Must-not read books

[Days of Broken Arrows]

John Green's "The Fault in Our Stars."

It's an account of what it's like to grow up with an illness by someone who it seems like never actually spoke to a sick kid or set foot in a hospital. And then there's the White Knighting, which marred his earlier books (especially "Paper Towns) but is on steroids here.

A friend of mine from his school said his (butt-ugly) daughter thought this book was brilliant, just brilliant, because of its character development and that's why it was a mega hit. I countered that the American people also made hits out of crap like "Dallas," the empty-calorie books of Danielle Steel, and novelty music like "Bend Me, Shape Me" and sales do not = quality. We haven't spoken since.

 

[EDantes]

I know a guy who is crazy (no pun intended) about 120 days in Sodom. He is rereading Philip K Dicks Valis for the 100 th time now.

It's "good" in the f-ked up sense of the word.

Makes films like Hostel (or even the movie version of Salo) look like a Spongebob Squarepants cartoon in comparison.

If it were written today it'd probably never even get published; might technically even be illegal under state obscenity laws since it's basically "sadist porn".

 

[debeguiled]

The Celestine Prophecy, James Redfield. Redfield calls himself a "therapist turned author", so that should be your first alarm bell. This book is New Age bullshit from beginning to end. If you really want the book's major message from it, just read the non-fiction psychological text Games People Play by psychiatrist Eric Berne, which Redfield admits he plagiarised was heavily influenced by in writing it.

The Way of the Peaceful Warrior, Dan Millman. See The Celestine Prophecy above for the basic format of bullshit parable purported as some sort of quasi-non-fiction. Practice mindfulness and live in the moment and take very literally the "Life is just a dream" part of the children's fable "Row, row, row your boat": I just saved you $20.00 and a few hours of reading.

Almost impossible to find a New Age book worth reading except for laughs. Mostly the incompetent or unemployable suddenly realizing they are channeling a great warrior from the past.

Will add this classic to the list:

"Conversations With God" written by Neale Donald Walsch.

From Wikipedia:

In an interview with Larry King, Walsch described the inception of the books as follows: at a low period in his life, Walsch wrote an angry letter to God asking questions about why his life wasn't working. After writing down all of his questions, he heard a voice over his right shoulder say: "Do you really want an answer to all these questions or are you just venting?"[2] Though when he turned around he saw no one there, Walsch felt answers to his questions filling his mind and decided to write them down. The ensuing dialogue became the Conversations with God books

God speaks through me now! Line up suckers. And they did.

 

[la bodhisattva]

This thread is negative and serves no purpose.

We're men. We don't need to be told what "not" to read. I think any man on this forum can decide for himself if a book is unworthy of his time.

I also like the idea of this thread. "What not to read," "Don't read x and y," however you wan to interpret it, I don't think the intent was to dictate anything to you. Instead, it seems more like a "What books weren't worth my time and probably your's as well."

 

[Truth Teller]

I can't believe 50 Shades of Grey hasn't shown up yet.

I read highly technical works in my field for fun, but couldn't get through 70 pages of this shit.

 

[LongDongSilver]

You have got to be kidding me.. I actually read the first hunger games book stuck in a family beach house and it is SHIT

Catcher in the rye is a great book, Holden Caulfield is an excellent character.

 

[da_zeb]

I actually liked the Hunger Games books. At least, outside of the teenage love triangle crap. I thought they were really insightful as to how tyranny and rebellion work.

One of the supposedly popular books I can't stand is Catcher In The Rye. I forced myself to read half of it, then looked up some cliff's notes to see how it ended. I couldn't stand the main character. I read an article recently claiming it's an encoded Freemason ritual, but I'm never picking it up again to verify that claim.

Totally agree on Catcher in the Rye. It was the one book I couldn't finish in English Literature in high school. I gave up about halfway through and bullshitted my way through the writing assignment.

 

[Vinny]

Twilight - by Stephenie Meyer

 

[SirTimothy]

No More Christian Nice Guy - by Paul Coughlin

I read this book back when I was just barely starting to scratch the surface of the red pill. I had read "No More Mr. Nice Guy", thought it was fairly good, and being a Christian I wanted to see how a "Christian" version would compare.

