The Worst Writers--Give them a kick (low blows permitted, even encouraged)

What I like about this group is that it permits, yea, ENCOURAGES snobbishness, snarky comments and the like. There's nothing wrong (to my mind) with saying, "so-and-so is a shit writer who should have his/her thumbs burned off with an acetylene torch". That may be mean-spirited, an example of hyperbole...or wishful thinking on my part (likely a combination of all three)

I HATE Dan Brown, Kevin J. Anderson, Timothy Zahn, Stephanie Meyer, Sophie Kinsella, memoirs (fake or otherwise) by twenty- or thirty-something arseholes, 98% of Canadian writing, 99.99% of contemporary horror novels...

So let's hear it: whose writing do you absolutely LOATHE, whose books should be used as kindling and who would be minus their thumbs if this was a perfect world and justice and literacy prevailed?

Don't pull your punches, kids, there's a time and place for that and, as Ian has noted, this AIN'T it.

Lawrence Durrell. :)

Thing is, the writing I absolutely hate doesn't register for long on my horizon. I leafed through some Coelho in the bookstore and ABSOLUTELY HATED it, but that's it--I just prefer never to touch his books again.

Stephenie Meyer's success is worrisome to me (in my busybody-aunt mode)--okay, maybe there's some hope for her teenage fans yet, but adults who like her? Apocalypse now.

Any ADULT who reads Stephanie Meyer is a dolt.

"Buffy the Vampire Humper"--one paragraph, one sentence is enough to tell you Meyer has no ear for language, dialogue...and perhaps three functioning neurons.

I don't care what kids read but at a certain point if your aesthetic and critical sensibilities don't kick in, you drop off the intellectual radar.

Isaac Asimov.

Ike should have some kinda Golden Turkey Award named after him.

Of course, then every SF fan with the mental age of 14 (and that's a lot of 'em) would need CPR--poor, pathetic bastards would drown in their own tears...

i once had dinner with hohn barth and he signed my first edition books. he looked almost exactly like my uncle don, and that's about as much as i can say about him. as a writer, he may flow well with those in state hospitals, but there should only be one tristham shandy, and that studied only at the graduate level, where literary pain is expected.

as mentioned elsewhere in these notes, Mark Twain did a thorough hatchet job on my other so-called writer of fame -- James Fennimore Cooper. Yet I read his books when i was about 10 or 11 and enjoyed them thoroughly. ignorance IS bliss.

i cannot hate asimov. he is the stephen king of science fiction; he writes and publishes much, sells much, but doesn't knock my socks off as bradbury does.

Four horror writers come to mind as being particularly execrable:

Richard Laymon
Edward Lee
Jack Ketchum
Lucy Taylor

Fire up that acetylene torch...

Asimov is a crap writer..but all the same important because he (and Clarke) are very effective at drawing kids into SF. Or were, once upon a time...There is a wealth of first rate YA SF/Fantasy available now..but i loved Lola's reference to Asimov's being referenced by Paul Krugman as his inspiration. Anything that'll PO the American right is OK by me!!!

I happen to despise Heinlein..his writing, politics and "grand mastership."
But...i forget most writing i don't like..hell, i have a hard enough time remembering what i do like. I drop books pretty quickly once i find i dislike them. There are interesting oddities. Greg Rucka's novels are pretty crap..But, in contrast, i really like his graphic novels where everything is pared down to an absolute minimum. Especially the 2 Whiteout books.

best seller crap writers are too easy...My own list of incredibly overrated writers begins and ends w/ Hemingway. (my can of Foster's premium ale notwithstanding). Oh, let's toss F. Scott Fitzgerald under the train too.
oh yeah..age 58.

I'm bored to death by Virginia Woolf.

Some people put her, as an experimental writer, in the same category as Joyce to which I say...well you don't want to know what I think.

I couldn't even finish Orlando. Self-indulgent tosh, with all the charm of an overbearing and arrogant guest.

#10: Just a curious aside, not an attack: do you read (& like) many female authors? Your representative library here on LT is a bit of a sausage fest (excepting Annie Dillard)--you would seem to be quite the man's man. :)

Perhaps like Bob, I just forget all the bad books & authors I've read, because nothing is springing to mind here. Mostly I just don't read bad books; I don't even usually bother to flip through the latest popular stuff at bookstores, thus disqualifying me from bashing Dan Brown or Stephanie Meyer.

It's a fair statement, I don't read a lot of female authors--but those I do read, I revere. Annie Dillard, Karen Armstrong, Barbara Tuchman, Katherine Dunn (GEEK LOVE is a freakin' masterpiece). Dillard, in particular, is one of my HEROES. Anybody who hasn't read HOLY THE FIRM is missing out on a true masterpiece.

"A bit of a sausage fest"--God, I loved that this morning! Absolutely a gem.

I buy many books for my wife--she works as an education consultant and is currently taking a Master's class so doesn't have time to hunt around for titles and after 20+ years together, I know her tastes pretty well. The vast majority of those books are by female authors and Sherron has very high literary standards (that's what makes her such an excellent editor) so I don't dare pick anything that's not smart and literate. Her book club recently selected an offering by Elizabeth Berg and she tossed it aside after reading a few sample stories, snarling "What a piece of crap". If I got her Sophie Kinsella or any obviously chick-lit type offering, she'd insert it in my left nostril.

I'd never feel attacked--not in this group and I welcome hearing well-articulated views that run counter to my own. I have a pretty thick hide.

The thick hide comes with the "So You Think You Want to be an Author" kit at the local five and dime. The first test involves putting it on. If it fits you move on to step two. If not, well . . .

I put Woolf in the same category with Shakespeare.

And I'm relieved to see that (Lawrence) Durrell fans don't like her--it means there IS some order in the universe. :)

Yes, after nearly a quarter century of getting the shit kicked out of me by stupid editors, dingbat agents, producers, directors, entertainment lawyers, folks who think they know my writing better than I do, I have the hide of a rhino (and the temperament of one as well).

But I do enjoy informed, passionate, thoughtful debate, conversation that pulls me out of my comfort zone and introduces me to new notions and points of view. I love it when people use their intelligence and sense of humour with skill.

A few years back, Sherron gave me a t-shirt with a message I treasure:

"Tact is for people who don't have the wit to be sarcastic."

That sums me up rather well, methinks...

You know, Cliff, you are one of the rare people whose every post seems to sum them up rather well.

That's probably true.

But I dunno if that's a good thing.

Gene is one of those people for me. I'm always looking for the sly aside, pun or reference.

I love characters and the people who have the courage to be themselves.

I've met a number of them on LibraryThing and they make up for the folks who are all sound and fury, with no substance or (at least) humour to redeem them.

Medellia, with her "sausage fest", Ian with his death metal, jargoneer with his encyclopedic ability to reference and toss in factoids and interesting tidbits...

It's fun to know and engage with such individuals, even if they periodically kick my ass.

Gee, Cliff, I'm feeling verklempt. . . please, discuss among yourselves.

(A little Canadian humour, that.)

I have a question for our British (and other non-American) friends. In my previous post, I used the English spelling of Humour. Spelling it this way raised an error in the LT spell checker. Of course, it wanted humor, a sorry shadow of an otherwise robust symbol, I prefer ou to o in those places where British English and American English differ. My question is, when you write humour does your spell checker kick it?

But. But. "Humour" is the right way to spell it. Your spellchecker must be broken...

When I type humour my spell checker says- What????? You gonna start eating kippers and that spotted dick stuff too?

So, Ian, you're saying your spell checker accepts humour as correct? Keep in mind, I'm talking about LT, not spell checkers in general. A spell checker in England that required an American spelling, while consistent with the general arrogance of America and the commensurate insensitivity of Americans, would be incorrect.

#22 spotted dick? Ew. Not touched that since I left school. Can't go wrong with kippers, though.

#23 There's an LT spellchecker?

...and Pat Barker.

As my wife was leaving she reminded me, "Pat Barker is one of your favorites, isn't she?"

Well, of course.

The REGENERATION trilogy is breath-taking.

Damn you, Cliff! I'm looking for a simple yes/no answer. Don't change this discussion back on topic until I get my answer. Sheesh, waddaya, some kinda nut?

Yes, yes, my spell checker gets mad at me when I type "humour".

That's the Canuck spelling too--sometimes I make the change 'cause that little red line annoys me and sometimes I leave it.

"Spotted Dick" is a good description of the uneven quality of PKD's literary output.

Annnnnnd...back to you, Gene!

Thanks Cliff. You know I think you could find an idea in your description of PKD's literary output.

How about you Ian? Does humour set yours off? Canada's like USA North. I don't think there is a Canadian English option in Windows. I can't speak for Mac users, Unix, or Linux.

#13 Karen Armstrong? The one that writes about religion and such?

The same. An ex-Catholic nun who found her calling after she left the Church. She received some criticism for her book on Islam but, in terms of comparative religion, I find her stuff very good.

Not as in-depth (or convoluted) as Joseph Campbell and not quite up to Huston Smith in terms of the scope of her intellect and range but she's damn fine in her own right.

I've read Islam: A Short History. Interesting. Gives a different perspective to Bernard Lewis' The Middle East.

We are about to do a group read of The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong in this thread.

i awoke this morning and immediately thought of two writers i despise -- jackie susanne (how in the hell did her "Valley of the Dolls" wind up on the 10 top sellers of all time with the bible and the Quoran?) and daniele steele (so vapid i do not even remember how to spell her name).

i gotta ask: what is a spotted dick? (can someone answer me without the porno police descending?) and

where in the blazes in the LT spell-checker? Never heard or seen of such a thing!

As for spotted dick, no help. The LT spell checker is what puts the red line under words it doesn't recognize. Next time you write an entry for LT, intentionally misspell something. You should see it then.

Spotted Dick is steamed sponge pudding with raisins in it. It is usually served with custard. It is vile.

Is that sponge pudding a kind of bread, or a product of the sea?

Golly! I step away to teach for several hours and find a whole conversation awaiting afterward. Real life always getting in the way of my LT time...

Cliff, glad you enjoyed my morning humo(u)r. I'll have to get around to Annie Dillard. No Sophie Kinsella for your wife--surely her life is not complete without it. (I wrote a blog entry once about how the title of Shopaholic and Baby combines the two things that I hate most in life.)

I was too cautious with my post, I'm sure. Living in academia as I do, I get more than enough of the gender wars. I'm careful, for my own sanity, not to start any myself.

I agree with Cliff--you guys are all terrific fun.

Here you go. Looks very appetising, doesn't it?

>34 geneg:

LT doesn't have a spellchecker, that must be your browser (or some sort of browser add-on or plug-in).

I like custard but there's just something in me that recoils at the notion of eating something that goes by...that name. But the picture actually makes it look pretty good. I like pudding, raisins too. Christmas pudding in rum sauce.

Gene, hope you like THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION--let us know watchu think.

Another name that comes to mind is re: religion and history is Thomas Cahill. THE GIFTS OF THE JEWS, HOW THE IRISH SAVED CIVILIZATION, lovely. His notion of the "hinges of history" ties in rather nicely with Armstrong's great transformation. Certain times/eras where humans make leaps in thought, philosophy and faith.

Andy: try reading Jackie Susann's science fiction novel, YARGO. Whoo-hoo, it lacks even the good humour value of "Plan 9 From Outer Space".

Medellia--HOLY THE FIRM or PILGRIM AT TINKER CREEK amount to spiritual experiences. Amazing reads. Sophie Kinsella...oh, God...Sherron would thrash me within an inch of my life if that showed up in her book pile. When we were down in Regina, I found her two of Jasper Fforde's novels at the central library and she's also got WHITE TIGER, this year's Booker winner, on her nightstand...

the more one reads Joseph Campbell, the less respect one has for him. Too many groovy/anti-science people we knew in our ex-neighborhood reading circle worshiped him. Mircea Elieade (fascist politics aside - i'm not sure why i forgive him and not Wagner - except that i dislike most of Wagner's music) in the sacred and the profane is far more thoughtful.(many more books, but that's probably his best known..at least in translation) - tho rather like Levi-Straus' anthropology, he works too hard to fit facts into theory..and probably created "facts" to illustrate what "ought" to have been the case.

Well, it became hip to read Campbell after the Bill Moyers series and folks like George Lucas name-dropped him. There were also accusations of anti-Semitism, which may or may not be unfounded (that word gets bandied around a lot these days, reserved for everyone from neo-Nazis to anyone who criticizes Israeli policies and tactics). There's something there, an impressive attempt to formulate the equivalent of a grand unifying theory of religion.
Campbell frequently loses me...but, as has already been mentioned, I'm not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer...

# 39 Thanks for the info. That explains all the blank stares when I asked. Maybe it's an option in Firefox.

I just tried to read Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Failed miserably. De Bernieres has the strangest, most inept writing style you can imagine.

