NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the worst book you've ever read? You know, a book that was really really boring. The plot & characters were crap, it was written poorly, whatever made it the absolute worst.

It doesn't matter if you finished it or not.

The Silmarillion. That is, by a wide margin, the dullest book I have ever had the misfortune of reading in my entire life.

Harry Potter

Anything that wasn't a short story by Stephen King. I never could finish his crappy novels. The writing style drives me insane! INSANE!

Che's Motorcycle Diaries.

Kill me. Now.

Harry Potter

Any one in particular?

For me the worst book ever would have to be To Kill a Mockingbird partly because I hate children(see other thread)

Catcher in the Rye. Lord and Lady, how I hated this book! I wanted to hunt Holden down and beat the shit out of him about five pages in. And I had to read it for class. Gack.

Anything that wasn't a short story by Stephen King. I never could finish his crappy novels. The writing style drives me insane! INSANE!

A book that drives it's readers insane...

I think we have our next Stephen King novel.

:D

Click Stand;12966786']For me the worst book ever would have to be To Kill a Mockingbird partly because I hate children(see other thread)

And of all the books I had to read for class, that one was my very favorite. Didn't hurt that Gregory Peck was in the movie.

A book that drives it's readers insane...

I think we have our next Stephen King novel.

:D

Been done. Try any of the Cthulu books for a start. But be warned, they're obtuse as all hell.

A book that drives it's readers insane...

I think we have our next Stephen King novel.

:D

nice!

The way he goes into detail about every little thing makes me want to rip my eyeballs out and eat them. I usually can't get past page 3.

And of all the books I had to read for class, that one was my very favorite. Didn't hurt that Gregory Peck was in the movie.

Better than the Old Man and the Sea movie I guess but was definatly worse than Of Mice and Men. In terms of the movies of course.

Micheal Crichton's Andromeda Strain.

Ye gods was that book boring!

Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. I never read the Da Vinci Code because I tried to read that piece of crap first, so I decided to give anything else Brown wrote a pass.

Jane Eyre. *shudder*

I had the misfortune of reading this book for english class about a dozen years ago. It lasted 500+ pages and NOTHING HAPPENED. It's like sitting in an empty room without the benefit of watching paint dry! Still, I highly recommend it to insomniacs -- it'll put you to sleep faster than an ambien overdose.

Death of a Salesman was horrible. It was like porn but with let-down and depression instead of sex. Obligatory gratuitous depression. For the love of the god like it would've hurt to have one thing good happen in that?
I don't demand a story be all happiness and singing bunnies and sunshine, not by a long shot, but if you're going to play a mood to death please have it lead up to something.

Click Stand;12966814']Better than the Old Man and the Sea movie I guess but was definatly worse than Of Mice and Men. In terms of the movies of course.

Never had to read Hemingway for class. My dad tried to get me to read Old Man, but I threw it back to him within three pages. Hate Hemingway, too. I only have one Steinbeck story to go on, The Pearl, and that wasn't half bad. Wasn't half good, neither, but...

I didn't like Eragon that much. Characters were unrealistic, and the plot silly. The writing was poor, too.

Che's Motorcycle Diaries.

Kill me. Now.

ya, i still haven't got past his daughter's prologue bit to that. been well over a year since i last picked it up though.

The Giver.

I just couldn't bring myself to finish such BS.

nice!

The way he goes into detail about every little thing makes me want to rip my eyeballs out and eat them. I usually can't get past page 3.

An excerpt:

"John could feel his hand pass over the small paperback as he searched through his bag for the blue pen he needed to right his term paper for his History Class, which he was going to at exactly 12:04 P.M. every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Pulling it slowly from his black pleather bag, made in China, he looked at the title.

'Dark Bindings' by Stephen King, printed in gold lettering.

Opening the book up to it's first page, he read the words "Dedicated to Travis Doran..."

He then had an epileptic seizure, convulsing on the floor in a rhythm of one spasm every .283 seconds."

Dark Binding:

In stores hopefully never.

The Unified Field. Don't rember who wrote it. Picked it up at a gas station(and I will NEVER repeate that mistake again!) as I was desprate for something to read and this about was the only thing there that wasn't either a romance or western. Turned out to be little more than the authors new-age craptacular wankfest. That completely lacked anything remotely wankworthy.

And Dune. I can't for the life of me tell you why, but I never get more than a handfull of pages in before completely loosing intrest.

The Silmarillion. That is, by a wide margin, the dullest book I have ever had the misfortune of reading in my entire life.

I found it a little dull, but being a self-professed LOTR geek, my interest in the subject material counteracted the tedium of the book.

My vote goes to "Persuasion". The only Jane Austen book I have ever had the displeasure of reading, I concluded from a year studying it at school that the most vigorous action undertaken in the whole book was jumping down some steps and slipping.

What is the worst book you've ever read? You know, a book that was really really boring. The plot & characters were crap, it was written poorly, whatever made it the absolute worst.

It doesn't matter if you finished it or not.

"Do Comet's Dream?" It was a Star Trek: The Next Generation title.

Basically, the guy who wrote it had a vaguely interesting idea that might have been decent had he not tried to use the TNG characters to fit his mold.

As it was, he characterized people poorly, wrote equally poor dialog for new characters, and generally made a mess of things. It's an absolutely shitty book. Of course, not much in the way of Star Trek books are all that fantastic, but none of them are horrible and can be a fun way to kill a few hours.

But this? Never read it. NEVER READ IT!

"To The Lighthouse" by Virginia Woolf. I'm sorry, I don't care how much of a classic it is, the writing is incomprehensible. Fuck it.

The quarter of David Copperfield I could get through.
Though all I remember about Sense and Sensibility is I wanted to carve my eyes out with rusty spoons half way through, but that can be clumped in with the "I hate 99% of all required reading books." David Copperfield is the worst book I opted to read myself.

ya, i still haven't got past his daughter's prologue bit to that. been well over a year since i last picked it up though.

Don't waste your time, unless you're looking for the small bits about the people amidst the dredge of "we scammed people, we slept, we rode, we bummed, we did it again, wow nature!"

Honestly.

Never had to read Hemingway for class. My dad tried to get me to read Old Man, but I threw it back to him within three pages. Hate Hemingway, too. I only have one Steinbeck story to go on, The Pearl, and that wasn't half bad. Wasn't half good, neither, but...
Can't be worse than William Faulkner.

Had to read Things Fall Apart for Pre-IB English Class. The book wasn't half that bad. Writing style was meh, but the ending was SO STUPID. HE HAD THE PERFECT SET UP FOR THE PERFECT ENDING, BUT HE HAD TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER STUPID BOOK IN THE ENDING. Gar. That book brings back horrible memories.

The Giver.

I just couldn't bring myself to finish such BS.

don't suppose its worth noting that they made a series of that book? and yes it was crap.

Can't be worse than William Faulkner.

Persuasion is. We resorted to playing classroom cricket and bogies it was so dull.

The Giver.

I just couldn't bring myself to finish such BS.

Whatever man, I liked The Giver. That is a good kind of classic.

Never had to read Hemingway for class. My dad tried to get me to read Old Man, but I threw it back to him within three pages. Hate Hemingway, too. I only have one Steinbeck story to go on, The Pearl, and that wasn't half bad. Wasn't half good, neither, but...

Old Man in the Sea was dull, but that book by him on the Spanish Civil War was ok. I liked some parts of it.

don't suppose its worth noting that they made a series of that book?
That makes my face sad, though there are multiple ways to make a series out of it.

I think it is safe to say all required reading books suck ass not just because they are required reading but because they just suck. No one would read them if they wern't required.

All's Quiet on the Western Front.

Nothing worse in my mind than a boring Biography or Autobiography. Sometimes you wonder how could a person this boring have a book written about him / her.

I'd probably have to say, my Accounting 1-2 book.

Love in the Ruins: The Adventures of a Bad Catholic at a Time Near the End of the World
By Walker Percy


I had to read it for book club. The same freaking woman always picks these horrible books, for the last three go-rounds when it's been her turn I have been mysteriously "too sick to read" :D

L. Ron Hubbard's (presumably ghost-written) Mission Earth series. That thing was like a 10-volume trainwreck. Yes, I did read the whole bloody thing, from the first book (which LRH might have written 80-85% of) to the last 3 books where his unfinished notes got really thin and his editors/ghost-writers started getting really desparate.

If someone gives you a copy of one of these books, do yourself a favor and return it to them at high velocity--preferably to the side of the head.

"A Tale of Two Cities" or anything else by Charles Dickens. The guy had great ideas for stories, like "A Christmas Carol", but his actual writing is the absolute most boring ever.

The Silmarillion. That is, by a wide margin, the dullest book I have ever had the misfortune of reading in my entire life.
Really? I liked the Silmarillion.


I vote for the Stone Angel. I can't remember who wrote it, but it sucked hardcore.

I think my least favorite book is "The Diary Of Anne Frank"... Dun dun dun!

"The Last September" by Elizabeth Bowen. We read it for A Level coursework. The teacher announced after two days that he was never using it again because it was, in his words, "a pile of wank".

Seriously the worst book ever written.

"Stealth" by Caris Davis. Absolute crap.

From what I remember, "The Silmarillion" was a book of notes posthumously compiled. Tolkien can scarcely be blamed for that.

I truly hated "The diary of Anne Frank" and I simply couldn't get past "A Midsummer Nights Dream". Not that it was a bad story, but I can't read the writing style of Shakespeare.

I simply couldn't get past "A Midsummer Nights Dream". Not that it was a bad story, but I can't read the writing style of Shakespeare.

Yea, they translate the Bible into modern English, why not Shakespeare? Another is Beowolf. It might be a great story if I could read Old English.

Jane Eyre. *shudder*

It lasted 500+ pages and NOTHING HAPPENED.

If you think nothing happened in Jane Eyre, then you weren't paying attention.

"Stealth" by Caris Davis. Absolute crap.

Which one - the black one or the white one?

I actually really enjoyed the black edition, but have never got round to reading the white edition.

It ain't exactly an easy read, I'll give you that.

Can't be worse than William Faulkner.

The big secret about William Faulkner that everyone seems to miss is that you can read his novels as comedies.

Yea, they translate the Bible into modern English, why not Shakespeare? Another is Beowolf. It might be a great story if I could read Old English.

Because Shakespeare is early-modern, and is perfectly comprehensible for even the most simple of individuals?

Yea, they translate the Bible into modern English, why not Shakespeare? Another is Beowolf. It might be a great story if I could read Old English.

Because Shakespeare is early-modern, and is perfectly comprehensible for even the most simple of individuals?

Actually, the King James Bible came from the same era that Shakespeare's writings did, and is therefore also "early-modern, and perfectly comprehensible for even the most simple of individuals".

recently it would have to be "Birdsong" by Sebastian Faulks. (a novel set during WWI)
My mate read this one yonks ago and raved and raved to me about how I 'had' to read it. He loved it so much he even taught it to his year 13 English class. And he has three copies of it at his home.
I put off reading it for a long time, mainly due to his over-zealousness in foisting it upon me.

