Some get AIDS. Gideon pretends he is sexually experienced eventually has unsafe sex and at the end of the book says he'd be utterly proud to die of AIDS! I kid you not! It's excruciatingly badly written, purple prose abounds. It took me ages to read as I kept wanting to throw it away but I had to finish it for my bookgroup.Easily the worst book I have read in years.Adair is a good cultural commentator but a very poor novelist I am sorry to say.

----------


## yellowfeverlime

Also, From A Buick 8, By Stephen King. Everyone said it was such a good book, critics were wronG. It was not at all suspensful.

----------


## LeslieS

Me Talk Pretty One Day, by David Sedaris. Ugh. About a gay American man who moves to France with his lover and tries to learn French. No redeeming qualities, nothing thought provoking in any way, nauseatingly and utterly without merit. I only admit that I read it in hopes that others will be spared.

----------


## yellowfeverlime

Those sound like books that i would not reaad even if i had too. Whast were you thinking?

----------


## RococoLocket

Anything by either Wordsworth or Dickens. Wordsworth because he's so arrogant [read The Prelude?] and generally boring [how many ways can you say the exact same thing about nature before realising that you're going to drive your good friend Coleridge to his death with boredom?]. Dickens because he's boring, slow and depressing. At least Simon Armitage sticks to poems, so his depressing literature can be over in under 5 minutes. 

[/scathing]

----------


## yellowfeverlime

Althouhg, i do have to admit that i liked Dicken's "Oliver Twist."

----------


## RococoLocket

> Althouhg, i do have to admit that i liked Dicken's "Oliver Twist."


I can live with the film adaptations.

I am considering reanimating their corpses so I can put both Charlie & wild Willy [English teachers nickname for him] in a room together and watch their zombie-fresh selves eat each others brains violently.

One thing that can be said for them however, is that they evoke great passion in me. Even if it is the passion of violence.

----------


## mickeymack

> Me Talk Pretty One Day, by David Sedaris. Ugh. About a gay American man who moves to France with his lover and tries to learn French. No redeeming qualities, nothing thought provoking in any way, nauseatingly and utterly without merit. I only admit that I read it in hopes that others will be spared.



I can't agree with you about Sedaris. He is hilarious. The story" Jesus Shaves" in particular is excellent.The arrogant teacher who ridicules everyone is a monster of French arrogance. How could you not laugh at the description of the class struggling to explain to the Moroccan muslim student what easter is?
" It is a party for the little boy of God who call his self Jesus and then he be die one day on two...morsels of ...lumber. The rest of the class jumped in, offering bits of information that would have given the pope an aneurysm.
He die one day and then he go above of my head to live with your father. He weared of himself the long hair and after he die, the first day he come back here for to say hello to the peoples. He nice the Jesus."
Wonderful stuff.

----------


## ArcherSnake

> I heard that that was the best book of the year.


Yes, that's why I'm so confused.

----------


## LeslieS

> " It is a party for the little boy of God who call his self Jesus and then he be die one day on two...morsels of ...lumber. The rest of the class jumped in, offering bits of information that would have given the pope an aneurysm.
> He die one day and then he go above of my head to live with your father. He weared of himself the long hair and after he die, the first day he come back here for to say hello to the peoples. He nice the Jesus."
> Wonderful stuff.



OK, I confess that I laughed at this part. Really hard. But a few pages later the man devotes an entire chapter to something he finds in the toilet. 

I think the funny part was a fluke and the rest of the book reflects his true writing 'style'.

Not worth the slaughter of innocent trees!!

----------


## mickeymack

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on Sedaris! We must have some literary dislikes in common! To be honest I will read just about anything but find "chick lit" ie books of a certain type marketed exclusively at women largely quite vapid and formulaic. I like a book that tells a story, if I'm lucky I will learn something and it will have a resonance beyond its covers.

----------


## subterranean

Wordsworth is a genious, and he suceedeed Coleridge as a poet laureate. I know that this sort of thing is subjective, but if Wordsworth's are the worst in the world, they would'nt last until this day.




> Anything by either Wordsworth or Dickens. Wordsworth because he's so arrogant [read The Prelude?] and generally boring [how many ways can you say the exact same thing about nature before realising that you're going to drive your good friend Coleridge to his death with boredom?]. Dickens because he's boring, slow and depressing. At least Simon Armitage sticks to poems, so his depressing literature can be over in under 5 minutes. 
> 
> [/scathing]

----------


## RococoLocket

> Wordsworth is a genious, and he suceedeed Coleridge as a poet laureate. I know that this sort of thing is subjective, but if Wordsworth's are the worst in the world, they would'nt last until this day.


Well it's just my personal opinion. I'm certain there are things you think are utter rubbish that have had accolades pour upon them too which you don't agree with  :Smile:

----------


## miss_gaskell

Sedaris isn't the best writer in the world but he is good for what he is: a humourist. I saw him read from "Me Talk Pretty" at the Sydney Writer's Fest. His stories are funny and engaging. They aren't going to win the National Book Award but I would say that isn't what he is going for.

As far as the Worst Book debate goes: I think Nicholas Sparks has to be one of the worst writers ever. I picked up Message in a Bottle after my friend raved about it. I have no idea why people think that tripe is readable.

----------


## Rosalind

I agree that Nicholas Sparks is pretty high on the list. I've never been able to read more than a few pages of his work at a go--it all reads like bad sentimental poetry written by a small girl. And yet, lots of people seem incredibly enthusiastic about the stuff. Maybe I'm just missing something. 





> Anything by either Wordsworth or Dickens. Wordsworth because he's so arrogant [read The Prelude?] and generally boring [how many ways can you say the exact same thing about nature before realising that you're going to drive your good friend Coleridge to his death with boredom?]. Dickens because he's boring, slow and depressing. At least Simon Armitage sticks to poems, so his depressing literature can be over in under 5 minutes. 
> 
> [/scathing]


Whether Dickens is boring is a matter of opinion, and whether he's slow is definately open to debate (how many pages does David Copperfield spend mooning over Dora?), but I don't find him at all depressing. He tackles some depressing subjects--social injustice, poverty, workhouses, screwed up old ladies with moldy wedding cakes--but he writes with such wit and irony that personally, I find it very entertaining. On the other hand, the whole paid-by-the-word system was definately not the brightest of publication ideas. 

I think James Fennimore Cooper deserves a spot on the worst list. Twain's essay on his literary crimes was hilarious, and right on target.

----------


## RococoLocket

> Whether Dickens is boring is a matter of opinion


Lucky this thread was asking me of my own opinion then  :Wink:  But I respect yours too m'dear; There'd be little point in a literature forum if we all had the same tastes  :Smile: 

Plus I was expecting a tirade or two anyhow, you can't expect any less when you rubbish any authors of Classics.

----------


## EAP

almost anything by Shakespeare. I'd rather trawl through Poetic Edda than read one of his plays. 

James Copper wasn't a writer - he was a storyteller and a damned fine one at that.

Nicholas Sparks is a one-trick pony. If you are into mushy, staid, middle-aged angst than he'd fit right up your alley - most others will find him meandering and repetitive. 

Not that he doesn't manage to tell powerful stories sometimes. 'Notebook' was a compelling story (If only to get a measure of the genre of books It spearheads), and 'A Walk To Remember' was an excellent deviation from the usual style, one of the sweetest books I have ever read. The insights it offer are pretty basic so no wonder it gets overlooked so much. 


Alice Sebold is just vindictive - her reviews of Rowling's books make for an amusing read.

----------


## Rosalind

> Lucky this thread was asking me of my own opinion then


I know, I know!  :Smile:  That's actually what I was saying--it's such a subjective matter of opinion that I wasn't going to argue about boringness. And, though I personally happen to like Dickens...well, the man could wax a bit dull. Imagine what a pleasant book 'David Copperfield' would be, were it about two hundred pages shorter.

And drat, now I'm about to embark on another 'tirade or two.' But come on, the Bard? He works absolute magic with words, he does comedy, tragedy, adventure, the lot, and most of his plays never get old. I think the biggest problem with Shakespeare is the way he's taught today. Thousands of middle school and high school students are poisoned against Shakespeare, because his works are meant to be seen, not read, and because most teachers won't go into the interesting stuff, like the puns, the sexual innuendo, and the great characters. And then, half of its just a matter of attitude. No one likes required reading. But if someone's exposed to really good Shakespearian drama early on, then how can they help but enjoy it? I'll never forget the first time I saw 'A Midsummer Night's Dream.' 

That has been Rosalind's ten second tirade. Opinions are good!  :Wink:

----------


## RococoLocket

^ Now I must agree with you on ol' Shakey! I adore his work! The Boyf & myself went to see a new production of _The Tempest_ on Saturday night infact! I've visited his house & we have a mini statue thingy of it too  :FRlol:  I played Hermia in _A Midsummer Nights Dream_ & our sister youth theatre is a part of the RSC in Stratford. 

His wordplay is quite wondeful  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rosalind

I'm absolutely envious! I take it you're quite in to drama? Do you do everything, or mostly Shakespeare? It must be wonderful being connected to the RSC--I've only seen one of their productions, but it was the most incredible version of 'MacBeth' I'd ever seen. I love that play, but I'm perfectly aware that it's long and has a few superflous scenes floating around that never get performed. But they did the whole thing, unabridged, and pulled it off in spectacular fashion.

----------


## EAP

Shrugs.

I tried Shakespeare in an abridged version. Did not work. I tried reading the original plays. I nearly fell asleep. I tried watching the BBC adaptations (Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet). It was promising initially but once the story got into the flow... I nearly fell asleep again.

----------


## Pendragon

*Leaves of Grass* Walt Whitman To quote Dorothy Parker: "This is not a book to be lightly tossed aside. It should be thrown with extreme force!" Preferably into a waste receptacle... Can you say, "Boring"?  :As Sleep:

----------


## papayahed

I've said it before and I'll say it again Orlando by Virginia Woolf. Bleck!!

----------


## Scheherazade

> I've said it before and I'll say it again Orlando by Virginia Woolf. Bleck!!


Hear, hear!!!  :Biggrin: 

But wait till you read _Mrs Dalloway_ by... one and only Virginia again!

----------


## Wendigo_49

I remember trying to read a book by Jules Bonavolonta called _The GOOD GUYS: How We Turned the FBI 'Round Q and Finally Broke the Mob_. I really tried to read it because it was a gift from my Dad on my 12th or 13th birthday. I spent like two months trying to read it but it was just basically profanity with the author butt-kissing his superiors. After stopping my Dad asked how the book was going. I told I stopped reading it and let him read a couple of chapters. After reading the chapters he came by asked if all the chapters were like the last two. After confirming that they were, he said he was sorry for getting such an awful book. I put it in my bookcase where it collects dust till this time.

----------


## papayahed

> Hear, hear!!! 
> 
> But wait till you read _Mrs Dalloway_ by... one and only Virginia again!



Why would I do that? And don't think of nominating it either!!!  :Eek:

----------


## Genesis211

I'm aware i may make some enemies by saying this, but Catcher in the Rye is probably the worst book i have ever read.
It's just really irritating, and ultimately pointless.
Shakespeare is over-rated; his comedies should have been laid to rest years ago, but some of his work is sheer genius.

----------


## Rosalind

I guess 'Catcher in the Rye' was momentous and provocative at some point, but now it just seems whiny, not that well written, and as you say, really irritating. 

But I still differ on Shakespeare. Maybe some of his comedies aren't "sheer genius," assuming that you mean great works about human nature, but they aren't supposed to be. After all, half the time Shakespeare was catering to the peanut throwing groundlings. They were only meant to amuse and entertain, and their brand of genius lies in the fact that, half a millenium later, they continue to amuse and entertain.

----------


## yellowfeverlime

I ahven't read it cause i've heard it's so sad... or am i thinking of "Where the Red Fern Grows"?

----------


## Rosalind

Two very different things, fever!  :Wink:

----------


## mono

With most books, even the most, in my opinion, detestable, showing the least talent, imagination, and/or intelligence, I try to discover some kind of respect; yet, with certain works, I cannot help but feel annoyed.
As I have said in a similar thread, _Creation_ by Gore Vidal really irritated me, along with _Stranger in a Strange Land_ by Robert Heinlein, and most fantasy and science-fiction books. A few selected poets also tend to bother me, too, specifically Billy Collins, though he remains the U.S. poet laureate.
With most literature, something really, really has to bother me in order to earn my disliking, yet the ones I do dislike stay very distinguished.

----------


## Edmond

Awakening by kate Chopin this is one bad book

----------


## yellowfeverlime

I remember that.... o, yes, the book The Red Pony by i think by the guy who wrote the grapes of wrath... i'm drwaing a blank... But it was senseless

----------


## cruciverbalist

I think Catch-22 is way over-rated. It's considered to be a great piece of satire but it's too long, repetitive (to the extent of getting on your nerves at times) and really not very interesting writing. The basic plot may possibly have had merit(even if only in the author's head) but the book got too loud and obnoxious. I think satire works best when it's kept short and to the point.

----------


## HandBag

> I remember that.... o, yes, the book The Red Pony by i think by the guy who wrote the grapes of wrath... i'm drwaing a blank... But it was senseless


Steinbeck?


The worst book i ever read was

The Last of the Mohicans - Fenimore-Cooper

or any Henry James

----------


## subterranean

Well I love this book alot..and as I realize that this thing is totally subjective, I won't argue with you. Same as I don't want to argue with Rowling's fans when I told them that Harry Potter series are overrated.




> I think Catch-22 is way over-rated. It's considered to be a great piece of satire but it's too long, repetitive (to the extent of getting on your nerves at times) and really not very interesting writing. The basic plot may possibly have had merit(even if only in the author's head) but the book got too loud and obnoxious. I think satire works best when it's kept short and to the point.

----------


## PeterL

> The worst book i ever read was
> 
> The Last of the Mohicans - Fenimore-Cooper


Thanks for mentioning that. Twain was right, Fennimore -Cooper wasn't a good writer. 18 of a possible 19 literary sins.

----------


## subterranean

I never finished this book as well...




> Awakening by kate Chopin this is one bad book

----------


## melee82

The Beautiful and the Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald was AWFUL and it was a major ordeal to get all the way through it.

----------


## HandBag

> Thanks for mentioning that. Twain was right, Fennimore -Cooper wasn't a good writer. 18 of a possible 19 literary sins.



I had to read it for my uni course....

i forgot to mention my dislike for dickens also, but i suppose indicating i hated James was a hint of that.

----------


## PeterL

> I had to read it for my uni course....
> 
> i forgot to mention my dislike for dickens also, but i suppose indicating i hated James was a hint of that.


I am happy that I have avoided reading much of Fennimore-Cooper, but I understand why he was a noteworthy author. It is a pity that he didn't learn how to wwrite well.

The problem that I have with Dickens and many other authors is that they toss too much into a book. Perhaps they want to create an extremely detailed picture for the reader, and perhaps they have multiple reasons for writing a given book. I think the reason varies.

----------


## HandBag

> I am happy that I have avoided reading much of Fennimore-Cooper, but I understand why he was a noteworthy author. It is a pity that he didn't learn how to wwrite well.
> 
> The problem that I have with Dickens and many other authors is that they toss too much into a book. Perhaps they want to create an extremely detailed picture for the reader, and perhaps they have multiple reasons for writing a given book. I think the reason varies.



Indeed, Realism is not the best.

If a book is descriptivly ornate and beautiful, thats fine. But if a writer proceeds to go on for 3 pages about some laundrette/ dusty victorian kitchen....im just not interested.

----------


## PeterL

> Indeed, Realism is not the best.
> 
> If a book is descriptivly ornate and beautiful, thats fine. But if a writer proceeds to go on for 3 pages about some laundrette/ dusty victorian kitchen....im just not interested.


It isn't that realism isn't good, but a reader already has a concept of what the details would be like in a "dusty victorian kitchen". Even if the reader doesn't have a clear concept of the victorian part, a dusty kitchen should be meaningful and Victorian would simply mean from more than a hundred years ago. What goes on in that kitchen? That's what I wnat to know about.

----------


## B-Mental

> The problem that I have with Dickens and many other authors is that they toss too much into a book. Perhaps they want to create an extremely detailed picture for the reader, and perhaps they have multiple reasons for writing a given book. I think the reason varies.


Dickens wrote many or most of his stories in serial fashion. I'm not an expert, but I think that they were weekly. And each week he was required to provide so many words. This forced him to write some overlong portions. I'm not sure if he later edited out sections he wrote, or maintained them for the integrity of the work. I believe the latter. I can barely read any of his stories anymore, but knowing this helped me to finish the few I have read.

----------


## samercury

Worst book-
"Great Expectations" Charles Dickens.

Usually I really like the guy's works but this absolutely put me to sleep. I mean, I was expecting something that was ok- at least passable. I had to read it for English class yet I never finished it. THey say to not judge a book by it's cover. I say not to judge it by its title because I had 'great expectations' for this book and I was disappointed.

I liked "Catcher In The Rye" but I can see how it might be aggravating.

----------


## PeterL

> Dickens wrote many or most of his stories in serial fashion. I'm not an expert, but I think that they were weekly. And each week he was required to provide so many words. This forced him to write some overlong portions. I'm not sure if he later edited out sections he wrote, or maintained them for the integrity of the work. I believe the latter. I can barely read any of his stories anymore, but knowing this helped me to finish the few I have read.


Yes he did write them as serials, but he could have written a novel, then chopped it up instead of what he did. I think that they were monthly rather than weekly. I just looked it up and found that he was writing several at once.

"In 1838, while OLIVER TWIST was still running in the MISCELLANY, Dickens began writing and publishing NICHOLAS NICKLEBY. Like PICKWICK, NICHOLAS appeared in twenty 32-page monthly parts."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dickens/life_publication2.html

----------


## Dark Lord

The Monkey for Stephan king , i couldnot complete it cause it was stupied

----------


## tiny explorer

DA VINCI CODE dan brown.....most say it's really agood book.But most say it's full of blasphemy...makes me scared to read it!

----------


## IrishCanadian

I have been trying to get my hands on the DeVinci Code for so long now because I want to find out for myself. I just haddent had the time between school and reading otherstuff.
-
I liked Great Expectations. Perhaps it was because a friend told me it was wonderful and I went in with a predisposition. But Dickens isn't the only classic who tends to run on like that. Did anyone read Lord of the Rings? Half was painfully slow and half as thrilling.

----------


## Levi 65

I reread Jonathon Sergull by Richard Bach I believe it is? But I remember reading it in high school and now that I am reading some of it over. It's like, "What did I see in the book.?, other than a seagull that learns to fly, then goes off to learn how to fly some more and even better.. gee what am I missing here??

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

The worst book, hands down, is The Pact by Drs. Hunt, Davis and Jenkins. I had to read it for a class over the summer and it was the biggest waste of time. There has never been a book before, so filled, cover-to-cover, with cliches and dull sentence structure. Page 210: "Alone in my room I listened to 2Pac. He rapped about the pull between his old life as a thug and his new one as a rich rapper. I related to his isolation." On the NY Times Best-Seller List, this trash does not belong.

