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

The BFG. Not the WORST, but for some reason it didn't attract me as much as the other Roald Dahl books. Compared to other books, I love it. Compared to his other works, it's a C+ at best.

 

I tried to read Desperation by Stephen King once. I knew it wasn't gonna be any good, but I figured at least there'd be some ridiculous violence or something. Then I got to the part where Evil Sheriff Guy starts talking to some coyotes or something, and I just stopped. That was just too stupid, even for me.

 

Try reading the Regulators. It's with the same characters, only the setting and what happens to them is changed.
I liked that one better than Desperation, but you need to understand not to take these novels too seriously.
It's just for sheer entertainment!

 

I just tried to read Haunted, by Chuck Palahniuk. I am a big horror fan, and the premise seemed like my thing, but i'm ashamed to say I threw up after Guts :redface:

I was seriously traumatised, and hid the book under my bed. My mum had to rescue it, and bin it for me. The whole episode was thoroughly embarrassing!!

In his defense, it only affected me like that because it was so well written.

 

A couple of people were handing out Wild Animus at my campus for free, so I took a copy and decided to read it. Well, the book is downright horrible. The author uses purple prose and lots of adjectives. I was surprised any publisher would take on this book (considering how bad it is), so I did some research and found that the author owns a publishing company. That explains why the book seems so rushed and has many grammatical errors. Overall it's just a bad read, although I admit it did make me laugh a few times because of how horrible the writing was.

 

Though many people hold it as a classic, including my professor last summer, when we were assigned to read Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway I was not expecting a book virtually about nothing. The main character describes, in explicit detail, every little thing that happens to the point where the whole book only takes place in one single day. The teacher argued it was beautiful in that regard, that there seemed to be beauty in every little insignificant event or sequence, but for me it was a pointless nothing. Maybe you have to appreciate every little small thing in life to get it, and I'm certainly not one who does, at least not yet.

 

The book One Second After by William R. Forstchen fails on many levels.

Some background. The book is meant as a cautionary tale, so it covers life in a small town before and after a massive EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack on the United States mainland. Other countries have also been affected, but news is sketchy; most of the characters, who are just trying to get by now that the electricity grid and anything computer-related has been rendered unusable, do not know much about events in the wider world.

In other words, this book is meant to be like Lucifer's Hammer, Alas, Babylon or The Road. Unfortunately, it is really, really terrible, not just as an apocalyptic fiction book, but in general.

One issue which some readers have is with the bad science. Now, this guy has an axe to grind, so I'm giving him a pass on the ridiculousness of the EMP effects. For example, he has EVERY modern car die, permanently. (Only some cars would be affected, and some of those which did stop running could be fixed by re-starting the car engine.) For example, all major commercial airplanes fall out of the sky. (This is a double-fail, as not only are many planes hardened against EMP attack, but commercial planes have a dual landing system, including a hydraulic system that would not fail even if electricity were stopped by God himself.) In other words, the science is bad - and I'm warning potential readers of this - but that is not even the main focus of my criticism.

Instead, there are three other main points which bother me. First, the ridiculous sexism of the main character. Second, the way the world is so focused on the main character that secondary characters (including whole crowds of people) and outside events are never mentioned until the main character needs them. (Yes, this arguably makes him a Marty Stu.) Third, the characters have motivations and make decisions which I found unbelieveable in the extreme, which bothered me. I can usually identify with secondary characters if the main character is a jerk, and I can usually sympathise with modern-day people thrown into unfortunate situations, but the characters were written so poorly that I simply could not sympathize with them. And I was trying, hard, because I like apocalyptic fiction. I still re-read Alas, Babylon once a year despite the chapter that hinges on ionizing radiation "facts" which are entirely and blatantly false.

Now, you might reasonably ask, "What do you mean by the main character's sexism?" After all, claims of sexism are easy to make, and much of it is subjective. So what made One Second After stand out as sexist?

For starters, passages like this:

"John? ... You were checking me out when I was leaning over the seat, weren't you." [John blushes.] "It's OK. After a high-stress situation, men usually think that way. I wasn't insulted. I just want you to know it's normal. It might bother you later, you know, given you should be worried about your girl, and memories of your wife, and such."
. . .
"Thanks, Makala."

Because when a guy you have known for about half a hour is blatantly ogling you -- a guy who, despite his "good intentions," has just hit a third party on the head hard enough to render him unconscious -- you should comfort him and tell him it's okay. Right?

Actually, no. That's creepy. And when it's a guy in his forties, it's creepier. (The woman is described as a blonde in a business suit - no age attached. I have no reason to think she's even within a decade of the main character's age.)

There are other indicators, of course. The main character instantly trusts his daughter's boyfriend and considers him "reliable," even though the main character and the boyfriend do not know each other. So naturally, the main character tells the boyfriend what is going on before telling his own family, and feels more comfortable when the boyfriend is using a gun to guard the house than when his own daughters are handling the gun, even though the girls have had gun safety training and the boyfriend is an unknown. The main character also thinks it entirely reasonable to give his mother-in-law's car keys to a co-worker without telling his mother-in-law about it. More subtly, when the female characters do or say dumb stuff, it is emphasized. When the female characters do reasonable things, it is neglected - but when a male character does something reasonably helpful, it is praised.

