The Ace
Scottish Roman.
Men are from Earth, Women are from Earth. Deal with it.
Books You Shouldn't Read
- Thread starter mosaix
- Start date
Never read the entire Davinci Code. For me a classic case of overhyped hack writing that is designed to appeal to the masses. Of what I read it wasn't that well researched, the prose was pretty average and whilst the idea itself was interesting I didn't think Brown did enough to retain my interest. I als saw the movie on DVD and thought that it was too long, ill paced and boring in parts.
Sorry but that's how I feel.
Sorry but that's how I feel.
Storm Centurion
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2006
- Messages
- 36
It's been a while since I've kept up with this thread. I'm going to take us off topic for a bit and I apologize beforehand.
Curt Chiarelli said...
"I am deeply aggreived at the path our country has taken in both its domestic and foreign policy, which is to say, it has shifted ever closer to facism. But who's to bear the responsibility for this?
Held up for your scrutiny is a cross-section analysis of American society. There appears to be - to a greater or lesser degree - 3 distinct types of contemporary American political thought and character. The first type warmly and openly embraces this movement towards facism because they have a classic authoritarian personality profile. They receive gratification from dominance hierarchies, territoriality, ritual, superstition, the abuse of power and the exploitation of others. Even if they aren't high in the pecking order, they identify with the repressive, the brutal, the greedy and the rapacious; legitimitizing and rationalizing these agendas with the trappings of religion. And because these unenlightened tendencies are unfortunately our evolutionary baggage; ancient legacies hard-wired genetically into our R-complex they are a common thread in our shared humanity. It is a commonality that bestows unity and comraderie and a shared purpose. Accordingly, they are better organized and a strong political voice in America because of it.
The second is indifferent, impassive, indolent, apathetic and negative by consequence of their ineffectuality. They whine, bitch and moan nonetheless about the current state of affairs . . . . even though they live in a society where they can peacefully influence the political process in a constructive fashion. They do not vote or participate in their society to any effective degree, but expect, in some childish wish-fullfilment fantasy, that it will self-correct magically without effort or strife. And when this doesn't happen they throw a little hissy fit, demonstrating contempt for their society through their personal mien and then proceed to bury themselves deeper into the protective bubble of TV, video games and the internet. They are the majority.
And then we have those who have an active, deep and abiding love for the traditions of American democracy. They understand what's at stake and fight to preserve our constitutional birthrights. In return for demonstrating the higher virtues of good critical thinking, rationalism, humanitarianism and selflessness they are given hypocritical lip service by the second group all the while being shown open contempt by the first. They are the minority and their voice is often ignored.
This is a profile of my fellow countrymen and society in the early years of the 21st century. In spite of all our great virtues (and we have many) and, by extension, through the actions of our elected officials we have shown our hand to the world. We have allowed our dark animus to prevail and corrupt our own underlying principles in the name of corporate greed, ethnocentrism, national vanity, bloodlust and laziness. "
I'd have to say that I disagree with you on a couple of things here.
First of all, to reduce the people of our country to three such groups is overly simplistic and thus, I feel, inaccurate. You may qualify that by saying 'to a greater or lesser degree' but that changes the intent of the statement little.
fascism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education
Second, you use the word fascist in the same way most Americans do, at both ends of the political spectrum, and that is in a broadstroke sweeping manner, ignorant of the fact that the meaning of the word is still being debated in many scholarly circles. In the mean time, Fascist has become the insult du jour, the quickest, most efficient way to attack the person, not the argument. We can all add that to Hitler's (and others) already ginormous list of sins against humanity. For an experiment, try looking up other definitions.