That was one of those books that seemed to sell like tissues at a snot connoisseurs' convention and yet I could never find a single person who'd actually READ the bloody thing.

Chick lit. Almost all of it is utter rubbish and makes me ashamed of my sex. Serious female authors, I can enjoy, but I feel absolute revulsion when someone thinks that I will read plot-less, poorly written trash simply because they marketed it to women my age. Feel free to name specific names, but I don't think I can lower myself to acknowlege the existance of these writers further.

How am I doing on the vituperative comments scale? :)

Cliff, #45, ". . . tissues at a snot connoisseurs' convention . . .". Don't do that to me Cliff. I almost chocked on my coffee!

Anneh: V.C.S. (vituperative comment scale) reading of 9.1. A very good score. Impressive. I knew you'd fit in well here.

Gene: well, you know, one tries...

#2 Oh our ears and whiskers! How can an intelligent, experienced, wide reader dismiss a prolific major writer with a mere mention of his name? Please read Bitter Lemons and if it really does not please you then you may append to all your posts henceforth the slogan, "The Fogies are Turkeys." Really! Otherwise, ask us for more recommendations after you've read that. Deal?

Lawrence Durrell could turn a pretty phrase, which is why I hang onto his travel writing (I have Bitter lemons, and at least 4-5 more of his travel books). Description was his forte, and he could manage a shallow kind of humour occasionally. Take away the racism, sexism, xenophobia and the Anglo-superiority complex, and he could probably get a job with Condé Nast Traveller. One wishes he had, because as a littérateur he's a pathetic joke, a buffoon, a purveyor of tinselly garbage and little else. Not one real character, authentic experience, or semi-intelligent thought in all of his fiction.

P.S. I hope no one takes my tone personally. Lawrence Durrell is one kind of writer I love to hate. :)

The good writer in that family was Gerald, as well as the one with all the brains.

(edited to add more words, in homage to the subject)

I have a ratty, old ex-library edition of ALEXANDRIA QUARTET and one day, for the sake of curiosity and to have some ammunition to use against my colleague Mr. Sales, I shall pick it up and give it the ol' 50-page test.

From what little I have read of Monsieur Durrell, including some poetry, I think he has a brilliant command of language and his artistry is manifest. Whether or not his style is a good fit for a minimalist like me, is another thing.

But I can't deny the man's talent. Not by a long shot. THAT aspect of his work I can appreciate...and envy.

Talent is cheap. Every half-respectable mag and journal has a handful of "talented" writers on its staff.

Gerald Durrell was a family favorite growing up..my sister in NO has most of my parents' library (though i got to keep my dad's small collection of odd firsts), so i'm sure those books are getting even moldier in NO than they would in NCarolina.

I haven't read any of The Alexandria Quartet for years, and then only Justine, but I don't feel like rushing back to it.

I bought Caesar's Vast Ghost a couple of years ago, when I was on holiday in Provence, and tried to read it in situ. Couldn't get through it. Over-cooked and over-seasoned. Chewy too.

On the other hand, I do remember really enjoying his Greek Islands. That had a lot of pictures, though, which may have helped.

The Alexandria Quartet - excellent, and a deserved classic
The Avignon Quintet - very good, although he loses the plot somewhat towards the end
The Revolt of Aphrodite - very good, contains some lovely writing
The Dark Labyrinth - has its moments, but still good
White Eagles over Serbia - the plot is a bit juvenile, but the descriptive passages in the Yugoslavian mountains are some of the best I've read
Antrobus Complete - amusing in parts, although they do sometimes seem to have been written by a different author

Reflections on a Marine Venus - the best of his travel books I've read so far
Prospero's Cell - captures Corfu better than his brother's My Family and Other Animals, although it's not as funny
The Greek Islands - not as lively as the previous two

>50 LolaWalser: - I'm not sure you have read Durrell properly, if you are accusing him of Anglo-superiority - Durrell refused to be affiliated with Britain (he eventually lost his right to live in the UK), seeing himself as a cosmopolitan; though in truth he was more an old style classicist, in love with Greece and it's culture. In his works, Britain is often criticised, while Greece is rarely, if ever. (If you don't believe me, read this interview with Durrell from The Paris Review - PR Durrell. (He's very honest about his writing).

I'm not even sure you can accuse him of sexism, his female characters appear as strong, or weak, as his male characters (whether they are believable or not is another question - it is worth remembering that Durrell's characters are often based on classical figures, making them more representations).

ps - you can read Justine as a paean to one of your favourite writers - Constantine Cavafy.

Oooooo, an author interview, I LOVE author interviews. I'll click on that baby later on and see what Larry has to say.

Always a pleasure to hear from you, Monsieur jargoneer--you don't pop up often enough, as far as I'm concerned, and you always seem to hit the mark.

Let's hear it for cosmopolitan writers, authors who refuse to be stuck in regional niches and yearn to be part of a larger world. I despise the notion of a "national" literature--it creates the type of navel-gazing that Horace Engdahl referred to when he made his now infamous statement about the American literary scene.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95537900

For the record, I think the dude was wrong about the U.S. but absolutely fucking spot on if he'd been talking about Canada. Insular, self-reflecting...that pretty much sums up the state of Canadian writing.

Reading a Canadian book is an ordeal literary snobs should avoid at all costs. We have better things to be doing with our valuable time...

Reading a Canadian book is an ordeal literary snobs should avoid at all costs.

I know you're not a fan, but I thought Robertson Davies' Fifth Business was fantastic.

I know a lot of folks who are big Margaret Atwood fans. Not sure I really get the whole Atwood thing yet, but I've only read a couple of hers (The Handmaid's Tale--pretty good, but not the amazing experience everyone else swears it is; The Penelopiad, which I thought was pretty awful).

Alice Munro, anyone? I haven't read her yet; I don't tend to read much in the way of short stories.

Now, Yann Martel's Life of Pi, I only made it through 50 pages there. It is the only book that I have ever physically chucked at a wall.

Hm. Well, at least I have Robertson Davies.

What really bugs me about Canuck lit is the passivity of the writing--no verbs that might indicate ACTION, characters who do nothing, wander about ineffectually for three hundred pages...and then the narrative peters out. The publishers here in the Great White North put a points system on writing: does it feature Canadian history, does it have Canadian place names, does it celebrate some aspect of the immigrant or aboriginal community. Self-reflecting? That ain't the half of it.

Not a fan of Davies, you are correct, but I LOVE Mordecai Richler--BARNEY'S VERSION is my fave Canuck novel, wondrously written and absolutely hilarious.

Atwood, don't get me started on Atwood. That subject is no-go country here: my wife likes her and I do NOT. Alice Munro is technically a fine writer but falls into the passivity trap alluded to above.

But I do go on...

I enjoyed Atwood's The Blind Assassin. Never got round to The Handmaid's Tale, although I've owned a copy for years.

What really bugs me about Canuck lit is the passivity of the writing--no verbs that might indicate ACTION, characters who do nothing, wander about ineffectually for three hundred pages...and then the narrative peters out.
See, I often like these types of books, as long as they're exploring some sort of philosophy, or the character's inner states, or that kind of thing. I'll have to check out the Richler--one can never have enough well-written funny lit.

#56

I'm not sure I can value your criticism about anything, especially sexism and Anglo-superiority. For sexism etc. I point you to his letters, if you truly cannot fathom it from his fiction. Moreover, I read the Alexandria Quartet twice--so, yes, I am indeed aware of Durrell's splendidly idiotic (mis)use of Cavafy. You think Cavafy's and Durrell's Alexandria share a handful of dust? Maybe you haven't read your Cavafy properly.

As for Durrell's love for Greece--yes, golly gee, he sure did love it!--like any number of Britishers in search of classical glory, beauty, honest good food and sun. In love with the figments of their imaginations, despising the reality.

Not that I can blame people intensely for that--it's just that he, on top of his silly attitudes, sucks as a writer... of high literature. Pope Joan was entertaining. A journalist manqué, when all is said and done.

The Alexandria Quartet - excellent, and a deserved classic

I don't know in what world it's a "classic". To me it seems like it's largely deservedly ignored. Justine is the only somewhat "successful" part, the one in which he shot his measly little wad of fantasy; the rest are increasingly ridiculous.

But enough of the negativity! I thought of a second almost-nice thing to say about L. Durrell, maybe even a third too! One, it struck me that the fascination he may hold for some is best felt in youth. His world and characters are as unreal as that of most science fictions, which is also the genre of the young (at heart at least). But, in addition, as anyone who DOES like Durrell seems destined to remark, he's very prettily wordy. I first read The Alexandria Quartet at eighteen, and I was dazzled by the language. Dazzlements may not last long, but neither do champagne bubbles... and both are pleasing. If pleasure be the food of learning...

In this age, Durrell's passé views are probably easily neutralised, simply by reality. At any rate, in this regard it can't be worse than reading Orson Scott Card or Ayn Rand. When young.

Lastly, Durrell had a style of his own, as evidenced by some excellent parodies of his writing (leaving out the ones he committed himself, unintentionally). A parody isn't a proof of good quality in its object, but it does depend on the presence of personal style. And when one is drowning in an ever-increasing ocean of interchangeable bland boring garbage, as we are, a personal mark goes a long way toward recommending yourself to readers.

Good Canadian writers - how about Alistair MacLeod? I dunno, maybe Nova Scotia doesn't count.

As for #62, Lola, I agree with you about Durrell (although I wouldn't express myself that robustly), but ... "like any number of Britishers in search of classical glory, beauty, honest good food and sun. In love with the figments of their imaginations, despising the reality."

Unlike the cold-eyed unillusioned Germans, Dutch, Americans and, yes, Canadians, eh?

Stop it, you're making me laugh.

#62 the title of the topic is The Worst Writers--Give them a kick (low blows permitted, even encouraged)... which means you may kick authors but not posters. That means no ad hominem attacks.

#63

But I love to make people laugh!

We were discussing an English writer, so I was thinking of English/British literature, in a specific time-period too. Durrell is very much of the fifties, although he fancied himself a (displaced) decadent.

#64

Oh, jargoneer and I met elsewhere, and I'm not sure I ever attacked him... first. If it were up to me, I'd never address him at all. But I understand, boys sticking together and all.

Lola - #65 - I somehow suspect you would include one of my favourites, Patrick Leigh Fermor, in the same uncomplimentary bag as Durrell. So I won't mention him.

Ah, see, I'll surprise you. I do like Fermor--at least the one book I read so far. A fellow walker starts out with extra points.

62> "In this age, Durrell's passé views are probably easily neutralised, simply by reality. At any rate, in this regard it can't be worse than reading Orson Scott Card or Ayn Rand. When young."

Tout alors! C'est la vie! mais oui! n'est ce pas! Non, ma cherie! Cherche la femme! (Now having exhausted completely my store of French)

Let me say, having read two (one more than any intelligent person should read) works of Ayn Rand, something about the search for the lost "I" and Atlas Shrugged, I can unequivocally say there is no time or age at which Ayn Rand can be read without feeling you are in some hellish prisoner of war camp being indoctrinated in the most turgid (got it in, yeah), most strident, most nonsensical, most worst writing I've ever read. No, ma cher, there is no time to read Rand.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about Durrell's (alleged) sexism--if I judged an artwork by the artist, I wouldn't be able to read Shakespeare, Celine, Somerset Maugham (a notorious bastard), etc. etc. etc. etc...ad nauseum.

An author's personal life is irrelevant when it comes to judging the quality of their prose.

This ain't a case of boys getting together, this is a case of people with differing opinions trying to respectfully disagree. Ol' jargoneer is one smart fella and his views carry a lot of weight with yours truly. Not that he's always agreed with me--on the contrary, he's given me a solid shot on more than one occasion. But I perk up when he makes his thoughts known because, invariably, he speaks with knowledge and authority.

Is it not possible for you to say "I don't get Durrell, his appeal , his much-vaunted literary reputation" or merely "the fucker isn't for me" and leave it at that?

I don't mind LolaW having a pop at me - she is correct in saying that we have disgreed before; about whether a work should stand alone or should be in context of non-contextual works (i.e., letters, etc). I do think it interesting that LolaW criticises Durrell for holding Western Imperial values but elsewhere has stated a preference for Virginia Woolf - a writer holding values far more racist, classist or Anglo-superior than anything Durrell ever wrote.

What's interesting about Durrell is that he has lower profile, and critical standing, in Anglo-centric circles than he does in France (where his letters and papers are held) or Greece - but I'm speculating that LolaW will claim that that the French and Greeks that appreciate Durrell are fools who don't understand their own culture.

Maybe it's a Jerry Lewis thing.

Please, please, don't get me started on Ms. Woolf.

If I'd been around I would've helped her sew the rocks into her pocket, and strapped an anvil to her leg to make sure the job was properly done...

