Whats the worst you've ever read? Scifi/Fanstasy

[takyris]

Of course, a chair isn't a book, so your analogy basically doesn't make sense.

I think that's overstating things a trifle, Storm Raven, and there's no need to be brusque.

You're correct, however, in that a chair isn't a book. A chair is utilitarian, while a book (not all books, but most of the books we're discussing here) is intended to be used for entertainment. Eating vegetables or exercising might not be enjoyable, but they're also not supposed to be entertaining -- they're supposed to be good for you. (Although I do enjoy some forms of exercise, and some forms of vegetables, that's just a happy coincidence).

If you read the first hundred pages of something you purchased to entertain you and you are not being entertained, that's not good. That doesn't mean it's a bad book in the perfect platonic sense, but for you, unless you're really into delaying gratification and just sure that the book is going to come off the hook at the end, that's a completely fine reason to stop reading. And to say that you didn't like it. And to say "I thought that this was bad" in the common meaning of such a statement, which is "I didn't like it".

In the case of a book (or a movie, or television show for that matter), it is not uncommon for the payoff on something to come deep into the subject matter. For the Covenant books, saying that they are awful after just 100 pages misses a lot of what makes the books worthwhile.

Bearing in mind that I haven't read the Covenant books, so I have no idea what context to take this in... um, no. If an hourlong TV show has nothing to entertain me for the first fifty minutes except the prospect of the last ten, then that hourlong TV show has failed everyone except the hardcore fans. That's lame. Does that mean that it has to be wall-to-wall fight scenes? No. It doesn't have to entertain me with action. It doesn't have to entertain me with plot. But if it doesn't entertain me with something right out of the gate, then the author has failed.

And different people are going to be entertained by different stuff. For example, I love reading the last seventy-five percent of most Connie Willis books. Her opening parts always bore the snot out of me. A lot of people love them and say that they are immediately grabbed by the technobabble and the "thrown into it with little information" aspect -- not me. I did get through the first one I read, because my friends spoke so highly of her, but it wasn't entertainment, it was work. Now I know that I should just skim that stuff. They're great books, but for me personally, those are bad openings.

The possible caveat here is author cred -- I finished Connie Willis's book because of her author cred. If Terry Pratchett or Christopher Moore has a dull first fifty, I'm going to go, "Well, if it's a clunker, it's a clunker, but I trust him," and continue. So some authors can get famous enough and big enough to write stuff that opens badly but still holds onto its fanbase.

In point of fact, if you don't read all of the way through a book, you don't know if a book is bad, and saying so makes you look foolish. The best you can say is that you didn't enjoy it enough to finish it, and it may be good or bad, depending upon the content of the material you didn't read.

In point of fact, you're ascribing an objective meaning to "bad" that, while completely correct in the dictionary, is somewhat silly in the context of a thread involving people sharing their opinions about books they personally didn't like. We're all giving our opinions. If you read my little footnote, you'll see that I mentioned as much with an asterix. Attempting to zing me with something I said first in my own post is not exactly conducive to a friendly sharing of opinion.

In the context of literary criticsm, your statement is completely true -- although "bad" is a term that becomes so arbitrary as to be useless in such a conversation. But in the context of reading for entertainment, the only viable definition of 'bad' that I can come up with is "Did I enjoy it? Did it entertain me? Did it make me want to finish it? No? Bad book." And that means that "Bad" and "Worst" are going to have different meanings for different people, and people might disagree about books. Which is why we have fun, polite, mutually respectful threads like this one.

 

[barsoomcore]

Which is why we have fun, polite, mutually respectful threads like this one.

We do?

*looks around wildly*

This IS ENWorld, isn't it? Huh.

 

[jasamcarl]

Hmmm...the worst of perhaps the worst genre of commercial fiction.

Of what fantasy I've read, Martin is the most entertaining. He is complete pop, and his narrative amounts to a written soap, but he is smart enough to know his own limitations as a writer and not pump up the verbeage like most godawful fantasy authers and he is not overly literal, i.e. he doesn't crowd the story with copious world building and a heavy handed narrative. He 'shows, not tells' by following the characters, something that most fantasy hacks never seemed to learn in their creative writing classes. And, unlike Bar, whose post was pretty much spot on, Martin does deserve a tad bit of credit for being able to maintain a very specific type of cynical tone, which, combined with his recent political utterances, do seem to be making a point. He does have an axe to grind, unlike ...the irrelevant, boring escapism of most elf-loving pulp trash.

As for Dune, read the first two books my freshman year of highschool then quit. Series is generally overrated, though I actually preferred the second one, mostly because I prefer that type of tight conspiracy as oppossed to the broad epic.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'll give a book a certain amount of space to interest me; that space varies by the author, what the book is about, what other people have said, and other factors.

