Follow TV Tropes
I don\'t know if this should be on the page or not, so I\'m leaving it here to see what\'s your opinion.
Someone is deleting huge amount of the page for no apparent reason. I think it's a troll.
Might Morrissey's List of the Lost belong here? It received universally negative reviews and managed to win a Bad Sex Award for one scene.
I'm not so sure "Hamlet's Father " belongs here. The main reason it's "torn to shreds" is because of the controversial stuff that came to light after a couple of reviewers interpreted the story as Card making a link between pedophilia and homosexuality (which Card himself has denied, although I can't say whether he's being truthful or not).
(Also, I'm not sure how I feel about linking to a site where you've recently left a review yourself as evidence.)
For the record, I haven't read this and never will, but I wonder if the controversy surrounding this makes it a bit difficult to judge if it really belongs here. Several reviews have suggested that the book would have been, at worst, mediocre if not for the controversial elements.
Can we add works that were plagiarized from other authors on this section? They seem like they'd automatically be SBIH on some scale, especially when this comes to mind. Most of the reviews are even about how it was plagiarized from other works online.
should I put the Kamen Rider Decade novel in here? (subtitle The World of Tsukasa Kadoya -The Garden in the Lens-)
despite being a retelling of the series, characterization is completely disregarded, the book gets details about Rider powers completely wrong and while it does give Narutaki an identity, it's a letdown
So, it turns out that Touched By Venom actually has some legitimate defenders. Granted, nobody here is arguing that it is without its glaring flaws, but it seems like there are a fair number of people who would argue that, as extreme as it is, the book is actually pretty decent. It's a bit like Delany's Hogg in that way, I suppose: Not necessarily bad, but alienating enough that very few people are actually going to enjoy what it's doing.
So, we can't put up vile, racist crap on the page, like Caliphate or The Turner Diaries?
No. Regrettably, racist audiences do exist and are factored in when deciding whether something belongs here.
Cut this and putting it here. Needs a bit more context about what makes this "extremely bad" as opposed to run-of-the-mill bad:
Does At First Glance by Breeanna Mae Alessandra count? I can't find any evidence of a fan base. It has a 1.8 star average on Amazon. The 5-star review and the 3-star review are lenient because the author is a beginner. Most reviews on Goodreads give 1 star, and the one 5-star review says that it "was weird and not my usual type of read, but not as terrible as everyone has made it seem". Here's a sporking of it. As far as I know, there aren't any professional reviews.
Does an book belong here of the rest of the series was good? (Like the Wheel of Time example, for instance.)
I would think so.
I looked up Min Kamp and found that it has actually sold half a million copies and been published in 22 languages. Also, it seems to have some admirers among the literary community.
I can understand the invasion of privacy thing but it probably shouldn't be in the SBIH category.
Remove that entry. This trope is about work quality, not about how the work was produced.
Should the Gamer Girl novel be on? The entry outright states that there are people who gave it good reviews (people who don't read manga or play video games). Granted, there are plenty of reviews to support it being a bad book, but to qualify it's not supposed to appeal to any group (and people who don't know enough about manga or video games is a group).
Taking off the following:
I've never even heard of the book before, but it has mostly positive reviews on Amazon (there are only 7 reviews, but a couple are from Hall of Famers) and an average rating on Goodreads with a 65% "liked it" score (again, admittedly, it's a small number of people (23 ratings)), and the first couple of review sites that show up on Google have a positive assessment of it.
Maybe it has its critics and maybe the author is an asshole, but it also seems to have genuinely average-to-positive reviews.
Tom Kratman's a pretty divisive author, yeah. He does well for guys who are into Mil-SF, which tends to have conservative leanings, but is hated by everyone else.
Really, most Mil-SF is super-divisive.
