|
| Thread: Who is your favourite writer and why? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
posted November 02, 2010 05:47 PM |
|
|
I said favourite but it was a manner of speaking, you can basicaly say what you have read and loved or have been impressed by etc., no point in arguing
____________
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 02, 2010 06:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I for one just love Mario Vargas Llosa's work.I first discovered him a while ago (6 years?) I recommend him to everyone. According to the saying too little too late he won the nobel prize this year, which in my book means absolutely nothing.
Anyway... I'm curious to hear about your favourites, so pls do.
What does he write about?
Mine is J.R.R. Tolkien hands down but not for a typical reason concerning him.. His stories are very good but what has really got me in recent years (36 yrs ago I read LOTR) is "what is behind his work"
Reading many a few books about the origins of JRRT's "Middle-Earth" has taken me on quite an epic-jouney through the history of fantasy literture. I always falsely valued his imagination, it turns out,<imo> he was more the genius to "bring old-myth/tale/lore epics back to life." and pave the way for countless writers to do the same.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2010 08:52 PM |
|
|
When I first read the Harry Potter books when I was like 8 years old, I did not really see the humour in it but now that I have read them in english, I laughed a lot and realized that there is quite a lot of comedy in the book. I also found out that "Feed him some cock" is an english expression, that had me laughing for hours. xD
A whole generation grew up with JK. Rowlings books and they are still amazing for all ages. They will not grow old for some time and if I get children (probably not, not biological kids atleast) then I will make sure to introduce them to Harry Potter.
I also love Christie Golden and I have all her Warcraft books which are amazing! I actually cried at the end of her "Lord of the Clans" where Thrall's best friend Tabetha dies.
Rise of the Horde is also amazing and Rise of the Lich King is also very well written though she kinda changed Arthas attitude (he did not show any empathy in Warcraft 3) and that it kinda rushed the Warcraft 3 part of the story which could easily have become a trilogy. I have always heard that the Shattering is quite good and Cairne Bloodhoofs death is very emotional.
So JK. Rowling and Christie Golden.
My least favorite writer is Richard. A. Knaak. -.- To the nether with you. He treats Warcraft like some D&D crap.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 01:09 AM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 01:09, 03 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
He treats Warcraft like some D&D crap.
DnD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warcraft, you, your mother, Sweden, Voldemort, Cashewnuts and the average Lexxan Poll
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 09:16 AM |
|
|
Rowling, you say?
Well, except the highly successful series of books, she hasn't wrote anything else, so it's hard to judge whether she CAN write anything else.
Seeing that her Potter books were one-dimensional and plagued by plot devices and inconsistencies, I don't think she's a very good writer myself. Easy to read, but if you start thinking about what she wrote, you may actually notice she's quite horrible at plot composition.
This ofc doesn't mean she can't be your favorite writer  But there are many better out there.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
invictus7
Adventuring Hero
Lurking About...
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 09:27 AM |
|
|
Not neccesarily my favourite, but Norton Juster with The Phantom Tollbooth very original and quirky; a simple and yet enjoyable read...
____________
Question Convention
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 10:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Rowling, you say?
Well, except the highly successful series of books, she hasn't wrote anything else, so it's hard to judge whether she CAN write anything else.
Seeing that her Potter books were one-dimensional and plagued by plot devices and inconsistencies, I don't think she's a very good writer myself. Easy to read, but if you start thinking about what she wrote, you may actually notice she's quite horrible at plot composition.
I am, too, interested to see whether Rowling can or cannot write another, proper book... but I think she'll manage just fine. True, her Septology is rather flat in terms of enviroment, but it is written in a style which hardly ever bores and easy to understand. Additionally, most of the main characters receive TONS of Character Development, especially in the last two novels, making the whole story a lot more Human. Rowling is a very able writer and while her stories were layered by several inconsistencies (though none are really obvious in the books) she successfully makes sure the story is dynamic and surprising.
