Absolutely WORST writer who is worshiped by many people

[Redstone]

anyway.

(Thought I was going to say "Ayn Rand," didn't you?)

No. the winner by a mile is Thomas Pynchon.

How the HELL did he ever get to be famous?

Redstone

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Ayn Rand is certainly in the running.

[jpgray]

2. To be literal, L Ron Hubbard

[Redstone]

5. You got me there. Can we throw in Robert Heinlein for

Dishonorable Mention? What puerile, pandering crap. Every sngle on of his books.

Yeah, I'll 'grok' you, Robbie. This fungo bat ought to make a gread 'grok' sound as it goes upside your inflated head.

Redstone

[China_cat]

138. He's bad for puerile, pandering crap but

if you want ppc AND self-aggrandizement, Piers Anthony takes all honors.

[Benfea]

221. Heinlein can be annoying but....

...he's nowhere near in the same class of awfulness as Hubbard.

[terrya]

95. Oh, hell YES

I was begging someone to kill me while trying, for some inexplicable reason which is lost in the mists of time, to slough through "Battlefield Earth". God, what tripe.

[GoneOffShore]

200. hear hear!

But ayn is a close second tied with Michael Crichton (CRETIN).

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. My dear Redstone..........

I know I've heard his name, but I cannot recall just what he wrote.......

Any titles?

How are you tonight? I hope OK........:hug:

[Redstone]

15. "Gravity's Rainbow," "V." As impenetrable as James Joyce

at his worst, but with none of the fun.

But people WORSHIP him.

Redstone

[Tyrone Slothrop]

85. Impenetrable? None of the fun?

I love it when people bash stuff that they don't "get".

[Redstone]

169. Well, enjoy, then.

Redstone

[crim son]

214. I've had "V" on the bedside table for two years.

I keep starting it, and keep putting it down. There just isn't any compelling reason to read beyond the first hundred pages.

[Redneck Socialist]

4. Elitist!

I thought you were going to say something common like Stephan King but nooooo, you've got to pull Pynchon out. :P

Actually I agree. I got through The Crying of Lot 49 but despite repeated attempts Gravity's Rainbow just failed me, so yeah, fuck that Pynchon fella!

[Redstone]

17. Not talking about an easy target like King; rather the ones

who people actually regard as LiterarySaints, Against Whom No Negative Word May be Said.

Because you're just a Philistine if you do. Or a blockhead who just doesn't UNDERSTAND!"

Redstone

[Tyrone Slothrop]

86. Well, aren't you?

By your admission, you don't understand it.

So why would you knock him for people that do?

I've read Gravity's Rainbow 3 times now, and I personally get a LOT out of it. And I get a lot of fresh, new ideas/concepts everytime I read it.

[idgiehkt]

6. not Stephen King, but writes in the same genre

just sappy jingoistic themes covered up with horror plots. Can't think of his name. Alot of people like him. He's just kind of grossly transparent to me. I got nuthin... :shrug:

[REP]

7. Dean Koontz, and Yes He Sucks

[idgiehkt]

10. you got it honey

Bless you, I think we are psychic because his name popped into my head and then I clicked back here and knew that someone would have answered this at the same time.


God I just want to thrash something when I read stuff by him. He makes me ill. It's been years, but it. just. gets. under. my. skin. :grr:

[REP]

14. I *Like* King ... Koontz Makes Me Want To Hurl

I can't really explain what it is about King's writing that I find likeable (I haven't slept for 36 hours, so I'm surprised I can type!) but Koontz is so unimaginative, dull, tawdry, maudlin and just a bad, bad writer.

There was an episode of Family Guy where a character hits a man with a car, gets out and says, "Oh my god, are you Steven King?" The man says, "No, I'm Dean Koontz." The character gets back in the car and backs over him.

[idgiehkt]

35. perfect!

I'd love to see just that clip.

I have read very little by King but I know that what I have read didn't stand out as being just slap horrible like Koontz's did. I'm probably gonna get killed for this but there is a passage in "The Great Gatsby" that epitomizes this kind of writing...Fitzgerald gets away with it because he's so good but it's so damn manipulative it should be used as an example of how not to write. No one else should have been allowed to do that after he did it. It's like in the first couple pages, but I can't remember it right now.

[LoveMyCali]

165. I used to like Dean Koontz

many years ago before he felt he needed to come up with a "logical" explanation for all of the weird phenomenon. Why couldn't he just leave it at sometimes there are things we just don't understand.

[Broken_Hero]

16. Ditto on this one...

I read about 50 pages of Whisper...and threw in the towel...than forced myself to give him another chance, so I read False Memory, and I believe I'm dumber for reading it.

[Zomby Woof]

19. When I worked at B&N some years ago

The stupidest customers were the ones who asked me if we carried "The Book of Counted Sorrows". :eyes:

[RebelOne]

72. Sorry, you all, but King and Koontz rock. They're my favorites.

[LostinVA]

74. King is technically a very, very good writer

even if people don't like his books.

[graywarrior]

77. Plus, he's the sweetest man you'd ever want to meet.

And, his wife is a kick ass writer!

[LostinVA]

78. I have heard that about him!

[Mad_Dem_X]

148. I agree; he writes a hell of a story

He's one of my writing idols.

[idgiehkt]

122. Koontz is one of the most manipulative writers I've ever read.

It's insulting...but it does sell well, not surprisingly.

[Ariana Celeste]

135. I love 'em

:hi:

[KamaAina]

245. I just finished my first Koontz yestreday

this sentence kind of jumped out at me: "(Manson's) fantasies of revolution and race war exposed a cancer at the core of the flower-power movement". :puke:

Haven't read enough to know whether he actually sucks or not (this one came in a drop shipment from a book-mad friend), but he sure could use an editor: the phrase "at the core of..." appears at least three times.

[hfojvt]

248. what was that from?

I think he has written fantastic stuff - Lightning, Cold Fire, The Bad Place, Watchers, but has not done anything very good lately.

[KamaAina]

250. From "Odd Thomas", two or three years old

and without resorting to spoilers, let me say that I found it emotionally manipulative as well.

[hfojvt]

252. I thought it stunk too

basically a rip off of the Sixth Sense and now he has written a sequel - "Forever Odd" :thumbsdown:

[idgiehkt]

259. thanks for that

he does manipulate his audience, which I would think if you are a good writer wouldn't be necessary. He's aiming to sell books by kissing his reader's asses. Like I said earlier Fitzgerald did it in The Great Gatsby, but I don't think he did it for money.

[REP]

8. Hemingway

I maintain he is why KC papers reek to this day. Over-rated in a big way.

[sweetheart]

9. *

yes, overrated. "melville" == not overrated... but hemingway.. ffff

[Redstone]

18. Agreed. If he was so fucking great, how come so many

people can write EXACTLYlike him in those constests they have now and again?

Plus, you know how he was...always shooting his mouth off.

Redstone

[Schema Thing]

21. lol, oh man, you're going to hell for that...uhm...gag.

[Redstone]

24. But you laughed, didn't you?

You'll be right beside me on the Big Elevator Down.

Redstone

[rockymountaindem]

55. The reason so many people can write like him

is because he wrote in a simple, straightforward style, yet used it to convey some pretty powerful content. Actually, some very powerful content.

If you haven't already, pick up The Old Man and the Sea. It should take you less than three hours to read, but I think it's one of the better books I've ever read. If you like that, try For Whom the Bell Tolls. If you've already read them and still don't like Hemingway, I'd be interested to know why.

[cwydro]

87. concur

[Lethe]

209. just read FWTBT

i really liked it. For days afterwards i was cursing everybody with "i obscenity in the milk of thy ******"

overrated? dunno.

[hfojvt]

251. I have read "For Whom the Bell Tolls"

"A Farewell to Arms" and "The Sun Also Rises"

The reason I do not like him is that he is depressing, especially with the endings. His endings always have to be tragic, and usually a pointless tragedy. The books always end with the main characters either dead or shell shocked because their life just got fu$%ed. A real pick-me-up.

[rockymountaindem]

254. Well, "sad" doesn't necessarily mean "bad"

For instance, nobody says Shakespeare was a bad writer because Romeo and Juliette had a sad ending.

In any event, the death of Robert in FWTBT isn't supposed to be sad. Certainly it is sad for the "little rabbit", but as far as Robert is concerned, he is dying for something worth dying for and he embraces his fate. Furthermore, he gets to extract vengence on the Lieutenant who beheaded El Sordo, so one could say that the conclusion of the book is one of poetic justice, not tragedy.

[Orrex]

109. Au contraire!

Those contest-winners don't write exactly like him. Instead, they write exactly like a caricature of him. There are Faulkner contests that work the same way.

Hemingway's greatness, as SteppingRazor noted, is the skill with which he could pack so much into so few words. You'll get more out of ten pages of Hemingway than a whole library of Tom Clancy or John Grisham, to name just two.

