Most Offensive Book That You Have Read?

[Shellhead]

What is the most offensive book that you have ever read? Did you finish it? If so, what was the most offensive book that you didn't finish?

The most offensive book that I finished reading was A Feast Unknown, by Philip Jose Farmer. The basic concept is what if Tarzan and Doc Savage met, although the names of the characters were changed to avoid legal hassles. There were scenes depicting rape, torture, bestiality, and other grotesque behavior. Farmer is such a talented writer that I couldn't put the book down, and now I'm stuck with some horrible imagery in my brain.

Another sick book that I managed to finish was a science-fiction story by James White. I don't remember the title, but it had to do with survivors of some kind of disaster involving a spaceship, floating in bubble-shaped lifeboats. While the actual events depicted in the story weren't as bad as in A Feast Unknown, there was an intensely unpleasant emotional content to the love triangle that ends in a fight to the death and a grotesque rape.

The most offensive book that I never finished was Damnation Game by Clive Barker. I have read and enjoyed other books by Barker, but this one had a disgusting image involving a baboon and plateful of feces. The story was compelling up to that point, then I read that paragraph and gave up.

[Jack]

ly be corrupted while men are noble enough to resist.

Awful stuff.

[Arvandor]

The Fifth Sorceress, by Robert Newcomb, is at the top of my 'most offensive' list.
I finished it, but it wasn't a fun read.

Lots of scenes of MASS rape and genocide, and a rather sexist portrayal of 'women=evil, men=good'.

[rac]

Pretty much anything by Tom Clancy, and his rabid right-wing propaganda.

AS for scenes of rape and excessive sex in books, I don't find them offensive, just tedious. Mostly they just smak of a lazy writer trying to offend, and trying to boost his word count.

[Roquefort Raider]

No book has yet struck me as sick as the comic-book "The killing joke". Not because the Joker is described as a sick pervert (he is insane, after all); and not even because Barbara Gordon is submitted to a humiliating and crippling ordeal. What struck me as sick is that the man in the cowl and the Joker trade a joke at the end and start laughing as if it was just another day at the office for people in tights. If a close friend had been crippled by a sicko like that, I may not have succumbed to the temptation of breaking most of his bones with a baseball bat... but I certainly wouldn't have laughed at his jokes.

In pictureless novels, I second rac's opinion of Clancy. His primitive politics mar what could be exciting thrillers and I found his depiciton of Iranians in Executive orders particularly offensive. I also abhor creationist literature with scientific pretenses. I could also do without gratuitous rape scenes like the one in "the diamond age".

[Inkthinker]

I've been living with an interesting dichotomy of opinion regarding Dave Sim, who I feel is a brilliant comics creator... but he's also a notorious misogynist. Try reading his essay Tangents (http://www.tcj.com/232/tangent0.html).

He's an example of "too damn smart for his own good". And his essay is certainly offensive to anyone who thinks women are more than barefoot kitchen sex receptacles.

[Roquefort Raider]

I've been living with an interesting dichotomy of opinion regarding Dave Sim, who I feel is a brilliant comics creator... but he's also a notorious misogynist. Try reading his essay Tangents (http://www.tcj.com/232/tangent0.html).

He's an example of "too damn smart for his own good". And his essay is certainly offensive to anyone who thinks women are more than barefoot kitchen sex receptacles.

One odd thing about Sim and his work: his editorial pieces are a revolting mysoginistic, homophobic and now religiously-intolerant screed; however, in the actual comic-book, (a) most of the truly strong, intelligent and mature characters are women (Jaka, Astoria, the real Cirin); (b) even cerebus was shown to have homoerotic urges, and not in a way that showed it in a bad light; (c) religious figures are frequently shown in ambiguous contexts.

In other words, there is a strong dichotomy between Sim the essayist and Sim the comic-book writer. I wonder if he's aware of the fact, or if he would have one of his patented screwy explanations for it.


Cheers!

[FroggieBKT]

Women by Charles Bukowski is ridiculously messed up.

[CaptMagellan]

I can't say I've been offended by fiction in a long time. Certain non-fiction views I find 'offensive' but I haven't read any fiction that was such blatant propaganda that I'd end up offended in the same way.

[MicBK]

at the time I read it, William Burroughs "Naked Lunch" really really disturbed me. Now, nothing much offends me.

[Kirayoshi]

The only books that truly offend me are the ones that were so poorly written that I'm offended that I shelled out six-ninety-five for the paperback. Can't recall any titles, I usually forget them once I've read them.

Whenever I scan the bookshelves at Barnes and Noble and notice the V. C. Andrews titles, I find myself wondering if V. C., instead of writing, should have just sought therapy. Clearly she's got issues.

Other than that, in the immortal words of Elvis Costello, "I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."

[Joe no Sleep]

The Toy Collector, by James Gunn, has a disturbing scene in which a bunch of baby turtles are killed when they're thriwn like rocks by stupid kids. That made me sick to read and I put the book down quick.

[Puma]

aside from the very early Star Trek novels, which read like fanfiction pieces, it would probably Hannibal; just awful

[Inkthinker]

Other than that, in the immortal words of Elvis Costello, "I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."


That's smart thinkin', that is.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hannibal; just awful

HANNIBAL didn't offend me, other than that Harris - who had to that point been a dependable suspense writer - released such a piece of total crap.

