# Book Burning!



## tbs21 (Jun 29, 2009)

I figured the title of this thread would catch most users' attention. I'll probably be demanded to leave the site for suggesting this, but I wanted to pose the question: If you attended a book burning, which books would you toss in?

Here's mine:

_Silas Marner. _I absolutely hated reading this book. The way it is written and the huge vocabulary make the book very, very difficult to read. But I did like the story about half-way through it.

_The Scarlet Letter_. Very boring to me. I cannot imagine or even begin to relate to the Puritan way of life. Another book I had difficulty reading and staying the least bit interested in.

_Waiting for Godot_. The worst, stupidest, most pointless, idiotic book, play, anything I have ever read in my entire life. Enough said.

_A Midsummer Night's Dream_. Very wierd.

There are a lot more, but these are the only ones that come to mind right now.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Jun 29, 2009)

The Bible.


----------



## winkash (Jun 29, 2009)

tbs21 said:


> I figured the title of this thread would catch most users' attention. I'll probably be demanded to leave the site for suggesting this, but I wanted to pose the question: If you attended a book burning, which books would you toss in?



You must miss Middle Ages.

Anyway, it's your choice and I think there is nothing to worry about as long as you are not a government's official or in a powerful position of any kind.

In fact, I hope you're nobody trying to catch some attention. (No offence intended here).:smile:


----------



## Robosquad (Jun 29, 2009)

_Twilight_. This is the only book I could throw in where, by its popularity-to-quality-writing-ratio, I would actually feel like I was doing the world a favor.

Also, the complete works of Charlotte Bronte and Jane Austen, if only for my personal satisfaction.



> The Bible.


Scathing.



> _Waiting for Godot_. The worst, stupidest, most pointless, idiotic book, play, anything I have ever read in my entire life. Enough said.
> 
> _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. Very wierd.


What're you, some kind of narc?  And "stupidest"?  Even on Beckett's most existential, creative days, he wouldn't accept that as a word.


----------



## tbs21 (Jun 30, 2009)

I thought of another: _Ethan Frome._ I hated this book.

And, by the way, I didn't intentionally use book-burning to draw up images of Nazi and Midieval evils. I just wondered what books most people didn't like.

And for those of you criticizing instead of tossing in a book...you must have missed the point.

I can't believe someone would actually throw a Bible in a fire. (Maybe I just live a very sheltered life or something, but I know they're out there.)

The Twighlight Saga: I agree 100%! I've never even read them and I hate them. The hysteria they caused puzzles me, beacause for some reason, a romantic vampire story just doesn't interest me.


----------



## Mike C (Jun 30, 2009)

I wouldn't, but I'd happily execute anyone who did. Burning books is the most moronic concept since the dark-ages. It's like standing up to be counted when ignorance is being passed out. 

But with mindless opinion like this:



			
				tbs21 said:
			
		

> I've never even read them and I hate them.



what the hell can we expect. 

Much offence intended.


----------



## tbs21 (Jul 1, 2009)

I agree with you Mike: Book burning is one of the worst forms of ignorance in history. And on the subject of 'Twilight', I will reiterate, "A vampire romance that seems to have turned everyone crazy doesn't appeal to me." Perhaps I hate them because I'm tired of hearing about them.


----------



## The Wrong Writer (Jul 1, 2009)

How about life imprisonment, instead.  Place Silas and Ethan and Jane Eyre and (especially) Godot in a nice comfortable cell where they will never mindfuck school kids again.


----------



## quarterscot (Jul 10, 2009)

I had to do _North and South _by Elizabeth Gaskell for A Levels. Afterwards I really did burn my copy. It gave me a great deal of pleasure. Then at university _I had to read the damn thing again_


----------



## Robosquad (Jul 10, 2009)

The Wrong Writer said:


> How about life imprisonment, instead. Place Silas and Ethan and Jane Eyre and (especially) Godot in a nice comfortable cell where they will never mindfuck school kids again.


