The worst book you've ever read or had to have read

Oh gosh, the two worst books I've ever read were both studied in my English class.

'Of Mice and Men' by John Steinbeck and 'Great Expectations' by Dickens.

This is why I'm taking English Language instead of Lit next year! I would probably have enjoyed the books had I not been forced to rip them apart and try and find all this wonderful brilliance that really, really is just not there.

Grammatical errors really are my pet-peeve and 'Of Mice and Men' is rife with them. I think I spent all those months just shuddering at the mention of the damn book! It's only got six sections though, thank God.

'Great Expectations' could have been such a great novel had Dickens not spent 3/4 of the book waffling about crap I
a) Don't care about and
b) Don't really need to know either.

I'll save you the trouble and tell you that Lennie dies at the end and Magwitch is Pip's benefactor, not Miss. Havisham. She falls in the fire and dies tragically - the best part of the novel by far.

Again, I'm so glad I chose English Language!

 

Of Mice and Men is one of my favorite books! Btw, the "grammatical errors" you speak of are there on purpose to show a distinct dialect and manner of speaking.

 

Of Mice and Men is one of my favourites too, as is Flowers for Algernon, and both have far too many grammatical errors for me to read all in one sitting, but both authors at least used the technique skillfully. It just gives me a headache sometimes.

 

A Publish America book. Hands down. I kept thinking, who edited this thing?! Only after researching them online a few months later did I realize that, well, they basically don’t edit. I only forced myself through it because I knew the author. Actually, after a few chapters of complete awfulness (run-on sentences that made no sense, page-long paragraphs of characters ranting on and on about stuff I barely understood) I started skimming, just enough so I could tell my friend I read it. And no, I did not tell her what I really thought. She got a much needed self esteem boost from publishing that book. But man, it was bad. Cost almost 25 bucks too.

Hm… on second thought, Loudon’s Organic Chemistry, Fifth Edition was pretty painful too. But at least it was edited. And I understood what it was talking about sometimes.

I don’t mean to offend anyone who’s published a book with Publish America. They’re a crappy publisher. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t publish something good.

Haha, I started to feel the same way as I was reading this. I LIKED most (not all) of the classics I've read. Tale of Two Cities is one of my favorite books of all time.

 

The Twilight Saga. Managed to force myself through all four kicking, screaming and asking what all the hype was about. Never quite found out the answer, though I've recently discovered Breaking Dawn makes a nifty door stop.

 

Star Wars Legacy of the Force: Revelation.

i forced myself to read this book so i could complete the series, since this was 8 of 9. it got so boring in the middle that i dropped it for 3 months. the author often described settings halfway into the scene, at one point there was no paragraph break when a new character started speaking, so i was completely lost and confused as to why this person was saying this. basically the whole story was Jacen's obsession with Fondor, and Jaina spending time with the Mandalorians, who are apparently just misunderstood farmers. Daala coming back was kind of cool, but at this point the story was beyond redemption.

not to mention there was OF COURSE no revelations in the whole freakin book.

my friend and i now joke about how "bad" Karen Traviss is. "oh, Boba Fett has a heart too."

 

I was actually planning on reading that, just for my own literary knowledge.

So I shouldn't have Great Expectations... of Great Expectations?

Charlie

(That wasn't the worst pun I've ever imagined. Pretty bad, but certainly not the worst.)

Honestly, though I know it's a classic, I rank Of Mice And Men as "forgettable."

A Tale of Two Cities was pretty good, but my favorite Charles Dickens is A Christmas Carol. To me, that book is timeless. I found David Copperfield long and forgettable.

 

Eats, Shoots & Leaves

Kill me.

 

Eats, Shoots and leaves you say?

If you get the audiobook, the opening is read by my sister. She was working at Penguin at the time and recorded the title page for the book.

 

Hmm... Most of the books by American/British authors I've read were pretty good, except for Blow Fly. I dropped it after three chapters =P

You guys are lucky you're not forced to read Brazilian literature. The "classics" are always excruciating. Especially A Escrava Isaura (something like "Isaura, the Slave) and Iracema... Argh! Awful!

 

Well, see, this depends.

On one hand, Twillight has by far the worst prose I have ever seen in any serious, published work. Including what I suspect to be the most poorly constructed sentence ever. It's badly written in a "first draft" kind of way, full of minor narrative flaws that could have been fixed in a simple, quick re-write. I don't understand how this book even got passed the editors.

However, aside from that, I actually find the book fairly entertaining. I find myself genuinely caring about Bella and her romantic conundrum and I want to see what happens on the next page. Despite the horrible execution, I have fun reading this book.

On the other hand, there's Grey Souls by Phillipe Claudel; a book that resides in the direct opposite side of the spectrum from Twillight. This novel is brilliantly written, with a very peculiar, non-linear narration that feels very realistic. It's very obvious the author put a lot of effort into it.

Only problem is, the story is horribly depressing, to the point where I found it impossible to enjoy in any way. This is not a fun book. It's literally hundreds of pages of nothing but human misery, anguish, suffering and insanity. We were forced to read it in our Swedish class at school, and nobody liked it. I couldn't even finish it; I had to bluff my way through the discussion afterwards.

