Connecting Readers and Writers discussion
Reader's Station
>
What is the worst book you have ever read?
message 1:
by
Everly
(new)
Mar 04, 2012 12:49PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Hm, interesting question. Not sure I've ever actually 'read' the worst book the whole way through. I usually dump a book after a chapter, first 100 pages or so if it doesn't grab me. Lately, I tend to read the sample chapter from Amazon and decide after that. I don't end up wanting to read the rest of too many these days.What makes me stop reading is usually pacing that drags, characters that don't inspire/enthrall/interest/mystify/enrage - spark some sort of emotional reaction in me, and prose style.
Recently, I think "Dearly Departed" by Lia Habel was probably the worst - didn't even get through the sample chapter. Boring, cardboard characters, a bad history essay that was just an infodump written in the most uninteresting prose, and it was supposed to be about zombies. Maybe my expectations were too high but I couldn't chug my way through that one.
Hm I'm sure there are several, two on the top of my head though are 'The Giver' and 'I was a teenage fairy (faery)'
First person present tense is so hard for me to read through. I still haven't finished the Hunger Games series, (stuck in the middle of the second book) because it's too intense for me and I feel like I'm hyperventilating. It's weird that it's becoming such a common thing, but maybe eventually I'll get over my issues:) Why didn't you like the Giver? I liked it when I was younger.
Suzanne wrote: "Hm, interesting question. Not sure I've ever actually 'read' the worst book the whole way through. I usually dump a book after a chapter, first 100 pages or so if it doesn't grab me. Lately, I tend..."Dearly Departed looked cute too. Oh well. sigh. :)
Unfortunately I've had to read a lot of terrible novels all the way through because I was reviewing them. I won't name specific titles, but as a genre I loathe Christian historical romance. The problem is not the religious message, but the way it is wielded like a blunt weapon, striking the reader over and over as if the reader is too stupid to get it otherwise. Also, the research in these novels tends to be sloppy, the writing substandard, and the theology questionable. The absolute worst of this type I had to review was a Christian bodice-ripper full of historical anachronisms in which the couple kneels down to pray before ravishing each other. In another one set in Germany during WWII, the main characters conclude that capitalism is God's will and that socialism is the devil's economic system. Another one set during WWII in France suggested that it was only superficial Christians who collaborated with the Nazis and that 'real Christians' did their best to save the Jews.
Of course then there are all those drippy pioneer novels in which a woman's love converts the rough-edged cowboy or the sensitive wagon-train guide, who can shoot as easily as he can pray, rescues a woman on the edge of immorality.
Name of the Wind. Overly descriptive, I swear the author never met a metaphor he didn't like plus he made some up that made no sense to me. I only read 15 chapters and it was like reading 15 chapters of filler. Yuck!
Nora aka Diva wrote: "Name of the Wind. Overly descriptive, I swear the author never met a metaphor he didn't like plus he made some up that made no sense to me. I only read 15 chapters and it was like reading 15 chap...""The author never met a metaphor he didn't like". Too funny!
Nora aka Diva wrote: "Name of the Wind. Overly descriptive, I swear the author never met a metaphor he didn't like plus he made some up that made no sense to me. I only read 15 chapters and it was like reading 15 chap...""The author never met a metaphor he didn't like". Too funny!
Magik by Angela Sage I never could get all the way through. I bought it as a paperback but couldn't get through the first chapter, one day when I was looking at the library I found the same book as an audiobook and figured that might help, didn't have to figure out how to say words and such, but still I never got all the way through, listening was easy but still...
Raleigh's Eden, by Inglis Fletcher. I picked it up for 50cents at a thrift store, and that should have been my first warning. Of course I recognized Raleigh's name from history, but that didn't help anything. There are very few books that I have ever set down without finishing, but this was one of them. Dry, dry, dry, is all I can say. I'm not even sure what it was about, people sitting around talking in a dry English way, thats all I got.But, I notice Meagan in the post above me here got a raw deal on that one, so it makes me rethink about how 'bad' my actual experience was.
Meagan wrote: "Collectives of a Forsaken Landslide... Indie publishing at its worst. It had tons of misspelled words and probably the worst grammar I've ever seen in my life. Plus when I reviewed the book, the au..."There is certainly something to be said about manners. I feel bad for your experience, and I certainly hope you didn't pay for that book, or at least managed to return it for a full refund. Some people are just not cut out to take criticism I guess...
Twilight. The only book I've ever thrown across a room in frustration. Why is it so popular? Bella is a snivelling wimp and Edward is just creepy!