[tigereye]

115. but you see, no one wrote fiction like that at the time

and all those folks copied what he did. (sorry, English major here)

same for Gertrude Stein, although, granted, reading her takes a good bit of effort.

[crim son]

215. You've hit on something there.

Some of those regarded as "greats" were great because they were breaking into new territory either socially, stylistically or morally. Once the ideas were no longer novel, the appeal of the writing waned for many. It's one reason why youth today falls asleep reading easy classics like, say, Jane Austen. They don't get the simple humor, and they have no understanding of the social conventions of the time around which the tension of each story is built. Cheesy example, I know.

[tigereye]

230. not cheesy at all

Austen and others from that period were sharper social critics than people realize.

People need to recall the conventions of the time that the novel was written when they read. However, some really good writing stands the test of time.

:hi:

[miss_american_pie]

73. Absolutely!

:thumbsup:

[LostinVA]

75. Bingo -- he ripped off the worst of Gertrude Stein

And was lauded for it... while her best is still ignored.

Ugh. I don't get the Hemingway thing either... although his house and the kitties in Key West are cool.

[Arugula Latte]

89. Yep -- Hemingway was my first thought.

I think he's way overrated.

[Orrex]

106. Who was it

Who was it who described Hemingway as a great short-story writer who wrote novels?

I actually like Hemingway quite a bit, especially as a counter-point to a lot of the obsessively overwritten crap that's come since his death.

His short stories are excellent IMO, even if some of his novels aren't the greatest in the world.

[Arugula Latte]

116. Yes -- "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" is the one I recall best.

:thumbsup:

[SteppingRazor]

91. Disagree...

Hemingway could say more with half a dozen words than most writers can say with a page's worth. Don't confuse sparse writing with simplistic writing.

[jobycom]

98. Exactly. Thanks. nt

[idgiehkt]

124. I've always enjoyed Hemingway's novels

No more or less than anything else. I certainly wouldn't call him 'bad'.

[northzax]

136. and don't confuse

thinking something is cliched because everyone does it, and the original creator. that's one of the reasons people mock Papa Hemmingway, worth remembering he pioneered the style that everyone copied for 50 years.

[Dutch]

265. Well said. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

273. Hemingway gets my vote too.

Ugh!

[Aristus]

11. Tim LaHaye and that other dumb fuck whose name I'm too indifferent

about to even remember.

Bad fucking writing. BAD fucking writing!

Stupid subject matter, too; but BAD FUCKING WRITING!

Anyway, why do fundys love that horseshit? If they believe in an absolute legalistic, incontovertible, literal reading of the Bible, then won't Armageddon be EXACTLY the way it's depicted in Revelation? The seven seals, the Beast with seven heads and ten horns and all that?

[Redstone]

20. Because they're fundies being spoon-fed EXACTLY what

they want to hear.

Bad writing is only a venial sin for those two. Their cardinal sin is pandering.

Redstone

[BrightBlueDot]

70. Hi Redstone!

My sister gave me their books (she's trying to save my soul) and I read them all. (She's my only sibling, and I'd really like to have SOME kind of relationship with her.....)

Anyway, THIS is how bad they are. In a passage about the character named Buck and how he got into Princeton, despite being poor, it says (this isn't verbatim, but the atrocious metaphors are):

He joined every extracurricular club and activity he could, except glee club, because he couldn't carry a tune in a barge. He had to work, but to kill two pigeons with one pebble he became a stringer for a local paper.


I think that's worse than the pandering. Hate to disagree with you, because I think you're cool. :hi:

[Redstone]

175. That kind of agreement, I like. And your quote say you're 100% right.

I had no idea their writing was so dreadful.

Redstone

[BrightBlueDot]

195. Their writing is actually counter-productive to their cause.

I made up my mind about their brand of Christianity a LOOOOONG time ago, but there have been quite a few "fence sitters" who read their books and concluded that their God was crazy. I've read a few blogs by such people. In the twelfth book, The Glorious Appearing, the slaughter that Jesus commits goes on and on for over a hundred pages. THe blood and human entrails are so deep that cars can't pass certain areas in the battlefield. The faithful literally swim in the blood of the "unsaved." It's gruesome beyond what would be considered deranged or disturbed by a 13 year old kid from a bad homelife.

In fact, if any kid turned it in as a writing project, post-Columbine, they'd probably be in a lot of trouble at school. And this is supposed to be a representation of their GOD!

Also, in the "prequel" series (there are three books that tell what happened "before they were Left Behind") they make the Antichrist the good guy!! They don't mean to, but they paint the upbringing of Nicolae Carpathia, the Antichrist, as so manipulated and maniacally twisted that the poor kid couldn't possibly help becoming what he became (Antichrist). Also, he was the ONLY interesting and engaging character!!

I could go on and on....suffice it to say that the writing is dreadful beyond what I can express in a message board post. And my poor sister wasted over $100 trying to save me. :-( But we did have a few interesting conversations about what life would be like if a huge percentage of the population just vanished, so it wasn't a total loss. Anything that keeps any connection with her is okay with me. (She's not an evil Christian, just a sheep. Big difference.)

Eh, I'm rambling. Sorry.

[yurbud]

211. I just read recently that Tim LaHaye was originally a John Bircher

I have a funny feeling the right wing agenda shaped the theological one not vice versa.

I used to be under the impression that Ralph Reed came to politics from the pulpit, then found out he went the other direction too, and just put on a really good pious act.

I think the GOP has figured out a new kind of astro-turf: astro-church, with made to order theology for invading oil rich countries.

[Zomby Woof]

12. Stephen King

Boring and mediocre. Hence, a bestselling writer.

[Writer]

31. Stephen King is an exemplary storyteller...

but a terrible writer. I must agree.

[BrightBlueDot]

71. I haven't read a whole lot of King.

What I have read was mostly boring and mediocre. :-) However, he scored major points with me with The Stand. Have you read it? What it says about our fucked-up society, on so many levels, was bone-chilling. I really enjoyed that book and can't recommend it enough.

[Zomby Woof]

192. His conceptions are okay

I am not much for his characterizations or dialogue. I understand why people like "The Stand", but one cannot live on a diet of popcorn and cotton candy.

I think there are worse mass-market fiction writers than King - like Koontz, Steele, Cornwell, Clancy, or Higgins Clark. But their fans are not nearly as deluded into thinking they are Nobel material like King's fans do - they acknowledge their escapist formulas. Of all those listed (and a few unlisted), King is the most vastly overrated.

I used to joke when I worked at B&N, that "Insomnia" is the most ironically titled book of all time. :-)

[Jamastiene]

188. Gasp. n/t

[Cleita]

307. I was an early Stephen King fan. I loved "The Stand".

He broke a lot of rules and made is work accessible as a kind of pulp fiction. Yet, he was a brilliant story teller IMHO. I haven't been able to work through his later stuff. I think that's when he went commercial.

[Kutjara]

13. Tom Fucking Clancy...

...and all his jingoistic chestbeating, high-tech death weaponry, Jack Ryan, pseudo-political insider horseshit. For a writer who's supposed to be all about detail, his attention to the nuances of geography, history and politics is woefully poor. I've lived in or been to many of the places he describes and, frankly, he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Add to that the dustjackets of his cubic books, depicting the great man dressed up like a Navy rear admiral (a la "Mission Accomplished" boy) and you have one total literary shitheel.

Reactionary, overwritten and boring.

[Redstone]

22. And he didn't even WRITE his book about WWIII in Europe.

Larry Bond wrote it!

(Larry Bond himself has become so dreadful a writer that in his last book, he had someone saying, in German, "Mock Sneel." Not "Mach Schnell,'' I swear to you it was "Mock Sneel." Guess he can't afford assistants or researchers anymore. Or maybe he's just senile.)

Redstone

[Kutjara]

32. Oh God yes! When they start 'collaborating' with sycophants...

...that's the real sign of a 'great talent.' I can just imagine the Clancinator standing on the deck of his power launch, in a pose reminiscent of Lord Nelson, bellowing down his satphone, "Larry! Write me 100k words on WWIII! Put some towelheads in it as well as the usual suspects! Have the good ol' USA pull the Eurotrash ass out of the fire again. Stick Jack Ryan in if you can but, if not, don't worry 'bout it. Fax it over when you're done!"

[Redstone]

36. A scene repeated many times subesequenty, with different

"collaborators."

Clancy sure did n=know how to build a "brand,' didn't he?

Redstone

[Kutjara]

61. He sure did. He's a one man media empire, between...

...'books' (I refuse to dignify them by removing the single quotes), 'movies' (ditto), videogames and, for all I know, action figures, sportswear and tea towels.

The one thing he's emphatically not, though, is a writer. Oh, the painful irony.

