The Bad Book Club

[Datepalm]

Damn you all. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I have once again picked up Runelords 1, The Sum of All Men.

Someone is going to have to come by when the weekend is over and gently calm down the gibbering, maybe point me in the general direction of school, work, etc, again.

ETA - this book has the modst depressing fantasy map ever. Its all dark grey and agular and totally lacking any of the "ooh, stepping into a new world" sense even really bad fantasy maps deliver in spades, and filled with names like Toom, Fleeds and the Hest Mountains. Does anyone want to go to Fleeds? Theres also a layout of a castle that looks like it was drawn with line tools from MS Paint and is labeled like a game of Clue.

[SteveWestenra]

Based upon what has been said here I find myself wanting to read the Farland book simply for the lulz. D:

[Datepalm]

Based upon what has been said here I find myself wanting to read the Farland book simply for the lulz. D:

Alas, i've beaten you to it: on only page 4, after setting out for several pages a northern europeanish setting, we get :

...Two men were struggling in the shadows for control of a knife.

Could you have seen them, you might have been reminded of Tarantuals in battle.

[Nichole]

Blaine, good god that Dexter book sounds horrible. I think you could unspoiler that, let everyone who hasn't read it know exactly what happens, and everyone would thank you for it.

I was going to mention Wizard's First Rule earlier, but decided against it since others were. Reading people's posts is reminding me of just how horrible it was and I find my rage rising in me.

I remember there was a similar thread a few years ago about horrible books and someone shared with us all about this horrible book they had read, I think it was Nights with Sasquatch. It was essentially, a guy and girl go camping and big foot kidnaps the girl so that he can have sex with her, and she enjoys it.

[Poobah]

Hahaha. Well, I wouldn't want to turn someone away from something they might enjoy. They definitely aren't on the same level of utter badness as the other three books I mentioned (which I WOULD want to turn someone away from reading). They're quick and they're fun for the first few books, but the series (in my opinion) hasn't developed enough to warrant there being so many of them. Also, Jim Butcher needs a better editor (or perhaps a grammar text). D:

I definitely wouldn't turn people away from The Dresden Files! They're fun and have great dynamism and pacing. Also probably the only thing I've ever read within the 'urban fantasy' sub-genre that I would actually consider recommending to anyone. Also without getting too into it Harry might be hung up on Murphy but she really isn't interested and knows she isn't right for him. Besides he doesn't send her P90's in chocolate boxes unlike certain other badass mercenaries that she associates with. I'm not calling them amazing works of literature, but they get steadily better and Butcher definitely matures as a writer throughout. I've really really enjoyed the more recent ones especially. Anyways I don't think this series should be thrown in with some of these seriously Bad Books.

[Spastic Plastic]

Nights with Sasquatch. It was essentially, a guy and girl go camping and bigfoot kidnaps the girl so that he can have sex with her, and she enjoys it.

That sounds like fucking comedy gold. I wish I'd read it. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Eponine]

I'd hate to let this thread go by without complaining about Donaldson's Mirror of Her Dreams. I really need to find a new worst book ever to have something new to complain about, but it's been probably 4-5 years and I haven't read anything nearly so bad in all that time. (I'm sure I could seek out something worse, but I'd have to actually read it to complain about it).

A book that wasn't nearly so bad but that I was surprised that I hated was Roth's The Human Stain. All the characters are repugnant and most of them are entirely unbelievable. Any good parts were overwhelmed by whiny self indulgence and complete lack of focus.

[Nichole]

That sounds like fucking comedy gold. I wish I'd read it. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I really wish I could remember who had posted about it. I had a hard time believing they were not just making it up.

[A Time for Wolves]

I remember there was a similar thread a few years ago about horrible books and someone shared with us all about this horrible book they had read, I think it was Nights with Sasquatch. It was essentially, a guy and girl go camping and big foot kidnaps the girl so that he can have sex with her, and she enjoys it.

...and that is at the level of The Very Virile Viking, at least. I would totally make that my train book.

I am sad at the Le Guin disliking. Le Guin is the grandmistress of fantasy for me.

Okay, I will nominate Mercedes Lackey for this thread, if she hasn't been mentioned already - an example of all that went wrong with female writers in fantasy.