[Inkthinker]

Interestingly enough, Something Positive (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp03132005.shtml) author Randy Milholland is doing a story arc on the subject (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp03132005.shtml) of the writer vs. the writer's works... funny (and insightful) stuff.

http://www.somethingpositive.net/arch/meamloveyou.gif

[Puma]

HANNIBAL didn't offend me, other than that Harris - who had to that point been a dependable suspense writer - released such a piece of total crap.

that is exactly why it was so offensive. Harris pandered to the masses and produce drivel; rather than an insight look at why Lechter was the way he was, or a taut thriller, he wrote the equivalent to a Friday the 13th movie

[mgs]

honestly, i don't think that i'm really offended by it and all, but I just can't find myself to actually purchase a copy of S. Rushdie's, The Satanic Verses. I feel soooo dirty just reading it at the bookstore once in a while. I don't know why? :confused:

I feel like if i read such a thing, it would 'pull' all the christianity out of me. O.o

[WSLer]

that is exactly why it was so offensive. Harris pandered to the masses and produce drivel; rather than an insight look at why Lechter was the way he was, or a taut thriller, he wrote the equivalent to a Friday the 13th movie
Buh???!!?!?!

Apparently we didn't read the same book, or you read one that was published in the Bizarro universe.

Hannibal may have been many things but "pandering to the masses " sure as hell wasn't one of them. The masses couldn't and still can't stand the book, if one takes the bleats and shrieks and screechs emanting from various and sundry blogs, LJ, etc. even 1/25 seriously.

And please tell me why was it supposed to be an insightful look at why Lector is the way he is? Because you decided that is how it should be? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Harris never said anything about Hannibal being an insightful look at why Lector is the way he is.

But having said that, there are a few passages which do give good deal of insight into what has helped to shape Lector into the person he is, namely the flashback to his childhood during WW II and the murder and cannibalism of his sister by the soldiers.

Also, Harris announced some months back that he will be coming out with a new novel which will give a good deal of Lector's backstory, so why not wait until that comes out before you start bitching about insights into Lector's background, m'kay?

Now then,

pretty much anything Bret Easton Ellis writes is utter garbage. I finally read American Psycho about 6 years ago, and wasn't offended by the graphic violence so much as the utter pointlessness of it, as it did absoltuely nothing to move the story along. 'Course that could well be said of the entire novel.

[darkkeeperjr]

The only books that truly offend me are the ones that were so poorly written that I'm offended that I shelled out six-ninety-five for the paperback. Can't recall any titles, I usually forget them once I've read them.

Whenever I scan the bookshelves at Barnes and Noble and notice the V. C. Andrews titles, I find myself wondering if V. C., instead of writing, should have just sought therapy. Clearly she's got issues.

Other than that, in the immortal words of Elvis Costello, "I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
v.c. died a while back.it's her sister that got you wondering.

[Nate C.]

honestly, i don't think that i'm really offended by it and all, but I just can't find myself to actually purchase a copy of S. Rushdie's, The Satanic Verses. I feel soooo dirty just reading it at the bookstore once in a while. I don't know why? :confused:

I feel like if i read such a thing, it would 'pull' all the christianity out of me. O.o

Actually, it's an attack on Islam, not Christianity. Still a difficult book to read, as Rushdie is an "Indian Faulkner". Non-linear storytelling from multiple points of view make for tough reading.

[Puma]

Buh???!!?!?!

A

seriously edited...

speaking of offensive.

as for the gist of your post...

I read books and reviews for both personal and professional reasons

this review admirably captures my opinions of Hannibal

"Early in Hannibal, Thomas Harris's hungrily anticipated sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, an Italian chief investigator on the trail of Dr. Hannibal Lecter--seven years free, with a huge bounty on his head--suspects the most-wanted man-eater may be in Florence, posing as an elusive, erudite medievalist, Dr. Fell. ("Fell," says my dictionary, "adj. 1. Of an inhumanly cruel nature; fierce. 2. Capable of destroying; lethal. 3. Dire; sinister. 4. Scots. Sharp and biting.") Investigator Pazzi spots "Dr. Fell" at a traveling show of engines of torture, the sensation of a jaded Europe:
It is the crowd, not the rack or the wheel, that Hannibal Lecter, "connoisseur of facial cheeses," is raptly studying. He seems to look right out of the page at the reader, forcing the unpleasant recognition of one's own face in the crowd attending a sensation: this novel, which features atrocious tortures all its own. Here you are, wolfing down a book in which people get their faces and their brains eaten--alive! You say you came for the fine writing, the mordant insights into the human condition? Yeah, sure. Tell it to the judge.
...this is Harris's little revenge on a public and an entertainment industry that have clamored "More Hannibal Lecter!" for eleven years now--or that concluded he couldn't deliver. One can imagine how the sensation consumer's happy, heedless "Feed me! Feed me!" impacts a writer of high ambition and deep integrity, a fearsome perfectionist (The Silence of the Lambs is nearly perfect, and Harris allegedly refused to change a comma of it), a born writer who, an editor friend tells me, "hates writing" because he has reason to dread both his superego and his id. Before Hannibal Lecter became an icon--blame it on Anthony Hopkins and the mojo of the movies--at least the doctor and his creator were free to grow at their own pace, unfolding like moth's wings from some internal pressure toward an inevitable shape. Red Dragon, the book in which Lecter debuted, was a bestseller (as was Black Sunday, a journeyman work plotted with two Associated Press buddies), but of the sort that creates only generic anticipation of the next. This gave Harris the freedom to write a masterpiece. The Silence of the Lambs has the ring of a book so necessary to its author that it called forth the struggle and blessing required to get it right. While a crucial part, Hannibal Lecter is only a part of what makes Silence golden.
Red Dragon was a sympathy-for-the-devil book. By taking us inside the mind of Francis Dolarhyde, a killer as piteous as he is malignly magnificent and terrifying, Harris suggested that serial killers are made, not born; they are twisted sensitives avenging, misdirectedly, the murder of their own innocence, and so forging the next random link in an endless chain of suffering. No reader of Red Dragon can forget Dolarhyde or the extremity of his childhood torment, but his pursuer, Will Graham, fades away in the blaze of his prey. Not so with The Silence of the Lambs. Here FBI trainee Clarice Starling is the center, not Jame Gumb, not even Lecter--though the fell doctor is already taking form as a rival center, a dark twin star trying to pull the moral mass of the story his way. It is the tug of war and fatal attraction between them, and the way it's left unresolved, that makes Silence--the book, not the movie--reverberate in the reader's heart for life.
Starling and her stoic FBI mentor, Jack Crawford, represent what we--even after the twentieth century--still flatter ourselves by calling the "human" point of view: the belief that redemption is possible, the determination to fight against all odds to protect the innocent. In her hunt for "Buffalo Bill," as in her struggle to save the spring lambs, Clarice is a quixotic warrior, trying to cut one tiny link in the great chain of suffering. Dr. Lecter is vastly amused by this, by its utter futility in the greater scheme of things, but he also envies it. Although his senses are exquisite, the one thing Lecter cannot do is feel--whether he was born or made this way is, in Silence, left enigmatic--and his real cannibalism isn't eating human flesh but supping on others' emotions. Starling is a rare dish for him. Forlorn of ordinary attachments, her care for the killer's victims, unlike, say, Senator Martin's maternal terror, is extraordinarily pure and un-self-interested. It's this fierce purity of compassion that attracts Lecter--and leads him to portray her as a joke Christ--but it's not clear what, if anything, he wants from it, other than to savor it vicariously. (In one of the movie's best scenes, Hopkins's Hannibal, like a wine taster, with eyes half-closed, lets Starling's pain fan across his palate.)

