1

I'm looking for a word for "bad" books, or "bad" literature, something that describes the book as "poor" not by being necessarily "bad written", but by author's lack of knowledge about the subject, or by being just a bunch of things the author took from his own mind and sold as "a general law" about that subject.

I have a teacher who once used the expression "airport literature", and it's cool, but I'm not sure people understand its meaning without proper explanation. I also thought about "cheap" or "poor" literature (or books), yet I'm not sure people get it, as they could think I'm talking about a low price book, or even worst: they might think I'm judging the people who are reading as "poor", and I don't want to take the risk of a misunderstanding about it.

I'll try to narrow the possible answer by giving more details about the kind of book I'm talking about. A "bad" book, in the way I'm trying to express, means:

  • A book written by a disqualified author in the subject (like Britney Spears writing about, i.e., neuroscience). Something the author think to know everything about, but he never deeply studied the subject.
  • A book meant to be a specialized content in a certain subject, but that is actually poor and filled with lots of clichés and common sense contents.

Do you know the word I'm looking for? Something that express what I said?

Thanks in advance.

PS: Edited. And I apologize for the huge change, but I wasn't framing my question in the right understandable way.

Hank
  • 4,978
Ágatha
  • 51
  • 1
    The first terms that come to mind are "pulp fiction" and "dime-store novel", referring to lurid subject matter and less than exceptional writing style. But these are typically applied only to fiction (except when used sarcastically, where one might say that "Birther" writing is "pulp fiction"). – Hot Licks Jan 17 '17 at 00:22
  • 1
    http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/211750/where-did-the-phrase-hack-job-come-from Hack-job was used for something close once... I knew the term but I'm not sure many would – Tom22 Jan 17 '17 at 01:53
  • 1
    From the question you link, "hack" or "hackwork" would generally apply. "Formulaic" is another term. – Hot Licks Jan 17 '17 at 02:47
  • I think you're both on the way, @HotLicks and Tom22. Yet I think it emphasizes thee poor writing and the use of cliches; but I also want to 'emphasize' a lack of knowledge. I'll try to edit the question to make it more clear, maybe I should remove some details that made it confusing for you. Thanks anyway!! – Ágatha Jan 17 '17 at 04:33
  • I think we understand your general drift (though your description could bear improvement). We just can't think of any terms that are more apt. – Hot Licks Jan 17 '17 at 04:35
  • Got it, @HotLicks, it's a tricky question, I know. I think barbecue's answer below is a good fit, considering the question itself, yet I'm still thinking whether 'junk' fits my intended use. What do you think about? – Ágatha Jan 17 '17 at 04:51
  • It depends on what you want to emphasize. "Hack" and "hackwork" have the sense of being done purely for money, with no real skill. "Formulaic" implies following a formula or, possibly, a political "agenda". "Junk" and "trash" simply imply poor quality, with a possible implication of prurience. – Hot Licks Jan 17 '17 at 04:57
  • I'm starting to think there's no such word I'm looking for LOL maybe it's going to be easier to use "airport literature" and explain my teacher's story!! Imagine those motivational self-help books, the bad ones, whose authors spent 200 pages of text telling nothing useful, just things like "be positive and you'll succeed". Sometimes those kind of books are a success, what doesn't mean they're good books. I can't use "hackwork", as sometimes the author has a real intention to produce something good. Nor formulaic, as they don't follow a formula. But they doesn't say anything worth anyway. – Ágatha Jan 17 '17 at 06:38
  • how about ign'nt? – Unrelated Feb 16 '17 at 07:23
  • Possible duplicate of Is there a word for a "cheap page-turner"? – Mari-Lou A Feb 16 '17 at 08:23
  • I do not think that is a duplicate. The suggested dupe is looking for a book that keeps people reading, but is does so in a way that decreases it's quality. This post is simply looking for a book that is all around bad. The answers might be applicable to this post, but I think the two OPs are different. – Hank Feb 16 '17 at 14:07
  • Is this referring to non-fiction primarily? Is it that the author is incompetent or malicious? I think the author's intent makes a bit of a difference, though it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. Eg meretricious vs vague. Or even whether it is deliberate deception intended to cause you to think the wrong thing or just an author trying to bluff. There are many words with all these nuances. Presumably because they are such common situations ;-) – Dr Xorile May 17 '17 at 20:03
  • Several months later, I've heard an expression that fits what I'm looking for, in a certain context: pop management. It was precisely the context in which I was looking for. But as this question is generic, and English isn't my primary language, I'd appreciate some help to pick the "best answer" below. Is the "Uninformed" answer below the best expression for what I want? – Ágatha Sep 18 '17 at 06:37

5 Answers5

1

I would probably call such a book trash or junk in the sense of low quality. Both of these are often used in referring to books, but interestingly, the word trash is more often associated with fiction, while junk is more often associated with non-fiction.

Here's a list of "trash novels".

A trash novel is a poor quality novel, a junk history book is a bad quality or inaccurate book.

barbecue
  • 6,614
  • do you think "junk" would fit those books about leadership that fall in your hands the whole time? Those whose authors write a lot of bullshit about "how to become a leader", even though they never read a line of real science about leadership? I'm still thinking, but looks like "junk" is the word I'm looking for... Though, I didn't find so much examples of the use in this context after googling a little bit. – Ágatha Jan 17 '17 at 04:47
1

You could say the literature is "uninformed" or that it "lacks credibility".

Uninformed: not educated or knowledgable : not having or based upon information or awareness : not informed

As the author of the piece is not an expert, his/her writing is largely uninformed.

Credibility: the quality of being believable or worthy of trust

As the author of the piece is not an expert, his/her writing lacks credibility.

Aleksandr Hovhannisyan
  • 2,485
0

Lowbrow:

of, relating to, or suitable for a person with little taste or intellectual interest · a lowbrow horror movie

Jason Bassford
  • 38,040
0

subliterature n. OED

Novels and other printed matter having popular appeal and considered to be of no lasting artistic merit; a type of this.

and from The Free Dictionary:

Writings, such as romance novels and mysteries, that appeal to popular tastes and are often considered inferior in style and content to more artistic literature.

As in: (no sample sentence was provided)

The dictionary citation gives this example:

2006 T. Andrae C. Barks & Disney Comic Bk. While film, jazz, and video have been elevated to the level of art, comics have traditionally been considered subliterature.

lbf
  • 30,385
-1

Crass, Philistine, Naive, Boorish, Gross. And then I found Is there a word for a "cheap page-turner"?

Schlock. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/schlock

SRR
  • 1