----------


## underground

i think the worst books are the books that are based on the unfortunate things that happen in the world (rape, autism, racism, war, etc.) and turn them into lengthy chicken soup moments. it's even worse when they become best-sellers. (i'm thinking, for example, the kite runner and the lovely bones  :Tongue: ) it's not the author's fault, of course, and who knows, maybe the author's motive in writing the book is sincere after all. but every time i encounter a book like that, i can't help thinking that the author is just taking advantage of these unfortunate events because who would dare to criticize an, ah, moving book about a boy in afghanistan or about a boy with autism? (i've also noticed if you write about heaven, no matter how politically incorrect, you're probably going to get your book on the next best-selling list.)

as a sidenote, i will also add that the worst readers are (1) those who read best-sellers and instantly love them because all of the wonderful reviews they've heard prior to reading (2) those who are anti mainstream books and resolve to every single one they've read (3) those who read only classics and think every modern book is trash  :Tongue:  (fear not, i'm also mocking myself on this one)

----------


## crisaor

> Das Kapital by Marx and Engels. Not only is it a load of inaccurate drivel, but there are people who actually believe the drivel.


Somehow I doubt you actually read it. Das Kapital was written solely by Marx. As his friend and supporter, Engels did play a part in commenting it, but this hardly qualifies as being a co-author. And it's pointless commenting the endless amounts of concepts and innovations in the field Marx presented in Das Kapital, and this is a student of economics speaking.

Perhaps you're mistaking it with the Communist Manifesto? That one was indeed a collaboration between the two, and it probably resembles more what you can consider as a "load of inaccurate drivel". Personally, I wouldn't go that far.

On topic, if we grant the mercy of considering them books, then probably something along the lines of Coelho earns the prize in my opinion.

----------


## bootlegger

MEIN KAMPF
by adolf hitler

the racist, anti-semitic ______________

seriously though, i am ashamed that a single member of my species agreed with this book and its morals.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Ian Hislop, editor of the satirical magazine, "Private Eye", once advocated a return of the death penalty in Britain for two classes of people; those that read Jeffrey Archer's books and those that _write_ Jeffrey Archer's books. I couldn't agree more.  :Biggrin:

----------


## yellowfeverlime

I agree with bootlegger!

----------


## PeterL

> Somehow I doubt you actually read it. Das Kapital was written solely by Marx. As his friend and supporter, Engels did play a part in commenting it, but this hardly qualifies as being a co-author. And it's pointless commenting the endless amounts of concepts and innovations in the field Marx presented in Das Kapital, and this is a student of economics speaking.
> 
> Perhaps you're mistaking it with the Communist Manifesto? That one was indeed a collaboration between the two, and it probably resembles more what you can consider as a "load of inaccurate drivel". Personally, I wouldn't go that far.


For some reason, I had thought that The Communist Manifesto was solely by Marx, while Capital was a joint effort by Marx and Engels; I had it backwards. I haven't read all of Capital, but I have read significant parts of it. Referring to it as "load of inaccurate drivel" was for effect. There is too much in it to apply a single epithet to it. But I have major problems with the premises, and I doubt the validity of the a large part of the facts that he used. 
On the other hand, The Communist Manifesto is almost funny.

----------


## Alex E Art

Da Vinci code, because it's a speculation

----------


## LastBandit

I am reading "the Da Vinci Code"...it's not swaying me much.

"The Catcher in the Rye". I found the book terribly boring.

----------


## rachel

> I reread Jonathon Sergull by Richard Bach I believe it is? But I remember reading it in high school and now that I am reading some of it over. It's like, "What did I see in the book.?, other than a seagull that learns to fly, then goes off to learn how to fly some more and even better.. gee what am I missing here??


lol  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

I couldn't have said it better myself.
Virginia Wolf makes me want to scream and The Grapes of wrath DID make me scream. I couldn't bear it, it was like listening to someone snoring loudly while someone else scratched their fingers down a blackboard.




> Ian Hislop, editor of the satirical magazine, "Private Eye", once advocated a return of the death penalty in Britain for two classes of people; those that read Jeffrey Archer's books and those that _write_ Jeffrey Archer's books. I couldn't agree more.


I read about Jeffrey and thought his life quite amazing.
Then I tried reading not a penny .... and couldn't get past the first chapter. I really tried. next i tried reading the president's daughter or whatever it was called and I couldn't stand more than a couple of paragraphs. I don't even know why. i will try again and be more fair by at least having read something of his.




> MEIN KAMPF
> by adolf hitler
> 
> the racist, anti-semitic ______________
> 
> seriously though, i am ashamed that a single member of my species agreed with this book and its morals.


Being a Jewish woman I found although I tried that even looking at the book made me hear the screams of my and other dear people, especially the children, in my head so I couldn't. But a gentleman who I don't remember the name of said in his book on Hitler that had the leaders of the other nations, including Germany read the book they would have been forewarned exactly of what Adolf Hitler was going to do. But sales were low even in Germany.
What a terrible shame.

----------


## RobinHood3000

There's this one terrible novel I read. Too many characters to keep track of, and nowhere near enough plotline. Far too formulaic for my taste.

Perhaps you've heard of it--if you have, then I strongly suggest you stay away from _The Yellow Pages_.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Even a bad book is a book, and therefore sacred.


This sums up my opinion. If you don't like a book, be like Groucho Marx:




> From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.


PS. This doesn't apply to Jeffrey Archer. His books should be burnt. Around a stake to which he is tied.

----------


## rachel

Xamonas,
it is one thing to not like Archer, but to say that because he writes a certain way, to say even in fun that he should be tied to a stake rather undermines all I thought you believed in. I thought you were for freedom of speech and applauded others who say stuff that offends others.And isn't that what people did when they accused them of witchcraft? It just sounds rather, er violent. couldn't we just give him a one way ticket to a country we won't be visiting? 
Um, he wouldn't be a relative that has done you ill or even cut you out of his will would he?

----------


## EAP

^^

dude, get off your high horse and unbutton the stiff collar. The world would be a much better place if more people were able to appreciate humorous and 'tongue-in-cheek' (you might wanna look that up in the oxford dictionary) responses.

----------


## RobinHood3000

First of all, rachel is not a "dude," and second of all, malignant opinions -- of anybody -- generally rub her the wrong way. That is simply how sweet she is.

----------


## rachel

yikes,
I was joking too, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers EAP. I was just trying to talk strongly like Xamonas does. Obviously I failed.
Funny, I've never been called a dude before. 
Thank you M'Lord.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Xamonas,
> it is one thing to not like Archer, but to say that because he writes a certain way, to say even in fun that he should be tied to a stake rather undermines all I thought you believed in. I thought you were for freedom of speech and applauded others who say stuff that offends others.And isn't that what people did when they accused them of witchcraft? It just sounds rather, er violent. couldn't we just give him a one way ticket to a country we won't be visiting? 
> Um, he wouldn't be a relative that has done you ill or even cut you out of his will would he?


I _am_ all for freedom of speech. But it's not what Archer says that I despise, it's what he is. 

He lied, cheated, stole and plagiarised his way to the top; and repeatedly sued anyone that said so for libel. Fortunately, he was caught and spent time in prison for perjury - but nowhere near long enough! Sending him to another country sounds fine, but he's such a slimy little creep, he'd just keep coming back. He's the proverbial bad penny.

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities, but I'm afraid it _has_ to be burning (although I _may_ be swayed towards a painless, lethal injection... Nah! Burn the ******!!!)  :Wink: 

btw - dude kinda suits you.

----------


## rachel

Dude suits me, but you don't know me, or anything about me ....do you?
Yikes I alwas thought a dude was a guy. you have me a little worried!!

----------


## RobinHood3000

Hmm. According to Merriam-Webster's, it's either a guy, a fastidious man, or a city-dweller unfamiliar with country life. I'm not sure I like "dude" as a description for rachel...

----------


## subterranean

Too add in the list: all those readings who promote escapism (i.e. Harlequin searies).

----------


## Sharkán

By Harlequin series do you mean all those little romance paperbacks at the far end in the book section of local Wal-Marts?

And as to "promoting escapism," that almost seems like a blanket statement. All forms of fiction and story-telling, be it prose or poetry, do allow people to "escape" to some extent. Whether by immersing a person in the culture, politics & locale of a said world or just offering a peek into something that gets people away from routine, that is escaping from real life, if only for a while.

Seriously tho', I need to check the dictionary on escapism. Honest.

----------


## Pendragon

If I have to READ them, throw in Shakespeare. I don't mind seeing a good PERFORMANCE of certain plays. Toss in Stephen King as well. If I want good horror, I'll read Lovecraft.

----------


## rachel

> Too add in the list: all those readings who promote escapism (i.e. Harlequin searies).


even seeing those books, whose authors by the way make a kazillion dollars, even seeing the covers makes my face red. Yikes!!!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Pendragon

By the way, Sub, I like your atvar! I agree!

----------


## mingdamerciless

> At least Simon Armitage sticks to poems, so his depressing literature can be over in under 5 minutes.


wahey someone else who detests simon armitage. I'm being forced to study him and Carol Ann Duffy. It's horrendous. they both seem to love talking about pointless murder but in a completely passionless way. Someone like robert browning i can cope with, although he often writes about murder, his murders are crimes of passion.

----------


## Spiritus

I would have to say Numbers in the Bible. Many of the books of the bible would fit this category.

----------


## IrishCanadian

> I would have to say Numbers in the Bible. Many of the books of the bible would fit this category.


Thats so true. The "Good Book" is litterally a good book. But Numbers I find quite painful. However ... theres a lot of good poetry and stories in other parts of the Bible. What an odd book from a literature perspective.

----------


## alejandra

I was wondering what were the worst books you read.... 

I've had my share of really bad books... they made us read tons of bad books back at highschool.... but I think the wors were the ones by Cauthemoc.... I guess since most of you aren't in latinamerica you haven't had the disgrace of reading those.... lucky you.....

Anyway, what are the worst books you have read???

----------


## Pensive

Lady Chatterley's Lover, didn't get the courage to complete it.

----------


## Mark F.

I wouldn't say crappy, but these are novels I hated :

Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Hardy
The Alchimist by Coelho
Deception Point & Digital Fortress by Dan Brown

----------


## bazarov

> The Alchimist by Coelho


I never get what's so good in that book...
But Chehov - Three sisters...Disaster!!

----------


## Mark F.

> I never get what's so good in that book...


Nothing, well, err, maybe the fact that it's understandable even for toddlers?

----------


## bazarov

I mean, I read a lot, so if I don't get the point  :Confused:  ,(don't get me wrong  :FRlol:  )

----------


## cuppajoe_9

My friend has a serious hate on for Tom Robbins. I don't like him very much either, but I fail to see why he deserves death.

----------


## Hyacinth Girl

Wild Animus by Shapiro. It is the worst. Ever. It got to the point it was so bad I started writing sarcastic notes in the margins, then circulated it around the English departement for others to contribute.

----------


## Syme

I read a book years ago (I have no idea why) by Steve Aylett called "Slaughtermatic". It wasn't sickeningly bad or anything but I don't recall enjoying a moment of it.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"I read a book years ago (I have no idea why) by Steve Aylett called "Slaughtermatic". It wasn't sickeningly bad or anything but I don't recall enjoying a moment of it."

Good title, though

----------


## Loveless

...hum I would have to say American Gods By Neil Gailman, It made no sense whatsoever, granted it was a good idea, in a way, but it was one of those books that you only read if everything else is collection dust on a shelf.

----------


## Dark Muse

What books have you came acorss that you could not quite get yourself to finnish, or that you just would not recomend to anyone else.

----------


## bibliophile190

Martin Chuzzlewit by Charles Dickens, and Moby Dick are some of the first in my mind.

----------


## Dark Muse

The only two books I ever tried to read and could not finnish are Lord Jim by Josephe Conrad and Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins which was really dissapointing because he is one of my faveortie authors, but I just could not get through that one book

----------


## Etienne

The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho and some book by Stephen King that I don't remember the title.

----------


## PeterL

I never managed to finish anything by Conrad, and I couldn't read _The Alchemist_ but the worst ever was _The Last Immortal_ by J. O. Jeppson. A copy was left in a place where I lived with notes about how far someone managed to get; I got through 2 or 3 pages. I managed to sell it to a used book store, where it still sits on the shelf.

----------


## Bakiryu

Great Expectations! Seriously, that book made me want to set it on fire.

----------


## Idril

I said it many times but it bears being repeated..._Middlemarch_ by George Eliot. I actually did finish it though, I refused to let it beat me but it took awhile. Another book that I wasn't able to finish though, because of sheer boredom was _Son of the Circus_ by John Irving. I usually like John Irving books but I simple could not read one more page.

----------


## Dark Muse

I acutually enjoyed Son of the Circus, though I have not infact read much of Iriving, I have a few of his books but Son of the Circus was the first of his I have read, and thus far the only, but I did not think it was too bad, just very strange.

----------


## livelaughlove

I started Douglas Adam's _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ but after a couple of pages I put it down and could not find the inspiration to keep going. I know a lot of people love it but I for some reason just can't get into it.

----------


## Old Crow

The worst book I ever read was something a librarian recomended to me when I told her I had to read a "mystery" book for school. It was called "The Body Farm" by Patricia Cornwell, and I think I'd rather read a 1900 page book about the chemical composition of different shampoos than revisit that travisty.

----------


## Idril

> I acutually enjoyed Son of the Circus, though I have not infact read much of Iriving, I have a few of his books but Son of the Circus was the first of his I have read, and thus far the only, but I did not think it was too bad, just very strange.


Irving books are always strange and perverse, that's just his thing. I've heard other people say they love that book so you certainly aren't alone there. Hey, I've heard there are actually people out there who liked _Middlemarch_  :Tongue:   :FRlol:  so no matter how much you may hate a book, there's always people out there who loved it.

----------


## Bakiryu

> I started Douglas Adam's _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ but after a couple of pages I put it down and could not find the inspiration to keep going. I know a lot of people love it but I for some reason just can't get into it.


*Gasp!* No! I love this book it's so nonsensical!

----------


## Etienne

"I started Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but after a couple of pages I put it down and could not find the inspiration to keep going. I know a lot of people love it but I for some reason just can't get into it."

This is about the worst book you have READ.

----------


## livelaughlove

> "I started Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but after a couple of pages I put it down and could not find the inspiration to keep going. I know a lot of people love it but I for some reason just can't get into it."
> 
> This is about the worst book you have READ.





> *What books have you came acorss that you could not quite get yourself to finnish*, or that you just would not recomend to anyone else.


I was replying to the first part of her question.  :Smile:

----------


## Etienne

> I was replying to the first part of her question.


You got me. Although I believe you need to read more than "a couple of pages" to judge if a book is good or not.

----------


## thescholar

no one yell at me, but im gonna say the portrait of dorian gray. just too damn dry for me...

----------


## livelaughlove

> You got me. Although I believe you need to read more than "a couple of pages" to judge if a book is good or not.


You could be right. Maybe I'll go back and try to read it again.

----------


## Dori

There really isn't anything that I've come across so far in my explorations in literature that I would deem really bad. The only thing I can say is that I'm not a fan at all of contemporary literature. I would have to say the worst book that I've read (as far as I can recall) would be Sarah Dunant's _The Birth of Venus_.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I would have to say the worst book that I've read (as far as I can recall) would be Sarah Dunant's _The Birth of Venus_.


I am almost finnished with that book now, and I have to say I love it. 

I would have to say another book I read, that perhaps was not the worst, but I don't think I would recomend, and that I very nearly quit reading a couple of times, but decided to bare through to the end, was Norman Mailers Ancient Egypt.

I do not think I am too conservitive or a prude in fact I have read and enjoyed some pretty racey things before, but I swear this book could not get a couple of lines without trying to make at least one obcesne reference. I think it really was more porn then it was plot.

----------


## Dori

> I am almost finnished with that book now, and I have to say I love it.


Read Irving Stone's _The Agony and the Ecstasy_. I thought it to be a much better novel that shares its setting (and a few characters).

----------


## Dark Muse

I will have to check that out, thanks for the recomendation

----------


## nebish

people who cannot read Dickens, Conrad or Melville should not be on here but on PulpNet

----------


## rgdmalaysia

Don't know about terrible but definitely the most overrated book I have ever read is The Grapes of Wrath.

The characters speak in monologues and in ways that characters of the background would not have conversed in....John Steinbeck's ultra dry flat prose doesn't help.

In general I am not a fan of Steinbeck.

----------


## crazefest456

I know people are going to kill me if I say this in lit net, but the book that revolted me so much, is......
Pride and Prejudice
I've read better books from around that era: Tess of the D'Urbervilles was awesome! I hope I never have to read another book of jane Austen's EVER.

----------


## yewon

I also agree that Coelho's The Alchemist is the worst book I've ever read even though in my country that book is still best-seller. I tried but I couldn't go on it- I couldn't stand it.

----------


## jlb4tlb

> people who cannot read Dickens, Conrad or Melville should not be on here but on PulpNet


Dickens is one of my favorites, never read Conrad, Melville is a huge bore. 

Should I be cast off because my tastes may differ from yours?

LOL

Jeff

BTW, I love pulp fiction.




> Don't know about terrible but definitely the most overrated book I have ever read is The Grapes of Wrath.
> 
> The characters speak in monologues and in ways that characters of the background would not have conversed in....John Steinbeck's ultra dry flat prose doesn't help.
> 
> In general I am not a fan of Steinbeck.




Just finished "The Grapes Of Wrath," loved it.

Just shows that people have different tastes.

Jeff

----------


## Dark Muse

> Don't know about terrible but definitely the most overrated book I have ever read is The Grapes of Wrath.
> 
> The characters speak in monologues and in ways that characters of the background would not have conversed in....John Steinbeck's ultra dry flat prose doesn't help.
> 
> In general I am not a fan of Steinbeck.



I am not much of a Steinbeck fan myself, I do not overall care for his writing style. Though I was suprised by The Grapes of Wrath, I liked it more then I thought I would for a Steinbeck. 

I did not really care for Of Mice and Men though

----------


## ivette

The most boring book I've ever read is Don Quixote. It was a torture for me to read it till the end. I admit that it has some parts that are quite ok but it is really boring as a whole. For me of course- I know many people won't agree with me.

----------


## ballb

> people who cannot read Dickens, Conrad or Melville should not be on here but on PulpNet



I regard Dickens as one of the most over rated writers in the English language. His characters were paper thin cartoon characters. His style was ponderous even by Victorian standards. Trollope in my view was a much better writer. A value judgement if you like. But that`s mind. Anyway, must go. PulpNet beckons.

----------


## Old Crow

I forgot to mention Henry Miller's "Tropic of Cancer". I new something was wrong when the introduction was spouting some long, rambling, anti-semitic diatribe about sexual repression and anarchy. Despite that, I decided to give it a chance, and was appaled. The fact that that type of tripe is still considered literary infuriates me.

----------


## Etienne

> The most boring book I've ever read is Don Quixote. It was a torture for me to read it till the end. I admit that it has some parts that are quite ok but it is really boring as a whole. For me of course- I know many people won't agree with me.


Do we burn blasphemers here or do we just chop their head?  :Biggrin:  

"I regard Dickens as one of the most over rated writers in the English language. His characters were paper thin cartoon characters. His style was ponderous even by Victorian standards. Trollope in my view was a much better writer. A value judgment if you like. But that`s mind. Anyway, must go. PulpNet beckons."