[Dulcinea]

285. Tom Clancy's books bore me to tears.

All those long technical explanations...who gives a crap? Tell me what people are doing! Ugh.

[XemaSab]

23. Neal Stephenson

Specifically, the Neal Stephenson who wrote Crypotonomicon.

That was honestly the worst book I have ever read.

[donco6]

25. You should try The Diamond Age.

It's actually quite good.

[XemaSab]

I tried it and hated it

Snowcrash and Zodiac were good, the Diamond Age was bad, and Cryptonomicon was the worst book I have ever read, so I vowed never to read anything by him again.

On edit: "tried" means I read it three times and still didn't like it after three rereads.

[Redneck Socialist]

26. Snowcrash was good

I haven't read his later stuff though, so I can't comment.

[El Fuego]

100. I loved Snowcrash

His later stuff seems too dense to get into.

[Redstone]

27. But did you read his book about Boston Harbor?

I forget the title, but it was terrific.

Zodiac. It was titled Zodiac! Read it.

Redstone

[XemaSab]

42. I really, really liked Zodiac

One of my all time favorites, frankly.

But Cryptonomicon was so bad that I will probably never read anything by him again.

[Redstone]

48. It's like William Kotzwinkle. Wrote a bunch of stupid books about fairies

and such, then punched me in the heart with "Blackburn."

The liner notes of that book include the phrase "It will leave you changed."

And it will. Read it.

Redstone

[Elidor]

54. I'll have to check that out

When I was 15, I thought Doctor Rat was the best book in the world. But I'm afraid it will be like flat soda now that I'm 41.

[Ravenseye]

168. I agree

Though I think Neal Stephenson is a case study in how editing plays a big role in books.

The Big U was good and showed promise.
Zodiac was better, and quite good.
Snowcrash was great, an amazing read.
Diamond Age slid down with more and more filler.
Cryptonomicon was downright unedited.

The Baroque Cycle, his 'next' book was so big that he had to turn it into three massive tomes. After snowcrash they gave him way too much power to call the shots as far as editing. Cryptonomicon would probably have been an amazing book, if it were 1/3 the length.

[XemaSab]

199. You took the words out of my mouth

I recall saying to friends after I finished Cryptonomicon that it would have been a MUCH better book if he had stuck the manuscript under his bed for a year and worked on something else.

That and the fact that there were 6 women in the book, and only America was actually IN the book, but her character was really 2-dimensional nevertheless. :shrug:

[Writer]

28. RA Salvatore

For those of us who keep up with fantasy.

[Ariana Celeste]

137. Why is that?

He is one of my favorites... but I admit that I haven't read a whole lot of fantasy outside of Forgotten Realms and Anne McCaffrey... :hi:

[Writer]

261. His writing is wooden, although his battle scenes are good.

I've read his Drizzt series and I wasn't too enthralled with his matter-of-fact diction. I found it too plain, but his storytelling was okay.

On edit: Grammar snob, I am.

[donco6]

29. Robert Jordan - Wheel of Time fame

No man ever needed an editor more desperately. That series should have ended three books ago. I can't even wade through another one to find out what happens.

[wickerwoman]

52. I'll second that.

Also responsible for some of the Conan books that have made 90% of the men my age undatable.

The first book of wheel of time is an episode for episode rip-off of Tolkein. And he can't even name his characters. They're spending the night in some spooky ruins and meet a mysterious man named "Mordeth" and nobody figure out that hey, he might be a bad guy.

[BreweryYardRat]

123. Jordan is shit, yeah.

[BreweryYardRat]

125. Terry Goodkind.

Sick little Republican bastard.

[AllegroRondo]

151. I second that

I could barely make it through the first book. Why do people bother reading the rest?

[donco6]

235. I made it through five.

And out of habit bought the sixth. But I read the first chapter and said, "You know, I don't even enjoy this anymore - what am I doing?"

And that - quite literally - was the end of the story.

[NashVegas]

223. I Think I Gotta Go With This

I saw all the fan-wanking in a usenet group I used to hang out with, so gave it a try. What a waste of money! Somewhere in the 4th novel I felt like Larry King - "Get to the point, get to the fucking point" - and stopped reading.

[donco6]

234. If I read one more time -

"Nynaeve tugged her braid"

AAAAAAGHGHGHGHGH!

[NashVegas]

238. "All Will Be Well"

Was a song out from the Gabe Dixon Band this summer. Everytime I heard it ... aaaarrrrggggh!

[jane_pippin]

30. So much schlock, so little time...

Off the top of my head there's:

Dan Brown, Janet Evanovich, Tom Clancy, Michael Crichton, Mitch Albom, Dean Koontz, Nora Roberts, Clive Cussler, James Patterson, Nicholas Sparks, and anyone involved in any Chicken Soup for the ___________________'s Soul.

My general rule of thumb is if an author has a trademarked logo of his/her name on the cover of his/her books, avoid it like the plague.

[Redstone]

37. And let us not forget, of course, Harry Turtldove, the One-Man

Writing Factory.

Redstone

[jane_pippin]

43. Oooh, Mr. Alternate History himself

Good call.

[Redstone]

46. Wat a guy. Who else can turn out a 300-page book every week and a half?

Nice sideburns, Harry, by the way.

Redstone

[jane_pippin]

49. It's easy when one uses a size 40 font

:D

(Ok, so I don't know for sure that he does that but lots of those churn 'em out writers seem to use a huge font, and have tiny chapters that end halfway down one page and start halfway down the other. It's silly, really.)

[Redstone]

51. No, it's not you. They do that.

Redstone

[China_cat]

139. Isaac Asimov

although there's no way I'm putting him in the category of hacks.

[PVnRT]

128. Harry Turtledove is a neo-Confederate revisionist

His books are best used as kindling.

[BreweryYardRat]

121. I like Turtledove. Bite me.

But yeah, he has turned out some crap, and some mediocrities to go along with his good stuff.

[Redstone]

173. You can like Turtledove, fine with me, but I ain't gonna bite you.

Sorry about that.

Redstone

[Wetzelbill]

56. I read Patterson because it's like going to McDonald's

Pure shit, but since I don't often have the time to read all the books I would like to, yet love to read, I'll just blast out James's latest book. They are pretty entertaining, not much for writing style etc. Reading Patterson is like being too lazy to cook. :)

[jane_pippin]

60. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Excuses, excuses. :D

I know what you mean though. Sometimes it's fun to just take a break and whip through something.

Although, lately I've been on this "life's too short to read shitty books" kick, so I have a stack of books I'm working my way through whenever I have time to read--before bed, on the bus to work, on the days off, whenever. I figure if I have time to read anything it may as well be something good. But, I don't feel the need to force that particular philosophy on anybody else or to get all militant about it.

[reyd reid reed]

33. There are a lot of 'em up there...

If you're talking about quality rather than quantity, they're too numerous to mention.

And...I read a lot of them.

:blush:

[Redstone]

38. Hey, how'd you clear that skank off your porch tonight?

Louisville Slugger at three paces?

Redstone

[reyd reid reed]

41. Oooooh...I like that idea.

But then I'd hafta burn the bat.

:scared:

[Redstone]

44. It's OK; They're cheap. And I'll take one (or a car antenna) against a

knife on any given night.

Redstone

[reyd reid reed]

47. Oh, hell yeah.

Besides, the 'thunk' is just so....

gratifying.

[Redstone]

50. Indeed. It's my favorite.

34 or 36 ounce.

Redstone

[reyd reid reed]

65. 34 is easier for me to swing

But the 36 makes a better sound if you can get it going.

[Writer]

34. I'm going to say one more thing here: For those of you who bitch about TV

I'd love for you to go into your local bookstore and point out to me the gems. Then I want you to point to me the aisles and aisles of CRAP on the shelves. What goes for one medium, goes for another medium. Lots of crap on TV - lots of crappy writing on the shelf. There is no such thing as high culture in a market driven world.

Sincerely,

Writer.

[Redstone]

39. Amen. And we may thank Borders for that.

Redstone

[T_i_B]

117. There is no such thing as a bad medium.....

....only a bad message.

Or to put it another way, I totally agree with you! And if I had to mention any crap fiction at this point the starting point would have to be Dan Brown.

[crim son]

216. Fortunately for you, you can spend a lifetime

reading and rereading the classics, and never look at the idiot-box. Do you? :P

[Writer]

262. Actually I don't read classics...

but what's in the idiot box?

[crim son]

267. That's what my parents called the television

when we were growing up. I can't help but have a lingering aversion for t.v., though I do watch it a few times a week, feeling guilty the whole while.

[The_Casual_Observer]

40. James Joyce

[HEyHEY]

58. I gotta admit... I couldn't get into "The Dubliners"

It still sits on my shelf... only two chapters in.

