NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the favorite book thread, what's the worst book you ever read or had to read? I suppose we can keep textbooks and that kind of stuff out. Mine would probably have to be Lolly Willowes

A Tale of Two Cities.

Airframe by Michael Crichton

Which is too bad, because I like most of his other books (especially Sphere), but Airframe was just atrocious.

Edit: Dickens as first response? I'm not surprised. :tongue:

I wonder if we'll make it through page 1 before we see the obvious choice...

I wonder if we'll make it through page 1 before we see the obvious choice...

Obvious?

(Ever notice our avatars kinda look the same? ...at least if you squint. :tongue: )

Lord of the Flies. It just kept going on and on. There was so much filler.

I also disliked Frankenstein. So much filler. It's almost as if the author put the filler in ahead of time and forgot all about the story.

Satanic Versus.

If it wasn't for the death fatwa, the book would have died.....

The Blue Sword.

The first 2-3 pages were about a woman drinking orange juice. I swear to god, It puts you asleep.

I wonder if we'll make it through page 1 before we see the obvious choice...

The Bible / Quoran ? (Have read worse than the former, haven't read the latter yet)

Atlas Shrugged? (Atrocious writing, IMO, but at least with a story/characters strong enough to keep me going through all 1066 pages)

Jenniver Government? *ducks* (Haven't read it)

Which obvious one have I missed?

Also, one of my own favorite contenders is "Hangover Square" by Hamilton. I usually mkae it a policy to finish all books I started (and I start loads), and this is only the second book I ever recall to not have been able to finish.

Gospel of St Mark or Ulysses by James Joyce

Just as there can be no one best book, there can be no one worst book. I detest every book ever written by Melville, Thackery and Dickens. I hated The Scarlet Letter and The Red Badge of Courage. All these books and writers were required in high school English.

The Bible, if the translation is good, is marginally interesting, but I don't consider it a reliable source of information about anything.

But, given how much I love to cook (and eat), I would have to say the Low-Fat, Low-Cholesterol Cookbook by the American Heart Association is a terrible book.

The Great Gatsby... gahh!!!

The Bible. I just didn't find the plot very realistic.

The Bible. I just didn't find the plot very realistic.

...and the characters are just unbelievable.

I'm going to go for a book by a recently-deceased author whom I otherwise like:

J.G. Ballard's Crash.

It's the only book I've ever had to put down because I found it point blank unreadable. Some will no doubt argue that's the point, that the constant clinically-pornographic descriptions of autoerotic (if I can use that word differently) violence by a master stylist demonstrate Ballard at his most dystopian and visionary.

Me, I just found the constant pornographic descriptions of blood, semen, decapitations and anti-erotic sex sickening to the point of unreadability.

But hey, at least I discovered where my threshold for sex and violence lies.

worst book Tarnsman of Gor

"The Da Vinci Code". What a waste of time.

Airframe by Michael Crichton

Which is too bad, because I like most of his other books (especially Sphere), but Airframe was just atrocious.

The Andromeda strain was hideous as well, or at least that totally ridiculous plot twist at the end.

Also, one of my own favorite contenders is "Hangover Square" by Hamilton
Is that the same Hamilton as Peter F. Hamilton who wrote "The Reality Dysfunction"? Because that would get my vote as "Worst Book". All major characters were totally over the top and unbelievable, his mistakes in science/engineering stuff showed that he had absolutely no clue what he was writing about, and the whole book was a prequel to what was written on blurb on the back. Needless to say, I didn't read part 2 and 3.

The worst book I've read recently was "You can get arrested for that" which is a "zany" (ugh) story following a Brit who travels through America breaking all of the craziest laws he can find. You know, the "it is illegal to wear one shoe while sitting on a roof in Utah" variety. Of course, he ends up sitting on a roof with Utah with only one shoe and guess what? Nothing happens. Imagine reading this by fifty chapters with a little of the most obvious notes on American culture imaginable thrown in (Wow, American don't have many roundabout you say? Fascinating) and you can probably understand why I've thought about burning this book every time I see it on my bookcase.

I'll throw in "The Business" by Ian Banks and the entire Wheel of Time series as close runner ups. Also, honorable mention for "Songs of a Distant Earth" by Arthur C Clark. Sci-fi classic, my arse.

I'll throw in "The Business" by Ian Banks and the entire Wheel of Time series as close runner ups. Also, honorable mention for "Songs of a Distant Earth" by Arthur C Clark. Sci-fi classic, my arse.

Ugh, Wheel of Time. I made my way through book 1 because it was passable and given all the hype I was sure it would get better in book 2. I promptly gave up on the series half way through book 2 when I realised the plot still hadn't gotten anywhere and I still had an ever-increasing number of books to go.

I'd say some of the worst literature probably comes from TV/Film adaptation/expanded universe stuff. Sure, some of it is pretty good but most of it is glorified fanfiction - bad fanfic at that. Though I'd say Warhammer/Warhammer 40k novels probably have some of the worst and fruitiest. Although there is also some pretty damn good stuff too if you like the genre (Dan Abnett and the Caphais Cain novels is what I'd stick to personally for 40k).

I'd also like to add a heretical statement - Lord of the Rings. I love the story, love the setting, and I have reread it several times, but my god Tolkein cannot actually write! The second book of the Two Towers, first book of RotK feels like I'm wading through treacle every time I read it. Though I find my experience is a lot better when I just skip over anything that looks like a song.

off the top of my head, the worst book that I read all the way through would be, "The DaVinci Code". It was only after reading that I was able to fully comprehend and appreciate what the word, "turgid" meant.
Also, "Absolute bollocks", "tripe", and "total shite" but that's beside the point.

Quite how it managed to sell 80 million copies, a movie and spawn countless books on the subject is beyond me but a sad indictment on the state of today's society and it's intellectual capacity.


"Giles Goat Boy" is another definite miss for me. Though I did give up reading it 1/4 of the way in. Maybe it got better. I'll never know.

Anything by Kafa, but easpecily ' The Castle'

Ugh, Wheel of Time. I made my way through book 1 because it was passable and given all the hype I was sure it would get better in book 2. I promptly gave up on the series half way through book 2 when I realised the plot still hadn't gotten anywhere and I still had an ever-increasing number of books to go.
I envy you for realising so early how crap the WoT series was. I waded through the first 4 books before reaching the same conclusion as you. Each was hundreds of pages of nothing happening, told in a dry tedious style and with an ridiculous pedant's attention to detail. I picked up book 9 a while back at the bookstore out of curiosity, randomly opened a page and was dismayed to find I was easily able to follow the 'action': Nothing of import had obviously occurred between books 4 and 9. How many pages there?!

Anything by Kafa, but easpecily ' The Castle'

Really? Damn, I've got "The Castle" sitting on my bookshelf and I was going to take a crack at it once my exams finished. Is it that bad?

Andromeda Strain. Dear god that book was dull, and it just seemed to go on and on. It took several attempts before I struggled through it.

Da vinci Code

Really? Damn, I've got "The Castle" sitting on my bookshelf and I was going to take a crack at it once my exams finished. Is it that bad?

Yes it is

Really? Damn, I've got "The Castle" sitting on my bookshelf and I was going to take a crack at it once my exams finished. Is it that bad?

Ahhh you might likeit, you know horses for courses and all that. But me, no man, made me want to go hang myself.

But don't let me put you off, give it a go and let me know what you think.

Quite how it managed to sell 80 million copies, a movie and spawn countless books on the subject is beyond me but a sad indictment on the state of today's society and it's intellectual capacity.

It's not a literary masterpiece, but as pure entertainment it's not so bad. Add in a few amusing speculations and there's your bestseller.

Da vinci Code

Eh, it's bad, but I wouldn't declare it worst ever. The blatant Mary Sue lead is pretty damned grating though.

The Catcher in the Rye isn't the worst book ever, but it is the most overrated book ever.

The Great Gatsby... gahh!!!

+1

The Marble Fawn
Brideshead Revisted


All very terrible

It's a toss up between To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee and The Stone Angel by Margaret Laurence.

It's not a literary masterpiece, but as pure entertainment it's not so bad. Add in a few amusing speculations and there's your bestseller.
I'd argue that it's not that great as entertainment mind-candy either. The writing style is dire and it really insults the intelligence.

<snippety snip>

"Songs of a Distant Earth" by Arthur C Clark. Sci-fi classic, my arse.

Fook off. That was a fantastic book.

Anyway, I submit a well known tale, The Eye Of Argon (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/eyeargon/eyeargon.htm) (you may find the MSTing (http://www.bmsc.washington.edu/people/merritt/books/Eye_of_Argon.html) somewhat easier to read.

Inspired by the favorite book thread, what's the worst book you ever read or had to read?

The Similarion. It was an entire book exactly like your screen name.

The Illuminatus! Trilogy. No more Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, please.

The Illuminatus! Trilogy. No more Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, please.

Ohh really? How bad? Only a woman that I normaly call a friend lent me that very trilogy last month, and I'm almost ready to read them.

Ohh really? How bad? Only a woman that I normaly call a friend lent me that very trilogy last month, and I'm almost ready to read them.

I have to admit I've had it sitting on my shelf for a while, I can never quite bring myself to read them as I usually have something else far more interesting to read.

The worst book I ever read? Probably something I was assigned to read in school. Thankfully, I have repressed the memory.

Books that I was disappointed over (in the last few years), H.P. 6 & 7.

The worst book ever? Jane Eyre. Definitely Jane Eyre. If there was any justice, the FDA would require a prescription for reading it and force it to incldue a large notice.

WARNING: Excessive reading of Jane Eyre may cause you to fall into a coma.

Gospel of St Mark

Oow, and if Christ existed, Mark is the one that would be most accurate, or so scholars say. I guess you can now justify the other chaps for jazzing-up the text, further.