Turns out my teacher -also an author- had picked it out because he loved the way it was written. He admitted he hadn't really considered that we might not enjoy the story itself.

So, it depends on how you look at it. Objectively speaking, Twillight is by far the inferior book of the two. But from a subjective perspective, Grey Souls in much, much worse.

Of course, if you could somehow combine the terrible writing of Twillight and the complete and utter lack of entertainment value of Grey Souls, you would most likely get the unrivaled Worst Book Ever.

 

It has to be The Catcher in the Rye. I decided that, since people called it a classic and all, I should try it. That book gave me a headache. The main character is so masochistic, and I couldn't see any discernible plot. Plus, swearing every other word didn't do anything for me. I fully applaud swearing in books, because oftentimes when the feelings are strong nothing does it except swearing, and it gives the book a feeling of being fresh and not afraid to use profanity and the "worse" swearing, rather than just gentle words. A good example of using swearing well is in "WAKE" and "FADE". But really, Catcher in the Rye was horrible.

 

Traviss' obsession with the Mandalorians really ruined the series. Totally out of place. Every time it cut over to a scene with Fett and his cronies, I could only scratch my head, wondering what this had to do with anything relevant to the story. The three books written by Traviss were definitely the worst in the series, and she is easily my least favorite Star Wars author. I wish they'd let Matthew Stover loose more often...

 

DUDE! Yes, I hated that book with a passion.

 

I didn't like The Pearl at all because of the writing style, the plot, the ending, and the overall theme. Of course, none of Steinbeck's novels really appeal to me in the first place.

 

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. The characters were so flat, and how does John the savage go about learning elegant English so quickly?

The world Huxley created was wonderful, I must admit, and the mechanics of this world was brilliant. It was, though, an awful read.

 

I have to disagree about Brave New World. The flatness of most of the characters is undoubtedly deliberate. As for his world being wonderful? Hmmm. Not supposed to be wonderful, now is it?

 

I agree. I was expecting some kind of masterpiece considering what I've heard. It sucked. It just doesn't have that element that draws the reader into the story.

 

Plus so much profanity didn't help.

 

I promise not to be offended if you promise to reread it when you're 18.

And if you're already 18, I'm offended.

 

I wonder if this has been brought up yet - I'm not about to go rummaging through 11 pages of posts: From what I can see in the first few I get the gist >_>

The Gold Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I had a whole rant written up about it but I realised that I got really angry about it further on. Nasty things are best left unsaid.

So in short:
I get it and I didn't need to be told.
Anyone who will listen already knows.
Anyone who needs to know will never listen.
Prejudiced fanatics (regardless of the source) are horrible, horrible people and records of their actions never fail to inflict me with a morbid state of depression.

But this book is not the solution: It is a self-affirmation of intellectual superiority promoted by arrogant [expletive]s with various root vegetables lodged in uncomfortable orifices.[/euphemismstothemax][/hypocrisy =P]

Edit: My mistake, FOURTY-THREE pages. Hatin' on bad books somethin' FIERCE.

 

I would have to say John Steinbeck's East Of Eden. I found it so hard to relate to any of the characters in that novel.

 

Anything by Charles Dickens.

I mean, he just rants on and on about stuff that's completely irrelavent to the book. How the teacher gets through his works, I'll never know.

And a book called "The Test" by some author(who's names completely escapes me.)

It had potential, and I was actually enjoying story for the first half of the book.

But then the climax never happened and the characters never developed, and the ending was horrendous.

It was basically "They went to Harvard, took down the Government, and went on to become Oscar winning Actresses!" Literally. It sounded like the guy got tired of the book and hastily wrote some cheesy epilogue. And the ending was out of place, seeing as it just ended out of nowhere.

 

I have to disagree with tcol... The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is one of the best books written.

Far from being a rant, it's a careful analysis of the concept of God, and a fair explanation on why he's an atheist. He answers many of the false charges made by those who challenge atheists.

And, frankly, your response to the book was visceral ad hominem.

Specifically, this: You wrote,

I really liked the book... and will gladly promote the book.

I am not, however, an arrogant expletive, and have no root vegetables lodged anywhere. That was hurtful. Why would you be so driven by your anger to say such a thing?

I would never say that about you, merely for not liking or recommending the book. Why would you insult me, who you don't know, merely for promoting the book, when I never insulted you, for not promoting it?

Charlie

 

Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with liking the book yourself.

I just find it redundant in the sense that it's intensely cyclical and - while rational - appeals only to a rational mind. I may be misunderstanding his target audience and intent, but this book will never reach the hands (let alone eyes) of the people most in need of it.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, maybe it acts as a counter-influence within rational communities as opposed to an attempt to "de-convert" the fanatics. Maybe?

My peeve with it is the frequency with which it is paraded around university by philosophy students as an angsty teen would gush about Catcher in the Rye (Also cited in this list quite often).

A sensible read if taken by itself but surrounded by very unpleasant company.

To avoid going off topic, we could start a separate thread if you wanted (though I don't really enjoy debating a matter of personal taste).