Worst Book Ever?

[The_Echo]

Every book is the worst book.

Conversely, every book is the best book.

This is a matter of opinion, so unless there's a book that did to literature what Manos: The Hands of Fate did to film, I don't think there's an actual "worst book ever."

Literature is not something based solely on opinion. There are rules to literature. Rules you cannot disobey.

That doesn't mean one can't have the opinion that a work of literature which breaks all of those rules is good. Thus, the merit of any given creative work is still up to personal opinions.

If you can find me evidence that 'Living Dinosaurs' by Philip O'Donnell has any kind of merit in anybody's opinion, I'll pay heed to your point.

With a world population of over seven billion people, you cannot tell me that there is no one on this earth that would find Living Dinosaurs a good read. Especially if we're counting the author himself, but I assume we aren't. (I mean, c'mon. You know those lame-o newspapers with stories like "Batboy Spotted on Moon Surface"? There are people who read that shit like it's their job.)

 

[Thyunda]

Every book is the worst book.

Conversely, every book is the best book.

This is a matter of opinion, so unless there's a book that did to literature what Manos: The Hands of Fate did to film, I don't think there's an actual "worst book ever."

Literature is not something based solely on opinion. There are rules to literature. Rules you cannot disobey.

That doesn't mean one can't have the opinion that a work of literature which breaks all of those rules is good. Thus, the merit of any given creative work is still up to personal opinions.

If you can find me evidence that 'Living Dinosaurs' by Philip O'Donnell has any kind of merit in anybody's opinion, I'll pay heed to your point.

With a world population of over seven billion people, you cannot tell me that there is no one on this earth that would find Living Dinosaurs a good read. Especially if we're counting the author himself, but I assume we aren't. (I mean, c'mon. You know those lame-o newspapers with stories like "Batboy Spotted on Moon Surface"? There are people who read that shit like it's their job.)

Alright, I change my definition. Anybody who can read Living Dinosaurs and take it as it was intended - outright fact, with serious crypto-religious messages, and not read it because it's hilariously bad.
And I'm fairly sure not all of those people speak English, the one language it was printed in.

 

[Eogris]

great expectations. enough said.

 

[black-magic]

I hated the unabridged Frankenstein, but I was probably too young to appreciate it...

 

[The_Echo]

Every book is the worst book.

Conversely, every book is the best book.

This is a matter of opinion, so unless there's a book that did to literature what Manos: The Hands of Fate did to film, I don't think there's an actual "worst book ever."

Literature is not something based solely on opinion. There are rules to literature. Rules you cannot disobey.

That doesn't mean one can't have the opinion that a work of literature which breaks all of those rules is good. Thus, the merit of any given creative work is still up to personal opinions.

If you can find me evidence that 'Living Dinosaurs' by Philip O'Donnell has any kind of merit in anybody's opinion, I'll pay heed to your point.

With a world population of over seven billion people, you cannot tell me that there is no one on this earth that would find Living Dinosaurs a good read. Especially if we're counting the author himself, but I assume we aren't. (I mean, c'mon. You know those lame-o newspapers with stories like "Batboy Spotted on Moon Surface"? There are people who read that shit like it's their job.)

Alright, I change my definition. Anybody who can read Living Dinosaurs and take it as it was intended - outright fact, with serious crypto-religious messages, and not read it because it's hilariously bad.
And I'm fairly sure not all of those people speak English, the one language it was printed in.

Spoiler: Oh, oh, you're a clever one. Changing to rules to prove your point, I see what you did there.

I'm sure Mr. O'Donnell has a friend or something who's like "Yeah, man! You're totally right!", without being an obligatory fan because of his relationship with the writer.

 

[AlexWinter]

Catcher in the Rye.

A classic.

Had me thinking, next page it's going to get good on every single fucking page.

For fuck sake.

It's more of a story you have to "look" for, not just turn the page and *surprise*

Sometimes a book doesn't have to have a unique story or a gripping writing style, writing can be used as an method to get a message across, to enact an understandable idea towards the reader. You have to read between the lines to truly understand what Salinger was trying to say.

But some people don't like that style of storytelling which is understandable given it can be boring, tedious, Cliche and simply dumb in its presentation. Sometimes though, this was the writers intention, to make you question his motives for writing in such a way like the use of the word "Phony" so many times, its a message and Salinger was just bashing into your head a few hundred times to get that message across.

I understood the message but why would anyone want to read a book about some annoying emo kid that whines about everything. Yeah I get it, everyone went through that kind of depressing stage where they bitched and moaned about everything and had no friends. If I saw someone acting like Caulfield I don't think I could stand being around them long enough to strangle them.

