NationStates Jolt Archive

Worst Author ever:

John Stienbeck, post who you say it is...

Who writes a book called the Red Pony and only has the pony in one part???

The Apostles, although the contributors to the Old Testament were smoking a harsher bud.

Steinbeck? Nahhh.

He probably is not the worst but the book I HATED and forced myself to finish was the Satanic Versus guy.

Leo Tolstoy.

Put the Damn Pen DOWN!!! :mad:

Worst Author ever:

John Stienbeck, post who you say it is...

Who writes a book called the Red Pony and only has the pony in one part???

Steinbeck.

And the pony was only important insofar as it helped the boy mature and learn about death.

Worst book ever? Take your pic, there are millions of romances on the shelves.

Steinbeck? Nahhh.

He probably is not the worst but the book I HATED and forced myself to finish was the Satanic Versus guy.

Salmon Rushdiie?

Tom CLancy isn't the greatest, Red Rabbit was a horrible nove.
I also love how some of the first people to read my threa were mods...
>_>
<_<

I also love how some of the first people to read my threa were mods...
>_>
<_<
Sorry, we have to make sure you aren't committing thoughtcrime.

Leo Tolstoy.

Put the Damn Pen DOWN!!! :mad:


Don't worry, he's dead...and

DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES.

I also love how some of the first people to read my threa were mods...

Don't worry they do that to most threads. Be honoured as they actually posted, rather than just read and shrugged..

Worst author, in terms of style and readability is a no contest: Immanuel Kant.

Sorry, we have to make sure you aren't committing thoughtcrime.

*puts tinfoil cap on*

All hail Big Brother!

Ernest Hemingway

Mary Shelly

It's not because I hated her books; it's because Frankenstien had so many plot holes that it could make swiss cheese jealous.

Although Kant wins hands down, I do have to give an honourable mention to Charles S. Pierce for his oxymoronically titled essay; "How to make our Ideas clear (http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html)".

A sentence chosen at random from this gem:
A single tone may be prolonged for an hour or a day, and it exists as perfectly in each second of that time as in the whole taken together; so that, as long as it is sounding, it might be present to a sense from which everything in the past was as completely absent as the future itself. But it is different with the air, the performance of which occupies a certain time, during the portions of which only portions of it are played.

William Faulkner.

Mary Shelly

It's not because I hated her books; it's because Frankenstien had so many plot holes that it could make swiss cheese jealous.

That and she had no idea what Punctuation was. I had to take a log of quotes once for Frankenstein, and most of the quotes had no period in them for half of a page. If that woman hadn't been dead I'd have petitioned to have her put on trial for crimes against grammar.

That and she had no idea what Punctuation was. I had to take a log of quotes once for Frankenstein, and most of the quotes had no period in them for half of a page. If that woman hadn't been dead I'd have petitioned to have her put on trial for crimes against grammar.
But wasn't she 16 or 18 and writing it while on holiday?

That and she had no idea what Punctuation was. I had to take a log of quotes once for Frankenstein, and most of the quotes had no period in them for half of a page. If that woman hadn't been dead I'd have petitioned to have her put on trial for crimes against grammar.

I know! Didn't they have editors back in the Romantic period?

Eric Van Lustbader might be one of the worst writers still writing today. I used to like him when I was 14 but luckily discovered the literature section in the bookstore.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0345466853/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8644163-9419849#reader-page

James Thurber.

Who the hell writes about a dog that bites and gets published??

James Thurber, I hate you. :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Salmon Rushdiie?

That's him! :)

James Thurber.

Who the hell writes about a dog that bites and gets published??

James Thurber, I hate you. :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
The Bear Who Let It Alone

In the woods of the Far West there once lived a brown bear who could take it or let it alone. He would go into a bar where they sold mead, a fermented drink made of honey, and he would have just two drinks. Then he would put some money on the bar and say, "See what the bears in the back room will have," and he would go home. But finally he took to drinking by himself most of the day. He would reel home at night, kick over the umbrella stand, knock down the bridge lamps, and ram his elbows through the windows. Then he would collapse on the floor and lie there until he went to sleep. His wife was greatly distressed and his children were very frightened.
At length the bear saw the error of his ways and began to reform. In the end he became a famous teetotaler and a persistent temperance lecturer. He would tell everybody that came to his house about the awful effects of drink, and he would boast about how strong and well he had become since he gave up touching the stuff. To demonstrate this, he would stand on his head and on his hands and he would turn cartwheels in the house, kicking over the umbrella stand, knocking down the bridge lamps, and ramming his elbows through the windows. Then he would lie down on the floor, tired by his healthful exercise, and go to sleep. His wife was greatly distressed and his children were very frightened.

Moral: You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward.

What, no one had to read A Separate Peace in high school that you'd all think that the people you've listed are the 'worst ever'...

None of you know Victor Milan, but that's because he's so bad most of you would have the good sense not to pick up a book called The Cybernetic Samurai. I, however, didn't have that good sense and I was fifteen and stuck in my dad's po-dunk hometown with nothing to read for a week...

L Ron Hubbard.

Even by pulp sci-fi standards - the guy was an absolute hack.

George Orwell.

1984 you can't use for good political arguements anymore, so I blame him for not making the book able to withstand centuries of reading.

William Faulkner for the win! Or for the lose, I guess.
Whatever, Intruder in the Dust was the most godawful book I've ever read. I could, at this point, take the standard route and point out his horrible grammar, but I won't. Instead, I'll say that his characterizations are a joke, his stories are pointless, his "profound" thoughts are about as profound as anything you might read off the side of a cereal box, and the plots . . . Ugh.

Worst Author ever:

John Stienbeck, post who you say it is...

Who writes a book called the Red Pony and only has the pony in one part???
Steven King. Although I know a number of you are going to disagree, all of his stories I've read have no internal cosistency, little or no character development, and totally inane plots. :p

Max Barry.