They tried that, but Godot never showed up for trial. Everyone waited, but eventually the prosecuting attorneys just started repeating the same evidence over and over again in different accents and the jury went into infinite deliberation. Then they asked the plaintiff for his name, and when he kept telling them, they stamped "LIAR" on his forehead and lead him around on a leash.

It was just a bad idea from square one.  Jane Eyre's conviction went slightly smoother because her entire closing argument consisted of caged bird metaphors.  And honestly everyone was just fed up with it by then.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 10, 2009)

Dr. Malone said:


> The Bible.




The Bible is full of beautiful language. You throw that in the fire and you should go in too. haroh:


----------



## Mike C (Jul 10, 2009)

quarterscot said:


> I had to do _North and South _by Elizabeth Gaskell for A Levels. Afterwards I really did burn my copy. It gave me a great deal of pleasure. Then at university _I had to read the damn thing again_



So you proved yourself to be a moron _twice_?


----------



## Hawke (Jul 10, 2009)

Happy Potter.

No wait. They did that and then everyone read it to see what the hubbub was about (talk about a super marketing scheme!), and that was when it really took off... and with it came the movies and the big money and...  (Relax. I'm using HP as an example only. Sheesh, folks.)

I wouldn't burn any books. If I don't like 'em, I just don't finish reading 'em and don't recommend 'em.


----------



## Edgewise (Jul 10, 2009)

Dr. Malone said:


> The Bible.



It starts off slow, but it picks up around the middle.   Parts of it are boring.  I haven't gotten through the whole thing yet, but I hear that the second half of the book renders the first half completely irrelevant.  Something about a  vagrant mystic and new wine.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 10, 2009)

The fact that anybody would burn a book on the grounds of "witchcraft" is pretty sick considering what the crime of witchcraft actually was and the disgusting measures implemented in order to punish those "guilty". Not many people know that witchcraft was essentially a thought crime and had little to do with sorcery or divination.


----------



## Hawke (Jul 10, 2009)

Cool those jets a tad, Mermaid. I agree with you. (Note the "I wouldn't burn any books" line in my post.) I was teasing and I meant it as such... though it is true that burning books to get rid of them only because one doesn't like them can make them popular.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 10, 2009)

Hawke said:


> Cool those jets a tad, Mermaid. I agree with you. (Note the "I wouldn't burn any books" line in my post.) I was teasing and I meant it as such... though it is true that burning books to get rid of them only because one doesn't like them can make them popular.




I wasn't aiming at you. Just at those ignorant despots who did accuse the author of practising witchcraft.


----------



## Hawke (Jul 10, 2009)

Ah, gotcha.


----------



## quarterscot (Jul 11, 2009)

Mike C said:


> So you proved yourself to be a moron _twice_?


 
If being moronic is showing intolerence towards turgid prose, laughably naive social commentary, a love story you could predict the moment the two characters spoke and a pampered middle class woman generally acting out her fantasies for a bit of rough... yes, Mikey Boy, a moron I am


----------



## The Wrong Writer (Jul 11, 2009)

> a moron I am



Duly noted, Yoda.


And you should really watch tossing around words like "turgid prose".


----------



## johnnycruger (Jul 12, 2009)

tbs21 said:


> I agree with you Mike: Book burning is one of the worst forms of ignorance in history. And on the subject of 'Twilight', I will reiterate, "A vampire romance that seems to have turned everyone crazy doesn't appeal to me." Perhaps I hate them because I'm tired of hearing about them.



No, "Twilight" is just a bad book.  Stephanie Meyer really isn't that great a writer but she masks this deficit by abusing the hell out of her Thesaurus to make the book sound more complicated than it really is.  Her adjectives can be downright contradictory.

Stephen King is even on record as stating "...Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good."



Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> The Bible is full of beautiful language. You throw that in the fire and you should go in too. haroh:



"Some beautiful language" is not worth the trouble this book has caused over the ages.  If that's its only redeeming quality, into the fire with it and good riddance.

Books I'd burn:

Trance: Formation.  The Amazon reviews were all posted by sockpuppet accounts belonging to the author; there's no way this is a 4-star book.  Worst book ever.

