Books that make your eyes bleed

[Don Beegles]

As a complement to the huge Films thread, and to counterpoint "Your Favorite Written Works" I've decided to make this thread.

It's fairly simple:what books do you hate? It could be a book that makes you want to scream, because you can't stand the author's views, or maybe it's the book that Groucho Marx described best: "From the instant I picked your book up to when I put it down, I was convulsed with laughter. I'll have to read it sometime." Either way, you hate it, and you want to tell the world.

Myself, I'd have to say the worst piece of trash I've ever read was Moby ****. Call me crazy, but it doesn't deserve to be called a classic. Up until around chapter 30, I could live with the overly verbose prose, but around then it suddenly and unexpectedly became "Whaling 101", with about 1 in 3 chapters being about the story. Honestly, I don't care that whale **** makes a good steak, and the only variety of whale I give a damn about is the Great White kind, which you seem to have forgotten about, Herman. It wouldn't be so bad if it was like Les Miserables and had a story worth reading, but on the whole it was just a standard allegory of Man vs Nature or Good vs Evil, or maybe Evil vs Evil if you want to look at it that way, but nothing to write home about, or even write about, IMO. Why is it considered a classic? I've been told that it's a prime example of early American literature, but if it is, wouldn't we want to bury that period in our history, rather than bragging about it. In a few years time, Chris Paolini will be trying to make people forget he wrote Eragon, and it should be the same way with this supposed 'classic'.

[Ego Slayer]

The Pearl (Steinbeck, but you should already know that). I disliked it, to put it nicely.

[Bookman]

A Confederacy of Dunces

It's supposed to be a comedy.

It's a comedy in the way that I laugh in the faces at the people who think it's even vaugly funny. Or even good.

[Lykan]

Stargirl.

I had to read it for school.

I wated to stab every friggin person I saw after reading that book, is was so dumb.

[Om]

I don't actually hate many books, perhaps because reading them is something of an investment. Indeed I'm hard pressed to think of any that made my eyes "bleed".

One contender that I would not hesitate to condemn however is Rand's desperately bad Atlas Shrugged. By the end of Galt's speech I'm fairly positive that a number of blood vessels had indeed ruptured. Through a heady cocktail of nonsensical philosophy and simply bad writing Rand managed to reduce me to a gibbering wreck... which was perhaps her objective all along.

[Arang]

The Shoes of the Fisherman. Granted, it might not be such a bad book. I really wouldn't know, since I, despite trying seven times, never got past page 20. I read A Living Soul and The Silmarillion without much trouble, but I hope I never try to read this insurmountable piece of dead weight again.

[Maxymiuk]

I think mentioning Eragon here is a foregone conclusion.

Content aside, Paolini's style, syntax, and even grammar made my teeth hurt. Honestly, is the fantasy genre that starved for dragon stories?

[FdL]

Same here with Eragon, but I'm going to say two more words.
Harry Potter.

[Allandaros]

One contender that I would not hesitate to condemn however is Rand's desperately bad Atlas Shrugged.

Amen to that! Although I disagree with your conclusions regarding Starship Troopers, I wholeheartedly support your disgust with Ayn Rand.

I'll also toss in her groupie Terry Goodkind (Objectivist rants masquerading as fantasy. Blech.).

On the note of lousy F/SF: Robert Jordan, Terry Brooks, and Kevin J. Anderson. Harry Potter would go in here, but it's not *bad* per se, just obscenely overrated.

As for "Great Literature" - Faulkner, specifically As I Lay Dying. If there was supposed to be some meaning in there - not seeing it.

[Glaivemaster]

A Kestrel for A Knave - I can't remember the author. Some guy. The only thing that could make that book worse, is having our crazy fanatical English teacher cover it with us for GCSE...Oh, yeah

[Timberwolf]

Where to start ?

To kill a Mockingbird
All Harry Potter
The Illuminatus Trilogy - not just crap but really wierd as well

More to follow when i remember them.

[Delcan]

Boy, you'd think Eragon and Harry Potter had been denounced and reviled enough in this forum. Does the topic ever get stale?

Anyway, I haven't read very many books which I have actually loathed... but one does come to mind, one from high school literature class - My Antonia, by Willa Cather. I don't know how this book ever came to be considered a classic. There's not a single ounce of plot in this entire book. No. Plot. Whatsoever. While this idea may have worked for, say, contemporary comedy like Seinfeld, it doesn't work for a drama. The characters are dull and forgettable, the events that pass for development in the story pass by without really doing much of import, and the book ends with no real conclusion, no real climax whatsoever.

It must be a classic for some reason, but I theorize that whatever that reason was died off with age. It's coasting on its own inertia now, still a classic but not really compelling anymore. And giving it to high school kids for reading is a crime, when books like Catch-22 or The Joy Luck Club or even a poorly-translated Beowulf could be taught instead.

[Quincunx]

I'll trade you The Pearl (which was, at least, short) and raise you Grapes of Wrath. I like Steinbeck sometimes. That month-and-a-half of study was not one of those times.

Moby **** is a lot easier to digest if you cut out the encyclopedic bits of it, the information which is nowadays fed to us in science class. That doesn't make it great--I will never understand people who say they don't understand that book, because Melville bludgeons you over the head with his lessons--but trimming it does make it much easier to handle.

[EDIT: I'm extremely picky about my reading material. It might be quicker if I listed the books I do read--especially fantasy, I can count those off on one hand.]

[Allandaros]

The Illuminatus Trilogy - not just crap but really wierd as well


Bite your tongue, sir, madam, or thing! The Illuminatus Trilogy is an EXCELLENT book, and the source of a HUGE portion of geek culture, the standard by which conspiracy-theory books are measured, a really awesome board game...

ARGH it's awesome!

[SDF]

Wait, you can't say Moby ****? It's a bloody name... I liked To Kill a Mocking Bird and Harry Potter myself, but Wuthering Heights was the pinnacle of boring and was a textual soap opera. I hated that book.

[J_Muller]

On the note of lousy F/SF: Robert Jordan, Terry Brooks, and Kevin J. Anderson. Harry Potter would go in here, but it's not *bad* per se, just obscenely overrated.

I've never read anything by Anderson, but I half support you on Jordan and Brooks. I read Sword of Shannara, which was decent imitation of LoTR, but not horrible. As for Jordan, the early ones are good. Up to the point where you start forgetting who the characters are, lose track of the horribly convoluted plot, and finally realize that it doesn't even matter because nothing's even happened in the last two books.

Personally, I have an intense dislike for Catcher in the Rye. I suppose it might be decent, if the main character was anyone I could relate to in the slightest. However, Holden is such a stupid, angsty loser that I just can't identify with him at all.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Where to start ?The Illuminatus Trilogy - not just crap but really wierd as well

You obviously didn't take enough drugs first.

It might not be brilliantly written but the plotting is ingenious.

Really.

No, really.

[Timberwolf]

Bite your tongue, sir, madam, or thing! The Illuminatus Trilogy is an EXCELLENT book, and the source of a HUGE portion of geek culture, the standard by which conspiracy-theory books are measured, a really awesome board game...

ARGH it's awesome!

Ah do declare myself to be a sir, sirrah. Anyway, horses for courses and all that, I couldn't stand it and had a headache after reading it and trying to understand the plot and where that Leviathan thingy fit in (if at all) and how the world could be saved by a mass orgy at the end (memory may be playing tricks, it was a while ago). Really it was the most incomprehensible book I've ever read. (quite possibly the biggest load of ands ever too :)) Maybe it didn't make my eyes blled but my brain is still recovering from the assault on it.

[averagejoe]

There isn't much I can add to this. I don't read very many bad books. I thought Philidelphia Fire was something that wanted to be postmodern but was waaay too pretensious. Not a page went by when the author didn't start spouting pseudophilisophical prose.

Oooo, right, The Da Vinci Code. So incredibly lame. I mean, granted, I actually did used to write kind of like that, but I was a sophomore in high school at the time, so I had an excuse. Without turning this into a rant and getting into his way too obvious prose style and utterly too preachy look-at-me-I'm-so-smart tangents, the man had no concept of pacing. He stretched the tension way too thin, trying to make the whole book a page turner and never giving the reader some sort of "the porter scene" equivilant, the effect of which made me not really care anymore once I got to the end. Although, I did think it was pretty funny when he called The Principia "a book about planetary gravetation, I think." (To those of you who don't know, it's probably the definitive physics text ever, and the most revolutionary piece of scientific writing of our time. Or, at least, it's right up there.)

[Kumquat]

I am going to have to put that most of the final couple books in any Orson Scott Card series, specifically Earthborn, the last from the Homecoming series, just kind of hurt, as the series starts well, and then drags on a book or 2 to long.

um...I was not a fan of The Joy Luck Club, which I was supposed to read in high school, but I fell asleep about every 2 pages. Also, Into Thin Air, which I found horrendously boring. They did not make my eyes bleed, but they were great cures for insomnia in my oppinion.

[Strengfellow]

Three words, one author.

Stephen chuffing King.

What you get is an interesting premise.
Then it's as if he gets bored and takes a granny a monkey and a pack of cheese chunkies, they fart around for half the book and one of them goes to heaven.

Well perhaps not that exact plot because any book where there is a one in three chance of a pack of cheese chunkies going to heaven has to be worth a read.

I still dont like his work though.

[wowy319]

anything by Michael Moore and other America-bashers. I also despise A Farewell To Arms, aka Hemmingway's giant dump on the romance genre.

[Sisqui]

I will stand up for Ayn Rand any day. Her work isn't fun but it is meaningful........a lot more so than a lot of hippie crap I could name. But for truly artisitic crap I would have to say The Metamorphosis by Kafka. The universe should not be allowed to contain that much whining.........

[Warpfire]

Jane Eyre.

Good God, I hate that book.

Also, nearly any book that I read for grade school purposes.

Also, the later Wheel of Time books.

[Ravyn]

Delcan: This forum's nothing. Paolini gets even worse hate on the conlanger board I used to frequent, as they take all the typical complaints and add "And his language is an English-clone, and he's giving all of us who actually put effort into our langauges a bad name!" ...which is true. Then again, when they get going on Robert Jordan's apostrophes.... the issue, I think, is that we Know From Fantasy and therefore, given almost any series, can come up with at least a couple ones where the same thing was done better, particularly with old themes. (For instance, the fact that for me, it was a lot harder to appreciate Potter and its myriad of knockoffs after having read Jane Yolen's Wizards' Hall and Sherwood Smith's Wren trilogy (for magic training)--not to mention Diane Duane's Young Wizards and certain of Patricia Wrede's work (for young adult fantasy set somewhere in the real world).)

What else? Well, there was the time I had to read The Jungle for CP American Lit in high school.... one of my classmates postulated that the reason why its impact was on the sausage industry and not on the situation of immigrants like Sinclair wanted was that the book was so depressing that by the time people were at the meat of the argument, they were so numb they couldn't care anymore. ("And then there was Socialism!" didn't exactly help.)

I'm actually pretty tolerant of books; it takes a lot for a book or a series to completely turn me off, and even then I'll usually finish whichever one I'm in the middle of. Curiosity trumps a lot for me. Though for me, the biggest turnoff is someone claiming to be "The Next [Insert famous author or series here]". If I ever get published, I may make "Avoid this form of advertising at all costs" one of the stipulations in my contract. Particularly if they're trying to compare me to... well, never mind.

[Strengfellow]

anything by Michael Moore and other America-bashers. I also despise A Farewell To Arms, aka Hemmingway's giant dump on the romance genre.


Only America bashers?

So if an American wrote in a derogatory way about another country that would be ok?

Or would you extend your opprobrium to all such works and their authors?

[Amotis]

I hate Catcher In The Rye. Hate with a buring passion.

[Ego Slayer]

anything by Michael Moore and other America-bashers. I also despise A Farewell To Arms, aka Hemmingway's giant dump on the romance genre.
*throws a Coulter book at wall*

I liked To Kill a Mockingbird. Though what made me hate it was all this BS analysis we had to do.:smallyuk:

I also need to throw in Silas Marner. I didn't even finish the last few chapters.

[Scorpina]

The Color Purple. It... it was just bad...

[Plums]

Books that people hate that I agree with:

The Pearl
Catcher in the Rye
Farewell to Arms

I'd like to add:

Johhny Tremain
Like Water for Chocolate

[Om]

I will stand up for Ayn Rand any day. Her work isn't fun but it is meaningful........a lot more so than a lot of hippie crap I could name.Rand is a hack. There is virtually no merit to her writing. Galt's speech takes up 64 pages in my paperback copy - that's 64 pages of uninterrupted monologuing. The characters are two dimensional and serve only to represent Rand's views. The entire tone of the book is arrogant and self-righteous as Galt bellows from the pulpit. Only scraps of sub-par "plot" and "story" serve to bridge the blocks of increasingly shrill political tracts.

As for meaningful... Kapital is an economics treatise, Phenomenology of Spirit is so obtuse as to be almost unreadable*, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is written in as dry and academic a manner as you can encounter. These are meaningful works that remain a struggle to read. Atlas Shrugged must bear the burden of being worthless as both a work of literature and a work of philosophy.

If you feel that there is anything meaningful in Rand's work then I suggest that you either read some real philosophy or forgo the limo and take the bus to work tomorrow. With the rest of us hippies.

*And indeed remains one of the few books that I have left unfinished.

[averagejoe]

What's real philosophy? Isn't true meaning where you find it, no matter the source? Heck, I've gotten meaning out of crappy, nophilisophical cartoons without intending to, but that doesn't make the truths any less real.

[SDF]

What's real philosophy? Isn't true meaning where you find it, no matter the source? Heck, I've gotten meaning out of crappy, nophilisophical cartoons without intending to, but that doesn't make the truths any less real.

Calvin and Hobbes is real philosophy. :smallbiggrin:

[Soniku]

Of mice and men. Good lord was that boring. The plot was more predictable than sleeping beauty and the characters were about as developed. Sure, it might make for some decent exam questions, but I can't see how it became so well known as a great book.

[Amotis]

Oh, War and Peace. It was too long, boring, and an acutal chore to read. And the sad thing is that it turned off people from a great author.

[Scorpina]

Of mice and men. Good lord was that boring. The plot was more predictable than sleeping beauty and the characters were about as developed. Sure, it might make for some decent exam questions, but I can't see how it became so well known as a great book.

I loved Of Mice and Men. It made me cry.

[Sisqui]

If you feel that there is anything meaningful in Rand's work then I suggest that you either read some real philosophy or forgo the limo and take the bus to work tomorrow. With the rest of us hippies.

*And indeed remains one of the few books that I have left unfinished.

Ahem........forgo the limo? You presume a lot my friend. And, in the spirit of individualism that Rand writes about, I said that I liked it, not that you had to.

[Sisqui]

Oh, War and Peace. It was too long, boring, and an acutal chore to read. And the sad thing is that it turned off people from a great author.

A really great story interrupted frequently by several hundred pages of pure unadulterated boredom, :smallwink:

[J_Muller]

I've never read any Ayn Rand either, but from what I've heard (from my mother, who actually took the time to read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead) it's anti-communist in nature, which is fine by me. I don't really feel any need to read the books.


Also, Sisqui, double posting is frowned upon. You can edit your posts on this forum.

[Sisqui]

Also, Sisqui, double posting is frowned upon. You can edit your posts on this forum.

I would but I was trying to answer two different posts. I don't know how to quote from multiple posts at the same time.

[twerk_face]

Same here with Eragon, but I'm going to say two more words.
Harry Potter.

[Scrubbed] stop bashing Potter just because of it's popularity. Please, I emplore you, read my post on the Best Books thread, and respond via P.M. Please.

For me, I just absolutely detested Sinclair's The Jungle. Granted, I realize that it's recogized as a literary accompishment, and im not necesarily denying that. I just loathed the thing with a pasion. As you may have guessed, i had to read it for school. Weird thing is, same teacher teaching it, i loved tale of 2 citied : P

[Wizzardman]

...Jane Austen.