To compare, for instance, to someone like J.R.R. Tolkien. I consider both him and Rowling to be good writers, but these two are probably polar opposites in term of the books they produce. Harry Potter, as I just said, is a well-written story with human, REAL characters, in a rather underdeveloped world. LotR and to a lesser extend, The Hobbit, are situated in a *Magical*, self-sufficient world. The story is written from the perspective of the world and the events happening in it, NOT from the Character’s PoV. This is both good and bad.
What’s good about it, is that Tolkien’s story makes more sense than Rowling’s. Middle-Earth =/= Earth, so the ideas between Elves and Dwarves and Goblins need to be explained less. (Rowling for instance has to constantly explain why “Muggles” cannot see Wizards to make sure it all makes sense.). Secondly, the Environment created is actually credible. Thirdly, it creates a great deal of CONSISTENCY between the Chapters.
Unfortunately there are also some bad things about Tolkien’s style, problems Rowling does not have: Awful character development. Seriously. The story is told from a very distant perspective, and while we learn plenty of the Fellowship, most of them still manage to have a rather bland, vanilla character. Case and point: the most Complex character, after Gollum, is *PIPPIN*. A rather unimportant secondary character.  (note: I like Pippin, but him receiving more development than Aragorn or Frodo or even Sam is ridiculous). Secondly, to compensate the lack of character development, Tolkien adds lots of fluff. *TONS* of it. Ranging from Songs to extravagant descriptions of palaces. In all fairness, that does add depth to the story, but most of it is redundant and incredibly long-winded. You gain little-to-nothing from reading the lyrics of “The Cow Jumped Over The Moon.” It just postpones the really important stuff. Tom Bombadil? What *does* he add, anyway? It makes the book a bit boring, imo. Ironically, Tolkien’s stories don’t need fluff like this because Middle-Earth is a strong enough world without it, while Rowling needs that kind of fluff to buff up her rather hollow exterior that is the Wizarding World.
In the end, I would say both are about on a par, on the same (high) level, since both do deliver an epic story despite their weaknesses. If you want to read real tripe, try Dan Brown 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 11:30 AM |
|
|
As I said, Rowling's books are "easy to read". A nice, simple style that makes the narration fluid. Pretty much everything adds to the story OR character development. No unnecessary "fluff". THis is actually good - I don't like to read poetry within a book. I skipped most of the songs and poetry of LOTR because it bored the heck of me.
But Rowling is unable to make a consistent plot. Plagued by inconsistencies and flat idiocies, it's just bad. I recommend you to read my HP bashing thread  I might even update it. Because the later books were downright horrible in terms of logic.
LOTR fans will argue that the characters are cool and all, but I already argued against it. I even got a QP for it LOTR is shallow. It's a piece of long work, but arguably anyone can sit down and imagine different kingdoms, draw maps, conjure up a few battles, victories and defeats and associate them with some dates. I can do it too within a few minutes. Does that mean I'm a good writer? Nah, everybody can do it. LOTR characters are very shallow, completely one-dimensional - either good or evil - and they are mostly evil because the ring corrupts them, and not because they have their reasons. There is not a single good orc, and all elves are honorable, wise and all that boring stuff. Main characters are boring. Every and each of them is strong (not physically I mean), smart, good, honorable, blah blah blah. Boring. Very, very boring.
What Tolkien is master at, however, is the narration. You can literally FEEL the dark atmosphere of Moria, Enchanted Forest or Shelob's lair. He makes the atmosphere -especially in the undergroud - sinister and creepy, and I love this. I wish LOTR was more about that and less about stories, songs, elven chatter and "epic" battles that have no feeling of secrecy at all. I longed for another dungeon crawl when reading LOTR. Just for the atmosphere Tolkien was able to conjure, I loved the book, despite all its numerous faults.
But his character development does suck. It's the opposite of Sapkowski - the man does some excellent character development with all spectrum of gray between black and white - but fails at creating an immersible atmosphere. Maybe perhaps he doesn't even try. Not that his books need it to be great, though.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Oscarius
Famous Hero
*sleepy*
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 11:46 AM |
|
|
Favourite writer? Uhhm, hard to pick one really.