While there are fascist tendencies in your first group, there are fascist tendencies in your last group as well. You just choose to call them fascist in the group opposing the ideals you identify with. For example:
You say that the first group warmly embraces fascism: 'they receive gratification from dominance heirarchies, territoriality, ritual, superstition, the abuse of power and the expoitation of others.' The thing here that smacks of fascism most strongly is the reference to dominance heirarchies, territoriality, and abuse of power. These fit Fascism's requirements for a strong dictatorial regime and obnoxious(and dangerous) nationality. But references to ritual and superstition lead me to believe that a secular/agnostic/ viewpoint is showing through. While religion has lead to many horrible things (an understatement, I know) it doesn't serve for the comparison to fascism and isn't relevent in this case.
On the other hand, the people you describe in your third group are, in your words, ' demonstrating the higher virtues of good critical thinking, rationalism, humanitarianism and selflessness...' I'm going to make an assumption here, and if I'm off base, please let me know. I'm going to assume that you align yourself with the liberal/democratic/progressive end of the spectrum. If that's so, you have described your side as virtuous and glossed over the fact that many items on that agenda are also fascist in nature, just in a different but no less dangerous (in my opnion) way. You simply describe them differently. After all, who could argue with rationalism, humanitarianism and selflessness?
Well, for the time being, I will.
Universal healthcare, social welfare programs, environmental protection programs and similar proposals are all good intentions (and reflect your higher virtues). Who wouldn't want to end all sorts of suffering, from poverty to racism? Who wouldn't want to reverse global climate change (if it's anthropogenic)? Who wouldn't want to stop the Darfur genocide?
It's the measures that would be needed to do such things that tread on, and often step over, the fascism line.
The humanitarian and selfless measures used to fight poverty, social injustice and help the millions of uninsured Americans also fall under the 'stringent socioeconomic controls' aspect of Fascism. This can apply to Capitalism. It can also apply to oppressive taxation and increased state control of business (directly or indirectly) both of which would be required for universal healthcare. Rampant diversity programs in colleges and government, affirmative action, political correctness, censorship (be it the Religious Right's version or the 'Fairness Doctrine',) fall under both 'stringent socioeconomic controls' and 'oppresion through censorship' aspects of Fascism.
Both sides are guilty of multiple aspects of the definition of Fascism. Neither side is truly fascist, in my opinion. The danger lies in labeling one's political opponents or those you simply disagree with as fascist in order to trivialize their views, because like the name Racist, few things label a person so horribly as the term Fascist. When that happens, true intelligent discourse becomes problematicand mean-spirited, if not impossible. By labeling the other side fascist you dehumanize (or as a friend of mine likes to say, 'Hitlerize') your opponent and then many tactics become permissable.
If I incorrectly assumed your side, I apologize. I also hope that you don't take what I've said personally. I only took the time to delineate my opinion because, while I think you're incorrect, you seem reasonable.
And lastly, I tend to agree with everyone here about The Da Vinci Code. That was a 'What the *&#@ was I thinking?' moment. I've read a lot of books but few I was ashamed of reading.
Curt Chiarelli said...
"I am deeply aggreived at the path our country has taken in both its domestic and foreign policy, which is to say, it has shifted ever closer to facism. But who's to bear the responsibility for this?
Held up for your scrutiny is a cross-section analysis of American society. There appears to be - to a greater or lesser degree - 3 distinct types of contemporary American political thought and character. The first type warmly and openly embraces this movement towards facism because they have a classic authoritarian personality profile. They receive gratification from dominance hierarchies, territoriality, ritual, superstition, the abuse of power and the exploitation of others. Even if they aren't high in the pecking order, they identify with the repressive, the brutal, the greedy and the rapacious; legitimitizing and rationalizing these agendas with the trappings of religion. And because these unenlightened tendencies are unfortunately our evolutionary baggage; ancient legacies hard-wired genetically into our R-complex they are a common thread in our shared humanity. It is a commonality that bestows unity and comraderie and a shared purpose. Accordingly, they are better organized and a strong political voice in America because of it.
