What do you think makes an author great?

[Pendragon]

In starting this thread, I wish to find out what others think the formulae for a successful writer will have to be. What will make the writer of today remembered for years to come? Stick to a certain already tried and true formulae or genre? Character centralization? Defy everything like Oscar Wilde? Something....new.

I ask this, because one of my own favorite authors, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, wanted to be remembered for his Professor Challenger stories, his historical novels, and he also wrote horror and true crime. Yet it was his invention of Sherlock Holmes that assured his place in history; something he himself came to detest so badly that he killed Holmes off in a story. The reading public raised the hue and cry, and Doyle soon realized Holmes must be resurrected. Few remember Doyle's Lost World or Maple White Land, but Holmes is a household name the world over.

So, what does today's writer have to do, create as J.K. Rowlings did, a character with a life of its own in her Harry Potter series? Or can they genre write as Stephen King does for their success? Is “shock value” still a viable feature? Or is it possible to do something new and make it work? What do you think? :cool:

[Pensive]

I personally find those writers great who:
~Can creat an interesting plot
~Have a good writing style
~Have good skills in creating interesting character
~Can picturise character's feelings and emotions in a good way

About Harry Potter series, I will say that the book is very entertaining. JK Rowling has not used brilliant English but the characters are well-shaped. She has depicted the nature of her characters in such a way that interests readers and urges them to know more about the characters. I remember when 6th part was coming, there was a rumor that we will come to know a lot about Lily Potter and I was like "Oh, I can't wait to know more about Lily"
The other thing which I like about HP series is the plot and it's little humor, especially Fred and George's little jokes. (Humor in HP series is what someone of 11 can understand as much as 30)

[grace86]

Personally, a great author can hook me in within the first couple lines or pages, but then, while I am reading...the words disappear and all I see is the picture the author is painting.

Take that for what it is...sentence structure, imagery???

[literaturerocks]

i agree with grace..if a book is really great or an author is really great they have the ability to make me not read but instead watch sort of a movie of the book in my head by reading it..thats what i really like :banana:

[grace86]

Cool, I am glad someone knows what I am talking about. I get sort of entranced I guess.

[PeterL]

I think that great authors are great because they express something that interests many people, and they write it very well. There are several components to writing very well character creation is one, and the characters must be such that many people can identify with them. Other important facets of great writing are pacing, and sentence structure that fits the story is also important.

One of my favorite authors is L. Sprague de Camp. His only novel that is widely recognised as high grade is "Lest Darkness Fall", but his use of appropriate sentence structure, pacing, and vocabulary were among the best ever, and he created characters with which I can identify.

Conan-Doyle also used appropriate sentences, vocabulary, and his pacing is great. In the Sherlock Holmes stories, he created a character that most people could identify with, Watson, and a character that most people would aspire to, Holmes. The problem with the Professor Challenger stories is that not nearly as many people would identify with Challenger, but maybe Conan-Doyle did.

[Shannanigan]

Yeah, I guess J.K. Rowling and Stephen King are names that are going to last for a good long time....and honestly, they've earned it by each using what worked for them and attracting certain audiences...while being totally different.

I've always wondered what I (or anyone) would have to do to make my name as common as theirs, and I've always realized that I just don't know. I think it does take a little innovation, something a little new or not widely used. It also takes a little luck and good publicity. I personally love authors that get me thinking about my life experience and how different it is from others'...as well as how different life could be if we tweaked a few rules. Those authors stick with me, but not necesarily with the general populus.

So, I guess I still don't know. I know who I will remember years from now, but not who the nation or the world will.

(Please forgive me if I have rambled, I'm sipping a rather strong drink at the moment...)

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Great question. :nod: Haven't we all pondered it? What it is, that enables some authors to hook you like they do?


Personally, a great author can hook me in within the first couple lines or pages, but then, while I am reading...the words disappear and all I see is the picture the author is painting.You took the words right out of my mouth... :thumbs_up In essence, that is what it's all about. It's harder to point out exactly how they do it, however: If I could do that, I would obviously put the talent to work and earn a lot more than I currently do... ;)

Anyway, a really great author has me spellbound in no time. The world outside the book fades away into insignificance.

/Claes

[Virgil]

Yes, Pen, a great question to ponder. But I unfortunately have no answer. Great books seem to be as different as great people. They all seem to have some individualistic characteristic that sets them apart.

[Pendragon]

As you all probably noticed, I misspelled J.K. Rowling, :blush: which means, of course, that her books do not interest me.

And I'm not being argumentative here, I agree, the book needs to "hook me quickly". But then how do we explain a book such as Leaves of Grass surviving for so long? Where is the hook buried in all of the wasted words?

