Well, there are books I hated on the first sight; that is, never read them but hated them so based on the cover only, I put them on a shelf called "Kill It With Strychnine". No, not the author, the book. I know it makes no sense, but if it was possible, you can bet this post would be written by a serial book killer.
Freedom of speech? Certainly - it's what brought me here. But out of the entirety of my Lit classes, I remember Andric's Nobel Banquet speech the best:
"In the end it matters little whether the writer evokes the past, describes the present, or even plunges boldly into the future. The main thing is the spirit which informs his story, the message that his work conveys to mankind; and it is obvious that rules and regulations do not avail here. Each builds his story according to his own inward needs, according to the measure of his inclinations, innate or acquired, according to his conceptions and to the power of his means of expression. Each assumes the moral responsibility for his own story and each must be allowed to tell it freely. But, in conclusion, it is to be hoped that the story told by today's author to his contemporaries, irrespective of its form and content, should be neither tarnished by hate nor obscured by the noise of homicidal machines, but that it should be born out of love and inspired by the breadth of ideas of a free and serene human mind. For the storyteller and his work serve no purpose unless they serve, in one way or another, man and humanity."
Just because you can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean you should.
I cannot, on principle, bring myself to wish for their destruction; but I do wish we lived in a world where they were never written.
Then there are some books I disliked after reading them. The particulars of why I disliked the final books in Twilight and Fifty Shades series are different, but the bottom line is the same: the author didn't care. In the case of Breaking Dawn, it was Meyer making everyone one big happy family with no loss, no price, no consequences, against all laws of logic, common sense, taste and even contradicting some hints from the previous books. In Fifty Shades Freed, what is there is so obviously there to pad. And we're not talking padding between few important points: the entire book is padding. Cover to cover. In both cases, there was absolutely no reason to continue the story after the wedding. There is no reason for either of these books to exist - the wedding scene could have been put on the end of their predecessors. (Well, okay, the cash is a reason, but from the literary standpoint, there isn't.) For those interested, I went into more detail in my reviews of Breaking Dawn and Fifty Shades Freed. (Again, the formatting was fixed on these ones.)
Funny how it's easier to talk about the things you hate than the things you love, isn't it?