...And so Harris seems finally to have decided to give 'em what they want--with a vengeance. It's Hannibal you were asking for? Here's lots more than you bargained for--more erudition, more grue. (Those with either weak brains or weak stomachs will have to wait for the movie. And the filmmakers have their work cut out for them, literally.) It's popcorn spiked with truffles and razor blades--at once delectable and really hard to swallow. The book starts off with a feel of angry pandering. There's some sullen, dutiful recap of plot points from Silence--shocking for a writer so sovereign. And then the book takes off--but into the stratosphere of fantasy, into Hannibal Lecter's private world. To hell with realism, and perfectionism too: The plot, involving a wealthy, horribly disfigured Lecter victim and his ghastly scheme for revenge, is a wheezing, walloping contraption worthy of Stephen King (who in fact praised Hannibal in the New York Times). This is a different genre entirely: no grave moral inquiry but a Grand Guignol romp. Once you accept that, you can have almost as much fun reading it as Harris evidently allowed himself to have writing it--if you can keep from throwing up. Where Silence haunted and tantalized, Hannibal grosses out and gratifies. Yet there's still a basso ostinato of serious questions, and the answers are darker than in Silence: Past the age of 10 or so, most humans no longer seem worth saving. With the counterpoint of Starling's compassion silenced, Lecter's misanthropy takes all.

[mgs]

Actually, it's an attack on Islam, not Christianity. Still a difficult book to read, as Rushdie is an "Indian Faulkner". Non-linear storytelling from multiple points of view make for tough reading.
oh, thanks, nolj. :)

[Reptisaurus!]

Actually, it's an attack on Islam, not Christianity. Still a difficult book to read, as Rushdie is an "Indian Faulkner". Non-linear storytelling from multiple points of view make for tough reading.

I'm reading it now. Interestin' stuff, but slow going.

[TomGun13]

that is exactly why it was so offensive. Harris pandered to the masses and produce drivel; rather than an insight look at why Lechter was the way he was, or a taut thriller, he wrote the equivalent to a Friday the 13th movie


Yeah the book was TERRIBLE. Interesting villain but the story was terrible. Didn't he write it so that the studio couldn't go ahead and do a story without him?

[Shellhead]

This has been an interesting thread to read, but most of you haven't even come remotely close to the level of offensiveness in A Feast Unknown. Here's an excerpt from a review at Amazon:

"As noted the book is full of violent sex and sexualized violence. It is not for anyone easily offended by explicit sex and graphic violence. In fact I'm sure the sole motivation behind this book was to see how many people Farmer could outrage."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872165868/104-9845513-2491932?v=glance

And another quote from another review at that same link:

"Stay away if you can't stand to see your favorite heroes portrayed with a style that will hit you like a hot poker in the eye."

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Actually, it's an attack on Islam, not Christianity. Still a difficult book to read, as Rushdie is an "Indian Faulkner". Non-linear storytelling from multiple points of view make for tough reading.

Is it even an "attack" as such?

pretty much anything Bret Easton Ellis writes is utter garbage. I finally read American Psycho about 6 years ago, and wasn't offended by the graphic violence so much as the utter pointlessness of it, as it did absoltuely nothing to move the story along. 'Course that could well be said of the entire novel.

Buh???!!?!?!

Apparently we didn't read the same book, or you read one that was published in the Bizarro universe.

I did find it a bit laboured, but still an intresting look at the 80's corporate mentality.
It also had some killer lines and intresting characters.
I liked the ending.

That said, to write Ellis off on that is a bit premature - the book is like nothing else he has written (though all his books are different from each other).
Less than Zero was catcher in the Rye for the modern generation, twice as nasty and over sexed.
Rules of Attractio should be required reading for living at college. Great characters there, and a realistic look at the selfishness of people and relationships, and the lies we tell ourselves and each other.
And for me, Glamorama was just genius. Starting with the world of fashion and pulling it out to international politics and the mean of identity was great.

