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

[XO]

Asimov's Foundation IS a Trilogy

First three books were great ; anything after that is a cash-grabbing nuisance.

 

[Berandor]

Oh, and 50 books is not very much. That's roughly how many books I read per year since I was at least 16. I'm 27 now, so I've read ~ 500 books so far (probably a lot more; I've been reading since I was 6). According to Sturgeon's Law, that would be a great quota, but I've probably read more than 100 bad books, and a *lot* of mediocre stuff. I even disliked some literary classics.

oh, and I remembered a book I put down. After 3 years of absence to this literary genre, I recently tried the D&D novel (FR novel) "Lady of Poison". I didn't finish it.

 

[diaglo]

oh, and I remembered a book I put down. After 3 years of absence to this literary genre, I recently tried the D&D novel (FR novel) "Lady of Poison". I didn't finish it.

Lady of Poison by T.H. Lain aka Bruce Cordell is a slow read. it usually takes me 2-3 days to finish one of the FR novels... i started Lady of Poison weeks ago...and i'm not even past page 32.

edit: but thing is i've read the whole D&D line that Bruce wrote in a day or two/ book.

 

[EricNoah]

Not every book I have put down stayed down ... I wasn't mentally ready to tackle Umberto Eco's Focault's Pendulum, so I put it down after a few pages. A year later I tried it again and it suddenly "clicked" with me. It was a great reading experience once I was in the right frame of mind for it.

 

[The_Universe]

A book (or movie) can only be fairly judged as a whole, or at least upon reviewing a substantial part. I can fairly say that Pitch Black was a bad movie, because I watched it the whole way through and it was bad. I can say The Eye of the World was a bad book, because I read it the whole way through. I can't validly say that the Wheel of Time is a bad book series, because I didn't read past the first book.

A bad start does not make a bad book though. The problem here is that people are confusing a slow start and a difficult character for a bad book.

While I shall not stoop to insulting your intelligence, as was your particular recourse, I will merely point out that IN MY OPINION (as noted in every one of my previous posts) a bad start does make a bad book. If you had read the first 40 pages of the Eye of the World, though to yourself, "Gee, this is unmitigated drivel," and then put it down forever, I would call that opinion valid.

Some things DO develop over time. But not everyone on this earth sees the value of slogging through fecal matter for the chance of smelling roses at the end. Similarly, had you sat down with your significant other to watch Pitch Black, and then turned it off after the effects-laden crash scene that marks its beginning, well - that would be fine, too. The beginning is part of the movie, and thus must be considered in its judgement. If it's so overwhelmingly bad that you don't want to see more, I fail to see why you, or anyone else, would keep watching. Do you have some obligation to Vin Diesel?

Although media (unlike a sandwich) is sequential, one cannot eliminate the fact that something at the beginning, middle, or end of that sequence can foul the whole. But perhaps the sandwich analogy can still be used. If I take a bite of my once-mentioned turkey and mayonaise sandwich, and the first bite is a culinary assault, would I not be insane to expect something entirely different from the second, third, and fourth bites?

Why should it matter if the part that 'sucks' is at the end of the book, rather than the beginning? Does your suffering through poor writing somehow make your opinion more valid?

Perhaps some simply enjoy self-torture more than others.

But I am just prolonging a silly argument, where none shall be persuaded and many angered. I apologize if I have offended someone by comparing Fellowship of the Ring to a sandwich.

 

[Berandor]

Not every book I have put down stayed down ... I wasn't mentally ready to tackle Umberto Eco's Focault's Pendulum, so I put it down after a few pages. A year later I tried it again and it suddenly "clicked" with me. It was a great reading experience once I was in the right frame of mind for it.

That book is my curse.

I've been reading it for four years now. I really have to take my time when I read it, because otherwise I'll just skim over the text and stop reading soon thereafter (it's my third try). But I find myself only rarely returning to it, so I'm still at page 130 or so.

It's one of my goals in life - finishing it

 

[Kanegrundar]

I started reading Jack Vance's Compleat Dying Earth (the misspelling is intentional) and put it down after the second story. There was little in the way of story, it was too weird, and the characters were terrible. I had always heard how great Vance was, well, I don't see it.

As for Horror/Sci-Fi...It would be Stephen King's Insomnia. I love King's work, but this one just dragged on and on with no end in sight. It was so vulgar in spots that it felt like he was being vulgar for the sake of being vulgar. I put it away after getting a third of the way through.

