Who's your favorite author?

[Lambert Simnel]

Just to demur on all the Rowling love out there.... I enjoyed the first couple of books. They are good children's books, but there isn't the depth of plot and character you might reasonably expect in a novel aimed at an adult audience. Nonetheless an enjoyable read. After the first two (maybe three) books, however, she clearly had too much power and there wasn't a decent editing job done on the books (probably because she wouldn't let it happen). The Goblet of Fire, for example, starts with almost 100 pointless pages on the Quidditch World Cup which add virtually nothing to the book. There is less plot and charcter development in this section than in a half page of Chekhov...

So. The stories are rather formulaic, the characters one dimensional, the language basic, and the insights into anything (human condition, relationships, life, death, anything) are non-existant. A good read, for sure, but nothing more than that.


Dunno why I've gone off on Rowling particularly, though, as I dislike more than half the authors who have been mentioned here....

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Just to demur on all the Rowling love out there.... I enjoyed the first couple of books. They are good children's books, but there isn't the depth of plot and character you might reasonably expect in a novel aimed at an adult audience. Nonetheless an enjoyable read. After the first two (maybe three) books, however, she clearly had too much power and there wasn't a decent editing job done on the books (probably because she wouldn't let it happen). The Goblet of Fire, for example, starts with almost 100 pointless pages on the Quidditch World Cup which add virtually nothing to the book. There is less plot and charcter development in this section than in a half page of Chekhov...

So. The stories are rather formulaic, the characters one dimensional, the language basic, and the insights into anything (human condition, relationships, life, death, anything) are non-existant. A good read, for sure, but nothing more than that.


Dunno why I've gone off on Rowling particularly, though, as I dislike more than half the authors who have been mentioned here....

So says you. In my opinion, many of the characters are deep and morally complex, and she raises interesting questions of good and evil.

 

[Taliesin]

My one major complaint against Rowling, and Lambert touched on this, is that her style is simply not introspective. There are brief flashes of it, especially in the earlier books, when Dumbledore spends pages of dialogue imparting wisdom to Harry, but in general it seems events pass by without any character thinking much about other people's emotions or motivations. That being said, she's a whole pile of fun, and I find the larger tone of the books to be humane and thought-provoking, so I try not to let that bother me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

My one major complaint against Rowling, and Lambert touched on this, is that her style is simply not introspective. There are brief flashes of it, especially in the earlier books, when Dumbledore spends pages of dialogue imparting wisdom to Harry, but in general it seems events pass by without any character thinking much about other people's emotions or motivations. That being said, she's a whole pile of fun, and I find the larger tone of the books to be humane and thought-provoking, so I try not to let that bother me.

Like I said, it is not Great Literature in the classic sense, but it is enjoyable to read.

 

[jameson]

So. The stories are rather formulaic, the characters one dimensional, the language basic, and the insights into anything (human condition, relationships, life, death, anything) are non-existant. A good read, for sure, but nothing more than that.

Sure, but how many authors consistently produce good reads ? Like you, I hated Eco's Foucault's Pendulum while loving Rose and Baudolino. I loved Amis's The Information, London Fields and even Night Train, but Money left me completely unmoved, and I haven't felt any inclination at all to pick up Koba the Dread or Yellow Dog.

It just depends on what you're looking for when you're reading a novel. I don't always want to gain new insights about the human condition (in fact, a book called The human condition is one of my most hated novels ever) ; sometimes, I just want to be entertained, and Rowling will prrovide.

Dunno why I've gone off on Rowling particularly, though, as I dislike more than half the authors who have been mentioned here....

Yeah, I'm looking forward to your savaging of Tolkien, who doesn't just suffer from the same faults you mention in the first quote, but most of whose characters on top of that also lack a soul .

 

[Sidhe]

Well I disagree with that.

for one Tolkien isn't written for kids(with the exception of the hobbit which were written for his niece and nephew I believe) And reading his writing style and the sort of concepts he introduces you can see why.