[The_Casual_Observer]

64. The author most famous for writing books that nobody has ever read.

[tigereye]

118. there actually are people who have read them....

although I have to admit that I have been reading Ulysses off and on for about 30 years....

again, he was doing things that no one had ever done. And there you have it.

[July]

289. I'm one of them. Enjoy his works very much.

Have to admit I've only read parts of FW, but I've read Ulysses multiple times with great pleasure. To me, Dubliners is exquisite, and I've enjoyed Portrait, as well. I've even read his poetry.

Ulysses is worth a try; many people don't read it because they think it will be difficult, but it can be read on many levels -- one doesn't have to "get" all of the allusions to appreciate it, and I think it's quite a good read, funny, intriguing.

[Bridget Burke]

295. Read "The Dead"....

It's the last story in the book & very fine.

[Shakespeare]

302. Bingo--it's hands-down his best work.

In fact, it's the only thing by Joyce that I ever truly enjoyed.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

126. Portrait of the Artist and Dubliners are very good.

Too scared to ever attempt "Finnegan's Wake" even though I promised swag, I'd read it.

[Floogeldy]

45. Prolly that chick who wrote "Genesis."

Wow! That was one wacked out bitch!

:rofl:

[wickerwoman]

53. God?

Is there anything more tedious than Numbers or Leviticus?

And under the psuedonym "Allah" it gets even worse.

[XemaSab]

102. Or "Moroni"

:P

[PVnRT]

129. That was Moses

Aaron was the one with the gift for words. Too bad he never learned to write as well.

[Lilith Velkor]

305. He fired His editor, y'know.

:evilfrown:

[Wetzelbill]

57. hopefully me at some point

Worship my drivel! Make me rich!!!!

[reyd reid reed]

62. Heh...I'm already there...

I mean, I write drivel, I'm just waiting for the worship and the $$.

I'll cry all the way to the bank.

:cry:

[HEyHEY]

59. I don't know about "worst" but Douglas Coupland grinds my teeth

I find him to be touch and go.

[jane_pippin]

66. His new book was the worst thing I've read in ages

Fucking "jPod."

:puke:

Should have called it "300 Pages of Largely Unreadable, Masturbatory, Nonsense that was More Entertaining Back when it was Called 'Microserfs,' if by 'Entertaining' One Means Reading About Whining, Precious, Sad Sacks and their Modern Sad Sack Problems"

Ugh. I don't know why I even bothered. I liked him a lot when I first read him back in 8th grade, so I guess I keep hoping that there's still something about him to like. If there is I missed it.

[taught_me_patience]

63. Toni Morrison

Sula was pure dreck and Beloved was trash.

Jean Paul Sarte and Kant are philosophers that are pretty tough to read too.

[idgiehkt]

68. she's just extremely hard to decipher for me

I have always assumed it was cultural.

I thought Beloved was a great movie.

I've read Tar Baby and The Bluest Eye. Both were really really tough reads. I respect her voice and her talent still though, I think she has a unique vision but it's something that is over my head.

[tjdee]

164. Sweet lord are you right.

I mean come ON people!

I can't stand her writing. A lot.

[idgiehkt]

171. okay.

didn't she win a Nobel prize?

There has got to be something to it. I can't figure it out but somebody must really get it... :shrug:

[Shakespeare]

172. Go back and read the Greek playwrights, then try Morrison again.

I don't think everything she's written qualifies as "great," but she has definitely written some great and important novels--and Beloved is certainly one of them.

[idgiehkt]

176. that seems like a hell of a lot of work just to prove someone sucks...

hows about I just take your word for it?

[Shakespeare]

202. Sheesh. You said maybe you didn't "get" her writing....

...I was just suggesting some context that might flip that switch for you. :eyes:

[idgiehkt]

210. okay

gotcha.

I thought you were making a comparison between the two and putting her on the losing end. I really don't have any desire to read the Greek playwrights though.

[shrike]

226. Thank you

I was beginning to feel like a freak, having never been able to finish a Morrison book. She's terrible.

[smirkymonkey]

275. Foucault is pretty abstruse as well - he goes on for pages

without really saying anything of value. It's like, "God, my brain is just so fucking huge that even my platitudes are pearls before swine." Pompous. It's the same problem I have with Hemingway. When the writer's ego gets in the way of the writing, I find it extremely distracting and boring.

[Elidor]

67. Goethe

That fucking hack. I think they paid him by the word.

:hide:

[JVS]

236. Ketzer!

[WildEyedLiberal]

69. Dan Brown

I tried to read both Angels and Demons and Davinci Code and could not make it past three chapters in either, despite being intrigued by the plot. Dan Brown has the most horrific, juvenile, simplistic awful writing style and all I was conscious of when reading was his terrible, terrible writing. I wrote better than that when I was 13.

[Richardo]

80. Thank you!!

Dan Freakin' Brown.

[tigereye]

120. he's awful!

:banghead:

[XNASA]

111. Bingo!!

I still haven't fully recovered from 'Digital Fortress'. I read it about 2 years ago.

[Richardo]

150. I'll never forget that it took the guy 200+ pages to figure out N DAKOTA

...was an anagram for Tandako. :eyes:

Idiot.

[ScreamingMeemie]

76. Well, lucky them, but...Danielle Steele and Mary Higgins Clark.

I LOVED MHC's first two books and then ....thud. But, I guess more power to them. People buy their books so they must resonate somewhere. :hi:

[Mad_Dem_X]

149. Yes - Danielle Steele!

I've read (or, tried to read) a couple of her books, and they are just AWFUL. I also can't stand that guy who wrote "Bridges of Madison County," Robert James Waller or something like that. Ghastly.

[Ramsey]

79. John Steinbeck

I know many will find that a controversial answer, but I find Steinbeck to be one of the most unreadable authors ever!

[KurtNYC]

94. He is over rated as in terms of his prose and Fitzgerald kicked

his butt:

careless people… they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together…

tomorrow we will run faster, stretch our arms out farther… so we beat on, boats against the current, born back ceaselessly into the past.

[crim son]

218. I so totally disagree.

Some authors you've got to love words to love reading. Steinbeck is one of them, as is Shakespeare.

[Ramsey]

258. I love words

I'm a big fan of some pretty dense writers, like TS Eliot, AS Byatt, FS Fitzgerald.

I just can't read Steinbeck. He absolutely loses me early on in almost every novel.

[crim son]

269. Okay, I gotcha.

Me, I really hate T.S. Eliot with a passion. I wonder what draws us to one writer while another we find repellent. :think:

[Phillycat]

81. Jodi Picault

Aargh, she's such a slogger. She just slogs through, come hell or high water, and dammit she's going to get to end of that poorly-conceived plot whether you care about the characters or not. Hint: YOU DON'T.

[RetroLounge]

82. That Fucking hack William Faulkner...

My God man, use some fucking periods and end the god damn sentence already, it's pushing 4 pages long and if I see another semi-colon I'm gonna compile this dreck and call it pascal...

:sarcasm:

RL

[graywarrior]

147. I totally agree....I despiiiiiiiiiise that man.

[Ramsey]

257. I'm torn about Faulkner

I really like some of his books, but I must admit that As I Lay Dying was one of the worst books ever. His short stories are great!

As an aside, my dad had Faulkner as a professor back in the 1950's at Princeton. My dad said the guy was drunk all the time, and was completely incoherent in lecture.

[Arkham House]

83. Proust

Oh, my God...anyone ever attempt to plow thru "Remembrance of Things Past", or "In Search of Past Time", or whatever the hell its name is? I tried it in college, and just suffocated...tried it again when I was 45--"well, maybe I'm ready for it now"...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...the phoniest, most bullshitted-up "masterpiece" of them all...so I'm a Philistine...

[smirkymonkey]

281. I would have to agree with you - what is it about Proust that

people are so wild about? I just don't get it. I guess I will never be a member of the National Proust Society.

[telegonus]

308. But is he a worse writer than someone like Ray Bradbury?

Proust might be a little hard to get into at first, but even if you never like what he's writing about, it's hard to deny his raw linguistic ability:

"The only true paradise is a paradise we have lost...And we can re-enter that paradise not by attempting to recall it, but for the duration of a flash of lightning by encountering a physical sensation (the clink of a fork that recalls a workman's hammer, the uneven paving stones in front of the Prince de Guermantes's house that duplicates those in front of St. Mark's in Venice, the starched napkin evoking those at the Grand Hotel in Balbec) that enables us to live simultaneously in the past and in the present: a little bit of time in its pure state."

If you read the 1922 C. K. Scott Moncrieff translation, I recommend giving the new Penguin translations a try -- they're much better. If you're going to read one 4000 page novel, make it "In Search of Lost Time," not just the greatest novel of the 20th century, but the greatest novel of all time, even, as Peter Brooks said in the New York Times Book Review, overtopping giants such as Joyce and Mann.