The biggest factor is my mood at the time. Last night, I was done with my previous book and looking for another to take with me to read at dinner. I picked up three or four books, pondered, put them down. I started 'God Stalk' again because I finally have a collected edition of that and it's two or more sequels - but I discovered I was not in the mood for it.

I've started several books, put them down, then returned to them at a later date. Books I was convinced I would not finish, I finished. I liked them a great deal and afterwards could not imagine why I disliked it enough to put it down in the first place.

Most first readers look at, I think, the first three or four pages of the manuscript. If it doesn't grab them, it goes back into the pile or is rejected. Some, I've read, will spend as much as the first fifty pages but not past that. So the first readers (the people that see a manuscript before almost anyone else, if I recall correctly) do much the same process as y'all do

I've been trying to think of books that I hated but generally I cannot say that I remember most that I really disliked. I guess I purge it from my memory. Some do come to mind, though.

David Feintuch; Nicholas Seafort series starting with Midshipman's Hope. I found it almost painful to read, even after a couple people recommended him to me. I tried the second book, and then borrowed one other to see if it ever got any better... nope. So he's off my list.

Storm Constantine is one I'll have to get back to. Have the first book, tried to read it, couldn't. Have to try again sometime.

In the past, I haven't been able to read much Cherryh. Fortress in the Eye of Time seems like it will be good, but I've started it twice and can't get very far.

 

[Storm Raven]

I think that's overstating things a trifle, Storm Raven, and there's no need to be brusque.

No, it's not, stating that the analogy doesn't make sense isn't bruqe, it's truthful.

You're correct, however, in that a chair isn't a book. A chair is utilitarian, while a book (not all books, but most of the books we're discussing here) is intended to be used for entertainment. Eating vegetables or exercising might not be enjoyable, but they're also not supposed to be entertaining -- they're supposed to be good for you. (Although I do enjoy some forms of exercise, and some forms of vegetables, that's just a happy coincidence).

And you miss the essential reason that the book-chair analogy doesn't make sense by devolving into a side discussion about utilitarian items vs. entertainment. You see, the distinction doesn't fall along the lines of utilitatiran vs. entertainment, but along a more fundamental distinction: chairs generally do not develop over time.

You see, when you sit in a chair, you get a good idea of how comfortable it will be for the forseeable future. Sure, it might break in some, and change a little, but the fundamental nature of the chair will not change significantly after your first use of it. A book, on the other hand (and any other sequential media), needs to be moved through to evaluate. What happens in the next twenty pages may radically alter the last twenty, and may change you opinion tremendously.

If you read the first hundred pages of something you purchased to entertain you and you are not being entertained, that's not good. That doesn't mean it's a bad book in the perfect platonic sense, but for you, unless you're really into delaying gratification and just sure that the book is going to come off the hook at the end, that's a completely fine reason to stop reading. And to say that you didn't like it. And to say "I thought that this was bad" in the common meaning of such a statement, which is "I didn't like it".

No, you are saying "I read a tiny portion and decided it was bad, but I don't really know what I'm talking about because I didn't read through the book". Its an opinion, but it is an uninformed and unuseful opinion.

Bearing in mind that I haven't read the Covenant books, so I have no idea what context to take this in... um, no. If an hourlong TV show has nothing to entertain me for the first fifty minutes except the prospect of the last ten, then that hourlong TV show has failed everyone except the hardcore fans. That's lame. Does that mean that it has to be wall-to-wall fight scenes? No. It doesn't have to entertain me with action. It doesn't have to entertain me with plot. But if it doesn't entertain me with something right out of the gate, then the author has failed.

The problem is that we aren't talking about an hour long television series. We are talking about something more along the lines of an entire series. To use the Covenant books as an example, they extend over just more than 3,000 pages. To say that the books are bad after reading the first 100 pages is tantamount to saying that Babylon 5 or Farscape are bad television series because you didn't like the pilot episodes. I don't think anyone would take seriously anyone who evaluated those television series' and attempted to make a pronouncement on their quality after such a short viewing, but you seem to think it reasonable for someone to make a similar judgment regarding a series of books after an even smaller sliver of knowledge.

In point of fact, you're ascribing an objective meaning to "bad" that, while completely correct in the dictionary, is somewhat silly in the context of a thread involving people sharing their opinions about books they personally didn't like. We're all giving our opinions. If you read my little footnote, you'll see that I mentioned as much with an asterix. Attempting to zing me with something I said first in my own post is not exactly conducive to a friendly sharing of opinion.

No, I'm requiring a certain level of knowledge as a requirement before your opinion holds water. Saying "these books are bad" after reading through 3.33% of the text makes your opinion not worth bothering with.

