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

You know I find that when there is a book that people have created lots of hype over there will be another set of people who can't understand the hype and don't like it whatsoever. I think some people might hate the book because of the hype or might find something not to like over it, whereas other people genuinely never felt to into it.

I say this because I know quite a few people who enjoyed Harry Potter, but after the Hype started they were like eh, not so great book. And I know others who were just never into it to begin with.

Me personally. I tried to read Twilight, I loved the idea, but just didn't feel like reading it. I didn't have that passion for it, and wasn't really...into it. I only liked one character and that was the crazy person, a book dedicated to her would have been well read by me .

 

I dislike Harry Potter greatly. Don't get me wrong; I respect J.K. Rowling for her talent as a writer, but I felt the premise behind it was nothing more than a fantasy novel with teenage angst pumped into it.

But it's not the worst book I've ever read, for the reason stated. No, that title goes to Virginia Woolf's 'A room of one's own'. Although not technically a novel, it was written in the format and in first-person style, so I feel justified in saying that it is the single most boring thing to ever meet my eyes.

 

For me I like J.K I liked* Harry Potter in the beginning but when the hype came up I was like eh... it was too much I thought it was a nice book but come on...jellybeans, customes, outfits, the hype that I saw was exaggerated... It's taken me a while to get to the point where I can say something similar to what you said Joran. "I'm not really into Harry Potter, but I respect J.K. as a writer."

You know ahaha I always say Virginia Woolf's my favourite writer for all the wrong reasons. She's my favourite writer because she was insane and killed herself, lol and then you give me her writing and I sit there and go...ahhh can't get through it, or I finish it and can't wrap my brain around what just happened. But I cross my arms and say yep...I read that book (lol) all the wrong reasons...

 

^ :O thats awful!! Although a lot of people (pretend) to like Sylvia Plath for the same reason...

 

^ I was lukewarm about Sylvia Plath. Her writing was interesting no doubt, but personally I prefer Hughes.

 

War and Peace. I'm sorry to anyone who loves it, but for me it was the most boring bookl I have ever had the misfortune to read.

 

The Aeneid

Although i know i was studying an inherently bad translation of it, that does nothing to change the fact that the plot is contrived, the characters two dimensional, and the propoganda heavy-handed.

Yes, it's a classic, but still...

 

Crime and Punishment...Bo-ring

 

I hate Harry Potter with a passion. I find that not only is the book quite boring, but should be named the greatest fantasy literature.

Also, another reason why I don't like it, is due to the hype about it, it's silly and credit worthy for children, but not for adults.

Finally, I despise it because in exams we had to study real literature like Shakespeare, now Shakespeare is going to be replaced by Rowling. What a complete and other joke. I praise her for creating such a successful series, but I hate her book because people are naming it the best, better than Shakespeare. What utter nonsense!

Sorry for all it, but just need to say it.

 

who says it is better than Shakespeare? I agree with you that it is hardly 'great literature', so i was wondering who says it is?

 

You guys realize that Shakespeare just wrote sex and violence like everyone else right? The guy wrote plays for pete's sake. They were Low Art. The only reason they're High Art now is because he was lucky enough to have some educated people come along long after he was dead and start talking fancy about them. It could happen to anyone.

 

It is different than Shakespeare.

You can't compare steak and well-aged wine with fudge sundaes and Sprite.

Charlie

 

Even back then, he was considered one of the best writers by his contemporaries. Even though parts of his plays had violence and sexual innuendos, they were still well written.

 

So you're saying he wrote some of the best stuff of his genre? Sort of like what Rowling did?

 

According to his contemporaries, he was one of the best. Of course, we have to take their word for it since some writers and their works have been lost in time. So, we can't look at all the works that were produced by writers during Shakespeare's lifetime. As for Rowling, I think there are better writers in the fantasy genre.

 

What, because they can craft a delicate metaphor about the sunrise shining through the morning mist?

There's no objective way to determine who's a "better writer" except sales.