I'm gonna have to say The Host, by Stephenie Meyer. I did actually like the Twilight series, although I understand the wimp/creep factor. I mean, when it comes right down to it, Edward's love for Bella is all based on the fact that he wants to EAT her.The Host had an awesome premise, but I hated all the characters. Book stalled in the middle. The sexual tension was incredibly contrived. And the conversation between the main character and her PARASITE was really weird.
I really don't get the purpose of this thread. Worst book, much like best book, is a very subjective topic. I think comments should refrain from actually mentioning a specific book and be more like comment #6, where genres and other generic info are mentioned, without ripping into a specifically named book. My $0.02.
I think it's interesting that Stephanie Meyer has two least faves here.
Diane wrote: "when it comes right down to it, Edward's love for Bella is all based on the fact that he wants to EAT her."Lol! This made me chuckle!
Sandra wrote: "I really don't get the purpose of this thread. Worst book, much like best book, is a very subjective topic. I think comments should refrain from actually mentioning a specific book and be more like..."I agree with you completely Sandra.
Sandra wrote: "I think comments should refrain from actually mentioning a specific book..."I was going to say Wordsworth, because dead people are fair game. But I'm afraid I feel famous people are fair game, mostly because whatever I say about them is unlikely to come to their ears.
@Bryn--agree with you. I don't think I'd get on here and attack an indie or a lesser known. But I felt like Stephenie Meyer was fair game because no matter what anybody says about her, she can laugh all the way to the bank. ;)
Bryn wrote: "Sandra wrote: "I think comments should refrain from actually mentioning a specific book..."I was going to say Wordsworth, because dead people are fair game. But I'm afraid I feel famous people ar..."
Famous people are fair game because they'll likely won't see or hear your opinion? That's...interesting. Why the distinction? Why not include anyone who's published a book? Don't they all become public figures at that point?
I still think that one can be vague about the specific title/author and focus on what didn't work in the book. Again, just my opinion.
Nora aka Diva wrote: "Name of the Wind. Overly descriptive, I swear the author never met a metaphor he didn't like plus he made some up that made no sense to me. I only read 15 chapters and it was like reading 15 chap..."I loved The Name of the Wind... thought it was one of the best fantasy books I ever read, lol. So subjective - but interesting to hear different opinions.
Sandra wrote: "Famous people are fair game because they'll likely won't see or hear your opinion? That's...interesting. Why the distinction? Why not include anyone who's published a book? Don't they all become public figures at that point?..."Sort of, Sandra, but I'd be gentle on indies, from a fellow-feeling; and as for the obscure - indie or not - I guess I'm just more sympathetic towards them. As a writer newly out in the world, I know how scary that is; I'm easily terrified at the thought of being a 'public figure'.
Bryn,I totally agree with you. I wouldn't cut down an indie in public no matter how bad it was. Because indie is relatively new, I've read far more trad pub than indie. Even so, the first books that came to mind when I was thinking about Elle's question were trad pub books. And lately some of the best books I've read are indie.
worst bood? twilight. that was easy.
Ottilie wrote: "Hm I'm sure there are several, two on the top of my head though are 'The Giver' and 'I was a teenage fairy (faery)'"
anyone i ever ask loves the giver. it didn't work for me. and worse, i had to teach it while disliking it. that was not easy. i think i was burned out on the genré at the time. the dystopian, totalitarian, 1984-ish type of story that was just done and done and overdone and again.
anyone i ever ask loves the giver. it didn't work for me. and worse, i had to teach it while disliking it. that was not easy. i think i was burned out on the genré at the time. the dystopian, totalitarian, 1984-ish type of story that was just done and done and overdone and again.
I really like how Elle qualified her question - why is a book bad?For example, Richard didn't like The Giver because the theme is so overdone. I feel that way about the Tudors of England and Vampires.
As Elle said, there is a lot to learn about writing from bad books. This is how I finally figured out how I 'tell' more than I 'show' in my own writing. I also learned how annoying it is to read pages and pages of dialect and strong accents. Anther thing I learned from bad books is that stuff has to happen to the character. I know that seems like basic stuff, but I can't tell you how many bad books keep the reader trapped in the characters' heads worrying over what seem like minor plot points - Twilight is a good example of this. Those of us who hate Bella do so because we spent way too much time in her head.
So, what else makes a book bad?