Dickens' style ponderous? I think he is probably one of the greatest master of the prose in the English language (of what I read in English at least, and from what I've read of Dickens). I will have to agree with your view of the characters, but I think this is part of Dickens' style and that it's not a defect.

People, people, is this really the WORST book you've read or is it just that you find them overrated?

----------


## livelaughlove

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion....

----------


## jon1jt

The Idiot, Dostoyevsky

----------


## rgdmalaysia

> Do we burn blasphemers here or do we just chop their head?  
> 
> 
> People, people, is this really the WORST book you've read or is it just that you find them overrated?


I very rarely get that far into a book if it is bad....I've not read very many books that started off well and sucked later.

Maybe overrated authors is another thread....I'm new to this site so what the hell? I'll put on my flame retardant clothing and proceed...

I agree totally about Charles Dickens....I would also say that he is a writer than I think children would get more out of than adults....His broadly sketched charcters with funny names and not much depth and the coincidences and ridiculous endings of his books are hard to take as a mture reader....And if I want social commentary about that time in history I'll take Emile Zola over Charles Dicken's in a second.

John Steinbeck I have already mentioned but I also really don't care for F. Scott Fitzgerald....He's a superficial writer for a superficial time in American history.

Jane Austen, John Irving, DH Lawrence, Leo Tolstoy, John Updike, Salman Rushdie are all writers I don't care for at all.




> I forgot to mention Henry Miller's "Tropic of Cancer". I new something was wrong when the introduction was spouting some long, rambling, anti-semitic diatribe about sexual repression and anarchy. Despite that, I decided to give it a chance, and was appaled. The fact that that type of tripe is still considered literary infuriates me.


Noramlly I wouldn't respond to a post like this as I believe to each his own but I was wondering where you see Henry Miller as anti-semitic? Could you give some examples....He uses rough language to describe Jews (as Thomas Wolfe uses rough language to describe black people) but ends up praising much about their culture.

I think Tropic of Cancer is, in my mind, what good literature should be....challenging and not spoonfeeding or manipulating the reader. The diatribes as you call them are some best free flowing stream of consciousness writing I've ever read. IMO one of the top 4 or 5 greatest books I've ever read.

----------


## PeterL

> Do we burn blasphemers here or do we just chop their head?


I favor burning; it is more energy efficient.

----------


## Old Crow

Well it was the introduction written by some one other than Miller that I found appalingly anti-semitic, which, I suppose I don't necessarily associate with Miller, but having that as your introduction definately sets off some alarms.

The text itself was almost unreadable by my standards. When Miller isn't Kerouac-ing off, he's making sex duller than I ever thought possible. The only thing I found interesting was the occasional appearance of linguistic flourishes, but these are few and far between.

----------


## MGegishov

I've read many a bad book in my time-- mostly for class, although one or two from a simple judgment lapse. However, perhaps the worst and most disappointing has to be The Great Gatsby.

----------


## Dark Muse

Overall I liked The Great Gatsby, I just thought it was perhaps one of the most pointless books I ever read, but I enjoyed how it was written and the charachers, but it was just one of those things that at the end, I was just like, but just why was it written?

----------


## Reccura

The Disappearing Teacher, forgot the author who did it. I got nothing out of it! I don't even know why I bothered to finish the whole book.

----------


## jon1jt

> I forgot to mention Henry Miller's "Tropic of Cancer". I new something was wrong when the introduction was spouting some long, rambling, anti-semitic diatribe about sexual repression and anarchy. Despite that, I decided to give it a chance, and was appaled. The fact that that type of tripe is still considered literary infuriates me.



but...but... :Flare:

----------


## bazarov

Heart of Darkness, The Alchemist, Old Man and the Sea, The Great Expectations, Portrait of the Artist of a young Man.

----------


## aabbcc

There are a few books which I read when I was younger and which today I would regard as books only in sense of their _form_, for their contents were probably not worth the paper they were printed on - mostly I have in mind the works of so-called teen and chic lit which I occassionally used to read up until a couple of years ago. However, nothing but vague images of the front pages of those 'works' come to me right now, and those books obviously had no effect on me whatsoever, so I do not even remember them.

Out of the ones I remember, or are more recent, or have specifically been marked as "recommend-to-enemies" in my mind, the ones to come to my mind would be:

Brown, D. - _The Da Vinci Code_, the only work I read by him because of the overall fuss about him, after which I figured he terribly lacked any skill in writing and any point to make at all
Coelho, P. - anything, especially that overrated trash of _The Alchemist_
Harry-Potter-and-alike books. They make me shiver. I used to find their popularity to be comic, now I find it to be tragic.

After the above absolute horror, here are the books which I find to be lesser horror, and are generally included in the canon, but which I still disliked and would not recommend:
Hemingway, E. - _The Old Man and the Sea_, perhaps I was too young when reading it (13-14 years old, for school), perhaps it was the matter of translation (I did not feel like getting the original, so I went with the flow and read it as the rest of my Literature class did in translation) or reading too quickly (I was a little slacker and read it in the morning the day it was due, if I recall well  :Biggrin: ), but that book left absolutely no impact on me whatsoever, even moreso, made me believe I would never touch anything written by Hemingway again (which I will be forced this year by school, hopefully I manage to find something in him now  :Smile: ).
Anything written by Balzac - one of the worse school readings I went through, I find _Father Goriot_ incredibly boring and I only remember fragments from it [whilst after that I did not even bother finishing _Eugene Grandet_, I stopped somewhere in the middle, and could not tell you what the book was about if my life depended on it]. :Blush:

----------


## liberal viewer

Any book by Isabel Allende. She is a mediocre, boring writer. Amazing she has quite the following! She sucks!

----------


## bazarov

> Hemingway, E. - _The Old Man and the Sea_, perhaps I was too young when reading it (13-14 years old, for school), perhaps it was the matter of translation (I did not feel like getting the original, so I went with the flow and read it as the rest of my Literature class did in translation) or reading too quickly (I was a little slacker and read it in the morning the day it was due, if I recall well ), but that book left absolutely no impact on me whatsoever, even moreso, made me believe I would never touch anything written by Hemingway again (which I will be forced this year by school, hopefully I manage to find something in him now ).


I planned not to read Hemingway again after Fisherman's diary  :Biggrin:  but I thought maybe I have judged him wrong, after all, I was only 13. So I took Farewell to Arms and...It didn't help! Sorry Ernest!

----------


## drunkenKOALA

El Zahir by Paolo Coelho
Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom
This Side of Paradise by F Scott Fitzgerald

Coelho seems to be pretty popular in this thread. 

I have to defend Great Expectations though. I loved it.

----------


## yewon

:Yawnb:  


> The Idiot, Dostoyevsky


May I ask you why? As a student major in Russian language, I was really impressed by Dostoyevsky, and nowadays I'm studying some of his works.. so if somebody has different idea with me, maybe I could advance my thought. :Yawnb: 

to Dark Muse,

IMAO, <The great gatsby> describes "Americanness", or, the two faces of "American Dream". 
So most Americans truly love this book, because they can FEEL something- something in their personal history, subconsciousness area, deeeeep down in their heart. 
Through this book they can sympathize with Gatsby, or even FitzGerald.

sorry- I forgot to quote it.  :Frown:

----------


## bluelightstar

I love The Great Gatsby personally. But I could not stand Jane Eyre. It was ~400 pages of drivel.

----------


## Dark Muse

I rather enjoyed Jane Eyre, it is quite funny seeing the varrying tastes, and how someone people can hate a book that others loved, though I never really thought this thread would turn quite so agressive and people taking things so personaly if one does not like this or that author.

----------


## Idril

> ...though I never really thought this thread would turn quite so agressive and people taking things so personaly if one does not like this or that author.


I know, it's disappointing that people can't be more tolerant of other people's opinions, isn't it? After all, that's all it really is, an opinion. Every book speaks to people in different ways, everyone is looking for different things in the books they read, everybody is coming from their own place and brings with them their own baggage to every thing they read, thus making it an intensely personal experience. There's no reason to think we all have to have the same experience.

----------


## Dark Muse

Very well put and said

----------


## Etienne

> I know, it's disappointing that people can't be more tolerant of other people's opinions, isn't it? After all, that's all it really is, an opinion. Every book speaks to people in different ways, everyone is looking for different things in the books they read, everybody is coming from their own place and brings with them their own baggage to every thing they read, thus making it an intensely personal experience. There's no reason to think we all have to have the same experience.


I don't know if you are referring to me, if so, then you should learn to take things with a lighter touch, perhaps. You bunch of serious men/women/monkeys.

I do think aesthetics are more than simply an opinion but I'm not pedantic about it, I was just joking really.

----------


## bazarov

Instead of calling other people monkeys you could be polite and respect others opinion. Your Voltaire had one really great quote about that.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I do think aesthetics are more than simply an opinion but I'm not pedantic about it, I was just joking really.



I think that opinions are precisely what aesthetics is.

What might reach or touch one person one way, might reach and touch another person another way. 

What one might find beautiful another could find completely ugly.

----------


## Etienne

> Instead of calling other people monkeys you could be polite and respect others opinion. Your Voltaire had one really great quote about that.


My quote is the wrong one actually, I thought I had quoted a post above, but it pasted my previous copy (which was used in favorite quotes thread", but I wasn't calling anyone a monkey, I said men/women/monkey, if these people are not men or women, then they are or hermaphrodite or monkeys. So we could say that I only insulted hermaphrodites, but even they do have a dominant genre and can called either men or women. I mean what is this, it feels like you are just TRYING to be offended or paranoid one or the other...

And I do respect people's opinion, I'll repeat myself, takes things more lightly people you are so austere and oppressive! You're enough to an hobgoblin to suicide! (*warning!* I AM NOT BEING SERIOUS!)

"
I think that opinions are precisely what aesthetics is.

What might reach or touch one person one way, might reach and touch another person another way.

What one might find beautiful another could find completely ugly."

I think aesthetics have two facets, one that is absolute and the other subjective. That is in part what music, literature, architecture, painting "principles" are. But remember that I said I am not being pedantic about this and things I said in the topic were JOKES. Let me repeat JOKES. I thought this was pretty clear that I didn't seriously want to burn people through internet...

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

Steinbeck's The Red Pony. Oh good lord.

----------


## Idril

> I don't know if you are referring to me, if so, then you should learn to take things with a lighter touch, perhaps. You bunch of serious men/women/monkeys.


I wasn't referring to you specifically, no. I have no idea what you even said about any books, I was just speaking generally. And I do take things with a lighter touch which was sort of my point.

----------


## Black Flag

> I planned not to read Hemingway again after Fisherman's diary  but I thought maybe I have judged him wrong, after all, I was only 13. So I took Farewell to Arms and...It didn't help! Sorry Ernest!


Nah. Start with The Sun Also Rises. If you don't like that, you're beyond help as far as liking Hemingway goes. 
I got about a quarter-way through Lord Jim by Conrad and couldn't stomach another line leading to nowhere. It was so dry I could taste it. So THAT's probably the worst book I can think of trying. 

I also hate D.H. Lawrence but for other reasons.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Nah. Start with The Sun Also Rises. If you don't like that, you're beyond help as far as liking Hemingway goes. 
> I got about a quarter-way through Lord Jim by Conrad and couldn't stomach another line leading to nowhere. It was so dry I could taste it. So THAT's probably the worst book I can think of trying. .


I agree with you on both those points. I really enjoyed The Sun Also Rises, and I found not get myself to finnish Lord Jim either

----------


## Etienne

> I also hate D.H. Lawrence but for other reasons.


Never read Lawrence, but I'm curious why.

----------


## JoanS

i hate all comercial literature of this century... its incredible the editors can publish something else..

----------


## Dori

> i hate all comercial literature of this century... its incredible the editors can publish something else..


Although I don't abhor it, I dislike the literature of this century also.

----------


## Black Flag

> Never read Lawrence, but I'm curious why.


Lawrence's depiction of the romantic relationships between his male and female characters is near sickening. The men are wussies and the women controling. Much like today, in fact, which I abhor. 
But you should read Lawrence for yourself. Try Sons and Lovers.

----------


## Etienne

> Lawrence's depiction of the romantic relationships between his male and female characters is near sickening. The men are wussies and the women controling. Much like today, in fact, which I abhor. 
> But you should read Lawrence for yourself. Try Sons and Lovers.


Perhaps, although I have many other priorities for the moment. Just got my hands on Bely's Petersburg, for example  :Brow:

----------


## wingwizard

the thread is based on negativity and will engender indulgence of the worst kind as is evident in this idiots reply

----------


## Zelly

The Scarlet Letter. I'll admit I didn't finish it, but I couldn't stand the book.

----------


## DigitalLove

It's nice to see that so many others hate Conrad as much as I do. The Heart of Darkness was torture for me to read. Basically I don't like anything that insults my ladyship. For instance, I don't like hunting stories, I guess that's why I hate Faulkner so much. And Animal Farm was THE most insulting thing I was made to read as a student. I don't care about life from a pigs perspective, and yes I know it has a deeper meaning but come on - it's a stinking pig. The first page of the book made me want to jump in an ocean of perfume.

----------


## mayneverhave

And, thus dies open-mindedness.

----------


## Dark Star

> It's nice to see that so many others hate Conrad as much as I do. The Heart of Darkness was torture for me to read. Basically I don't like anything that insults my ladyship. For instance, I don't like hunting stories, I guess that's why I hate Faulkner so much. And Animal Farm was THE most insulting thing I was made to read as a student. I don't care about life from a pigs perspective, and yes I know it has a deeper meaning but come on - it's a stinking pig. The first page of the book made me want to jump in an ocean of perfume.


How do hunting story insult one's 'ladyship' per se? I've known plenty of women who loved going hunting and reading hunting stories.

----------


## nebish

what is Her Ladyship doing here on Litnet ? Send her back to Bebo..

----------


## DigitalLove

I hope some of you realize that it's ok to have an opinion. In fact, I'm sure all of your favorite authors had very strong opinions - strong opinons about ideas, other authors, and books. 

Live a little.

----------


## papayahed

*General Mod note to all. Remember that others opinions may be different from your own. Please refrain from nit picking and personal insults and return to the topic at hand. If it continues, posts may be edited or the thread will be closed.*

----------


## PeterL

> And Animal Farm was THE most insulting thing I was made to read as a student. I don't care about life from a pigs perspective, and yes I know it has a deeper meaning but come on - it's a stinking pig. The first page of the book made me want to jump in an ocean of perfume.


I can understand your comments about Faulkner and Conrad, but this comment about _Animal Farm_ seems odd. Apparently you don't like swine. Is that hatred based on some childhood experience, religious preference, or what. Swine are not naturally dirty or smelly. They gain those conditions from the conditions in which they are usually kept. Using swine as allegorical characters amplified the allegory; although it also made it so transparent that it become pointless by the end of the book.

----------


## Simao

> the thread is based on negativity and will engender indulgence of the worst kind as is evident in this idiots reply


No it's not. People have the right to criticise a book and when a book is bad then someone needs to point it out. It's like modern art today, rich people keep thinking "oh this piece of art is so amazing etc etc" when it is actually just as simple as an apple or a window lol. Sometimes a ciggar is just a ciggar and a bad book is just a bad book even if someone was open minded I think they would have to be as much when judging a book.

----------


## PabloQ

I couldn't finish Don Quixote. This is the only novel that I haven't been able to push through to the end. Something about this poor demented character struck me as almost obscene to watch...kind of like getting laughs by going to a nursing home to watch people fall down. I've promised myself to give it another try, but I'm not sure that as I age, the story is going to become any more palatable.

----------


## Janine

> Lawrence's depiction of the romantic relationships between his male and female characters is near sickening. The men are wussies and the women controling. Much like today, in fact, which I abhor. 
> But you should read Lawrence for yourself. Try Sons and Lovers.


Hi *Black Flag,* could you back up these statements with examples please? ...and just how many Lawrence works have you read in order to come to this conclusion? I find these statements totally misleading and simplistic; casting a negative oppinion to other posters about one of the world's most accomplished and remarkable authors.

----------


## Phoenix Wright

I'm not currently sure what the worst book I ever read was.

Back in high school, I was assigned to read _Catcher in the Rye_, but I was only able to read the first chapter; I simply didn't have interest. Lately I've been considering actually reading it.

----------


## stlukesguild

It seems as if many on the forum must have some rather amazing reading habits considering the fact that an author such as Faulkner, Lawrence, Conrad, Orwell, Hawthorne, or Cervantes could be imagined as the "worst" thing they had ever read. Seriously... _Don Quixote?!!!_ I'd personally place it among the best novels I had ever read. I've re-read it several times and each time was still a pleasure and a learning experience. I do understand the sense of a reluctance at garnering laughs from such a poor and demented character... but I've always found that as the novel unfolds one begins to not merely feel sorry for the Don but actually to imagine him as a truly heroic figure... a figure nurtured on great books and heroic literature who continues to dream in a world that has forgotten how... a figure with a great deal more wisdom than many around him credit him for. There is a magnificent sense of irony to it all... the man who continues to dream in a world that has forgotten how does appear comic... even pathetic. There is also a great sincerity. The relationship between the Don and Sancho unfolds into one of the greatest friendships in literary history.

----------


## papayahed

> The Scarlet Letter. I'll admit I didn't finish it, but I couldn't stand the book.


I had to read that book in high school and hated it, I'm thinking of trying it again. The other worst book would have to be Orlando I dispised word of that book.

----------


## Dori

> The Scarlet Letter. I'll admit I didn't finish it, but I couldn't stand the book.





> I had to read that book in high school and hated it, I'm thinking of trying it again.


Could both of you elaborate, please? I absolutely loved the book. I might go as far to say Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter taught me to keep an open mind when forced to read something, or, rather, it provided an example of something interesting among what I thought to be a bunch of drivel. Speaking of Hawthorne, do you, Zelly and papaya, hate The Scarlet Letter itself or Hawthorne's writing in general (have you read anything else by him?)?

----------


## Janine

> Could both of you elaborate, please? I absolutely loved the book. I might go as far to say Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter taught me to keep an open mind when forced to read something, or, rather, it provided an example of something interesting among what I thought to be a bunch of drivel. Speaking of Hawthorne, do you, Zelly and papaya, hate The Scarlet Letter itself or Hawthorne's writing in general (have you read anything else by him?)?


*Dori,* I too liked "The Scarlet Letter" emensely. I thought it was as very intricate and complex book and does indeed, prompt one to ponder many things. Let's face it, it is a 'dark' sort of novel, but I really thought it was so well-written and I like dark novels. I would classify it with "Wuthering Heights", which also, was very complex and thought-provoking and very dark.

----------


## Dark Muse

Everyone is intitled to have thier own personal taste and I really do not see the reason for people to crizitze others simply for not liking something you yourself may like. 

And just becasue a writer might be well renowed, or considered classical, does not mean that thier particular style of writing will be to everyones personal taste or liking, but I really do think that is a reason to try and insult ones intelligence. 

In fact would it not be kind of boring, if we all liked the same thing?

By the way, this is just a genral message not directed at anyone person, made based on some of the comments I have observered, so I hope no one thinks I am pointing at them persoanlly. That is not my intent. 

Just asking people try and keep an open mind to other people's opinions.

