Most Self-Indulgent, God-Awful, Used-to-be-Good Author?

[philosophie_en_rose]

So I read these books a long time ago. They were mystery books with a strong female detective figure and supernatural elements. I haven't read every book, but I did read the first eight or so. I pick up the new one to read on the bus. Porn. Bad Porn.

Now I'm not a prude by any means. But this book is written so poorly that I should probably call the police to save the author - who must certainly have written this book while chained in some fan fiction fanatic's basement.

The author's website includes a snarly, passive-aggressive post from her assistant. Basically - these novels are art and who are we to criticize. Nice.


What authors did you like in the past that have lost their spark? And are proud of it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. So who is it? For God's sake, woman, name names.

:spank:

[philosophie_en_rose]

3. Good Lord, man! I can't admit to reading that junk!

Be glad that you don't know who it is.






(okay. it's laurell hamilton.)





Anne Rice is the only author I've felt worse about reading.

[conflictgirl]

35. Oh, she's awful!

I teach writing classes to adults and I had a student who was a fantasy/sci-fi writer. One of the things we discussed in my class was the books we hated and why we hated them, as a tool to help figure out the hallmarks of good and bad writing. This student in my class liked a lot of Laurell Hamilton's books, but this one (Guilty Pleasures, I think?) really bugged him. It was really hilarious to me how much this book riled him up because of how much he hated it.

He gave me his copy so I could see how bad it was for myself. It really was bad.

[Arkham House]

2. Steven King

Somewhere along the way, Maine has gotten a lot colder...:-(...

[philosophie_en_rose]

5. He keeps recycling the same old characters and plots.

I can't even try to read his new books.

I read the spoiler for "The Cell" on thebookspoiler.com.

And I'm glad that I didn't read the book at all.

[deucemagnet]

9. I can excuse some level of recycling on King's part...

...because he is so prolific, and because he either ties characters into other stories, or puts the same characters in an alternate telling of the story (like Desperation, The Regulators, and poor Cynthia Smith, who suffered through both those novels and Rose Madder.) But I tired of John Grisham's recycling of characters and settings after about 3 novels. Too much deva vu.

[Misunderestimator]

87. And wtf is his fascination with the dissociative "fugue" state?

How many characters has he written that experience this? It's tired, and it's just an excuse for having the character do crazy shit that makes no sense.

[RebelOne]

41. No way!! Anything he writes is wonderful.

[El Fuego]

54. Ditto. I can't even stand his columns in Entertainment Wkly

[El Fuego]

55. Dupe.

[Patiod]

57. He needs a decent editor that he'll allow to actually EDIT

He thinks his editors cut too much, hence his release of an even LONGER, unedited version of the "The Stand"

I think he's at his best in the short story/novella format, where he HAS to keep it tight. His novels have become bloated things.

[anarch]

70. you'll probably appreciate this, then:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33676/print/

An editorial from the Onion, "I Don't Even Remember Writing The Tommyknockers", by Stephen King.

an excerpt:

when I got home, I looked up The Tommyknockers in this literature reference book I have and, sure enough, I wrote it in 1987. Apparently, it's the story of this woman in this small town in Maine who discovers a metal object that was buried for millennia, and the thing gives all the townspeople super-powers. But then there's this deadly evil that's unleashed by the object, and the town becomes a death trap for all outsiders.

After reading the plot synopsis, I sort of remembered it, but, then again, maybe it just sounded like something else I wrote. After your 50 or 60th one, it's all kind of a blur. But if I had to venture a guess, I'd say I probably did write The Tommyknockers. It sounds like my kind of thing, what with this invisible evil being unleashed on a town full of innocent people and all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. I actually admits he doesn't remember writing some books.

No need to resort to the Onion.

He doesn't remember writiing Cujo at all, he wrote it at the heighth of his alcoholism.

Personally, I like King.

Decades after his death he'll be remembered as one of the great American authors.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

4. Not to speak ill of the dead, BUT

I thought Heinlein got WAY too self-important (and self-indulgent) in his latter books. Yes, I even thought Stranger In A Strange Land went way too far overboard in many aspects.

Just my humble opinion.

