Bad Books by Good Authors

[Alatar]

Well, not necessarily "good" authors. We're not just looking at Austen and Dickens here

What I mean is books by Authors whose books you normally enjoy that have disappointed you.

Current example (and the inspiration for this post):

"State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.

I like Michael Crichton. I know his science can be dodgy but his books are normally a fun read. This turgid piece of crap is just hard work. It's like Crichton has heard this cool theory about how Global Warming may be a myth and is trying to use the novel to evangelise. The characters that we are meant to identify with are the ones who are initially sceptical but get won over by the strength of the "evidence" (which is invariably supported with lame citations), while the truly unlikeable characters are either deliberately misinforming the public about the "truth" of global warming, or narcissistic entertainment types who refuse to believe whats placed in front of them. Throw in some completely unnecessary cannibalism and you have the most absurd book I have read in years.

This would not, of course, be a problem except the tone of the book is so serious while being so one-sided and preachy. As a result, I have lost all interest in Crichtons theories about Global Warming, because instead of letting me consider it seriously, he wrapped it in a pseudo-thriller with two hot chicks and a Tsunami. It was, in a word, insulting.

I'll also add to this list "King of Torts" by John Grisham. At least that one was just boring.

Alatar

[SilverScribe]

As I mentioned in another thread "Oliver Twist" by Charles M. Dickens.

I found the plot and/or the underlying moral lesson was severely underserviced by the complete unbelievability of an urchin born in a poor-house being able to speak in a posh accent. Where would he have learned this? His mother died whilst he was yet a babe, and I'm pretty sure that a whole raft of aristocratic ladies weren't exactly regular residents . . .

I was ready to chuck the danged thing in the bin about a third of the way through, but decided to finish it simply because it was Dickens . . .

[Dindraug]

Dickens can hardly fall under the title good author. Prolific maybe, and lucky maybe more. He wrote very much for his time, and in chapters that were published in papers (hence the formulaic style) and, well, massivley overated.

He is was the Dan Brown of his day, or maybe Clive Cussler/Tom Clancey. People bought because it was a book to be seen reading, and I am firmly convinced that like Stephen Hawkins 'A Brief History of Time', everybody has a copy of Dickens, but they sit on a shelf to be read in the future, and never will .

The book that does always stand out for me though is 'Lords and Ladies' by Terry Pratchett. He is normally a good author, or at least entertaining, but that one was a struggel to read and left a bit of an aftertaste, so I gave up on Pratchett soon after and did not pick up again.

Apparently some of his new books are good, but I have yet to have teh heart to pick one up.

[Alatar]

Din, the later books by Pratchett are indeed excellent, in particular the Vimes novels. I think Nightwatch is probably his best book yet. I love it when a comedy author knows how to set you up with comedy, then pull out the rug to provide genuine emotion. You don't expect the emotional hit, and it's all the more powerful for that.

And just to clarify, by "Good Authors" I really mean "Popular Authors" because the other is far too hard to define.

[Whistler]

SilverScribe, you made similar comments elsewhere and I posted the following:

I think some of you may be failing to figure Victorian thinking into your assessment of Oliver Twist. Remember that in those days, people believed very strongly that people were assigned a proper “place” by God. If Oliver slides too easily from the lowest class to the highest, it’s because he was always intended for the highest class. It was simply a matter of being allowed to “show his quality” in the proper environment, to become what God and destiny always intended. So in a sense, he was a little gentleman from birth.

That's always been how I've seen it. Grossly unrealistic from our viewpoint, but probably sensible to the Victorians. You can't fault the man simply for thinking as people thought in those days.

[SilverScribe]

SilverScribe, you made similar comments elsewhere and I posted the following:

I think some of you may be failing to figure Victorian thinking into your assessment of Oliver Twist. Remember that in those days, people believed very strongly that people were assigned a proper “place” by God. If Oliver slides too easily from the lowest class to the highest, it’s because he was always intended for the highest class. It was simply a matter of being allowed to “show his quality” in the proper environment, to become what God and destiny always intended. So in a sense, he was a little gentleman from birth.

That's always been how I've seen it. Grossly unrealistic from our viewpoint, but probably sensible to the Victorians. You can't fault the man simply for thinking as people thought in those days.

I understand perfectly, and I don't fault Dickens for obviously ascribing to the sentiment of the times that everyone had their place. However, I do fault him for using a plot mechanism that was patently unrealistic. For a man who wrote with the voice of his day, I found the idea of a posh-accented poor-house urchin so very out of keeping with is usual dead-on-the-money depiction of his times. It just grated for some reason . . .

Din, I'm one of the few I guess that really does think Dickens was a "good" author, not just a prolific one (Oliver Twist aside). He had a rare gift of comedy that he could shoehorn into even the most political statements, The Pickwick Papers for me will remain a true, laugh out loud enjoyable book. And for drama, angst and the deeper traits of the human character, A Tale of Two Cities certainly qualifies as something far more thoughtful than some of the repetitive pap that Tom Clancy churns out.