The second is indifferent, impassive, indolent, apathetic and negative by consequence of their ineffectuality. They whine, bitch and moan nonetheless about the current state of affairs . . . . even though they live in a society where they can peacefully influence the political process in a constructive fashion. They do not vote or participate in their society to any effective degree, but expect, in some childish wish-fullfilment fantasy, that it will self-correct magically without effort or strife. And when this doesn't happen they throw a little hissy fit, demonstrating contempt for their society through their personal mien and then proceed to bury themselves deeper into the protective bubble of TV, video games and the internet. They are the majority.
And then we have those who have an active, deep and abiding love for the traditions of American democracy. They understand what's at stake and fight to preserve our constitutional birthrights. In return for demonstrating the higher virtues of good critical thinking, rationalism, humanitarianism and selflessness they are given hypocritical lip service by the second group all the while being shown open contempt by the first. They are the minority and their voice is often ignored.
This is a profile of my fellow countrymen and society in the early years of the 21st century. In spite of all our great virtues (and we have many) and, by extension, through the actions of our elected officials we have shown our hand to the world. We have allowed our dark animus to prevail and corrupt our own underlying principles in the name of corporate greed, ethnocentrism, national vanity, bloodlust and laziness. "
I'd have to say that I disagree with you on a couple of things here.
First of all, to reduce the people of our country to three such groups is overly simplistic and thus, I feel, inaccurate. You may qualify that by saying 'to a greater or lesser degree' but that changes the intent of the statement little.
fascism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education
Second, you use the word fascist in the same way most Americans do, at both ends of the political spectrum, and that is in a broadstroke sweeping manner, ignorant of the fact that the meaning of the word is still being debated in many scholarly circles. In the mean time, Fascist has become the insult du jour, the quickest, most efficient way to attack the person, not the argument. We can all add that to Hitler's (and others) already ginormous list of sins against humanity. For an experiment, try looking up other definitions.
While there are fascist tendencies in your first group, there are fascist tendencies in your last group as well. You just choose to call them fascist in the group opposing the ideals you identify with. For example:
You say that the first group warmly embraces fascism: 'they receive gratification from dominance heirarchies, territoriality, ritual, superstition, the abuse of power and the expoitation of others.' The thing here that smacks of fascism most strongly is the reference to dominance heirarchies, territoriality, and abuse of power. These fit Fascism's requirements for a strong dictatorial regime and obnoxious(and dangerous) nationality. But references to ritual and superstition lead me to believe that a secular/agnostic/ viewpoint is showing through. While religion has lead to many horrible things (an understatement, I know) it doesn't serve for the comparison to fascism and isn't relevent in this case.
On the other hand, the people you describe in your third group are, in your words, ' demonstrating the higher virtues of good critical thinking, rationalism, humanitarianism and selflessness...' I'm going to make an assumption here, and if I'm off base, please let me know. I'm going to assume that you align yourself with the liberal/democratic/progressive end of the spectrum. If that's so, you have described your side as virtuous and glossed over the fact that many items on that agenda are also fascist in nature, just in a different but no less dangerous (in my opnion) way. You simply describe them differently. After all, who could argue with rationalism, humanitarianism and selflessness?
Well, for the time being, I will.
Universal healthcare, social welfare programs, environmental protection programs and similar proposals are all good intentions (and reflect your higher virtues). Who wouldn't want to end all sorts of suffering, from poverty to racism? Who wouldn't want to reverse global climate change (if it's anthropogenic)? Who wouldn't want to stop the Darfur genocide?
It's the measures that would be needed to do such things that tread on, and often step over, the fascism line.
The humanitarian and selfless measures used to fight poverty, social injustice and help the millions of uninsured Americans also fall under the 'stringent socioeconomic controls' aspect of Fascism. This can apply to Capitalism. It can also apply to oppressive taxation and increased state control of business (directly or indirectly) both of which would be required for universal healthcare. Rampant diversity programs in colleges and government, affirmative action, political correctness, censorship (be it the Religious Right's version or the 'Fairness Doctrine',) fall under both 'stringent socioeconomic controls' and 'oppresion through censorship' aspects of Fascism.
