The Bad Book Club

[Zoë Sumra]

Ian Irvine's A Shadow on the Glass was so bad I gave up after about fifty pages. Note how this put me off male authors forever. :rolleyes:

[Alytha]

:thumbsup: Go for it sister!!

[Guest Raidne]

OMG. Ysabel. How did I forget? That is seriously one of the worst, worst books I have ever read. Just terrible.

[Procrastimancer]

It is rather hard for me to come up with an answer to this. I tend to forget about books I really dislike and the books that stick out in my mind are the ones that turn out to be the most disappointing.

Taking a look at my stacks of books, only a few stand out:

R.A. & Geno Salvatore's The Stowaway - Of course, you don't go into a Salvatore book expecting high quality fiction. If you expect anything more than a few hours of entertaining fluff (and some theme work in the earlier novels, along the lines of race and alcoholism) then you are shit out of luck. Being a fan of Salvatore, I am obligated to at least attempt most of what he releases and this one, given that his son was coauthor, inspired some interesting. Unfortunately, it reads like fan fiction that ends mid-chapter with the author promising the rest at a later date. Worst book? I finished it, so no.

Jay Lake's Madness of Flowers - Trial of Flowers was an excellent book. The sequel, on the other hand, was not. In fact, I am left scratching my head as to why the book ever needed a sequel in the first place, given that it ended with a sense of finality that didn't exactly leave room for continuation. It was an enjoyable read at first, but as the book neared the end, Madness of Flowers became an exercise in redundancy and confusing.

Michael Marshall Smith's The Servants - The same author who wrote the brilliance that was Only Forward wrote this? Basically a book about a brat whining about how he doesn't get his way. Of course, that's not all that the book is about, it just outweighs everything else.

---

Oh wait, there is one that I would consider the worst. It was lurking under my book shelves, the sole occupant of the Pile of Shame. It gets more than a little love on this forum, but I trudged through it and found nothing positive worth noting. I am speaking of David Anthony Durham's Acacia.

---

Female authors tend to be miss rather than hit for me, but I would not brush the entirety of their writing with one broad stroke. I attempted N.K. Jemisin's The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms and only made it a few chapters in before finally giving up on ever getting into the book. Kaaron Warren's Slights I put down after a hundred something pages because I loathe the main character more than any other I've ever encountered and that includes the former placeholder: Cugel the Clever. On the other side of the coin lies Cat Valente, who has some of the best prose I have read in her The Orphan's Tales duology, and Maureen McHugh, with the excellent China Mountain Zhang. Hell, even Mercedes Lackey gets a mention for her Joust series, which I thought was immensely enjoyable a few years back and haven't touched since for fear it may be horrible now.

[Arthmail]

:rofl:

So you haven't even read LeGuin in a serious way and you conclude that all female SFF writers are shite?

:lmao:

Well, at least we now know how seriously to take your comment.

You read any of my posts, or did you just skim them? At what point did i conclude, in any of my posts, that all female writers are shit? Did you miss the part where i said i owned and was going to give a go to Susanna Clark a go? That what i had read did not impress me. Considering that so far i have yet to find a female author that i do like, what would be my drive to read LeGuin aside from recommendations. So many books to read, and surprisingly, they are not all fiction.

I'm presuming this is a joke and you know that Naomi Klein is the author of (the brilliant) The Shock Doctrine

I absolutely loved The Crimson Petal and the White :) Our mileage has indeed varied here! :fencing:

Read the post man. I mentioned that my female authors seem focused on non-fiction, and then i listed Klein and her book as an example. Of non-fiction.

And this...snobbery going around about not reading LeGuin is retarded. If someone has not read Dune, which i consider, and from its sales records perhaps a few agree with me, to be the most influential science fiction novel ever written, i don't deride them for it. I suggest they read it. I certainly don't spout off about serious fans of spec fiction and blah, blah, blah.

I just haven't gotten around to reading it. But it makes you no more a fan of the genre than i am, and to think otherwise is simply fucking stupid.

