SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
What are 3 Terrible Fantasy or Sci-fi Books You've Read?
Getting it all out is good for your system!
Jonathan wrote: "It's difficult for me to post here. My mantra is "never hate a book." I think that we can learn a lot from bad books: namely, Why is it bad? What makes a good book?"Agreed. I hate hating a book. I know how much work, commitment and exposure it takes to write something and put it out into the world. Artists put themselves out there in a way that most people can't fathom and then get picked apart for their effort to break through our nasty little solipsistic preconceptions.
And you're quite right in asking "why is it a bad book?" In many cases, you can learn as much from a bad book as from a good one. It's certainly not as pleasant, but it can be just as edifying.
That said, one of the things we sometimes learn is that a particular artist isn't the artist many people think s/he is, or that their ideas are retrograde, the period they lived in barbarous, the culture that they describe prejudiced and stultifying, etc. Important things to learn, but not always a great experience.
/
Bored me to tears. Read them as a teen, tried again as an adult. Lack of compelling characters made it impossible for me to get to the 3rd one. 
The writing in both of these killed me. Again, something I've tried to read multiple times with no good results.
There's a pattern here. I've read this series twice trying to get past the over the top, needless, sexism aaaaand failed. These are the books I will not try a 3rd time :D
Chiron wrote: "Bored me to tears. Read them as a teen, tried again as an adult. Lack of compelling characters made it impossible for me to get to the 3rd one."What? Really? You're killing me. I might agree with you about Frodo-- his (at times) incessant whining, especially in the first book, was a surprising turn-off (I read the books after watching the movies at a young age).
...but dear old Sam? His folksy simple-mindedness as well as his homespun advice and ruminations would keep me reading on its own merit. He made me laugh and think on the same level that Sancho Panza did in "Don Quixote".
And what about Legolas and Gimli? The friendship that lasted beyond lifetimes! Sure, the genteel-elf-vs.-rough-dwarf mechanic might be cliche beyond reason now, but it wasn't back then.
Faramir and Boromir? Aragorn and Arwen?
GOLLUM/SMEAGOL?!
Tolkien doesn't go into much conspicuous *character development time* exposition. Since Tolkien refuses to do flashback scenes or internal introspective monologues, two of the easiest methods for character development are gone. In fact, what he leaves unsaid is at times more important than what he does say. For all the terrible thickness of his books, there's a lot to be read between the lines; oftentimes, that's where the strength of his characters lies.
Example: The "Arwen/Aragorn" love-interest plot doesn't get much "screentime" in the book (as opposed to the movie). In fact, besides a section in the Appendix (where it gets its own dedicated section), I think it's mentioned no more than 3 or 4 times. But it's still one of the most powerful scenes in the book. In the appendices, a conversation is revealed between Elrond and Aragorn (view spoiler). It puts his whole adventure in perspective: all the actions he's taken that would seem out of place in his role as the "reluctant hero."
I realize that's explicitly "in-the-lines" as well as some hindsight realizations, but you get what I mean (I hope).
...
GOLLUM/SMEAGOL?!
I'm really not trying to stir up trouble but I don't follow the philosophy I've seen here a few times about books and their authors being above criticism. Tons of people out there poor their heart and souls into their product/ work only to have it fail after poor public reception. I know there are a lot of authors on here but, honestly, isn't having a problem with books being held to the same level of scrutiny a little pompous?
Gary wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "It's difficult for me to post here. My mantra is "never hate a book." I think that we can learn a lot from bad books: namely, Why is it bad? What makes a good book?"Agreed. I ha..."
Exactly. Plus, if you read one book that you dislike and take it to heart, you have a natural inhibition against reading any other books by that author. Maybe that was their one bad book!
I have this with Richard K. Morgan right now. The ridiculous levels of sexuality and sheer brutality in "Altered Carbon" really turned me off, even if the premise was great and (for the most part) well executed. His treatment of religion was shallow and obviously biased as well. I think he may be an exception to my usual "don't judge an author by one bad book" statement -- from what I've heard, the rest of his books have the same problems.