Hard Times by Dickens...

Why did that horrible book ever have to be published?

Ohh really? How bad? Only a woman that I normaly call a friend lent me that very trilogy last month, and I'm almost ready to read them.

Most who read it love it, which you can see from the reviews, here: http://www.amazon.com/Illuminatus-Trilogy-Pyramid-Golden-Leviathan/dp/0440539811

It is very readable, because it seems like something is always going to happen--but nothing ever does. There is a lot to interpret, but there is also a lot of nonsense, and it lacked the plot-twists, action, and double-crosses that I expected. It is a steady stream of sex-drugs-a far-fetched conspiracy is revealed-monologue-sex-drugs, and so on.

Most who read it love it, which you can see from the reviews, here: http://www.amazon.com/Illuminatus-Trilogy-Pyramid-Golden-Leviathan/dp/0440539811

It is very readable, because it seems like something is always going to happen--but nothing ever does. There is a lot a interpret, but there is also a lot of nonsense, and it lacked the plot-twists, action, and double-crosses that I expected. It is a steady stream of sex-drugs-a far-fetched conspiracy is revealed-monologue-sex-drugs, and so on.
Meh! Yeah don't really sound like my cup of tea, now I'm wondering why she lent them to me.

Meh! Yeah don't really sound like my cup of tea, now I'm wondering why she lent them to me.

The book looked pretty good to me, and I got it because I enjoy the card game that was based-off it. But I will give you an example of something that seemed meaningless:

In one parts of the book, paragraphs regularly break, and a line appears that says: "Ten big rhinoceros", "eleven big rhinoceroses, twelve big rhinoceroses." Each time the number set counts higher, and this goes on for a while.... We eventually find that that is merely a prostitute counting her lips rhythms while performing oral-sex. What the Hell does that have to do with the plot? Why did I have to keep reading that line if it had no significance? The only trouble is, I could hardly find significance in 95% of the book; maybe it just needs a more in depth reading, because it alludes to itself being a great work of literature (yes, it does that in the book)--which it may be, because the authors are well educated, and there are numerous references to a variety of famous literature.

It is probably good if one is an anarchist, or enjoys studying the subconscious effects of sex--but for me, the climax of an orgy to gather enough sex-power to defeat the bad-guys seemed too silly.

The Illuminatus! Trilogy. No more Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, please.

I tried to read one of those once, I gave up rather rapidly.

I tried to read one of those once, I gave up rather rapidly.

You are far wiser than I am. I had faith.... Oh! never again will I be willing to wait so long for a book to build or make sense.

You are far wiser than I am. I had faith.... Oh! never again will I be willing to wait so long for a book to build or make sense.

Ohh I had that very same thing the other month with Sartres 'Nausea'. I did enjoy it, it was a pity all of the meat was in the last few pages though.

Ohh really? How bad? Only a woman that I normaly call a friend lent me that very trilogy last month, and I'm almost ready to read them.

Well, I freaking loved it. It is, however, completely insane. If you try an read it like a normal novel, with a plot, you'll despise it. I suppose the best way to describe it is the whole thing is like a really wierd trip. You don't try and follow its internal logic, because it doesn't have much. You just let go and enjoy the ride.

The book looked pretty good to me, and I got it because I enjoy the card game that was based-off it. But I will give you an example of something that seemed meaningless:

Hell yes, Illuminati the card game is freaking awesome.


In one parts of the book, paragraphs regularly break, and a line appears that says: "Ten big rhinoceros", "eleven big rhinoceroses, twelve big rhinoceroses." Each time the number set counts higher, and this goes on for a while.... We eventually find that that is merely a prostitute counting her lips rhythms while performing oral-sex. What the Hell does that have to do with the plot? Why did I have to keep reading that line if it had no significance? The only trouble is, I could hardly find significance in 95% of the book; maybe it just needs a more in depth reading, because it alludes to itself being a great work of literature (yes, it does that in the book)--which it may be, because the authors are well educated, and there are numerous references to a variety of famous literature.

It also spoofs itself as being total trash, so you can't exactly trust it.

And yes, there are vast parts of the book relatively irrelevant to the plot, if there really is a plot. I think the best way of looking at it is presented in the book, with the comments on Operation Mindfuck. The entire work isn't really there to be read as a story. Consider it instead the Americanised version of a Zen koan: ruthless, bloated, aggressive, but still with a simple purpose - to show something so ridiculous and contradictory that even thinking about it forces your mind open. And then it makes some sort of sense - the book isn't there to tittilate or horrify. You don't need to finish it and go believe in Discordianism or anarchism, in the Illuminati or invisible submarines or the 23 principle or the law of fives. You just need to open up your mind and think about the world that you see.

It is probably good if one is an anarchist, or enjoys studying the subconscious effects of sex--but for me, the climax of an orgy to gather enough sex-power to defeat the bad-guys seemed too silly.

Of course it's silly. It's outright preposterous. However, the whole book is silly and preposterous. In the world presented by the book, it makes perfect sense.

Admittedly, I am an anarchist. However, the books anarchism is broadly of an individualist/capitalist flavour (although there are some interesting arguments in there for that side of things) and I'm more on the collectivist side, so that shouldn't have influenced me too much.

Lord of the Flies.

The Great Gatsby... gahh!!!

2nded.

Hell yes, Illuminati the card game is freaking awesome.

Big Media.

It also spoofs itself as being total trash, so you can't exactly trust it.

I trusted the reviews.

And yes, there are vast parts of the book relatively irrelevant to the plot, if there really is a plot. I think the best way of looking at it is presented in the book, with the comments on Operation Mindfuck. The entire work isn't really there to be read as a story. Consider it instead the Americanised version of a Zen koan: ruthless, bloated, aggressive, but still with a simple purpose - to show something so ridiculous and contradictory that even thinking about it forces your mind open. And then it makes some sort of sense - the book isn't there to tittilate or horrify. You don't need to finish it and go believe in Discordianism or anarchism, in the Illuminati or invisible submarines or the 23 principle or the law of fives. You just need to open up your mind and think about the world that you see.

I did not see what I was supposed to think about...anarchism?


Of course it's silly. It's outright preposterous. However, the whole book is silly and preposterous. In the world presented by the book, it makes perfect sense.

Is it supposed to entertain?

Admittedly, I am an anarchist. However, the books anarchism is broadly of an individualist/capitalist flavour (although there are some interesting arguments in there for that side of things) and I'm more on the collectivist side, so that shouldn't have influenced me too much.

Did the book present any arguments? I vaguely recall some black guy having to kill a white guy for therapy....

Ohh I had that very same thing the other month with Sartres 'Nausea'. I did enjoy it, it was a pity all of the meat was in the last few pages though.

I struggled with Nausea as well, can't say I enjoyed it particularly - I much prefer Camus

Big Media.

Intellectuals.


I trusted the reviews.


Well, I haven't read any of the reviews.


I did not see what I was supposed to think about...anarchism?

Whatever you like. The inherent absurdity of the world might be a good (and very discordian) place to start.


Is it supposed to entertain?

Entertained me. I suspect that how entertaining it is is directly proportional to how much you can let go of normality and just accept the events as they happen. If you can't or won't, then you probably won't enjoy it much.

(Generally to thread) It's not the sort of book that's normally my style. Way too much unnecessary sex for my taste, but well done, not just there to buck up a mediocre book. But I ended up really liking it. To each their own, I suppose, but I would highly recommend reading it at least once, even if you're unsure. Who knows, you might like it.


Did the book present any arguments? I vaguely recall some black guy having to kill a white guy for therapy....

I was thinking of the scenes with Hagbard and that other guy (Dorn? I can't remember) on the submarine, and some of the excerpts from Hagbard's book.

There's always so much hatred for The Great Gatsby in these threads. That's one of my favorites.

Now for worst ever, Wuthering Heights.

Pride and Prejudice. I tried reading that once, I think I got all of twenty pages in before I dozed off from the sheer mind-numbing boredom.

The Andromeda strain was hideous as well, or at least that totally ridiculous plot twist at the end.

Andromeda Strain. Dear god that book was dull, and it just seemed to go on and on. It took several attempts before I struggled through it.

To be fair, it was one of his earliest works...he didn't really write anything good until twelve years later when he wrote Congo.

...though I haven't read anything he wrote under pen-names. A few books there, but if they're anything like Andromeda Strain, they're probably not worth it.

Paula, by Isabel Allende. I hated it.

Worst? I honestly don't remember which Dickens book I had to read in HS, but I do know that it was the only book I was assigned that I didn't finish. Not Great Expectations, but the other one. Sadly, they gave us 2 Dickens books in 1 year. How does that not count as torture? Or maybe GE just seemed like 2 books... whatever.

Most underwhelming? 2001 by Arthur C. Clarke. For some reason, I thought that the totally unfollowable movie would be explained in some minimal way. But it was not. If anything, the book was even more confusing. Lousy space fetii...

I know I've said this here before, but anything by Mercedes Lackey. I've yet to be shown anything by her that's the least bit original or engaging. And Magic's Pawn is its own special pile of shit. It's like she took every tired plot and archetype straight from high school creative writing class and then said "now I'mma make them all gay!"

Airframe by Michael Crichton

Surely you jest :eek2:

I have read that book and found it quite entertaining.

As for me, I have been trying (emphasize trying) to finish Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables. I long since gave up trying to enjoy it as a novel and have been trying to read it purely as a historical document, and I still can't finish it. It is reputed to be one of the great novels, an opinion for which I can see little basis.

Another book I picked up and almost immediately gave up on was Battlefield Earth. This was prior to the movie version, which was at least as bad as a movie. Although I should have known that anything written by L. Ron Hubbard was likely to be of questionable merit, to say the least.