[Poobah]

Arthmail: people are suggesting and others are ACTUALLY TAKING SERIOUSLY the suggestion of writing off all SF written by female authors. That's just blanket bullshit. And all people are saying is 'woah, hang on a minute, here's an example of an excellent female SF writer' which in the face of such blatant bigotry seems to be a reasonable response

[Datepalm]

Can someone say what's so bad about Farland? I've never read him, but I've actually heard good things from some people.

Someones already answered, but I love to complain about this book:

Its a sub B level fantasy series, in terms of writing, characterization, etc, with a really dark, morally distubring and fascinating central conciet/'magic system' which the author is apparently completely unaware of - ie, what any sane human being would regard as a harrowing tale of the systemic depravity humanity is capable of, he ignores completely in favour of a bad, I dunno, Dragonlance ripoff. Its like reading a book of one young mans journey and coming of age set during the Holocaust, and the author using that as a kind of backdrop without ever apparently noticing that theres anything, y'know, wrong with there being a holocaust.

Actual details, no plot spoilers though. (I could go on and on about this book, unfortunately)

The magic system is the ability of people to take 'attributes' from others - if A has taken, say, B's Beauty, A will be twice as beautiful, and B hideously ugly, same for strength (B a cripple for life), sight (Blind), brains (a literally drooling imbecile), etc, etc, even the sense of touch. Who gets and who gives "attributes" is determined by a rigid, psuedo-fuedal class system and quite openly by moeny - examples like two sisters who give all their beauty and brains to a third who will then be charming enough to net a rich husband

and keep all three of them - the two sisters having raised themselves from a life of poverty to one of...drooling idiocy, literally hidden out of sight becuase they're just that ugly.

Its organ harvesting raised to the main economic activity of a society. Moreover, the 'givers' give beacuse they want to. They just love their lord's so much its a true feeling of personal growth for them to literally dismantle their bodies for them. What do they get in return? Why, the honor and priveledge of those capable of it becoming servant in the Lords castle. (the rest are kept in a kind of disturbed old folks home.) The rich both literally cannibalize the working class, turning their lives and bodies into a product they consume, and (I love this bit) simultaneously exploit their labour.

(GRRM has written a story - Meathouse Man - thats the antidote to this book)

So far so good, intriguing idea, right? Except Farland appears to completely accept his own premise. As far as I can tell, there is no hint or subtext in the book that he thinks that this system is in anyway, y'know, wrong. His main characters are all nobles, all of whom have many 'attributes', and its never suggested that theres anything wrong with that. They aren't grey or morally conflicted heroes, we aren't supposed to feel ambivalent about them, they take their position as a granted and apparently we are meant to as well.

Also, plenty of givers show up, quite fairly displayed as pathetic, destitute and suffering - theres just never any hint of criticism of that within the text. This is another desperately weird thing - its not like he came up with a way to make his heroes really powerful and then brushed the logical consequences under the carpet, like some Medieval fantasy about a super rich lord that just never mentions the peasants - no, its all out there. A lot of time is spent on various commoner characters. (Theres an intriguing scene where a maid who had her touch taken away gets it back suddenly - Farland and the hero both brush right over it) Their lives are rather vividly (well, as much as possible, given the mediocre writing style) portrayed as thoroughly, systemically and deliberately caused to be miserable by the cruelty and selfishness of the heroes, as a class and as individuals...the problem is, the book just dosen't care.

OMG. Ysabel. How did I forget? That is seriously one of the worst, worst books I have ever read. Just terrible.

By GGK? I'm curious, what about it elevated it to one of the worst books ever? I didn't think it was particularly good, but it was a largely inoffensive bit of fairly fun reading with some good atmosphere at times.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Arthmail

You read any of my posts, or did you just skim them? At what point did i conclude, in any of my posts, that all female writers are shit?

I read your posts. But perhaps you had forgotten the context of your own posting?

Here's the sequence of events, for your edification:

Like SKI I no longer take a chance with female fantasy writers. Unfortunately, Robin Hobb is one of the reasons why.

On the non-scifi/fantasy side: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Worst. Thriller. Ever. This one is waaay overhyped. I hate putting down a book, but I decided about half way through that I was NOT enjoying it and I owed it to myself to move onto something else. I don't know how this book has remained on the bestseller lists.

One of the most overused xkcd comics ever, but sadly still relevant

Seriously, why do people still think it's OK to say shit like this?