If I had to pick one it has to be Terry Pratchett, every single discworld book is an interesting read. 
Of course, there's King, Eddings and Goodkind to choose from too...
____________
Need moar avatars!
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 12:13 PM |
|
|
Three times I have tried to read the Fellowship of the Ring but it just isn't an interesting book. Like mentioned, there is so much unnesscesary and just complicated stuff in the book like songs etc that aren't really relevant to the plot. There is a lot of that and it's just not interesting. At all. It just stretches out the book and to readers that weren't born generations ago, that just becomes boring and unreadable. And again, the characters are very generic and boring. LOTR is an extremly overrated series of books after the movies came out only because the movies are awesome.
For young readers, the Lord of the Rings books are just boring and slow.
Meanwhile, Rowling provides fun and creative books that still have a deeper meaning and plot. When you are ten years old, you do not care about the plot holes. You do not care. And I still do not. I still enjoy the books. I do not care if they could use the Time turner in Book 3 to turn back time and kill Voldemort. And there are certainly plot holes in LOTR aswell. I do not think any book is flawless in that. But still, to the vast majority of all readers that does not matter and the books are still enjoyable and a whole generation grew up with them.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 12:22 PM |
|
Edited by JoonasTo at 12:24, 03 Nov 2010.
|
That world is a fairytale. In fairytales creatures are either goor or bad. That's the reason it is what it is.
But sure there are gray elves, the fallen ones, good orcs though, not a chance. Orcs are monsters and as such can't be good.
That's partly what makes it so immersing. The elves are really elves, high and mighty, not some D&D type that range from chaotic evil to lawful good. They aren't supposed to be humans. They're supposed to be high and mighty creatures above humans.
Character development is nonexistent, and again that's because it's a fairytale world. World where good and evil exist. Unlike ours. Different from ours. That's what makes him able to do that.
And I love them for that. I don't need another idiot crawling his way through adventure and becoming a hero. Those are thirteen in a dozen and 99% of them are just plain lame. Books like Children of Hurin, those I could use more. There are too little of those.
Rowling on the other hand, her books are fun. Not because of character development but because I can insert myself into the story.
How many kids have wanted to be hobit in middle eart? I don't know any at least.
How many kids have wanted to be a wizard at hogwarts? Everyone.
That's why they're fun.
Favourite in fantasy has got to be Holdstock though. LeGuinn is probably a distinct second. After that, it's all a mess.
What we need more is original fantasy. Not the never ending Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance garbage. I have found myself enjoying the fact that while most finnish fantasy is usually not from the brightest of men it's almost always original. Something that seems to be lacking elsewhere. Or maybe it's just that no one is brave enough to translate them to English or Finnish.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 12:31 PM |
|
|
Will everybody are different but personally, I would have liked Sauron to have some other motives than "Rawr! Destroy all life!" and that there could be some mad elf or defect orc.
Atleast I try to take the conflict from both perspectives in my fantasy novel.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 12:36 PM |
|
|
I think it was more about I want to rule all! You snows slayed my master! You imprisoned me! REVENGE!
And there are more than enough mad elves in the history of Middle Earth. And there's a mad wizard. That's got to count for something. They're a race more powerful than elves afterall.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
PeterFarkas
Adventuring Hero
LeBronTosaurus
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 12:53 PM |
|
|
Yeah, a mad wizard. (I presume you talk about Saruman) ONE Single Mad Wizard, the only character in the novel who changes his alligeance in a way. That was one of the reasons he was my fav char in LOTR.
Tolkien's greatest achievement was to create a world and I think nobody can argue with that. It had some backfire with all the Victor Hugo-like detailed description of the rocks in Mordor and so on. I loved LOTR though I had some parts that I simply skipped because they were so boring.
JKR's and especially Meyer's strongest side is a kind of empathy that simply drives you towards and in the char, even if I think the greatest char development in HP is Neville's one. I was stuck in front of HP as well, but it also has numerous weaknesses.
As to answer the original question I would like to mention two authors who have the same narrative, empathic method like JKR for example, but write in a much more realistic and "grim" way (even though they are fantasy writers):
Nigel D. Findley (RIP)
Sergei Lukyanenko
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 01:26 PM |
|
|
By far my favorite author is Terry Brooks ... the guy can write, good! Seriously, the guy has written 22 best-selling fantasy novels and keeps on writing. As of today I have every single book he has written (that's been published anyway).
He was extremely influenced by Tolkien in his first book, but proved he was truly an amazing author with (imo) all he's written. His fantastic plot-twists, character-killings, etc...
He keeps making me go "WOW!" (literally), when reading his books and he manages to make you like his characters.
Would love to write more but I'm in a hurry. Now, go read a Brooks book! You should probably start with either The First king or Sword of Shannara.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 01:42 PM |
|
|
I don't think that any of the mentioned fantasy authors - including Tolkien - comes close to Piers Anthony when it comes to spinning an interesting tale.
Whether it's the Apprentice Adept, the Tarot Series, the Incarnations of Immortality or the 30+ books of the Xanth-series (not to mention his numerous other works), Anthony has a very easy way to write that produces original ideas on every page.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 04:06 PM |
|
|
Since several here have revealed they do not care for my hero of this earth. I'll just say this. It is true he was not the greatest author. he did not write the characters in a traditionally accepted way and so on. But other than a precious few authors in fleeting glimpses before him, he took fantasy by storm and owned it, not but creativlty but by scholarship.
He spoke and wrote in many languages and read a lot of ancient source material. Read "Beowulf the Monsters and the Critics" As I have hinted but will more clearly state now, His' real service to us, is to all writers of fantasy-lit that have followed;and is found in his lecture "On Fairy-Stories" In essense he brought what many of us prefer to read out of "the nursery" where it has long been confined. I know the endless prattle that surrounded "the movies" has turned many...further off, but his efforts towards the Genre of Fantasy should not become part of that sourness. I do not expect everyone to feel like I do about this but often some pretty negative stuff gets said without delving deeper and with Tolkien that is exactly what has to be done to understand the author and what he wrote. He loved "archaic' writing-styles. I guess I do too but then again I walk bent-over like gandalf now.
The funny thing is Tolkien was more 'pushed into writing' by those around him like C.S. Lewis and also his students. So it is no wonder he did not write in a traditional fashion but wrote about what he loved and wanted to pass on...to his children's children. I could have said grandchildren but where's the fun in that?
I wrote this because I had him all wrong for a long time. Instant story...nothing more.
Make a great day
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 08:15 AM |
|
|
Let me make a few remarks here.
First thing is, Tolkien is hopelessly overrated, for a number of reasons.
1) No matter what, when it comes to writing, I don't think, with a bit of considering, that the narration is more important than the plot. Originality in the plot, the story and so on, is impossible to to on a broad scale. However, you need to be a good narrator. If you can tell a story in an interesting way, the story as such can be quite commonplace. A good book is a book, you read to the last page with relish, EVEN THOUGH you say afterwards, well, that was a rather obvious ending.
That doesn't mean, interesting plot twists wouldn't be appreciated - they make things better, of course.
However, a well-told simple story is infinitesimally better than a killer of a story that is botched by awkward narration.
Think jokes: a simple, obvious joke, WELL TOLD, is way better, than a novelty that becomes a dud due to bad presentation.
So: no matter how the story goes - a book must not be boring.
Critics tend to overlook this point - they tend to somewhat sacrifice this golden rule on the altar of originality, but originally boring is still first and foremost boring - originality does nothing, if the reader is turning the pages without reading it.
2) Tolkien wasn't THAT original either. He wasn't the first one to invent a new world, not even a fantasy world. Others did that before him. Fritz Leiber, for example. Or Robert Howard. Nor did he reinvent myths. The Nibelung myth which I read as a youth, avidly, is rather well-known, as is the Merlin-Artus stuff - which I would rate the greatest fantasy story of them all: it beats LotR and basically everything else by miles - and how many versions of that one have been done already, in print and on the silver screen?
However, a book is no travelling guide - it's unnecessary and boring to make the reader acquaintant with a fantasy world by telling them everything about it as if you would be in a geography class in school. There are better ways to do that, more interesting ways.
3) It IS true, though, that maybe it was necessary for someone writing just that - something uncommercial, "serious" stuff to somehow promote "fantasy" from fairy tale to serious stuff - even though the wealth of really bad fantasy that was published since then might have been better be left in non-existance, but you can't blame Tolkien for that.
However, to each their own, when it comes to art. There will always be plusses and minusses for everything, and whether you find something good or bad depends onhow the plusses and minusses rate on your list of plusses and minusses.
For me this is rather simple: since there is so much to digest out there, something that you spend time with must be immediately capturing. A hundred years ago, this wouldn't have been a point with not much available; now, however, a book that is 400 pages long, should not have the first 20 or so wasted with boring stuff - see point 1): you need to be able to write interestingly.
How much more must you be able to capture your audience when you write a book that has over 1000, 1200, 1400 pages? How inricately spun must be plot and character development for that? And how great a narrator you must be to capture your audience for such a long time?
Of course, everyone must answer for themselves what's worth reading and what is not, and I don't doubt there ARE people who like everything about LotR and so on - but it's not like those were illuminated while the others are not. As I said, it's all a question of how the plusses and minusses rate on any person's individual priority list.
Me, I don't want to turn pages witout reading them, for one thing.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 10:33 AM |
|
|
Yes I was skipping a lot of the poetry and chatting (elven City at the beginning of 2nd book was the most boring overall). It was pointless to have stories within a story, or should I say...
Yo dawg we herd you liek stories so we put a story in a story so you can read while you read -_-
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 03:22 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 15:28, 04 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
So: no matter how the story goes - a book must not be boring.
Critics tend to overlook this point - they tend to somewhat sacrifice this golden rule on the altar of originality, but originally boring is still first and foremost boring - originality does nothing, if the reader is turning the pages without reading it.
Quote:
Tolkien wasn't THAT original either.
That was exactly what I said . That was my main point. He took almost all ideas from the 'history of fantasy' before him, except the Ents and the Black Riders and he crafted all of those ideas in one place to sort of 'provide a historical legacy;. Even in his day, most people were not going to read Dunsany or Morris or any of the others for that matter. The end result was that it did pave the way for huge ailses of fantasy books on shelves now. When He wrote the Rings there was very little. As I said; it was looked down upon...not adult. Many folks still feel that way.
Quote:
It IS true, though, that maybe it was necessary for someone writing just that - something uncommercial, "serious" stuff to somehow promote "fantasy" from fairy tale to serious stuff - even though the wealth of really bad fantasy that was published since then might have been better be left in non-existance, but you can't blame Tolkien for that.
<IMO> That happens in all art. AC/DC comes out makes big and is followed by Cinderella and countless others. I just used that example, it happened before and ever since.
Quote:
However, to each their own, when it comes to art. There will always be plusses and minusses for everything, and whether you find something good or bad depends onhow the plusses and minusses rate on your list of plusses and minusses.
Absolutely. I wasn't trying to get anyone to agree with me about Tolkien's writing, I was just adding something about "the behind the author bit" someone could have cared. Some could care less about that. I get it and do not have a problem with it. A person's age has a lot to do with views about books, well, and every other topic too.
I know Poetry is garbage to most nowadays. To me, it is perfect for this too fast-paced world. I wrote one about "the tree outside the front door", because most walk by their's every day and do not see the dang thing. At one time, the only time I would notice something in my own yard in detail, was if it fell over and I had to cut it up. Like I said, I'm the old wizard now. I'm not foolish enough to expect agreement with my ancient thinking.
One other thought about an author you like. Steven King. I read "The Stand and was blown away by it. <IMO>He has not neared it since to my tastes and, I had the very same thing happen with Robert Ludlum's Bourne Identity. I Loved it and couldn't do the rest of his. Like you said; we're all different.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
| |
|
|