#70

Did you miss that I took part in a discussion here, an exchange of opinions? Do you mind?

I doubt anyone expects you to be bothered by sexism, Cliff. Or any other of Durrell's -isms, as far as I can tell...

Is it not possible for you to say "I don't get Durrell, his appeal , his much-vaunted literary reputation" or merely "the fucker isn't for me" and leave it at that?

Oh, that's rich, that's funny, coming from someone remorselessly flogging the Asimov horse, the creating-is-pain mule, the NaNoWriMo donkey and so on all over LT--repeteadly, at length, ad infinitum--and having started a thread inviting "low blows"! Or does that apply strictly to you and your boy-pals? Why don't you make yourself a nice little private thread-treehouse, far from smelly girls? Don't forget your imaginary tiger! :)

I do get Durrell's appeal. I also get the appeal of junk food, trash like "Twilight", fascistoid sf, Tolkien, video games, fuck-me pumps, boxing, MBAs and so on.

#71

Virginia Woolf - a writer holding values far more racist, classist or Anglo-superior than anything Durrell ever wrote.

You do have your funny moments. Still, coming from someone who thinks D.H. Lawrence is a grand example of a socialist and workers' friend, it fails to stir me to a response.

The subject of this group is writers, not other posters. Please respect that.

#75

Gosh, Ian, I am sure I speak for everyone present when I say that we damn sure do!

>74 LolaWalser: - can't remember ever saying that about D. H. Lawrence - not a writer I have much time for. (Unless I want to spark debate).

Well, okay. I have to go and speculate me up some late lunch.

Anyone for a group Durrell read? :)))

I think the low blows I've dished out here and elsewhere have, as far as I recall, been directed toward certain mentalities and types of writing. I don't recall out of bounds remarks directed toward a particular individual--other than Asimov and some hack writers whose hefty bank accounts would, I think, render them immune to my jabs. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not sure I'm sexist but I am, I fear, getting increasingly Lola Walser-ist, nurturing a growing dislike against those who respond to posts with ad hominem attacks and rather flaccid attempts to provoke and intimidate. Ridicule masking intellectual deficiencies, bombast disguising poorly reasoned arguments, petulance and posturing taking the place of well-articulated points of view.

But...that's just me. I'm sure everyone else finds you a breath of fresh air.

Wow... um wow...

I sure wish you all could show a little passion for your favorite and most hated books. This thread is getting boring.

#80: That was sarcasm! String him up!!

Thanks, I've returned to my senses. Back to the business at hand.

But, for the record, nobody flagged--thanks, at least, for that.

I've been wracking my brain, trying to single out the worst Canadian writer ever--but there's so many choices.

Rudy Wiebe? He's gotta be somewhere near the top. And if one includes the regional presses...the truly rotten poets...cripes, the choices jump exponentially...

I for one must throw Twain and Hawthorne under the bus. I never have been able to finish more than a short story by either of them. Hawthorne is beyond dry and there is something I can't quite put my finger on about Twain that grates on my last nerve.

As for Canadian authors, I rather like the Atwood I've read, but then I often enjoy introspective works... For example Hermann Hesse is one of my favorite authors.

ETA: Trash away...

#79

Ridicule masking intellectual deficiencies, bombast disguising poorly reasoned arguments, petulance and posturing taking the place of well-articulated points of view.

Dear me, I hope you haven't suffered too much stringing this nonsense--oops, maybe ad hominem would fit the bill? Tsk, tsk. What can I tell you, Cliff, it takes a critical talent such as yourself to come up with well-reasoned arguments and well-articulated points of view such as this:

Please, please, don't get me started on Ms. Woolf.

If I'd been around I would've helped her sew the rocks into her pocket, and strapped an anvil to her leg to make sure the job was properly done...

But maybe hanging around you will have some of that insight and wit rubbing off on me! How about a Durrell read, huh? Bring all your awesome intellectual WMDs with you!

Now Twain was an author my dad passed my way who caught me early on. Of course daddy had the really bitter stuff around.ie .the mysterious stranger which is always cheery for a young teen..seriously.
Not mention his political screeds..

"But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-American War, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land"
My dad's specialty was 19th C American studies, so we had a lot of oddities - conjoined w/ my mom's books on the philosophy and history of science around the house..so we all grew up weird. My md brother is pretty normal..for your average socialist medicaid pediatrician...but my sister and i..hmmm.

I loved "The mysterious stranger". But I think of Twain as primarily a children's author--at least, I read him as a kid... "The prince and the pauper", "Yankee at King Arthur's court", Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, and a number of stories. The only Twain I have planned to read in the future is "Life on the Mississippi".

Incidentally, my favourite Twain story is about Adam and Eve in Eden--anyone know it? I remember almost nothing about it except that I cried with laughter. Oh, and--Eve named all the animals.

For some Twain lite, try Canada's Stephen Leacock on for size. For a so-called humorist, he has yet to provoke so much as a twitch of the lips from this correspondent. Twain was sharper, edgier; his barbs stuck...and hurt.

That quote re: the Philipines had Twain written all over it. The man was fearless...

Lola, you're being obnoxious. Cliff, you're not helping. If you want to throw insults, create a thread for it. Then we won't have to put up with it.

Ahem. Meanwhile, back at the workface of worthy debate, are there no takers for Alistair MacLeod? (See #63 - Good God, was it that long ago?)

Mind you, this is a worst writers thread, so perhaps I should hawk these particular goods elsewhere.

For some reason, I thought you meant Alistair MacLean - who I thought was British and wrote real potboilers. But you didn't.

Ian, I agree, it is dangerously misleading. But "Caravan to Vaccares" etc.? Aaagh!

I read a book of MacLeod's short stories a few years ago, and I thought they were very very good.

There was a court case in the UK about 10 years ago over an Alistair MacLean novel. MacLean died in 1987, so some enterprising publisher had another writer pen a book in MacLean's style, and it was published as "Alistair MacLean's...", with no mention of the real author on the cover. This was challenged in court, and the book was withdrawn and republished properly attributed to the real author.

Who IS afraid of Virginia Wolf?

Lola, you're being obnoxious.

But, but, why? I'd love to read Durrell with you guys. I'd suggest "The black book", because once upon a time I thought it was his best (whatever that means), and I never re-read it. However, it may prove difficult to find--in which case, the Alexandria Quartet would do.

Well, just let me know.

#89

Alistair MacLeod

I don't know him. Is he alive? I have some trouble catching up with living authors.

#93

Not you!

Alastair McLeod: read a couple of his short stories but nothing of any length. I suppose he's okay...but you have to understand the Canadian literary scene. If you're from a remote or economically deprived region--i.e. the North or the Maritimes--you get special consideration from Canadian publishers. The playing field isn't level and often lesser talents (not saying McLeod is necessarily one of them) have different standards applied, receive lots of editing help because they're not up to snuff as writers.

Anything with the slightest sniff of "genre" to it, gets turfed out for "not being Canadian enough". I tell the story of being told by one Canadian publisher--a big one--"it's too bad you're not an Indian writer, they're hot right now".

And it's not just genre folks who suffer. Margaret McMillan's brilliant book on the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, was turned down by every publisher in Canada. Y'see, Canada really didn't play any sort of role compared to the Big Boys at the conference table so the book was published elsewhere, went on to great acclaim and garner some prestigious awards.

THAT'S Canada for you...

most novels (cf Dan Brown above) that are threaded around baroque, all encompassing, conspiracy theories that are easily grasped are crap.. Esp. if written by a libertarian/futurologist/or someone w/ a hard on for religion. (Now THERE'S a sweeping generalization) ..But i'm thinking of the execrable Robert Anton Wilson who is much appreciated by some reading friends who generally have tastes that are in concert w/ mine.

Conspiracies can make great reading - but they have to be embedded in decent writing, and the less global the "conspirational" scope the better the novel. It's one thing to write an alternate history where an alternate political/power structure is scoped out. It's quite another to write a book where it turns out the whole world's fate has fallen into the hands of: the Jews, the Church, the one worlders, who only succeed because they are suppressing "secret truths.".

The "suppression of secret truths that would undermine the foundation of the current world order" is a dead giveaway for crap history or novel. Nothing wrong w/ a secret of some specific sort being at the heart of a story..but "the secret" is only important as an impetus to individual/institutional behaviour (eg. good spy/mystery stories)

Suppression of secret truths - Umberto Eco - good - The Name of the Rose.

Suppression of secret truths - Umberto Eco - bad - Foucault's Pendulum.

i was going to mention in the name of the rose as a good example of a secret as motivator because individual action/reaction is more important to the plot/reader than the secret itself. And agree, too, about Foucault's Pendulum..though i never finished it so shouldn't be too didactic about it..(as if).

Awww. I loved the Pendulum. I'd agree that the end is a tad disappointing, after that great build-up, but... wasn't the journey fun?

Eco is a special case, to me his interests (which I'm drawn to share) and marvellous erudition compensate for what he lacks as a "belle-lettrist", a creative writer. (And he does lack quite a bit.) In fact, I think he himself explained he doesn't see himself as one...

Eco very smart...but his prose leaves me cold.

And, Bob, it behooves those who are part of the conspiracy to deny a conspiracy exists.

I've outed you now...DON'T KILL ME.

I've heard that Eco is better written in English than in his native Italian.

THAT'S a good translator...

#101

Huh.

Well, I only read him in Italian... good enough for me.

Only one of his books left me more indifferent than pleased: The island of the day before.

My fave--The mysterious flame of Queen Loana; but for that one, to understand fully what I adore, one would have to have shared his childhood books... Which I, considering some 40 years difference in our ages, did to unexpected degree. Or you need to have a deep interest in Italy of the period, perhaps continental Europe in a lesser degree. (I mean, I understand why this one seems to have left the least impression on the global public.)

#101 - Ian, isn't that what the Germans say about Shakespeare (and German)? I don't believe them either.

#103 - "Well, I only read him in Italian..." - game, set and match to Ms. Walser.

I started with The mysterious flame of Queen Loana, but got so side-tracked by an explanatory website I found that elucidated all the arcane literary references that I ... what was I saying? Well, that's pretty much what happened to my attempt on the book.

I've never heard a German say Shakespeare is better in their language.

From what I remember - it was in a review in a newspaper - Eco's translator writes better English prose than Eco writes Italian prose. Sounds perfectly feasible to me.

Maybe it's just something someone told me in a pub once.

No, here it is, in an essay by George Eliot. She disagrees, but at least there's something to disagree with. However, it may have been a 19th century thing.

No, not only 19th century (I don't remember to whom the idea may be traced, but I think it's older than the 19th--probably blossomed with the Romantic idolatry of the "Nordic genius"). The Nazis happily adopted these self-congratulatory notions and appropriated Shakespeare along with some others (among them Dante, I believe). They thought he nailed the Jewish character down pat in Shylock. Besides, any world-class genius was ipso facto German. Simple.

I've heard the Arabs even claim Shakespeare was one of them. His name was really Sheikh Zubair...

Traces briefly the evolution of the "German Shakespeare":

It is likely that for most of us, the words "Shakespeare in Germany" naturally turn our thoughts to Lessing's 17th Literaturbrief, to Goethe, Herder, and Schiller--in short to the late 18th century.

I think the great William Weaver is Eco's translator, ain't he?

in re the German romantics.. German was the language my dad took, for whatever reason, as his phud language..i really don't know why, cause except for music, he really disliked Germany/Germans..even though he was in the Pacific during WWII..whatever. But he could always amuse himself by remembering a very tender moment in some 19th C german drama when the guy sweettalks to the girl and says quietly:
"Klopschtock" (or something similar..the name of an earlier german poet or playwright, i forget...once upon a time i actually looked up his reference,) Maybe his committee forced him to take German, i dunno.

as a worker in a public library, the list of authors we despise for taking up a multitude of shelf space for no good reason include, sandra brown, dan brown, max allen collins, john grisham, james patterson, janet evanovich, harry turtledove, sara douglass, van lustbader, vc andrews, tom clancy et al, jeffrey deaver, joanne harris, laurel hamilton, mccall smith, mccaffrey, margaret weis, weber and so manny more. they are popular for short spurts and then just sit on the shelves haunting us forever more.

#111 - Klopstock! There are some nice Schubert settings of his poems.

