What are 3 Terrible Fantasy or Sci-fi Books You've Read?

[Wes]

Do you remember shortly after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq the videos of beheadings being sent out by Al Queda? Did you ever dare yourself to watch one of them, perhaps out of some morbid curiosity? Do you remember the fear and disgust that washed over you in the first few minutes as you watched some poor man stuck in a bad situation with no way out? Remember thinking "This can't be real," but realizing it was very much realistic despite all the best efforts otherwise? And how, after several minutes had passed, you were so desensitized to the whole thing that you became devoid of any love or emotion for the world, believing it to be nothing but a cold, harsh place that would be better off without us? That you would not - maybe COULD not - feel happiness ever again?

That feeling is what it is like reading "The Road."

[V.W.]

Never happens to me. I pre-scan potential books and check the ending before buying. If even then the first chapter doesn't appeal, I toss it.

[Ken]

Again, I don't dismiss McCarthy for his violent content. I dismiss him for his presumption of intellectualism when nothing of substance is presented. It is akin to the Rorschach test. People see what they want. Some people ascribe great works of genius there, while others see it for what it is - a splotch of ink on paper. It's not the Mona Lisa that those few fans proclaim it to be. Listing his nominations for prizes does not credit his writing. Hell, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing at all.

The guy (McCarthy) writes one-dimensional characters in a one-dimensional world, and fans praise his depiction of a bleak landscape devoid of hope. It's a stretch that beggars belief. All of the positive criticism centers around the personal emotional response of the fan to the setting of the books. There really is nothing beneath it.

Top 3 hate.

[Wastrel]

You don't think that the fact that a) the masses, b) the critics and c) genre fans all almost universally believe they can see three-dimensional characters and profound themes... might POSSIBLY suggest that you're missing something?

[And since when did eliciting a strong emotional response not count as good writing?]

[Arabella]

Of course evoking a response is a major strength of writing.
But if the emotion evoked is loathing and you were really going for admiration...it kind of defeats the purpose.
And if, as you say, the masses opinion outweighs a single reader......that's valid too.
But a single opinion is also valid. If you've read something and you look around and everyone else has loved it and you think it's garbage.....how is your personal reaction NOT valid?
I've read a lot of books that I opened in expectation of a good read and was terribly disappointed.
That's just the way it is.
And that's why we don't all tell the same tale the same way. Different sensibilities which demand different kinds of stories. Thank God!

[Wastrel]

You're not distinguishing, though, between the expression of a personal reaction and a statement about the world. It's one thing to say "I didn't like this book", and another to say "this book is terrible".

And I wasn't saying the masses outweighed the individual. Sometimes popular opinions are wrong. Regardless of the issue, books are just one example - sometimes you say "the masses are wrong, just look at what the experts are saying". And sometimes you say "the so-called experts are wrong, just look at what the masses are saying". And sometimes you say "the so-called experts are wrong, and popular opinion is wrong, look what ordinary people who happen to be really into this subject are saying".

But when the masses and the academics and the fans are all saying the same thing, I think it's basic good intellectual practice to seriously consider that they may be right. Particularly when they're saying they see xyz that you don't see - not just don't like, but can't see. In general, it's easier to fail to see something than to imagine something that isn't there, so when everybody's saying they see something, and you don't, it's at least worth considering that you're failing to see something that is there.

[[deleted user]]

The one dimensional world of McCarthy doesn't jive with my memory of The Border Trilogy or Blood Meridian. I recall them as vibrant and alive with detail and character and stunning prose.

I'm also going to try Across the Face of the World. Some readers may feel bored by slow pace and too many details, but I can find the possibility to explore and view. I enjoy books that take their time to develop. It's like kids who run through the paths of an elaborate garden then claim what a boring place it was: they miss the point that the purpose is to go slow. Usually I'm not a fan of modern fantasy, but I want to try this one.

[Zang]

Really didn't like Friday. I'm probably more likely to read bad books by my favourite authors. I didn't like Confessions of a Crap Artist (not really science fiction) or Deus Irae.

[Gregor]

Zang wrote: "Really didn't like Friday. I'm probably more likely to read bad books by my favourite authors. I didn't like Confessions of a Crap Artist (not really science fiction) or [..."

If you didn't like those Dick books, stay far away from Lies, Inc.. It's by far his worst. It's a horrible, broken thing.