----------


## Etienne

> Everyone is intitled to have thier own personal taste and I really do not see the reason for people to crizitze others simply for not liking something you yourself may like. 
> 
> And just becasue a writer might be well renowed, or considered classical, does not mean that thier particular style of writing will be to everyones personal taste or liking, but I really do think that is a reason to try and insult ones intelligence. 
> 
> In fact would it not be kind of boring, if we all liked the same thing?
> 
> By the way, this is just a genral message not directed at anyone person, made based on some of the comments I have observered, so I hope no one thinks I am pointing at them persoanlly. That is not my intent. 
> 
> Just asking people try and keep an open mind to other people's opinions.


Oh stop that rhetoric, no one has been doing criticizing, people have been baffled but this is everyone's right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that includes the right to find surprising that some books might be seen as worst. I feel that as soon as some people disagrees some people start whining, and this is quite annoying to have these moralists jumping all the time for no reasons.

----------


## Janine

I agree, actually with both of your who posted before me. In point of fact, I keep asking what the point of this thread is exactly (???). 

*DM,* this is the perfect statement here: 




> In fact would it not be kind of boring, if we all liked the same thing?


I always say - 'to each his own!'

----------


## stlukesguild

It seems to me that if we are to engage is a dialog or a discussion about something that we feel passionate about... like?... oh, shall we say BOOKS!?... then there will arise instances from time to time when we may find ourself disagreeing with another's opinion. Now we can all just go on posting with no thought to what another has said, unless it be to give the obligatory "thumbs up": "Jolly good point!"  :Thumbs Up: . Personally that is not what I find of value in any discussion. I greatly value the right to disagree with another's statement and to defend my stance. I also greatly value another's right to question my opinions and defend that. In fact... I find that I have far more use for someone like jon1jt who inanely disagrees with me with regard to the relative value of Kerouac :Biggrin: , than I do for those who offer nothing but kudos. What's the point of a forum if all we get is kudos? Certainly such disagreements must remain civil... and I understand that in this forum the rules of civility are different than they might be at other forums. Still I find that the right to disagree is essential to any dialog if it is to go beyond mere cheer-leading: "I love Dan Brown" "Ooh! me too!" :Thumbs Up: . To me, it would seem that the value of civil disagreement is that it forces me to think about my stance... to clarify what I believe or feel and why... it also exposes me to counter-arguments or other ways of thinking that I might not have come upon otherwise... and as such it may even force me to go as far as to re-think my own position in certain instances. As such, I must respectfully decline the invitation that we never think to disagree.

----------


## Scheherazade

> To me, it would seem that the value of civil disagreement is that it forces me to think about my stance... to clarify what I believe or feel and why... it also exposes me to counter-arguments or other ways of thinking that I might not have come upon otherwise... and as such it may even in may force me to even re-think my own position in certain instances.


I think StLG makes a good point. Without different views and arguments, the Forum would have little purpose and use. We do not have to (dis)like the same books and authors and it is this fact that keeps the discussions alive and makes us (re)consider our understandings and impressions and this thread does a good job providing an opportunity for challenging our views.

Thanks to such posts expressing various and different views on books, I gave second/third chances to the books/authors I had not been keen on and was surprised to discover that my earlier impressions were not well-based (Faulkner being one of those authors  :Wink: ).

*Please do not resort to inflammatory and/or personal comments and keep in mind that it is the opinions that we discuss; not the members themselves personally.

Further off-topic posts will be deleted.*

----------


## papayahed

> Could both of you elaborate, please? I absolutely loved the book. I might go as far to say Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter taught me to keep an open mind when forced to read something, or, rather, it provided an example of something interesting among what I thought to be a bunch of drivel. Speaking of Hawthorne, do you, Zelly and papaya, hate The Scarlet Letter itself or Hawthorne's writing in general (have you read anything else by him?)?


As I mentioned I read the book in High School, perhaps it was the time, my age, the subject matter all I remember is my burning dislike of the book, which is why i mentioned I might try it again...eventually.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> It seems as if many on the forum must have some rather amazing reading habits considering the fact that an author such as Faulkner, Lawrence, Conrad, Orwell, Hawthorne, or Cervantes could be imagined as the "worst" thing they had ever read. Seriously... Don Quixote?!!!


St. Luke's seems to have read my mind, not only regarding Don Quixote (seriously, how could anyone actually dislike DQ?) but regarding the caliber of the "worst" books on this thread. As I pondered, though, I realized that part of the problem with naming the worst book you've read is that it is generally also an incredibly forgettable book. I remember reading a book once in which a dead character inexplicably took part in the dialogue post mortem. I thought that perhaps the otherwise dreadfully inept writer might be starting something clever but, given that the temporarily resurrected speaker was never again alluded to or became any kind of plot point, I'm assuming that not only the author but the editor was sleeping on the job. I wish I could remember the author or title, because it really had to rank among the worst, not only for sloppy continuity but for almost undigestible style. 

When it comes to the classics, this thread prompts a cleansing confession from me--one that might force me to hang my head in shame if it ever came out among my colleagues. This is that I fell asleep three times the first time I attempted to read Milton's _Paradise Regained_, and actually didn't finish it until a couple years later when I made a second successful attempt for scholarly purposes. Not that PR is really all that bad (actually I've grown to appreciate it considerably more of late), and certainly not the worst thing I've ever read, but I think it was problematic to try to read it just after reading _Paradise Lost_ for the first time. Can I help it if I find Christ being good boring?  :FRlol:

----------


## stlukesguild

Petrarch's Love... I'll excuse you in this instance... but if you tell me that you had any similar "problems" with the _Purgatorio_ or _Paradiso_ after having read the Inferno... well then all bets are off! :FRlol:

----------


## Fowles27

> As I pondered, though, I realized that part of the problem with naming the worst book you've read is that it is generally also an incredibly forgettable book.


Totally agree. I think when they mention works that are deemed masterpieces as the worst book, what they really mean is either 

A. Why is this book so critically acclaimed? I've read better.
or
B. I didn't care for the author's message.

BTW, one of the worst books I've read is _The Devil Wears Prada_. A friend gave it to me to read on the plane. It was a hell of a flight. Didn't know she hated me that much.

----------


## PanzaFan

> As I pondered, though, I realized that part of the problem with naming the worst book you've read is that it is generally also an incredibly forgettable book.


This is dead on. I neither remember nor care to remember the worst books I never read. There are few memorable books that fall into the perscribed catergory for this topic and since the whole idea is that you never finished the book, your creditablity as a critic is less than desirable. 
Having said all that I very much enjoyed reading these posts simply because I like to investigate opinions. A recurring theme appears to be that when forced to read a piece of literature (if you wish to classify all mentioned in this manner) "for school", many find the result disagreeable. Along this vein, I hated being forced to read _The Great Gatsby_  and did not therefore appreciate the book. In like manner I was disgusted by _The Lord of the Flies_. Only much later have I reconciled myself to their worth. I place total blame on my high school English teacher. Will I be burned at the stake for wishing students had the ability and the inclination to choose to read good literature on their own, thereby avoiding this phenomenon? 

Keeping with the spirit of the topic, I never finished _The Birth of Venus_ and have no intention of doing so.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> Petrarch's Love... I'll excuse you in this instance... but if you tell me that you had any similar "problems" with the _Purgatorio_ or _Paradiso_ after having read the Inferno... well then all bets are off!


 :FRlol:  Nope, no falling asleep going through Purgatory, though I seem to recall being frustrated during my first read of the _Paradiso_, simply because I had to keep whipping out my language dictionary (I was in Italy at the time, so English translation wasn't an option, and my Italian wasn't as good as it is now). 





> I place total blame on my high school English teacher. Will I be burned at the stake for wishing students had the ability and the inclination to choose to read good literature on their own, thereby avoiding this phenomenon?


While I recognize the validity of your observation--that forced reading breeds malcontent--I must take the opportunity to stand up for the poor maligned High School English Teacher. The problem is that the vast majority of students will not read good literature on their own. Rare is the student who resents being forced to read a book for school because it means they're forced to read Steinbeck when they would rather be reading Tolstoy. In most cases the resentment of being made to read the book stems from the resentment that they are being made to read anything at all, or that they are being made to read something with a challenging style or subject matter. Even if students are bored and resistant at the time, assigning classics in high school at least forces some people who might literally never pick up a book in their life on their own to be familiar with a few things. As someone who teaches Renaissance literature at the college level, I can attest to the importance of that familiarity. When I talk to people about what I do, they feel moderately comfortable and interested in talking about Shakespeare because they've all read Romeo and Juliet in high school. That familiarity is a place to start later in life when people might have matured a bit and become more interested in learning about literature and history, going to plays etc. I don't blame the teachers at all. I blame youth. Youth is bored with a lot, but if young people are made to read a few things in high school, they at least have a base of exposure to literature that they can go back to later when they may, perhaps, be more interested in the idea of reading and learning. 

By the way, I'm guessing from your user name that you share the opinion of those of us who are outraged at the suggestion that Don Quixote belongs on the "worst" list.  :Smile:

----------


## Dark Muse

I find this intresting, for though I can understand people not liking to being forced to read certain books, I always enjoyed the assigned reading I had for school, I saw it as a way of exposing me to books I might not have thought of or picked up on my own and getting me to read things I preivously might have just discounted. Though I did not nessciarly enjoy all the books, most them I rather did like. 

Though I personaly found The Great Gastby to be one of the most pointless things I have read, I still thought it was a good story and I still enjoyed it. 

I would have to say one of the least enjoyable books for me, that I was required to read was Of Mice and Men.

----------


## PanzaFan

> By the way, I'm guessing from your user name that you share the opinion of those of us who are outraged at the suggestion that Don Quixote belongs on the "worst" list.


Of course you are right, and not just about Don Quixote. I have great admiration for English teachers, actually all teachers with the exception of a few narrow minded college professors I had the misfortune to encounter. Namely those that discouraged my efforts to obtain a degree due to my gender. Please excuse my wandering. My point is, I understand and readily acknowledge the often misdirected attention of youth and appreciate the determination of educators to redirect them. Had it not been for my quilty English teacher (May God Bless Her) I would have missed many works that I did enjoy. It was unfair of me not to present the other side of the coin. However, I still hate required reading.  :Angel:

----------


## FacialFracture

Of the books I've been "required to read," I still hold a grudge against *Lord of the Flies*. _Yes_, it was in tenth grade (a long time ago now,) and _yes_, I know, it's an important book...but I hated it then and I hate it now. Its ideas seemed obvious, its symbols didn't interest me, and I resented having to spend an entire term writing papers about it...although, I'm not sure I ever did actually write any of those papers...It doesn't matter; I still hate Piggy, and the conch shell, and that horrible bleeding hog's head that was on the front cover.

That's a book I hate, but not the worst book I've ever read; that (dubious) honour goes to Erica Jong's *Fear of Flying*. It was alternately self-congratulatory and self-pitying; it convinced me that all feminists were hypocrites; it employs the word "which" in about a thousand places where "that" should be used...and some of the "earthy" descriptions of sexual things in the novel just grossed me out.

_ETA:_ Like many others, I can understand not loving Don Quixote, but if it is the _worst_ book a person has read, I can only say that I envy their extremely refined reading lists.

----------


## Etienne

Lord of the Flies, an important book? I don't know... I've read it once because I had found it and didn't really know about it (therefore making me free of any preconceived ideas about it) and I thought it was good, but nothing so special. I mean I don't see any reason why this book should be considered important. The only reason I can see is that, like Orwell's 1984, for example, it's a great bargain literature/accessibility.

----------


## FacialFracture

Etienne, I do not base my idea of "importance" on anything academic or intellectual: I figure once The Simpsons have done an entire episode satirizing something, it becomes important...hence, *Lord of the Flies* is "important."

----------


## Etienne

Yes, yes, I was not criticizing it as your opinion, but the very fact that it was considered important. It was just an observation, if you want.

I'd like to add the translation of Aristotle's De Anima I have. It's simply horrible. Already that Aristotle was a very bad writer, what I have in my hands is partly undecipherable. To understand I had to get some other translations, honestly...

Take this example:
"We must note also that, if the soul moves itself, it must be the mover itself that is moved, so that it follows that if movement is in every case a displacement of that which is in movement, in that respect in which it is said to be moved, the movement of the soul must be a departure from its essential nature, at least if its self-movement is essential to it, not incidental."

This translation allowed me to understand what my translation said (it's in french however, so not much use posting it here) as the syntax is absolutely horrible... but note that in the context this sentence is even more mind-boggling then taken separately.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> Of course you are right, and not just about Don Quixote. I have great admiration for English teachers, actually all teachers with the exception of a few narrow minded college professors I had the misfortune to encounter. Namely those that discouraged my efforts to obtain a degree due to my gender. Please excuse my wandering. My point is, I understand and readily acknowledge the often misdirected attention of youth and appreciate the determination of educators to redirect them. Had it not been for my quilty English teacher (May God Bless Her) I would have missed many works that I did enjoy. It was unfair of me not to present the other side of the coin. However, I still hate required reading.


Glad to hear you don't actually have it out for high school teachers.  :Wink:  Just had to make sure the other side got out there before all the young students on these boards started running around making teachers the scapegoats for their dislike of Cervantes. I'm actually with Dark Muse. I've never resented any required reading (except a few choice works of literary theory required in my first year of grad. school, but that's because they really were pretentious and nonsensical). It does, however, seem to be a common opinion that required reading is more boring. Maybe people just don't like being told to do anything, even if it is reading a great book.  :Tongue:  

By the by, welcome to the forums, since I think you're fairly new around here. Look forward to having some good conversations with you. In fact you've already inspired me. I'm looking for the next read and I may go dig up _Don Quixote._ Haven't read it in ages, and it sounds like just the thing about now, especially since I've just finished an intensive reading list of the epics and romances that inspired the Don. 

Also, may I add, a pox on misogynistic narrow minded college professors. Hope you showed them by getting your degree with high honors!

----------


## PanzaFan

> By the by, welcome to the forums, since I think you're fairly new around here. Look forward to having some good conversations with you. In fact you've already inspired me. I'm looking for the next read and I may go dig up Don Quixote. Haven't read it in ages, and it sounds like just the thing about now, especially since I've just finished an intensive reading list of the epics and romances that inspired the Don. 
> 
> Also, may I add, a pox on misogynistic narrow minded college professors. Hope you showed them by getting your degree with high honors!


Thank you for the "welcome aboard". I am stupidly crazy about Don Quixote right now, so of course I would recommend it to you as I have to all my friends. The majority of them think I am a bore and prefer lighter reading, mostly the type of stuff you find in a magazine rack in a bathroom. 

FYI 
I did get the degree. I wish I could claim high honors but I am terrible with math and since I majored in electrical engineering I had alot of math. I did receive some honors despite that but mostly for English. Go figure  :Blush:

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

Tuesdays with Morrie. Ugh!

----------


## HoVis

[QUOTE=Etienne;489874]
I'd like to add the translation of Aristotle's De Anima I have. It's simply horrible. Already that Aristotle was a very bad writer, what I have in my hands is partly undecipherable. To understand I had to get some other translations, honestly...

Take this example:
"We must note also that, if the soul moves itself, it must be the mover itself that is moved, so that it follows that if movement is in every case a displacement of that which is in movement, in that respect in which it is said to be moved, the movement of the soul must be a departure from its essential nature, at least if its self-movement is essential to it, not incidental." [QUOTE]

LOL... that's philosophy for you. Sadly when you get complex ideas you tend to get complex (cough) writing. Then again isn't there some debate as to whether what we have of Aristotle's work was actually written by him? I could've sworn that in one of my A Level textbooks they said that there was a chance that some of the texts were in fact taken from his students' lecture notes, which might explain the above!!!

I think the problem with 'required reading' is that often students are required to proceed at a set pace rather than going through the book at their own pace and thus enjoying it more. I also found it very boring to have to listen to my teacher at GCSE read "Of Mice and Men" all the way through with a slightly dubious American accent. That said, I'm sure I'd have enjoyed the book much more if I'd have simply read it for fun, but reading a book with the pressure of a looming exam on it does tend to take the enjoyment out of it!

I really like "Emma", though, which we're doing for AS Level, so I guess its a swings-and-roundabouts sort of situation. And it really does depend on the teacher, of course. But we mustn't forget that if it wasn't for the original "required reading" back in our primary school days none of us would be here discussing books!!!

Hmm... the worst book I've ever read? It was free with a magazine, absolute chick lit, had to throw it away. Can't remember the title - as someone has already said, the bad books are the ones we try to forget! I found "Bleak House" a bit of a struggle but appreciated it on certain levels and am glad I read it, though I think there are other 'classic' writers I would choose over Dickens. 

I'd say I'm fairly lucky in that there are very few books I have disliked reading.  :Smile:

----------


## Etienne

> LOL... that's philosophy for you. Sadly when you get complex ideas you tend to get complex (cough) writing. Then again isn't there some debate as to whether what we have of Aristotle's work was actually written by him? I could've sworn that in one of my A Level textbooks they said that there was a chance that some of the texts were in fact taken from his students' lecture notes, which might explain the above!!!


Indeed, the only writing of his own hand that survived (only partly) was the Protreptics. What we have now is not what he "published" but more lectures given to his classes, in fact. But nonetheless, the extract I have written was translated by myself from French, but I had to get three different translations (both French and English) to be able to get a good idea of what was meant.

The sad thing is that medieval philosophical literature was mostly through commentaries of Aristotle and they did keep this bastardized form which leads to what is now considered "typical" philosophical literature (although the mold has been broken since a while). But philosophy's destiny and perhaps even human destiny could have been totally different had Aristotle works survived in it's literary form...

----------


## cral

Eragon. I might still be bearing a grudge against it though, having paid twelve pound upon its release and then never managing to read past the first few chapters. That's the only book that really comes to my mind as 'bad'.

----------


## HotKarl

> Eragon. I might still be bearing a grudge against it though, having paid twelve pound upon its release and then never managing to read past the first few chapters. That's the only book that really comes to my mind as 'bad'.


Not surprising considering that the author was a teenager when he wrote it.

----------


## madmaudlin

I know that this is a play, but Our Town by Thorton Wilder is possibly the worst thing I've ever read. The point of the plot is to be as mundane as possible, and, well, isn't the point of literature to escape from the mundane?

Otherwise, I would have to say the Lord of the Flies was dreadful.

----------


## Dark Muse

I personally enjoyed Lord of the Flies, it was not the best think I have ever read, but I liked it well enough

----------


## madmaudlin

The message was fine, and I believe that the ending was the best part because of what it revealed about civilization. And beside that, it provided for a release from the book...

----------


## Lady Raven

Love Story by Erich Segal.

----------


## johann cruyff

I didn't like _The Old Man and the Sea_ - yes,I know talking against Hemingway is a blasphemy around these boards,but I really hated this book.

This is,of course,as far as serious literature is concerned - I shall not take authors such as Coelho,Rand or Brown into account - if I did,this post would turn into a VERY tiresome rant.

