Sometimes, I read a well written book and hate that book. Other times, I read a poorly written book and love that book. Has this ever happened to you? If so, which books were they and why did you dislike or like them?

For me, the well written books I hated were all of Toni Morrison's books. I kept taking classes that had them as assigned reading and I kept getting bad grades, because I'd try to forget what I read, because I hated them so much. When college came, I didn't have a choice, but to try to remember, because I didn't want to waste money on the course. It was terrible. It's safe to say that I just hate Morrison's books. I do think they're well written. Well written enough for me to make reference to them in my own writings.

The poorly written books I liked were the .hack and Death Note light novels. They're not the worst written books ever and I blame the translator for some of the problems with the .hack ones, but they're far from being masterpieces. Still, I love them. I really do. They're fun reads.

I absolutely HATE Cormac McCarthy's books. Honestly, I think it's debatable whether his stuff is actually well written, but since a lot of literary types seem to think so, that was the first thing that popped to mind. I had to read All the Pretty Horses for AP English in high school years ago, and I've considered him my literary nemesis ever since. There are probably others, too, but most of those I don't finish or particularly remember.
As far as poorly written books that I've liked... I'm not really sure. I think I'm biased towards thinking that if I liked a book the writing must have been pretty decent. I know there are some authors I like whose writing has some issues (like H.P. Lovecraft) but I wouldn't actually call their writing poor. Though I did like Maximum Ride and James Patterson is definitely not that great of a writer, so there is that. (I didn't love it, though, and I haven't read the rest of the series, so take that as you well.)

And, yeah, I'm not a particularly big fan of Toni Morrison either.

I hate Lord of the Flies. There are inconsistencies with reality in it that just don't make sense, I hate the characters, I can't understand the so called metaphors my teachers claimed it made to the human condition, I did not think those claims are accurate as if they were we would have all died I a nucular war by now, and I genuinely get a headache just by reading it.

There is also this vedio that talks about it. Book Review of Lord of the Flies

Yeah, Lord of the Flies was a non-entity of a book in my view; I didn't see the devolution of society in that fashion as either likely or well-portrayed enough for me to suspend disbelief. I kept going, "but why wouldn't they just X?" and have pretty much forgotten it since that class, until you just reminded me of it.

The 'classic' author I have trouble with is Thomas Hardy. Reading his books is comparable to wading through freezing slog, in my opinion. You really have to force yourself through it, and it's a miserable experience. I know they are classic and reveal a lot about the time period and for the most part I don't regret the time spent on the books (mostly), but they just are not my cup of tea!

Poorly written books I like anyhow would include most of the E.E. "Doc" Smith books (really early sci-fi stories. They're FILLED with cliche, and stereotypes, and bad slang, and patriarchal world-views, but somehow I always end up laughing when I read them, and that makes me enjoy them anyhow).
What else? I know there's a bunch of them that I love that aren't actually that well done.... why can't I think of any more? Hmmmm. I guess now I think about it, a lot of my "guilty pleasure" books aren't because of being poorly written, but because they're written with a lot of (hopefully unintentional, mostly from a time period when it was sadly wide-spread) prejudice and bigotry, and even though that is so clearly present in the works, they have enough other stuff going for them that I read them anyhow and except for wincing now and then, enjoy it. Guilty pleasure because I obviously don't hold with those views, but they aren't actually poorly written.

Although imo once you get past a certain point in history nearly EVERYTHING you read has aspects of that in it. An inbuilt assumption of superiority of the author's home-culture/religion/race/gender, or if they're clearly extolling the virtue of some outside aspect, it's glorified past reality to be fantasy of another definition. I read stuff anyhow and just am thankful not to live in that era/area.

Eeewww!! I was recommended two certain popular series, but when I started reading them, I was like WTF, who writes like this and gets published??? Then I found out the authors started as fan fiction writers...
I hate fan fiction with a passion because the ones I have come across were extremely poorly written.

Out of curiosity, where do you guys draw the line between something written well/poorly and something edited well/poorly?

I know sometimes, I read a book and think, "This author needs to learn a lot before I read anything else by them!"
and sometimes, I read a book and think, "WHERE was the EDITOR?!"

And it's not very logical, when each reaction is evoked.

Does anyone else do this? What markers do you use to decide which to latch on to?

Cliffhangers with no actual continuation -.-
Stories with plot holes

The Peculiars

I hated Lord of the Flies too. I mean, REALLY hate it. Like, if the book was a person, I'd say it should be punched in the nose.

If I Pay Thee Not In Gold is a book that is HORRIBLY written, but I still find it entertaining. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/176 ... earch=true