“Battlefield Earth” the novel wasn’t high literature, but, it wasn’t bad. It had a plot, characters, and some good scenes and funny jokes. There are much worse books. If you rated novels from 1 to 10, with “Fifty Shades of Grey” being a 1, “The Shining” being a 7, and “The Grapes of Wrath” being a 10, “Battlefield Earth” would be a 3, maybe a 3.5.
“Battlefield Earth” the movie was as bad a movie as I have ever seen that was produced by actual movie-making professionals.
In terms of answering the OP I think there should be a special category for novels that are basically industrial outputs rather than works of creative fiction. The endless output of VC Andrews, Danielle Steele, Clive Cussler et al., many of which were probably written by teams of employees, are almost universally devoid of anything resembling literary art. That’s different from someone trying to write an original novel a la “Fifty Shades of Grey” and managing to produce something that is both hilariously awful and yet a bestseller.
I wouldn’t say that there’s no truth to big/mega authors carrying the midlist, but I think the import and impact of that dynamic has faded greatly. Most publishers will run off a few hundred or a few thousand midlist titles a year, but with minimum investment and do nothing further besides list the title in their catalog, waiting for lightning to strike and assuaging their guilt at existing to market five shitty mega-authors. There is usually a level - senior acquisition editor, more or less - that has a budget to contract and produce X number of books, and most of those will try to find works worth publishing. But 999 of those out of 1,000 will be eaten like any hatchlings, never heard from again.
The idea that the big authors and books are some kind of foundation for the little guys is pretty much nonsense, though. Maybe it useta be that, to some degree. Not now. “Random House” doesn’t quite mean the same thing on the spine of a Patterson novel and on a short-run murklist title.
I’ve read all of them, and I would say you are being overly generous. Like Trinopus says, the concept is great. But it takes something to make the return of our Lord and Savior into a boring slog.
I only read the first of the Twilight series, because my daughter made me. But that didn’t pretend to be anything more than what it was - teen age female vampire porn.
I nominate Stephen King From a Buick 8. I couldn’t finish it.
I’d never heard of him or of these. What’s the genre?
It seems that this shouldn’t absolutely have to be bad. “Industrial” writing of this sort – work-for-hire – could be decent. At least some of it should rise to the level of “average.” Ghostwriters have done some good work. I wonder why “factory” writing of this sort is so often crappy.
(As a frustrated novelist, I’d love to be on a team like this!)
Twilight is worse than Left Behind? Must be awful. Ugh, I did about what you did with Left Behind, then skipped to the last one and leafed through it, to see how it ended. Let’s just say it didn’t get better.
I had totally forgotten about “A Million Little Pieces”! I read it after he was exposed, and honestly, I would have figured out on the first page that it was fiction.
Isaac Asimov wrote a lot of books, and most of them were very different from each other - sf, criticism, limericks, science, commentary on Shakespeare, etc. When someone noted that authors like Zane Grey had written even more than him, he said, “They gain speed by going down well-oiled tracks,” i.e., they’re writing pretty much the same thing over and over.
Battlefield Earth the novel IS bad. There are no two ways about it. Certainly more incompetent novels have been written, and the sentences make sense, but that’s setting the bar pretty low. The villains are cartoonishly bad and pointlessly evil. The science is laughable (it’s convenient that the Psychlo homeworld had an explosive atmosphere that just hasn’t been set off yet), the characters are cardboard, and the book – even for the bloated-novel 1980s – was just too damned long and padded. This is decades after Hubbard in his prime (which – personal bias, I have to admit – I never liked anyway). I don’t recall any God Scenes or Funny Jokes, but, of course, YMMV.
The movie was competently made – the scenes were well-shot and didn’t look washed out. The CGI didn’t look like a cartoon. The sound quality was good. The continuity worked – the movie didn’t seem like random footage shoved together (I’ve seen films that violated various of these basic requirements). In that sense, the film was well-made. But, again, that’s setting the bar low. The use of tilted angles to give a feeling of disorientation was way overused. The jokes weren’t funny. The film was savaged by expert critics when it came out. I agree that it was a terrible film, and really bad by the standards of big-budget major-release-type films. But it beats low-quality clunkers like Tales from the Past.
And, although there have, indeed, been lots of books that were worse (just have a look at the works of Lionel Fanthorpe that I mentioned earlier), this is, to my mind, the worst to make it onto the best-seller lists. Way worse than Dan Brown. Or even The Celestine Prophecy. Or Jonathan Livingston Seagull. (Which also got turned into a bad movie)
Yep, and it shows a double standard. When a man cheats, he’s scum and revenge must happen. When a woman cheats, it’s lovely and romantic. Now, in Titanic, perhaps it could be excused, since her fiance was a douchebag. But in Bridges it’s shown her husband is a good and decent man.
First place: Wizard’s First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Bottom-of-the-barrel Tolkien ripoff fantasy with porn added. Not good porn. Read it 14 years ago and I still haven’t fully recovered.
Runner up: Eragon
Honorable mentions: anything by James Patterson, the Left Behind series, anything by Dan Brown.
Wow. I didn’t anyone would beat me to suggesting that.
I had sense enough to avoid Twilight and The Bridges of Madison Count, and I don’t want to come in saying “Oh, kids these days”, especially since I think I’m younger than many of you. But as a graduate of a Great Books college, who’s done some peeking in at period novels, I can unequivocally say: if you think The Da Vinci Code qualifies as a bad bestseller (forget about worst, if you even think “bad”), then you do not what a bad book is.
Does a cheesy action thriller have a place amongst Great Literature? No. And is most of the hate directed towards an audience that praised it as a literary Second Coming and hyped it to the moon and back? Yes, though many won’t admit it. But a lousy reaction doesn’t change the text itself, and a distaste for the genre doesn’t reflect on quality.