----------


## kelby_lake

Lemme think:
1) To Kill A Mockingbird. No, to bore it to death. It might have been a very good book had it not been for the rubbish that is part 1 and atticus' moral lessons. Really, I understand that to backwards towns in South America in the '60's, the idea that racism was bad was revolutionary but nowadays we've realised that it's kinda pretty obvious. All it's doing, at least now, is saying 2 +2=4 in a very smug white middle class way

2)The Immoralist by Andre Gide. It was a bit strange but nothing really happens. Just right at the end he goes super-weird and paedophilic: it's never mentioned for that even though the narrator says some quite creepy things (he only likes young boys)

And some of the best books, a mon avis, that I've read (if we balance it out we can see why people have put these books as being the worst they've read):
Lolita, the Great Gatsby, Les Enfants Terribles, Brideshead Revisited, Giovanni's Room...
I've read loads good stuff.

----------


## whf800

Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe

----------


## Kafka's Crow

I am reading _The Sun also Rises_ and finding it quite pointless. Nothing has happened in the first 60 pages that I have read so far. Getting tired of all the monosyllabic drones! Read _A Farewell to Arms_ 18 years ago for my first MA and loved it, read _The Old Man and the Sea_ last year and didn't hate it either (although can't recall anything!) but _The Sun also Rises_ is heavy going. I hated _As I Lay Dying_ as well.

----------


## moose gurl

Interesting. I hated The Sun Also Rises as well. Couldn't stand it, in fact. I've been told that if you really like the characters, the book is a lot better. But I didn't. I couldn't stand Jake or Brett, and I thought they were whiny and meaningless. But oh well.

I loved As I Lay Dying, on the other hand, but I'm nuts for Faulkner.

I also really hated Great Expectations. But I'm loving A Tale of Two Cities.
Also strongly disliked Wuthering Heights. Too many characters with the same name, not enough plot.

But as far as the WORST book I've ever read, I think I'll nominate The Joy Luck Club. Could not under any circumstances get through that book. I thought the characters were incredibly whiny and pathetic. Maybe I missed the point. I don't really hate the book per say, but it bored me to tears and I quit reading it. Probably the worst thing I've ever tried to get through...saw no literary merit.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> I remember putting this book down after two pages, then, on a second attempt, putting it down after the first chapter. Maybe someday I'll try to drag myself through it, but that day is not today - and hopefully will not be for a while.
> 
> As for the 'worst', it seems to me that, given the preponderance of bad writing in the world, it would be more informative to fellow readers to confine my selections to so called 'important' books. Thus:
> _Atlas Shrugged_ is obscenely long, and full of contrived thriller-style writing - and, for all its tiresome aspects, says little that one might not find in Rand's nonfiction. A chore to read; ultimately unrewarding.
> 
> Melville's _Pierre_ was probably an even greater pain to go through. The only justification I've heard of this absurd novel is that it is a 'satire of the popular Gothic novels of the time'. It is far too long for one either to be amused or to take it seriously as an act of criticism. 
> 
> Most recently I grew rather frustrated with Hawthorne's _The Marble Faun_; while the story is interesting, and the first half of the novel more or less promising, he falls into a pattern of alternatingly criticizing Italians and Catholics and describing the Italian scenery, even through the last few chapters. This work has made me glad that he did not venture much past his native sphere in his other work; in my opinion, he only properly handles America.
> 
> *Oh yeah, and anything by Beckett.*


*"O heat, dry up my brains! tears seven times salt,
Burn out the sense and virtue of mine eye!"*

----------


## RJbibliophil

Hmm... I dislike anything too dismal. I was not particularly fond of House of Seven Gables or The Red Badge of Courage, though I did finish both of those.

----------


## islandclimber

I think people are putting the classic books they disliked the most in here.. I mean who can seriously say the worst book they have ever read is Hawthorne, or Melville, or Hemingway, or Dickens... seriously people... you are trying to say you have never read a truly piece of junk book in your reading career???

So, if I go to works considered literature... I really disliked Kerouac's "On the Road" and wish I had the time I spent reading it back... I thoroughly disliked it...

but the worst books I've read, written for adults... would be "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Alchemist"... and I think I saw someone on here say "Fear of Flying" by Erica Jong I think it is... I read part of that when I was a lot younger.. and that has to be the worst piece of garbage ever written!!!

----------


## aeroport

> *"O heat, dry up my brains! tears seven times salt,
> Burn out the sense and virtue of mine eye!"*


Precisely how I feel while reading Beckett.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> Precisely how I feel while reading Beckett.


I've been trying to avoid saying this but two novelists I can't bring myself to read, just can't read more than a couple of pages by these two individuals: Charles Dickens and... wait for this one... Henry James. As far as Beckett is concerned, he rules the realms of heaven and earth jointly along with Dostoevsky. We are talking about REAL Gods here not some fake 'God of my idolatry' or something. This is real greatness beyond which everything else diminishes into nothingness.

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

The Moviegoer by Walker Percy. I think it was badly written, or perhaps I just didn't get it.

----------


## PeterL

If you want to read really, really bad books, then try some of the recent fantasy novels. They wouldn't be all that bad, if they were two hundred pages; but they stick in an extra six hundred pages of filler, and the filler is the worst part.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> If you want to read really, really bad books, then try some of the recent fantasy novels. They wouldn't be all that bad, if they were two hundred pages; but they stick in an extra six hundred pages of filler, and the filler is the worst part.


I can't stand the whole genre, even Tolkien. I think _The Hobbit_ is the only real fantasy lit I have read.

----------


## PeterL

> I can't stand the whole genre, even Tolkien. I think _The Hobbit_ is the only real fantasy lit I have read.


I understand the feeling. I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings, but it was not a good novel, while _The Hobbit_ is an excellent story. Lord Dunsany also wrote some great fantasy. It seems to be a generational thing among the authors. The ones who wrote in that general field before WWII were excellent, and I would extend the sub-genre to include Fritz Leiber and others. The crop of writers who started writing after the D&D craze have been much worse; they don't seem to have any feeling for plot. Maybe D&D does destroy the ability to reason.

----------


## PabloQ

I'm sure that most of modern, popular fiction qualifies as awful if you really analyze it, but I do need to put forward Dan Brown and Tom Clancy. Mr. Brown writes incredibly predictable plots (I can always see what's coming) and he establishes the credentials of "intelligent" characters (a Harvard history professor, for example) who are dumber than I am.

Mr. Clancy actually wrote a book about an elite squad of government operatives who have to attach and defeat a radical group of environmentalists. Clancy is a real claptrap machine. His novel are good if you need to level a table that has one leg that's 3 inches too short.

However, from the world of literature, my vote goes to The Wings of the Dove by Henry James. The plot was thin and the characters, every one of them, were uninteresting. I pushed my way to the end of this thing, but it was the hardest I have ever had to work to make it to the end. I've read other works by James and enjoyed them, but this one was something else.

----------


## NickAdams

> As far as Beckett is concerned, he rules the realms of heaven and earth ...


 :Angel:  Indeed!

----------


## Pandora Eve

Two of my worst books were Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys and Victor Hugo's The Man Who Laughs. Card's book was just plain awful with too many evil characters in a supposely nice little town. What I really hated about these two books was the u-turn ending. That when in the last few pages a book you were expecting to end well suddenly ends in tragedy. I don't like downbeat endings but, I really hate it when there is no warning watch out this is not going to end well. I know Victor Hugo is a classic author but, that ending was so unexpected and it was so close to a happy ending. I did like of course Les Mes and his Toilers of the Sea was at least honest about where it was going. As for the Card book it was just plain awful.

----------


## aeroport

> I've been trying to avoid saying this but two novelists I can't bring myself to read, just can't read more than a couple of pages by these two individuals: Charles Dickens and... wait for this one... Henry James. As far as Beckett is concerned, he rules the realms of heaven and earth jointly along with Dostoevsky. We are talking about REAL Gods here not some fake 'God of my idolatry' or something. This is real greatness beyond which everything else diminishes into nothingness.


Dostoevsky...joint-ruler with Beckett? Oh my, this will never do...
Actually, I was exaggerating a bit. There is some Beckett that I enjoyed. The excerpts we read from _Molloy_ and _The Unnammable_, for instance, and the little I read of _Murphy_, all looked more or less promising (and very funny, in a way that appeals to me), and I remember really liking _All That Fall_; but as he starts aspiring to be the artist of "ignorance and impotence" he begins to annoy me - and I am certainly not impressed by the fact that he is often doing so intentionally. Dosto on the other hand - a god indeed.

----------


## djy78usa

The worst book I've read all the way through was Dan Brown's Deception Point... still don't know why I didn't stop after the first two or three chapters. As far as "the classics" go, I'm going to have to go with Great Expectations, although you could substitute just about any other Dickens work in there.

----------


## moose gurl

I know that wasn't totally directed at me, but I'd like to point out that I said I _disliked_ Great Expectations and Wuthering Heights, but the _worst book_ I've read is Joy Luck Club. I agree that there is a difference between realizing a book is bad and not enjoying it. I understand why Great Expectations and Wuthering Heights are considered classic, but I just don't like them. Joy Luck Club, on the other hand, was despicable.

I have read a little fantasy, and I'll agree that the genre has very little literary merit, and I don't even enjoy most of them now (I went through a phase) but there is a soft spot in my heart for certain fantasy books, regardless of how bad they really are. I couldn't bring myself to nominate them here...

----------


## kelby_lake

> If you want to read really, really bad books, then try some of the recent fantasy novels. They wouldn't be all that bad, if they were two hundred pages; but they stick in an extra six hundred pages of filler, and the filler is the worst part.


Very true!

----------


## moose gurl

Ha ha, Antiquarian, I've noticed we have different tastes. But that's one of the things I like about this place--such a variety of people.

----------


## Jislani

I love Stephen King, but the worst book I've read to date has to be Pet Cemetary...I could NOT get past the 3rd chapter no matter how hard I tried. 

That and the Red Badge of Courage, ( :Frown:  still remembering that forced sophomore high school reading assignment) had me in tears every time I had to open it up. I'm sure it's great now that I can appreciate the story, but THEN it was the WORST book ever.

----------


## HotKarl

> That and the Red Badge of Courage, ( still remembering that forced sophomore high school reading assignment) had me in tears every time I had to open it up. I'm sure it's great now that I can appreciate the story, but THEN it was the WORST book ever.


lol. It's not like the protagonist stays and fights the second time you read it.

----------


## Scheherazade

> If you want to read really, really bad books, then try some of the recent fantasy novels. They wouldn't be all that bad, if they were two hundred pages; but they stick in an extra six hundred pages of filler, and the filler is the worst part.





> I can't stand the whole genre, even Tolkien. I think _The Hobbit_ is the only real fantasy lit I have read.


Don't know if I would call them "bad" books but I find myself unable to enjoy fantasy books as well and I am glad to see that I am not the only one.

Considering the number of people who love this genre and list _LoTR_ as their favorite I wonder why I don't like it.

----------


## PeterL

> Don't know if I would call them "bad" books but I find myself unable to enjoy fantasy books as well and I am glad to see that I am not the only one.
> 
> Considering the number of people who love this genre and list _LoTR_ as their favorite I wonder why I don't like it.


There is a huge amount of variation within the sub-genre. If you haven't read any of the recent generation of fantasy, then you should be happy. I called them "bad", because many of them are poorly written as a whole; the narrative structure. Imagine reading six hundred pages that mimic a good news report of an ax murder, without any change in the characters or the tone; that is far from a perfect analogy, but it gives the feeling. 

I wonder why people love that sub-genre. Could it be that they have never read anything better, or maybe they have lots of time to kill reading stories that just go on. There is something similar to TV soap operas to them, and some people manage to watch soaps for decades.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Considering the number of people who love this genre and list _LoTR_ as their favorite I wonder why I don't like it.


Funny, I know a lot of people in the fantasy world would consider this Blasphamous, but I am an avid fantasy reader, and yet, I do not care for Tolkien. Despite so many in fantasy heralded him as a genus, I do not find him to truly be that good of a writer. 

I acutally enjoyed the movie LOTR more than reading the books

----------


## Scheherazade

I will read almost anything... Always believed that there is a time and place for everything. I will read Harlequin or whatever between Camus and Dickens. 

I just can't seem into get into fantasy books. Recently I have been reading some Pratchett books, for example, and even though I sort of enjoy reading them at the time, I don't particularly look forward to reading the next one.

Maybe we should start another thread about this  :Smile:

----------


## moose gurl

> Funny, I know a lot of people in the fantasy world would consider this Blasphamous, but I am an avid fantasy reader, and yet, I do not care for Tolkien. Despite so many in fantasy heralded him as a genus, I do not find him to truly be that good of a writer. 
> 
> I acutally enjoyed the movie LOTR more than reading the books


Interesting. I feel the exact same way about Tolkein. I just don't like the writing. He's a great story-teller, sure, but his writing was just lacking, in my opinion. I've gotten into a lot of arguments over that one! You are the first person I've met who actually shares this opinion.

Have you read any of the DragonLance? I was really obsessed with the first three in that series in 8th grade. But only the first three. After that, they got really stale. I read a lot of fantasy in the 8th grade, but really haven't read any since then. Oh well. Not big into that genre anymore.

----------


## Dark Muse

I know the feeling, usually I am afraid if I say this around any fantasy readers I will get rotten tomatos thrown at me LOL 

I have not read any of the Dragonlance books 

Right now I am enjoying The Wheel of Time books and The Sword of Truth books

----------


## quasimodo1

Any novel or play from the "Restoration" era.

----------


## Lulim

> I said it many times but it bears being repeated..._Middlemarch_ by George Eliot. I actually did finish it though, (…)


Actually, this is my favourite book; i read it at least three times *and* I translated it into german — the result is not a very good one, though …

The worst book I read was "The Da Vincy Code" — in my opinion the most superfluous book ever …

----------


## djy78usa

> Have you read any of the DragonLance? I was really obsessed with the first three in that series in 8th grade. But only the first three.


Ah...DragonLance... I was such a DragonLance dork in elementary and middle school. In fact, I dressed as Raistlin for Halloween as a kid  :Smile:  I haven't read one of those books since _Dragons of Summer Flame_ came out in 1996...

----------


## Bramblefox

Christopher Paolini's Eragon series. No offense to him but his main character is a total Mary-sue and the story is basically Star Wars with dragons. The first book was okay, but I never could struggle through the second and I'm not even going to look at the third.

Ivanhoe was another that I just never finished. I got about half-way through and just stopped reading. Nothing was happening, and there were so many characters to keep straight...meh.

----------


## ntropyincarnate

I never could finish _War and Peace_. I will someday though! And I am currently reading a pathetic book called _The Song of an Innocent Bystander_. I'm going to finish the book, because the story's interesting, but the writing itself is awful. Lots of misused vocabulary, and poor grammar. It irritates me.

----------


## Oniw17

The Elven Exiles Series set in the Dragonlance setting was the most inane and boring thing ever.

----------


## bounty

just joined---my first post---i have not looked through what anyone else has said (i look forward to doing that), and i am almost sorry to have to say it, but moby dick and a catcher in the rye. the two worst books ive ever read.

----------


## Dark Muse

> just joined---my first post---i have not looked through what anyone else has said (i look forward to doing that), and i am almost sorry to have to say it, but moby dick and a catcher in the rye. the two worst books ive ever read.


Though I have not read Moby Dick, I am familiar with Melville's writing, and I can say I understand your feelings there, as just his short stories can be exhausting to read, though he is not the worst I have read, he is not my favorite, and I cannot imagine reading an entire novel of his. 

Though I absolutely loved Catcher in the Rye and rank it among my favorites

----------


## Equilibrium

> I said it many times but it bears being repeated..._Middlemarch_ by George Eliot. I actually did finish it though, I refused to let it beat me but it took awhile.


Really!? I just finished Middlemarch and I loved it, still, we all have different taste I suppose.

One book I've assaulted a few times but not finished is Don Quixote, got to page 390/549 last time but just drifted off to another book. Thats the trouble with long books, its much harder to just grit your teeth and wade through without loosing the will.

The worst book I've read though was Wuthering Heights, I just hated all the characters.

----------


## Bramblefox

Oh man, Don Quixote...I tried reading that when I first got into classics, got maybe five chapters in, and just stopped reading. It was way over my head at the time. I need to try again.

Another one that's terrible: Phantom of Manhattan!! That is THE MOST AWFUL Phantom book I have ever read--Forsythe must have been on something when he wrote it. Seriously.

----------


## Zybahn

> Oh, I love, love, love _Don Quixote_. And _Wuthering Heights_. And _Middlemarch_. LOL Literature is really very subjective and that's good.


I'm with you on this Antiquarian. _Wuthering Heights_, _Don Quixote_ and _Moby Dick_ are among my favourite novels. I also really liked _Lord Jim_, etc., etc., and while I haven't read _Middlemarch_ yet I own a copy and am looking forward to starting it when I get a chance.

Even though my vote for least favourite unfinished book is _Adam Bede_. I gave it a hundred and fifty pages and then gave up.

My least favourite finished book is _The Robber Bride_. I'm usually indifferent to Atwood's fiction but this was downright awful.

----------


## bounty

hi dark muse---i read billy budd and was okay with that. what i was hoping for out of moby dick was a high seas adventure, anywhere along the lines of horatio hornblower, mutiny on the bounty or the sea wolf. the latter two are amongst my favorite books. 

technically i dont know what makes a book a novel, but moby dick was so much less "story" and so much more treatise on whaling. given what youve said, im guessing you wont be reading it, so this really wont be a spoiler but my goodness, the whale himself doesnt appear until the last few pages of the book. false advertising!  :Smile:  




> Though I have not read Moby Dick, I am familiar with Melville's writing, and I can say I understand your feelings there, as just his short stories can be exhausting to read, though he is not the worst I have read, he is not my favorite, and I cannot imagine reading an entire novel of his. 
> 
> Though I absolutely loved Catcher in the Rye and rank it among my favorites

----------


## Dark Muse

I just recently got the Sea Wolf, and look forward to reading it. I love Jack London, and find him to be very interesting.

----------


## bounty

> I just recently got the Sea Wolf, and look forward to reading it. I love Jack London, and find him to be very interesting.


its been years since ive read it, i remember the story itself being pretty harsh/brutal. i'll look forward to hearing if you like it. 

theres a pretty neat star trek: the next generation episode where the characters travel back to earth's past and among other things, meet mark twain and jack london, and in fact, end up having a direct influence on london's futire in writing. its neatly done...

----------


## lakeside_girl

moby dick was probably the first classic novel i ever read and it was daunting then. good grief! but as an older student/college i had to reread it. i needed a professor to help me was what it turned out. once i learned the psychology driving it i enjoyed it thoroughly. the worst book ever for me was Northanger Abbey....oh my....i don't like jane austen's idea of a gothic good time. modern books, Where the Heart is by billie letts. everyone told me it was great. they lied.
right on..

----------


## kelby_lake

moby dick was very hard-going- although i did read it when i was 13 so...although i don't think it will be less hard-going if i re-read it now.  :Smile:

----------


## bounty

> moby dick was very hard-going- although i did read it when i was 13 so...although i don't think it will be less hard-going if i re-read it now.


my gosh yes, and the whale doesnt even appear in the book til the last few pages! ack!

----------


## Silvia

I have just finished "Cinco Horas con Mario" by Miguel Delibes.I can't claim it is the worst book I have ever read, but still, I didn't enjoy reading it at all!
I liked the first few pages a lot, but then it got sooo boring and repetitive that I actually had to force myself through it.
Now that it is over, I can finally breath!