Recently I picked it up at a 2nd book store and decided to give it a shot.

It was the most dire, dreadful hamfisted bit of writing I've seen in a long long time.

The mawkish and cliched sex scenes come straight from the bin of Harlequin romance offices: "She impaled herself luxuriously upon his swollen member". Used enough adverbs there? Sure you don't want to use a few more?
Then there's the similes: "He felt like a piece of confused wood". Quite. Wood is often confused, isn't it?
The point I almost stopped was when he uses 47 (yes I counted them!) words to describe someone winking. Not content with using a perfectly good english word to describe an action, he has to spend an entire paragraph.

The war scenes, when you finally get to them, are cliched and over-indulgent. Yes yes I understand. War is Hell. I don't need a paragraph describing someone finding half a face or 3 pages describing a young man dying painfully.
Nor do I need you to constantly link the imagery of fighting in underground tunnels in WWI to bullets in a rifle barrel to (very implausibly and highly contrived) the London Underground in the 1970s. Yes yes I got it the first time. No need to constantly remind me.

And no, I did not bother finishing it.

I much rather read, "Goodbye to all that" again than suffer another word of this tripe.

Actually, the King James Bible came from the same era that Shakespeare's writings did, and is therefore also "early-modern, and perfectly comprehensible for even the most simple of individuals".

Well, a lot of King James was archaic even at the time it was written...

And, even still, it is perfectly comprehensible.

Even Chaucer isn't overly difficult to get the hang of if you read enough of it, and that's middle English. Unfortunately it's been a long while since I last studied his work, so my translations are sketchy at best :(

Because Shakespeare is early-modern, and is perfectly comprehensible for even the most simple of individuals?

Yeah compare Shakespear to the Bible:

I run from thee and hide me in the breaks and leave thee to the mercy of the wild beasts.

To

The nation to which they shall be in bondage will I judge.

Both seem unbeleivably confusing to me and I wouldn't want to read an entire book of this stuff. Also sorry if I misquoted, I'm doing this from memory.

Click Stand;12967184']Yeah compare Shakespear to the Bible:

I run from thee and hide me in the breaks and leave thee to the mercy of the wild beasts.

To

The nation to which they shall be in bondage will I judge.

Both seem unbeleivably confusing to me and I wouldn't want to read an entire book of this stuff. Also sorry if I misquoted, I'm doing this from memory.

The problem ain't with Shakespeare or the KJV: the problem lies with you.

Yea, they translate the Bible into modern English, why not Shakespeare? Another is Beowolf. It might be a great story if I could read Old English.
Shakespeare wrote in modern english.

edit: damn my lack of refreshing before posting.

Click Stand;12967184']Yeah compare Shakespear to the Bible:

I run from thee and hide me in the breaks and leave thee to the mercy of the wild beasts.

To

The nation to which they shall be in bondage will I judge.

Both seem unbeleivably confusing to me and I wouldn't want to read an entire book of this stuff. Also sorry if I misquoted, I'm doing this from memory.

Unbelievably confusing? Seriously? The only word I can imagine would cause trouble there is "breaks" (actually "brakes") which means "bushes", as far as I can remember.

The only other thing is sentence structure, but even then that's easily decipherable.

The problem ain't with Shakespeare or the KJV: the problem lies with you.

reading a whole book of you would be a problem for me:p. But in all seriousness what would be the problem with making these sound like the language I speak, They do it with books in different languages like the Tao Te Ching which would probably be hell to read if translated directly. So why not just do the same for Shakespear because I sure as hell don't speak that language.

On an unrelated note how many times can you use the word hell when talking about the Bible.

Edit:
Unbelievably confusing? Seriously? The only word I can imagine would cause trouble there is "breaks" (actually "brakes") which means "bushes", as far as I can remember.

The only other thing is sentence structure, but even then that's easily decipherable.

See that is the problem, I shouldn't have to decipher books at all however easy they may be. If I want to read I book in another language I will but those books should be accessable without need of deciphering.

To be fair though, Shakespeare is much easier to follow when you're actually watching it being performed, rather than just reading the script.

Oh, definitely. Shakespeare's plays are scripts. Scripts are meant to be performed, not read. That's where the true beauty in Shakespeare lies. Even still, it's still easily readable.

"The Iron Council" by China Mieville.

Well, I didn't actually read it. It was on a shelf in my apartment's laundromat for quite some time, so I picked it up and started to read. I really didn't get past the seventh page it was so bad. It was like someone trying to imitate the language of Lovecraft, mixing it with Tolkien, Steampunk and magic. And pretension. Lots and lots of pretension.

Some of the replies here make me sad, as they are some of my favorite books. To Kill A Mockingbird and Jane Eyre especially.

But, I do detest anything Shakespeare. I love most classics, but that guy was just...Horrible.

Reading Shakespeare is terrible because of a fact every English teacher misses - he isn't a fucking author. He is a playwright and it's great to see acted out, reading it is fucking retarded.

The big secret about William Faulkner that everyone seems to miss is that you can read his novels as comedies.
And you can use them as doorstops, or burn them for heat.

By the time I was in college I simply stopped reading the books for the few odious lit classes I took that I could tell I wouldnlt like, so while there are a few big contenders up there, particularly from the "Chicano Literature" genre, and some from "American Composite Novels," I must confess I did not actually read them in anything resembling their entirety.

Which said, the worst book I've read through, from before I had the presence of mind not to, was probably "Dicey's Song" or "Homecoming" when I was in elementary school.

Bill O'Reilly's The No Spin Zone

Seriously, it's not even a book. Just a bunch of transcripts with a little bit of commentary. I only got halfway through it.

Good thing I found it at a yard sale for a buck.

That makes my face sad, though there are multiple ways to make a series out of it.

I think it is safe to say all required reading books suck ass not just because they are required reading but because they just suck. No one would read them if they wern't required.

1984 was on the required reading list at my old high school, and I actually read it years before I had to read it again.

And I loved it. So meh. Not all are crap.

For the record: I didn't mind "The Giver". Didn't like it, but it wasn't terrible. I have read some god awful books for high school though. Can't think of the name off hand, but on was about this Inuit girl who is forced into marriage, but runs off into the wilderness or whatnot and lives with wolves. Man, that was a real pile o' shite.

"Ole Doc Methuselah"

Any guesses as to why it sucked?









It was written by Ron L. Hubbard.
Someone we all know and want to mutilate badly.

The Bible, it had a good story but the ending sucked, I mean comon, why go through all that trouble to kill guy and just have him come back? The Roman's probably went "Well.....ahh.....we wasted a perfectly good afternoon."



Seriously though, it would have to be Dianetics by L Ron Hubbard. I read a chapter and I wanted to burn it.

The Bible, it had a good story but the ending sucked, I mean comon, why go through all that trouble to kill guy and just have him come back? The Roman's probably went "Well.....ahh.....we wasted a perfectly good afternoon."



Seriously though, it would have to be Dianetics by L Ron Hubbard. I read a chapter and I wanted to burn it.

Dianetics would've been my pick too, but I haven't read any of it.
So I'll stick to Bill'O.

1984 was on the required reading list at my old high school, and I actually read it years before I had to read it again.

And I loved it. So meh. Not all are crap.

For the record: I didn't mind "The Giver". Didn't like it, but it wasn't terrible. I have read some god awful books for high school though. Can't think of the name off hand, but on was about this Inuit girl who is forced into marriage, but runs off into the wilderness or whatnot and lives with wolves. Man, that was a real pile o' shite.

Ahhh...I remember Julie of the Wolves and I change my vote to that, thanks for the memories.:mad:

Anything by Joseph Conrad. I have read Victory, and attempted to read The Aspern Papers - could barely understand them. The Good Soldier was hard, mainly because it is written as a series of nonchronological flashbacks. My verdict was "Interesting idea, didn't work".

A lot this late 19th century stuff, I can't understand. I don't care if they're 'classics'. You want a classic, read Foundation or Dune. Otherwise, I'm easily entertained.

And while all these were books I read for school, some other books I read for school were quite good. However, I am still of the opinion that we need more sci-fi in our schools. Less Conrad, more Asimov.

What is the worst book you've ever read? You know, a book that was really really boring. The plot & characters were crap, it was written poorly, whatever made it the absolute worst.

It doesn't matter if you finished it or not.

Atlas shrugged. It was all of those things, but worst of all, it wasn't the one thing it pretended to be. A work of intellectual philosophy. It was just a thousand pages of borderline fascist (Franco fascism, not Hitler fascism) propaganda.

If the language hasn't changed enough to be confusing since the time of King James or Shakespeare why do most churches now use modern translations? Even the Revised Standard of circa 1952 (I think that's the correct date.) is being placed on the shelves of history. Only those who are snobbish about the "original" still read the King James Bible (not really the original) and still argue that Shakespeare doesn't need translated.

The fact is language is a living thing. Shakespeare more than anyone else recognized this. He invented words at will. I have this feeling that he would be disappointed that his stories are being lost to all but the snooty because they won't accept the fact that his language isn't the same as modern English.

Jane Eyre. It had to of been one of the most boring things I have ever read. That and the fact Jane was one of the most stupid characters I've ever met. I read 1/3 and then just skimmed it. Luckily we watched the PBS movie in class so I managed to get a reasonable grade. :p

I have two votes - either Flight of the Mayflower, by Mark Carew or Chicago Red by R. M. Meluch.

A friend came accross the first at a bookstore in Australia and passed it on to me. It was an SF/thriller with bad editing - horrendously, hilariously, bad, bad, BAD editing, done by by the author's wife. It was also chock full of scientific, technical, and military errors. Both the plot and the characters were giant cliches, badly done. But the best part is that it's self published and all the review blurbs are from his friends and relatives. It's really a bad case of what do you get when you cross a bad Tom Clancy with Hubbard, allow a typical NSGeneralite to edit the mess, and then get your buddies to review it for you. However, it was soooo bad it was actually quite funny.

Chicago Red was just plain bad. It was another very cliched SF book, this time a post-apocalyptic story. Let's just say that by halfway through the book I was rooting for the sado-masocistic psychopathic villan to kill everyone.

I had to read several books my senior year of high school that I found to be phenomenally dull, such as Heart of Darkness, Frankenstein and several Shakespeare plays.

Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens. The writing itself was mediocre at best, but the story line made me sick. And then the ending made me sicker. And all those people going on about what a great book Oliver Twist is, and how Charles Dickens was a great writer make me want to maul something. I have never read anything by Charles Dickens since.

Once had to read Wuthering Heights for Enlgish. Complete shit.

Siddhartha. Damn you, Herman Hesse!

Shakespeare.

And BTW if you're at high school never tell your teacher you dislike Shakespeare. Some teachers take him just a bit to seriously...

The Giver.

I just couldn't bring myself to finish such BS.

i did. If I didn't read it, I would have failed the class. :(

Pride & Prejudice, believe it or not. Had to read it for a university class and absolutely couldn't stand it. Didn't care for any of the characters the least, so what would I care if they hook-up?