John wrote: "I'm really not trying to stir up trouble but I don't follow the philosophy I've seen here a few times about books and their authors being above criticism. Tons of people out there poor their heart ..."
I don't think anyone is above criticism. However, outright insults or misplaced criticism can be just as bad or worse than letting an author go free. So I guess the moral of the story is criticize in moderation???
Oh I agree there's no reason to get nasty. But if you think a book is a stinker you should say so and say why. That way others won't waste their time and money on it if they find your thoughts valid. I ran into something that bugged me with one of the book selections for this group that really got me thinking about it. It was a book that is considered a "modern classic" and has won awards. Members were going on in their posts about how beautiful a book it was... but it was just a slow read and they couldn't finish it? I found the same thing was true of the book while reading it but I'll never speak highly of it. It was just not a good book to me because of the author's focus on prose and language more than pace and plot.
The thing is that authors write for different reasons, and readers read with different goals in mind. If the author set out to write glorioso prose and fan out his huge vocabulary, while you were going in for something plot-and-character to divert the weary hour while you wait in line at the Post Office, then sure -- the twain shall never meet. This is where the publisher and the marketing team come into play. If the inside cover copy talks about slam-bang action and lots of gratuitous sex, then you know what you are getting. The author may not have the distance (or the markething chops) to describe the work in a way that communicates to the reader.
White Tiger by Kylie Chan. White Tiger
YAWN. I always finish a book, but I was done with this one halfway through. NO emotional connection to any of the characters, whatsoever.
Jonathan wrote: And what about Legolas and Gimli? The friendship that lasted beyond lifetimes! Sure, the genteel-elf-vs.-rough-dwarf mechanic might be cliche beyond reason now, but it wasn't back then."And it might just be that by the time I got around to reading the books, few of the concepts were new or novel to me. Tolkien has a huge following and many many people have borrowed from him. However, his methods for developing his characters never stirred me. I never gave a fig for anyone in any of those books. It always felt like I was looking through this peep hole at the surface of a larger world, but never really getting to see beyond it. After a while I I grew frustrated and stopped wanting to explore. The motives were, also, always so simplistic. Good is good and bad is bad. My tastes in literature were largely shaped by ambiguity when it came to that. I'm not a fan of a good old fashioned villain. I did enjoy the Hobbit though. Overall, his work and I do not get on very well. I'll stick to respecting his contribution, even though I don't enjoy the work itself. :D
Heinlein's Number of the Beast : After a great start, it descended into a mess of allusions. I wouldn't say it's the worst scifi, but it's one of the biggest disappointments.The Number of the Beast
Heinlein's latter works are like that. THE CAT THAT WALKED THROUGH WALLS is annoying in the same way, as is TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE.
I Will Fear No Evil Heinlein at his worst, saw the ending coming halfway through.
The Tommyknockers
At that point, King was phoning it in on the supernatural/weird/alien stories before he changed direction a bit, went psychological thriller and released Misery, which is a very good book of his.
Gardens of the Moon
Just painful. Hell to me is being forced to read this book for all eternity.
Sabrina wrote: "Chris wrote: "Each to his own, but I f*cking LOVED PSS"No kidding, Chris! PSS was such a mix of the truly bizarre and yet somehow familiar. China's writing style is excellent and you really are..."
That was a great book. I gave it the highest of ratings and I almost never do that. I am looking forward to reading more of his works.
OOOH Heinlein in his later years....nothing but breast obsession and...I don't remember but it was just lame. His early books are some of the best...but Number of the Beast and after are painfully bad the kind of novel that if it didn't have Heinlein's name on it would never have gotten over the transom as they used to say (A window that could be propped open over an office door in the old days)God they were terrible--and I had to review one for the LA Times I can't remember which one..I think Job. I just couldn't slander one of the great lights of SF...but I gave it a tepid review...
Gosh, JOB was terrible. IMO TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE was the book where it all went downhill, and it ever got better.