Both sides are guilty of multiple aspects of the definition of Fascism. Neither side is truly fascist, in my opinion. The danger lies in labeling one's political opponents or those you simply disagree with as fascist in order to trivialize their views, because like the name Racist, few things label a person so horribly as the term Fascist. When that happens, true intelligent discourse becomes problematicand mean-spirited, if not impossible. By labeling the other side fascist you dehumanize (or as a friend of mine likes to say, 'Hitlerize') your opponent and then many tactics become permissable.
If I incorrectly assumed your side, I apologize. I also hope that you don't take what I've said personally. I only took the time to delineate my opinion because, while I think you're incorrect, you seem reasonable.
And lastly, I tend to agree with everyone here about The Da Vinci Code. That was a 'What the *&#@ was I thinking?' moment. I've read a lot of books but few I was ashamed of reading.
BladeOfFire
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 54
You should not read any books by A.K. Applegate. I foind her writing style not very interesting, and enthusiastic.
I'm going to go back to something close, if not the same, to what looks to be the original intention of the thread. (But, as a bet hedger, I'll throw in a condition!)
IF you've read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, you should NOT read Dennis McKiernan's Iron Tower series. While unlikely to leave you with any undesirable images or thoughts, you will continue to read it because you just can't believe someone could continue to rip off another work so blatantly. At the end of the books (and I'm exceedingly sorry to say that I read them all in the described fashion), you'll demand (even though it's your own stupid fault for not dropping the book into the recycling bin earlier) that wasted part of your life back!
If you haven't read Tolkien (and, SOMEHOW, have further found and taken a liking to this site without at least having picked up one of his Middle Earth works, which is a seemingly unlikely, albit possible, scenario) and are considering McKiernan's Iron Tower series, you still have a choice; choose wisely!
Please note: I am not lambasting McKiernan's work in general (indeed, having been so disgusted by the outright theft of thought, I haven't attempted to read any of his other work) and am not even close to the first to articulate this opinion regarding the Iron Tower series.
IF you've read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, you should NOT read Dennis McKiernan's Iron Tower series. While unlikely to leave you with any undesirable images or thoughts, you will continue to read it because you just can't believe someone could continue to rip off another work so blatantly. At the end of the books (and I'm exceedingly sorry to say that I read them all in the described fashion), you'll demand (even though it's your own stupid fault for not dropping the book into the recycling bin earlier) that wasted part of your life back!
If you haven't read Tolkien (and, SOMEHOW, have further found and taken a liking to this site without at least having picked up one of his Middle Earth works, which is a seemingly unlikely, albit possible, scenario) and are considering McKiernan's Iron Tower series, you still have a choice; choose wisely!
Please note: I am not lambasting McKiernan's work in general (indeed, having been so disgusted by the outright theft of thought, I haven't attempted to read any of his other work) and am not even close to the first to articulate this opinion regarding the Iron Tower series.
I have to second this one (in fact, when I saw the title of this thread, the Iron Tower series was the first thing that popped into my head!)
Fortunately, I only read the first book (I had to finish it, as I had chosen it for a book report when I was in high school. I felt much better after giving it a nasty review though
)
Werthead
Lemming of Discord
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,185
Do you know the reason for this? That McKienernan came up for an idea for a 'LotR 2' and tried to get the rights to write it, but they refused him, so he had to recast it as 'original' material, and also had to write a pastiche of LotR (so the sequel series would make sense). That's why they are so similar. It doesn't really excuse it: when the Tolkien Estate said no, McKiernan should have dropped it, but at least it explains the situation.
I must join my fellow horseman Grimward in panning Iron Tower. I couldn't believe how much of a rip-off it was. That being said, McKiernan did get more original with his later stuff. But Iron Tower was bad, and Tolkien's estate should have sued. Still, I read the whole friggin' thing, to my everlasting shame...
I actually loved the book I am David, and I didn't find it boring at all. I don't know if your year 8 is the same as our Grade 8 (age 13), but it was one of the better books we got to read.