It's almost enough to make a reader think that the author is the one who has these weird views of half of humanity, but that's a whole new can of worms, so I am choosing instead to assume that the author is simply a very excellent writer who has designed a sexist world because the main character sees it that way.

But on to my second point. Scenery is rarely described after the first chapter, which means that the reader notices the surroundings and any relevant secondary characters only when the main character does. And he is apparently nearly blind. He only notices people approaching him threateningly when they are within twenty feet. Meetings involving hundreds of people take place, but the main character hears nothing about them until afterward. (Really? You mean, someone was spreading the news around via fliers and word-of-mouth for literally days and the main character somehow missed it? Yup. That's pretty standard for this book, sadly.) There is one violent scene where the main character gets to angst about lawlessness and looters, and an entire crowd appears out of nowhere.

Now, for my third point. When a main character is unbelievable, I focus on secondary characters and keep reading. So when the secondary characters behave irrationally or unrealistically, I notice.

A few examples:

The aforementioned boyfriend never voices concern for his family's well-being, even though they live in the same town and they would presumably be having the same problems acquiring water, food and other supplies as the main character's family.

The mayor, her advisors, the police, and the main character claim to be interested in not harming innocents. They then sentence two suspects in a robbery to death, even though only one of the suspects is clearly guilty. (The witnesses do not remember the other guy, he makes no self-incriminating statements, and the argument against him largely consists of "well, the criminal is currently living at your house." He is also described as a reasonably decent guy by a former professor of his.)

The main character, despite being allegedly a retired colonel and a reasonable person, threatens the mayor when she suggests that perhaps his working car (one of only a few) should be used to transport ill people and those who have been separated from their families. He also gets her re-addicted to cigarettes, acts like a petty child when told that he is not allowed to smoke indoors, withholds information from his family members, and generally acts as though the mayor and her advisors are not allowed to make decisions without him even though he is a) a jerk, b) almost entirely unhelpful, c) not an official in any capacity whatsoever within the town, and d) someone with obligations elsewhere, both in the sense of taking care of the university where he works and in the sense that he ought to be helping his family.

In summary, this book has many, many failings. It is also a New York Times bestseller, for reasons I can only guess at. Maybe it was the only apocalyptic fiction book out there at the time, and readers of that genre were desperate. But at any rate, save your money - or buy it cheap and secondhand, or rent it from a library. You won't learn about EMP attacks from this book, because the science is so far off the mark. And if you're female, you may find yourself wanting to fling this book at the opposite wall numerous times over the course of a reading.

 

The big reason Mrs. Dalloway is such a great (and very important) novel is its use of stream-of-consciousness narrative. No one had done it before her (with the possible exception of Mansfield, but that wasn't in a novel), so it innovated the way novels were written (and, indeed, how stories are told), although SoC has become somewhat of a cliche today and has fallen out of fashion. I don't remember the book dwelling on every little detail at all, I thought considering the very brief timeframe covered by the novel it handled pacing quite well, and the way the stories intertwined was quite compelling, besides which the writing itself is so perfect, so restrained and controlled. Modern writers could learn a lot if more of them read the greats like Woolf...

She's also easier to appreciate in terms of Feminist literary theory, particularly with the notion of ecriture feminine, which she pioneered in some respects.

But yeah...if you're the kind of person who needs an action packed narrative to make a book good, no amount of explanation on my part is gonna make you change your mind...

 

Aww. . . . I think the BFG was my favorite of all of Dahl's books. *fake pouty face*

 

Worst book ever? wow, just as many bad ones as there are good ones for me. Off the top of my head it's Lee Child's 'Killing floor'. Now, it's not necessarily a bad novel but christ was it annoying!!! every, and i mean EVERY dialogue and non dialogue sentence ended with 'OK' or 'Right'. Sound's like im being pedantic right? like i should just read and enjoy right? and stop picking holes right? i don't do it with any other novel right so why do it with this one right? it's a debut novel ok, so give him a chance right? go away and chill alright OK?!?!?!.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! nearly 600 pages of that! bad bad bad bad bad!. Since then i can't pick up a Lee Child novel without feeling the churning motion of projectile vomit wanting to paint spray over the book stand's at Waterstones. So i stay away from them

 

Maybe I just haven't given it a chance. I appreciate books with little to no real action, but I was just irritated by the milky prose for the most part. And I'd just like to see more happen in a novel than a woman simply musing about vegetables, buying flowers, seeing someone drive by in a car, and going to a party.

