[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 32 KB, 357x599, twi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2806663 No.2806663[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

ITT: Shittiest book or series you read all the way through

Bonus points for more than 1 or an entire series.

Pic related, 2deep4me

>> No.2806673

oh wow go away

>> No.2806678

Probably Enduring Love, though I actually quite liked it (but then I don't ever stick with books I don't like). The ideas in the subtext were great, but I'm not sure how well it worked as an actual novel. It felt like it could have been about half the length without missing much, the ending was a complete asspull, and joe should stfu about science no one cares. I know it's meant to show how he's all narrow-minded in his interpretation of the world and all that, but that could show could be shown without making whole sections of the book a complete chore.


Also OP is wrong, obviously.

>> No.2806682

The Bible, although I should admit I skipped most of the OT. Complete garbage.

>> No.2806683

>>2806682
omg ur so edgy

>> No.2806685

>>2806678
I had to read it for class. It was terrible. I's not like the Catcher in the Rye in the sense that it's a terrible book at first read, but if you analyse it and think about it you realise that it's actually incredibly clever. It's just an all round shitty fucking book.

>> No.2806687

Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We The Living, Anthem, Xenocide

>> No.2806688

The Stranger

I know I shouldn't judge a book based on how a character behaves but Mersault is one of the most infuriatingly stupid protagonists I've ever come across.

>> No.2806697

>>2806687
Oh come on, Xenocide was readable.

>> No.2806700

shittiest in the sense of coprophagia, Gravity's Rainbow

>> No.2806701

>>2806697

I thought it was pretty terrible, even compared to the rest of the saga, which was mostly bad. Some of it was decent, though

>> No.2806705

>>2806685
Dunno, as I said I thought it had good ideas in the subtext with the whole "if you just look at the world through science and physics you're a moron" theme (I know people exactly like that, and it's so true. They all go on about how they're so intelligent because they can prove shit with physics, but they know nothing about actually living) but as a novel it's just a mess.

>> No.2806712

>>2806705
I personally believe that too. I believe that rationalism and whatever de-romanticise the world and slowly chip away at any real pleasure, and I actually wrote a fantastically fucking long essay about it last week out of boredom.

The book was shit though.

>> No.2806714

>>2806688
I took it that he had some sort of brain impairment or something. Whatever, it's more a philosophical allegory than an outright story anyway.

>> No.2806753

Things Fall Apart. Worst piece of shit I've ever read.

>> No.2806754

>>2806750
Sharing opinions? On an imageboard? What is this?

>> No.2806762

>>2806750
OP here. I'm a pleb compared to the majority of /lit/ but even I can tell you're a dick.

>> No.2806773

>>2806712
I don't have a problem with 'rationalism' as a whole (I think the process of discovery in science is as much a true pleasure as anything else, and understanding how things work in terms of physics or biology or whatever is fascinating in itself), but I think people who only view the world through science and maths, and attempt to apply it to situations where it really doesn't work (ethical dilemmas, interpersonal relationships, etc.) are morons. The cold hard facts of rationalism are a fact of life and incredibly useful and very interesting, but life doesn't just work with facts and rationalism and certainty. People need to broaden their vision.

>> No.2806780

Twilight.

>> No.2806796

Atlas Shrugged

/thread

>> No.2806814

>>2806796
This. Like pushing your head through a wall of salt water taffy.

>> No.2807458

>>2806688
>>2806714
goddamn. you two should rub dicks together and chat about how you both find it impossible to grasp simple ideological concepts within a narrative.
do you always take things at face value?

>> No.2807461

I really hate The Bell Jar.

>> No.2807464

Shittiest series I've ever read?
Sword of Truth.
Twilight.

That's about it.

>> No.2807485
File: 273 KB, 1895x3731, BooksthatmakeyoudumbHuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2807485

>2deep4me

You're right.

>> No.2807490

>>2807485

>Atlas Shrugged right next to Lolita

Your point is invalid.

>> No.2807492

>>2806688
Really. Your interpretation of the Stranger is that Mersault is "infuriatingly stupid".

>> No.2807506
File: 40 KB, 419x677, 1751-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2807506

Holy shit, the characters and events are so dumb that I wonder if the author is trolling or being retarded.

