Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Terrible, well renowned novelists
karkaputto:
mark twain
just because his stuff was clever 100 years ago doesn't mean it's clever now
Vendetagainst:
I am pretty sure that is not how that works.
TheMooseOfDeath:
I've found that I really, really hate most of 19th century literature (with most exceptions coming from about the last quarter of the century and some American authors). This mostly stems from the fact that they often write in 5 pages what could be written in a few paragraphs.
Also, I think it's just a language thing. I can zip through just about any contemporary novel, but I always trudge through any work from Dickens or Bronte, etc., books that were, in their day, usually read in about a week or less. That sort of verse was just normal for its contemporary readers, just like how Nick Hornby takes me a week to read, or a 2-hour Shakespearean play would have been crystal-clear to its Elizabethan audience.
Or maybe I'm just trying to find a good excuse to hate Pride & Prejudice. Seriously, Elizabeth Bennet has to be the first Mary Sue in literature AMIRITE?
BeoPuppy:
Overrated writers ... hmmm ...
Personally, I have always thought of Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit as children's literature. I read them wehen I was 14 and loved them but whenever I tried to re-read them it just doesn't work anymore. It's ... kid's stuff.
I really despise Narnia and it's sequels. Barely concealed bible re-tellings written badly. And that whole ... Lucy and lipstick and boys thing is just too offensive. (I think it was Lucy. Not sure.)
Never have I finished a book by Charles Dickens. And I never intend to. It's ... dreary and bleak and no fun. Probably a consequence of time but still, it's just not for me.
scarred:
--- Quote from: NeverQuiteGoth on 20 Aug 2009, 17:32 ---Terry Brooks, the "quantity over quality" fantasy novelist.
--- End quote ---
In that same vein: Terry Goodkind.
Good lord that man cannot write
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version