The 10 Worst Books

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by hidari

Interesting point-
Most Russians and Japanese who bought Harry Potter books in English never read them. In fact most of my friends in Japan and Russia could not get through the first few pages. However- Sales were huge.

I think this has more to do with the general level of English taught in Russia and Japan than with the books themselves. I enjoyed Potter in English a lot but I had by then several years of living abroad and reading books almost exclusively in English (interestingly, I got hooked by reading my nephew's first book in Russian translation which is considered a pretty bad one by most people). I don't expect I would be able to read is as freely right after school.
Speaking of which, the first complete novel in English I've read was Coral Island by Ballantyne. I've struggled through it for several months, looking up about every fourth word, and many of them weren't even in my dictionary! I did finish it but was really exhausted by the end.

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by Roy White

3. The last book in the Dark Tower series by S. King. And I've read almost everything King's written and loved it. The ending ticked me off so much after investing maybe 40 total hours in the Series lost in Mid world with Roland and company, completely enchanted by King's skill as a storyteller, then to get gypped when <skipped>. The most frustrating ending to a book in the history of the universe!

Thanks for spoiling the ending.

[Lobolover]

I think that was to be expected (the spoiling,I mean) .

[radleyp]

Nabokov was part of a literary culture in exile. He left Russia before the revolution to study at Cambridge U. and refused ever to return. He was comfortable in four languages (French and German the others) and wrote in three (a little in French, a lot of course in English and Russian (nine novels in Russian, all of them now translated, mostly by him). He even translated Lolita into Russian. His first professional appointments were as a butterfly expert (at the Fogg Museum at Harvard) and he spent many years teaching at Cornell. He made a lot of money from Lolita and returned to Europe for the last years of his life. His 20 years of exile in Europe were spent giving tennis lessons and teaching chess to earn a living. Out of all this came what, in my opinion, is prose writing in English and Russian that is among the best I have read. I think it's ridiculous to put him, or Austen or Dickens on this list: all right, you don't like them, but at least for the two latter they have been around for many years and if there is a credential for excellence it's durability.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by radleyp

Nabokov was part of a literary culture in exile. He left Russia before the revolution to study at Cambridge U. and refused ever to return. He was comfortable in four languages (French and German the others) and wrote in three (a little in French, a lot of course in English and Russian (nine novels in Russian, all of them now translated, mostly by him). He even translated Lolita into Russian. His first professional appointments were as a butterfly expert (at the Fogg Museum at Harvard) and he spent many years teaching at Cornell. He made a lot of money from Lolita and returned to Europe for the last years of his life. His 20 years of exile in Europe were spent giving tennis lessons and teaching chess to earn a living. Out of all this came what, in my opinion, is prose writing in English and Russian that is among the best I have read. I think it's ridiculous to put him, or Austen or Dickens on this list: all right, you don't like them, but at least for the two latter they have been around for many years and if there is a credential for excellence it's durability.

well, it's a thread about subjective opinions. personally i love nabokov ; he is one of my all time favorite authors. i think he's brilliant. it doesn't mean *everyone* has to. i love gogol very much as well, and some other russian authors ; some people (who shall remain nameless...) don't like them. i hate marivaux, but he is still taught in schools and his plays are still staged and he is considered a classic of french literature. i'm at a loss to say why. des goûts et des couleurs, on ne discute pas ("there's no discussing tastes and colors"), as they say...

[radleyp]

There is a difference between saying "I don't like Hamlet" and "Hamlet is a bad play". The latter implies a measurement of quality that is over and above my opinion, and I will surely be called upon to defend the view. This thread is not called "the 10 books I hate the most" but rather "the 10 worst books". To me this is a distinction that must be made, and I feel that those who now say that all we are doing is merely expressing our opinion have started a different - and certainly more enjoyable - thread. Frankly I avoid discussions of literature that focus on the "best" and the "worst", because personal opinions get obliterated and what we call "standards" (which are the bellweathers of political conservatives) dominate. The great American critic Edmund Wilson was once asked what he thought of the literary standards of his day: his response, "I never think about those things at all".

