Writers That You Started Out liking and you End Up Hating.

[nixie]

Terry Goodkind I confess I did read some of the series to my dying shame.

 

[BAYLOR]

I wouldn't say I hate Terry Goodkind.

But I loved the Sword of Truth series for a long time.

Then I read the book where the series' main character 'breaks communism', (admittedly a weird religious version of communism), with good old fashioned hard work and gumption.

And the other book where the main character ultimately decides to return the kingdom of pacifists to their magically enforced isolation. Because pacifism is 'too dangerous' to be allowed to spread.

So yeah; I don't think that Mr Goodkind and I have quite the same view of the world.

Great imagination though. And I still hold to his statement that people believe things because they want to believe them or because they're afraid that they're true.

I read the first book and never bothered with the rest.

 

[The Big Peat]

Pretty much every author I started out with is one who I'd apply this to - Feist, Eddings, Kerr, Lackey, Rankin, Jordan, even Gemmell... I feel like to a certain extent, getting bored with an author's favourite things is just life. Most fantasy authors don't mix it up enough. Pratchett is the only guy I enjoyed all the way to the end (barring illneses of the brain).

Applies sometimes outside fantasy too. Not that fond of Lindsey Davies' later Falcos. Starting to get a bit tired of Cornwell's schtick too.

Le Carre is arguably my standout here. I prefer him writing about hardened Col War veterans to him writing about modern ingenues.

Jacqueline Carey's third Terre d'Ange series qualifies her for this. Jim Butcher's latest book has left me a bit worried.

They say that politics and sports careers end in failure. I'm beginning to feel the same way about authors.

 

[Venusian Broon]

They say that politics and sports careers end in failure. I'm beginning to feel the same way about authors.

I think that's being a tad unfair on authors

Some increase in potency with age and I do think the reason we get tired or grow to dislike a lot of authors is because we change ourselves.

Having said that, there are many authors, having found what sells, just stick to the straight and narrow and that gets repetitive unless you are a diehard fan, and a few that clearly have tired and seem to be 'ghosting' in a performance.

 

[The Big Peat]

I think that's being a tad unfair on authors

Some increase in potency with age and I do think the reason we get tired or grow to dislike a lot of authors is because we change ourselves.

Having said that, there are many authors, having found what sells, just stick to the straight and narrow and that gets repetitive unless you are a diehard fan, and a few that clearly have tired and seem to be 'ghosting' in a performance.

Who? I'm really struggling to think of authors where people think one of their later books is their best. I've got Pratchett and Gemmell and that's about it.

And, well, this is just me but I know I'll happily re-read their earlier works over and over. Its just the later ones that stink.

Ending in failure is harsh and a tad unfair, but I think it gets at a basic truth. Most authors I know of either end up churning out imitations of themselves, or try to change and become less popular.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Who?

Well just off the top of my head PKD's early stuff is generally a bit naff and he improves later.

I also think ACC got better with age...but then possibly quality dived again at the end.

I'm sure if I put my mind to it, most of who I've read took quite a number of books to get in their stride. (Will ponder on it today for discussion tomorrow )

 

[chrispenycate]

A lot of this is sequiltis - an author writes more volumes to please a fan base rather than what him/herself. It's less work, you know the characters, the base ideas are installed, and it's sold before pen touches paper. Hence McCaffrey's splendid dragons are conceived for a trilogy and dragged out, and still further getting ever more diluted - actually the 'ship that sang' follow ups are much the same, and the Tower and Hive series - she seems vulnerable to this problem. Or the Niven Ringworld follow ups , or children of Rama… And Jack L- Chalker wrote the same story with only minor setting changes a huge number of times.

But for a series which was intended to be multivolume and goes from riveting to 'why can't he make something - anything - happen in later books, I hold up the WoT series by Robert Jordan, which I have not yet obtained the final books of, having been plait-pulled into submission.

 

[Vince W]

But for a series which was intended to be multivolume and goes from riveting to 'why can't he make something - anything - happen in later books, I hold up the WoT series by Robert Jordan, which I have not yet obtained the final books of, having been plait-pulled into submission.

Same here. I don't know if I'll ever bother with WoT again.

 

[Vladd67]

Think I gave up on number 6.

 

[Mouse]

I don't hate anyone, I can't be arsed. But, I was going to mention George RR Martin. Loved his books at first. Rapidly grew bored. Does the dude not have an editor, or...?

 

[Vladd67]

Paid by the word perhaps?

 

[Vince W]

He's paid by the kilo I think.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I have to agree with @Susan Boulton and @nixie about Terry Goodkind.

