Overrated Authors

[Carmenica Diaz]

It just goes to show that for every writer that someone hates, others love. There's a message in that for all of us.
I just can't be bothered thinking about it.

 

[Guest]

Oh come on Lou. Admittedly I can't speak for a lot of his books as I haven't read them all, but Paul Sheldon and Annie (the characters from Misery) were beautiful. Annie was off-the-map and a complete mentalist, but what made her so real was that you knew why and you also knew that everything she did seemed a perfectly reasonable response to her. Loved that book.

The Earl

Oh yes, I completely agree. Misery was one of his masterpieces. You really should read On Writing, in which he talks a lot about Misery. Very interesting stuff, indeed.

My point was: most of his writing, when compared with that of other contemporary horror authors, really isn't as good, and therefore is overrated. I have read a lot within the genre, an awful lot.

Lou

 

[Guest]

It just goes to show that for every writer that someone hates, others love. There's a message in that for all of us.
I just can't be bothered thinking about it.

 

[shereads]

Yes. While it's true he releases a lot of books and that many of his stories fall short of what we're told to expect by those who love him, there are those who hate him too, and most of his work is well above the value those people place on it.

I loved The Shining. More accurately, it was a love/hate relationship. I was spending a weekend at the beach with a couple of friends, the book had just come out in paperback, the three of us all happened to be reading it at the same time. The weather was lousy, so we were stuck in this little cabin with nothing to do but read The Shining and use controlled substances in recreational fashion.

At some point during the evening, the electricity went out and we thought we heard a noise in the bathroom. I'm not sure if it was Stephen King or the controlled substances that made the three of us start crying and decide we had to confront The Noise in the dark bathroom. I remember being armed with a Revlon fingernail file, and that the other two had a coathanger and a paperback book. The closer we got to the bathroom and the closed shower curtain, the harder we cried.

I wasn't the brave one who ripped back the shower curtain, but I'm certain I would have filed the intruder to death to defend my friends' lives, if it had been necessary.

There was nobody in there. No thanks to Stephen King.

We transitioned from hysterical tears to hysterical laughter with a speed that's only possible when you're stoned and under 25.

The next day the weather improved a little and we climbed the creepy old lighthouse. In the room at the top, someone had spray-painted the word "REDRUM." The three of us leaving the lighthouse set a new land speed record.

I stopped reading King when he started adding gratuitous gore, particularly the torture of a puppy in "It." There's enough of that on the nightly news. I walk a fine line reading horror fiction or watching horror on film. Realistic brutality takes it out of the realm of entertainment for me. But I agree that when King is at his best, he's a fine storyteller. The "Jack" character in The Shining transitioned so smoothly from everyman to axe-murderer that it was hard to pinpoint the moment I lost sympathy for him. Creepiest moment: his wife finds the "manuscript" he's been working on for weeks: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," typed thousands of times. The ultimate writers' block nightmare.

I read "Bag of Bones" on someone's recommendation, and you're right, it was one of his better efforts. I was ready with my nail file, just in case.

Redrum,

~ S

 

[Guest]

I loved The Shining. More accurately, it was a love/hate relationship. I was spending a weekend at the beach with a couple of friends, the book had just come out in paperback, the three of us all happened to be reading it at the same time. The weather was lousy, so we were stuck in this little cabin with nothing to do but read The Shining and use controlled substances in recreational fashion.

At some point during the evening, the electricity went out and we thought we heard a noise in the bathroom. I'm not sure if it was Stephen King or the controlled substances that made the three of us start crying and decide we had to confront The Noise in the dark bathroom. I remember being armed with a Revlon fingernail file, and that the other two had a coathanger and a paperback book. The closer we got to the bathroom and the closed shower curtain, the harder we cried.

I wasn't the brave one who ripped back the shower curtain, but I'm certain I would have filed the intruder to death to defend my friends' lives, if it had been necessary.

There was nobody in there. No thanks to Stephen King.

We transitioned from hysterical tears to hysterical laughter with a speed that's only possible when you're stoned and under 25.

The next day the weather improved a little and we climbed the creepy old lighthouse. In the room at the top, someone had spray-painted the word "REDRUM." The three of us leaving the lighthouse set a new land speed record.

I stopped reading King when he started adding gratuitous gore, particularly the torture of a puppy in "It." There's enough of that on the nightly news. I walk a fine line reading horror fiction or watching horror on film. Realistic brutality takes it out of the realm of entertainment for me. But I agree that when King is at his best, he's a fine storyteller. The "Jack" character in The Shining transitioned so smoothly from everyman to axe-murderer that it was hard to pinpoint the moment I lost sympathy for him. Creepiest moment: his wife finds the "manuscript" he's been working on for weeks: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," typed thousands of times. The ultimate writers' block nightmare.

