Worst Book(s) You Ever Read?

[JSWolf]

I'll put in two books that come to mind...

Rendezvous with Rama by Arther C. Clark

I have no idea who this came to be called a classic work of SF. It's premise is nothing special and the execution is very dry and dull. If it wasn't for the fact that it wasn't too long, I'd never have bothered to finish it. Weak ending too.

A Passage to India by E. M. Forester

Just dreadful from page 1 to the last page. It's called a classic, but it's too awful to be such. Classic works are supposed to stand the test of time. This one wasn't even good when it was new. It's just a testament to the fact that scholars are very dry dull people who thing these awful works are actually good.

[DMB]

I am fascinated by the differences of taste displayed here. I suspect that what one likes has to do with one's age, one's education, one's basic culture and one's previous reading experience.

For example, Tom Jones is mentioned as a boring book. I first read it (outside school) at the age of 16 and was charmed by it. But that was just after I had ploughed through Samuel Richardson's Pamela, which I found deadly and immoral, though posing as deeply moral. Fielding, by contrast, seemed humane and humorous. I immediately went on to borrow others of his works from our excellent public library. Fielding's novel writing started because he hated Richardson's moralising and wanted to satirise it. He produced two satires on Pamela: Shamela and Joseph Andrews. The first is very slight, but the second developed into a full-blown novel as he obviously got involved in the subject.

I can see why people might not like Tess or Jude. I think it may be partly because they give a very graphic account of a world that no longer exists and to which it may be hard to relate. I find Jude (like 1984) so painful that it is hard for me to read it. I get the same reaction with some music: Schubert's Winterreise for example.

Heart of Darkness contains some beautiful writing, but the story seems to go nowhere. I find it unlikeable but would not say it is a very bad book.

I would agree that The Da Vinci Code is a stinker, not because of the silly story but because of the leaden writing. But, as far as I am concerned, the champion bad writer is Jeffrey Archer (or "Archole" as Private Eye calls him). I understand that his plots are very good thrillers, but his writing is so clunky that I have never got beyond the first page of one of his books.

[Pablo]

I keep remembering trash read in the past:
Now that I think of it, one that stands out is The Holcroft Covenant by Robert Ludlum. In fact, I find anything by Ludlum to be incredibly bad.

[maianhvk]

1. Well, I started to read Tolstoy's War and Peace when I was in secondary school, out of curiosity. You can easily know what happened: I assumed that no book on earth was more boring. I stopped after a few chapters, couldn't figure out what Leo Tolstoy was trying to say through so many characters. After all, I was so small a kid to read those fine works... Several years since that day and I still can't bring myself to do a re-read.

2. The first book from Victor Hugo's Les misérables is painful. I don't know how the work is published in your countries, but it comes in 4-5 thick books in mine, and all the first book covers only a part of volume 1 (Fantine), which is only about bishop Myriel. Only about him! What's so interesting in that? Why did Hugo have to write about an unimportant character for hundreds of pages?? Myriel plays no big role! Why didn't Hugo move on to more relevant plots? As a 12-year-old kid, needed 2 years to finish that 1st book, I was the misérable one!! He should've written about me!!

3. Also, Lauren Weisberger's The Devil Wears Prada. What a waste of time!! Nothing more to say.
(Luckily, the later books were obviously better. Phew. Almost gave up, Myriel was a pain in my ***)

[Prestidigitweeze]

I winced when I returned to this thread this afternoon. I'm afraid to read my earlier posts, as I'd been up for about twenty-two hours when I wrote them.

Originally Posted by Pablo

As a consequence [of having tried to read Empire of the Sun], I put Ballard on my black list.
From your comments, I gather I am probably wrong, so what would to recommend? I am willing to give him a second chance.

I wouldn't say you were wrong to put Ballard on your blacklist unless you find you actually like his other books.

Are you a fan of William Burroughs' experimental novels, such as The Ticket That Exploded? Are you not put off by descriptions of sex and violence that are designed to make you feel alienated and queasy (which is how Ballard said he felt when he wrote them)? If so, then you might like The Atrocity Exhibition and Crash, both of which impacted 70s and 80s culture and experimentalism but are not to everyone's tastes.

If not, then avoid those books.

A tighter and less confrontational book might be Running Wild, which contains his disturbing themes without the explicit content and without as many narrative risks re the reader's interest. (Violence in Ballard is often shown in retrospect -- dwelt upon as a thing that has already happened -- which can make the reader impatient.)

If you're a fan of straightforward dystopian SF, in which the landscape consists of frightening wastelands and accidental museums, then you might like The Crystal World or The Drowned World.

If you'd like to try something more succinct, then I suggest the short story collection, Vermilion Sands.

You still might end up hating Ballard, but at least you'll be familiar with the kind of work he devoted his life to writing.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I wouldn't say you were wrong to put Ballard on your blacklist unless you find you actually like his other books.

Are you a fan of William Burroughs' experimental novels, such as The Ticket That Exploded? Are you not put off by descriptions of sex and violence that are designed to make you feel alienated and queasy (which is how Ballard said he felt when he wrote them)? If so, then you might like The Atrocity Exhibition and Crash, both of which impacted 70s and 80s culture and experimentalism but are not to everyone's tastes.

