Topic: Reader's Nook

[6pairsofshoes]

t, perhaps "gifted" was a little overly enthusiastic.  When you expect nothing more than a hack and find somebody who can actually spin a compelling yarn with good descriptive passages that verge on evocative, then the surprise can perhaps nudge one into greater attributions of quality than deserved.

I've spoken to others who enjoyed King's books.  I never felt compelled to read anything else by him (except the one New Yorker short story in the Halloween issue a few years back).  I just don't like intellectual snobbery, and perhaps my embrace of him was in that vein.  Just because someone is popular doesn't necessarily mean they suck, but then, again, accessibility is not and never has been a criterion for me.

My house is full of books, many of the fiction titles are things I picked up at library sales or that people put out on the curb in discard boxes, so chance plays a real role in what I read for recreation.  The rest is work related, and most of my library is comprised of books that relate to my work.  I look over these titles--those mentioned by the posters on here--with some envy, as I feel guilty for reading simply for pleasure, as if it constitutes bless'ed off on some level (in other words, I should be reading something serious and work related instead).  And I'm a champion procrastinator, so I'll close for now.

[goldshirt*9]

have read a few of Kings books.
i  found at the end of the talisman / stand Wtf is that it .so disappointed.
misery was great and so was the film, which makes a change.
prolific yes, one of the best  in his genre, for his fans yes.
so so for me im afraid.
but this the fun of books, one persons hate's it and another love's it. thats life 

[tarascon]

^ Ultimately it's all good... grist for the mill. 

[SACPOP]

I was cleaning out a closet today and I found Filth by Irvine Welsh. I remember liking that. I also found Snuff and Diary by Palahniuk, but I don't remember liking those much.
I used to be a big reader but I haven't read much in the past few years.

[Autumn]

I've never brought myself to read any palahniuk.. I've wanted to, but there was always something I was more interested in. Ken follett, lee child, and many others have suffered this same fate.

[Autumn]

I like stories, I hate "literature". I really dislike books that include sentences that you have to read twelve times before you begin to understand what was intended, let alone books that are nothing but.

In addition to this, those books that say one thing but you're supposed to interpret a whole other meaning that's completely unrelated to the actual text.

[6pairsofshoes]

Language is such a nuanced thing and it's so hard to use it skillfully.  Writing is a craft.  Storytelling, doing that well, is a hard task.  Still, there are so many ways to get it right.  I agree with Chris's take on King.  He does have the skill to create an atmosphere and to create interesting plots, but often, probably too often, he opts for doom and gloom when it is all too predictable.  Not every book is the Castle of Otranto (the mother of all gothick novels), but you know things aren't going to go well from page 1, pretty much any time you pick him up.  Defeating or making that expectation irrelevant is what would redeem any writer in that genre and I suspect it's a great deal harder than it might sound on its face.

I read everything from Island of the Blue Dolphins to JR (Wm. Gaddis).  Children's books can be wonderful, even in their simplicity.  Sometimes, you can tell a story with only pictures, as in Edward (the vain donkey).  Or you can be sarcastic or perverse as in Harry the Poisonous Centipede, or Fables you shouldn't pay any attention to.  autumn, Bea, I envy you the many years of pleasurable mutual exploration of children's books with your kids.  How fun to read with children.  They have their own take on the books.

I love Philip K. D-ick. I really like good science fiction.  I don't know the Fantasy genre and think it might be hard for me to like it, but if anyone has some good suggestions, I'm game.

[tarascon]

I don't know the Fantasy genre and think it might be hard for me to like it, but if anyone has some good suggestions, I'm game.

I thought this was a good fantasy read which generally plays against the overused themes of the genre. The Acacia Trilogy by David Anthony Durham.
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/2012/07/reviews/review-of-the-acacia-trilogy-by-david-anthony-durham/

[Autumn]

Language is such a nuanced thing and it's so hard to use it skillfully.  Writing is a craft.  Storytelling, doing that well, is a hard task.  Still, there are so many ways to get it right.  I agree with Chris's take on King.  He does have the skill to create an atmosphere and to create interesting plots, but often, probably too often, he opts for doom and gloom when it is all too predictable.  Not every book is the Castle of Otranto (the mother of all gothick novels), but you know things aren't going to go well from page 1, pretty much any time you pick him up.  Defeating or making that expectation irrelevant is what would redeem any writer in that genre and I suspect it's a great deal harder than it might sound on its face.

