post itt writers you think are bad

no need to explain yourself, thread is for catharsis not debate

ok i already regret this mods lock thread

j/k

these books are made for junkin

every single writer at every single metal site I regularly use for recommendations is bad

Goethe

ok lock thread now

There are many ways for a writer to be bad, many fewer ways for them to be good, and almost all of them yield somewhat mixed results. If they have a following, there's bound to be something mixed in with the crappy aspects that their followers rate much higher than you do, while what disgusts you hardly registers with their fans.

For me, the worst writers are not those who write appalingly bad sentences, but those who reinforce their audience's worst traits and convince them those traits, like selfishness, hatred or arrogance, are not really bad at all, but actually good in ways that others are too blind or stupid to see.

Or, I could just say 'Jordan Peterson' and leave it at that.

roth

stalin

noah berlatsky

Nathan J Robinson

Having read two of her books — one which I liked a lot until the end absolutely shit the bed, and one which I disliked all the way through — Ottessa Moshfegh.

lauren oyler

roth

― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:39 PM (three days ago) bookmarkflaglink

Crazy From the Heat is a great read

Orlando Bloom

jeet heer

neal stephenson

guy who wrote the Bible. boring af

uh, there were a bunch of guys who wrote it ... they even like named some of the books after themselves?

no i think it was a guy named Michael Bible?

All those postwar realist "big" American writers, Bellow, Updike, Roth etc

xpost Thx, very nearly sprayed a mouthful of soup across the room just then

Nathan J Robinson

he's a great choice for this thread

Joan Didion

dave marsh

Poe

Lovecraft

George Gissing

ben lerner

Brad i love you but this will just turn into yet another "the pictures are not on trial" fuckwits of ilx thread

i say "will"

Jurgen Habermas

Not sure if I entirely mean this or not but dang he can be a slog, however insightful

No bad writers, read everything.

this thread should have been about other ilxors only for that extra needle

I am a bad reader

I don’t necessarily think Ann Beattie is a bad writer, but I’m not sure whether she’s a good novelist.

https://bookandfilmglobe.com/fiction/book-review-a-wonderful-stroke-of-luck/

Read what terrifies you. Read tweets.

I don’t necessarily think Ann Beattie is a bad writer, but I’m not sure whether she’s a good novelist.

https://bookandfilmglobe.com/fiction/book-review-a-wonderful-stroke-of-luck/

― We’re Up All Night To Get Lochte (Raymond Cummings), S

I have the same problem with her stories. I read ...Dana Falcon at the start of lockdown.

going for maximum controversy here, everyone ready?

David Walliams

Brad i love you but this will just turn into yet another "the pictures are not on trial" fuckwits of ilx thread

― The Scampo Fell to Earth (Noodle Vague), Saturday, February 13, 2021 5:27 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

i feel like “this thread is a terrible idea” is there subtextually in the opening posts

Anyway Comrade Alph otm everything is good nothing is forbidden lol for biden

it is important to recognize what is bad so it can not be respected and/or repeated

ok yeah i know that recognizing it doesn't actually help

My moaning about other people's moaning is just as bad

Anyway D H Lawrence is for shit

otm

I dig many of his poems and stories, though I'm frightened about rereading WIL.

Bob Vickery

Think rimming + swallowing. Then maybe go lie down for a while.

i wasn't asking for an explanation

I don’t understand why Lizza is publishing this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B6ck7O6BBU

I don’t understand why Lizza is publishing this.

"What, and leave show business?"

big day for a certain word on google pic.twitter.com/NogzsEhbbN

— Rachel Karten (@milkkarten) November 22, 2025

Ok so this is the thread where we are discussing these awful writers!

I got to the paragraph of his that was basically “heyyyy guys I’m getting laiiiiiiiiiiid” and figured ilxors were already on it lol

it's so gross

I do feel better about my taste in men because not even the worst, most cringeworthy dude I have had a thing with has said anything nearly as gross as “Your open mouth awaiting my harvest”

Xp - re jailbait link — “file under ke$ha”

omg

https://web.archive.org/web/20090912075038/https://myspace.com/officiallivvymusic

― jaymc, Tuesday, November 18, 2025 9:48 AM (five days ago) bookmarkflaglink

One of her top friends is Amanda Palmer

and yet:
https://xcancel.com/search?f=tweets&q=From%3Aolivianuzzi+%22amanda+palmer%22

guys who are really into their own cum are bad news

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIgW5QaT65Y

https://newrepublic.com/article/203590/olivia-nuzzi-rfk-jr-lizza-vaccines

thought we had left this stuff in the 2010s, but maybe not

Olivia Nuzzi is not the reason RFK is in the position he is right now.

that’s not the point of this story lol

It is assigning way too much power to Olivia Nuzzi to credit or blame her for RFK.

