The Worst Writer Ever?

[wessexgirl]

Neely, R & J do have some good books amongst the dross. I am currently reading The Suspicions of Mr Whicher, a non-fiction, Victorian murder book, whose main character was said to have influenced Dickens, Collins and the birth of detective fiction. I had decided to read it as it sounded good, and had won a few book awards, not because it was on their list. It had been in the spotlight before their championiong of it. They do seem to drop a few "goodies" amongst their lists, whether by chance or design, I'm not sure, but I have to say that I don't really take much notice of them, the majority of their choices being of the popular and bestselling (especially after they have recommended them) type of books. I bet the authors they champion love them though! If you dismiss them out of hand, you might be doing a decent author a disservice, so I always look at what they've got on there, although I wouldn't run out and buy them all, like many people do.

Higley, Vampirates is a childrens/YA series of adventure books, which are very popular. I wouldn't class them amongst the sort of cr** you mentioned.

Oh and I definitely agree with Barbara Cartland and Dan Brown. Utter rubbish.

[kelby_lake]

I use 'Richard-and-Judy book' as a derogatory term for an overhyped badly-written book

[Emil Miller]

I use 'Richard-and-Judy book' as a derogatory term for an overhyped badly-written book

Being an inveterate avoider of all things 'popular,' I had never heard of Richard and Judy until a female colleague said that she was going to curl up with a cup of coffee on her leave day and watch Richard and Judy. The colleague, I might add, was addicted to detective novels and would read two or three a week as she was divorced with no children. Then, it appears Richard and Judy hit upon the idea of 'reviewing' books to justify their raison d'etre and Hey presto! They are being used to sell whatever suits the programme producers to give a puff to. The same is happening in the US where someone called Oprah Winfry ( can you believe it? ) is giving her literary opinion on what probably amounts to the American equvalent of UK drivel with, of course, the occasional semi-serious work thrown in to give some semblance of reality. One has to laugh because the alternative is

[wessexgirl]

Being an inveterate avoider of all things 'popular,' I had never heard of Richard and Judy until a female colleague said that she was going to curl up with a cup of coffee on her leave day and watch Richard and Judy. The colleague, I might add, was addicted to detective novels and would read two or three a week as she was divorced with no children. Then, it appears Richard and Judy hit upon the idea of 'reviewing' books to justify their raison d'etre and Hey presto! They are being used to sell whatever suits the programme producers to give a puff to. The same is happening in the US where someone called Oprah Winfry ( can you believe it? ) is giving her literary opinion on what probably amounts to the American equvalent of UK drivel with, of course, the occasional semi-serious work thrown in to give some semblance of reality. One has to laugh because the alternative is

Patronising post on all counts Brian. I'm no fan of R & J, but as you've made a point about not watching tv, it's a bit rich to be so snotty about them. Your colleague obviously enjoyed watching them, and reading detective novels, so why be so sneering? I enjoy detectives too, and here's the news, they aren't all drivel. There are some fine writers in the 'genre'. But even if what she reads is rubbish, that's up to her. Your subtext seemed to be quite condescending towards her. Why is the fact that she's alone relevant to her reading matter? You're knocking the presenters for giving their literary opinion on books, but so what? You're giving an opinion on tv you haven't seen. At least they've read the books.

[Emil Miller]

Patronising post on all counts Brian. I'm no fan of R & J, but as you've made a point about not watching tv, it's a bit rich to be so snotty about them. Your colleague obviously enjoyed watching them, and reading detective novels, so why be so sneering? I enjoy detectives too, and here's the news, they aren't all drivel. There are some fine writers in the 'genre'. But even if what she reads is rubbish, that's up to her. Your subtext seemed to be quite condescending towards her. Why is the fact that she's alone relevant to her reading matter? You're knocking the presenters for giving their literary opinion on books, but so what? You're giving an opinion on tv you haven't seen. At least they've read the books.

