The Worst Books I Read in 2022
Updated: Jan 1, 2023
Hey,
I read a lot of books this year. Last I counted, 50 books lined my 2022 "completed" book pile. Now, to the greedy bookworm, intellectual types who want to boast of book piles larger than mine, please cut me some slack. Unlike certain former presidents, I do not possess the innate ability to read every large volume in my collection in one night (and in one sitting). I am forced to confine my rate to about one book every 10 days. And yes, for those trying to make me feel better, I have considered incorporating Dr. Suess into my academic interests to (hopefully) speed up my abysmal reading rate. However, it seems his scholarship has disappeared entirely from the bookshelves. No matter how hard I try, I cannot obtain a copy of Scrambled Eggs Super for my intellectual delight.
But 50 books are enough for me. Indeed, all this reading has allowed me to further develop my likes and dislikes in scholarship/literature so that, in the spirit of such, I have decided to list some books that I found to be dissatisfactory in hopes of stirring conversation (not controversy). Obviously, I disagree with many parts of these books since, as it goes with reading a lot of serious literature, you tend to disagree seriously (a lot).
Yet it is important to grasp that mere disagreement does not make a book bad per se. At most, disagreement opens up one's nostrils to the scent of fishy scholarship or plot formulation. Yet one will notice that my critique of these books goes further than disagreement. Rather, I dig into what I see as serious misuses of key ideas, concepts, or logical argumentation in each author's stories or philosophy. Authors and intellectuals need this type of criticism. Honest, sincere criticism is the heartbeat of intellectual growth and ideological ascendancy. Without such criticism, the thinking men and women among us will shrivel into a cocoon of ideological rigidity intermixed with confirmatory reasoning that deadens their appeal. In short, criticism makes us better thinkers and allows us to surmount challenges that spur our minds toward the pursuit of the truth and reality as bequeathed (and set) by God above. We must not allow the writers of our time or the works of the past to escape such benefits of constructive criticism!
For those optimists who enjoy watching the fight from the outside and anxiously crossing your fingers for the best, first of all, thank you for being here. I promise to post some of the best books I read in 2022 later this week. But for now, sit back and open those nostrils wide as I detail the worst books within my 2022 book-catalogue (click the links below for full reviews).
Having caught a lot of wind from “The Right’s” exoneration of Candace Owen’s bullish politics (to put it lightly), it seemed appropriate to explore her political framework and examine the political philosophy responsible for her stalwart vivacity. This led me to Blackout, the written apotheosis of her political ideals. After reading her treatise, I found no justification for her controversial approaches. The book was subpar. Indeed, if it were incumbent upon me to recommend a non-exemplary work from the conservative movement – her book would surely make the list.
Blackout suffers in three areas: it presents strawmen/caricatures of her opponents' views, it is contradictory at times and possesses poor reasoning through complex ideas, and, lastly, it fails to clearly connect itself to any sort of historic, conservative political philosophy. It rambles like a manifesto, and, to put it bluntly, does not belong in the genre of political science. Owen’s disingenuous engagement with her opponents, failure to seriously substantiate her major claims, and lack of serious engagement with broader ideals places her book on this list. These deficiencies (sadly) outshine some of the redeemable aspects of her work.
To read my full, in-depth critique of her work where I explain those three shortcomings in depth...please click HERE
Dear “Charlies” (my makeshift word for Dickens stans), I apologize for the difficulty I am about to put you through. Charles Dickens is undoubtedly a brilliant writer with the pristine ability to tickle the mind with verbosity and profound narrative. Interpret this critique as a testing of your tenaciousness rather than a mal-intended blow to Dickens’ ascendancy (and your tendency to be tickled). Indeed, as said above, Dickens is a master of his craft. He is verbose and effectively preys upon the readers' neglect of subtle details to bring about delightful (or terrifying) outcomes.
However, A Tale of Two Cities is a difficult product to swallow. Though the same prose and effervescence of Dickens' style are present, the final work is sour. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with structure or storytelling, A Tale of Two Cities is a well-written work. I feel guilty placing it on the same list as Candace Owen’s gasconade-of-a-book. It is nowhere near as bad. It contains all the proper ingredients to be a remarkable work of historical fiction, but the mixture sours in the final product. Reflecting upon this, the sour taste stems from a disagreement with the themes and perspective Dickens chose to pursue. Unlike Owens, who suffers from deficient prose and abysmal argumentation, A Tale of Two Cities is well-written but advances a perspective that I think is misguided.
Two problems particularly catch my eye. First, A Tale of Two Cities advances an overall approach to the French Revolution that is too ambiguous to the detriment of its character development and, second, it employs the resurrection and sacrifice theme in a way that feels divorced from the larger context of the French Revolution.
To read full, in-depth review click HERE