Kevin's Watch

CovJr, I'm avoiding any Donaldson-Tolkien debate like the bubonic plague. (retreats to reinforced underground concrete bunker)

I don't dislike Stephen King's writing throughout much of the books, my problem with him, is he doesn't seem to be able to end a story well. It's like he gets bored before he gets there. Good start and buildup, good storyline, constantly building, and then all of a sudden, it's over, and you're left thinking, WTF???

I tried reading Wheel of Time, fourth novel (The only one I was given of the series, tried it to see if I was interested in reading the rest of the series) and found myself, flipping to the glossary in the back, about twice in every paragraph, trying to figure out what was going on. After 100 pages of this, I could go on no further. Perhaps it's better if you start from Book 1, page 1. Although I've read lots of comments saying he's dragging the series out far more than it should have been, and it's really disappointing to read a first novel in series, and love it, then have the series go downhill.

sindatur wrote: I tried reading Wheel of Time, fourth novel (The only one I was given of the series, tried it to see if I was interested in reading the rest of the series) and found myself, flipping to the glossary in the back, about twice in every paragraph, trying to figure out what was going on. After 100 pages of this, I could go on no further. Perhaps it's better if you start from Book 1, page 1. Although I've read lots of comments saying he's dragging the series out far more than it should have been, and it's really disappointing to read a first novel in series, and love it, then have the series go downhill.

Let me save you the trouble. Skip it. Life is too short, and there are too many really good writers to waste your time with tripe.

Alan Dean Foster. I could never finish anything of his, except for Darkstar, and I only stuck with that because I love the film.

Tim Powers. With the exception of the brilliant The Anubis Gates, I've not found anything else of his that I didn't put away after the first 20 pages, never to be touched again.

Tom

Well, I can keep quiet no longer. Some of these choices are just absurd to me. The thread is authors to avoid like the plague - that means really terrible writers, in my opinion.

Stephen King on his worst day is not a terrible writer. His works are always entertaining, imaginative and with well-rounded and believable characters. He can tell a story better than anyone.

Sometimes he over-writes - yes, he could shorten some of his books. Occasionally his endings don't measure up to the rest of the plot. But if you avoid him, it's your loss. And when he's on it, like Dark Tower, It, The Stand, Misery, The Mist, The Langoliers, The Green Mile, and many others, he's as good as it gets.

Tim Powers is certainly no one-hit wonder, either. I agree that The Anubis Gates is his best novel, but he has yet to write a bad one. They are all complex and brilliantly written - he has melded fantasy and magical realism and practically created his own sub-genre. Again, avoid him at your own loss.

Alan Dean Foster is not in the league of these other two authors, but is still a competent writer. Try Primal Shadows, an excellent contemporary adventure. Or any of his Flinx and Pip sf tales.

These are just opinions, Roland. Still, my opinion is mainly the same as yours, with the possible exception of King, who seems to be formulaic in his approach to writing, and it gets a little old to me after a dozen or so books. Still, it could just as easily be called his style, and if he were a bad writer, he would have never been such a success.

I haven't actually read the Stand, but I watched the MiniSeries. I was enthralled with the story for the first 3 parts, but the 4th part blew chunks, because of the way it was all resolved. It's my understanding the Book was the same way, same ending, which I felt was unsatisfying.

Salem's Lot, same thing (I did read this one), it was really good, until it abruptly ended.

If Steven King co-wrote with someone (Who could properly finish what King started), I think he would be rather impressive, but I just don't like the way he ends his stories. It's a bummer spending all that time really engaged with the story, and then being let down by the ending.

Dan, I would call it King's style. To me, formulaic is like the Deathlands series or the more recent Conan novels. Character A performs act B in setting C because of motivation D. EVERYTIME.

Sindatur, although I enjoyed The Stand mini-series, it is infinitely inferior to the novel, on every level. For great finishes, try one of King's shorter novels - works like The Mist or Apt Pupil end with the literary equivalent of a kick to the gut.

I can't agree regarding a co-author for King. I find King's two collaborations, The Talisman and Black House, to be flawed works, and I blame partner Peter Straub for this.

Isn't this topic a little paradoxical? How many books will you read by an author if you don't like the first you read? Or if the first is brilliant, how many 'bad' ones do you have to read before you get discouraged and stop bothering?

Perhaps we could be more specific about which books we recommend to be avoided like the plague. Or if a generally unexceptional writer has come up with an exceptional masterpiece, mention that.

