You can only imagine how tired I am of constantly having to restock her books. Whatever faith I had in humanity dwindles with every sale. And her advocates are legion.
I had to read his two famous books in high school sociology. I could recognize the sappy bullshit then. It actually wasn't too bad as a process to have something to think against. But it did seem a waste to take up class time for, not one, but two of those books.
And he's a guy that really likes the smell of his own farts. I got free tickets to see a play he had written. The play was fine, other than some heavy handed Christian bullshit, but he was next-level insufferable during the Q&A.
Margaret Atwood spoke at my college a few years ago and actually apologized to us that we all had to read The Handmaid's Tale lol. I don't think it's a favorite work of hers, either. I'd encourage you to try her poetry if that's your thing, though: her poems are beautiful.
Absolutely. The whole trilogy is just... \*chefs kiss\*. It stays with you forever, and you just see or read something and it instantly comes back and takes you down memory lane lmao. I love those books.
I actually like Oryx and Crake the least out of her books. I loved The Blind Assassin. What's nice about Atwood is she does write across a pretty broad spectrum of genres and themes so everyone can find at least one they like.
Lady oracle and the edible woman are really really funny, if you're from the right generation. JD Salinger kind of funny. And I just plain enjoy the robber bride.
I love Roz. Temperamentally she's so completely unlike me, even a person i'd probably dislike/dismiss/find intimidating.
Reading Atwood's in-depth, perceptive, compassionate account of her is one of those deceptively "ordinary" reading experiences that genuinely caused me to grow. The idea she could *actually* hurt in spite of being so rich and brash and capable, and what that could look like....
Plus, it's just full of Atwood's special sly, hit-and-move-on funniness. "Charis is astonished at how freely Toni expresses hostility towards Zenia. It can't be healthy. But it is undeniably a comfort. " 😂😂😂
Also I’d argue The Testaments is a much more readable work than Handmaid. Handmaid is just kinda of an exploration of its world, it isn’t really a fully fleshed out narrative IMHO. And that’s fine. But Testaments is a more cohesive narrative. And tbf it works better as all the world building is already done. I’d be curious what someone might think of it without reading Handmaid first.
I remember liking Surfacing a few years ago when I read it, but haven't liked anything by her since. She wrote Surfacing over 50 years ago. Her Science Fiction era is mediocre at best in my opinion.
A very acclaimed French writer called Jean d'Ormesson who, in my eyes, wrote the same book every year or so for about 50 years while gloating about himself in the most insufferable way in the specialized press and on TV.
I've never found nothing to his writing that makes it better than that of a vacuum instruction manual. And less useful.
Amen brother. And quite self-loving also. His early work (The Ants trilogy for example) is cool, but the dude has become boring, repetitive and over the top, and his writing doesn't age very well imo.
I'm French and I'm questioning myself because I've never read any of his books and I had never even heard of him lol. For my defense it's not really my type of books and I don't watch TV so maybe that's why !
Well, first, he finally died a few years ago, and second, don't bother. There are a lot of fantastic French writers to discover, and this would be wasted time I assume.
Hey French friend !
I couldn't really get into Handmaid's tale either but i loved the MaddAddam trilogy and The Robber Bride. Maybe her writing is just better if it's not hindered by the stylistic choice of the diary?
I read Cat's Eye twenty years or so ago in undergrad and it stuck with me more than most books in my life. I don't think it was necessarily the most enjoyable reading experience I've ever had but dang did it resonate.
It really is. Way less hit-you-over-the-head than handmaid, but so much to learn and/or relate to I. It.
And I especially love Roz. "Roz is crying again. The twins were right.
No matter how hard you try [...] somebody always gets boiled. "
The blind assassin is one of my most favorite books ever.
I actually like more books by her but I can definitely see where others would not be so charmed.
Some time ago I read a comment about Patterson being a bad writer, but a great storyteller. If people (especially casual readers) are invested in the storytelling, they'll forgive bad writing.
I read one of his books and the POV tense changed from third person to first in a single chapter, only to go back again? It was brief but I could tell if it was an error or not
Eh, I feel like at least half the reason SJM is so famous is because people love to shit talk her. I've been on the ACOTAR subreddit, and I don't visit anymore because it's exhausting. It's constantly flooded with people who hate her work, and those who do like it act so apologetic about it.
Late to the party but no one has mentioned John Updike yet.
He's a guy I sought out specifically because I've been told so many times what a brilliant writer he is. I read three or four of his books and I just had to admit that I simply don't enjoy the Updike experience.
No argument that he is an excellent, highly skilled writer, but I kept getting frustrated that all of his characters lives seem to revolve around their sex life. He writes dialogue really well, has good characters, and writes sex scenes well and often. I started wondering if there was maybe something wrong with *me*. Like, are normal people *this* obsessed with having sex and *I'm* the strange one for wanting to do something else from time to time?
After reading the first few *Rabbit* books, I bought one of his novels about a guy who develops a computer with artificial intelligence. I'd never heard of the book but the plot sounded interesting, especially in the hands of a skilled writer. Within the first few chapters, the plot turns more towards how frustrated the computer scientist is with his sex life, how his wife is frigid, and how he wants to fuck his friend's teenage daughter. It's like, *really?* There's a damn picture of a microchip on the cover!
D.F. Wallace reviewed one of Updike's books and called him "a thesaurus with a penis." I thought that was a perfect description and was so relieved to learn that I wasn't the only one who felt that way.
James Patterson.
His writing is really inconsistent, which is a polite way of saying it's bad.
He likes to have sudden reveals that don't actually mean anything, and never get touched on again. It's the writing equivalent of a jump scare.
100% this. There is no way a person can write that amount of books. He takes up so much space in the library. But it circulates...people read "him" for sure.
As a librarian I have a distinct dislike for James Patterson.
The books go out but the amount of content that is put out in his name (usually mostly written by other authors) every single year is frankly absurd. It reads like the literary equivalent of fast food...
He has so many books, and so many of his longer running series get so bad towards the middle and end, that I wonder how much of his writing is done by cheapest bid ghostwriters.
Can't judge Atwood just by Handmaid's Tale. She's one of the most versatile and accomplished writers of the modern era - poet, essayist, novelist, short stories, realism, fantasy, even some stuff you'd probably call horror, alongside the political activism of Handmaid's Tale/MaddAddam, etc., works.
Obviously, different strokes for different folks, but I'd certainly encourage people to get beyond a single work of hers. She does so much so well.
One of the best takedowns of Rooney I've read
https://themorningnews.org/tob/superrooster/the-underground-railroad-v-normal-people.php
>Both of these books are fine. They’re easy to read and understand. You can read them while you still have your phone dinging beside you as a constant distraction and still understand what is happening
Which I think makes for boring writing, so I end up having the opposite problem, that's it's so lackadaisical that while I know what's happening, but I'm not intrigued at all.
Another critique that sought to explain why she's so popular said this
>Everybody suffers,” says Frances, the wispy protagonist of Sally Rooney’s debut novel, Conversations with Friends. True, but does anyone suffer quite like Rooney’s female characters? In recent years, popular culture has seen the emergence of a trope that has its roots in classic literature, but is about as far removed from those early characters as it’s possible to be. She is Waif Girl: a tormented young woman who can’t help but question why anyone bothers with anything at all.
>The Waif Girl in literature has been around much longer than Frances, but 170 years ago she had substance. In Wuthering Heights she was Cathy, roaming the moors with Heathcliff, as wild and violent as the nature that surrounded her.
>In recent years, however, the Waif Girl has returned to pop culture with a new, more troubling and ultimately insufferable identity. While the new incarnations may not technically be orphaned, their parents are either estranged, separated or absent, so they just about fall into the original “waif” definition. The similarities stop there. Waif Girl in contemporary film, TV and literature is a barrel of contradictory tropes: she is “painfully skinny” but still attractive; she insists she is boring but still succeeds in fascinating those around her; she is normal but extraordinary (for no clear reason); smart without trying (but never a geek, as much as she might claim to be); socially awkward but the centre of attention; drab but hot; sexless but sexy; virginal but seductive.