If not, then avoid those books.

A less confrontational book might be Running Wild (or The Concrete Island), which contains his disturbing themes without the explicit content and without as many narrative risks re the reader's interest. (Violence in Ballard is often shown in retrospect, dwelt upon as a thing that has already happened, which can make the reader impatient.)

If you're a fan of straightforward dystopian SF, in which the landscape consists of frightening wastelands and accidental museums, then you might like The Crystal World or The Drowned World.

If you'd like to try something more succinct, then I suggest the short story collection, Vermilion Sands.

You still might end up hating Ballard, but at least you'll be familiar with the kind of work he devoted his life to writing.

Thank you very much!!! I certainly now see him in a different light. I might try some of those books in the future, then, looks interesting.

[JSWolf]

L. Ron Hubbard is one of the worst authors going.

I read Battlefield Earth and it was a total waste of time. The plot was ok at best, but it should have ended long before it did. Hubbard seems to have added more words just to make it longer.

As for his Mission Earth series, that was a joke. I tried reading it and had to seriously give up. What a mess.

So if anyone comes upon anything written by L. Ron Hubbard, run away and run away as fast as you can.

Another author who has some really dull works is Leo Tolstoy. Anna Karenina is dreadful tripe. It's less interesting then watching a bowl of water evaporate.

[DiapDealer]

L. Ron Hubbard is one of the worst authors going.

Actually, he's no longer "going."

[hols57]

I did try to read The Count of Monte Christo and to be fair, the first third or so was good, dealing with the imprisonment and escape and so on, but then the whole thing stalled and got involved with these characters on a (very) long trip to Rome, and I realised that there was still another 1000 pages to go! So I gave up....

There are so many bad books out there that it's hard to single one out, but for my money it has to be 'Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow' for being such a pointless ending with our heroine stuck and floating endlessly on an ice floe. I felt the same, metaphorically!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Actually, he's no longer "going."

Well, true. He WAS one of the worst authors when he was alive.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Quoth JSWolf: "L. Ron Hubbard is one of the worst authors going."

A friend of mine enjoys books that are in his words "deliciously bad" and so insisted on reading Hubbard's last novel straight through.

According to him, the protagonist was an idealized version of Hubbard himself. Instead of the long-nailed and paranoid figure we're presented with in unauthorized documentaries and bios, the last-legs Hubbard in the book was a confident, charismatic and endlessly virile sage who liked to "cure lesbians of their preference" (direct quote) by having relations with them. According to the protag, no real man had ever initiated them into the joys of hetero pleasure.

Of course, the sage also had an adoring daughter who insisted on following him around with a camera as he did this and kept distracting him from achieving joy by taking snapshots. He eventually succeeded by pretending he was not at all excited. A direct quote from the book: "I had beaten her [the daughter] at her own game."

You don't hear a lot about that side of L. Ron Hubbard.

[DMB]

Ah. I love the Count of Monte Christo. I have to admit that Dumas is easy to read in French, so OK for my level of French, whereas I have horrible problems with Balzac, for example.

I think one reason why Monte Christo works is that it's a revenge story, and most of us find something deeply satisfying in seeing the baddies get their comeuppance. Another one like that is The First Wives' Club.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by DMB

Ah. I love the Count of Monte Christo. I think one reason why Monte Christo works is that it's a revenge story, and most of us find something deeply satisfying in seeing the baddies get their comeuppance.

Completely agree . I read it as one of my 100 books in 2011 (1400 plus pages...), on the recommendation of my wife, and really enjoyed it. Some have called it a Boys Own style adventure, but I disagree - it was a truly marvellous achievement of its time that still holds up well.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Quoth JSWolf: "L. Ron Hubbard is one of the worst authors going."

A friend of mine enjoys books that are in his words "deliciously bad" and so insisted on reading Hubbard's last novel straight through.

According to him, the protagonist was an idealized version of Hubbard himself. Instead of the long-nailed and paranoid figure we're presented with in unauthorized documentaries and bios, the last-legs Hubbard in the book was a confident, charismatic and endlessly virile sage who liked to "cure lesbians of their preference" (direct quote) by having relations with them. According to the protag, no real man had ever initiated them into the joys of hetero pleasure.

Of course, the sage also had an adoring daughter who insisted on following him around with a camera as he did this and kept distracting him from achieving joy by taking snapshots. He eventually succeeded by pretending he was not at all excited. A direct quote from the book: "I had beaten her [the daughter] at her own game."

You don't hear a lot about that side of L. Ron Hubbard.

Didn't know that - only enhances his reputation in my eyes .

And of course, he is the "founder" of the lovely Church of Scientology. An all round good egg .

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by DMB

Ah. I love the Count of Monte Christo. I have to admit that Dumas is easy to read in French, so OK for my level of French, whereas I have horrible problems with Balzac, for example.

I think one reason why Monte Christo works is that it's a revenge story, and most of us find something deeply satisfying in seeing the baddies get their comeuppance. Another one like that is The First Wives' Club.

One of the best 'classics' I've had to read for a class. Revenge!

The thread said "the worst". I've read plenty of books others think are good that I'm not a fan of and thought were terrible (Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series) but I know aren't the worst books ever.