The Ultimate Author Bashing/Defense Thread

[The Marquis de Leech]

I don't hate Dune, but I've never understood why it gets all this endless praise. The main villain is a certified moustache-twirling caricature, while the weird mystical stuff in the desert got on my nerves after a while. As for Herbert's handling of political scheming, there are plenty of authors (GRRM included) who make him look like a rank amateur in that department.

[Xray the Enforcer]

I don't hate Dune, but I've never understood why it gets all this endless praise. The main villain is a certified moustache-twirling caricature

with a taste for little boys, to boot!

I said this in another thread...Herbert's writing has not aged well. I, too, was annoyed as all get out by his treatment of court intrigue...it was painfully unsubtle.

[Blaine]

Dune's allright. Seems to be a love it or hate it read for alot of scifi/fantasy folks, but it always struck me as very good but not the greatest.

[Mo Sneachd]

Trying to catch up on the last couple of pages:

Agreed on Anderson - neither Star Wars nor any other universe deserved that. As for Stackpole, I cannot find my Star Wars books, but if he did the X-Wing books - well, they weren't that bad. Black Fleet Crisis though.. But the bashing of Star Wars writers that are not Timothy Zahn could continue forever.

I didn't read Dune, but you do.not.write.sequels.to.classics. Simple rule that 'literature' should follow.

I didn't read Rankin either; I like Pratchett, but he has his less brilliant moments too, and sometimes he writes too many books in too little time to be still funny. Adams was great in some books, but I didn't even bother to read the last Hitchhiker's Guide book, so he had his less brilliant moments too.

I never got the King-hype, but then I only read one book that might not have been his best.

[Martin Silenus]

I don't see how the one applies to the other. Incarnations had a fairly consistent level of quality throughout the entire series. Perhaps you are referring to how the concepts are extremely intriguing, but the actual story and writing are poor. But all that means is that Anthony is a bad writer

Did you really think it was consistent? I remember loving Death and Time, which were the first two Incarnations. I was so thrilled when I tracked down the ones on Nature, War and Fate, but was disappointed with them. Evil was a good one. The God one was atrocious. Three out of seven were decent by my prejudicial count. The concept was intriguing, though.

I ended up reading a whole ton of Anthony books before finding books that were actually good, and I'd have to say that doesn't apply to anything of his that I read except Xanth, which I recall him stating in some author's note or another (in a different series) he was basically forced to write by his publisher.

I can't hate the guy - he's pretty good at coming up with concepts for stories, and his writing is very easy to read and keep reading, even if it isn't anywhere near good per se. Overall, an excellent introduction to F/SF for a young child that would much rather read cool ideas than serious issues. (I think Harry Potter would be the best version of this now, because it starts out light-hearted with whiz-bang and 'hey, cool' things for a kid, but develops into something darker that does touch on serious issues somewhat. If I'd had that kind of thing when I was the right age, I might have started reading quality books much sooner, and been able to escape reading Goodkind.)

I guess I'm somewhat resentful that I read a ton of his stuff as well when I could've been reading something else. Also, how Xanth is passed off as fantasy for kids is beyond me. Like alot his books, they contain bad gratuitous porn.

[Mauvka]

Xanth was among some of the earlier stuff I read. I liked it then and the I sorta fazed out of it and moved on to other things. At some point. I lost interest, but although I will never reread one of his books, I can't hate it.

I too think that Douglas Adams is overrated. The movie was horrible :sick:

I like Pratchetts random-humorous-storyline books better.

To overrated authors add: Stephen R Donaldson

Vonnegut

[Kat]

Uh, I'll try to defend Jacqueline Carey (Well, the Kushiel books, at least; I haven't read The Sundering yet).