[peterbound]

I'd hate to let this thread go by without complaining about Donaldson's Mirror of Her Dreams. I really need to find a new worst book ever to have something new to complain about, but it's been probably 4-5 years and I haven't read anything nearly so bad in all that time. (I'm sure I could seek out something worse, but I'd have to actually read it to complain about it).

A book that wasn't nearly so bad but that I was surprised that I hated was Roth's The Human Stain. All the characters are repugnant and most of them are entirely unbelievable. Any good parts were overwhelmed by whiny self indulgence and complete lack of focus.

Le Sigh, i was wonder how long it would take for you to come on here and start bagging on my boy Stephen :)

[Myshkin]

I'd hate to let this thread go by without complaining about Donaldson's Mirror of Her Dreams. I really need to find a new worst book ever to have something new to complain about, but it's been probably 4-5 years and I haven't read anything nearly so bad in all that time. (I'm sure I could seek out something worse, but I'd have to actually read it to complain about it).

I get that Donaldson is a love him or hate him author, but no way does he deserve to be placed beside the likes of Goodkind, Newcomb, or Farland.

[Eponine]

Le Sigh, i was wonder how long it would take for you to come on here and start bagging on my boy Stephen :)

If this wasn't actually my review, it is now. It's an Amazon review, written in 2004 by an anonymous reviewer... and I THINK that I wrote it, but I don't really remember.

The main plot device was kind of "cute"- the mirrors and the translations. The mystery regarding which characters were good, which were evil, and whether goodness or badness mattered as long as they were trying to save Mordant (and should Mordant really be saved) was well written. Almost all the characters were terribly flat, however. Teresa is completely one-dimensional and her stupidity is sickening. I'm not saying that there aren't people like her in the world, just that no one wants to read about them. Instead of developing her as a character, the author repeats over and over how she had always felt non-existant and how she wasn't used to power and how she absolutely couldn't resist whenever anyone smiled at her or touched her. One gets the feeling that if the cook had been the first person in the book to smile at her, she would have spent the rest of her time in the kitchen and the story would never have been finished. If you've ever read the (excellent and highly recommended!) Song of Ice and Fire books by GRR Martin, reading this book was like reading nothing but Sansa's viewpoints, only less refined, less observant, and less eloquent and articulate.

I'd like to add before you say that her character did develop, that all character progression was constantly being compared to her previous lack of personality. So the few changes that she made near the end of the book were always described something like "Teresa felt a surprising seed of confidence, which amazed her as she remembered her former sense of non-existence..." Even when she stopped having such annoyingly low self-esteem, Donaldson still wouldn't shut up with repeating about how she USED TO have low self-esteem. So the beginning of the book says on every page, "Teresa, who was feeling non-existent", and the end of the book says on every page, "Teresa, who used to feel non-existent and still sometimes does..." (Incidentally, this is also my problem with Thomas Covenant's leprosy).

[Eponine]

I get that Donaldson is a love him or hate him author, but no way does he deserve to be placed beside the likes of Goodkind, Newcomb, or Farland.

I think that Wizard's First Rule is a better book than Mirror of Her Dreams. I haven't read Goodkind's most recent books, and never read Newcomb or Farland.

Thomas Covenant lacks the comedic value of the book with the evil chicken.

I do like some of Donaldson's short stories, and am told that I would probably like the Gap Cycle as it has a different tone and style.

[Nearly Headless Ned]

Apparently Celia Dart Thornton is so fantastically naff that her work might be worth a brief lok.

Any story with the line "You!" He ejaculated. Should be treasured as the art it most certainly is.

[peterbound]

I think that Wizard's First Rule is a better book than Mirror of Her Dreams. I haven't read Goodkind's most recent books, and never read Newcomb or Farland.

Thomas Covenant lacks the comedic value of the book with the evil chicken.

I do like some of Donaldson's short stories, and am told that I would probably like the Gap Cycle as it has a different tone and style.

This statement literally made a lonely tear come out of my eye. You broke my heart with this one Eponine.

Sure, MOHD isn't the best of his work, but worse than WFR? That's an earth shattering statement.

[Old Nan]

I think you're missing Datepalm's point. Goodkind has, at least, realised what his agenda is, and has deliberately chosen to evangelise it through the medium of mediocre fantasy. GRRM, while not overtly evangelising, is certainly aware of the moral implications of his characters' actions and so hasn't (eg) made Gregor the hero. It sounds like this Runelords guy is just completely clueless about what even constitutes a grey area and is happily writing about this evil society without even noticing that it's evil.