[philosophie_en_rose]

6. It must be really hard not to buy into your own hype.

:shrug:

At least he's not L.Ron Hubbard. :P

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

7. But then again, who is?

:evilgrin:

[philosophie_en_rose]

8. TomCruise.

:evilgrin:

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

11. You shoulda said "Travolta".

:rofl:

[philosophie_en_rose]

13. Kirstie? Is that you?

:bounce:

[Arkham House]

14. Heinlein came to my mind, too...

...but you know...I've sort of moved towards a position that his latter books are better than I thought at the time. First off--his *very* last books--"Friday", "Job", "Cat Who Walks Thru Walls", and "To Sail Beyond the Horizon"--are rather old-fashioned, especially "Friday", a classic SF adventure, and "Job", which would have been very much at home in the late, sainted *Unknown* magazine. Even the last two are hybrids, of his "old" and "new" styles--and, I think, quite successful. "Cat" is patterned very much like his immortal "Gulf"--slam-bam action the first half, then a long pause as hero is converted to the Secret Organization of Good Guys, then death on a last-chapter mission to the Moon...and "Horizon" is, among other things, as subtle an alternate-universe novel as has ever been written. Technically, Heinlein was on the top of his game right to the end. As for the 60-70s...well, it did have "Moon is a Harsh Mistress", "Time Enough For Love" is a great book in spots, and all of them are interesting, even "Fear no Evil..."

[deucemagnet]

16. Yes. I enjoyed his earlier stuff...

...but The Number of the Beast seemed like a very, very long parody of his earlier novels.

[Richard Steele]

19. First name that came to my mind as well.

I am a COMPULSIVE reader.
And of the tens of thousands of books I've read,
I've only ever chosen to STOP reading 3 without finishing.

Number of the Beast was one of them.

[YankeyMCC]

75. I reluctantly have to agree

"Stranger in a Strange Land" was one of the first SciFi novels ( and therefore one of the first novels really that I read outside of a school assignment ) and it is still a favorite...but yeah as he got older things went a little south so to speak.

[reyd reid reed]

10. Ann Rice.

Definitely. There are only so many ways one can describe a vampire's fingernails. And wrought-iron balustrades. And dripping cypruses.

And she's done 'em all.

To death.

GAH!!!

[philosophie_en_rose]

17. Her words are perfect! She's above the need for an editor!

in her own mind, at least.

I feel a little sorry for her. She seems to be sincerely out of her mind.

[reyd reid reed]

18. Heh...

Ain't that the truth. I read her and I find so many really absurd errors...

It's.....sad, really.

Heh...and I'm sure she's crying all the way to the bank.

[Bridget Burke]

46. I enjoyed "Interview with the Vampire"...

And "The Feast of All Saints"--a non-vampire historical novel. I plowed through a couple of her later works, then gave up. Yes, Anne--you need an editor!

(My favorite Mistress of the Uncanny is Tanith Lee, who does not waste words. Unfortunately, her books are mostly out of print.)

[underpants]

69. Howard Allen O'Brien

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Rice

[deutsey]

74. Was I the only one to find her "Sleeping Beauty" porn books awful?

I admit I haven't read them all th way through because I couldn't bear to continue after only reading part of the first one.

I like good erotica (rare as it is), but I'm not into the humiliation and all that creepy stuff she wrote about and, on top of it all, the prose was rather, um, limp, IMO.

[pitohui]

12. is it laurel hamilton? (ok i just read the rest of the thread!)

i've only read one of her books but was surprised to find it in my library as the one i read was definitely porn and quite hard core too

i see i guessed right, i'm mildly surprised that she was ever good, the one i read was clearly part of a series but it was clearly meant to be read one-handed

[philosophie_en_rose]

15. The first ones where mysteries with vampires and werewolves.

I don't know where all those new apparently gorgeous men came from, but they're all boring. Her sex scenes are not very sexual, imo. More like gynecological textbooks.


But the first ones were good. There was a cohesive plot and a very different group of characters.

[LeftyMom]

23. The first few books were pretty good

Back when Richard was likable and Anita wasn't a ho.