I hate Jane Austen. Mostly because I had to read her books for class. There's only so much intensely long, preachy bad romance that I can take. I apologize to all Austen lovers out there, but... good friggin grief! Its like drowning in a sea of overreaching prose while being eaten by the sharks of bad plot!

[J_Muller]

I would but I was trying to answer two different posts. I don't know how to quote from multiple posts at the same time.

You can, using quote tags.

For example, I clicked "quote" on your post to make this, then I'm going to use
[/QUOTE ] (no spaces) to do this:

[QUOTE]Weird thing is, same teacher teaching it, i loved tale of 2 citied : P

ToTC was good enough to stand on its own. It's a good book.

[Amotis]

For me, I just absolutely detested Sinclair's The Jungle. Granted, I realize that it's recogized as a literary accompishment, and im not necesarily denying that. I just loathed the thing with a pasion. As you may have guessed, i had to read it for school. Weird thing is, same teacher teaching it, i loved tale of 2 citied : P

If anything it sparked social change for the better. It physically helped people in need. That's got to be good for something.

[Necrosis]

As a collector of sci books so terriablly bad they are actualy entertainin, not just boreing like startreks pulp novelets or philooshpical like catcher in the rye.

The worst of worst, so bad its actually funny is beutiful little book called Deadfall, a truly terrible scifi.

Plot summary
1st chapter-introduces a great fun set of clourfall convicts as the main charter in fun setting-they are all killed in the first chaper, sotrey restatrs with the main character chapter 2.

chapeters 2-6 main character talks about nothing except sleepign with her students and her emonmtinal relatinsihp with here cat-no real charater devlopment!

chapters 7-10 introduces a few more characters, sotrey actually starts again-they get half ok before slowly been killed of

chapter 11-12 Main charter makes to the killing ground in the first chapter, bad guy who was described only from the shadows in the first chapter re aphears, gets killed, end of storey.


This book fails on several fundemental levels from the complete lack of structure, to a complete failure to encourage any kind of attahcemnt ot either hte bad guys or the good girl.

This is a unique book, its not philosphical has several key strutural failings, takes itself seriously AND some how got published in its flawed state by a main stream publisher despite itself! Normally something this bad wouldn't make to press, yet it did AND it got intetrnantional distrubtion.

[Necrosis]

P.S. did I menation its cover had a 'chisled' guy holdign a gun and a few decortively lounging women on the front in bodysuits? It scored some good anti syle points right off :).

[Spartan_Samuel]

I abhor Gone with the Wind. It's way too long for the content it provides, the characters in it make the most retarded decisions based upon the situation at given times, plot lines are drawn out and milked beyond all extents. The book just overused every single factor of a good book possible to make it bad. A perfect example of too much of a good thing.

[Starblade]

[QUOTE=Quincunx;1954876]I'll trade you The Pearl (which was, at least, short) and raise you Grapes of Wrath. I like Steinbeck sometimes. That month-and-a-half of study was not one of those times. QUOTE]

I hated "The grapes of Wrath" also. I outright refused to read it in school no matter how much trouble it got me into.

I dont see the the big deal about the Wheel of time books. I only read the first two and yes i lost interest but not because they where written poorly. It just seemed to me that after the first two all the rest where going to follow the exact same pattern so i did not see the point in continuing. But i dont think the writing was bad enough to qualify.

The Mechwarrior: Dark Age #3: Ruins of Power
This however was AWFUL probably the worst written book ive read in a long while. I was able to predict what was going to happen in the last chapter simply by reading the first. The author did a terrible job of being descriptive about anything. Then after the main character spends like a whole week fixing up the ONLY battlemech working on the whole planet. He brings it out and promptly gets beaten to a pulp. I was disgusted especialy after reading the books before this which were considerably better.

[Arcane_Secrets]

The Long Emergency by Kunstler-although I can't discuss why I hated it without breaking a ton of rules, so I won't even bother trying. I'm not quite sure what I hate more-the author or the book.

Empire by Orson Scott Card. What happened to the good, Ender's Game-era Card? I washed my hands after reading this book. This is not hyperbole on my part.

The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy. I read this book nearly 15 years ago. I still remember it because I hated it that much.

I'd have to second Coulter as hemorrhage-inducing.

[Nevrmore]

Since The Da Vinci Code is a predictable one, let's go for another Dan Brown crapfest:

Deception Point

It's like if you take The Da Vinci Code and replace all the religious BS-covered-in-shellac with scientific BS-covered-in-shellac. The disclaimer at the front of the book has the gall to say "All weapons and items described in this book are real blahblahblah", and then Brown has the damn nerve to try and convince me that there is such a thing as a nigh-microsocopic robot that is capable of killing a human with outward force, or that there is a gun that can be fed sand which then is compacted into bullets or, to a lesser extent, that a Kiowa Warrior helicopter can carry 15 missiles (A real Kiowa Warrior can carry 4. FOUR).

And that's not even mentioning the fact that the book is based around the premise that

Everyone in the government can be fooled into thinking that a couple deepsea fish are actually aliens from outerspace

And, of course, to cap it all off, Brown goes once again for the predictable plot twist,

The main character's knowledgeable friend is actually the main antagonist. This time around, the head of Rachel's government department was the one who planted the fake meteorite. Whoo

And that's not even mentioning the horrible narrative style Brown uses in all his books, but that goes without saying.

[Turcano]

Of those not already mentioned:

James Fenimore Cooper. Seriously, he's as bad as Paolini.

Nathaniel Hawthorne. I've tried to read both The Scarlet Letter and The Blithesdale Romance, and as soon as I got to about page 24 in both of them, they hit the "off" button on by brain and I could just not read anymore; it was just words on a page after that. The latter was assigned reading and I told myself, "A good grade is not worth reading this."

Anything by a creationist. I don't mean to be overly offensive, but that level of willful ignorance makes my blood boil.

[J_Muller]

The difference between Paolini and, say, Tolkien is that Tolkien was an excellent writer.

Paolini, and others of his ilk (Rowling is an example) are not excellent writers. They are good writers, of course, but not to the level people like Tolkien were. Paolini's books are fun to read because he crafts a compelling fantasy world--in short, it's the cool factor of the setting, characters, and events, rather than the quality of writing, that makes them worthwhile. Their ability to create worlds that are fun to visualize carry them where their writing ability is lacking (And, also, cut Paolini some slack, people. He was sixteen when he wrote Eragon. He'll only get better with time.).

LoTR is remembered as fantastic (no pun intended) because Tolkien is both a great writer and a magnificent creator of fantasy worlds.

[Turcano]

And, also, cut Paolini some slack, people. He was sixteen when he wrote Eragon. He'll only get better with time.

The main problem with that argument with that is that Eldest was even worse than Eragon and the excerpt from the next book shows no signs of improvement.

[ElfLad]

The Silmarillion. (sp?) Long, and as a connection of short stories, way too many characters to keep track of.

Also, Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. They made my eyes bleed because of all the times I stayed up all night to read them.

[J_Muller]

The main problem with that argument with that is that Eldest was even worse than Eragon and the excerpt from the next book shows no signs of improvement.

For Paolini, we don't really have enough data to establish a pattern. Perhaps the work he will eventually produce will be better.

For Rowling, though, definite pattern: decline in quality. Am I the only one who liked Chamber of Secrets better than any of the others? After the third one they seemed to go downhill, and I didn't even read the sixth one.

[averagejoe]

The Silmarillion. (sp?) Long, and as a connection of short stories, way too many characters to keep track of.

Also, Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. They made my eyes bleed because of all the times I stayed up all night to read them.

Well, to be fair, the Silmy provided a handy index. But I see where you're coming from. I personally loved it, and even went and sketched out geneologies for myself, but I could see why people wouldn't enjoy that. Plus Beren and Luthien is one of those love stories that I can actually stomach.

[Turcano]

For Paolini, we don't really have enough data to establish a pattern. Perhaps the work he will eventually produce will be better.

That may very well be the case, but I'm maintaining a high degree of skepticism, mainly because Paolini has completely bypassed the standard ego-bruising gauntlet that internalizes self-criticism (and to be honest, his fame has served only to swell his ego). If he does improve, he'll kick himself for letting Inheritance see the light of day; that I assure you.

[J_Muller]

If he does improve, he'll kick himself for letting Inheritance see the light of day; that I assure you.

Well, yeah, but it's his early work. Realizing how bad it is later is only natural.

[tyr]

I must be the only person in the world who likes the later books in the Wheel of Time series.

Back on topic, I loathe Terry Goodkind's style. Every word makes it abundantly clear that this man has a whole pile of axes to grind. If ever you should find yourself in the presence of one of his books, flip to the very end, where there is a photo of the author. Look at him scowl like a sleep-deprived toddler. Also note the bio underneath, which says that he lives in the Western United States. This is bad because it means I run the risk of bumping into him one day.

And then there's Philip Pullman. Here is a man who created memorable characters, an engaging plot and a fascinating world in which to put them, and then callously sacrificed it all on the alter of Cultural Relavance. Don't get me wrong, he's perfectly welcome to his opinions, but I wish he would state them in nonfictional format and save his great ideas for something more noble than as a vehicle for his diatribes. This is also why I hate most allegories.

[J_Muller]

I must be the only person in the world who likes the later books in the Wheel of Time series.

Yes, you are.


And then there's Philip Pullman. Here is a man who created memorable characters, an engaging plot and a fascinating world in which to put them, and then callously sacrificed it all on the alter of Cultural Relavance. Don't get me wrong, he's perfectly welcome to his opinions, but I wish he would state them in nonfictional format and save his great ideas for something more noble than as a vehicle for his diatribes. This is also why I hate most allegories.

Wait, there was a meaningful underpinning to His Dark Materials? Because if they were anything other than fantasy books (great ones, I might add), I totally missed it. Seriously, if there's any sort of deeper meaning meant to be gleaned from the trilogy, it escapes me entirely.

[averagejoe]

If ever you should find yourself in the presence of one of his books, flip to the very end, where there is a photo of the author. Look at him scowl like a sleep-deprived toddler.

My friends and I laughed about this picture in high school for pretty much the same reasons. Good times.

[Maxymiuk]

From the classics, Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Callaway put me to sleep by page two. The best word I can find that describes her writing style is "twitterpated." Augh, my brain.

I used to like Elizabeth Moon, but the plot of any series she writes falls apart about halfway through, usually because she suddenly decides to stop caring about her main character and decides to show us the "greater picture" of intrigue and politics. Which immediately causes the plot to lose all momentum.

[Lord of the Helms]

The Silmarillion. (sp?) Long, and as a connection of short stories, way too many characters to keep track of.



Funnily enough, I found it way too brief. I mean, the Battle of Gondolin was summarized into about half a page, compared to more like twenty or so pages in the Forgotten Tales. Same goes for almost everything - far too little detail. Sad, because storywise, it's Tolkien's best by far.

I somewhat agree on the characters, though mostly because just about every one of them had like half a dozen names :|

Back to the books I hated:

Just for being really bad, Terry Goodkind's "Wizard's First Rule" was generic, extremely predictable (seriously, I knew how he would save the day several chapters before he did. Ugh.) and boring, the main character is a prick and practically omnipotent. With the hyper-lame cliff-hanger and the prospect of an already super-powerful main character also becoming a super-powerful wizard, I stayed well clear of the later books.

For a book with that really annoyed me because it had potential but blew it, Assassin's Apprentice, solely for featuring the single lamest, dullest, dumbest, most one-sided villain ever portrayed in any book, ever. Sad, because some of the characters were really quite likeable.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Wait, there was a meaningful underpinning to His Dark Materials? Because if they were anything other than fantasy books (great ones, I might add), I totally missed it. Seriously, if there's any sort of deeper meaning meant to be gleaned from the trilogy, it escapes me entirely.

I thought it was supposed to be "children rock, adults suck and organised Religion and Governments want to paralyze you and stuff you in a box".

Actually, that's exagerating.

[zachol]

I tend to put down most things that I dislike, and I've been lucky enough to get good books through most of school.

Even The Great Gatsby was pleasant to read, though I think I either missed the point or don't have much of a personal connection to American culture.

Um... I never finished The Silmarilion, though that was more out of apathy than "agh hate book!"

The Grapes of Wrath was overly depressing in a "wear you down" sort of way, and the ending was creepy. I liked Of Mice and Men a lot more.

[Telonius]

The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand. If there was a point in there, I couldn't detect it. Discarded after 200 pages of self-importance.

Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger. Main character wasn't believable, and very dislikable. Read The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier if you want to see what Catcher should have been.

Beloved, by Toni Morrison. Every so often a good author writes a terrible book. This is one of those times.

Crossroads of Twilight, by Robert Jordan. I've spent a few minutes trying to think up a word or phrase that can sum up the awfulness of this book. I don't think it exists in the English language. The plot of this 1000+ page monstrosity can be summed up in two words: "Nothing Happens."

Johnny Tremaine. Please, please take this thing off of required reading lists.



Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is written in as dry and academic a manner as you can encounter.

It's better in German. (Very slightly).

[Dreamwalker]

The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova, if only because it has the lamest ending ever. Apparently, Dracula spends several hundred years for someone to catalogue his library.

[Lord of the Helms]

Crossroads of Twilight, by Robert Jordan. I've spent a few minutes trying to think up a word or phrase that can sum up the awfulness of this book. I don't think it exists in the English language. The plot of this 1000+ page monstrosity can be summed up in two words: "Nothing Happens."


Gonna have to agree with that, by far the low point of Jordan's writing. A thousand pages of nothing, and not even a climatic finish like the other books.

On the bright side, it did make the last book seem a lot better by virtue of it having actually, you know, stuff happening.

[Swordguy]

Let's see...it'll be tough mentioning things that other folks haven't.

Ah...Madame Bovary. The only book I have been unable to finish. If the author weren't already dead I'd be more than willing to rectify the situation.

Anna Karenina. Russian writing tends toward the drawn-out, but this is just sadism on the part of the author. Against the audience.

Terry Brooks is exceedingly hit-and-miss. The first three books of the Magic Kingdom for Sale series were fun reads. Sword of Shannara was a passable LotR ripoff, but the next several books (Elfstones, Wishsong, the Scions series) were quite good. He should have stopped there.

Terry Goodkind and Robert Jordan need to be put down. If I had one bullet, and Mr. Goodkind and Mr. Jordan standing next to each other in front of me, I'd do my darndest to ricochet the bullet to hit both somehow. For the good of mankind. In Jordan's bio, it mentions that he plans to continue "writing until they nail shut his coffin." Guess what folks? That's going to be how the WoT series ends.

I have to defend the Simarillion for a sec. It's NOT a book. It's a collection of notes and short story ideas that have been condensed into an anthology. I cut it a great deal of slack for that reason: I'm seeing notes, not full-fledged stories.

(And they're STILL better than 90% of the stuff out there).

Oh, before I forget...(With the exception of the Timothy Zahn trilogy)The ENTIRETY of the expanded Star Wars Universe. They've done for SW books what Lucas did for SW movies with Eps 1-3.

[Ceska]

Make my eyes bleed? Fortunatly I've gone without that experience. Were damn boring? Kabale und Liebe (Love and Intrigue I think is the correct translation) by Friedrich Schiller. We had to read it last year and while I like him generally that one just bored the crap out of me.

[Hephaestus]

It's not so much books as it is Authors... Shall I name them? Why not!

Dean Koontz
Shakespear
Dan Brown
Christopher Paolini
Christopher Lee

Ok, so Christopher Lee dosn't acutally write but I'm in the hatredy mood and he's connected to that part of the brain.

[Timberwolf]

Shakespear
Dan Brown



QFT. Shakespeare is so bloody overrated. Now, before you all jump on me, let me explain.

I am from the part of the world that Shakespeare came from and the whole damn area is so proud of the Swan of Avon (and I've always hated that name) that it is impossible to get away from him and you can't ever critiscize him and say you don't enjoy his ruddy plays for fear of the tourist board being around. I'm not actually from Stratford upon Avon (where Shakespeare lived) itself but I'm close enough that my town always tried to bask in Shakespeares reflected glory (despite having George Elliot, a perfectly saervicable famous author even though her (yes, it was a her) books bore me rigid). I don't even enjoy his plays and as for having to study them at school.... *shudder at the thought of A Midsummer Nights ####### *

[Dragor]

The only Shakespeare I've liked is Macbeth and A Midsummer Nights Dream. Romeo and Juliet? Gnaar! How many questions can you answer on one speech from one character?