Why is not okay to say this shit? Its personal preference. I tried Hobb, and liked her at first, but i won't lie that within a book and a half i totally despised her. Not personally, mind you. I've done the same with male authors as well. I'd like to think that i'm open minded about all of this, but if i think of all the authors on my shelves, they only come in the non-fiction kind....like Naomi Cambell and the Shock Doctrine. Though i wish to give Ursalla a try.

And a second to Farland. He has a really cool premise, which he proceeds to shit all over on.

So, you were, in fact, defending the idea that female SFF authors are not deserving of being read because they are generally inferior. If you don't want to defend that opinion, then, I don't know, stop posting statements in support of it, perhaps?

[Guest Raidne]

Considering that so far i have yet to find a female author that i do like, what would be my drive to read LeGuin aside from recommendations.

Oh for the love of all that is good and right. This is what you're saying to defend yourself? Did everyone else miss this?

I would recommend Le Guin as a classic speculative fiction author. I would not recommend her on the basis that she lacks a Y chromosome. I would not recommend anyone based on their chromosomal make-up or genitalia.

WTF is so difficult about this? Where is your brain malfunction, precisely?

Try not thinking of authors as male or female. If they have a male-sounding pen name, as many of them have, you probably haven't even realized it. Just like with race. Would you refer to "my black authors?"

And this...snobbery going around about not reading LeGuin is retarded. If someone has not read Dune, which i consider, and from its sales records perhaps a few agree with me, to be the most influential science fiction novel ever written, i don't deride them for it. I suggest they read it. I certainly don't spout off about serious fans of spec fiction and blah, blah, blah.

If someone said all speculative fiction is sucky trash, and had not read Dune, I would in fact judge their opinion to be not worth much.

But it makes you no more a fan of the genre than i am, and to think otherwise is simply fucking stupid.

No, it doesn't. It just makes my opinion more informed. Just like Stego, Wert, and many, many other people around here have opinions about speculative fiction, types, trends, etc., that are much more informed than mine.

By GGK? I'm curious, what about it elevated it to one of the worst books ever? I didn't think it was particularly good, but it was a largely inoffensive bit of fairly fun reading with some good atmosphere at times.

Inoffensive? The thing that jumps to mind the quickest is Kay trying to give us the flavor of what "kids these days" talk like. Yuck.

[MinDonner]

Read the post man. I mentioned that my female authors seem focused on non-fiction, and then i listed Klein and her book as an example. Of non-fiction.

No. You mentioned Naomi Campbell. Hence, I imagine, Peadar's hilarity.

[Arthmail]

Arthmail: people are suggesting and others are ACTUALLY TAKING SERIOUSLY the suggestion of writing off all SF written by female authors. That's just blanket bullshit. And all people are saying is 'woah, hang on a minute, here's an example of an excellent female SF writer' which in the face of such blatant bigotry seems to be a reasonable response

Sure. I can understand that. It is, however, a personal choice. Why do you take offence? And i was not one of those saying that i would never try it again. Perhaps i took something of a hard line stance at the beginning, but that softened when i realized that i actually owned a book that i have been looking forward to reading once my pile goes down a little.

[Guest Raidne]

Right, you just said that all the bad female authors you've read - in fiction - made you be all not in a hurry or anything to pick up another book by a female author.

It's kind of like how my husband is with fish. He knows that there are fish dishes out there that people seem to like, but having not really liked fish in the past, he's not really in a rush to try one when there's all this red meat on the menu.

But, the thing is, grouper has more in common with swordfish by virtue of the fact that they are both fish then two women authors do.

It's not like they are "female flavor."

[Old Nan]

It's not like they are "female flavor."

I think this may have been a Happy Ent beacon.

[Errant Bard]

There's certainly a certain cultural flavour which separates what's written by women from what's written by men, on average, but that's only average and means nothing about what one particular author can do. There's after all undeniably a marked difference between men and women socially and culturally (innate or acquired, whatever), that can only be reflected in the global bend each subgroup has.

[Jaxom 1974]

One of Auel's Ayla books. Don't remember which one and never finished it, but is was basically: Ayla and Jondalar walk, Ayla and Jondalar have sex, Ayla and Jondalar meet some people, Ayla and Jondalar have sex, Ayla and Jondalar walk some more, Ayla and Jondalar have sex ....