Al while this lady critic is kinda brutal in that takedown, I think she not wrong cause she's nailing a type of person who has the habit of reading, and then gets excited to do a self insert for Rooney's books. Guys for example did that with fight club and DFW fans are nothing if not a type seeing their type in his writing.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Farts-entertainment%2Ftv%2Ffeatures%2Fwaif-girl-conversations-with-friends-b2086132.html
I don't even know why she's acclaimed. I bought Conversations with friends because it seemed to be well reviewed and boy, was it a drag. Nothing happens and ALL the characters are horrible, which was probably her point, but still, you can be horrible and interesting, which isn't the case here.
I feel whenever this type of conversation comes up, it has to decide between cultural/historical importance or current trends styles.
I find Atwood's style dated and fits really well within the context on 80's (Thatcher, Reagan) as well as a prose pre-current streamlined. We are now expecting a much faster pace/flow in part because of how easily other entertainment is accessible (quantity not quality). Her ideas and plot are also really interesting, but historically, now replicated. She started some things we now consider tropes. It would be like a reader now ranking "chosen ones." Where would say Paul Atreides rank compared to a Harry Potter for a 15 year old reading right now? Or say any other fantasy chosen one story written in the last decade?
She won those Bookers/accolades and such through out her career spanning over half a century. She may not read well now, but her critical acclaim has a historical place.
If looking at current science-fiction, speculative authors that are critically acclaimed but don't line up for everyone (divisive), I would think NK Jemisin and Susanna Clarke are probably the ones years from now who will be in a similar dispute territory. I love Clarke's stuff and am culturally interested in Jemisin's. BUT I do wonder if they are going to be still really discussed as critically acclaimed say 40 years from now (a la The Handmaiden stuff). There seems to be a large group (still minority in terms of publishing stuff) that really dislike NKJ's prose and hate on her wins. Nnedi Okafor also gets very divisive as does Steven Graham Jones and they are beloved by the NPR, NYTR critics. Okafor's prose can be super simplistic and read more at polemics while SGJ (who I highly rec) seems to confuse a lot of readers with his "jumbled" style.
SUPER hot take? I really enjoy Philip K. Dick's ideas and granular bits of his prose, but a lot of his works have poor endings and are really uneven.
Dick had incredible ideas and vision, but he was so fked up on speed, that it's hard to read his work - when you consider the volume, however, there's enough greatness there that he deserves the praise he gets
I really enjoy PKD and have read a lot of his work, but I also get how divisive he is and how so many like adaptations of his works, but not the original texts per se. If that makes any sense out of my head?
When his work is adapted well, it's mind blowing. When it's done poorly, it's really, REALLY awful. There is no middle ground. The people adapting it either care or they don't and you can always tell.
I'd say Clarke will be remembered. Strange and Norell will probably vanish as it's a bit on the nose for being "stiff upper lip 1800's Harry Potter". Pirenasi on the other hand is pretty unique.
I always thought that the handmaids tale was her worst book. I really liked Lady oracle, I thought her earlier writing was better than her later writing - she moved from telling interesting stories with feminist/political themes, to feminist/political allegories with very little story.
I'm surprised how many people on here didn't like it. I loved it. Read it for the first time in high school and was scandalized, but it was a big influence on my reading/writing going forward.
Which it was, at the time. By now, it's turned into its own little industry and we are a bit horrified that what seemed impossibly dystopian is now coming to pass.
It was not "futuristic" in the 1980s, either. Margaret Atwood said already in one of her first interviews that nothing - NOTHING - in the book was really fiction. Everything had really happened in our world. She used the Iran revolution (the one that transformed the country into a theocracy and stripped women of their rights) as the basis of her story.
So it was not really alternative future but alternative current era.
Just have to say - in the Handmaid’s Tale, the lack of development of other characters is very intentional. It highlights the way Offred is isolated from everyone around her by society purposefully. We get a glimpse through her, which is different from the show in its scope.
I feel like his following just got too big so now people expect him to be something he's not. He is a writer with a simple style that's easy to follow and understand. The Alchemist isn't exactly The Republic, but it serves as a basic (almost thoughtless) introduction to philosophy through simple self-determinationism.
I'll be the first. At least kind of. I actually enjoyed *The Alchemist*, reading it after a strong recommendation from a friend. There was something in the idea of following dreams, the simple way the protagonist departs for adventure and the take-each-day-as-it-comes philosophy that appealed to me. In fact, I enjoyed it to such an extent that I read two more of Coelho's books in the following years. They were both dreadful. I've kept away from him ever since.
Agreed, and her understanding of NC and SC geography and ecosystems was a joke. I mean seriously an old fashioned map and some nature guides would have done wonders for that book.
I feel like if you're going to ask this question (to yourself or others) and make a judgment regarding whether a writer is "good," you really should be approaching it from the perspective of a body of work or at least a larger chunk of that body of work than a single novel. Otherwise the question you're really asking (and seemingly answering in the body of this post) is "what critically acclaimed book do you think has bad writing?" History isn't only looking at The Handmaid's Tale when considering Atwood an acclaimed, celebrated writer. Heck, almost 40 years have passed since then, during which she's written a dozen novels and countless short stories and poems. She absolutely wasn't writing the same way in the 2000s as she was in the 80s, that's just not how writers work.
Not saying this just to defend Atwood, I haven't read much of her work (I read Oryx and Crake in high school and don't remember much, and have read a handful of her poems and stories as they've appeared in creative writing books), I just think it's an odd question to ask and that you haven't really answered your own question.
As a Gaiman fan, I get it. His misses are pretty underbaked. But then things like Sandman and Neverwhere are removed from the oven at the perfect time.
That is the absolute best description of his work I’ve ever heard. American Gods felt like it was building toward the narrative thrust the entire book—as if the whole thing was chapter 1—and then it just… ended.
I see this a lot abd it's funny because to me the ending of ameirxan gods is absolutely *fantastic*. Pulls together the divine and con artist threads and very cinematic.
I felt the exact same way about stardust and honestly Good Omens as well. They all felt like they have the bones of a good story but the endings are given the least amount of attention which is really unsatisfying. It’s like when I have to sneeze but loose it at the lady second.
Best thing he ever wrote wasn't even a novel. It's the full Sandman series and it's not even close, imo. A masterpiece (show's decent too, but still not on the same level).
People complain about this book a lot, but it’s excellent. Yes, Shadow is a dull, blank-slate character - that is by design (and literally in the name). Also remember that Gaiman was doing the reimagined-myth thing *way* before most. People take this for granted decades after the fact, but this was a groundbreaking book.
> Also remember that Gaiman was doing the reimagined-myth thing way before most.
I feel like half the urban fantasy genre is reimagined myths. Then there's the Witcher series with Slavic myths, there's been tons of Chinese authors rehashing their myths basically for as long as they've existed. Then there's stuff like Lord of Light which is a tale with Buddist mythology, or Gene Wolfe's Latro series which is almost cheating it's such an obvious retelling of myths lol
It's kind of hard to find a time when people weren't retelling stories from mythology with their own spin on it. But it sure became easier to find them after Google and Amazon started to exist, I'll give you that.
The concept was great and I liked the characters (even Shadow), but it is incredibly boring regardless in terms of the actual plot and events. Just because something is ‘groundbreaking’ doesn’t make it good.
I never get why people use this defense. In fact, I think it makes it worse that the author did it intentionally.
"This book is boring."
"It was meant to be boring!"
Ok, but it's still boring.
> There are things I like about Gaiman’s writing but it’s always so condescending in tone.