The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova, if only because it has the lamest ending ever. Apparently, Dracula spends several hundred years for someone to catalogue his library.

I never got round to finishing The Historian. I'm not really bothered about the ending- and I really lost interest around 3/4's of the way through.

[Sisqui]

You can, using quote tags.

For example, I clicked "quote" on your post to make this, then I'm going to use [QUOTE ] [/QUOTE ] (no spaces) to do this:



ToTC was good enough to stand on its own. It's a good book.
let's see.........

ToTC was good enough to stand on its own. It's a good book.

Obviously, it worked! Thanks :smallsmile:

[TakerFoxx]

Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. I had to read it for English class. To this day, I have not yet recovered.

[Sewer_Bandito]

Personally I liked To Kill a Mokingbird, not necessarily the way it was written, but rather the open minded message it had and gave to America when it was really needed.

And for Robert Jordan (I'm assuming we're talking Wheel of Time) here, I think the first 8-ish books were amazing, but after that, they simply got slower and more confusing to the point where you forgot what any of the plotlines actually were. So I half agree with that one, except not for the first 8-ish books.

And for Samirrlion (or something like that) I tried reading it like 4-ish years ago and didn't understand roughly half of the words written in it. I may try it now though, seeing as my vocabulary's expanding a ton.

And Eragon, that book was so bloody predictable and full of cliches I only managed te read through half of it, and I could probably guess exactly what happens in the last half anyway.

[Professor Tanhauser]

How about Heinlein's "The cat who walked thru walls?" Oh dear lord that thing sucked.

[TheThan]

Oh, before I forget...(With the exception of the Timothy Zahn trilogy)The ENTIRETY of the expanded Star Wars Universe. They've done for SW books what Lucas did for SW movies with Eps 1-3.


To hit upon this for a second, not all the expanded starwars books out there are crap.
In my experience the best books are:
"The Zahn" series by Timothy Zahn
The X-wing series by Michael A. Stackpole and Aaron Allston
Tatooine Ghost by Troy Denning

I’m sure there are a few more out there that are worth reading. Oh and STAY AWAY from any “Clone Wars” books. They’re just… junky.

But anyway back on topic
Books I hate,
The Lord of the Flies
I just couldn’t stand it, so I faked reading it and BSed my way through softmore English. Still aced the class though.
The grapes of wrath
Another one that I had to read in school, I still can’t figure out what makes these books worth making them required reading.

Starwars Episode Three: The Revenge of the Sith.
Really if you’ve seen the movie then you don’t need to read it, the only real interesting parts is that it gives more of an insight into what makes Anakin fall, but still its nothing you couldn’t guess.


Any star trek book written after about 1995,
If you want to read about some weirdo writer and his/her (homo)erotic fantasies with Captain Kirk go ahead and pick one out. But that’s just the tip of the ice burg, it gets weirder and weirder.
All the good writers seem to have moved on to other stuff.

[sktarq]

Lets see. Most of the time if a book is so bad it threatens my visual organs I stop reading it. So most of the following are exceptions to my don't hurt yourself rule-as it applies to mental anguish over something I normally think of as fun. Further I know that there are at least 3 books I had as assigned reading at various points which were so tramatizing that their names, and authors have been scrubed from my memory as a defense mechanism.
As opposed to my favorite books I remeber the writters I generally dislike-odd.

Ann Rand-Atlas Shruged: grr ick philosphy of why I don't like myself or anyone else-It did come in useful in creating villians for my games though
Ann Coulter: How to Speak to a liberal if you must (I find that if I understand the basis of the philosophies of those with whom I disagree (I think of Micheal Moore as a defender of America not a USA hater) I can work with them better and argue against them better. However this book was filled with so many incorrect facts-failure to use HS logic and unsupported rantting that there was a pychosomatic pain in my arms every time I picked it up
F. Nietzsche-The Birth of Tragady: I generally like his work, however this time Fredrick didn't know what he was talking about. He was still young and this was his first major work and thankfully not his last. Page long sentences-triple inclusive clauses (hyphens in paranthases in commas while on a tangent) - redefining words halfway through the work - multiple tangents - the inability to form a point in one go (he revisits a topic a couple times and on visit number four he says something) and an inordinate need to pepper the piece with references to ancient greeks, romans, and modern (for his day) coworkers makes the piece dencer than lead and totally a waste of my neurons.
Harry Poter: -sigh- Only due to its popularity do I mention that I found it totally unreadable and had to put the first one down after eighty pages. I was tired of being insulted-well not insulted but i was reading a childrens book yet was no longer a child...If I had been reading it to a four year old I may well I have other thoughts on it.
Plato-The Republic: The only things I can say in this works favor are that it is logical if you agree with its fundamental assumsions (I don't) and that it stimulated me to defend and grow more about my own opinions about human society. I think the later was my professor's point in assigning it.
Micheal Criton-Eaters of the Dead: Having loved some of his work i was ready for a decent if not good read when I picked this up-why I finished it. Wish I hadn't.

For the book however that made my eyes bleed and only continued reading because I wanted to know how bad he could make it....
Dan Brown-Angels and Deamons: This book hurt to read. I know physics - this is a mockery. He gets stuff wrong when it doesn't help the story-yet he claims that most of his stuff could be real. I also spent enough time studying the Illuminati to find that part painful aswell. I could skewer almost every part of the book-with the possible exception of the parts he didn't do. This author's popularity made me seriously loose confidence in the American (and Human as he seems quite popular elsewhere too) Body Politic.

As for other books mentioned here I think allot of them suffer from Intructorial interferance. While Kafka's Metamorphosis may be a wonderful work of writing I shall never enjoy it. I had it (or part of it) assigned every day for 8-9 weeks. Apparently the teacher hadn't clued in that he wasn't teaching dummies and we could all recite it back to him by the end of week 3. To this day the mention of this work- or its quotation makes me reach for a bottle of absinthe. For example I think Moby **** suffers from this allot. I read and enjoyed it as a kid. To this day I think of it as a book for Olderkids or young adults-Its messages are simple, often repeditive, and its symbology rather obvious. Which is great for an eleven year old like I was. Give it to a Senior in High school or worse yet a Univercity student and only pain can result. Even if I can look at and study both as how they related to that time of my life, I can't fit into the clothes I wore then and the same goes for the books.

[J_Muller]

As far as Shakespeare goes, my experience with him has been quite good.
Midsummer Night's Dream: Good.
Julius Caesar: Very Good.
Romeo and Juliet: Eh. Goes downhill fast after:
Mercutio dies.




And Eragon, that books was so bloody predictable and full of cliches I only managed te read through half of it, and I could probably guess exactly what happens in the last half anyway.

You probably could--but I managed to enjoy it anyhow.

[Sewer_Bandito]

I totally forgot. George Orwell's 1984 and Animal farm were agonizing to read. I mean seriously, a book about where a army of animals lead by a pig throws out the farmer and sets up their own government? I realise that both of the books of decent message about government and tyranny and all that but man they were poorly written.

[zachol]

While Kafka's Metamorphosis may be a wonderful work of writing I shall never enjoy it. I had it (or part of it) assigned every day for 8-9 weeks. Apparently the teacher hadn't clued in that he wasn't teaching dummies and we could all recite it back to him by the end of week 3. To this day the mention of this work- or its quotation makes me reach for a bottle of absinthe.

...what??

I can't possibly be reading that right... Metamorphosis over the course of 8 weeks?

WTF???

[Teal Kuinshi]

Anything that starts and ends happily and cleanly, with the main character never getting hurt, only a little sad, and making peace with all of their enemies. But I haven't dealt with books like that since fifth grade, so I guess I needn't worry...

Also, any book that is inconsistant (where the main character has a hard time beating a certain type of character, but after they beat the one they easily defeat all characters like it, etc).

[J_Muller]

I totally forgot. George Orwell's 1984 and Animal farm were agonizing to read. I mean seriously, a book about where a army of animals lead by a pig throws out the farmer and sets up their own government? I realise that both of the books of decent message about government and tyranny and all that but man they were poorly written.

I've never read 1984, shamefully enough, but I've read Animal Farm twice: once before I knew it was an allegory for Russian communism and once after. It's a good 'learning' book, in that if you don't understand why communism is bad, the book will teach you. If you don't learn, well, I guess you're just a lost cause.

[Jaguira]

Well, Catcher in the Rye made me depressed for weeks on end afterwards, but it wasn't so bad in theory. I thought I hated The Great Gatsby, until I realized that it's supposed to critizize what the American dream has become, rather then exempli- exemprl- GLORIFY it like I origionally thought.

...And now that I think about it, there's really no work of literature that I absolutely loathed. I mean, there are plenty that I thought would be really, really cool but end up being bored with after the first chapter or two (The Mists of Avalon, or A Wrinkle in Time, to name two), but I always end up feeling indifferent. *shrugs* I suppose I just haven't found a truely horrible book yet.

[seventhsamurai]

I don't know about making my eyes bleed, but Alice in Wonderland made my brain melt. It's like a bad drug trip. I couldn't get through it.

[ElfLad]

I totally forgot. George Orwell's 1984 and Animal farm were agonizing to read. I mean seriously, a book about where a army of animals lead by a pig throws out the farmer and sets up their own government? I realise that both of the books of decent message about government and tyranny and all that but man they were poorly written.
I liked Animal Farm, but 1984 is used too much by people on political fringes to prove their points about how the government is evil. I mean, the American government is in poor shape, but it's got a long way to go before it starts to bear more than just a passing resemblance to the book.

But Animal Farm is totally awesome because it inspired the songs Sheep, Dogs, and Pigs (Three Different Ones).

[Turcano]

Ann Rand-Atlas Shruged: grr ick philosphy of why I don't like myself or anyone else-It did come in useful in creating villians for my games though

The best thing about Atlas Shrugged is that is served as a foil for Going Postal.


F. Nietzsche-The Birth of Tragady: I generally like his work, however this time Fredrick didn't know what he was talking about. He was still young and this was his first major work and thankfully not his last. Page long sentences-triple inclusive clauses (hyphens in paranthases in commas while on a tangent) - redefining words halfway through the work - multiple tangents - the inability to form a point in one go (he revisits a topic a couple times and on visit number four he says something) and an inordinate need to pepper the piece with references to ancient greeks, romans, and modern (for his day) coworkers makes the piece dencer than lead and totally a waste of my neurons.

You think that's bad, you should try Hegel. My German professor told me that German philosophers prefer to read Hegel in French, that's how bad it is.


Micheal Criton-Eaters of the Dead: Having loved some of his work i was ready for a decent if not good read when I picked this up-why I finished it. Wish I hadn't.

I liked that story a lot better when it was called Beowulf and didn't have Neanderthals in it.

[wellington]

I think that the line of argument that "Book X shouldn't be assigned because Book Y is more interesting, well-written, and fun" is flawed. That is a good reason NOT to assign book Y.

If you read Moby **** as high camp, it's fun. It's knowingly ridiculous. Any teacher who doesn't at least acknowledge the possibility of self-parody is giving the book a raw deal, but they rarely do. I also liked Northanger Abbey, but it's got some pretty dull stretches.

On the other hand, I hated The Mayor of Casterbridge and disliked The Scarlet Letter. What's the common link?

Well, the last two, I was made to read in high school. It's a common effect; if I'd been forced to read Terry Pratchett in a high school English class, I might have found his novels corny and badly written. As it stands, he was one of the happier parts of my adolescence, and I should probably send a thank you note to all of my teachers for not assigning him.

Okay, back on topic. Awful books.

Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells. It's not just creationism - it's dishonest Creationism. It claims to address issues in the teaching of evolution - but several of its examples are either outdated, placed out of context, or fabricated outright. The cover was beguiling enough that I gave it a look before catching on; who doesn't want to teach evolution better? This is a sniper's attack on biology, rather than a frontal assault.

The Last Battle, C. S. Lewis. Look, if we're going to bring up Phillip Pullman's deceptive, axe-grinding, polemical last book (which was surprisingly good if one ignored the outright hateful bits), we ought to at least bring up the equally dishonest one that inspired it. I remember being read this as a child and thinking, "This is a really horrible story." And, by C. S. Lewis logic, a child's insight is always worth consideration...

The End of Faith, Sam Harris. In the interests of equal time, I dislike it even more when somebody I agree with pulls this sort of inflammatory, repetitive nonsense. Religion is apparently to be replaced by a poorly defined, even fuzzier spiritual introspection, in order to avoid all those suicide bombings. Dull, dull, dull.

[Jerthanis]

To hit upon this for a second, not all the expanded starwars books out there are crap.
In my experience the best books are:
"The Zahn" series by Timothy Zahn
The X-wing series by Michael A. Stackpole and Aaron Allston
Tatooine Ghost by Troy Denning

Starwars Episode Three: The Revenge of the Sith.
Really if you’ve seen the movie then you don’t need to read it, the only real interesting parts is that it gives more of an insight into what makes Anakin fall, but still its nothing you couldn’t guess.



I'll agree, not all starwars books are complete crap, and you list some of them. I haven't read Tatooine Ghost, and hate Troy Denning's other SW books, but the X-wing series is good, and while I believe people overrate the Zahn trilogy, it was some of the better SW books, so you've got good taste on that list. Most of them read like a pile of fanfiction, which is pretty much what they are for the most part, but there are a few gems.

However, I'd describe Star Wars: Episode 3 novelization as one of those rare gems. From the movie we can barely extract a motivation, we get confused dialogue, we have a poorly written script, binary descisions which arbitrarily and entirely change character motivations, we see jedi as helpless fools unable to detect a conspiracy the size of a galaxy-wide civilization, we see them bumbling, almost on the edge of comic relief. Reading the book, we can feel Anakin's fear, we understand his motives, we sympathize with him and understand him. The Jedi are not fools fall like wheat before a sycthe, they were powerful, wise, but limited in their perception. They could not focus on where they are and what they are doing because they look so much to destiny, to the future and some grand plan, but ignoring where they are (Yoda goes on to teach Luke the mistakes he himself made.) We see Obi-wan not as a blind fool and a clumsy bumbler, but as a noble example of a truly great hero. We get reason, we get purpose, and we get to see the great story of how far a hero can fall which was buried amidst George's direction and writing.

*Ahem* I'm also a huge fan of MWS's (Matthew Woodring Stover's) writing style, he's one of my favorite authors.

As for books I absolutely hated? Not many in recent memory, though I'm all for seconding Wizard's First Rule guy. I have friends who are much better read than I am, and I practically only read books they recommend anymore, due to time constraints, so it's been a while since I read something bad... Though I was never able to get into George R.R. Martin like everyone else has... the impenetrable political struggles and multiple character perspectives made me unable to grow attached or follow the plot, though I didn't get more than halfway through. And uh... the coldfire trilogy? I think that was the series that tried to be awesome, but fell flat on "confusing, but decent overall", but I guess wasn't eye bleeding bad.

[Closet_Skeleton]

If you read Moby **** as high camp, it's fun. It's knowingly ridiculous. Any teacher who doesn't at least acknowledge the possibility of self-parody is giving the book a raw deal, but they rarely do. I also liked Northanger Abbey, but it's got some pretty dull stretches.

My mother described Northanger Abbey as being a complete self-parody by the author. I'm not sure if it's true since I haven't read it myself but both my parents are pretty major Jane Austin fans.

I finished reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness today. I'm not sure if it was bad, but for a book I read because "it's only 110 pages" it is really, really, long.

[Cubey]

I finished reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness today. I'm not sure if it was bad, but for a book I read because "it's only 110 pages" it is really, really, long.

Don't worry, the movie adaptation is much, much better.

[Telonius]

Plato-The Republic: The only things I can say in this works favor are that it is logical if you agree with its fundamental assumsions (I don't) and that it stimulated me to defend and grow more about my own opinions about human society. I think the later was my professor's point in assigning it.

