Books to avoid like a bookworm on a diet

Damian Duffy

Warm Panda Cola wrote: »

The Road-Cormac McCarthy. Maybe this had been hyped up beyond all known reason for me before I read this, but I honestly have never read a more depressing, self-indulgent book. The style of writing made it very hard to get involved with the characters, and the the ending..?? I don't know!! I personally thought it was a complete waste of time.

Also up there is Twilight-absolutely horrendous and anything by Marian Keyes-chewing gum for the eyes.

Oh the da Vinchi code, also another waste of time!

So you read the Twilight series, Dan Brown and Marian Keyes? Are you just walking in to Easons and picking **** from the top 3 or something? That is some awful crap your reading.

Warm Panda Cola

Damian Duffy wrote: »

So you read the Twilight series, Dan Brown and Marian Keyes? Are you just walking in to Easons and picking **** from the top 3 or something? That is some awful crap your reading.

It definitely looks like that doesn't it!
But at least they're not in a thread where I'm recommending them, strangely enough they're in the avoid thread:D

Damian Duffy

Warm Panda Cola wrote: »

It definitely looks like that doesn't it!
But at least they're not in a thread where I'm recommending them, strangely enough they're in the avoid thread:D

I'd be of the view that the vast majority who post in the literature section of a forum probably are aware of those books being absolute tripe. My surprise was that as someone who is posting in said section actually has read stuff by all three authors! But as you said, your telling people to avoid so all is good.

rubabbel

MonkeySocks24 wrote: »

How did Ceila Ahern get published??seriously!

Publishers are a business and for the most part operate on the idea that they should make a healthy profit. So I guess Ahern was a very, very good idea to publish.

Miss Dymph

punka wrote: »

Agreed! Shockingly written and essentially a poor man's da Vinci Code (incidentally, does one capitalise the "da" when referring to the book/film?). The best of those "literary detective novels" is Matthew Pearl's The Dante Club, btw, but this thread is meant to be about awful books, so...


Atomised by Houellebecq. Sorry, but I detested it. I really expected to like it, but it was the first book in a long time I found difficult to finish. Mid-life crisis pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

The Lake of Dead Languages by Carol Goodman. Avoid at all costs. A "mystery" set in a private all-girls high school. It's very self-conscious (in the bad sense) about its debt to The Secret History, and by drawing attention to the (tangential) plot connection (it's about a Latin teacher) simply serves to highlight its own deficiencies. One of the worst books I've ever read. In particular, the use of Latin is inserted into the narrative in an incredibly contrived way that seems merely intended to show off the author's erudition and doesn't feel natural.

I also hate Gibson's Neuromancer with a passion, but I'm sure I'm in a minority on that one.

You know i didn't find The Lake of Dead Languages all that bad, i agree, it was appallingly written but i found it to be interesting and a step away from the 'safe zone' may writers tend to stay within. Sometimes when reading a book, its healthy to leave the criticism at the door and just go with the story, its refreshing to get a bit of escapism, no matter how unrealistic the escape might be!

fillefatale

Anita Shreve Fortune's Rocks, bought this 4-5 years ago when a review, the comment was posted on the back cover I think actually that said it was comparable to Wuthering Heights. I would love to get a hold of whoever wrote that and shake them very, very hard. An appalling waste of time and money. Everyone talked about their feelings, especially the main character. Characterization was thin, I had no sympathy for the characters or their predicament. Since then I have seen a great many of her books, in the chick lit section, where they belong... I really should have judged the book by its banal, typical cover. Still cut up about this four years later.

ThirdMan

Jack Kerouac - Visions of Cody.

Rubbish.

fionav3

Any of the Twilight books. I read the first one (only because it was given to me as a gift and I was in hospital at the time) and it was woefully bad! I never wanted to slap a main character so much in my entire life...and not in a good way. Overly angsty, overly dramatic, badly written drivel. Awful stuff.