His writing started ok - I enjoyed the first few books, Wizards First Rule was actually good. Then his underlying themes started to creep in and the writing became positively awful. hThe later books are veiled Ayn-Rand style rants on objectivism and are so anti pacifist it's unreal.

Ok so case in point: the main character Richard Rahl an ancient War Wizard from the past kicks the jaw of a young old girl and the reader is supposed to be complicit, murdering pacifists is also ok because y'know, those pesky pacifists. I never ever want to hear about noble goats or cackling chickens that aren't really chickens again.

Although I don't need to persuade you of Terry Goodkinds thinly veiled views writ large, lets have the Word of God itself:

"First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either." - Terry Goodkind

"What I have done with my work has irrevocably changed the face of fantasy. In so doing I've raised the standards. I have not only injected thought into a tired empty genre, but, more importantly, I've transcended it showing what more it can be-and is so doing spread my readership to completely new groups who don't like and wont ready typical fantasy. Agents and editors are screaming for more books like mine" - Terry Goodkind

 

[Foxbat]

Stephen Donaldson is the one I started liking and ended up hating. This is mainly because of his Thomas Covenant books. The first trilogy was ver good. The second not quite as good and the last four books were just awful. In fact, in my opinion, if the ending in the final volume (ten) was written by anybody other than an already established writer, it would have been rejected as cliched by almost every publisher on the planet.

Stephen Donaldson is not alone in disappointing me but he has the distinct honour of being the primary reason why I am no longer willing to invest my time reading a series of books any longer. In a place like this I'll probably be burned at the stake for saying the following, but any author worth his or her salt should be able to say what they want to say in one novel as far as I'm concerned. Anything beyond that is just milking a cow.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Anything beyond that is just milking a cow.

I wouldn't go as far as that, but I would say an author has to have 'clear and reasonable' evidence that his/her three volume story deserves said number of installments.

 

[The Big Peat]

Well just off the top of my head PKD's early stuff is generally a bit naff and he improves later.

I also think ACC got better with age...but then possibly quality dived again at the end.

I'm sure if I put my mind to it, most of who I've read took quite a number of books to get in their stride. (Will ponder on it today for discussion tomorrow )

Oh there's plenty who took a few books to get into their stride. The vast majority probably. There's a very short list of authors where their first book is their best (now that would make a fun topic actually). But its not about how long they take to get to their peak - its how long they stay there.

edit: McCaffrey is one who qualifies very well for this.

Ditto Brian Jacques.

edit edit: Maybe this is more of a Fantasy one than a Sci-Fi, what with fantasy being more about long series.

Also, as for Martin? Well, the rumour is that Jordan's editor was as much concerned with more books for Tor as a tight lean story. Could be the same with Martin.

 

[Extollager]

Lord Dunsany was one of my favorite authors when I was around 16, on the strength of the Ballantine Fantasy Series collection At the Edge of the World and The King of Elfland's Daughter, etc. But quite a few years ago now I discovered that I generally can't stay interested in his fantasy, though I have tried several times to reread that collection -- at one time one of my most treasured books. It seems to be largely a matter of exquisite near-nothings; even the names that once seemed to evoke the marvelous now put me off -- Sardathrion, etc. The "cosmicism" seems an unearned affectation of knowingness, which must have been appealing to a callow youth. I keep my collection of about ten of his books largely from sentimental reasons -- and because a thought lingers that the right mood for reading him again might come.

 

[Toby Frost]

There are certainly authors that it's easier to read at certain ages. I think I would find much the same thing with Lovecraft's Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, which I tore through at 13 because it was just so weird. That said, I've not really gone off Lovecraft in the way the question requires: for a long time I've felt that he was pretty limited, and that the weaker stories were echoes of the better ones.

 

[Bick]

To be honest, I felt that Asimov went downhill when he started writing the last few Foundation books. The cold 1950s style of the earlier books left a lot to be desired, in my opinion, but some of the later stuff was bloated and weak.

Wash your mouth out young man, this forum is no place for that kind of language.

 

[Bick]

I'm not sure I've turned against an author I originally liked, though I have become so exasperated with two series that I've metaphorically thrown the last book I read in the series at the wall and not returned to either author since. These two are Martin's Song of Never-Ending Fire (killed too many decent characters and can't be bothered to finish the bloated series), and Reynolds' Revelation Space series (first two books good, the third was relatively poor, largely unconnected with the first two and internally illogical). For this reason, I'm unlikely to spend much time on either author's books again - though I think both actually write quite well, and I've nothing against their writing per se.