And honestly, can anyone right a better sex scene than him?
(and never see a film adaptation of his books. all terrible).

that is exactly why it was so offensive. Harris pandered to the masses and produce drivel; rather than an insight look at why Lechter was the way he was, or a taut thriller, he wrote the equivalent to a Friday the 13th movie

I like that he gave what was being asked for and more.
People liked this hannibal character in his cell, and eating a mans nose, and being given witty lines etc.
So for the book Harris showed how gross and disgusting such a character would be, and the world that he lives in.
It was a bit of a "so like ugly characters eh? then cop this".
That said, it's not nearly as in your face as Black Dhalia.

[Metal-Demon]

I guess I've been pretty fortunate ... I'm not too inclined to pick-up literature that may offend me. I guess sometimes you can't see it coming ... so again, I've been lucky because I enjoy all the books I read (classics, sci-fi/fantasy, epics and sagas, etc.)

I'm not sure if this qualifies ... but the final story-arc of my favourite comic book, The Mighty Thor by Michael Oeming.

I still get a pit in my stomach when I think of how awful it was. :(

[WSLer]

I did find it a bit laboured, but still an intresting look at the 80's corporate mentality.
It also had some killer lines and intresting characters.
I liked the ending.

That said, to write Ellis off on that is a bit premature - the book is like nothing else he has written (though all his books are different from each other).
Less than Zero was catcher in the Rye for the modern generation, twice as nasty and over sexed.
Rules of Attractio should be required reading for living at college. Great characters there, and a realistic look at the selfishness of people and relationships, and the lies we tell ourselves and each other.
And for me, Glamorama was just genius. Starting with the world of fashion and pulling it out to international politics and the mean of identity was great.

And honestly, can anyone right a better sex scene than him?

So for the book Harris showed how gross and disgusting such a character would be, and the world that he lives in.


Re: American Psycho. "An interesting look at the '80's corporate culture." What praytell was interesting about it? Everything about was stereotyped to the hilt. Same goes for the "interesting characters." They are all vapid, egomaniacal, boring and had the grace and manners of a six-month old.

What is interesting about that?

Not a damn thing.

Glamorama--Gee, let's just list celebrities names and also the names of various products for nearly 200 pages.

Yeah, that's genius all right. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The white pages are more exciting to read.

You have a seriously fucked up view of what constitutes gross and disgusting as regards Hannibal Lector, but then seeing as you claim that no one writes a better sex scene then Brett Easton Ellis, that's no real surprise, just further proof of your ignorance.

What's sad is how gleefully you revel in said ignorance.

Lector was a true gentleman, as can be seen in his interactions with Clarice. He takes great pride in proper manners and respect being accorded at all times, and if you don't toe the line, you're fucked.

And Florence Italy may be many things, but gross and disgusting sure as fuck isn't one of them. If any charcater in Hannibal was gross and disgusting it was Mason Verger, but you obviously can't get that.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Re: American Psycho. "An interesting look at the '80's corporate culture." What praytell was interesting about it? Everything about was stereotyped to the hilt. Same goes for the "interesting characters." They are all vapid, egomaniacal, boring and had the grace and manners of a six-month old.

What is interesting about that?

Not a damn thing.

Glamorama--Gee, let's just list celebrities names and also the names of various products for nearly 200 pages.

Yeah, that's genius all right. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The white pages are more exciting to read.

You have a seriously fucked up view of what constitutes gross and disgusting as regards Hannibal Lector, but then seeing as you claim that no one writes a better sex scene then Brett Easton Ellis, that's no real surprise, just further proof of your ignorance.

What's sad is how gleefully you revel in said ignorance.

Lector was a true gentleman, as can be seen in his interactions with Clarice. He takes great pride in proper manners and respect being accorded at all times, and if you don't toe the line, you're fucked.

And Florence Italy may be many things, but gross and disgusting sure as fuck isn't one of them. If any charcater in Hannibal was gross and disgusting it was Mason Verger, but you obviously can't get that.

Well I think you hit upon what made american Psycho intresting right there - the characters and how they interact and how important everybody elses opinion was of them.
The society they lived in, the upper crust of society that people are expected to want to be part of in our society, created these people who lived for nothing but that society - they didn't even live soley for their own pleasure, more for the pleasure they took in bettering one another.
It was very similar to Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities, without including the lower classes - which forces one to take an even harder look at the empitness of life on the top - it's still disgusting even with nothing to compare it to.

As for that description of Glamorama.... well, it's not even close to what the book is and about that I don't even see the point in arguing it with you.
Have you even read it?
(if you have fine, but commenting on the actual book as opposed to some cheap one liner would be nice - what about what it had to say the meaning of identity etc?)


If I'm so ignorant on literary sex scenes, who does write them better than Ellis?

Or is it just more your style to run around calling people ignorant without anything to back yourself up?

Lecter is a psychopath.
He's not a gentleman, he has no emotion, no sense of others - except maybe for Clarice, who I feel he sees more as an object to own (as seen at the end of hannibal) as someone he respects.
And I don't remember mentioning Italy in any of my posts, but don't let that stop you from "gleefully reveling in your ignorance".

If you don't see somthing wrong with a man who happily eats brains, and can create a being as decprited as Mason Verger, then I think you've missed the point.
Verger couldn't have existed without Lecter, who he saw as someone akin to his God. His vilness in his looks manner and actions refelcted that on the inside of the man who made him - Man after all was made in gods image, Verger was made in Hannibals.

