[bookshare-discuss] Re: Colleen McCullough: JKR is a "lousy writer"
- From: "Shelley L. Rhodes" <juddysbuddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:23:35 -0500
Ah, the wordiness problem is very evident with the "classics" Most of
Charles Dickens writing was paid by the word, so of course he made things as
descriptive as possible.
And Les Miserables was a great book but way too much background!
But indeed, I would get filleted alive if I had made comments like that
about another teacher.
Shelley L. Rhodes and Judson, guiding golden
juddysbuddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Guide Dogs For the Blind Inc.
Graduate Advisory Council
www.guidedogs.com
The vision must be followed by the venture. It is not enough to
stare up the steps - we must step up the stairs.
-- Vance Havner
----- Original Message -----
From: <talmage@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: [bookshare-discuss] Re: Colleen McCullough: JKR is a "lousy writer"
You didn't even mention any of Poul Anderson's Star Wars
books. Personally, I like his works in the Star Wars saga as much, or more
than any of the other authors that have been involved in the series.
Regarding the tendency to stretch things out a bit with the concept of
longer is better, you don't have to look hard to find other authors,
musicians, etc. who also fall into this trap. Look at "War And Peace,"
"Moby Dick," some of the works by Jules Verne, Joseph Conrad, Charles
Dickens, etc.
Some of Tom Clancy's stories I've thought were quite good, while others
left me either totally flat, or maybe even shaking my head.
Jack Higgins is one of the few authors I've ever seen who plagiarizes
himself. I've found 2 of his books that have had paragraphs cut from one
and plugged in another in an unrelated way, but I still enjoy his works.
Robert Jordan has kept me waiting for closure in his "Wheel Of Time" series
for a long time, and now instead of finishing up, he's back at the
beginning doing prequels in this rather long story line.
All of these authors have parts in some of their books that I personally
don't view as essential to the plot, or story, but than again I'm not the
creative mind behind the works.
I can see how a successful author would be reluctant to have portions of
their works edited out by publishers. They probably ask themselves, "do
they want to edit for artistic merit, technical reasons, or as a cost
cutting measure?"
My original post earlier today however, had nothing to do with whether I
agreed with the sentiment about JKR's books, but rather, I felt there
should be a bit of professional courtesy on the part of one author for
another's work. Especially, when JKR's primary focus was writing books
young children would enjoy. I guess success draws criticism, and perhaps
jealousy, but it can tend to make competitors seem petty if they are the
ones making the statements. They should leave such things to the
professional book critics.
Dave
At 02:29 PM 12/5/2004, you wrote:
>Hi Diane:
>That "other thought" was apparently silent, or so deep my computer couldn't
>think it.
>But I will weigh in here with what I have affectionately called "The
>Heinlein effect" I am tempted to call it the Anderson Effect, but Mr.
>Heinlein has had the misfortune to have the effect illustrated in all its
>glory with the two publications of Stranger in a Strange land.
>Poul Anderson is, in my considered estimation, the gratest Science Fiction
>writer of his generation. ;He wrote better about more things in more
>styles
>then anyone else. Read, from this sight, The Night Face, then read one of
>the books I uploaded Fantasy, then find, if you can, A Midsummer tempest.
>and last read the stories The Longest Voyage and The Queen of Air And
>Darkness and then there's Inside Strait, and ETC ETC.
>Eventually, though, He was Poul Anderson Grand Master an no one would tell
>him that the stories didn't "sing".
>You see the same in Heinlein's last few works. The were over long and
>Tedious, but RAH could sell anything he could write and the publishers new
>this. Also Heinlein Threw enough weight that if one publisher displeased
>him, he could go somewhere else.
>Thus Stranger in a Strange land.
>I had read the book several times beginning in the 70-s when I first became
>a discerning reader.
>Now! the publisher trumpeted, "Stranger in a Strange land will be published
>As Heinlein originally wrote it!"
>It turns out that the novel as published originally had been redacted by
>sixty thousand words by the editors.
>The Sixty thousand words after they were put back made the story longer,
>but
>not better.
>J.K.R. I think, had arrived at this plateau by the time Goblet of Fire was
>published. No editor in his right mind was going to say, "J. K. Honey,
>this
>book needs to be cut by forty-thousand words and Here, Here, and Here needs
>a rewrite, and and you didn't properly develop the motivations of X. . ."
>and so forth.
>First, as an editor you know that what ever she writes is going to sell 30
>million copies. And second if you make her mad and she leaves the firm,
>your bosses are going to have you staked out for the red ants.
Other related posts:
