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

I agree. In fact, CDRW, if you have anything more you want to say to me, I encourage you to PM me. I don't think the board should have to go through this.

Charlie

 

Edit: Modifying your post so that mine doesn't make sense anymore is bad form.

 

I know we've had thisconversation before, you and I, so I won't say much, but I can tell you, as an Art History major who has studied a god deal of architecture too, Dan Brown's descriptions of art and architecture are pedestrian at best. His descriptions of churches and other architecture read (to me, at least) like they're ripped straight from poorly written textbooks. They get the job done, but they're blunt and unimaginitive, and, well, let's just say that if I went about writing about architecture the way he does, I doubt I'd pass my papers.

The other thing that frustrated me intellectually was the interpretations he offered for a lot of the art in both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, where he misrepresented some of the greatest paintings of the age by ignoring all of the authoritative criticism of the works as well as their histories and the traditions that led to their creation in favour of a fanatical, incendiary reading supported by the flimsiest of evidence ("the gap is triangular, must be a sign!"). What annoyed me most is that there are genuine and equally mysterious symbols and stylistic traits that do exist in the paintings that he completely ignores.

So yeah, as I have said before, Dan Brown's books are a stupid, fun, fast-paced read. They're mindless entertainment, which is ironic given how much research he does (or claims to do). The Lost Symbol is probably his most interesting work yet, but as with his other books, flat characters, ridiculous plot twists and over-information let him down.

 

All I can say is... I suppose I haven't read many poorly written textbooks, and your worst textbooks must have been better than my best.

Then again, I'm not an art major... I suppose they're great descriptions for 99% of all people, the rest of us that aren't art majors. I'm more of a thriller novel fan, myself.

I have studied the Gnostic Gospels, and I know that, while artistic license was taken and Leigh Teabing had a skewed view (as intended by Dan Brown), they were represented fairly well as an introduction to the concept for the thriller-novel readers.

I'd love for you to post a passage from one of his books, and then illustrate how he could have improved the description.

The books are fun and fast paced... they're thriller novels, what do you expect? They were never intended to be high art themselves. They hold their own when compared, say, to the thriller novels of David Baldacci, for example. I don't know of any high-art thriller novels.

Charlie

PS. Most of your references seem to be about Da Vinci Code. The "flimsy evidence" wasn't provided by Dan Brown. It was provided by his villain, Leigh Teabing. Dan Brown himself said, he doesn't necessarily agree with the characters in his books and their conclusions.

 

Despite liking certain aspects of the book, I do agree with what you said here. A part of the book which I don't like is the way the "werewolves" can fall in love with people as young as 3 years (I can't remember the exact age). And Bella seems too infatuated with Edward to make their "love" seem at least remotely realistic.

If you don't like the thread, don't post in it. Simple.

The whole Dan Brown thing has got me curious as to what his books are like...I may have to read one to see what all the fuss is about
And I agree with what you said, I think I've seen about three topics turning into Dan Brown debates.

 

I moved the Dan Brown discussion to its own thread, as I didn't want it to hijack this one.

If you're thinking about reading Dan Brown, since this is the "worst book" thread, I'll tell you this:

Dan Brown's worst book was "Digital Fortress." But it was hardly the "worst book."

His best book was "Deception Point," ignored by almost everybody because it it not controversial and doesn't feature Robert Langdon.

I'm not done with "The Lost Symbol" yet, so I'm not sure, it might take #1 spot. So far, it's excellent, may be his best. "Da Vinci Code" was also excellent. "Angels and Demons" was very good, until the atrocious ending, thankfully fixed in the movie.

 

Anything by James Patterson is guaranteed to be contrite drivel. He has the writing skills of a twelve year-old. "You've Been Warned" makes my brain bleed, and it makes his other novels look like Pulitzer Prize Winners.

"The room was dark. Very dark." - seriously?

And the fact that he consistently remains on the Bestseller lists, makes me want to claw my eyes out. That being said, his books have *some* good action - but that's all.

 

Substitute James Patterson for Nicholas Sparks, "You've Been Warned" by True Believer, and the quote; and those are my exact feelings.

 

I change it to The Waves Of Atlantis by Maxine Asher.

 

Tom Clancy “The Teeth of the Tiger.”

Just read it, a waste of time. The ending was a letdown, and the ending would have been the only chance to salvage the wreck of a book.

The POV switched around randomly.

The only action was sticking people in the ass with a needle.

The social commentary was insightful, however.

 

Oh man this is hard. Usually if a books sucks there's no chance I'll finish it, so it's gotta be something that hurts.