Guys, if you're going to get something removed, please post the original parts here. I understand how important it is to get bad entries off, but the history can be cleaned off. I'll put them here for now and we can see whether they belong in closer detail later:
Granted, I've never read it myself, but I was surprised to see the MZB novel on this. Not only is it part of a pretty well known, and apparently important, series by a highly well known author, but I've found mostly positive reviews for it (including on sites lie tor.com). I've taken it off, since I can't seem to find any reason for it to be here other than that one "sporking" that was linked.
The Willow novel is iffy since it does have a lot of negative reviews, but it also seem to have some degree of popularity (at least enough to spawn two sequels, and not through vanity/self/POD publishing) and supporters, even on this site's YMMV page for Willow. Plus it seems to have been added more than 3 years ago when this site wasn't as strict on the guidelines. It's not something I've personally read, so I apologize if it should really be here.
I've never read the Sword Of Truth series, so I'm not one to argue over it's quality, but the use of Weasel Words makes me doubt this entry's trustworthiness.
The simple fact that it "became a hit" means it cannot be an example.
I liked that Dragon Ball Z guidebook.
I'm guessing "ozone radiation" is a typo. I'm pretty sure oxygen isn't part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Is it supposed to be UV radiation?
Here's an interesting one...
Appatently a few years ago there was a French 9-11 novel that was very poorly written. You know, the one with the deleted sex scene in the burning twin towers? It also had cliched dialogue and terrible characterization to boot.
For the life of me I can't remember the title. I remember the handful of critics that read it LOATHED it. All google gives me when I search the scene mentioned above is an essay included in an anthology about sex and pornography. Any assistance?
Sorry, I don't know what you're thinking of. You'll want You Know That Show for this type of query.
The book you're talking about is "Windows On The World"... It was one of the first novels published to write about a fictionalized version of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
The French version was the version with the sex scene (a scene that is mostly hated even by fans of the book). The French version also won many awards for it's bravery in writing about the material, but was known for much of its flawed writing (it was published by an independent author who had little experience with writing novels). This being said the French version probably doesn't qualify for this list. The English translation, however may be an entirely different story.
But for those of you who are morbidly curious the couple in question is having sex surrounded by dead bodies and "water up to their thighs". In the English version the sex is only implied. The French version went all out and described the scene in trashy-romance-novel detail. The tower collapses right after the sex scene. The passage includes some awkward wording ("asbestos lovers", anyone?) and was deleted out of the US version probably for the sake of everyone's sanity.
There you have it. I'll let you guys decide what to do with the passage. I'm going to go apply some Brain Bleach now that I've read that weird fucking scene.
Is it especially important to get more information on the Lesbian Land 2250 sequel thing? Because the info on it is a little wanting, but I'm sure as hell not reading another one of those.
I wish to add a "plot hole" to this yarble. It's in the JLA issue #5, "When Gravity went wild". Most of the story involves the JLA vs. 6 super-villains who defeat them . Then on p. 20, Green Arrow says he captured them ,and then reveals that one of the JLA is - an imposter ! How he captured 6 able & ready guys with formidable weapons at their fingertips -is never explained or depicted. Sometimes the late Gardner Fox just glossed over something he either couldn't choreograph or didn't want to make the story a 2-issue one.
Um... I think you're in the wrong discussion board. I know, Repair Dont Respond, but I don't want to feel like a jerk for editing or removing someone else's post on a discussion board (though I will have no problem changing or removing my own when I notice an issue).
I'm not sure about The Bear and the Dragon. One quick look on Google would show some three to four-star averages (at least, for me), which suggests it doesn't belong here, but I'm not so sure...
Wait, doesn't NATO stand for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization"?
Considering the guy who made the entry for The Bear and the Dragon can't even get that basic, verifiable-in-10-seconds-with-Wikipedia fact I can't help but laugh at his/her assertion about research failures.
That said, I don't think it really qualifies for inclusion here. It's not a great work by any stretch of the imagination, but as a Clancy reader since about the PB release of RSR I think "horrible" is too far... especially considering Dead or Alive. :P
Dead or Alive is not as bad as bear or Teeth of the Tiger (a definate contender)
So I was reading a snark review of a bad romance novel (Womb for Rent, see the snark here: http://bookbitching.wordpress.com/category/amanda-brian/ ) and I can barely get through the review because it seems like each chapter has more badly-used tropes than the previous one. Is that enough to get the book added here, or do I have to actually go read it?
