Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

Kurt (or is it Kirk?) Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" takes the cake for me -- when I read it, half the time I was thinking "Huh? What's happening? WHEN and WHERE is this happening?"

Dennis wrote: "Kurt (or is it Kirk?) Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" takes the cake for me -- when I read it, half the time I was thinking "Huh? What's happening? WHEN and WHERE is this happening?""

Generally, it takes place in Dresden and a planet called Tralfamadore. It takes place in the 1940s through the 60s.

So which parts are happening where and when?

I'd have to give the nod to the Blood Wars Trilogy by J. Robert King. I am a huge D&D fan, and absolutely loved the Planescape setting, so I expected I was going to get lost in a trilogy that took place in that setting. Well, I got lost all right, but it was more because King seemed to write the series with a dartboard full of random events. Looking back, I honestly wonder if he "pants'd" those books.

Dennis wrote: "Kurt (or is it Kirk?) Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" takes the cake for me -- "

Dennis wrote: "So which parts are happening where and when?"

The parts that say they are in Dresden are in Dresden. The parts that say they are on Tralfamadore take place on Tralfamadore. The parts that say they are in World War II are in the 1940s (that is when that war took place). When Billy Pilgrim is older, those parts are taking place in the 1960s.

Vonnegut isn't for everyone, to be sure. Those that struggle getting past his first name are probably doomed to struggle through his books.

And so it goes.

I loved Slaughterhouse-Five, its one of my all time favorites! I guess it just shows that one person's unreadable mess is another ones pedestal book. I cannot and I mean, I can not stand Little Women or The Scarlet Letter. These books make me want to run screaming in the opposite direction and they are considered classics!

I don't want to say the actual worst book I've ever read - In the off chance that the author accidentally found this I don't want any hurt feelings for something that just wasn't my cup of tea.

Kathryn wrote: "I don't want to say the actual worst book I've ever read - In the off chance that the author accidentally found this I don't want any hurt feelings for something that just wasn't my cup of tea. "

Sort of the same here. I don't really want to give a list of my "worst" books. My reason is that it would just be a list of my measly two-bit opinion and nothing else. Books are books. You like some, you hate some. But, what what I might find schlocky, stupid, boring or pointless, someone else may love. My saying X book is terrible does nothing but add a little more negativity in an already overly negative world.

I just couldn't understand Huckleberry Fin because of the language.

Dwayne wrote: "My saying X book is terrible does nothing but add a little more negativity in an already overly negative world."

Dwayne wrote: "Vonnegut isn't for everyone, to be sure. Those that struggle getting past his first name are probably doomed to struggle through his books."

Hmmm....

I believe that a quote from the ancient Greek philosopher Plato is apropos to this question.
"Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder."

Opinion and taste are subjective and are, therefore, influenced by culture, prejudice, upbringing, education, and personal experience. One person's worst book ever may very well be another person's best book ever.

I hated Wuthering Heights. I never remember hating a book as much as that one. I actually celebrated getting my eyes dilated back in high school because I did not have to do that night's reading.

On second thought, Sherman Alexie's "Phoenix, Arizona" was much worse than "Slaughterhouse-Five" -- not only was there no timeline, but there was also no structure, no discernible plot, and hardly any dramatic tension!

The Sugar Frosted Nutsack. Yes it's a book, look it up. It was so bad I literally threw it across the room in complete disgust.

Choosing your most hated book is almost as hard a choosing your most beloved book. Very few books I truly dislike will I actually finish reading. Most of those weren't by big authors or books that were well known.

One that I really couldn't stand, and couldn't read more than about 1/3 of was "The Bridges of Madison County." The problem was the writing was horrible. Bloated run-on sentences, so that by the time you got to the end, you forgot what the writer was talking about. That and the excessive use of adjectives and adverbs just left me totally cold. (By the way, I tried to watch the movie and didn't like it either, and turned it off.)

I never read it, so this falls in the "heard of" camp, but its pretty apparent from critics and friends who have read 50 Shades of Gray that it was pretty darned awful.

Shari wrote: "The worst book I ever read was a vampire novel that shall remain nameless. I lasted to chapter ten. There was so much tightening and clenching and throbbing going on that I actually said aloud, "Yo..."

I also skip most of the current bestsellers -- and this says more about them than about you or me. That's what happens when the bestseller lists (and the whole trad-pub establishment) enforce mediocrity instead of excellence, as they're doing now!

Dennis wrote: "Shari wrote: "The worst book I ever read was a vampire novel that shall remain nameless. I lasted to chapter ten. There was so much tightening and clenching and throbbing going on that I actually s..."

The problem with some popular works is that they stick to the same tired formula of storytelling for the genre in which they are mass produced. While Indies might get a bad rap for quality of work, there can be more of a tendency to break the mold of fiction writing, and that can be fresh to readers that are tired of the "same 'ol".

The worst book I ever read was As I Lay Dying. I know it is a beloved classic, but it was a difficult read for me because it pulled on all of my emotional damage spots. I saw a lot of my own family within the Bundrens. The father was just so dismally dysfunctional, reading about his exploits literally gave me chest pains. It was masterfully written, and I'm sure Faulkner intended to elicit strong emotional responses from the audience, but it was too much for me. I respect the book, but it was too stressful of a read for me.