zombie reagan
Junior Member
[M0:0]Trust me, this is worth your time and affection.
Posts: 1,408
|
Post by zombie reagan on Nov 24, 2006 1:37:51 GMT -5
Use em if ya got em people. I want the name of your author and selected works that you feel strongly represent them and anything else you feel is relevant to what makes them a good author.
Ernest Hemmingway-The old man and the sea, For Whom The Bell Tolls, A farwell to arms- I could list more but that would be longwinded. Point is i love his very sparse style of story telling, he tells me whats happening and has a very distinct human element to it without trying to overwhelm me with pretty pictures. His bittersweet romances and often tragic circumstances grab me and tear my heart around with a certain blunt grace.
James Patterson-Kiss the Girls, Roses are Red, When the Wind blows, etc- I just like Alex Cross for one, he's just a very likeable protagonist and then beyond that i feel that patterson has a pretty good imagination with some of his more out there fiction ranging from genetic experiments to the birth of the new messiah. Just a neat guy with some neat stories.
Anne Rice-Assorted Vampire novels you know em i don't need to say em.-Her style of writing is what i admire more, she takes vampires to a place that hollywood refuses to go and thats as a more down to earth mellow sort. I feel that movies make vampires so overly dramatic and obnoxious that i can't sit through them but she brings a very intellectual(and as she's been criticized, possibly overly sensual) approach to an old idea much like Bram Stoker did with the original vampire novel.
Eric Nylund-Assorted Halo Novels- I was actually really surprised at the quality of this guy's writing. A friend lent me one of the halo novels and i expected them to be very lousy but he writes extremely compelling(albiet heavily action oriented) stories that i can't seem to stop reading.
Tom Clancy-The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Rainbow Six, etc- He's a bit of a long winded one definately and i think sometimes his work is way overated but he can definately weave stories together even if it takes him over 700 pages almost every time. His stories are intricate and often times revealing of how the US goverment works(or used to work at a long enough time ago that its safe to reveal now) and deal with all kinds of insane political ends. Rather good movie adaptations of his novels don't hurt either.
i'll mention more when i feel like thinking.
|
|
purple
n00b
PurplePyro
Posts: 38
|
Post by purple on Dec 17, 2006 14:50:13 GMT -5
Laurie Halse Anderson- Speak, The Prom, Catalyst. Her writing is in a way very simple that it makes itself hard to do. Since her stories are told from a teenagers point of veiw, they basically capture anyone that is in the range of young adult to teenager. Sometimes there are dull moments in her work but other then that she reallly knows how to make certain teenage situations come to life, which in turn makes the reader love her books all the same.
|
|
|
Post by yourguitargod on Jan 13, 2007 15:22:29 GMT -5
Alexandre Dumas - The Count of Monte Cristo, The Three Musketeers - Dumas is able to blend humor, action and drama into one story seamlessly while giving insights into the time period in which he lived. His books grip you from the beginning and never let go and frankly, you don't want them to. Count of Monte Cristo is my current favorite book.
H. P. Lovecraft - The Call of Cthulhu, The Dunwich Horror - Howard Phillips Lovecraft...where to begin? This guy was messed up beyond definition. He's a very difficult read but always worth it. I've never found an author that's as creepy or messed up as he was. The man always chose elegance over violence and other easy ways out. King isn't worthy to kiss his boots.
Michael Crichton - Sphere, The Andromeda Strain - Of all the authors currently writing, Crichton is my favorite. His insights into modern science while being able to write an easily read, gripping novel makes him a great writer. While not as intense as some of the classical authors, many of his works really do impress.
Bram Stoker - Dracula - If you've only seen the movies, then you don't know the story. I've never seen a movie version of this seminal horror work that wasn't a complete bastardization. The story has genuine moments of horror, all the while being written in an interesting style. Only problem is a 150 page section or so after the first several chapters that result in EXTREME boredom. Those make sense later, however.
J.R.R. Tolkien - The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings - All I can really say about Tolkien is this: Best Fantasy Author EVAR. While LOTR takes a while to get started, once you get into it, the pace builds and builds into an intensity that's not matched by many other works. Being high fantasy and highly intelligent is not something that many authors can do, but he pulls it off nicely.
|
|
iAMthecure
Regular Member
gotta love michael ian black
Posts: 475
|
Post by iAMthecure on Jan 30, 2007 22:36:41 GMT -5
I honestly haven't read enough of some authors to pick definite favorites, but these are my favorites as of right now.