[merh]

84. John Grisham

His first book was the best, the rest of them are just cookie cutter books generated to meet contract obligations.

I love ya, John, you are a sweetheart of a man, sexy and charming, but for gawd's sake, you can afford to stop writing the same schtick and do a real book again. You have enough money and bestseller titles. Do a real friggin book for a change.

[peekaloo]

93. seconded.

:-(

[idgiehkt]

127. "A Painted House"

I think that book is very, very good. I mean I think it would be a good read for an American Lit class. It has nothing to do with the law. I was pleasantly surprised by it.

[mvd]

152. I love all of his books but a couple

A Painted House might actually be his best book - even better than The Firm. Bleachers was also good. The current environment should be giving him some good new ideas for legal thrillers.

I never got into Stephen King. Horror stories aren't my thing, plus his books lack the suspense to interest me.

[idgiehkt]

167. you read "Bleachers"?

wasn't it great? I so thought I was going to loathe that book, but I really, really liked it in the end and believe it or not I really didn't know who was doing what til it was revealed at the end. I don't read mysteries that much so I'm not good at that...I read that book as kind of an attempt to understand my dad because it's the type of book he'd read having been a football player and all that. I thought he did a good job with it, and I wasn't expecting it at all. I think he is really growing as a writer and he can do anything he wants to do. I love his legal thrillers as well. I just read everything I could get my hands on by him about 6 months ago, just for the hell of it. Till that point I had only seen The Firm as a movie. I was really impressed with his charity during Katrina and when I was looking for a new author I thought, what the hell...I think he's tops.

[Katina]

296. the only book of his with any depth

I loved it. Hallmark did the movie and that too was good..and got nominated for an emmy. It's always surprising when Hollywood doesn't screw up a good story.

[KamaAina]

246. Last time I was in NYC in June

we dined out with some friends of Mom's, one of whom really, really hates Grisham. I mean he hates Grisham the way DUers hate Bush**. He must have gone on for twenty minutes about the awfulness of Grisham. I was tempted to ask him, "So Jimmy, how do you feel about Grisham?" :P

It is a bit surprising to hear this coming from a fellow Mississippian. I guess they really are "cookie cutter books generated to meet contract obligations." Then again, you've still got Faulkner (who actually has a post in this thread! :wtf: ), Welty, and doubtless others I haven't heard of to hang your hat on.

[merh]

268. His first book was his best, it's characters were warm

and worth caring about, the story so real.

Maybe I just tire of making lawyers out to be crooks and the damned predictable plots.

Meh, at least the masses like his cookies, like some folks are crazy about chain restaurants. It is all about differing taste I suppose.

[maxfisher]

280. I live in Oxford

Grisham is a great guy, he doesn't live here anymore. We are also home to Willie Morris, larry Brown, Barry Hannah, Tom Franklin, William Gay,oh, and the Sweet Potato queen.

[cwydro]

88. how about

Ann Coulter?:puke:

[raccoon]

90. Danielle Steele. nt

[youthere]

96. I'm with you on that...absolute dreck.

[Mendocino]

92. Michael Crichton

Bush likes him so much that he was invited to the Whitehouse to "advise" him about Global Warming. Enough said.

[Downtown Hound]

160. I used to really like him

But after his State of Fear fiasco, he can go to hell. Also, I've seen enough discrepancy in his books to make me wonder if he uses a ghost writer for some of them. There's almost no talent in some, and lots of talent in others.

[bullwinkle428]

217. A Freeper on another board I frequent uses a Crichton Global Warming

quote in his sigline...something about "environmentalism is the favorite religion of liberals" or some such crap. I love it when they parade their own ignorance so blatantly!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. An oldie but baddie: Jacqueline Susann

I tried to read Valley of the Dolls when it was popular, heaven knows I really tried, but the flood of cliches ("It was so quiet that you could hear a pin drop") that infested every page finally defeated me. Later, when I heard Truman Capote describe her writing as "Not writing but typing," I knew exactly what he meant.

[noonwitch]

105. So bad it's good

I think "Valley of the Dolls" is good, campy fun.

[jobycom]

99. There are NO bad writers worshipped by many people

There are only writers whose style or story you don't like. If they speak to that many people, they are good writers. They just don't write for you.

Having said that, Terry Goodkind is a terrible writer. He used to be a good storyteller, but he's lost that, too. :)

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

163. Exactly!

I agree 100% about what you said (other than that Terry dude. I've never head of him.)

[jobycom]

207. Thanks. And

you would agree if you had read the Terry dude, too. :)

[El Fuego]

101. Definitely Thomas Pynchon.

I know someone who raves about "Gravity's Rainbow," I just don't get it. I had to read "V" in college, it made no impression on me whatsoever. :boring:

[Liberalynn]

103. Mary Higgins Clark

I think she is called the "queen of suspense" but I disagree. I used to like her but I think success and trying to push out too many books has IMHO caused the quality to go dowhill. I no longer find them supenseful, only predictable and repetative.

[mvd]

153. I like her, but once I heard she's a Repuke, I stopped buying..

her books. When it comes to books, I don't mind reading from the many other good suspense writers.

[Liberalynn]

159. Probably

her being a Repuke, has influenced my opinion of her subconciously as well. I did read her last one though "The Two Little Girls in Blue," and she's just no where near where she used to be. I had it figured out almost from the begining.

I'm mostly into reading Romantic Suspense these days. My absolute favorite is Nora Roberts, who is definitely a :dem: She's written some incredible stories and I love her style. Her books as J.D. Robb are also tremendous. In the same catagory I also like Heather Grahm, Karen Robards, Kay Hooper, and Mariah Stewart.

[LiberalHeart]

104. Shakespeare and everyone who contributed to the bible

[noonwitch]

110. Shakespeare? Are you serious, or just trying to get a rise out of people?

Shakespeare's stories are still relevant to this day. MacBeth is about how violence will consume a person once they choose that path. It is still true.

Hamlet is about how even righteous revenge will destroy innocents in the process.

His comedies have strong female characters and silly males, with gender-switching, mixed-up romances and so forth.

[LiberalHeart]

112. Nope, not trying to get a rise. I just don't like him.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

113. He was an incredible and timeless writer.

Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he's bad.

[LiberalHeart]

119. I never said my opinion makes him a bad writer...

Maybe I misunderstood the poster's intent here. I thought s/he was asking for our opinions re which writers are worst, despite being worshipped. For my money, Shakespeare leads the pack. The fact he's worshipped shows I am in a minority in expressing this opinion, but it is how I view him. So shoot me.

[ghostsofgiants]

131. Worst = superlative form of bad.

Pretty straightforward, I think.

[LiberalHeart]

170. Right, and that's my opinion...

Shakespeare is the worst I've read (at least that's worshipped by others). The worst will vary from person to person, based on personal bias. That's all I'm sayin'...

[ghostsofgiants]

174. Considering a writer to be bad is not the same as not liking a writer.

By saying that you consider Shakespeare to be "the worst" you've read, you are saying that you consider Shakespeare to be bad. That's what "the worst" means. Yet you insisted that just because it's your opinion that he's the worst doesn't mean that he's bad. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[LiberalHeart]

180. Everyone here is voicing their opinion.

Are you saying that someone a reader considers to be the worst writer isn't necessarily a bad writer? If that's your point, we agree. But for the person who thinks the writer is the worst s/he has read, it would seem obvious that the reader considers the writer to be a bad writer.

Or are you imagining that when I say I don't like Shakespeare, I mean Shakespeare the man, not the man's work? Fact is, I never met him. I might have been wild about him as a person, if I had.

[ghostsofgiants]

182. Okay, I think I see the problem here.

You're thinking on a specifically personal level, while I'm thinking on a more objective, general level. I need to stop wasting my time on stupid arguments like this, really.

Though I'm curious as to where you got the idea that I was talking about Shakespeare as a person. Seems kind of out of left feild.

[LiberalHeart]

183. What? I'm NOT thinking of Shakespeare on a personal level...

...at least not Shakespeare the man. I just don't care Shakespeare's writing. That's my personal opinion -- just as others posting in this thread are naming the writers they consider to be worst. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

The reason I thought you might be thinking I meant Shakespeare the man? It was your comment that my not liking him didn't make him a bad writer. I wondered if by saying "him" you meant the man, not the writing.

Obviously, my not liking his work makes him a bad writer in my opinion. That doesn't mean he actually is -- and given his following and stature, he's not -- in the view of others. I doubt his reputation will suffer much from my low opinion of his work.

[ghostsofgiants]

186. I meant on a personal level to you.

You PERSONALLY think he's the worst.

Why do I even bother?

[LiberalHeart]

196. Why do you bother? I wondered the same thing.

[Bridget Burke]

253. Shakespeare is not mean to be "read"....

Have you seen any of his plays? In person or on film?