That guy sucks.

*runs away giggling*

L Ron Hubbard.

Even by pulp sci-fi standards - the guy was an absolute hack.


Better watch out..The scientologist might sue you.:rolleyes:

Steven King. Although I know a number of you are going to disagree, all of his stories I've read have no internal cosistency, little or no character development, and totally inane plots. :p


I agree..I have tried to read a few of his books..and they blew...ill just stick to the pet cemetary movies...:p

Worst Author ever?

me. i wrote a story about a red parrot when i was about 8. after a paragraph i got bored and decided crashing my matchbox cars into one another or burying them for later recovery was more fun.

edit: okay, maybe some ancestor was a dog, but i prefer to think they were an archaeologist or summat.

F. Scott Fitzgerald.

The Great Gatsby bored me to TEARS. Seriously. Anyone who claims to like that guy is either lying or masochistic.

It’s a toss up for me in the Fantasy Genre:

Robert Jordan. Not only does he base a series on completely ripping off the Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever Series by Stephen R. Donaldson (which is by the way very intelligently written). The First Book of the Wheel of Time series is practically a photocopy of Lord Foul’s Bane (the first book of the Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever series). His female characters are badly written and he’s a hack I tell you a hack! Maybe because he writes so much garbage, getting huge backing from the publishers, that he’s so popular or maybe he’s just the Daniel Steele of fantasy and that’s the lowest common denominator, but he’s still an untalented hack.

The other fantasy hack that comes to mind is Terry Brooks. The first two Shannara books were OK, but after that it was Drivel of Shannara and Worse Drivel of Shannara. I even found them juvenile when I was young enough to be a juvenile. Seeing as how he has generations of the same characters act as clones of each other, it made sense that Lucas might approach him to write something else with Clones in it. It’s not so much that he completely ripped off the Lord of the Rings that annoys me. It’s that it’s crap and he completely ripped off the Lord of the Rings.

Normal Fiction:

So many terrible writers, so little time (S is for Sucks, that Mystery Novel series comes to mind).

Kevin J. Anderson, author of trashy Star Wars novels and co-author of the newer Dune books.

Dan Brown. His books are all the same, they're horribly formulaic, they thrive on controversy and they're all trash.

Robert Jordan. If someone survived reading through his books, they could write a less long winded account including all the major details in about 500 words.

Steven King. Although I know a number of you are going to disagree, all of his stories I've read have no internal cosistency, little or no character development, and totally inane plots. :p

I actually have a lot of respect for Stephen King. Not as a writer of course, but more for being a genuine person. He gave a speech once on censorship. The first thing he stated was that in talking about censorship of books, he wanted to make it clear that he wasn’t against censorship because he felt that his own writings held up the standards of great literature. I found his attitude, both about his own writing and the media to be refreshing.

http://www.salon.com/media/media961015.html

Leo Tolstoy.

Put the Damn Pen DOWN!!! :mad:

May I ask which book!?

Kevin J. Anderson, author of trashy Star Wars novels and co-author of the newer Dune books.

He did to Dune what Jar Jar did to the original Star Wars trilogy. As one online comic strip stated, Frank Herbert isn't so much tossing in his grave, as Anderson and Company dug him up and violated him, repeatedly.

He did to Dune what Jar Jar did to the original Star Wars trilogy. As one online comic strip stated, Frank Herbert isn't so much tossing in his grave, as Anderson and Company dug him up and violated him, repeatedly.

X-X BAD BAD!

Charles Dickens. Tedious over descriptions are his forte.

Worst book ever? Take your pic, there are millions of romances on the shelves.

That is the winner folks. If you want to prove it, just pick one up and scan it.

I can't go general and say who'd be the worst author ever, of all times. That would imply not only that I know all athors, but also that I read some of their works.

From what I read (and was forced to read), though, the threee worst reading experiences were:

Dan Brown - Can you possibly be any more obvious, boring, or badly researched while claiming to be acurate?

Hermann Hesse - If I want to read Freud's works, I'll read them. I don't need your interpretation of them slapping me in the face in every sinle book of yours

Theodor Fontane - A person that even inhis lifetime allegedly managed to bore people to death. Although I couldn't help but snigger when I found out what had happened to the REAL Effi Briest... hehe.... hehehehehehehe

*puts tinfoil cap on*

All hail Big Brother!
That's all well and good if you want to amplify the signals (http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/).



And I'm agreeing with Katganistan that romance is ftl.

Hitler.

In fiction (well Hitler's ranting was out there but I mean, intentional fiction): Michael Crichton

Worst Author ever:

John Stienbeck,

No way, Of Mice and Men is a great book and I enjoyed even though I was forced to read it at school. The worst author has to be Ernest Hemingway who wrote The Old Man and The Sea. Let's just say he shot himself soon after that.

Dan Brown... oh wait, author you say? :p

Tom Clancy's always bored me to tears.

Worst Author ever:

John Stienbeck, post who you say it is...

Who writes a book called the Red Pony and only has the pony in one part???

L Ron Hubbard.

Steven King. Although I know a number of you are going to disagree, all of his stories I've read have no internal cosistency, little or no character development, and totally inane plots. :p

Nah, i do disagree, because i can't think of many modern authors, from serious literature through to pulp, who do the "internal monologue" in any degree as well as he does. Most internal monologues sound stilted, unreal. King's sound like what you'd expect to be in his characters heads.

L Ron Hubbard.

Actually, i'll go further and say "Craig Shaw Gardner", who took the Pratchettese comic fantasy genre to whole new depths. Makes my doodlings on the back of the files in work seem like Shakespeare.

Oh, and the person who dissed Robert Jordan? Well fucking done. The man's an abomination, trawling out these books in a calculated attempt to have a nest egg in old age. The first few were passable trash, but it's gone beyond that now.

