Top 5 books you would not recommend

[~Andrea~]

But have you read it?

[Kate]

Not all of it. I didn't feel I needed too as for me, what he was writing was just wrong. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't force my beliefs on anyone and wouldn't judge anyone on their beliefs, I just didn't finish the book because I didn't believe what he was writing. I would like to read the Christian response to it though. Maybe I'll add that to my TBR pile

[~Andrea~]

Not all of it. I didn't feel I needed too as for me, what he was writing was just wrong. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't force my beliefs on anyone and wouldn't judge anyone on their beliefs, I just didn't finish the book because I didn't believe what he was writing. I would like to read the Christian response to it though. Maybe I'll add that to my TBR pile

 

Fair enough. Hats off to you for trying it if its outside of your world view. Personally I dislike the man. He seems as fundamentalist and evangelical in his atheism as the religious people he attacks.

[Janet]

2. Khaled Hosseini: The Kite Runner

I think you're the first person I've come across who didn't enjoy it.

[tbain]

1. Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

2. Khaled Hosseini: The Kite Runner

3. Karen Joy Fowler: The Jane Austin Book Club

4. Maeve Binchy: Star Sulliven

5. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Half of a Yellow Sun

 

I wouldn't recommend any of these books

 

I've read two of Binchys books and just don't like her writing at all.

[Philip Stein]

I didn't feel I needed too as for me, what he was writing was just wrong

 

Well without wishing to open an ugly can of worms, do you mean "wrong" as in objectionable, or "wrong" as in factually incorrect? If it's the latter, I can't agree. If I remember right, the thrust of Dawkins' argument in The God Delusion is that in our society, belief in a supernatural 'personal' God is illogical and flies in the face of evidence and reason. That's unarguable, surely. Indeed, faith defies, or ignores, proof by definition. That's why it's called faith.

 

Personally I dislike the man. He seems as fundamentalist and evangelical in his atheism as the religious people he attacks.

 

Dawkins addresses this old chestnut in the paperback edition of The God Delusion. (You can also read it here.) It's an invalid comparison because fundamentalism (again, by definition) means the holding of a position irrespective of the evidence, and a refusal to change one's mind even when the facts change. Dawkins makes it clear that he - and any other scientist - would change their mind in a jiffy if proof were made available to show that he was wrong. In other words, his beliefs are reliant on the present condition of scientific knowledge and are subject to change because scientific knowledge changes all the time. A religious fundamentalist, on the other hand, has beliefs which are reliant on a book written maybe two thousand or fifteen hundred years ago and which therefore will not change, ever.

[NiceguyEddie]

Indeed, faith defies, or ignores, proof by definition. That's why it's called faith.

 

It's an invalid comparison because fundamentalism (again, by definition) means the holding of a position irrespective of the evidence, and a refusal to change one's mind even when the facts change.

 

 

Faith doesn't ignore proof. It merely accepts/believes in the absence of proof. Proof either of the existence of God, or proof of the non existence of God.

 

Fundamentalism is nothing to do with evidence as such. It's to do with strict adherence to principles or rules of a religion. I agree that it doesn't make sense to call Dawkins a fundamentalist because as far as I know, atheism doesn't have "rules".

[Philip Stein]

[Faith] merely accepts/believes in the absence of proof. Proof either of the existence of God, or proof of the non existence of God.

 

But the two aren't equivalent; though it's true believers sometimes respond to the question "Can you prove God exists?" with "Can you prove God doesn't exist?" as though it's an unanswerable rejoinder, when it's just a misunderstanding of what proof means. You can't prove something doesn't exist, obviously - as with Bertrand Russell's teapot metaphor. Or as someone else (whose name escapes me) said: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[NiceguyEddie]

But the two aren't equivalent; though it's true believers sometimes respond to the question "Can you prove God exists?" with "Can you prove God doesn't exist?" as though it's an unanswerable rejoinder, when it's just a misunderstanding of what proof means. You can't prove something doesn't exist, obviously - as with Bertrand Russell's teapot metaphor. Or as someone else (whose name escapes me) said: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

I wasn't suggesting they were. I was just pointing out that faith is about believing something that isn't proven and not about believing something proven to be false which is what you suggested.

 

Slightly off topic, but a couple of years ago I went to my daughter's 6th form parent's evening & met her philosophy teacher. I asked what they would be studying and she said much of the term would be taken up with the philosophy of religion. I said "Oh, the ontological, teleological & cosmological stuff". Her jaw dropped. I don't think she was used to parents knowing anything.