I read everything from Island of the Blue Dolphins to JR (Wm. Gaddis).  Children's books can be wonderful, even in their simplicity.  Sometimes, you can tell a story with only pictures, as in Edward (the vain donkey).  Or you can be sarcastic or perverse as in Harry the Poisonous Centipede, or Fables you shouldn't pay any attention to.  autumn, Bea, I envy you the many years of pleasurable mutual exploration of children's books with your kids.  How fun to read with children.  They have their own take on the books.

I love Philip K. D-ick. I really like good science fiction.  I don't know the Fantasy genre and think it might be hard for me to like it, but if anyone has some good suggestions, I'm game.

Right now Adrianna enjoys Beatrix potter books, but I find them terribly written. Also Eric Carl (something like that) and sue boynton. Typically silly plotless books. I can't wait to get to the good stuff. Nancy drew and more shel Silverstein and goosebumps haha

[Discover99]

I like stories, I hate "literature". I really dislike books that include sentences that you have to read twelve times before you begin to understand what was intended, let alone books that are nothing but.

I've never put it that way myself, but I absolutely feel the same.

That's also a reason why certain poems annoy me deeply

[Autumn]

Don't diss the Hungry Caterpillar, ma'am.

We have one about a cricket.

Why not discuss hungry caterpillar?

[dweez]

I always enjoyed "The Stinky Cheese Man".

[6pairsofshoes]

This:

Led me to this:

"This chaotic writing style may, some critics argue, reflect Gaddis' preoccupation with entropy and with the 20th century's rejection of Newtonian physics, the narrative style thus reflecting a quantum and Heisenbergian world of "waste, flux and chaos.""

Gakk.

Don't confuse what a critic writes with the novel itself.

The book (JR) uses pure conversation instead of the formulaic, "Nancy sighed, 'whatever do you mean by that?' as John opened the curtains on a bleak Tuesday morning."

Gaddis recognizes that in real life, people don't interject descriptive phrases, they just talk to one another in their own voices.  Listening allows one to distinguish the voices.  If you were blind, you'd hear just speech, but you'd immediately be able to tell who was talking in the same room.

This is a novel way to write, but it sorts itself out quickly enough, because he does this with great skill.  You soon realize you can pick out each character and identify who is speaking because they each have very distinctive voices.  That book was long and involved.  I was so sad when it ended that I read it again.  That's quite a testimonial for a novel of such length.  Here's the plot:  a fifth grader buying penny stocks builds up an enormous financial empire using his substitute teacher as a front man.  It's wickedly funny and sad at the same time.

dweez, I don't know the Stinky Cheese Man, but I'll look for it next time I'm at the library. 
autumn, as for Beatrix Potter, children like repetition, even though it often makes for dull reading.  (And to be fair, Peter Rabbit is hardly what I'd call "plotless."  There's quite the drama there.)  My bird loves the afternoon children's programming on pbs so I put on the tv for him.  He loves the Cat in the Hat even though the same damned songs play over and over every day.  The little boy across the street used to come and watch tv with the bird.  His mother said the kids really like the repetition and structure.  Maybe it has something to do with the maturation of the brain at that age.

[Beatrix]

Don't diss the Hungry Caterpillar, ma'am.

I read that to my kids.  And  The Tiny Seed, The Mixed-Up Chameleon, and my favorite, The Very Quiet Cricket. 
I wanted to mention Palahniuk's Invisible Mosters, and I haven't read Pigmy or Diary yet. 

And on fantasy books, So far the Drizzt series is good.  I also liked Pool of Radiance.  You could always read The Hobbit again, it's such a good read.

[goldshirt*9]

I am currently ploughing through Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time", a thoroughly misogynistic shelf-yard of sub-Tolkein "fantasy", because I got hooked half a lifetime ago.

That series started so well, I just couldn't wait for the next book.Got to The Crown of Thorns and I thought what the hell is happening, so many tangents in a single book.
I also didn't realise that someone took over the writing.
Are  Brandon Sanderson books keeping to the same writing style ?