O.E. Rolvaag's Giants in the Earth

http://www.amazon.com/Giants-Earth-Prairie-Perennial-Classics/dp/0060931930

Had to read it for HS English, and it was THE most boring thing I've ever read.

There are other books I probably disliked more while reading them (*seconds comments about Conrad's books being crap, as well as Catcher in the Rye*)

...but dear god, I could hardly stay awake to read this clunker. Use Giants in the Earth for kindling, it has nothing else going for it.

i did. If I didn't read it, I would have failed the class. :( I had to do it for a class, but passed anyway. Yay.

Once had to read Wuthering Heights for Enlgish. Complete shit.

I concur.

Interesting.

I disagree with many that was mentioned here. However, to answer the OP; the book I had to force myself to finish was:

The Satanic Verses

This book would have died a lonely death if it was not for the death fatwa.....

Honestly I tend to forget pretty much any bad book I read. The only things I can remember are crap fantasy pulp by Franz Lieber. Everything else has been purged, in order to preserve my sanity.

O Pioneers! was approximately as painful to read as having my teeth pulled, but nowhere near as exciting.

But, I do detest anything Shakespeare. I love most classics, but that guy was just...Horrible.

The problem with Shakespeare is not with the plays themselves but with the ways that Shakespeare is taught.

I remember how I was taught about Shakespeare during my school years: we were given a text, the teacher read throught it, we made notes and then maybe (if there was time) we watched one of the film adaptions on a tiny television in the middle of a classroom with 25+ bored children clustered around it. Hardly what you would call a magical experience.

I always enjoyed Shakespeare and the poetics of his language. However most of my friends (who shared the above educational experience, as have almost all British school children) detest him and would never read or watch one of his plays unless there was a modern adaptation of one on television.

Shakespeare cannot be appreciated if experienced in the manner I have just described. In order to appreciate Shakespeare, you have to go and see it performed by professional actors at a professional theatre. There is no other way. The roles of Shakespeare are too difficult to be entrusted to amateur actors and the scenic effects are too important to be entrusted to amateur theatres.

I am fortunate to live only one hour away from Stratford upon Avon and this year the Royal Shakespeare Company have been showing (for the first time ever I think) the complete works of Shakespeare (that includes all of the sonnets as well). I have been to see two plays they are showing as part of this Shakespeare marathon: Julius Caesar and King John. Both were very traditional productions, especially King John which was performed in the Swan theatre, an indoor reconstruction of what a Shakespearean theatre would have looked like. Only after seeing these two plays did I really appreciate the art and the genius of Shakespeare. The acting, the language, the location, the props, the production, the text...they all fuse together and produce the art form, the art of Shakespeare.

The problem with Shakespeare is not with the plays themselves but with the ways that Shakespeare is taught.

I remember how I was taught about Shakespeare during my school years: we were given a text, the teacher read throught it, we made notes and then maybe (if there was time) we watched one of the film adaptions on a tiny television in the middle of a classroom with 25+ bored children clustered around it. Hardly what you would call a magical experience.
You hit the nail right on the head there, although I would say that most plays - not just Shakespeare - can't be taught that way.

I'm going to go on a tangent and pick Ice Station by Matthew Reilly. How that fucker got published (let alone start a writing career) based on this title I have no idea. It was filled with incredibly bad science, cringe-making 'boys-own' military fapping, one-dimensional, often insultingly stereotypical characters, and the plot was an abomination unto the literary gods. Tom Clancy he ain't, and that's not saying much.

I'm going to go on a tangent and pick Ice Station by Matthew Reilly. How that fucker got published (let alone start a writing career) based on this title I have no idea. It was filled with incredibly bad science, cringe-making 'boys-own' military fapping, one-dimensional, often insultingly stereotypical characters, and the plot was an abomination unto the literary gods. Tom Clancy he ain't, and that's not saying much.

That was a bad one. The LN2 "grenade" had me in stitches. Add a bit of an SF overlay, a horrid editing job (Utterly random Capitalization and, Punctuation; for example), and one of the oldest most cliched SF plots (a Very Bad Thing is destroying Earth, so a brave band of pioneers set off to colonize another world), and you'll end up with the Flight of the Mayflower.

The Silmarillion.

I found the opposite - my appreciation for Lord Of The Rings increased immensely after I read The Silmarillion.

Catcher in the Rye. Lord and Lady, how I hated this book! I wanted to hunt Holden down and beat the shit out of him about five pages in. And I had to read it for class. Gack.

Seconded. Hell, I felt like burning the damn book when I was done with it, just to be rid of it.

I truly hated "The diary of Anne Frank"

ROFL!

...the book I had to force myself to finish was:

The Satanic Verses

This book would have died a lonely death if it was not for the death fatwa.....

Also seconded. Midnight's Children awed me, so my disappointment at Satanic Verses (the very next book I read) was immense. I gave up a third of the way into it.


But my all-time worst read has to be Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind. A peurile string of predictable fantasy cliches from start to finish. What disappointed me most was the number of glowing recommendations I'd received beforehand. Some of my 'friends' need a lobotomy, or had one just before reading the damn book! Maybe the book is a lobotomy...

The Silmarillion. That is, by a wide margin, the dullest book I have ever had the misfortune of reading in my entire life.You are/were just not ready for it. The Silmarillion is a very good book, but one that needs re-reading every now and then. And you must keep up with its pace of action.

The worst book for me is the Illuminatus! Trilogy (by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson). It was kind of interesting at first, but when the word "Atlantis" first appeared in it, I threw it away.

Satanic Verses.

Possibly, the only book I wanted to read and I still could not finish it even after forcing myself through half of it.

I curse you Khomeini.:mad:

Atlas shrugged. It was all of those things, but worst of all, it wasn't the one thing it pretended to be. A work of intellectual philosophy. It was just a thousand pages of borderline fascist (Franco fascism, not Hitler fascism) propaganda.

Who is John Galt? :p

I tend to stop reading if they are bad. The most turgid books I have come across are On war by von Clausewitz and Ulysses by James Joyce. Anything by Norman Mailer is usually pretty awful, also Agatha Christie and Dickens.

Not sure if I have read a bad book. Mind you, Michael Crichton's books can be a bit shite at the beginning.

I'm going to go on a tangent and pick Ice Station by Matthew Reilly. How that fucker got published (let alone start a writing career) based on this title I have no idea. It was filled with incredibly bad science, cringe-making 'boys-own' military fapping, one-dimensional, often insultingly stereotypical characters, and the plot was an abomination unto the literary gods. Tom Clancy he ain't, and that's not saying much.
So basically it is like every book they want you to read in college? "Here, read this obscure book by this obscure author for it's literary content. Ignore that it sucks ass."

Satanic Verses.

Possibly, the only book I wanted to read and I still could not finish it even after forcing myself through half of it.

I curse you Khomeini.:mad:
Try David Copperfield.

Shakespeare.

And BTW if you're at high school never tell your teacher you dislike Shakespeare. Some teachers take him just a bit to seriously...

English teachers masturbate to Shakespeare.

If we're talking about books in general: The Bourne Legacy. It's like the Highlander 2 of the series, it shouldn't even exist.

Books like those taught in school: Wide Sargasso Sea. It's a prequel to Jane Eyre that's nothing but masturbatory male-bashing crap.

Hard Times - Curse Dickens for that crap. I had to read it for class and my exams. How damn horrible.

You are/were just not ready for it. The Silmarillion is a very good book, but one that needs re-reading every now and then. And you must keep up with its pace of action.

The worst book for me is the Illuminatus! Trilogy (by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson). It was kind of interesting at first, but when the word "Atlantis" first appeared in it, I threw it away.

Awwww, not the Illuminatus!
You are/were just not ready for it. ;)
First read, it got confusing with the mid-paragraph time travel, sure, but it's irony in it's purest form. To drop it because of a reference to Atlantis is to miss the entire point of the trilogy.
I mean, they don't just talk about Atlantis, they don't just even visit Atlantis (and fight off Illuminati-controlled robot subs), they even smoke grass originally grown there! It's the ultimate conspiracy-theory-taken-to-ridiculous-and-mocking-extremes book ever written.
If you're gonna come up with a reason to put the book down, how about the scene where one of the characters has sex with a giant golden apple symbolising and embodying the Goddess Eris as an initiation rite? At least pick a good reason to put it down.

Seriously, if you were far enough into the book to take an Atlantean reference seriously, despite all the weird crap you'd already read, you've fundamentally missed the point.

I don't just have one...I have a list

Jane Eyre
Tess of the D'urbervilles
Great Expectations
The Scarlet Letter
Billy Budd (Herman Melville bullshit)
Ecology of a Cracker Childhood



there's more, but I think I've blocked it out of my mind...

Battlefield Earth.


Not so much bad as LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG.



even the movie only could go 1/2 way...




(though I did finish the damn thing)

Awwww, not the Illuminatus!
You are/were just not ready for it. ;)
First read, it got confusing with the mid-paragraph time travel, sure, but it's irony in it's purest form. To drop it because of a reference to Atlantis is to miss the entire point of the trilogy.
I mean, they don't just talk about Atlantis, they don't just even visit Atlantis (and fight off Illuminati-controlled robot subs), they even smoke grass originally grown there! It's the ultimate conspiracy-theory-taken-to-ridiculous-and-mocking-extremes book ever written.
If you're gonna come up with a reason to put the book down, how about the scene where one of the characters has sex with a giant golden apple symbolising and embodying the Goddess Eris as an initiation rite? At least pick a good reason to put it down.

Seriously, if you were far enough into the book to take an Atlantean reference seriously, despite all the weird crap you'd already read, you've fundamentally missed the point.

LOL The apple-fucking is why I put it down too, though I picked it back up and almost made it to the end....

I don't just have one...I have a list

Jane Eyre
Tess of the D'urbervilles
Great Expectations
The Scarlet Letter
Billy Budd (Herman Melville bullshit)
Ecology of a Cracker Childhood



there's more, but I think I've blocked it out of my mind...
Well if we are making a list, I will second Jane Eyre because of authorship and second The Scarlet Letter because it sucks.

Will add:
Sense & Sensibility
The Great Gatsby
The Unvanquished (and anything else by Faulkner)
David Copperfield
Hamlet (or anything else by Shakespeare read as a book, though Comedy of Errors was ok)

Of Mice and Men and O Pioneers! were both dull but not excruciatingly painful to read like the others.

Some other books I'm blocking out.

Well if we are making a list, I will second Jane Eyre because of authorship and second The Scarlet Letter because it sucks.

Will add:
Sense & Sensibility
The Great Gatsby
The Unvanquished (and anything else by Faulkner)
David Copperfield
Hamlet (or anything else by Shakespeare read as a book, though Comedy of Errors was ok)

Of Mice and Men and O Pioneers! were both dull but not excruciatingly painful to read like the others.

Some other books I'm blocking out.

I read all Shakespeare's plays as just that -- plays. They were poorly acted by my classmates, but it did make them more memorable and enjoyable.