Makes me sigh when i think of the GOOD authors in the fantasy genre, who write books which could pass muster as proper literature, and he gets all the sales.

Dan Brown. Dreadful writer who doesn't put enough research into his 'groundbreaking' novels. The only think groundbreaking about Dan Brown's stuff are the hardback versions when dropped hard enough.

Dan Brown. Dreadful writer who doesn't put enough research into his 'groundbreaking' novels. The only think groundbreaking about Dan Brown's stuff are the hardback versions when dropped hard enough.

God, Dan Brown isn't even close to the worst author ever, he's just airport trash - Sidney Sheldon was far inferior in that genre. What makes him annoying is the respect people treat his work with (see also JK "lets rip off the Wizard of Earthsea badly" Rowling)

Mary Shelly

It's not because I hated her books; it's because Frankenstien had so many plot holes that it could make swiss cheese jealous.


Mary Shelly was a fantastic authoress, and "Frankenstein" was an amazing piece of literaturic art! It had romance, action, adventure and horror, all put into a cacophony of brilliance. All Hail Mary Shelly!

However, the absolutly worst author i've read, wold have to be that diabolical Rowling Woman. J.K.Rowling ruined British culture, so that now when ever we want to write about the elixer of life, all we can think of is some high school moron who runs about actin the complete and utter pillock, waving magical sticks around. She wrecked our history of literature, once as sophisticated as Shakespeare, now down to three children and flying mops!

Mary Shelly was a fantastic authoress, and "Frankenstein" was an amazing piece of literaturic art! It had romance, action, adventure and horror, all put into a cacophony of brilliance. All Hail Mary Shelly!

However, the absolutly worst author i've read, wold have to be that diabolical Rowling Woman. J.K.Rowling ruined British culture, so that now when ever we want to write about the elixer of life, all we can think of is some high school moron who runs about actin the complete and utter pillock, waving magical sticks around. She wrecked our history of literature, once as sophisticated as Shakespeare, now down to three children and flying mops!

I always preferred Mary's mother and husband myself, the poster was correct about the plot holes in Frankenstein.

And Rowling isn't that bad, just...dull, written in an infantile "cat, sat, mat" fashion and burdened with far too much praise. Remove the praise and people who despise her like myself would see her for what she is, which is a jobbing hack. Nothing hateful there, just nothing to write home about (quite similar, in a way, to a large proportion of Shakey's work - hackdom done on the quick. Difference being, he had talent and timeless stories to steal).

F. Scott Fitzgerald.

The Great Gatsby bored me to TEARS. Seriously. Anyone who claims to like that guy is either lying or masochistic.

Not true, I loved the Great Gatsby. However, another "classic" that you are forced to read in school is "Count of Monte Cristo," written by the fittingly named Alexandre Dumas. Thats pronounced pretty much like dumbass. Ah nature, it can be so cruel... yet so right.

Shakespeare.

Just kidding, although he is the most overrated author. The most overrated American author would be J.D. Salinger. The Catcher In the Rye is the single most overrated book, but it was still enjoyable.

I'm appalled by the number of people who have said Steinbeck and Hemingway.

I do have to agree that Faulkner deserves to be on the list of worst authors, so while I hesitate to say he is, I can't think of anyone worse right now, so we'll go with him.

Shakespeare was a piece of crap. He just took other people's ideas or events, made up his own words, and deemed it "cool". Other people decided this made him a good writer, and decided that future generations should read his crappy stories.

Shakespeare was a piece of crap. He just took other people's ideas or events, made up his own words, and deemed it "cool". Other people decided this made him a good writer, and decided that future generations should read his crappy stories.

I enjoyed reading Shakespeare at school. And the poetry of T.S. Elliot. But I had to keep that to myself. Damn peer-pressure.

As for the topic at hand I agree with The Bruce. Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks suck ass. I also though "Dune", "1984" and that Dan Brown book about the NSA sucked, but I haven't read enough of the rest of their work to make a judgement.

I agree with Max Barry. It would have to be 'Rub-a-Dub-Dub' by Nancy Parent.

I'd have to say J.K. Rowling. Harry Potter is way overrated. It's ok for children's literature, but it's incredibly clichéd and silly.

Michael Crichton: He discovered a formula in The Andromeda Strain and has been sticking to it ever since. Find a new or different or unsung way to die or something different to be paranoid about and add a few unsettling details.

Agreed on J. D. Salenger and Steven King
I'll add Saul Bellow, Danielle Steel, Harold Robbins, Henry Miller and everything Tom Clancy did after Debt of Honor.

Tolkein. What endless, tedious drivel he wrote. Eugh. And with that grating semi-religious edge to it as well...

The Silmarilion is a book more horribly anal than a home colonic-irrigation kit.

I'd have to say J.K. Rowling. Harry Potter is way overrated. It's ok for children's literature, but it's incredibly clichéd and silly.

It annoys me when I see grown-ups reading it on the train. If it was any other childrens book then people would be mocking them for the entire length of the journey. But Harry Potter? That's fine. Odd.

Karl Marx is inderectly responsible for killing millions with people twisting his ideas. So I vote for him.

Karl Marx is inderectly responsible for killing millions with people twisting his ideas. So I vote for him.

So are the writers of the Bible, the Talmud, the Qu'ran etc. then. It's not just damned commie pinko liberals who kill people, you know.

It annoys me when I see grown-ups reading it on the train. If it was any other childrens book then people would be mocking them for the entire length of the journey. But Harry Potter? That's fine.

Why?
Maybe it's because people like what they're reading? Mock me for reading what I like and I'd be likely as not to inform you of your God-given right to go fuck yourself.

