As an author who's done hundreds of readings and signings around the country, I've frequently been asked about books on the best seller list and books in the news.
I read a lot more indie and small presses authors than bestsellers these days, mostly because I know the writers through their short stories. After the appetizer, if I enjoyed it, I want the whole meal. Occasionally I dive into something from a big author, to see what the big business is putting out. With mixed reactions. I’m reading a recent Michael Connelly now and I’m a bit put off by the writing- I am a fan of his books usually- this one is meh… can’t win them all.
In one of his books, he and his editor were thoughtless in letting the murderer have a last name "Noman." Of course it was a pseudonym and of course this guy was the villain.
I do not envy writers who are rich and famous and have to put out a new book every year. Their work suffers in quality most of the time--or they can't finish and that's partly why you sometimes feel the authorial voice has changed. They have a ghost.
My college mentor taught a writer who went on to be a successful ghost and he of course hasn't told her names, but he has talked about how many well-known authors' publishers or agent have contacted him to finish, revise, or even write their "next" book.
In a hurry or bored. I've been lucky to write my ten mysteries interspersed with books in many other genres and only one publisher was pushing for a new book before I was ready. Of course, I complied and I think it's one of the best in the series, but that's because I wasn't sick to death of my characters and setting. And then, academia is such a great target for satire. :-)
I was asked to review it and thought it was BS. I did not believe he would be allowed on a plane with a bloody t-shirt or that he'd had even one root canal without anesthesia of some kind, so I didn't finish the book.
oh you're thinking of the James Frey debacle. And I completely agree. None of his book was real. It read false. I was referencing the Jonathon Franzen scandal, when he dissed popular books in general, and Oprah's picks in particular.
Fortunately, I'm usually way behind in my reading when the book is popular, so I can plead ignorance. Also, nonfiction books don't usually draw so much controversy so I feel free talking about whatever I'm reading in addition to crime fiction.
I sometimes check out a popular book to see what the fuss is about and I end up surprised by how badly done it is, and how the reviewers missed glaring faults, stylistic or factual.
sometimes it's easier just to agree with the consensus, which is what most people do. the reverse is not liking a book just because it's popular (which I've been guilty of as well)
Critics are herd animals and follow the pack too often.
I once reviewed The Da Vinci Code and started off with a question: Can you enjoy a silly, badly-written book full of errors? I did, despite the lousy ending and all the hugger-mugger.
Reflexive disagreement is admirable. It means you're going to think. Reflexive agreement is un-admirable (what's the word for that? gotta be one). It means you're not going to think.
As an author I'm more likely to comment about craft if anything, if I do a public review. Otherwise it's pretty much "I finished it, yup, it works for me." But I'm really not the best of critics anyway, and I'd just as soon spend time enjoying a reading when it comes to fiction.
I read a lot more indie and small presses authors than bestsellers these days, mostly because I know the writers through their short stories. After the appetizer, if I enjoyed it, I want the whole meal. Occasionally I dive into something from a big author, to see what the big business is putting out. With mixed reactions. I’m reading a recent Michael Connelly now and I’m a bit put off by the writing- I am a fan of his books usually- this one is meh… can’t win them all.
In one of his books, he and his editor were thoughtless in letting the murderer have a last name "Noman." Of course it was a pseudonym and of course this guy was the villain.
I do not envy writers who are rich and famous and have to put out a new book every year. Their work suffers in quality most of the time--or they can't finish and that's partly why you sometimes feel the authorial voice has changed. They have a ghost.
My college mentor taught a writer who went on to be a successful ghost and he of course hasn't told her names, but he has talked about how many well-known authors' publishers or agent have contacted him to finish, revise, or even write their "next" book.
Excellent point. A different voice, yes, and stripped down writing - too flat and dry, a writer in a hurry...
In a hurry or bored. I've been lucky to write my ten mysteries interspersed with books in many other genres and only one publisher was pushing for a new book before I was ready. Of course, I complied and I think it's one of the best in the series, but that's because I wasn't sick to death of my characters and setting. And then, academia is such a great target for satire. :-)
Thanks Lev. Sometimes a writer gets too big for their britches. Remember Franzen and the Oprah debacle?
I was asked to review it and thought it was BS. I did not believe he would be allowed on a plane with a bloody t-shirt or that he'd had even one root canal without anesthesia of some kind, so I didn't finish the book.
oh you're thinking of the James Frey debacle. And I completely agree. None of his book was real. It read false. I was referencing the Jonathon Franzen scandal, when he dissed popular books in general, and Oprah's picks in particular.
Sorry. Those guys blur in my mind. I was thinking about how Oprah spotlighted Frey even though she later humiliated him.
Franzen wrote this atrocious long piece in The New Yorker, I believe, where he dissed Edith Wharton for not being attractive enough. It was appalling.
There are reasons why I won't pick up Franzen. It's clear his tastes are very different from mine.
I don't like his style or his vision. I have tried to read him, but writers I respect agree with me that he's wildly over-rated. :-)
Fortunately, I'm usually way behind in my reading when the book is popular, so I can plead ignorance. Also, nonfiction books don't usually draw so much controversy so I feel free talking about whatever I'm reading in addition to crime fiction.
I sometimes check out a popular book to see what the fuss is about and I end up surprised by how badly done it is, and how the reviewers missed glaring faults, stylistic or factual.
sometimes it's easier just to agree with the consensus, which is what most people do. the reverse is not liking a book just because it's popular (which I've been guilty of as well)
Critics are herd animals and follow the pack too often.
I once reviewed The Da Vinci Code and started off with a question: Can you enjoy a silly, badly-written book full of errors? I did, despite the lousy ending and all the hugger-mugger.
Reflexive disagreement is admirable. It means you're going to think. Reflexive agreement is un-admirable (what's the word for that? gotta be one). It means you're not going to think.
As an author I'm more likely to comment about craft if anything, if I do a public review. Otherwise it's pretty much "I finished it, yup, it works for me." But I'm really not the best of critics anyway, and I'd just as soon spend time enjoying a reading when it comes to fiction.
Truly, De gustibus.....
But I often disagree with critical raves or pans. It's often about mood.