[LiberalHeart]

255. His sonnets are meant to be read.

When his plays are published, it's so they can be read. And yes, of course, I've seen movies and plays ... as I stated elsewhere in this thread, I find him more tolerable in that venue.

[Shakespeare]

146. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, okay.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

184. Oh yeah that Shakespeare makes Danielle Steele seem like a genius.

:rofl:

[LiberalHeart]

198. What an odd leap to make.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

203. I was using the literary device of sarcasm.

Shakespeare is one of the best writers to ever live. Just because you do not personally enjoy reading his writing, have no bearing on his actual ability as a writer. Personally, I didn't enjoy reading E.M. Forster's A Passage to India or William Langland's Piers Ploughman, but I still acknowlege they are well-written works of literature. Referring to Shakespeare as the "worst" writer ever merely because you do not care for his writing is simple ignorance.

[LiberalHeart]

204. You Shakespeare lovers are a hoot.

Name calling is in order if someone doesn't share your view of ol' Willy?

It's funny how a few of you have repeatedly explained to me what a swell writer he is, despite my saying repeatedly that I'm voicing my view of his writing, not the world's.

And I've also explained that I see that as the purpose of this thread -- voicing our opinions. How could any one of us be able to name *the* worst writer? Doing so would require us to read the work of all writers who ever lived and then we'd need some objective way to measure that work to determine which was the worst. I did not take the request from the poster as literally as you apparently did.

I find no pleasure in reading anything by Shakespeare and did so only because my professors demanded it (I was a literature major). But I find great pleasure in reading Tennessee Williams's short stories, Cheever's short stories, Fitzgerald's short stories and novels, some of Joyce Carol Oates' early work, Capote, Dickinson, Millay, Strand, Salinger's short stories and novels, Roth's novels, Carver's short stories and one of his novels, Dexter, and on and on and on. But I'm not saying the world would deem any of them the best any more than I'm saying the world would deem Shakespeare the worst.

[Shakespeare]

208. There are some opinions one should be too embarrassed to admit.

And especially as a lit major--you should be flat-out laughed out of the room.

[LiberalHeart]

231. I'm not embarrassed by any of my opinions, but I'm surprised ....

...you seem to be so invested in what I think of Shakespeare.

[Shakespeare]

232. Not "invested," just incredulous.

You put your opinion out there, don't be surprised when it generates a negative response.

[LiberalHeart]

237. I chose the word carefully and stand by it.

[Shakespeare]

239. Yes, I see that you stand by it.

Still doesn't change my opinion, though.

[LiberalHeart]

240. Your user name was my first clue you might be a tad emotionally invested

[Shakespeare]

242. ROFL--you've got to be kidding.

You know, it's flawed logic to respond to anybody who challenges you by saying "you're emotionally invested." You've said that as a defense to several on this subthread, and it doesn't justify what you've said OR further your argument. You are the one who is getting defensive--you should realize that by stating that you're a lit major and then saying you consider Shakespeare one of the "worst," you're going to be challenged on that--and with good reason.

I have an MA in English and have taught English lit--and it is my informed opinion that you either don't "get" Shakespeare or were too lazy or intimidaated by the language to really examine his work (my next hint is that you seem to exclusively prefer short stories for the most part--while I love short stories, they're not the most complex literary form). It's one thing to say he's not one of your favorite writers--I have no problem with that. But to use a superlative to classify him in the way you have is completely stupid. That's not an "emotional" response from me--that's a reasoned response.

[LiberalHeart]

243. How utterly grateful I am...

...that you have no problem with my saying Shakespeare isn't one of my favorite writers. That's very generous of you. But it's not how I'd phrase it, and it's not what the original post asked of us.

I say you're emotionally invested because you are riled enough by my opinion to attack me on a personal level. Your user name indicates you're a Shakespeare fan, thus I can see that you might be overly touchy about how your beloved author is viewed by another. You are also so emotionally invested in this that you now find it necessary to draw a distinction between my opinion and your far loftier informed opinion (enough so to put it in bold type), again indicating your disdain for my perceived ignorance. Arrogance provides one way of approaching people; I prefer another (I don't like the nosebleeds I get when I place myself on a towering pedestal).

I do not exclusively prefer short stories; I was merely pointing out which parts of the various authors' works I admired. Your opinion of the complexity of short stories as a literary form is interesting in light of your history of having taught English lit. As writers and editors know well, the short story form is far more challenging than is the novel. That's why I earn my living writing novels, not short stories. I'm not up to the difficult challenge that short stories pose, and few are.

Suppose for discussion's sake that I don't, as you suggest, "get" Shakespeare and/or that I'm too lazy or intimidated by the language to really examine his work -- so what? Am I allowed to read only those authors whose work I consider it a chore to read? Or am I allowed to read for pleasure without feeling the need to put on airs and strut my intellectual superiority? I don't read in order to prove something to somebody; I read because I love to and I want to dole out those reading hours to the authors who give me something personally satisfying in return for the time spent -- not to those authors who meet the criteria set by others.

And just for the record, I was challenged (personally attacked) long before I mentioned that I was a lit major.

[Shakespeare]

244. No, it's four centuries of undisputed fact.

Find me a literary critic ANYWHERE who agrees with you. Go on, try.

You're conflating two very different things here: your freedom to read and enjoy whatever you wish (and voice your opinion on who you like and why), and making a ridiculous superlative judgment as it regards Shakespeare's historical reputation. If you don't understand that, then there's no point in arguing further. Going by your previous posts in this thread, you don't seem to understand the difference.

And this entire paragraph of yours is a straw man:

Suppose for discussion's sake that I don't, as you suggest, "get" Shakespeare and/or that I'm too lazy or intimidated by the language to really examine his work -- so what? Am I allowed to read only those authors whose work I consider it a chore to read? Or am I allowed to read for pleasure without feeling the need to put on airs and strut my intellectual superiority? I don't read in order to prove something to somebody; I read because I love to and I want to dole out those reading hours to the authors who give me something personally satisfying in return for the time spent -- not to those authors who meet the criteria set by others.

Nobody has suggested ANYTHING that you suggest in that paragraph. Far from it. You're mustering up all this outrage for people who would tell you what you're allowed to read and enjoy, when nobody has done anything of the kind in this subthread. The only thing anyone has argued with is your grouping him with "worst." And you're awfully sensitive about being challenged.

You used your lit major status as some kind of credibility to justify a previous post of yours--I was just doing the same. That you now get all huffy about it and accuse me of being an elitist is, well, funny.

And if you want to know what the considered order of difficulty is for literary forms, here you go--in order of increasing difficulty: short story, novel, play, poem. And that's many generations of literary critics who established that order, not me. I write, too--short stories, plays and screenplays. I, too, have a pretty good handle on what's more challenging, though that is by necessity somewhat subjective (as it is with you).

[LiberalHeart]

249. Straw man claim: bogus

You are the one who wrote what you believe to be my reasons for not liking Shakespeare, which I accepted as a hypothical scenario to pose my questions. If you are so uncomfortable with the subtext of your statement to me, I suppose it might make you feel better -- when I call you on it -- to then claim I'm setting up a false argument.

It would be helpful to this discussion if you actually read the things I write and make sure you understand them before you respond. I did not use my "lit major status as some kind of credibility to justify" any previous post of mine. I said, as a lit major, I had professors who forced me to read Shakespeare and that was the only reason I did. That you found my lit major status intimidating enough to feel the need to then recite your credentials is sad, unless you're not really as insecure as that makes you appear.

I see we agree, as do others, that the short story is more difficult to write than the novel. But it seems in your rush to posture (my-handle-is-bigger-than-your-handle), you missed the point I was making. You suggested that my dislike of Shakespeare is, among other things, linked to your assumption that I prefer short stories, and that I do so for their simplicity. I merely pointed out that your view was interesting because -- from a writer's standpoint -- short stories are more difficult to produce. My further point, unsaid but which I had thought you would understand from what I did state, is that what appears on the surface to be simple is quite complex -- making mush of your suggestion that reading short stories indicates a desire for simplicity.

I'll let you have the last word. I'm moving on to new threads.

[Shakespeare]

271. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Intimidated by you? :rofl: Don't know me too well around here, do you.

You go on with your bad self. I don't even want the last word. I won't even attempt to touch the pile of steaming ridiculousness that is your last post.

[Dora]

256. Side Query: "order of difficulty for literary forms"

Where'd you get that? I'm not disputing you, oh no. It just gave me a kick to see it laid out there like that. I went through the MFA in Writing program here at UT Austin in - gasp - poetry. Haven't been writing in years, told myself it's because I'm lazy, but now I'm thinking that I'm not lazy, but that Poetry is HARD WORK.

It gave me a kick to see that my chosen mode is considered the most difficult. Ironic in light of the fact that it's also the mode most easily taught to children.