Dianetics.  Pure garbage.  Needs no explanation.

Betrayed: The Story of Lisa Clark.  I don't know what exactly Jennifer Grant contributed to this book since it's clear from the first _sentence_ that this book was published without ever being reviewed by an editor.  I've seen better grammar in a 6-year old's Christmas Wish List.


----------



## Like a Fox (Jul 12, 2009)

quarterscot said:


> If being moronic is showing intolerence towards turgid prose, laughably naive social commentary, a love story you could predict the moment the two characters spoke and a pampered middle class woman generally acting out her fantasies for a bit of rough... yes, Mikey Boy, a moron I am



This all based on what? Considering, as you said, you haven't read the series.

Not saying that what you've said is without merit (I have read the series. All my gal pals were reading it, and I wanted to talk about it with them. I enjoyed them for what they are. Not the smartest thing I've ever read, but enjoyable.) Sounds to me like you've taken other people's opinions and made them your own. I recommend reading it, then hating it, or just don't say anything about it. 

Seems like you hate the obsession with it, rather than the book. It's so passe to hate something just because it's popular. People should be able to enjoy it no matter how mindless you think it _probably_ is. I don't see how it could possibly affect anyone else enough to encourage hatred. Ridiculous. Save your hate for something worthy.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 12, 2009)

johnnycruger said:


> "Some beautiful language" is not worth the trouble this book has caused over the ages.  If that's its only redeeming quality, into the fire with it and good riddance.




What on Earth are you on about? What trouble has the book caused? Explain to me why this isn't complete idiocy. Push you in that fire and good riddance. :lone:


Like a Fox: I hate to break it to you kiddo, but he ain't talking about Twilight. Turgid prose doesn't sound a lot like Twilight. Twilight is more mind-numbingly-amateurish prose. :read:

For romantic writing read Birdsong by Faulks.


----------



## Rob (Jul 12, 2009)

Love it or hate it, and there are plenty of people on either side of that fence, Twilight is a hugely successful novel in pure commercial terms, and publishing is a business. If your novel can do for a publisher what Twilight has done, you'll be worth something. Stephanie Meyer has achieved what many of us would wish to achieve, but some of us like to think we'd create a better quality product. A huge number of readers couldn't give a damn about a lot of the criticisms other writers have about Meyer's writing.

There are no books I'd burn, though there are some I haven't enjoyed. But hate them? No, I think Like A Fox is spot on, hate is too strong a feeling for me to have about a book.

I don't have a problem with other people as individuals burning books if they want to. I would have a problem with governments promoting or enforcing the burning of books.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Patrick (Jul 12, 2009)

Rob said:


> Love it or hate it, and there are plenty of people on either side of that fence, Twilight is a hugely successful novel in pure commercial terms, and publishing is a business. If your novel can do for a publisher what Twilight has done, you'll be worth something. Stephanie Meyer has achieved what many of us would wish to achieve, but some of us like to think we'd create a better quality product. A huge number of readers couldn't give a damn about a lot of the criticisms other writers have about Meyer's writing.



Yes, but for writers who are trying to learn a certain style and add complexity to their own, reading something like Birdsong will do an awful lot more for them than Twilight; Twilight will certainly teach them a lot of bad habits.

As for readers who do not want to write themselves, well, I can't see how they'd enjoy rubbish like Twilight but each to their own.  It's a not a case of me knocking something because it's popular but because it is so poorly written that none of it stands up. Writers should aspire to great literature - in all genres.


----------



## Rob (Jul 12, 2009)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Yes, but for writers who are trying to learn a certain style and add complexity to their own, reading something like Birdsong will do an awful lot more for them than Twilight; Twilight will certainly teach them a lot of bad habits.
> 
> As for readers who do not want to write themselves, well, I can't see how they'd enjoy rubbish like Twilight but each to their own.  It's a not a case of me knocking something because it's popular but because it is so poorly written that none of it stands up. Writers should aspire to great literature - in all genres.


I think the idea that all writers should aspire to great literature is misleading, unless all readers want great literature - and many of them don't.