[Pickle]

Gregor wrote: "Zang wrote: "Really didn't like Friday. I'm probably more likely to read bad books by my favourite authors. I didn't like Confessions of a Crap Artist (not really science ..."

if you skip pages 73-173 of Lies, Inc. then its not too bad, those additional 100 pages are just terrible.

[Ken]

Wastrel wrote: "You don't think that the fact that a) the masses, b) the critics and c) genre fans all almost universally believe they can see three-dimensional characters and profound themes... might POSSIBLY sug..."
I contend that what people are saying about the author's works does not match up to the content. Perhaps the simplest evaluation would be encapsulated in the word "Overrated".

But of course, since he's currently in vogue, I will be facing stiff opposition in my assertions on the matter for some time.

[Wastrel]

So you don't think there's even the slightest possibility that everyone else in the world might be right and you might be wrong?

I mean, it's one thing to say someone is overrated - to say people have gotten a bit carried-away by something - but to say that someone is the worst author in the world and that his work doesn't have any of the things that everyone else sees in his work... that's a much, much bolder claim.

I'm afraid I just don't think your evaluation matches the content in the books (though I'd agree that he's overrated). Which of his books have you read, out of interest?

[J.J.]

Come on, people, we're talking about opinions here. There is no right and wrong. It doesn't matter how many people have a differing opinion, that doesn't prove anything because they're still just opinions, and no one is required to agree with anyone else.

[Brenda]

So true. If I don't like tomatoes it does no good to tell me of all the millions of people who adore them, and how nutritious and good they are. I still don't like them.

[J.J.]

Brenda wrote: "So true. If I don't like tomatoes it does no good to tell me of all the millions of people who adore them, and how nutritious and good they are. I still don't like them."

Heh, I don't care for tomatoes either, and my husband just can't fathom that. Because they're so good for you!

[A.L.]

I can't name 3 off hand but I'd say Chronicles of the Black Companywas one I didn't finish. I just couldn't get on with the lack of world and character building.

[[deleted user]]

Well, there is Bad in Opinion and Bad in Fact.

Tomatoes are bad - I hate the taste. (Opinion)

These tomatoes are bad - they are rotten and filled with bugs. (Fact)

Or for books:

This novel is bad - too violent with one dimensional characters. (Opinion)

This novel is bad - it has many spelling and grammar mistakes, overuses the passive voices, frequent cliches abound, and an has a deus ex machina end. (Fact)

I suppose some people wouldn't mind eating a rotten tomatoes or reading novels were the author misspells grisly as grizzly, but those are outliers.

[J.J.]

Greg wrote: "This novel is bad - it has many spelling and grammar mistakes, overuses the passive voices, frequent cliches abound, and an has a deus ex machina end. (Fact)"

I would probably agree that the novel you described is bad, but that's still a subjective opinion, not fact. "This novel has many typos" is a fact, but someone may still manage to enjoy that book. And presumably whoever wrote it likes it. ;)

[Ken]

I like tomatoes.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Jenz wrote: "I would probably agree that the novel you described is bad, but that's still a subjective opinion, not fact. "This novel has many typos" is a fact, but someone may still manage to enjoy that book. And presumably whoever wrote it likes it. ;)
"

If a book has those errors in it and a person manages to enjoy it, then the "This book is good." becomes opinion. Because the fact is the book is bad.

[Ken]

You know, you and I don't usually agree. But on that one, I'm with you!

[J.J.]

Then you're wrong, too, Kenneth! lol

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Kenneth wrote: "You know, you and I don't usually agree. But on that one, I'm with you!"

:)

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Jenz wrote: "Then you're wrong, too, Kenneth! lol"

Sorry, but any book that destroys the written language in such a way is simply kindling.

In fact, it dismays me greatly that anyone could ever look at something riddled with mistakes and call it "good." *shudder*

And if it has the level of errors stated by Greg:

This novel is bad - it has many spelling and grammar mistakes, overuses the passive voices, frequent cliches abound, and an has a deus ex machina end. (Fact)

Well, this is beyond "typos." This is just a hot mess of errors that should never see the light of day. In fact, if you have this level of spelling errors I defy anyone to say they are just "typos." At that level the person "writing" said "book" is simply unable to spell (and I would opine a poor writer).

[Arthur]

MrsJoseph wrote: "At that level the person "writing" said "book" is simply unable to spell (and I would opine a poor writer). "

Going that far on just spelling errors might be a bit harsh if you ask me - I think there are numerous successful, good authors out there who have an equally good editor to thank for their bread.