>listing elemental composition of new planet for no reason

>no rationing of supplies after shipwreck

>scientist judging the function and properties of unknown alien objects purely by the naked eye

>security guard forgetting where weapons were placed

>exploration party forgetting where they parked their scout ship in alien world

>leader of party sorry that he was unprepared and only bought one measly pistol

>starting camp fire in the night without regard to the possibility of their enemies discovering them

>galaxy-wide object traveling at the speed of light could still be seen visually on screen

>etc.

>> No.2807507

>>2807485
>eragon makes you smarter than fahreheit 451
>eragon
>wot

>> No.2807518
File: 11 KB, 180x252, obama3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2807518

>>2807485
>dat rigorous methodology

>> No.2807563

>>2806663
How can Lolita be too deep for you? It fucking spells out its message in its entirety in one of the last chapters. There is no deep symbolism at all.

>> No.2807569

I read 10 of the Wheel of Time books before I realized what I was doing to myself. I checked into into rehab and have been sober ever since.

>> No.2807584

Heart of Darkness

>> No.2807589

>>2807584
I rather enjoyed that one though not as much as Nostromo.

What bothered you?

>> No.2807603

>>2807485
What the fuck is this fucking piece of shit trying to say? It doesn't make an fucking sense?

>> No.2807604

I grew tired of books with messages

>> No.2807607

>>2807603
Apparently it's doing a very good job of trolling you.

Just disregard it.

>> No.2807608

>>2807607
It hasn't trolled me at all. It's just a really confusing chart.

>> No.2807614

>>2807603
The numbers represent SAT scores

>> No.2807627

>>2807614
So the novels are graded based on their vocabulary count or some disgustingly retarded metric like that? European here, your whole grading system is very confusing.

>> No.2807629

>>2807627
Yeah, as a European, the entire thing baffles me.

>> No.2807631

>>2807627

Those are the favorite novels of students with varying test scores

>> No.2807633

>>2807627
>>2807629
Stop being lazy yuropeans and just go to the website

>> No.2807635

>>2807614
the 1600 SAT or the 2400 SAT?

>> No.2807636

>>2807631
>People with high test scores liking Atlas Shrugged
Sure is edgy American teens up in here

>> No.2807638

>>2807636

The list is all kinds of fucked up, imo. I'm not sure where they did it or how

>> No.2807643

>>2807485
>Lolita classed as "Erotica"
Dear God that shit is beyond retarded.

>> No.2807661

>>2807638
Visit the website, he made the chart mostly for humor

>> No.2807675

The Trial, by Franz Kafka.

Definitely 2deep4me. Has anyone made any kind of sense out of that book without outside input?

>> No.2807686

>>2807675
Yup.

>> No.2807693

>>2807686

Do tell.

>> No.2807696

>>2807485
>The Holy Bible
>the Bible

>> No.2807697

>>2807693
It's about alienation.

>> No.2807700

The catcher in the rye, I was positively surprised when I found out I wasn't the only one.

As for Lolita, it's a beautiful book.
It managed to make me feel extremely uncomfortable page after page then lure me in with its elaborate and captivating prose.
Unlike many I could clearly tell the perspective was altered and sick and that Lo wasn't 'asking for it' but a child facing something horrible. It made me feel dirty, like a bystander who passed them by without helping.

I think it's great when a book can cause such a powerful emotional state. I wouldn't re-read it, though.

>> No.2807701

>>2807675
It's not 2deep. It's all about transporting the reader's mind into a state of art (in this case, an absurdist and alienated state).

>> No.2807708

>>2807700
What do you make of the fact that Lo was the one who initiated sex?

>> No.2807715

>>2807708
She was a 12 years old and as most pre-teens that age she was discovering sexuality and trying to feel all grown up. Humbert was described as fairly attractive so I can imagine she'd be flattered by him showing mutual sexual desire at first.

Usually these kinds of initiative remain unanswered or slightly accomplished to give the kid the confidence they wanted.
I'm sure that Dolores wasn't expecting everything that followed and hers was simply a cry for attention. Also, keep in mind we only have the pov of a pedophile and he probably has a distorted view of reality. The typical 'she touched my hand, she wants to fuck' /r9k/ mentality.

>> No.2807717

>>2807715
Yes, I completely agree with that.

Although, even considering Humbert is essentially a monster, I honestly could not help feeling sorry for him after Lo disappears. I found myself secretly rooting for old Hum as he went to exact revenge. That Nabokov fellow is a crafty writer, let me tell you.