For some reason the idea that all writers should aspire to a quality of writing that's more appropriate for literary fiction often gets pushed as a one-size-fits-all solution in writing forums. Some readers want Birdsong. Some want Twilight. Publishers want to make money and they do that through products that readers want to part with their money for. Whether you're writing for a particular genre or for mainstream or literary fiction, know your audience.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## valeca (Jul 12, 2009)

Very well said, Rob.

Add to that 'great literature' is such a subjective term, much like the phrase 'pretty as a picture'.  Or, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.


----------



## johnnycruger (Jul 12, 2009)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> What on Earth are you on about? What trouble has the book caused? Explain to me why this isn't complete idiocy. Push you in that fire and good riddance. :lone:



The Bible is a work of Christian mythology.  People lose sight of this fact and proceed to judge others and enact public policy based on what remains an unsubstantiated work of fiction.  Having "faith" in something does not validate it.

There have been plenty of problems caused by the book, starting with the obvious wars/Crusades.  Presently there is opposition to stem cell research and abortion.  Opposition to gay rights (true, God may not support it-- but that's a problem for Him to solve, not mortals acting on His behalf).  I'm not about to cite them all.  

I will submit the Pope's efforts to facilitate AIDS wiping out the entire continent of Africa as my biggest objection.  He simply opposes the use of condoms, based on the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.  These people, roughly half of whom are followers of Christianity, will die in their geographical quarantine based on the teachings of a mythological work.  And he continues to promulgate the anti-contraception policy that, were he to reconsider his position, could bring the crisis under control within a few generations.

I didn't come here to be inflammatory or try to change peoples' minds, only to voice my support for the suggestion that the Bible be destroyed.  You called me out on it, I have now given you my justifications for its removal, and I have no interest in furthering its discussion.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 12, 2009)

johnnycruger said:


> The Bible is a work of Christian mythology.  People lose sight of this fact and proceed to judge others and enact public policy based on what remains an unsubstantiated work of fiction.  Having "faith" in something does not validate it.



Mythology? You ought to be careful throwing those words around; there's a a significant degree of historical accuracy regarding the Bible. People shouldn't enact public policy in light of the teachings of Christ then? On the contrary, I think more public policy should be enacted in the true light of his teaching. The alternative is the bigots and the despots.



> There have been plenty of problems caused by the book, starting with the obvious wars/Crusades.  Presently there is opposition to stem cell research and abortion.  Opposition to gay rights (true, God may not support it-- but that's a problem for Him to solve, not mortals acting on His behalf).  I'm not about to cite them all.


Those were not problems caused by the Bible, those were problems caused by the ecclesiastic hegemony and the Bible doesn't really teach intelorance.



> I will submit the Pope's efforts to facilitate AIDS wiping out the entire continent of Africa as my biggest objection.  He simply opposes the use of condoms, based on the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.  These people, roughly half of whom are followers of Christianity, will die in their geographical quarantine based on the teachings of a mythological work.  And he continues to promulgate the anti-contraception policy that, were he to reconsider his position, could bring the crisis under control within a few generations.


Nonsense. The Catholic church is one of the big problems, for sure, but this is not the fault of a theological resource. That people interpret scripture so erroneously is not the fault of the true message.



> I didn't come here to be inflammatory or try to change peoples' minds, only to voice my support for the suggestion that the Bible be destroyed.  You called me out on it, I have now given you my justifications for its removal, and I have no interest in furthering its discussion.


So far you have not cited scripture or argued anything damning of the Bible itself. Have you read the Bible? If not, how can you be so damning of it?

I read it for a number of reasons but I am not a religious person, at all. I most certainly believe in the word of Jesus, though. It would be a travesty to remove such teachings from record. 

You're looking for all the ills of dogmatic faith and looking to lump every part of Christianity into the same basket which you simply can't do and maintain a logical argument. The world would not be better off without Jesus and the perpetuation of his teachings.

But you're right, there's no need to take the discussion further. These debates go on and on without much in the way of accuracy on these forums. You don't think that suggesting the Bible be destroyed is inflammatory?


