Everyone is always asking your favourite book or what you thought of a book and creating lists of books you should read. I thought we should create a list of books you should never read. for me I am David and Z for Zacariah were the worst books I hace ever had to read. The first is just lame and I was so bored I couldn't even finish it. The second, well where to begin? The main character has alot of common sense yet she is incrediably thick. She has been all by herself, all her family and friends left her quite suddenly after a nuclear war which has killed everyone but her and some creepy middle aged man, for a year yet she shows none of the sign of solitude. Oh and the other character tries to rape her but she can't let him starve, so she does all the survival work for him. It is also completely impossible through the eyes of science Ivy Mane
I might get jumped for this but, here goes: Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. Not technically a book, I know, but it remains my least favorite piece of literature ever (with the possible exception of anything by Jane Austin). I understand that Godot is a "masterpiece" and whatnot, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating or obvious. He might as well have not written a play at all, and conveyed the exact same point. And then I got to spend three weeks listening to my English teacher waxing poetic on how amazing it was. That kind of sealed it for me.
One thing that makes bad litriture even more unbearable...having your English teacher practically in love with it.
hi all the worst book i've ever read, after having it hyped up loads by friends, was The Catcher In The Rye. i see why its considered a classic by many people - the themes of alienation and teenage angst still ring true today - but i just found it immensely boring.
Seconded. I can't stand the style it is written in, the characters are flat and not affecting, and the plot (if a book has no language and no characters, it should at least offer a good plot!) is totally pointless. A few wasted hours of my life.
Anything by Charles Dickens, I know he's considered one of the greatest English writers of all time but I just find it hard to relate and get into his books.
WOW I actually could kill you for saying that. To me that's the greatest play of all times. I once said no play in the history, even Macbeth, was 0.01% as good as that. So I get you don't know the devine technique of skipping bull parts. How can you stand 19th century novels? The worse book I read in my life was first Harry Potter. The sequels are... more bearable and even amusing, but first...
For me, it was Understanding Statistics in the Behavioural Sciences by Robert R. Pagano. Absolutely essential stuff for my degree, but, damn. I used to hate Beckett and Austen when I was young. Now I'm old and creaky and I appreciate them more; I think pre-20th century fiction is a bit of an acquired taste. I recently caught myself reading Milton for pleasure, which is a sure sign that very soon now, the nice men in the white coats will be coming to take me away to the funny farm where the people are happy and the sun shines all day. The worst piece of published fiction I ever finished reading was the second Dragonlance novel when I was about 13. I forced myself to finish it in the hope that it would get better; what a horrible mistake that was. The worst piece of published fiction I ever started reading but then threw across the room in disgust was L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth.
I'm not sure. Digital Fortress by Dan Brown was fairly dire. But I should have seen that coming. Also, I'm having to read Madam Bovary for English at the moment, and am finding it a bit of a slog. I'm hoping it will pick up, though.
Go ahead and kill me, MacBeth's a million times better than Waiting for Godot, and Hamlet's better than both of them and everything else combined. The best (or worst) part is, I agree almost entirely with what Beckett posits in the play, but I can't stand it. Hamlet's way cooler.
Actually I'm also reading Milton's Paradise Lost for pleasure at the moment, I don't think this has something to do with age. But I agree, the ability to enjoy high literature premises a taste that one doesn't acquire without years of reading experience. But I think if I want to be a good writer I should be a good reader first, and there is hardly anything that I enjoy more than a great piece of literature. I often catch myself not being able to read the so-called popular fiction anymore, e.g. it's practically impossible for me to get through a book by Dan Brown or the like. Such books bore me to death.
*Writes Scavenger's name in hit list* You're # 2005879 darling. Just wait until it's your turn. But I think you don't know what it posists. But I really loved you, believe me. Because most of people who praise it didn't really love it, because you must be so through modern art to stand it. It's like watching Lynch's or Antonioni's movie without knowing what they really state. Most people praise Beckett because he's so famous, without understanding him, like people who like Pulp Fiction only because of its action.