The fact that electronic publishing has now produced many, many books which are desperately lacking said editor's touch is regrettable, but I wouldn't dismiss the authors based on just that. The cliches and deus ex machina would seal the deal of course.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Arthur wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "At that level the person "writing" said "book" is simply unable to spell (and I would opine a poor writer). "

Going that far on just spelling errors might be a bit harsh if you a..."

No, I don't think so.

There's one thing to have typos. It will always happen as we're human. I don't place conversion (from paper to ebook) errors in the same space as pure spelling errors - that's a different animal.

But I was specifically talking about Greg's example. And if the book is at that point then no - the author cannot spell.

[Ken]

Thing is Arthur, that kind of thing should be inexcusable in the electronic medium because of the vast array of available tools to correct it! Publishing something with extensive grammatical errors is really just laziness.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Kenneth wrote: "Thing is Arthur, that kind of thing should be inexcusable in the electronic medium because of the vast array of available tools to correct it! Publishing something with extensive grammatical errors..."

Or ignorance.

[Brenda]

Well, I do warn you about relying utterly upon spellchecking programs.
I have a book, a mass-market paperback at home. I can't remember the title or author, but it was given to me, free, in a goody bag at a convention. When you look closely at it you can see why. It's a horror novel, one of those "The Gerunding" titles, with a red drippy typeface for the title -- you've seen them. On the back is the usual breathless cover copy about Satanic sacrifice and Evil Triumphing. And, in the center of that copy in bold type, it runs: LAY DOWN ON THE ALTER OF DEATH.
Reread that. I have typed it exactly as it was printed. It has no squiggly red line under it. Spellcheck says it is OK. Nevertheless, it is WRONG WRONG WRONG if you are talking about altars of Satanic sacrifice!
It was free in my goody bag, because the publisher could not sell it with such a big typo on the back. Some editor, some cover copy proofer, lost her job over that one; the entire print run had to be tossed (except for freebies they were able to foist off upon us convention attendees).
And think of the poor author. The work was clearly intended to be a best-seller and knock Stephen King off his perch. If the first run went into the pulping machine, you can bet the second run wasn't anywhere near as big. The author's career probably went down to the Alter of Death as well.
So: do not trust spellcheck. Correct spelling calls for intelligent human eyes. Your career rides on it.

[[deleted user]]

I here ewu on spellcheck. Authors should no bitter then two trust a computer to sea what's knot spelled write.

[Gary]

Brenda wrote: "It was free in my goody bag, because the publisher could not sell it with such a big typo on the back."

I think they may have just tricked you into taking out their garbage for them.... The adjective "goody" should probably be replaced with "trash" and then it makes more sense.

The spellchecker (or, the spiel clicker) has no concept of homonyms, commonly confused words or context. This is a perfectly valid sentence:

Butt these are the books you should grab ass you put on your booty.

No errors.

The "your" and "you're" or "its" and "it's" thing is sometimes a problem for me. Eye type quiet quick, sew eats ease two Miss an app oz trophy.

No errors.

[[deleted user]]

Fudge! I missed typed ewe!

[Ken]

That may have been a problem 10 years ago, and it is a valid point and a good reason for editing. Modern grammar checking should cover most, if not all of that.

An occasional conversion/typeset typo is to be expected. But the Your/You're stuff has to be axed.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

lol!

[J.J.]

Wow, that's terrible, I feel sorry for that author. But it's a great example of how difficult proofing really is. I've done enough of it to know that good writing is rarely error-free.

Just to instigate a little more about clichés, here's a list of books people have shelved as clichéd on Goodreads. Some of them are bestsellers, so clearly not everyone agrees with some of the opinions about quality here (which is my point, it's still all a matter of opinion, not fact).
https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/...

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

What does being a bestseller have to do with competent, error-free writing?


Ever heard of Kristen Ashley? She writes the most error filled books I have ever read in my life. You name it, she does it wrong. She's extremely popular but she can't write for shit. She's a good storyteller but writer? Not.At.All. It is ATROCIOUS. Typos, misspellings, headache-inducing poor formatting, deus ex machina, incorrect word choice... (the list actually DOES go on).

So...

