Worst book

Lala

Lala

Well-known member
So let’s go the opposite to our norm and what is the worst book you have ever read ?

Just reminded of mine as it was a quiz question on tv earlier.

Jackie Collins, The World is Full of Married Men

To be fair I was only about 16 when I read it. What a literary atrocity.

Yours ?
 
E F Schumacher's Small is Beautiful, although reading it might be a bit of a stretch, as I got to page 2 before deciding it was total nonsense.
 
The Complete Collection of Conservative Party Manifestos, by Jacob Rees-Mogg

Oh, and seriously Ulysses by James Joyce. No punctuation and completely unfathomable.

I very much doubt if more than a handful of people have finished it.
 
Ollygon said:
The Complete Collection of Conservative Party Manifestos, by Jacob Rees-Mogg

Oh, and seriously Ulysses by James Joyce. No punctuation and completely unfathomable.

I very much doubt if more than a handful of people have finished it.
Click to expand...
I nearly joined a book club that was reading Ulysses a few years back, but when I did a bit of research regarding what other people thought of it, one fella said it had caused him major depression that he had never shaken off 🧐

I ran a mile.
 
Last edited:
Up until a couple of months ago, I read two books at all times, one in the day and one in the evening. For some reason I can’t fathom, I just can’t get back into it.
 
Matesrates said:
Up until a couple of months ago, I read two books at all times, one in the day and one in the evening. For some reason I can’t fathom, I just can’t get back into it.
Click to expand...
I experience that quite a bit and it really annoys me as reading is a very splendid thing.
 
Interesting thread, and I hadn`t really thought too much about disappointing books, but one that I read all the way through and wish I hadn`t was `The Discovery of Heaven` by Harry Malisch. Frank Skinner said it was his favourite book of all time so I gave it a go. No idea what the second half of the book was about.

Huysman`s `Against Nature` was another recommendation that was more than dull. One of Bowie`s favourites apparently.

Don`t like saying anything bad about Dickens, but I found `Bleak House` glacially slow and opted out after 200 pages...
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I really liked the first few I read, but they became so angsty, it put me off.

Von Daniken Chariot of the Gods, fantasy played out as history
Click to expand...
I read Chariots of the Gods when I was about 10, loved it, and believed every word.
I’ve grown up since then (a little), but unfortunately 1000’s of adults still believe him!
I’m worried that he’s heading up the redevelopment project at the old Police station in town.
 
Worst book for me is Plan For Chaos by John Wyndham (one of my favourite authors).
It was released posthumously, is utter garbage, and only in my collection because of its historical context to Wyndham fans such as myself.
The amazing thing about the book, which, I’ll repeat, is utter, utter shite, is that he broke from writing it halfway through, wrote Day of the Triffids (one of the ‘Great’ sci-fi novels of all time) in a flash of inspiration, then went back to writing shit.
 
I haven't read it but the "sequel" to To Kill a Mockingbird - Go Set a Watchman. It was publicised as a sequel, but was actually just the original draft of TKAMB. As such, it is supposedly drastically worse and quite awfully changes some of the characters. What should have been an interesting historical document of how a writer got from point A to point B, with point B being one of the most important books of the English language, a publishing company decided that wouldn't make enough money and released it as a sham sequel. What's worse is while Harper Lee said she supported it, there are allegations that she was manipulated and in ill health and possibly unable properly able to consent. I can't think of a more deserving title of 'worst book', and I'd go as far as to say its existence is disgusting and even abusive, if these allegations are true.
 
Lala said:
I’m similar Tommy. I don‘t get past the second chapter these days if I’m not gripped by then.
Click to expand...
That's a terrible philosophy. If I'd followed that I would never have read Bleak House, which must be one of the finest books ever written.
 
foggy said:
I haven't read it but the "sequel" to To Kill a Mockingbird - Go Set a Watchman. It was publicised as a sequel, but was actually just the original draft of TKAMB. As such, it is supposedly drastically worse and quite awfully changes some of the characters. What should have been an interesting historical document of how a writer got from point A to point B, with point B being one of the most important books of the English language, a publishing company decided that wouldn't make enough money and released it as a sham sequel. What's worse is while Harper Lee said she supported it, there are allegations that she was manipulated and in ill health and possibly unable properly able to consent. I can't think of a more deserving title of 'worst book', and I'd go as far as to say its existence is disgusting and even abusive, if these allegations are true.
Click to expand...
I agree that “Go Set a Watchman” is a difficult read. Not least because it trashed Atticus Finch (who we all know in real life was Gregory Peck mourning his deceased wife and a damned good egg).

But I thought it was interesting that “To Kill and Mockingbird” was seen through the eyes of a child - Scout. And the film followed that theme and was very “woke” (before that fecking word was invented). So the whole thing was very “right and wrong”.

“Watchman” did the nuances. It was Scout’s experience as an adult revisiting the childhood memories and finding things weren’t quite what they seemed. So Atticus wasn’t Mr Liberal. He believed in segregation. But on the positive side he stood firmly against the even more extreme alternative.

And in the end, instead of idealising her dad, Scout saw Atticus as he truly was. A fundamentally good man but with flaws. And she loved the real man, warts and all, rather than the idealised version ie Gregory Peck.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time.

OK a book about space and time for the casual reader - great idea. Except it was too complicated for this casual reader.
Click to expand...
I struggled with that book as well.

There are better books that explain time and space. Sadly I can’t immediately remember them. But the first time you understand time isn’t a constant (so it passes at a different rate depending on how quickly you’re moving) it does make you realise how feeble your grasp on reality is.

