I don't think Guy N Smith books are meant to be taken that seriously, they are basically cheap throw away horror books, and sometimes so bad its funny.
I do remember that one book had a scene that was set about a mile from where I live, that made me smile (easily pleased I know!)
oh I totally agree!!
A ridiculous book, couldn't understand the hype, still can't
and that awful 'mysterious dog in the night time' travesty, passed off as literature, ugh:eek:
so awful i can't remember the title!!:p:rolleyes:
I seem to remember one or the other were booker prize nominees?
there's a lot of pretensious crap out there!:rolleyes:
oh I totally agree!!
A ridiculous book, couldn't understand the hype, still can't
and that awful 'mysterious dog in the night time' travesty, passed off as literature, ugh:eek:
so awful i can't remember the title!!:p:rolleyes:
I seem to remember one or the other were booker prize nominees?
there's a lot of pretensious crap out there!:rolleyes:
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night time? I've just read that and was very moved by it. I thought it a wonderful book
It has to be Breaking Dawn by Stephanie Meyer. The editor must have been sleeping, grammatical errors of all kinds, and the story has to be most juvenile rubbish writing ever published. My diary at 9 years old had more depth than this garbage. No wonder a lot of people went to the bookstore to return it, this book should not have seen the light of day. I'm glad i didn't bought it or i should have done the same.
I don't know what the worst book I ever read is, however the ending of 'Amsterdam' by Ian McEwan was a big cop out, and ruined the rest of it completely for me. I really like 'Atonement' so it was quite disappointing for me.
I also do not like Twilight, particularly for the view of women it has, which is backward to say the least! (And plus Stephanie Meyer saying each one of the series is based on a 'literary classic' is a great insult to a number of my favourite books.)
Perhaps it didn't translate well but it was a hardship reading it, though I perservered.
The way I remember it the main character spends two entire chapters as a stone statue in a forrest clearing doing nothing whatsoever, as stone statutres tend to do (or rather not do).
I will accept that my memory may have exagerated the length of that interlude somewhat. Though at 864 pages overall possibly not.
It would have to be some historical fiction novels gifted to me by a friend. I can't remember the name of the author but she is well known in that genre and writes about Medieval wenches. The dialogue was laughable and the sex scenes painfully funny.
I also could not read more than a few pages of Requiem for a Dream because of the author's insane decision to use (I think) New York Jewish slang and omit most punctuation from the book. I vaguely knew what was going on because I had seen the film but if I hadn't I would have been completely in the dark.
I read The Sea, and apart from a very vague sense of the plot, can barely remember reading it - it was that memorable. Not.
I haven't read anything by McEwan since Saturday. I did end up finishing it, but that book really did make me reconsider my never giving up on a book stance. Life is really too short sometimes.
Friend of mine read Saturday a while back, I asked her how it was going and she said "well, I'm 100 pages in and he hasn't even got out of bed yet." Sounded thrilling.
It would have to be some historical fiction novels gifted to me by a friend. I can't remember the name of the author but she is well known in that genre and writes about Medieval wenches. The dialogue was laughable and the sex scenes painfully funny.
I also could not read more than a few pages of Requiem for a Dream because of the author's insane decision to use (I think) New York Jewish slang and omit most punctuation from the book. I vaguely knew what was going on because I had seen the film but if I hadn't I would have been completely in the dark.
It wouldn't be Philippa Gregory's "Alice Hartley's Happiness" by any chance would it? I read this (generally like Gregory's historical fiction) but despised this with a passion. Just truly awful.
Labyrinth by Kate Mosse.
HATED HATED HATED IT!!!
It's one of only a handful of books I haven't completed.
Sadly I did complete it, think I had a vague sense of 'it'll get better in a minute' - it didn't, awful.
Hated The Little Friend - Donna Tartt - finished it and went back and read the last 50 pages again (whilst crying on the inside) and still didn't know who killed the little boy - the threw the bloody thing across the room. (and I loved The Secret History), it starts really well, and then meanders on page, after page, after page......
But the absolute worst was Roots of Evil by Sarah Rayne - badly written, completely ridiculous overblown plot, hugely inaccurate history wise and plot holes you could drive the army tank division through.
Like others I also hated The Time Travellers Wife but the worst book I have ever read by a clear mile is Angelology by Danielle Trussoni. I got it because I liked the sound of the concept but I found it poorly written with bad characterisation nd awful pacing. Never even finished it. Nearly threw it in the bin was so disappointed but ultimately gave it to the charity shop - someone will probably love it....
It wouldn't be Philippa Gregory's "Alice Hartley's Happiness" by any chance would it? I read this (generally like Gregory's historical fiction) but despised this with a passion. Just truly awful.
Nope not Philippa Gregory. I think this author writes exclusively about the Medieval period. I wish I could remember her name but it was many years ago that I was given a set of her books as a gift.
Like others I also hated The Time Travellers Wife but the worst book I have ever read by a clear mile is Angelology by Danielle Trussoni. I got it because I liked the sound of the concept but I found it poorly written with bad characterisation nd awful pacing. Never even finished it. Nearly threw it in the bin was so disappointed but ultimately gave it to the charity shop - someone will probably love it....
I was surprised to see The Time Traveller's Wife mentioned so often here because I also really disliked it and gave up quite soon after starting, but it seems to be very popular for some reason.
I was surprised to see The Time Traveller's Wife mentioned so often here because I also really disliked it and gave up quite soon after starting, but it seems to be very popular for some reason.[/QUOTE]
I found that boring and gave up on it too. And I almost never give up on books.