[Razi]

Originally Posted by radleyp

There is a difference between saying "I don't like Hamlet" and "Hamlet is a bad play". The latter implies a measurement of quality that is over and above my opinion, and I will surely be called upon to defend the view. This thread is not called "the 10 books I hate the most" but rather "the 10 worst books". To me this is a distinction that must be made, and I feel that those who now say that all we are doing is merely expressing our opinion have started a different - and certainly more enjoyable - thread. Frankly I avoid discussions of literature that focus on the "best" and the "worst", because personal opinions get obliterated and what we call "standards" (which are the bellweathers of political conservatives) dominate. The great American critic Edmund Wilson was once asked what he thought of the literary standards of his day: his response, "I never think about those things at all".

I see, I knew this would lead to this. I keep controversy limited to more specialist forums, like Literature Network, for example. You are out all guns blazing without reading my post properly. I did list Nabokov, Austen etc among the ones that I like, not among the baddies. Well that's what you get for getting involved in wrong discussions in wrong place. Lesson learned!

[radleyp]

Please accept my apologies if I misunderstood, but you did express a dislike for both novels and American literature. I am surprised to see you take this so personally, especially since I was discussing this thread in general - using Nabokov, but others too, as examples - and not you in particular. I was in fact answering someone else's post.

[Taylor514ce]

I enjoyed S. M. Stirling's "Island in the Sea of Time" series, but had to be in the proper frame of mind. They aren't great literature, or even great SF. They aren't outright horrible, but definitely have a 15-yr old boy's fascination with violence and kink, and those sections appear indeed to be written by a 15 year old boy.

So, I thought, might as well read the Corvallis books. Big mistake. These were written by that 15 year old boy's 11 year old brother. The comic-book Wiccans and Tolkein teens set my teeth on edge. I've never read a book where I so desperately wanted horrible things to happen to the book's protagonists. Please, please, someone garrote Juniper Mackenzie and let a bear eat Mike Havel, "so mote it be".

Imagine this bright idea for a book and you'll pretty much understand the books:

"Gosh, it'd be cool if like, technology like power and stuff stopped working and like, Wiccans would survive cuz they know nature and wow, the book could like have lesbians because that's hot and then warlords and all those cool medieval killing machines and Tolkien fanatics would be good because they like bows and arrows and could hunt, and also be lesbians who could make out in the woods and speak Elvish and people would starve and ride horses and start like clans and stuff and have lesbian warriors and witch songs and stuff. When girls kiss it makes my pee-pee tickle I gotta write this book."

[tsgreer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I LIKE "Battlefield Earth". It's too long, but it's a great story. Let's not forget - Hubbard may have had some odd ideas, religiously-speaking, but he was also a damned good SF writer.

I have to agree with Harry here. Hubbard is a bit of a nut job, but I read this book in high school It's a great fast-paced read. No scientology stuff in it. Just good ole-fashioned pulp-like sci-fi.

But for the love of God I'm not even going to pretend that the horrible movie-version of the novel really exists. John Travolta as Terl? Dreadlocks, platform shoes and rubber hands?! Um, no. No. That didn't happen. No.

[mjh215]

I think it should be noted that a computer over three million years from now that had (will have going to have had) read every book ever written could shed some light on this topic. He mentioned the worst book ever written was 'Football - It's a Funny Old Game' by Kevin Keegan.

Also he stated that anything is better then listening to an album by Olivia Newton-John for future reference.

-MJ

[Dr. Drib]

A while back I read some Pat Boone books on dating published in the mid-60s (or was it the late 50s?) They were hilarious reads.

If dates were like that, we'd all be virgins

If you can find these, they're worth reading just to see how the times have changed.

Don

[yvanleterrible]

BTW I failed to mention that "Rendezvous with Rama" is in preproduction to be filmed next year.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

... des goûts et des couleurs, on ne discute pas ("there's no discussing tastes and colors"), as they say...

Comme dirait un plombier " L'égoût ça se discute pas".

[montealan]

I can't even remember my worst reads because I usually don't bother finishing them. So many books and not enough time.... Now if you talk about best books that's another story!