The Witches' Hammer

I have disliked numerous books liked by other readers—at the least, their publishers. Reluctant to construe "what constitutes a bad book" as an invitation to discuss those that fall below my expectations, I was perplexed.

The question suggests that "badness" can be an intrinsic quality of a book. But, unlike fruit which can go bad, or bad luck, or computers that won't boot up, books cannot rot, gamble, or fail to start. Granting that a manual that fails to describe how to use a computer might be judged bad, it is difficult to adjudicate the matter—most customers who look for bargains at Best Buy would find incomprehensible manuals techies enjoy.

The intrinsic badness of books is a baffling idea. Imagine a book without words. You open it up and the pages are blank. Is this a bad book or a good diary? Imagine a book filled with sentences such as "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Would this be a bad book or a good joke about Noam Chomsky?

In the face of such conundrums, I construed a "bad" book as a harmful one. The Malleus Maleficarum (The Witches' Hammer) (1487) by Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger came immediately to mind.

For those who do not have Maleus Maleficarum in their libraries, here is a review of it:

For nearly three centuries Maleus Maleficarum was the professional manual for witch hunters…by two of the most famous Inquisitors. Under the Bull of Pope Innocent VIII, [they wrote a treatise in 1484 on]…how and why women roast their first-born male child…how witches deprive men of their vital member…when to use the trial by the red hot iron…and many other [topics].