 

I read a story online about this girl with anorexia (The Depressions of Anorexia, on Meez), and I saw Hunger Point, also about a girl with anorexia, so I picked it up and started to read it.
I returned it to the teacher's library the next day.
Hunger Point was told from the sister of the girl with anorexia's point of view, and honestly, all she cared about was getting drunk and having sex. Worst read ever.
I also hated the book, something like Top Ten Uses for an Unworn Prom Dress. She goes the whole book with this prom dress, only keeping it because it "makes her look good", and she is also waiting for the guy that dumped her. She goes for like, a hundred pages or so before realizing that her friend's brother is her dream guy. There are only like, nine reasons for the dress thing, though, because the last reason is like, "Number One Reason for an Unworn (scratched out and "worn" put there) Prom Dress: Donate it so another girl can share the magic." I wanted the three hours it took me to read it back.

 

Twilight

The writing in itself wasn't bad, but the way the book meandered through pointless details that i really didn't care about left me half-conscious.

No offense to any fans of course.

 

Whistleblower by some writer I can't rememeber the name of. It had a good idea to start off with, but quickly became a terrible mess.

 

Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. It might be a classic but dear God!
Maybe it was because of my age (I was 12 when I read it) but I hated with all my heart.

 

If we're on classics we hated, Honore de Balzac's Pere Goriot, in French, about killed me dead.

Maybe it's better in translation but, heck, I'll never know. What's weird is all the elements for an interesting con job story are there, but due to Balzac's purple, purple prose (three pages to butter toast!), it just never comes to fruition.

James Fenimore Cooper is terrible too. I'm sure you've all read Mark Twain's excoriation of Cooper, but if you haven't, here. It's hilarious--even more so because I grew up in the area Cooper was writing about (west of Albany, east of Oneonta), and, despite living here as well, Cooper can't describe it worth a darn.

 

I'm not saying The Catcher in the Rye was a bad book or anything, but it had this in wwaayy too many times.

 

Are you saying it's phony?

 

For me its a choice between Catcher in the Rye, and Perfume - talk about misery personified. Although I do think with Perfume a lot was lost in the translation from German to English

 

Some Forgotten Realms book by Douglas Niles. *shudder*

 

I thought Perfume was boring and a little gross too. Actually, the only thing I liked about the book was the ending.

 

I'm nodding vigorously! Cooper was nearly insufferable. I read The Deerslayer... never again. And yes, Twain's essay on the literary offences that Cooper is repeatedly guilty of is insanely funny.

But despite the painful experience of reading Cooper, I can't quite qualify him as the worst. That distinction goes to Dan Brown for me... any of his books, really. This is not because I am some elitist reader who has no time for garbage/guilty pleasure books. I have my guilty pleasures. It's because I think he is one of the worst writers I've ever read. And goodness, his novels are so incredibly formulaic. If you've read one of them, you've read them all. I used to enjoy them. But once I started reading the third one (not The Lost Symbol, just the third one that I read) and I was able to correctly guess who the villain was within the first 20 pages of the novel, I realized that he was down there with the worst of them. Oh well.

 

"Death Comes for the Archbishop" and "Falconer". They just had no POINT.

 

I suppose its not the worst book ever... but its the worst book for me. But then considering what the target audience probably was I definitely don't fit into that.

I found Fifteen by Beverly Clearly in my collection of books. I read the first 20 pages of it before and put it down. I guess what bugged me about it most was how dated it really is. Seriously when was the last time a teenager said ghastly? The dialogue is very much what you might expect. Now I realize that this book was first published in 1956... but wow. I wonder if about 50 years from now our writing and word choice will be considered dated too.

Also on a more personal level it bugged me about how desperate Jane was in wanting a boy. She quite literally waits for hours at a time waiting for his phone call. I guess I just got this big sexist sort of vibe from it or something. It just felt so so soo wrong for her to be like that. I dunno I can't really explain it.

Though I did laugh when one of the male characters talked about how next time they go to the beach the woman need to make more sandwiches or bigger ones or something. Now I will admit i have made that joke a few times before(mostly to tease a bunch of girls on a mostly female dominated forum I go to) But for some reason I don't think it was much of a joke in the book. Maybe I was to amused by it... but for some reason it just felt completely off.

Also just as its described how the minutes dragged on... so did the pages. It was slightly annoying how several pages were dedicated to what seemed so boring.

While I did enjoy that Jane in the end discovered that she could be confident as herself. Much of the book was just really annoying to get through.

Of course I was definitely not the target audience and it is an old book. But I just find Jane's lack of independance so very disturbing.

The ending for the most part was. Well I guess this is why I enjoy an actual plot aside from a 15 year old waiting for some guy to call and the occasional baby sitting job and of course her obsession over Stan. Didn't feel like it had any conclusion at all. Sorta almost felt like there is a second half missing or something.

...

ew did I just write a book? xD

Well I guess I just like going into some detail about this sort of thing. lol

 

Worst book I ever read was the Kitchen God's Wife by Amy Tan. It was brutal. Admittedly the book at not aimed at 20 year old guys but even still I can appreciate a good book. Hundreds of pages about this woman being raped, abused and tortured by her husband and dozens and dozens of irrelevant descriptive passages. Found it hard to like the main characters in the story also.