Hunter S. Thompson - Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hell's Angels, etc. - ohhh, what to say about this guy. I really don't think there are a lot of words to describe him, you all know the drill. I just hate the fact that he died right before I really became interested in him and his work. shame...
Anthony Burgess - A Clockwork Orange, The Wanting Seed - well this man just has a wealth of creativity. He's one of those authors where you read some of his work and just think, "damn, I will never be able to write or think up something this good". Or at least, if you're a writer like me, you think that.
Jack Kerouac - On the Road, the Dharma Bums, Dr. Sax - he just embodies the Beat generation, and that's all there is to say about that. I love his rambling style, it makes you feel like you should just read a whole page in one breath.
William S. Burroughs - Naked Lunch, Junky, Queer - same as Kerouac with the whole Beat thing. Now this guy was just fucking insane, and that's what makes his work good. It always seems like the ones that are the craziest produce the best work, no?
Oscar Wilde - The Picture of Dorian Gray, The Importance of Being Earnest - yaaay Victorian fruitcake. He was so witty for his day, I swear, you could quote him for hours.
Gregory Maguire - Wicked, Lost, Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister, etc. - he's just great when it comes to turning fairytales on their heads. I don't know what it is, but he just makes it work. He should come out with something soon, I don't think he's come out with anything since 2004...
Anne Rice - The Vampire Chronicles - as she was mentioned here already. Her descriptions are just breathtaking; you feel like you're really in the novel when you read them. She just has this talent that you can't really describe. And I just realized that she's the only female author on my list. wow.
Chuck Palahniuk - Fight Club, Haunted - I honestly haven't read that much from him, but from what I've read, I love it. I just really like how weird and twisted all his work is, but at the same time, it seems perfectly normal and makes all the sense in the world. Almost like Burroughs, but a little more coherent.
I probably could go on.
|
|
|
Post by yourguitargod on Feb 3, 2007 17:57:36 GMT -5
Good call on Oscar Wilde. I have a friend who DOES quote him for hours.
I can't really get into Anne Rice myself. After reading The Vampire Lestat, I just couldn't bring myself to like her. It's like...she writes incredibly well and I wanted to like what I was reading...I really did. The problem is that she seems to go back on herself constantly and change her history. She paints characters in weird ways and none of them are at all likable. And then there's the contradictions...*bangs head on the wall*
Maybe it was just that book, but I dunno.
|
|
iAMthecure
Regular Member
gotta love michael ian black
Posts: 475
|
Post by iAMthecure on Feb 3, 2007 18:07:09 GMT -5
Hmm... did you read Interview with the Vampire before Lestat? Because if you didn't, then that's probably why you didn't like it. But I can see how you wouldn't like it either way... I enjoyed Lestat, but I also thought it was wayyy too long and a little tedious. That's how it is with most of her work, but just the quality of the writing makes it worth it to read. But then again, I actually wasted my time reading The Queen of the Damned... *vomit*
|
|
|
Post by yourguitargod on Feb 3, 2007 18:46:29 GMT -5
I didn't read Interview, because the person who recommended her to me said to read Lestat first. I SAW Interview if that counts (probably not) but what got me was just the inconsistencies and things of that nature. And the fact that none of the characters were likable. And I don't mind long and tedious, I AM a Tolkien fan afterall.
|
|
iAMthecure
Regular Member
gotta love michael ian black
Posts: 475
|
Post by iAMthecure on Feb 3, 2007 19:53:52 GMT -5
Whaaaat? But Interview comes first... aww man, you should've read it before Lestat. It makes a lot more sense then, but I get what you're saying about the inconsistencies and stuff. But how could you not like Lestat? I tried reading the first Lord of the Rings but kind of failed after page three. I'm scared to pick it up again.
|
|
|
Post by yourguitargod on Feb 3, 2007 21:01:03 GMT -5
Lestat made perfect sense. That wasn't what bothered me. The book really never went anywhere for me, Lestat really had no purpose, he was HORRIBLY indecisive, a sexual deviant to the point of obscene perversion and a complete di**. And she romanticizes him. Up until she became a christian, she would talk about him like a real person like he was her lover or something. Which is kinda creepy. But yeah, the book really just didn't do it for me.