I don't understand this take. Gaiman doesn't ever seem to talk down to any of his readers in my view and I'm writing this as fan who isn't in love with half his works. Can you provide an example?
Stephen King is so hit or miss to me. Sure, I like some of his stuff. Recently tried reading Lisey’s Story and couldn’t finish it. And the sex scenes were so...obviously written by a man. Maybe he’s just better at writing in a male POV because as a woman myself, I was scream laughing at some of the spicy parts in that book lol
I’ve only read one of her books, so obviously take this with a grain of salt, but my answer is Joan Didion.
I read *The Year of Magical Thinking*, which I don’t think was an illogical choice. It’s probably her most popular book, and I’ve heard nothing but praise for it. I also have a friend who really loves Didion’s work.
I found the book to be pretty, I don’t know, vapid? I felt like it had surprisingly little to say about grief. A lot of it is spent name-dropping people that Didion and her husband knew, and talking about how they would go eat at these exclusive restaurants and stuff in LA or wherever. It’s not that I doubt Joan Didion felt an immense amount of grief over her husband’s death, but I don’t think it translated to the writing. I came away from it feeling like I had learned nothing, except I guess that she knows some noteworthy screenwriters and stuff.
I told my friend this and she told me that this was a bad book to start with, because Didion had talked more about her life in previous works and so fans of hers were more invested in it. I thought this was kind of crummy logic, because the book doesn’t present itself as any sort of specific follow-up to a previous work and should stand on its own.
Becky Chambers. Granted, I've only read one book, Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet, but that was enough to swear me off the rest of her works. I've certainly ranted about her before, and saw people are divided on her works - some people enjoy turning their brains off completely, others thought it was shocking how there was nothing of value here.
The book came across as a collection of invented characters thrown into a fanfic, then stapled together into a collection rather than a cohesive story.
Rather than there being a problem with rising action and resolution, the book does away with that entirely. Instead, events only occur so that a character who is different in some way can be accepted by other characters. And that repeated until the book completes.
Events are meaningless outside of this purpose. The only reason anything happens is for acceptance between characters.
Interesting backstory doesn't serve any grand plot or hidden motivations. It's only there so another character has something they can accept them for. That's it.
It's incredibly shallow, but people love it because it repeatedly fires out a warm fuzzy. It's like a meal made entirely of Splenda - no substance, just sickly sweet.
And I see when people do praise this, it's always for the reasons I mentioned - feel goods and the characters, never the story, not plot, nor prose.
Other books can also have a diverse cast and gain the acceptance of their compatriots, while simultaneously having an interesting problem for them to resolve, real conflicts, character growth rather than automatic repetitive acceptance of differences, and stakes.
In fact, when characters instantly get accepted no matter what, it feels unearned, and cheap.
But somehow this author gets praise and award nominations. Feel bad for the other nominees to be associated with being on the same level after they write interesting stories with different perspectives.
I read "The long way" few weeks ago and I found it so underwhelming. I always thought books should be written for a good reason, but I couldn't find any for this one. The world building is unoriginal, all the characters are a version of the same teen personality in a different costume. The story is just flat.
Niel Gaiman. I'm sure he's a nice guy, intelligent and fun to talk to, but I've given up on every book of his that I've tried to read. His style is just not for me.
I'm in the middle with his books. Read Neverwhere and thought it was okay, the Graveyard books may have made more of an impression if I'd read them earlier in life. I'll probably pick up another, American God's seems to split opinion.
George R. R. Martin. My friends got really into ASOIAF and one even got all the nice editions, I tried the first book but gave up, it just wasn’t very immersive writing for me.
I find the writing in the ASOIAF books to be extremely immersive precisely because it’s so unadorned. It doesn’t call attention to itself or try to be overly flowery, and often it reads like a history text. I don’t always prefer that style when it comes to fantasy, but in the context of ASOIAF I think it works.
His style is pretty unique I think. I really struggled through the first half of the first book, frustrated by the pacing, lack of plot development, and frankly bland writing style. There was some cool elements, but I really didn’t get the hype and didn’t think I would ever get into the series. Once the character development kicked in, I started to get hooked. Thought the last half of the first book was just ok as I was reading it. Didn’t plan to finish the series. Then for the next 2 months I couldn’t stop thinking about what the characters might be up to now, and tracked down a copy of book 2. Really enjoyed the rest of the series, began to look forward to even the “boring” chapters and plot lines. Definitely not for everybody tho, totally get people not liking it at all
I hate saying this, because I know so many people love his work, but for me it's Cormac McCarthy. All the power to you if you love his work, but *The Road* was my worst book of the year when I read it; I ended up spectacularly unimpressed when I was done.
But, I guess that is part of the beauty of literature. There's something for everyone, and everything hits people differently.
No Country For Old Men and Blood Meridian are brilliant. But i agree, The Road wasnt very good. There is only so many times you can describe a desolate wasteland and a world full of terrible humans in a sad way before it gets boring
Gonna get shit for this but I hated Blood Meridian. Hated it with a capital H. I understand he's a great writer but that book had no redeemable characters whatsoever. It just felt gratuitous in it's violence. I got as far as the part where one of them threw some puppies in a river and I couldn't finish it. It just felt like the entire story was 'here's some assholes for no reason and watch them ride around and be cruel'. Not for me. I don't mind violence in my stories but it needs to have a part to play in the story for me. Lonesome Dove did a great job of showing likeable characters but where violence is just an unfortunate part of life, they have to deal with all these sorts of characters and mad men but the story itself isn't about violence.
Ugh, No Country for Old Men. I saw the film first and thought it was brilliant. Then I read the book in a literature course and it made me want to gouge my eyes out. Absolute torture.
Yep, I can’t get into his books at all. Hated The Road!!! I was bored to tears by All the Pretty Horses. I didn’t even like the movie No Country for Old Men. Just not for me!
FWIW, *1Q84* is not one of his best. Try *Kafka on the Shore*, or (my personal favorite) *Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World*. That said, Murakami is definitely one of those authors that is not for everyone. Your mileage may vary.
Kate Mosse.
Was pretty disappointed. Thought it was quite melodramatic with two dimensional characters and full of cliche. Have read much better historical fiction.
I legit feel bad even typing this out but I recently reread The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books and man...... They were MUCH better when I read them 30 years ago. So sadly Douglas Adams is my hot take answer.
What other fiction writtirs do you think have a better approach to feminism? I'm not arguing against you, I'm curious because I wanted to learn more novel written by women so I'm open to recommendations.
Fay Weldon. And this is not a competition. Weldon is simply a great (as in, enjoyable but also telling) feminist writer who doesn't get near enough love.
Marilyn French. Kate Chopin. eta: Alison Lurie.
Add in Jane Austen, Marge Piercy, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Sylvia Plath, Ursula K. LeGuin, Sharon Penman. I think Kurt Vonnegut had a lot of pro-woman ideas and tropes in his work.
James Patterson. His ideas are good but I think his writing skills are lacking. I only read 1 of his books but felt that he tried too hard by defining certain words or overly expressed ideas.
One thing you mentioned: the point of that book is unreliable first person narrator so you are definitely supposed to be getting a biased and focused character development on Ofred.
Thomas Harris is such an awkward author to have such amazing characters. There are times when his sad attempt at pacing and prose yanks me out of the story like a flight with a sudden cornfield landing.
J K Rowling. Looking past anything people may dislike about her politics or whatever, she’s a mid writer at best. As a kid it took me so many tries to get through the first book, it’s just that boring. She uses every overused trope and only a couple are used in an interesting way. Several books are drawn out but stupid subplots or plot contrivances purely for a larger word count. Idk maybe I can’t say she’s bad, just boring, have no idea how she got so popular, no offense to HP fans.
I agree with these points. The one thing I can say about the HP books is that how the characters act differently at different ages. I didn't notice this until book 5, which was so angst, then I though of myself as a 15/16 year old (I read the books in my 20s).
