Writers who surprise you

[WICKES]

Which writers have you found surprisingly good and surprisingly bad?

I once read a few of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels, expecting them to be trashy, but he writes incredibly well. I remember his descriptions of Bond dining in one of those expensive 'gentlemen's clubs' in London which were astonishingly good and worthy of the greatest writers.

P G Wodehouse is another surprise. Most people think of him as a lightweight comic novelist who wrote affectionately mocking stories about the English/ British upper classes. When you read him though you find (and I mean this) some of the most exquisite, perfect, beautiful prose in the English language.

Arthur Conan Doyle was better than I'd expected.

As for surprisingly bad: Thomas Hardy is clumsy in places (though he can also be very good). I didn't have high hopes of Dan Brown, but he was even worse than I'd expected.

[Paulclem]

I thought Mario Puzo's The Godfather was excellent. I read it because I enjoyed the film, but found it was far better than the usual crime novel.

[Drkshadow03]

Which writers have you found surprisingly good and surprisingly bad?

I once read a few of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels, expecting them to be trashy, but he writes incredibly well. I remember his descriptions of Bond dining in one of those expensive 'gentlemen's clubs' in London which were astonishingly good and worthy of the greatest writers.


Someone I know from Grad school was writing their dissertation on Ian Fleming's James Bond. I forget what his thesis was, though.

[Paulclem]

Also Wuthering Heights - such powerful writing. The moors come alive in the prose.

[promtbr]

I had just read contemporary Russian author Tatyana Tostaya's The Slynx as her name came up on a list of possible future Nobel prize candidates. Turns out she is the great grand neice of Leo Tolstoy. What an amazing novel it is. I would have eaten this up just as much if I read it @ 18 as I did recently.I just ordered her collection of short fiction in translation.


---

[Helga]

Jostein Gaarder is the one that surprised me the most, being a children's book's author his work turned out to be interesting, educational and just plain good, and his characters are always interesting...

[David R]

I think H.G. Wells' prose is beautiful. You wouldn't expect it from one of the father's of sci-fi.

[higley]

Seconding above opinion! Can also be said of Bradbury.

[Tukkanen]

I had expected more from Chuck Palahniuk ("Lullaby" and "FC" in translation). Viktor Pelevin has dissapointed me also.
Who has really stunned me recently - Marquez and Steinbeck.

[Emil Miller]

I think H.G. Wells' prose is beautiful. You wouldn't expect it from one of the father's of sci-fi.

Thank's for mentioning Wells, he was a marvellous writer and, as you say, his prose was beautifully written. It is useful to make the distinction between his science-fiction and the sociological novels which, to my mind, are the better of the two genres. One of the best being Love and Mr Lewisham although Kipps, Tono-Bungay, and The History of Mister Polly are all memorable.

[susan_p]

Bad surprising:
Stephen King, hands down! His books are usually fast paced enough to stir up plenty of anticipation but invariably you get to the end and just receive a huge pile of nothing for all that reading. I don't know how he manages to do it, but each of his endings turn out so inexplicably tame and disappointing! I gave him several tries, but have yet to see how or why he is so overhyped.

Anyone else know what I mean? or am I the only one who thinks this way?

[David R]

Thank's for mentioning Wells, he was a marvellous writer and, as you say, his prose was beautifully written. It is useful to make the distinction between his science-fiction and the sociological novels which, to my mind, are the better of the two genres. One of the best being Love and Mr Lewisham although Kipps, Tono-Bungay, and The History of Mister Polly are all memorable.

Thanks for that, Brian. I didn't know he had written so much. He is definately a writer I want to spend more time with. I'll keep in mind your recommendations.

[David R]

Bad surprising:
Stephen King, hands down! His books are usually fast paced enough to stir up plenty of anticipation but invariably you get to the end and just receive a huge pile of nothing for all that reading. I don't know how he manages to do it, but each of his endings turn out so inexplicably tame and disappointing! I gave him several tries, but have yet to see how or why he is so overhyped.

Anyone else know what I mean? or am I the only one who thinks this way?