[Whistler]

Well, I'll have to reread it and see how "posh" that accent really sounds to me. Maybe when I read it the first time, I un-poshed it a bit.

Tolkien hated Pickwick. Go figure.

[SilverScribe]

Well, I'll have to reread it and see how "posh" that accent really sounds to me. Maybe when I read it the first time, I un-poshed it a bit.

Tolkien hated Pickwick. Go figure.

Ah, and I could be harking back to the movie rendition with that angelic little blonde cherub that spoke like one of the Queen's own children . . . :D

The Professor hated Pickwick? LOL, how . . . interesting. Perhaps because the figure of Pickwick was outwardly a bit of a bumbler and the Professor didn't suffer fools gladly?

Hmm, good thing I wasn't one of his contemporaries then . . . :D:D

[Frelga]

Din, I have to echo Alatar. I didn't read Lords and Ladies, but Fifth Elephant, Nightwatch, Monstrous Regiment are all excellent books.

Can't think of anything on topic, except to say that Dickens never did anything for me, although I've only read a little by him.

[elfshadow]

"The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. I know it's supposed to be the classic Depression-era novel, but I definitely did not like it. I loved "Of Mice and Men" though, as well as "The Red Pony". But "Grapes of Wrath" really didn't do it for me.

[SilverScribe]

elfshadow, I tend to agree with you. I've read a ton of Steinbeck and found him to be generally depressing, but Grapes of Wrath was extremely so. I found the utter hopelessness of the book hard to take.

[vison]

I was never a particular Steinbeck fan except for "Of Mice and Men". He was a good writer, but I think he often let his politics overpower his story.

John O'Hara was a great writer and I love many of his books and I think that except for Alice Munro he had no peers as a writer of short stories. But his later books were truly awful. I believe he wrote them just for the money, so he could leave his daughter well-provided for. He was an odd man, not very "nice" I guess, but at his best he was top notch.

Dickens could write well. But that florid style is very dated now, of course, and unless the story catches you and won't let go, it's hard to keep focussed. Oliver Twist had some amazing writing, really. The part about Nancy and Bill Sykes is something that very few Victorian writers would have dared, and he did it well. Dickens was not a particularly "realistic" writer. The horrors he wrote about were, in fact, largely being corrected by the time he wrote about them, they were as much memories of his wretched youth as anything else. Still, when he was good, he was very, very good.

Trollope is my favourite Victorian author, but he wrote a few turkeys, too.

[Primula Baggins]

The part about Nancy and Bill Sykes is something that very few Victorian writers would have dared, and he did it well.

Spoilers for Oliver Twist






The murder scene is amazing—gritty and horrible. When he's in the silent room with her corpse and imagines her eyes are watching him, or when the sunlight reflects onto the ceiling from the pool of blood—yikes. Very un-Victorian, that. His whole madness and descent to death after that is powerful.

I agree with vison about Trollope, too. The thing I can't get past with Dickens is his major female characters, many of whom are sentimental sketches. Trollope's women are people—they're imperfect, but what they want out of life matters; they aren't victims or good-conduct prizes.

[Dindraug]

Ummm, Still not convinced by Dickens.

But I have to mention 'Catcher in the Rye' as a really overblown book

[Rodia]

Agreed. I dropped it halfway, it was boring and the main character only annoyed me with all his whining.

[SilverScribe]

Agreed. I dropped it halfway, it was boring and the main character only annoyed me with all his whining.

Hmmm, that's one book I have had on my shelf forever and have just never gotten around to reading. Yep, right up there with "On the Road" by Jack Kerouac, which I suspect is another overhyped book with not a lot of substance.

I guess I'll just have to grit my teeth one of these days and give them a go.

[yovargas]

I found Catcher in the Rye fascinating at the time - I'd never read anything like it before - but On the Road was exhausting to make it through.

[Meneltarma]

I loved On the Road for specific quotes - I still cry at the beauty of the last paragraph (in America, when the sun goes down...), for example. But I've never felt the desire to read it again - only those quotes.

The Catcher in the Rye is one of those books which only really has its full impact if you read it at the right age. I liked it then, but I suspect I wouldn't now. Salinger's short stories are much better - A Perfect Day for Bananafish is one of my favourite pieces of writing.

[Rodia]

What's the age, I wonder? I tried it at fourteen...didn't work for me. My sister is fourteen now and she swears by that book.

[elfshadow]

I just finished reading "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad. I was warned that it would be hard to get through, but I didn't find the reading itself all that difficult. It's just that the guy tries to be profound in every single sentence, and I thought it kind of got overwhelming. It did bring up some good points about the "journey into the self", but all in all I didn't like it. The aesthetic quality of the writing was brilliant, though, especially considering the fact that he wrote it in his third language.

I've never read others by Conrad, but hopefully they weren't as overly-heavy as HoD.