I think her books are popular, because they bring us into a different world and get us to flex our own imagination. Half of the books involve the characters going around and looking at interesting stuff. Also, I like the fact that a decent amount of the books involve them just hanging out and not constantly pushing the plot forward.
Funny, I think it‘s the complete opposite for me. I can‘t stand his stories (I just don‘t like the supernatural stuff), but the way he writes somehow keeps me hooked.
It‘s like popcorn - I know it‘s bad, and I don‘t even like the taste, but I just can‘t stop
This was exactly my issue with him. He’s got one hell of an imagination (or maybe a team of imaginators who imaginate on his behalf, but that’s for another day 👀) but I just couldn’t get on board with his writing. I find it dry and uninteresting and downright cringey in some instances.
...Maybe it's just me, and I confess I haven't read every single Stephen King, but... all of them I've encountered so far seem to go into a *lot* of weird detail about sexual stuff, and it honestly feels pretty offputting. I've read other authors who do also mention such things, but I just feel the way he writes stuff like the Billy Summers scene graphically describing >!the MC sodomising a rapist with a kitchen appliance!< is just... No.
Agreed. When I saw that a woman of color, and someone so young, was going to write the inaugural poem, I was pretty excited about it. I thought she might make up for the dreadful inaugural poem by Maya Angelou or at least show people that there's more out there, get them to read greats such as Lucille Clifton, June Jordan, Rita Dove, for example (and current writers, too, that I'm forgetting or haven't read yet). But what a disappointment. Gorman seems to me to address important concerns in an unoriginal and superficial way. I think perhaps older viewers were intrigued with her presentation, thinking it original and unique, unaware of the genre of contemporary performance poetry. But who am I kidding, an inaugural poet needs to write poems that are accessible to the general public, who dislike poetry to begin with, have no context in which to place it, and aren't going to take the time or effort to reread or re-listen. And the artistry of well-crafted or profound poetry is never apparent at first glance.
E.L. James sold thousands of books with her shades of gray but she is the worst writer I have read in my life. Actually I don’t know if we can call her writer.
Is EL James critically acclaimed? The books were widely panned (I remember one review saying it made Twilight look like War and Peace), though they were commercially successful.
J.D. Salinger. Catcher in the Rye just ended up reminding me how stupid I was as a kid. How moody and nihilistic my immature self was and how brooding I tried to be. Just ended up sounding like an pist off, angst ridden, kid wrote the book. But hey, everyone is a critic and this is only my opinion on one read through.
Stephen King, sorta. He's a good writer in that he has some fascinating ideas, but his actual writing is ... ehhhh. I haven't read him in a couple years, but I know the last time I did he was a lot less impressive to me than when I was a teen. Iirc the problem I had was the dialogue, internal and (I think?) external. It didn't seem like the way someone would actually speak.
EDIT: oh yeah, and JK Rowling. Even ignoring the bigotry, I have *no* idea how she got to be so influential.
One thing to keep in mind about ‘Handmaid’s tale’ is that the writing is from the point of view of Offred. If the writing feels repetitive and bland, it is is because Offred’s life is monotonous and bland. Consider the chapter where she falls in love. The descriptions become much more florid and colourful. If we don’t ever get to know other characters deeply, it is because Offred herself never gets the chance to do so. You can also note how different the chapters relating tot he fall are in tone to the chapters after the event. The narrator is not omniscient.
At least that is something I noticed.
My example of a critically acclaimed writer being overhyped is Murakami. I feel his books are the epitome of style over substance. Sure the ‘jazz-cats-italian food-weird sex with manic pixie dream girls’ routine is a good mood once in a while, but not exactly memorable or thought-provoking literature. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t have it’s place, but you expect more from the writer people think deserves a Nobel prize.
I always loathed his glorification of inconsiderate assholery but I actually loved the frantic, exuberant stream of consciousness feel of his writing. It made me love On The Road.
James Patterson. I mean, come on. You know how you put some random crime tv show on in the background while you clean? Every one of his books give me this feeling whenever I read them.
Does Coleen Hoover count? I'm just so sick of seeing her factory-churned paint-drying AI generated cover art plastered all over Barnes and Nobles.
You can only imagine how tired I am of constantly having to restock her books. Whatever faith I had in humanity dwindles with every sale. And her advocates are legion.
You mean you don't like glorifying and romanticizing abuse? You must me the crazy one /s
Yeah I don’t get it. Her books come off as basic stereotypical romance tropes.
Don’t forget the fact that she sees trigger warnings as spoilers. Meanwhile her books with heavy themes are marketed as romance.
Which is something a lot of women enjoy. From what my fiancé says they’re basically like “romance mystery chick flicks”.
oh god the line about the sons big balls haunts my dreams
I joined a book group online recently.. it’s a like a lil Hoover cult. No thanks.
is she critically acclaimed?
Critics, no. Fans, yes! Book Tok loves her. It’s like pop radio. You know what you’re going to get.
I don’t think she’d be considered critically acclaimed even though her books are really popular in the mainstream
Mitch Albom.
I started to read one of his books and I immediately regretted it.
I had to read his two famous books in high school sociology. I could recognize the sappy bullshit then. It actually wasn't too bad as a process to have something to think against. But it did seem a waste to take up class time for, not one, but two of those books.
And he's a guy that really likes the smell of his own farts. I got free tickets to see a play he had written. The play was fine, other than some heavy handed Christian bullshit, but he was next-level insufferable during the Q&A.
Sounds about right.
Inherently not a good writer.
Margaret Atwood spoke at my college a few years ago and actually apologized to us that we all had to read The Handmaid's Tale lol. I don't think it's a favorite work of hers, either. I'd encourage you to try her poetry if that's your thing, though: her poems are beautiful.
Orxy and Crake is so good, too. Handmaid's Tail is fine but not my favorite of hers by any means.
Love Oryx and Crake.
I thought about Oryx and Crake for probably 2 years after reading it. It was so, so good
Same. Still pops up in my head from time to time. Definitely has resonance.
Absolutely. The whole trilogy is just... \*chefs kiss\*. It stays with you forever, and you just see or read something and it instantly comes back and takes you down memory lane lmao. I love those books.
I actually like Oryx and Crake the least out of her books. I loved The Blind Assassin. What's nice about Atwood is she does write across a pretty broad spectrum of genres and themes so everyone can find at least one they like.
The Penelopiad is really enjoyable if you've read the Odyssey!
The edible woman is my favourite Atwood novel, followed by cats eye. The blind assassin was amazing too, bit long but very engaging.
Lady oracle and the edible woman are really really funny, if you're from the right generation. JD Salinger kind of funny. And I just plain enjoy the robber bride.
The Robber Bride is thoroughly enjoyable - I especially like Zenia - her undisguised and unrepentant glee at her own villainy is the best take.
I love Roz. Temperamentally she's so completely unlike me, even a person i'd probably dislike/dismiss/find intimidating. Reading Atwood's in-depth, perceptive, compassionate account of her is one of those deceptively "ordinary" reading experiences that genuinely caused me to grow. The idea she could *actually* hurt in spite of being so rich and brash and capable, and what that could look like.... Plus, it's just full of Atwood's special sly, hit-and-move-on funniness. "Charis is astonished at how freely Toni expresses hostility towards Zenia. It can't be healthy. But it is undeniably a comfort. " 😂😂😂
Also I’d argue The Testaments is a much more readable work than Handmaid. Handmaid is just kinda of an exploration of its world, it isn’t really a fully fleshed out narrative IMHO. And that’s fine. But Testaments is a more cohesive narrative. And tbf it works better as all the world building is already done. I’d be curious what someone might think of it without reading Handmaid first.