It just seemed like, a shit set up for a boring, anti-climactic ending.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Of all the books I've actually finished, I have to award The Road as being the worst book ever. Now, I know every literary critic from here to Timbuktu will have my head, but the one thing that kept me sane while reading that book was knowing I was going to throw it as hard as I could against the wall.

While I wouldn't exactly call it the worst book ever written, I completely agree that it doesn't deserve the critical acclaim. But hey, at least it was short

Anyway, my worst books EVAR:
Frankenstein. One of the few books that actually caused me to fall asleep while reading. This is shitty writing at its finest, an inept author takes the sensationalist taboo subject du jour and adds some pop-culture elements (which in this case happen to be gothic "horror") to it. Kinda like the Twilight of the 19th century...
Peace Like a River. I had to read this for English back in high school. It's essentially a book about how being religious is so wonderful, and how marvelous heaven is, etc. This obviously didn't sit well with this hell-bound, hedonistic apostate.

On a less serious note:

Spoiler: The Bible

 

[NaramSuen]

Catcher in the Rye and the Great Gatsby. I don't know if they are really the worst books ever, but they are certainly over-rated and a chore to read.
In my experience, books based on video games are pretty bad, see Mass Effect. Also, many books in any popular series Expanded Universe tend to be pretty crappy, see Star Wars and Star Trek.
However, the hands down winner for worst book is the Lure of the Labrador Wild. Read it for free and you will still feel ripped off.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4019

 

[Arsen]

Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five".

I fell asleep reading it three times out of pure boredom, lack of prose, and the inability to be entertaining. Literary classic my ass...

 

[A Weary Exile]

The Great Gatsby, that book bored the living heal out of me so bad i would have rather reread bloodly romio & juilet then it.

Oh god that book was terrible. To me it was essentially "Laguna Beach-1920" a bunch of rich people whining over nothing for a hundred-odd pages.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five".

I fell asleep reading it three times out of pure boredom, lack of prose, and the inability to be entertaining. Literary classic my ass...

*fanboy rage*
The distinct writing style served to underline the message the book tried to convey: war sucks, tragedies suck, but ultimately we can't prevent them. Let's just move on, etc...
That's also why the Tralfalmadorians are included. They serve as the antithesis to this, being completely aware of their own demise, yet unwilling to counteract that.
*/fanboy rage*
But who am I to criticize the literary choices of others?

 

[Katbot]

Well basically they talk shit. My bullshit detector went off like 10 times per page.

From memory, in the intro they say something like "we went through years of research in the fields of biology, sociology and psychology and it all pointed to one thing." Excuse me, but most of the time, even just ONE research article doesn't point to one thing. How the fuck can they make a claim like that?!

They confidently state that the differences between the sexes are due to "nature" and biology, despite the fact that all the differences they describe in the book could also be due to socialisation and upbringing. The truth is that it's most likely a mix of both - but I have a feeling that would have conflicted with their dumbed-down, misleading, and pretty damn sexist version of human relationships.

My partner does listen and I read maps better than he does. We must be aliens from space coz we're certainly not anywhere near "average men and women" according to this book!

 

[Katbot]

I'm a psych student so the most cringe-worthy books for me are those awful self-help pieces of trash. I actually had this one recommended to me by a friend:

"WHY MEN DON'T LISTEN AND WOMEN CAN'T READ MAPS" by Allan and Barbara Pease.

I got about 20 pages into it before I had to stop for the sake of my brain cells. Who buys into this two-dimensional "men are like this and women are like this" BULLSHIT?!? Holy shit it insulted my intelligence. And apparently this stuff is really popular.

*sigh*

Interesting. I read this and didn't think it was half bad. What specifically bothered you about it?

EDIT: Eh, I just found a copy and thumbed through it. You're right, it IS pretty obnoxious. Still, I don't see any actual logical fallacies.

How about that 'quote' function huh?


Well basically they talk shit. My bullshit detector went off like 10 times per page.

From memory, in the intro they say something like "we went through years of research in the fields of biology, sociology and psychology and it all pointed to one thing." Excuse me, but most of the time, even just ONE research article doesn't point to one thing. How the fuck can they make a claim like that?!

They confidently state that the differences between the sexes are due to "nature" and biology, despite the fact that all the differences they describe in the book could also be due to socialisation and upbringing. The truth is that it's most likely a mix of both - but I have a feeling that would have conflicted with their dumbed-down, misleading, and pretty damn sexist version of human relationships.