----------


## Akeldama

"The Zero Game" by Brad Meltzer. I bought it at an airport, having read all of the other books I'd brought along. Bad idea. It's a "Government conspiracy uncovered now they run for their lives" type of plot. Poorly written. Not compelling in any way.

----------


## Dark Muse

Right now I am quite tempted to say _A Portrait of the Artist as a Yong Man_, becasue this is my second time reading it, having to read it now for school. And the frist time I read it I did not particuarly enjoy it becasue I really did not care about the character of Steven at all, and I was not drawn into the story. 

And now I am currently trying to get through Chapter 3, which is just absolutely painful, becasue it is basicaly just an entire sermon written word for word, of a priest rambling on and on and on about the same thing for a ridiculous amount of pages, when really I got the point in the first couple of paragrahs.

----------


## ThePianoMan

_Black_ by Ted Dekker. Also, _House_ by Dekker and Peretti.

----------


## samah

The Nonexistent knight by Italo Calvino.

----------


## moose gurl

> Great Expectations! Seriously, that book made me want to set it on fire.


I didn't like this book too much either. Had a hard time getting through it, but it's not the worst thing I've ever read.

----------


## Hank Stamper

the worst thing I ever read was doing it by melvin burgess... i think i managed two chapters before it went in the bin... how it was ever published i don't know... utter utter utter garbage and deserving of the gallows

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> Right now I am quite tempted to say _A Portrait of the Artist as a Yong Man_, becasue this is my second time reading it, having to read it now for school. And the frist time I read it I did not particuarly enjoy it becasue I really did not care about the character of Steven at all, and I was not drawn into the story. 
> 
> *And now I am currently trying to get through Chapter 3, which is just absolutely painful, becasue it is basicaly just an entire sermon written word for word, of a priest rambling on and on and on about the same thing for a ridiculous amount of pages, when really I got the point in the first couple of paragrahs.*


This one is meant to be painful. Joyce is setting the stage for his most lyrical and beautiful prose. Stick with it, the beauty of next chapters will amaze you. This sermon will dissolve in the sheer beauty of art. This is the whole point of this book. Go to your local library and look for _James Joyce Audio Collection_ after finishing reading the book. There is a selection from _The Portrait_ read by Cyril Cusack on CD 2. It will make you hold your breath, it will make you swoon with joy, it will make you fall madly in love with James Joyce!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...0/thelibyrinth

----------


## liesl

> the worst book ever for me was Northanger Abbey....oh my....i don't like jane austen's idea of a gothic good time.


Agreed. That being said i don't particularly enjoy any of Austen's novels. I actually gave up reading 'Sense and Sensibility' in preparation for university, but was forced to read it recently for a final year module.

I must admit that one book i always remember failing to finish was in fact 'Catch 22', and whilst i persevered and completed 'Moby Dick' i am definitely in agreement that it is a terribly trying read.

----------


## Dark Muse

> This one is meant to be painful. Joyce is setting the stage for his most lyrical and beautiful prose. Stick with it, the beauty of next chapters will amaze you. This sermon will dissolve in the sheer beauty of art. This is the whole point of this book. Go to your local library and look for _James Joyce Audio Collection_ after finishing reading the book. There is a selection from _The Portrait_ read by Cyril Cusack on CD 2. It will make you hold your breath, it will make you swoon with joy, it will make you fall madly in love with James Joyce!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...0/thelibyrinth


This was not my first time reading it, and I did not care for it the first time I read it. The second time I liked it even less. It just does not meet with my personal taste.

And I do not think we mean the same thing by "painful" it was painful for me to read becasue it was a drag and just went on and on about the same thing over and over. I got the point in the first parapgrah, it did not need to go on for a whole chapter. 

The first time I read it my mind kept wandering, and I would just check back in every once in a while to see it was still talking about hell and sin, and than let my thoughts drift again.

----------


## stlukesguild

Right now I am quite tempted to say A Portrait of the Artist as a Yong Man, becasue this is my second time reading it, having to read it now for school. And the frist time I read it I did not particuarly enjoy it becasue I really did not care about the character of Steven at all, and I was not drawn into the story.

And now I am currently trying to get through Chapter 3, which is just absolutely painful, becasue it is basicaly just an entire sermon written word for word, of a priest rambling on and on and on about the same thing for a ridiculous amount of pages, when really I got the point in the first couple of paragrahs.

Of course the argument could be made that art isn't merely about "getting the point". Certainly we could have "got the point" of War and Peace or In Search of Lost Time in far fewer words than were expended by the writers... but art isn't about "getting the point"... its not something that can be reduced to a definition or a mere menu.

----------


## Dark Muse

Yes that is true, but I just did not think it was nesscary to the story to have word for word an entire sermon. Particuarly when most of it was just repeating the same thing. So no new information was being imparted, it was the same idea and much of the same words just arranged in different ways for several pages.

----------


## cipherdecoy

Weekend In Paris - chick literature. I don't see how it's possible for any classic to be the worst book someone has read unless s/he has only read nothing but classics in his/her life.

----------


## Beautifull

Frankenstein by Shelley...
i couldn't even finish it.

----------


## Dark Muse

That is a surprising choice, I rather enjoyed it myself

----------


## Osita

I remember Nobel Laurette Wole Soyinka's "The Interpreters". It is a very difficult read. But they say it is a great work. Try it for yourself.

I have come back from my mission,
Across seven seas and seven deserts
Above mountains high above the clouds
Far from shores of Motherland
Bombs away - ordinance delivered,
Mission accomplished.
Severed limbs, smashed heads, torsos flying
Wailing, mothers searching, blinded
Children shrieking, groping 
Fathers mourning, bitter, swearing, upwards pointing.
I have come back from my mission,
To the accolade of the Big Man,
To the gratitude of country.
Nightmares, cold sweat  
Who will calm the turmoil in my soul?
Mother! Mother! Who will calm the turmoil of my soul?
I have come back from my mission,
To the accolade of the Big Man,
To the gratitude of country.

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

??????

----------


## bounty

> That is a surprising choice, I rather enjoyed it myself


hmmm, am a big fan of frankenstein too...

----------


## ThousandthIsle

> People are free to choose any book they like as "the worst," but I'm amazed at all the classics. Have none of you ever read a truly junk book? LOL
> 
> My worst reads, in order, are:
> 
> 1. _Le Mariage_ by Diane Johnson (incomprehensible)
> 2. _The Kite Runner_ by Khaled Hosseini (dramatically purple prose, one wonders how he wrote so badly)
> 3. _The Da Vinci Code_ by Dan Brown (it's just nothing but "riding in cars with boys")



Antiquarian: I agree, The Kite Runner was poorly written! It bothered me the entire time, but I made it through the book because it was a simple read, but also I found that for me, the story was strong/heavy enough to pull me to the end. It still had an impact on me, but was by no means fulfilling.

I've never gotten around to finding out for myself, but I wonder if this novel was originally written in English or not, or what Hosseini's background with the English language is? Perhaps something was lost in translation... does anyone have any info on that?

Also, I am curious about your adjective - "purple" prose! I've never heard that before but it seems to work! Why did you choose to describe it that way?  :Smile:

----------


## Mugwump101

Twilight by Stephanie Meyer, I don't see what the rave is about. It's poorly written and the characters just fantasize about each other. Oh also, Madame Bovary and The Awakening. Both books are dreadfully dull and pointless. I sense that I'm not liking a certain plot.

----------


## Dark Muse

I just began reading Madame Bovary, and though it is too soon for me to really judge. It is true that so far, nothing has really jumped out at me in the book

----------


## ThousandthIsle

> Looking back, I don't think the prose, itself, was so "purple" as the book was just totally melodramatic.


I definitely agree with you there. I can't remember the main character's name, but his courtship/marriage with his wife made me squeamish... It was definitely overly sentimental for a romance I could not care about. He was not a likable character, and I think his relationship with his wife made my stomach turn because I myself would have recoiled from someone like him. But she seemed to love him just the way he desired her to regardless.

----------


## Dark Muse

Right now I like her, but I will see what happens as the story progressess as there has not been that much of her yet, as I just got to the part where he fianlly praposed.

----------


## ben.!

For me there have been three books I can safely say I didn't enjoy at all:

_Things Fall Apart_ - Chinua Achebe - Just could not get into it. I know its all to do with African culture, but I just could not relate, their strange rituals with foo-foo yams and beating the wife and kids for acedentally dropping a bowl I just could not see point in. But then again, I think thats my western culture kicking into it.

_Snow Falling on Cedars_ - David Guterson - I found the prose in this cold and distant, the dialogue stinted, and as a reviewer rightly said on Amazon: 'The characters are about as alive as my left shoe'. The plot I found uninteresting too, and jumped around too much.

and

_Devil Wears Prada_ - Lauren Weisberger (Is that her name?) - The pinnacle of silly chick literature. I read this purely to pretend I'd seen the film of it with a friend and not the gory modern Australian adaption of _Macbeth_. Most of the novel is about a young woman who goes to her work, gets paid big bucks but whines the whole time about how her boss treats her. I spent the whole 3/4 of the novel I read thinking: 'Why doesn't she just sue her boss for harassment and defamation? Better still, change jobs? She could put the richest fashion mag job in her resume.'

Ahh, the joys of flaws in bad plots...

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

those Harlequin paperbacks  :Sick:

----------


## EricP

"Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand -- I don't understand how this book has endured and remained so popular. I knew when I picked it up that I disagreed with Rand's philosophy, but I hoped that the novel would be well-written and nuanced. Instead, I found it to be preachy and filled with one-dimensional characters.

----------


## Dark Muse

I have not read that one, but I have to say I abolutely love The Fountainhead

----------


## armenian

i can never get past the first 2 or 3 pages hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

----------


## Idril

> i can never get past the first 2 or 3 pages hitchhikers guide to the galaxy


Awww, I loved that book but I can also see how it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea. 

I just finished _Somersault_ by Kenzaburo Oe and I have to say, that was one of the hardest books for me to finish, I didn't care for it one little bit.  :Sick:

----------


## slobone

Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro. Hands down the creepiest most depressing book I've ever read. You have to give him credit for how exquisitely he crafted this piece of slime. I can't even believe I managed to finish it.

----------


## Dark Muse

That sounds intriguing

----------


## kelby_lake

> i can never get past the first 2 or 3 pages hitchhikers guide to the galaxy


I glanced at bits which I liked. I wouldn't want to read it all the way through but I enjoyed smiling at some episodes I passed.

----------


## bej6s

Books I couldn't finish: 
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
A Kestrel for a Knave by Barry Hines (British Lit)
The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison

----------


## Idril

> I thought the film would be easier, but I've tried several times and haven't been able to get through that, either. Still, I know some people who adore that film, so maybe it's "just not for us."


I think the book would be easier than the movie because there's a little more description and things flow slightly better...although even the book is pretty random and very, very silly.

----------


## slobone

> It actually sounds good to me, too. I love Ishiguro's writing and this is the only book of his I haven't yet read.


Oh, it's brilliantly written all right. Otherwise it wouldn't have been so painful to read. Kind of like Eraserhead...

Anyway, read it and get back to us. But I doubt if I'll be tackling Remains of the Day anytime soon. Apparently the movie didn't do justice to how depressing it is.




> I think the book would be easier than the movie because there's a little more description and things flow slightly better...although even the book is pretty random and very, very silly.


I think the original radio series was the best version. The movie looked pretty awful, I stopped watching after 10 minutes.

----------


## maria4645

virginia wolf-mrs. dalloway omg i had to read this book for an advanced english class and i couldnt get passed 30 pages.

----------


## prendrelemick

A Thousand Splendid Suns. Deary me, misery from start to finish.

----------


## The Comedian

I had a really, really, really hard time enduring Uncle Tom's Cabin. I know its an important historical work. And I appreciate that. But Heavens! Oh, is it ever so sentimental! The softened skin from under a poor child's tears could not tell of the immense sorrow that I had to face when this monstrous pile of sentimentally was laid heavy upon my shoulders! Woe! Woe! Exclamation points! Woes!!

----------


## applepie

I would have to say Grapes of Wrath  :Sick:  I know it is standard for high school English class, but ugh... It is the one and only book I refused to read, and I'm certain my grade for it showed. I did take time to explain to the teacher that I just simply couldn't put myself through that kind of punishment :Biggrin:

----------


## ama_li

> Also, From A Buick 8, By Stephen King. Everyone said it was such a good book, critics were wronG. It was not at all suspensful.


I feel the same

----------


## JommiL

Adolf Hitler´s Mein Kampf

Stupid, full of psychological lies, aggressive & lot of upside-down thinking, logic thinking is ridiculous - and filled with repeat, repeat, repeat...

----------


## Gretchen

The Book of Skulls by Robert Silverberg

----------


## MrRegular

Has no one here ever ventured to the sci-fi/fantasy section lately? Though, I admit, I've never read any of the entries into the HALO 2 saga, nor any of the Diablo books, but I have read a couple (yes, I am ashamed) of the Star Wars and Star Trek books in my youth. No es bueno. 
Though I must confess that the books based on the DOOM video games were surprisingly well written... Did I just say that?

----------


## pooteeweet

> I would have to say Grapes of Wrath  I know it is standard for high school English class, but ugh... It is the one and only book I refused to read, and I'm certain my grade for it showed. I did take time to explain to the teacher that I just simply couldn't put myself through that kind of punishment


Did you read it? If you didn't, how do you know it's bad? 


Patrick

The Clansman, by Thomas Dixon, Jr. - read it for a race in literature course...important read, but unsettling.


Patrick

----------


## Ashbe Maeur

> I heard that that was the best book of the year.


If this is true... then that's really sad. 

I read it myself. It's honestly barely tolerable. The only thing that kept me reading was watching a family dynamic completely crumble, that was somewhat interesting.




> I would have to say Grapes of Wrath  I know it is standard for high school English class, but ugh... It is the one and only book I refused to read, and I'm certain my grade for it showed. I did take time to explain to the teacher that I just simply couldn't put myself through that kind of punishment


So... have you ever actually read it? 

You can't say something is the worst if you haven't experienced it. :P

One of the worst books I've ever read was "The Zookeeper's Wife." The premise, and the actual backstory to the novel is powerful, but the author did a terrible job writing the book. 

The story is constantly broken up by her need to dribble quotes from obscure historical sources, that can go on for 10 or more pages, leaving you completely confused to where her characters left off. 

In short, it's a broken up, jumbled mess of a story. Maybe if it was re-written I'd like it more.




> The Monkey for Stephan king , i couldnot complete it cause it was stupied


This is a joke, right? 

... Really not trying to be mean here.

----------


## Three Sparrows

Stardust, by Neil Gaimen
 :Willy Nilly:

----------


## ktr

atlas shrugged.

---------

page one of this thread is hilarious btw -----

----------


## IceM

I still contend that Candide by Voltaire is drivel. I KNOW I got ripped for this on another thread. It wasn't intended for aesthetic value. It's a satire of (I'm confident it was, not completely sure) Liebniz's* philosophy. But still, Austen was satirical (although to the same degree) as Voltaire and her work is much more readable. Crap I thought.

----------


## eyemaker

> I would have to say Grapes of Wrath  I know it is standard for high school English class, but ugh... It is the one and only book I refused to read, and I'm certain my grade for it showed. I did take time to explain to the teacher that I just simply couldn't put myself through that kind of punishment


I'm bothered with this post.. can you emphasize reasons for having this claim? or let's just say, were you able to understand the "book" when you read it? i can't believe you're tossing this up.. 

i'm not trying to be mean here though.




> atlas shrugged.
> 
> ---------
> 
> page one of this thread is hilarious btw -----


kinda lenghy yeah, but It's not the worst for me..

----------


## ForKnowledge

Worst book I've read the Alchemist

----------


## PeterL

People keep mentioning things that are readable. Most of them aren't very good, but it is possible to read the whole thing. I defy anyone to read all of _The Last Immortal_ by J. O. Jeppson. I don't know anyone who has managed to get past the fifth page.

----------


## D.S. Poorman

A Million Little Pieces

That's when I knew how full of it Oprah Winfrey is. She picked this dreck for her BOTM Club. I picked it up off my mother's dining room table and... well, it wasn't pretty. Just bad from so many angles.

----------


## Rosie Cotton

I know I'm going to be drawn and quartered for this, but _J__ane Eyre_ by Charlotte Bronte. I hated it when I read it and want it to be cut into very small pieces, and I think the fact that everyone else loves it doesn't help me like it more.

----------


## One Gallant

Snuff by Chuck Palahniuk. It's bad to the point of parody.

----------


## MagicalSoul

Well, The most boring book that I couldn't complete is Lord of the Flies by William Golding. 
I don't know the reason, I was reading it in order to improve my English, I couldn't complete it though. Maybe because it's about a group of kids, or maybe it's meant to be for children. I don't know. *shrugs*

----------


## Imaginarium

I think we can all concur that the Twilight series was a disgrace to literature.

----------


## D.S. Poorman

Imaginarium, did you catch any of the online backlash when Stephen King dared to say that Stephanie Meyers is a bad writer? The hell storm was so amusing to see. I was already a SK fan but I would like to buy him dinner for that.

----------


## MagicalSoul

> I think we can all concur that the Twilight series was a disgrace to literature.


I'm really happy to hear this of someone, at last! 

I always hated Twilight and really didn't get why it's compared to Harry Potter worldwide sucessfull books. I am a fan of HP, and couldn't go through Twilight without rolling with laghter when Edward glittered  :Smilielol5: 

Anyways, Twilight is a romance story with a too simple plot I waited for some actions to be done but alas it all ends up well at the end of each chapter.

Let fans of Twilight forgive me, but I truly can't digest this series.

----------


## Babak Movahed

Twlight! This series made me truly nauseated, someone should tell Meyer to never ever ever write a book again.

----------


## Rosie Cotton

I took it as us not even gracing Twilight with the honors of being considered a book.

----------


## Il Dante

When I've read all the books in the world I'll get back to you on this... :Wink5: 

I can't be sure of the worst books, but I can say some of their characteristics.
I think it's time for a...
 :Rant: 

The mediocre author always overdescribes conversations. Exhibit A:
_"Well, I'd better be going now," said Randall nervously as he took a glance over his shoulder.
"Oh no, you mustn't leave," said Mrs. Connors warmly with a twinkly in her eye as she set a plate of scones down on the table. "You simply must stay for tea!"
"No, I really have got to go," said Randall, turning pale.
"Oh I insist," said Mrs. Connors with a flick of the wrist. "You wouldn't turn down my hospitality," she asked curtly._
What the author really wants to write here is a movie screenplay, not a book, because movies are good at showing things (like flicks of the wrist and glancing over the shoulder) while books are good at telling things. Of course, the author absolutely HAD to include that "flick of the wrist": it was part of the intrinsic essence of the story.

The mediocre author also makes the mortal mistake of describing emotions. Exhibit B:
_Her heart sank. The whole world felt like a whirl and all her love seemed to seep out like water down a sink drain. All she felt was her extreme nothingness and a desire to change things. There was a pain in her heart, and it was almost unbearable._
This author does not understand that it is futile to use words to describe emotions; rather, you must use words to _convey_ emotion.