Anything by Ron Hubbard. How the Hell "Dianetics" was able to start a religion, I will never understand.

Now for worst ever, Wuthering Heights.

Hurray! The very mention of Wuthering Heights allows me to drop my favourite NS forum quote ever:

Not being able to enjoy Wuthering Heights because you hated a character is like not being able to enjoy fucking because you like having orgasms.

Nice.

The Blue Sword.

The first 2-3 pages were about a woman drinking orange juice. I swear to god, It puts you asleep.

yes that was a boring first two pages but i quite liked it by the end.

my worst book ive red was hmmm dragons gold- it was a hurmor book but wasnt funny haha and it didnt want me to read the sequal. A real chore to read.

Eh, I absolutely despise anything by Dickens, just not an interesting writer.

Ethan Fromme. I hate that book with a burning passion I thought was impossible until I read it.

Despairing, and ABSOLUTELY NO SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!!!

Damn you, English class.

The Joy-Luck Club was a pretty good contender, though.

There's always so much hatred for The Great Gatsby in these threads. That's one of my favorites.

Now for worst ever, Wuthering Heights.

i had to read it for an exam....its hard to read but at least it had a semi-interesting story.

Ethan Fromme. I hate that book with a burning passion I thought was impossible until I read it.

Despairing, and ABSOLUTELY NO SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!!!

I give you exhibit "A" - The Stone Angel by Margaret Laurance. If you want to talk about a book that goes nowhere, this book would beat out your selection any day. The whole book is 500 pages of a cranky old lady bemoaning her existence before she dies on the last page.

Eh, I absolutely despise anything by Dickens, just not an interesting writer.
I quite disagree. It takes a while to get into a Dickens novel but I have always found my patience rewarded.

Ethan Fromme. I hate that book with a burning passion I thought was impossible until I read it.

Despairing, and ABSOLUTELY NO SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!!!

Damn you, English class.

The Joy-Luck Club was a pretty good contender, though.

:D Yeah, anything you're made to read in school will make this list. I'm reminded of Sandberg's thing on young Abe Lincoln.

Donna Tartt's The Secret History and the Wheel of Time series. Because a book shouldn't start with two hundred content-free pages.

I quite disagree. It takes a while to get into a Dickens novel but I have always found my patience rewarded.


Eh, I read A Tale of Two Cities, and Great Expectations, didn't care for either. Couldn't get through a Christmas Carol.

Jennifer Government.

Eh, I read A Tale of Two Cities, and Great Expectations, didn't care for either. Couldn't get through a Christmas Carol.

I liked A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield and Little Dorritt. But hey, you either like his writing or you don't.

I would expect Thomas Hardy -who I like, also - to turn up here, except so few people read him these days.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned OH JOHN RINGO NO (http://hradzka.livejournal.com/194753.html) yet. (Be warned; after reading that review you will never be able to un-read it. And that goes double for the actual book(s!) themselves.

Nothing else that's actually been published can conceivably come close to those, but Stephen Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are pretty bad. You guys think the Wheel of Time is bloated and moves at a snail's pace, oh man ...

Nothing else that's actually been published can conceivably come close to those, but Stephen Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are pretty bad. You guys think the Wheel of Time is bloated and moves at a snail's pace, oh man ...

Although not the best, I found they appealed because the main character was such an insufferable idiot, which is not the done thing with your everyday protagonist.

I find Dickens stultifying, as I normally need some sort of "plot fix" every so often rather than pages of scene-setting.

A Scanner Darkly and Lies Inc are unintelligible by the time you get halfway through. I though The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time was an over-hyped piece of patronising drivel

Jennifer Government.

I totally ag-

*killed after Max hacks webcam to make it fire lazorz of punishment*

Pride and Prejudice. I tried reading that once, I think I got all of twenty pages in before I dozed off from the sheer mind-numbing boredom.

Which just proves it's not the book it's the person reading the book. I enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and, because I liked it so much, I went on to read everything else Austen wrote - three times. On the other hand, Thackery, Dickens and Melville are a trio of turgidity - I cannot get into their books, yet there are intelligent, estimable people who like them.

It's a toss up between To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee

Why do you say that?

Why do you say that?

It was dry, boring and a waste of a perfectly good tree.


I guess an honourable mention should also go to: Cue for Treason by Geoffrey Trease and The Giver by Lois Lowry, two more books not worth the paper they were printed on. Blah!!

Though, I wouldn't say it was one of the worst, Fifth Business by Robertson Davies is definitely one of the most BORING books I've ever had the displeasure of reading. My OAC English teacher had the choice to teach us 1984 by Steinback or The Fifth Estate.

The Giver by Lois Lowry, two more books not worth the paper they were printed on. Blah!!Blasphemy!

It was dry, boring and a waste of a perfectly good tree.

Hmm. Seemed quite insightful and compelling to me.

Blasphemy!

It was too easy for grade 8 English.

Hmm. Seemed quite insightful and compelling to me.

The friends I hung out with in high school who said that about To Kill a Mocking Bird all hated The Catcher in the Rye, which I enjoyed plenty.

The friends I hung out with in high school who said that about To Kill a Mocking Bird all hated The Catcher in the Rye, which I enjoyed plenty.

You and I appear to have opposite tastes in literature. :p

Inspired by the favorite book thread, what's the worst book you ever read or had to read? I suppose we can keep textbooks and that kind of stuff out. Mine would probably have to be Lolly Willowes

Wicked. I'm sure there are worse, but usually when I see how badly a book is going I stop reading it. Like when I got half way through Atlas Shrugged.

The first time I tried to read Wicked I got half way through, got bored, and put it away. Then I saw the musical and was prompted to go and read the whole thing. When I did, I realized that I should have stopped in the same place I did the first time.

off the top of my head, the worst book that I read all the way through would be, "The DaVinci Code". It was only after reading that I was able to fully comprehend and appreciate what the word, "turgid" meant.
Also, "Absolute bollocks", "tripe", and "total shite" but that's beside the point.

Quite how it managed to sell 80 million copies, a movie and spawn countless books on the subject is beyond me but a sad indictment on the state of today's society and it's intellectual capacity.


"Giles Goat Boy" is another definite miss for me. Though I did give up reading it 1/4 of the way in. Maybe it got better. I'll never know.

Because of the marketing genius of pissing off the radical right.

Do you think anyone would have made a movie out of Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials if not for all the Christians complaining that it was anti-Christian?

Twilight, always Twilight

The Catcher in the Rye isn't the worst book ever, but it is the most overrated book ever.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

The Great Gatsby... gahh!!!

That one was a total bore.

Because of the marketing genius of pissing off the radical right.

Do you think anyone would have made a movie out of Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials if not for all the Christians complaining that it was anti-Christian?

I rather doubt that was the motivation, especially since Nicole Kidman considers herself a devout Catholic.

Moreover, if indeed that was the reason, it failed of its purpose, because the movie was as toxic at the box office as an AIG loan portfolio. Which would illustrate yet again the wisdom of Samuel Goldwyn's maxim, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union."

I rather doubt that was the motivation, especially since Nicole Kidman considers herself a devout Catholic.

Moreover, if indeed that was the reason, it failed of its purpose, because the movie was as toxic at the box office as an AIG loan portfolio. Which would illustrate yet again the wisdom of Samuel Goldwyn's maxim, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union."

Well, they pulled the message right out of the movie. In the book the Magisterium is the governing body of the Reformed Catholic Church, based out of Geneva and reestablished by Pope John Calvin I. In the movie it isn't even religious. [/pet peeve]

off the top of my head, the worst book that I read all the way through would be, "The DaVinci Code". It was only after reading that I was able to fully comprehend and appreciate what the word, "turgid" meant.
Also, "Absolute bollocks", "tripe", and "total shite" but that's beside the point.


Yeah, I think I'd agree - though as an (unintentional) comedy novel, it's pretty great. The bit where Langdon translates French phrases for the benefit of a Frenchwoman? The bit where people whom Brown has repeatedly insisted are super duper geniuses can't figure out that backwards writing is still writing? And, above all, the bit where they all spend 50-some pages running around desperately trying to solve a riddle the average moderately intelligent five-year-old could probably manage without any difficulty ("What's a round red thing associated with Newton?" DURRRR I DUNNO THAT IS SURE A TOUGH ONE)? Friggin' comedic gold. :p

I'm not quite sure how to categorize Dan Brown's genius, because it's odd and very limited in scope. His research sucks, his prose sucks, his characters suck, his plot sucks ... and yet he has, somehow, managed to craft something that reads like a major motion picture (The motion picture based on it also sucks, but that's a different story). I think that's why it managed to capture the minds of so many people who wouldn't ordinarily find it interesting; because it has a resemblance to a form of fiction they're more familiar with.

I got given the entire boxed set of Dan Brown novels for Christmas one year. They're mostly useful as a bookend for books I actually do read, but one time I was out of good books and read The Da Vinci Code. It has a certain grip, but nothing much else.

...and the characters are just unbelievable.

I agree.

Good thing Dickens is dead or I would have killed him also Catcher in the Rye.

So, I've been resisting the urge to go all former-English-major-rants-about-how-you-are-all-Philistines-with-no-taste on some of you, because literary quality is subjective and all that jazz, but I've got to say, my mind is a little boggled by all the people nominating Bronte/Dickens/Salinger/Fitzgerald/etc. novels for "worst book" status. I get "least favorite book," fine. But do you folks really think those books are actually bad?