Kane

 

[drnuncheon]

I started reading Jack Vance's Compleat Dying Earth (the misspelling is intentional) and put it down after the second story. There was little in the way of story, it was too weird, and the characters were terrible. I had always heard how great Vance was, well, I don't see it.

Try the second book (Cugel the Clever). The tone does change, and there is more story, and you don't have to have read the Dying Earth stories to understand it. But if you don't like the first Cugel story there is little point in continuing - skip Eyes of the Overworld as well (it's more of the same). Give the last book (Rhialto the Marvelous) a try - it's the only one fo the four that was written as a complete novel, but if you didn't like any of the preceding then it's not likely to be to your taste.

J

 

[Storm Raven]

Stating it in a brusque manner makes it brusque. In a perfect world, I carefully consider all the facts, regardless of the tone in which it's delivered. In this world, you've made it wholly unlikely that I'd agree with you on anything.

I'm sorry, but stating that an analogy isn't applicable isn't being brusque. I think your hide is wafer thin.

Maybe I deleted the bit where I was talking about how the chair required you to sit in a different position, which might eventually make you more comfortable. I might've thought the analogy was taking up too much screen-space.

I believe you did, and it still doesn't make the analogy hold water, since you can figure that out immediately. A piece of sequential media takes time, if you don't invest that time, your opinion concerning the work is suspect at best.

I might be coming at this from too professional a viewpoint. When I spent a summer reading manuscripts in New York (short fiction, not novels), the editor in question watched me read a few short stories all the way through before form-rejecting them, and then she asked me when I knew that the story was bad. I said, "The first or second page." She said, "Then that's when you reject them."

She is not in the minority in the editing field. Now, granted, all the fiction that gets published has passed this test with at least a few editors, but as a consumer, I can very quickly decide whether or not I'm being entertained. And thus, I can decide whether or not to continue.

And people wonder why much of what is currently published is crap. Perhaps if the editors weren't so busy coming up with methods to avoid actually doing their jobs better material would be published. Perhaps your problem is that you have been infected with the slap-dash, hurry through it viewpoint of bad editors.

And that doesn't make the book bad in an objective sense, but, as I've said twice with no response from you, when you're reading a thread titled "What's the worst you've ever read?", I think it's fairly obvious that we're talking about personal opinion rather than objective critical discussion. And thus, "It was bad" can be read as "I did not enjoy it" without much irate discussion on the subject.

I've added some emphasis here to your quote to make a point. FIrst, I've never said there is an objective good or bad here, and that this is all opinion. I'm not debating whether this is opinion. What I am talking about here is the quality of that opinion. This thread is about the worst you have ever read. Having not read through a book, your opinion is (1) not applicable to this thread, and (b) not very valuable anyway, as it is woefully uninformed.

With respect, bull. It's interesting, because I thought that you just didn't get (or didn't accept) that we were talking opinion, here. But now I know that according to Storm Raven, I'm not even allowed to have an opinion until I finish the novel.

No, the point is that your opinion that a book was good or bad is not particularly worthwhile. If you didn't finish it, you don't know if it was good or bad, you just know you didn't finish it. Perhaps you are missing the point here.

As much as you enjoyed declaring the ineptitude of my chair metaphor, I'm going to have to turn this analogy down. A book series is not a television series. The media are different, and the number of variables are different, and it's perfectly possible for a show to dramatically improve or decline. Perhaps they get a bigger budget. Perhaps there's a change in the main cast. Maybe they bring on new writers. None of these things are possible (or matter to the same extent, at least) in books. R.A. Salvatore doesn't have to worry about Drizzt Do'Urden's actor getting hospitalized in a car accident. Martin doesn't have to worry about the budget for his fight scenes. Jordan doesn't lose sleep wondering if Fox is going to air his books out of order in order to save the most exciting ones for sweeps.

Which remain a bunch of variables not particularly apt in this analogy. The point is that a television series, like a book, is experienced over time, and through that time the book (or movie, or series) develop and change. Characters change, events takes place that affect your perception of the previous ones and so on. Not going through that series of experiences means your opinion on the work is uninformed, no matter how good you think you are at reviewing later material you didn't actually read.

 

[Storm Raven]

While I shall not stoop to insulting your intelligence, as was your particular recourse, I will merely point out that IN MY OPINION (as noted in every one of my previous posts) a bad start does make a bad book. If you had read the first 40 pages of the Eye of the World, though to yourself, "Gee, this is unmitigated drivel," and then put it down forever, I would call that opinion valid.

No, it doesn't. A bad start makes a bad start. A spade is a spade. Calling it a bulldozer doesn't make it so.