Oh, and that reminds me, all the Gor novels by John Norman are eye-bleedingly terrible. Fantasy thud-and-blunder, heavily larded with bondage porn.
Never even tempted by John Norman--barbarian novels never did anything for me---except for a laugh as an Arnie film (Conan)And I forgot about Time enough for Love--yes that one too...(grins)
Larry Niven's Ringworld. Interesting concept. Boring plot and cardboard characters.
So many novels. I feel that if I listed every book I've hated, I'd be black listed, lol.
I don't hate a ton of books (mostly, I think some are mediocre and stop reading them before I get to the point of actively disliking them). Generally, for me to hate a book, it needs to be from an author I actually like, so that I press on with the book after the point I'd normally quit.Two notable ones - Triumph of the Darksword and Earthborn.
I have to say Ender's Game was not one of my favorites---but I didn't hate it.I have to be honest---some SF is SO technical, my eyes glaze over. I was never able to finish Downbelow Station by C.J. Cherryh...I think it even won a Hugo....but it was too dry
Pickle wrote: "Fantasy:1.
ive never read a book where i detest the main character more. Perfect at everything and right stupid part with drugging a dragon.2. [bookcover:..."
You're the first person I've ever heard say you didn't like the MC in The Name of the Wind. I didn't ever really get into it because of that. If I had given myself more pages, I probably would have liked it, since the writing was good, but I just didn't have the heart to continue.
Out of books I somehow completed despite being awful, this may be the absolute worst:
Keep in mind I haven't read the 2 sequels yet, so it might not be the absolute worst in the series.
- completely unbelievable in characters and setting.
- need I say more?
Melinda wrote: "You're the first person I've ever heard say you didn't like the MC in The Name of the Wind. I didn't ever really get into it because of that. If I had given myself more pages, I probably would have liked it, since the writing was good, but I just didn't have the heart to continue. "There are a lot of people who don't like Kvothe, precisely because of his Gary Stuishness (i.e. being perfect at everything except for superficial flaws which only serve to make him more bass, or something.)
There have been many lively debates about it, with the other side vehemently denying any Gary Stuness... and a third camp which agrees he's a Gary Stu, but likes the books anyway.
I think those who hate Kvothe are in the minority, but we're definitely out there...
***
DavidO wrote: "Divergent - completely unbelievable in characters and setting."
I agree. The setting made zero sense, and I couldn't get past how stupid the whole thing was. Seriously did not get the hype about this one.
I can think of two specific titles right off the bat. And an author, for that matter.1) Deerskin, by Robin McKinley - Spoiler? I don't do incest, period.
2) Timeline, by Michael Crichton - Very wordy, to the point that I think I bot bored and skipped. Either that or even with all the words there were plot points I never got clear on.
3) This isn't a single title, it's both books by Clive Cussler that I read and hastily tried to forget. The main character had a tendency to roll out of one bed and into another. Plus, I (personally) expect the "hero" of the story to be "a nice guy" and whomever this main character was, he wasn't.
Brenda wrote: "Oh, and that reminds me, all the Gor novels by John Norman are eye-bleedingly terrible. Fantasy thud-and-blunder, heavily larded with bondage porn."Have you read MZB's response to that series?
Warrior Woman
Colleen wrote: "I think those who hate Kvothe are in the minority, but we're definitely out there..."Raises hand
MrsJoseph wrote: "Have you read MZB's response to that series?Warrior Woman "
I can't believe she bothered writing a rebuttal to something that's basically pornography.
DavidO wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Have you read MZB's response to that series?Warrior Woman "
I can't believe she bothered writing a rebuttal to something that's basically pornography."
Well, she knew the writer as well as the pub. They challenged her and she accepted.