Who's to say that metaphor triumphs over dialogue? Or pacing over plot twists? Deep meaningful symbolism over inspiration of the imagination? Difficulty of creation or depth of effect on the reader? Our modern decisions on who's the best writers of their generation is largely determined by the caprices of people who have decided that symbolism comes first and "it's that way because I say so."

 

But a lot of people would argue that sales aren't an indication of writing skill. There simply is no objective way to assess the value of a writer or the level of their talent. And besides the actual quality of the writing, there are too many externa factors to number that affect how a book is received. And, for the record, the Symbolists are all long dead...

 

Of course they say that. There's no set definition of what constitutes writing skill. The best we can get is a hazy set of principles that can easily change depending on genre and fashion.

Sales definitely isn't the be-all end-all determinator of skill, but it's orders of magnitude more reliable than anything else (meaning it's slightly better than a coin toss). It's a built in measurement of how well a certain piece of writing connected with large groups of people. There are external factors that aren't compensated for, but it's still an actual honest-to-goodness down-to-earth measurement, which is better than anything else can claim.

 

Sales definitely do not indicate who's better. Plenty of mediocre writers are popular, and a lot of good writers live their lives in poverty and/or without the recognition they deserve.

No on is saying that symbolism or anything else comes first. Good writing, IMO, is a combination of the all the things you stated. Perhaps Shakespeare doesn't have the best characterization or dialogue. But he uses all literary techniques so well that he can be called a good writer.

 

It might do well to ask yourself why mediocre writers are popular, and what exactly makes them mediocre.

 

Well, the general public reads to be entertained. So, they look for a good plot first and foremost. To most, the quality of writing is really secondary. There is more to writing than just having a good plot. Unfortunately, the general public does not seem to notice this fact and will buy anything they think will entertain them.

There can be many factors that make them mediocre. Established writers (Stephen King, for example) don't have to really worry about quality since they have an established fanbase. They know their book will sell. Second, writers have deadlines, and their writing might suffer as a result of trying to write fast. Third, writing a novel is a strenuous task. Some people aren't careful when revising and are concerned only with getting something on the page. These are some examples off the top of my head.

 

So if a "mediocre" writer entertains more people than a "good" writer, or in other words accomplishes their intended goal, could it not then be said that they are a better writer than the "good" writer who met all the secondary goals but failed on the entertainment end?

 

Only in the same way that someone who climbs Mt Everest is a better adventurer than someone who goes cave diving because they went highest. If your goal is to entertain and you entertain, then maybe you're a good writer. And if your prose is super stylish and full of intricate language devices and deep thematic ideas, then maybe you're a good writer too. I can't stand Stephanie Meyer, a lot of people would never read American Psycho. Everyone is going to have their own target audience, their own goals and their own measures of success, and its not really possible to reconcile these in any way. So, when someone says "Bret Easton Ellis is the best writer ever", whattey're really saying is (obviously) "I think Bret Easton Ellis is the best writer ever". And you might disagree, but only because your measures of success are different to that person's.

 

I know that a lot of writers aren't concerned with entertaining the public. If writers stopped to think about how entertaining their book will be, then their writing would never get anywhere. All the writer can do is write clear and good prose in order say something. Thus, the point of writing is to say something with clarity and quality of prose rather than to entertain. Also, the audience's choice on what they like seems arbitrary to me. It soon turns into a fad that neither the writer nor the public can predict. It could happen to any writer and any book. And that's why entertaining people does not equal good writing.

 

I'm actually surprised, I was able to bring this argument/debate on. I'm impressed, but it's true though, sales do not reflect a good writer, because let's compare Rupert Brooke and Wilfred Owen.

Rupert Brooke's poems are famous because they sold well, but compared to Wilfred Owen, who many describe as one of the greatest war poets, has the writing that outmatches not only Brooke, but also Sassoon.

Therefore, sales are not a major factor, even Wordsworth's work did not provide him with a lot of cash, unlike other poets of his time.

Also, poems back then you could make you into a millionaire.