There are good, readable translations of the Republic, and there are horrendously boring translations of the Republic. I've read from both kinds, and the difference is incredible. I give him a little slack, since he was basically writing one of the first philosophy books. The fact that everybody gets confused halfway through and forgets they're talking about a metaphor for education (rather than an actual society) gives it some humor for me.

[LCR]

Hey, I liked Catcher in the Rye. It does make you depressive, but that doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing. It somewhat loses its fascination, when you're no longer fourteen, of course.

And To Kill A Mockingbird is great, too. Atticus is one of the best father figures in literature and the whole book gives you a warm feeling of childish innocence ...

[Artanis]

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man not only made my eyes bleed, but broke my brain as it did so. I was reading it for my English class in High School, so of course we had a worksheet to go along with it...but as I pulled out the worksheet and started reading the second chapter, I just snapped: I set down the book, put away the worksheet, and went to work on the class's "big paper" assignment by writing an essay proving that symbolism didn't exist.

Another truly horrific book is Battlefield Earth. The movie was bad, but the book is WORSE, and it's TWICE as long. Hubbard took that steaming pile of crap, got to the end, and just. Kept. Going. And going. And going. The story (such as it was) was there begging to be put out of its misery, and Hubbard simply would NOT let it die.

Mission Earth, also by L. Ron Hubbard, is also pretty bad. Basically, Hubbard decided that he was such a great writer, that he would write a decology, then ran out of ideas with two and a half books to go and started from scratch.

The success of the Legacy of the Aldenata series by John Ringo makes my eyes bleed. The man's a talentless hack, his books are terrible, and it depresses me that his self-indulgent techno-masterbatory crap sells as well as it does.



And to respond to a post waaaaay back on the first page:


I've never read anything by Anderson
Kevin J. Anderson knows how to write one plot and ONLY one plot: the "Superweapon" plot. He is personally responsible for fully HALF of the superweapons in the Star Wars universe, and even his StarCraft book involved everybody trying to figure out how to stop a superweapon. Now, he's not a terrible author, but he's not that great, either, and like I said, is incredibly predictable.

[Amotis]

Don't worry, the movie adaptation is much, much better.

...I really really hope you guys are kidding. :smallfrown:

[Penguinizer]

ITs the apocalypse!1!!11! :P

A movie adaptation better than the book.

[Artanis]

ITs the apocalypse!1!!11! :P

A movie adaptation better than the book.
It happened with Battlefield Earth.

...not that that was much of an accomplishment on the movie's part.

[tape_measure]

I...I...

I'm really shocked and dismayed that there are so many decent books on everyone's 'I hate...' lists. I mean, they're taught in schools for a reason (some mostly just busy work). I'm not sure which to be more appalled at: Some of lack of caring, or the fact that I read this thread and I'm posting in it. Maybe I should go back to being on Hiatus. It makes my head hurt less to think about a few flawed designs.


One thing that sticks out is that there aren't any Text Books on everyone's lists. Personally, I'd rather read 500 pages of a pretentious author who inspired many after him/her than plug my nose into (semester's example) Elemental Geosystems. A book, I believe, that is designed for individuals with a working knowledge of more advanced geographical terms (i.e., Wind Speed ratios and DTR's), however, it is being taught to us lowly Intro level classes.

Now that I think more about it, maybe this spiel needs to be director towards my teacher...

[Jibar]

Jane Eyre.

Good God, I hate that book.


Oh dear God I agree with you so very...very much...
It hurts to think about reading it...

[Artanis]

I...I...

I'm really shocked and dismayed that there are so many decent books on everyone's 'I hate...' lists. I mean, they're taught in schools for a reason (some mostly just busy work). I'm not sure which to be more appalled at: Some of lack of caring, or the fact that I read this thread and I'm posting in it. Maybe I should go back to being on Hiatus. It makes my head hurt less to think about a few flawed designs.


One thing that sticks out is that there aren't any Text Books on everyone's lists. Personally, I'd rather read 500 pages of a pretentious author who inspired many after him/her than plug my nose into (semester's example) Elemental Geosystems. A book, I believe, that is designed for individuals with a working knowledge of more advanced geographical terms (i.e., Wind Speed ratios and DTR's), however, it is being taught to us lowly Intro level classes.

Now that I think more about it, maybe this spiel needs to be director towards my teacher...
*shrug* I just figured he meant fiction.

A couple bad textbooks I've had:

A HS English book that had a "poem" that consisted of nothing but punctuation. The commentary after it was talking about the "rhythm" and "symbolism", to which my response was "IT'S NOTHING BUT COMMAS AND SEMICOLONS!" ...I think that was the same semester as the Portrait of the Artist incident, come to think of it.

Another was a Calc textbook in my freshman year of college. It would show examples of how to do the stuff, but the "method" it showed was guess&check...and its guesses were always right, of course. No way of knowing why it guessed what it did, making every example in the book pretty much useless.

[sktarq]

...what??
I can't possibly be reading that right... Metamorphosis over the course of 8 weeks?
WTF???

At a top notch boarding school that demanded Alpha type personalities of its students he hammered away at that story for a little over two months-admititly it was his first semester and I think he had trouble with the word special education and how it was ment there. To this day I think of him as one of the worst teachers I ever had. But yes you were reading it right. I would have been funny to see the students (all male and compeditive) never open the book yet still quote large sections and argue over why we wasting our valuble time-had I not been the most grouchy agressive one about it in the class.

This has happened with other books aswell for me-if not to the same extent. The Bardbeing on of them....I have been taught Othetho and Much Ado About Nothing by teachers who assumed we could read for ourselves and really just tried to teach us how to get more out of the works. Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, and MacBeth were all done in ways that seriously made me angry at how much they were ruining it for my classmates. I do not need 6 weeks to read a play that can be performed in 2-3 hours. So I stopped taking classes that assind Shakespeare and just him on my own time.

[Amotis]

Wait...are you guys seriously saying Conrad's masterpiece is a bad book? What? Explain.

[Shadowdweller]

Why do these threads always leave me so utterly disgusted at the ignorance of fellow-posters? Gah.

Anyway, Dennis L. McKiernan's The Iron Tower Trilogy: A Tolkien rip-off to end all other Tolkien rip-offs. Seriously, this piece of trash includes even the kraken-thing outside an alternate mines of Moria.

[Tam_OConnor]

I've got to agree with Jerthanis about George R R Martin. Good writing, memorable characters and hundreds of pages on politics! If I wanted politics, I'd watch the news. I want escapism, darnit! Aside from that, no real complaints with him. A shame, really.
And, hoping that I don't get my head handed to me, RA Salvatore. I love the Dark Elf trilogy, Enterei and Jaraxle, maybe even some of the Corona books... but the most recent FR books (Hunter's Blades), the climax in Corona... Ye gads, man!

[Telonius]

I liked "Heart of Darkness," but honestly I wasn't knocked off my feet. It's a very good book, and in writing technique it is a masterpiece. It's a very well-done story, with interesting characters, very good plot, excellent description, and great structure. But the themes didn't impress me as much. Yes, colonialism is bad, and people behave horribly when they think they're superior to the others around them. Nothing earthshattering, groundbreaking, or even particularly interesting (at least to me) there.

[Amotis]

It's not specifically about colonialism. Think of the title. "Heart of Darkness" It talks about the absurdity and madness of evil things (like imperialistic colonisation). Look at all the darkness. The fog. Look at all the subtle dehumanizing imperialism. How hypocritical they are. Look at morals and justification are torn apart by this kinda mad streak of society. How Kurtz is his sole subject in his kingdom and how this drives him mad. How he is his sole voice. It's a very moral commentary filled book. Compare Marlow with Kurtz and you'll find it very apparent.

[Dhavaer]

Swallowdale. Boring. Just boring and bland.

[Cubey]

I didn't say Heart of Darkness is a bad book. Just said the movie's better.

[Telonius]

It's not specifically about colonialism. Think of the title. "Heart of Darkness" It talks about the absurdity and madness of evil things (like imperialistic colonisation). Look at all the darkness. The fog. Look at all the subtle dehumanizing imperialism. How hypocritical they are. Look at morals and justification are torn apart by this kinda mad streak of society. How Kurtz is his sole subject in his kingdom and how this drives him mad. How he is his sole voice. It's a very moral commentary filled book. Compare Marlow with Kurtz and you'll find it very apparent.
That's exactly why I didn't find the themes interesting; it's talking about things that are so blatantly obvious that they don't seem to need a story to tell them, at least to me. But then again, I studied politics in college, it might just be that. :smallbiggrin:

[Amotis]

But it's not...the movie is only a decent war movie. It contains nothing that makes Heart of Darkness good.

@^ Huh? Such things arn't new themes, yes. But then again, nothing hardly is. I think such themes in HoD were excellently placed and worded to the point of being creative.

[Closet_Skeleton]

It's not specifically about colonialism. Think of the title. "Heart of Darkness" It talks about the absurdity and madness of evil things (like imperialistic colonisation). Look at all the darkness. The fog. Look at all the subtle dehumanizing imperialism. How hypocritical they are. Look at morals and justification are torn apart by this kinda mad streak of society. How Kurtz is his sole subject in his kingdom and how this drives him mad. How he is his sole voice. It's a very moral commentary filled book. Compare Marlow with Kurtz and you'll find it very apparent.

Apparently some people find the book racist.

Which made me think of "The cynics guide to progressive literary criticism: Find an old book and say it's racist, any old book will do because dead writers don't have feelings". It annoys me so much when people confuse opinions voiced by characters with opinions held by the author. I suppose there are enough authors that use "fiction" as an excuse for a rant to give un-insightful critics that idea.

I did actually find it sexist though. Whether that's a belief of the author or a comment of the narrator that reflects the times is another thing. The bit where he deliberately lies to Kurt's fiance is hard to label as mysogynist or just merciful. Constantly talking about "the darkness" got a bit cheesy at times.

For "makes your eyes bleed" there's always Lovecraft. Though some might say he makes your eyes bleed in a good way, he is essentially a hack. So is Charles Dickens though. I really hate his brand of murky Victorian drawl.

[zachol]

For "makes your eyes bleed" there's always Lovecraft. Though some might say he makes your eyes bleed in a good way, he is essentially a hack. So is Charles Dickens though. I really hate his brand of murky Victorian drawl.

Makes my eyes bleed in a good way.

If anyone's a hack it's August Derelict.

[Tussy the Druid]

Dave at Night. Orphan by day.... dave at night. He stops being an orphan 'cause it's night time. Of course it makes complete sense!

[J_Muller]

Hey, I liked Catcher in the Rye. It does make you depressive, but that doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing. It somewhat loses its fascination, when you're no longer fourteen, of course.

It's not exactly enchanting when you are fourteen, either. I've never been able to connect with Holden in the slightest, not now, not when I read it.

[Don Beegles]

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man not only made my eyes bleed, but broke my brain as it did so. I was reading it for my English class in High School, so of course we had a worksheet to go along with it...but as I pulled out the worksheet and started reading the second chapter, I just snapped: I set down the book, put away the worksheet, and went to work on the class's "big paper" assignment by writing an essay proving that symbolism didn't exist.


I like Portrait of the Artist. I can understand not liking it if you've only read the first chapter, because Stephen is only a child, and so, like a child, he tends to ramble. I recommend you give it another shot reading from Chapter Two. I'm in the middle of said chapter, and it's much easier than it was.

[heretic]

Hands down, A Tale of Two Cities.

The plot isn't even remotely interesting and the fact that it is written in the slang of the 1800s doesn't help at all. The story doesn't have anything to do with London either. The characters just happen to live there, but any English city would have sufficed. At least in Paris there was setting specific material effecting the plot. It shouldn't be called a tale of TWO cities at all. Grr...

[Pensive Pine]

I can't really think of any books that I hated, but I did recently read one that made me mad at regular intervals. Househusband, by Ad Hudler, which is about this guy who moves from California to New England because his wife gets transferred, and he becomes the primary caregiver at home. The story is okay, but the guy is just so self-righteous! He's always spouting his PC parenting techniques, to the point where I almost couldn't stand it. The example that stands out the most in my mind is how he doesn't want his two-year-old (but oh-so-precocious) daughter to watch The Little Mermaid and prefers Pocahontas as a role model. Meh.

[Ceska]

I...I...

I'm really shocked and dismayed that there are so many decent books on everyone's 'I hate...' lists. I mean, they're taught in schools for a reason (some mostly just busy work).

Take it as that, noone forces you to read it outside of school. If the book really is crap, why read it. But if you have to talk about it or have tests, then you have to read the book. And then you know it's damn boring, don't you?

[sktarq]

Quite frankly I don't think great books CAN be taught. They stand by themselves and will nearly automatically fail in an academic setting. Sure one here or there may connect with a couple of lucky students who are at the right moment in their life for that book. I know I picked up Crime and Punishment for 7 years before I really connected and stormed through the book. I wasn't ready for it yet-and no teacher could have put up with my dithering. Aperciating a great book can be taught-just not the ones used to teach. So in part the teacher must pick which great works to sacrific so that their students may enjoy the rest of them. Sad, but how it worked for most of my peers who I have discussed this subject with.

[Vix]

Well thank goodness I haven't read most of said books, but I have to agree with The Great Gatsby And Terry Goodkind. I'd actually flown through about eight of his books before I was like "ugh.. what is this crap I'm reading?!?"

Also later David Eddings, particularly Redemption of Althatus I couldn't even finish it.

A Separate Peace *shudders*

[Muz]

Ethan #$!%*! Frome. I read it in 11th grade and hated every depressing page.

...Then again, I suppose it is a nice argument against committing suicide. (Or at least making damned sure you don't botch it.)

*shudders*

[ClericofPhwarrr]

Madame Bovary. You think you've read books where nothing happens? Try this one. You'll be stupified. And people call it a classic... :smallannoyed:

The Awakening is another book along the same vein. I despise it as well.

[Scorpina]

I enjoyed Madame Bovary. Mind you, I've never read it in English...

[J_Muller]

Some books are just better in their native language. I'd love to be able to read Cyrano de Bergerac in French, for example.

[Don Beegles]

Some books are just better in their native language. I'd love to be able to read Cyrano de Bergerac in French, for example.

Amen to that. In fact, if I ever get a chance to learn French, I will just for Rostand, Dumas, and Hugo.

[Chunklets]

Amen to that. In fact, if I ever get a chance to learn French, I will just for Rostand, Dumas, and Hugo.

Don't read The Hunchback of Notre Dame if you're feeling depressed...

For my own list of BTMMEB, I'll second (or third, or whatever) the mentions of Terrys Goodkind and Brooks. I'll admit freely that the only book by Brooks that I've read was Sword of Shannara; I just could not bring myself to pick up another one. For one thing, it suffered from what I call "small world syndrome." This is symptomized by passages like this:

"The relic we seek is said to lie within the famed Lost City of Cronk, for which many have spent their lives searching without success. We must set out in search of this fabled place to complete our quest!" said Hero A.

Later that afternoon, the noble band of heroes arrived at the Lost City of Cronk...

Enough has already been said about Goodkind that I don't feel I have anything to add to that.

I would also mention that one book I could not get through was Heart of Darkness, which is odd because I've really enjoyed some of Conrad's other writings. The reason may lie in the fact that it was the last thing we read in my first-year English course, and I was fairly exhausted by that point, having just come through my first experience of university.

[Amotis]

Cyrano needs to be read in French. The main reason being every english translation I've seen always got the last line wrong. All of them!

[Don Beegles]

*Goes to check last line*

Ooh, yeah. I can see where that would be a problem. I assume in the French it manages to hold onto some overtones of honor and courage that are sorely lacking in the bare phrase "My White Plume"?

Ah Cyrano, I love you so. I'm always tempted to memorize it o I could have it at my beck and call anytime I wanted, but I'm not sure that the payback would be worth the week or two invested.

