SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Robert wrote: "I would like to read the worst Sci-Fi or fantasy books ever written. Yes, that's right - THE WORST. Why? I am trying to improve my writing and some notable authors (Steven King in particular) su..."

I know that many disagree with me on this and I should qualify this selection by saying that I have not read as many sci fi and fantasy books as others in this group, but my alltime worst book is Lev Grossman's The Magicians. Grossman has an excellent vocabulary and knows how to write prose that is well-written on the surface, but I felt he never went beyond superficial descriptions of his characters and their story. It also seemed to me that he was trying too hard to be clever, satirical, ironic, edgy, cool etc. I just never bought the characters as real people. It started when he referred to the protagonist's obsession with the books he had read as a child in such an obvious way. You just knew exactly where he was going with the story. I felt so angry when I finished the book, because I think the writer learned some tricks of the trade and cut and pasted them into his story, rather than thought deeply about how to craft his writing in an original and authentic way.

Nelly wrote: "..my alltime worst book is Lev Grossman's The Magicians. Grossman has an excellent vocabulary and knows how to write prose that is well-written on the surface, but I felt he never went beyond superficial descriptions of his characters and their story. It also seemed to me that he was trying too hard to be clever, satirical, ironic, edgy, cool etc. I just never bought the characters as real people"
I feel similarly about the book Grossman's brother wrote about superheroes, Soon I Will Be Invincible. The writing is technically good, but there's no depth to it.

Tnt <-- one of the worst books I've ever read. Guy survives a nuclear explosion and gets super powers. Just incredibly stupid all the way around, and the laziest thriller-cum-superhuman book ever. When I looked it up just now, I see that the author wrote a whole bunch more in the series. Just proves Mencken was right: no one ever has gone broke underestimating the taste of the American people.

ANYTHING written (or attributed to) L. Ron Hubbard must qualify for this list.

Kevin wrote: " What, Goodkind was just telling his views on the start of the wars in the middle east. Plus part of the reason I may have loved Naked Empire is..."

He should have done so in a column, not a book imo. If he had been the least bit subtle about it I may have liked the book. Having Richard actually give a lecture for a large part of the book has made The Naked Empire one of the most tedious books i've ever read.

Another book I hated was The Fifth Sorceress One of the most cliched books i've ever read, with a paper thin plot and one dimensional characters.

Some of the later (after book 8) Anita Blake books are really bad. They lack a decent plot, and the main character has become an insecure whiny hypocrite.

Betelgeuze wrote: "Kevin wrote: " What, Goodkind was just telling his views on the start of the wars in the middle east. Plus part of the reason I may have loved Naked Empire is..."

He should have done so in a colum..."

So much this. If he wanted to discuss the war, write an article or blog post. He repeatedly derailed the story to tell us what was quite obviously his own opinion on socialism, pacifism, charity, etc. It didn't feel like Richard felt this things, it felt like "I'm using Richard as a mouthpiece for my own beliefs" and went from a believable independent world with it's own unique problems to a thinly veiled analogy for our own world. It completely changed the flavor of the series. He should have just fessed up and named his main character Richard the Libertarian Hawk. What was even more annoying was in Goodkind's series people who believed differently from Richard never had valid points or concerns, they were just WRONG.

Lara Amber wrote: "Betelgeuze wrote: "Kevin wrote: " What, Goodkind was just telling his views on the start of the wars in the middle east. Plus part of the reason I may have loved Naked Empire is..."

He should have..."

So, what? Orson Scott Cards kind of did the same thing in the Ender series, but to a lesser extend.

Also Ann Rand does the same things in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which is kind of his inspiration.

Kevin wrote: "Also Ann Rand does the same things in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which is kind of his inspiration. "

Yes, Ayn Rand did that in her books, but that doesn't mean anyone should try to mimic her. She's a terrible writer, and her "philosophy" is vile and completely out of touch with reality. Her cult of selfishness and greed really only seems to appeal to the naive and corrupt.

Nelly, I agree with you about The Magicians.

Trike, I hope I disagree with you about Soon I Will Be Invincible, it's been on TBR shelf for a long time...

Betelgeuze, the later Anita Blake books are terrible.

Kevin, I got rid of my Orson Scott Card because he's despicable and I don't want my limited resources to go to him and his causes.

Kevin wrote: "So, what? Orson Scott Cards kind of did the same thing in the Ender series, but to a lesser extend.

Also Ann Rand does the same things in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which is kind of his inspiration. "

I think you helped prove my point. Ayn Rand is an awful writer. I've never read Orson Scott Card but from the synopses and reviews I've seen of his works, I have a feeling I wouldn't enjoy them.