Mind you Bill Bryson wrote a similar book when he said every atom in your body will have been replaced after seven years (so how can you claim you are you?). But I can’t remember the name of that book either.

I’m now going to try to think of a book that was a complete waste of time.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time.

OK a book about space and time for the casual reader - great idea. Except it was too complicated for this casual reader.
Click to expand...
Needed three or four reads to even get the basics, Roger Penrose explains the same concepts much better. If you listen to Penrose and then go back to Hawkins it's marginally easier
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I agree that “Go Set a Watchman” is a difficult read. Not least because it trashed Atticus Finch (who we all know in real life was Gregory Peck mourning his deceased wife and a damned good egg).

But I thought it was interesting that “To Kill and Mockingbird” was seen through the eyes of a child - Scout. And the film followed that theme and was very “woke” (before that fecking word was invented). So the whole thing was very “right and wrong”.

“Watchman” did the nuances. It was Scout’s experience as an adult revisiting the childhood memories and finding things weren’t quite what they seemed. So Atticus wasn’t Mr Liberal. He believed in segregation. But on the positive side he stood firmly against the even more extreme alternative.

And in the end, instead of idealising her dad, Scout saw Atticus as he truly was. A fundamentally good man but with flaws. And she loved the real man, warts and all, rather than the idealised version ie Gregory Peck.
Click to expand...
If you get a chance to see Aaron Sorkin's play that is (I think) still showing on the west end I would recommend it, as I think it modernises it away from the 'white saviour' trope and definitely challenges the audience on the naivety of Atticus, and asks you to question whether just being a polite and well spoken white liberal is to be championed as long as it has (ironically, by a lot of Sorkin's earlier work). Sounds like GSAW does similar? Like I said my issues were less the content, which I haven't read, and more in how it was marketed - how great an example it is of the depressing hold capitalism has over art.
 
foggy said:
If you get a chance to see Aaron Sorkin's play that is (I think) still showing on the west end I would recommend it, as I think it modernises it away from the 'white saviour' trope and definitely challenges the audience on the naivety of Atticus, and asks you to question whether just being a polite and well spoken white liberal is to be championed as long as it has (ironically, by a lot of Sorkin's earlier work). Sounds like GSAW does similar? Like I said my issues were less the content, which I haven't read, and more in how it was marketed - how great an example it is of the depressing hold capitalism has over art.
Click to expand...
I know “Go Set a Watchman” wasn’t well received but I imagine that was because it upset people’s impression of a much loved book/film. And both were lovely.

But if you think of “Mocking Bird” as being from the pov of a child, and “Watchman” being the much more complicated pov of the same person as an adult, then they dovetail nicely. And the second book adds lots of layers.

So going back to the op - I don’t agree that Watchman was a bad book.
 
The Dice Man was another one I really didn’t enjoy. I know literature is meant to stretch your boundaries and challenge your mind and imagination, but this was too dark for me.
 
foggy said:
If you get a chance to see Aaron Sorkin's play that is (I think) still showing on the west end I would recommend it, as I think it modernises it away from the 'white saviour' trope and definitely challenges the audience on the naivety of Atticus, and asks you to question whether just being a polite and well spoken white liberal is to be championed as long as it has (ironically, by a lot of Sorkin's earlier work). Sounds like GSAW does similar? Like I said my issues were less the content, which I haven't read, and more in how it was marketed - how great an example it is of the depressing hold capitalism has over art.
Click to expand...
Also. Atticus Finch in “Watchman” wasn’t a white saviour. Quite the opposite. He believed in segregation.

But his motivator was a belief in the law, due process and a fair trial.

And I think that is hinted at in “Mockingbird” as well when the judge is persuading him to take on the case. He doesn’t really want to but agrees, not because of any “liberal” leanings. But because he knows he can present the case and the evidence fairly. And for him that’s what’s important.

You need to read the two books back to back.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Also. Atticus Finch in “Watchman” wasn’t a white saviour. Quite the opposite. He believed in segregation.

But his motivator was a belief in the law, due process and a fair trial.

And I think that is hinted at in “Mockingbird” as well when the judge is persuading him to take on the case. He doesn’t really want to but agrees, not because of any “liberal” leanings. But because he knows he can present the case and the evidence fairly. And for him that’s what’s important.

You need to read the two books back to back.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was only talking about Mockingbird with that comment. In Sorkin's play he creates a new black character, or maybe she's in there already, I haven't read the book in a long time so can't quite remember, he certainly gives her a lot of new lines, and she challenges Atticus a lot on trying to work within the system, when the system is inherently racist. I guess that meaning has always been there since Lee wrote it, I think it was perhaps lost a little, especially with Peck's commanding performance in the film.
 
Probably not the worst book I’ve ever read, but Chisnall’s book about the Premier League season was particularly disappointing.
He did go into unnecessary detail about the quality of the pre match pies so at least Allez will have enjoyed it 😄.
 
rockontommy said:
Loads of books I've not finished. Life is too short for powering through a shit book.
Click to expand...
Totally agree…but then I am not a book reader.
Last book🤔I read was Lord of the Rings and before that the Hobbit because I loved the films ( and still do but I did say to my wife after watching the first Lord of the Rings “ is that it😳)
 
L’étranger said:
Probably not the worst book I’ve ever read, but Chisnall’s book about the Premier League season was particularly disappointing.
He did go into unnecessary detail about the quality of the pre match pies so at least Allez will have enjoyed it 😄.
Click to expand...
From memory it contains a couple of memorable passages about traffic problems around spaghetti junction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top