Overrated Authors

[Epmd607]

Ayn Rand: mostly confused gibberish - I can spot a Randian narrative a mile away, it rapidly departs from any known reality, leaving plot holes a mile wide, and lots of ridiculous pseudo science. The protagonist makes a lot of windy speeches, the false protagonist foil is suitably awed.

Michael Crichton might be the exception; although his stuff never impressed me overmuch he did manage to avoid the usual cliches.

The irony with the more decent Randist authors (Frank Miller is another), is that their heros are ultimately self sacrificing, which is the opposite of the Randist opportunistic stereotype.

L. Ron Hubbard is just as bad, juvenile at best.

I agree with Ayn Rand being gar-bitch. I also put forth Sam Beckett, Jim Joyce, Chuck Bukowski, and Chuck Palahniuk as super duper overrated heroes. The most overrated of all-time: Kurt Vonnegut.

 

[Epmd607]

Fiction as a whole is over-rated. It's just entertainment, for gawd's sake. Okay, so some of it is higher lever entertainment than others. Big deal. Majoring in English Lit is like majoring in network TV.

Can you fix the leaky faucet, professor Smythe?

Voluptuous Man-key probably can't fix a leaky faucet, unless he's a trade plumber. But then that'd just be crass, being a plumber and saying only plumbers are of value. Animal Husbandry is the only thing that matters, not fixing leaky faucets.

 

[TxRad]

Yeah, and art is overrated too. They're just pictures. Once cameras were invented, there was no need for artists anymore.

Getting the brush strokes right with a digital camera is such a pain.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yeah, and art is overrated too. They're just pictures. Once cameras were invented, there was no need for artists anymore.

No, once the printing press and general literacy was invented there was no need for artists any more. It's original purpose was to tell stories to the masses.

The current purpose of art seems to be rather that of tulip bulbs in the 1630's. You buy it in hopes of finding some greater fool to pay more for it later. Meanwhile it covers an empty space on the wall.

Artists think art is for expressing their 'deeper selves'. No, art's social purpose is to bind the 'in' from the 'out'. (cf Dissayanake, Ellen What is Art For?) BTW, I have a Master's in art so I get to be snarky if I want.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Ayn Rand

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

>ducking under desk before blurting this out; expecting hurled sharp objects<

Dan Brown. "The Da Vinci Code" is entertaining. I applaud the concept and the marketing. But Dan Brown is to writers what William Shatner is to actors.

I disagree about Shatner (loved the Tek series), but I agree about Dan Brown. He's a plagiarist of the worst kind.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm glad to see that James Joyce was mentioned. As far as I can tell, the man wrote gibberish.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'd say Stephenie Meyer. Seriously, what's everyone's big thing about vampires lately? Even Mormons are getting in on the act!

 

[slyc_willie]

I'd say Stephenie Meyer. Seriously, what's everyone's big thing about vampires lately? Even Mormons are getting in on the act!

They're young, hot, and indestructible. Just what every teenager wants to be.

 

[Tx Tall Tales]

I'm glad to see that James Joyce was mentioned. As far as I can tell, the man wrote gibberish.

Ditto. I try to read it. I know I should. Sorry, just can't.

But Asimov? Do we judge by their best work or by their worst? Horribly prolific, with lots of junk, like Heinlein, and Stephen King. But their best stuff is just sublime. Incredible.

Take back that slander! Don't make me come over there!

(Now J.K. Rowling? How the heck is she the highest paid author of all time?)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

They're young, hot, and indestructible. Just what every teenager wants to be.

Yeah, yeah. But I still hate the idea of the terrible sunburn.

 

[slyc_willie]

Yeah, yeah. But I still hate the idea of the terrible sunburn.

Personally, I can't stand the majority of vampire fiction. It's either too codified or too romantic. The basic elements remain the same, which gives me a sense of stagnation.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Personally, I can't stand the majority of vampire fiction. It's either too codified or too romantic. The basic elements remain the same, which gives me a sense of stagnation.