Books to never read, ever: Anything by Terry Goodkind after Wizard's First Rule. I gave up at Naked Empire. That hit the bin, because it was so bad I couldn't conceive of passing it to someone else. I forget who it was who said it, but let me steal this (paraphrased): "at least someone can wipe their bum with it now".
I actually loved the book I am David, and I didn't find it boring at all. I don't know if your year 8 is the same as our Grade 8 (age 13), but it was one of the better books we got to read.
Books to never read, ever: Anything by Terry Goodkind after Wizard's First Rule. I gave up at Naked Empire. That hit the bin, because it was so bad I couldn't conceive of passing it to someone else. I forget who it was who said it, but let me steal this (paraphrased): "at least someone can wipe their bum with it now".
Switchback
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 134
I have to disagree when it comes to the McKiernan books. I've never quite understood the hatred he seems to gather in his wake by fantasy "purists".
Sure the Iron Tower is a knock-off of Tolkien, but I kind of think that's the point. The book was written in the 80's when EVERYONE was writing Tolkien knockoffs. I read the story in high school right after I read the Lord of the Rings. I loved Tolkien, and wanted to continue reading stories like that. McKiernan fit the bill a lot better than many other series I read around that time, and I think that was a key to him becoming an accomplished writer, and as pointed out a lot of his later books were quite original in their way. The Iron Tower was an homage, as clearly stated in the prologue. It was for people wanting more LOTR type stories, and since as Werthead says he could not get the rights to actually make another LOTR, he wrote the Iron Tower. If you wanted that kind of story, and since Tolkien wasn't writing any more, McKiernan, Brooks, Eddings, etc... fit the bill in the 80's-90's.
Saying you should NOT read those books seems a little harsh. Certainly don't read them if you're tired of the Tolkien model of fantasy, as quite a lot of us are (myself included these days). But if you hunger for those types of books (as I occasionally do) McKiernan wrote some interesting, fun stories. He wasn't my favorite of the Tolkien clones, but the fact that he's still published to this day while literally hundreds of other Tolkien clones have gone the way of the dodo must say something....
Sure the Iron Tower is a knock-off of Tolkien, but I kind of think that's the point. The book was written in the 80's when EVERYONE was writing Tolkien knockoffs. I read the story in high school right after I read the Lord of the Rings. I loved Tolkien, and wanted to continue reading stories like that. McKiernan fit the bill a lot better than many other series I read around that time, and I think that was a key to him becoming an accomplished writer, and as pointed out a lot of his later books were quite original in their way. The Iron Tower was an homage, as clearly stated in the prologue. It was for people wanting more LOTR type stories, and since as Werthead says he could not get the rights to actually make another LOTR, he wrote the Iron Tower. If you wanted that kind of story, and since Tolkien wasn't writing any more, McKiernan, Brooks, Eddings, etc... fit the bill in the 80's-90's.
Saying you should NOT read those books seems a little harsh. Certainly don't read them if you're tired of the Tolkien model of fantasy, as quite a lot of us are (myself included these days). But if you hunger for those types of books (as I occasionally do) McKiernan wrote some interesting, fun stories. He wasn't my favorite of the Tolkien clones, but the fact that he's still published to this day while literally hundreds of other Tolkien clones have gone the way of the dodo must say something....
Werthead
Lemming of Discord
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,185
The Tolkien family is fairly non-litigous (well, until New Line didn't pay them their royalties for the movies, anyway). McKiernan they had a clear case to sue, and Terry Brooks' Sword of Shannara as well (less so the sequels), but in both cases they didn't. The only time they did threaten legal action is, IIRC, when Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a couple of stories featuring Arwen as the protagonist as a kind of fan fiction and they ended getting published in the early 1970s. Oddly, they were never reprinted and are almost impossible to find now.
AE35Unit
]==[]===O °
I would say avoid The City and the Squares by John Brunner. I was expecting SF but it was just a long boring story about what,I'm not sure!