My partner does listen and I read maps better than he does. We must be aliens from space coz we're certainly not anywhere near "average men and women" according to this book!

 

[TheLazyKnight]

Out of everything I've ever read, I would have to say that Gears of War: Aspho Fields is the worst book ever. Horrible writing by Karen Traviss plus main characters that are basically monster trucks on legs lead to a book about manly men yelling at each other and presenting a horrible attempt at showing any emotion besides rage.

Just thinking about it makes me mad that I actually bought it.

 

[nicholaxxx]

The Lottery by Beth Goobie.

apparently teenagers are supposed to related to the characters and situations, but I found them to be annoying whiny idiots. I asked everyone who had to read this book, they agreed.
heroine - "I have issues and problems with people, whenever I'm forced to do something that I secretly enjoy I'm going to pout about it in my room for seven hours while listening to the same album over and over again while ignoring (read: being a *****) to those who try to help me"
heroine's friend - "I'm a cripple with attitude, yo. also I did meth as a kid...a LOT of meth."

The premise was garbage "the students have an unofficial club that holds a lottery every year, and the winner of this lottery does borderline illegal stuff for this club, or else the winner will have illegal stuff done to them. But the adults don't mind, because they're all too busy doing hard drugs and being useless".

I really hate how one idiot writes a book about high school, and then book reviewing idiots raise their hands and go "ZOMG, IT'S ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL, THEREFORE ALL TEENAGERS CAN RELATE TO THIS BOOK AND THE SITUATIONS IT OFFERS. THIS AUTHOR IS BRILLIANT AND THIS WORK IS A MASTERPIECE" and then idiotic teachers read these reviews, order 50 copies of said book and make their students read these books or else fail the course.

before you ask, yes. I was forced to read this for a mark, and I bullshitted my way through the essay based on what I believed would happen throughout the story. The teacher never caught on...

 

[astrav1]

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, no doubt.

 

[Korolev]

Gravity's Rainbow. Don't get me wrong, Pynchon isn't a bad author. I've read many of his other works, and enjoyed them. But GR is TERRIBLE. It literally makes no sense at all - it's an absurdist novel about people disappearing down toilets and V-2 rockets that strike on whoever has sex. PARTS of GR are good, but the whole thing, when strung together, is a complete mess. It's almost literary trolling - "hey, I'm going to write an insane book and see how many self-important critics decide it's brilliant because they can't understand it!"

I'm used to "weird" books. Hell, I've read Haruki Murakami and enjoyed some of his books, and let me tell you, Murakami books are WEIRD. But GR is just.... awful. I despise that book.

Now, to be fair, the actual writing in many places isn't bad. Pynchon is NOT a bad writer - Gravity's Rainbow is an example of atrocious storytelling and pretentious symbolism, but it isn't actually written poorly.

For the "worst-writing" in a book I've read, I'd have to go with Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson's "Dune" "novels". Those books are so bad, so absolutely atrocious, that I had to buy the rest just to see how they absolutely BUTCHERED dune with no shame at all. It was like watching a Car Wreck, you just can't turn away. To this day, I have never seen such a despicable abuse of a series - Brian Herbert and Anderson are like Vultures, picking apart the corpse of Dune for food. I.... I..... look, if you're a fan of dune, I advise you to read the "prequel" novels "written" by B.Herbert and K.Anderson, just to see an almost perfect example of crap writing. It's so bad. So very, very bad. Almost mindbogglingly bad.

 

[ydkwidrmw]

Probably not the worst book ever, but one of the classics I loathe is "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

 

[LadyRhian]

pretty much every book in the "Romance" section

Okay, as a romance reader, I am going to object to "pretty much every book in the "Romance" section". I won't deny that there are bad romances (some of Catherine Coulter's Early works make me want to puke, like her first novel in which the heroine's skeevy uncle kidnaps her, rapes her (multiple times, using cream as a lubricant while the heroine screams in pain and cries), impregnates her and holds her hostage ends up with her as her "true love"! :ukes in the corner.::

But there are lots of better ones than that. Nora Roberts writes really good mysteries in her romance novels as J.D. Robb, and Amanda Quick writes good stuff under all three of her names: Amanda Quick, Jayne Ann Krentz (her real name) and Jayne Castle. She writes everything from Regency to Science Fiction and modern day paranormal stuff that would fit right in under fantasy. I would guess you missed all this because you dismissed it without reading it. And I work in a library, I know how many men take out 20 romance novels at a time... and it's not for their wives.

 

[Why do I care]

Oh, you know my answer.

Sparkley-skin axe wearin f***.