Juliann, sorry to have taken awhile to get back to you but I didn't like the The Giver because it was despressing! I just couldn't wrap myself around the idea of this other world where people had ot take pills so they couldn't have emotions then were paired off. Then on top of that were just handed over children that the selected breeders had. I read it in 7th grade and I'm 22 now and still jjust get angry about it, I in general have issues with distopian books, but that one and Brave New World just really tick me off.
Bleak House. I've been reading that thing for years just to put me to sleep. Only thing that has ever worked. I suppose that might actually make it a good book.
TRAPED IN THE THE LAWYERS DEN WITH BLOODSUCKERS, a non-fiction book, would be high on the list for the worst book I've ever read. It's little more than a rant and one-sided.
I have a rule. Where it applies, I read the book, and then see the movie. If I do it the other way around, it ruins the book for me. No matter how wonderfully written the prose may be, I put the volume down. Sad isn't it? Seeing the movie first makes whatever I'm about to read the worst book ever, I guess because I know what's coming. I'm weird like that. :)
I tend to forget the bad books, mercifully. In general though, a book will earn my disdain if it's excessively Mary-Sue'ish, excessively sappy or if the plot is a hodgepodge patchwork of stuff ripped off from other famous stories, whether intentional or unintentional, updated re-tellings of famous classics excepted (e.g. Shakespeare, Austen, etc).
Patricia wrote: "I really like how Elle qualified her question - why is a book bad?
So, what else makes a book bad?..."
i didn't like twilight for two reasons. 1. because bella was such a victim and kept making stupid choices and putting herself in dangerous positions from which others had to save her. 2. simply the writing. someone must have told stephanie meyer that the correct way to write dialogue is: "quote quote quote," he said (insert adverb). at one point i had a list of the adverbs she crammed in there, and it grew to silly. she used words that can't be adverbs but added "LY" and made one. one that stands out was when someone asked a question, and the next line was something like "No," he said contrarily.
my comments about the giver might be unfair because of timing. if i had read that before some of the others of that genré, then this might have been the book i liked and the others would be on my bad list.
So, what else makes a book bad?..."
i didn't like twilight for two reasons. 1. because bella was such a victim and kept making stupid choices and putting herself in dangerous positions from which others had to save her. 2. simply the writing. someone must have told stephanie meyer that the correct way to write dialogue is: "quote quote quote," he said (insert adverb). at one point i had a list of the adverbs she crammed in there, and it grew to silly. she used words that can't be adverbs but added "LY" and made one. one that stands out was when someone asked a question, and the next line was something like "No," he said contrarily.
my comments about the giver might be unfair because of timing. if i had read that before some of the others of that genré, then this might have been the book i liked and the others would be on my bad list.
Julie wrote: "I have a rule. Where it applies, I read the book, and then see the movie. If I do it the other way around, it ruins the book for me..."
although i haven't done this, someone once explained the benefit of the movie first and then the book. how many times have you seen a movie (that didn't have a book) and afterward you wished that there was more to the story, that it would keep going, and you wanted to see the characters do more? that happens constantly.
and what are the common complaints about reading the book and then seeing the movie? "they left so much out."
but if you see the movie, and then you read the book, then you get extra scenes and you get what you wanted when you would have said, "i wish there was more..."
although i haven't done this, someone once explained the benefit of the movie first and then the book. how many times have you seen a movie (that didn't have a book) and afterward you wished that there was more to the story, that it would keep going, and you wanted to see the characters do more? that happens constantly.
and what are the common complaints about reading the book and then seeing the movie? "they left so much out."
but if you see the movie, and then you read the book, then you get extra scenes and you get what you wanted when you would have said, "i wish there was more..."
Of course, some movies are better than the book. In the Twilight movies we don't have to be inside Bella's whiny head or Jacob's bratty head.
With movies versions of Victorian-era novels by Dickens, Elliot, Gaskell, and the Romantic writing of Sir Walter Scott you get the wonderful dialogue and plotting without the heavy descriptive writing of those periods.
Patricia wrote: "Of course, some movies are better than the book. In the Twilight movies we don't have to be inside Bella's whiny head or Jacob's bratty head.
With movies versions of Victorian-era novels by Dick..."
This thread had me thinking about my experience with the novel for Last of the Mohicans. It was many moons ago back in high school when I tried to read it, so my patience may be far different now, but at the time, that book totally defeated me. It was a chapter that described every leaf and rock and tree in such detail, I couldn't get past it.
I wouldn't say it was a bad book, though-- just that I wasn't able to appreciate it at the time.