Edit: Also want to add in James Joyce's Ulysses. Worst book I have ever read in my life! And don't give me any of that 'read between the lines' stuff. There is nothing but padding between the lines. I seriously think James Joyce was having a laugh at our expense. It's like the emperor's new clothes; people are afraid to say they didn't like the book in case they're seeing as 'stupid' for not 'understanding' it. I 'understood' the book just fine but that still didn't stop me from wanting to gouge my eyes out!

genericguy

beach road by james patterson. never really a fan of his but my grandad and i trade boxes of books periodically and it was top of the pile there.

it's honestly the worst book i've ever read - ludicrous characters and the worst ending ever committed to print. if you have nothing else to read, do not waste the spare time with this. james patterson is a fcuking hack.

Miss Dymph

Ok i can see the reasons many readers posting here don't like Pratchett or Cornwell or other such writers, I many not agree but i can still see both sides but SERIOUSLY!!!!......criticising Jane Austen?! She didn't write chick lit at all, it may seem that way to you if your going to cheat and watch the movie or at the very least read the book narrow mindedly but all it takes is for you to do some background information about the book you're reading and about the time she wrote it in and you'l understand why she is so popular, even now after all these years, she stills appeals universally! She, like George Eliot, took a step out, into a man's world and produced masterpieces; intellectual masterpieces. Someone mentioned Pride and Prejudice was 'chick-lit' and written confusingly. I genuinely fail to see how, if we can study it for our Junior Cert and understand it, i dont see how it can be construed as confusing! Chick Lit is not an accurate term for categorising Pride and Prejudice, yes, its a love story in its major theme but it also deals with much bigger and weightier themes. Please, i urge you that when you read, please look at the bigger picture. Reading is about much more than following words on a page

fionav3

Miss Dymph wrote: »

Ok i can see the reasons many readers posting here don't like Pratchett or Cornwell or other such writers, I many not agree but i can still see both sides but SERIOUSLY!!!!......criticising Jane Austen?! She didn't write chick lit at all, it may seem that way to you if your going to cheat and watch the movie or at the very least read the book narrow mindedly but all it takes is for you to do some background information about the book you're reading and about the time she wrote it in and you'l understand why she is so popular, even now after all these years, she stills appeals universally! She, like George Eliot, took a step out, into a man's world and produced masterpieces; intellectual masterpieces. Someone mentioned Pride and Prejudice was 'chick-lit' and written confusingly. I genuinely fail to see how, if we can study it for our Junior Cert and understand it, i dont see how it can be construed as confusing! Chick Lit is not an accurate term for categorising Pride and Prejudice, yes, its a love story in its major theme but it also deals with much bigger and weightier themes. Please, i urge you that when you read, please look at the bigger picture. Reading is about much more than following words on a page

Like the authors who used Prachett or Cornwall as their authors to avoid, whoever used Jane Austin as the author they would avoid were entitled to do so. While I agree that Jane Austin is not 'chick-lit' and that reading is about much more than following words on a page (nicely phrased btw), the fact remains that reading is subjective. And if someone doesn't like an author regardless of their universal or timeless appeal, then they are entitled to do so. Personally, I have never liked Jane Austin (always found her mind numbingly dull) but I'm well aware that she is classed as a great author and probably in some way deserves that title but that doesn't stop me from not enjoying her books; and although reading is about much more than following words, why read something if you don't enjoy it?

Sorry for the post, I just felt you came across as a little heated in berating the people who don't like Jane Austin and I felt compelled to defend us (studied English and constantly had to defend my right to NOT like Jane Austin and it made me just a tad definsive about the whole subject :rolleyes:).