[Shakespeare]

272. Perhaps I should have qualified that as "good" poetry.

Sure, we can all write a rhyming couplet, but we can't all write poetry like Yeats or Stevens or Clampitt. That takes an extraorinary gift to accomplish.

I'll dig around my old litty critty books and see if I can come up with the references to genre/difficulty I mentioned. I don't even necessarily agree with the order myself (with the exception of poetry being the most challenging, and I completely agree with that), just repeating what I've read and been taught.

[noonwitch]

227. I didn't insult you, I was just curious

I was just trying to convince you otherwise.

I wasn't a big Shakespeare fan when I had to read it in high school and college. The play I like least is "Romeo and Juliet", because I think teenagers who commit suicide to be together eternally are pathetic. I felt that way at 14.

But I really enjoy his plays as an adult. I like some of the clever movies that have been made of them, in particular "Titus" starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange, and "Hamlet" starring Ethan Hawke.

I also read Harold Bloom's commentary, which has helped me understand some of the more complicated plots.

[LiberalHeart]

233. I was just responding to those who called my post stupid, and me ignorant

I'm a fan of far more modern writing. It flows better (for my taste) and is more accessible, more inviting, and more fun to read.

I had a double major. In addition to being a literature major, I was also a theater major. Thus, I saw my share of Shakespeare's plays -- and I did find his work more pleasing to watch than to read. But I could say that about plays in general: I prefer by far reading a novel versus reading a play. The format is more satisfying for me.

I'm not sure one can be persuaded to like a writer. Seems to me that's a lot like trying to switch someone from thinking purple is the most beautiful color to thinking green is the winner. But I do recognize that Shakespeare's work is the well from which writers have drawn ever since. (see below). It's just that I think others have improved on it in terms of evolving into writing styles more appealing to contemporary readers.

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons is one that appeared many years ago: two people are exiting a theater where they've just seen one of Shakespeare's play. One says to the other something like, "I don't understand what all the fuss is about. It was just one cliche after another."

[Phillycat]

155. Hey, you win stupidest post of the day!

:thumbsup:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

185. No, more like stupidest sub-thread of the day.

Not only does the poster not personally like Shakespeare but actually thinks he is the worst writer ever.

[ghostsofgiants]

187. I hate myself for continuing the subthread.

Really.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

189. It's okay. I'll forgive you.

I was tempted to jump in there myself.

[Dutch]

263. It's funny. Shakespeare is the most acclaimed writer in the English

language, and deservedly so in my opinion- yet to judge by this thread a lot of his admirers seem to be nasty, whiny, insecure bullies who get off on shouting down people who dare to express minority opinions. Not a very fitting tribute to the bard.

[LiberalHeart]

197. Well, at least it wasn't rude.

[Dutch]

264. Wow, what a penetrating discourse on Shakespeare's greatness!

Calling someone stupid for saying something you disagree with- the true mark of a genius who in no way sounds like a whiny 12 year old.:thumbsup:

[Spider Jerusalem]

278. ...

the fact that you're apparently incapable of understanding Elizabethan English doesn't make it 'bad'; in terms of impact and literary influence, Shakespeare and the 1611 Authorised Version of the Bible are the two pillars on which most English prose that followed rests. They are far from 'bad'; you may not like them, and you're entitled to your opinion (but you're very much wrong).

[LiberalHeart]

291. Yep, totally incapable of understanding.

"...those that understood him smiled at one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me."

(I wish I could understand that quote I just now typed, but Shakespeare is soooo hard, it hurts my head.)

About those "two pillars" being that "on which most English prose that followed rests": so what? Is it required that I consider them a swell read because of what evolved from them? By your logic, I should prefer the alphabet over the words formed by the letters of the alphabet.

[Spider Jerusalem]

292. No...

actually, it's more like saying 'Orson Welles was the worst filmmaker who ever lived' when Welles invented a sizeable part of the visual vocabulary of filmmaking. They may not be your cup of tea, but denying their genius and influence is idiotic (sorry, but there's really no nicer way to put it).

[LiberalHeart]

294. There is, in fact, a nicer way to say it.

Leaving out "idiotic," for example. Coming up instead with a word that's not insulting.

I'm a big fan of Orson Welles. However, for the purpose of this discussion, suppose I weren't: would that mean I have to like his work anyway just because of the role he played in the history of film?

I don't know where you got the notion that I have denied Shakespeare's genius and influence. I suspect some of Shakespeare's most fervent fans are aghast that someone else could fail to love him. Thus, they respond to what I haven't said, then pretend that those unsaid words are the other side of their argument.

No matter how often I state that my post was merely a personal opinion (you know, like all the other posts here that name an author) -- and not intended to be a statement of fact -- folks keep reciting the widely-accepted facts regarding Shakespeare's work and influence that we've heard all our lives (in the mistaken assumption that I've argued against them). I don't disagree with the conventional wisdom regarding Shakespeare; it's just that the conventional wisdom has no connection to how I, personally, view Shakespeare's work. It strikes me as bizarre that anyone would think it should.

Take Bill Clinton by way of illustration: some folks love him, others hate him, but few would say with a straight face that he had no influence on politics. Facts do not dictate personal preferences, nor do they refute a personal opinion. I wonder why that's so difficult for some to understand.

[Spider Jerusalem]

298. As noted by others:

your response to the question 'worst writer...?' was 'Shakespeare'. Which is a pretty explicit denial of genius on your part, though not necessarily of influence. Also, there's an extreme logical disconnect in what you're saying; you very obviously DO disagree with the 'conventional wisdom' regarding Shakespeake's work, because if you agreed with it, your opinion would necessarily be different. You can't have it both ways. Either he's bad, and tremendously overrated, OR he was a genius.

[LiberalHeart]

299. Wrong.

I agree that the conventional wisdom is what it is. I don't even doubt that the conventional wisdom is correct, but (read carefully now because I just might not repeat it again) it matters not at all to me what others think of Shakespeare because I am merely expressing my opinion. Why others find it necessary to "disprove" my opinion by citing the opinions of others is a mystery. If they regard opinion so highly, why not allow me to have my own without taking snotty snipes at me?

As I told another person who refused to believe that I know the meaning of my own post, there is no way that any of us can provide the name of the worst writer. There'll never be universal agreement on any one name, just as there is not universal opinion regarding Shakespeare's greatness. We can only provide the name of the writer that is, in our own opinion, the worst writer.

Your opinion is, apparently, that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers ever. Fine. I respect your opinion. I do not respect your personal attacks on me for voicing a differing opinion. But I'm sure you'll keep it up unless I stop responding to you as I did with that other poster who was so pointlessly offensive. So that's what I'll do.

[Spider Jerusalem]

300. There's still a contradiction, like it or not.

And it makes absolutely no sense at all to say 'I don't doubt that the conventional wisdom is correct' and to continue to hold your stated opinion, which through your own admission must be wrong (you admit as much; if the view contrary to yours is CORRECT, then you, ipso facto, CANNOT be correct. This is simple logic. Therefore, your statements cannot be parsed in any way which renders them meaningful. (My saying this does not constitute a personal attack. Merely a simple observation of fact.)

[LiberalHeart]

301. Thank you for the lack of attack.

Makes me want to respond after all.

When I wrote of my view re the conventional wisdom, I provided an example that perhaps you didn't connect to my statement. I included it to explain how I can both accept the conventional wisdom, but not care for Shakespeare -- so I'll repeat it here:

"Take Bill Clinton by way of illustration: some folks love him, others hate him, but few would say with a straight face that he had no influence on politics. Facts do not dictate personal preferences, nor do they refute a personal opinion."

That an author can be so deeply admired by so many people for so many centuries tells me that the author has something significant to offer (to say the least), and I'm as aware as the next person that he has had a profound effect on the evolution of literature. But I still don't care for him. I don't think that reflects a failing on the part of those who love Shakespeare. Rather, I see it as a reflection of my own inability to see what others see in his work. I accept that failing -- and reach for something else to read. Right now, it's Paul Auster.

[Robeson]

288. Shakespeare?...

...wow. Just wow.

[LiberalHeart]

290. As Willy would say...

"I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

[blondeatlast]

107. I clicked on this thread expecting to be the first to say Pynchon.

I agree with you.

[Deja Q]

108. Russel T Davies

:7

[Rosco T.]

158. Like hell !

[Anarcho-Socialist]

222. Ha!

:rofl:

[tigereye]

114. but he's so funny!

I think there are many worse writers.

[Zavulon]

130. Vince Flynn

I've read a couple of his novels and you wouldn't believe your eyes. Those books are a chickenhawk's wet dream - diplomacy never works, violence is the answer, the State Department sucks, the United Nations is worthless, torturing and killing prisoners is the only way to get things done, no Muslims should ever be trusted, etc. A buddy of mine told me that Limbaugh and Boortz are fans, which should tell you everything you need to know about him.