[TheThan]

I'll agree, not all starwars books are complete crap, and you list some of them. I haven't read Tatooine Ghost, and hate Troy Denning's other SW books, but the X-wing series is good, and while I believe people overrate the Zahn trilogy, it was some of the better SW books, so you've got good taste on that list. Most of them read like a pile of fanfiction, which is pretty much what they are for the most part, but there are a few gems.

However, I'd describe Star Wars: Episode 3 novelization as one of those rare gems. From the movie we can barely extract a motivation, we get confused dialogue, we have a poorly written script, binary descisions which arbitrarily and entirely change character motivations, we see jedi as helpless fools unable to detect a conspiracy the size of a galaxy-wide civilization, we see them bumbling, almost on the edge of comic relief. Reading the book, we can feel Anakin's fear, we understand his motives, we sympathize with him and understand him. The Jedi are not fools fall like wheat before a sycthe, they were powerful, wise, but limited in their perception. They could not focus on where they are and what they are doing because they look so much to destiny, to the future and some grand plan, but ignoring where they are (Yoda goes on to teach Luke the mistakes he himself made.) We see Obi-wan not as a blind fool and a clumsy bumbler, but as a noble example of a truly great hero. We get reason, we get purpose, and we get to see the great story of how far a hero can fall which was buried amidst George's direction and writing.




At least out of the ones I’ve read, Tatooine Ghost is pretty much Troy Denning’s best star wars book to date. It sort of goes back to the high adventure that makes starwars well, starwars. The book deals with Leia’s feeling towards Anakin Skywalker and though a series of minor events she begins to see the other side of him that people on Tatooine knew. All in the midst of a rip roaring adventure. Plus it has Han ridding on one of those big pod racer engines.

I’ll agree with you to a point about episode III, maybe I’m being too hard on it but I was expecting a bit more out of it than there was. I wanted to see the Emperor subtly take over the republic from within and play the senate and Jedi like puppets on a string. But most of that is shoved into the background and the few people who realize what’s happening realize it too late. It also seems way too easy for the Emperor to twist Anakin to the dark side. Granted Anakin wasn’t born into the Jedi but still he spent the better part of his life with them and you’d think some of that Jedi wisdom would have worn off. I guess that’s part of the problem with the prequels as a whole. Its about the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker but you never really get a good glimpse at what makes him fall, the corruption is skimmed over and when we get to the end of episode III we go “what the heck? That A$$”.

Its not that I’m looking for a political commentary where there isn’t any, its that the fall of Old Republic is a very important piece of the starwars history and I wanted to read about it and how the main characters fit into it. Instead it’s glossed over and we get a story that tries and fails to focus on Anakin’s rise and fall.

Anyway back on topic.
Most of the newer magic: the gathering novels have been pretty mediocre, I started reading them about onslaught block and stopped soon after. It would be better if they didn’t try to make every book epic. I mean really it like, could they not write a story that doesn’t involve the potential destruction of whatever plane the main characters are on? Apparently not, then they can seem to develop their mediocre starting point into something remotely entertaining.
But a friend of mine let me borrow some of the older stuff and its quite good, so somewhere between The Brothers War and Onslaught, the series went to crap…

Now Time Spiral and Planar Chaos seems interesting because the characters are trying to fix the crap that happened in the other books.

[Caelestion]

Well, I'm making no value judgements on whether these books are good or bad.

That said, I hated The Mayor Casterbridge, Of Mice & Men and Lord of the Flies. (I suck at bad endings.) Northanger Abbey was so dull, I couldn't get past the first couple of pages. CS Lewis' The Last Battle was not my favourite Narnia book by any means. I lost all interest in Robert Jordan after the unremittingly dull 67-page PROLOGUE in book 6.
On a different note, I actually quite liked Animal Farm.

[Om]

Some books are just better in their native language. I'd love to be able to read Cyrano de Bergerac in French, for example.I think the same goes for any work really. You'll never get the same read from a translation as you would the original.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I think the same goes for any work really. You'll never get the same read from a translation as you would the original.

Apparently someone once learnt Russian just so he could find out if War and Peace was really that boring in the original. Only to find out that it lost nothing in translation.

I can't remember if he was a character or a real person. I have a feeling he might have been a character in another book but he may have reflected the feelings of the author.

[CrazedGoblin]

for the english course we read the books "To Kill a Mockingbird" and the plot was so amazingly boring and then there was the "Crucible" and although its a play its also the most painfull thing to read.

[Jack Squat]

The Scarlet Letter

This book was so amazingly boring. I mean the first chapter's about a prison door and a rosebush next to it; and it doesn't get better from there.

Plus you know, this book literally made my eyes bleed as someone threw a copy of it at me.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Dostoevsky's Crime and Punisment is awful. The beginning of the book up to the murder isn't bad, and the end of the book is really cool, but everything in the middle is horrible. It was extremely boring, and very difficult to get through. I had to read it in a 19th centruy Russian Lit class in college. The other book we read in the class, Turgenev's Fathers and Sons on the other hand is very good.

[Muz]

Most Russian literature--what little I've been exposed to, at least, so this is far from an expert opinion--seems to follow the pattern of starting out kind of depressing, getting better, and then ending in a more depressing place than where it began. Even a Russian comedic play I saw once followed that formula. :)

[Don Beegles]

I sort of agree, PGC. I never finished Crime and Punishment, or rather, I put it down for a long while and haven't picked it up again because the middle section was meh. Maybe when I reread it, I'll like it better, but I'm not sure.

I did love Fathers and Sons, though. Bazarov's conception of nihilism in order to rebuild was so much more understandable than simply pulling down for the sake of it. I think his friend's (The damn name escapes me) philosophy, however, was more interesting, because he wasn't quite willing to commit fully to Bazarov's ideas. The sort of counterplay between them, and the growth of the friend's ideas off of Bazarov's was cool.

[Amotis]

Most Russian literature--what little I've been exposed to, at least, so this is far from an expert opinion--seems to follow the pattern of starting out kind of depressing, getting better, and then ending in a more depressing place than where it began. Even a Russian comedic play I saw once followed that formula. :)

You saw a Checkov play.

Anywho, why is everyone bashing good counerstone books? You personally may not of liked 'em but their taught and spread for a reason. They're really good standpoints and examples of literature. The topic of the thread is completely horrid books that shouldn't be even considered books. Not stuff that you didn't like.

[Muz]

But I really did hate Ethan Frome! :smallbiggrin:

But okay, let's see. On advice from a friend I started reading a book by Harry Turtledove about what "might've" happened if really stupid aliens invaded Earth during WWII. (I forget the title off-hand. Anyone remember?) It was just...well, dull, frankly. I can recall being frustrated that the main characters were nearly all fictional (i.e. nothing with Roosevelt or Stalin, etc.), as well as the fact that aliens had shown up to Earth, crossing vast interstellar distances, and only had what amounted to 1990s technology. :smallconfused:

Plus--and I can only remember thinking this, just not why--the writing itself was rather lackluster. I'd explain, but I no longer remember it that well. :smallsmile:

And anything written by Kevin J. Anderson. (Well, okay, maybe not anything--but Jedi Search was just...no. I'm afraid to see what he and Brian Herbert did to the Dune-iverse.)

[Don Beegles]

You saw a Checkov play.

Anywho, why is everyone bashing good counerstone books? You personally may not of liked 'em but their taught and spread for a reason. They're really good standpoints and examples of literature. The topic of the thread is completely horrid books that shouldn't be even considered books. Not stuff that you didn't like.

I don't know Amotis, I'd say if it you truly hated it with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, bring it up. That is what the thread is for, and some classics are really bad. Jane Austen, James Fenimore Cooper, etc, are all examples of books that are famous largely because they are old. Maybe they have literaray merit, but it's buried, and they're not necessarily enjoyable.

Besides, haven't we covered in the Favorite Books thread that some people read skin-deep and don't read into books. (Pun Intended) Maybe because of this they detest certain books. It doesn't make them bad books, or stupid people, it just makes them incompatible, and that's what the thread is here for.

I do agree, however, that alot of people seem to dislike books becuase they're classic or because they were taught in school, and don't let them stand on their own merits before bashing them. Just because crazy Mr. Conners in Room 214 taught a book badly doesn't make it a bad book, people.

[Reinforcements]

But I really did hate Ethan Frome! :smallbiggrin:
God, yes. Ethan Frome is terrible. I figured out that Frome's life and the town he lives in suck from the first chapter, it didn't need harping on for 200 pages. And while there might have been something worthwhile hidden inside The Scarlet Letter, it was just too damn boring. Those are the only read-for-school books I really hate though (and they tried their damnedest to make me hate Lord of the Flies, too).

[Sisqui]

Anywho, why is everyone bashing good counerstone books? You personally may not of liked 'em but their taught and spread for a reason. They're really good standpoints and examples of literature. The topic of the thread is completely horrid books that shouldn't be even considered books. Not stuff that you didn't like.

Actually, I took the phrase "make my eyes bleed" to mean books I didn't like:smallwink:

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

My dad does a tremendous amount of reading. He also has a list of books that are considered classics which he reads a book from from time to time. He seems to find that most of these books are awful. He disliked Faulkner's The Sound and Fury among several others on the list which escape me at the moment. Honestly I find it very interesting that all these "classics" aren't very good reads.

[Amotis]

Okay but I still don't get the connection of "really boring" to "makes my eyes bleed."

Let me explain. I think golf is the bloodist boring sport of the world. But I'm not saying golf is bad, I'm saying I'm not interested in it. Boring is a very personal thing. It means nothing to discribe something as boring because what defines something as boring is simply from one perspective only. I know that seems obvious but it's overlooked. Boring means nothing.

[Jack Squat]

Okay but I still don't get the connection of "really boring" to "makes my eyes bleed."

Let me explain. I think golf is the bloodist boring sport of the world. But I'm not saying golf is bad, I'm saying I'm not interested in it. Boring is a very personal thing. It means nothing to discribe something as boring because what defines something as boring is simply from one perspective only. I know that seems obvious but it's overlooked. Boring means nothing.

Boring is subjective, but if you enjoy reading an entire chapter describing a freaking door and a rosebush then something is wrong with you.

I know I wasn't the only one that said boring, but still.

[Amotis]

Or maybe somethings wrong with you. You never know.

[Jack Squat]

I like Supertramp, I know there's something wrong with me :smalltongue:

The book still literally made my eye(s) bleed.

[Scorpina]

Jane Austen, James Fenimore Cooper, etc, are all examples of books that are famous largely because they are old.

Woah! Jane Austen is awesome! The other guy I've never heard of, but Jane Austen is cool.

[J_Muller]

But okay, let's see. On advice from a friend I started reading a book by Harry Turtledove about what "might've" happened if really stupid aliens invaded Earth during WWII. (I forget the title off-hand. Anyone remember?) It was just...well, dull, frankly. I can recall being frustrated that the main characters were nearly all fictional (i.e. nothing with Roosevelt or Stalin, etc.), as well as the fact that aliens had shown up to Earth, crossing vast interstellar distances, and only had what amounted to 1990s technology. :smallconfused:

Plus--and I can only remember thinking this, just not why--the writing itself was rather lackluster. I'd explain, but I no longer remember it that well. :smallsmile:


I forget what that book is called, but it's one of a trilogy. I read the first two and got a bit bored. I also thought it was a bit odd--they can bring an entire army across interstellar distances, but they don't even have body armor for their soldiers.


As for Supertramp, there's nothing wrong with that. Or there's a lot wrong with me. I'm guessing it's me.

[talsine]

theres not a whole lot fo stuff that made my eyes bleed to be honest, though i dislike some of the stuf mentioned in this thread, little of it was terrible.

Except Battlefield Earth. I saw the movie and demanded my money back
I read the book, got from the library, and demanded my money back.
And while, in this case, the movie was better than the book, thats like compairing green poo to brown poo, one may smell better, but in the end its all still poo, you know?

[SetzerValorin]

Okay, after reading through this, I absolutely must post my own contribution.

First, my agreements on authors that tend to make my eyes bleed- Terry Goodkind, Stephen King, Rand, Brooks...each awful in their own right, whether through their pretentious expectation for their readers to gobble up their tripe and like it, or simply letting their ego spill over onto their parchment.

Stephen King has some exceptions, mostly in the form of short stories he wrote before he became famous.

Next, my agreements on individual books that have made my eyes bleed- The Pearl was indeed dreadful. War and Peace would've been so much better if it wasn't a chore akin to an entire year of doing nothing but cleaning dishes day-in and day-out with only an hour of rest between 12 hours of more dirty dishes.

Thirdly, my additions- The White Dragon...I normally have nothing against Ann McCaffery, but I just couldn't get through this one. The whole Dragonrider setup bothers me-Dragons subservient to humans, bah!-but that's just personal feelings, and the literature beyond that is still quite good. But The White Dragon pushed any limits of tolerability I had to the brink.

This may or may not count, as it's poetry, but everything ever scrawled by the tainted hand of Emily Dickinson. I just don't get it. What about this drivel is so great? My personal, and often argued with, opinion is that the praise of Emily Dickinson's poetry led to the decay and current state of garbage that the genre now suffers from.

Finally, my arguments and suggestions - For those who dislike the Wheel of Time I can only express shock. Just because named characters aren't dying, things aren't exploding, and cities aren't (quite) collapsing, doesn't mean that nothing is happening. In fact, quite a bit is happening, but it's happening to a large number of characters, each of whom have their own ambitions. I know I'm one of maybe ten people total who still think this, no need to flame me.

If you haven't already, read The Stranger. Crazy, but mindblowing.

And if anyone mentions Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in a negative light, so help me, I might just have to shake my fist at my computer and inevitably come to terms with the fact that not everyone agrees on things!

[J_Muller]

Finally, my arguments and suggestions - For those who dislike the Wheel of Time I can only express shock. Just because named characters aren't dying, things aren't exploding, and cities aren't (quite) collapsing, doesn't mean that nothing is happening. In fact, quite a bit is happening, but it's happening to a large number of characters, each of whom have their own ambitions. I know I'm one of maybe ten people total who still think this, no need to flame me.

If you haven't already, read The Stranger. Crazy, but mindblowing.


@The WoT: Yes, a lot is happening. But it's happening to too many characters. The plot is so complicated at this point that you practiacally need to take notes to make sense of what's happening to who and when. When there are so many important characters that the author can spend 50 pages on each of them and fill a 1000-page book, the plot is too complex. For me, at least.

@The Stranger: Actually, I liked that book. Mersault is crazy, sure, but the absurdity of it all blows you away. Like he says in the book, "It just happened that way."
I also find the fact that I can actually somewhat relate to Mersault, more than most other character's I've read, a nice commentary on the quality of, say books like Catcher in the Rye, where you're supposed to relate to the main character.

[Muz]

And if anyone mentions Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in a negative light, so help me, I might just have to shake my fist at my computer and inevitably come to terms with the fact that not everyone agrees on things!

SetzerV- Have you ever read a book by Mark Frost called The List of Seven? (It's actually a book I quite like, so I probably shouldn't be mentioning it in this thread, but it's a supernatural thriller written with Doyle as the main character.)

[Reinforcements]

I'm going to steal Muller's posting style! Mwa ha ha!

@ Terry Brooks - I like his books while recognizing that they aren't amazing and that The Sword of Shannara is a blatant LoTR rip-off. If you keep reading they at least become at least passably original.

@ Terry Goodkind - The only significant thing I took from reading Wizard's First Rule was that a LOT of stuff happened in it which included some weird cult of sadomasochistic women. I've never read anything else, but I'm more than willing to believe tales of how they suck.

@ Anne McCaffery - I can sorta understand having a conceptual problem with dragons subservient to humans, but at least she had a good reason why - the dragons in question were created through genetic engineering to be subservient to humans. It's not like the dragons just decided it'd be really cool to let humans ride them for no reason (gee, which book did THAT?).

@ Stephen King - The only thing I read of his was some fantasy or other that involved some prince being locked in a tower and an evil wizard named Flagg. I didn't hate it, but I do strongly dislike King's writing style.

@ Jane Austen - I've never really read her stuff, but I get the impression that she had a slight problem with writing the same story over and over (like a certain contemporary author I could name).

@ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - Is awesome.

@ Charles Dickens - What's with all the hatin'? I thought both A Christmas Carol and A Tale of Two Cities were freaking sweet.

And yes,
@ Christopher Paolini - Eldest is the worst book I've ever read, or at least the most poorly written.

[J_Muller]

And yes,
@ Christopher Paolini - Eldest is the worst book I've ever read, or at least the most poorly written.

Then you've obviously never read the book based off this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iceberg_Hermit#In_fiction_and_modern-day_media).

Worst book I've ever read. And I've read Eldest. Seriously, people, give Paolini some time. He's probably younger than most of you.

Heh, heh. Firefox spellchecker says Paolini should be Paolina.

[averagejoe]

@ Jane Austen - I've never really read her stuff, but I get the impression that she had a slight problem with writing the same story over and over (like a certain contemporary author I could name).

I'm a more-or-less fan of Jane Austen, and I can only say that it isn't so much the same story over and over again as it is recurring themes and character archetypes, as well as it being about the same sorts of people. The thing you have to remember, though, is she died fairly young, and the only thing she wrote about was the only life she knew. I've only ever read two of her books, however, and those are all I can speak for (well, I know the general plots of some others, and have seen the movie version of one or two, but that hardly counts.) Sense and Sensibility was her earliest book, and it shows, but Pride and Prejudice had many a clever phrase and was a fairly well done narrative. It wasn't by any means the best book I have read, but it was good for those who enjoy that sort of thing. (Clever dialogue, that is.)

Edit: Speaking of Austin, a book that I have never read, but nonetheless probably deserves to be put on the top of this "eyes bleed" list, is some contemporary book that's supposedly a "sequel" to Pride and Prejudice. It's called, Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife, or something along those lines. Great example of how to turn clever prose and (for the time) progressive social commentary and turn it into a harlequin romance of soap opera-esque proportions.

[JabberwockySupafly]

I'm more than likely going to be lynched for saying this, but I guess it'll be a noble sacrifice.



I cannot stand anything written by R.A. Salvatore. I swear to Glod if you listen to the rustling of the pages when you turn them, you'll hear the dice rolling. I wouldn't be surprised if he started writing the numeric damage, remaining number of Hit Points the characters have, and how much XP they get after each conflict. The fact he also started the whole Drow Fanboy thing doesn't help his case with me either. Ah well, i'm done releasing my rage for the day.




Cheers
JS

[Artanis]

Okay but I still don't get the connection of "really boring" to "makes my eyes bleed."

Let me explain. I think golf is the bloodist boring sport of the world. But I'm not saying golf is bad, I'm saying I'm not interested in it. Boring is a very personal thing. It means nothing to discribe something as boring because what defines something as boring is simply from one perspective only. I know that seems obvious but it's overlooked. Boring means nothing.
But what would happen if you sat down and watched golf for twelve straight hours, and then saw a thread on the forum asking, "what sport made your eyes bleed"? You'd probably answer, "golf" because you were so unhappy at having had to watch Tiger Woods sit around and preen for twelve hours :smalltongue:

[Amotis]

The Stranger isn't crazy or mindblowing I don't think. Camus wasn't the prodigy philosopher he was called to be. Absurdism is one of the weakest ideals I've ever read about and if people think he's an existensialist then the father of Existensialism (Sarte) called it not a good existensialist book.

I'm not saying it's not a good book, his style is great and it certainly gets his point across (I suppose...unless you are stupid and try to interpret it as a novel), it's just that it's not the best philosophical work to come.

And what's wrong with Dickinson? And what's wrong with modern poetry?

Also, Salvator, Brooks, Goodkind, etc. I don't really consider them literature so I don't really judge them on the same level. Each of them if fine if you don't read anything in italics (especially salvator) and just think of it as a nerd writing nerd stuff. Nothing more really.

[Bears With Lasers]

No, no, Goodkind is definitely a level below.

[averagejoe]

Also, Salvator, Brooks, Goodkind, etc. I don't really consider them literature so I don't really judge them on the same level. Each of them if fine if you don't read anything in italics (especially salvator) and just think of it as a nerd writing nerd stuff. Nothing more really.

Amen to that.

Now, I'm not extraordinarily widely read in contemporary fantasy, but it seems like they all eventually degenerate into the author living out his sexual fantasies through his books. (I'm looking at you, Jordan.)

[Bears With Lasers]

Except for the ones that are actually Good Literature, which there's just as much of in fantasy as any other genre. 90% of everything is crap, remember.

[averagejoe]

Yeah, but it seems especially symptomatic of that genre. I don't know that I've read any literature fantasy that came after Tolkien, actually. I mean, I've read stuff that's entertaining in a, "My brain is tired from school and can't deal with Hugo," sort of way, but nothing I could really sink my teeth into.

[Cybren]

Except for the ones that are actually Good Literature, which there's just as much of in fantasy as any other genre. 90% of everything is crap, remember.
No, fantasy is exceptionally bad. Nearing 99.999999%

[Bears With Lasers]

As opposed to... what? Mystery? Horror? Romance? Regular "fiction"? Please. Fantasy isn't any better or worse than any other genre.

[Reinforcements]

I'm more than likely going to be lynched for saying this, but I guess it'll be a noble sacrifice.



I cannot stand anything written by R.A. Salvatore. I swear to Glod if you listen to the rustling of the pages when you turn them, you'll hear the dice rolling. I wouldn't be surprised if he started writing the numeric damage, remaining number of Hit Points the characters have, and how much XP they get after each conflict. The fact he also started the whole Drow Fanboy thing doesn't help his case with me either. Ah well, i'm done releasing my rage for the day.




Cheers
JS
Actually, I completely agree with you. Salvatore is a hack. I swear, if I ever have to read the phrase "600 pounds of panther" one more time I might hurt somebody.

Also, Salvator, Brooks, Goodkind, etc. I don't really consider them literature so I don't really judge them on the same level. Each of them if fine if you don't read anything in italics (especially salvator) and just think of it as a nerd writing nerd stuff. Nothing more really.
Well, that's kinda the thing (okay, [rant on]). While I admit that I'm not one to look for deep meaning, symbolism and whatnot (or care if a book has them), I do think we should be holding fantasy to some kind of standard. We shouldn't be going, "Oh, it's just fantasy, so it's fun but stupid and who cares if the writing's bad?" It shouldn't be JUST fantasy, JUST a fun little diversion. Tolkien, Martin, Pullman, even Alexander and Eddings and Jacques to a certain degree, are GOOD (or at least decent) writers. Obviously you can't expect everyone to make a new Middle Earth, but I will still grind my teeth whenever anyone tells me how great something like Eragon is, or how it's their favorite book, or how they know it's stupid and derivative and poorly written but who cares it's FANTASY! A book can be both fun to read and GOOD, dammit![/rant off]

[J_Muller]

Actually, I completely agree with you. Salvatore is a hack. I swear, if I ever have to read the phrase "600 pounds of panther" one more time I might hurt somebody.

Taken by itself, that one phrase is simply hilarious.

[averagejoe]

^I'd tentatively add LeGuin to that list (the one with Tolkien and Alexander, that is), but based soely on the strength of A Wizard of Earthsea, which was absolutely fantastic, although I didn't care for some of her other works.

It seems like sort-of the same symptoms that early comic books suffered, and to some degree do suffer. Of course, I'm not extraordinarily knowledgable about the subject, so I couldn't say for sure.

[J_Muller]

Now, I'm not extraordinarily widely read in contemporary fantasy, but it seems like they all eventually degenerate into the author living out his sexual fantasies through his books. (I'm looking at you, Jordan.)

Eventually? If I'm not mistaken, it's implied from the start that Green Aes Sedai have sexual relations with their multiple warders.

[Bears With Lasers]

And there are the pillow friends. And all the spanking.

Not, of course, that spanking is a bad thing.

[J_Muller]

Wasn't there that one queen that made Mat into her boy toy? I forget which book that's from.

[averagejoe]

Eventually? If I'm not mistaken, it's implied from the start that Green Aes Sedai have sexual relations with their multiple warders.

If I remember correctly, they didn't really go into that in the first book. Of course, it's been years.

[J_Muller]

Well, it's in whichever book they start talking about the different colors of Aes Sedai.

Aes Sedai: Taste the Rainbow!

[Reinforcements]

And my unending quest to never read anything by Robert Jordan continues unabated.

[J_Muller]

I actually really think it's a shame the way he's running the series into the ground--I started to think he was really getting somewhere when Rand started to form the Army of the Dragon with all the male channelers. But alas, we haven't heard from them for the last two books.

Just to do it, once Robert Jordan finishes the series/dies, I'll probably reread the entire thing. Because other than the parts where nothing happens, a lot happens.

[Adygias]

@ Jane Austen - I've never really read her stuff, but I get the impression that she had a slight problem with writing the same story over and over (like a certain contemporary author I could name).

Read more of her stuff. In my book, Jane Austen is one of the greatest writers in the English language. She likes writing complex relationships and consistently satirizes Victorian nobility, but it's not the same book. Even if it's similar, does that make her books bad? I mean, didn't Shakespeare write maybe three comedies and rehash them relentlessly? It's okay--I think it takes a certain type of person to really love Austen, and although it's not required, it helps if you're a girl.

The worst book I've ever read was probably a Star Wars book. I don't remember which one thanks to years of psychotherapy, but I think it had something to do with a space station in a double planet system. Part of a trilogy.

As far as reputedly good books go, I never got Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. I've had people tell me I'd love Joyce, but I hated this one, probably because I had the drug-addict English teacher that year. :smallfrown: High school can ruin anything.

As for fantasy, I'm sorry to say it, but I think that role-playing has had a terribly detrimental effect on the genre. It's made it popular for reasons other than good and provocative writing. Add to this a bad tendency to just vary on Tolkien, and some strict limits for what constitutes high fantasy, and you've got a recipe for a genre filled with gos se. I discovered Wizard of Earthsea recently, and loved that, but I'm pretty much terrified to try Wheel of Time or anything like that. I really don't a repeat of the Corellia Trilogy incident. I can't afford the therapy.

[Bears With Lasers]

Ady--try Guy Gavriel Kay; The Fionavar Tapestry is basically high fantasy tropes intentionally used to incredible effect, and his other stuff, like Tigana is absolutely brilliant and beautiful and bittersweet.

[Telonius]

@ Stephen King - The only thing I read of his was some fantasy or other that involved some prince being locked in a tower and an evil wizard named Flagg.


That would be "The Eyes of the Dragon."

Regarding the qualilty of fantasy books in general ... I agree. I love fantasy, and I love to see it done well. That's what makes it all the more painful when what I read is a steaming pile of awfulness. Dropping an elf and a dwarf into a bad romance novel does not make that story fantasy, it just makes it a bad romance novel with an elf and a dwarf.

And I seriously hope that comments like these don't come back to bite me when my own book is finished. :smallbiggrin:

[Amotis]

And there are the pillow friends. And all the spanking.

Not, of course, that spanking is a bad thing.

Bears with Lasers' sex life gets more interesting every time he posts.



Well, that's kinda the thing (okay, [rant on]). While I admit that I'm not one to look for deep meaning, symbolism and whatnot (or care if a book has them), I do think we should be holding fantasy to some kind of standard. We shouldn't be going, "Oh, it's just fantasy, so it's fun but stupid and who cares if the writing's bad?" It shouldn't be JUST fantasy, JUST a fun little diversion. Tolkien, Martin, Pullman, even Alexander and Eddings and Jacques to a certain degree, are GOOD (or at least decent) writers. Obviously you can't expect everyone to make a new Middle Earth, but I will still grind my teeth whenever anyone tells me how great something like Eragon is, or how it's their favorite book, or how they know it's stupid and derivative and poorly written but who cares it's FANTASY! A book can be both fun to read and GOOD, dammit![/rant off]

Okay...but it doesn't change the point that they're major steps below what good books should be. So even if we do hold them to the same standard it doesn't change what they are. I suppose we're giving them an excuse to write bad books if we hold them to a lower standard but to be honest I don't think it would change anything if our standards changed.

[talsine]

I saw someone mention "Assassin's Apprentice" a couple pages back and was a bit suprised, for the first book of a new fantasy series and one of the very few low fantasy books to be printed in years it was good, and only got better with each book. To be honest, with every book that Robin Hobb puts out I like her more and more, and it reminds me why i fell in love with fantasy in the first place. Namely, Conan and all of his pulp friends. I love low fantasty, everyone wants an explosion and dragons and all that. Me, i prefer the chracterization in the old style of fantasty. Not to say that these things don't exist, but the story doesn't deal with them to exclusion of all else.

While magic existed, and even played a major role in many of the Conan stories, it wasn't in all of them, and most of them were about thugs doing thug things. Same thing with some of Hobbs stuff, though more and more magic seems to be seeping in, especialy this new Shaman series, but it still holds true to the low fantasty roots it grew from.

Now, as for WoT, i like it, i'm not saying its the greatest series out there, but it certainly deserves a little more espect than its given here. When you compare nearly anything to Tolkein it will come back wanting, doesn't make it a bad series. Have all the plots gotten away from him a bit? Sure, but the reason not as much happens in the last 2 books is that he's starting to tie up some of those loose ends, and thats a good thing, it shows the end is in sight. At least he's trying, Salvatore, outside of his non-realms work, is beating the same dead horse. I'm not even sure its a horse anymore, it may just be a puddle of mud with some blood in it. who knows anymore.

But thats just my opinion. Me, i'm gonna go back to my Dawkins and Nietzsche, fiction is too much work.

[Chunklets]

Read more of her stuff. In my book, Jane Austen is one of the greatest writers in the English language. She likes writing complex relationships and consistently satirizes Victorian nobility, but it's not the same book. Even if it's similar, does that make her books bad? I mean, didn't Shakespeare write maybe three comedies and rehash them relentlessly? It's okay--I think it takes a certain type of person to really love Austen, and although it's not required, it helps if you're a girl.

I remember sitting on the bus one day some years ago watching a guy who was the living, breathing, image of the student athlete (ball cap on backwards, sweat pants, team jacket with leather sleeves, enormous sports bag full of foul-smelling hockey equipment) going on and on to the bus driver about how much he loved Jane Austen, and how Emma was the best book he'd ever read. It was kind of sweet, actually - I enjoy watching stereotypes get blown up.


Ady--try Guy Gavriel Kay; The Fionavar Tapestry is basically high fantasy tropes intentionally used to incredible effect, and his other stuff, like Tigana is absolutely brilliant and beautiful and bittersweet.

Amen to that. If you haven't read Tigana, you have missed out. In fact, I think it's about time for me to read that one again.

As for eye-gougingly bad books, there are any number of atrocities that have been perpetrated by authors seeking to get in on the Robert Ludlum-style spy thriller genre. I speak of the books where the author is quite obviously living vicariously through his square-jawed, well-muscled, incredibly oversexed main character.

[TheThan]

I'm more than likely going to be lynched for saying this, but I guess it'll be a noble sacrifice.



I cannot stand anything written by R.A. Salvatore. I swear to Glod if you listen to the rustling of the pages when you turn them, you'll hear the dice rolling. I wouldn't be surprised if he started writing the numeric damage, remaining number of Hit Points the characters have, and how much XP they get after each conflict. The fact he also started the whole Drow Fanboy thing doesn't help his case with me either. Ah well, i'm done releasing my rage for the day.




Cheers
JS

Not to mention he's the one responsible for killing off Chewbacca....

[Wolf53226]

Just about anything written by Dickens is almost impossible to get through, I mean really, he writes such great stories, if taken as a whole, but is wordy as can be. Then again, we had this complaint to a literature teacher once, and they explained that in Dickens time the author was paid by the word, which would explain most of this.

Also, Diane Duane, it's like nails across a chalk board to get through her books, but of course she has written a number of them in certain series that I read.

[Flabbicus]

Digital Fortress by Dan Brown. Even though all of his books have the same plot, protagonists, antagonists, and organizations this was by far the worst one of the lot.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Digital Fortress by Dan Brown. Even though all of his books have the same plot, protagonists, antagonists, and organizations this was by far the worst one of the lot.
Quoted for Truth.