How about this? (Schlegel)

Sein oder Nichtsein; das ist hier die Frage:
Obs edler im Gemüt, die Pfeil und Schleudern
Des wütenden Geschicks erdulden oder,
Sich waffnend gegen eine See von Plagen,
Durch Widerstand sie enden? Sterben – schlafen –

Nichts weiter! Und zu wissen, daß ein Schlaf
Das Herzweh und die tausend Stöße endet,
Die unsers Fleisches Erbteil, ’s ist ein Ziel,
Aufs innigste zu wünschen. Sterben – schlafen –
Schlafen! Vielleicht auch träumen! Ja, da liegts:

Was in dem Schlaf für Träume kommen mögen,
Wenn wir die irdische Verstrickung lösten,
Das zwingt uns stillzustehn. Das ist die Rücksicht,
Die Elend läßt zu hohen Jahren kommen.
Denn wer ertrüg der Zeiten Spott und Geißel,

Des Mächtigen Druck, des Stolzen Mißhandlungen,
Verschmähter Liebe Pein, des Rechtes Aufschub,
Den Übermut der Ämter und die Schmach,
Die Unwert schweigendem Verdienst erweist,
Wenn er sich selbst in Ruhstand setzen könnte

Mit einer Nadel bloß? Wer trüge Lasten
Und stöhnt’ und schwitzte unter Lebensmüh?
Nur daß die Furcht vor etwas nach dem Tod,
Das unentdeckte Land, von des Bezirk
Kein Wandrer wiederkehrt, den Willen irrt,

Daß wir die Übel, die wir haben, lieber
Ertragen als zu unbekannten fliehn.
So macht Bewußtsein Feige aus uns allen;
Der angebornen Farbe der Entschließung
Wird des Gedankens Blässe angekränkelt;

Und Unternehmen, hochgezielt und wertvoll,
Durch diese Rücksicht aus der Bahn gelenkt,
Verlieren so der Handlung Namen. – Still!
Die reizende Ophelia! – Nymphe, schließ
In dein Gebet all meine Sünden ein!

Now my German isn't great, school A-level standard only, but that seems rather fine to me.

the guy sweettalks to the girl and says quietly:
"Klopschtock"

An Englishman, Frenchman, Italian and a German sit around drinking in a pub/café/beer-hall, and fall to discussing the beauties of their respective languages. The Englishman starts: "Call me biased if you like, but English is a beautiful language--just listen to this: butterfly. Butter-fllllly. Lovely." The Frenchman takes over: "Butterfly, pfft, mais en Fransh eet ees much, much MORE beautiful: papillon. Papillon. Paaa-pi-YON." The Italian cuts in: "Oh, butterfly, papillon, sure, not bad, but listen to THIS: farfalla. Farfalla. You SEE de animal as soon as you hear de word: fr fr fr fr fr fr far-fal-la-la-la-la!" The previous two start nodding in acquiescence, when the forgotten German booms forth peevishly: "Und wot is wronk mit "Schmetterling"?!"

(For best results, you have to hear this one)

But I have to say I love German--secretly, guiltily, but I do. It's sad that this language is associated so irrevocably with barking military orders...

#112

Beesy, I see a giant neon sign flashing above that roster: "TO AVOID". :)

But I like Schmetterling. Possibly the most beautiful German word. Or is that Schadenfreude?

(Bonus anti-stereotyping points for not typing "vot" there, Lola.)

Here's something beautiful and euphonious (I think):

Froh empfind' ich mich nun auf klassischem Boden begeistert;
Vor- und Mitwelt spricht lauter und reizender mir ...

It goes on, of course.

Here's a little thing, a slight thing...







Verflossen ist das Gold der Tage,

Des Abends braun und blaue Farben:

Des Hirten sanfte Flöten starben

Des Abends blau und braune Farben

Verflossen ist das Gold der Tage.

Beesy: (#112)

That is a real roster of shame. See if you can sneak as many as you can into library book sales.

"Oops, the cover's bent on this one, better get rid of it..."

Picked up three bags o' books at our local library sale this past week. Mainly I got stuff for other people, but I managed to snag an Elmore Leonard I hadn't read, LA BRAVA, ARTHUR AND GEORGE (Julian Barnes) and SING THE BODY ELECTRIC (Adam Lively), a near future novel praised by Rushdie and Byatt...

#118 - that's very nice. I can't think of an example of that lay-out - xyzyx, I suppose - in English. Is there a name for that?

Rondel.

And that example's from Georg Trakl, who did the sing-songy very well.

Rondel. And Trakl.

Right. I'll be back.

right, lovely... (joke, really)

"To Be or Not to Be; that is the question:
Obs noble in mind, the arrow and spinning
Vicissitudes of angry or endure,
Waffnend itself against a sea of plagues,
By the resistance they? Die - to sleep --"
(courtesy of gooogle translate)..
umm if that's even vaguely correct...didn't WS once write something along those lines? ;-)

Yes, I think I've taken this whole thread a bit off-piste. Sorry about that.

oh threads exist to be hijacked

Especially here.

My mind is tangential on the best of days...

I gotta run, the second game of a hockey double header is on, Vancouver and Edmonton, and you just KNOW there's gonna be a few good scraps in this one.

Michael Crichton has apparently died, aged 66. He'd been battling cancer for years. He gave us some watchable films, but his books were rubbish, he was full of crap, and he put people he didn't like in his novels as child molesters. We will not see his like again...

Well, not until some enterprising publisher comes up with Michael Crichton™ branded novels...

You can bet his agent and editor are already putting plans into place: "Andromeda Strain II", etc.

It worked for Ludlum...

As I was just reminded by the FantasyFans, one shouldn't leave Terry Goodkind and Robert Jordan off of any complete list of awful authors. Although, when one opens the Pandora's box of the sci-fi/fantasy genre...maybe we don't have room for a list that long.

I wonder if Crichton lived long enough to see Obama win. After all, Crichton did give Bush a lot of bad advice...

Evelyn Waugh, a great writer, but what a brown-nosing snobbish bastard. Anytime he starts pining away about the virtues of the aristocracy, it makes me have bad thoughts about guillotines.

On the sci fi front, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has an excellent premise, but has terrible, terrible prose. Ugh, nails on blackboard times infinity.

Waugh's THE LOVED ONE is on my "to be read soon" pile.

Total bastard, terrific writer.

Cliff, if you haven't seen the movie of "The Loved One" with Jonathan Winters playing three parts, it is a must see. One of the most incredibly funny yet incisive movies I've ever seen. I have no idea if it tracks to the novel at all, but the movie is a must.

>132 CliffBurns:
Agree that he can be a terrific writer, but there were plenty who deserve the total bastard rap more than Waugh. A very flawed, very sad guy seems more apt to me.

#133 - Agree with you on EW, krolik. Is Scoop my favourite? Up to a point, Lord Copper.

The first section of DECLINE AND FALL is funny, funny stuff. I've got two or three Waugh on my shelves, dunno why I haven't had a go at them...

‘‘Crikey!’’ said Philbrick. ‘‘Loonies! This is where I shoot.’’

That really shouldn't be so funny, but it is.

With a first name like "Evelyn", I assume it was either be funny or be killed by your school mates...

Guess what his first wife's name was.

Ah yes, the Evelyns Waugh.

>133 geneg: - The Loved One is an interesting film (directed by Tony Richardson, screenplay by Terry Southern) - was released with the tagline The motion picture with something to offend everyone!. It updates the plot to the 1960s but keeps fairly close to the spirit of the novel.

Perhaps the oddest fact about the novel is that the Dr Who serial Revelation of the Daleks is based on it.

the film was a family favorite..as was the book. I don't think the Brits were as touchy about ungendered? first names as NAmericans (but this is just guessing from their relative prevalence.) Of course here in the American South there's the equally confusing tradition of using family names for ambiguous first names. hmm Ungendered would better describe the Southern tradition. ambiguously gendered what i'm assuming(probably in error) is the Brit

There are relatively few non-gender-specific first names common in the UK. Some of the diminutives, such as Chris and Pat, for example. Then there are names which are pronounced (nearly) the same, but spelt different for each gender: Francis and Frances, Lesley and Leslie. We find US naming practice very bizarre. Not just women's names here which are men's names over there, like Kay and Tracy. But weird names like Dwight, Dwayne, Leland or Billy-Bob. And then names like Abdul, which is just plain nonsense. "abd" means "slave/servant". You can only be a slave/servant of God. So Abdullah, Abul-Rahman, Abdul-Raheem, Abdul-Aziz, Abdul-Khaliq Abdul-Salam... There's 99 to choose from, so why be moronic and call yourself by the meaningless Abdul?

"The Loved One" (the film) has a legendary reputation and has been on my "want" list for ages. One of these days...

But, of course, I must read the book first.

("Aubrey"; I actually knew an "Aubrey" once; poor lad, with a name like that he'd never make it to adulthood...)

My wife has a cousin who named one of her sons Aubrey. Ian, surely you are familiar with the legendary Abdullah-Bulbul Amir and Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

Fortunately for me, my grandfather Aubrey Lee Pomeroy made it to adulthood. Fortunately for my brother, they only took the Lee part for his name (Douglas Lee Pomeroy).

# 145 - what? Abdullah Bulbul Amir? Slave of God Prince of Nightingales?

I love The Alexandria Quartet, and just finished rereading it. Also, Nathaniel Hawthorne is my favorite American writer.

But let's talk horrible, overrated writers: Phillip Roth is absolutely terrible, I just can't stand his pedestrian, bumbling prosed; John Updike's writing is so self-congratulatory it makes me ill. I was nauseated to see the New York Times fall all over themselves raving about The Widows of Eastwick! Enough already.

Not a fan of Updike, Roth or Saul Bellow, for that matter.

That's one bent branch of the American literary tree I have little interest in. Roth's PLOT AGAINST AMERICA was one of the most over-rated offerings of recent years. The number of (usually) perceptive critics and authors who lauded PLOT was remarkable.

Another over-rated novel was Jonathan Franzen's THE CORRECTIONS. Franzen won some brownie points with me by annoying Oprah but when I actually sat down and read the book, I couldn't figure out why ANYONE would think it anything more than pedestrian. Only mildly interesting...

I haven't really given Roth or Updike a fair go, but the reason I haven't is that I've been so turned off by the little bits of them that I've read. I may never get around to those two. The Corrections has been sitting on my shelf for at least a couple of years now as well, without being read. I occasionally think I'll just get rid of it, but then I chicken out. (There are too many books in on my unread shelves that I avoid but don't get rid of. "Well, I might be in the mood for it... someday.")

Very similar situation here. I know the likelihood I'll get to a certain book is remote but...I can't bring myself to part with it...

I did that with Orlando. Hung onto it for years with the vague intention of reading it. Which I finally did this year. It was complete tosh. Now it's going to bookmooch.com.

I thought The Plot Against America was very good. The depiction of the creepingly fascist America of the 40s was very convincing, although the denouement was absurdly quick and pain-free.

I liked it, though, and that's the only Roth I've read.

A lot of VERY smart people agree with you, Dave.

Really must check out this BookMooch thingee some day...

One of the things I love about LT is that you learn something new here every day.

From this thread, I learned people actually read Durrell, and that some people just aren't equipped to understand Virginia Woolf.

I never would have imagined the first, and the second makes me really feel for the poor sods.

That is EXACTLY the right tone to strike with this group. Well done!

That said, I'll now let Ian kill you...

As do I. Reading V. W. is like absorbing vitamin C on an overcast day sometimes. Or many other nature-related metaphors, but the point is that reading her works makes me feel deeply content, or curious, or righteous, or intelligent, or stupid-in-a-good-way.

A_musing, are you sure you're not Lola? Or related to her?

Coincidentally, I've just today received a signed copy of Durrell's The Black Book which I'd bought on eBay.

I've read one Woolf, Orlando, and it was self-indulgent rubbish. Durrell, OTOH, was the best prose stylist of the 20th century.

Oh heck. I enjoyed Orlando. And Durrell "was the best prose stylist of the 20th century" - wow. Not sure where to start with that one.

Joyce, maybe? Proust? Beckett? Just to be mind-blowingly obvious about it. And that's just the big three. I'm not sure Durrell's even in the Hot 100. I suppose he might just scrape in.

I don't want to be too contrarian, but Ian - what are you thinking? Perhaps being a Durrell fan is no bad thing, but making silly overblown claims is.

Proust didn't even write in English, so you can't include him. Joyce? A good prose stylist? Perhaps. Not read any Beckett. But he apparently wrote in French anyway.

Saying Durrell was the best prose stylist of the 20th century isn't that silly or overblown a claim. He wrote some of the loveliest descriptive prose I've ever read.

Why can't we include Proust? You didn't specify English, and he wrote like an angel - a very long-winded angel, admittedly. He's definitely right up there.

But ... "He wrote some of the loveliest descriptive prose I've ever read."

Fair enough. Can't argue with that.

Well, true, I didn't specify English. But my French isn't good enough to judge Proust's prose. And it wouldn't be fair to judge him on his English translations - they say, for example, that Eco is better in English than Italian...

True enough.

My reading French is ... okayish.

I can get - and I have been - through Swann's Way in French, clutching my trusty Enright / Kilmartin / Moncrieff translation all the while, to the point where I can appreciate that that translation is a very good approximation.