Um, her prose is lyrical and lovely, she does political intrigue pretty well, and I like the spin she put on a lot of myths/legends of many different places and faiths. I'm not all that well-travelled, but her construction of the many different pseudo-cultures that she used in her books have a really authentic feel to them; I like that too. I like the way that she constructed her characters, and though her potential Mary-Sueness is pretty apparent, I thought Phedre was awesome. I liked the fact that she was constantly at war at herself, though she didn't drown in the angst. And I liked the fact that not all that many punches were pulled when it came to Phedre's masochism, especially in book three. And even though a lot of the subject matter was rather serious or dark, I liked the fact that it was balanced out with nice, light-hearted scenes (especially those with Joscelin in them; the Perfectly Sea-Sick Companion ).

So...yeah. In conclusion, I really really liked these books and I really suck at defending my favourite authors

I think her prose is love it or hate it. I hated it. At the best, it was flowery. At the worst, it reminded me of years of roleplaying with people who would describe their characters "with eyes like limpid dewy pools." Ew. To be fair, I didn't hate the books. I just thought they were overrated.

[Lord Qwerty]

I think the difference between Pratchett and Adms is that Pratchett isn't afraid to get sentimental, even if it's a strange sort of cerebral sentimentality.

That, and the vast difference in publishing speed. Oh, and different genres...

[Daemrion]

@all the Star Wars people:

Stackpole has one major flaw in basically all his writing: he tends to "deify" his main character. Basically, his heroes are basically all out hero material. But he does know how to make a pretty good yarn. But at least his plots are okay.

KJA on the other hand recycles the same plot over and over again.

LOL, and Tim Zahn isn't the best either...not by a long shot. He may have resurrected Star Wars EU with Heir to the Empire but after that he went quickly downhill. The only things he writes about are Mara Jade, Thrawn and the Chiss. (The Thrawn Trilogy was his best)

Troy Denning is almost certainly much better considering how he handled Star by Star. But in my eyes, he butchered Dark Nest Trilogy. (which was a piece of trash cos it wasted all the character/romance development in NJO) Why the **** did they go back to Jacen and Tenel Ka and JainaxZekk :mad: And I hated those annoying bugs.

Hopefully, this will be finally fixed in Legacy of the Force.

[Tagot]

Regarding Harry Potter getting kids to read... my little brother (he's 11) read and loved Harry Potter, and now I'm getting to read the Belgariad. Eddings might not hold up to GRRM, Bakker, Hobb, etc., but he got me into serious fantasy and I still hold some nostalgia for it. The Belgariad, at least, is a decent and cleverly written story compared to his more recent works, despite lacking subtlety of character and plot which my younger brother couldn't appreciate anyway.

[DanteGabriel]

I'll add to the Brooks hate. That first Shannara book was the most naked rip-off of Tolkien that I've ever seen. All he did was switch out the names. And the new names he thought up were bad.

I read and enjoy the Harry Potter books, though I acknowledge that they're not Literature, or even all that good. Whoever it was that applauded the dark turn in the fifth and sixth books... Just read Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass). That is some great, dark YA fiction. Christian fundamentalists would be even more offended by that series than they are by the Magic Lite of the Potter series.

[emberling]

Just read Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass). That is some great, dark YA fiction.

Yes, it's wonderful. But it's never going to be anywhere near the scale of HP. The beauty of HP is that it gradually becomes darker, and gradually introduces (badly, usually) mature topics. It starts out as a pure whimsical fantasy designed entirely to appeal to a child's imagination and desire to be there. This is the hook. This is what gets people into it. This is why HP is so goddamn popular - because that aspect of the first book was absolutely top-notch. The gradual introduction of mature themes eases a young reader onto a path that would be horrifying and shocking were they to just be handed HDM. HDM is genuinely challenging. Most kids aren't ready for that - they don't like it - unless they are introduced to it very carefully. I read the Golden Compass when it first came out; this was around the time when I was reading such crap that Goodkind didn't seem too bad. I didn't think TGC was all that great at the time, and now I know it's because the deep issues discussed in the book went right over my head - I just read it as an adventure story, and for brain-disabled reading, it was no better than the hacks I was reading.

Of course, I now recognize HDM for the greatness that it is, and it's certainly much better than Potter, but it's not a better children's introduction to reading/fantasy. Nothing I know of compares, really.