[Babe*With*Brains]

ok, at first i read this as 'top 5 you would recommend, but then realised it was would not. so, here is my list:

 

1. Through a glass darkly-It began ok...actually, I almost started to enjoy it, but it soon turned into one of those books which are unnecissarily repetative and to be honest, quite depressing. Last I heard about it was a few years back when someone mentioned that they were considering turning it into a film or something

 

2. Looking up at the sun-The blurb on the back seemed good, and it even began well, but soon became the most depressing book I have ever read. What I thought would be something resembling a girl coming to terms with her sexuality and taking us along her journey actually turned into something so ridiculous that I actually despised the book by the end.

 

3. LOTR (Lord Of The Rings)-I'm so sorry to mention this one since I know people are going to bite my head off, but I just didn't manage to get along with it. Tolkein is clearly perfectly capable of writing, and is good at what he does, but I just found it hard to get in to and to be honest, quite boring. I like the general idea of it (the whole fantasy theme) but, like I said, it wasn't my cup of tea.

 

4. Artemis Fowl-I know this book was aimed more at younger readers, but it was years ago when i attempted to read this, so please let me off =p It was just one of them books I didn't get along with...I'm sure you know the type...the ones which you want to get along with and want to read, but you just can't get into them. The graphology was all well and good, but the contents didn't match the 'glamour' of the glittery cover.

 

5. The 'wicca' series by Cate Tiernan-Ok, I feel awful saying this since my close friend and my fiancee rave about them all the time, but i tried to read them once around 4 years ago and never got on with them. I tried several times but despite the Ok blurb on the back, the contents was a car crash. I thought i would never see them again, yet the other week my friend surprised us by revealing he had borrowed them yet again from the library. They've been knocking around the local libraries since I was in school...it's time they vanished for good!

[~Andrea~]

Dawkins addresses this old chestnut in the paperback edition of The God Delusion. (You can also read it here.) It's an invalid comparison because fundamentalism (again, by definition) means the holding of a position irrespective of the evidence, and a refusal to change one's mind even when the facts change. Dawkins makes it clear that he - and any other scientist - would change their mind in a jiffy if proof were made available to show that he was wrong. In other words, his beliefs are reliant on the present condition of scientific knowledge and are subject to change because scientific knowledge changes all the time. A religious fundamentalist, on the other hand, has beliefs which are reliant on a book written maybe two thousand or fifteen hundred years ago and which therefore will not change, ever.

 

Perhaps I am mistaken. I seemed to remember him saying something to the effect of 'if i witnessed a miracle I would put it down to random fluctuations of particles' or something. This is an outrageous paraphrase, but I thought it was something like that.

 

I still dislike the man. I find him too polemical. I have much more respect for someone like Steve Jones who seems altogether more reasonable. It's just my personal opinion.

[Philip Stein]

I was just pointing out that faith is about believing something that isn't proven and not about believing something proven to be false which is what you suggested.

 

I don't think that's what I meant to suggest, though I may not have expressed it clearly. What I meant was that if something has been proved to be the case, you don't have 'faith' in it: you know it to be true. 'Faith' or 'belief' carries with it a necessary undercoat of doubt. So if there was proof of God's existence, people would no longer have faith or belief in him, at least not in the sense that those words are generally understood. Just as we don't 'believe' in gravity or dogs.

 

I still dislike the man.

 

Ah well, now that is a view you are entitled to.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Philip Stein

[Michelle]

ok, at first i read this as 'top 5 you would recommend, but then realised it was would not. so, here is my list:

 

That thread does exist somewhere.

 

3. LOTR (Lord Of The Rings)-I'm so sorry to mention this one since I know people are going to bite my head off, but I just didn't manage to get along with it. Tolkein is clearly perfectly capable of writing, and is good at what he does, but I just found it hard to get in to and to be honest, quite boring. I like the general idea of it (the whole fantasy theme) but, like I said, it wasn't my cup of tea.

 

I believe I've seen both views about these books on here. Personally, I read the first, then half way through the second, and decided that for me, they were too drawn out.

 

4. Artemis Fowl-I know this book was aimed more at younger readers, but it was years ago when i attempted to read this, so please let me off =p It was just one of them books I didn't get along with...I'm sure you know the type...the ones which you want to get along with and want to read, but you just can't get into them. The graphology was all well and good, but the contents didn't match the 'glamour' of the glittery cover.

 

Ahh.. I agree with you on this one. I also wanted to like it, and found it just 'ok'.

[Guest Tiresias]

There are three:

 

At Swim-Two-Birds, Flann O'Brien

The Glass Bead Game, Herman Hesse

The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus

[Freewheeling Andy]

At Swim-Two-Birds, Flann O'Brien

 

Oooh! Them's fightin' words round these parts!