The whole tennant of the LotR is the concept that power corrupts, the ring slowly but surely turned frodo into something he hates and it's will constantly seeks to corrupt, in an attempt return itself to it's true master the Lord of the Rings(Sauron) Namely Galdriel(wielder of the ring of air) Boromier, Faramier, Gandalf(owner of the ring of fire, I bet you wondered how he could go one on one with a big fiery balrog and suffer no burns?) Any of the people of power who came into contact with; Saurons other half(don't be fooled the ring has a will of it's own and much of Saurons power is invested in it, it is almost sentient) And the book outlines the sort of mental torture the ring exhibits in those not meant to wield it(i.e. anyone but Sauron) Gollums split personality is far more interestingly played out in the book than in the film, and he oddly is quite a deep character for a bit player.

I think it's very difficult to have true depth in so many characters, but Sam and Frodo's relationship is interesting, the loyal but lower class friend who loves Frodo deeply. Also Gimli and Legolas, elves and dwarves being traditional enemies from way back when. Aragorn is meant to be aloof and distant, he carries the torture of the weakness of Isildur and his shame is a constant torture to him. Gandalf is equally interesting a man who came to middle Earth at the beginning of the second age and failed his first mission on middle Earth, to defend Arnor and Gondor(originally one kingdom under men, until Isuldurs line was broken Arnor was destroyed by the witchking, the head ring wraith and his genius for wars of attrition.

Pippin and merry are comic characters, who's friendship is an interesting diversion, untill they part. Eowyn the only strong female character is interesting, a woman in a mans world, struggling to achieve the recognition of her borthers, who eventually does so by destroying the Witch king.

No man can kill me.

I am no man as she rams a sword through his helmet thus after Pippin knocked the crown from his head, or one of the nine rings for the mortal lords and killing him.

Elrond is interesting(owner of the ring of water) as shown by his control of water at the ford where the nine ring watiths are slain. Traditionally the Elves have always been reluctant to get involved in the wars of men, and his reticence is born of pain and history, it is hard to know his motivations though as the immortal of the elves are governed by fate and they felt the pull of the west so strongly when they left it.

Saruman is an example of how power corrupts originally the mightiest of the Istari or mages(Maiar and immensley powered individuals of which only Sauron the black(the mightiest of all) Saruman the white the mighteist of those who oppose him and Radaghast the brown have any real part in the book) Sarumans quest for power to oppose Sauron leads him to look into using the palantiri, seeing stones that enable communication over great distances and also can show the future. Sauron feeds and corrupts his search for power and leads him to turn against the side of good.

Borromier tortured by the faith his father placed in him to free his people, but after years of war with Sauron is honestly seeking something to turn the tide against the dark lord. He like all men is eventually corrupted by the ring and it's influence leads to his death. The ring looks to pass back to Sauron via a man the most easily corrupted of middle Earths races.

But yeah feel free to call it a kids book and to claim it has no depth.

 

[Abulafia]

Can I just call it a boring book? I made it through all but the final chapter of The Fellowship Of The Ring before deciding it wasn't worth wasting any more time over. I should really have stopped at the mention of Tom Bombadil; useless character.

Admittedly, I prefer a high standard of prose and The Lord Of The Rings was nowhere approaching close.

 

[Abulafia]

I'm a few chapters into The Da Vinci Code, and I think it's pretty dang good so far. Someone earlier said he's a plagiarizer, so I didn't want to start some arguement that I didn't mean to start in the first place.

He's not a plagiarist per se. It's just that he used material from a book that his wife researched for him in the writing of it. I would disagree that it's good - my gripes with the book start on page one where a silhouette is clumsily described as having eyes and white hair - but each to their own.

 

[Perfection]

Like I said, it is not Great Literature in the classic sense, but it is enjoyable to read.

It's like reading television!

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

lol, reading television

I think HP gets too much stick from various people just becuase it so over hyped..there is a very enjoyable set of books behind all the marketing jazz. It doesn't have deep insights into the human soul or what have you but that doesn't make it a bad book.

Actually, I just finished reading Treasure Island, and the characters in that are about as shallow as you can get, and its considered to be a classic.

Actually, the same goes for LOTR, its a book where the story is the star and not the characters or etc

 

[jameson]

But yeah feel free to call it a kids book and to claim it has no depth.