I love Ayn Rand and Orson Scott Card. They publicly state their political point of view does not make them bad writers. Plus I agree with their think.

Dwarf wrote: "I don't think it was posted til now but I'm SURE it's is the WORST book ever made.Panzer Spirit I will just describe the plot to you...

A old nazi JaggedPAnzer was found in the wood..."

A dead nazi elf, you say? Where's Ala? We may have found his next WTF read.

You rang?

*points* dead nazi elf book, gogo!

I'll check it out later. I've already got my next one lined up.

Kevin wrote: "I love Ayn Rand and Orson Scott Card. They publicly state their political point of view does not make them bad writers. Plus I agree with their think."

I absolutely agree that being vocal about their viewpoints does not make either of these people bad writers. Ayn Rand was a bad writer because she was a bad writer.

Ruby wrote: "I actually enjoy his Elenium and Tamuli trilogies despite the sexism and homophobia, but could not bear to read any of the Belgariad."

I actually found the reverse to be true. Just goes to show...

Dwarf wrote: "I don't think it was posted til now but I'm SURE it's is the WORST book ever made.Panzer Spirit I will just describe the plot to you...

A old nazi JaggedPAnzer was found in the wood..."

I had Lythande sitting on my to read shelf and finally read it when I saw your post. Not the worst I've read but certainly a 1-star.

I loved the Belgariad but hated the Elenium and Tamuli. I read them once in high school and I can't force my way through them again.

Denae wrote: "Kevin wrote: "I love Ayn Rand and Orson Scott Card. They publicly state their political point of view does not make them bad writers. Plus I agree with their think."

I absolutely agree that being ..."

It's amazing how polarizing Ayn Rand can be. If a person has liberal leanings, she's automatically a "bad writer" and conversely. Because her books are overtly economically political in nature, the reader's baggage colors their view of her writing.

Personally, I find her writing suffers when she gets her protagonist involved romantically. The rest of her prose is better. It's almost as if she hasn't the experience necessary to write about relationships.

Her overall plots are well thought out and consistent with the message she's trying to send.

Given the years in which her books were written, they were sufficient for the times. So well done that my first exposure was as a classroom reading assignment. The school district considered the book important enough to use it for instruction, along with such classics as Red Badge of Courage and the works of Shakespeare.

Heh. I read the Elenium and the Tamuli when I was a teenager. Tried to read the Belgariad then and bounced off it.

Al wrote: "Denae wrote: "Kevin wrote: "I love Ayn Rand and Orson Scott Card. They publicly state their political point of view does not make them bad writers. Plus I agree with their think."

I absolutely agr..."

I would say there are times when your presumption applies, but not always. For instance, I was decidedly conservative and hugely drawn into the Ayn Rand mythos when I first read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but still found the writing to be terrible, particularly in the latter. My extremely conservative father who agrees with most of her pov agrees that they aren't well-written.

That being said, I found that her writing did deteriorate over time. We the Living has stayed with me for years because the characters were people. By the time she got to Atlas Shrugged they had become far less so and I have trouble remembering most of their names. The Fountainhead, which incidentally is still in a lot of high school reading curricula, was in the middle.

Admittedly, I am not the world's biggest fan of the novel of ideas when said novel is boring or the book would be better as non-fiction. It seems likely that Ayn Rand would not have reached as far into the general consciousness had her books been non-fiction, but they aren't. They're fiction. As such, I judge their readability as fiction and find it lacking. A much better author could have conveyed those same ideas in an equally powerful way without feeling the need to launch into multiple page speeches of exposition.

Tl;dr I am a liberal. I think Ayn Rand is a bad author. It is, however, fallacious to say I think Ayn Rand is a bad author because I am a liberal. I just think she is a bad author.

Al wrote: "It's amazing how polarizing Ayn Rand can be. If a person has liberal leanings, she's automatically a "bad writer" and conversely. Because her books are overtly economically political in nature, the reader's baggage colors their view of her writing."

I'm going to disagree here. That's an assumption at it's highest form.

I'm a conservative and I think Ayn Rand sucks.

I remember some hit-or-miss Piers Anthony where every other chapter consisted of, "hero telepathically visits a new planet and has sex with the natives."

I bailed on Hellstrom's Hive. Accelerando was an uneven work with one of the worst sex scenes in literature. The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath mixed in its momentary bursts of awesome under tons of tedious racism. Urban Shaman wasn't terrible but felt like it was written by formula.

Kirk wrote: "I remember some hit-or-miss Piers Anthony where every other chapter consisted of, "hero telepathically visits a new planet and has sex with the natives."

