Which pretty much covers why I hated it. I'm no cutthroat feminist, but that book set my teeth on edge.

I also dislike strongly the Philip Pullman series, which I understand is Major Mojo for young adults - but as a young adult, I threw it against the wall so hard I made a dent, and then set about erasing the details of what I disliked so thoroughly that I now remember only the sense of utter betrayal the book evoked in me. I gather the storyline cleverly "twists" a lot of YA stock material; apparently it twisted too hard for me.

And I developed a strong dislike of both Piers Anthony and L. Ron Hubbard at a young age because they used too many exclaimation points. (Which still annoys me. It's so damned condescending.) As I've aged I've developed both dislikes on more solid moral and craft-related grounds.

[This message has been edited by KatFeete (edited December 18, 2005).]

For instance, from what Kat says about Dextra, I wouldn't have gotten past the first sex/nekkid scene, and (again, going by what she says) that probably would have meant I put it down in less than five minutes.

I mean, the stupidest things happened. Since when teams on alien ships don't worry if one of them is missing?

'Oh, don't sweat it, we'll find her after the long creepy night ends. She'll be ok, so what if her radio isn't working. Maybe she pulled out the batteries and stuffed them into her IPod.'

Yeah, it was so unrealistic I stopped reading. Devoid of human emotions, to be precise.

Two books come to mind. (1) "The Catcher in the Rye," which I had to read for school (never a good way to enjoy a book). I thought the lead character was an idiot studying to be a moron, his life problems didn't impress me, and the whole thing reeked of a descent into sordidness and stupidity. (2) "Finnegan's Wake," which I got partway into and it became the only book I've ever flung across a room (I was in the school library at the time, too). Unintelligible nonsense.

quote:

---

which I got partway into and it became the only book I've ever flung across a room

---

I think that any writer needs to know what they dislike so that they can strive to do better. So once I started writing I have tried to read (and dissect) bad novels as well as good ones, so as to learn by others' mistakes.

Many bad works come to mind, some famous and overly hyped, others just bad. But the absolute worst one I can recall was The Scandalous Summer of Sissy Leblanc by the former television writer Loraine Despres.

How bad was it?

Let me give an example. I recall some years ago I played tennis with a serious player, a fellow who had played intercollegiate singles. Halfway through the match he threw down his racquet and stomped off the court saying I was so bad I had ruined his game forever. (He was a little bit overly dramatic.)

This novel was so bad I threw down my reading glasses and wept. I couldn't read for nearly a month after I finished it.

Seriously the story had one redeeming virtue. It was as readable back to front as front to back.

djvdakota, I must admit you're right. I have never quite understood why such a great writer as RAH liked to write such bizarre endings for his adult stories.

Robert Nowall, Add Tropic of Cancer and you have a trio of critically acclaimed stories which defy rational thought.

I agree about the ending of Stranger in a Strange Land. But I loved the first half of the book so much, I took the ending in stride. I looked at it as a display of why Martian philosophy and human physiology don't mix well in practice--people take to lounging about and having random sex. Now, some might call this the human race actually getting things right, but really. Such a group couldn't survive without leeching off of those who actually work. No wonder everyone else revolted against them! (And no, I don't think that's the message Heinlein was going for--we're supposed to be on Michael's side I think--but it just didn't work for me.)

I say the book I dislike most that I actually finished reading would be Marian Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon. That book has got to be the strangest I've ever read in the following respect: First of all, the only reason I read through the whole thing is because a friend begged me to, and since she indulged me enough to read one of my favorite books, I agreed. Despite the fact that it was the most god-awful boring book I'd ever struggled through, not counting LotR. (No offense, LotR was a great concept, but it was written like a history text, not a story!) If you want hundreds of pages of women plotting against eachother a bit, but mostly reminiscing about their youth and looking at their sagging breasts, then by all means pick this paperweight up and have at it.

quote:

---

Its a short story that my class read in lit a long time ago called 'The Most Dangerous Game'

---

I liked that story. Of course I read it in junior high school or high school 25 or more years ago. I don't think it was quite as unfresh at the time. I'll have to reread it. I often think it would be fun to go through and critique some stories that have been included in lit anthologies over the years.