The only book I've not been able to finish reading is the Fellowship of the Ring. JRR Tolkien is a terrible writer. Sorry, fantits, but he is. He ably created a diverse, detailed and self-supporting universe, then created an interesting plot to go with it, but his writing style makes reading his work akin to drinking sand. He's excruciatingly boring.

The only book I've not been able to finish reading is the Fellowship of the Ring. JRR Tolkien is a terrible writer. Sorry, fantits, but he is. He ably created a diverse, detailed and self-supporting universe, then created an interesting plot to go with it, but his writing style makes reading his work akin to drinking sand. He's excruciatingly boring.

I second that. Trying to read Tolken, Patrick White's Voss or anything Russian is like wading through quicksand.

For me, it's Across Five Aprils. *wretch*

What is the worst book you've ever read? You know, a book that was really really boring. The plot & characters were crap, it was written poorly, whatever made it the absolute worst.

It doesn't matter if you finished it or not.

Anything by Kafka, ohhh my god what disjointed, morose, depresing shite!

Every Steinbeck novel I've ever been forced to read
Hatchet
Shakespear (I don't care)
The Princess Bride (That movie was better)
The Hobbit (Long winded and pointless, I don't rember half of it. I'll watch the movie when they finally get around to making it)

Hmmm...

Dante's Inferno

All Shakespeare books.

I read this one Aliens book that totally blowed.

In Cold Blood was pretty boring, at least, the first half.

HANNIBLE! Hannible sucked too. Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs were both amazing books, but Hannible was a piece of crap.

Wrinkle in Time was also bad.

Nothing But the Truth and A Door in the Wall were required reading books in 6th grade. They sucked.

There's more I'm sure, but I can't think of them at the moment.

Two books come to mind.



The Lone Gunslinger -The 'something' Tower - Stephen King



I can't remember it's proper title and I don't care. Having read Stephen King's horror books and short stories compilations avidly throughout my teens, I decided to try one from his Fantasy range.


One man, seemingly roaming around a wasteland desert, doing nothing and without any obvious objective or meaning, made my eyes glaze over with each page from the sheer unrelenting boredom and pointlessness of it.


I very well nearly lost the will to live through reading that book. I got half-way, no change in it's pointless and dull existence, and gave up.


That's all I remember, an uninteresting man in an uninteresting setting, thinking about uninteresting things.



The Godfather



Don't get me wrong, the films are great.


I started out this book, and was soon reading avidly, greatly written, and engaging.


Then, exactly half-way, the author decides to go off a tandem, and write about uninteresting incidents that seemed to bear little bearing on the essence of the book.


Oh well I thought, the next chapter will be better, keep going.


Well, a couple of hundred pages went by and it did not improve, and refused to. I thought about skipping pages, but feared I may miss something important.


And I decided, fuck it. Why read a book that had grown tedious and dull just for the scarce interesting parts that carried on from earlier, when the book had been better?


So no, I gave up, put it on hold, placed one of my bookmarks on the page I was 'reading' and placed it to one side and started another book.


That was probably seven years ago.


The Godfather lays somewhere, half-read, gathering dust.


I have no urge to find it.



Kate Adie's Autobiography (I can't remember the name)



I have read many books by news correspondents for their often interesting take on the world and what they have witnessed.


Kate Adie seemed to differ from the others I have read in that she generally did not seem affected or did not reflect on in any interesting sense on what she had seen in anyway, seeming to observe events from down her cold, snobby nose from afar, instead of being able to relate what she experienced, and seemed to express the view her life was more important for the reader to care about than what she had seen, experienced, felt in her profession.

A shame, and a waste of a book.


She comes across as extremely unpleasant and cold and hard to like and it conveyed in her writing.


I don't care about her dull, remote, uninteresting look, and lack of observation and reflection upon the places she has visited or the experiences she had.


I did not learn about her experiences and her views.



Only that her experiences did not seem to interact with her, had no impression on her.


She seemed to have applied a corset upon herself in terms of an unwillingless or lack of ability, to express further on what she saw and experienced.



That's the only books I truly did not like and resent, and I've read many books that thankfully are the contrary.

http://www.cs.inf.ethz.ch/~wirth/books/Modula2E/Modula2E.gif

So boring!!!

Anything by L. Ron Hubbard.

Anything by L. Ron Hubbard.

Don't be pissy because you aren't even an OTIV. :rolleyes:

What is the worst book you've ever read? You know, a book that was really really boring. The plot & characters were crap, it was written poorly, whatever made it the absolute worst.

It doesn't matter if you finished it or not.
The Old Man And The Sea is one of the worst books ever written, in my opinion. Of course, I also regard Hemingway as a horrible writer, so you can imagine how much my English teachers loved me...

I also nominate all the Harry Potter books after the first one. The first one was at least a new idea. After that, it was exactly the same thing recycled over and over. Harry goes to school, encounters evil disguised as good, catches a Snitch, epic battle, power of friendship, the end. The last book in the series was the worst thing I've read since The Old Man And The Sea. And I tend to go through about two novels per week, on average.

But my all-time worst read has to be Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind. A peurile string of predictable fantasy cliches from start to finish. What disappointed me most was the number of glowing recommendations I'd received beforehand. Some of my 'friends' need a lobotomy, or had one just before reading the damn book! Maybe the book is a lobotomy...
I have a friend who is totally addicted to that series, so I've read a few.

What confuses me is that in each book I've read there seems to be one very interesting concept or idea. There's one line, or one item, that is worthy of thought. But the entire rest of the book is complete and unadulterated crud.

I don't get it. It's like Goodkind had somebody else write one line in each of his books.

(Aside: I love how everybody has names involving the "ahhh" sound. Rahl, Kahlan, etc. Also how the main character's masculinity is painstakingly described when he enters any given scene. "He strode manfully into the room, wearing a lot of black leather and a really awesome sword and he had a chiseled jaw and these big arms and his eyes were all penetrating and he was really tall swoooooooooon!")

The Old Man And The Sea is one of the worst books ever written, in my opinion. Of course, I also regard Hemingway as a horrible writer, so you can imagine how much my English teachers loved me...

The Old Man And the Sea was just boring - not terrible, but terribly boring.

The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber was an excellent piece. I think that Hemingway is overrated, but he's had a few good works.

Anything by Kafka, ohhh my god what disjointed, morose, depresing shite!

You, sir, should be taken outside and shot. It may be true that Kafka rarely completed any of his works but in my opinion the fragments we have are some of the best literature that the 20th Century produced.

A Separate Peace.

Seriously, what the fucking fuck was that piss-ass fuck of a bumfuck piece of horseshit excuse for a shitty book all about? I was forced to read it in high school, and to be honest, I couldn't follow the whole storyline. A bunch of boarding school kids who don't have to go near the war creating a stupid, fucked-up fantasy world, and one guy breaks another guy's leg and ends up killing him. Boo-fucking-hoo. Poor little rich kids going and killing each other in trees and whining about innocence when there's a fucking war going on.

I tried to get through it. I couldn't even stomach the film of it. Frankly, I didn't even like Dead Poets Society.

I have my eyes intact at this point in my life only because I didn't have a barbecue fork to stab myself in the eyes with when I was reading this piece of dreck.

I've noticed many books mentioned are considered "classics". My question to the people who listed them is "Did you think they were poorly written, or just dull?" The two don't necessarily go hand in hand, especially when the book is written in Middle English.
I have never really hated a book I've read. Many I've liked less than others, but none qualify as wretched. So, I'm submitting a list from Booklist, "Classics we Hate":

Call of the Wild, by Jack London

When my father tried to share this beloved classic from his childhood, my sister and I temporarily revoked his read-aloud privileges. The book bored us; it upset us; we felt our dad's taste would forever-after be suspect. Years later, I asked my Czech high-school class to name their favorite book. Their answer? Call of the Wild. Dad's still gloating. --Gillian Engberg

Cry, the Beloved Country, by Alan Paton

Yes, I know it's the book that first introduced millions of Western readers to what South African racism was like, but if you reread it today, it sounds patronizing and sentimental. --Hazel Rochman

Howl and Other Poems, by Allen Ginsberg

As Paul Goodman said when Ginsberg's claim to fame was new, it's not a howl, Allen, it's a gripe. Just a whine, I'd say, and the other poems are no improvement--alright, the one about Walt Whitman in the supermarket is tolerable. --Ray Olson

Mansfield Paris, by Jane Austen

Dear Jane: I'm a huge fan and, thanks to a graduate-school Austen seminar, have read every scrap you ever wrote. But what's up with Mansfield Park? I've tried several times to force-feed myself the book, but I just can't get around that bore Fanny Price. In the future, please stick with less-insipid heroines, like Emma. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Quinn. P.S.: Loved the movie version.

The Marble Faun, by Nathaniel Hawthorne

Hawthorne's last novel begins well--Miriam's dark past and the vivacious human faun, Donatello, instantly grab your attention--but once the trouble starts brewing, the ending is a long, long way off. And the result? Surprise! Everyone is possessed of both good and evil. --Michelle Kaske

The Old Man and the Sea, by Ernest Hemingway

My seventh-grade son, assigned to read this interminable "short" novel, was right when he said the most exciting moment in the story was when the old man peed off the side of the boat. It's so nice to see that language-arts teachers are in cahoots with video-game producers to make reading the least entertaining option for a kid's leisuretime activity. --Joanne Wilkinson

Pilgrim's Progress, by John Bunyon

Perhaps fondness for this hallowed seventeenth-century English allegory grows out of reading it within a Christian context, but for a Jew who found that she had to read it as a key to a bizillion literary allusions in works she truly loved, it came across as tedious, preachy, and smug. But, then again, I may just dislike allegories in general. --Donna Seaman

Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse

Looking back at the 1960s, it's hard to say whether we had worse taste in clothes or books. For my money, though, Hesse's terminally sappy pseudospiritual babblings don't wear nearly as well as a nice sweatshirt made from the American flag (matching bell bottoms optional). --Bill Ott

Silas Marner, by George Eliot

This tired old thing is still assigned in high school when what you really want to be reading about is sex and rock `n' roll. --Brad Hooper

Ulysses, by James Joyce

As we greet a bright new millennium, I will finally stop pretending that I've read Ulysses. I've tried, I've failed, and I'm familiar enough with the book to answer a Jeopardy question about it. I think that's sufficient, don't you? --Ilene Cooper

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum

As a children's book person, I'm sure I'm committing heresy here, but my least favorite classic is The Wizard of Oz. Having grown up in Kansas, I've never been able to see anything remotely appealing about tornadoes--or, for that matter, flying monkeys, talking apple trees, or witches, wicked or otherwise. --Stephanie Zvirin

I'm going to go on a tangent and pick Ice Station by Matthew Reilly. How that fucker got published (let alone start a writing career) based on this title I have no idea. It was filled with incredibly bad science, cringe-making 'boys-own' military fapping, one-dimensional, often insultingly stereotypical characters, and the plot was an abomination unto the literary gods. Tom Clancy he ain't, and that's not saying much.

