The Bad Book Club

[Nichole]

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.

That is actually hard for me to put into words. It just seemed after all the plodding I suddenly was really into the characters and wanted to know what happens next. If someone is interested in borrowing it, I always warn them it's hard to get into and I must do a good job because no one has borrowed it yet.

[nickg]

I thought The Curse of Challion and the books after it were great. Hell, the Vorkosigan books were good too. I think Bujold is a great female author. Jv jones too.

[peterbound]

Octavia Butler ain't to shabby either. I love her work.

[Vvandal]

The Demon Spirit was the second in the original trilogy, with four books that followed. I've only read the first three, but they're a fun read.

i must be mistaken. the one im thinking about is after the 1st 3 i enjoyed them well enough.... and just about any other RAS book i have read.

[Teng Ai Hui]

Two of the worst things I have ever read were Battlefield Earth and The Invaders Plan, both by L. Ron Hubbard. Ever since I refuse to read books by authors who use an initial in place of their first name.

[Inigima]

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.

I like this series quite a lot, but holy shit does it make one want to open a vein.

[nickg]

Two of the worst things I have ever read were Battlefield Earth and The Invaders Plan, both by L. Ron Hubbard. Ever since I refuse to read books by authors who use an initial in place of their first name.

might want to let R Scott Bakker be an exception to that rule.

[Nearly Headless Ned]

Ursula le Guin is, hands down, one of the most accomplished authors of speculative fiction period. In fact, I cannot think of a man writing science fiction during the same time period that I think is more accomplished in the genre than she is.

I am not considering her to be really of the same period as Asimov, since most of his work was published before hers, and I'm sure he was an influence on her, but I think she is on that level in terms of philosophical depth and literary value, although I am speaking more of the Hainish Cycle than Earthsea (nobody has influence like Asimov, some I'm not saying that, and of course he is more prolific). I would consider The Dispossessed to be her best work, and I am not alone as it won the Hugo and the Nebula (as did The Left Hand of Darkness 5 years before).

I am not holding Le Guin up as a token - I am saying that I don't see how someone could consider themselves to be a serious fan of speculative fiction without reading her work, much like I need to read more Asmiov.

Having said all that, to get back at the topic, I did not like Lavinia. At all. It was so freaking Marion Zimmer Bradley. ;)

Amen. I think she's probably my favourite author. Hard to believe some people wont read female authors because of some bad experiences. Seriously, the likes of Leguin,Mary Stewart and KJ parker are not to be compared with the excerable Elizabeth Moon or Laurell K Hamilton just because of gender. Surely some of the people in this thread are joking?

Anywhoo. Worst I've read was that Willow sequal by Chris Claremont and George Lucas. Made Goodkind seem like Ray Bradbury.

[Guest Raidne]

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.

Have you read either of her award-winning books, particularly The Dispossessed? Or anything from the Hainish Cycle? I think her world of a hominid expansion across space that took place thousands of years ago, the universe-weary millennia and milennia old Hainish, the technologically driven Cetians, who invent the ansible - later adopted by other notable sci fi authors - is iconic and fascinating. Le Guin does such a fantastic job with elements of genetic manipulation and the development of interstellar technology. And her prose is sort of...dreamlike.

That is why I hold her in such high esteem.

I've never finished Earthsea - wasn't my thing. It is written for a young adult audience, also.

[Nearly Headless Ned]

I've never finished Earthsea - wasn't my thing. It is written for a young adult audience, also.

I've heard that said before. Not sure why its thought of as such. I think its accesible and has a rights of passage theme for the first three books but it appeals to an older reader like myself as well.(Im 37)I wasn't put off at all by the 'young adult' tag.

[Guest Raidne]

I don't know, I mean, so is Harry Potter, even though many adults enjoy it. I think it's just to let people know that it is also appropriate for a younger audience. I'm not against the genre, and I didn't hate Earthsea, I just prefer my fiction a little darker. Like, I liked Lev Grossman's The Magicians, but I haven't read Harry Potter. I really needed the extra "adult" elements.

What can I say? Of course, you can take this too far for its own sake, a la R. Scott Bakker, who does indeed belong in the "authors with initials" club - the bad one, not the George R.R. or the J.R.R. one. Multiple initials = good. Single initial in place of first name = bad.

[Zap Rowsdower]

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.

I don't think I've ever read anything by this Farland fellow but your description has perked my interest, even though that probably wasn't your intent.

From the way you describe it doesn't seem like the author would be ignorant of all the implications. Fiction books shouldn't require commentary from the author telling the audience what is good and bad and what to think. Is it possible that Mr. Farland was just too subtle for you?

[peterbound]

Again, although i think we should start a separate thread on this, anyone that has hate in their hearts for female spec fic authors needs to go and pick up some Octavia Butler. Love that lady. And i'm kinda surprised she isn't being mentioned along with LeGuin in terms of accomplishments and standing. And what about Connie Willis, or Jo Walton, or a load of other accomplished female spec fic authors. It's unseemly to dismiss an entire block of books based on their authors gender, unless that author is writing about Malazan.