I read "Bag of Bones" on someone's recommendation, and you're right, it was one of his better efforts. I was ready with my nail file, just in case.

Redrum,

~ S

Truly spooky stuff!

Yes, he did try to go for shock value in a lot of books during the late eighties/early nineties. This is just speculation, but I believe he was trying to emulate his peers. There were other horror writers coming to the fore at the time, who did write incredibly frightening, horrific stuff - which included a lot of blood and gore - but they were good at it; it wasn't gratuitous. They built the atmosphere, the tension, they created full-bodied and well-rounded characters, with method behind their madness. And they had sex in their books. King has never been able to write sex well.

Ok, enough of my opinion. With most things, it does come down to personal taste.

Oh, and yes, I liked Bag of Bones, too. Spooky, atmospheric and moving.

Lou

 

[shereads]

Oh, and yes, I liked Bag of Bones, too. Spooky, atmospheric and moving.

For spooky atmospheric movingness* I recommend "The Lost Girls" by Andrew Pyper. First-person narrative with a conscienceless coke-addicted lawyer as the hero. Try it. Trust me.

Redrum,

~ S




* "Some people have a way with words and other people, oh, not have way, I guess." ~ Steve Martin

 

[Guest]

For spooky atmospheric movingness* I recommend "The Lost Girls" by Andrew Pyper. First-person narrative with a conscienceless coke-addicted lawyer as the hero. Try it. Trust me.

Redrum,

~ S




* "Some people have a way with words and other people, oh, not have way, I guess." ~ Steve Martin

Ok, will do! Cheers for the recommendation.

"Redrum" *shudder*

 

[TheEarl]

Oh yes, I completely agree. Misery was one of his masterpieces. You really should read On Writing, in which he talks a lot about Misery. Very interesting stuff, indeed.

My bible.

The Earl

 

[English Lady]

Well I back up Tolkein....my mum adores The hobbit and well I just don't.


JK Rowling. Yup i'm going to get lynched but her work is just a credit to the marketing people.

Terry Pratchett. He is one of m favourite auhors and he has written some awesome stuff but now he is being pushed to write more and more and the quality is going down as the quantity rises. He is now over rated.

Robert Jordan. *yawn* I had the wheel of time series recommended to me and I tried my hardest to read the first book but dear lord how much can that guy write about absolutely sod all? I don't think I even got half way theough the first book.


Same goes for David Eddings too. (You can tell what genre I read most can't you?*L*)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, my feelings are hurt.

I like Mailer. He wrote Ancient Evenings which I thought was a pretty brilliant book. I'm in awe of Joyce. Dubliners is probably the best book of short stories I've ever read, and The Dead is the best single short story I know of. It was written in the 20's and is still fresh today, as perfect and transparent as a Mozart concerto. It astonishes me every time I read it. How can you pack so much feeling into a story in which nothing happens?

I have to think that anyone who doesn't like Hemingway doesn't realize that's because everyone writes like him now. His Michigan stories have a bluntness and directness that pretty much have set the form for the genre to his day. Look at the sentimental crap his contemporaries were writing if you want to understand why he's considered so great.

I could go on, but I think it's kind of silly to criticize an author becsue you don't like what he writes about. Isn't that the same as the readers here who bitch about cheating wives in your story, even when your story's in the "cheating wives" category?

Personally, I don't like Henry James or Dickens, but I realize that the problem's in me, not in them. I don't much care for King either, but that's because I like a little more meat in my stories, but you can't deny that the man's doing something right.

Sorry about this, but you'd think that as writers, we'd be able to separate an anuthor's style from his content and not confuse the two. I understand the resistance we feel to those who look at Heinlein as some sort of profound philosopher, or who think that Dan Brown is revealing some great truths, but just what's wrong with Steinbeck and Faulkner? What's the beef with Hemingway and Mailer? I'd really like to know.

---dr.M.

 

[impressive]

Heinlein, Tolkein, Assmov: legendary paramounts of awesome empires of.... crappy little geeky genres.

Hmmmm ... from the perspective of "entertainment," I disagree x3. I enjoyed the works of each. It's the storyteller vs. writer conundrum. None were, IMO, great writers. Not saying they were "great" storytellers, either -- but certainly more than adequate. Guess that does make them "overrated," doesn't it?

I suppose it's more of their general views on life/love that made an early impression on me, as opposed to how they chose to package them.

EDITED (after reading through other posts):

Re King: The Dead Zone was the first of his books I read (as a freshman in high school) and it hooked me. The only instance I ever remember of actually praying to "God" was while reading The Shining -- when I begged to be allowed to return to sleep without that dead woman from the bathtub haunting my dreams. Misery was a riveting mind fuck. However, it's The Stand that's in my top 5 all time favorites. I stopped reading him when the gore overtook the story.

