Books to Avoid?

Books

Wesley Smith said:

I'm always hearing that if I want to write in a genre, I should read the best in the genre. But I think I can learn just as much from the bad examples as I can the good ones.

In another thread, I just read that Thomas Harris went way overboard in his pyschoanalysis of Hannibal Lector in Hannibal. Where are some other places where an author has made a wrong turn, and what can we learn from it?

Click to expand...

The main thing we learn is only what we think. Some think Harris went too far, some think he didn't go far enough, and many think he got it exactly right.

I think the books to avoid are any and all novels you do not enjoy reading. The books to read are any and all novels you enjoy reading. Life is way the heck too short to waste a minute reading a novel you aren't enjoying in the usually vain hope of learning something that will help you write better fiction.

Instead of focusing on what's wrong with a book, why not focus on what's right with the book? What made it something the publisher thought people would pay money for? Writers are notorious for picking apart books for flaws, but the truth is that perfect prose by itself is not going to get someone published. It has to have a good story that works.

This is great, and a topic I've been meaning to ask you all about for a few weeks.

What thriller-esque novels do you think are a good read, aka absolutely captivating, and what in particular do you think was done really well (character development, foreshadowing, etc.)?

Wesley Smith said:

I'm always hearing that if I want to write in a genre, I should read the best in the genre. But I think I can learn just as much from the bad examples as I can the good ones.

In another thread, I just read that Thomas Harris went way overboard in his pyschoanalysis of Hannibal Lector in Hannibal. Where are some other places where an author has made a wrong turn, and what can we learn from it?

Click to expand...

With Thomas Harris, to me it's no so much that he went way overboard in his psychoanalysis of Hannibal in the last novel (in terms of the total length of the book, there's actually not much on this), but that it probably was not "true to life" in terms of where the plot went. For example, his pathology would make it virtually impossible to have a workable romantic relationship with Clarisse at the end.

Interestingly, both Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs, while somewhat dated at this point in terms of things like forensics, are much better books, and in both of these we never have to really understand why Hannibal does what he does.

A favorite of mine in this genre is Jonathan Kellerman's very early novel, The Butcher's Theater. It's a "can't put down," and infinitely superior to much of his later stuff.

Good Word said:

This is great, and a topic I've been meaning to ask you all about for a few weeks.

What thriller-esque novels do you think are a good read, aka absolutely captivating, and what in particular do you think was done really well (character development, foreshadowing, etc.)?

Click to expand...

Still Life With Crows by Preston/Child. Thrilling in sort of a car accident way. I couldn't stop reading, and yet, there were parts that I was kind of grossed out on. But interesting how the local history played into the story.

The Jester by James Patterson. An action-adventure thriller set in the Crusades. Lots of action, lots of suspense, and very much of a good departure from his normal thrillers.

The Halo Effect by M.J. Rose. I got this one because she's a member of ITW, and it had been just released. I don't normally care for serial killer thrillers (I get tired of reading about women being brutalized in increasingly horrific ways). The book was a page turner with something unexpected at the end, though the deaths grossed me out.

Entombed by Linda Fairstein. This one uses Edgar Allen Poe as an important part of the story. A woman is murdered by being buried alive, which is a chilling thought in itself.

Anything by Vince Flynn in his Mitch Rapp series. These political thrillers are full of intrigue, exitement, and political shenagins.

I generally enjoy hodunnits more than out and out thrillers, and I think the British writers, within the grand tradition of Conan Doyle, dish out fine examples of the "Drawing Room" mystery: where the puzzle is most important, there is absolutely no gore, and the corpse is almost an afterthought. These stories are actually sleight-of-hand tricks: the author's hand is faster than your eye. The clues are paraded before your eyes, and you keep on putting the wrong interpretation on them, and is absolutely flabbergasted when the detective unveils everything in the end.

I usually re-read my favourite novels, and one thing I've found is that you get fantastic insight into the author's art of burying clues the second time round. For example, Agatha Christie sometimes uses such fine nuances of language that you'll never imagine that it can mean anything else than what she's apparently saying: but when you know the secret, the hidden meanings become so clear, that you kick yourself how you missed it in the first place!

Good Word said:

This is great, and a topic I've been meaning to ask you all about for a few weeks.

What thriller-esque novels do you think are a good read, aka absolutely captivating, and what in particular do you think was done really well (character development, foreshadowing, etc.)?