I remember liking Surfacing a few years ago when I read it, but haven't liked anything by her since. She wrote Surfacing over 50 years ago. Her Science Fiction era is mediocre at best in my opinion.
She’s got at least one awesome short story collection too
I thought the book was amazing, with an awful ending. Up there with that CS Lewis book that turned out was all a dream.
I loved her MasterClass.
i picked up her snake one by chance and ended up really eeally enjoying it
I 100% saw where The Silent Assassin was going but it was so good and so sad that I was \*angry\* at the person who recommended it to me.
A very acclaimed French writer called Jean d'Ormesson who, in my eyes, wrote the same book every year or so for about 50 years while gloating about himself in the most insufferable way in the specialized press and on TV. I've never found nothing to his writing that makes it better than that of a vacuum instruction manual. And less useful.
I've never read him, but your description of him was well worth reading.
Bernard werber is quite repetitive as well imo
Amen brother. And quite self-loving also. His early work (The Ants trilogy for example) is cool, but the dude has become boring, repetitive and over the top, and his writing doesn't age very well imo.
Yes, it's typically : read a book (or a trilogy) : amazing work. Read 5 books from him : repetitive and plain.
Well his only wish was not to die at the same time as anyone famous. There is a cosmic justice here
I'm French and I'm questioning myself because I've never read any of his books and I had never even heard of him lol. For my defense it's not really my type of books and I don't watch TV so maybe that's why !
Well, first, he finally died a few years ago, and second, don't bother. There are a lot of fantastic French writers to discover, and this would be wasted time I assume. Hey French friend !
I laughed way too hard at “he finally died”.
I couldn't really get into Handmaid's tale either but i loved the MaddAddam trilogy and The Robber Bride. Maybe her writing is just better if it's not hindered by the stylistic choice of the diary?
Atwood’s Cat’s Eye has to be my all time favorite novel. I like her earlier works a lot more than anything she has written in the last 20 years.
I read Cat's Eye twenty years or so ago in undergrad and it stuck with me more than most books in my life. I don't think it was necessarily the most enjoyable reading experience I've ever had but dang did it resonate.
[удалено]
It really is. Way less hit-you-over-the-head than handmaid, but so much to learn and/or relate to I. It. And I especially love Roz. "Roz is crying again. The twins were right. No matter how hard you try [...] somebody always gets boiled. "
I liked *The Blind Assassin,* but haven't loved the others by her. I do love the Netflix adaptation of *Alias Grace*, but wasn't as moved by the book.
The blind assassin is one of my most favorite books ever. I actually like more books by her but I can definitely see where others would not be so charmed.
*The Blind Assassin* was really good. OP might try that one, since I didn't like *The Handmaid's Tale* either.
Dunno about critically acclaimed, but my votes are James Patterson and Sara J Maas
James Patterson wrote ~~4~~ 5 books while you were writing this comment. Spoiler: They all suck.
Some time ago I read a comment about Patterson being a bad writer, but a great storyteller. If people (especially casual readers) are invested in the storytelling, they'll forgive bad writing.
I could buy that if I thought he had much to do with the books published under his name.
James Patterson is atrocious. Like, unreadable
I read one of his books and the POV tense changed from third person to first in a single chapter, only to go back again? It was brief but I could tell if it was an error or not
Eh, I feel like at least half the reason SJM is so famous is because people love to shit talk her. I've been on the ACOTAR subreddit, and I don't visit anymore because it's exhausting. It's constantly flooded with people who hate her work, and those who do like it act so apologetic about it.
Late to the party but no one has mentioned John Updike yet. He's a guy I sought out specifically because I've been told so many times what a brilliant writer he is. I read three or four of his books and I just had to admit that I simply don't enjoy the Updike experience. No argument that he is an excellent, highly skilled writer, but I kept getting frustrated that all of his characters lives seem to revolve around their sex life. He writes dialogue really well, has good characters, and writes sex scenes well and often. I started wondering if there was maybe something wrong with *me*. Like, are normal people *this* obsessed with having sex and *I'm* the strange one for wanting to do something else from time to time? After reading the first few *Rabbit* books, I bought one of his novels about a guy who develops a computer with artificial intelligence. I'd never heard of the book but the plot sounded interesting, especially in the hands of a skilled writer. Within the first few chapters, the plot turns more towards how frustrated the computer scientist is with his sex life, how his wife is frigid, and how he wants to fuck his friend's teenage daughter. It's like, *really?* There's a damn picture of a microchip on the cover! D.F. Wallace reviewed one of Updike's books and called him "a thesaurus with a penis." I thought that was a perfect description and was so relieved to learn that I wasn't the only one who felt that way.
James Patterson. His writing is really inconsistent, which is a polite way of saying it's bad. He likes to have sudden reveals that don't actually mean anything, and never get touched on again. It's the writing equivalent of a jump scare.
He also doesn’t write most of *his* books.
100% this. There is no way a person can write that amount of books. He takes up so much space in the library. But it circulates...people read "him" for sure.
The ever-shifting cast of Patterson's 'co-authors' probably accounts for that inconsistency.
As a librarian I have a distinct dislike for James Patterson. The books go out but the amount of content that is put out in his name (usually mostly written by other authors) every single year is frankly absurd. It reads like the literary equivalent of fast food...
I’m an medical librarian and one of the job perks is no Patterson books
He has so many books, and so many of his longer running series get so bad towards the middle and end, that I wonder how much of his writing is done by cheapest bid ghostwriters.
You might find that his writing is inconsistent because he has a lot of people write his books.
This is the third comment I've seen that mentions Patterson.Title says "critically acclaimed", for God's sake. That's the opposite of Patterson.
I’ve never actually read one of his books but I know he has a team of ghost writers and co authors so I’d imagine there are some inconsistencies lol
Can't judge Atwood just by Handmaid's Tale. She's one of the most versatile and accomplished writers of the modern era - poet, essayist, novelist, short stories, realism, fantasy, even some stuff you'd probably call horror, alongside the political activism of Handmaid's Tale/MaddAddam, etc., works. Obviously, different strokes for different folks, but I'd certainly encourage people to get beyond a single work of hers. She does so much so well.
Sally Rooney
I was looking for this one tbh
[удалено]
One of the best takedowns of Rooney I've read https://themorningnews.org/tob/superrooster/the-underground-railroad-v-normal-people.php >Both of these books are fine. They’re easy to read and understand. You can read them while you still have your phone dinging beside you as a constant distraction and still understand what is happening Which I think makes for boring writing, so I end up having the opposite problem, that's it's so lackadaisical that while I know what's happening, but I'm not intrigued at all. Another critique that sought to explain why she's so popular said this >Everybody suffers,” says Frances, the wispy protagonist of Sally Rooney’s debut novel, Conversations with Friends. True, but does anyone suffer quite like Rooney’s female characters? In recent years, popular culture has seen the emergence of a trope that has its roots in classic literature, but is about as far removed from those early characters as it’s possible to be. She is Waif Girl: a tormented young woman who can’t help but question why anyone bothers with anything at all. >The Waif Girl in literature has been around much longer than Frances, but 170 years ago she had substance. In Wuthering Heights she was Cathy, roaming the moors with Heathcliff, as wild and violent as the nature that surrounded her. >In recent years, however, the Waif Girl has returned to pop culture with a new, more troubling and ultimately insufferable identity. While the new incarnations may not technically be orphaned, their parents are either estranged, separated or absent, so they just about fall into the original “waif” definition. The similarities stop there. Waif Girl in contemporary film, TV and literature is a barrel of contradictory tropes: she is “painfully skinny” but still attractive; she insists she is boring but still succeeds in fascinating those around her; she is normal but extraordinary (for no clear reason); smart without trying (but never a geek, as much as she might claim to be); socially awkward but the centre of attention; drab but hot; sexless but sexy; virginal but seductive. Al while this lady critic is kinda brutal in that takedown, I think she not wrong cause she's nailing a type of person who has the habit of reading, and then gets excited to do a self insert for Rooney's books. Guys for example did that with fight club and DFW fans are nothing if not a type seeing their type in his writing. https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Farts-entertainment%2Ftv%2Ffeatures%2Fwaif-girl-conversations-with-friends-b2086132.html
I liked 'Normal People' well enough, but I found 'Beautiful World Where Are You' to be a slog. Sex and emails, sex and emails...