I bought two of his books together, (and felt the other one had to be better) and then found out it was worse (so bad the publishers rejected it at first and only took it to sell on the basis of name recognition).

And I echo what's been said before. Shakespeare was a playwright not a novelist, on stage they're fantastic, on the page, not so much.

I'll go with three:

Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. Yeah, I know, "HERESY!!!" But man, that book is deliberately esoteric and almost impossible to follow. Too much backstory, not enough plot motion to make the backstory interesting as more than just history. I like history, but if it's a novel, it needs to move at least a bit. Lengthy chapters spent talking at Italian cafes about the history of everything from the Knights Templar to Newton. Yawn.

V. by Thomas Pynchon. I tried. I really did. Way too clever and far too twisty to follow or care about. I know that, as a Tom Robbins fan, I should love Pynchon, but I don't.

Manahattan Transfer by John Dos Passos. My father almost demanded that I read this book, and for the life of me, I don't know why. It's whiny, shrill, meandering and none of the characters appeal to me in any way at all.

I hope not all the "classics" are this hard to reach. I've got copies of both Crime and Punishment and Moby Dick to try and acquaint myself with "literature". I'm an avid reader, but the English-course books have never been on my radar.

That said, one of my childhood favorites, Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising is FINALLY being made into a movie. I saw the previews, it looks good. EXCITED!

I'd probably have to say, my Accounting 1-2 book.

You either had a bad accounting book or never ever had literature classes in school. Dostojevsky(sp?)'s Gambler was so dull... I never finished it. My accounting books were EXCITING in contrast.

Anything that wasn't a short story by Stephen King. I never could finish his crappy novels. The writing style drives me insane! INSANE!

I know this might fall on already convinced ears, but try King's book Gerald's Game. I'm no fan of King's (I much prefer Clive Barker for the supernatural), but a friend begged me to reconsider with this book about a woman who is trapped in an untenable situation after her lover, who's into mild bondage, dies when they're engaged in the act in a very remote Maine (where else?) cabin. Lots of internal dialogue and examination of character, and the pages turned quickly.

Click Stand;12967184']Yeah compare Shakespear to the Bible:

I run from thee and hide me in the breaks and leave thee to the mercy of the wild beasts.

To

The nation to which they shall be in bondage will I judge.

Both seem unbeleivably confusing to me and I wouldn't want to read an entire book of this stuff. Also sorry if I misquoted, I'm doing this from memory.

Nope. Both sentences are perfectly understandable. Reading in older English is a mental exercise. It makes you think like writers then thought and makes you an active, rather than a passive reader. That's why books of that era are taught in their original languages. You want a modern translation? Go see the movie.

If the language hasn't changed enough to be confusing since the time of King James or Shakespeare why do most churches now use modern translations? Even the Revised Standard of circa 1952 (I think that's the correct date.) is being placed on the shelves of history. Only those who are snobbish about the "original" still read the King James Bible (not really the original) and still argue that Shakespeare doesn't need translated.

The fact is language is a living thing. Shakespeare more than anyone else recognized this. He invented words at will. I have this feeling that he would be disappointed that his stories are being lost to all but the snooty because they won't accept the fact that his language isn't the same as modern English.

It is exactly the same language. It's use has changed. Take the sentence "there is no convenience between Christ and Belial" from 1 Cor 6:14-18. The Elizabethan usage merely uses one word, "convenience" in an old context -- it's literal Latin context: "coming together". It's shorter, easier, and more efficient while saying exactly what it means to say.

Reading Elizabethan English is intended to stretch your mind -- the whole point of going to school in the first place. Figuring out what Hamlet means when he says he's "mad north by northwest", is part of the fun (he means that he's faking his madness, incidentally). Shakespeare is indeed meant to be seen by actors who know how to interpret the lines to achieve their intended effect. Shakespeare is important because he's basically either invented or codified just about every basic plot English novels have seen since his time.

That said, it's your right to dislike him and Elizabethan English and to think it's worthless. It's also my right to think you foolish and ignorant as a result -- that in no way should diminish your worth as a person, but it does make me weep for the future.

Siddhartha. Damn you, Herman Hesse!

Really? That short and you didn't like it even a bit? That book got me over the fear of flying, and introduced me to the concept of the game we all play as members of a society: the samsara. That book was illuminating. Not life-changing, but I saw a few things more clearly after reading it.

Every Steinbeck novel I've ever been forced to read
Hatchet
Shakespear (I don't care)
The Princess Bride (That movie was better)
The Hobbit (Long winded and pointless, I don't rember half of it. I'll watch the movie when they finally get around to making it)

Wow. Just wow. The book was SOOOOOOOOO much better than the film, and I love the film. William Goldman's details about the relationship between him, his grandfather and his son, plus all the "details" he left out in his "good parts version" were hilarious. Oh well. De gustibus non est disputandem, I guess.

Battlefield Earth.


Not so much bad as LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG.



even the movie only could go 1/2 way...




(though I did finish the damn thing)

That book catches a lot of crap, but it's not that horrible. If you forgive the blatant science violations and the really obvious aim of the author it's not that bad. Though at over 1100 pages not something you'll read too many times. I've read much worse attempts at sci-fi.

Re: Caris Davis's "Stealth" Which one - the black one or the white one?

I actually really enjoyed the black edition, but have never got round to reading the white edition.

It ain't exactly an easy read, I'll give you that.

I think it was the black edition. I was expecting more (sex, violence, who knows, it was over a decade ago (I think)) ...

Kafka's great; not all of his work is morose and miserable, and snippets are terribly funny. I also quite enjoyed Joyce's Ulysses, even if I didn't catch much of the relation between it and The Odyssey.

Catcher in the Rye bored me to tears, though.

any Harry Potter book

Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens. The writing itself was mediocre at best, but the story line made me sick. And then the ending made me sicker. And all those people going on about what a great book Oliver Twist is, and how Charles Dickens was a great writer make me want to maul something. I have never read anything by Charles Dickens since.

Good plan. The difference between Dickens and Shakespeare is you can't understand Shakespeare so you don't know if it's good or not, you can understand Dickens so you know it's bad. Anybody that can get through a fourth of any Dickens book probably also likes to be whipped and put on the rack.

Eragon. Generic fantasy crap.

The worst book for me is the Illuminatus! Trilogy (by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson). It was kind of interesting at first, but when the word "Atlantis" first appeared in it, I threw it away.

Somewhere, I have a picture of our cat sniffing our copy of that. It looks lke she's studying the back cover intently.

Anything by Shakespeare..... partially Romeo and Juliet. The plot was nothing more then stupid, emo, honry teenagers who just wanted to bang each other, couldn't get it, and killed themselves because they are retarded.

Worst one I finished: Great Expectations by Charles Dickens

worst one I gave up on: Their Eyes were Watching God, I forget the author. It sucked.

Out of the ones I had to read in school, 'I heard the Owl Call My Name' was my least favorite. 'The Giver' creeped me out, but I wouldn't call it the worst. I like Shakespeare, but 'Taming of the Shrew' didn't sit well with me at all. Out of class readings, I find George R. R. Martin's writing incredibly hard to get into. As in, I can read a chapter before I have to put the book down for a year. Goodkind's 'Blood of the Fold' was the driest book in the series and made me seriously doubt the rest of them. And of course, anything at all written by Lackey. And it's not just one book. Its not just one series. ALL of her writing is flat characters and predictable plots. The only way her writing is ever saved is when she writes with other authors, and even then you can tell as surely as if there were lines drawn in the text which author is influencing which parts.

Thinking back over my high school reading classes, the worst book I can remember reading would have to be The Awakening (Kate Chopin). The protagonist, what's her name, in that book was such an annoying, whiney spoiled bitch; it was a relief when she finally drowned.

The worst book I ever made myself read was The Garden of Rama. Rendezvous with Rama and Rama II were both great science-fiction novels about people trying to pick their way through an alien artifact, but Garden was just a crappy soap opera with only three adult characters and some science-fiction elements.

On the Beach was probably the biggest disappointment I've ever had. The movie was a beautiful, depressing drama. The book was just dull and spent too long focusing on rationing procedures.

I also seem to remember hating Ralph Elison's The Invisible Man, but of late I've been starting to think I might have just been too immature for it at the time. Has anyone else read it recently? Was it as preachy and annoying as I remember?

worst one I gave up on: Their Eyes were Watching God, I forget the author. It sucked.
The first half was terrible dull and drawn out and made me want to kill myself. The second half was readable. If they had split it into two books, it would be better.

Anything by Shakespeare..... partially Romeo and Juliet. The plot was nothing more then stupid, emo, honry teenagers who just wanted to bang each other, couldn't get it, and killed themselves because they are retarded.

Well, I've now heard the stupidest argument ever against Shakespeare.

Hello? Written around 1600? Some 400 years before "emo" even thought about existing? If you can't give props to the original love tragedy, you need help. Your post comes from a complete disaffection with modern stories. I understand that, but you can't blame the originator for what no-talent asshats do with the idea once it's four centuries old.

Worst one I finished: Great Expectations by Charles Dickens

worst one I gave up on: Their Eyes were Watching God, I forget the author. It sucked.

Zora Neale Hurston. Her writing is a framework for Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and other influential Black authors. I can't imagine why you didn't like it, beyond the absence of explosions and car chases, perhaps.

Naw, wait, that's not fair, but still, it's history written as a novel, it's going to take time to get into and for the story to unfold. Patience, man.

I had to read "1984", by George Orwell, for school. After page 20, I gave it up, just because it was so depressing. Plus, it didn't help that our teacher showed us a film that gave away the ending. I still passed the test on it, though. :D

Walden. I had to read it over five years ago for school and still to this day it is far and away the worst book I have ever read.

I do want to point out though that the posters who have picked Shakespeare have no idea what they are talking about. Sure a few of his plays are bad, but most are excellent.

Try David Copperfield.

Not the best of Dickens (I like Great Expectations a lot)....but really, for sheer "tear your hair in despair" feeling...you can't beat the Satanic Verses.

Well, I've now heard the stupidest argument ever against Shakespeare.

Hello? Written around 1600? Some 400 years before "emo" even thought about existing? If you can't give props to the original love tragedy, you need help. Your post comes from a complete disaffection with modern stories. I understand that, but you can't blame the originator for what no-talent asshats do with the idea once it's four centuries old.

Even the character development in R&J wasn't that great, they were flat and the only thoughtful character was the apothecary. Also that "original love tragedy" doesn't mean anything, just because it was original doesn't mean I have to give props to it. Even some of the stories stemming from that plot are better.

Now don't get me wrong I'm sure R&J was great when it first came out but now it is dated. I mean who gets married after meeting twice and then kills themselves for someone they barely spoke to for more than an hour. I would see When Harry Met Sally any day over this and I hate that.

I think it was the black edition. I was expecting more (sex, violence, who knows, it was over a decade ago (I think)) ...


Yeah, my memories of it are somewhat dim too, it probably being a decade or so for me too: I agree that the middle section felt terribly disjointed and confusing, and all momentum was pretty much lost, but I just felt that was the price you had to pay for when you hit the final sections and realize how much of a sleight of hand he had played on you.