The memory that stands out from that particular novel was tossing it down and shouting "Cryptology does not work that way!" about 2/3rds of the way through. It didn't help that I had just finished Neal Stephenson's superb Cryptonomicon.

I recently tried to get through Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Tried being the key word. I'd say more, but whenever I start talking about that series, I start yelling, and I'm currently at work, so that wouldn't be a particularly good thing to have happen.

[zachol]

I like the complete predictability and relentless stupidity of Brown's novels.


Not to go into politics, but I think that the majority of books that've made my eyes bleed have been philosophical or political things that seem to be riddled with the most obnoxious holes.
Philosophers seem to have two modes for writing - no real explanation, or obscenely complex explanation hidden behind layers of confusing fluff.

[Jack Squat]

Not to go into politics, but I think that the majority of books that've made my eyes bleed have been philosophical or political things that seem to be riddled with the most obnoxious holes.
Philosophers seem to have two modes for writing - no real explanation, or obscenely complex explanation hidden behind layers of confusing fluff.

And on this note Machiavelli's The Prince was also thrown at me in my AP Gov class.

For some reason people like to throw books at me.

[zachol]

If you have the time and inclination to read through the books carefully and make sure you understand everything that's written, and you're not particularly against the philosophy, they can make a lot of sense.
Nietzsche (and Lovecraft, if he actually wrote philosophy and not just "nameless horrors! indescribeable! is that not scary?? look, I'll write a story where the protagonist is initially skeptical of his friends 'agh it's indescribable' explanations of a haunting, but then sees the thing and agrees it's indescribeable, and thus I will legitimize my own lack of actual descriptions beyond nameless horrors and subtly criticize those who criticize me for always playing the perfect trump card of namelessness! brilliant AND legitimate!!") seem to be this situation, at least as far as I've experienced.

However, having it forced into you by a class or trying to read it "just to have read it" makes me, at least, rather... annoyed. Angry.

I mean, where do people learn to write so painfully? WTF??

[DarkPhilosopher]

Eragon and buddies. There is a time when you have to say "no" to formula. And to Gary Sues.

[Lord of the Helms]

Now, I'm not extraordinarily widely read in contemporary fantasy, but it seems like they all eventually degenerate into the author living out his sexual fantasies through his books. (I'm looking at you, Jordan.)

George R.R. Martin is the worst of the lot in that respect. By a pretty impressive margin.


I saw someone mention "Assassin's Apprentice" a couple pages back and was a bit suprised, for the first book of a new fantasy series and one of the very few low fantasy books to be printed in years it was good, and only got better with each book.

That would've been me, and I stated it quite clearly- the problem was character-based, not world-based and not totally plot-based. It wasn't bad because it was overall worthless, it was bad because it actually had potential but royally screwed up in one particular, very important aspect: It had the single flattest, dumbest, most black-and-white, incompetent and downright pathetic villain I've ever witnessed in any book, ever. And it really brings down the plot in the end, too ("Ohh Emm Gee, the diabolical master plan of this character whom we've all known to be dumb, incompetent and overambitious for the last few hundred pages fails, who would've guessed?").

[JellyPooga]

I really liked Dune.

It's sequel ruined it. Normally, even if I don't like a book, I still enjoy having read it (I'm just that sort of person), but the sequel to Dune (I forget the name...this is deliberate) just destroyed everything that was good about the original.

It truly did make my eyes bleed...pus...with fungus growing in it...with plague rats eating the fungus...whilst rabid dogs eat the rats...:smallfurious:

I don't like that book...:smallmad:

[Timberwolf]

Amen to that.

Now, I'm not extraordinarily widely read in contemporary fantasy, but it seems like they all eventually degenerate into the author living out his sexual fantasies through his books. (I'm looking at you, Jordan.)

Speaking of overdone, bizarre sex (but not necessarily their fantasy), by far the worst one that I've come across is Laurell K Hamilton with her Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter novels.

Now, the early ones were great, the character was obviously based on how the author wanted to be but no worries, at least the story didn't revolve around one thing. It all changed after the lead character had sex with her vampire. I swear at least a 3rd of each book are sex scenes involving either the undead or lycanthropes or both at the same time. I mean, the vampire and the werecreatures are obviously massively sexy beasts or they wouldn't get a look in but still, speaking personally, I really don't want to read that. I mean, there's one wereleopard who seems to have been introduced solely to give the author room to talk about the massive size of his weapon (and no, he doesn't use a shotgun). Gahhhh this was a perfectly good series until the author had to start this up. And if I have to read about the size of that frickin wereleopard once more.....

Anyway, yeah, I find Dickins nightmarishly boring too.

[Reinforcements]

George R.R. Martin is the worst of the lot in that respect. By a pretty impressive margin.
Buh? There's a lot of sex in A Song of Ice and Fire, but I never got the sense that Martin was "living out his sexual fantasies". It all seemed pretty appropriate for the world and what was happening, much like the extensive amount of violence in the series. Martin is one of my favorite authors, and one of the few actually good fantasy writers out there.

[Haruki-kun]

THE LABRYNTH OF SOLITUDE

though I doubt many people will recognize it.

[averagejoe]

George R.R. Martin is the worst of the lot in that respect. By a pretty impressive margin.

I don't know about impressive margins. The first book was alright in that respect, but I can see it starting to go downhill. It's all because Eddard died :smallfrown:

[Lord of the Helms]

I don't know about impressive margins. The first book was alright in that respect, but I can see it starting to go downhill. It's all because Eddard died :smallfrown:

It's gotten increasingly bad with every following book, to the point where A Feast for Crows had more poorly-written sex scenes than actual plot or events.

[sapphail]

Angels and Demons by that God-cursed hack Dan Brown. Yes, I knew it was a Dan Brown book, I wasn't expecting Shakespeare, people. But this piece of absolute tripe was so badly written and with such frankly ludicrous assertions that I was actually angry with it by page 42. Utterly, utterly dreadful.

[Reinforcements]

It's gotten increasingly bad with every following book, to the point where A Feast for Crows had more poorly-written sex scenes than actual plot or events.
What the hell are you talking about (to quote the professor)? I just read A Feast for Crows and there were maybe 4 brief sex scenes in the entire book.

[talsine]

That would've been me, and I stated it quite clearly- the problem was character-based, not world-based and not totally plot-based. It wasn't bad because it was overall worthless, it was bad because it actually had potential but royally screwed up in one particular, very important aspect: It had the single flattest, dumbest, most black-and-white, incompetent and downright pathetic villain I've ever witnessed in any book, ever. And it really brings down the plot in the end, too ("Ohh Emm Gee, the diabolical master plan of this character whom we've all known to be dumb, incompetent and overambitious for the last few hundred pages fails, who would've guessed?").

Its addressed in the latter books in the series, as this book is almost entirely setup for the next to and the second trilogy with those characters (The Tawny Man). I wasn't really bothered by the villian so much because he's really a fairly minor character in the overall narative and, while a agree he is one dimentional, by the of the first series you almost feel bad for him.

[Serpentine]

A Kestrel for A Knave - I can't remember the author. Some guy. The only thing that could make that book worse, is having our crazy fanatical English teacher cover it with us for GCSE...Oh, yeah
I know this was ages ago, but oh well. I have this book in my bookshelf somewhere. I think my mum gave it to me, but I've never gotten around to reading it. Shouldn't bother, then, huh?

I've mentioned it in another thread, I think: The Ill-Made Mute, or more specifically, its sequels. I suspect Cecilia Dart-Thornton sat there with a thesaurus and picked out the most obscure words she can find. Normally I really like detailed description, but spending a whole page on the field using words hardly anyone has ever heard of to describe a bunch of bloody flowers is far too much. The main character was fascinating, right up to the point where not only didshe get her face, voice and memories back, but also discovered that she was stunningly beautiful, at which point she became, to quote Monty Python, "dull, dull, dull, so desperately dull!" I don't think I've ever come across a less interesting character. There's one other promising character, but he gets killed off. She does explain why some conversations are so formal and old-fashioned, but that doesn't make them any more interesting, and all other dialogue is just as stiff and unrealistic. Then there's the tragic cop-out of an ending. I mean really, YOU'RE the writer, YOU tell us what happened! FINISH YOUR DAMN STORY! There's also her incorporation of folk and fairy tales into her narrative. If the rest weren't so awful, I'd think it was an interesting way of doing it, but as it is, it just makes her look like even more of a lazy, talentless hack.
To summarize:
The characters are crap.
The language is crap.
The style is crap.
The plot is slightly less crap.
I want those hours of my life back, Cecillia Dart-Thornton!

Also: I really liked Stephen King's "Through the Eyes of the Dragon", but I guess I like a lot of his stuff. I dunno, it seems like it's just unfashionable to like him at the moment.

[Mistborn]

Angels and Demons by that God-cursed hack Dan Brown. Yes, I knew it was a Dan Brown book, I wasn't expecting Shakespeare, people. But this piece of absolute tripe was so badly written and with such frankly ludicrous assertions that I was actually angry with it by page 42. Utterly, utterly dreadful.

Wait, isn't that the one where the hero jumps from a helicopter, but survives by using his suit coat as an impromptu parachute? What could be more realistic than that? Honestly. People and their expectations these days.

Next you'll be complaining about a puzzle which hinges on the hero--a cryptologist--being stumped by a problem where he has to think up a 5-letter word that refers to an orb associated with Isaac Newton. Baffling!

[Imrix.]

Anything by C.S. Goto. Any fan of Warhammer 40,000 who has read a few of his books will know what I'm talking about.

The first chapter of Warrior Brood ALONE should be executed on the double-charge of being badly written, and being utter heresy against the backstory of the world in which it is written.

I will bless the day he stops writing, or at the very least is fired by Games Workshop.

[soozenw]

don quixote and great expectations. both bored me to tears, and neither lived up to my expectations.

[J_Muller]

Wait, isn't that the one where the hero jumps from a helicopter, but survives by using his suit coat as an impromptu parachute? What could be more realistic than that? Honestly. People and their expectations these days.

Next you'll be complaining about a puzzle which hinges on the hero--a cryptologist--being stumped by a problem where he has to think up a 5-letter word that refers to an orb associated with Isaac Newton. Baffling!

For something even less realistic, try Atlantis by David Gibbins. I quote the Daily Mirror from the back of the book: "As with Dan Brown's THE DA VINCI CODE, it's loaded with real facts and highly plausible scenarios." The main character is shot by an AK-74 at about a hundred pages in. For the rest of the 460-page book, he runs around and:


SCUBA-dives through ancient caverns in below-freezing water
Is captured by enemies, given some medical treatment, then escapes...
By flying a Hind helicopter away from the BBEG's base.
Then shooting down two other helicopters, one with the Hind's guns and one with a Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifle from inside the cockpit of the Hind.
He then runs out of fuel, ditches the helicopter in the ocean, and swims to his boat, which has been damaged by enemy attack. It is then attacked by more helicopters.
He escapes through the secret escape pod just as the boat is destroyed.
Then he gets into an underwater exoskeleton and uses it to get to an island.
Where he goes on to kill several enemy soldiers with an SA80 assault rifle.
Then he defeats the BBEG by pushing him into a bottomless pit.

[Artanis]

For something even less realistic, try Atlantis by David Gibbins. I quote the Daily Mirror from the back of the book: "As with Dan Brown's THE DA VINCI CODE, it's loaded with real facts and highly plausible scenarios." The main character is shot by an AK-74 at about a hundred pages in. For the rest of the 460-page book, he runs around and:

SCUBA-dives through ancient caverns in below-freezing water
Is captured by enemies, given some medical treatment, then escapes...
By flying a Hind helicopter away from the BBEG's base.
Then shooting down two other helicopters, one with the Hind's guns and one with a Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifle from inside the cockpit of the Hind.
He then runs out of fuel, ditches the helicopter in the ocean, and swims to his boat, which has been damaged by enemy attack. It is then attacked by more helicopters.
He escapes through the secret escape pod just as the boat is destroyed.
Then he gets into an underwater exoskeleton and uses it to get to an island.
Where he goes on to kill several enemy soldiers with an SA80 assault rifle.
Then he defeats the BBEG by pushing him into a bottomless pit.
Good lord, that sounds like a 12-year-old's 007 fanfic.

[Amotis]

Exactly!...It sounds like Bond but without the girls and sexual stuff.

[sktarq]

For something even less realistic, try Atlantis by David Gibbins. I quote the Daily Mirror from the back of the book: "As with Dan Brown's THE DA VINCI CODE, it's loaded with real facts and highly plausible scenarios."

The Mirror is Murdoch's paper for "most" people's inteligence level.....riiiiiiight. Check Please.

[J_Muller]

In all fairness, it's actually loaded with plausibility if you only count the historical background. The author is actually a historian--this is his first novel. The plot centers around Atlantis actually being in the Mediterranean near Greece, and the author uses his historical knowledge to make it really believable. He just needs to stop writing action scenes that are so over-the-top.

[ray53208]

the left behind series: total sheissenferner.
ann coulter: pure evil.

[Timberwolf]

Exactly!...It sounds like Bond but without the girls and sexual stuff.

So the Dirk Pitt books then.

I used to love them when I was 12. Now I do have to ask when Clive Cussler is going to

a) stop writing himself in
b) have some new ideas.

[jkdjr25]

There are a few books that made me want to vomit when I tried to read them.

Star Wars: Truce at Bakura-I couldn't even get past the first chapter it was so bad.

Lord Foulsbane-Had to read it for an english class in high school and I just couldn't stand it. I'm one of those people who actually wants to like the main character.

Any more the Harry Potter series is starting to grate on my nerves as well. Is some basic character development too much to ask after six books?

[talsine]

the left behind series: total sheissenferner.
ann coulter: pure evil.

me and some friends of mine play an Ann Coulter drinking game. Take a drink everytime you read something thats been proven to be a lie, drink the whole beer if it takes more than a paragraph for her to wind down. Its the best game ever.

Left Behind makes me sad, when people could be reading The God Dilusion and sheading ignorance they read this and conitue it. /sigh

[Turcano]

me and some friends of mine play an Ann Coulter drinking game. Take a drink everytime you read something thats been proven to be a lie, drink the whole beer if it takes more than a paragraph for her to wind down. Its the best game ever.

And you're still alive? Most people's livers can't take that kind of punishment.

[Allandaros]

Left Behind makes me sad, when people could be reading The God Dilusion and sheading ignorance they read this and conitue it. /sigh

Both of those works make me sad.

[Don Beegles]

Indeed, Allandaros, indeed. I wanted to comment, but I feared that would break the religion rule more than just mentioning the book.

[J_Muller]

So the Dirk Pitt books then.

I used to love them when I was 12. Now I do have to ask when Clive Cussler is going to

a) stop writing himself in
b) have some new ideas.

Actually, it turns out the whole "writing himself in" thing started as a test to see if his editor was actually paying attention.

If you can put aside the total implausibility of the plot, they're great fun.

For pure ridiculousness, I really enjoyed the book where the evil villain's plot is to dig a tunnel underneath South America from the Pacific to the Atlantic to reverse Atlantic currents, plunge Europe into a new ice age, and then corner the home heating market.

[Reinforcements]

For pure ridiculousness, I really enjoyed the book where the evil villain's plot is to dig a tunnel underneath South America from the Pacific to the Atlantic to reverse Atlantic currents, plunge Europe into a new ice age, and then corner the home heating market.
I only have one thing to say to that - What are we gonna do tomorrow night, Brain?

[Glarx]

Has anyone said Huck Finn yet? Dear lord, that book was atrocious. If it hadn't been for A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, I'd have burned ALL of Twain's books!

[TheOOB]

I had to read the book Holes four consecutive school years in a row. I didn't like the book in the first place, I liked it even less when I had to read it and do book reports on it four times.

[zachol]

The same thing we do every night, Pinky.


Also, what's wrong with Huck Finn?
Besides the complete lack of any real ending?