I bailed on Hellstrom's Hive...."

Is it just me, or is it funny that a "Kirk" would chime in about visiting planets to have sex with the natives?

Chris wrote: "Kirk wrote: "I remember some hit-or-miss Piers Anthony where every other chapter consisted of, "hero telepathically visits a new planet and has sex with the natives."

I bailed on [book:Hellstrom..."

Nope! *lols*

I just got it.

Al wrote: "It's amazing how polarizing Ayn Rand can be. If a person has liberal leanings, she's automatically a "bad writer" and conversely. Because her books are overtly economically political in nature, the reader's baggage colors their view of her writing."

I don't agree. I read The Fountainhead while in high school and still forming most of my political ideas. I was a military kid with socially conservative parents (who are pro-science and knowledge, and knowing your own mind). I walked into the book having no idea that it was espousing any sort of political beliefs, just that it showed up on a lot of reading lists. I spent the entire book going "this doesn't make any sense, how is he the hero, he's the biggest asshole EVER" and "no one would really act this way" for most of the other characters. It felt very forced. They weren't believable characters, they were puppets.

The top writers on the to-boring/twisted-to-even-contemplate-reading are: David Weber, Timothy Zahn, and Eric Brown.
No offense to those who like it, but Weber's Honor Harrington series is dull and more than a little melodramatic. The colloquialisms ('Peeps,''Manties,' and the especially cheesy ". . . when the fecal matter hits the atmospheric impeller . . ." or something to that effect) are beyond bad, and do we really care all that much about the sociopolitical background of the tree cats? Harrington herself always seems the polar opposite of what the other characters are describing her as.
Timothy Zahn generally has good ideas and style but is just far to wordy and often has way too many story lines going.
I came to Eric Brown with high hopes, but was soon shocked and disappointed. I'm not a prude, but it seems all his characters can do is kill, cry, and sleep with each other. What really did it for me, though, was in the first twelve or so pages of Guardians of The Phoenix when a teenage girl is brutally murdered and then EATEN (yes you read that correctly) by some of the main characters. A little bit of grit often makes a story more real, but is graphic cannibalism really necessary, Eric?

Sorry if I stepped on any toes!

Heh. You have a point about Honor Harrington and I thought the series was terrible for years. Now I, er, well, it's the thing I read that I'm slightly embarrassed to read. Such good popcorn. (More seriously: I think there are some characters with interesting stories that aren't necessarily handed well. I'd level "too much going on" at Weber more than I would at Zahn.)

Al wrote: "Denae wrote: "Kevin wrote: "I love Ayn Rand and Orson Scott Card. They publicly state their political point of view does not make them bad writers. Plus I agree with their think."

I absolutely agr..."

I agree with you on Ayn Rand.

Julia wrote: "Trike, I hope I disagree with you about Soon I Will Be Invincible, it's been on TBR shelf for a long time..."

i enjoyed that one quite a bit. i feel the opposite of Trike: i thought the novel's selling point was the depth of characterization given to its villain & its superheroine.

Kirk wrote: "I remember some hit-or-miss Piers Anthony where every other chapter consisted of, "hero telepathically visits a new planet and has sex with the natives...."

that would be his Cluster series. i actually liked those a lot too, but then i read them when much younger, so who knows now. although i think there was a lot more going on to it than just sex, your description is still pretty spot-on. lots and lots and lots of alien sex.

Denae wrote: "Al wrote: "Denae wrote: "Kevin wrote: "I love Ayn Rand and Orson Scott Card. They publicly state their political point of view does not make them bad writers. Plus I agree with their think."

I abs..."

Denae, I agree with you that We The Living is Ayn Rand's best written book, but I didn't realize that until I could view her work objectively. Ironically, when I was a "student of Objectivism", the last thing I could do was see Ayn Rand objectively.

I also liked Soon I Will Be Invincible. Looking back, I can agree that the characterization was not out of the ordinary. But it was a fun story, for me. (You'll note that I haven't ever attempted to re-read it, though. Maybe someday I will, but it's not a huge priority.)

A buddy of mine, who is a devoted comics reader and much more steeped in the superhero traditions of Western comics than I am, thought it was boring and unoriginal.

Henry Miller wrote how so much of one's impression of a book is influenced by when that book was read in a person's life--by that moment in time, how they were feeling, what they were going through. I read all of Rand novels when I was a kid in high school and was mesmerized by them probably because I was so naive and had never read anything like them. I refuse to reread them because I know that magic would be gone and I would be all about finding fault with them. Although I am tempted since the reactions are so polarized.