[DanteGabriel]

Of course, I now recognize HDM for the greatness that it is, and it's certainly much better than Potter, but it's not a better children's introduction to reading/fantasy. Nothing I know of compares, really.

Well, I never meant to suggest that HDM would be good "introductory" reading, or proper "children's" reading. I referred to it as young adult fiction -- which means I'd want the kid to be at least 13 or 14 before tackling it.

[Khal Blotto]

I find Tad Williams to be endlessly boring.

Imagine Tad is your father and he's telling you a bedtime story. The good news is you'll be asleep real quick. The bad news is you'll wake up the next day and his story will still be going!

[Galactus]

Yes, it's wonderful. But it's never going to be anywhere near the scale of HP. The beauty of HP is that it gradually becomes darker, and gradually introduces (badly, usually) mature topics. It starts out as a pure whimsical fantasy designed entirely to appeal to a child's imagination and desire to be there. This is the hook. This is what gets people into it. This is why HP is so goddamn popular - because that aspect of the first book was absolutely top-notch. The gradual introduction of mature themes eases a young reader onto a path that would be horrifying and shocking were they to just be handed HDM. HDM is genuinely challenging. Most kids aren't ready for that - they don't like it - unless they are introduced to it very carefully. I read the Golden Compass when it first came out; this was around the time when I was reading such crap that Goodkind didn't seem too bad. I didn't think TGC was all that great at the time, and now I know it's because the deep issues discussed in the book went right over my head - I just read it as an adventure story, and for brain-disabled reading, it was no better than the hacks I was reading.

Of course, I now recognize HDM for the greatness that it is, and it's certainly much better than Potter, but it's not a better children's introduction to reading/fantasy. Nothing I know of compares, really.

I literally had nightmares from TGC (I read it several years before the latter books, it was some kind of weird gap in publishing, so TGC was the only one I read while I was "actually" a child)

[Xray the Enforcer]

Regarding Harry Potter getting kids to read... my little brother (he's 11) read and loved Harry Potter, and now I'm getting to read the Belgariad. Eddings might not hold up to GRRM, Bakker, Hobb, etc.,

yeah, but your brother is 11. Eddings is perfect for that age -- I wouldn't unleash the Bakker on the poor guy until he's at least 16...maybe older, depending on his tastes and maturity level.

[AverageGuy]

:smash: Newcomb.

*flashback to Monty Python*

Ah! He said the word! He said the word!

[Poopy MacPoop]

Terry Pratchett. Yeah. If he's a funny writer then writers as a whole have to be right there with CPAs and morticians on the Funniness Scale.

[Stonehelm]

David Eddings can go jump in the river and take L. Ron Hubbard's corpse with him.

Eddings was the sh*t on his first four series. After the Rivan Codex, all I want to do is punch him in the throat. But before that he was a fantasy god.

Is that defending him or bashing him?

[Alwyn]

I feel that I have to defend Shakespeare. His works, like all plays, are not meant to be read, tehy're meant to be acted. I have seen some brilliant and I mean brilliant interpretations of his works on stage. You need to see Shakespeare acted to really get it, Midsummer dream makes you laugh out loud on stage not on the page. Plus it doesn't all have to be drab and old and stuff. I've seen Hamlet uptated as an Angsty teen, Romeo as a singer in the subway station, Othello as a Mafia Boss, I've played Ophelia as a lunatic in an aylum! Shakepeare is great but he only did half the work, the other half is up to actors and directors to stage originally!

As for authors I hate... Tamora Pierce severely bugged me by the end of the first series I read by her (though it started out so well)! Mercedes Lackey I now despise! She has just written way too much, I loved her first series then it just got bad! AND a special mention to Anne McCaffrey who needs to burn her computer! All the random sex makes me wnat to ring author's necks!

Really alot of fantasy bugs me now that I'm a littl older, and I had practically given up on the genre before I found aSoIaF and since then I can't find anything that seems to compare. Asimov still rocks though, and I have high hopes for Dune which I'm going to start soon. And I am currently keeping myself entertained with Garth Nix's books, I still like him quite alot.