Another book that I couldn't stand was called The Last Ship by William Brinkley. Here is just a sampling from the first page of the book: "The words needed little more than whispers in the undivided quiescence that reigned everywhere. I stepped out on the starboard bridge wing, the ship brought now line abreast to the land. Not a breath of wind stirred the morning. The last stars paled in the sky, the silent waters stretched away in a vast mirror, glittering in the oncoming sunlight, bringing with it the softened sky of the low latitudes, sea and sky so deliquescing into one that I would have had difficulty taking a sextant bearing, making a horizon.

The book goes on and on in his wordy and unintelligible banter for pages at a time. I haven't ever finished it, even though my dad recommended it. I'd better finish it so I don't hurt his feelings, but it will hurt me deeply to do so.

What I couldn't stand was the main characters mantras: "I'm not worthy".... "I can't use my power because <enter another lame excuse here>"... "I can't make a decision or act because my hand is stuck to my forehead in the shape of an 'L' ..."

The conversations between the MC and his wife are always verging on ridiculous. I think they're supposed to be funny, but I just found them sickeningly stupid.

The premise of the story is that the MC's grandfather predicts 5 horrendous days in the future that will affect the MC. In actual fact, there is absolutely no reason for this stupid plot wrapper, apart from to put the story in the category of having an almost supernatural theme instead of thriller. But, there is just no reason for the plot device, at all. And it is never explained how come the grandfather had the predictions in the first place.

After you read about the events of the first prediction, you can most likely predict the theme of the others. Also, one or 2 of the dates of the predictions are off anyway, and so the events come a few days before they were expected. Which in my view deems the plot device redundant yet again. All that it seems to serve is to add a bit of suspense / foreboding. But not adding to the story.

The MC is described as being a clumsy lummox, but this is never shown in the story. It's just told to us now and again so that Koontz can show us that this guy has some kind of weird character trait.

I thought the book was awful, and has put me off reading another Koontz book ever again. However, there are several folks on Amazon that disagree with me. Strangely, my 1 star review of the book on that site was never published.

Plus - anyone ever notice how most of the book reviews start out with the reviewer revealing how quick a reader they are --

"I read this on a 4 hour business trip on the plane..."

"I read this in a couple of nights, couldn't put it down...."

Thanks, right, Yawn - just tell us your misinformed impression of the books will you.

Browns site says this about the priory “hints at a shocking historical secret which allegedly has been guarded since 1099 by a European secret society known as the Priory of Sion.” No matter that it really was founded in the 1950's in france by a politcal radical. Who's founder admitted to it's fabrication and that it has been proven more than once to be a complete hoax. And yet the Priory of Sion was a central element in the plot and logic (so to speak) of The Da Vinci Code.

And right in the front of that book it states that the Priory of Sion was a real society blah blah blah.

I hated that book, he tried to make people with beliefs feel belittled, like he was laughing behind his hand at anyone who may have thought differently. Talk about an author that betrays his readership.
One hint to authors of fiction, don't right fiction and then claim it is true after all.

Also, I have to agree with the post about Thomas Covenant the Unbeleiver. But I also hate it because finally when he starts to actually use his powers, finally when things are starting to work out, right at the end, and after all that other stupid crap you had to go through, He kills the main character. It was pure Crap.

Sad. It doesn't say much for LDS readers, does it?

I wonder what Deseret Book publishers would do if a truly talented LDS writer dropped a manuscript on their desk. It seems all the really talented LDS authors publish elsewhere.

As you say, it has its problems, though the storyline itself isn't it one of them, IMHO. As I've been reading it though, I'm finding that I too could've written it--at least I think I could and without as many of what I'd call mistakes. But guess what? I didn't write it, and kudos to the man who did and made some serious cash off of it.
Part of being a writer is seeing a project through to its end and he did that. There are some fine LDS writers out there, but one of the problems I see is that they get too close to boundaries, and major LDS publishers don't want to risk that. Then, the writer is stuck with a book with no market. And you have to look at it this way, if any writer has the talent, they want to go mainstream. That's really the only way to make a living at it.

Like anyone who will call themselves a writer, I HATE Jordan's Wheel of Time cashcow of paperpulp and ink.

In short, it sucked. I've found more excitement reading my Jeep Owner's Manual.

Another one that I got thuroughly bored with was The Silmarillion. I thought it would be neat to read the backstory and history to Tolkien's middle-earth. I was wrong.

