Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I loved Stephen King's earlier books (Salem's Lot, Shining, The Stand). I wouldn't start a King book today if I was paid. He just changed. I don't like him anymore. He doesn't edit. He uses too many parenthesis that break my concentration.
I loved Dean Koontz's earlier works too (Watchers, Lightning, Night Chills). But then his books became a hit or a miss. He appeared to be writing books faster than what was humanly possible. That's because he started dredging up his old books, bombs that didn't sell under different names (Demon Seed, Fun House), garbage he'd written in college. Koontz, rather than forget them out of respect for his fan base, published that trash under his now-popular name, fooling his fans into thinking he was writing new books. He destroyed all creditability with me. I won't buy another Koontz book. He never wrote anything that compared to Watchers.
I loved Stephen King's earlier books (Salem's Lot, Shining, The Stand). I wouldn't start a King book today if I was paid. He just changed. I don't like him anymore. He doesn't edit. He uses too many parenthesis that break my concentration.
Here is what I think happens there: author reaches endcap name recognition, what we might call the Guaranteed Sales Point. That's the level at which NY determines that it can automatically realize a certain dollar amount of revenue for anything with that author's name on it. At that point, NY no longer really cares what the author writes, and does nothing to disturb the cash cow. The author won't be edited unless it pleases him or her to do so. At that point, we get whatever the author writes, in whatever form s/he presents it. If the author no longer wishes to do the writing, freelancers may be hired for peanuts to flesh out a story outline.
That's the only credible theory I can offer to explain Brian Herbert's monstrosities. In a very recent one, backstory is repeated in just about every chapter to the point of insulting the reader's intelligence, which I can only see happening if a different writer authored each chapter, and no one cared about the actual content so long as the basic storyline was followed. But that's Dune, and guarantees a certain amount of sales, so there is no reason the publisher should care.
I suspect that a lot of endcap books are in fact written by hired 'lancers, or teams of same. If Turtledove isn't doing that, he's doing a lot to make me think he might be. If W.E.B. Griffin isn't simply letting his kid milk the franchise in order to provide steady income, the books are doing quite a bit to suggest that's possible.
Stephen King. I loved his early books and I was always so excited when a new one came out. I hardly ever purchased hardcover books, but I would go out and buy his books in hardcover right away.
And then came The Tommyknockers. I started it off with that same feeling of tingly anticipation I had experienced each time, and for a while I tried to feel the same enthusiasm as before, but after several hundred pages I had to admit that this book seemed different, and not in a good way.
Somewhere along the line, he changed. The violence increased exponentially, and the lovingly detailed descriptions of everyday life and objects faded away. I kept reading his books for several years more, but for me, none came close to his earlier works, such as The Shining, The Stand and The Dead Zone.
Yes, as several others have said, I TOTALLY agree. His recent book, 11/22/63 was the worst! How anyone -- and especially anyone of King's intelligence -- could still promote the idea that Oswald was the lone gunman is beyond me. I can only think that King might have sold out to someone. I mean, even the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Even though their conclusions were later discredited (after more than two years of research!), there is still PLENTY of evidence that makes it impossible for many intelligent people to think that "Oswald did it, and that's that, end of story."
Dorothea Benton Frank; LOVED Sullivan's Island but really disliked all of her other books after that, especially Return to Sullivan's Island. My Lord, the main character in that story was almost laughable in how awful she was. Her characters all seem so self-serving and selfish and just annoy the hell out of me so I stopped reading her books.
Susan Issacs; all the women in her novels are the same, one-dimensional and lacking in depth.
Pat Conroy; nothing else he's ever written could compare to The Prince of Tides.
John Grisham; I hate to say this, but I wasn't a real fan of Sycamore Row, the sequel to A Time to Kill. The main character, Jake Brigance, seemed to have lost a lot of his zest and zeal and the story didn't have the suspense and harrowing experiences that A Time to Kill did.
Yes, as several others have said, I TOTALLY agree. His recent book, 11/22/63 was the worst! How anyone -- and especially anyone of King's intelligence -- could still promote the idea that Oswald was the lone gunman is beyond me.
This is the only book of King's that I've read, and I have to admit that I loved it. To me, the time travel aspect was fascinating. A thread here from the history forum on it: https://www.city-data.com/forum/histo...1-22-63-a.html
Yes, as several others have said, I TOTALLY agree. His recent book, 11/22/63 was the worst! How anyone -- and especially anyone of King's intelligence -- could still promote the idea that Oswald was the lone gunman is beyond me. I can only think that King might have sold out to someone. I mean, even the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Even though their conclusions were later discredited (after more than two years of research!), there is still PLENTY of evidence that makes it impossible for many intelligent people to think that "Oswald did it, and that's that, end of story."
Whatever you may think of the history, 11/22/63 is a great story. One of King's best in years, and one of the only time travel stories I've ever read that didn't have me rolling my eyes halfway through. The point of the story wasn't JFK at all, but Jake.
My husband never reads fiction but he read King's book all the way through and liked it--
he is Kennedy assassination theory fan so guess that was what caught his attention but only good writing could have kept him going back to finish
Personally, I read mysteries and think Elizabeth George has just gotten too bad to read
Peter Robinson has about reached that point too and Debra Crombie...
I thought CJ Box's novels about the game warden Joe Pickett was interesting the first time but the guy keeps making the same mistakes--in every book--just can't take a stupid protagonist---especially one that is supposed to be a detective...
I thought James Mitchner's historical novels were strong although some I like better than others...
Same opinion of John D. McDonald's Travis McGee until right at the end when McDonald was ill...
The Jack Reacher series was very strong initially, then when it became so popular there were some books with very similar plots...I read the latest one and enjoyed it...so time will tell about it...
Whatever you may think of the history, 11/22/63 is a great story. One of King's best in years, and one of the only time travel stories I've ever read that didn't have me rolling my eyes halfway through. The point of the story wasn't JFK at all, but Jake.
I thought King very cleverly avoided the trap of what might have happened had Kennedy not been assassinated. The assassination was only a back drop to the story. But I did think the book could have been trimmed by a 100 pages or so. But it was a pretty good book.
...Anyone else ever lost faith in a beloved book or author?
I just thought of another author who disappointed me terribly: Jean M. Auel.
I read and re-read Clan of the Cave Bear, and I liked several of the subsequent novels pretty well too. But the last two or three were just horrible. I kept thinking, "This can't be the same author, it is as if someone who never read the original books found the author's notes and just cobbled something together." The result was pretty much random and just felt odd. I wondered if she had some sort of contract to write a certain number of books and she just lost her enthusiasm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