Re Rice: I've enjoyed some, tolerated others. The only thing that really stands out in my memory is Lestat's take on what one must do in order to be accepted into heaven: forgive "God." I think that was in Memnoch, The Devil.

Re Herbert/Dune: Ate 'em up (although God Emperor was really chewy and hard to swallow). I have been enjoying his son's prequels as well. Not masterpieces, mind you, but entertaining (and much "lighter" than Frank's dense prose).


I think it interesting to speculate how this discussion would proceed if these authors were *NOT* in the limelight. How many are being cut down just because of their successes?

 

[eric shawn listo]

Ok, let continue on with this Stephen King fella. The Stand is his best book. I stopped reading him (if we all stopped, how come he sells o well now?) in the 90's. However I think his influence has permeated popular fiction. Lou's right, his book on writing is great. (maybe she didn't say that exactly)

Interview moment from early eighties, can't remember what venue:

PETER STRAUB-I mean, Stephen, you've never written a sex scene, have you?

KING-Well, I'm trying, Peter!

That aside he is one of the finest actors of our time.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I think it interesting to speculate how this discussion would proceed if these authors were *NOT* in the limelight. How many are being cut down just because of their successes?

That's an interesting question, but how bad must an unknown writer be for anyone to think he's overrated?

 

[TheEarl]

Re Herbert/Dune: Ate 'em up (although God Emperor was really chewy and hard to swallow). I have been enjoying his son's prequels as well. Not masterpieces, mind you, but entertaining (and much "lighter" than Frank's dense prose).

I thought the series went downhill from Messiah actually. All still good books, but Dune and Dune Messiah were the definite peaks. In the last two books it was like he had a huge axe to grind - "Sex as a weapon, sex as a weapon, sex as a weapon." Someone hurt you in the past Frank?

I like the prequels and the pre-prequels too, although you're right in saying they're 'light' fiction. Did you hear that Brian Herbert and Kevin J Andersen are going to write the final book in the series (after Chapterhouse Dune) that Frank was planning before he died?

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

What double post?

The Earl

 

[BlackShanglan]

... but just what's wrong with Steinbeck and Faulkner? What's the beef with Hemingway and Mailer? I'd really like to know.

I will quote from Arnold not because I think he wears the mantle of godhood and is inarguable, but because he puts it better than I would. I would also add that by "poetical" Arnold does not mean solely rhyme and meter, but power and passion:

"Any accurate representation may therefore be expected to be interesting; but, if the representation be a poetical one, more than this is demanded, not only that it shall interest, but also that it shall inspirit and rejoice the reader; that it shall convey a charm, and infuse delight ... The right art is that alone, which creates the highest enjoyment ....

In the presence of the most tragic circumstances, represented in a work of Art, the feeling of enjoyment, as is well known, may still subsist; the representation of the most utter calamity, of the liveliest anguish, is not sufficient to destroy it; the more tragic the situation, the deeper becomes the enjoyment; and the situation is more tragic in proportion as it becomes more terrible.

What then are the situations, from the representation of which, though accurate, no poetical enjoyment can be derived? They are those in which the suffering finds no vent in action; in which a continuous state of mental distress is prolonged, unrelieved by incident, hope, or resistance; in which there is everything to be endured, nothing to be done. In such situations there is inevitably something morbid, in the description of them something monotonous."

That is why I don't like Steinbeck. He fails to enspirit or rejoice. I can find a wild joy in the most terrible ruins; one of my favorite plays is "Sweeny Todd," which leaves precisely one main character both alive and sane at its conclusion. But the energy of the thing, the mad, screaming struggle of it - wonderful. Steinbeck, on the whole, is like watching a donkey starve to death. Sad, heartwrenching even, but in a dull, pounding, endless way that leaves me longing to escape the text. I recognize that it may well be his goal to make me feel that way, in order that I may feel as his characters must feel about their lives. But I think it on the whole not the best possible goal of a writer to make his readers bored, depressed, and miserable.

Oddly enough I love Joyce's short stories, and was glad to see you defend them. But then Joyce thoughtfully provides us with epiphanies - actions, if wholly internal, as you note about "The Dead."

And one last, shorter quote that I rather like:

"Henry James writes prose as if it were a painful duty." -- Oscar Wilde

Shanglan

 

[dr_mabeuse]

All right Shanglan! I can see your point about Steinbeck and understand it, and it's kind of nice to have to explain what it is we don't like about an author.

Actually, I read Mice & Men in hs, and I thought that was good, but then that was a play. I never read Grapes and don't know if I could.