[WSLer]

Lecter is a psychopath.
He's not a gentleman, he has no emotion, no sense of others - except maybe for Clarice, who I feel he sees more as an object to own (as seen at the end of hannibal) as someone he respects.
If you don't see somthing wrong with a man who happily eats brains, and can create a being as decprited as Mason Verger, then I think you've missed the point.
Verger couldn't have existed without Lecter, who he saw as someone akin to his God. His vilness in his looks manner and actions refelcted that on the inside of the man who made him - Man after all was made in gods image, Verger was made in Hannibals.

So, according to you, people with psychological or emotional problems can't be gentlemen or ladies and have no knowledge of what proper manners/respect for others entails.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The mind reels.

You're damn thick if you can't see that Lector was a gentleman in the truest sense of the world, he was outraged at what Miggs did to starling, recall that Miggs jacked off and then threw his jizz into starling's face, or did you skip over that part 'cause it wasn't oogy enough for ya?

Lector said to Clarice that he hated discourtesy such as Miggs had displayed, which is why he ended up getting Miggs to kill himself.

Lector also respected Barney, who was one of his chief attendants, because Barney always treated Lector with courtesy and respect, while also being very aware of what Lector was, but even so, not harrassing or torturing Lector, and Barney would tell Lector what the consequences of Lector's actions would be. Anything that Barney did to Lector had a solid respectful foundation behind it.

You apparently also forgot the scene from Silence after Lector had escaped where Starling's roommate voiced her fear that Lector would come after Starling and Clarice replied, "No, he won't...I can't explain it. He would consider that rude."

You are trying to make Lector out to be some Jason/Michael Myers mindless killing machine, which is bullshit.

Verger didn't see Lector as God, he saw him first as someone who could get him drugs for free and then as someone he wanted revenge on. If anything Verger was even more of a psychopath then Lector was, but shocker, for whatever bizarre reason you've chosen to forget the various and sundry atrocities that Verger admitted committing when Starling came to interview him as well as what Verger did to the small children he had hanging around his mansion.

Stop trying to paint some bullshit picture of a literary character.

As for who writes better sex scenes then Brett Easton Ellis, I could give a boiled freeze dried rats ass. I'm mature enough so that that kind of shit isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of a particular writer.

But to answer the question, it's pretty obvious that the people who write Penthouse Forum not only write better sex scenes then Ellis, they write the best sex scenes of anybody.

[Donald M.]

As for who writes better sex scenes then Brett Easton Ellis, I could give a boiled freeze dried rats ass. I'm mature enough so that that kind of shit isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of a particular writer.


But apparently not mature enough to avoid swearing at and insulting someone because they have a different view of a book and/or literary character than you do.

[Grant]

I read the The Turner Diaries when doing a paper on militias in college. It's weird hybrid of Tom Clancy and Mein Kampf.

[Donald M.]

I read the The Turner Diaries when doing a paper on militias in college. It's weird hybrid of Tom Clancy and Mein Kampf.

Only without the lyrical prose of Tom Clancy or the political subtlety of Hitler . . .

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

So, according to you, people with psychological or emotional problems can't be gentlemen or ladies and have no knowledge of what proper manners/respect for others entails.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The mind reels.

You're damn thick if you can't see that Lector was a gentleman in the truest sense of the world, he was outraged at what Miggs did to starling, recall that Miggs jacked off and then threw his jizz into starling's face, or did you skip over that part 'cause it wasn't oogy enough for ya?

Lector said to Clarice that he hated discourtesy such as Miggs had displayed, which is why he ended up getting Miggs to kill himself.

First off, do I need to point out the irony of someone championing "being a gentlemen" and then posting the way you do?
Your style of arguement does little to help your point, and it really is starting to irk.
Sean Hannity gets away with it on his own tv show, but people who carry on like that in life, or on the net, don't do themselves any favours.

Now, I never made a comment on Starlings views on respect, or any comment about her character at all really, except I felt that Hannibal saw her as somthing to own - which I believe came across at the end of hannibal where their mental games came to ahead with her being brainwashed by him, which is spelt out in the last chapter (hence mention of her one day breaking free.)
It could be argued that he felt love for her, in his own way, but one doesn't normally feel the need to "own" the person they love.

As for "psychological or emotional problems".... hmmm, I think we both know the character of lector is a little beyond that.
He is to the use the clinical term a psychopath. He cares only for himself and what he wants, to the exclusion of all else. As he saw Starling as somthing to own, somthing that was, or would be his, he felt rather protective of her.
He follows his own rules and code, and punishes those who don't - hence miggs.

No one will ever say the character of miggs was likeable at all, but to make someone, who is very mentally disturbed and not rational, kill themself because of that?
Seems to me Lector has problems with others "psychological or emotional problems".


Lector also respected Barney, who was one of his chief attendants, because Barney always treated Lector with courtesy and respect, while also being very aware of what Lector was, but even so, not harrassing or torturing Lector, and Barney would tell Lector what the consequences of Lector's actions would be. Anything that Barney did to Lector had a solid respectful foundation behind it.


So it suited Lector to keep him on side.
Sticks with what I've said.


You apparently also forgot the scene from Silence after Lector had escaped where Starling's roommate voiced her fear that Lector would come after Starling and Clarice replied, "No, he won't...I can't explain it. He would consider that rude."


Goes with what I've said above.
He even if you don't agree fine, he wouldn't have gone after her because she helped him to escape - which is how he would've seen it.
She was no threat.


You are trying to make Lector out to be some Jason/Michael Myers mindless killing machine, which is bullshit.


Quote me where I said that.
Show an example of mke trying to do that.


Verger didn't see Lector as God, he saw him first as someone who could get him drugs for free and then as someone he wanted revenge on. If anything Verger was even more of a psychopath then Lector was, but shocker, for whatever bizarre reason you've chosen to forget the various and sundry atrocities that Verger admitted committing when Starling came to interview him as well as what Verger did to the small children he had hanging around his mansion.