I agree. It's like he is trying to finish the novel as quickly as he can just to get it out of the way. I think it is particularly true of 'It' and 'Rose Madder'. I also think he writes way too much. But, having said that, I think he is still a great story teller and well worth reading and reading again.

[Paulclem]

Bad surprising:
Stephen King, hands down! His books are usually fast paced enough to stir up plenty of anticipation but invariably you get to the end and just receive a huge pile of nothing for all that reading. I don't know how he manages to do it, but each of his endings turn out so inexplicably tame and disappointing! I gave him several tries, but have yet to see how or why he is so overhyped.

Anyone else know what I mean? or am I the only one who thinks this way?

Try Dean Koontz. Reasonably interesting story ideas spoiled by cardboard characterisation. One you've met the main positive character - that's it through the rest of the books. The characters seem to be based on The Little Girl with the Curl. When they are good, they are very vey good. When they are bad they are horrid.

[mal4mac]

Bad surprising:

Ian Rankin - I always though there must a lot of tedium involved in police procedural Rankin at least gets that right.

Philip Pullman Northern Lights - Kids, young and old, don't bother with this tedious drivel, you could be reading Stevenson!

Michael Crighton - I'm a scientist so I tried very hard to like Jurassic Park, almost did, so tried another one. Timeslip takes the prizes for both worst historical novel and worst sf novel.

Stephen King - Tommy Knockers ties for worst sf novel!

Ishiguro - the Unconsoled - I'm still unconsoled after hating a book by a writer who's 'supposed' to be good :-)

Kant - I thought he would be tough, but not that tough!

Aristotle - ditto. Ethics and Poetics worth reading ('cause Harold says so :-) but I've a physics degree and couldn't make head or tale of his "Physics"!

Heidegger - ditto. Avoid like the plague! Read Rorty instead to get your "modern, continental philosopher" badge.

Hume - Hey I thought he was meant to be interesting & readable! Maybe he is compared to the previous two. Harold doesn't mention him though. Why don't I just read what Harold recommends?

Schrodinger's cat by John Gribbin, and a whole batch of other quantum writings by him and others. Scientists can't write for toffy. And I'm allowed to say that 'cause I am one.

Unweaving the Rainbow - Dawkins on poetry? A bit like Bloom on genetics methinks.
Except Harold has the sense not to write about genetics...

"Merry Wives of Windsor" by the bard. I had got into the habit of thinking that Shakespeare could do no wrong. Wrong.

Turgenev - Father & Son. Thought it might be a bracing dive into Russian nihilism. Instead it's a damp squib. Dostoevesky it certainly isn't.

Orwell - don't be fooled by 1984 into thinking that his other novels are any good.

Good surprising:

R.L. Stevenson - Treasure Island - rollicking good fun...

Defoe - Moll Flanders - and this.

Nietzsche - at last a (just about) readable philosopher!

Richard Rorty - and there's another!

The Black Swan - Taleb. A readable economist? Who'd have thought...

Chekhov - short stories. Thought they would be good, but instead they are devastatingly brilliant. (Keep out of Ward 6...)

Harold Bloom - I'm surprised at how often his views coincide with, and help, my reading experience.

Dawkins - the God Delusion. This rocks.

Gosse - Father and Son. Wow! The best and worst of dads tries to combine the philosophies of Darwin and the Plymouth Brethren while inventing the aquarium.

Dubliners - Joyce, the surprise was not that these short stories are great but that they are an easy read!

Madame Bovary - Flaubert. A divorce story? I thought it might be tedious. Boy was I wrong!

Fernando Pessoa - The Book of Disquiet - I thought it might be good but not that good.

Idylls of the King - Tennyson. Wow. Caught this on BBC radio 4, it might still be available for download.

"As You Like it" - I thought I'd read all his major plays, but forgot I hadn't read this one.

Blood Meridian - didn't think this would be great due to most modern novels being over-hyped. But it was great! (Though, I would have liked a Tex-Mex glossary, my concise OED was struggling...) Harold Bloom's favourite modern novel, Harold Bloom right again...

Buddenbrooks - Thomas Mann - a great and surprisingly easy read.

Tolstoy - Collected short novels. Thought they would be great but not that great.