I've read Eco (for example), and I've read Harry Potter. I do so for both different and very similar reasons. Different because of subject matter and which part of my mind gets engaged (Eco is a workout, Rowling is a guilty pleasure), similar because I enjoy both experiences. Snobbery based on what one group thinks is "appropriate" reading material is worthless.

There's hoard(e)s of music I think is stupid, but I'm never going to begrudge a person's decision to like it, and I'll certainly not be so arrogant as to automatically think less of them for it.

Plenty of good candidates named so far... L. Ron Hubbard was a blithering drunk who managed to turn chintzy dime store-grade pulp into a pseudo-religion that preys on idiots and celebrities (hardly mutually exclusive terms, I know)... I've always found Dean Koontz difficult to endure. My wife is hooked on Sidney Sheldon (pap) and V.C. Andrews (horror pap), both of whom are simply dreadful. And how many people are going to revile me if I add Michael Moore:sniper: to my list? Hey, his stuff is fiction, by and large... :p

Yes, but it's highly amusing and reasonably informative, unlike most stuff out there.

I have to say Ed Greenwood. I just read The Making of a Mage last week, and though I've read some godawful fantasy before, nothing prepared me for that piece of carbage.

Ah, I'm being a bit unfair, it wasn't all bad. For the first couple of dozen pages (though not counting the horrible prologue) it was actually quite compelling. Not because it was exceptionally well written, but the setting was good and gave promise of better things to come. And then it began to get progressively worse and worse until the story's climax, the memory of which I'd quite happily dig out from my skull with a rusty spoon if that was possible.

But you know, I do a bit of fantasy writing myself, just as a hobby, and I've had some issues with self esteem. Greenwood really helped me with those: I used to think of my writing "who's ever gonna want to read this junk?", but now I think, "at least I'm better than Greenwood, and that guy got published!". :)

How can we forget Ayn Rand? Philosophical tomes masquerading as fiction... Totally unreadable.

Ayn Rand. Neither good fiction, nor good philosophy.

Barry Unsworth sucks for Sacred Hunger AND Morality Play
Ernest Hemingway sucks for The Old Man and the Sea
Chinua Achebe sucks for Things Fall Apart
Joseph Conrad sucks for Heart of Darkness

I could go on, but I'll spare you T____T.

So are the writers of the Bible, the Talmud, the Qu'ran etc. then. It's not just damned commie pinko liberals who kill people, you know.
I know, its the Khamere Rouge and 4 year plans.

How can we forget Ayn Rand? Philosophical tomes masquerading as fiction... Totally unreadable.

What's funny is I wrote mine before seeing this.

Oh yeah, and Shakespeare blows. WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP READING HIM!? I always wanted to shoot myself in the head when we were studying Shakespeare in high school T____T.

And Tolkein also sucks, I have to agree. I started reading the first Lord of the Rings and couldn't get any farther than the first four pages.

I get the impression that most people are just listing the authors they were forced to read in high school.

Oh yeah, and Shakespeare blows. WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP READING HIM!? I always wanted to shoot myself in the head when we were studying Shakespeare in high school T____T.

Because he's a legend.

Because he's a legend.

So is Ron Jeremy, but it doesn't mean that I like seeing him bone some nubile young girl.

Oh yeah, and Shakespeare blows. WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP READING HIM!? I always wanted to shoot myself in the head when we were studying Shakespeare in high school

Because it's some of the best theatre ever written, and perfectly shows the human character in many of his plays.

Because it's some of the best theatre ever written, and perfectly shows the human character in many of his plays.

I don't find his theatre at all interesting. I think if I were to name a good playwright, it would be someone like Molière with his Le Malade imaginaire, not Shakespeare. He has a couple of good pieces, such as Macbeth, but I can't handle anything else. I had to read Romeo and Juliet numerous times; suffer through The Twelfth Night, The Tempest, The Taming of the Shrew, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing, Julius Caesar and A Midsummer Night's Dream; and the only good thing about Hamlet was Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and they weren't used awesomely until Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

For everyone who says Shakespeare as the worst author, realize he wasn't an author. He wrote plays, which, when acted, are very good. Reading them can drive anyone insane though ><

Steinbeck is one of my favorite authors, but I also agree some of his books should be burned. The Pearl was one of the most arrogant pieces I have ever read. But books like East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath are enough to forgive any author.

The worst author, in my opinion, is Rudolfo Anaya. He opened up so many plot points and then... sort of forgot about them in Bless Me Ultima. God I ahted that book.

Tom Clancy's always bored me to tears.

It’s difficult to classify Tom Clancy as a bad writer since he doesn’t written his own books for a long time. He gets ghost writers to write in the “Clancy Universe”, looked like a jingoistic version of Modern Earth to me but I could be wrong. Maybe if he started writing his own books you could start classifying him as a bad writer again.

Ayn Rand. Neither good fiction, nor good philosophy.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

Kurt Vonnegut.

The master of the plotless rambling.

Because he's a legend.
A legend at making overhyped plays that wern't really that good when they were "new" and "fresh," much less now.
The worst part is is that he is a fucking playwright, not an author, yet all they do is make you read his fucking plays. As if 500 year old English dialect isn't bad enough.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

For starters, there is no such thing as Rearden metal. :)

Karl Marx is inderectly responsible for killing millions with people twisting his ideas. So I vote for him.

Ah, but that would make him a good writer for persuading so many people effectively (the problem being that they happened to do bad with his ideas). However, keep in mind that ultra-rightist Friedrich Nietzsche inspired Hitler and the Bible has inspired numerous examples of genocide as well.

i'd say either Steinbeck or L. Ron Hubbard.
i've got nothing against scientologists as people, and i'm respectful of everyone's beliefs (my in-laws are scientologists), and i realize that every religious text contains things that are typically considered odd, but most of them have the benefit of being thousands of years old, and were written by spiritual men, not sci-fi writers.

A legend at making overhyped plays that wern't really that good when they were "new" and "fresh," much less now.
The worst part is is that he is a fucking playwright, not an author, yet all they do is make you read his fucking plays. As if 500 year old English dialect isn't bad enough.

Well then, of course your opinion is going to be skewed of it if you've never seen it performed!

And that dialect comment was a bit unnecessary.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

But seriously, just for starters, the "rugged industrialists" she portrays as heroes are arguably the true looters, as they pilfer our natural resources at unsustainable rates and pollute the planet, thereby stealing from both present and future generations.

It’s a toss up for me in the Fantasy Genre:

Robert Jordan. Not only does he base a series on completely ripping off the Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever Series by Stephen R. Donaldson (which is by the way very intelligently written). The First Book of the Wheel of Time series is practically a photocopy of Lord Foul’s Bane (the first book of the Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever series). His female characters are badly written and he’s a hack I tell you a hack! Maybe because he writes so much garbage, getting huge backing from the publishers, that he’s so popular or maybe he’s just the Daniel Steele of fantasy and that’s the lowest common denominator, but he’s still an untalented hack.

The other fantasy hack that comes to mind is Terry Brooks. The first two Shannara books were OK, but after that it was Drivel of Shannara and Worse Drivel of Shannara. I even found them juvenile when I was young enough to be a juvenile. Seeing as how he has generations of the same characters act as clones of each other, it made sense that Lucas might approach him to write something else with Clones in it. It’s not so much that he completely ripped off the Lord of the Rings that annoys me. It’s that it’s crap and he completely ripped off the Lord of the Rings.

Normal Fiction:

So many terrible writers, so little time (S is for Sucks, that Mystery Novel series comes to mind).
Just wondering if you could give a few examples of the similarities, I read both at about the same time and I don't remember any real similarities, though that was a while ago so it might just be my memory.

But seriously, just for starters, the "rugged industrialists" she portrays as heroes are arguably the true looters, as they pilfer our natural resources at unsustainable rates and pollute the planet, thereby stealing from both present and future generations.
They loot nothing.

They produce greater value from lesser value.

There is no such thing as "collective property". Whoever owns the property on which a resource is found, owns the resource. They are HIS natural resources, not "ours".

Please start accepting reason and reality.

Thank you.

If money were abolised and barter trading brought back then the world would be a better place, though. Also, some landowners are female, you chauvinist.

Oh yeah, and Shakespeare blows. WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP READING HIM!? I always wanted to shoot myself in the head when we were studying Shakespeare in high school T____T.

And Tolkein also sucks, I have to agree. I started reading the first Lord of the Rings and couldn't get any farther than the first four pages.

Actually, Shakespeare's all about delivery. I thought he sucked when reading Hamlet, but when I saw the movie with Kenneth Branaugh (or however you spell his name), the contrast was amazing. It was suddenly a really badass story.

Except for his comedies. Those just suck some hard ass.

They loot nothing.

They produce greater value from lesser value.

There is no such thing as "collective property". Whoever owns the property on which a resource is found, owns the resource. They are HIS natural resources, not "ours".

Please start accepting reason and reality.

Thank you.

I find nothing reasonable, realistic or objective about objectivism.

The reality of our situation is this: we live in a world of limited resources. We must live within these limits (i.e. we must live on our natural income, not our natural capital). We are entirely dependent on nature to sustain us: no economic activity, no human activity whatsoever can take place without the natural systems that support it; the energy we receive from the sun, the air we breathe, etc. We must respect that. At the moment, we are doing neither of these things. We are both drawing down or natural capital, and undermining the very basis of our existence on this planet.

Value is an entirely subjective concept, so there is no way of empirically testing your first proposition. But even if we confine ourselves narrowly to economic value, you are wrong. In many cases, they provide greater economic value for themselves only by externalizing their costs onto others. The total economic cost to society at large outweighs the benefits, but because of externalities, that person only makes an economic profit.

Your second proposition is also false. Land is generally not owned by the person that finds it, but usually by whoever can acquire it through the necessary combination of trickery and force. IF what you said was true, then for example Native Americans would either still own most of America's resources, or have received adequate compensation for them. Neither occured.

Worst Author ever:
.....
Bill Shaggspar

Well then, of course your opinion is going to be skewed of it if you've never seen it performed!

And that dialect comment was a bit unnecessary.
That isn't the point. The point is that he is studied as an author, not a playwright. Playwrights make for terrible authors, especially 16th century playwrights.

Tom Clancy.

There is no such thing as "collective property".

So, I am and my partner could not co-own our house? Uh-huh.

Whoever owns the property on which a resource is found, owns the resource. They are HIS natural resources, not "ours".

Please start accepting reason and reality.

Thank you.

Nonsense. All ownership is tied up with the notion of the state, whatever the state (or the wider community of states within the world) decides is the functioning definition of property goes. If the state declares that such a thing as 'collective property' exists, then it exists, if it declares that all gold (for example) found west of the River Bann belongs to the state, then it belongs to the state.

Property is a political creation, not an ontological given.

That isn't the point. The point is that he is studied as an author, not a playwright. Playwrights make for terrible authors, especially 16th century playwrights.

I studied him as a playwright rather than an author. Did you not even act out the plays?

So, I am and my partner could not co-own our house? Uh-huh.



Nonsense. All ownership is tied up with the notion of the state, whatever the state (or the wider community of states within the world) decides is the functioning definition of property goes. If the state declares that such a thing as 'collective property' exists, then it exists, if it declares that all gold (for example) found west of the River Bann belongs to the state, then it belongs to the state.

Property is a political creation, not an ontological given.

Could not agree more. Since all of this is a bit of a digression, I've taken the liberty of setting up a seperate thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10730407#post10730407)

L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard

I think there should be a seperate section for writers like Hubbard and Rand. People who wrote bad fiction followed by worse philosophy and then somehow ended up with a fanatically devoted following.

Matthew Reilly. Simply the worst author I have ever come across. Some of his plot lines would be alright if written by a decent author.

Just wondering if you could give a few examples of the similarities, I read both at about the same time and I don't remember any real similarities, though that was a while ago so it might just be my memory.

Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever Series by Stephen R. Donaldson. You say that you actually read Lord Foul's Bane and the first book in the Wheel of Time series and didn't find Robert Jordan's book a rip off? Do you work for Robert Jordan's publishing house?

The other thing I couldn't stand about the Wheel of Time was he had the audacity to copyright "the Wheel of Time" and "The Dragon Reborn" as if he had himself just invented these ancient Taoist concepts. I suppose he'll be copyrighting the Moon next...

Mary Shelly was a fantastic authoress, and "Frankenstein" was an amazing piece of literaturic art! It had romance, action, adventure and horror, all put into a cacophony of brilliance. All Hail Mary Shelly!

However, the absolutly worst author i've read, wold have to be that diabolical Rowling Woman. J.K.Rowling ruined British culture, so that now when ever we want to write about the elixer of life, all we can think of is some high school moron who runs about actin the complete and utter pillock, waving magical sticks around. She wrecked our history of literature, once as sophisticated as Shakespeare, now down to three children and flying mops!

AMEN! ALL OF IT!
I tried to read the second Harry Potter book, but I got bored of it. Really bored. And to think I wanted to read it.

Well...theres quite a list...
Roughly %90 of all 'sci-fi' authors (especially the short-story writers) who started writing after 1990, for one thing. Seriously, it seems like half the stories go something like:
"SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX plot SEX SEX PENIS SEX SEX"

L. Ron Hubbard, Battlefield Earth wasnt THAT bad, I managed to finish it once, but everything else he wrote just sucked.

Seconded on Conrad, and I would like to add whoever it was that wrote Lord of the Flies.

Cant remember his name, but the guy who writes tons of alternat history novels, the WWII ones especially, with 'The Race'. His plots seem good,a s far as I have read in his books, but his delivery is horrible.

%99 of people who write in second person. It took me until fifth grade to realize that those 'make your own adventure' books sucked.

People who switch between 1st and 3rd person.

Hitler, although he was occasionaly entertaining.

As for Moore, I once tried to pick up one of his books. It shocked me...litterally. I took it as an omen and didnt try again.

So many Tolkien haters :rolleyes:

I liked the Hobbit, FOTR was kinda boring, T2T was fairly good and ROTK was highly enjoyable.
If you can get the Silmarillion on CD or tape its great for insomnia.

Charles Dickens---No doubt about it! Haven't met anyone that could get through even 10% of any of his books. Great stories, but he was paid by the word, so he used 100 words to cover what 5 could have handled.

I cast my votes for the authors (to remain nameless, as I can't remember their names) of the books Metaplanetary and Smoky the Cow Horse, in that order. May they burn in the tenth level of Hell for their sins against humanity!

...and remember, this comes from an agnostic with rather distinct doubts about the existence of Hell.

Ah, but that would make him a good writer for persuading so many people effectively (the problem being that they happened to do bad with his ideas). However, keep in mind that ultra-rightist Friedrich Nietzsche inspired Hitler and the Bible has inspired numerous examples of genocide as well.
I'm sick of people getting Nietzsche wrong. He was not an ultra-right winger. The Nazis picked up on superficial details of a few of his ideas and used it in their propaganda. His ideas were not the basis for their entire ideology.

They loot nothing.

They produce greater value from lesser value.

There is no such thing as "collective property". Whoever owns the property on which a resource is found, owns the resource. They are HIS natural resources, not "ours".

Please start accepting reason and reality.

Thank you.
Well, if you want to talk about reality, "private property" is only a legal concept, not a part of natural reality.

I'm sick of people getting Nietzsche wrong. He was not an ultra-right winger. The Nazis picked up on superficial details of a few of his ideas and used it in their propaganda. His ideas were not the basis for their entire ideology.

Yeah, Someone else who has actually read Neitzsche, and understood at least some of it. :)

Paul Neil Milne Johnstone.

Matthew Reilly. Simply the worst author I have ever come across. Some of his plot lines would be alright if written by a decent author.
Ah, I was trying to remember his name! Though I was actually gonna say that, while his books make terrible pieces of literature, they'd make pretty entertaining TV movies for when you really don't want to have to think about stuff. :p

Oh, and am I the only one who thinks that Beloved by Toni Morrison is really overrated? Granted, I had to read it for English, and that makes any book less enjoyable, but I really didn't like it at all.

Ann Coulter.

Merely attempting to make sense of her rants makes my head hurt from all the brain-damaged logic, the vicious invictive, and all of the unintentional irony that plagues her books.

Ann Coulter.

Merely attempting to make sense of her rants makes my head hurt from all the brain-damaged logic, the vicious invictive, and all of the unintentional irony that plagues her books.
:eek: She can write?

It annoys me when I see grown-ups reading it on the train. If it was any other childrens book then people would be mocking them for the entire length of the journey. But Harry Potter? That's fine. Odd.

Yes, it's clearly much more mature to tell strangers, "Ha ha! You're reading a children's book! You're stupid! Neener neener!" than to simply enjoy pulling out your copy of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe now and then.

Why on earth shouldn't adults read Harry Potter books? They're fun. They're not great literature by any stretch of the imagination, but they're entertaining and engaging. I'm all for reading Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Salinger, Conrad, and so forth (and, incidentally, boo to those of you who are silly enough to call them the "worst writers ever" instead of the more accurate "excellent writers whose books I had to read in high school when I didn't want to"), but sometimes one feels like a gourmet meal, and sometimes one feels like a hot dog. Don't attack a hot dog for not being something it's not trying to be.