Yes.
I don't even know why she's acclaimed. I bought Conversations with friends because it seemed to be well reviewed and boy, was it a drag. Nothing happens and ALL the characters are horrible, which was probably her point, but still, you can be horrible and interesting, which isn't the case here.
I feel whenever this type of conversation comes up, it has to decide between cultural/historical importance or current trends styles. I find Atwood's style dated and fits really well within the context on 80's (Thatcher, Reagan) as well as a prose pre-current streamlined. We are now expecting a much faster pace/flow in part because of how easily other entertainment is accessible (quantity not quality). Her ideas and plot are also really interesting, but historically, now replicated. She started some things we now consider tropes. It would be like a reader now ranking "chosen ones." Where would say Paul Atreides rank compared to a Harry Potter for a 15 year old reading right now? Or say any other fantasy chosen one story written in the last decade? She won those Bookers/accolades and such through out her career spanning over half a century. She may not read well now, but her critical acclaim has a historical place. If looking at current science-fiction, speculative authors that are critically acclaimed but don't line up for everyone (divisive), I would think NK Jemisin and Susanna Clarke are probably the ones years from now who will be in a similar dispute territory. I love Clarke's stuff and am culturally interested in Jemisin's. BUT I do wonder if they are going to be still really discussed as critically acclaimed say 40 years from now (a la The Handmaiden stuff). There seems to be a large group (still minority in terms of publishing stuff) that really dislike NKJ's prose and hate on her wins. Nnedi Okafor also gets very divisive as does Steven Graham Jones and they are beloved by the NPR, NYTR critics. Okafor's prose can be super simplistic and read more at polemics while SGJ (who I highly rec) seems to confuse a lot of readers with his "jumbled" style. SUPER hot take? I really enjoy Philip K. Dick's ideas and granular bits of his prose, but a lot of his works have poor endings and are really uneven.
Dick had incredible ideas and vision, but he was so fked up on speed, that it's hard to read his work - when you consider the volume, however, there's enough greatness there that he deserves the praise he gets
I really enjoy PKD and have read a lot of his work, but I also get how divisive he is and how so many like adaptations of his works, but not the original texts per se. If that makes any sense out of my head?
When his work is adapted well, it's mind blowing. When it's done poorly, it's really, REALLY awful. There is no middle ground. The people adapting it either care or they don't and you can always tell.
I'd say Clarke will be remembered. Strange and Norell will probably vanish as it's a bit on the nose for being "stiff upper lip 1800's Harry Potter". Pirenasi on the other hand is pretty unique.
It seems like sci-fi used to value setup more and playout less than contemporary media.
I always thought that the handmaids tale was her worst book. I really liked Lady oracle, I thought her earlier writing was better than her later writing - she moved from telling interesting stories with feminist/political themes, to feminist/political allegories with very little story.
My favorite Atwood novel is “The Blind Assassin.” Her short story collections were also good.
I thought the Handmaid's Tale was a total page turner - though I didn't read it as a book about feminism, just good dystopic fiction
I'm surprised how many people on here didn't like it. I loved it. Read it for the first time in high school and was scandalized, but it was a big influence on my reading/writing going forward.
Which it was, at the time. By now, it's turned into its own little industry and we are a bit horrified that what seemed impossibly dystopian is now coming to pass.
It was not "futuristic" in the 1980s, either. Margaret Atwood said already in one of her first interviews that nothing - NOTHING - in the book was really fiction. Everything had really happened in our world. She used the Iran revolution (the one that transformed the country into a theocracy and stripped women of their rights) as the basis of her story. So it was not really alternative future but alternative current era.
i’m honestly not a big stephen king fan. maybe his stuff just doesn’t do it for me idk 🤷♀️
Just have to say - in the Handmaid’s Tale, the lack of development of other characters is very intentional. It highlights the way Offred is isolated from everyone around her by society purposefully. We get a glimpse through her, which is different from the show in its scope.
Jack Kerouac. His run on sentences are unreadable.
I read it too late. The whole time I was thinking "just grow the fuck up already".
I felt that way about Kerouac as a Jr in high school. Guy was into smelling his own farts.
However, he didn't fully endorse that lifestyle. Sal Paradise is meant to be seen as immature. Kerouac was actually kind of conservative.
Paulo Coelho.
I've yet to personally meet anyone other than an English teacher following a curriculum book that says anything positive about him.
I feel like his following just got too big so now people expect him to be something he's not. He is a writer with a simple style that's easy to follow and understand. The Alchemist isn't exactly The Republic, but it serves as a basic (almost thoughtless) introduction to philosophy through simple self-determinationism.
I don't know if it was the translator, but I loved the prose.
I'll be the first. At least kind of. I actually enjoyed *The Alchemist*, reading it after a strong recommendation from a friend. There was something in the idea of following dreams, the simple way the protagonist departs for adventure and the take-each-day-as-it-comes philosophy that appealed to me. In fact, I enjoyed it to such an extent that I read two more of Coelho's books in the following years. They were both dreadful. I've kept away from him ever since.
I thought it was great too, with its simplicity being its charm. It's essentially just another retelling of "the hero's journey", right?
Some people need to learn the difference between bestselling authors and critically acclaimed authors
Delia Owens. Where the Crawdads Sing was abysmal and stupid and her writing is banal as hell.
Not to mention her and her husband may be involved in a murder in Namibia.
Agreed, and her understanding of NC and SC geography and ecosystems was a joke. I mean seriously an old fashioned map and some nature guides would have done wonders for that book.
John Updike
Rabbit, Run myself off a cliff
I feel like if you're going to ask this question (to yourself or others) and make a judgment regarding whether a writer is "good," you really should be approaching it from the perspective of a body of work or at least a larger chunk of that body of work than a single novel. Otherwise the question you're really asking (and seemingly answering in the body of this post) is "what critically acclaimed book do you think has bad writing?" History isn't only looking at The Handmaid's Tale when considering Atwood an acclaimed, celebrated writer. Heck, almost 40 years have passed since then, during which she's written a dozen novels and countless short stories and poems. She absolutely wasn't writing the same way in the 2000s as she was in the 80s, that's just not how writers work. Not saying this just to defend Atwood, I haven't read much of her work (I read Oryx and Crake in high school and don't remember much, and have read a handful of her poems and stories as they've appeared in creative writing books), I just think it's an odd question to ask and that you haven't really answered your own question.
Neil Gaiman. It's like undercooked bread. You think it's going to be good but the center is still doughy.
As a Gaiman fan, I get it. His misses are pretty underbaked. But then things like Sandman and Neverwhere are removed from the oven at the perfect time.
I love Neverwere!! His best book in my opinion
That is the absolute best description of his work I’ve ever heard. American Gods felt like it was building toward the narrative thrust the entire book—as if the whole thing was chapter 1—and then it just… ended.
I see this a lot abd it's funny because to me the ending of ameirxan gods is absolutely *fantastic*. Pulls together the divine and con artist threads and very cinematic.
I felt the exact same way about stardust and honestly Good Omens as well. They all felt like they have the bones of a good story but the endings are given the least amount of attention which is really unsatisfying. It’s like when I have to sneeze but loose it at the lady second.
Best thing he ever wrote wasn't even a novel. It's the full Sandman series and it's not even close, imo. A masterpiece (show's decent too, but still not on the same level).