If sentence structure is what makes a writer great, how does Mark Twain continue to be one of America's greatest? I find his wit refreshing, but I've seen a sentence run for almost a whole page!

And let us take H.P. Lovecraft for an example. He was not well thought of as an author while he lived. His stories where published in the low-tier pulp magazines. But today, an entire genre is built around the Cthulhu Mythos!

I write myself about a pulp character of the 30's and 40's, still alive though many serious books published during those years never made it, and are forgotten. Why are Conan, Tarzan, The Shadow, Doc Savage, etc. still remembered while serious literature dies out? Why do Star Trek and Star Wars occupy such a large section of any bookstore's Sci-Fi section?

I write sonnets here that people like, but more serious poetry goes unnoticed.
Having been reasonably successful as a poet, (in magazines), I can tell you it's a crap-shoot tying to publish poetry. The same goes for my short Shadow stories, by the time they are on the website ( http://www.spaceports.com/~deshadow/tmsm/ ) as one is today, I hardly recognize it as my own, it has been edited so far down.


I will make you think, if nothing else. That is my only goal. :nod:

[alshadai]

An author that can accurately reflect the world around him in his work is what makes a good author to me. Unfortunately so many authors try this and fail, making them only decent or much much worse. One of the reasons so many classic literature ended up being classic is because we can learn so much from it. In this area it seems if shock factor has no standing whatsoever. That is not to say that a classic can't have shock...only that something with great shock won't automatically become a classic.

I do realise that this is a thread about what makes an author great, not what makes a classic, but forgive me for all my favourite authors are destined to become classics. Take Haruki Murakami for example. He is a very "mainstream bestseller" author right now but his books will definitely end up classics in post-modern Japanese literature. It is very easy to see why. Haruki Murakami is to Japan what Ralph Ellison is to America. Ellison was greatly criticized for expressing his literature through jazz music instead of the classics like the Iliad...Murakami gets the same criticism from modern Japanese writers. Many modern Japanese writers (Oe, for example) absolutely despise Murakami's earlier work because they believe that writing is supposed to pass on literary style to the next generation. Murakami begged to differ, his writing was to express the emotions of his generation...does this sound like the post-modern and beat movements to you? The same thing is happening all over the world! Those who bridge the gap will go down in history.

Ahhh I did not mean to go on so long about Murakami :) I just hold such a strong interest in post-WWII literature.

[amanda_isabel]

good question there pen.

what makes a great author, or what makes an author great?

well i think that a truly outstanding author can make his words/stories penetrate into the human soul, whose works can make the reader think, whose works have touched lives. as long as an author's work has touched anyone, even only one person, the the author has become great.

it's not easy to conceive a plot and choose the appropriate words for it. it's a gift. and as much as we all want to become great someday, few are filtered and called to pen words that shake the human soul into history.

[Daniel A. C.]

I remember my brother challenged me on this, when I used to be quite rigid and dogmatic on what books were better than others.

Some of the above posts hit aspects of what I feel must be part of the answer:


...words/stories penetrate into the human soul...
...accurately reflect the world around him...

My own way of phrasing it is that the author somehow produces a work that somehow corresponds with something required by the structure of the mind, or of society.

I do think that a great work of art has to do with something more than personal preference, and that a great work resonates somehow with something deep, but also with something that is also on the cutting edge of evolution, corresponding to the mind of the individual or society at a particular moment in time.

I think what makes a great author is that he or she sees very far and very deep, and can somehow find a vehicle to express their vision. I agree with Socrates, however, that very often the poet might be inspired with something he or she doesn't understand, not necessarily aware of the mechanics of the situation. Nevertheless, they produce.

[lily of valley]

whether we are talking about horror novels, absurd plays or novels, poetry, each genre has its own format and its own style. what makes a great author might be a gift ,and what makes an author great might be expertise in a certain field of literature and vice versa.



I felt a Funeral, in my Brain,
And Mourners to and fro
Kept treading -- treading -- till it seemed
That Sense was breaking through --

[Cormeister37]

The best writers are the ones that defeat death; their work is a portrait of themselves, they have encapsulated themselves in the work, more in their own voice as opposed to society's. Oftentimes this goes against society, usually criticizing it outright. But as long as they express themselves as individuals, and do it well, they have accomplished more than the majority of people in the world. As Wilde said, "Any portrait painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter."

[Danika_Valin]

A good author puts his/her soul into a work and passes it off as your own.

[holograph]

a good author is a visionary and a genius. and not everyone can fit those criteria.

[pinkpantherlove]

I think the thing that makes an auther really great is the ability to make every one happy. Also i think that any author that can come up with really creative stuff is really good too.