I liked Cannery Row because it reminded me of beatniks. That and a mediocre Travels With Charley that I thought was going to be like On the Road but wasn't. Not hardly.

By the way, if you believe that Arnold stuff, stay away from the late Hubert Selby Jr. He wrote Last Exit to Brooklyn. It makes Naked Lunch seem like a children's book.

--Zoot

 

[Pure]

Thoughts in general; note to mab.,

It seems like we need a 'guilty pleasures' category for the works we somehow enjoy despite knowing they are mediocre or crap.

I find the test of quality to be enjoyment *of the second or third or twentieth RE reading of something.* Thats where some of the pop authors and folks like Ayn Rand fall down.

As to 'overrated,' I'm reminded of the scene in the Woody Allen movie -- Annie Hall?-- where he sticks it to the pretentious ones who declare various 'greats' 'overrated,' and ends with the question (roughly, iirc) "Why not say Mozart is overrated?"

Note to mab: I enjoy Hemingway and lots of the 'spare' writers he's inspired. I've found most Steinbeck, if anything, too enthusiastic and even preachy about the triumph of human spirit; goddamned 'man of the people' type stuff.

 

[oggbashan]

Ancient Relics

Henry Handel Richardson 'Australia's first author'.

Smollett

Lord Lytton: Last Days of Pompeii

Bulwer-Lytton 'It was a dark and stormy night...' He goes on and on almost as much as I do.

Charles Dickens: Good in parts but not as good as his own media machine said he was,

Walter Pater

Rudyard Kipling: when he was good he was very, very good but when he was bad he was horrid e.g. his Stalky stories.

etc.

Og

 

[thebullet]

Orson Scott Card:
Ender's Game: Wonderful
Speaker for the Dead: Interesting
Everything else he wrote: dreck

And yet I chose for my pseudonym Andrew Wiggin. Go figure.

 

[Liar]

Robert Jordan. *yawn* I had the wheel of time series recommended to me and I tried my hardest to read the first book but dear lord how much can that guy write about absolutely sod all? I don't think I even got half way theough the first book.

Hehe. Then you haven't been the butt of the REAL joke yet. I thought the first three volumes were decent. Aptly written fantasy in an interresting world with the right blend of magic, social and political intrigue, and monsters to stick swords in.

But after that they just ploughed on...and ploughed on... and ploughed on...without ever getting anywhere. I gave up after book eleven, or something like that, no longer giving a flying fuck wether the hero saves the world and defeats the über evil overlord or not. Wheel of Time was a good setup for a fantasy series but poor Jordan didn't have the sef control to wrap it up while he still was ahead of the game.

Same goes for David Eddings too. (You can tell what genre I read most can't you?*L*)

I prefer Eddings. His series sems to follow a strategy at least. And he writes with some wit. Eddings doesn't try to be a serious writer, and thus he becomes a harmless, but pretty good, entertainer.

#L

 

[steve w]

My nominations -

J D Salinger - said it before and got slated, but it's still true - the worst book I've ever read in my life

Shakespeare - yes, really. Never read a decent thing he wrote, with the possible exception of a couple of sonnets

Patricia Cornwell - some people actually believe this woman can write. No, I don't care how the fingerprints were obtained, and I'll skip the seven pages of showing off she uses to tell me

John Grisham - that schoolchild trick of writing three quarters of a book, then getting bored and finishing it in six pages

Salman Rushdie - I've tried, but it's still turgid crap to me. And as a British taxpayer I've paid for his personal security for twenty years because of his shite books, when I actually genuinely don't mind if he lives or dies

Zadie Smith - White Teeth was rubbish

Anyone who gets a huge advance for their first novel when they haven't even written twenty pages yet. Fuckers.

I don't sound bitter in any way, do I??

 

[Guest]

Anyone who gets a huge advance for their first novel when they haven't even written twenty pages yet. Fuckers.

I don't sound bitter in any way, do I??

Yeah, that would really get on my tits, too.

So, who? When? How?

Bastards.

 

[steve w]

Well Tatelou, I seem to read about one of these overly-fortunate wankers in a newspaper about every six months - just after my blood pressure has returned to normal from the last one.

Oddly, I rarely recall actually seeing their book in subsequent months, so I suspect that it could just be marketing hype. Either that, or it's all just part of that terrible conspiracy to ruin my life, a conspiracy that includes supermarkets, the Inland Revenue, insurance companies, people who wear hats when they drive, and oh so many others.

 

[NoJo]

Re: Ancient Relics

Smollett

I was going to read him in the next few weeks -- mainly because I'm going through a little Georgian period. Never read anything by him. Embarrassed to say I don't really know Dickens. Russians love him, so he can't be all bad, given the level of Russian literature.