The authentic Proustian rhythms and cadences seem, to me, to be there, so I think you could reasonably judge Proust as a stylist from the translation.

Making grandiose, overblown claims is part, nay, a key feature of being a snob, to my thinking.

Tried to read Durrell. Can't. Can't, can't, can't. I don't deny his genius, he's just not my kinda writer. Ditto Faulkner. Try as I might...

Sam Beckett, though, now you're talking. In one of my reviews, I put him in the pantheon of 20th century literature, along with Joyce, L.F. Celine and a few select others. Borges. The true giants. Erasing the boundaries and venturing where few of us would dare go.

Beckett admired Proust greatly. And Celine. That's good enough for me...

"Prose stylist"?

Res ipsa loquitur.

Not sure what's worse, the actual writing or the inevitable hype? See Twilight and Eragon.

What really gets my goat is literary anti-snobbishness. Legitimizing people reading ninth-rate garbage by semi-literate hacks ... but it's still OK, since people are reading and not watching TV. Nothing like blanket generalizations about entire forms of media. You read your David Eddings, I'll be watching The Sopranos or Six Feet Under.

Granted, being a snob or a hipster is off-putting to some people, but when has it been a crime to have "taste"? You don't have to read Proust but for the love of God, put down the VC Andrews before someone gets hurt!

I noticed Warwick Collins had a book available from the Early Reviewers. It might have been appealing if I had not just finished reading The Rationalist and must say in terms of tedium he passes only Thomas Hardy. Surprisingly I posted it on Bookmooch and somebody in England snatched it up right away.

While I'm at it I would also like to trash Candace Bushnell. How they managed to make a half way humorous TV show out of the drivel of Sex and the City mystifies me. On other threads I've previously trashed Dan Brown. I couldn't get past the scene with the self-flagellating albino in Da Vinci Code. Lest I forget let's also include the author of The Celestine Prophecy, James Redfield, who needs to go back and repeat third grade grammar and spelling. His editor needs to be slapped.

I tried reading a Warwick Collins book once. It was called Computer One. It was dreadful.

i tried to read Eragon and gave up w/in the first 50 pages. It's in a genre in which i read a lot..and often am willing to give the author a bit of slack if the are SOME redeeming qualities..but that sucked. Haven't considered beginning Twilight. And yes, the Da Vinci Code was both stupid and poorly written. Should have had tom cruise instead of tom hanks as the lead in the movie i'll never see.

I thought James Redfield was an early new age or something musician. Wasn't he famous for Tabular Bells?

#170: You're kidding, right? Mike Oldfield, Tubular Bells, used in The Exorcist.

Gene's definitely notorious for pulling yer chain--beware when he "pretends" not to know a name. He's a clever sod.

I've been raked over the rails in a number of forums for being as "snob", "elitist", for insulting folks' reading taste, etc.

"Just be happy people are reading ANYTHING these days..." is the inference.

For the most part, I don't bother with people who see no reason to distinguish between the work of lousy hacks and artists who labour over every single syllable.

That's why I joined this group. A little sanity...

I'm still boggled by the concept of tabular bells...

I'd like to take that "be happy people are reading anything" inference to its logical, relativistic limits.

"Instead of watching TV, I read Mein Kampf and some of the tertiary publications of Larry Flynt."

A little snobbery isn't a bad thing. I'm like a foodie, except with word-books.

#174 Good points.

Snobbery does have its virtues.

Sales, on the other hand, is just plain pompous...

"New York Times Best-seller = quality" is a tired, disproven cliche. Same goes for the Bible, considering how conservative Christians act in the USA, I doubt they even read the book. The Wealth of Nations and whatever gilded tripe by Jonah Goldberg, they eat that stuff up like lines of coke at Studio 54.

Now I'm being a leftist snob. I'm sure that "Get a brain! Moran" sign-holding guy one sees on the Internets would not be amused.

Does anyone have a writer that everyone thinks is a hack, maybe you think is a hack, but you still enjoy reading? A guilty pleasure, I suppose.

H. Rider Haggard, an oldie, but a goodie. He's so completely not PC.

#176 - I think most right-wingers treat The Wealth of Nations like the Bible, as something that will back up their political views without them actually having to read it and grapple with its complexity. I think Adam Smith gets a lot of guilt by association, when he was in fact a very thoughtful writer on the economic changes of his era.

I think leftist snobbery has been pretty easy these last few years. The Republican's have moved from disdaining ideas they don't agree with to disdaining anyone with a functioning brain.

#176/179 for instance adam smith noted that the "invisible hand" wouldn't function in situations requiring the equivalent of "social welfare" and that it was the obligation of the state to step in and remedy social problems that weren't market amenable. He was also hypothesizing (generally) a situation in which there was both a relative abundance of sellers AND something approaching complete knowledge on the part of the buyers. "free market" and capitalism are not one and the same..And as Italian fascism (and indeed Nazi Germany) demonstrated, there's no contradiction between dictatorship and capital(ism).

It's ideologues like the wretched Ayn Rand and her disciples (any recent fed chairman come to mind?) who provide cover for untrammeled greed. "Gee...i thought the market would discipline itself..oooops, my bad" A. Greenspan.

Freya Stark went on and on in long sentences; she never missed a chance to use a semi-colon - or a dash - in sentences that seemed paragraphs long. Wilfred Thesinger was verbose too. They both assumed that the locals' purpose in life to to look alive and step and fetch it and pronto, which paled after about 50 pages.

I have a book by Stark (somewhere around here) but nothing by Thesiger.

Always wanted to read something by those two. My parents met Thesiger once. Mind you, they threw a party once and Muhammad Ali (the boxer) turned up.

You shameless name-dropper!

(Ali's one of my heroes.)

Pfft. That's nothing. At school, my best mate's brother's landlady was Bruce Dickinson's (of Iron Maiden) mother. Beat that for a claim to fame.

Chuck Palaniuk. I swear, it must just kill him to write a well-constructed paragraph.

#186 "Chuck Palaniuk. I swear, it must just kill him to write a well-constructed paragraph."

no fking shite...we were talking about how utterly crap his books were w/ our son the other night. For better or for worse we all really liked the movie, Fight Club..and on the assumption there was some loose association between Palluniak's writing and a nifty flick, i made the mistake of buying a couple of Paluniuk's books. Didn't finish either..Unreadable

Ooh, Palahniuk bashing count me in. So many things to criticize. The ridiculous plots, the terrible characterization, the sophomoric philosophy. But if you really want to work yourself into a rage, read or listen to some interviews, where he compares himself to real literature. Palahniuk had the chutzpah to say Fight Club was written as an updated The Great Gatsby.

Palahniuk's last three or four have not been strong efforts but I'll still put in a word or three in defense of both FIGHT CLUB and LULLABY, which I think are superb efforts. And his collection of essays, STRANGER THAN FICTION, is very good too.

Certainly Palahniuk isn't for all tastes but his entire body of work shouldn't be discounted, not by a long shot.

You know, Cliff, I have to admit enjoying both Fight Club and Lullaby. I even thought Diary had a certain so-bad-it's-good quality. (The literary equivalent of the Nicholas Cage Wicker Man.) On the other hand, I tend to find his pretentiousness annoying and consider him the P.T. Barnum of disaffected youth. So, I feel he deserves a few kicks...

He's (Palahniuk) rich and famous enough to absorb a few kicks.

He tells some funny stories in MORTIFICATION, a collection of non-fiction accounts from writers about the horrors they suffered at readings, book tours and launches. Good book, look it up...

Hemingway was a mediocre novelist, who has,
somehow, been elevated beyond his talent.
Wyndham Lewis called him the "dumb ox".
Also "Savage Detectives" by Bolano was disappointing. Mildly amusing for 200 pages,
until he put the story into a blender and chops it up. Only time I can remember quitting after reading that much.

hello CLIFFBURNS!!! u r an idiot. why in the WORLD do u hate stephenie meyer????????????????????? SHE IS THE GREATEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edward Cullen rocks!!111

Suddenly, the reason for Stephenie Meyer's success becomes clear to me...

As Stephenie Meyer said, responding to criticism of her work, "Me good writer, me write pretty."

I don't even know who Stephenie Meyer is. Should I be pleased or abashed?

She wrote Twilight and its sequels. Teenage girl doormat gets it on with vampire hotty at high school, and whines and agonises endlessly over whether she is loved and/or why he loves her. The books are apparently very popular. Twilight has also been made into a film, which is doing very well at the box office.

Cheers Ian. Just done a vox pop with my daughter (16). She's read the first two. She likes them. And I thought she was a little snobette. Ah well, give her time.

#192 - pretty much exactly my response to "Savage Detectives" - got SO repetitive, and the author seemed SO full of himself. Quit at about the same point. The first 50 pages w/ the protagonist in the poetry seminar were v. promising..and then..blah (and blah blah blah).

I agree with 129 and 169.

I'd like to add Anne McCaffrey and James A Michener to those we've collectively thrown under the bus, though with these two, may I request that the bus backs up then run over them again for good measure?

I guess I'm lucky in having a living scale in my sister to how bad a book really is. If she enjoys it, it is over-hyped drek. For example, she loved the Dan Brown books, the Stephanie Meyer books, and though no one has mentioned it yet, Harry Potter. When Hollywood actually improves on the book in its movies, you know something isn't right.

You folks make me feel vindicated--I came about THIS close to buying SAVAGE DETECTIVES in the McNally Robinson bookstore. Something told me "nah".

Found a super-cheap copy of CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN the other day. Something else to fuel my rampant misanthropy. And Richard E. Grant's WITH NAILS on the way...

How about Anne Rice? Wordy, pretentious, and in desperate need of an editor.

I love 19th cent. gothic, but Dracula is a 3rd rate novel. Nothing happens, everything is hinted at off-stage. I vote for "Melmoth the Wanderer" by Maturin or Arthur Machen, Blackwood, Hodgson, H R Wakefield, etc. Anyone but Stoker.

>200 Taleri: "When Hollywood actually improves on the book in its movies, you know something isn't right."

That's funny. That's how I feel about the Lord of the Rings.

Cliff,

When I was still working an out of town client on the phone listening to NPR said, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man sounds interesting." I went out and bought it; I read it. My cynicism is such that I said to myself and later to the client, "So what? Do you expect otherwise?"

What I'm saying is that your misanthropy cannot be very strong if you get something new out of the book.

Robert

Gene,

I've read Lord of the Rings perhaps six times since 1965. I liked the Ralph Bakshi (is that the right name) movie. When I saw the first of the recent three, I was underwhelmed.

I mentioned, at church, that I thought it was not a very good movie but served as good illustrations for the book. Somebody asked me why watch it? I responded because I've been waiting for it for three decades.

Robert

Robert:

My cynicism and misanthropy is only REINFORCED by the HITMAN book. It's confirmation and condemnation, all at one go...

#200 "When Hollywood actually improves on the book in its movies, you know something isn't right."

That's not entirely fair. Some very good films have been made from books which are nowhere near as bad as Harry Potter or Stephenie Meyer - such as Marnie or The Commitments.

Robert, I was a big fan of the books (LOTR) as well, and I'd also waited a while for the films. My favourite book is easily "The Fellowship ...", and I must say I was amazed by what a good job Peter Jackson did of it (I thought). Some regrettable omissions, of course, but still ...

I like the other two films on a diminishing basis - too much CGI carnage, really - but that's true of the books as well, and I still enjoyed 'em.

None of which discredits or disproves your points at all, of course. Just thought I'd share a friendly dissenting opinion with you. Hope you don't mind.

We celebrate diversity. (We do, don't we? Or is that just me?)

we (all three of us 50+ parents, late HS/fresh college age kid) really liked the books and the movies. As desultory points out, even in "epic movies" major portions get shorn - or rewritten; in the the Jackson&Co adaptation the spirit was generally retained. I'v been (re)reading the books since i was,umm 10 and Patty since college and adam since he'd learned to read.

Only major cavil w/ the movie - "testing" Faramir far longer and having him react similarly to his bro to temptation. On film and book I get tired of Sam and Frodo - but that's my problem. I thought the dysfunctional family of the Stewards was very well handled. The Rohirrim town/country and characters all excellent - Miranda Otto & Brad Douriff (sp) esp. Hobbiton was lovely; Ian Holmes (who's played Frodo in the v. good BBC radio adaption) was the best of the hobbits (imho, of course). Having a wacky looking "eye" as a villain IS problematic, but the Nazgul compensated. And Patty and I both found many of the special features - fascinating. How ANY movie, more technically complex than "My Dinner w/ Andre" get made is quite beyond my ken.

NB. In many rereadings for the last 20+ yrs i skim most of the key Sam/Frodo journey, once they're on their stalwart own.