Damian Duffy

Miss Dymph wrote: »

Ok i can see the reasons many readers posting here don't like Pratchett or Cornwell or other such writers, I many not agree but i can still see both sides but SERIOUSLY!!!!......criticising Jane Austen?! She didn't write chick lit at all, it may seem that way to you if your going to cheat and watch the movie or at the very least read the book narrow mindedly but all it takes is for you to do some background information about the book you're reading and about the time she wrote it in and you'l understand why she is so popular, even now after all these years, she stills appeals universally! She, like George Eliot, took a step out, into a man's world and produced masterpieces; intellectual masterpieces. Someone mentioned Pride and Prejudice was 'chick-lit' and written confusingly. I genuinely fail to see how, if we can study it for our Junior Cert and understand it, i dont see how it can be construed as confusing! Chick Lit is not an accurate term for categorising Pride and Prejudice, yes, its a love story in its major theme but it also deals with much bigger and weightier themes. Please, i urge you that when you read, please look at the bigger picture. Reading is about much more than following words on a page

Jane Austin doesn't write chick lit, whoever said so doesn't understand the books they are reading or have a very limited capacity to interpret a book so you are correct on that front. However, in my opinion, she writes very dull books. 'Classics' make up the backbone of my book collection so I'm no stranger to a difficult read. The point is, I have respect for her and her work but it doesn't mean that I enjoy it. You say she is liked universally as if that is some measuring stick for her work but plenty of things are universally liked and still not enjoyed by plenty of people. Music on the radio for example, the twilight series etc.

If you can understand why somebody has an issue with pratchett etc who is universally liked than surely you can understand why people may have an issue with Austin. It's called an opinion and of course there are going to people who are simply not capable of grasping the subject matter, at least they gave it a shot. Seriously, reading as a hobby is in rapid decline in this country and if people read at all you should be happy. My favorite author is Cormac McCarthy and I have had plenty of people new to his work (mainly becuase of No Country For Old Men and The Road) calling it boring and **** etc and I initially got worked up but then I just learned to accept that that is their opinion and as much as it annoys me, at least they gave a pulitzer prize winner a shot.

Cheetara

genericguy wrote: »

beach road by james patterson. never really a fan of his but my grandad and i trade boxes of books periodically and it was top of the pile there.

it's honestly the worst book i've ever read - ludicrous characters and the worst ending ever committed to print. if you have nothing else to read, do not waste the spare time with this. james patterson is a fcuking hack.

Just spotted your post and it reminded me of another awful Patterson book - The Lake house. My god it's about children who were genetically modified to have wings!!!!!!! Need i say anymore!

kylith

The Southern Vampire stories (the books that inspired True Blood). The overall story arc isn't bad, but the writing is painful.

Asphyxia

Stardust!!! It was the most boring pile of rubbish I have ever read, I struggled to keep going with it :mad:. I was in so much relief when I finished it and I even gave the book away in the end.

Pyongyang

Bambi vs Godzilla by David Mamet; one of the very few books I've started but not finished.

Absolute drivel.

Pyongyang

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

I agree.. I thought Angels and Demons was excellent but Digital Fortress wasn't up to his usual standard.

What is his other book like? Deception Point I think is the name of it

I enjoyed Digital Fortress (the only Dan Brown book I've ever read). It was mostly throwaway plop and seriously flawed factually, but nonetheless it was reasonably paced and provided enough entertainment...

emeraldstar

Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. Good God but that was tedious.

fionav3

Pyongyang wrote: »

I enjoyed Digital Fortress (the only Dan Brown book I've ever read). It was mostly throwaway plop and seriously flawed factually, but nonetheless it was reasonably paced and provided enough entertainment...

Wasn't too gone on Digital Fortress but I did enjoy the DaVinci Code. I thought it was an enjoyable page turner and my brother (who NEVER reads) stayed up until 3 reading it and then texted me to tell me how much he enjoyed it! That was why I read it, I had to see what the book had that got my brother reading! I was pleasantly surprised. It'll never be great literature but its a good page turner and I admit, it surprised me how much people dispised it online. Still to each his own.

Miss Dymph

fionav3 wrote: »

Like the authors who used Prachett or Cornwall as their authors to avoid, whoever used Jane Austin as the author they would avoid were entitled to do so. While I agree that Jane Austin is not 'chick-lit' and that reading is about much more than following words on a page (nicely phrased btw), the fact remains that reading is subjective. And if someone doesn't like an author regardless of their universal or timeless appeal, then they are entitled to do so. Personally, I have never liked Jane Austin (always found her mind numbingly dull) but I'm well aware that she is classed as a great author and probably in some way deserves that title but that doesn't stop me from not enjoying her books; and although reading is about much more than following words, why read something if you don't enjoy it?