You just need to find good evidence that the book is widely reviled.
Does the Maradonia Saga count?
It used to be on the page but it got removed. Don't remember why.
Should I put it back up?
Probably not. When a work has its page locked due to constant potshots, it's not as much a sign of poor quality (barring one instance) as it is a sign of a very vocal hatedom. Something tells me it was removed because the book had a defender or two.
Due to the nature of the saga and remarks made on the discussion page, it's likely that it was locked because the author would edit the page to make it sound better. Then again, I don't want to spark off any flamewars, so I'll just leave it.
Just edited the Friday the 13th: Hell Lake entry. That had better be worse than it sounds, because it sounds like it could squeak by on Rule of Cool.
I'm pretty sure the main page was cut by mistake.
Isn't I Am Scrooge a humor novel? Then it should be removed under Poe's Law. If it isn't, it should stay here.
The problem is, if Poe's Law could possibly apply to that, then we can never be sure if it's a humor novel.
Cut this because it is on the So Bad, It's Good list. Put it here just in case; it has details that aren't in its entry there anyway....
Removed this entry:
It's been long enough since I read it that I can't make compelling arguments that it's good, but I remember enough to say that it at least had some good aspects. I liked how the children acted like real children, while at the same time displaying enough maturity to avoid being annoying. I liked the aliens that spoke a tonal language, and how humans couldn't hear the word they used for the name of their species. And I really liked the bit where Jacen controls the army of insects. Horrible? I don't think so.
Removed reference to Revelation by Karen Traviss. The original poster seemed to be of the 'I didn't like it, so its So Bad Its Horrible' school of thought. From my experience with the Star Wars fandom, it's very much a YMMV book, with its fans and detractors. In other words, it doesn't belong in this article.
General discussion on Revelation, much less the last three Legacy books has been resoundingly negative with only a very few defenders, actually.
Cut this and put it here. The fella in question is named Nigel Torres. Think these would qualify for the film section?
Seriously... removing Mein Kampf because Nazis like it?
Nazis are people too, so yes.
Nazis are a niche. A horrible book must be incapable of appealing to a niche.
Would it be possible to put in only the Official Nazi English translation? I haven't read a modern translation or the original German, but the official Nazi translation is grammatically incorrect in places, written in an elevated, flowery style that's nowhere near the original, and incredibly, stupefyingly, dull. Oh, and filled with typos.
The Official Nazi English translation of Mein Kampf? We might have an argument there, assuming there has not been any significant base of English-speaking Nazis.
ETA: I mean, we might have a listing there.
There is a base of English-speaking Nazis (or, at least, fans of Mein Kampf. I'm not sure how much they follow actual Nazi beliefs), it's just that they prefer the far better modern translations to the "Murphy Edition" (translated by James Murphy in the late 1930s), which never got past the "initial rough draft" stage due to the author changing his views on Nazism and leaving Germany.
See here for more info.
EDIT: Added it. Feel free to alter whatever you want.
Removed the following:
Although I've only read parts the book, the book DOES indeed make sense.
Why was The Overton Window cut? I mean, not only is it a hack novel, it's a plagiarized hack novel! (Self-Plagiarism, but still...) And the "original" was vanity published, which suggests that Glenn Beck's name is the only thing that got The Overton Window published via more conventional channels.
I'll accept any and all reasonable justifications for cutting the thing, but I do want to know why.
IMHO, it's being disputed not because of any "true" quality, but because the people doing the disputing think people are only putting it up because it's Glenn Beck.
Putting it back now.
Okay. So the official Tiberium Wars novelization does not have a page. It is, however, listed under Novelization, and according to its entry, it has "surprisingly good parts." Even if it's more Wall Banger than not, it might not belong here...
Community Showcase More