Being a hopeless romantic, to me the best part of the whole story was contained in App. F (I believe), the story of Samwise after the events of the Ring. The riders from the Grey Havens who come to escort the Last of the Ring Bearers home leaves me in tears. This is the only part of the trilogy I re-read. It's just beautiful, the gardener's son as remembered Hero. This is right up my alley. Ordinary people acting extraordinarily in extraordinary times.

It's been 40 years since I read LoTR, so I'm a tad foggy on the book. I really liked the film.
The details are amazing. Hard to imagine someone doing a better job.
My favorite fantasy epics are the John Carter books by Burroughs and, of course, Tros of Samothrace by Talbot Mundy. JC has some wild fantasy. Tros is a realistic historical epic.

From a cave in the West fighting Indians to the heart of Barsoom. What a trip! One of the first SF books I read (or was it fantasy) was my Grandfathers edition of Thuvia, Maid of Mars. I remember the art deco cover as if it was yesterday.

Lord of the Rings capsule review: cute hobbits tarry on a bit and sing a song. Repeat for 500 pages. Orcs bad. Elves good. Rings and wizards and junk. Good triumphs over Evil. Change names and add a few adjectives and you get Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, etc. At least Warhammer 40K -- essentially the same thing, but in space -- doesn't take itself nearly so seriously.

James Thackara needs a good kick in the teeth. Book of Kings is insufferable. An inert plot, cliched characters, self-important topic (World War 2, the Holocaust), and agonizingly over-polished prose. I quit after 250 pages -- out of 800 -- since this overly important and literary WW 2 didn't even have the War starting at that point. A few nice passages, but otherwise, it was like swimming through a sea of molasses ... with an anvil strapped to your back.

"like swimming through a sea of molasses ... with an anvil strapped to your back"

That's very good.

A review of Twilight. Enjoy!

;)

Twilight is BAD.

First of all, the writing is intensely mediocre. Stephenie Meyer has, apparently, taken the bold step of refusing to edit out the unimportant parts to include every single minute event in the daily life of her main character. No, I'm not kidding. We hear about each of her classes in high school, Bella's intense dislike for gym class--which, apparently, isn't enough, because we also hear about every single gym class she has. In detail: "Gym was brutal. We'd moved on to basketball. My team never passed me the ball, so that was good, but I fell down a lot. Sometimes I took people with me. Today was worse than usual because my head was so filled with Edward. I tried to concentrate on my feet, but he kept creeping back into my thoughts just when I really needed my balance."

Bella is also the most clumsy, accident-prone character EVAR. Why no one has ever had her evaluated for some sort of neurological dysfunction is beyond me.

So it's a good thing that Edward is there to save her. Repeatedly. Not just from life-threatening situations, but from stupid little accidents. Because Bella, while apparently self-sufficient enough to raise herself entirely, and make a completely nonsensical decision to move from Phoenix, which she loves, to the rainy and miserable small town of Forks, WA, can't manage to walk down the street without hurting herself. Which actually becomes the most convenient plot device ever when she gets hurt later on in the book. Laid up in the hospital with broken bones?--oh, she just fell down two flights of stairs and through a window. Which no one ever questions.

Anyway, after moving to Forks, where she pretty much doesn't communicate with her mom anymore (the same mom who is, after all, her best friend) and rarely shares space with her father, she becomes completely obsessed with Edward. Because he's pretty and brooding and moody. No, really--that's it. Later, it becomes apparent that he's obsessed with her because she smells like the best-tasting food ever, but for some reason, he also likes her enough not to eat her. Also, he's a good vampire. Who can go out in sunlight, but doesn't, because sunlight makes him sparkle. For serious. I can't make stuff like this up.

So they're in love. You know this because they are completely obsessed and entirely codependent, and Bella feels like her world is ending every time they have to part.

And then the unforgiveable happens. I'm afraid I really can't do this justice, so read:

"Shall I explain how you are tempting me?" he said. It was clearly a rhetorical question. His fingers traced slowly down my spine, his breath coming more quickly against my skin. My hands were limp on his chest, and I felt light-headed. He tilted his head slowly and touched his cool lips to mine for the second time, very carefully, parting them slightly.

And then I collapsed.

"Bella?" His voice was alarmed as he caught me and help me up.

"You. . . made. . . me. . . faint," I accused him dizzily.

OH JOHN RINGO NO.

Really, that's all you need to know about this book, right there. How it's caught on like wildfire is completely beyond me, and I hope to god that all the poor teenage girls reading this aren't going to model their relationships on Bella and Edward's. Anti-feminist, wildly codependent. . . check, and check. Also: COMPLETELY ABSURD. I'm not even talking about the whole vampire thing, or even the vampires who sparkle in the sunlight. No, those are some of the more believable elements to this story. It's just completely ridiculous, and utterly lacking in any sort of characterization. When your vampire confesses to having been thinking of ways to off himself in the event that his 17-year-old object of possession dies, it's time to pack it in.

Like most bestsellers TWILIGHT is a derivative twist of an existing idea with a fucking enormous ad campaign behind it.

Fun review. I don't usually support the notion of book-burning but in this case I'm willing to make an exception...

>217 CliffBurns: - but that doesn't explain why young girls swoon over it. What happened to the good old days when they swooned over bright cheesy popstars like David Cassidy? I blame the education system, the parents, and record labels.

Isn't TWILIGHT the mental equivalent of teeny-boppers like David Cassidy, Leif Garrett et all? Sexless pop, sexless lit...that's why so many fans got so mad when the main character gets laid and knocked up in the concluding book. The moment they started fucking, the 14-year olds (and those with that mindset) went "Ewwwwww..."

And flouride in the water corrupting vital fluids.

Thank you, General Ripper...

You were quicker on the draw than me. msg. 220 reads to follow msg. 218

Great allusion though, Ben...

The world needs more Sterling Hayden ;) Any friend of the Tattaglias is a friend of mine.

He sparkles in the daylight? I wrote a vamp story and it didn't even come close to that kind of stupid. What do Mormons know about vampires anyway? Since he's technically undead, can he be baptized? (Since they baptize the dead.)

So what next, Mrs. Meyer: a vegan werewolf? a pacifist zombie? a break-dancing Frankenstein?

Twilight just seems like sub-standard chick lit -- never a genre high on standards.

What thoughts on Elizabeth Gilbert?

>218 Jargoneer: - As a young girl, I'll note that I don't (and, frankly, can't) swoon over the dribble that is Twilight. It's laughable, petty and pathetic, and therefore fits aptly the majority of young (and old) girls. It was recommended to me once, I read what it was about as I hadn't heard of it, and decided that it was trash. I picked it up to glance over in a bookstore later, and I confirmed it.

I confess I have 'swooned' over book characters: Pechorin from A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, the main character (did he have a name?) from White Nights by Fyodor Dostoevsky...

>224 kswolff: - A break-dancing Frankenstein would be brilliant, actually, far better than sparkling vampires.

Also, rather than being completely pale and white, the way described in most vampire stories, wouldn't a vampire be reddish from all the blood intake? Particularly so if they have pale skin. Blood wrapped in a sack of white skin... Red, I would think. Or at least quite pink.

And considering all their abilities, etc., they would be bloated with blood; just very, very fat.

Hm... Would the pacifist zombie eat cold brains rather than the nice, warm variety?

Pacifist zombie would probably eat Boca Brains or Brain-flavored Tofu.

Vampires would be red and bloated if we're playing by the rational scientific rules, but vampires are supernatural beings, so they can be all pale and Lord Byronish. I have heard a book about an overweight vampire, but the title escapes me. Anyone? I think it might be set in Louisiana and isn't written by Laurell Hamilton

kswolff, you might be thinking of the Sookie Stackhouse books by Charlaine Harris. I've never read them myself, but the HBO series based on them is a guilty pleasure of mine.

>226 kswolff: - Doesn't sound very tasty, honestly.

I doubt that the overweight vampire was very popular with the human females... Pity, really.

Not Harris either ... it's Fat White Vampire Blues by Andrew Fox. Haven't read it, but it looks like a nice twist on the thin pale dreamboats that populate vampire fiction. Fabios with fangs and such.

Sookie's back next month! Can't wait!

Broca's Brain may be wormy.

Cliffburns, you dig at Canadian writing makes me think I should refer you to the Vehicule Press in Montreal. Some good fiction and poetry from their writers. www.vehiculepress.com
But on the other hand, I agree with ou about Dan Brown, having not read or attempted (I did not finish The DaVinci Code) by any of the others.
Better try, DaVinci's Bicycle by Guy Davenport

I notice that many of you listed REAL authors, but I need to complain about an "author." (heavy quotes)
I discovered Ken Douglas on Amazon, mainly through rave reviews and Listmania inclusions. Found out too late that his "reviewers" are ringers. The one book I tried, Tangerine Dream, was cheap, talentless garbage. An illiterate could have done better. I was horrified to be duped this way. Shame on this author and others like him who dishonestly promote their
self published and worthless manuscripts.
(I have nothing against self publishing in general, but in this case he should not have bothered.)

Mario:

Taking digs at Canadian writing is easy: it's effete, dull, focussed around issues of identity, place, race, eschewing action verbs, plotless, uninteresting, the very epitome of navel-gazing. There are exceptions but they DON'T disprove the rule.

Victoria: hateful that you were duped like that and the actions of that idiot writer indicted everyone who chooses to self-publish because of the stupidity of the in-bred editorial system. On behalf of writers everywhere, I offer my humblest apologies...

Hi there - I appear to be late to this party, and WHO drank all the red wine? Hmmm? Anyway, responding to a quick scan - Lawrence Durrell, yes, but definitely read him when you're in your late teens and your pretentiousness detector isn't quite as honed as it may become later on. And good old Ginny Woolf - "To the Lighthouse" is the only book I have ever thrown across the room in sheer frustration, having made it only halfway through. With most books, even if they're not really my sort of thing, I'll finish them just to find out what happens - but with Woolf, I genuinely couldn't give a flying f**k.

Oh, and I was once desperate and bookless, so I gritted my teeth and started a Maeve Binchy. Shudder.

(Edited for a capitalisation error - the shame of it ...).

Sophie: A-men on "Ginny" Woolfe. Reading her is about as interesting as watching a glacier recede. My copy of TO THE LIGHTHOUSE ended up right beside yours. Except I jumped on the spine of mine until it snapped, just to put the poor thing out of its misery...

I wasn't impressed by Orlando - see here.

"fanciful tosh" That was my favorite bit when I first read it.

Killer review, Ian...

Re. Durrel. In 2000, i wrote back some notes on England and two people told me my writing was better than durrel. So i stopped because the implication of being something like him did not make me happy. If one is to be flippant, one should go all the way like Michaux or Rudovsky or Barthes to name three who wrote outrageous things about Japan/ese.

And the other Durrel would be fine if one could not find better Nature essayists and even better ones in England if one goes to the library and checks out wh hudson. I simply feel no need to waste time reading mediocre literature.

Re. Lola's "talent is cheap." Amen. Beautiful writing -- natural or learned from long study -- is largely responsible for the abundance of boring articles and books. I take that back. Editors who accept such because they lack the learning or the guts to demand fresh ideas of authors are the real culprits.

A hilarious hatchet job of the recent Twilight movie:

http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Twilight_2008.aspx

Sure, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but I'm sure Stephenie Meyer won't mind. She can sleep on her bed of money and drive her diamond-encrusted Bentley to the Kwik Trip for milk and gas like the rest of us poor yobs.

>239 kswolff: - Hilarious indeed. Thanks for posting it.

I note there's a "Twilight Group" here on LT--"No Twilight Haters Allowed"--maybe that's why there's only 3 members so far. An encouraging sign that maybe the post-literate world isn't as close as I feared:

http://www.librarything.com/groups/twilightgrouptwilig1

>233 CliffBurns:

I generally enjoy your posts, Cliff.

There is, however, no such rule.

If you didn't keep telling the same anecdote about the publisher and East Indian authors being hot at the moment, I'd believe your opposition to Canadian fiction and publishing was based on more than your own difficulties in finding a publisher.

Regarding Alistair MacLeod, you should probably read some of his work, before popping off (in ignorance, I might add) about regional writers and their inability to write to your standards. Incidentally, for most Canadians, Saskatchewan - both literally and figuratively - is in the middle of nowhere. How's that editing coming along?

There's great and horrible writing produced in many countries. Just as you can produce a list of Canadian writers you detest, so too someone else can produce a list of five or six British authors they find objectionable. To then make, however, silly generalizations about ALL writing from that nation is ridiculous.

If someone took your list of complaints and applied them to the literature of the last three hundred years, there would be very little Russian, Victorian, or European literature (heck, let's not forget African, Asian and Middle Eastern lit as well) that would meet your standards. For these themes (identity, place and race) continue to interest. Not every novel can be about hard drinking gumshoes.

A little less bile in your posts might go along way to convincing others that you actually have a point.