The mediocre author dutifully uses as many literary cliches as possible, such as...
1. When a girl is nervous, she bites her lip.
2. When a boy blushes, his face "turns bright red"; but when a girl blushes "all the blood rushes to her face."
3. Every benevolent grandfather has a twinkle in his eye.
4. If you hear a "cry" that scares you, it is always "blood curdling"; but, if you are scared and let out a "cry" it is never "blood curdling"; if anything, it is "piercing."
5. When a character is scared, they turn pale; this holds regardless of skin color or tan.
6. If a young man is handsome, his eyes are always "dark."
7. You may use a thesaurus. But NEVER, under ANY circumstances, are you to use it to find a synonym for the word "beautiful."
8. Descriptions of scenery must be made as long and excruciatingly detailed as possible.
9. If machine-guns are involved (they usually aren't) their sound must be described as "incessant" and as a "rattle."
10. When a boy and girl first meet, it is imperative that this first meeting be as awkward and "embarrassing" as possible, with much "face turning bright red" and "all the blood rushing to her cheeks."

The mediocre author may also fall into the following traps:
1. Insert lots of foreign-language sentences and phrases. This has the advantage of demonstrating how smart the author is.
2. All characters must talk and think exactly like the author.

Finally, the mediocre author adheres to this motto religiously: leave no noun unmodified; and may no verb suffer the loneliness of not having an adverb as companion.

----------


## Mr.lucifer

What are pershap the worst books of all time? I disallow mainstream popular fiction because its too easy and mainstream novels tend to be mediocre at worst. The true **** tends to deservedly obscure.

I say one of the worst books of all time is Rah and the muggles.

----------


## the silent x

I think it may come down to perspective, I know a couple of people that love my nomination, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek by Annie Dillard (give a crazy woman a pen after getting her high on every drug known to man and you might come close to the terrible ramblingness).

----------


## humpty dumpty

One of the books that I had to struggle to finish was Emma, by Jane Austin. I know it's considered to be one of her best, but it didn't keep me interested long enough. It took me six months to finish the book (  :Biggrin:  ) and that only because I felt I HAD to finish it!!!  :Tongue:

----------


## tiredstudent

ok, well it was kinda semi, not really mainstream... but

Cirque du freak series was the worst i have EVER read. and thats a considerable amount.

*and the expression is mediocre at BEST. you basically said that mainstream books are actually good and that the Worst one is mediocre

----------


## Mr.lucifer

> ok, well it was kinda semi, not really mainstream... but
> 
> Cirque du freak series was the worst i have EVER read. and thats a considerable amount.
> 
> *and the expression is mediocre at BEST. you basically said that mainstream books are actually good and that the Worst one is mediocre


I meant what I say. At best mainstream ficiton is pretty good, the most are average, and the rest is mediocre. The truly bad stuff is just obscure. Being mainstream is neither a a measure of mediocrity. Jk rowling and stephen king for master writers, nor either are they mediocre.

----------


## Gizlam

Alright people!

It's easy to talk about what books you love and what excites you and makes you bubble with happiness.

But what books have you read and been seriously dissapointed with. What books have you stopped reading halfway because the plot lines or language or whatever have bored you.

This is not a place, I repeat, this is not a place for you to slag off books and just call them rubbish. We need reasons people! Was it the narrative? the realistic quality of the book? The characters? The writing? the list is endless.

Personally i find that talking about books that you dont like can be more interesting than waffling on about great ones. Especially if someone disagrees!

So whether its a Meyer vampire volume or a Chekov classic lets get them red pens out and make constructive criticsm.

(sorry for bad spelling)

Personally for me it is Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace.

The plot line = Fantastic
The Language = Fantastic
The Characters = Too Many

Although I'm a sucker for a non linear narrative this was too much for me. The amount of jumping between characters and what they were doing confused me and caused a lot of flicking through the novel to remember. Also being a book of 1000 pages it meant a lot of flicking especially to where the footnotes where. I felt as i was reading a make your own horror story goosebumps book like i did as a child.

I'm annoyed at myself for not finishing it as im sure the characters would of blended into one anothers narratives. However, at the time I was so confused and could only have the book out for 3 weeks so I had to stop.

One day I will return to it anad power through.

----------


## Dark Muse

The Outlander by Diana Gabaldon

The only reason why I did not throw the book against the wall mid-way through, and than maybe use it to start a bonfire and dance around it (Ok that last part may be a slight exaggeration) was because I was reading it for an online discussion group so I pushed myself through it to the end. 

One of the biggest problems is the fact that I don't do romance, but I had been led to believe by others that the book was more than just a romance, and was a really good Historical Fiction which is one of my favorite genres, so I decided to give it a chance, and found it to be just awful. 

For one thing through the entire book I wanted someone to push the narrator off the side of a cliff because I found her unbearable, she was the most useless and incomptant heroine ever. 

The writing was bad, the character development was lacking for me, and there is one section of the book in which there is literally like 5 chapters of sex, and I am no prude, but it did nothing to enhance the story, it was just there to wave sex in front of the reader like a shiny object, in addition the book was already longer than it needed to be, so I began to just skip over those parts because they were irrelevant, and not reading them made the book a whole lot shorter.

----------


## papayahed

> The Outlander by Diana Gabaldon
> 
> The only reason why I did not throw the book against the wall mid-way through, and than maybe use it to start a bonfire and dance around it (Ok that last part may be a slight exaggeration) was because I was reading it for an online discussion group so I pushed myself through it to the end. 
> 
> One of the biggest problems is the fact that I don't do romance, but I had been led to believe by others that the book was more than just a romance, and was a really good Historical Fiction which is one of my favorite genres, so I decided to give it a chance, and found it to be just awful. 
> 
> For one thing through the entire book I wanted someone to push the narrator off the side of a cliff because I found her unbearable, she was the most useless and important heroine ever. 
> 
> The writing was bad, the character development was lacking for me, and there is one section of the book in which there is literally like 5 chapters of sex, and I am no prude, but it did nothing to enhance the story, it was just there to wave sex in front of the reader like a shiny object, in addition the book was already longer than it needed to be, so I began to just skip over those parts because they were irrelevant, and not reading them made the book a whole lot shorter.



pffwwww. I picked this book up several times, I'm glad I didn't buy it. I did however get it free for my Kindle, luckily that can be easily remedied.

----------


## Syd A

> Dickens because he's boring, slow and depressing. 
> 
> [/scathing]


Dickens is depressing??? Practically all of his novels have a nauseatingly happy ending!

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> Dickens is depressing??? Practically all of his novels have a nauseatingly happy ending!


_A Tale of Two Cities_, all that death in the French Revolution and ends with a man sacrificing his life for another?

All the despair shown in the workplace and abuse in _Oliver Twist_ and _David Copperfield?_

Even the greed in _A Christmas Carol_ which was NOT written so much to be the easy-TV morality play it is, but rather a commentary on folks like Scrooge and how they think..."decrease the surplus population" and all that.

There isn't the adjective "Dickensian" for nothing...

The worst I've ever read?

Well, I read plenty of schlock books in high school because they required them (yes, that's good education...) but the "classic" that I honestly felt was the worst of that kidn that I've read, that I really would dispute calling a classic?

_Ethan Frome_ by Edith Wharton.

ATROCIOUS pacing.
OVERLY-DESCRIPTIVE (and this from someone who doesn't care for that style from Hawthorne or Conrad but can at least respect that their form is decent, THIS is just a mess, description over storytelling.)
FLAT dialogue.
STILTED description (add that to the fact I think there's TOO MUCH description, and you can begin to see why I loathe this book so.)
DULL protagonist (I understand Frome is a very reserved man, but really he gomes across as being so reserved and so introverted that he honestly is not a very relatable character, his SITUATION is relatable, loves a woman that's not his wife and that wife is not-so-nice, but really we can identify with that not because Wharton makes Frome identifiable but because that's an age-old theme for mankind and literature itself, everyone from Homer to Shakespeare to the moderns have used that, FROME is just not a dynamic character.)

The ONLY thing I can credit Wharton for is her setting, not only where and when but the wintery scenery she plays _Ethan Frome_ agaisnt, really does come across as not only a believable setting but also very much approporiate for the despair the novel TRIES to convey, that symbolsim isn't attained effectively as the other elements fall flat, but at least the setting gets us a bit of the way there.

But other than that, _Ethan Frome_ is out in the cold.

----------


## Syd A

> _A Tale of Two Cities_, all that death in the French Revolution and ends with a man sacrificing his life for another?
> 
> All the despair shown in the workplace and abuse in _Oliver Twist_ and _David Copperfield?_
> 
> Even the greed in _A Christmas Carol_ which was NOT written so much to be the easy-TV morality play it is, but rather a commentary on folks like Scrooge and how they think..."decrease the surplus population" and all that.
> 
> There isn't the adjective "Dickensian" for nothing...


That's 19th-century England for you. Would you rather he had written about well-fed, happy orphans who play in the meadows all day long? Dickens had to be at least a little bit realistic. At least his novels had a happy ending; most orphans didn't have that happy ending at the time, I assume.

One of the most powerful scenes in all of English literature is that of Sydney Carton giving his life for a man he considers his better, a man who still has a chance at happiness. How could you not love that ending?

----------


## stlukesguild

300+ responses to the "Worst Book You've Ever Read"... with half the responses or more naming some classic book that has survived the for generations for some reason. Surely the real title of the thread should be "Books I Personally Didn't Like (for whatever reason... but rarely having to do with issues of artistic merit) or Understand." :Biggrin:

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> That's 19th-century England for you. Would you rather he had written about well-fed, happy orphans who play in the meadows all day long? Dickens had to be at least a little bit realistic. At least his novels had a happy ending; most orphans didn't have that happy ending at the time, I assume.
> 
> One of the most powerful scenes in all of English literature is that of Sydney Carton giving his life for a man he considers his better, a man who still has a chance at happiness. How could you not love that ending?


Wait...I said all that defending Dickens' work, so...why are you asking ME if I'd rather the orphans were all happy and fed and everything was peachy-keen, I just went on about how thematic Dickens' work is.




> 300+ responses to the "Worst Book You've Ever Read"... with half the responses or more naming some classic book that has survived the for generations for some reason. Surely the real title of the thread should be "Books I Personally Didn't Like (for whatever reason... but rarely having to do with issues of artistic merit) or Understand."


I'd challenge that--I understand what Wharton was trying to accomplish with _Ethan Frome_, I just think she failed as the plot is slow to develop, unrewarding and trite when it does, the pacing is simply atrocious, nearly all of the characters unrelatable, flat, or both, Wharton's obsession with over-narration and over-description make the work feel even more distant, which CAN work if you've a protagonist like Frome who is by his very nature distant, but NOT when the pace and lack of convincing characterization have already made him so distant...

I don't dislike Wharton's work because of a personal reason, or a failure to "understand it," but rather because I view it as an artistic failure on Wharton's part. Wharton was a good writer, but _Ethan Frome_ is simply a failed attempt and, to compound matters, many other, perhaps better writers have done the same sort of story--and better.

----------


## LuggageFan

Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger. Book about a spoiled brat being raised in New York, who's going through puberty and learns how to swear, and it was bad because everyone raves about it like it's mindblowing, and it's just a dated, mediocre, 6th grade reading level book about a spoiled brat whose familiarity with things like unemployment begins and ends with the letters U and T. Really, just a major, major disappointment, and that's what makes it so bad - if it had been a forgotten book, and I'd read it, I'd likely have a different assessment.

To paraphrase a comment about the book on Amazon: Why has everyone told me how fine his threads are when this emperor is wearing no clothes?

----------


## Syd A

> 300+ responses to the "Worst Book You've Ever Read"... with half the responses or more naming some classic book that has survived the for generations for some reason.


The argument from tradition is the weakest argument you could make. Next you'll tell us that Harry Potter is a masterpiece because it sold a jillion copies.

----------


## AlfredtheGreat

Last Exit to Brooklyn by Hubert Selby Jr.
Written in a terrible style.

----------


## Mr.lucifer

Ever since I discovered ray carney, I've wondered if its actually possible to critically challenge any artistic canon. Don't get me wrong I have never hated a classic. At worst, a classic simply does not move me.

----------


## Kyriakos

I vaguely remember feeling appalled by a copy of I spit on your graves. 
Stopped reading it soon afterwards...

----------


## stlukesguild

The argument from tradition is the weakest argument you could make. Next you'll tell us that Harry Potter is a masterpiece because it sold a jillion copies.

Sorry, but the argument as to the numbers sold is the worst possible argument you could possibly make. If a work survives the ages, on the other hand, it is because generations of literary critics and other "experts", subsequent writers, and subsequent generations of readers have found that the work continues to resonate. Your personal opinions or mine are largely meaningless as to whether a given work will survive as part of the "canon". The fact that a work of art has survived, however, leads one to suppose that it has some real merits whether a given individual is enthralled with the work or not. This does not mean we must, can, or even should be expected to like every work of art that has survived. However, one does open oneself to a certain degree of incredulity when one makes a proclamation that this "classic" novel or that "classic" poem is the "worst book I ever read" (as opposed to simply a book that I disliked). The tradition or canon need not be defended. It is the opinion that challenges the tradition that needs to make a argument that is somewhat better reasoned out than "It was boring" or "It sucks". Lacking this, the first thought that comes to mind when someone declares, "It was the worst book I ever read" is "Hmmm... I wonder what books this person actually has read... and which ones they actually understood."

----------


## Silas Thorne

Perhaps a lot of people can't really remember the worst books that they've ever read (as worst would imply unremarkable and boring too), but can only recall well-known ones that they didn't like?

----------


## stlukesguild

I've wondered if its actually possible to critically challenge any artistic canon.

Certainly... but such a criticism demands more than the personal opinion: "I found it boring", "I didn't like the characters" "I didn't like the ending." It must also be understood that a work that has survived as part of the canon has done so because a great number of literary "experts"... be they academics, critics, "common readers" in the manner in which Virginia Woolf defined the term, and subsequent writers... felt and continue to feel the work is of real merit. You may find it difficult to convince these others and of course you open yourself to their counter opinions.

----------


## kaleidotroph

I find that Erewhon by Samuel Butler is one of the dullest books I've ever read. His satire is mostly amusing; however, his writing is terribly bland. I'd categorize reading Erewhon as cruel and unusual punishment...inflicted by myself, on myself. I suppose I'm a masochist now.

----------


## Seasider

Finnegans Wake and anything by Gertrude Stein. Both utterly incomprehensible.

----------


## mal4mac

In 'serious' literature camp. Henry James' "The Wings of a Dove" is now, for me, tying with the Bible, Lucretius, Joyce's Ulysses and Proust. Desert island reading if the island is in hell...

How can you know if something is good or bad? Who could have thought Montaigne could be so good and Lucretius so bad, or that Dickens could be so good while Henry James is so bad? Guess you just have to read fifty pages and then give up if it feels like shovelling mud on the banks of the Styx. Helps to lose opinions like "James is a classic, I *should* read him."... Doesn't make the next hundred pages any better!

----------


## Patrick_Bateman

Dickens is good????????????????????????

interesting....

----------


## Oli

As you like it - Shakespeare sold out

----------


## Joyeuse

My least favorite book by far is John Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_. It's really a shame, too, because the book started out with this really nice poem by Bunyan. But then the man descends into this abject, ridiculous allegory. I understand, the point of the novel was to teach readers how to be good Christians, but really, it gets to be a bit much. The constant quoting of the Bible I can handle--I've really got to accept the work for what it's trying to accomplish--but I'd also been told that it also worked as an adventure novel. And it is the furthest thing from interesting in that respect.

A much better novel with a religious undertones is _Journey to the West_. You've got all the desire to teach people how to live morally, but at the same time you've got fun adventures filled with interesting characters. In contrast, what does Bunyan give his reader? Other than cardboard characters and heavy-handed allegories, he doesn't give much.

I'll admit, there's one redeeming aspect. Some of the phrases he used, such as the "Slough of Despond," and "Vanity Fair," were really pretty good. However, five interesting words and one good poem do not a good book make. Therefore, I'm going to have to label _Pilgrim's Progress_ as a FAIL.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> In 'serious' literature camp. Henry James' "The Wings of a Dove" is now, for me, tying with the Bible, Lucretius, Joyce's Ulysses and Proust. Desert island reading if the island is in hell...
> 
> How can you know if something is good or bad? Who could have thought Montaigne could be so good and Lucretius so bad, or that Dickens could be so good while Henry James is so bad? Guess you just have to read fifty pages and then give up if it feels like shovelling mud on the banks of the Styx. Helps to lose opinions like "James is a classic, I *should* read him."... Doesn't make the next hundred pages any better!


James is hit-or-miss with me. I took a class and found I enjoyed about half of what we read, and could barely finish half. Then I looked at the publication dates of the works I liked and the works I didn't like. 

Turns out the works I enjoyed were all his early to middle works, while the ones I didn't like and found dreadfully boring all fit into his later period works.

----------


## dfloyd

They always contain works which are generally considered among those which the well-educated person should certainly read. They may not be the best, but they certainly provide a base for expanding literary capabilities. And they separate the seasoned reader from the dilletant. They also give the frustrated reader a podium for venting his/her feelings which heretofore have not been expressed.

----------


## inbetween

the worst book I ever read is propably the one I was forced to read for english major... kate greenville's the secret river.... 
quite philosophical content but awfull stile... awfull!
and I read a book that made me skipp a houndred pages ('t was melmoth the wanderer from oscar wilds grand uncle...) and the secret river is even worse 
no matter what the NEW YORKER says, don't try it!!!!

----------


## ariella

'Dharma bums' jack Kerouac, I've explained why on other threads.
'Wasp Factory' iain banks, really not my thing at all, not that I read the whole thing so maybe it got better, since some people seem to like it.
'The Lovely Bones' alice sebold, for obvious reasons.

----------


## Jassy Melson

The worst book I've ever read is a biography of Charles Wesley. I can't even think of the author. It was so badly written and just plain dull that it was a real chore to read it.

----------


## mona amon

New Moon by Stephanie Meyer. **Yawn**  :Yawn:

----------


## Ane

God, I read so much dire crud when I reviewed books. 

One of the worst was "Beat the Reaper" by Josh Bazell, which was basically just a literary penis enlarger. I was also forced to read various chick-lit bestsellers and it made me depressed how these gender stereotypes (which I find negative), both male and female, are preserved and strengthened through books. "Bergdorf Blondes" one of them was called. Oh the HORROR!

----------


## wat??

I found both 'Mere Christianity' by C.S Lewis and 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins to be very instructive in how to conduct a terrible argument based on ill drawn conclusions, but not very enjoyable. And while I'm sure that I have read worse books than these two, none have made as ugly an impression on me.

----------


## Alexander III

I utterly loathed Robinson Crusoe, I know it is one of the first novels in english, yet Defoe's writing and style was pretty much like the Dan Brown of the 18th century.

Also Have to agree that Dawkins The God Delusion, was quite ridiculous, it seems like in the book he assumes we are all of a highly limited intelligence, as most of his arguments are quite laughable. And seeing interviews of him doesn't help this image I have. His entire book, can be outdone by one Shakespeare quote, "there is more in heaven and earth Horatio, than your philosophies can dream of"

----------


## Kafka's Crow

Pillars of the Earth

Wooden characters, horrible coincidences and unlikely happenings, if this writer is so "good" then I am James Joyce!

----------


## bohn

Catch-22.

----------


## wat??

Oh please.