Isn't that basically books three through five for her...?

I absolutely loved The Crimson Petal and the White :) Our mileage has indeed varied here! :fencing:

I had a hard time getting into it, but ended up loving this book.

In what way was it good? It plodded. It simpered. It was just dull. I mean Victorian London, real hotbed of excitement and all, but it was d.u.l.l.

[Guest Raidne]

There's certainly a certain cultural flavour which separates what's written by women from what's written by men, on average, but that's only average and means nothing about what one particular author can do. There's after all undeniably a marked difference between men and women socially and culturally (innate or acquired, whatever), that can only be reflected in the global bend each subgroup has.

No, the point is that there isn't. No "female flavor." This is not to say that there is not chick lit, just like there are Van Damme movies, but you could be a man and write chick lit. It's a genre.

We are talking about authors. Specifically, speculative fiction authors. A female British author and a male British author are going to have more in common and be more different from their American counterparts than their gender counterparts. I can't even think of what it means to say "oh, this book is by a woman therefore it will have more...." There is nothing in, say, an Erickson book that says to me "this is written by a man."

Men and women are more alike than they are different, and there are other groupings that are a lot more interesting and relevant, but god forbid we talk about South American literature or British vs. American fantasy authors when we can talk about the utterly dull, uninteresting, uneducated, and total lack of value added subject of male and female in fiction.

ETA: I'd like to add, on topic, that since I haven't read all of Bakker's books I really feel like it's not fair to pick one to be the worst.

[williamjm]

Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms novels.

Even at 14/15 I could tell that it was incredibly bad, a lot worse than even the other bad Forgotten Realms novels I read at the time. And yet I was still dumb enough to read not one, but two of them (Spellfire and Crown of Fire) and the second one was even worse than the first.

All I can remember is that the heroin traveled... and then the bad guys would ambush her to... and she'd kick their ass with her awesome fire powers, and then she'd travel some more, and get ambushed once again, and kick some more ass and then it'd begin all over and over again.

Crown of Fire would definitely be a contender for the worst book I've read. As well as the issues you've mentioned, there is also the fact that large parts of it didn't seem to make any sense. It introduced some villains who weren't in the first book, but from what I remember (and it has been many years since I read it) it never explained who they were or what their motivations or what the point of the book was other than to have a series of ludicrous action sequences between overpowered characters.

David and Leigh Eddings' The Elder Gods would be another contender, people have been criticising The Redemption of Althalus here and it does deserve that criticism but The Elder Gods was even worse.

Ian Irvine's A Shadow on the Glass was so bad I gave up after about fifty pages. Note how this put me off male authors forever. :rolleyes:

Now that you mention it, I don't think I've read a book by an Australian author since I read A Shadow on the Glass.

Probably a coincidence, though ;)

I wouldn't rank it among the worst books I've read, but I did think it was very mediocre.

[ljkeane]

I would recommend Le Guin as a classic speculative fiction author.

This gets mentioned a lot but I admit I don't remember thinking The Earthsea Quartet was particularly stand out when I read it (I thought it was ok) but I was about 12. Are people talking about some of her other work or have I just failed to appreciate it?

Oh and as bad books go I thought Toll the Hounds was awful, one of the very few books I've ever failed to finish reading.

[Guest Raidne]

This gets mentioned a lot but I admit I don't remember thinking The Earthsea Quartet was particularly stand out when I read it (I thought it was ok) but I was about 12. Are people talking about some of her other work or have I just failed to appreciate it?

Yes, in particular the two that have already been mentioned that won both the Hugo and the Nebula the year they came out, five years apart.

[Myshkin]

Ursula Le Guin sucks in my opinion. Well "sucks" is a pretty harsh word, but I never understood why so many hold her in such high esteem. Robin Hobb is mediocre at best, tedious and boring, but I keep reading her work so I would not say she comes even close to being in the "bad book club". If you think female SF/F is all terrible I would suggest reading JV Jones' Sword of Shadows series, which is one of the best fantasy series going right now.

And to clear something up: do you folks who are saying you don't read female authors mean female SF/F authors, or all female authors?