I did end up seeing the film and enjoying it.
last of the mohicans is an example of a good book at a bad moment in the history of writing. american literature at that time was supposed to be loooong, drawn out, complicated sentences and phrases. the movie allowed you to get past that, luckily.
take the first paragraph of the scarlet letter. it's about 140 words, and it's one sentence, and all it does is basically describe a door.
my thanks to ernest hemingway for straightening us out and making us better writers.
take the first paragraph of the scarlet letter. it's about 140 words, and it's one sentence, and all it does is basically describe a door.
my thanks to ernest hemingway for straightening us out and making us better writers.
Richard wrote: "last of the mohicans is an example of a good book at a bad moment in the history of writing. american literature at that time was supposed to be loooong, drawn out, complicated sentences and phras..."I probably should try to read Mohicans again. I did read the Scarlet Letter just in the past, say, ten years and I got into the cadence of it without the issues I'd had with Mohicans. It may be a difference in the Older-Than-Dirt Me, versus the Impatient Whippersnapper Me. :)
It really is all relative.
I don't know if the writing now is better - it is just more suited to readers in the modern age. Sometimes those long, windy, descriptive sentences are fun. However, because I'm American I've been trained to prefer shorter, more direct writing. When a narrative is too descriptive or tells me what I could have figured out through context ("She was scared" or "He felt so alone in that big, empty house") I think of Salieri's criticism of Mozart's music in the film Amedeus - "Too many notes!"
i was thinking about that movie recently and had planned to put it in my netflix queue. that settles it!
Patricia wrote: "I don't know if the writing now is better - it is just more suited to readers in the modern age. Sometimes those long, windy, descriptive sentences are fun. However, because I'm American I've bee..."
Patricia, too many notes here? "Her hair flowed like a lovely waterfall reflecting the golden rays of sunshine." Where's the context here?
Meagan wrote: "Collectives of a Forsaken Landslide... Indie publishing at its worst. It had tons of misspelled words and probably the worst grammar I've ever seen in my life. Plus when I reviewed the book, the au..."OMG - I remember you telling this story in another group, Meagan. Like the guy was stalking you or something. Yikes.
Gerald, Yes, too many notes. Why do we need to know about her hair? Is that central to the plot? Or if this is a clever way of telling us it was sunny out that day, why do we need a weather report?
Unless the next sentence is, "Her father grabbed her by her hair and dragged her back inside before I could tell her I loved her," I don't know why we need to know about her hair.
unless the next sentence is, "then she turned around, and i was 99% certain that it was my grandfather in a wig."
Richard wrote: "unless the next sentence is, "then she turned around, and i was 99% certain that it was my grandfather in a wig.""LOL - Maybe we should have a thread about scenes we would re-write!
Richard, after I stopped laughing I went to your blog to read some of your writing. I've bookmarked it for later (off to a conference in a few minutes). I have the same exact desk as you - I love my little half-moon desk with scalloped edges.
Patricia wrote: "Richard, after I stopped laughing I went to your blog to read some of your writing. I've bookmarked it for later (off to a conference in a few minutes). I have the same exact desk as you - I love m..."
aww thanks for having the curiosity to read anything on my blog. it's not brilliant, but i'm proud of it, and i think it helps me write better. sometimes, when i've spent four hours revising my book, i have to get away, read what others are writing, and write some comments to their work.
here's another connection - i (used to) have red hair too!
aww thanks for having the curiosity to read anything on my blog. it's not brilliant, but i'm proud of it, and i think it helps me write better. sometimes, when i've spent four hours revising my book, i have to get away, read what others are writing, and write some comments to their work.
here's another connection - i (used to) have red hair too!
Richard wrote: "last of the mohicans is an example of a good book at a bad moment in the history of writing. american literature at that time was supposed to be loooong, drawn out, complicated sentences and phras..."The Last of the Mohicans is almost the worst novel ever written. It is absurdly bad. The only reason it survives is because it pioneered a genre. It has more in common with The Castle of Otronto than it does with the canon. (Yes by Gumbit there is still a canon!) Cooper deserves credit for the genre, but his writing is awful, his stories are dull, and his depictions of the "noble savage" are nothing but lazy portraits of 18th century prejudice. Mark Twain put it better than I ever could in his "Literary Offenses", and I would point you in that direction. My favorite offense is the 13th: "Use the right word, not its second cousin."
But really, Cooper isn't even bad. He's just forgettable. His works are a historical footnote, they have no literary qualities.