[Schokokeks]

A good author puts his/her soul into a work and passes it off as your own.

I second that and would like to add:

If a story is not about the hearer he will not listen. And here I make a rule - a great and lasting story is about everyone or it will not last. The strange and foreign is not interesting - only the deeply personal and familiar.

[EAP]

Writing good books.

[grace86]

I like that quote, Schokokeks.

[Schokokeks]

I like that quote, Schokokeks.

Me too, I think it is very true, and the author great who maybe doesn't reveal this thing familiar to you all at once, but makes you feel that it is there while you're reading.
In case you, grace, have the book at hand and you'd like to reread the (very interesting) passage of East of Eden where the quote is from, it's in Chapter 22 [4].

[superunknown]

As with any art, it's:

1. Creativity
2. WORK!!!!

And, as Vladimir Nabokov said: "Style and structure are the essence of a book; great ideas are hogwash."

[Danika_Valin]

"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration."- Thomas Edison

[Pensive]

I like that quote, Schokokeks.
Get your hands on East of Eden, read it! :D

[RobinHood3000]

"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration."- Thomas EdisonI cannot begin to express how strongly I disagree with this quote. Thomas Edison, though brilliant and persistent (aided in the latter by his partial deafness), knew far more the value of hard work than the value of genius. SUCCESS is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration -- the "genius" is the inspiration.


Yes, Pen, a great question to ponder. But I unfortunately have no answer. Great books seem to be as different as great people. They all seem to have some individualistic characteristic that sets them apart.Virgil, you hit on something very important, but I don't think you noticed it. Hence, here are your words again, re-emphasized.

[PeterL]

And, as Vladimir Nabokov said: "Style and structure are the essence of a book; great ideas are hogwash."

I don't quite agree that "great ideas are hogwash," but if the ideas aren't well presented, they will not be read.

[Danika_Valin]

I cannot begin to express how strongly I disagree with this quote. Thomas Edison, though brilliant and persistent (aided in the latter by his partial deafness), knew far more the value of hard work than the value of genius. SUCCESS is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration -- the "genius" is the inspiration.

I included it to summarize what superunknown had just written; I don't believe it. I'm a fatalist. I believe that people are born with genius and destined to be great.

[stlukesguild]

Elements that combine into the creation of a "great" work of literature are multifold. They include the creation of brilliantly delineated characters... persons so "real" that the seem to live outside of the book, an engaging narrative, a scintillating dialog, a wonderful way with words and language, a thought-provoking expression of ideas or feelings, etc... None of these elements, however, will guarantee the writer a single masterpiece, nor will the absense of any prevent certain writers of genius from attaining greatness. To my mind the great work of literature is any written work which powerfully reveals a strong individual mind. I imagine all literature... indeed, all art, as being a form of dialog. The great work of literature reveals a mind with which I am glad to spend time in dialog. Such often challenges me into rethinking my views on life, and more often it challenges me into rethinking the writings of others and literature itself.

One of my favorite quotes about writing/art and why one might choose to spend one's time in the search of great literature/art comes from Walter Pater's conclusion from his The Renaissance. It surely states things better than I could:

"One of the most beautiful passages in the writings of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had always clung about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained... he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement... Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve... we have an interval, and then our place knows no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this world," in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time...Of this wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for art's sake, has most; for art comes to you professing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake."

[Pendragon]

They include the creation of brilliantly delineated characters... persons so "real" that the seem to live outside of the book,
With this small passage of what you said St.Luke's, (Forgive me, I always manage to shorten people's sign-on names!), I think somehow it manages to become something like the truth. A character that people identify with outside the pages of the book.

I'm not just talking about a character such as Sherlock Holmes. Take Hester from Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. You remember the character immediately. Hemmingway's Old Man from The Old Man and the Sea is unforgettable. Oscar Wilde's Dorian Grey, Twain's Huckleberry Finn, Margaret Mitchell's Scarlet O'Hara, Kipling's Mowgli or Kim, Sax Rhomer's Fu Manchu, or Steinbeck's George and Lennie. The characters come to life as you read; become more than just a character in a book. You feel what they feel, happy, sad, rejected, menacing, etc. That's great literature written by a great writer. :nod:

[downing]

The way in which he describes his characters and landscapes-this is definitley important in saying if an author is good or bad: just think of the viwes described by Margaret Mitchell and Thomas Hardy's characters-Eustacia Vye for example( he has a chapter in which he only describes her, called ,,Queen of night'')

[Mary Sue]

What distinguishes the mediocre author from the great one is, first and foremost, his passion. He needs to acknowledge where his deepest passion lies, then have the courage to actually go there. When the author can do that---and when he does it with honesty and integrity---he creates something truly wonderful. A magic carpet ride. And we readers are privileged to share his journey, time and time again, which is why the book outlives the writer. Think Faulkner's dark vision of the South, Hardy's even darker obsession with an uncaring universe. Virginia Wolfe's tortured stream-of-consciousness, Shakespeare's fascination with human evil, Wodehouse's fascination with words. If the author can pull us in----make us feel, share, KNOW his personal passion, whatever that is---then we're left with a piece of that author's soul.