If the language hasn't changed enough to be confusing since the time of King James or Shakespeare why do most churches now use modern translations? Even the Revised Standard of circa 1952 (I think that's the correct date.) is being placed on the shelves of history. Only those who are snobbish about the "original" still read the King James Bible (not really the original) and still argue that Shakespeare doesn't need translated.

The fact is language is a living thing. Shakespeare more than anyone else recognized this. He invented words at will. I have this feeling that he would be disappointed that his stories are being lost to all but the snooty because they won't accept the fact that his language isn't the same as modern English.
Shakespeare shouldn't be translated into modern English for one simple reason: that is not what he wrote. Yes, there are translations available. But you know what? They suck. You miss 90% of the word play and sex hidden in his writing by reading a modern translation.

All Shakespeare books..
Shakespeare never wrote a single book.

I hope not all the "classics" are this hard to reach. I've got copies of both Crime and Punishment and Moby Dick to try and acquaint myself with "literature". I'm an avid reader, but the English-course books have never been on my radar.
You will hate Moby Dick the first time you read it. Remember: the story is not in the few chapters that have actual action, but in all of those interlying chapters. Once you finish it and think about it, you may end up loving it

My least favorite, by far, is Pride and Prejudice. Oh, and Reservation Blues.

The subject of this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=535728

The Lone Gunslinger -The 'something' Tower - Stephen King

I admit, the Dark Tower series started off a bit dull, but it got way better as it got on. By the end of the book it starts getting fairly interesting and the series has one of the best endings I've ever read. It just got better and better as it went along.

Overall, I'd have to say that the Dark Tower series is pretty close to, if not, my favorite series of all time.

To some of the other responses:

The Silmarillion was similar in that it started out somewhat dull, but ended up being a fantastic book.

And Catcher in the Rye? You people are naming a whole bunch of books that I enjoyed quite a bit.

As for what I consider my least favorite book, I can't even really remember much about except that I hated it utterly. A book about some woman named Bathsheba and some farmer who loves her and wants to marry her, but she doesn't want to for most of the book and a number of other people are after her as well. Nothing I care about.

The first harry potter book. I had to read it though. Man did I hate that book.

The Scarlet Letter

I knew I forgot one!

I fell asleep in the dentist waiting room reading that crap...mind-numbingly boring.

Oh, let me add Moby Dick and Ivanhoe. I couldn't finish either of them they were so impenetrable; boring detail on blubber processing for the former, a tedium of thee's and thou's for the latter.

Someone mentioned Eragon. It's not so surprising when you see the author (on the DVD extras) - he looks about 12.

EDIT: On a positive note, bravo for the 'drinking sand' simile, whoever that was. I LOL'ed. :)

Zora Neale Hurston. Her writing is a framework for Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and other influential Black authors. I can't imagine why you didn't like it, beyond the absence of explosions and car chases, perhaps.

Naw, wait, that's not fair, but still, it's history written as a novel, it's going to take time to get into and for the story to unfold. Patience, man.

I don't care who she influenced. It sucked. It was even more boring than Great Expectations, though I guess the characters were more sympathetic.

Also, since when do books have car chases? That's sounds like one of the most boring things to put in a book.

Oh, The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway was terrible, too. Plot description: Rich people are bored and depressed because they're bored. They go to watch bullfights in Spain and meanwhile are mean to this Jewish guy. Also, Jake is depressed because he can't get with the lady he likes because his penis got shot off and for some reason he is incapable of using his fingers or tongue to satisfy her.

The Silmarillion was similar in that it started out somewhat dull, but ended up being a fantastic book.

And Catcher in the Rye? You people are naming a whole bunch of books that I enjoyed quite a bit.


The Silmarillion is so hard to read. The story is great, but the way it's written is so dense. I'm still glad I read it though. You have to really want to get through it to read it though, otherwise you'll just give up.

Catcher in the Rye is really depressing but awesome.

Click Stand;12970251']Even the character development in R&J wasn't that great, they were flat and the only thoughtful character was the apothecary. Also that "original love tragedy" doesn't mean anything, just because it was original doesn't mean I have to give props to it. Even some of the stories stemming from that plot are better.

Now don't get me wrong I'm sure R&J was great when it first came out but now it is dated. I mean who gets married after meeting twice and then kills themselves for someone they barely spoke to for more than an hour. I would see When Harry Met Sally any day over this and I hate that.

Okay. That bolded part right there? Yeah, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read online, and that is re-bleeding-MARKable. Dated? Pal, it's FOUR CENTURIES OLD, of COURSE it's fucking dated. Who gets married after meeting twice and kills themselves? People for whom marriage was the only legitimate way to GET LAID because of religious strictures, which were given a hell of a lot more credence in Shakespeare's time, especially by nobility and moneyed folks who had reputations to protect.

The "character development" wasn't that great? Oy veh. I suppose you missed the depth and reach of Mercutio? Even the modernized Baz Luhrmann film version got that character right.

I'm starting to think that you're being deliberately obtuse in order to get a rise out of me, and if that's the case, then I'm the fucktard for falling for it. If it isn't, strike that, and reverse it.

You're not gonna convince me, and I'm not dense enough to relate to what it would take to convince you, so let's just drop it and move on.

I don't care who she influenced. It sucked. It was even more boring than Great Expectations, though I guess the characters were more sympathetic.

Also, since when do books have car chases? That's sounds like one of the most boring things to put in a book.

Oh, The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway was terrible, too. Plot description: Rich people are bored and depressed because they're bored. They go to watch bullfights in Spain and meanwhile are mean to this Jewish guy. Also, Jake is depressed because he can't get with the lady he likes because his penis got shot off and for some reason he is incapable of using his fingers or tongue to satisfy her.

Thou sayest.

The car chase mention was an effort to make fun of people who only like movies with stuff blowing up in them...I apologize for it not translating well to mocking readers who lack depth. But many books have car chases in them. Off the top of my head, The DaVinci Code has a couple, Tom Clancy's Without Remorse and Patriot Games have a few. Also, variations such as horseback, broomstick, sailing vessel, what-have-you, appear in all kinds of novels.

Thou sayest.

The car chase mention was an effort to make fun of people who only like movies with stuff blowing up in them...I apologize for it not translating well to mocking readers who lack depth. But many books have car chases in them. Off the top of my head, The DaVinci Code has a couple, Tom Clancy's Without Remorse and Patriot Games have a few. Also, variations such as horseback, broomstick, sailing vessel, what-have-you, appear in all kinds of novels.

Ah. I'm not really a fan of chase scenes in general in either books or films. If something amusing or strange happens during such, maybe then it's fun, but usually I'm waiting for something to actually happen besides what boils down to "person A is running away from person B and person B is following them." It gets old after while. It's like reading about/watching a movie about someone playing tag. Exciting for a couple minutes, and then tiresome.

Still, I thought Their Eyes were Watching God was simply terrible. But then I guess everything's a matter of taste. You have no idea why I didn't like it, and I have no idea why you did.

well aside from the christian bible and any (other?) work of mainstream fiction yuo care to name, i did read a few pages of samarilion and it was NOT the jrrtolkin who wrote of hobbits and farmer giles of ham. yes it was assembled from his notes, but postumusly by his fanatical nonwriter nephew or coisin or whatever he is was, and i doubt very much it to be the book john tolkin would have written if he'd gotten back arround to finishing it while he was still alive.

fiction that isn't speculative, i don't care how much art critics want to call messing with your head the core of art, just plain ain't worth diddly. there's some good mystery writting, but that's a genre of its own too.

horror for me, depends too much on mainstrean elements and assumptions to be particularly gratifying either, other then when it satyrizes itself, and then it borders on being decent fantasy anyway.

mainstreams suspension of disbelief may be its stock in trade, but its lack of sense of wonder makes it just about useless.

i've also come accross mainsteam masquarading as speculative and that is invariably crap too. mersifully, well i have only so much storage space in the realtime ram in my head, so the titles of works that were a complete waste i tend to forget.

hmmm. ah! the urantia book is another nominee for worst though. wadabunchagobbledigoop. same goes for anything by nostradamus!

=^^=
.../\...

Ah. I'm not really a fan of chase scenes in general in either books or films. If something amusing or strange happens during such, maybe then it's fun, but usually I'm waiting for something to actually happen besides what boils down to "person A is running away from person B and person B is following them." It gets old after while. It's like reading about/watching a movie about someone playing tag. Exciting for a couple minutes, and then tiresome.

Still, I thought Their Eyes were Watching God was simply terrible. But then I guess everything's a matter of taste. You have no idea why I didn't like it, and I have no idea why you did.

Never read it. I just know who wrote it and why she's important. Glad you thought it was terrible. Doesn't diminish the importance of the book or its author.

A chase in a book is only as good as the author depicting it.

A Whisper of Eternity. At the chance of sounding like a good little sexist, it's one of those books that just couldn't have been written by a man. Nor should it be read by one. Not that I remember who the author was.. Some teenager who'd scrapped her horse infatuation for a vampire infatuation no doubt.

In short, it's one of those books that make you go: "Told ya. There is no God!"

Never read it. I just know who wrote it and why she's important. Glad you thought it was terrible. Doesn't diminish the importance of the book or its author.

A chase in a book is only as good as the author depicting it.

True, I have read some that were exciting, but they included amusing details.

And then authors are sometimes hit or miss with me. I don't like Romeo and Juliet all that much but Twelfth Night and Hamlet I really enjoyed.

I hated The Sun Also Rises but loved For Whom the Bell Tolls. The Old Man and the Sea was good from what I read of it (never got the chance to finish it, as it wasn't my book).

Pride and Prejudice.

*Shudder* Our teacher couldn't even force our class to finish reading that by threatening to impose detentions. I seriously, really tried to finish reading it, but I just couldn't.

Pride and Prejudice.

*Shudder* Our teacher couldn't even force our class to finish reading that by threatening to impose detentions. I seriously, really tried to finish reading it, but I just couldn't.

Really? A lot of people love that book. Meh.

I am usually good at choosing books to read so I rarely get one I hate. One I have read which I hate is Plato's The Republic cos I disagreed with what was said too much. There was also some random book I can't remember the name of that I started once where people stopped technology and it was written from the perspective of people you were trying to use the technology again. Also a lot of school books. Romeo and Juliet also sucks. Jus cos it's the original shit doesn't mean it's any better. The Bible probably gets the prize though although I couldn't get past page 10 or something.

I see a lot of people are dissin Harry potter which I quite like especially the Pensieve scenes, mystery element and the way that, even though good and evil are too clearly defined, many people in the books are not definitely one or the other.

I admit, the Dark Tower series started off a bit dull, but it got way better as it got on. By the end of the book it starts getting fairly interesting and the series has one of the best endings I've ever read. It just got better and better as it went along.

Overall, I'd have to say that the Dark Tower series is pretty close to, if not, my favorite series of all time.



Each to their own as they say, and I have heard quite a few people rave on about these books excitedly.