"Hey Twain, what'cha writin'?"
"Huck Finn."
"Oh yeah! So, what's happened to ol' Huck?"
"Well m'boy, he's down the Mississippi."
"So... how's it end."
"Well, y'see... Jim gets caught, sent to this place, and Huck pretends he's Tom Sawyer. He doesn't really know what's happening, though he knows he should escape soon, as he can't pretend to be Huck forever. Also, Jim is being held in something like a prison."
"An' then what."
"And then... um... oh! Then Tom Sawyer comes, and says he's his own cousin, and then he starts treating this whole 'free Jim' thing like a game, and continually tries to make it harder to free Jim, while Huck continues to get more exasperated. Also, Tom treats Jim like dirt, which offends Huck."
"An' then what."
"And then... um... they escape, but Tom screws it up and Jim gets sick."
"An' then..."
"And then... they get captured again?"
"An' then..."
"And then... um..."
"Y'did write an ending, right?"
"Um... Polly comes and Tom admits that Jim's been free for a while anyway? And then Huck gets a bunch of money and goes away?"
"...right."

[averagejoe]

Okay, something really has to be said.

Why should having to do a report on a book make you like it less? So what if you have to read it? If you dislike the class/teacher so much, why allow them to have that sort of power over you? Why not just try to enjoy it anyways, and lessen your own suffering?

Seriously, "because I had to do a report on it" is not a reason that a book should make your eyes bleed.

[Timberwolf]

Actually, it turns out the whole "writing himself in" thing started as a test to see if his editor was actually paying attention.

If you can put aside the total implausibility of the plot, they're great fun.

For pure ridiculousness, I really enjoyed the book where the evil villain's plot is to dig a tunnel underneath South America from the Pacific to the Atlantic to reverse Atlantic currents, plunge Europe into a new ice age, and then corner the home heating market.

Oh yeah ? I didn't know that. I might let him off then but he needs a new editor. Personally, my favourite implausible plot was the Confederate ironclad that had sailed across the Atlantic and ended up in the Sahara with Abraham Lincoln on board. It's been a while since I've read it but was Raphael Semmes (aka the captain of the CSS Alabama and firmly accounted for after the civil war) meant to be the captain of it ? Anyway, theres no excuse for writing himself in anymore. presumably the editor has woken up.

[Nerzi]

'Of Mice & Men' Studied it for GCSE and loathed it. There is nothing likable about this book. Apparently 'Grapes of Wrath' is by far his superiour novel so I'll try that at some point.

Before anybody says it, studying it has nothing to do with my hatred, I like most of the stuff I study, and some of it I just love, 'Of Mice & Men' however is not one of those pieces.

'Death of a Salesman' made me want to claw my own eyes out with a rusty spoon (although not as much as any play written by Harold Pinter), but that's a drama script rather than a book so I doubt it counts.

The last half of 'The Last Battle' up until the bit where they go into the stable it's by far the best of the Narnia books, all dark and with a feeling of overwhelmind saddness, Then POW! RELIGIOUS ALLEGORY SAVES THE DAY!
Now nothing against religious allegories, as long as they don't detract or intrude on good storytelling then I'm fine with them, and they often add a nice, extra dimension to a piece of writting. But here, while it may have been a beautifuly written and meaningfull allegory in its own right, it was just downright shoddy storytelling and an awful way to end what had been a brilliant series.

Anything By David Almond, 'Skellig' was bearable, the others I've read were dire.

[Artanis]

Okay, something really has to be said.

Why should having to do a report on a book make you like it less? So what if you have to read it? If you dislike the class/teacher so much, why allow them to have that sort of power over you? Why not just try to enjoy it anyways, and lessen your own suffering?

Seriously, "because I had to do a report on it" is not a reason that a book should make your eyes bleed.
Because when you have to do a book report, you might have to read it differently than you would otherwise. Looking for details, analyzing the plot and characters, thinking of what topic will get you an A, that sort of thing, as opposed to kicking back and letting the book "just happen".

That's what happened to me with Portrait of the Artist: I tolerated it until I actually had to start paying attention to it for an assignment. At that point, my brain shut down entirely and refused to work at all for half the semester.

[Arcane_Secrets]

And you're still alive? Most people's livers can't take that kind of punishment.

I know I'd never be able to play that game with any skill. My personal record for her is one page before I have to put the book away. Otherwise, I'd throw it at something out of anger.

[Nerzi]

'Frankenstein' by Mary Shelly (not Steven King as my friend thought), I detest the writting style, I detest the main character, the plot has elements of the ridiculous, and I'm not just talking about the reanimating the dead, but things that have no need to be ridiculous, like Shellys casual disregard for geographical impossibilities (from where Frankenstein was he just COULDN'T have 'drifted to Ireland' it's not possible!).

The premise is interesting, but it's badly executed. The reason it has gained such a cult status is in my opinion because of firstly the shock the idea caused at the time, the idea being so 'wrong' that people read it for that, not for the story or the writting.

Anything that spawns Kenneth Branagh's film 'Mary Shelly's Frankenstein' has got to be awful, even if the book was better than said atrocity (not difficult) and was vastly different (where the hell they got some of the ideas in that film I don't know, and having the nerve to stick Mary Shellys name onto it was just rude and a plain lie) it still inspired this awful, awful film, thus cementing it in the category of 'books I hate with a burning passion'.


This has nothing at all to do with the three thousand word essay I currently have to write comparing it with another novel, not at all, I studied the other novel in just as much detail and I still love that one to pieces.

[Telonius]

The last half of 'The Last Battle' up until the bit where they go into the stable it's by far the best of the Narnia books, all dark and with a feeling of overwhelmind saddness, Then POW! RELIGIOUS ALLEGORY SAVES THE DAY!
Now nothing against religious allegories, as long as they don't detract or intrude on good storytelling then I'm fine with them, and they often add a nice, extra dimension to a piece of writting. But here, while it may have been a beautifuly written and meaningfull allegory in its own right, it was just downright shoddy storytelling and an awful way to end what had been a brilliant series.

When an eight-year-old realizes he's getting hit over the head with religion disguised as a bad story, the book has problems. I loved most of the Narnia books, but the last one did lay it on much too thick; I realized that when I first read it. Lewis does write some excellent allegories - this was one example, "The Pilgrim's Regress" was another - but you're right, this was just out of place. Not out of place enough to make me hate the book, but it was a poor bit of authorship.

[Nerzi]

I try to pretend the last half didn't happen and make up my own ending, cause I really really loved the first half and all the other Narnia books that came before, especialy 'The Horse and his Boy' but I really did feel cheated by the last half of TLB. I'll be interested to see how they handle it as a film if they end up doing all seven.

[talsine]

Both of those works make me sad.

I can understand why Left Behind would do that, but the God Dillusion...
Makes me curious, PM me if you want, since it would probebly break the board TOS


And you're still alive? Most people's livers can't take that kind of punishment.


I know I'd never be able to play that game with any skill. My personal record for her is one page before I have to put the book away. Otherwise, I'd throw it at something out of anger.

We play this game once a year, on New Years Day, and since throwing stuff at each other, or even shooting at each other (we all play Paintball and airsoft) the anger thing isn't much of an issue /wink

[Timberwolf]

Anything By David Almond, 'Skellig' was bearable, the others I've read were dire.

I've been on teaching practice for the last 5 weeks and I've been reading Skellig to my class. They really liked it. I wasn't so struck by it I must admit.

[Pensive Pine]

Anything that spawns Kenneth Branagh's film 'Mary Shelly's Frankenstein' has got to be awful, even if the book was better than said atrocity (not difficult) and was vastly different (where the hell they got some of the ideas in that film I don't know, and having the nerve to stick Mary Shellys name onto it was just rude and a plain lie)
My general experience is that whenever an adaptation includes the author's name in the title, it's as far from the actual story as it can get without actually turning into a different story entirely. Examples include Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas and Hans Christian Anderson's Thumbelina (the Don Bluth one).

[Cobra_Ikari]

...there hasn't been a single book I despised to the point of being unable to finish. Some I just have to spend more time thinking about how it could be decent instead of dwelling on the awfulness. But then, I've read A Destructive Future.

[sktarq]

Okay, something really has to be said.

Why should having to do a report on a book make you like it less? So what if you have to read it? If you dislike the class/teacher so much, why allow them to have that sort of power over you? Why not just try to enjoy it anyways, and lessen your own suffering?

Seriously, "because I had to do a report on it" is not a reason that a book should make your eyes bleed.

No but because you HAD to read it-you read a book that you were unlikely to pick up by yourself and is therefore less likely to fit into books that already match your tastes. This can be a good horizon expanding experience but can also missfire. Plus when to you hit on a missfire you "HAVE" to finish something and think about a book you didn't really like...And (In my experience) spend more time steaming about how bad it was than the assignment (and that's not counting progected axiety about the assignment)....Thus remembering your highly negetive feelings about the book....hence why they show up here. Plus some teachers don't let their students read a book their own way but impose a whole set up based around the book. This can be highly frustrating (see my above mentioned exended Metamorphosis rant) and can assosiate more negetive feelings with the book than the story actually ellicits...In this case the experince was ruined and that memory rubbed off on the book the experience used as its basis for existance. Finally the book may not be assigned at the right time in ones life...too early or too late and therefore hitting nerves that aren't ready for them...generally when this happens people loose interest and just put the book down or skim it - but in an accademic situation it becomes more stressful in order to complete assosiated assignments.

Well that's my answer at least-others I can't speak for.

[Woot Spitum]

I'd have to go with the last few books in the Dune series (not the prequels, Inever read those). I thought the original was fair, if a little overated. My problem was that the endings always seemed contrived, the characters got into an impossible situation and then suddenly, got some amazing power right out of nowhere. It smacked too much of deus ex machina for my taste.

I forgot about James Joyce's Ulysses, I know how you're supposed to read more than what's actually written, but still...when you need a book twice as thick full of commentaries just to understand it...sigh. Give me Robert Fritzgerald's translation of The Aeniad any day.

[Lord_Reanicus]

What are the last books? I read some books involving Earth and robots and cyborgs and Jihad. Would these be the prequels? I really have no idea, I've only seen the miniseries of Dune before, which saddens me... I heard the original triology was great.

[J_Muller]

I read the first Dune book and loved it. I haven't read any of the others, though, because my parents have, and said they're much worse.

[Weezer]

My least favorite book would be Etan Frome, there were like 4 chapters devoted to fixing the problem of a BROKEN PICKLE DISH, cant get much worse than that.

[ray53208]

'Frankenstein' by Mary Shelly (not Steven King as my friend thought), I detest the writting style, I detest the main character, the plot has elements of the ridiculous, and I'm not just talking about the reanimating the dead, but things that have no need to be ridiculous, like Shellys casual disregard for geographical impossibilities (from where Frankenstein was he just COULDN'T have 'drifted to Ireland' it's not possible!).

The premise is interesting, but it's badly executed. The reason it has gained such a cult status is in my opinion because of firstly the shock the idea caused at the time, the idea being so 'wrong' that people read it for that, not for the story or the writting.

Anything that spawns Kenneth Branagh's film 'Mary Shelly's Frankenstein' has got to be awful, even if the book was better than said atrocity (not difficult) and was vastly different (where the hell they got some of the ideas in that film I don't know, and having the nerve to stick Mary Shellys name onto it was just rude and a plain lie) it still inspired this awful, awful film, thus cementing it in the category of 'books I hate with a burning passion'.


This has nothing at all to do with the three thousand word essay I currently have to write comparing it with another novel, not at all, I studied the other novel in just as much detail and I still love that one to pieces.

i completely agree. i had to read it and discuss it (as nauseum) for a freshman humanities class. it was mary shellys first attempt at a novel and she was already a 19 year old home wrecker. i cant exactly credit her with an abundance of understanding human nature or a conscience. maybe she was the monster?

[Reinforcements]

i completely agree. i had to read it and discuss it (as nauseum) for a freshman humanities class. it was mary shellys first attempt at a novel and she was already a 19 year old home wrecker. i cant exactly credit her with an abundance of understanding human nature or a conscience. maybe she was the monster?
Bah, and again bah. I love Frankenstein. It's a great story AND notable as one of the earliest works of science fiction.

[Kelson]

Emma, by Jane Austen. The characters are all vapid and vain, and I couldn't bring myself to be interested in any of the characters.

Wuthering Heights, by Emily Bronte. See Emma, except some of the characters are jerks.

This is all I can remember off the top of my head.

[Harkone]

The Sources of Social Power, Volume I, by Michael Mann

[Nerzi]

Bah, and again bah. I love Frankenstein. It's a great story AND notable as one of the earliest works of science fiction.

As I said, good idea, in my opinion it was however badly executed, with some bits that are just plain laughable.
The fact that it's one of the earliest works of science fiction, coupled with the massive reception it recieved due to its subject matter which was rather 'taboo' and 'shocking' at the time of its publication ensured it a place on a pedastal which personaly I think it doesn't deserve.

Guess we'll just have to agree to dissagree on this subject though.

Book that really made my eyes bleed which I don't think I mentioned before, but lots of others of you have 'The Da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown. Absolutely awful. Made more awful by the fact that my partner and some close friends aparently love it and keep trying to persuade me how wonderful it is. I swear next time my someone tries to tell me it's an amazing book with a great plot I will actualy punch them.

Got this book for christmas a few years ago, finished it by the afternoon, cause I'm a fast reader, and I normaly try to finish books no matter how bad they be. It went straight into the box to take to Oxfam once I was done with it.

[Scorpina]

Emma, by Jane Austen. The characters are all vapid and vain, and I couldn't bring myself to be interested in any of the characters.

Not all the characters are vain and vapid. A lot of them are, but that's sort of the whole point. It also emphasises Mr. Knightly's awesomeness.


Wuthering Heights, by Emily Bronte. See Emma, except some of the characters are jerks..Nuh-uh. Heathcliff rocks.

[Jack Squat]

Nuh-uh. Heathcliff rocks.

Yes, Heathcliff does, but not at the end when he stops caring. But up until that point, Heathcliff is the epitome of manliness.

However, he still didn't make up for the rest of the book.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. Anybody else read the Hawk the Slayer novel?

[Artanis]

What are the last books? I read some books involving Earth and robots and cyborgs and Jihad. Would these be the prequels? I really have no idea, I've only seen the miniseries of Dune before, which saddens me... I heard the original triology was great.
That sounds like the prequels. Admittedly, I gave up on the prequels when I got tired of everybody and their dog waving lasguns around everywhere, but I don't recall any cyborgs or robots or whatnot in the original series.


I read the first Dune book and loved it. I haven't read any of the others, though, because my parents have, and said they're much worse.
IMO, the second and third books were also really good, roughly on par with the first. After that, they just sorta start to go downhill. While books 4-6 are still pretty good in their own rights, they're far from the standard set by the first three.

[Reinforcements]

That sounds like the prequels. Admittedly, I gave up on the prequels when I got tired of everybody and their dog waving lasguns around everywhere, but I don't recall any cyborgs or robots or whatnot in the original series.


IMO, the second and third books were also really good, roughly on par with the first. After that, they just sorta start to go downhill. While books 4-6 are still pretty good in their own rights, they're far from the standard set by the first three.
Yeah, Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune are all really good, but after that Frank Herbert kinda got depressed and crazy (I think his wife died) and the books got really, really weird. The prequels written by his son, et al, are very meh.

[Quincunx]

I'll go over theOOB's head and point out FIVE consecutive years of Julius Caesar--that's spanning from elementary to high school! I didn't even need to reread the play the last two years. While I like Shakespeare, and probably could read that again nowadays without pain, back then it was decidedly at eye-bleeding status.

[TheEmerged]

America's Last Days. I needed to kill some time in a bookstore and it was on the "recommended by staff" shelf (and cheap) so I picked it up. Really, really bad "political thriller" I couldn't put down due to the "trainwreck effect". Just when you thought the writing couldn't get any worse or the plot more cliche, it would.

The author clearly thinks he should be a speechwriter; the book was following an action movie plot but at least 1/5 of the text was some form of monologue or the other. Further, I'm a red-blooded male and *I* was offended at his female characters.