I'd really rather not wait. Now's good. But I suppose if you're that busy... No, I'm pretty sure I do. Though I'd be more than willing to hear your interpretation. I understand what you mean about people praising works solely because they're famous; it really bothers me too. I always have to correct them and ask if they even know what they're talking about.
Hm, "Heart of Darkness" . They traveled on dark boat, to a dark continent, up a dark river, to some dark people and traded some dark chickens and then decided how many to see how many times they could cram the word "dark", and its many synonyms, into this single novella. An author I can't stand in general is Jane Austin, I share Mark Twain's sentiment, that is, "Every time I read Jane Austen, I want to dig her up and beat her over the head with her shin bone."
Quaquaquaqua! One of the ones that comes to mind would be Tess of the d'Urbervilles. I probably can't remember the worst book I've ever read; it's been forced down into the depths of my memory. Possibly The Scarlet Letter or any of the works of Romanticism that I have read. All bad. Very bad. Repetitive, drab, dull, boring, etc....
I'd have to say the worst book I ever met was the Lord of the Rings series. (I know I'll get something for this... ) I went with my dad and fell in love with the movies, but the books...ugh. I forced myself to read all three of them, hoping that maybe his technique would improve or change or God knows what... that was possibly the dullest book. The plot was fine, the characters were intriguing, but the style, I found it just awful. Then, of course, I had to read The Hobbit for English class, and I just about died. I dont know...It's just something about that author that is comparable to nails on a chalkboard.
My usual summery of the Lord of the Rings is that you've got a bunch of guys wandering around in the dark, lost, and hungry, for about a thousand pages, and that's all that ever happens. Think about it. The entire series is about them traveling, and being completely lost, and without any food. That said, I do love them dearly, so I disagree with your general premis, but I can completely understand where you're coming from.
Anything by Jackie Collins. These are books that are a big waste of paper. I read Hollywood Wives when I 'd finished all my books and couldn't afford new ones. My classmate had this and she liked it. So I read it. Even the memory makes me want to throw up.
I don't usually read bad books, but the one's that come to mind are: How to Read a Book - I have no idea (ironic though.. isn't it) And Frankenstein, though I was about 12 at the time.. I haven't checked it out since. I probably should.
I need to say I rarely read a bad book (to me) because I usually close it before I get further (Harry Potter lasted about 3 seconds in my hands). I do find quite a lot of books that I cannot stomach. Generally good literature like they have us read in college doesn't offend me. It is cheap pop fiction that makes me scream and tear my hair out. I mean, those that make me physically ill. Most Science fiction and fantasy is in this category for me now. I used to be quite a big SF fan, so I don't know what happened to my taste. I liked the "inner Space" stories. I can't read chick-lit like "the devil wears Prada." It is totally silly and Barbie-doll shrieky. Ick. Ick. Ickk. I abhor any kind of Romance novel. I guess if there is a bit of action and sex it is okay, but genuine "Harlequin" type novels really make me lose my lunch. I hate 'Mike hammer" type beefy man in jungle fight-out books too. They are cheap and icky. Now that I have alienated everyone, what can I say???
FunnyBunny, generally I agree with you about the genres that need to find a shredder, but I think with Harry Potter it's a bit different. You have to remember that they started off as kids' books, and progressively get better, more complicated, and certainly more unique. I can't stand the first and second ones anymore, but the third one was amazing, and the last three are what makes the series classic.
You know, that's very true; I never thought about it before. I actually don't mind the plot so much, as I mentioned before, because it does have some very good themes that still can be applied to today's society. Not to mention the characters all have something that you can apply to yourself (in my opinion. Especially Gimli. I am a Gimli. Stubborn and short.). However, when it comes down to it, there are only so many ways you can say that a bunch of guys wander around in the dark, lost and hungry for about a thousand pages, and that's all that ever happens, right? That and maybe Peter Jackson's movie making puts J.R.R. Tolkien's writing to shame. (gasp!)
Well, it is all about opinions. The end books still seem to be children's books. Yes I do understand that Harry Grew Up. I am not saying that at some future time I might pick it up and love it. I doubt it, but I may be stuck in jail or something. Who knows.