So, I've been resisting the urge to go all former-English-major-rants-about-how-you-are-all-Philistines-with-no-taste on some of you, because literary quality is subjective and all that jazz, but I've got to say, my mind is a little boggled by all the people nominating Bronte/Dickens/Salinger/Fitzgerald/etc. novels for "worst book" status. I get "least favorite book," fine. But do you folks really think those books are actually bad?Bronte? Yes. Yes I am. I assume a certain level of notoriety in the nominees though. The other three no. I enjoy Salinger and Fitzgerald, and Dickens just isn't my style.

It was too easy for grade 8 English.That's probably why I read it in third or fourth grade.

So, I've been resisting the urge to go all former-English-major-rants-about-how-you-are-all-Philistines-with-no-taste on some of you, because literary quality is subjective and all that jazz, but I've got to say, my mind is a little boggled by all the people nominating Bronte/Dickens/Salinger/Fitzgerald/etc. novels for "worst book" status. I get "least favorite book," fine. But do you folks really think those books are actually bad?

Yes. Boring and poorly written, characters that have about as much to them as a cardboard cutout, and over-detailed descriptions that serve no purpose. All I can say for Dickens is that he has some talent for foreshadowing.

Jennifer Government.

Ban this heathen! :mad:

j/k

Looking Back by Belva Plain. Damn it, what an absolutely useless, awful book. Damn, damn, damn.

Had to read it for a major school assignment. I fell asleep while reading it on multiple occasions. I stopped reading it about halfway through, and decided that it was better to take the zero on an assignment worth about a sixth of an entire semester's grade than finish this absolute travesty.

Two years later, I forced myself to finish it. I was offended by the ending; it was so infuriating, I threw the book across the room. I could still see it, however, so I got up and buried it at the bottom of a box of stuff and haven't seen it since.

I hope Belva Plain gets terrible arthritis so she can't thrust another literary abortion upon the world.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned OH JOHN RINGO NO (http://hradzka.livejournal.com/194753.html) yet. (Be warned; after reading that review you will never be able to un-read it. And that goes double for the actual book(s!) themselves.

I've read those. The guy in your URL is right, they're like train wrecks, or potato chips, or something. It sort of just sucks you in. They do improve as the series goes on(for a given value of 'improve').

Which just proves it's not the book it's the person reading the book. I enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and, because I liked it so much, I went on to read everything else Austen wrote - three times. On the other hand, Thackery, Dickens and Melville are a trio of turgidity - I cannot get into their books, yet there are intelligent, estimable people who like them.

And see, I like Dickens a lot. I've read most everything he's written. I even read The Christmas Carol every year at the appropriate time. I will agree with you on Thackery and Melville.

Eh, I absolutely despise anything by Dickens, just not an interesting writer.
Most people say this, which is unfortunate. I think it's because we're all forced to read Dickens in HS. Being ordered/forced to read a book then write a sodding report on it is perhaps the best way to turn one off it.

I actively dispised Dickens at school and only recently did I read some of his works - a collection of his short ghost stories. I was very surprised to find I enjoyed them greatly, and so made an attempt at 'Great Expectations' (a book I've loathed since HS when a horrid old witch of an English teacher forced us to sit silently and read the damned thing). I was again surprised to find it was much better than I remembered: almost enjoyable really.

I think also part of the reason people dislike Dickens is, again, because we're forced to read them at HS. I remember thinking at HS just how silly, unrealistic and contrived all the coincidences in 'Expectations' were and how everyone is connected somehow. At that age (I was 16 iirc), these coincidental meetings seemed too ludicrous and, to me, the mark of a hack writer.
Yet such coincidences have happened to me. For eg, I was cycling to Uni a few years back and heard my name yelled. Looked over and there was my flatmate from 5 years earlier who had gone off to London and was back home for a fortnight to visit her parents.
A couple of years back I flew into Hong Kong, on my way to China. I went out for a drink and got talking to a girl who, it turned out, came from the same small town (population <4000) my mum grew up in and we found out that our respective mothers both knew each other, and had been in the same class together. What are the odds of that?
At the age I was when I first read the book, I didn't have the life experience to realise that such coincidences as written in 'Expectations' can, and do, happen. Knowing now that they do makes the plot and story much more plausible and thus enjoyable.

Actually, I have a winner, if I could only remember the title...

It was a "vintage" science fiction book, dating back at least a generation before Asimov and Clarke hit the scene. The main plot was "lawn takes over planet."

I'm not kidding. And that's not going into the mechanical and stylistic problems. The plot was about grass growing and the book was about as entertaining as watching normal grass grow.

I'm not quite sure how to categorize Dan Brown's genius, because it's odd and very limited in scope. His research sucks, his prose sucks, his characters suck, his plot sucks ... and yet he has, somehow, managed to craft something that reads like a major motion picture (The motion picture based on it also sucks, but that's a different story). I think that's why it managed to capture the minds of so many people who wouldn't ordinarily find it interesting; because it has a resemblance to a form of fiction they're more familiar with.
I think it's because of the 'riddles'. Everyone likes riddles, and everyone likes being able to solve riddles first - especially solving them before a smug, intellectual 'genius' professor can.
Brown's stories appeals to the inferiority the average person would feel when in the presence of a real intellectual and world authority professor. By being able to solve problems this so-called genius can't, it appeals to our innate desire to pull down and ridicule the geek who always got higher marks than us in school: it's that schoolyard sense of, "nyar nyar you're top of the class and got it wrong but I got it right. You're not as clever as you say you are. nyar nyar!"
Brown has just taken it to it's logical conclusion of letting the Average Joe think they can outwit and outsmart all those Ivory-league professors with their fancy-smancy degrees and book-learning.
Basically, his books make us (by us I mean the general public) feel good about having not gone to University.

It's a toss up between To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee and The Stone Angel by Margaret Laurence.

Seriously? To Kill a Mockingbird???? Seriously?!?!?!?!

Like, why?

some charming bit of fluff entitled "Economics",

by the team of Newcombe, Turner and Converse.

Stone Angel.

It ends mid sentence. It's also about a horrible, bitchy woman and the terrible life she had because she's quite dumb and makes dumb decisions.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned OH JOHN RINGO NO (http://hradzka.livejournal.com/194753.html) yet. (Be warned; after reading that review you will never be able to un-read it. And that goes double for the actual book(s!) themselves.

My favourite part of that entire thing was when it's revealed that John Ringo himself loves the review, saying it sums up his exact feeling about the series.

Slander, by Ann Coulter.

Read it shortly after it came out, because I wanted to see for myself what everybody was talking about when they said "Ann Coulter is a stupid wank."

Turns out she is. Also, she can't write worth crap.

Oh, and The Old Man And The Sea.

Hemingway is such a bundle of Freudian hangups that I just can't take any of his work seriously.

My favourite part of that entire thing was when it's revealed that John Ringo himself loves the review, saying it sums up his exact feeling about the series.

Anyway, they may be OH JOHN RINGO NO but they are quite entertaining.

Worst Book - The Catcher in the Rye. Load of existentialist tripe.

Twilight, always Twilight

I've heard that, many many times. It's enough to put me off reading it.

I've heard that, many many times. It's enough to put me off reading it.
Don't read Twilight, read this review of Twilight:
http://stoney321.livejournal.com/317176.html

Is that the same Hamilton as Peter F. Hamilton who wrote "The Reality Dysfunction"? Because that would get my vote as "Worst Book".
Sorry, no. Hamilton as in Patrick Hamilton.

The Catcher in the Rye isn't the worst book ever, but it is the most overrated book ever.
I dare agree.

So, I've been resisting the urge to go all former-English-major-rants-about-how-you-are-all-Philistines-with-no-taste on some of you, because literary quality is subjective and all that jazz, but I've got to say, my mind is a little boggled by all the people nominating Bronte/Dickens/Salinger/Fitzgerald/etc. novels for "worst book" status. I get "least favorite book," fine. But do you folks really think those books are actually bad?
As an English major.. yes, I do (see above). I guess I might, in the light of this your post, be a bit more precise and say that the Catcher is both a bad book and one I didn't enjoy (and I do enjoy some bad books), though.

Don't read Twilight, read this review of Twilight:
http://stoney321.livejournal.com/317176.html

Given what I've read before I'm not sure if that's too brutal or too kind.

Seriously? To Kill a Mockingbird???? Seriously?!?!?!?!

Like, why?

I already answered that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14731459&postcount=79).

Stone Angel.

It ends mid sentence. It's also about a horrible, bitchy woman and the terrible life she had because she's quite dumb and makes dumb decisions.

Thank you!! It's good to know other people have the same opinion of that tripe. I am still suffering nightmares from having been forced to read it and "appreciate" it. Blah.

Don't read Twilight, read this review of Twilight:
http://stoney321.livejournal.com/317176.html

*Chuckles* Thank you Bottle for solving that friday afternoon feeling with a nice bit of lol-worthiness.

Made even better because now it puts into context all the rants one of our friends has because his girlfriend is obsessed with the books and thus he gets exposed to them on a regular basis.

I rather doubt that was the motivation, especially since Nicole Kidman considers herself a devout Catholic.

Moreover, if indeed that was the reason, it failed of its purpose, because the movie was as toxic at the box office as an AIG loan portfolio. Which would illustrate yet again the wisdom of Samuel Goldwyn's maxim, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union."

Spoiler Alert.

The movie was done badly, and I thought that the Radical Right was being completely insane when they made the book out to be atheist propaganda.

Then I read the books. In the first book, not only is it explicit that the Catholic Church in that world is the evil Magistirium (in the movie it's only implied). But in the second book one of the heroes makes a big speech about how evil all churches are.

By the end of the series not only do the heroes make enemies of the Church, but they set out to kill God himself. Not only is blind devotion to an authoritarian and worldly political entity the object of Pullman's scorn, but the whole idea of spirituality.

The book was explicitly written to teach an anti-theist/materialist world view.