No Lector was more of a psychopath than Verger - Verger had hate, Lector doesn't.

Lector created Verger as he was when Hannibal started. And as I said, God created man in his image. If Verger is more of a psychopath, then why did Lector convince him to cut his face off with glass? How was that gentlemanly behaviour, to betray one's medical postion for that?
If you don't like the God/man analogy, then look at Lector as Vergers father. Hannibal made him one night, Verger then got an oedipal type rage against him and wanted him dead.
I prefer the god/man analogy due to the amount of obsession that Verger put into tracking Lector.
He worshipped him with his hate.
He even had a ritual lined up on how he was going to kill him.


Stop trying to paint some bullshit picture of a literary character.


I'm not.
I'm offering my interpretation of what I read.
People wanted Hannibal (the book) to have this gentlemanly cannibal in it and be all about him, but I imagine that Harris despaired that people were worshiping hannibal as such and so the book was there to show exactly what Lector was and is.
(Hence the need to spell out how Lector saw Starling at the end).


As for who writes better sex scenes then Brett Easton Ellis, I could give a boiled freeze dried rats ass. I'm mature enough so that that kind of shit isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of a particular writer.

But to answer the question, it's pretty obvious that the people who write Penthouse Forum not only write better sex scenes then Ellis, they write the best sex scenes of anybody.

In otherwords, you can't think of/know of a writer who worte a sex scene where you "JAYSIS! thats hot".
Well, Glamorama had a handjob in it that I thought was masterfully written. I remember reading it on the bus, fearing an old granny reading over it, getting to work and stating to a friend that I'd just read one of the most erotic things ever.
Being a guy, he asked for details, and I had to stop and think and admit - it was just a handjob.
But then again you never answered wether you'd actually read Glamorama so it doesn't really matter does it - especially as you won't even give a comparison from another author.

I don't read Penthouse, so I don't know - I imagine they just write short masturbational fantasies.
Ellis writes it damn erotic, but it also fits into the book.
The sex he writes is different for each book, also depending on character.
It is always there for a reason, not titillation (though they can provide that), and helps the book overall.

[Grant]

Only without the lyrical prose of Tom Clancy or the political subtlety of Hitler . . .

I don't know what I found more offensive the racism or the sentence structure.

[Reptisaurus!]

I thought "Let's go Kill MarkAndrew with A Baseball Bat and feed his bloated Corpse to the Seals" was sort of offensive.

[Jack]

The Fifth Sorceress, by Robert Newcomb, is at the top of my 'most offensive' list.
I finished it, but it wasn't a fun read.

Lots of scenes of MASS rape and genocide, and a rather sexist portrayal of 'women=evil, men=good'.
Wow! You see my post above yours, which for some strange reason was cut in half? (I really don't know what happened to the rest of it..)

Well, that was also talking about the Fifth Sorceress. Worst book I've ever read.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Rising Sun by Michael Crighton or however you spell it. I had just finished Timeline and wanted to read another book by him as well as start to get into the mystery genre so I found the book for cheap and got it. There were people in WWII that didn't speak that badly about the Japanese. I eventually had to put it down.

I thought for awhile that I might get offended by American Gods and Stranger in a Strange Land but ended up enjoying them a great deal.

[abbas.khan]

i'm offended by the fact that jean m. auel hasnt figured out anything else to write about besides caveman lovin'.

[Puffy Treat]

The most offensive book I've ever read (at least by a mainstream author) is Piers Anthony's Firefly.

The book is pro-pedophile propaganda.

In it, a girl all of age 5 (!) is graphically protrayed having sex with a middle-aged man, and this is portrayed as a good thing.

The comes the reprehensible "Author's Note" in which Mr. Anthony goes on and on about how "As long as all the adult wants to do is have sex with children, then it's not really abuse because they aren't really hurting them."

Sicko.

[Shellhead]

The most offensive book I've ever read (at least by a mainstream author) is Piers Anthony's Firefly.

The book is pro-pedophile propaganda.

In it, a girl all of age 5 (!) is graphically protrayed having sex with a middle-aged man, and this is portrayed as a good thing.

The comes the reprehensible "Author's Note" in which Mr. Anthony goes on and on about how "As long as all the adult wants to do is have sex with children, then it's not really abuse because they aren't really hurting them."

Sicko.

Oh, I read that and blissfully blotted out the memory until now. It was disturbing and moreso because the sex scenes were written fairly hot at times. An ex-girlfriend of mine read it and loved it, but she has had a very messed up life.

Even so, Firefly was nowhere near as offensive as A Feast Unknown.

[Puffy Treat]

As the thread is about the most offensive books the reader has read, pointing out that I haven't commented on a book you have read and I have not seems rather...well...pointless? :)

We can only comment on the stuff we've read. Posting more than once in response to others that "This book I have read and you haven't is MUCH more offensive, neener-neener-neener" (paraphrasing, obviously ;)) doesn't seem to contribute much.

[Indigo Al]

Rising Sun by Michael Crighton or however you spell it. I had just finished Timeline and wanted to read another book by him as well as start to get into the mystery genre so I found the book for cheap and got it. There were people in WWII that didn't speak that badly about the Japanese. I eventually had to put it down.
.

I thought that book was even more offensive to women than to the Japanese, especially working women.

[Alpha to Omega]

The most offensive book I ever read has to be "Let's Go Play at the Adam's" by Mendel Johnson which is about a babysitter being held captive and tortured by the kids she was watching for the week while there children are away. It's particularly disturbing because of the descriptions and the times you get into the children's head's where it's revealed that they have no reason to do this but are doing it anyway.