I was pretty disappointed. It starts off being vaguely pro-masculine, but after admitting that feminism "overreacted", it goes on to imply that it was the evil horny misogynist men's fault that feminism had to happen in the first place. The fact that feminism was responsible for Roe v. Wade and a subsequent 50 million abortions was not even mentioned, which is kind of weird for a Christian author.

The rest of the book goes on talking about how Christian men should not be nice-guy wimps, but instead be bold, truthful, tough, fearless, etc. But it gives almost no idea of what this looks like in the real world, even in the "practical help" chapter. The writing overall felt weirdly female. And the way it makes excuses for feminism is pretty ironic for a book that says to boldly tell the unvarnished, masculine truth.

2/10 Would Not Read Again. If you want good, masculine, Christian reading, try Dalrock's blog.

 

[Eric The Awful]

As a Christian, I highly recommend avoiding many of the popular Christian books. I wish Moses had left an 11th commandment that pastors are not allowed to write books. Most Christian authors (pastors especially) have about 5 minutes of material that have to be stretched across 300+ pages, especially in mainstream publishing. They do this the same way they get through an hour long sermon: lots of stories, anecdotes, and repetition.

I also believe the majority of Christian books are written for the baby, not the mature Christian. So you pick up a book that you think you'll learn something from, and the book is little more than the basic Gospel. I'm already a believer; why are you preaching the Gospel at me if I've already accepted it? Oh, right, just in case that one person in 300 million who has never heard it before accidentally picks the book up so he can be saved.

Likewise, stay away from the majority of Christian marriage and relationship books. I'm not saying there aren't good ones out there; but most of them are regurgitated feminist new age crap. Or just a pastor rambling a page of material into 300.

On to better things... I concur on "The Celestrine Prophesy". The guy wrote a follow up book which is even worse.

Kiyosaki wrote a book in 2009 called "Conspiracy of the Rich". Most of the material concurs with things you'll read in "The Creature From Jekyll Island". One story in there I thought was utter bullshit. He claims while he was in Vietnam, he flew his helicopter into Cambodia to buy gold. The guy admits to taking a Marine Corps helicopter into enemy territory to buy gold? I thought it was Hollywood bullshit and unlikely. And I'm pretty sure there is no statute of limitations on things like misappropriation of government property, unauthorized missions, and conduct unbecoming an officer.

No More Christian Nice Guy - by Paul Coughlin

I read this book back when I was just barely starting to scratch the surface of the red pill. I had read "No More Mr. Nice Guy", thought it was fairly good, and being a Christian I wanted to see how a "Christian" version would compare.

I was pretty disappointed. It starts off being vaguely pro-masculine, but after admitting that feminism "overreacted", it goes on to imply that it was the evil horny misogynist men's fault that feminism had to happen in the first place. The fact that feminism was responsible for Roe v. Wade and a subsequent 50 million abortions was not even mentioned, which is kind of weird for a Christian author.

The rest of the book goes on talking about how Christian men should not be nice-guy wimps, but instead be bold, truthful, tough, fearless, etc. But it gives almost no idea of what this looks like in the real world, even in the "practical help" chapter. The writing overall felt weirdly female. And the way it makes excuses for feminism is pretty ironic for a book that says to boldly tell the unvarnished, masculine truth.

2/10 Would Not Read Again. If you want good, masculine, Christian reading, try Dalrock's blog.

 

[SwordfishTrombonist]

Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte

Probably the worst book I've had the misfortune to read, the fact that feminists love this book (didn't know that when I started it) says everything you need to know. A good buddy of mine who is an Indian immigrant and who's english is not the best, had to write an essay about it for University and wanted me to proofread it. I thought "This is considered a classic right? I'll just read it and then I can really help him." I'd also read some Jane Austen novels which were alright, this was not.

The story centers around a young orphan who after a few misadventures winds up working as a governess for the wealthy, mercurial Lord Rochester with a mysterious past. Bronte explains how Jane's strong personality eventually wins him over which is baffling because to me Jane Eyre comes across as smug, bland and overbearing. Bronte also goes to great length so the reader understands that Jane is not much of a looker. Rochester ends up passing over beautiful noblewomen in favor of a busted, uninteresting and full of herself Jane. Its no wonder feminists like it

It was also one of the worst pieces of writing I've ever read, every sentence is overlong and yet manages to not say very much at the same time.