Also I read a book called Worms by some horror hack. It was dreadful,one of the character's name changed part way thru!
Also I read a book called Worms by some horror hack. It was dreadful,one of the character's name changed part way thru!
j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
I've heard plenty of negative things about the Goodkind, but I'm curious about what, in particular, put the Ellison collection in this category. Would you mind going into that a bit?
AE35Unit
]==[]===O °
Just remembered the author,Shaun Hutson.
Sephiroth
Causa Scientiae
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,608
That reminds me: when I was a teenager, my cousin gave me a horror book to read - The Beast House, by Richard Laymon.
It was laughable sensationalist drivel, dreadfully written and obviously trying to be 'shocking' just for the sake of it
I doubt any of you would read it anyway, but what Hal just said reminded me of it, so...
I won't go into graphic detail about the scene that sticks in my memory, but really, it was totally uncalled for.
It was laughable sensationalist drivel, dreadfully written and obviously trying to be 'shocking' just for the sake of it
I doubt any of you would read it anyway, but what Hal just said reminded me of it, so...
I won't go into graphic detail about the scene that sticks in my memory, but really, it was totally uncalled for.
There are Tolkien knock-offs (and as noted elsewhere, I don't place Brooks' 1976-77 Sword of Shannarra quite as strongly in that category, although it certainly can't escape it all together), and there are Tolkien rip-offs, good sir Switchback! McKiernan's Iron Tower series is decidedly in the latter category. I'm (sincerely!) quite amused at having been categorized as a "fantasy purist" (it's probabaly the first time anyone's categorized me as a "purist" in anything!), but the only requirement to see the pilfering here is the ability to read.
And I don't hate McKiernan, or even the balance of his work (see previous post), I just wish I'd never read any of those xeroxes, er, I mean Iron Tower books!
yngvi
I am not a Malmsteen
It's interesting, all this talk about 'knock off's' and 'rip offs', especially applied to Tolkein. I always thought that LOTR was a work which moved the goalposts, for authors as well as readers. Thinking about it again I am a bit of an innocent when it comes to authors ('cos I don't appear to be able to spell nieve/nigheve), thinking that they are all there in garrets writing what their artistic spirits move them to produce. I've never thought badly of authors who appear influenced by Tolkein because his work influenced everyone.
ps If I think a book is really poor I don't read it to the end, so the books I wish I'd never read are the one's where I got to the end and said 'why did I bother'. These are not too memorable but 'Hawksbill Station' by Robert Silverberg springs to mind because it was so dull, and I absolutely loved 'Nightwings' so it was a let-down.
ps If I think a book is really poor I don't read it to the end, so the books I wish I'd never read are the one's where I got to the end and said 'why did I bother'. These are not too memorable but 'Hawksbill Station' by Robert Silverberg springs to mind because it was so dull, and I absolutely loved 'Nightwings' so it was a let-down.
j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
It's interesting that we've moved into simple likes and dislikes here (which is what I'm seeing, anyway), as opposed to those which had such an effect on someone that they genuinely feel the book simply shouldn't be read, period -- that it actually damages the person who reads it. Does anyone have any further examples of the latter type?
Thanks J.D. I was considering a post to bring things back on thread myself.
To elaborate on what J.D. has said, my original point was that a book (American Psycho) had put thoughts in my head that I wish weren't there. The book had changed me and not for the better. This is the only book I have ever read that has had this effect on me and I wondered if any other people had examples of books that had had a similar effect.
Books that were poorley written or boring were that last thing on my mind.
Similar threads
-
-
What other books and shows have places Bigger On The Inside or tend to change locations?
- Started by DAgent
- Replies: 16
-
A Beautiful Mind and a Room with Lots of Books -- Stephen Medcalf- Started by Extollager
- Replies: 0
-
Gateway books: What were the first books that began your love of SF?
- Started by PADDY
- Replies: 36
-