[Grant]

I thought "Let's go Kill MarkAndrew with A Baseball Bat and feed his bloated Corpse to the Seals" was sort of offensive.

Really? It's one of my favorites.

I have to say I'm offended by the Old Testament. God really comes across as a jerk.

[Shellhead]

As the thread is about the most offensive books the reader has read, pointing out that I haven't commented on a book you have read and I have not seems rather...well...pointless? :)

We can only comment on the stuff we've read. Posting more than once in response to others that "This book I have read and you haven't is MUCH more offensive, neener-neener-neener" (paraphrasing, obviously ;)) doesn't seem to contribute much.

That's a good point, but I am a little disappointed at some of the books mentioned in this thread... it's getting to the point where somebody's going to start whining about the violence in a Hardy Boys book.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

That's a good point, but I am a little disappointed at some of the books mentioned in this thread... it's getting to the point where somebody's going to start whining about the violence in a Hardy Boys book.

Well which ones do you feel aren't as bad as people are making out?

[Forefinger]

I'm going with "American Psycho". Disgusting scenes of his torture and murder of various women. One involves pvc pipe, acid, and a giant rat.

[Kaiju]

What is the most offensive book that you have ever read? Did you finish it? If so, what was the most offensive book that you didn't finish?

The most offensive book that I finished reading was A Feast Unknown, by Philip Jose Farmer. The basic concept is what if Tarzan and Doc Savage met, although the names of the characters were changed to avoid legal hassles. There were scenes depicting rape, torture, bestiality, and other grotesque behavior. Farmer is such a talented writer that I couldn't put the book down, and now I'm stuck with some horrible imagery in my brain.

I can't believe you forgot about the cannibalism. Remember when they received the sacrament? :eek: But don't worry it'll grow back.

Try Farmer's Flesh and Ras Tyger. Not as bad as Feast but they have their moments.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned John Norman. I've only read a couple of his Gor novels but I read a real doozy written by him called Time Slave. The basic premise is modern woman time travels back to the days of the caveman and gets repeatedly raped. Eventually she learns to like the rape, beating, etc. and becomes a perfect submissive cavewoman.

If you're not offended yet I could spoil the ending and really give you a thrill.

[Smell]

The only book I've ever had to put down was the Marquis de Sade's 120 days of Sodom.

as for PJ Farmers Feast, I loved it. Tarzan how he ought to be.

American Psyco was a good book, but I couldn't watch the visuals on the big screen.

And Hannibal was tripe.

Dom

smells of fava beans

[mgs]

The only book I've ever had to put down was the Marquis de Sade's 120 days of Sodom.
HOLEY.....

CRAP!!!!!



I just read that online, some site had the full book.....I am still like O.O
and I cannot sleep!!! Seriously, how, and I'm pretty liberal, I think, but HOW disturbed do you have to be to even come up with some of that stuff!!!??!!!

In DeSade's descriptions of all the tortures and pleasures and everything, I'm like bored by my and his own disgustingness and like the book still goes on!!!!

I thought I knew that Hell was indescribable and horrible, but now I know, it's what happens to you as described in this book.

*queasy stomach is not allowing me to sleep right now*

[Tages]

American Psyco was a good book, but I couldn't watch the visuals on the big screen.
The film version was lightweight and not graphic at all.

The book is the stuff of nightmares.

[Domo Goddess]

I don't remember the author, but I think the title was A Boy Called It.
The book was about a boy who was abused by his mother constantly.
The scene that disgusted me the most was when she forced him to eat
his baby brother's feces.

[Damon]

Stephen R. Donaldson, Chronicles of Thomas Covenant even being a huge fantasy fan I couldnt stomach this book. Leprosy and Rape and thats just in the first half of the first book. I know some people call it a classic, its just not for me

[Alpha to Omega]

I don't remember the author, but I think the title was A Boy Called It.
The book was about a boy who was abused by his mother constantly.
The scene that disgusted me the most was when she forced him to eat
his baby brother's feces.

A Child Called It: One Child's Courage to Survive by David Pelzer. The scary thing this is an auto-biography about his childhood.

[Sandoz]

Whenever I scan the bookshelves at Barnes and Noble and notice the V. C. Andrews titles, I find myself wondering if V. C., instead of writing, should have just sought therapy. Clearly she's got issues.
From what I've heard, she definitely did. Apparently she had a sexual relationship with her uncle, which would explain the rampant incest and abuse at the hands of parents and adults in her novels. However, only a few of the novels written by "V.C. Andrews" were actually written by her. A ghost writer keeps pumping out novels, reguritating the same trashy and sensationalist material that made her popular when she was alive.

[Legato]

I've heard the Bram Stoker's Dracula novel is more intense than the movie version. Is that true?

[Sir Tim Drake]

I was deeply disturbed by Naked Lunch, but the most offensive book I ever read was Marvin Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism. Honestly. It was nothing more than an argument for why government funds should be used for the purpose of converting people to Christianity.

[CaptMagellan]

I've heard the Bram Stoker's Dracula novel is more intense than the movie version. Is that true?

It was very intense for the time it was written. Not so much now (but still worth reading if you get into the rhythm of it).

[CaptMagellan]

the most offensive book I ever read was Marvin Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism. Honestly. It was nothing more than an argument for why government funds should be used for the purpose of converting people to Christianity.

This is an example of what offends me: non-fiction that attempts to influence people in ways antithetical to what I believe in.

But fiction just doesn't offend me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I've heard the Bram Stoker's Dracula novel is more intense than the movie version. Is that true?