As for my own answer to the original question, I have no doubt most of the "worst authors ever" have never been published, and another large portion are long out of print. Of authors who are still in print, the one whose work I personally found most painfully stupid has to be Dan Brown.

I'm sick of people getting Nietzsche wrong. He was not an ultra-right winger. The Nazis picked up on superficial details of a few of his ideas and used it in their propaganda. His ideas were not the basis for their entire ideology.

Uh, he called for the return of slavery and a system of morality (the totalitarian master morality) be believed to have preceeded Judeo-Christian morality over 2,500 years ago. I'm well aware of the whole deal with his sister editing his work to fit with proto-Nazi views, but even before that, he was extremely authoritarian. He was probably the most reactionary person ever to have lived, I would say.

Last time I checked genius, there are near unlimited resources in space. Its merely a matter of harvesthing them which could be done if the U.S. government would ressurect project Orion and screw off people's fears of using an fission engine in space.

You're correct a out land ownership but everyone knows that no socialist government has ever thrived for a reasonable period of time. I don't know how long the Fifth Republic of France is going to last if it keeps up insane bastardizing policies that keep its unemployment up around 10-11%. A free market with free enterprise combined with men receiving the fruits of their own labor results in exponential results. Only thing I do not support of capitalism is the free trade which simply brings about Marx's predictions about globalization. Either way in the next 150-200 years, Marx's vs. Smith's economics will cease to exist as we have to find a de facto system as a result of the majority of employment in field from production to medicine nearly eliminated by further automization of the work force. Check out the readings of Kurzweil for that one.
I find nothing reasonable, realistic or objective about objectivism.

The reality of our situation is this: we live in a world of limited resources. We must live within these limits (i.e. we must live on our natural income, not our natural capital). We are entirely dependent on nature to sustain us: no economic activity, no human activity whatsoever can take place without the natural systems that support it; the energy we receive from the sun, the air we breathe, etc. We must respect that. At the moment, we are doing neither of these things. We are both drawing down or natural capital, and undermining the very basis of our existence on this planet.

Value is an entirely subjective concept, so there is no way of empirically testing your first proposition. But even if we confine ourselves narrowly to economic value, you are wrong. In many cases, they provide greater economic value for themselves only by externalizing their costs onto others. The total economic cost to society at large outweighs the benefits, but because of externalities, that person only makes an economic profit.

Your second proposition is also false. Land is generally not owned by the person that finds it, but usually by whoever can acquire it through the necessary combination of trickery and force. IF what you said was true, then for example Native Americans would either still own most of America's resources, or have received adequate compensation for them. Neither occured.

Charles Dickens---No doubt about it! Haven't met anyone that could get through even 10% of any of his books. Great stories, but he was paid by the word, so he used 100 words to cover what 5 could have handled.

Well, if you're looking for someone who's read more than 10% of a Dickens book, here I am. I'm roughly 1/3 of the way through Great Expectations, and, guess what? I actually like it!

If you actually want the worst author ever, it's probably someone like Nicole Richie, or some kid who couldn't get published.
If you're asking for the most overrated famous author, I have a few to add (or second):
1) As far as I know, Dan Brown is pretty terrible. (I have yet to read the Da Vinci Code).
2) J.K. Rowling isn't great. I admit that I read Harry Potter books, but mostly it's just to catch up on the plot. I've been hooked since the age of 10, but Rowling is a very simplistic, formulaic, and escapist writer. And her novels are packed full with comma splices. I guess the publishers are too frantic to get the books out to press, and therefore don't utilise an editor.
3) Although Lord of the Flies really stuck with me, William Golding is a tedious and simplistic writer. Some moments were borderline evocative, but many others were not. Which is too bad, because his theme for Flies was interesting enough.
4) Gaston Leroux was terrible, but I'm incredibly thankful that he wrote, as, if he didn't, we wouldn't have the greatest Broadway musical of all time.
There are too many others to list (Edgar Guest and whoever wrote The Wave come to mind). I might think of more later.

Well, if you're looking for someone who's read more than 10% of a Dickens book, here I am. I'm roughly 1/3 of the way through Great Expectations, and, guess what? I actually like it!

I'm at the 5th page...I could read it, because even with 100 words for 5, I'd read at about 600 wpm, but...*shrug*

2) J.K. Rowling isn't great. I admit that I read Harry Potter books, but mostly it's just to catch up on the plot. I've been hooked since the age of 10, but Rowling is a very simplistic, formulaic, and escapist writer. And her novels are packed full with comma splices. I guess the publishers are too frantic to get the books out to press, and therefore don't utilise an editor.

Aye...very overrated...And the 5th book wasn't even mildly entertaining...

Aye...very overrated...And the 5th book wasn't even mildly entertaining...

Really? The 6th was the worst, in my opinion.

Really? The 6th was the worst, in my opinion.

Well, I dunno. Only enjoyed it for page 606 maybe. Seemed to me as though the fifth was naught but people talking (not doing anything, just talking) about Cedric and Voldemort.

P.S. Really though, make all the exposition we've gone through into a single book or two, and make each of the Horcruxes a real adventure. Maybe if someone else was writing it, I'd like that...Wouldn't want to know what J.K. could do to it.

Well, I dunno. Only enjoyed it for page 606 maybe. Seemed to me as though the fifth was naught but people talking (not doing anything, just talking) about Cedric and Voldemort.

And what's his name died, too.

And what's his name died, too.

Right, that guy...Who was that again?

Right, that guy...Who was that again?

Sirius. You know, grungy prison guy?

Sirius. You know, grungy prison guy?

Oh yeah...Random godfather character.

Maybe it's because people like what they're reading? Mock me for reading what I like and I'd be likely as not to inform you of your God-given right to go fuck yourself.