I wonder if Elizabeth Gilbert is mad that some other people are having a public trainwreck publicity tour right on the heels of hers.

i'm only now realizing lizza is twenty years older than nuzzi

also i hadn't seen the NYT puff piece, it is so embarrassing for the NYT that they published that

we’re just pointing and laughing at nuzzi, who deserves it, it’s not really any deeper than that

xp

i mean, it's true that for me this is more trash celebrity gossip / literary clusterfuck than it is some kind of story with a deeper social or political meaning

however, though i'm willing to grant that there are some people who are just straight-up narcissists and want to fuck really powerful people for whatever self-aggrandizing reasons, i think the article absolutely blames olivia nuzzi for RFK's ascent to power and the horrible things he's inflicting on USA, and it's really fucking bizarre and more than a little misogynistic

The only thing you need to know about Olivia Nuzzi is that she used her position of power, as a journalist, to advise and elevate the world’s most prominent anti-vaccine activist to the most influential health position in the United States.

?

he is a fucking KENNEDY and i promise you nobody who isn't a weird politics freak has ever even heard of her

I think olivia nuzzi should not have slept with the presidential candidate she was covering

Ok but

"Position of power, as a journalist" is an odd phrase to see in the year of our lord two thousand twenty-five, itellyouwhat

The awesome power of (checks notes) print journalism

this is a thread about writers being bad. nuzzi was a useless reactionary even before she started to sleep with presidential candidates. I’d prefer that her comeuppance be related to her awful journalism itself, but I’ll accept what we’re currently working with

xp i think it would've been fair to say that it's a position of trust and that journalistic ethics exists because there's a presumption that journalists serve the public and if you're writing puff pieces about the governor you're fucking, then you're not really doing that and on some level people might get upset about that. but obviously these people never even think in terms of ethics except when it's convenient for them, they are so obviously motivated by wealth and fame and rubbing shoulders with the ruling class, it's honestly pretty annoying that they ever have the gall to act like they are part of this noble brotherhood of truth tellers when in fact so many of them are utter leeches and scum

to advise and elevate the world’s most prominent anti-vaccine activist to the most influential health position in the United States.

RFK Jr elevated himself to his cabinet position by the simple expedient of buying it from Trump in return for his endorsement and millions of dollars in cash. I dunno, maybe Nuzzi masterminded that deal, but it hardly took a political genius to see Trump was corrupt enough to make that deal.

The way it is phrased is so paint by numbers. “Hey chat gpt, condemn olivia nuzzi using 2025 buzzwords about privilege and power and platforming and that kind of jazz. Make this tawdry sex scandal *serious.*”

*2015 buzzwords meant to say

agreed

i keep clicking on this thread because i like the people posting in it but the topic is just .. i don't see any value at all in it, there isn't a take on earth that could give it a smidgen of edification, you guys should post about movies you like instead.

I am glad I don’t have to go to a large Thanksgiving gathering where someone is likely to use the word “harvest.”

Are RFK’s cum musings the worst (non-criminal) celebrity sexts to have been leaked?

I am glad I don’t have to go to a large Thanksgiving gathering where someone is likely to use the word “harvest.”

(whispers into george bush’s ear) part three has dropped

this is like the politico trapped in the closet

Hahaha, "dropped".

this is like the politico trapped in the closet

haha

btw https://gofile.io/d/Ap4v35

the way he calls RFK jr “bobby” throughout is kind of sending me

Anybody here
Seen my old friend Bobby

new lizza installment kind of boring

A bit about the David Szalay's 'Flesh'

The sparseness is what stood out for me--the dude didn't seem in touch with his feelings, loses his wife and son and we don't get any idea of what he's thinking and feeling. a stereotypical male who has a tragic trauma early in his life and never thinks about it, only talks to a therapist once early on after he's in war. or maybe he does think about it, only we don't get access to it.

the short non emotional paragraphs made me think it was written by an unfeeling robot.

― a (waterface), Monday, 17 November 2025 16:55 (one month ago) bookmarkflaglink

but you do get feelings in places; and also feelings conveyed through action. i think it's an effective representation of a certain contemporary state of being/person, cut off from one's feelings and internal monologue.

again, i don't think it has anything to do with being a man - that's a red herring. (there are even sequences not from Istvan's pov, and they are similarly cloudy.)

i found the book was much more sensual, moral and emotional than the Tao Lin kinda alt fiction that superficially relies on a similarly flat style.

but above all, i don't think there's anything wrong with you for not-liking it. Szalay is clearly working with a strong flavour, it's not gonna appeal to everyone

― sean gramophone, Monday, 17 November 2025 17:02 (one month ago) bookmarkflaglink

Cannot agree with waterface here, sorry. Or at least, I agree that the book is sparsely written, but not that this is a flaw. In fact it's largely the reason the story exists and that the book succeeds.

The stark, objective style is entirely the point, and in its own way reflective of the main character's inner-life.
The language Istvan uses, and which the narrative voice uses in turn, is deliberately unflowery because he is unflowery. His character feels things, but he lacks the linguistic tools or the willingness to express these feelings. This is repercussive throughout the book. His passiveness, or at least the fact he cannot (or will not) reveal his inner life - to the people he meets, to the reader, and even to himself - makes him subject to events beyond his control.