A) Not really, and B) depends what movie version you're speaking of.

[Solaris]

I've heard the Bram Stoker's Dracula novel is more intense than the movie version. Is that true?

If you're referring to the "Bram Stoker's Dracula" with Keanu Reeves... they're two different kettles of fish. The book is told in Romantic style, to Victorian sensibilities. In fact, parts of it were quite shocking for the day. I *do* find it an easier read than Shelley's Frankenstein.

The movie altered the book story in some major ways... but the most interesting difference is that, in several places, the movie showed the seamy *undersides* of Victorian life: sexual encounters, coffee table pornography (Kama Sutra book), heroin addiction of a medical man, the use of absynthe, near insanity of Von Helsing, his steamy kiss with Mina, the horrid conditions of mental asylums of the day, etc. I think the producers deliberately set out to reveal the parts of Victorian society that Stoker, being a polite author in search of legitimate publishing, left out. Sex was neither seen nor heard---but if it hadn't happened, we all wouldn't be here. :D ;)

Also, in the movie, the biggest plot change was this pastlife association between Mina and Dracula; that simply didn't exist in the book. Made an interesting plot twist in the movie, but not true to the original story at all.

[Domo Goddess]

A Child Called It: One Child's Courage to Survive by David Pelzer. The scary thing this is an auto-biography about his childhood.

Thanks for the information.

I would buy it, but it's a bit too disturbing.

In another scene, I think his mom forced him to lay on top of a stove.

[Len Ikari145]

Thanks for the information.

I would buy it, but it's a bit too disturbing.

In another scene, I think his mom forced him to lay on top of a stove.
She also made him eat his own *vomit*. :(
my teacher read us this story back when I was in 6th grade. She was actually sobbing while she read it to us. It's a shame that his bitch mother and lazy ass father never got arrested for what she did. :mad:

I was happy that in the epilogue, he said how much he loved his family and would never put them through the hellish nightmare he had to endure.

[Domo Goddess]

She also made him eat his own *vomit*. :(
my teacher read us this story back when I was in 6th grade. She was actually sobbing while she read it to us. It's a shame that his bitch mother and lazy ass father never got arrested for what she did. :mad:

I was happy that in the epilogue, he said how much he loved his family and would never put them through the hellish nightmare he had to endure.

I don't remember him having a father. :confused:

I discovered the book when I was at a friend's house and read through it.

[Len Ikari145]

I don't remember him having a father. :confused:

I discovered the book when I was at a friend's house and read through it.

I'm pretty sure he had a dead beat father. He was an alcoholic, who was out most of the time.

[Domo Goddess]

What happens at the end of the book again ?
Does his mom go to jail ?

[Mike Pothier]

I don't think she goes to jail. In the second or third book, he returns home as an adult to confront his mother, and the conversation makes it pretty clear she is completely insane.

[Domo Goddess]

I don't think she goes to jail. In the second or third book, he returns home as an adult to confront his mother, and the conversation makes it pretty clear she is completely insane.

I didn't know there was a sequel to the book.
What's the title of that one ?

During the conversation, his mother feels no remorse for what she did ?

[Mike Pothier]

I didn't know there was a sequel to the book.
What's the title of that one ?

There are two sequels. A Lost Boy and A Man Named Dave.

During the conversation, his mother feels no remorse for what she did ?

From what I remember, none at all. She even speaks as if it happened to another child.

[Domo Goddess]

I'll have to check out A Lost Boy and a Man Named Dave.

Does the Lost Boy pick up right where a Boy Called It left off or does that start the conversation book ?

[Mike Pothier]

The Lost Boy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558745157/qid=1133409081/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5755019-6427917?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) does pretty much pick up where Child left off, chronicles his teenage years, and his foster home experiences.

A Man Named Dave (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281903/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-5755019-6427917?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155) is his coming to terms with the abuse as an adult, and its here that he confronts both his parents.

[Sandoz]

Also, in the movie, the biggest plot change was this pastlife association between Mina and Dracula; that simply didn't exist in the book. Made an interesting plot twist in the movie, but not true to the original story at all.
That was my main problem with that film. The Coppola version of Dracula is very close to the book when it comes to the basic plot, but the added romance between Dracula and Mina completely changes the theme of the story. Suddenly Dracula is a doomed, romantic hero, and Van Helsing and co. are the real bad guys--and I could only roll my eyes at that.

If Legato was referring to the Dracula film with Bela Lugosi, then yes, the novel is much more intense. The movie is extremely tame since all of the violence happens off screen, and the book is quite gruesome by comparison.

[Winslow]

. . . , but the most offensive book I ever read was Marvin Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism. Honestly. It was nothing more than an argument for why government funds should be used for the purpose of converting people to Christianity.

I haven't read the book in maybe 10 years, but I don't remember that theme at all. :confused:

I thought he was arguing for a "principle of discernment" instead of just giving out carte blanch checks to the poor.,

I hated the message in Camu's The Stranger. It was so hopeless and depressed me. I don't think it offended me though.

[Balrog of Morgoth]

The Gor series of books by John Norman (real name Dr. John Lange). Not only are women to be beaten, tortured, raped and generally used as subserviant sex slaves, but woman supposedly want to be used that way according to this guy. :mad:

And he can't write for crap either.

[Donald M.]

I don't get offended, but those Gor books still sound pretty offensive.

[CaptMagellan]

The Gor books are too silly to be offensive. He was a bad sword and sorcery fantasy writer, writing in the 70s. His stuff is still pretty tame compared to some of the stuff written since. Norman has also stayed in print, primarily, due to the S&M community liking his fantasy settings and S&M situations.

Balrog's above description is a bit... overexagerated.