[philosophie_en_rose]

24. I kept looking for all of the old characters.

Where's Edward? He needs to come to St. Louis and shoot about 99.9% of the cast.

Seriously though - the worst thing is that Anita is a sex slave to the other characters. And she's apparently every single kind of supernatural creature at the same time, irresistable to everyone, and randomly develops superpowers to fill gaps in the so-called plot.

I'm not in love with the first books, but it is just shocking to go from the first ones to the last one.

The sex is just another cover for lazy storytelling. I don't believe I read the whole thing, but I half expected a plot to show up.

Nothing happened.

[LeftyMom]

28. I gave up a few books back

I felt like I needed a flow chart to keep track of her liasons just with the wereleopards. And you're right, I miss Edward. Though Anita 2.0, now with kewl powerz and more Libido! (TM) would probably try to get him in the sack.

[Flaxbee]

20. haven't read anything of his in a long time, but Tom Clancy's name

popped into my head when I saw this thread.

Used to be decent thrillers, now just spewage onto the page. Ugh.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Patricia Cornwell

Her first couple of novels were gruesome but intriguing, but she jumped the shark a few books ago, about the time her FBI lover was blown up in the explosion.

The characters have become unbelievable and annoying. I never did like Marino, and I find it ridiculous that he would follow the main character around the country.

[reyd reid reed]

34. She's lost all touch with reality, I think...

She's turned all her male characters into caricatures. And bringing back that one guy from the dead?

Come ON.

That doesn't even work in soap operas.


:eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

36. Can't stand Cornwell...

picked up one of her books a few years ago to see what the fuss was about and it was dreadful. Picked up another one to see if it was any better.

Nope, that one was worse.

[tigereye]

81. ah it's not just me

I feel better now.


I also started to feel that way about the V.I. Warshawski books. :(

[LostinVA]

42. On a personal level: she's nuts, and a self-loathing lesbian

HUGE Repub... and, please... solving Jack the Ripper???? Taking THE theory that has been ripped to shreds by real experts of the crimes??? I'm more than a bit of a Ripperologist, and the attention she over this was shameful.

[Phillycat]

62. What did you think of the recent movie about the Ripper, From Hell?

Any truth in it?

[raccoon]

49. Second that! nt

[LeftyMom]

22. If you mean who I think you mean, she just keeps getting worse, doesn't

she?

[philosophie_en_rose]

26. It's like finding "Porn of the Rings" in a Lord of the Rings rental box

There is zero mystery in these books.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

25. Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" (Load of Crap) series

Started out as an interesting fantasy yarn with some unique twists on the fantasy genre in general. A bit violent and there was a slight misogynistic tone that seemed to permeate throughout his books (not to mention a storyline practically plagiarized from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. Or did Jordan plagiarize Goodkind?)
Then, after some rather interesting plot twists, something changed. Goodkind seemed to focus each book on something he hated in the world, and ran with it.
Goodkind claims to be a libertarian, but he's really an Ayn Rand Objectivist. And he decided to bring that to the forefront after book four.

Book five ranted against the tediousness of democracy when a true evil exists in the world. We don't have time to debate this. We don't have time to vote on this! Just trust that the hero will do what is right for you!
Book six was, apparently, practically plagiarized from Rand's "The Fountainhead". I don't know this for a fact because I never read "The Fountainhead", but I do know that Goodkind spent the entire book showing the reader how socialism in any shape or form was simply wrong. The problem is, his "view" of socialism was more along the lines of a fascist totalitarianism.
Book seven was, I think, an attack on the media, as he sought to write the story from a different perspective, and a different main character, who saw the hero of the first six books as "evil" because the people in control of the information painted the hero as "evil". (I think this is Goodkind's weak slam against the "liberal" media and their "constant harping on Bush". Which we actually know isn't true. But Goodkind doesn't.)

Now up to this point, I'd received books six and seven as gifts, so I read them with with increasing trepidation. Then I heard that Goodkind was going to go "back to what works" in his novels starting with book eight. And I was intersted...
I was wrong.

Book eight was an allegory for the Iraqi invasion. Goodkind has repeatedly denied this, but it was all about "liberating" a people who were oppressed and thus liberated by the hero. The leader of these people, who was a pacifist, was depicted in the book as a child that the hero ran circles around with his "logic".