Stone Angel.

It ends mid sentence. It's also about a horrible, bitchy woman and the terrible life she had because she's quite dumb and makes dumb decisions.

And to think I have to read that next year :'(

Oh, and The Old Man And The Sea.

Hemingway is such a bundle of Freudian hangups that I just can't take any of his work seriously.

Wow,just wow. The Old Man And The Sea is one of my most favorite books. I just love how Hemingway writes.


I've heard that, many many times. It's enough to put me off reading it.

Its a horrible book full of 2D characters. Yet if your a women you probably love it. I've read a few pages and I guess the book feeds on teenage girls fanstys of the perfect man,dangerous boyfriends who are poltie but mysterious and so on.

I already answered that.

Please, that was one book that just plain wasn't boring if you look beneath everything that was happening. The action itself was dry. But the lessons and the opposing forces were good.

Also another bad book would have to be The Monster. A journal typed book written from the viewpoint of a young guy standing on trail for murder. You never know if he did it or not and thats suppose to be the "big" thing about the book. <.<

I loved The Secret History. I was disappointed to see it mentioned in this thread :(.

I would have to say A Fortunate Life by AB Facey. Goddamn Australiana crap. The best bit of the book was when he got whipped by his former employer at 12. I kept hoping that would be the end. Turned me off Australian literature.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

So, I've been resisting the urge to go all former-English-major-rants-about-how-you-are-all-Philistines-with-no-taste on some of you, because literary quality is subjective and all that jazz, but I've got to say, my mind is a little boggled by all the people nominating Bronte/Dickens/Salinger/Fitzgerald/etc. novels for "worst book" status. I get "least favorite book," fine. But do you folks really think those books are actually bad?Bad? Not exactly.

It's just that the Catcher in the Rye reads like a 40-year-old having a midlife crisis, but in such a way that's generic and not compelling. The writing style itself is fine, though.

The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath is what the Catcher should have been, and should have received the accolades.

Wow,just wow. The Old Man And The Sea is one of my most favorite books. I just love how Hemingway writes.He's a decent writer, but I have to admit that one was kind of boring.

A Farewell To Arms and For Whom the Bell Tolls were both fantastic, though.

Anything by Ron Hubbard. How the Hell "Dianetics" was able to start a religion, I will never understand.
I saw the commercial for that book, thought about buying it. Then I saw it on the south park scientology episode. Good thing I saw that and realized it was a crappy religious book before buying it.
Oh, and The Old Man And The Sea.

Hemingway is such a bundle of Freudian hangups that I just can't take any of his work seriously.
I had to do that book in high school. those bastards. :mad:

A book I liked the first time I read it was The Sum of All Fears. Then I read it a second time, and realized that it was a mostly boring book until about 4/5ths of the way through. It sucked, until that 4/5ths of the way through mark. :p

I am working through Jonathan Littel's The Kindly Ones. After waiting two years for it to be translated and published from French to English, I find that it needs footnotes and the author is way too focused on the excretory troubles of this unrepentant Nazi who is the main character of this novel.

He's a decent writer, but I have to admit that one was kind of boring.

A Farewell To Arms and For Whom the Bell Tolls were both fantastic, though.

Yeah, their wasn't much action going on to say the least. When me and my hearing impaired teacher never read that book. I thought it was pretty boring, but then I read it a second time and fell in love with it.

I think the main reason why people hate the books they read in high school is because the teacher never brothers to explain to them in the dept underflows of the book. As high school students we (as someone pointed out eariler when talking about Great Expections) don't have the life experience to fully understand it yet. Its was just like How To Kill a Mocking Bird for my English classmates. They only saw the surface.

Anything by Dan Brown

Anything by Dan Brown

Even Angels & Demons?

One of the worst books I've ever read is the Lord of the Rings. I really don't understand why people enjoy Tolkien.

The worst book ever written? I dunno if I've read enough to have a valid opinion, but perhaps Feersum Endjinn by Ian M Banks just because of its pseudo-artsy style of writing. An excerpt (spelling intact):

Woak up. Got dresd. Had brekfast. Spoke wif Ergates thi ant who sed itz juss been wurk wurk wurk 4 u lately master Bascule, Y dont u 1/2 a holiday? & I agreed & that woz how we decided we otter go 2 c Mr Zoliparia in thi I-ball ov thi gargoyle Rosbrith. Well I no that, thilly, tho u r a very feerth old hok, & gettin less blind ol thi time. I woth jutht kiddin. O luke anuthi thee-gull. Or ith it? Lookth moar like a albino cro, akchooly. Well, i cant thtand awound hea ol day chattin with u; i 1/2 2 fly, Dartlin sez, & hops down off thi perch. Ith ther anythin i can get u, Mr Bathcule?

A good quarter of the book is written that way, and I simply can't make it through it.

One of the worst books I've ever read is the Lord of the Rings. I really don't understand why people enjoy Tolkien.

The worst book ever written? I dunno if I've read enough to have a valid opinion, but perhaps Feersum Endjinn by Ian M Banks just because of its pseudo-artsy style of writing. An excerpt (spelling intact):

Woak up. Got dresd. Had brekfast. Spoke wif Ergates thi ant who sed itz juss been wurk wurk wurk 4 u lately master Bascule, Y dont u 1/2 a holiday? & I agreed & that woz how we decided we otter go 2 c Mr Zoliparia in thi I-ball ov thi gargoyle Rosbrith. Well I no that, thilly, tho u r a very feerth old hok, & gettin less blind ol thi time. I woth jutht kiddin. O luke anuthi thee-gull. Or ith it? Lookth moar like a albino cro, akchooly. Well, i cant thtand awound hea ol day chattin with u; i 1/2 2 fly, Dartlin sez, & hops down off thi perch. Ith ther anythin i can get u, Mr Bathcule?

A good quarter of the book is written that way, and I simply can't make it through it.

Feersum Endjinn requires you to change the way you read in order to get through it. I found it quite pleasant to be made to think.

Feersum Endjinn requires you to change the way you read in order to get through it. I found it quite pleasant to be made to think.

I can't read Trainspotting for the same reason. I demand perfect English, or not at all!

I can't read Trainspotting for the same reason. I demand perfect English, or not at all!

Trainspotting's an awesome book. You scots no nothing perfect English.

Trainspotting's an awesome book. You scots no nothing perfect English.

I know it's an awesome book, I've read most of it. It was just incredibly painful to do so.

I know it's an awesome book, I've read most of it. It was just incredibly painful to do so.

I don't mind cos I can hardly read anyway.

Worst Book - The Catcher in the Rye. Load of existentialist tripe.

I really liked it,different strokes for different folks i suppose


Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by Joyce is probably my least favourite book that iv read,I was planning to read Ulysses,had heard it was a tough and unenjoyable read so picked portrait up(anyone who is familiar with them knows portrait is a much smaller novel but very similar in style) and was extremely disappointed,i just think his style is not for me at all

One of the worst books I've ever read is the Lord of the Rings. I really don't understand why people enjoy Tolkien.

I'd say it probably comes down to three main things:

1. An inspiring story, of ordinary people struggling and prevailing against nearly impossible odds.

2. The incredible level of detail Tolkien put into creating Middle Earth, and the vast array of mythological, historical, religious, and litterary sources he drew on. This really resonates with people.

3. Romanticism/nostalgia for "the old days."

Not to highjack this thread, but why don't you like Lord of the Rings? As much as I love it (no exaggeration that it is one of my three favorite books I've read) I can think of a number of possible reasons, of variying degrees of validity, but I'm curious as to what your particular reason for disliking it is.

Jennifer Government.

Egad, are you serious?

Jennifer Government.

Blasphemy! Burn, heretic!!!

I'd say it probably comes down to three main things:

1. An inspiring story, of ordinary people struggling and prevailing against nearly impossible odds.

Those come a dime-a-dozen.

2. The incredible level of detail Tolkien put into creating Middle Earth, and the vast array of mythological, historical, religious, and litterary sources he drew on. This really resonates with people.

But if the story is not any good, why not just read history?

3. Romanticism/nostalgia for "the old days."

Misguided nostaligia.

Not to highjack this thread, but why don't you like Lord of the Rings? As much as I love it (no exaggeration that it is one of my three favorite books I've read) I can think of a number of possible reasons, of variying degrees of validity, but I'm curious as to what your particular reason for disliking it is.

I do not care for the series; it is your average, epic, romantic, adventure story. Much detail, but that fails to justify it.

I can't read Trainspotting for the same reason. I demand perfect English, or not at all!

You probably enjoy Bierce, then?

Great Expectations. 6th grade project. Bloody annoying.

Those come a dime-a-dozen.

True. Doesn't mean they can't be good stories.



But if the story is not any good, why not just read history?

The detail is part of what makes the story good.

Misguided nostaligia.

To some extent, I would certainly agree.

I do not care for the series; it is your average, epic, romantic, adventure story. Much detail, but that fails to justify it.

Maybe you don't like the genre as a whole, but in what universe is LotR "average?"

True. Doesn't mean they can't be good stories.

They generally are not, but the above statement is still accurate. That still is no reason to consider it good.

The detail is part of what makes the story good.

Detail is important, but I do not see enough other elements.

To some extent, I would certainly agree.

If one is not the nostalgic type, this hardly is a reason the series would be good.

Maybe you don't like the genre as a whole, but in what universe is LotR "average?"

Villains of pure evil, the whole world being at stake, battles that supposedly cannot be won, but are (predictably) won, anyway.

They generally are not not, but the above statement is still accurate. That still is no reason to consider it good.

Ok, not in and of itself. It certainly doesn't hurt though, and it is probably part of the almost universal appeal LotR has shown.

Detail is important, but I do not see enough other elements.