 

[diaglo]

i can't get into Robert Jordan's stuff. i read the first few pages and put it down and never return to finish it.

 

[Berandor]

Of all the books I didn't like in the beginning but I finished, anyway, the ratio of books that stayed bad to those I even kind of liked in the end is somehwere along 50:1.

Perhaps Covenant is the exception to the rule; I don't think it's unreasonable to stop reading and say you didn't like it or thought it was bad, however.

And as a Buffy fan, I can attest to the fact that a lot of people only watched one episode and stopped, and then go on and claim Buffy's bad. Obviously, I think different. But I understand it's difficult to see the series's values from jst one show. I've found two people whom I could cure from their dislike by watching a full series with them, but also a lot of people who watched some episodes and still didn't like it.

I'm sad for them, because they don't derive enjoyment from something I like very much, but they're probably sad for me for not liking Charmed, as well, so it all evens out.

 

[Storm Raven]

Of all the books I didn't like in the beginning but I finished, anyway, the ratio of books that stayed bad to those I even kind of liked in the end is somehwere along 50:1.

I'm guessing your figures on this score are not even close to real, since it assumes that you read through to the end at least 51 books you didn't like to begin with, and given your stance on this thread, that seems highly unlikely.

Perhaps Covenant is the exception to the rule; I don't think it's unreasonable to stop reading and say you didn't like it or thought it was bad, however.

No, it makes you uninformed as to whether it was good or bad. It means you don't have the information that would arm you to make a useful observation. And thus, it means your opinion is pretty much worthless on the subject.

And as a Buffy fan, I can attest to the fact that a lot of people only watched one episode and stopped, and then go on and claim Buffy's bad.

And they would be uninformed on the subject.

Obviously, I think different. But I understand it's difficult to see the series's values from jst one show. I've found two people whom I could cure from their dislike by watching a full series with them, but also a lot of people who watched some episodes and still didn't like it.

You seem to not be able to grasp the distinction between these two statements:

1. "You don't have the information necessary to form a worthwhile opinion concerning this work"; and
2. "This book is objectively good and you can't say it isn't."

I am not saying 2. However, most of the people on this thread discussing the merits (or lack therof) of Covenant are subject to the first criticism, as they have actually read almost none of the book. It would be akin to saying Lord of the Rings is bad because its just a story about a birthday party gone wrong, so you stopped after chapter two of Fellowship. You may or may not like LotR in the end, but a criticism on the basis of two chapters of reading just doesn't carry any weight.

 

[The_Universe]

It would be akin to saying Lord of the Rings is bad because its just a story about a birthday party gone wrong, so you stopped after chapter two of Fellowship. You may or may not like LotR in the end, but a criticism on the basis of two chapters of reading just doesn't carry any weight.

Actually, I think this completely possible, probable, and apropriate. Your argument is based on the idea that it's impossible to judge things based on their parts. While it would be a little silly to judge the Lord of the Rings by something as trivial as the picture on the cover, judging it by its first two chapters is completely reasonable.

I can say with all validity that I do no like mayonaise. If you then offer me a turkey and mayonaise sandwich, would you berate me for not trying the whole thing? Perhaps, by the end of the sandwich, I will have learned to appreciate if not love it?

Unlikely.

The fact is that things can be validly judged in whole or in part. Sometimes, ignoring part is worthwhile. Sometimes it is not. Regardless, if the first two chapters of Fellowship of the Ring, or the first 100 pages of Thomas Covenent suck, well - how can you be surprised that no one kept reading?

I exaggerate above, but a bad start is still bad. Failing to recognize that is just silly, if also harmless.

All IMHO!

 

[devilish]

*Sigh* I shouldn't prolong this "opinion war" but....

Actually, I think this completely possible, probable, and apropriate. Your argument is based on the idea that it's impossible to judge things based on their parts. While it would be a little silly to judge the Lord of the Rings by something as trivial as the picture on the cover, judging it by its first two chapters is completely reasonable.

For me, I think it was Tom Bombadill....or the 3rd Deus Ex rescue that
the little hobbits went through -- was when that book was launched
into the opposite wall!! (I did finish it and liked it, but didn't love it.)

I can say with all validity that I do no like mayonaise. If you then offer me a turkey and mayonaise sandwich, would you berate me for not trying the whole thing? Perhaps, by the end of the sandwich, I will have learned to appreciate if not love it?

Unlikely.

But that's dealing with something you already loathe --- if you told
me, "I hate any story where there's a rapist in it" and I recommended
Lord Foul's Bane, yes, you have every right to kick me as hard as
you can in the face. If you say, "I've never tried pepperoni on a
pizza before" and I encourage you to try it, I'd hope you'd
at least eat some of the pizza besides the crust before giving up.

(I'm doing this now trying to convince my kids to each good food!)