When it comes to LotR, the first maybe 200 pages of Fellowship are a complete bore. All the way up until you hit Rivendell and then it starts to pick up. Once you get to Moria then it gets really interesting and Two Towers is nothing but intensity in my mind.
|
|
zombie reagan
Junior Member
[M0:0]Trust me, this is worth your time and affection.
Posts: 1,408
|
Post by zombie reagan on Feb 4, 2007 15:11:23 GMT -5
I've read Anne Rice and Tolkien and i prefer Rice to Tolkien (i've read the LOTR trilogy and the hobbit, never touched the salmorillian(or however you spell it)), Tolkien's writing is just not for me, i'm not really into the whole medieval fantasy thing (i'm a sci-fi guy, Robots brotha, Red rocks YEAH YEAH! etc.) and while i think most vampire things have gotten completely silly (god the movies are awful now and the novels people come up with, why are people who are so old SO MELLODRAMATIC!?! but i digress) her vampires are more like i'd expect a vampire to be and yes the characters aren't always the most likeable in the traditional sense (you're not supposed to like Lestat, which you would know if you'd read Interview first) they're still interesting and the portraits she paints of the places they stay in are particular stunning. Orcs and trolls and dwarves on the other hand are only moderately attention holding at best just because i prefer laser weapons (or even projectiles) and robots and space travel than i do horses and castles.
|
|
|
Post by yourguitargod on Feb 4, 2007 15:53:02 GMT -5
I will agree that Tolkien isn't for everyone. He's one of those authors that can just be hard to get into.
While I understand that you're not supposed to like Lestat, it seemed to me that she was trying to paint him in a way so that you'd love the guy (even though I'm pretty damn sure that was "his" intention in the narrative) but all I could find was that his mother annoyed the hell out of me, Armande pissed me off, Lestat was a di** and Louis (if the movie was any indication) was a whiny brat. Her vision of vampires is quite nice though. I much prefer her romanticized version to what people often try to portray. I WILL say though, that Stoker did the best with portraying Dracula and his dual nature of both elegant and charming while being a vile monster.
Sci-fi is a good thing indeed. Haven't gotten to read a lot of it, sadly and my back log of books is so large that it may take a while to get to some of the stuff I want to read. I'm really looking forward to reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Neuromancer. I will say, though, that (and I'll get lambasted for this probably) I couldn't stand Dune. Maybe because the version I had didn't have a glossary in the back or something...
|
|
iAMthecure
Regular Member
gotta love michael ian black
Posts: 475
|
Post by iAMthecure on Feb 5, 2007 16:19:49 GMT -5
In the first book, you're supposed to hate Lestat. From then on, it's nothin but love for the guy.
I haven't really read any sci-fi books, again, not my cuppa tea. But I won't discriminate JUST because it's sci-fi, you know? I'm usually like that with most books.
And what do you guys all think of Stephen King? I want to get into him but I've got piles of books to read before his.
P.S. GACK. I haven't read Dune, but you said you didn't like it because it didn't have a glossary in the back? The only thing I can think of right now is A Clockwork Orange, I pray to god you liked that (I hope you've read it)... and I also pray to god that your copy (if you DID read it) didn't have a glossary in the back. Because seriously... OINAORE8HG8E9[H UAOJHN.
|
|
|
Post by yourguitargod on Feb 5, 2007 16:26:16 GMT -5
Haven't read King, never really wanted to. Whenever I wanted my horror fix, H.P. Lovecraft was always who I went to.
And you NEED a glossary for Dune. They just throw all kinds of weird ideas, words and objects at you from the beginning with no explanation. Haven't read A Clockwork Orange yet, sadly. It's on my list for sure...just haven't gotten to it yet.
|
|
iAMthecure
Regular Member
gotta love michael ian black
Posts: 475
|
Post by iAMthecure on Feb 5, 2007 16:34:36 GMT -5
DAMN. It will change your life, take my word for it. There's a lot of sissy-asses that are all "ehhbleh I can't understand the language, I need a glossary", but don't be one of them. that's what I meant by that comment, lol. The beauty of the book is understanding everything yourself and realizing the effect that it has on you at the end.
|
|
|
Post by yourguitargod on Feb 5, 2007 18:27:08 GMT -5
See, I would enjoy that. With Dune, it was like Frank Herbert just tried to invent some world but didn't give any background into any of it. When Tolkien did it, he eased you into it. Herbert just goes, "Here's a bunch of weird weapons and things that make no sense to anyone but me. ENJOY!"
|
|