I am not into sadomasochism, but I would rather have my face blowtorched off Hostel-style, while having my testicles gnawed by a maddened muntjac deer, then attempt to read that unrelentingly boring and soul sapping book ever again, thankyou very much.

Pride and Prejudice.


I second that.

That said, one of my childhood favorites, Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising is FINALLY being made into a movie. I saw the previews, it looks good. EXCITED!

Really? Now, that would be a movie worth seeing... I hope...

Although I seriously doubt that they can translate the entire series to the screen without loosing much of what's going on...

The Shipping News. AUGH.

I'd also have to put in a vote for Eragon and its sequel too.

The Cleric Quintet

Absolute crap.

Though a large amount of the books listed here are classic novels, I usually don't have a problem with them. Usually I can find some way to engage myself in the story line.

But if I dislike a book, it's usually for an exceedingly idiotic reason. The one book that I read that really got on my nerves was Inkheart by Cornelia Funke. Not because the plot was terrible or it was written horrible; it simply got monotonous. The main character, along with her other friends/relatives, repeatedly ran away and got abducted throughout the book. But it wasn't complete crap or anything, it just annoyed me a great deal.

But, on a different note, what is the worst, or most ridiculous, children's book that you've read?

The Shipping News. AUGH.
Shipping News wasn't bad. It was readable to say the least.
Unlike her other stuff, esp 'Accordion Crimes' which read like a nightclass creative writing attempt by a morbid, unlikeable and frustrated librarian.

Uggh, The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett.
Descrition can be a good thing but when taken to the extreme it become tedious and extremely boring.

Okay. That bolded part right there? Yeah, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read online, and that is re-bleeding-MARKable. Dated? Pal, it's FOUR CENTURIES OLD, of COURSE it's fucking dated. Who gets married after meeting twice and kills themselves? People for whom marriage was the only legitimate way to GET LAID because of religious strictures, which were given a hell of a lot more credence in Shakespeare's time, especially by nobility and moneyed folks who had reputations to protect.

The "character development" wasn't that great? Oy veh. I suppose you missed the depth and reach of Mercutio? Even the modernized Baz Luhrmann film version got that character right.

I'm starting to think that you're being deliberately obtuse in order to get a rise out of me, and if that's the case, then I'm the fucktard for falling for it. If it isn't, strike that, and reverse it.

You're not gonna convince me, and I'm not dense enough to relate to what it would take to convince you, so let's just drop it and move on.

Fair enough, I'll drop it but the least you could do is apologize for flaming me. I have my veiwpoint and you have yours no need to get nasty, I didn't expect this from one of the regulars at this site.

and BTW Mecutio was deeper than Romeo especially with the Queen Mab speach.

[QUOTE=Kbrookistan;12966801]Catcher in the Rye. Lord and Lady, how I hated this book! I wanted to hunt Holden down and beat the shit out of him about five pages in. And I had to read it for class. Gack.[/QUOTE

Oh ye Gods how I HATED that book, at least I was able to abandon it after about 10 pages
Book I was compelled to read "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens it put me off him for life.
The one sure way to make sure that someone will hate a book is to use the tried and tested English teachers method, "Now this is one of the finest pieces of literature ever written , you will absolutely LOVE it"

Each to their own as they say, and I have heard quite a few people rave on about these books excitedly.


I am not into sadomasochism, but I would rather have my face blowtorched off Hostel-style, while having my testicles gnawed by a maddened muntjac deer, then attempt to read that unrelentingly boring and soul sapping book ever again, thankyou very much.

You said you stopped halfway through the first book, right? If so, I suggest starting with the second book. I know I considered just putting down the first book because, yeah, it kind of sucked, but starting with the second book, it got awesome.

Anything by Terry Goodkind. Except maybe the first two of his series.

The Kebra Nagast.
The Chronicles of Narnia.

The Cleric Quintet

Absolute crap.

Definitely not Salvatore's best work.

The Cleric Quintet

Absolute crap.

I liked it. Especially the third and fourth.

I expect a lot of opposition, but I'm still going to say Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. The basic idea of the book might have been interesting, but then it turned out to be such blatant hippie propaganda that it made me nauseous. The author didn't even try to conceal it between the lines, but went on lecturing like some sort of religious authority. "This is how you must believe in order to be a good person." At times, it felt like the plot was there only so that the characters would have an excuse to ask each other why it is a good idea to have sex with everything that moves, or why communism is the best system.

Heinlein also has some good books, but Arthur C. Clarke is an author from whom I'd recommend staying clear entirely. He has a lot of great ideas, but his writing style is just too boring to read. He has the best grammar and vocabulary that I remember ever having seen, but he writes like a robot, with no sense of humor at all.

Am I the only person here who actually likes Hemingway?

(apart from The Garden Of Eden, which was rightly hidden in the bottom drawer while he was still alive)

THE philosophic science of right has as its object the idea of right, i.e., the conception of right and the realisation of the conception.

Remark: Philosophy has to do with ideas or realised thoughts, and hence not with what we have been accustomed to call mere conceptions. It has indeed to exhibit the one-sidedness and untruth of these mere conceptions, and to show that, while that which commonly bears the name “conception,” is only an abstract product of the understanding, the true conception alone has reality and gives this reality to itself. Everything, other than the reality which is established by the conception, is transient surface existence, external attribute, opinion, appearance void of essence, untruth, delusion, and so forth. Through the actual shape, which it takes upon itself in actuality, is the conception itself understood. This shape is the other essential element of the idea, and is to be distinguished from the form, which exists only as conception.

If you managed to get through that, then you will appreciate why I consider 380 pages of this stuff to be the worst book I have ever read. Congratulations G. W. F. Hegel - You win the prize for your "Elements of the Philosophy of Right".

If any masochists out there want to read the whole thing, it is available here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/prindex.htm)

I hate to say this, because I've run into several people who truly adored this book. Nevertheless, the worst book I've ever read was Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. It was long, drawn out, and bored me to tears. And I actually finished the book. I was one of very few people in my class to finish the book.
However, I would never put myself through that crap again.

A long time ago,maybe I was in 4th grade at the time there was a book called Yellow Fever.Can't remember it. But it was bad. Yet I'll probably go with A Midsummer's Night Dream. Disliked it thourghly.Red Badge Of Courage was,well,I didn't enjoy it too much.Would not read it agin.

Nevertheless, the worst book I've ever read was Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison.

:confused:

It's not so much a book as a play, but Oedipus Rex. gag and die.
For a book: Slaughter House 5 by whats-his-face.

This whole thing brings up the obvious question: What is wrong with the psychological makeup of English teachers and others that choose reading material and label it "classic"? Obviously, (after a short read of this thread) their choices are dismal failures. Yet for some reason their minds see them as the greatest writings in the last 500-1000 years (depending on where you place the origin of English). There has to be some genetic defect that causes this. Or were they scared by a Baptist preacher reading King James when they were babies?

Anybody else have a clue to explain this phenomena?

For a book: Slaughter House 5 by whats-his-face.
*gasp*

Blasphemy! Vonnegut is amazing.

For a book: Slaughter House 5 by whats-his-face.

There is something seriously wrong with you.

*gasp*

Blasphemy! Vonnegut is amazing.

Player Piano is my Bible.

:confused:

Invisible Man was mostly guilt about the oppression of African-Americans after slavery was ended. I believe it was set in the 1920s? ()Really big impact on me if I can't remember.)
The main problem I had with it was it was a realy slow book that seemed to have no point. All it was about was this guy feeling sorry for himself and not trying to change his situation. Kind of like Catcher in the Rye, but with even less potential for change than Holden Caulfield.
And would it really have killed Ralph Ellison to give the main character a name?
Probably I missed the entire point of the book, but whatever. Each of us had one chapter to read and summarize for the class. Most people only read their chapter. Having read the entire book, I can say unequivocally it is the worst book I ever read.

Click Stand;12973153']Player Piano is my Bible.

That's the next one on my list.

I've read and loved Slaughterhouse 5, Cat's Cradle, God Bless You Mr. Rosewater and Sirens of Titan.

That's the next one on my list.

I've read and loved Slaughterhouse 5, Cat's Cradle, God Bless You Mr. Rosewater and Sirens of Titan.
I think that my personal favourite is Slapstick.

This whole thing brings up the obvious question: What is wrong with the psychological makeup of English teachers and others that choose reading material and label it "classic"?

Nothing. The real problem is that education of this sort depends upon having to read something because you are told to, not because you want to. A recipe for instant resentment and lack of interest.

Invisible Man was mostly guilt about the oppression of African-Americans after slavery was ended.

"Guilt"? More "indictment"....

The main problem I had with it was it was a realy slow book

Indeed it was. It should be read slowly, too.

But still excellent.

that seemed to have no point.

To the contrary, the point is everywhere. Though sometimes you have to search to find it.

All it was about was this guy feeling sorry for himself

...sort of...

and not trying to change his situation.

But this is part of the point--the problems he thinks he has, and the ways he thinks he should solve them.

In the end, of course, he does change his situation... because he finally recognizes the real problem.

And would it really have killed Ralph Ellison to give the main character a name?

No, but it would have ruined part of the point.

Probably I missed the entire point of the book

Indeed.

For a book: Slaughter House 5 by whats-his-face.

You ought to see a doctor about that.

I can't really think of the worst book I've ever read off the top of my head, but the most dissapointing for me was Iron Council (http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Council-China-Mieville/dp/0345458427/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0057008-3913664?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187320748&sr=8-1). After Perdido Street Station, and The Scar, I was really looking forward to the next book in the Bas-Lag universe, but instead I get a dull socialist morality play. I hate it when authors let their political (see: Iron Council, and the last part of The Jungle), religious (see: Dies the Fire, and The Protector's War) beliefs get in the way of telling a good story.

I hear Gibson let himself get carried away with his anti-war rhetoric in Spook Country, but I'll probably get it anyway since I'm hard gay for anything he writes.

Really? Now, that would be a movie worth seeing... I hope...

Although I seriously doubt that they can translate the entire series to the screen without loosing much of what's going on...

Agreed.

Click Stand;12971248']Fair enough, I'll drop it but the least you could do is apologize for flaming me. I have my veiwpoint and you have yours no need to get nasty, I didn't expect this from one of the regulars at this site.

and BTW Mercutio was deeper than Romeo especially with the Queen Mab speach.

Of course he was, such was the point. Also, that's why he died trying to make peace.

I didn't get nasty. Your perception of my posts as nasty is not my problem. I apologize if you're too sensitive, but I'll stand firmly behind everything I post until I don't.


For a book: Slaughter House 5 by whats-his-face.

You need help.

What is the worst book you've ever read? You know, a book that was really really boring. The plot & characters were crap, it was written poorly, whatever made it the absolute worst.

It doesn't matter if you finished it or not.

for me it was mein kampf, that crap reads like stereo instructions.( though it is good for insomnia)

The Scarlett Letter. The ending was good. All the author's talent and skill went into the awesome ending, leaving a beginning and middle that was about as fun as one of the times I got punched in the stomach or the time someone kicked my nuts.