OK, I have to say the worst book in recent memory for me was Lord of Chaos by Robert Jordan. I felt that this series rapidly went downhill after the third book (The Dragon Reborn), and I finally gave up after this stinker. It was boring, ponderous, wordy and did absolutely nothing to move the series forward in any way whatsoever. What a struggle, ugh.So my three picks are books 4, 5 and 6 in the Wheel of Time series:
The Shadow Rising
The Fires of Heaven
Lord of Chaos
Edwin wrote: "OK, I have to say the worst book in recent memory for me was Lord of Chaos by Robert Jordan. I felt that this series rapidly went downhill after the third book ([book:Th..."I challenge you to read Eldest by C. Paolini. Then you'll know the truth depths of despair as your eyes are slowly eaten over a period of 800 pages. After that you'll appreciate every other book ever written much more.
DavidO wrote: "I challenge you to read Eldest by C. Paolini. Then you'll know the truth depths of despair as your eyes are slowly eaten over a period of 800 pages."Um, I think I will decline your challenge
@DavidO - Ha! I see your Eldest and raise you an Across the Face of the World.This series has the most BEAUTIFUL covers but DAMN book 1 takes you S L O W L Y across the face of the world.
Took a wrong turn and need to back track? We've got almost a full chapter on that!
This past saturday I finished Beautiful Creatures - absolutely horrible, though unfortunately I gave it the benefit of the doubt until 3/4 of the way in at which point I felt obligated to finish. Never mind character inconsistencies and a terribly stupid protagonist, the book was way too long and tedious. The attempted rise in drama of the countdown to Lena's birthday got more and more torturous, as the characters merely repeated the same two conversations over and over again. The only other book I can remember hating as much was The Law of Nines by Goodkind. I'd read the Sword of Truth series as a teen (what was published of it at the time) and liked it then. The Law of Nines is literally a much crappier rip of Wizard's First Rule, with the more interesting characters removed, and an a 'tie in' making the main characters (who are 99% identical to Richard and Khalan anyway, down to habits and opinions) descendants of the original R&K, despite this new book taking place in our world instead of the fantasy world of SoT. This book literally devalued Wizard's First Rule in my mind and made me realize what a load of tripe the rest of his books were.
MrsJoseph wrote: "@DavidO - Ha! I see your Eldest and raise you an Across the Face of the World.This series has the most BEAUTIFUL covers but DAMN book 1 takes you S L O W L Y across the face of th..."
I took a glance at the reviews. That's a lot of 1 star reviews. I don't think I've seen any other book beaten up at that level before.
DavidO wrote: "I took a glance at the reviews. That's a lot of 1 star reviews. I don't think I've seen any other book beaten up at that level before. "He describes the landscape with mind-numbing detail. All I remember is the travel...the travel...the TRAVEL.
I remember nothing but the travel. Going down paths and up paths and RIVERS! oh my.
O_O
Though I have to say I read Eragon and immediately gave away my hardback special edition of it...
The further I got into the Dune series by Frank Herbert, the worse they got. In fact, Chapterhouse: Dune is probably the worse I've ever read. Or, more accurately, partially read.I borrowed that book from a friend and finally returned it to him 2 years later. Just couldn't get into it. One character, Duncan Idaho?, was still in the story despite it being 10,000 years after the original book.
When I returned it, my friend said that he felt pretty similar feelings about it. He just didn't even miss the book for those 2 years.
The original, Dune, was a great book. But, after about the 3rd one, I thought the series took a distinct downward turn. Would recommend Dune to anyone that appreciates good SF, but, have never really recommended anyone to continue with the series.
1. Everything by Terry Goodkind. This has already been mentioned in this thread. The guy is a BDSM fetishist with Ayn Rand worship, and that's what he writes. He also lifts concepts from Tolkien and Robert Jordan wholesale.
2. Chronicles of the Black Company. (This book tried far too hard to be dark and gritty, and the paperboard characters were all too see-through for my taste. There was nothing below the plot, and the plot was stagnant. Unusual names and concepts seemed thrown about haphazardly without any sense of purpose. It read as a very immature author's work.
