Hits and Misses in Fiction

[rj_anderson]

sartorias aka Sherwood Smith has a fascinating discussion going over on her LJ about when you only like one (or, if they're prolific, two or three) of an author's works and bounce off the rest. So far the responses have mostly been people commisserating and sharing which authors and which books affected them this way, but there's also been some discussion

Comments

[rj_anderson]

I'm with you on Gaiman. I found Stardust a pleasant read, though it didn't grab me enough to want to buy it or read it again, and Neverwhere struck me the same way. The only Gaiman-penned thing I've really loved was "The Doctor's Wife", which makes me wonder if I like him better as a scriptwriter than a novelist.

And I look forward to starting Dark Days Club soon!

[sartorias]

My theory is that first, Gaiman is a visual writer, and second, that he doesn't have much depth. But he's aware of what the current culture thinks is hip or cool or deep, and so hits it for his millions of fans.

Both my kids as young teens loved the Sandman comics, then lost interest in him.

[kerravonsen]

huh. (scratches head)
I LOVED the Sandman comics. To me, they were thoughtful and evocative, though also too gory in places.
Here we get the "looks like you didn't read/view the same work as I did" phenomenon.

[robinellen]

For truly prolific authors (such as the example of Agatha Christie that someone mentioned on the other thread), I suspect it would be pretty hard to produce books where any reader loved ALL of them...but there are a couple of authors who are my go-to writers (Donna Freitas, for instance), where (to date) I've truly loved everything they've put out. (Robison Wells is also like this -- though his strength is in the exciting plots and intriguing world building.)

I also liked everything Brigid Kemmerer wrote (in her Elementals series), but her latest wasn't nearly as good (too many plot holes for my taste). However, when something like that happens, I tend to give the author one more chance, as the pattern up to that point was a positive one. :)

Others like that would include Tamora Pierce (I love most of her YA books -- only the Trickster books didn't please me as much as the others), OSC (though I mostly just love Ender, as a character, and thus all the Ender books -- the Bean ones were okay, but I doubt I'll reread them), Linda

[kerravonsen]

And one other type exists for me -- authors whose books I loved until I met them...
Yeah, it's very sad when that happens.
The opposite can happen too, though; you can meet (say, at conventions) authors who have been fabulous people and you respect them a lot... and it can be hit or miss as to whether you can get into their books.

[robinellen]

Definitely. Because I have many friends who are also writers, I read many books that I *want* to love but sometimes don't...so when you do read friends' books that you do love (for instance, my friend Katie Kennedy has her debut coming out in June, and I got an ARC at PLA in April -- and it's amazing!), it makes it that much better. :D

[rj_anderson]

Oh yes. It is so awful when you love the writer as a friend but you can't honestly say you love their book(s), and such a vast relief when you discover that you do, in fact, love both.

[philosophymom]

I have two:

(1) I loved (-loved-loved) The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the first Heinlein book I ever read. Seriously, I found it un-put-down-able. But either I was very politically naive on that inaugural reading or I was distracted by the quality of Heinlein's plotting and prose, because I pretty much missed the whole libertarian aspect of the story. (I know, right?) Maybe the sex aspect served as a red herring -- I somehow thought *it* was the thing I was reading around.

Anyway, in the first flush of fan-hood, I tried lots more Heinlein -- went through quite a phase, in fact -- but nothing else ever appealed to me like TMIAHM. Then one day the penny dropped, and I wondered how I could have ignored for so long the unsubtle (and repugnant to me) political view underlying of all his books. Once I saw it, I could barely finish the book I was in the middle of, and that was that.

Some years later, one of my sons read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for HS English. I read it again with him, and what do you know: I still saw what I'd seen

[kerravonsen]

I'd agree with you about Heinlein, except that I'd add another to the list of loved Heinlein: Citizen of the Galaxy. And maybe The Door Into Summer, but mainly for the cat.
And it's not so much the politics, but the sheer weirdness of his later work... the one that was the tipping point for that, I think, was "Stranger In A Strange Land", which I both loved and hated.

[rj_anderson]

I read Podkayne of Mars, because a book centered around a teenaged girl seemed like a good bet, but it wasn't for me. Nor was Friday, and I'd already heard about The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and it didn't seem like my sort of thing either, so I didn't bother trying Heinlein again after that. But now you make me wonder if I should reconsider

[rose_in_shadow]

LRK has set up a premise which ought to pay off in emotional spades (in this case, Russell having amnesia) and then undercut it by not using it for any of the purposes that interest me

THIS. Oh I wanted to like that book so bad... or, rather, I wanted it so badly to be something that it wasn't.

[rj_anderson]

It does often turn out that the books authors themselves love the most and think their best work are not the ones that readers love and remember at all. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle loathed the Sherlock Holmes stories and considered his bloated, overwrought historical novels and his writings about spiritism to be his true calling; but we know which of his writings really ended up standing the test of time...

That's an interesting thought about farther vs. deeper -- can you elaborate on what you mean by that? I tend to associate "deeper" with complexity of theme and weight of emotion, but that can very easily tip over into the "heavy and angsty" Maass mentioned.

[rj_anderson]

Oh, yes! I see now. That's a very good point, and some nice meaty food for thought.

[gipsieee]

Is this at all related to singer-songwriters that one wishes would just write and not sing? Bob Dylan, I'm looking at you.

[kerravonsen]

Oh yes.
And Leonard Cohen too.

[rj_anderson]

I'm currently distressed that one of my favorite singer-songwriters just put out an album where he used guest vocalists for three-quarters of his songs (I mean, they're still good songs, but I miss Matt Hales's voice!), so I have the opposite problem.

But I can quite understand not wanting to hear Bob Dylan (or Leonard Cohen, as kerravonsen mentioned below) sing. :)

[philosophymom]

Sometimes a "wrecked-and-ruined" voice is tremendously effective, and for a lifelong chorister I have a higher-than-I'd-have-predicted tolerance for some of the troubadours named.

That said, my favorite Randy Newman album is "Nilsson Sings Newman." I think Newman even said something to the effect that Harry Nilsson's renditions of the tunes are what he (Newman) might have done if he could, well, sing (sustain tone),