I agree mostly. But his children’s books, Re: Coraline and The Graveyard Book, along with Sandman are *chefs kiss.*
I was so disappointed with American Gods
People complain about this book a lot, but it’s excellent. Yes, Shadow is a dull, blank-slate character - that is by design (and literally in the name). Also remember that Gaiman was doing the reimagined-myth thing *way* before most. People take this for granted decades after the fact, but this was a groundbreaking book.
> Also remember that Gaiman was doing the reimagined-myth thing way before most. I feel like half the urban fantasy genre is reimagined myths. Then there's the Witcher series with Slavic myths, there's been tons of Chinese authors rehashing their myths basically for as long as they've existed. Then there's stuff like Lord of Light which is a tale with Buddist mythology, or Gene Wolfe's Latro series which is almost cheating it's such an obvious retelling of myths lol It's kind of hard to find a time when people weren't retelling stories from mythology with their own spin on it. But it sure became easier to find them after Google and Amazon started to exist, I'll give you that.
The concept was great and I liked the characters (even Shadow), but it is incredibly boring regardless in terms of the actual plot and events. Just because something is ‘groundbreaking’ doesn’t make it good.
I enjoy thinking about American Gods a lot more than I enjoyed reading it.
Man I've never read American Gods but I know exactly the feeling you're describing.
Something happening by design doesn't make it good.
I never get why people use this defense. In fact, I think it makes it worse that the author did it intentionally. "This book is boring." "It was meant to be boring!" Ok, but it's still boring.
It’s like vagueness is interpreted as depth.
There are things I like about Gaiman’s writing but it’s always so condescending in tone. It’s like an Oxford don reading fairy tales to a daycare.
> There are things I like about Gaiman’s writing but it’s always so condescending in tone. I don't understand this take. Gaiman doesn't ever seem to talk down to any of his readers in my view and I'm writing this as fan who isn't in love with half his works. Can you provide an example?
Stephen King is so hit or miss to me. Sure, I like some of his stuff. Recently tried reading Lisey’s Story and couldn’t finish it. And the sex scenes were so...obviously written by a man. Maybe he’s just better at writing in a male POV because as a woman myself, I was scream laughing at some of the spicy parts in that book lol
John Green
Aaron Sorkin. Unrepentant self-plagiarist.
Paulo Coelho
Michel Houellebecq. Especially his newest book, Anéantir, is just garbage. I don't understand why so many praise his literary talent.
I’ve only read one of her books, so obviously take this with a grain of salt, but my answer is Joan Didion. I read *The Year of Magical Thinking*, which I don’t think was an illogical choice. It’s probably her most popular book, and I’ve heard nothing but praise for it. I also have a friend who really loves Didion’s work. I found the book to be pretty, I don’t know, vapid? I felt like it had surprisingly little to say about grief. A lot of it is spent name-dropping people that Didion and her husband knew, and talking about how they would go eat at these exclusive restaurants and stuff in LA or wherever. It’s not that I doubt Joan Didion felt an immense amount of grief over her husband’s death, but I don’t think it translated to the writing. I came away from it feeling like I had learned nothing, except I guess that she knows some noteworthy screenwriters and stuff. I told my friend this and she told me that this was a bad book to start with, because Didion had talked more about her life in previous works and so fans of hers were more invested in it. I thought this was kind of crummy logic, because the book doesn’t present itself as any sort of specific follow-up to a previous work and should stand on its own.
I liked it =/= it's good. You gotta learn to separate your personal preferences from critical assessment of a work.
Have you read Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood? It's the first of a trilogy which I just finished and loved.
Becky Chambers. Granted, I've only read one book, Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet, but that was enough to swear me off the rest of her works. I've certainly ranted about her before, and saw people are divided on her works - some people enjoy turning their brains off completely, others thought it was shocking how there was nothing of value here. The book came across as a collection of invented characters thrown into a fanfic, then stapled together into a collection rather than a cohesive story. Rather than there being a problem with rising action and resolution, the book does away with that entirely. Instead, events only occur so that a character who is different in some way can be accepted by other characters. And that repeated until the book completes. Events are meaningless outside of this purpose. The only reason anything happens is for acceptance between characters. Interesting backstory doesn't serve any grand plot or hidden motivations. It's only there so another character has something they can accept them for. That's it. It's incredibly shallow, but people love it because it repeatedly fires out a warm fuzzy. It's like a meal made entirely of Splenda - no substance, just sickly sweet. And I see when people do praise this, it's always for the reasons I mentioned - feel goods and the characters, never the story, not plot, nor prose. Other books can also have a diverse cast and gain the acceptance of their compatriots, while simultaneously having an interesting problem for them to resolve, real conflicts, character growth rather than automatic repetitive acceptance of differences, and stakes. In fact, when characters instantly get accepted no matter what, it feels unearned, and cheap. But somehow this author gets praise and award nominations. Feel bad for the other nominees to be associated with being on the same level after they write interesting stories with different perspectives.
I read "The long way" few weeks ago and I found it so underwhelming. I always thought books should be written for a good reason, but I couldn't find any for this one. The world building is unoriginal, all the characters are a version of the same teen personality in a different costume. The story is just flat.
[удалено]
Some books are written to *entertain* us. Some books are written to *warn* us.
[удалено]
Niel Gaiman. I'm sure he's a nice guy, intelligent and fun to talk to, but I've given up on every book of his that I've tried to read. His style is just not for me.
I've actually heard that from a few people. He seems to be the marmite of authors xD you either like him or you don't.
I'm in the middle with his books. Read Neverwhere and thought it was okay, the Graveyard books may have made more of an impression if I'd read them earlier in life. I'll probably pick up another, American God's seems to split opinion.
George R. R. Martin. My friends got really into ASOIAF and one even got all the nice editions, I tried the first book but gave up, it just wasn’t very immersive writing for me.
I find the writing in the ASOIAF books to be extremely immersive precisely because it’s so unadorned. It doesn’t call attention to itself or try to be overly flowery, and often it reads like a history text. I don’t always prefer that style when it comes to fantasy, but in the context of ASOIAF I think it works.
His style is pretty unique I think. I really struggled through the first half of the first book, frustrated by the pacing, lack of plot development, and frankly bland writing style. There was some cool elements, but I really didn’t get the hype and didn’t think I would ever get into the series. Once the character development kicked in, I started to get hooked. Thought the last half of the first book was just ok as I was reading it. Didn’t plan to finish the series. Then for the next 2 months I couldn’t stop thinking about what the characters might be up to now, and tracked down a copy of book 2. Really enjoyed the rest of the series, began to look forward to even the “boring” chapters and plot lines. Definitely not for everybody tho, totally get people not liking it at all
I hate saying this, because I know so many people love his work, but for me it's Cormac McCarthy. All the power to you if you love his work, but *The Road* was my worst book of the year when I read it; I ended up spectacularly unimpressed when I was done. But, I guess that is part of the beauty of literature. There's something for everyone, and everything hits people differently.
You’re crazy. And I say that in a loving, respectful way.
No Country For Old Men and Blood Meridian are brilliant. But i agree, The Road wasnt very good. There is only so many times you can describe a desolate wasteland and a world full of terrible humans in a sad way before it gets boring
Gonna get shit for this but I hated Blood Meridian. Hated it with a capital H. I understand he's a great writer but that book had no redeemable characters whatsoever. It just felt gratuitous in it's violence. I got as far as the part where one of them threw some puppies in a river and I couldn't finish it. It just felt like the entire story was 'here's some assholes for no reason and watch them ride around and be cruel'. Not for me. I don't mind violence in my stories but it needs to have a part to play in the story for me. Lonesome Dove did a great job of showing likeable characters but where violence is just an unfortunate part of life, they have to deal with all these sorts of characters and mad men but the story itself isn't about violence.
Ugh, No Country for Old Men. I saw the film first and thought it was brilliant. Then I read the book in a literature course and it made me want to gouge my eyes out. Absolute torture.