He even had the hero slaughter a large group of people who were standing in his way chanting anti-war slogans you'd hear today, and he completely justified it by saying that these people had nothing but "evil in their hearts".

Book eight went in the trash.

He has one, possibly two more out, and I won't even touch them. He does lament that TOR Publishing insists on putting "Fantasy" on his books because he says they're not fantasy, actually. Riiiiight. He also has had to put a page on his website that holds an essay that insists that his storytelling hasn't changed.

I only wish I could get that part of my life back.

[philosophie_en_rose]

27. David Eddings has a little of the same disease.

I read his books in middle school, and only later recognized how misogynistic they were.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

30. The mysogynism of Eddings' books paled in comparison to Goodkind.

And I'm not sure why Eddings' books never bothered me as much.

While Goodkind had a bit of mysogynism, it was the whole hatred of liberal ideals his books literally preached at me that finally made me realize he was total shit.

A while back, when he was just starting, Goodkind was asked "how do you think of your stories?"
His answer was that he was building his house and the characters seemed to come alive to him, wanting to tell their stories to him, so he had to
get that story down.

Six or seven books later, he was asked the same question. This time, his response was "I think of an important political philosophy that you usually don't hear about in the liberal media, and then I wrap my characters around that philosophy." (I'm paraphrasing here, actually. But you get the gist of it, right?)

He also said that colleges were the most repressive institutions in the world.

It was at that point that I slowly backed away from the Load of Crap series. Like I said, book eight went into the trash. I wonder if I could get my money back?


And I saw your comments up thread about Hamilton, and I completely agree. What the hell happened to her?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

67. I don't remember those as misogynistic

Of course, I read them when I was in high school too so maybe I just missed that entirely.

I just remember being very frustrated with him after I realized a few books too late that The Mallorean was simply The Belgariad repackaged with different covers and a few new character names. It was seriously the exact same story.

[philosophie_en_rose]

90. Spousal rape and entrapment were minor, but telling parts.

I think it says a lot about Eddings that one character rapes his wife, and then she's treated like a hateful shrew by everyone. The narrative has no sympathy for her. Of course, once she has a baby son, she is ecstatic about her rapist husband - and sorry she was so silly as to be angry about being raped.

Also, Ce'Nedra is trapped into marrying Garion, when they tricked her into wearing that necklace or something. I understand the prophecy parts of the book - but I find the treatment of women really vile.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

100. Spousal rape?

Yeah, I don't remember that at all.

I guess when you're 14 or 15, you don't pick up as much on that sort of thing.

[jobycom]

31. Did you notice how his lead character became the same enemy he fought

in the early books? An all-powerful leader who killed incredible numbers of people and believed that only he could be right? I gave up on him at the same time you did, apparently. I didn't throw book eight (The Naked Empire) in the trash, though, because I needed something to set my television on, and Goodkind's books stacked to just the right height.

Not that Goodkind was ever a "good" writer. His prose is about junior high level, his books would be about a third shorter with ANY decent editing, and some of his creations in the books are unimaginative and even unworkable. I mean, on like page 50 of a five hundred page book he has the main character get into a fight and writes "Richard knew he was going to die." Um, not a very smart hero if he knows things that aren't true, is he? And what are these hundreds of pages following this proclamation going to be about? And he uses that "X knew he/she was going to die" on average twice a book!

But as badly written as they were, the characters were shockingly engaging and endearing, the storylines, while conflated, where still exciting, and there was an intense emotional reaction to the romance of the main characters. Goodkind's one brilliance is putting his characters into hopelessly tragic situations that keep the reader terrified for the main characters.

He threw that whole thing away beginning book six. No integrity with past stories, no real concern for his characters or the storyline he had been creating. Bam, let's just start spouting political philosophy at a fifth grade level and pretend we are god. I kept reading, anyway, hoping someone would tell him he sucked and he'd get back to the real story, and all the interesting characters and plots he had created in the first three books. But no, he got worse and worse.