3. Anything by Cormack McCarthy. The guy is far too highly praised for his orgy of violence. It lacks purpose, lacks cohesiveness. It's just an exercise in gore, a slasher-movie-style set of books praised inexplicably for its vacuous philosophical positions. It's not the lack of a happy ending or the presence of a plethora of violence that turned me off to this. What turned me off to this was that this is all there is to it, and people praise it like it's Dostoyevsky or Proust.
4. The Historian. This was a great book, until they started showing the monsters. Then it became a B-movie book.
5. R Scott Bakker. Full of pretentious pseudo intellectual banter, and not much else.
6. Everything by Stephen King post-70s. Unquestionably bad writing and only popular by die-hard fans insistence.
I'm not even going to address the raft of YA stuff that is popular that I'd given chances to in recent years. Unanimously bad, without fail. It may just be that the intended maturity level is not on parity with my expectations, but it invariably results in books I cannot stand because they deal with such trivial affairs and on such a limnal level.
Edit: I did intend to use unanimously. I'm just weird, and I was implying all my various internal voices speaking on behalf of different merits and values
This is shooting fish in a barrel, but it is famous:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
It was one of the first SP SF novels, and was a classic case of How Not To Do It. The kindest thing to say about the actual story is that it is poor. Nevertheless it was shilled relentlessly by its author. There are still boards and sites where the title is not invoked except in allusion or with initials, lest the author appear flamethrowers at the ready. He also got into SFWA by lying about its SP-ness, and they had to toss him out. He sent copies to all the members, in hopes of getting a Nebula award. All this got him, when we read it, was derision.
Brenda wrote: "This is shooting fish in a barrel, but it is famous:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
It was one of the first SP SF novels, and was a classic..."
O_O
wow...
I think you won.
Oh, and he had the most horrible website for the book, the kind where when you clicked on the link and it loaded there was immediately a loud soundtrack. I trust and hope it is gone.
Oh, that's no Project Darksword.Kenneth: bit perplexed by the idea that McCarthy is just an exercise in gore, since many of his books have very little gore, and instead mostly involve people sitting around and/or riding slowly from place to place looking at the scenery. Complaining that they're uneventful and Victorian would make sense, but 'slasher-movie-style'? Huh?
EDIT: oh, sorry, not 'Project Darksword'. I did of course mean "Project: Darksword: 2nd Special Forces Operational-Detachment: Darksword".
You can get a flavour of the writing style just from looking at the fake reviews the author writes (though to be fair, they seem to have improved considerably since I first heard of the book - he can usually spell now, even if he still can't always punctuate).
Wastrel, all of the defenders of McCarthy-as-savant appeal to the description of characters observing scenery, characters' violence as critique of a world without morals, or violence/natural harshness as world without compass. These comparisons are often defended with tenuous claims and strike much more of fandom than analysis. That's what bothers me about the whole thing.
Well, obviously all advocacy for one author is going to be fandom - ultimately you have to bring it down to what you like and what you don't like. Personally, I thought All the Pretty Horses and the two sequels were brilliant books, and Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West a book with brilliance in it, although I thought the latter was a bit over-ostentatious and pretentious.
Why did I like him? Well most obviously he's just a fantastic prose stylist. He write beautiful prose that is rich and nuanced in what it conveys. Additionally, I'd say that he has realistic and complex characterisation, with effective character arcs; I'd say he addresses important and fundamental questions about what sort of a life to live; and I'd say he has compelling and emotionally affecting plots.
He can, it's true, be a bit fatuous sometimes, he's not as deep as he thinks he is, and he does feel a bit over-ostentatious at times. But that doesn't mean he's the worst writer in the world.
The guy's regularly mentioned as a possible Nobel winner. He's won multiple IMPACs, a National Book Award, a National Book Critics Circle Award, a James Tait Black Memorial (and one of his books was one of six shortlisted as the best JTBMA winners of the last 93 years), and a Pulitzer. While he may not be to your taste, and he may be over-rated, this should probably suggest it's unlikely he's actually the worst author alive.