[susan_p]

I agree. It's like he is trying to finish the novel as quickly as he can just to get it out of the way. I think it is particularly true of 'It' and 'Rose Madder'. I also think he writes way too much. But, having said that, I think he is still a great story teller and well worth reading and reading again.

I will totally agree with you that he's a fantastic story-teller - that's how I've gotten suckered into reading so many of his books, despite being disappointed by his endings several times before ;) I think I'm kind of hoping that one day I'll find a conclusion of his that actually satisfies me!

[susan_p]

Try Dean Koontz. Reasonably interesting story ideas spoiled by cardboard characterisation. One you've met the main positive character - that's it through the rest of the books. The characters seem to be based on The Little Girl with the Curl. When they are good, they are very vey good. When they are bad they are horrid.

Haha thanks for the recommendation, I'll try him out. Any suggestions on a good title to start off with? Preferably without the horrid cardboard characters :) Also, have you read Richard Matheson? Apparently Stephen King claims that he's the writer who has influenced him the most (read here (http://www.infloox.com/influence?id=4ec3c11f)) and really doesn't hold back on the honeyed praise. Just wondering if anyone has read his stuff, before I go off hunting for some new reads...

[Paulclem]

Haha thanks for the recommendation, I'll try him out. Any suggestions on a good title to start off with? Preferably without the horrid cardboard characters :) Also, have you read Richard Matheson? Apparently Stephen King claims that he's the writer who has influenced him the most (read here (http://www.infloox.com/influence?id=4ec3c11f)) and really doesn't hold back on the honeyed praise. Just wondering if anyone has read his stuff, before I go off hunting for some new reads...

I quite liked this one for the ideas and it's sequel.

http://www.deankoontz.com/books/seize-the-night/

After a few books you may become tired of the formulaic writing.

[Morden]

Nice list Mal4mac, and good appraisals as far as I can tell. I'm going to get onto reading some of your plusses that I haven't so far. Many thanks. :nod:

[Paulclem]

I am currently reading Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Childen which I am enjoying very much. It surprises me becuase it is my first Rushdie. I had prevously heard that some of his work - The Satanic Verses for one , as rather impenetrable. I would be happy to give the rest of his work a go now.
What is striking is his narrative method. I am also dipping into Dumas, and the contrast is really marked, to the extent that I dont think a contemporary reader of Dumas' serial The Count of Monte Cristo would able to follow it. I suppose it reflects our increasing sophistication as readers.

[susan_p]

I am currently reading Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Childen which I am enjoying very much. It surprises me becuase it is my first Rushdie. I had prevously heard that some of his work - The Satanic Verses for one , as rather impenetrable. I would be happy to give the rest of his work a go now.
What is striking is his narrative method. I am also dipping into Dumas, and the contrast is really marked, to the extent that I dont think a contemporary reader of Dumas' serial The Count of Monte Cristo would able to follow it. I suppose it reflects our increasing sophistication as readers.

I've been wanting to read a newer one of Rushdie's - The Enchantress of Florence. Sounds way different from Midnight's Children, more accessible, but I've still heard rave reviews about it. (Then again honestly, who would bash his writing? ...maybe other than people who want his head on a platter...) Also have a look at this video interview (http://infloox.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/salman-rushdie-on-his-literary-influences/) where he talks about some of his favourite authors. I think if you follow the YouTube link from there, there's a bunch of other video clips from the same interview (they broke it down into smaller bits)

[DarkStormyNight]

Dracula by Bram Stoker was a surprisingly good read. I picked it up only because vampires seem to be the "in-thing" now, but I wasn't expecting the Victorian English equivalent of a techno-thriller, nor was I expecting to be genuinely scared. Now Dracula is one of my favorite novels!

[Paulclem]

I've been wanting to read a newer one of Rushdie's - The Enchantress of Florence. Sounds way different from Midnight's Children, more accessible, but I've still heard rave reviews about it. (Then again honestly, who would bash his writing? ...maybe other than people who want his head on a platter...) Also have a look at this video interview (http://infloox.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/salman-rushdie-on-his-literary-influences/) where he talks about some of his favourite authors. I think if you follow the YouTube link from there, there's a bunch of other video clips from the same interview (they broke it down into smaller bits)

Thanks for that Susan_P. I will have a look.