Book eight, as you say, is a thinly veiled reference to Bush and the Iraq invasion. At one point Richard charges a group of peace protestors described in modern terms, slaughtering them left and right to save his girlfriend. But oh no, he doesn't feel wrong for it. No, on the contrary, those people deserve to die for interfering with his, Richard's, MORAL CLARITY!!!!! Yes, the exact words Goodkind puts in Richard's head.

At this point Richard became the same ruler as the first evil tyrant he fought in the first book, killing and torturing people to get his way and believing his personal needs justified it. This is exactly the opposite of what the character did in the first four books, often putting his and his girlfriend's life in danger to protect the lives of even his enemies.

I haven't even checked to see if he has any more books out. And I used to live for his next book. This guy will start a religion next, and proclaim himself the divine prophet of it. Only he'll take too many words to proclaim it, and use unwarranted hyperbole in the process.

I almost liked book five, by the way. There was still a story to it, and I did like the way he showed how the attempt at democracy was manipulated beyond usefullness. At that point he still seemed interested in telling the story a little more than preaching. Book six is where he really lost it. Book five sounded a few warning bells, though.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

32. Yes!

I could have sworn that I was the only one that noticed that Richard had become his enemy in that single act.

If Goodkind actually reveals at the end of the series (he's on the "final trilogy" of stories for the series) that Richard has become
exactly what he hates, I'll stand up and applaud. But I don't see Goodkind realizing that at all.

"Moral Clarity" :rofl: I'd forgotten about that. That scene pissed me off, and I actually closed the book and put it down when Richard killed all those people.

And I have to agree about the characters being "shockingly engaging and endaring". When the woman revealed in the first book why she couldn't love Richard, I was impressed at how Goodkind wrote that scene. It was surprisingly emotional.

And I just realized that I hadn't thrown book eight in the trash. I thought I did, but I rummaged through my closet and found it buried under some stuff. I don't need a tv stand, though...

[jobycom]

33. The book is also useful for chasing away solicitors.

Hurled with enough force, it's a decent deterent.

I wondered that, too, whether Goodkind was showing Richard becoming like his father on purpose. I finished The Naked Empire to see if there was any hint it would happen--I too closed the book after the moral clarity scene, and it took a while for me to pick it up again. But there is no hint it was intentional, and I just don't want to waste more of my life reading through such bad writing on the slim chance that Goodkind isn't as stupid as he seems. Even if he has Richard realize that now, his storytelling has just died. Did you do like me, and skip pages at a time when Richard began his preaching? I probably skipped at least a tenth of Naked Empire because it was unreadable.

And I agree on the Kahlan scene. He really hooked me with that one. It was clever, emotional, and believable in the universe he created. Very powerful. The romance is what kept me reading six through eight. But even that he lost. The romance became boring, the characters became indistinguishable. In the first four books, he almost didn't need "he said, she said" in his dialogue, because each character was so well defined that you knew who was speaking by their words and thoughts. By the end the characters had become interchangable.

It wasn't just his philosophizing that killed the series. He got lazy as a storyteller.

I wrote a review on Amazon's web page where I advised people to read the first five books, pull out a piece of paper, and write "And Richard and Kahlan lived happily ever after." Nothing past book five was worth the time. Heck, it was even too expensive for a cheap tv stand.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

45. Yes. I found myself skipping whole pages of text.

Even when Zedd was moralizing about their glorious and righteous fight against the Order, which I found annoying.

Goodkind denies emphatically that Naked Empire was about the Iraqi invasion.

And I think I actually remember your review on Amazon. Seriously.

[jobycom]

78. Wow, I'm flattered

Someone actually read my rambling and remembered it? Thanks!

I don't know much about Goodkind besides what he shows in his writings. I wouldn't think the actual "Naked Empire" was Iraq, but he was clearly influenced by the events leading to the invasion. "Moral Clarity" was too obvious. The Naked Empire empire seemed like his fantasy of a liberal nation gone wild, where everyone tries to understand every failing in everyone else and no one believes in evil. It's an old straw man that the Limbaughs and Buckleys and other brain-dead conservatives like to knock down.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

79. Yeah, Goodkind's world is full of strawmen.

I can just imagine him sitting behind his keyboard, giggling as he types Richard boiling some eeevil liberals in oil, all the while preaching about
his "moral clarity".