Yep. Different jukebox. Same ol' song.

 

[Tx Tall Tales]

Speaking of Vampires -

Salem's Lot, by Stephen King - scared the snot out of me as a kid. Back when he wrote good stuff.

When did they become the good guys?

 

[slyc_willie]

Yep. Different jukebox. Same ol' song.

And it skips. Often.

Vampires are a hallmark of supernatural fiction. Too bad they've become stymied. There are some interesting ideas on vampires that provide more and authentic interpretations than what is currently out there. Too bad they don't have much of a voice.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I use vampires in many of my stories because I know a lot about vampires. They come in variety packs, some even work the day shift. Imagine what happens when a serial killer abducts a vampire, or the boyz try to rape one, or cops-employers try to exploit them.

 

[Epmd607]

I'm glad to see that James Joyce was mentioned. As far as I can tell, the man wrote gibberish.

He gets an 'A' for effort though. As a poet he was absolute middle of the road mediocre. Dubliners is actually pretty simplistic and common. For me his best work is Portrait of the Artist..., that's when he's drifting out of lane but not quite on the rumble strip headed for the ditch.

Most super popular authors let you down when you read one of their big books. The critic, professor, and essayist turn decent works of fiction into something more than they are, it happens with movies and probably all art.

It's probably been said somewhere on this thread -- Jack Kerouac. Which I don't agree with, I think he's underrated in terms of his body of work. People go crazy over two or three books and they get blown out of proportion, but as a whole his other fantastic stories are mumbled over so it sort of evens out. His poetry is pretty horrible, he's definitely overrated as a poet. But the novel is the hardest thing an artist can do.

 

[Verdad]

Haruki Murakami. A fabulous stylists and a joy to read—until you realize he's going nowhere. Damn the post modernists anyhow.

Michel Houllebecq. A whiny nihilist pornographer. Easily the worst piece of pretentious crap I've read in years, yet unconditionally worshipped in some circles.

 

[JamesSD]

Can I also take this opportunity to bash Hunter S. Thompson? His writing is incoherent and clearly drug-addled. I personally think a huge part of his popularity comes from a combination of a vicarious desire in a lot of individuals to irresponsibly ditch proper life and the quality of the movie based on Fear and Loathing.

As for Meyer, she has a very specific target audience who loves her, and she is generally ridiculed outside of that circle. She's also part of a class of books I like to call "Books for people who like to pretend they like reading". Again, having popular movies made is the best advertisement for a book series.

 

[Loring2]

Bad writers

Most writers who turn out more the 2 books or have columns for that matter write 50% junk. It also depends on the mood I'm in when I read it.

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

I'd say Stephenie Meyer. Seriously, what's everyone's big thing about vampires lately? Even Mormons are getting in on the act!

Oh ye gods...Meyers has corrupted vampires...must put her on my to be killed list.

 

[sr71plt]

Most writers who turn out more the 2 books or have columns for that matter write 50% junk.

Wow! That's a humdinger of a sweeping generalization.

 

[Elianna]

Hey... I like vampire fiction.

While I don't think 50% of all famous authors' works are trash, I do think that some stories are better than others. I've read incredible things and total crap from the same author. I wonder if that comes from writing on demand. I find it much harder to write that way.

 

[sr71plt]

I've read incredible things and total crap from the same author. I wonder if that comes from writing on demand. I find it much harder to write that way.

I have heard John Grisham say that's because authors like him get trapped into multiple-book contracts over long period of times and they tend to get tired of writing what is prescribed for them to write.

 

[slyc_willie]

I have heard John Grisham say that's because authors like him get trapped into multiple-book contracts over long period of times and they tend to get tired of writing what is prescribed for them to write.

Writing what you want vs. writing for the audience. When you cater to demand, you lose that essential spark of inspiration. Writing becomes a chore, a job. If your subject material is defined by the market, then you cease to be creative. But that's just my take on things.