I've tried to avoid turning this into a personal attack, but I fear you and others will decide I have failed. If so, I apologize - flag away.

I'm just feeling a little frustrated with your continued crusade, against most Canadian literature, for only failing to meet your personal qualifications for good fiction.

Sincerely,

>241 CliffBurns: - I giggle at that. I also giggle (while scornfully shaking my head) at the creator's inability to capitalise the correct words.

One must, however, note the date of creation, which is relatively recent. Also, there is such a massive number of Twilight groups that a new one may go unnoticed. Behold: http://www.librarything.com/search_groups.php?searchbox=twilight Not all the groups there are pro-Twilight, since I just typed the title into the search box.

This reminds me of how I often feel tempted to join any teenage reading group here, just for the vanity of it. Then I look at what they talk about and how they do so, and I groan. Sometimes with a smile, sometimes without. I've always managed to convince myself not to, thank God, but there are times when I truly think it might be fun to argue my points. Silly, really, considering the typical levels of understanding, logic, et cetera that are present there...

>242 beardo: - Of course people can come up with long lists of writers they dislike from nearly any country. Now, how about the writers they like or think are good? If the number is very, very, very small, then it's more noteworthy. I'd like to see how many good Canadian writers CliffBurns can think of; it would give the issue more perspective. Before that, I make no judgment. (If the question has been answered elsewhere, in this discussion thread or no, I apologise.)

That's the whole point Irieisa. CliffBurns seems to be the one Canadian out there who can't find ANY good authors from his own country.

Absolutely NOT true that I have never identified fine writers from Canada. I believe I've even listed some on various threads in this group.

One of my favourite authors is Mordecai Richler and he had nothing but SCORN for Canadian writing institutions and those who claimed to be advancing the cause of culture (as they viewed it through narrow-minded racial or gender-influenced biases) instead of fine writing. His novel THE INCOMPARABLE ATUK was a vitriolic attack on CanLit and its mental midget minions.

Richler deplored, as I do, the notion of using nationalism or instilling "Canadian identity" as hallmarks of a publishable book (or CBC program). Right up to his final book, the brilliant BARNEY'S VERSION, he was unsparing when it came to the mediocrities that run the cultural and artistic institutions in this country, politically correct poobahs--from provincial arts boards, to the CBC and Canada Council.

My views on the Canadian writing scene are hard-won and closely held: I've deal with fuckhead editors for almost a quarter century. There are many other anecdotes and ugly stories I can share (besides the East Indian remark which, admittedly, I've used more than once). You'll find some of them in an essay I wrote called "Solace of Fortitude", others sprinkled through blog entries or many, many comments I've posted on-line.

You took a comment of mine and misquoted it, used it out of context so it was a blanket condemnation of ALL Canadian authors. I said there were exceptions and I meant it. I said those rare authors did NOT disprove the rule...and I meant that too.

>246 CliffBurns: - NOW judgment can be made. I can't disagree with what has been said, and I honestly don't wish to, based on what I've heard (not just here, but elsewhere). I never had a very good impression of Canadian literature as a whole, though I didn't know why. It appears my opinion was justified after all.

By the way, the only Canadian writer I can even think of (besides Cliff Burns, of course!) off the top of my head would be Robertson Davies, and I haven't gotten around to reading his books yet. I'm very knowledgeable on this subject, you see.

And, again, sorry for asking when you've probably listed off the writers you like elsewhere.

Timothy Findley's NOT WANTED ON THE VOYAGE is staggering. One of the five greatest Canuck novels of all time. FAMOUS LAST WORDS is another terrific read. His short stories are also finely crafted. Love everything I've read by Mordecai Richler, fiction or otherwise. Joseph Boyden's THREE DAY ROAD is so great it left me weak-kneed. His new novel THROUGH BLACK SPRUCE is also supposed be good, though I haven't yet read it. ZED by Elizabeth McClung is a weird and marvelous novel. Peter Watts is Canada's best SF writer by a long measure--check out STARFISH and BLINDSIGHT. Two other writers that come to mind are Brian Fawcett and David Gilmour...and I've always had a soft spot for Sharon Riis's oddball MIDNIGHT TWILIGHT TOURIST ZONE, though she writes very little in terms of prose these days.

Canada adopted Brian Moore (though he was Brit born) and I quite like several of the novels he wrote--and, natch, there's William Gibson, but not sure whether he'd qualify as a ex-pat Yankee...

The touchstone for Findley's NOT WANTED ON THE VOYAGE comes up as a C.S. Lewis book! Tiff would laugh his ass off at that one...

>246 CliffBurns:

Thank-you for your response.

I withdraw the "all" - you have indeed praised Richler in the past.

I agree completely that coupling Nationalism with Literature (as is so often done here in Canada) is distasteful, and that national identity should not be the measure of a book's worth (M & S and CBC are the obvious culprits here). I often tell friends that one of my least favourite adjectives for Literature is "Canadian" - because of the sense of obligation to support the author that is simultaneously foisted upon the Canadian public. Yet, the ability to identify this odious practice does not immediately relegate 98% (see #1) of Canadian literature to the figurative dustbin.

Think how it would sound if someone said I hate 98% of American fiction, because the editors in New York aren't nice people. Or rather, I hate 98% of American fiction because of its preoccupation with gender and race - then trot out Morrison, Oates, Walker as examples.

I do, however, stand by my statement that there is no rule to be disproved. Your emotional and personal take on the publishing industry in Canada doesn't constitute a rule needing to be proved or disproved.

Yet your position is weakened by the apparent bitterness you display. By referring to editors as "fuckheads" you compel us to once again consider your position is one taken out of emotion and disappointment.

I wish it was otherwise.

Incidentally, the only time I quoted you was when I used the parenthetical phrase (identity, place, race) to identify the themes you found objectionable - and apparently unique - to Canadian fiction. Your words, not mine.

Finally, I've read the essay in question as well as "many, many" of your comments. As I stated above, it was out of a growing frustration with the lack of evidence you present for your position that induced me to finally comment.

You wrote in #1: "Don't pull your punches, kids, there's a time and place for that and, as Ian has noted, this AIN'T it." I took you at your word. I know that statement was intended to refer to criticism of other authors and their work, but considering your willingness to be "honest" about the ideas and opinions of others, I thought you'd understand.

I intended my original comment as an assault on your position, rather than on you as an individual. Evidently I have failed in the attempt.

I apologize and am sorry you were offended.

ETA: I see that while I was writing this post, you have added some Canadian authors you admire. Thank-you.

I agree completely about Not wanted on the voyage. One of my absolute favourites.

I felt your post was a personal crack based on a misreading of statements (admittedly inflammatory) that I have made on the subject of Canadian literature.

I didn't expect an apology and really am embarrassed that you offered one. I clarified my comments and you seemed to accept them in the light they were intended. My "evidence" comes from a couple of decades of dealing with regional and national editors here in Canada and while the episodes and incidents I describe might seem anecdotal or unconvincing to you, I can assure you there are many others who would back up my claims of the incestuousness and in-breeding, the political correctness and affirmative action nazis that permeate the Canadian cultural scene.

One Irish film-maker visiting Canada a number of years back raised the ire of his Canadian hosts when he wryly observed that "Canada is one of the few countries I know that puts a points system on the arts". That remark went down like a burning zeppelin, I tell you.

And, of course, I couldn't agree with him more...

Cliff,

re. apology: We're Canadians - one person apologizes for giving offense, the other one feels embarrassed. Hell, its picture perfect for the NFB.

re.: "the political correctness and affirmative action nazis that permeate the Canadian cultural scene."

I agree, but am unclear how this sad state of affairs in Toronto, provincial capitals and various university campuses necessitates a near-blanket condemnation of the work produced by authors all across the country.

I don't doubt your personal experience and knowledge, but all of us don't have the benefits of that experience. Sometimes we need more substantial evidence - regardless of how justified the original emotion - to understand your position.

Sincerely,

The endemic in-breeding and self-reflection that characterizes the Canadian cultural scene encourages and promotes a kind of literature that is acceptable to the elites(?) who decide what's "Canadian enough". That's why I dismiss Canadian publishers, the CBC and film companies, all of whom need massive subsidies to survive because, to a large measure, Canadians have rejected their view of what constitutes good books, movies, etc.

To my mind, the cultural institutions of this country are directly responsible for the lousy state of our "national" literature. And the reason why so few fine writers are able shine and find a venue for their unique and original voices.

I merely ask for a level playing field, where excellence in writing is the SOLE criteria for what gets published. But those poobahs are more interested (in my experience) in PLACE and RACE and so I reject them and their sappy, condescending aesthetic.

Nuff said on this point, at least by me. I'm starting to bore myself (an admittedly easy task)...

just as a note in re an under appreciated (in English) French-Canadian author - i have really enjoyed the SF novels (in translation) by Elisabeth Vonarburg reluctant voyagers, the silent city.

I think I met her years ago at some convention and I recall she was quite a nice person, very unassuming. Haven't read her stuff but sounds like (from your comment) that at least she found a good translator. That can be a hit and miss thing...

I have one of her books on the TBR, Dreams of the Sea. She translates her own books, and the English language editions are published by a Canadian small press, Tesseract Books.

#247 Irieisa: Oh, how I covet that Folio Society Deptford Trilogy. *drool* Make sure you give Robertson Davies a try sometime--no matter what Cliff says. ;)

Tesseract Books was defunct for awhile, then the name was picked up by some Calgary outfit (Edge Press?). It's a very small concern and their books don't look like my cup of tea. Dunno if they own the rights to all the early Tesseract stuff (like Vonarburg).

Here's a writeup on one of their more, er, interesting sounding efforts; you be the judge:

Clan of the Dung-Sniffers
by Lee Danielle Hubbard
Trade Paperback
ISBN-10: 1-894063-05-8
ISBN-13: 978-1-894063-05-0
5.5" X 8.5"
$19.95 US
(Free shipping in North America)
320 pages

Clan of the Dung-Sniffers

“Wounds of the body heal swiftly in comparison
to those of the mind.”

In the center of the Marble Tower, in the center of the City, there hangs the Radiance, a mystical object of prayer and devotion.

When the Radiance suddenly vanishes, eight young men: a nobleman’s son and his servant; a Bedouin mystic; a cobbler and his cousin; a City guard; a cross-dresser; and Glane, the boy who wants to fly, are suspected of its theft.

Yes, they took it ... but only because it needed repair! And, since they broke it, they must repair it.

But the situation is not as simple as that — and there are many, many reasons why the perpetrators are WANTED!

To elude capture, this octet of unlikely conspirators forms a secret clan, the Clan of the Dung-Sniffers, and vows to repair and replace the Radiance before the authorities can catch them.

But their plans are derailed by bees and feathers and blackmail ... and they are sent headlong into a brewing rebellion that might potentially dissolve their first great achievement — friendship.

>258 Medellia: - How do you know what's on my wish-list? ;-)

Yes, Tesseract is now an imprint of Edge Press. Some of their titles look a bit suspect, but one or two look interesting. And one even appeared on an award shortlist recently - although I forget which award.

It can't be easy for all you Canucks living in the shadow of the Greatest Nation The Earth Has Ever Seen. If the CBC didn't make it all about Canada, no one would ever pay it any mind. Sometimes nations must take their existence and flaunt it to the world or no one will never know they're there.

Speaking of Saskatchewan being in the middle of nowhere, if I was from Canada, I wouldn't say that too loudly. If it wasn't for Saskatchewan, I would believe Canada was just a figment of some map-maker's imagination.

Greatest Nation the Earth Has Ever Seen? By what measurement? The fact we're the last industrialized nation to NOT have socialized health care? Our high incarceration rates? (We're #1 now! Take that Soviet Russia!) Or our high rate of professed religiosity? (As opposed to high rate of morality, which we're obviously far down that list.)

Come on Wolffie, can't you just play along. Gosh, people like you are no fun at all. Spoil Sport.

Gene, I'm so touched you have such a high opinion of Saskatchewan. I love the place, meself. We have the most gorgeous scenery, from the flatlands to rolling hills to heavy forest. There's desert-like sand dunes and badlands country right out of a western novel. Roaring rivers, impressive falls and white water. Unfortunately, due to my sedentary lifestyle, I rarely venture further than 100 miles from home. Pathetic, innit?

Ken -

No mention at all of Farley Mowat? He was a national treasure at one time. But so was Madame Trudeau.

I might interject - Saskatchewan is the calmest, cleanest, and pleasantest place I've every visited. There's no where better to go during the Northern Hemisphere summer.

I agree: Saskatchewan in summer is unbeatable. Today it's probably 23 degrees Celsius, blue sky, operatic birdsong waking us at 5:00 a.m. Had to get up and close the windows so we could get back to sleep.

Farley Mowat (shudder)...