Basically the whole thing reads as a painfully long-winded fantasy of a woman who could never attract a desirable suitor (which Bronte could not, her husband was broke and she turned him down at first) but believed she deserved one for being 'strong' aka a pain in the ass

I get why feminists laud the idiotic themes of the book but the fact that this poorly written nonsense is considered a 'classic' by some is beyond me.

I really should've stopped reading a third of the way through but I hate not finishing books

 

[Paracelsus]

Kiyosaki wrote a book in 2009 called "Conspiracy of the Rich". Most of the material concurs with things you'll read in "The Creature From Jekyll Island". One story in there I thought was utter bullshit. He claims while he was in Vietnam, he flew his helicopter into Cambodia to buy gold. The guy admits to taking a Marine Corps helicopter into enemy territory to buy gold? I thought it was Hollywood bullshit and unlikely. And I'm pretty sure there is no statute of limitations on things like misappropriation of government property, unauthorized missions, and conduct unbecoming an officer.

At the risk of labouring the point, Kiyosaki's stories in respect of his Vietnam experiences change regularly. In his earlier books he'd imply that he deserted from the military because he was conflicted about shooting a Vietnamese boy who was playing in a helicopter. The real story essentially came out that he just missed a boat to come back to the States and thus was listed for a while as AWOL.

Even his "I'm a tough Marine Corps guy" story is somewhat bullshit. Though the USMC is depressingly willing to affirm him as a proud product of theirs, in reality his military service isn't quite so hardcore. In his earliest books, he said he was accepted into the US Merchant Marine Academy. John Reed goes on in his breakdown of Kiyosaki's bullshit:

Did Kiyosaki go through Marine Platoon Leader School? Nope.

So how did he get to be a Marine?

He was a Navy officer in helicopter school. The Vietnam war was winding down, so the Navy decided they had too many pilots and decided to stop training Kiyosaki and his fight-school classmates to save money. The Marines, on the other hand, still wanted more helicopter pilots. By letting Kiyosaki and his helicopter classmates make a lateral transfer to the Marine Corps, the Marines could save the amount of money the Navy had already spent training them. In other words, to the Marine Corps, Kiyosaki was a pilot trainee who was “on sale” for half price or “overstock.”

In World War II, officers who graduated from Officer Candidate School were called “90-day wonders.” By that standard, Kiyosaki is a “zero-day wonder” in terms of Marine training—an instant Marine. He passed no “crucible” or its predecessor tests. He just filled out some paperwork and made a wardrobe change.

Did he serve in the Marine Corps? Yes.

I have no problem with his claiming he served in the Marine Corps. But in his interview on the Marine Corps Web site and elsewhere, he has laid on the “Marine Corps made me what I am today” stuff pretty thick for a guy who came through the Marine Corps’ “back door,” skipping the notoriously difficult training that virtually all other Marines had to complete successfully before they could “claim the title of United States Marines.”

 

[debeguiled]

I wish Moses had left an 11th commandment that pastors are not allowed to write books.

Classic.

 

[Aurini]

Seconds:

Dianetics: I read about half of it. Endless repetitions about how our thetans are messed up, because all of our mothers tried to abort us with coat-hangers but failed. Seriously. We all got coat-hanger raped in the womb, according to him, it comes up at least once a chapter.

Catcher in the Rye: The story of a mentally ill, selfish little twerp, who refuses to grow up. Peter pan with meandering nothing and an obsession with sex. If he'd been the villain of the piece - a damaged little monster who drags his family down - it could have been a good exploration of mental illness. Instead, we're supposed to accept him as a protagonist and sympathize with him, when all he does is walk around calling people phony.

I think this is where the outrage stemmed from; people said it was the sex and prostitution (note: he doesn't even fuck the prostitute, so her pimp almost beats him up), but I think the real anger came from glorifying such a shit heel.

Original:

On the Road: poorly written garbage about Kerouac and his loser friends mooching off of the good will of others, exploiting and degrading the high trust society of the fifties, with no catharsis, no lessons learned, just patheity at the end of the trip. If any of us had lived back then, it would have been so easy to rebuild from scratch; go to a small town, and somebody would help you out with a job and a place to stay. Guys like Kerouac destroyed that for the rest of us.