No, I got that. But so what? Why does it offend that that an author can be amoral? Would ASOIAF with Gregor taking Jon's role suddenly cross some ethical line? Or for a novel set amidst the Holocaust to not pay homage to the pieties of the Holocaust? I completely understand if it's not your cup of tea–it's not mine, either–but really, there seems from Datepalm's vehemence to be some real problem with not framing a story within a grand ethical narrative.

And yes, this is why I brought up socialism, because the artistic schools of communist countries, like socialist realism, are necessarily exaltative, and even the anticommunist subversive art they put forth is usually focused with equal trenchancy, if on squalor and deprivation. There is no appreciation of subtlety or fancy for a Socialist, and I am not certain that even today there can be one.

Is there a political agenda in Martin's books

Yes. A modernist, anti-feudal, egalitarian, and liberal humanist one.

[MinDonner]

No, I got that. But so what? Why does it offend that that an author can be amoral? Would ASOIAF with Gregor taking Jon's role suddenly cross some ethical line? Or for a novel set amidst the Holocaust to not pay homage to the pieties of the Holocaust? I completely understand if it's not your cup of tea–it's not mine, either–but really, there seems from Datepalm's vehemence to be some real problem with not framing a story within a grand ethical narrative.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't find that a moral failing of the author so much as one of just bad writing. People do frame things in an ethical narrative, and if not one of the characters in a book has one of those, that's just lazy and bad writing. I'm fine with amoral lead characters and anti-heroes, but an entire cast of characters who happily and blithely go along with injustices because the plot demands it of them, or because the author hasn't noticed? No-one does that, it's just not how people work, so a failure to include any of that, well, makes a book rather shit.

[Old Nan]

It may not be how people typically work in fiction-land, but in the real world it seems to me most of us are perfectly comfortable ignoring injustices perpetrated either by or upon ourselves almost all of the time. Realism is unrealistic.

[Datepalm]

No, I got that. But so what? Why does it offend that that an author can be amoral? Would ASOIAF with Gregor taking Jon's role suddenly cross some ethical line? Or for a novel set amidst the Holocaust to not pay homage to the pieties of the Holocaust? I completely understand if it's not your cup of tea–it's not mine, either–but really, there seems from Datepalm's vehemence to be some real problem with not framing a story within a grand ethical narrative.

I don't by and large read fiction for the ethics, to be honest. (I don't actually find, say, Meiville to be a particularly good writer in expressing socialist morality, for example.) But what I think most of people, quite outside any ideology, come to a book with is an expectation that they could identify with the characters, empasize, be moved - or to the contrary, find them despicable, get angry at them, or even both with that elusive 'greyness', y'know, something. Whatever the author intends.

But here theres just a total disconnect from the way the characters behave (and the way the text is is treating them) and the way I think of humans behaving. I'm apparently reading about Nazis, fine, but if i'm reading about Nazis I do expect to feel something - sympathy? Horror? Disgust? Fascination? Banality? An understanding of what it was that led them to become Nazis? It depends on the story the author is writing, I suppose. Theres just none of that with this book. The author just dosen't notice that there exists an extraordinary behaviour that needs exploring here in any way at all.

There is no appreciation of subtlety or fancy for a Socialist, and I am not certain that even today there can be one.

This is interesting. Can you elaborate?

[Eponine]

This statement literally made a lonely tear come out of my eye. You broke my heart with this one Eponine.

Sure, MOHD isn't the best of his work, but worse than WFR? That's an earth shattering statement.

WFR is fairly fast moving. I know that the Yeard didn't mean for it to be funny, but when I read it, I didn't know that it was supposed to be about Important Human Themes. I thought that it was over the top on purpose. Lots and lots of stuff happens. Ridiculous crazy stuff, which is also funny if you read it from the right perspective.

I read MOHD because I heard it was supposed to have a good plot and good characters. I didn't find either of these things to be true, and because Teresa was such a passive character, I didn't care what was happening to her. Maybe the book actually worked too well in this regard - being in Teresa's head too long and my self esteem and self interest also plummeted.

Even though Richard was a ridiculous character, I still wanted to know what was going to happen to him. Teresa and her story were so boring and tedious that I didn't care if she just sat down and died. Therefore WFR is the better book.