As a matter of fact I did subsequently did see a bit of the Richard and Judy show, although I admit I didn't switch it on deliberately but just caught it when setting up a video one morning. They were discussing something or other and the conversation was just simply banal so I didn't watch more than about 5 minutes. I have nothing against detective stories although many of them, with notable exceptions, are equally banal. I mentioned my former colleague in order to point out that R&J are likely to appeal to those readers who not very discriminating and the point about her being alone was merely to highlight the fact that she had sufficient time to read so many books.
When I have occasionally seen a poster advertising a book with R&J's recommendation on it, the blurb only reinforces my view that their opinion is no more valid than anybody elses. Why two mediocre interviewers should be taken seriously as book critics is beyond me.

[Nightshade]

For the most part those do look like total crap :P But the Time Traveler's Wife looks kind of interesting. I'd heard of it before. The concept is cool so it might be worth checkign out. There's nothing worse than the subject of a book being interesting, but the writing and storytelling absolutely ruining it.

It was actually quite good, the writing wasn't that bad at all. Far from the worst book Ive ever read. You do need to pay attention in parts though.

Neely, R & J do have some good books amongst the dross. I am currently reading The Suspicions of Mr Whicher, a non-fiction, Victorian murder book, whose main character was said to have influenced Dickens, Collins and the birth of detective fiction. I had decided to read it as it sounded good, and had won a few book awards, not because it was on their list. It had been in the spotlight before their championiong of it.
.

A fact I am hugely glad of since I have to read there book list, haven't started this year's yet but I did enjoy A quiet belief in Angels last year.
I am fairly certain the tenderness of wolves which was what last years costa book? was on the R&J list the summer before. I didnt like it, but most people did.
and I did enjoy the Time traveller's wife 3 or 4 years ago now , interestingly the author only wrote it so publishers would accept her real book/. A picture book called the Three incestuous sisters. I rember the library was so thrilled with the issues on the time travellers wife they advance ordered her next book in bulk without realising what it was, I hink I was working t the day it arrived... there was such a flap over what to do with those books. and I dont think they were ever borrowed just sat there on the shelf for 2 years.


I generally don't like anything hyped up, part of the reason I avoid the Booker, Pulitzer, and noble winners. Unless I pick them up and start reading them before realizing what they are.
But I have to read the R&J books for work and most of the Orange long list. Oh and the huge kids books, parents often want guarantees about whats inside them before they will let the kids read borrow them. And it saves me from having to speed read half a dozen books in one week because the complaints about their ratings start pouring in. And its around this time of year too, so Id best get ahead of the game really as it were, now that I think of it.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I have to agree with Kelby about Stephenie Meyer. Although I won't say she's the worst ever...I haven't read enough books in my life to be able to say something like that

I'm also wary of R&J's and Oprah's recommended novels, however I will still read the reviews about them. If it was recommended by the afore mentioned presenters there will be A LOT of reviews guaranteed. If you read a handful of them you'd usually be able to gauge wether or not it's worth a read. If it sounds interesting I will try it, because not all the recommendations are total rubbish. However I will never buy a book just because it was on their shows! I once talked to a manager of a very popular large book chain store, and he said whenever Oprah endorsed a book it would be sold out the next day. I think that's silly...

I'm also cautious when a book has won an award. Sometimes those books can be like oscar winning movies...not always chosen because they're the best...

[kelby_lake]

For the most part those do look like total crap :P But the Time Traveler's Wife looks kind of interesting. I'd heard of it before. The concept is cool so it might be worth checkign out. There's nothing worse than the subject of a book being interesting, but the writing and storytelling absolutely ruining it.

I might pick it up again one day. It's one of those books that you don't seem to lose anything by not finishing.

[sixsmith]

Names like Dan Brown, Ken Follet and Dean Koontz spring to mind but there is probably going to be guys (girls) out there who can out schlock, can out drivel the worst of what we know. Its a known unknown as Rumsfeld would say. I remember reading a book a girl gave me (that her boyfriend had given her) about a guy who for reasons i cant recall, learns kung fu and goes on a revenge killing spree. Needless to say, the less than sophisticated narrative wasn't saved by style.

I think you can probably divide this kind of question up. Worst writers ever period or Worst writers who lay claim to being 'literary' or writers of literary fiction (crude, i know).