[DarkStormyNight]

Try Dean Koontz. Reasonably interesting story ideas spoiled by cardboard characterisation. One you've met the main positive character - that's it through the rest of the books. The characters seem to be based on The Little Girl with the Curl. When they are good, they are very vey good. When they are bad they are horrid.

Have you read "Life Expectancy"? Koontz practices some good characterization in that one. Not to mention a mindblowing, amazing plot.

[Paulclem]

Have you read "Life Expectancy"? Koontz practices some good characterization in that one. Not to mention a mindblowing, amazing plot.

No I didn't read that. I've read Sieze the Night and it's sequel, The Face, Odd Thomas and Brother Odd . i gave up on False Memory.

[mal4mac]

Nice list Mal4mac, and good appraisals as far as I can tell. I'm going to get onto reading some of your plusses that I haven't so far. Many thanks. :nod:

Which ones do you fancy? Notice my caveat on Nietzsche! He's a very strange writer. I find him mostly very readable, and he provides incredible insights into the human condition. But he often becomes very nutty, and sometimes the nuttiness becomes too much to bear (Zarathustra!). I was quite positive about him in that list 'cause I was reading "On the Genealogy of Morals" at the time. But now I'm reading Ecco Homo, the book he was working on just before he became certifiably nuts. It's a review of his previous works, but unfortunately he concentrates on his nuttiest previous works, i.e., not much Genealogy and a lot on Zarathustra. So I would avoid that. Other works I have read, and would recommend reading (along with Genealogy) are "The Birth of Tragedy" and "Beyond Good and Evil". The three recommended come in a nice, expensive "Modern Library" hardback with translations from Kaufmann, probably his best translator. Ecco Homo is in there, worth reading because it's quite short and might put you off reading the other even nuttier stuff!

Notice, Harold Bloom, who I appear to be channelling, also thinks the three works I rate are the ones to read -- he also has "The Will to Power" on his master list, so I guess I'll be reading that soon. But I'll probably give "the Gay Science" and "The Dawn" a miss, as they look like nut soup (though please try and dissuade me of this avid Nietzsche fans!)

[Bastable]

Dracula by Bram Stoker was a surprisingly good read. I picked it up only because vampires seem to be the "in-thing" now, but I wasn't expecting the Victorian English equivalent of a techno-thriller, nor was I expecting to be genuinely scared. Now Dracula is one of my favorite novels!

Funny, because i found Dracula to be surprisingly bad...

[susan_p]

Funny, because i found Dracula to be surprisingly bad...

What about it did you find bad? For me it was just plain not scary at all. Then again, maybe in this day we've vastly revised our opinions of what's scary and what's not.

[Mockingbird_z]

good surprise - Irwin Shaw "Rich man, Poor man" - well it's the first novel of this author I have read and I liked it. Surprise, as I haven't heard anyone mentioned his name or his books so far.

[Jazz_]

Good Surprise:
Pat Barker "Regeneration" - Many of my friends didn't enjoy it, but I quite liked it.

[ennison]

Ismail Kadare's novel "The Siege" is absolutely awful. Turgid, dull, dim. And that cove got a Nobel Prize!! Shows not to trust the prize-givers more than one's own judgements

[WICKES]

Ian Mc Ewan's Atonement was surprisingly bad, though I really liked some of his other stuff.

[DanielBenoit]

Wow that's surprising! The movie was really good. (the five minute long shot when they land on the beach is amazing!)

[mpeachhead]

Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlowe detective novels surprised me in two ways. First off, he's a master of description: probably the best description I've ever read in any novel. I was blown away by how good he was.

However, I expected the murder mysteries to end wrapped in a tight little bow with a great unexpected twist like an M. Night Shymalan film or a film like The Usual Suspects.

I'm almost always underwhelmed by the endings, which introduce more problems than they solove, but the plot is secondary to Chandler's insane ability to portray the seedy streets of LA in vivid detail.