A buddy of mine, who is a devoted comics reader and much more steeped in the superhero traditions of Western comics

as am i! i enjoyed the novel's play with various archetypes. nothing new, true, but still... fun!

Shomeret wrote: "Denae wrote: "the last thing I could do was see Ayn Rand objectively. ..."

This conversation is proof of what you said. But then, anything having to do with politics is likely to tickle a person's biases. Those who claim objectivity in politics are usually lying or not paying attention (there are, admittedly, some who can pull far enough back from their own prejudice to be objective for a short period of time, but they're rare, especially during an election year).

So, it should come as no surprise that Rand hacks some folks off while others love her books in spite of the literary shortcomings (I dislike vapid heroins).

Nelly probably has the best reaction I've heard -- don't reread them for fear of losing the magic. Many books I liked in my younger years have proven disappointing upon re-reading in my ancient, somewhat jaded, dotage.

Al wrote: "Shomeret wrote: "Denae wrote: "the last thing I could do was see Ayn Rand objectively. ..."

This conversation is proof of what you said. But then, anything having to do with politics is likely to ..."

I somewhat disagree. All things are seen through the lens of a personal bias...but I (and a lot of other people) are able to separate fact from fiction. In addition, when reading things - like Rand - this reader is able to look at the fictional text for what it is and judge it accordingly. There are no facts for me to argue with in her fiction. Her fictional world works the way her mind wants it to.

Now, it is quite possible that you are not able to do that...

Books I won't re-read:

-Bored of the Rings (the movies are better)
-Most Dune sequels; they never measured up to the first book
-King Rat (not SF/F)
-The Gor series (Norman's digressions are BORING).

Al wrote: "Books I won't re-read:

-Bored of the Rings (the movies are better)
-Most Dune sequels; they never measured up to the first book
-King Rat (not SF/F)
-The Gor series (Norman's digressions are BORING)."

Yeah, I agree with you on Dune. Their new book, Sisterhood of Dune that just came out, made it below A Dance with Dragons, which has been out for almost 7 month.

I agree with you on Dune; I think it must be something like what happened to to Star Trek: someone starts with a great idea, but ruins it after squeezing every drop of life out of it.

book 2 was a bit rough - from what i recall, most of it was written prior to book 1. i enjoyed books 3 & 4 quite a bit. then it got silly and just plain terrible in 5 & 6. i tried reading the first Dune sequel from the new series but gave up after a few chapters.

Will wrote: "I agree with you on Dune; I think it must be something like what happened to to Star Trek: someone starts with a great idea, but ruins it after squeezing every drop of life out of it."

Yeah, I thought all the prequels was unneeded, especially Winds of Dune, which was basically based one event. The only one was making the Legend of Dune trilogy into one book.

P. wrote: "While certainly not the worst fantasy book ever, Catherine Asaro's The Charmed Sphere is stunningly awful, especially given the author's credentials.

The book's protagonists' names are Chime Headw..."

Maybe she did write it back in high school and now that she's successful, she gets to publish any old thing pulled out of the box she keeps under the bed. I think a lot of authors do that.

I personally thought that The Gap into Conflict: The Real Story by Donaldson was absolutely atrocious.

I couldn't bring myself to finish Terminal World by Alistair Reynolds. The dialogues just dragged on, with nothing of interest being said... Mostly the characters were discussing all available courses of action, what to do or what not to do and why. I got the feeling Reynolds only did this so no readers could accuse him of leaving logical fallacies in the plot. Who cares? Just tell an engaging story and I won't be searching for plotholes.

I really dislike Terry Goodkind. Not because of his political views, though, but because he's a bad writer. I've only read one of his books, but it was dreadful.

"Wizard's First Rule" is literally Star Wars set in Wheel of Time's world with random Lord of the Rings rip-offs thrown in. And the writing is terrible too, especially the diologue.And this is coming from someone who actually really liked Eragon.

Not sure if anyone mentioned Eragon yet, which is a combination of Lord of the Rings races and names, Star Wars plot and things the author picked from many books on his fantasy shelves. He even plagiarized (you can't call it anything else) a scene from Edding's 'The Ruby Knight' but unfortunately the scene doesn't work with Paolini's novel because none of the characters is a 'rogue with a heart' type.
You could probably say that what saves the book is the assumption that the author wrote it at 15, but actually he finished it at 19 which doesn't excuse why it still reads like the stuff 15 year olds post on the internet. The other books of the series don't get much better. The main character only gets more sociopathic.
Also, vegetarian elves who live in a forest and similes about gemstones at every corner.