[pontalba]

Hmmm, 5 books not recommended. First off, anything by John Steinbeck, having managed somehow to wade through East of Eden, truly disliking practically every second of it, I have tried at least two others, Of Mice and Men, The Moon is Down, oh!, and when I was quite young The Winter of Our Discontent.

Blindness by Jose Saramago

The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas pynchon

[Peacefield]

Hmm, this is a hard one for me, but I will try to prevail! Sometimes I like the way a book is written, but I hate the characters. Sometimes I love the dialogue between characters but hate the plot! Also, even if a don't like a book as I'm reading it, I still try to finish it, thinking that even if I end up absolutely loving the last chapter then that would have made the whole agonizing experience worth it, LOL.

 

Here's what I came up with:

 

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

This is one I could not get through, and actually physically had the throw the book against the wall. I was surprised at my reaction, since I loved Fountainhead, but the interaction between the main female and male characters annoyed me to no end.

 

The Little Friend - Donna Tartt

I loved Donna Tartt's first book The Secret History, so the fact that I had built up my excitment for this her 2nd book in the 10 year span in between made it so disappointing when I didn't like it. I love Donna's style of writing, and the way she describes her characters, but the ending was horrible! Never have I had so many unanswered questions.

 

The Third Secret - Steve Berry

I read this one for book club and it sounds silly to say, but the 'Secret' was lame! Very disappointing, lol.

 

Odd Thomas - Dean Koontz

Another book club choice, and it appears that Koontz has built upon his 'Odd' theme, so they must be popular, but I just thought it was so-so.

 

Burning Bright - Tracy Chevalier

It hurts me to have to write this, because while I love Tracy Chevalier and everything she's done up to this point, I just thought this one had a nothing plot. Maybe I just don't think that William Blake was that interesting of a historical figure, but it was really just a 'day in the life' kind of story. Nothing climactic really happened and I was just sad that I couldn't fall in love with this one like I have with some of her others.

[pint6x]

1) Lord of the Rings - Tolkein - zzzzzzzzzzzzz

2) Ulysses - James Joyce - practically unreadable

3) Harry Potter - JK Rowling (yes I know, but I hated it)

4) Life Skills - Katie Fforde (dull, badly written)

5) Anything by Ayn Rand - pretentious rubbish

[Guest Tiresias]

2) Ulysses - James Joyce - practically unreadable

 

For the average reader, like me, I agree. But I also add that Ulysses is the greatest book ever written.

 

This is not a contradiction. In a word, cheat. And then, understand and enjoy Ulysses you will

[princessponti]

Hmmm, 5 books not recommended. First off, anything by John Steinbeck, having managed somehow to wade through East of Eden, truly disliking practically every second of it, I have tried at least two others, Of Mice and Men, The Moon is Down, oh!, and when I was quite young The Winter of Our Discontent.

Blindness by Jose Saramago

The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas pynchon

 

...two of my favourite books are in your list!! ....I may try the other ones, do you think it works like that?!! Your anti recommendations maybe great for me! lol!

[Ruth]

The Devil's Advocate, by Andrew Neiderman (don't think that just because the movie is good, the book will be - it's truly awful)

 

Mourning Ruby, by Helen Dunmore (I wanted to like it, I really did, but I just couldn't)

 

Anything by Sheila Quigley - (dire writing, boring and predictable storyline)

 

The Accidental - Ali Smith - (hated it)

 

The Hours - Michael Cunningham (boring)

[pontalba]

...two of my favourite books are in your list!! ....I may try the other ones, do you think it works like that?!! Your anti recommendations maybe great for me! lol!

 

Whatever works!

BTW, which two are your favorites?

[princessponti]

Whatever works!

BTW, which two are your favorites?

 

Of Mice and Men and Blindness fabulous books!

[poppy]

Hmmm, 5 books not recommended. First off, anything by John Steinbeck, having managed somehow to wade through East of Eden, truly disliking practically every second of it, I have tried at least two others, Of Mice and Men, The Moon is Down, oh!, and when I was quite young The Winter of Our Discontent

 

I have a great deal of respect for your literary choices Pont (I'm going to try to get a copy of Lolita this week) but I too am surprised you didn't like Steinbeck. Did you perhaps find him a little depressing?

[pontalba]

I have a great deal of respect for your literary choices Pont (I'm going to try to get a copy of Lolita this week) but I too am surprised you didn't like Steinbeck. Did you perhaps find him a little depressing?

It isn't any one thing I can put my finger on poppy, I find him wooden for one thing, but beyond that...all I know is that every time I try, and I tried mainly because muggle likes him so much and we agree on other authors, so I figured it might be the one or two I'd picked up to that point, but no...every time I try to read one, it just sets my teeth on edge, like someone is running long fingernails down a chalk board.

It's a totally visceral reaction.