And Piers Anthony is okay, but he seems obsessed with every one of his character getting laid. It's almost formulaic: Joe Nobody finds himself in wierd situation, meets girl somebody, bangs her, then saves the day.

And I used to love Robert Asprin. But I recently picked up another book and after reading it was struck with the painful realization that I loved Asprin when I was 12.

I'm not 12 anymore.

I DO like Koontz, but I have noticed he has a very annoying tendency to spell out for me every single thing that I already know. It drives me nuts. He could cut a 100 pages from "Strangers" if he would drop the obvious and let me just enjoy an otherwise outstanding story....

There is one other relatively large publisher, Covenant. A third publisher that was a bit "edgier", Signature, went under a couple of years ago.

My biggest issue is the repetition. The author will repeat the same thing in three consecutive sentences, changing the wording minutely. There was a part in the book where the main character (Brian, I think) encounters a bear. I'm not entirely sure if the repetition occurs here or not, but seeing as it happens almost every few sentences, I am fairly sure it does. Assuming the repetition does occur here, this is what the paragraph would contain.

"Brian was scared of the bear. It was very scary. The bear made him very scared. He was afraid of what the bear would do, it was so scary."

I mean, it wouldn't sound exactly like that, but it would not be dissimilar. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, however you think about this book) I don't have on hand to provide you with an exact quote, but I don't know how easy it would be for me to look through it to find one. That book holds horrible memories for me. ~shivers~

It bothers me when people despise books for being "immoral" or "insulting." If Dan Brown's cardboard characters were the problem, then maybe that's a valid criticism of the book . . . but if it's just his ideas about Christianity that bother you (the same goes for Phillip Pullman's trilogy) then is that really a fair artistic judgment? If promiscuous sex or rampant sacreligion bother you, don't read about them, of course, but can a book really be faulted for presenting either?

As one poster pointed out, even though a book might have flaws, it did get published, while the books of many people here have not been. It just seems ignorant to me when people bash accepted classics like The Catcher in the Rye for trivial reasons. If you are personally annoyed with Holden's ideas, that's your perogative, but the book is still widely read and discussed. It's obviously meaningful to a lot of people.

It is my impression that many participants on these forums expect authors to adhere to their moral preferences; I am not sure how widespread that expectation is beyond these boards. Personally, I find it far more interesting when authors do not simply affirm my own world view, but explore territory that I am not so familiar with.

To each their own; it's a big world, with lots of books in it.

quote:

---

I thought the Da Vinci Code was appalling. Clumsy writing, cardboard characters, implausible plot twists, stupid stupid stupid bad awful horrible writing, but I coudln't put the damn thing down. Still pisses me off.

---

I may read something and then never read it again because it really didn't strike a chord with me but that doesn't mean I hate it.

As long as you take something useful away from what you read you have enjoyed the writing.

Best,

There are no sentences like this in HATCHET. Not even close. Paulson may have been channeling Hemingway, but he writes better than that.

". . . and he heard a noise to his rear, a slight noise, and he turned and saw the bear.

He could do nothing, think nothing. His tongue, stained with berry juice, stuck to the roof of his mouth and he stared at the bear. It was black, with a cinnamon-colored nose, not twenty feet from him and big. No, huge. It was all black fur and huge."

I started reading Eldest and was growing bored until the book switchs POV to Eragon's stepbrother, Roran. Now usually this is where people are turned off because their hero's story is cut off by some subplot that becomes part of the main plot. However, in this instance, the problem was reversed. Roran was a fully developed character capable of greater emotions than Eragon, a more pressing story followed him, and Roran seemed to have more flow. By flow, I mean Eragon's actions did more "touching base" than anything. For example, Eragon's growing up is shown by his animal lust for some good-looking witch, which just felt like Paolini got lazy. So every other chapter, a switch occurs in POV and rather than building suspense for both sections, Paolini made me only want to arrive at Roran's story and then trudge through the ridiculous tale of Eragon.

Mystic, perhaps consciously, has hit on the fundamental problem some people are going to have with a book like Hatchet. It relies heavily on the "natural" response to the story of an isolated human surviving in an untamed wilderness. But there are a lot of humans with little experience of anything wild and thus no appreciation of it. And such are unlikely to appreciate the story. To them, wildness is something distasteful, a matter of poor hygiene and anti-social behavior.