[babylonsister]

132. Danielle Steele (sp?) - just ugh. nt

[Taverner]

133. The jury is out on whether Hemmingway was a genius or a hack

To be honest, I'm not sure.

"For Whom the Bell Tolls" would make me think he was a true genius. But his short stories, which should be his strong point, being a journalist and all, are utter crap.

[miss_american_pie]

140. I'm not sure a writer

can be considered "great" on style alone.

I can't stomach the misogyny in his work, novels or short stories.

[Taverner]

141. Understandable

But consider the time and place...

Not that that alone justifies it, but Tristan and Isolde never gets accused of being misogynistic.

[miss_american_pie]

143. Yeah, sure

but I don't recall Isolde dying in childbirth apologizing to the men for being so much trouble. ;)

[Taverner]

144. Well Hemmingway did have issues

Normal people don't blow their brains out in a field, unless they happen to be Dutch Painters or Hemmingway ;)

[WhollyHeretic]

190. Misogyny and the glorification of war

I could never stomach his works either.

[RoyGBiv]

161. A genius, but ...

A damn boring genius.

This is my opinion of Melville as well.

[dback]

134. Saul Bellow, specifically "Henderson the Rain King"

Had to read it for high school summer reading, and I never finished it--got about 2/5 of the way through, and threw it across the room. I know he has a great reputation, but I didn't get it. Might have to give it another shot someday, and see if 25 years later I'm in a different mind-set.

[Shakespeare]

145. You should definitely re-read it now that you're older.

I'm pretty sure you'll get it, and I'm pretty sure you'll like it. It's my favorite Bellow novel.

[Left Is Write]

142. Danielle Steele.

[kwassa]

154. John Irving

nothing more than a gimmicky entertainer.

[vixengrl]

193. I wondered if anyone would mention him--

a friend back in college say I *had* to read A Prayer For Owen Meany. Within mere chapters, I was like, "Do I *have* to?" And I never went back trying to figure out what it was I didn't like--he just invested a hell of a lot on characters I didn't believe or like--ditto World According to Garp. What was the point? Maybe the movie was worth it just to see Lithgow as a woman, but, like, the book was too damn much.

[Dulcinea]

286. "Garp" was one of the few books I've never finished.

Irving depresses me to no end.

[kwassa]

156. E.L. Doctorow

thinly diguised pop fiction

[crim son]

219. I'm with you on E.L. Doctorow.

I have a friend who teaches literature and she recommends him highly. God, I find him triteness disguised as depth. But maybe, like the notion that Shakespeare can't write, this is an opinion that shouldn't be voiced.

[begin_within]

157. Jackie Collins?

[AngryAmish]

162. Don Dellilo

awful, forgettable writer.

[XemaSab]

224. I read Underworld and there was NOTHING

interesting about that book at all. Nothing.

[Jade Fox]

266. Can't figure out why he has so many fans...n/t

[Redstone]

166. And let's not forget Jerzy Kosynsky (though I wish I could).

Redstone

[WolverineDG]

177. Sylvia Plath

I was forced to read "The Bell Jar" in college. God dammit, what a whiny, self-centered bitch. I can't begin to tell you how much I hated that fucking book. I wanted to track her down so I could slap her in the face. Later, found out she killed herself (yah, who would have seen that coming), so I wanted to dig her up & smack her with my shovel.

dg

[Gatchaman]

178. For all those who loved "Enders Game"

It's my sad duty to inform you that Orson Scott Card is a knuckle-dragging neanderthal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005312

[Momgonepostal]

191. A couple different people told me he was great

So I read Treasure Box, and thought it was the worst book I'd read in ages. I've never felt like venturing into The Ender's Game series.

[wickerwoman]

213. I was thinking about him

but the problem is that he isn't really a bad writer, stylistically, he's just an asshole in person.

[Seabiscuit]

179. Mann Coulter. Hands down.

[MiniMandaRuth]

181. Whoever had the idea for the 'Chicken Soup' books.

Ew. My god, it's terrible. And it's all girls my age read now while classics sit on the shelf and decay.

It's sappy. Add fourteen cups of sugar to chicken soup and you'll understand how I felt everyday in seventh grade english after my teacher read one or two of those.


I'm still in therapy.

[kwassa]

228. Is that the "Chicken Soup for the Illiterate" series?

Factory operation. The guy that runs it has a whole group of people working for him, and he gets the credit and money.

[otherlander]

247. Hate. Chicken. Soup. Books.

A bunch of corny stereotypical bull, isn't it?

[Dulcinea]

287. I hate them too.

Someone gave me "Chicken Soup for the Expecting Mother" or whatever it's called while I was pregnant, & it made me want to gag. It went to the used bookstore the next day. :puke:

[martymar64]

194. Michael Crichton

King of the tacked-on ending. And a right wing dick to boot!

[Mz Pip]

201. Danielle Steele

I've tried but just can't fathom her appeal.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[StellaBlue]

205. T.S. Eliot

Hate him.

[Ramsey]

260. OMG!!

I LOVE him- best poet ever. I love the fact that you need a 200 page appendix to understand the context of any of his poems. It's so interesting, all the literary and historical metaphors and references. Yet it's beautiful writing on its own, without knowing anything about it at all.

The Hollow Men? What a gorgeous ode to the loneliness and isolation of humanity.

[idgiehkt]

277. me too

just for Prufrock, if nothing else.

[StellaBlue]

284. Meh.

I have a masters in English, and I still think he's overrated. ;)

I don't like pretention (despite the masters in English! ha! that's why I didn't get a PhD, actually...)

[smitty]

206. Chairman Mao.

[yurbud]

212. John Grisham. Read one, might be entertained. Read two, you figure out

the numbers he paints by. Read three and you can predict what's on every page--and need to find a new author.

[crim son]

220. I'm in love with this thread.

It sure separates the men from the boys, if you'll excuse they misogyny of the cliche.

[quiet.american]

225. Dan Brown.

I wouldn't exactly say he's "worshipped," but that makes no difference to his bank account.

I couldn't believe how awful the writing is in DaVinci Code. If I turned in that kind of writing as a first novel, I have no doubt I'd remain an unpublished author.

[newportdadde]

229. Because of how he ended the Dark Tower Series - Stephen King

What a fascinating three books which turned into utter crap. All of the ma-ka ka-tet, ka-sir junk. Also the most disgusting example of deus ex machina I've ever experienced.

Part of me wonder if Tabitha didn't finish the damn thing for him.

[patcox2]

241. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy guy. But there is much more . . .

Clancy is definitely the worst on a scale of books sold/horribleness. His writing is absolutely godawful, makes Ian Fleming look good, and yet he sells like the Bible.

As far as the worst reputation or renown/horrible writing, Vonnegut is up there, Twain wrote some of the best and worst American prose, Faulkner sucks donkey dick, but I think the king of this category is Hemingway.

Mark Helprin is in his own special category.

[Bucky]

274. I cannot flame you. You are obviously going to hell. Soon. & I will laugh.

[OnionPatch]

270. Barbara Taylor Bradford

The one book I read of hers was so boring, predictible and flat that it was literally painful to read. For the life of me, I can't fathom how she could be a best-selling author. My cat could write a better story.

[Bucky]

276. In SciFi, it's gotta be Harry Harrison.

Not just bad prose style, but even frequent and egregious grammar and punctuation errors. I assume his publishers must hire some proofreaders, but even at that the errors are so numerous that LOTS of bad writing mechanics still slip thru the screen. Just horrid.

[Spider Jerusalem]

279. No, L. Ron Hubbard...

(who actually IS worshipped, literally, by many people).

[Mr. Blonde]

282. JD Salinger

I should really like Catcher in the Rye (I'm pretty angsty) but it only took me about 5 pages to say just kill yourself and get it over with.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

283. Joseph Conrad

Just kiddin
Jealous of all the attention "Shakespeare" poster was getting

[sui generis]

293. I'm starting a copy cat thread

Absolute Wurst Writer Worshipped by Many People



plus as a bonus

Meat Marketing and Technology, The Absolute Wurst by Larry Aylward

[patcox2]

297. The Wurst of PDQ Bach

Thats an album, the wurst comedy album of all time.

[sui generis]

303. ask for Pee Dee Cue

just a table spoon or two, only PDQ will do. The pain. the pain. The painthepainthepainthepainthepainthepainthepain.

:rofl:

I love PDQ Bach.

[Katina]

304. Maeve Binchey

god, what a bunch of overly romanticised crap....I tried to read 3 of her books and was bored out of my mind by the 3rd chapter.

[Cleita]

306. I nominate the guy who wrote "The DaVinci Code". I

don't even remember is whole name, just his surname, Brown, I think.

[Evoman]

309. Will Pitt!

*dives down behind shelter as DUers throw flaming balls of shit at him*

I'm kidding!! Geez!