Lord of the Flies. How can a book about children killing eachother be so boring? It was mostly filler. It was like the author had three minutes to turn a haiku into a novel and completed it ahead of schedule. Haikus make lousy novels. Great poems. Lousy novels.

Chronicles of Narnia. The most fun I had with it was marveling at the book itself. It was so small and compact. Yeah, the story was that shitty and the movie I saw was even shittier. There was funny in the movie. The lion would open his mouth and spout out entire paragraphs before it closed. It was like some dude dubbed over the lion's roar. Lol.

I think I understand the Shakespeare hate, even though I love Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote plays for people who liked plays with scripts more mature and difficult than Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Suess.

Nothing. The real problem is that education of this sort depends upon having to read something because you are told to, not because you want to. A recipe for instant resentment and lack of interest.

Very true. Perhaps schools should start teaching what is a bad book - the could show exactly why the Da Vinci code is rubbish. That way they would teach people valuable critical skills as well as putting them off books that are complete 'arse gravy' as Stephen Fry put it.

I forgot about Frankenstein. Man, that book went on and on. It was so monotonous. What was really five minutes of reading it felt like five hours. It's like Lord of the Flies. Just kept going on and on with no end in sight. I finished the latter. The joy of not having to read more of it was overshadowed by the realization that I wasted countless hours of my life on a book that made me hate reading and I was a huge fan of reading, whether it was about a dude who didn't want green eggs and ham or about quantum physics and whatnot.

Catcher in the Rye, other than that i really do like most books

Use of Weapons by Ian M. Banks.

One of the worst books I have ever read -you have to learn that random, arbitrary twists that aren't explained doesn't work in a novel!

The Silmarillion. That is, by a wide margin, the dullest book I have ever had the misfortune of reading in my entire life.

The Silmarillion is my favourite English language book ever.

Use of Weapons by Ian M. Banks.

One of the worst books I have ever read -you have to learn that random, arbitrary twists that aren't explained doesn't work in a novel!

I disagree with you there; all the twists are explained, it just depends on how you read the book.

The Silmarillion. That is, by a wide margin, the dullest book I have ever had the misfortune of reading in my entire life.

I got halfway through it. To this day I still have no goddamn clue what happened in it.


Anyways, the worst book I've read? More of a story, but The Eye of Argon. I have managed to reach Chapter 2, but it took all my willpower.

I also seem to remember hating Ralph Elison's The Invisible Man, but of late I've been starting to think I might have just been too immature for it at the time. Has anyone else read it recently? Was it as preachy and annoying as I remember?

I can answer your post in one word: Yes. And I read it less than five years ago. I still remember how much I hated it.

Catcher in the Rye. Lord and Lady, how I hated this book! I wanted to hunt Holden down and beat the shit out of him about five pages in. And I had to read it for class. Gack.

Yeah, but it only takes a hour or so to read it, cover to cover. That's my kind of book assignment. :p Though I didn't enjoy the read, it was nice and quick, as I recall.

Teenage mutant ninja turtles III: The novel

The worst book I've ever read would be a tie between Frankestein and Metamorphosis. We had to read them in my gothic literature class. Frakenstein had a good storyline, but was very poorly written and Metamorphosis was just plain boring.

Cybernetic Samurai. Indescribably bad.



I guess worst well regarded novel, since people are patting themselves on the back for disliking something 'in cannon' to the point that it's the 'worst book you've ever read' (for some of you, if those really are the worst you've read you've been extraordinarily lucky in your literature choices...but I digress...)

Worst of the well liked for me is House of Leaves, and it's not even bad so much as far too pleased with itself. The hype for the book in the part where they hype books reads more like telling us that authors wish they got to hang out with tattoo artists and this was their big chance. I'm not past a little experiment in how a novel is laid out, but at a certain point you're just doing it to do it and it got irritating. When I had to decode something I just bailed on the novel all together. So, having not finished it my criticism of it should be taken with a grain of salt. I didn't give the novel its fair shakes.

House of Leaves

And I thought I was the only one who didn't like it. To be honest, I found it a very tiresome book to read. In fact, I never finished it. Being clever can only be taken so far until it becomes an obstacle to the story.

Worst book I had to read: (Heresy!) Cat's Cradle. So confusing and convoluted! It might have been my immaturity at the time, but I have no desire to reread it to see :p

Worst book I read of my own volition: The Parallax View. So bad I thought it had to be self-published. I picked it up for $1 or $2 and that was in a real (albiet discount) store. I was amazed to find when I looked it up that somebody actually made a movie out of the thing!

What? Cat's Cradle isn't convoluted and confused! The story is perfectly in order and flows naturally. If you'd said that about Slaughterhouse 5, which is all out of order, maybe I could have understood but you just called my favorite book the worst book you've ever read!

Some people have no appreciation for black humor.:headbang:

If I find something boring or to suck in the first ten pages, I try not to read it. I skipped reading 2001 A Space Odyssey because of this- and it was a choice for a reading assignment. I don't think I own anything I didn't like or have no interest in. I just haven't been in the mood to read. ^^"

Sign of the Beaver or House on Mango Street. Ack!!! I wanted to end it all while reading those books.

(Luckily I didn't have to finish Sign of the Beaver as I lost it on vacation yeh!)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/21dW6fHoTnL._PIsitb-dp-arrow,TopRight,21,-23_SH30_OU01_AA115_.jpg

I never finished it. I was about 1/2 way through it and reading it in class while my students were taking a test. It was just so much crap I couldn't take it any more and threw the book across the room. It hit the floor and slid under a worktable. It stayed there for two weeks before someone, probably the janitor, picked it up.

A House on Mango Street and Montana 1948. I hated both. Montana 1948 had the ability to go somewhere, but the ending just sucked.

What is the worst book you've ever read? You know, a book that was really really boring. The plot & characters were crap, it was written poorly, whatever made it the absolute worst.

It doesn't matter if you finished it or not.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Why anyone would want to read about some 19th century chick swimming in the ocean is beyond me.

Oh yes, I know it was about much more than that, like stepping outside the bounds of society blah blah blah but the story still sucked.

Cybernetic Samurai. Indescribably bad.



I guess worst well regarded novel, since people are patting themselves on the back for disliking something 'in cannon' to the point that it's the 'worst book you've ever read' (for some of you, if those really are the worst you've read you've been extraordinarily lucky in your literature choices...but I digress...)

Worst of the well liked for me is House of Leaves, and it's not even bad so much as far too pleased with itself. The hype for the book in the part where they hype books reads more like telling us that authors wish they got to hang out with tattoo artists and this was their big chance. I'm not past a little experiment in how a novel is laid out, but at a certain point you're just doing it to do it and it got irritating. When I had to decode something I just bailed on the novel all together. So, having not finished it my criticism of it should be taken with a grain of salt. I didn't give the novel its fair shakes.


as a non-academic im of the opinion that if a novel isnt a pleasure to read, its not a good book. (ive never even heard of house of leaves) if a writer cant be clever, profound, mysterious, innovative or whatever AND be a pleasure to read, he is a failure. novel are storytelling. if your style gets in the way of the story, whats the point of it?

the famous book i disliked the most was "the name of the rose" by umberto eco. the damned thing was on the best seller list for years wasnt it? it was the most boring piece of crap. (maybe it was better in italian) it was overloaded with meaningless descriptions, the plot was facile, and i would diss it more if it could remember more of it. it didnt deserve to be a modest seller. the only reason i can think of for it to have been a blockbuster was that no one ever read it.

Places in the Heart. One of those Oprah's Book Club choices. I had to read it for a class. Total sap. Sentimental bullshit to the nth degree. Then they made a damn movie out of it.

the famous book i disliked the most was "the name of the rose" by umberto eco. the damned thing was on the best seller list for years wasnt it? it was the most boring piece of crap. (maybe it was better in italian) it was overloaded with meaningless descriptions, the plot was facile, and i would diss it more if it could remember more of it. it didnt deserve to be a modest seller. the only reason i can think of for it to have been a blockbuster was that no one ever read it.

Well I liked it. In fact, its one of my favorite books. The beginning was a little slow and dull, but once you get used to his style of writing the story becomes very engrossing. It has commedy, action, and drama... whats not to like?

I especially liked the part when the librarian/monk started to eat the book.

What is the worst book you've ever read? You know, a book that was really really boring. The plot & characters were crap, it was written poorly, whatever made it the absolute worst.

It doesn't matter if you finished it or not.
Harry Potter. Simply didn't like it whatsoever.

And no, I didn't finish it. And I'm glad I didn't waste my time with it.

Well I liked it. In fact, its one of my favorite books. The beginning was a little slow and dull, but once you get used to his style of writing the story becomes very engrossing. It has commedy, action, and drama... whats not to like?Couldn't agree more. Fantastic book. Foucault's Pendulum is even better.

Well I liked it. In fact, its one of my favorite books. The beginning was a little slow and dull, but once you get used to his style of writing the story becomes very engrossing. It has commedy, action, and drama... whats not to like?

Not to forget the jokes about Wittgenstein.

Couldn't agree more. Fantastic book. Foucault's Pendulum is even better.

Avoid The Island Of The Day Before - a classic example of a novel being less than the sum of its parts.

I truly hated "The diary of Anne Frank" and I simply couldn't get past "A Midsummer Nights Dream". Not that it was a bad story, but I can't read the writing style of Shakespeare.

I like Shakey's writing style, though sometimes having explanations on the left page can be nice... However, I once tried to read a German translation, it's horrible! In an effort to keep the verse rhythm (which I don't care for), they put the words in seemingly random positions. Not understandable, and all the wordplay is lost anyway. Duh.

Anything by Hemingway. Why, by all the gods, do English teachers suffer from the delusion that this man was in any way a decent author?

"Do Comet's Dream?" It was a Star Trek: The Next Generation title.

Basically, the guy who wrote it had a vaguely interesting idea that might have been decent had he not tried to use the TNG characters to fit his mold.

As it was, he characterized people poorly, wrote equally poor dialog for new characters, and generally made a mess of things. It's an absolutely shitty book. Of course, not much in the way of Star Trek books are all that fantastic, but none of them are horrible and can be a fun way to kill a few hours.


Everread any of the Next Gen/X-men cross overs?

Anything by Hemingway. Why, by all the gods, do English teachers suffer from the delusion that this man was in any way a decent author?
Simply because he was and his writing rocks harder than AC/DC and Motörhead together. His Iceberg Theory is brilliant.

Avoid The Island Of The Day Before - a classic example of a novel being less than the sum of its parts.What's wrong with it then?

Anything by Hemingway. Why, by all the gods, do English teachers suffer from the delusion that this man was in any way a decent author?Agreed. I can't count how many high school English classes I wanted to sleep through when Hemingway was introduced... His writing's dry and has never caught my interest.

Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens. I had to read it last year for Adv. English IV. That book was so dull, and I couldn't stand the first person narrative. It hurt my existence so much that I was incorporeal by the time I was finished with it.