Both are truly awful. I've already given up on the Salmon book.
As for classics, please add Wuthering Heights to the list. A sick fantasy penned by a virgin who had no idea of real relationships.
I liked the Tractors in the Ukraine book, but gave up on the Salmon Fishing quite early on. I was pretty sure I could see where it was going, though I might have been wrong, and I couldn't get in any way interested or involved.
I really like Jane Eyre, but Wuthering is a bit withering.
A sick fantasy penned by a virgin who had no idea of real relationships.
But by that logic you'd be writing off quite a few of the female authors of the 19th C. Actually commentators from years back discussed (with some surprise) the issue of how it was possible for Charlotte Brontë to knowledgeably portray a passionate relationship in Jane Eyre when she wasn't married herself - and of course in those days people didn't sleep around before marriage (well not if they didn't want to be 'fallen women').
So it is possible for women of that time to discuss relationships without having 'lived' them - they just had good imagination and understanding of the human mind. Indeed, that's part of the skill of being a talented author! If you don't find the relationship presented in Wuthering Heights convincing then that's a different matter but you can't extrapolate from that opinion that virginal women weren't able to address relationships in general.
The Subterraneans by Jack Kerouac. I loved On the Road and so wanting to read another of Kerouac's books chose The Subterraneans: Total and utter guff, and not so much "spontaneous prose" as complete gibberish.
Comments
You close to Lichfield then?
oh I totally agree!!
A ridiculous book, couldn't understand the hype, still can't
and that awful 'mysterious dog in the night time' travesty, passed off as literature, ugh:eek:
so awful i can't remember the title!!:p:rolleyes:
I seem to remember one or the other were booker prize nominees?
there's a lot of pretensious crap out there!:rolleyes:
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night time? I've just read that and was very moved by it. I thought it a wonderful book
I enjoyed the Time Traveller's Wife too.
A Bag of Junk, more like.
I also do not like Twilight, particularly for the view of women it has, which is backward to say the least! (And plus Stephanie Meyer saying each one of the series is based on a 'literary classic' is a great insult to a number of my favourite books.)
Perhaps it didn't translate well but it was a hardship reading it, though I perservered.
The way I remember it the main character spends two entire chapters as a stone statue in a forrest clearing doing nothing whatsoever, as stone statutres tend to do (or rather not do).
I will accept that my memory may have exagerated the length of that interlude somewhat. Though at 864 pages overall possibly not.
Basically The Stand rewritten with mobile phones. So painfully lazy it is easily the worst book i've read.
I also could not read more than a few pages of Requiem for a Dream because of the author's insane decision to use (I think) New York Jewish slang and omit most punctuation from the book. I vaguely knew what was going on because I had seen the film but if I hadn't I would have been completely in the dark.
Friend of mine read Saturday a while back, I asked her how it was going and she said "well, I'm 100 pages in and he hasn't even got out of bed yet." Sounded thrilling.
Oh I tried to read that..............awful book:sleep:
It wouldn't be Philippa Gregory's "Alice Hartley's Happiness" by any chance would it? I read this (generally like Gregory's historical fiction) but despised this with a passion. Just truly awful.
Ditto - hated it, can't even remember the plot, just being so very, very, very bored
Sadly I did complete it, think I had a vague sense of 'it'll get better in a minute' - it didn't, awful.
Hated The Little Friend - Donna Tartt - finished it and went back and read the last 50 pages again (whilst crying on the inside) and still didn't know who killed the little boy - the threw the bloody thing across the room. (and I loved The Secret History), it starts really well, and then meanders on page, after page, after page......
But the absolute worst was Roots of Evil by Sarah Rayne - badly written, completely ridiculous overblown plot, hugely inaccurate history wise and plot holes you could drive the army tank division through.
Nope not Philippa Gregory. I think this author writes exclusively about the Medieval period. I wish I could remember her name but it was many years ago that I was given a set of her books as a gift.
I was surprised to see The Time Traveller's Wife mentioned so often here because I also really disliked it and gave up quite soon after starting, but it seems to be very popular for some reason.
I was surprised to see The Time Traveller's Wife mentioned so often here because I also really disliked it and gave up quite soon after starting, but it seems to be very popular for some reason.[/QUOTE]
I found that boring and gave up on it too. And I almost never give up on books.
Both are truly awful. I've already given up on the Salmon book.
As for classics, please add Wuthering Heights to the list. A sick fantasy penned by a virgin who had no idea of real relationships.
I liked the Tractors in the Ukraine book, but gave up on the Salmon Fishing quite early on. I was pretty sure I could see where it was going, though I might have been wrong, and I couldn't get in any way interested or involved.
I really like Jane Eyre, but Wuthering is a bit withering.
Totally failed to live up to the hype.
I hated it.
But by that logic you'd be writing off quite a few of the female authors of the 19th C. Actually commentators from years back discussed (with some surprise) the issue of how it was possible for Charlotte Brontë to knowledgeably portray a passionate relationship in Jane Eyre when she wasn't married herself - and of course in those days people didn't sleep around before marriage (well not if they didn't want to be 'fallen women').
So it is possible for women of that time to discuss relationships without having 'lived' them - they just had good imagination and understanding of the human mind. Indeed, that's part of the skill of being a talented author! If you don't find the relationship presented in Wuthering Heights convincing then that's a different matter but you can't extrapolate from that opinion that virginal women weren't able to address relationships in general.
I also can't stand most things by Steinbeck or Falkner, even though they're far better than Rand.