And people think Saskatchewan people are "normal":

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/dreams+school+bought+newcomers+Willow+Bunch/16911...

Isn't it time to retire this thread and start a new one?

We're looking at triple digit temps (F, around 38 - 41 C)) this week. Summer is settling in. Oh, God, please have mercy!

A new thread on the same topic here:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/57820

Hi CliffBurns:

The "alternative past" ploy which Roth used in "The Plot against America" was so antique by the time of its publicaiton that it may have been long forgotten and seemed new.

Over-rated? Probably. But, to my mind, you have to be good to even BE over-rated; so I donʻt use that adjective (or "mediocre" either) as a synonym of "lousy" or "no good". As I took it up to read, I had only scanned some reviews, and I wasnʻt aware of any special partiality to it on the reviewersʻ part. Rothʻs name and "track recordʻ probably carried him a long with the reviewers.

I read a CLifford Irving, I think it was, "historical novel" set in the 1930s, of which I forget the name. In it, Rothʻs later main bad guy, Lindbergh, was in a supporting role. Thereʻs a scene where he and Joseph P. Kennedy express mutual admiration of their right-wing inclinations, but Irvingʻs novel isnʻt exactly an "alternative past". But I can say that C. Irving would make Roth look like Scott or Stevenson.

I read Irving's TOM MIX AND PANCHO VILLA and remember it with fondness. The man could write...

Hi Iansales,

On Beckettʻs language, Iʻve read that all his major works except Murphy and Watt were written in French, but that he is his own translator for the English editions. (And Watt, by the way, was published only many years after it was written.)

Iʻm so old I can remember when Beckett was something less than a household word, even among "litterati". The first time I heard a speaker* mention "Beckett, I wasnʻt sure if he meant an Irish-French novelist, or the main character of Eliotʻs Murder in the Cathedral.

*The speaker was Leo Giroux, esoteric novelist, (an d he did mean the novelist. (Leo was not at that time a published writer.)

The three worst writers since records began? Paolo Coelho, Paolo Coelho and Paolo Coelho. May gods forgive this self-indulgent, pathetic-drivel machine.

What do you have against Paralympian athletes from Portugal?

#276 Was that aimed at me? Is it a joke about my mis-spelling of his name? And you're right too - I was too blinded by anger to see the keyboard properly. I don't get it but if they all write like Paulo Coelho then I can easily find something to have against them. ;-)

There's a Portuguese Paralympian athlete named Paulo de Almeida Coelho. He competed as recently as 2004 (and won a gold medal in 2000).

http://www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sections_Menu/Sports/Results/paralympics_...

See, now you're talking sport and I know as much about that as I do about the workings of Coelho's mind (either of them). Sorry I ruined your joke.

"hello CLIFFBURNS!!! u r an idiot. why in the WORLD do u hate stephenie meyer????????????????????? SHE IS THE GREATEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edward Cullen rocks!!111"

At first I thought this post was a joke, in which case I would have ranked it the funniest comment in the whole thread. Sadly, i've realized it wasn't meant to be ironic.

The two best Canadian authors, IMHO, are Margaret Atwood and Farley Mowat.

There are many awful authors but for some reason Harry Turtledove and Clive Cussler anger me more than most.

281:The two best Canadian authors, IMHO, are Margaret Atwood and Farley Mowat.

You forgot Robertson Davies and Gordon Lightfoot

Timothy Findley and Mordecai Richler.

(Sorry, lads, not even close.)

Worst writer who is widely respected (and hasn't yet been named on the thread): Jean Toomer. Cane was a slog and ultimately not worth it.

Awful writers who are not respected by the literary community but should still be recognized for their awfulness:
*Tim LaHaye
*Wilbur Smith
*Margaret Mitchell

Robin Cook. William Shatner. Richard Brautigan. And "Waiting For Godot" is one of the most over-rated things I've ever read.

>284 mcenroeucsb: On Tim LaHaye, you're 100% right that the Left Behind series is dreadfully written, with no variation to its choppy sentences; it resembles a third-grader's essay or Ben Mezrich's Bringing Down the House. However, the blame should fall primarily on Jerry B. Jenkins, the professional ghostwriter hired to write it from LaHaye's ideas and notes. It seems LaHaye's contribution was conceiving the gimmick of an action series based on the Biblical apocalypse and realizing it could be mass-marketed to evangelize while making tons of money, so LaHaye's role would have to be considered a success. Of course, he still committed the literary crime of hiring Jenkins then failing to realize the result was awful, but in LaHaye's defense (sort of), he didn't really write them.

286: good point. I will reassign my hate to Jenkins!

>285 burnit99: - William Shatner! Are you mad? William Shatner is possibly the greatest living human being: a man who has mastered all the arts - music, drama, literature (and probably painting - I have seen any paintings by him but I'm sure they are at least the same standard of Picasso or Leonardo).
In roles like Captain Kirk and T.J. Hooker he provided a blueprint for how we should all live - men of action, men so in touch with their feminine side they wear corsets, men who spread their love freely, wildly.
Only when he dies will we truly understand the brilliance of this man and the religion founded in his name will spread peace, co-operation and free love around the world, allowing us to seed the stars.

You left out Price Line commercials and Charlie Sheen roasts.

Pure genius.

285: Not like Waiting for Godot? Well, to each his own, I guess. Not a "worst writer," but I'm not a fan of the rabid following associated with Jonathan Franzen Granted, I'm sure he's a wonderful writer, blah blah blah National Book Award something something. It's just his stuff holds no interest with me. The same feebish herd-mentality that drives our non-snob counterparts to read Fifty Shades of Grey compel the Hipster Intelligentsia to read, say, Freedom or the Corrections

Sorry, I just don't give a damn.

As implied in #286, I'm nominating Ben Mezrich to the anti-canon, based on the unreadable choppiness of the above book and his inability to emphasize important events amid a mass of tedious minutiae. As a result, I've never read any of his other nonfiction.

Which raises the question: if a single sufficiently good work (The Divine Comedy, Wuthering Heights) can elevate a writer to the canon, can a single sufficiently bad work damn him or her to the anti-canon? If so, of course, a very uneven writer could hypothetically belong to both the canon and the anti-canon. If not, there must be a reason for the asymmetry.

". . .can a sufficiently bad work condemn him or her to the anti-canon?"
--No, I think it canʻt. Thomas Carlyle, for example wrote not one but several execrable short tracts - racist and showing capitalist "philosophy" at its nadir. But I think those readers who place him in "THE Canon"*
would be inclined to ignore
those bits. Others, even those who see him as NON-canonical, would recognize his
importance, and that his canonizers do have a case.
He deserves as much consideration as a "one-hit-wonder" writer, like the author of To Kill a Mocking Bird who didnʻt even give
critics a shot at demoting them.

*Iʻm not, b t w, one of them.

We judge poets by their few best poems, not their many lesser poems.

Can a canon be about works, or does it have to be about authors?

>290 kswolff: Nice to find someone else who didn't like Franzen. I wasted hours of my life trying to care about that horrible family in The Corrections. Learned my lesson, and ignored Freedom. I'm surprised I remember the titles of these books.

I was told over and over again that Big Sur was his downward spiral book, but I really just couldn't stand Jack Kerouac.

I remember being undecided whether Big Sur
or The Dharma Bums was Kerouac's
best. I was only sure that both were
better than the very over-rated On
the Road. I liked Doctor Sax
as much as Big Sur and Dharma
Bums but I realized at the same time
that it (and the other "Lowell*l Novels") were
too provincial to reach
a wide audience.

*I grew up in Woburn MA, just about
halfway between Boston and
Lowell.

>290 kswolff:, 295

Years and years ago I read a collection of essays by Franzen that really impressed me. They still do (How To Be Alone, well worth a look). Then I read Freedom. Yes, he is a wonderful writer who unfortunately writes about the most churlish, loathsome, self-absorbed to the point of implosion people you'll ever encounter. The only thing I gained from the experience was an as yet undiminished urge to line the whining brats up, bang their heads together and watch 'em fall, domino style. The Corrections is lurking on a shelf somewhere, waiting for me to find it and lob it out the nearest window.

On The Road is an artifact of its age that I think is failing to stand the test of time; fifty years from now it will have shrunk considerably in our estimation. Kerouac is way overrated in my view. He was a good writer about jazz.

I don't understand this sudden preponderance of self-absorbed whiner literature - Roth, Updike, some Bellow, Franzen, innumerable "coming-of-middle-age" novels, etc. I tend to avoid that stuff like the plague. One thing the guys in On the Road didn't do was whine - they were enjoying themselves too much and if they hadn't, I wouldn't have enjoyed the book nearly so well.

I'm puzzled by some of the other writers listed here. Cane and Waiting for Godot were haunting and frightful while Brautigan was a kook. Each to his own though.

As for "the worst writers," I don't read them, I don't waste my time on that stuff and without that personal experience I have no one I can kick.

Brautigan was actually very good in Trout Fishing in America, in his kooky way. I also liked his posthumous novel, An Unfortunate Woman. The rest is just so much Brautigan product.

Roth writes good sentences. I think the biggest problem with Roth has been his recent book-a-year plan. He just gets repetitive. I liked The Human Stain, though.

How many good books does a writer need to produce to balance out the bad ones?

295, 298

'Still the best Chrstmas story, ever.

300: What's wrong with a kook or two to throw in the mix? Ivan Stang, creator of the SubGenius, and Ezra Pound -- not the poet, but the economist -- are definitely worthy kooks. Then there's the Urantia Book, The Book of Mormon, and, aw hell!, William Blake for gosh sake's! Each produced books so singularly strange that's it worth admiring. Granted, it's not for every reader, but if one wants to explore the stranger, weirder, and sketchier neighborhoods of literature, those are the ones to pursue.

303: I hadn't realised my referencing of Brautigan as a kook would be taken as criticism. It was meant as a self-explanatory comment on why some (like me, I guess) genuinely enjoy his books. There are as many kooks in literature as there are reprobates. Yeats was in the Golden Dawn, Shakespeare was a thug - and no one who reads widely can remain a puritan.

....You own a copy of The Urantia Book?

304: I surely do! There's an excellent profile of it in Strange Creations by Donna Kossy And there's some stuff on the Raelians, Nazi UFOs, Evo-Devo, and Creationism.

305: I've put Strange Creations to the top of my wishlist - thanks for mentioning it. There's a whole subsection of books in my house about the weird and/or nutso, ranging from Chariots of the Gods to Edgar Cayce to Colin Wilson's fat history of The Occult. I've also got a copy of The Urantia Book. I read on these topics slowly so as not to forfeit my sanity.

"I read on these (esoteric) topics slowly, so as not to forfeit my sanity."

I dissent. In fact, I think
the faster you read them
the saner you'll stay.
I can read materials similar to the above faster than anything else,
except possibly a Robert B. Parker "Spenser" novel.
Seriously, though I haven't read the
titles you mention, except for a fast glance at Daeniken. And I'm inclined to take Colin Wilson seriously. And there might be something in Edgar Cayce.* But, as I mentioned above: Preserve your Sanity!
Don't Dwell on Them!

*I obtained a bargain copy of Edgar Cayce Modern Prophet: Four Complete Books today in a thrift shop: . . ."On Prophecy, ". . .On Religion and Psychic Experience, ", . . ."On Mysteries of the Mind", and ". . . On Reincarnation".

Probable destination (in case they don't have it):
The Hawai'i State Public Library system.
Probability of their putting it into the Library collection: 35--40% (which is, for them, very high probability).

Reading Colin Wilson was VERY helpful when I was researching the occult some years back (for two novel projects, not because I'm sacrificing to Beelzebub in my basement on alternate Thursdays). I have five or six of his books.

Cormac McCarthy: Absolutely awful. The only reason I wouldn't burn The Road is that I'd rather not harm the environment any more than the process of chopping down the trees that made it.

Now hold your horses there pardner. Down aroun these parts there's some that would take them as fightin words.

THE ROAD is one of his weaker novels, in my opinion, as is NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. McCarthy at his very vest can be found in earlier novels like OUTER DARK, CHILD OF GOD, BLOOD MERIDIAN, SUTTREE. Not too many contemporary authors can boast a body of work as fine as that...

Can we say anything that has 'Romance' in the genre description?

312: The sole exception I can think of is the epic romance comic, Strangers in Paradise by Terry Moore. The other 99.8% of that crap is shite, even with the addition of "supernatural" or "erotic" to the genre category.

Ok, we'll allow an exception. ;)

>315 MsJolee:
Glad to find someone who agrees with me about Anne Rice. I enjoyed Interview, but I found The Vampire Lestat so bad I had to stop reading it out of pure embarrassment for the author.

An ode to the ghostwriter:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-7-...

My days of taking Orson Scott Card seriously are rapidly coming to a middle:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/oh-hey-orson-scott-card-also-wrote-about-obama-be...