 

[Eric The Awful]

Paracelsus, I've read Reed's review of Kiyosaki. It's a classic.

I know a former Marine Cobra pilot. He got into Real Estate, and worships at the Altar of the Great Kiyosaki. He's thrilled about RK having been a Marine. I showed him Reed's analysis of RK's service record, and somehow he either doesn't get or doesn't have a problem with the fact that Kiyosaki didn't go through OCS and TBS or any of the other Marine Officer training. Doesn't bother him, because somehow he sees great wisdom in "Rich Dad, Poor Dad", which itself is an article of fiction. I suspect it was ghost written anyway.

 

[oilbreh]

Seconds:

Catcher in the Rye: The story of a mentally ill, selfish little twerp, who refuses to grow up. Peter pan with meandering nothing and an obsession with sex. If he'd been the villain of the piece - a damaged little monster who drags his family down - it could have been a good exploration of mental illness. Instead, we're supposed to accept him as a protagonist and sympathize with him, when all he does is walk around calling people phony.

I think this is where the outrage stemmed from; people said it was the sex and prostitution (note: he doesn't even fuck the prostitute, so her pimp almost beats him up), but I think the real anger came from glorifying such a shit heel.

Original:

On the Road: poorly written garbage about Kerouac and his loser friends mooching off of the good will of others, exploiting and degrading the high trust society of the fifties, with no catharsis, no lessons learned, just patheity at the end of the trip. If any of us had lived back then, it would have been so easy to rebuild from scratch; go to a small town, and somebody would help you out with a job and a place to stay. Guys like Kerouac destroyed that for the rest of us.

Beg to differ about Catcher in the Rye, there is a lot more going on. He's a teenager, you really expect a book written in the mind of a teen kid not having anything to do with sex in 24 hours? There are hints of abuse and loss of innocence. Its more of a commentary about how society abuses the innocent to fit them into the structure of society. Its also a short read and easy read. Regarding his family, he does feel sympathy for his family. He just falls apart and has a yolo moment.

I only watched the movie adaptation of The Road, but based on what I saw I think I agree with you.

 

[Agastya]

I actually wouldn't recommend V.S Naipaul's "Among the Believers". The overall tone of the book was just depressing and heavy. The guy does have some good insights about Islam, but they're buried underneath hundreds of pages of useless conversations and the author's general pessimism and negativity.

 

[TheMadGreek]

120 Days of Sodom by Marquis De Sade

Worse than any horror film ever made; I couldn't finish it on my first try, but read it if you dare

Fuck that book and especially the movie. No wonder the director was murdered.

 

[puckerman]

I can't believe Ernest Hemingway hasn't come up yet. I had to read him in high school and couldn't stand him.

 

[fokker]

Seconds:

Dianetics: I read about half of it. Endless repetitions about how our thetans are messed up, because all of our mothers tried to abort us with coat-hangers but failed. Seriously. We all got coat-hanger raped in the womb, according to him, it comes up at least once a chapter.

Catcher in the Rye: The story of a mentally ill, selfish little twerp, who refuses to grow up. Peter pan with meandering nothing and an obsession with sex. If he'd been the villain of the piece - a damaged little monster who drags his family down - it could have been a good exploration of mental illness. Instead, we're supposed to accept him as a protagonist and sympathize with him, when all he does is walk around calling people phony.

I think this is where the outrage stemmed from; people said it was the sex and prostitution (note: he doesn't even fuck the prostitute, so her pimp almost beats him up), but I think the real anger came from glorifying such a shit heel.

Original:

On the Road: poorly written garbage about Kerouac and his loser friends mooching off of the good will of others, exploiting and degrading the high trust society of the fifties, with no catharsis, no lessons learned, just patheity at the end of the trip. If any of us had lived back then, it would have been so easy to rebuild from scratch; go to a small town, and somebody would help you out with a job and a place to stay. Guys like Kerouac destroyed that for the rest of us.

I actually liked On the Road and Catcher in the Rye. Can't judge Dianetics - I've never read it.