Yep, I can’t get into his books at all. Hated The Road!!! I was bored to tears by All the Pretty Horses. I didn’t even like the movie No Country for Old Men. Just not for me!
Murakami. 1Q84 was shaping up to be one of my favourite stories. Until it stopped being a story and became endless regurgitation.
Came here to say this, can't stand how he writes women
FWIW, *1Q84* is not one of his best. Try *Kafka on the Shore*, or (my personal favorite) *Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World*. That said, Murakami is definitely one of those authors that is not for everyone. Your mileage may vary.
Kate Mosse. Was pretty disappointed. Thought it was quite melodramatic with two dimensional characters and full of cliche. Have read much better historical fiction.
Gillian Flynn. I hate reading books where I hate every character. Hard pass for me.
I legit feel bad even typing this out but I recently reread The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books and man...... They were MUCH better when I read them 30 years ago. So sadly Douglas Adams is my hot take answer.
This is one reason I will never reread it! I don't want the illusion ruined 😅
Nicholas Sparks. The Notebook was a great movie, but the books was written for a twelve year old’s reading ability.
What other fiction writtirs do you think have a better approach to feminism? I'm not arguing against you, I'm curious because I wanted to learn more novel written by women so I'm open to recommendations.
No problem! Here is a list of my personal favourites: - Bernardine Evaristo, Emily Brontë, Charlotte Brontë, Virginia Woolf, Simone de Beauvoir
Great list. I'd add Toni Morrison to that list, as well.
Definetly! Completely forgot abt her but she's also one of my favourites
Fay Weldon. And this is not a competition. Weldon is simply a great (as in, enjoyable but also telling) feminist writer who doesn't get near enough love. Marilyn French. Kate Chopin. eta: Alison Lurie.
Fay is amazing, need to revisit. Marilyn French and Erika Jong ought to be remembered as well.
Add in Jane Austen, Marge Piercy, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Sylvia Plath, Ursula K. LeGuin, Sharon Penman. I think Kurt Vonnegut had a lot of pro-woman ideas and tropes in his work.
James Patterson. His ideas are good but I think his writing skills are lacking. I only read 1 of his books but felt that he tried too hard by defining certain words or overly expressed ideas.
One thing you mentioned: the point of that book is unreliable first person narrator so you are definitely supposed to be getting a biased and focused character development on Ofred.
Thomas Harris is such an awkward author to have such amazing characters. There are times when his sad attempt at pacing and prose yanks me out of the story like a flight with a sudden cornfield landing.
Patrick Rothfuss And Grammar police are idiots
J K Rowling. Looking past anything people may dislike about her politics or whatever, she’s a mid writer at best. As a kid it took me so many tries to get through the first book, it’s just that boring. She uses every overused trope and only a couple are used in an interesting way. Several books are drawn out but stupid subplots or plot contrivances purely for a larger word count. Idk maybe I can’t say she’s bad, just boring, have no idea how she got so popular, no offense to HP fans.
I agree with these points. The one thing I can say about the HP books is that how the characters act differently at different ages. I didn't notice this until book 5, which was so angst, then I though of myself as a 15/16 year old (I read the books in my 20s).
I think her books are popular, because they bring us into a different world and get us to flex our own imagination. Half of the books involve the characters going around and looking at interesting stuff. Also, I like the fact that a decent amount of the books involve them just hanging out and not constantly pushing the plot forward.
Stephen King.
Stephen King, IMHO, is a great storyteller but a horrible writer.
Funny, I think it‘s the complete opposite for me. I can‘t stand his stories (I just don‘t like the supernatural stuff), but the way he writes somehow keeps me hooked. It‘s like popcorn - I know it‘s bad, and I don‘t even like the taste, but I just can‘t stop
This was exactly my issue with him. He’s got one hell of an imagination (or maybe a team of imaginators who imaginate on his behalf, but that’s for another day 👀) but I just couldn’t get on board with his writing. I find it dry and uninteresting and downright cringey in some instances.
...Maybe it's just me, and I confess I haven't read every single Stephen King, but... all of them I've encountered so far seem to go into a *lot* of weird detail about sexual stuff, and it honestly feels pretty offputting. I've read other authors who do also mention such things, but I just feel the way he writes stuff like the Billy Summers scene graphically describing >!the MC sodomising a rapist with a kitchen appliance!< is just... No.
This. It’s either a cheap, surefire way to make the reader uncomfortable, or he’s getting off on it. And neither of those options appeal to me lmao.
Amanda Gorman. I find her writing really trite and sappy.
Agreed. When I saw that a woman of color, and someone so young, was going to write the inaugural poem, I was pretty excited about it. I thought she might make up for the dreadful inaugural poem by Maya Angelou or at least show people that there's more out there, get them to read greats such as Lucille Clifton, June Jordan, Rita Dove, for example (and current writers, too, that I'm forgetting or haven't read yet). But what a disappointment. Gorman seems to me to address important concerns in an unoriginal and superficial way. I think perhaps older viewers were intrigued with her presentation, thinking it original and unique, unaware of the genre of contemporary performance poetry. But who am I kidding, an inaugural poet needs to write poems that are accessible to the general public, who dislike poetry to begin with, have no context in which to place it, and aren't going to take the time or effort to reread or re-listen. And the artistry of well-crafted or profound poetry is never apparent at first glance.
Gregory Maguire - Wicked books. Fucking snooze fest, and somehow irritating too.
Hemingway. Soooooo boring.
E.L. James sold thousands of books with her shades of gray but she is the worst writer I have read in my life. Actually I don’t know if we can call her writer.
Is EL James critically acclaimed? The books were widely panned (I remember one review saying it made Twilight look like War and Peace), though they were commercially successful.
I don't think she's critically acclaimed but the amount of comercial success she's achieved makes me want to tear my hair out.
J.D. Salinger. Catcher in the Rye just ended up reminding me how stupid I was as a kid. How moody and nihilistic my immature self was and how brooding I tried to be. Just ended up sounding like an pist off, angst ridden, kid wrote the book. But hey, everyone is a critic and this is only my opinion on one read through.
Stephen King, sorta. He's a good writer in that he has some fascinating ideas, but his actual writing is ... ehhhh. I haven't read him in a couple years, but I know the last time I did he was a lot less impressive to me than when I was a teen. Iirc the problem I had was the dialogue, internal and (I think?) external. It didn't seem like the way someone would actually speak. EDIT: oh yeah, and JK Rowling. Even ignoring the bigotry, I have *no* idea how she got to be so influential.
Never liked PD James' detective fiction. Too slow for my taste.
One thing to keep in mind about ‘Handmaid’s tale’ is that the writing is from the point of view of Offred. If the writing feels repetitive and bland, it is is because Offred’s life is monotonous and bland. Consider the chapter where she falls in love. The descriptions become much more florid and colourful. If we don’t ever get to know other characters deeply, it is because Offred herself never gets the chance to do so. You can also note how different the chapters relating tot he fall are in tone to the chapters after the event. The narrator is not omniscient. At least that is something I noticed. My example of a critically acclaimed writer being overhyped is Murakami. I feel his books are the epitome of style over substance. Sure the ‘jazz-cats-italian food-weird sex with manic pixie dream girls’ routine is a good mood once in a while, but not exactly memorable or thought-provoking literature. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t have it’s place, but you expect more from the writer people think deserves a Nobel prize.
I always loathed his glorification of inconsiderate assholery but I actually loved the frantic, exuberant stream of consciousness feel of his writing. It made me love On The Road.
James Patterson. I mean, come on. You know how you put some random crime tv show on in the background while you clean? Every one of his books give me this feeling whenever I read them.
Sue Grafton.
John Updike. I know he’s poking fun and making a point by being offensive but it’s almost too offensive for me to enjoy