(Mild spoilers hereon)
Early-on, Istvan does nothing to acknowledge the apparent PTSD caused by prior tragic events in the army, and also likely residual from being groomed as a teenager, and the way his lifepath branched afterwards.

This is expressed as a random, seemingly involuntary act of violence which he has trouble understanding himself. A proper course of therapy would have helped - it may have changed the entire course of his life, in fact. But perhaps due to a failure of the system, and likely because of Istvan's reticence to open-up, he is prescribed antidepressants and sent on his way.

It wouldn't be the same book if it were filled with exposition like "Istvan felt sadness well up in himself"; or if Istvan were suddenly able to express himself in long sentences.
The fact he drifts - the fact he largely lets the world happen to him in this passive way - is largely the point of the book, for me. For most of his life, Istvan is a person with few aims. That's why exchanges like "How are you?" / "I'm okay" / "What does that mean?" / "I don't know" speak volumes.

This isn't simply a matter of "boring man is boring". If it is an exploration of a certain type of masculinity, it's the tight-lipped fragility behind it - i.e. the fact that many younger (and older) men have difficulty expressing themselves, and are therefore seen and treated by others as unthinking golems who can be manipulated accordingly.
Not just masculinity, it is also an exploration of foreigness, mental health, sex, trauma, money/class, parenthood and many other things.

All through the book, Istvan is taken advantage of by others and he just goes along with it. So it's interesting to witness how, as a father, he responds to his own son's being bullied: Refusing to entertain the idea of moving schools and talking-up the importance of sticking up for oneself. This is a man who has arguably never stuck up for himself; who has let people push him around all his life, with varying results. Note how baffled he is that his son would rather play Minecraft than go skiiing or ride on a motorbike.

There are a couple of exceptions: When he meets the doctor who binds his hand, and realises they went to school together, he understands that their lifepaths diverged. This galvanises him into finding a new life in the UK, even if the reality ends up being uninspiring. Later, he does attempt to read some business books and get a life in property development. But we get the impression that any success or interest he receives from others has little to do with his personal acumen, and entirely about the money he has access to. His business partners are leeches who dump him as soon as they realise he can't come up with the goods.

There is one single line towards the end of the book that presents an exception to Istvan's reticence. The one where he admits to believing that he is "not a very nice person". This may or may not be true. I'm not sure if he believes it himself. He hasn't lived the best life, and in many ways he has acted immorally, callously even, to a lot of people. But how do you measure morality against a man who, for most of his life, has let the world passively happen to him? Someone who has simply fallen into relationships, work, money, parenthood and the rest?

So it baffles me that a lot of readers came away criticising this book for the fundamentals of how it works. Do we all need our characters - especially modern, male characters - to be strong, Pollyanna-ish role model types who are comfortable expressing their emotions? I'd find that unrealistic and infinitely more boring than Istvan, who I'd say is incredibly complex and rich as a character even if it's not shown on a superficial level.

great post. the book wasn't for me, that's for sure, but i'm glad it resonates with some.

Do we all need our characters - especially modern, male characters - to be strong, Pollyanna-ish role model types who are comfortable expressing their emotions?

I feel like this is a false choice and don't want to come across as arguing with you or w/e, but i think there's another way forward that toes the line between what Szalay expresses in the book of a reticent dude who goes through shit and never talks about it vs. someone who's constantly processing it. in a way, the main character is constantly processing it because he can't move past it. but for me, it doesn't make for an interesting character or a book to have a character like that. and again don't want to come across as yuking someone's yum. but a slightly more complex, emotionally aware character would have gone a long way for me.

yeah, fair enough - the whole mechanic worked well for me. maybe it's because i listened to it as an audiobook in spurts over the Christmas break while driving to and from various people's houses that it worked so well. I will say, the narrator really brought it to life. He was able to body the different voices (and accents) really well. I honestly felt like I could picture it all in my mind, even with such bare description. If it had had more going on, I don't think it would have been as powerful or effective, you know?

for sure. he's definitely making a choice with his writing and I admire that

Just one more thing about this book, while I'm thinking about it:

It's only once Istvan finds he has access to money that he starts to come out of his shell, and starts to express himself and try to take agency over his life. He starts reading business books (but only ostensibly at the behest of his mother who warns him to prepare for the future). He's even able to express an opinon on these books when asked, beyond "It's okay" (he says they're a bit corny and American or something - which is more than you'd ever have got from him previously). Like it or not, many people's ambitions are defined by the paths most easily accessible to them. For Istvan, there had been few clear paths or apparent opportunities open to him until he marries a rich woman. I thought this was quite an interesting comment on privilege - one minute he's a driver and a doorman, and next he's a property developer with his own suite of offices. And it's all driven by a mixture of luck and who he knows.

Is this like a Robbe-Grillet kind of vibe?