[Brenda]

There are also authors who have it in their contract -- no editorial. No correction of typos, punctuation -- their prose is solid gold! I glanced at a book from one of these authors once, and immediately spotted a chapter which ended without a period at the end of the last sentence. Clearly wrong, we agree. The editor was there and I showed it to her. With tears in her eyes she said that she had been contractually bound -not- to put that missing period in. She had no choice but to hand the ms to the typesetter, unproofed. I could tell the shame was crushing.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Brenda wrote: "There are also authors who have it in their contract -- no editorial. No correction of typos, punctuation -- their prose is solid gold! I glanced at a book from one of these authors once, and immed..."

O_O

*sigh* I avoid those authors' works. A good editor is worth their weight in gold.

[Gary]

Well, there are "errors" and then there are intentional uses of the language that vary from the standard but are done in order to convey an artistic value. E. E. Cummings and James Joyce leap to mind. I don't know if that's the case for the editor you're talking about, but it could be a situation in which an editor does not actually understand the writer's intention.

There's an old story about the film Shane in which the director had gone out of his way to record the sound of gunfire to make it much louder than the stock audio recordings typically used by the studio. He went to a screening and to his chagrin found the sound of shots much more muted than he had intended. He ran up to the projection room to find out what was going on and the projectionist explained that he had noticed that the sound mixing was clearly poorly done, so he'd timed the appearance of the gunfights and had been physically turning down the audio at the "appropriate" times so that it wouldn't startle and upset the audience....

That's clearly an example of someone not getting the intention of the artist.

Consider this paragraph from Jane Austen:

Supported by the conviction of having done nothing to merit her present unhappiness, and consoled by the belief that Edward had done nothing to forfeit her esteem, she thought she could even now, under the first smart of the heavy blow, command herself enough to guard every suspicion of the truth from her mother and sisters. And so well was she able to answer her own expectations, that when she joined them at dinner only two hours after she had first suffered the extinction of all her dearest hopes, no one would have supposed from the appearance of the sisters, that Elinor was mourning in secret over obstacles which must divide her for ever from the object of her love, and that Marianne was internally dwelling on the perfections of a man, of whose whole heart she felt thoroughly possessed, and whom she expected to see in every carriage which drove near their house.

That's 154 words with two periods, and the first is followed by a conjunction to begin the next sentence.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Gary wrote: "Well, there are "errors" and then there are intentional uses of the language that vary from the standard but are done in order to convey an artistic value. E. E. Cummings and James Joyce leap to m..."

How does that saying go?

"You have to know the rules [of grammar] to break them.

ee cummings (see what I did there?) was well educated in what rules he was breaking and how.

[Gary]

Exactly. I'd argue that Cormac McCarthy is a great example of someone who knows the rules, has demonstrated that he knows them, and breaks those rules intentionally and to a purpose. It's fine if one doesn't like his work on a personal level (the plots or characters being not to one's taste) but he's got a vocabulary that rivals James Murray, a use of sentences that is right up there with Joyce and his conceptual use of language is... well, not as good as Cummings, but still stronger than any currently living author I can think of. Objectively, he's chock full of the literary equivalent of protein, vitamins and minerals. It's one thing to say you don't like spinach, it's another to say spinach isn't actually good food.

Personally, I can't stand cauliflower. I understand it has nutritional value, but if I wanted something in my mouth that had the appearance, flavor and texture of boiled rat brains then I'd just go ahead and eat boiled rat brains. I'm not judging people for enjoying the equivalent of congealed rodent lobotomies, but I'll just have the broccoli, thank you. However, I recognize that my personal, subjective experience of cauliflower is not the same as saying that that is "bad" food.

[Stevie]

MrsJoseph, I couldn't agree more with you that being a best-seller doesn't make you a competent writer. Dan Brown comes immediately to mind. I only had to read the first paragraph of the Da Vinci Code to convince me that his writing was hackneyed and conventional, and I've never been tempted to read his work since.

[Zang]

Gregor wrote: "Zang wrote: "Really didn't like Friday. I'm probably more likely to read bad books by my favourite authors. I didn't like Confessions of a Crap Artist (not really science ..."

That is one of the very few I haven't read. Thanks for the heads-up!

[Gordon]

couldn't finish:

The Way of Shadows trilogy
Wizard's First Rule series
His Majesty's Dragon series

I can get thru most even the 'sub-par' books

[[deleted user]]

and the hands down worst book I've ever read[including both the Twilight and Fifty Shades series] .