Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Terrible, well renowned novelists

<< < (6/25) > >>

Alex C:
I don't know much about Tolkein, so I figured there was a decent chance that I was merely being presumptuous. I knew that he dedicated his life to the study of literature and as such he likely loved language for language's sake, but in general I try to avoid buying too heavily into any one pat explanation. All I have to go on was my experience with the series, a glance at the "About the Author" tab and a few magazine blurbs explaining why the fantasy nerd bible is going to be the newest hot film franchise. If there's anything I've learned about myself (and perhaps people in general), it's that sometimes we buy into ideas before we even realize it simply because it seems so obvious but then only gather supporting evidence after the fact, often ignoring mounds of contradictory information on the way. I've been going through my old journals and writing experiments from high school lately and the fact that I did that very thing all the freaking time has become rather painfully obvious. It's going to be real fun going through my stuff again 10 years from now only to find out that I'm doing the same shit now too.

a pack of wolves:

--- Quote from: Joseph on 05 Aug 2009, 14:13 ---I think there is some confusion in this thread between popular and renowned novelists.  I'm pretty sure (though maybe I'm wrong) that the thread was more pointed towards authors who had been critically aclaimed.

--- End quote ---

That was what I was thinking but it's a tricky line isn't it? From mberan's list I'd say Rowling does actually have a very high critical regard, at least when considered as a children's author. King, Koontz, Brown, Grisham and Clancy though, these writers are bywords for poor quality fiction so calling them out for it does seem a little redundant. But what I mainly wanted was why people hate the authors others put on a pedestal since that's the fun part, so if anyone wants to wax lyrical about the particular aspect of Grisham et al that rubs them up the wrong way then I hope they let fly.


--- Quote from: elizaknowswhatshesfor on 05 Aug 2009, 16:01 ---I would like to add On The Road. It makes me so cross I can barely be literate about why I dislike it, apart from dul dull dull.

I like so many other writers in this vein. But it leaves me cold. Cold & bored. These are not things I want from a book.

--- End quote ---

Part of me really wants to defend On The Road since I do like that book. Or did anyway, I read it at the perfect age when I was about 13 or thereabouts. But... it is poorly structured, the pacing is downright awful, the events aren't nearly as interesting as the book seems to imply they should be to the reader and despite some good points (the love of movement, a eulogy to a less monitored and controlled society, presenting the protagonist/author as a real twat) it really isn't a great book in the end so I find myself without much of a leg to stand on.


--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 05 Aug 2009, 15:08 ---Back on to the darlings of the literati, Virginia Woolfe. Orlando is ok, everything else is pretty much awful. She would almost certainly never have got a word published if she hadn't been busy exploring the genitals of half of Londons literary elite. Most of her work was glorified vanity projects but, in the complete opposite of Tolkien, of such obvious and tedious pretension that reading her work is basically tiring. When she does produce a good passage (I do remember a few diamonds in the awful rough that is To The Lighthouse) she always manages to fuck them up by doing something utterly stupid, like making a sentence that runs for two pages strung together with forty semi-colons.

--- End quote ---

Oh come on, I wouldn't say Woolf was without her problems but her work was at least reasonably novel so I think it was deserving of publishing. Sections of Mrs Dalloway seem to be quintessential modernism since they utilise the inner life of character's minds and then sweep between them with what are almost tracking shots of London, the city and the compression of humanity that it brings being absolutely key (and absolutely modernist). Like most modernist writers she's useless at dealing with anyone but the upper classes but there's still plenty to recommend her.

Be My Head:

--- Quote from: ackblom12 on 05 Aug 2009, 14:27 ---
When did I say that Tolkien was shit or boring? I said the writing is not as well done in a technical sense as many folks seem to believe.

--- End quote ---

Well, I'm going to have to agree with Khar on this one; there's nothing technically wrong or stylistically wrong with his prose. For some people he might be too slow at points, or seem to wander from the main plot, but that's why I like it. You still like it anyway though, so whatever.

I agree with the other fantasy authors you listed. I like Salvatore's novels, or liked them when I was in 8th grade, and they're pretty good for easy reading that doesn't require much concentration or analysis.

Maybe not Burgess though, but I've only read A Clockwork Orange, so I can't make any judgments on his writing.

Surgoshan:
I would call Koontz, Clancy, Grisham, and King not poor quality but beach quality.  It's not poorly written; in fact, it's quite well written for what it is.  It's the sort of book you take with you on vacation.  You read it at the beach.  It's the equivalent of prime time television in book form.  You shut your brain down and enjoy.  It has no critical acclaim, but it's not trash.

I reserve that title for Paolini and Meyer.

Joseph:
Don't make your statements apply to me, Surgoshan.  I'm on vacation right now, and I've been reading Raymond Queneau, Jane Austen, Marcel Proust, W.G. Sebald, Virginia Woolf (fuck you Khar), and Jean Baudrillard, amongst other authors.

Anyhow, I adore Virginia Woolf.  She was an incredibly imaginative author, constantly experimenting with form and style, but in a way which obviously will not appeal to everyone, so I can understand some of the hate directed towards her.  Her lyrical ability is outstanding, and though her work can get quite dense, I find that it's reflection of the interior lives of people is quite powerful.  She's obviously quite indebted to Charlotte Bronte, and if someone didn't enjoy those authors, I could understand it if they (yes I'm using this in the singular) didn't enjoy Woolf.  As far as modernist writers go, easily my favourite, with the exception of Joyce.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page