Sorry for the post, I just felt you came across as a little heated in berating the people who don't like Jane Austin and I felt compelled to defend us (studied English and constantly had to defend my right to NOT like Jane Austin and it made me just a tad definsive about the whole subject :rolleyes:).

Thats ok, I appreciate your honesty and I apologise for coming across far too explosive! I've studied English also and I while I confess to having read things like the Twilight series ( i know!), Stephen King etc, I hold a special place in my heart for the classics as in my view, they set the original bar for what followed in literature. Thanks for your input and i appreciate it.

nompere

While this isn't an English grammar or spelling forum, I do feel that lately there have been far too many uses of "Austin" (wretched English cars) and not enough uses of "Austen" (not a wretched English author).

I can think of two authors who spell their name "Cornwell" (Bernard and Patricia) but none named "Cornwall".

naasrd

Finnegans wake.

fionav3

Miss Dymph wrote: »

Thats ok, I appreciate your honesty and I apologise for coming across far too explosive! I've studied English also and I while I confess to having read things like the Twilight series ( i know!), Stephen King etc, I hold a special place in my heart for the classics as in my view, they set the original bar for what followed in literature. Thanks for your input and i appreciate it.

I adore the classics too. Most of my favourite books are classics.

nompere wrote: »

While this isn't an English grammar or spelling forum, I do feel that lately there have been far too many uses of "Austin" (wretched English cars) and not enough uses of "Austen" (not a wretched English author).

I'm guilty of this, sorry. Probably because I'm not a Jane Austen (:D) fan, I forget how to spell her name!

epgc3fyqirnbsx

I read Wuthering Heights a few months back. Had been meaning to read it for quite a while, it's regarded as a 'classic' and had my house described to me as Wuthering Heights (not from a romantic point of view mind you), so I felt compelled to read it

And it astounds me how it is so popular, especially amongst women! I can't see romance, now it is well written and descriptive of the moors etc but it is ridicolous at how weak it portrays people, especially the women.
Cathy the heroine has a nasty confrontation and faints and it consumes her, this girl who is previously as strong a woman as could be described but it portrays women as weaklings who can't control horones or emotion!?

I dont know any women like that and I just cant understand how loved it is, maybe I'm too rational but...

I don't know, I had to think of them as charicatures to get through it

femur61

emeraldstar wrote: »

Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. Good God but that was tedious.

Thank you can't beleive it has been on the best seller list for so long.

kylith

fionav3 wrote: »

Wasn't too gone on Digital Fortress but I did enjoy the DaVinci Code. I thought it was an enjoyable page turner and my brother (who NEVER reads) stayed up until 3 reading it and then texted me to tell me how much he enjoyed it! That was why I read it, I had to see what the book had that got my brother reading! I was pleasantly surprised. It'll never be great literature but its a good page turner and I admit, it surprised me how much people dispised it online. Still to each his own.

I'm with Stephen Fry on the Dan Brown issue ("Complete loose-stool water. Arse gravy of the worst kind"). I thought that Digital Fortress was drek, and I left The DaVinci code in a restaurant and never bothered going back for it.

Pyongyang

kylith wrote: »

("Complete loose-stool water. Arse gravy of the worst kind")

Deserves a quote!

I work in IT and was irritated by Dan Brown's ability to get most of his facts well and truly wrong.

Like I said, I didn't mind Digital Fortress; for the most part it was completely terrible, but it killed a few hours and was entertaining enough.

SquirrelFace

I really didn't like Catcher in the rye... i just found it a bit pointless!

dashboard_hula

Water for Elephants was so boring, I actually gave up reading it. I think that's the 4th book I've ever written off. I don't get the hype about it, it just went nowhere.

boardgirl

the life of Pi is a great book