Click to expand...

The best written thriller I ever read was a non-fiction by Thomas French, "Unanswered Cries" I have read mysteries and thrillers forever, everyone from Kinky Friedman to Grafton, to Leonard, and this non fiction is a thriller from first paragraph to last. The passion of the writing has a lot to do with that, I'm sure. I recommend this book to anyone wanting to write crime, fact or fiction.

Good true crime writing often gets very close in approach and style to the best mystery fiction. I like to read both. The classic example is Capote's In Cold Blood. Ann Rule's Stranger Beside Me, about Ted Bundy, is another terrific nonfiction crime book.

caw.

Wesley Smith said:

In another thread, I just read that Thomas Harris went way overboard in his pyschoanalysis of Hannibal Lector in Hannibal. Where are some other places where an author has made a wrong turn, and what can we learn from it?

Click to expand...

I don't think he went too far. Bear in mind Harris had been talking about Hannibal Lecter for two other books and Not analysing him (but always analysing the antagonist in each book) since Hannibal was solely about Hannibal, I don't think the analysis was overboard at all.
But then I think Thomas Harris is a really good author, so I may be biased.

Personally, I think life is too short to be reading bad books, and since I'm such a slow reader, that could be several weeks of my life wasted.

I'm not a fan of Harris at all. I read "Black Sunday" and tried to read "Red Dragon." There's something about his writing style that I don't find pleasing at all.

Bmwhtly said:

I don't think he went too far. Bear in mind Harris had been talking about Hannibal Lecter for two other books and Not analysing him (but always analysing the antagonist in each book) since Hannibal was solely about Hannibal, I don't think the analysis was overboard at all.
But then I think Thomas Harris is a really good author, so I may be biased.

Click to expand...

I also enjoy Thomas Harris, but I had certain problems with Hannibal, especially when Harris feels the need to explain him. Especially, it would be impossible given his pathology for Hannibal to have a successful romantic relationship with Clarice as we are told at the end of the novel -- this just had me rolling my eyes. In this case, the movie did a much better job than the book.

She must always remain a distant goal to him, because the moment that things move from romantic rhapsody to the day-to-day annoyances that most people sometimes have to endure in their relationships, he's probably going to eat her (his bent is basically to eat people who annoy him).

I love Hannibal. I enjoyed it far more than Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs. I think I liked it because I could really see the fun Harris must have had writing it. There's some crazy stuff in that book.

this is a great topic!
i tend to enjoy the books that have some wit and humour altho there have been some that are simply enthralling

retribution by jilliane hoffman
last witness by by jilliane hoffman
final jeopardy (first book by linda fairstein)
a lot of the earlier james patterson books were real page turners
ditto early jonathan kellerman
Jan Burke - flight, bones
some of michael connolly's books e.g. the poet
dark eye by William Bernhardt
lauren henderson - her sam jones series
pj tracy - but i can't remember the title of the one i liked most!

great humour:
jack kerley - 100th man
ja konrath (a member of AW!)
Sheldon Seigel
William Lashner
Janet Evanovich
David Rosenfelt

and i love agatha christie. as someone else has said there is a lot of subtlety in her books and often a lot of wit and humour.

Linda Adams said:

Instead of focusing on what's wrong with a book, why not focus on what's right with the book?

Click to expand...

I do think there is some value to paying attention to the "differences" you might have with a book. Whether it's really something wrong with it or it's just different than your own style, you can see how something you don't care for and would try and avoid... actually got published, even though you might've sent it back for editing.

Perhaps you give that certain something a second chance, perhaps you solidify why you don't like it – but I think it echoes the old phrase "You learn more from failure than success" – whether it's your failure or somebody else's.

If you can see something to avoid, that book has just paid for itself.

What made it something the publisher thought people would pay money for? Writers are notorious for picking apart books for flaws, but the truth is that perfect prose by itself is not going to get someone published. It has to have a good story that works.

Click to expand...

That "flaws" part is really tricky.

One pubs flaws are another's style.

You're right, though: if you can find something you like and absorb it, that's just as good as finding something to avoid.

while there is some value in seeing where a book fails i prefer to immerse myself in books that are great examples of the genre and see how they pace the books, how they plot etc etc

if you are looking for mystery writers i find the Edgar award winners are pretty good. it's a fairly reliable indication of a good read