----------


## Ane

> I found both 'Mere Christianity' by C.S Lewis and 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins to be very instructive in how to conduct a terrible argument based on ill drawn conclusions, but not very enjoyable. And while I'm sure that I have read worse books than these two, none have made as ugly an impression on me.


Is this because you're a believer or because you thought they were poorly written? I haven't read either, so it's not to defend them, I'm merely curious, probably because I read a book by two Danish guys who wrote about us evil atheists and well, naturally that would make my list of one of the worst, but more out of personal convictions than taste. Which made me wonder how we even distinguish that and maybe it's subject for a completely different thread, I don't know  :Smile:

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

Desperate Characters by Paula Fox

Reviews of this one are almost unanimously positive, but I just could not enjoy it at all. If you look around you'll see people praising the prose as being worthy of Fitzgerald, it's the perfect length, gripping portayal of middle class ennui, etc., but it simply did not resonate with me.

To be fair, I was tiring of postmodern literature so it may have been a timing thing, but I just can't believe that I'm the only person who didn't get into this one.

----------


## Veho

> Oh please.


Never heard of it.

----------


## wat??

> Is this because you're a believer or because you thought they were poorly written? I haven't read either, so it's not to defend them, I'm merely curious, probably because I read a book by two Danish guys who wrote about us evil atheists and well, naturally that would make my list of one of the worst, but more out of personal convictions than taste. Which made me wonder how we even distinguish that and maybe it's subject for a completely different thread, I don't know


'Mere Christianity' is actually written in support of faith, despite the misleading name. And no, I am not religious myself.

----------


## Ane

> 'Mere Christianity' is actually written in support of faith, despite the misleading name. And no, I am not religious myself.


Ah my bad. Does correspond better with all the christian motifs in the Narnia books.

----------


## RaoulDuke

_Atlas Shurgged_ is probably the most tedious book I've ever read. I actually agree with a lot of Ayn Rand's Objectivist ideas, but the book was hopelessly repetitive and the characters were awfully black and white.

----------


## kelby_lake

> In 'serious' literature camp. Henry James' "The Wings of a Dove" is now, for me, tying with the Bible, Lucretius, Joyce's Ulysses and Proust. Desert island reading if the island is in hell...
> 
> How can you know if something is good or bad? Who could have thought Montaigne could be so good and Lucretius so bad, or that Dickens could be so good while Henry James is so bad? Guess you just have to read fifty pages and then give up if it feels like shovelling mud on the banks of the Styx. Helps to lose opinions like "James is a classic, I *should* read him."... Doesn't make the next hundred pages any better!


I loved The Wings of a Dove but the thing with James is that his novels take a LONG time to get going. Once they do, they're great. Definitely watch the film of the novel, at least. It's one of the saddest stories I've ever read.

To Kill A Mockingbird is very overrated.

----------


## kryssi_nykki

a kestrel for a knave was the worst book i have EVER read.... and i only read it because i was forced to... those damned lit teachers....

----------


## Emmy Castrol

The Handmaiden's Tale by Margaret Atwood. 

I know it's not the futuristic, totalitarian state setting because I like Orwell. I just can't read anything by Margaret Atwood, Helen Garner or Virginia Woolf without feeling like I want their main characters (and the writers of them) to perish out of existence. I cannot understand their kind of femaleness at all, similar to how I feel about Australia's first female prime minister, actually.

----------


## Alexander III

> The Handmaiden's Tale by Margaret Atwood. 
> 
> I know it's not the futuristic, totalitarian state setting because I like Orwell. I just can't read anything by Margaret Atwood, Helen Garner or Virginia Woolf without feeling like I want their main characters (and the writers of them) to perish out of existence. I cannot understand their kind of femaleness at all, similar to how I feel about Australia's first female prime minister, actually.


I know, geeeez who keeps on letting these women out of the kitchen ?

----------


## Seasider

I thought _The Life of Pi_ was the worst Booker Prizewinner I ever read until I remembered _The Bone People_ I would have included _Midnight's Children_ but I couldn't get past the first 50 pages.

----------


## mal4mac

> I loved The Wings of a Dove but the thing with James is that his novels take a LONG time to get going. Once they do, they're great. Definitely watch the film of the novel, at least. It's one of the saddest stories I've ever read.


I thought the film was excellent. The plot was great, I just found the soul-searching style excruciatingly slow. I might try one of his early novels - is "Portrait of a Lady" easier to get through?

Anyone prepared to defend Lucretius? I found the Roman physics in De Rerum natura stultifyingly boring - as well as wrong! The Epicurean morality (of course) was excellent, but that only ran to a few pages... At least I saw why the Christians didn't bother burning that one... two hundred pages of Roman physics makes even Christian metaphysics look good...

----------


## Emil Miller

[QUOTE=mal4mac;1022247]I thought the film was excellent. The plot was great, I just found the soul-searching style excruciatingly slow. I might try one of his early novels - is "Portrait of a Lady" easier to get through? /QUOTE]

I haven't read Portrait of a Lady but you might care to read The Europeans or Washington Square which are considerably less verbose than James' other work. Whilst there is no way in which I would spend time reading Wings of a Dove or The Golden Bowl, his shorter novels make pleasant if not gripping reading with the possible exception of The Turn of the Screw.

----------


## Seasider

I liked _What Daisy Knew_ very much. And _The Bostonians_. The DVD is great with Vanessa Redgrave among others. (well she's a recommendation in my view, though I know it's controversial )

----------


## Calidore

Confederacy of Dunces. It won a Pulitzer, and it was absolute crap. Unpleasant people behaving unpleasantly, who you were apparently supposed to laugh at contemptuously.

----------


## Buffalo Girl

The Kite Runner. The beginning was actually quite enjoyable, but by the middle of the book the writing seems to get sloppy, and the plot gets more ridiculous as the story progresses. Several times I found myself saying "you have got to be kidding me" as the plot "unfolded" (although that is perhaps a generous description of the way the plot moves from the middle of the book forward). Such a disappointment, although I know there are many who would disagree.

----------


## G L Wilson

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It was a layer cake of rubbish. BTW I am an atheist.

----------


## oanna

Veronika Decides to Die - Paulo Coelho
It took me 2 hours to read it and I was quite disappointed.

----------


## ChicagoReader

Huck Fin, I read it early on in high school and absolutely despised it. I've been trying to will myself to give it another go but with so many enticing books on my shelf it doesn't look like it will get a chance anytime soon.

----------


## Fafnir

The worst 'literary' book I've read is American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis.
I don't think it's a poorly written book and I understand what Ellis was trying to achieve, I just really disliked the graphic descriptions of torture, rape and mutilation which are abundant throughout. 
It's strange because I consider myself rather open-minded about violence in visual arts such as movies or even videogames however, with this book, instead of being a mere bystander to the carnage, we experience the murders _as_ Patrick Bateman, a perspective which I found quite disturbing.
Besides the violence, Ellis paints a thoroughly loathsome picture of 80's 'yuppie' society. There was not one single likable character in the whole novel.

If it is the purpose of art to provoke strong reactions then Ellis succeeded admirably with me. What I'm saying doesn't diminish from his abilities as a writer, yet I still dislike the novel itself. It may not be the worst book I've read from a technical perspective but it's one of the books that I've least enjoyed. 

If anyone is wondering, I _have_ seen the movie and I really enjoyed it, Christian Bale was great as Bateman. The condensed version of the 'Morning Routine' monologue was better in the movie than it was in the novel.

----------


## aliengirl

"The Inscrutable Americans" by Anurag Mathur is the worst book I've ever read. A pure waste of time! The only consolation I have is that I was not so foolish as to buy it or borrow it. A friend lend it to me and I think she did it with the best of intentions. The whole story revolves around a young man who goes to US for higher studies. But his sole purpose is to lose his virginity somehow which certainly does not happen till the last page. Most of the pages seem to be taken from some porn magazine. The author tries to be witty but he forgets that wit also needs some peg to hang on. I read to the end only because I don't like to leave any book unfinished and also to save others from the trouble. Oh, my three precious hours!

----------


## mastermind23

Catcher in the Rye. The most boring, pointless, about nothing book ever!




> I thought The Life of Pi was the worst Booker Prize winner I ever read


Agreed. Another terribly boring one.

----------


## Adolescent09

Oscar Wilde's absolute ABOMINATION which is 'The Picture of Dorian Gray'. More predictable than the outcome of a teenage boy stroking his package, more mundane than the wait for christ's second coming, and about as sad as a man who has won the Jackpot.

----------


## Yulehesays

Probably The Road by Cormac McCarthy, or Blood Meridian by the same perpetrator.

----------


## Desolation

> Oscar Wilde's absolute ABOMINATION which is 'The Picture of Dorian Gray'. More predictable than the outcome of a teenage boy stroking his package, more mundane than the wait for christ's second coming, and about as sad as a man who has won the Jackpot.


Best dismissal of a classic book ever.

----------


## romeoindespair

I haven't read that many bad books but I guess if I had to pick Enders game

I don't know how to put this but Ender doesn't feel like a real person to me. I get that he's supposed to be a tactical genius but there comes a point where he feels too perfect. From day one it feels like he's one step ahead of everyone.

----------


## Pompey Bum

_The Kindly Ones_ by Jonathan Littell. About a gay Nazi who drinks his own diarrhea. Very highly regarded in France.

----------


## romeoindespair

> The worst 'literary' book I've read is American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis.
> I don't think it's a poorly written book and I understand what Ellis was trying to achieve, I just really disliked the graphic descriptions of torture, rape and mutilation which are abundant throughout. 
> It's strange because I consider myself rather open-minded about violence in visual arts such as movies or even videogames however, with this book, instead of being a mere bystander to the carnage, we experience the murders _as_ Patrick Bateman, a perspective which I found quite disturbing.


I really don't get how people can get on AP for violence when I think its barely 13 pages of all 400.

----------


## Marbles

Not sure about _the_ worst book but Martin Amis' Money gave me plenty of headache. There are flashes of interesting writing but its characters are mirror images of one another, flat and indistinguishable, all silly maniacs. At no point apart from the opening scene of the chase did it pique my interest and I can't wrap my head around the fact that it's much lauded, so much so that Penguin published it as 'modern classics'.

----------


## Poetaster

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I can't believe I bothered to finish it.

----------


## Eiseabhal

I've read so many rubbish books that I forget most. Almost any blockbuster is as dispensable as a newspaper. They aren't even suitable for wrapping round a fish supper.

----------


## tonywalt

Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver. Flat protagonist and other cartoonish characters - in the midst of historical events that i already knew about.

----------


## Poetaster

> Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I can't believe I bothered to finish it.


Since posting this, I have actually gone back and read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover. I wish I hadn't bothered, it's still the worst book I've ever read.

----------


## Eiseabhal

Poetaster, that qualifies as masochism

----------


## Marbles

> Since posting this, I have actually gone back and read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover. I wish I hadn't bothered, it's still the worst book I've ever read.


It's on #78 on LitNet Top 100 books. I have not read it but now I'm interested. How did it find a place in top 100 and be such a terrible book...hmmm.

----------


## Lykren

I have never heard anyone whose opinion I trust have a single good word to say about Ayn Rand or anything she wrote.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I have never heard anyone whose opinion I trust have a single good word to say about Ayn Rand or anything she wrote.


Admittedly, I have read only less controversial works of Rand, _We, the Living_ and _Anthem_ but I found her work juvenile at best. One of these days, I will go ahead and read _The Fountainhead_  and _Atlas Shrugged_ as well but I often wonder whether she's given more prominence and credit than she deserves.

Had these works were written, say, by an American author, do you think they would have been received in the same manner?

----------


## Jancarlo

11 Minutes by Coehlo... A girl I was seeing recommended it. It's been like 3 years, to this day, still the worst book I have read.

----------


## Poetaster

> Poetaster, that qualifies as masochism


Oh, it does! Believe me.




> It's on #78 on LitNet Top 100 books. I have not read it but now I'm interested. How did it find a place in top 100 and be such a terrible book...hmmm.


The philosophy behind it is juvenile, and the writing is abysmal. Greed is good, that's all you need to know about it really. 

I'm not going to say give it a miss, but trust me it's an awful novel.

----------


## papayahed

It's still Orlando by Virginia Woolf

----------


## TheAlertDriver

Anything by Coehlo, I've read 3 of his books, Veronika Decides To Die, The Alchemist and 11 Minutes, 11 Minutes being the worst of the three.

----------


## lichtrausch

> Anything by Coehlo, I've read 3 of his books, Veronika Decides To Die, The Alchemist and 11 Minutes, 11 Minutes being the worst of the three.


Why do you do that to yourself? After reading 2/3rds of _The Alchemist_ I knew I was done with Coehlo.

----------


## Marbles

> The philosophy behind it is juvenile, and the writing is abysmal. Greed is good, that's all you need to know about it really. 
> 
> I'm not going to say give it a miss, but trust me it's an awful novel.


I'm probably not going to read it in the coming years. I value LitNet members suggestions and opinions. Thanks!

----------


## TheAlertDriver

> Why do you do that to yourself? After reading 2/3rds of _The Alchemist_ I knew I was done with Coehlo.


The Alchemist was the last one I read before completely giving up on him. I guess at the time I pushed myself to read his works since he's such a celebrated author around here (where I live) so I wanted to see what fuss was about.

----------


## Scheherazade

> The Alchemist was the last one I read before completely giving up on him. I guess at the time I pushed myself to read his works since he's such a celebrated author around here (where I live) so I wanted to see what fuss was about.


Same here. I am truly at a loss that why his sugar-coated, cliche-ridden, pseudo-philosophical and psychological works are proving to be so popular.

----------


## TheAlertDriver

Haha sugar-coated and cliche-ridden indeed. His writing is straight forward with a simple inspirational message underneath. I think he appeals to people who are just starting to get into literature. If that's the case I guess he'll serve as an introduction then they'll move on to bigger things.

----------


## Vota

Heart of darkness. Bored me, and I found Conrad's style very difficult to get into sync with. I remember having to adjust to Melville, but then really enjoying it in Moby Dick.

Catch-22. Jeez, not funny at all in my opinion. Hated Yossarian.

The Last of the Mohicans. If you've seen the movie with Daniel Day Lewis, then don't bother with the book, as the movie is so far above it as to make any kind of comparison unfair to the movie.

----------


## WriterMan

Probably the "great American novel" named The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, written by Mark Twain.

It's abysmal, and vastly overrated. I can't see how anyone ever made it past page one, but I know I sure tried. When I made it to the end, I realized that the only thing I had gotten out of reading it was a hatred for Huck Finn.

I will try Tom Sawyer, eventually.

----------


## Lykren

> Probably the "great American novel" named The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, written by Mark Twain.
> 
> It's abysmal, and vastly overrated. I can't see how anyone ever made it past page one, but I know I sure tried. When I made it to the end, I realized that the only thing I had gotten out of reading it was a hatred for Huck Finn.
> 
> I will try Tom Sawyer, eventually.


Poetaster, you have a companion in masochism!

----------


## Sarabande

The worst book I've ever read would be a toss-up between Heller's "Catch 22" and "Our Mutual Friend" by Dickens. Joyce's "Portrait" was heavy going too and, oh, so was Richardson's "Pamela". You can see that I studied these for Literature at University, but that was over 25 years ago.

"Catch 22" just wasn't funny; or, it was funny in a Mel Brooks way - i.e. HE thinks it's funny!!

----------


## Emil Miller

> The worst book I've ever read would be a toss-up between Heller's "Catch 22" and "Our Mutual Friend" by Dickens. Joyce's "Portrait" was heavy going too and, oh, so was Richardson's "Pamela". You can see that I studied these for Literature at University, but that was over 25 years ago.
> 
> "Catch 22" just wasn't funny; or, it was funny in a Mel Brooks way - i.e. HE thinks it's funny!!


Somewhere on this thread I think I've listed the worst book that I've read but I must admit that Catch 22 was a complete waste of time. Not only was it unfunny but it seemed to be making a comment about the futility of war in a juvenile sort of way and saying: 'Look how hip I am'.

----------


## Poetaster

> Poetaster, you have a companion in masochism!


I have to say, the company keeps me going, haha.

----------


## kev67

> The worst book I've ever read would be a toss-up between Heller's "Catch 22" and "Our Mutual Friend" by Dickens. Joyce's "Portrait" was heavy going too and, oh, so was Richardson's "Pamela". You can see that I studied these for Literature at University, but that was over 25 years ago.
> 
> "Catch 22" just wasn't funny; or, it was funny in a Mel Brooks way - i.e. HE thinks it's funny!!


I thought the Milo Minderbender bits were good.

----------


## SJR90

I just finished reading (and reviewing) Dean Koontz's Frankenstein: Prodigal Son. What a waste of time, but I couldn't bring myself to stop in the middle of it. I had to finish to see if it redeemed itself. It did not. Two things that make a great story great were completely void - no interesting characters or captivating plot. Koontz simply made Victor Helios (Dr. Frankenstein) way too smart (he had a machine designed for almost everything - impede aging, accelerate birth, download information directly to the brain, making an army of clones) and bastardized Mary Shelley's characters by placing them two hundred years into the future. If you haven't read the novel, don't even think about it!  :Smile:  Koontz is very facile in his use of words, but his storytelling needs some serious modulating.

----------


## Helga

Shirley by Bronte, I just didin't like it, don't know why just don't.

----------


## Pope of Eruke

> The worst book I've ever read would be a toss-up between Heller's "Catch 22" and "Our Mutual Friend" by Dickens. Joyce's "Portrait" was heavy going too and, oh, so was Richardson's "Pamela". You can see that I studied these for Literature at University, but that was over 25 years ago.
> 
> "Catch 22" just wasn't funny; or, it was funny in a Mel Brooks way - i.e. HE thinks it's funny!!


Un-****ing-believable. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is incredible. Maybe it's because you were forced to study it that you didn't enjoy it, I find that sometimes.

----------


## Vota

At the moment it's a tie with the not funny Catch-22 and the despair inducing Blood Meridian.

----------


## SJR90

> At the moment it's a tie with the not funny Catch-22 and the despair inducing Blood Meridian.


I've never read Blood Meridian, but a friend of mine did. The only book I've read by Cormac McCarthy is The Road, which I found to be very good, despite its appalling lack of character development.

----------


## stlukesguild

Is character development an essential element of all works of literature? I would think that's rather like criticizing Van Gogh's Starry Night for its appalling lack of red.

----------


## Pompey Bum

I found The Road's negative anthropology believable and disturbing, and its insistence on morality as a choice rather than a circumstance enormously relevant and deeply moving. I wouldn't describe its lack of character development as appalling; in fact, I don't even see it as a flaw in what is at heart a parable. The father and the boy are constants to one another. The world changes but humankind does not. Nor do they.

There is a discussion of The Road (and a number of McCarthy's other novels) on this thread: 

http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=New+classics

Feel free (if you like) to join in.  :Smile:

----------


## Ms. Reading

i've had my share of bad books over the years but i'd say that my worst for 2014 was *Kafka on the Shore*

----------


## SJR90

> Is character development an essential element of all works of literature? I would think that's rather like criticizing Van Gogh's Starry Night for its appalling lack of red.


If you're replying to my comment, I'm just stating my opinion. Character development, most times, is a pretty essential part to make a great book, but again, that's just my opinion.

----------