There is no reason to dismiss books because they contain violence. I think McCarthy scholarship and literary criticism is as valid as for any other author. Of course, all literary analysis might be horseshit in any case - I'm sure somebody has done a PhD on Harry Potter or Star Trek or Star Wars - and that's pure food for the fans.
McCarthy wrote some brilliant books. However, his last two books were weak, IMHO. His writing wasn't up to snuff with his earlier novels.
McCarthy wrote some brilliant books. However, his last two books were weak, IMHO. His writing wasn't up to snuff with his earlier novels.
Zayne wrote: "Deedee wrote: "Finished and hated:
(glorifies violence)
(misogynist)
(smugly sexi..."Zayne wrote: "Wait, how is Gardens of the moon misogynistic? "
Great question! I just finished it and found everyone was treated quite fine...considering they all planned to murder each other.
I love the diverse tastes here!Tolkien. What I loved most was the first book of the Fellowship of the Ring...when the adventure begins! it is So much fun....but then it gets dark and Wagnerian and I have only read the trilogy twice I think. I really loved his imagination...but he could get a bit lugubrious and austere. But I will say...(timing is everything) I have never forgotten reading the appendix tale of Arwen and Aragorn...and listening to Wagner one afternoon..and I actually wept their story is so so tragic.
Cormac McCarthy. I only read All the Pretty horses. Little dry but but I liked it well enough. However, haven't read anything further.
The Historian. Debated about reading this for the longest time because I am not fond of the whole vampire genre.....especially the dark gory throat-ripping stuff. Don't mind the paranormal romances. But I have to say, The Historian blew me away pure and simple. Why? Because the authors ability to describe swept me right into the story. I really loved it. Her The Swan Thieves... Not so effective and I haven't seen any thing else from her But The Historian for me was a rich and satisfying read
Interesting that Across the Face of the World was mentioned. I live in the same town as the author and a good friend works at the same university as him and happened to have been given a signed copy which he lent me to read. Even with all that to pique my interest i still couldn't finish the first book! I tried, I really did!
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Making Money (other topics)The Oath of the Vayuputras (other topics)
Crossroads of Twilight (other topics)
His Majesty's Dragon (other topics)
The Way of Shadows (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Kristen Ashley (other topics)Frank Herbert (other topics)
Robert Jordan (other topics)
Robert Jordan (other topics)
Justina Robson (other topics)
More...
That said, the following books are terrible.
The Mithermages Series by Orson Scott Card [The Lost Gate, the Gate Thief]
Absolutely awful. Ever since reading the Ender's Game series, I've wondered about his ability to characterize children. I let it pass -- after all, Ender was a child genius, and Novinha's family was... dysfunctional. Now that I think about it, I think making everyone dysfunctional was part of his plan.
The Gate series threw out all need for speculation. Danny is a terrible character. I won't go into all the details, as I think the rest of Goodreads has handled that fairly well, but I will say that Card's idea of "consistent characters" and "teenage sexuality" are both equally perverted.
Stonefather, the short story accompanying the series, is actually pretty good. The premise is decent, with a well-developed magic system that might have saved the official series on its own had not the books been *quite* that terrible.
The Last Guardian by Eoin Colfer
Disappointing is the best word to describe this. I very much enjoyed several of the previous Artemis Fowl books, and was hoping for a worthy conclusion. Spoiler: this isn't it. The entire plot had no basis in his fictional world outside the last book; the whole thing was pulled out of his hat. Any characterization from previous books was ignored; the characters reverted to their initial stereotypes: "genius brat," "physically lacking technical whiz," "silent bodyguard," etc. The loose ends left from the previous books were ignored as well. Again, disappointing.
Inheritance by Christopher Paolini
As Paolini's writing skills improve, his plot worsens. The last book was bloated. It was predictable in the worst possible ways. A major, MAJOR plot point was pulled out of the air at the beginning of the book. Any faults the previous installments had were magnified tenfold in this one. Yeah. Disappointing would probably sum this one up as well.
Whew! All that ranting out of my system. I feel better now.