I recall glimpsing through the forums on his website where someone made a thread that said
something about "didn't you just love it when Richard slaughtered all those traitorous anti-war protesters?"
and about a hundred people echoed the original poster's sentiment. That made me shuffle away from his forums nervously, like I was
trying to quietly creep out of the monster's lair without waking it.

I was roaming through the Amazon pages for the books, observing how the ratings seemed to take this downard trend from 4 1/2 stars for "Wizard's First Rule"
to 2 1/2 stars for "Pillars of Creation". I laughed at some of the reviews, rolled my eyes at a few others, and saw the whole "and they lived happily ever after".
Its possible that others have done the same thing in other reviews, but I do remember saying "Yep. That's what he should have done."

[WCGreen]

29. Tom Wolfe.....

And John Irving...

Not so much Irving... He is still enjoyable but starting to recycle charaters....

[femmocrat]

43. I agree on Irving,,,, I was going to post his name.

His last really great book was "Owen Meany" IMO. I couldn't even get through that one about the circus.... and haven't bought any since that one!

[femmocrat]

44. Nicholas Evans has gone downhill since

The Horse Whisperer and Smoke Jumpers.

Rebecca Welles' new Ya-Ya book sux.

Nicholas Sparks doesn't interest me anymore... too many books, all for mass consumption.

[WCGreen]

94. Widow for a year was pretty good.....

[SteppingRazor]

51. I think Tom Wolfe sold his soul to the devil in exchange for...

two decades of excellent writing. His work in the 60s and 70s is great. The 80s and later is like a totally different author. And don't even get me started on his crappy fictional efforts. Bonfire was pretty good, but Man in Full and (BLECCH!) Charlotte Simmons are terrible.

[Patiod]

56. I disliked his last two, but I don't know why

frustrated that I can't articulate what I disliked so much. And I was a HUGE fan of his early stuff.

[SteppingRazor]

58. I hated Charlotte Simmons for the same reason that I hate...

the film work of Larry Clark (Kids, Bully, etc.). I think it's reactionary garbage and it's yet more baby boomer bitching about my generation. This tripe is like a modern-day version of Reefer Madness -- "JUST LOOK WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE DOING!!!!"

Christ, between this crap and all of the MySpace exposes on the news, it's a wonder that Gens. X and Y have time to do anything but have meaningless sex with as many anonymous partners as possible. :eyes:

[Patiod]

59. ....while drunk or high to the point of oblivion.

I think Tommy was jealous, actually......

[SteppingRazor]

63. That too.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with drinking -- or with drugs, for that matter. And certainly sexual mores have changed generationally. But I think there are two major fallacies at work here: First, the previous generation looks at the changing sexual mores through the prism of its own. Second, they make the assumption that most of us act this way and also that those who do are somehow incapable of also living meaningful lives. One can be sexually promiscuous and also be a deep thinker, after all. It may come as a shock to people life Wolfe and Clark, but human beings are rather complex.

[Patiod]

71. No, once a nice virgin like Charlotte has sex

she's ruined forever. Spirals into depression, skips class, and finally becomes a mindless sports groupie, who derives her entire identity from her basketball star boyfriend.

[WCGreen]

95. I really liked Bonfire....

But Man in full was too clever by half....

He is trying too hard...

It isn't flowing anymore...

[nosillies]

52. I was going to say Irving also

His early works all deeply affected me. I think I've been disappointed since around A Son of the Circus. Maybe I outgrew him?

[WCGreen]

96. I never read the circus book....

I hate clowns....

And the circus in general....

One of my favorite all time books is The Cider House Rules.....

[BlueIris]

37. Thomas Harris.

Didn't have to think twice. Used to write tightly plotted, suspenseful, feminist thrillers. Don't even get me started on how bad Hannibal and Harris' promotion of it turned out to me. Yes, I get that he was actively trying to alienate his fanbase there, it was still godawful.

[long_green]

64. No book pissed me off more than Hannibal

The strength of Red Dragon and The Silence of The Lambs is that ordinary (albeit talented), vulnerable people were putting themselves in harm's way to protect even more ordinary and vulnerable people from unspeakable fates. What does Harris do? He turns Starling, who was so perfect in Hannibal that she was unsympathetic, into the Bride of Dracula and winds everything up by saying that truly exceptional people are above morality.
The fate of the irritating Justice Department hack to whom Lecter feeds his own brains is nauseating not in the gross out details of his death, but in the contempt with which he is treated. That's enough about Thomas Harris. I can't wait to pass by his next book when I see it in the airport.

[BlueIris]

38. Also--E. Lynn Harris' later stuff is sooooo terrible.

I have been heartily recommending E.L.H.'s early works to many folks for years, especially to young GLBT men and women who could use some trendy-but-still-meaningful profic about the situations developing in their lives since coming out, like dealing with family reactions, etc. I just read one of Harris' more recent novels, though and ACK. Someone send him an invitation to retire, please. Totally (and obviously) burned out.

[BreweryYardRat]

39. Robert Jordan.

Started off well, and then dropped to a glacial pace (among other problems).

Although I'd like to maim Terry Goodkind for being a sick, jackbooted thug who shouldn't touch pen to paper.

[SteppingRazor]

50. Agreed....

I read the first six or seven books of the Wheel of Time series, and then I gave up. I hear Jordan has promised to wrap the series up with the next book "even if it's 2,000 pages long." Of course, that would put it on a par with most of the other books in the series.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

65. He never finished that?

A friend of mine turned me onto those in college. I read the first four or five and was moderately enjoying them, but then there was a long wait for a new book once I caught up and when it came out it was like 1,000 pages long. I'll only plunge into something that long if it's a Pynchon or something a little more literary like that.

However, this had to be like 10 years ago; I'm sort of amazed that he still hasn't finished it.

[SteppingRazor]

72. Nope -- Unbelievably enough, he is still writing books in the series...

I think the next one is, like No. 12 or there about.

[LeftyMom]

76. He may finally get the plot moving

Fate gave him a bit of a disincentive to dawdle and write books where nothing happens that advances the plot.

http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Features/03JordanLetter.html

[xmas74]

93. Thank goodness!

I got bored after number 3 but still punish myself every single time one comes out, in case he finally gets to the point and I miss it.

[xmas74]

92. Jordan was my first thought.

When will the damn series end? And when will he finally get back on track?

[Godhumor]

98. Can't stand the man

I've had questions about his ability to write ever since his earliest Conan books. I tried to read the Wheel of Time and gave up afetr all the dead bad guys started coming back to life.

[AmyDeLune]

40. Mercedes Lackey

Her books all have pretty much the same formula now-- Young, misunderstood outcast becomes incredibly powerful, must overcome his/her abusive past to fully harness their abilities and save the day. *yawn*

[Godhumor]

97. I never really liked her stuff, but she is a neat person

I am a huge player of City of Heroes, an online game where you take on the role of a superhero. Mercedes is one of the people I play with (she's been in-game around a year and a half now), which is always entertaining.

[wildhorses]

47. Jean Auel..her last book just did NOT measure up, IMHO

I loved the rest of the series though...

[XemaSab]

53. "Plains of Passage" was the last book of hers I tried to read...

...glacial retreat happens at a swifter pace.

[ScreamingMeemie]

66. I love the Clan books, ever since we read one for a high school

anthropology course. I was truly disappointed by the last one as well...and we waited so long for it.

I think one can almost figure out how the next one will read. I bet Jondalar cannot take Ayla's Gift and they end up severing the knot. But, God is he HOT. It's one of the first times I've ever fallen in love with a character in a book. :hi:

[raccoon]

48. Anne Perry. I liked her stuff at one time, but tired of it at least

6 books ago.

Sue Grafton, same thing.

[SmokingJacket]

61. I liked Sue Grafton through G or H...

after that, I don't know what happened...

[tigereye]

82. hmm, Grafton still has a pretty good wit

she does mine the same territory, but the character is so likeable, it's hard to argue.

[Phillycat]

60. Anne Rice

[ScreamingMeemie]

68. Mary Higgins Clark...

Her early novels are can't put downable, fast, intriguing reads. Her newest stuff, like so many other authors, is recycled, figure it out by chapter 3 and put it away stuff. She became very commercialized too.

[Missy Vixen]

73. Of course, nobody will admit to reading these books

so I'll have to do it for 'em. I'm a contemporary romance writer, so let's just say I'm picky about the ones I read, and most of my reading's for research purposes right now.

Janet Evanovich. Stephanie Plum series. I used to love them. I used to WAIT for them. Stephanie was a hilarious character, with a surrounding cast of hilarious characters. Now it's just a money machine for Ms. Evanovich. (Personal note to Ms. Evanovich: When you make me wait through something like eight books for Stephanie to finally do the wild thing with Ranger, you might want to put just a weee bit more detail into the scene. Just a bit.)

I don't read Nora Roberts, but I know lots of women who do. She's evidently become a bit formulaic. Then again, she probably has 50 books out.

I read one Danielle Steele about fifteen years ago. I'm still scarred.

Julie

[bluethruandthru]

85. Janet Evanovich lost it!

I loved the first few books. Rarely have I laughed out loud reading a book. I agree that the last few seem formulaic and bland. She's just crankin' 'em out as fast as she can. Too bad!

[tigereye]

80. Patricia Cornwell

ick.

[progmom]

83. I'd say Stephen King

...but that's just because the stuff he writes for Entertanment Weekly reeeeeeeeally gets on my nerves.

[skygazer]

84. Stephen King's the first name that popped into my head

I love a lot of his stuff but he's quite self-indulgent. Several of his books would be a lot better if about 300 pages were pared off them. I don't mind his recycling of places and people so much but he gets quite long-winded at times.

But when he's good, he's very, very good.

[newcriminal]

86. my favorite writer

Stephen King has been for a very long time and will always be one of my favorite writers. Insomnia is my favorite. He's latest the Cel was quit good as well.

[wildhorses]

88. I liked his stuff up until and including The Stand, after that

I don't know what happened...myabe I should try something else of his again:shrug:

[MadHound]

89. Let's see here

In the SciFi category, that would have to be Frank Herbert and his Dune series. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the original novel Dune. I even like Dune Messiah and slogged through Children of Dune. But after that original trilogy, Herbert just kept putting out more and more, God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune, Great Fucking Gobstoppers of Dune! And while death usually puts a stop to such verbal diarehha, oh no, not with Dune. Now his son has taken over, and is going to ride this cash cow into the ground.

And what's sad is that Herbert has some really good work outside of Dune, books like Whipping Star, a tale of sentient stars. But they're all out of print, and it is now all Dune, all the time.


In the Fantasy category, I would have to nominate Terry Brooks Sword of Shannara series, if for no other reason than beating a plagarized plot to hell and beyond. Gee Terry, do you think you could hone just a bit closer to the LOTR plotline? And he's been doing it for almost thirty years now. I think that the only reason Ballantine Books doesn't sue Terry's ass off is because the also own the LOTR franchise, so in essence they would be suing themselves on behalf of themselves.

In the category of modern literature, well the prize has to go to James Michener. Using the trendy hook of titling his books with one word geographic place names(Hawaii, Chesapeake, Poland, etc.) he managed to fool so many people into thinking that we was a weighty, intelligent wordsmith that he bamboozled the Pulizer people into handing him a prize:eyes: Well, he's weighty alright, virtually all of his novels tip the scales in the double digits.

But weight and wordiness does not translate into good writing. I've tackled many lengthy novels, so size doesn't scare me. But I just couldn't bring myself to finish a Michener tome. I tried, but everytime I would feel like I was slogging through tar, and about halfway through the book I would just chuck the damn thing, and go find something a little lighter, like War and Peace.

I have other nominations, but these are the three that jumped immediately to mind. Feel free to disagree, hey, everybody has their own likes and dislikes.:hi:

[mzteris]

91. Orson Scott Card

On second thought - he was never actually good - I just thought he was until I really really thought about the crap he was writing....

[mucifer]

99. Bob Woodward

nuff said.

[mikeytherat]

101. Michael Crichton

I loved "The Andromeda Strain" - WFT happened?

mikey_the_rat