----------



## Mike C (Jul 13, 2009)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> You don't think that suggesting the Bible be destroyed is inflammatory?



I think the burning of any book is - the first reaction of an ignorant society is to burn things. Books, records, witches, flags... to suggest the burning of any book is to align onesself with the lynch-mob and not with the thinkers.


----------



## Damian_Rucci (Jul 13, 2009)

_The Pearl_ Dammit. I could not finish that book, I tried and it drained me of life. Worst piece of literature I have ever touched,


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 14, 2009)

Just Listen by Sarah Dessen - Peice. Of. Crap.


----------



## BoredMormon (Jul 14, 2009)

Pride and Predjudice. Although thats likely to get me into a lot of trouble with my wife, its one of her favorites. Thats the only reason I read through it.

Oh, and I'd rescue Twilight, if only because of the thousands of people that started reading because of it. I really enjoyed it, but if you hated it, just think that whatever book they read next has to be better.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 14, 2009)

BoredMormon said:


> Oh, and I'd rescue Twilight, if only because of the thousands of people that started reading because of it. I really enjoyed it, but if you hated it, just think that whatever book they read next has to be better.




Good point.


----------



## Mike C (Jul 15, 2009)

For once, words fail me. I'll have to resort to repeating myself.



Mike C said:


> the first reaction of an ignorant society is to burn things. Books, records, witches, flags... to suggest the burning of any book is to align onesself with the lynch-mob and not with the thinkers.



If you don't like a book, just give it to somebody else.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 15, 2009)

Mike C said:


> For once, words fail me. I'll have to resort to repeating myself.
> If you don't like a book, just give it to somebody else.



What if you start the fire with a light bulb?


----------



## Dr. Malone (Jul 15, 2009)

I think he already made it clear that no one here actually wants to burn books.  It's just books people think the world would be better without.


----------



## BoredMormon (Jul 15, 2009)

Dr. Malone said:


> I think he already made it clear that no one here actually wants to burn books. It's just books people think the world would be better without.


 
Not even that, its just books we didn't like reading. With a thread title that would attract comments. Don't we all do that?


----------



## Patrick (Jul 16, 2009)

BoredMormon said:


> Not even that, its just books we didn't like reading. With a thread title that would attract comments. Don't we all do that?



No, just bored morons. :lone:


----------



## caelum (Jul 19, 2009)

I would burn The Name of The Wind by Patrick Rothfuss.  I didn't like it.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 19, 2009)

> Pride and Predjudice. Although thats likely to get me into a lot of trouble with my wife, its one of her favorites. Thats the only reason I read through it.


How prophane! 

Haha, just kidding. I hated the book too, but I quite liked the movie.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 19, 2009)

Book I'd like to burn: Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.


----------



## Varelin (Aug 20, 2009)

Inline with the OP's stated intent, which was just a cheeky way to get to the point of which books you think are rubbish... 

I'd give a big shiny bonfire to any of the turgid literary excretions of Kevin J Anderson. 

Not that I actually would burn his books. I object to the idea of book burnings on every possible level. 

I'd just singe them lightly... and beat him to death with a sack full of ashes.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Sep 6, 2009)

The Vampire Diaries. My cousin made me read it and I didn't even finish it. I don't like vampire books, save for - shoot me if you want - Twilight.


----------



## ThePinkBookworm (Oct 2, 2009)

Gossip Girl.  The series is just soft porn for teens.  Will never read them, but just reading the back cover makes me want to gag uker:

I do like the thread, it gives people a chance to "burn" their least favorite books.

Li Li :read:


----------



## Mira (Nov 27, 2009)

I had to do Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for school, and did burn my copy afterwards. It had little to do with the quality of the book (though honestly I thought it was rather terrible), and more as a childish act of celebration over finishing a brutal exam period where burning something symbolic of the hell I'd been through just felt great.

For other books I'd toss in, Twilight for sure. And Gossip Girl is as you say basically soft porn, so that too I guess.


----------