I'll dig out my Tim Powers books and give them another go - I think I've still got Expiration Date and another one whose title I've forgotten. Alan Dean Foster was given away. But I have so many unread books I want to read, that it may take me a while.

Tom

I think Powers' other best works are On Stranger Tides, Expiration Date, Last Call, The Drawing of the Dark and Stress of Her Regard.

You may have a point that a bad writer can produce a masterpiece or a good writer can crank out some clunkers.

I just think the phrase "avoiding like the plague" conjures up images of a writer who just had no business being published in the first place.

But it is all just opinion. My buttons were probably pushed when I learned today that a merger move within my firm's building is going to screw me out of my private office. I should have read these threads when I was in a better mood.

sindatur wrote:I don't dislike Stephen King's writing throughout much of the books, my problem with him, is he doesn't seem to be able to end a story well. It's like he gets bored before he gets there. Good start and buildup, good storyline, constantly building, and then all of a sudden, it's over, and you're left thinking, WTF???

I hypothesised about this in the Stephen King forum (in the Library). In the foreword to my copy of The Bachman Books, King points out that when he starts writing he had no idea what's going to happen or how it will end; he really does pretty much make it up as he goes along. It explains a lot about his work.

i never get tired of saying this


Robert Jordan is an excellent writer...

and i recently finished book 10 of WOT, and im really hoping he extends it to 13 instead of just 12...every single book in this series was awesome, and now im in a rut cuz the 11th one isnt out yet

Roland of Gilead wrote:I just think the phrase "avoiding like the plague" conjures up images of a writer who just had no business being published in the first place.

Something I'm slowly learning--and now that I'm about to be (nonfictionally) published, must keep reminding myself of--is that "publishable" does not necessarily equal "immortal" or anything within an order of magnitude thereof. (Also, the definition of "publishable" varies among different editors, presses, cultural and economic climates, etc., etc. ad nauseam...)

Working as a free-lance editor, and before that a medical journal editor, has shown me that editorial judgment does not necessarily carry ontological weight. There are things I've let into print because on revision 3 or so I despaired of convincing the authors that yes, they really did need to fix X, Y, and Z as well as the points A, B, and C that the resubmission letter so loudly affirms they did fix. Some acceptance letters have an unwritten TFH between the lines.

theDespiser wrote:i never get tired of saying this


Robert Jordan was an excellent writer...

and i recently finished book 10 of WOT, and im really hoping he finishes it...every single book in this series was awesome until around Book 7, and now he's in a rut.

Fixed your quote.

Hi guys!

I know I've been at it for a while now... In Law we have this expression "to flog a dead horse...";)

Terry Goodkind's CHAINFIRE dropped 6 spots to end at a number 24 on the New York Times bestseller list. The novel has been on the prestigious list for 13 weeks now, making it Goodkind's most successful yet.

This is quite a feat. In this day and age, only Robert Jordan tops that. I find it hard to believe because Goodkind has abused his readers for the last few years. So to have them come out and buy his newest in hardcover means that legions of them don't care that he made them waste their hard-earned money on crappy installments...

Many claim that CHAINFIRE is quite good. I have no problem believing that, since Goodkind has shown that he could be a terrific writer in the past. But he made me waste enough money, so I'm no longer supporting his career. I know a lot of people think like me. And yet, judging by his recent performances, it doesn't appear to hinder his commercial success!;)

Let us hope that he can finish this series with a bang, to make reading it worthwhile...

Patrick
www.fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com

Roland of Gilead wrote: You may have a point that a bad writer can produce a masterpiece or a good writer can crank out some clunkers.

That is true. I enjoyed a book called The Girl With the Pearl Earring so much, I tracked down the other novels by the same author, and I hated every single one of them. I was amazed that a person could write one book that I could enjoy so much, and then I would dislike her other books so much.

How did you like the film, Duchess?

Durris wrote:How did you like the film, Duchess?

I haven't seen it yet, Durris. One of these days I hope to see it, though.

Goodkind's stuff is merely okay. Except the latter ones, that get overly preachy.

I don't mind writing that has meaning or expresses a view, but it should be a bit more seamlessly integrated.


I'd say a guy to avoid is Salvatore. His stories are total, mindless fluff with protagonists (Ala, OMGDRIZZT!!1) who can simply do no wrong and beat themselves up for things beyond their control.

I find it a bit rediculous.