[stlukesguild]

Of course, one might say that the teenage girl writing in her diary is probably "passionate" enough about what she has to say... but I'm not certain I'd want to read it. ;)

[siska]

the one who makes his or her reader unable to close the book easily without certain pang in the heart since a certain truth has been prevailed right through her very eyes and there is no way to escape.

[Small Princess]

the one who makes his or her reader unable to close the book easily without certain pang in the heart since a certain truth has been prevailed right through her very eyes and there is no way to escape.


Honey siska
I think Ahtro
But any book that the Tthaddthin

[Pendragon]

I don't quite agree that "great ideas are hogwash," but if the ideas aren't well presented, they will not be read.
They always told me that to sell a product, a good presentation is three quarters of the effort. I agree. The best story in the world will not be read nor remembered if the author does not present it in a way that can grab the reader's attention. :thumbs_up

[Pendragon]

I do not have time for a thorough reply here, but I think I agree with what many people have posted. The only thing I would add, regarding the creation of brilliant and fascinating characters, is how much skill an author demonstrates in selecting an effective setting that will "set off" a character. To exemplify: Pendragon brought up Hester Prynne, but Hester is known best as a woman who committed adultery in a setting with one of the strictest zero-tolerance policies ever - Puritan New England. I do not know how such issues stood when the novel was written, but let's say she committed adultery in our present society - not a big deal, comparatively. That's not my whole argument, however. I suppose I would say that a great author is one who creates characters that are interesting, if not always necessarily unique, and presents them in such a way (via setting, demonstrative interaction with other characters, etc.) that the reader, having become thoroughly acquainted with them over the course of the novel, could imagine them in any setting. This is not to say that great characters will shine in any setting - they won't - but the reader, thanks to the author's massive application of brain power in presenting them, will be able - without needing the intense focus of creation - to say just what Hester would do in any given situation.I am going to agree with you, mon ami, up to a point: and the point is that many modern authors write about characters who exist in a certain time period. Therefore the character must be interesting enough as they are, in that setting, for they cannot move into another age. Peter Tremayne's Sister Fidelma series is set in Ireland in around 660. Yet her character and the way it interacts with others makes life in this time period come alive. Zorro is forever tied to Old California, but new books about him are very well written, and highly interesting. There is a series about Brother Cadfael, a monk in Shrewsbury, England, circa AD 1140 by Ellis Peters; Roger the Chapman, a peddler in 1480 who is also a detective by Kate Sedley; Sister Frevisse, the niece of Chaucer, by Margaret Frazer; 14th–century Cambridge physician and forensic sleuth Matthew Bartholomew, by Susanna Gregory, and so on. They have to live in their time period, yet they are interesting characters to judge by the sheer number of books they sell. A good author can make a character unforgettable and time period makes no restrictions as a usual thing. With Hester I agree, times have changed and nowadays she wouldn't have been make an example like that, but her and Dinsdale remain known anyway!

[Pendragon]

I suppose I haven't really said anything too important or made any point,but I wanted to elaborate a bit on my last post.NOTHING, and may I repeat that, nothing that a fellow reader may have to say concerning books, characters in books, or literature in general is unimportant, Jamesian. Sometimes I think I come across as a bit of a "know-it-all". I am far from it. The opinions of other readers need to be heard. I rely entirely too much on my memory, which can be faulty, even to misspelling characters names. If I blow it, feel free to tell me that I messed up. I'm easy-going most of the time, and can take honest criticism. That may be what this thread needs, is people to just loosen up and say what's on their mind as to what makes a great author. Don't fear the Dragon! ;) :D :brow:

[Pendragon]

Right on the nose! I myself have always used my books as an escape from a hum-drum life. When I was a kid, we were extremely poor, but a ten cent used paperback could send me into a world where poverty was non-existant. Without fiction to escape into, I might have been a sad little boy. But I was full of imagination, triggered by authors who wrote unforgettable stories. I became Tarzan, Mowgli, Quatermain, Holmes, and dozens of others in my dreams!

Now that I'm disabled and have too much time on my hands, I escape into the books again, back to adventure! And glad for the authors who make it come to life. :) :nod: