Writers I Love to Hate

My apologies in advance to Cassie, who I know is very fond of at least three of these writers.

I've always been a big reader. I read just about every genre, with the exception of detective novels, which I just can't "do." I read non-fiction, general fiction, literary fiction, thrillers, chick lit, science fiction, historic fiction, biographies, and romance. Romance novels are my comfort food.

I'm not outrageously picky, but I do have some basic criteria: originality, a unique -but sane- voice, unpredictability, accuracy, good writing, and relevancy. That's not too much to ask, is it?

There are a few writers out there who have managed to become rich and famous in spite of falling short in several of these categories. I realize that some of you are probably fans of these writers, so I will try not to bash them beyond the point of redemption, and you are welcome to defend them.

The first books I read by Anne Rice were her Beauty series, which she wrote under the name Anne Roquelaure. I was only sixteen at the time and was rather shocked by them. They are classified as erotica, but they are actually textual porn, which is not the same thing. Erotica is about building titilating stories laced with sexual encounters. The Beauty series is nothing but endless sexual encounters with a slight premise of a storyline. It leaves nothing to wonder over and therefore nothing to be excited about. The encounters become repetitive and clinical until you wonder how she could stand to write them, as surely no one can possibly stomach all three books.

Her vampire books are almost completely opposite. As Anne Rice she commits the crime of lengthy descriptions and histories. I realize that some readers like such things, these are the sort who go on to write fan novels and such, like those Tolkien fans who own pore over Elvish pronunciation guides. But in order to garnish such a fan base, one must first hold the readers' interest. Generally. Somehow Anne Rice managed to build a huge fan base without actually writing anything of interest.

There is only one book of hers I enjoyed, and that was Belinda, which is her Lolita. I understand that now Ms. Rice has gone back to her Catholic roots, and I'm not really sure how the Catholics feel about that (I know many of her fans feel betrayed), as she has turned her writing focus on Jesus, and frankly, he deserves better.

The first time I read a Nicholas Sparks novel, it was an accident. I was actually looking for Nicholas Evans, the author of The Horse Whisperer, but I couldn't remember his last name and thought it was this guy. Now I go to the library armed with a list of the writers I'm interested in just to prevent this from happening again.

I don't remember what book that was, but it was a sappy, predictable, junior high school romance. I thought it surely was a fluke, as it was nothing whatsoever like The Horse Whisperer. I decided to give him another chance. I picked up two more books of his, A Walk to Remember and some other one, I don't know... to be quite honest they may as well all have the same title. These other two were also sappy, predictable junior high school romances. Finally I looked up The Horse Whisperer and found I'd been reading the wrong guy.

I was confused. What were these books doing in the Fiction section of the library when they clearly belonged in Young Adult? And how on earth had this guy become so popular and famous? The only explanation I could come up with is that like me, everyone else had been looking for Nicholas Evans.

I have to be honest here and admit that of all the Stephen King books I've read, I have not read any of the ones purported to be his best, like The Stand or The Shining. I did read Hearts in Atlantis and several others, and of course I saw the films for It, Pet Sematary, Hearts in Atlantis, and probably several others I'm not even aware of.

I tried hard to like Stephen King. And he's not a bad writer. But all of his books contain this element of hyper insanity that is completely nonsensical. It's fear and insanity for the sake of fear and insanity with very little context or relevancy. I'm all for a good thrill, but make it a good thrill. I want the psycho killer to have a good reason for becoming a psycho killer, and I want his path of destruction to be interesting and cumulative, not just random. Blood and craziness are not interesting in and of themselves, they have to be made interesting, and here Stephen King failed me.

If you can recommend a Stephen King book that is not like this that you think I might like, please let me know.

I think Mitch Albom sat next to Nicholas Sparks in Creative Writing 101, in there amongst all the retirees waxing poetic about their tomato plants. Mitch Albom doesn't write sappy, predictable junior high school romances; he writes sappy, predictable feel-good self-help type books. They're meant to be inspiring, and people find them to be so enough to buy millions of the things.

Why???

All this guy does is take things everyone already knows about living a better life, stuff like being nice to people, smelling roses, taking time with others, trying to be understanding, etc., and turns them into trite, patronizing, instructive platitudes. Let me Mitch Albom-ify something for you.

Universal truth: littering is bad.

Mitch Albom-ification: One day a careless little boy named Chip threw his gum wrapper in the grass at the park. He was enjoying playing with his new puppy so much that he didn't want to walk the ten additional feet to the waste receptacle that had been placed there for his convenience. The next day, Chip's puppy became ill and they took him to the vet. The vet shook his head grimly as he informed Chip and his mother that the puppy had been made ill by eating a gum wrapper. There was no hope for recovery, the dog passed away that afternoon. As the tears rolled down Chip's face he swore he'd never litter again.

So where's my book deal?

I don't dislike Dan Brown for the reasons you're thinking. Many, many people are praying for this man's soul. If the Catholic church were to issue fatwas, there would be a hefty price on this man's head. But as it is, Mr. Brown will be facing such judgment at the Pearly Gates, and certainly not from me.

I've read two books by Dan Brown. The Da Vinci Code of course, and Angels and Demons. I disliked them both for different reasons.

The Da Vinci Code was a great story, and the guy really knows his art and history, even if he does take liberties. But he can't write. At least that's the impression this book gave me. It read like Cliff's Notes. In fact, I'd be interested in seeing what the Cliff's Notes version of this book looks like, and I'll bet the only difference is the cover. It's a real shame because this book could have been monumental. It's going down in history regardless, but for religious reasons. If only he'd actually tried to do a good job of writing, this book would have gone down as one of the greatest books in the history of literature. But the guy was either too lazy or just not a good enough writer.

Angels and Demons was another story. In a way. In some ways it is the same story, because it's a very similar attack on the Catholic faith. It is much better written however, and oddly enough it actually precedes the Da Vinci Code. If it wasn't for the anti-religion theme you'd think it was written by another person entirely.

There are two things that bother me about this book. In the first place, he put in a counter-plot about anti-matter, with some very interesting scientific details, that turned out to be completely unnecessary to the plot. He should have simply used the anti-matter bit for a future project, but he couldn't help himself. In the second place, the ending was trumped up beyond all ridiculousness. He's like a kid at Baskin Robbins that can't just stop at two enjoyable, digestable scoops, but has to have all 31 flavors teetering on one cone, and sprinkles besides. How can you eat such a thing? You can't.

Subscribe to Memarie Lane

Stumble It!