I can however sympathize, i dislike books written by over religious folks. I feel their beliefs make their way into their writing. They miss those 'adult' elements that Radine talks about, and tend (at least to me) to be preachy.

[Alytha]

Peterbound, have you read Fledgeling by Octavia Butler? That one ranges amongst the worst books I've ever read. I've also read her short story collection, which wasn't that bad, but I got the feeling that she was contantly feeling the need to make up for the fact that she was black...

[Nearly Headless Ned]

I don't think I've ever read anything by this Farland fellow but your description has perked my interest, even though that probably wasn't your intent.

From the way you describe it doesn't seem like the author would be ignorant of all the implications. Fiction books shouldn't require commentary from the author telling the audience what is good and bad and what to think. Is it possible that Mr. Farland was just too subtle for you?

Basically Farland has a good premise and some decent ideas but cant write for toffey. Trust me. Farland is a hack.

Shame really. As I said his series had a good premise but the writing is just horrible.

[Lordwalker]

It seems like my earlier comments have caused a stir. And to be honest, after re-reading the, it was a rather dick-ish thing to write. Please allow me to clarify.

I am in no way saying there are no good female authors. There are many, I have read many. That being said, I usually come to this board to get others ideas, opinions and recommendations on books I might like. Based on many of these recommendations I have picked up numerous fantasy genre books penned by both sexes. I have found, of the books recommended here by others, that most of the books that I have picked up written by females where not to my taste. There have been lots of male authors that I've picked up that I consider to by outright hacks. When I said I know longer take a chance on female writers, well, that was true. Perhaps wrong, but true. After reading the posts in this thread (and a similar one on another board) and looking up several of the books on Amazon, I will be changing my policy. Some of these seem pretty interesting and have gotten really good reviews. I have already downloaded a few samples to my Kindle and ordered another. So we shall see.

I apoligize for my remarks and any offense taken.

[Guest Raidne]

If you read these books and decide "wow, female speculative fiction authors are actually much better than I thought" and think, on the basis of that conclusion, that I will be happy with your development, you are cruelly and tragically wrong. Instead, I will be forced to conclude, instead of just speculate, that the area of your brain that allows you to maintain the particular without smooshing it into the general has been horrifically damaged in some kind of accident.

[SteveWestenra]

What are the worst books you've ever read?

Redbranch by Morgan Llywelyn. I really wanted to like this book, I really did. ): She's one of my best friend's favourite authors and this was her favourite of the books she'd read by her at that time. I ordered it from the library to read, but I just avoided telling my friend anything further than that. Had to put it down and give up (very rare for me). The pacing was horrific, the characters superficial and uninteresting, the author contradicted herself constantly, everything was told instead of shown, and it was just a complete mess of a book, for what could have been something truly awesome (the source material was excellent and very complex).

[SteveWestenra]

OH. And that Looking Glass Wars book by Frank Beddor. By far the absolute worst thing I have ever had the misfortune to read. I picked it up on a whim...never again.

Stay far, far away from that steaming pile of horseshite. D:

EDIT: And the first of the Frankenstein Trilogy by Dean Koonz (didn't bother to read the others so I can't comment on them). This was another much beloved book of the aforementioned friend. I probably shouldn't have been too surprised that it was bad, given the author (although I have read one book by him that I did really enjoy), but I was surprised that it was that bad. Again, much like the other two books I've listed it suffered from pacing issues, not helped much by the fact that nothing seemed to really happen. There were some characters who felt as though they could have been interesting if more had been written about them, but the whole thing just felt directionless.Virtually nothing happened in the chapters with the detective POVs in them-- just continual banter between the two cops. A very flimsy piece of writing.

Another series I would mention, not because it's the worst series I've ever read though, is The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. I mostly enjoyed these books, but after awhile they all just seem to run together in my head because each one follows the formula of the others so closely. They're a quick, mindless and fun read, but after awhile I've started to get annoyed with the author. There have been so many chances, within the series, for him to have taken the story down new and interesting avenues, or to expand on one or more of the characters, but instead he persists in introducing the idea of a twist/new take, only to have something happen that forces everything back to the way it was to start with. Also, it he consistently writes "gotten" instead of "got" or "had been given" / "was given." ALSO. For some reason it really bothers me that the inevitable love develops between the main character and his female sidekick. At first I was impressed that Butcher hadn't gone this route, and that instead the love interest was a completely different character and a very complex and interesting one, but the later development of affections between Harry and the more predictable female character just irritated me. Kind of nauseating.

[Lordwalker]

If you read these books and decide "wow, female speculative fiction authors are actually much better than I thought" and think, on the basis of that conclusion, that I will be happy with your development, you are cruelly and tragically wrong. Instead, I will be forced to conclude, instead of just speculate, that the area of your brain that allows you to maintain the particular without smooshing it into the general has been horrifically damaged in some kind of accident.

Um, OK. Not to be rude or anything, but I could really care less if you will be happy with my development or not. It was not my point to provide you with any particular joy. I will be happy if I find some new authors whose writing I enjoy and therefore have more books that I want to read then I have time for.

I was merely trying to clarify my earlier jack-ass post that spurred so much debate.