Here are the rules: You may discuss one (1) single work of art, music, literature, drama, etc per post and you may rip it to shreds. You may not rip on an artist because no matter how loathsome their body of work may be, someone out there loves them more than life itself and will take great personal offense to the fact that you don't.
Therefore, discuss a work and hate it all you like. Do not attack the artist.
Now. Here is why I'm posting this.
I recently read a book so bad that it offended me.
Why did it offend me, you ask. In short, it's because I can't even remember the last time I read such a cliche-ridden piece of dreck. Entire pages were spent on describing the main character's new girlfriend, who -- the author made sure to point out -- was the most beautiful girl the main character had ever seen. The main character was prone to ruminating on this fact, also, which meant that every so often the descriptions would start up all over again.
Then there was the wooden dialogue and cardboard characters, which went right along with the fact that every character seemed to have their heads stuffed with sawdust. I can't think of any other reason for them to behave so stupidly. To give but one example, at one point the main character is allowed by the cops to tramp around a crime scene, taking pictures of it for the local paper, because the cop doesn't see that it will do much harm. Mind you, this is a body dump in a muddy area, and the main character is leaving his footprints all over the place, but that's okay because he notices other footprints leading up to the body. Thank goodness!
And another thing, what sort of police department, no matter how incompetent, would ferry the victim's 14-year-old son out to the dump site to view his mother's naked, butchered body in situ to make a positive ID? Since the book is set in Seattle, we can only hope that the Seattle PD is not so incompetent or insensitive.
Which brings us to our final gripe. The book is set in Seattle, which is an utterly gorgeous, not to mention fascinating, city... not that you would know this from the book itself. Why? Because it appears that the author picked a city and random and decided to set his book there. As such, the same handful of well-known tourist attractions are mentioned repeatedly -- mostly Pike Place Market -- with the occasional random landmark picked from a map thrown in just for fun.
Other ways that the author wastes his setting is by setting action on downtown streets that don't exist (Seattle has numbered avenues, not numbers streets), setting the action in improbable locales in improbable locations (downtown Seattle is mostly office buildings and department stores, not so much flophouses and "massage" parlors), and it gets even worse when the action moves to Madison, Wisconsin, which is portrayed in the book as a small, rural town.
All in all, we're talking about a book that was appalling in every respect here. I gave thought to throwing it away, to make sure it couldn't ruin another life, but in the end I think I can get more use out of it by trading it in at the used bookstore from whence it came.
Therefore, discuss a work and hate it all you like. Do not attack the artist.
Now. Here is why I'm posting this.
I recently read a book so bad that it offended me.
Why did it offend me, you ask. In short, it's because I can't even remember the last time I read such a cliche-ridden piece of dreck. Entire pages were spent on describing the main character's new girlfriend, who -- the author made sure to point out -- was the most beautiful girl the main character had ever seen. The main character was prone to ruminating on this fact, also, which meant that every so often the descriptions would start up all over again.
Then there was the wooden dialogue and cardboard characters, which went right along with the fact that every character seemed to have their heads stuffed with sawdust. I can't think of any other reason for them to behave so stupidly. To give but one example, at one point the main character is allowed by the cops to tramp around a crime scene, taking pictures of it for the local paper, because the cop doesn't see that it will do much harm. Mind you, this is a body dump in a muddy area, and the main character is leaving his footprints all over the place, but that's okay because he notices other footprints leading up to the body. Thank goodness!
And another thing, what sort of police department, no matter how incompetent, would ferry the victim's 14-year-old son out to the dump site to view his mother's naked, butchered body in situ to make a positive ID? Since the book is set in Seattle, we can only hope that the Seattle PD is not so incompetent or insensitive.
Which brings us to our final gripe. The book is set in Seattle, which is an utterly gorgeous, not to mention fascinating, city... not that you would know this from the book itself. Why? Because it appears that the author picked a city and random and decided to set his book there. As such, the same handful of well-known tourist attractions are mentioned repeatedly -- mostly Pike Place Market -- with the occasional random landmark picked from a map thrown in just for fun.
Other ways that the author wastes his setting is by setting action on downtown streets that don't exist (Seattle has numbered avenues, not numbers streets), setting the action in improbable locales in improbable locations (downtown Seattle is mostly office buildings and department stores, not so much flophouses and "massage" parlors), and it gets even worse when the action moves to Madison, Wisconsin, which is portrayed in the book as a small, rural town.
All in all, we're talking about a book that was appalling in every respect here. I gave thought to throwing it away, to make sure it couldn't ruin another life, but in the end I think I can get more use out of it by trading it in at the used bookstore from whence it came.
Comment