[Emil Miller]

Names like Dan Brown, Ken Follet and Dean Koontz spring to mind but there is probably going to be guys (girls) out there who can out schlock, can out drivel the worst of what we know. Its a known unknown as Rumsfeld would say.

I couldn't resist giving the whole quote:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

[Scheherazade]

Once again, I am going to repeat my surprise at some people's plain refusal to buy or read a book because it has appeared on, say, Oprah.

Wihtout going into why and how Oprah or similar shows are watched by millions of people (because that is irrelevant at the moment), we have to accept that that they are popular. When something appears on a show like that, it is bound to reach millions of people and hence the increase in demand and sales.

It is not because it is Oprah but because it is a widely watched show. I would not consider depriving myself of a good book just because this or that celebrity endorses it... What's more, I would still go and read a book that interests me even if I happen to hear about it on Oprah first.

I simply do not understand this attitude.

Would you stop eating Godiva chocolates if they were endorsed by Britney Spears? Or refuse eating Cheerios if Madonna's picture was on the box?

[meh!]

i 2nd topaz

[Emil Miller]

The offices of Supascope Entertainments NYC:

Jake Melrose (President): You know Morry I can't help thinking that these accusations that Oprah's show is dumbing down the viewers' idea of real entertainment could be damaging.

Moritz Wetzel (Vice President): Yeah, what we need is some new twist to give the show an intellectual stance. Say! I've got an idea. How about we get her to review books on the show?

Jake Melrose: I don't think she can read.

Moritz Wetzel: What's that got to do with it? We could get someone to read them and tell her what they are are about.

Jake Melrose: Well I haven't read a book in years so what kind of books are we talking about?

Moritz Wetzel: Neither have I, but it doesn't matter. Any books will do as long as they have just come out and are being reviewed in the media, and we could also get some of those literature guys to put in their two cents worth.

Jake Melrose: Say! I think you've got something there. If we play our cards right, we could hit the jackpot. We could invest in the publishing groups that produce the books and get her to OK them or even go into the publishing biz ourselves which would be even better. I'll get Buck Peterson to look into it today. Now what about this idea of getting Britney covered in Godiva chocolate for her latest video? If you really think it'll work, I'll take a block holding in Godiva this afternoon.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Once again, I am going to repeat my surprise at some people's plain refusal to buy or read a book because it has appeared on, say, Oprah.

Wihtout going into why and how Oprah or similar shows are watched by millions of people (because that is irrelevant at the moment), we have to accept that that they are popular. When something appears on a show like that, it is bound to reach millions of people and hence the increase in demand and sales.

It is not because it is Oprah but because it is a widely watched show. I would not consider depriving myself of a good book just because this or that celebrity endorses it... What's more, I would still go and read a book that interests me even if I happen to hear about it on Oprah first.

I simply do not understand this attitude.

Would you stop eating Godiva chocolates if they were endorsed by Britney Spears? Or refuse eating Cheerios if Madonna's picture was on the box?

The thing is they are endorsed by these people with the target audience in mind and are chosen because they will have mass appeal. I happen to distrust most things which favour mass appeal. It doesn't mean that it is not possible to have mass appeal and quality, but in my experience the two don't often go hand-in-hand, especially with the target audience comprising of people who enjoy watching daytime television! As a result of this a book with a Richard and Judy sticker on (or another of that type) would put me off immensely.

As I have said before I had to read a couple of that ilk and there is little joy to be found there. In the past I have read 100's of books, maybe 1000's, which were little more than pointless dross, throwaway books - I simply don't have time to waste with books of that kind anymore, life is too short. I would rather spend the whole year reading one book of quality like, Milton’s Paradise Lost for example, as opposed to wasting my time with a 100 Richard and Judy type books.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I would not consider depriving myself of a good book just because this or that celebrity endorses it... What's more, I would still go and read a book that interests me even if I happen to hear about it on Oprah first.

I completely agree with everything you've said, but especially the above quote. It seems a bit snobbish ohterwise.

Neely, tsk tsk, for being like that about people who watch daytime television. It's like saying everone who reads horoscopes believes they will come true...