Actually, its intersting that you asked "why not read history," in that Tolkien himself stated that he preffered history to allegory, in response to claims that his work was allegorical. In short, you would probably be not too far off to call much of Tolkien's works "fictional history."

If one is not the nostalgic type, this hardly is a reason the series would be good.

No comment.

Villains of pure evil, the whole world being at stake, battles that supposedly cannot be won, but are (predictably) won, anyway.

These are near-universal themes (take that as you will), but Lord of the Rings does at least have the twist that the battle is not won through force of arms. Also, the story is an epic: its supposed to be about struggles on a grand scale.

And to me, at least, the most interesting villains are not Sauron, nor his Nazgul (who I prefer to think of more as archetypal "forces of nature" than characters), but Gollum and Denethor.

Gollum, I believe, is a major part of why The Lord of the Rings is much more than average. The conflict and complexity of his character, his struggle with the corruption of power and temptation, and the tragic irony of his end which saves the entire quest as a result of Frodo and Bilbo's mercy, greatly enhance the entire story. Denethor is also a favorite, partly for personal reasons.

I've spent most of my life probably much more politically and scientifically aware than the average highschooler, and their have been many times when it depressed me greatly to think about the world. I have considered, as have many others, the possibilities of civilization collapsing in my life time. (And for whatever reason, one thing that could always inspire me and make me feel less depressed was the story of The Lord of the Rings. I don't know why, but no other book has ever affected me in that way.)

Related to this, I feel I can understand Denethor's point of view, and the idea of a character who has fought and struggled against the darkness for so long, only to be destroyed by false hopelessness and the weight of what he has seen. Obviously, I've never given in to insanity, burned myself, and tried to do the same to a member of my family, but I find something very believable and compelling about Denethor and the destructive effect that despair has upon him.

Of course, even Tolkien's seemingly less complex and realistic (or at least less flawed and tragic) characters have their strengths. Their is an incredible charisma about Aragorn or Gandalf when reading the books. And while they may not be particularily complex as characters, as a force of nature, a physical embodiment of fear itself, the Nazgul of the book were far more impressive, even frightening to me as a middle school student than the film interpretation. Indeed, one of my criticisms of the Jackson adaptations is how (comparatively) watered down and lifeless the siege of Gondor (in which the Nazgul play a major role) is in the film. Maybe its just that the book made a strong impression on me when I was young, but I find a sense of darkness and despair in that part of Return of the King that is sadly lacking in the film.

Not to highjack this thread, but why don't you like Lord of the Rings? As much as I love it (no exaggeration that it is one of my three favorite books I've read) I can think of a number of possible reasons, of variying degrees of validity, but I'm curious as to what your particular reason for disliking it is.

For one, I'm biased - I'm not a big fan of fantasy literature. However, I view Tolkien as he viewed himself: a linguist, not an author. The Lord of the Rings was designed as supplementary exposition; a side-project to flesh out a backstory for his constructed languages.

His writing is incredibly dry, languid and dense. He does not have a natural flair for prose. He tends to ramble on and on and on and on about miniscule, irrelevant details and the text tends towards hyperbole and cliche. His dialogue is excruciatingly insipid and wordy, and his plots are generic and boring.

You probably enjoy Bierce, then?

Ambrose Bierce? If so, yeah, he's one of my favourite authors. I've illustrated countless of his short stories.

Ok, not in and of itself. It certainly doesn't hurt though, and it is probably part of the almost universal appeal LotR has shown.

That explains Star Wars. Okay, both are superb fairy tales, but are not necessarily great works of art.


Actually, its intersting that you asked "why not read history," in that Tolkien himself stated that he preffered history to allegory, in response to claims that his work was allegorical. In short, you would probably be not too far off to call much of Tolkien's works "fictional history."

I believe those two words contradict....



These are near-universal themes (take that as you will),

The Iliad is not confined by them

but Lord of the Rings does at least have the twist that the battle is not won through force of arms. Also, the story is an epic: its supposed to be about struggles on a grand scale.

An epic is fine, I just want an unusual epic. I enjoy a good drama, but to be good, it has to be different.

And to me, at least, the most interesting villains are not Sauron, nor his Nazgul (who I prefer to think of more as archetypal "forces of nature" than characters), but Gollum and Denethor.

"Forces of nature"?

Gollum, I believe, is a major part of why The Lord of the Rings is much more than average. The conflict and complexity of his character, his struggle with the corruption of power and temptation, and the tragic irony of his end which saves the entire quest as a result of Frodo and Bilbo's mercy, greatly enhance the entire story. Denethor is also a favorite, partly for personal reasons.

I do not really see either as villains, and I feel that Gollum's end could have been different, while still making the same point.

Tripping?

I've spent most of my life probably much more politically and scientifically aware than the average highschooler, and their have been many times when it depressed me greatly to think about the world. I have considered, as have many others, the possibilities of civilization collapsing in my life time. (And for whatever reason, one thing that could always inspire me and make me feel less depressed was the story of The Lord of the Rings. I don't know why, but no other book has ever affected me in that way.)

Go out there and try to fix the fucked-up mess we live in; that is what I am doing.

Related to this, I feel I can understand Denethor's point of view, and the idea of a character who has fought and struggled against the darkness for so long, only to be destroyed by false hopelessness and the weight of what he has seen. Obviously, I've never given in to insanity, burned myself, and tried to do the same to a member of my family, but I find something very believable and compelling about Denethor and the destructive effect that despair has upon him.

He felt sorry for how crummy things were without actually doing anything to mend them.

Of course, even Tolkien's seemingly less complex and realistic (or at least less flawed and tragic) characters have their strengths. Their is an incredible charisma about Aragorn or Gandalf when reading the books. And while they may not be particularily complex as characters, as a force of nature, a physical embodiment of fear itself, the Nazgul of the book were far more impressive, even frightening to me as a middle school student than the film interpretation. Indeed, one of my criticisms of the Jackson adaptations is how (comparatively) watered down and lifeless the siege of Gondor (in which the Nazgul play a major role) is in the film. Maybe its just that the book made a strong impression on me when I was young, but I find a sense of darkness and despair in that part of Return of the King that is sadly lacking in the film.

The novels were pretty easy reads, but the films exhausted me...maybe because they crammed too much in one sitting.

Ambrose Bierce? If so, yeah, he's one of my favourite authors. I've illustrated countless of his short stories.

Yes, Ambrose. When you can post them, I would love to look at some of your illustrations.

What type of his stories do you tend to enjoy most? The Civil War, the horror, the satire, or the unclassifiable?

For one, I'm biased - I'm not a big fan of fantasy literature. However, I view Tolkien as he viewed himself: a linguist, not an author. The Lord of the Rings was designed as supplementary exposition; a side-project to flesh out a backstory for his constructed languages.

Obviously, if you don't like fantasy as a whole, you probably won't like one of the defining examples. However...

His writing is incredibly dry, languid and dense. He does not have a natural flair for prose. He tends to ramble on and on and on and on about miniscule, irrelevant details and the text tends towards hyperbole and cliche. His dialogue is excruciatingly insipid and wordy, and his plots are generic and boring.

Obviously, we disagree. I'm not sure how I could logically prove it to you, but I can at least point out a few flaws in what you said.

First, while Tolkien's writing is rather slow-paced, the descriptions he provides, even the (sometimes) rather silly songs and poetry, all add depth and complexity to the world he created, and help to build a certain atmospher or image of the setting. Granted, he might have found more efficient ways of doing so. But a different, slower style is not nessissarily a bad one. Not every book has to be a modern day page-turner. Plenty of interesting and important works of literature obviously had a much slower style than a lot of popular fiction today.

Also, the pace of LotR picks up somewhat about two thirds of the way through The Fellowship of the Ring. And lastly, their are some scenes that are so vivid, so powerful, and so iconic that I am more than willing to endure some slow and/or silly writing to reach them.:)

Second, you may find his writing to contain "hyperbole and cliche," but I would hazard a guess that a great deal of the "cliche" part is due to the fact that he has been so heavilly immitated by inferior authors. As for hyperbole, if you mean that Tolkien deals in archetypes and sharp contrasts (ie, the litteral contrasting of light and dark that also symbolize good and evil), then you are correct.

Finally, regarding the plot, I again would point out that the plot is likely "generic" in large part because it has been so heavilly copied by hacks.:mad:

Yes, Ambrose. When you can post them, I would love to look at some of your illustrations.

What type of his stories do you tend to enjoy most? The Civil War, the horror, the satire, or the unclassifiable?

I prefer illustrating the horror stories, as they make for really nice black/white woodcuts. I enjoy his satire too.

I've never been comfortable exhibiting my work to strangers. I doubt you'll see any anytime soon. :)

I prefer illustrating the horror stories, as they make for really nice black/white woodcuts. I enjoy his satire too.

"I was born of honest parents in one of the humbler walks of life, my father being a manufacturer of dog-oil and my mother having a small studio in the shadow of the village church, where she disposed of unwelcome babes. In my boyhood I was trained to habits of industry; I not only assisted my father in procuring dogs for his vats, but was frequently employed by my mother to carry away the debris of her work in the studio."

I've never been comfortable exhibiting my work to strangers. I doubt you'll see any anytime soon. :)

I thought that was your job. :confused:

That explains Star Wars. Okay, both are superb fairy tales, but are not necessarily great works of art.

You will now of course quote where I described LotR as being a "great work of art."

I do not toss around the term "art" lightly. Even with my praise for LotR, I consider it borderline, at best.

I believe those two words contradict....

Don't you love paradoxes?;)

The Iliad is not confined by them

Its been a while since I've read many Greek myths or legends. I'll put this on my list of things to look up.

An epic is fine, I just want an unusual epic. I enjoy a good drama, but to be good, it has to be different.

If Lord of the Rings seems unoriginal, could that be partly because of how shamelessly its been copied?

"Forces of nature"?

The Nazgul function in large part as physical embodiments of fear.

I do not really see either as villains, and I feel that Gollum's end could have been different, while still making the same point.

You complain about a pure evil villain, and then say that Gollum and Denethor don't count... why?

Tripping?

Ok, their are other ways he could have handled that. But it works fine as it is too. Also, Gollum could never have destroyed the Ring intentionally. It basically had to be either an accident, or the film's more cliched version with a struggle to the death.

Go out there and try to fix the fucked-up mess we live in; that is what I am doing.

Who says I haven't? Ok, I could honestly be doing much more, but the fact that we turn to literature for inspiration is not fair grounds to condemn someone for not doing enough, if that's what you're trying to suggest.

He felt sorry for how crummy things were without actually doing anything to mend them.

Actually, in the books, he does a great deal. He's been leading Gondor for years against this threat, probably decades, and doing it well. He finally snaps after apparently loosing one son, seeing the other dying, being besieged with no realistic hope of rescue, and fighting a mental battle with the Dark Lord himself where he is shown just how massive the enemy forces are, and how even if he wins he'll still be hopelessly outmatched.

The novels were pretty easy reads, but the films exhausted me...maybe because they crammed too much in one sitting.

Just try the Extended Editions.;)

"I was born of honest parents in one of the humbler walks of life, my father being a manufacturer of dog-oil and my mother having a small studio in the shadow of the village church, where she disposed of unwelcome babes. In my boyhood I was trained to habits of industry; I not only assisted my father in procuring dogs for his vats, but was frequently employed by my mother to carry away the debris of her work in the studio."

I thought that was your job. :confused:

It is, but I don't typically exhibit in galleries. I'm not fond of criticism. My work is generally in newspapers and magazines, the odd album cover or whatever. The type of art that people say "that's cool" but never really check who did it.

Aw, I enjoyed both A Tale of Two Cities and Jane Eyre in school. But then, I'm a dull sort of person - it doesn't take too much to hold my interest. Kafka is also a favorite, unfinished/hastily-completed or not.

One often-praised book I didn't really enjoy was White Noise. Not terrible, but nothing special, I thought.

You probably enjoy Bierce, then?

Hell yes. (Sorry for the intrusion)

You will now of course quote where I described LotR as being a "great work of art."

I do not toss around the term "art" lightly. Even with my praise for LotR, I consider it borderline, at best.

I typically do not care for any piece of fiction unless it is artistic. "Popcorn" viewing and reading does not appeal to me.

Don't you love paradoxes?;)

Science fiction--hm, yes.

Its been a while since I've read many Greek myths or legends. I'll put this on my list of things to look up.

The Iliad is far more than just a legend: It illustrates a war in which the soldiers of both sides are portrayed sympathetically; it mocks itself with absurd Gods, while cynically deriding war and those who start it--and it ends with Hector's (arguably the book's antagonist) funeral, which leaves the readers grieved. It took a myth about the glory of killing a foe, and turned it into a tragedy, an indictment of warmongers.

If Lord of the Rings seems unoriginal, could that be partly because of how shamelessly its been copied?

It has been copied many times...then again, it was a copy of a Norse legend.

The Nazgul function in large part as physical embodiments of fear.

Serving a "Dark Lord".

You complain about a pure evil villain, and then say that Gollum and Denethor don't count... why?

Because they are not villains any more than Lucy Westenra of Dracula is a villain.

Ok, their are other ways he could have handled that. But it works fine as it is too. Also, Gollum could never have destroyed the Ring intentionally. It basically had to be either an accident, or the film's more cliched version with a struggle to the death.

Tripping seemed a tad anti-climatic, even if the concept of Gollum destroying the ring was good.

Who says I haven't? Ok, I could honestly be doing much more, but the fact that we turn to literature for inspiration is not fair grounds to condemn someone for not doing enough, if that's what you're trying to suggest.

I am not condemning you; I am just saying that you should be attempting to fix the world, rather than accepting it, and trying to console yourself.

Actually, in the books, he does a great deal. He's been leading Gondor for years against this threat, probably decades, and doing it well. He finally snaps after apparently loosing one son, seeing the other dying, being besieged with no realistic hope of rescue, and fighting a mental battle with the Dark Lord himself where he is shown just how massive the enemy forces are, and how even if he wins he'll still be hopelessly outmatched.

It just seems to me like "great men" do not quit. Even when their sons die, and defeat is certain.

Just try the Extended Editions.;)

*Cue Aragorn breathing after cutting-off Uruk-hai's head*

It is, but I don't typically exhibit in galleries. I'm not fond of criticism. My work is generally in newspapers and magazines, the odd album cover or whatever. The type of art that people say "that's cool" but never really check who did it.

I see--nothing serious.

I see--nothing serious.

I do "serious" work, but not on a commercial basis. I'm a big fan of custom bound books, and I make loads of little artist books in my spare time. I'm also currently working on a graphic novel (which, fingers crossed, should be finished by Christmas). It's a semi-autobiographical piece, focusing on the humour to be found in pre and post-coital discussion. Nothing set in stone yet, though.

I do "serious" work, but not on a commercial basis. I'm a big fan of custom bound books, and I make loads of little artist books in my spare time. I'm also currently working on a graphic novel (which, fingers crossed, should be finished by Christmas). It's a semi-autobiographical piece, focusing on the humour to be found in pre and post-coital discussion. Nothing set in stone yet, though.

:eek2: Do you intend to have it published?

:eek2: Do you intend to have it published?

I'm not sure yet.

I'm not sure yet.

I would order it, and you can probably count on some other posters doing the same. Good luck with it.

I would order it, and you can probably count on some other posters doing the same. Good luck with it.

Hah, thanks! One of the reasons I'm doing it is because sequential illustration is way out of my comfort zone, I typically do one-shot satrical pieces. I'll need to see if the illustration/plot matches up with my own expectations before I consider a print run.

If it is published, it'll be self-published in a small run. Cost is also a factor here. Printing/binding isn't cheap.

Hah, thanks! One of the reasons I'm doing it is because sequential illustration is way out of my comfort zone, I typically do one-shot satrical pieces. I'll need to see if the illustration/plot matches up with my own expectations before I consider a print run.

If it is published, it'll be self-published in a small run. Cost is also a factor here. Printing/binding isn't cheap.

Interesting.

Supposing you did publish it, is there any site one could buy it?

Interesting.

Supposing you did publish it, is there any site one could buy it?

Possibly http://www.analoguebooks.co.uk/ - they do some really nice, self-published things there.

I typically do not care for any piece of fiction unless it is artistic. "Popcorn" viewing and reading does not appeal to me.

You realize that their are a wide range of possibilities between great works of art and "popcorn" items?

Also, this whole conversation started over weather LotR was one of the "worst" books. So weather its a great work of art is somewhat irrelevant, unless you insist on an absurdly black and white view of literature.

The Iliad is far more than just a legend: It illustrates a war in which the soldiers of both sides are portrayed sympathetically; it mocks itself with absurd Gods, while cynically deriding war and those who start it--and it ends with Hector's (arguably the book's antagonist) funeral, which leaves the readers grieved. It took a myth about the glory of killing a foe, and turned it into a tragedy, an indictment of warmongers.

I'll keep it in mind as something to read.

It has been copied many times...then again, it was a copy of a Norse legend.

Which legend?

Anyway, that strikes me as a rather simplistic analysis. The Lord of the Rings drew upon and synthesized elements of many different myths.

Serving a "Dark Lord".

What's the point of this comment exactly?

Because they are not villains any more than Lucy Westenra of Dracula is a villain.

Who? Dracula is at the top of my list of things to read, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Anyway, you're just repeating yourself. You haven't explained why they aren't villains. You've simply repeated that they aren't.

Tripping seemed a tad anti-climatic, even if the concept of Gollum destroying the ring was good.

Like I said, it was basically an accident or a more cliche fight to the death like the film went with.

I am not condemning you; I am just saying that you should be attempting to fix the world, rather than accepting it, and trying to console yourself.

What the fuck gives you the right to tell me, based on anything I've said, that I don't try to fix the world, but just accept it as it is? Did you even read my last post? What gives you the right to presume to make these judgements about my character?

People get depressed by the state of the world. Even those who try to improve it. And sometimes, some of us turn to literature for inspiration. That does not make us defeatist loosers who apatheticly accept the world as it is.

Get off your high horse and try actually comprehending my last post before you write another response.

It just seems to me like "great men" do not quit. Even when their sons die, and defeat is certain.

An absurd oversimplification. People change. People break. And one of the basic ideas behind The Lord of the Rings is that anyone can be corrupted.

I suspect, for all your dismissals of Tolkien's skill as a writer, he understood this aspect of human beings far better than you do.

Most people say this, which is unfortunate. I think it's because we're all forced to read Dickens in HS. Being ordered/forced to read a book then write a sodding report on it is perhaps the best way to turn one off it.

I actively dispised Dickens at school and only recently did I read some of his works - a collection of his short ghost stories. I was very surprised to find I enjoyed them greatly, and so made an attempt at 'Great Expectations' (a book I've loathed since HS when a horrid old witch of an English teacher forced us to sit silently and read the damned thing). I was again surprised to find it was much better than I remembered: almost enjoyable really.

I think also part of the reason people dislike Dickens is, again, because we're forced to read them at HS. I remember thinking at HS just how silly, unrealistic and contrived all the coincidences in 'Expectations' were and how everyone is connected somehow. At that age (I was 16 iirc), these coincidental meetings seemed too ludicrous and, to me, the mark of a hack writer.
Yet such coincidences have happened to me. For eg, I was cycling to Uni a few years back and heard my name yelled. Looked over and there was my flatmate from 5 years earlier who had gone off to London and was back home for a fortnight to visit her parents.
A couple of years back I flew into Hong Kong, on my way to China. I went out for a drink and got talking to a girl who, it turned out, came from the same small town (population <4000) my mum grew up in and we found out that our respective mothers both knew each other, and had been in the same class together. What are the odds of that?
At the age I was when I first read the book, I didn't have the life experience to realise that such coincidences as written in 'Expectations' can, and do, happen. Knowing now that they do makes the plot and story much more plausible and thus enjoyable.
Actually, I read Great Expectations on my own, outside of school. As well as a Tale of Two Cities. Didn't care for either.

Am I alone in quite enjoying the Great Gatsby and the Old man and the sea? I have never managed to finish a Dickens novel so I am not sure I can really damn them fairly enough.

Am I alone in quite enjoying the Great Gatsby and the Old man and the sea? I have never managed to finish a Dickens novel so I am not sure I can really damn them fairly enough.

I hated The Great Gatsby and never read The Old Man and the Sea.

I hated The Great Gatsby ...

I liked it, so I have read it three or four times now.

Feersum Endjinn requires you to change the way you read in order to get through it. Cormac McCarthy's style is sort of similar. He can spell properly, but he hardly uses any punctuation - no dialogue quotes and few tags.

Gollum, I believe, is a major part of why The Lord of the Rings is much more than average. The conflict and complexity of his character, his struggle with the corruption of power and temptation, and the tragic irony of his end which saves the entire quest as a result of Frodo and Bilbo's mercy, greatly enhance the entire story.I have to agree with this. While I can see how some of the other themes in LoTR are somewhat overdone, this aspect of the story greatly enhanced it.

Am I alone in quite enjoying the Great Gatsby and the Old man and the sea? I have never managed to finish a Dickens novel so I am not sure I can really damn them fairly enough.I'm the type of reader who can't enjoy a book unless there's someone likable to root for. The near lack of these people in the Great Gatsby kind of ruined it for me.

You realize that their are a wide range of possibilities between great works of art and "popcorn" items?

"Great" art, yes. But literary items can generally be grouped into two categorizes: Ones that are meant to merely entertain, and ones that try to force the reader to carefully consider a subject.

Also, this whole conversation started over weather LotR was one of the "worst" books. So weather its a great work of art is somewhat irrelevant, unless you insist on an absurdly black and white view of literature.

If you will recall, I never called it the "worst" book. Someone else did that, the asked why the series was loved. You listed reasons, and I explained why I thought those are ill-considered reasons to love a series.

I'll keep it in mind as something to read.

A fantasy epic.

Which legend?

Parts of the Völsunga saga, which were famously adapted into Wagner's four opera cycle, Der Ring des Nibelungen.

Anyway, that strikes me as a rather simplistic analysis. The Lord of the Rings drew upon and synthesized elements of many different myths.

I thought your complaint was that it seemed unoriginal because it was copied. :confused:

What's the point of this comment exactly?

If the Nazgul are more a force of nature than villains, they are surely weapons employed by villain of pure evil. There is not enough explanation as the fellow's motivations, or how he creates such a large army of orcs and whatnot, or why the whole race of orcs is inherently evil.

Who? Dracula is at the top of my list of things to read, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

She a girl who is bitten by Dracula in the book, and consequently becomes a vampire herself. She virtually loses all her will, and unwittingly becomes a servant of evil.

Anyway, you're just repeating yourself. You haven't explained why they aren't villains. You've simply repeated that they aren't.

I do not consider anything sapped of its will by magic to be a real villain.

Like I said, it was basically an accident or a more cliche fight to the death like the film went with.

Gollum could have thrown the ring in during a brief episode of internal conflict.

What the fuck gives you the right to tell me, based on anything I've said, that I don't try to fix the world, but just accept it as it is? Did you even read my last post? What gives you the right to presume to make these judgements about my character?

You seemed certain that the the ruinous state of the world is set in stone.

People get depressed by the state of the world. Even those who try to improve it. And sometimes, some of us turn to literature for inspiration. That does not make us defeatist loosers who apatheticly accept the world as it is.

I never said it did....

I am just saying you have the potential to drastically fix things...not just a little bit.

Get off your high horse and try actually comprehending my last post before you write another response.

I am depressed about it as much you are--you just seemed resign, and peace with the way things are.

An absurd oversimplification. People change. People break. And one of the basic ideas behind The Lord of the Rings is that anyone can be corrupted.

Certainly. In a gradual fashion.

I suspect, for all your dismissals of Tolkien's skill as a writer, he understood this aspect of human beings far better than you do.

It seemed as though it was portrayed improperly. In Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, the Joker is shown to have been driven over the edge by the death of his wife, and this seems plausible in the situation. But the Joker was merely an out of work comedian pulling a job so his wife could eat, whereas Denethor was an incredible leader, so I should think he would fall more gradually.

"Great" art, yes. But literary items can generally be grouped into two categorizes: Ones that are meant to merely entertain, and ones that try to force the reader to carefully consider a subject.

Their is unquestionably great overlap between the two catagories in many cases. Denying this is pointless, and so obviously so that I will not bother with any further attempts at refutation unless you somehow provide something of significance to suggest otherwise. Moreover, I would not consider every litterary work that seeks to provoke readers to "carefully consider a subject" art. Not even close. For example, my political science text book might seek to provoke such thought, but I doubt its art by any definition I could accept.

If you will recall, I never called it the "worst" book. Someone else did that, the asked why the series was loved. You listed reasons, and I explained why I thought those are ill-considered reasons to love a series.

I am aware of that. If I was unclear or suggested otherwise, I apologise.

However, your interpretation is still flawed. You may not be claiming that its one of the worst books ever, but you are still subjecting it to an incredibly oversimplified and outright false analysis (see above).

I thought your complaint was that it seemed unoriginal because it was copied. :confused:

I was saying that it is overly simplistic to say that The Lord of the Rings was a copy of one particular myth. It combines and synthesizes elements of many different myths.

Nor was I criticising LotR for being coppied as far as I can recall. That would be absurd. Rather, the fact that it has been copied is a possible cause of it seeming less original today than it actually was at the time. In short, a defense from and not a source of criticism.

If the Nazgul are more a force of nature than villains, they are surely weapons employed by villain of pure evil.

How does that logically follow?

There is not enough explanation as the fellow's motivations, or how he creates such a large army of orcs and whatnot, or why the whole race of orcs is inherently evil.

Actually, the idea of the entire orcish race being inherently evil was something that Tolkien struggled with considerably, or so I've been told. However, the evil of orcs could be at least partly explained as a combination of breeding for agression, very nasty childhoods, and Sauron excerting his will over them. They're created for evil (I recall reading somewhere, I can't remember where, that the name "orc" comes from a word meaning "demon"), and so to some extent you could say (as with Golum I agree) that they are not entirely at fault. This is actually suggested by a line in The Return of the King where Gandalf says (refferring to Sauron) "I pity even his slaves."

As for Sauron's motives, while its possible that he recieved greater depth in the Silmarilion (someone else will have to fill you in on that), he is portrayed in LotR as pretty much just evil. As a character, he's not particularily complex, and his motivations (beyond revenge and desire for power) are not greatly explained. In the books, he is pretty much the Middle Earth equivalent of a servent of the Devil (Tolkien was a devout Catholic, remember). As a secular real-world explanation, well, some people are just sociopaths.;)

I do not consider anything sapped of its will by magic to be a real villain.

It is true that Gollum was not entirely in control of himself (Denethor was fairly explicitely not controlled however). And in that sense Gollum may not be entirely to blame. But he still seemed to succumb to the Ring pretty damn fast (much more so than Bilbo or Frodo). He seemed to have had a nasty personality even before he found the Ring.

Denethor was not controlled as far as I recall. He was manipulated and misslead, yes, and in a modern court of law he might be able to plead "not guilty by reason of insanity." (I'm not sure on this point.) However, he was acting of his own free will, even if he was pushed to that point by a terrible situation and missleading information from Sauron via the Palantir.

Gollum could have thrown the ring in during a brief episode of internal conflict.

I suppose.

You seemed certain that the the ruinous state of the world is set in stone.

Absolutely not. A major reason why I find LotR so inspiring is because its about people struggling against seemingly hopeless odds and succeding. Which is what I continue to hope for in this world.

I never said it did....

I am just saying you have the potential to drastically fix things...not just a little bit.

Of course. As does everyone. I completely agree.

I am depressed about it as much you are--you just seemed resign, and peace with the way things are.

You seem to have missed my point by a considerable distance.

Certainly. In a gradual fashion.

So did Denthor. Its pretty obvious that's Sauron's been working on breaking him for a while. When was the last time you read the book?

At least you've modified your original statement to something more reasonable.

It seemed as though it was portrayed improperly. In Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, the Joker is shown to have been driven over the edge by the death of his wife, and this seems plausible in the situation. But the Joker was merely an out of work comedian pulling a job so his wife could eat, whereas Denethor was an incredible leader, so I should think he would fall more gradually.

Isn't his burden even greater by virtue of his leadership position? And remember, he's been preparing for and fighting this seemingly hopeless war probably for most of his life.

Several have mentioned "Dianetics" as a really bad example of a religious "scripture", but has anyone else (aside from a true believer) slogged through the Book of Mormon? Now THAT is a boring book.

Beloved.

It's a toss up between To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee and The Stone Angel by Margaret Laurence.

To kill a mockingbird? I mean it wasn't the greatest book ever but the characters were fairly good.

Things Fall apart by Chinua Achebe is my least favorite book.