I've read Eco (for example), and I've read Harry Potter. I do so for both different and very similar reasons. Different because of subject matter and which part of my mind gets engaged (Eco is a workout, Rowling is a guilty pleasure), similar because I enjoy both experiences. Snobbery based on what one group thinks is "appropriate" reading material is worthless.

There's hoard(e)s of music I think is stupid, but I'm never going to begrudge a person's decision to like it, and I'll certainly not be so arrogant as to automatically think less of them for it.

But Eco is more enjoyable than Potter as well?

If people want to read Potter, fine, no problem. Buy the kids covers though, the whole "adult covers" thing is hiding.

Charles Dickens---No doubt about it! Haven't met anyone that could get through even 10% of any of his books. Great stories, but he was paid by the word, so he used 100 words to cover what 5 could have handled.

Dickens is pap, the equivalent of a modern soap opera given the veneer of time. And his characters, haven't you noticed he always calls the women something like "Miss Lovely", the man "Mr Handsome" and the villain "Obadiah Complete Bastard"?

Dickens is pap, the equivalent of a modern soap opera given the veneer of time. And his characters, haven't you noticed he always calls the women something like "Miss Lovely", the man "Mr Handsome" and the villain "Obadiah Complete Bastard"?

Yes, because Pip is obsiviously equivelent to Mr. Handsome, and Estella is obviously equivelent to Miss Lovely. I can honestly see where that came from. And, of course, whenever I find out who the villian of the story is, I'm sure his name will be Complete Bastard. Or some equivelent phrase, of course.

Yes, because Pip is obsiviously equivelent to Mr. Handsome, and Estella is obviously equivelent to Miss Lovely. I can honestly see where that came from. And, of course, whenever I find out who the villian of the story is, I'm sure his name will be Complete Bastard. Or some equivelent phrase, of course.

Yeah, ok, i was exaggerating for comic effect(something Dickens never did, eh?). But he does have many comic characters with names equivalent to their character traits.

There's many a huge plot hole in Dickens works as well, due to the nature of his writing, serialistic, etc.

Don't worry they do that to most threads. Be honoured as they actually posted, rather than just read and shrugged..

Worst author, in terms of style and readability is a no contest: Immanuel Kant.

No. That would be James Joyce.

People think just because it's boring and hard to read it must be brilliant. No, it's just badly written. I could run anything I've ever written through babelfish and back and it would come out just like a Joyce novel. Only shorter.

In fact. I think I'll try.

The Origional (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9395262#post9395262)

And the Joycean version.
Already. It is like the method, where you never mean aggressors, the
end approximately to get to be heavier underneath the crime in the
ways. Always received people must be, this that continue, his ags
moved and relati you who the small purses raise to him for, that they
are that "oh whole, me dae (automatic device of the information
entrance), my substance take with taken, because, all the same one
which nothing he does in this crime?" whole; It never feels not
only the substance of the against-against-aggressor. People, of whom
he desire that she had had, that it is jealous resistance therefore
and the character, that taking, to being a criminal, of independent a
relative one of the principle of the form of life one, of that she
never stops approximately to feel to him well heavier for the low
point. They never mean to say in all the aggressors of pluggings of
instructd of the substance. It has an aggressor, this one is a
function excluded from the relative rest of the criminal amount, at
this moment that I he activated to decree not to work besides to give
the form to the module of the question for my work. If all the
criminals kommutieren here to the external part at this moment, this
one is determined, in the order with an honest duration, they of the
idea that asks for reak of havok with its possible rents for the
possession? This victims" of "crime; ulteriorly... Whenever
that this grida determines the money to it of an amount to have that
to decide or like or an automobile that is with the cone of the
sufficient writing he, my guarantee of the proprietors of a numerous
house deeper his, if it has taken all these layabouts that the
objections would classify, if their houses took through the diode that
it emitted of the light of the castle. How very we decided every year
in the commandos in the country, in the order the end to pay with the
cone of the writing, with that these chatterers of immettono a loop?
Necessity to people to begin against, the expensive outpost of a safe
number of the victim of the crime of regulating the movements. These
victims of the crime are a direct transference in our company. When I
age kidskin, if somebody with the professor of the university tattled,
affinchè flashing the Tattling to follow takes through him. Why we
they do not have the necessity of the same independence of the
understanding of our adults?

No. That would be James Joyce.

People think just because it's boring and hard to read it must be brilliant. No, it's just badly written. I could run anything I've ever written through babelfish and back and it would come out just like a Joyce novel. Only shorter.

Nonsense, Ulysses, Portrait of the Artist and Dubliners are all fine books.

Now, Finnegans Wake, on the other hand, you have a bona fide fucking point.

Elizabeth Bowen

Nonsense, Ulysses, Portrait of the Artist and Dubliners are all fine books.

Now, Finnegans Wake, on the other hand, you have a bona fide fucking point.

Maybe that was my problem. I started with Finnegan's Wake and then gave up on Ulysses. Maybe I'll try picking up Dubliners.

Mercedes Lackey - her books are trite, contrived, strained etc., yet she sells.

Worst Author ever:

John Stienbeck, post who you say it is...

Who writes a book called the Red Pony and only has the pony in one part???
I actually quite like John Steinbeck. I've read his Of Mice And Men, and I think it's the best book for school that I've had to read. It really gives a good impression of the character's aspirations, and it's emotional, and right now, Im ranting. Sorry.

2) J.K. Rowling isn't great. I admit that I read Harry Potter books, but mostly it's just to catch up on the plot. I've been hooked since the age of 10, but Rowling is a very simplistic, formulaic, and escapist writer. And her novels are packed full with comma splices. I guess the publishers are too frantic to get the books out to press, and therefore don't utilise an editor.Isn't the point of her writing to be escapism? I mean, it's not literature, but not all good books are literature, and not all literature is good. It seems to me that if someone's purpose for writing is escapism, and the book does escapism well, then they should be considered to be a good writer.