Actually, I didn't call it a kids' book (though I read it as a kid, and later as a teen, and have had no inclination to pick it up again after I turned 20 a good nine years ago). If I may use Lambert Simnel's words again, I echoed the sentiment that 'The stories are rather formulaic, the characters one dimensional, the language basic, and the insights into anything (human condition, relationships, life, death, anything) are non-existant. A good read, for sure, but nothing more than that'.

I'll get back to this later, but sleep beckons first .

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Well its definatley not a kids book..more of a teens and up book

 

[Lambert Simnel]

In my opinion, many of the characters are deep and morally complex

Which characters ? Most of those I can recall seem pretty one dimensional to me (Harry, Hermione, Ron, rest of the Weasleys, bad family from Slytherin, McGonagal, Hagrid, Dumbledore, & the fat muggle family who look after him). Only Snape has a shot at being complex, and I suspect that this comes over far better in the films with Alan Rickman than in the books.

But any of them deep or complex, when compared to the characters of Borges, Chekhov, Emily or Charlotte Bronte ? Frankly, I don't see it, but I'm happy to listen.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

It just depends on what you're looking for when you're reading a novel.

You made some good points in your post, Jameson, and apologies for fixing on just a single line. Yeah, of course there's got to be room for a variety of different styles of writing - who wants to eat steak tartare everyday ? I guess I just had Rowling positioned down at the fast food end of the line, and I was somewhat surprised by her name repeatedly popping up in the posts in the thread. Once or twice, maybe, but it's kind of like having a dozen people in a row saying Tchaikovsky was the greatest composer, or that the Bee Gees were the greatest pop group ever.

PS If it helps, I quite like LotR. Pratchett, on the other hand....

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Which characters ? Most of those I can recall seem pretty one dimensional to me (Harry, Hermione, Ron, rest of the Weasleys, bad family from Slytherin, McGonagal, Hagrid, Dumbledore, & the fat muggle family who look after him). Only Snape has a shot at being complex, and I suspect that this comes over far better in the films with Alan Rickman than in the books.

But any of them deep or complex, when compared to the characters of Borges, Chekhov, Emily or Charlotte Bronte ? Frankly, I don't see it, but I'm happy to listen.

I'd be inclined to agree, especially regarding Snape being the only three-dimensional character in the books. Having Alan Rickman only made it better.

I'll add to the vote that the books are only enjoyable reads (and I do enjoy them a lot). There are far greater childrens books out there.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I disagree. Snape certainly is morally complex, no question.

But look at, say, Dumbledore. Although he is committed to defeating the Dark Arts, he himself says that he is too protective of Harry, and too willing to protect him even if it risks the lives of many others whom he doesn't know.
Harry himself can be too arrogant at times, too willing to break the rules, and he has a temper sometimes. Sure, some of the characters are more one-dimensional, but they are not major characters.

 

[Ramius75]

Hmmm, many,

but here are some of the best.

Charles Dicken, Carrol lewis, Victor hugo, Han Christan Anderson, Geroge Orwell, Issac Asimov, John Steinbeck, Ernest Hermingway, Jing Yong(chinese Wu xia author), Shi Nia An and Luo Guan Zhong (author of the water margin and Romance of 3 Kingdoms) and Lu xun (Author of the The true Story of Ah Q).

Some others are Lao She, Ba jin, Tokien, Arthur C clark, Kim stanley robinson, Frank herbert and many more.

Of coz there are also some popular writers, but mostly i watch films than read the books...

 

[The 777 Hoax]

Edgar Allen Poe, definitely.

 

[Sidhe]

Best character realisation I ever read was Dostoyevskis: Crime and punishment. This is great reading; the tortured thoughts of - what is he, an anti hero a recidivist - is insightful and profound, It's like a roller coster ride story wise from beginning to end with reall energy and conflict, I really loved that book, it was well written with great character, all round good story telling.

 

[Phlegmak]

Can I just call it a boring book? I made it through all but the final chapter of The Fellowship Of The Ring before deciding it wasn't worth wasting any more time over. I should really have stopped at the mention of Tom Bombadil; useless character.

Admittedly, I prefer a high standard of prose and The Lord Of The Rings was nowhere approaching close.

I have to agree -- the Lord of the Rings is a boring book.