X-Wing: Starfighters of Adumar by Aaron Allston. I actually read this twice, I think I had nothing else to read at the time. The previous book ended on a cliff hanger and a whole new plot started, and then we get this. Not only did this book have nothing to do with the plot of the previous and super amazing book, but it had pretty much nothing to do with Star Wars! Aaron Allston may be a good writer, better than Stackpole, but he sucks at character development, dialogue, comic relief, you know, the stuff that makes a novel good. Shame on Stackpole for letting Allston end the series on such a terrible note. All these years later and it still hurts.

A close second is Apocalypse Watch by Robert Ludlum. Man was that book a waste of money. You could tell Ludlum was out of ideas in this one. He regurgitated countless concepts and even dialogue from previous books. This book is probably the best example of how little Ludlum knew about firearms, I mean the description and dialogue on guns just makes the characters (and Ludlum) sound stupid. Research would be nice. Although nothing tops the sniper rifle in the Bourne Supremacy with a bright finish, think about that for a second.

 

Cat's Eye by Margaret Atwood. God that book sucked (In my opinion)

 

reading J.S. Mill's autobiography was like eating dust. or maybe flour.

 

If you had tohave been at least a bit emotional when he said "That's all I want to be, the catcher in the rye. That's all I want to be, Pheobe."

 

That's not bad, you just need to write that into a good paragraph.

 

Stephen Kings writes fantastic short stories. But his full length novels (and by god are they lengthy) leave a lot to be desired.

 

Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood was the worst book I've read. Not only is it a copy of a book she wrote a few years earlier, it's far more uninteresting. It's all ridiculous and annoying and I felt angry that I had to read this garbage for the whole time. It doesn't help that it's fairly long too. This author seems to pop up on this thread quite a bit.

 

Does he? People always tell me this so I bought two collections of his short fiction and honestly, most of it is mediocre rubbish. I got Everything's Eventual and Nightmares and Dreamscapes, and of the 14 stories in Everything's Eventual, I can only point to 3 that are any good, the rest was just terrible (and the novella, Everything's Eventual, what the hell was that? That was crap) and though I've not finished Nightmares yet – despite the fact it's a better collection - there is very little here to write home about.

 

I personally think Stephen King's short stories... and his full novels... are hit and miss, and some of them absolutely hit.

Really great S.K. short stories include:

Survivor Type.
The Jaunt.
The Man who loved Flowers.
Sometimes they Come Back.
Children of the Corn.
I Am the Doorway.

and others...

Really great S.K. novels include:

Carrie
Salem's Lot
The Stand
It
Misery

and others...

I agree that many of them were not great, however.

But, you know, it's all taste. He obviously appeals to a lot of people, which is why he's so successful. May be some of us like that sort of thing while others don't--that's okay too, it doesn't make him a bad writer if he's not your cup of tea.

And since this has gone way off the "worst book topic"... to bring us back on topic...

The worst Stephen King book ever was The Colorado Kid, hands down.
It had no story, and that no story went nowhere. It was utterly lame, more of a concept than an actual story.

Charlie

 

L.T.'s Theory of Pets was pretty good, Riding the Bullet was good too, and the Luckey Quarter (does this look like a spelling mistake to anyone else?) wasn't amazing, but compared to some of the other short stories in Everything's Eventual it was like gold. Some of them, like 1408, (I liked the film - there I said it) The Road Virus Heads North, Everything's Eventual and In the Deathroom were so bad I couldn't believe this was the same guy who wrote Misery, which was a decent book. The rest was just mediocre to poor-but-had-potential stories really.

And like I said, I’ve not finished Nightmares and Dreamscapes yet, so I can’t comment on that yet.

 

I enjoyed his Skeleton Crew collection. The other short story collections are kind of bad, or just plain silly. The Mist (which is in Skeleton Crew) was a decent character story and I really liked the ending. The movie didn't do it justice, except by choosing one of the possible endings: the cruelest one.

The Stand isn't bad either, but most of his work just isn't quality.

 

How was the book Christine? My dad read it years ago and loved it. Funny the only time in his life he ever read novels was in the army lol
I was thinking of adding it to my "books to read" list.

 

Not the greatest, I give a "meh" and a shrug for a review haha.

 

I liked Christine. It was a fun book. I actually read it when it was brand new, way back in 1983.

Let's face it--Stephen King books are not literary classics. They're genre fun-fiction, the junk food of reading.

That said, Christine was a fun read.

(On the other hand, Stephen King's "other" book about a car, From a Buick 8, is not worth your time.)

 

Agreed.

Skeleton Crew is probably for me up there with the best of everything thats S.K (Though i loved the novels It, Stand and Misery).

In my opinion novel wise he has not written anything for almost one and a half decades.

Short story wise i only liked a handful from his last one (N being the stand out).

It's funny ow times change i used to be a king fan over Koontz, now it's the other way around.