There was, as I have noted before, a tremendous range in what she wrote, from light-hearted children's books to the grimmest and darkest of fantasy to erotica to literary fiction ... and on and on from there, in a variety of sub-genres. Considering her output, she must have written constantly, likely even compulsively, and was absolutely fearless in what she chose to write about. It would not be hard in a random sampling of her work to hit on stories that did not impress or to find things that one actively disliked. Even I—and I'm a fan—have read things of hers that I actually loathed and did not finish or if I did wished that I hadn't (though in those instances more because there were scenes I really, really did not want to carry around inside my head and could not dislodge, than because of any failure in the writing—on the contrary, some might say that this is the kind of thing that made her work so powerful). And there were stories that just did not appeal to me, and I don't know why, but considering the variety in her work it would be a surprise if everything did line up with my personal tastes. Some of her most highly acclaimed novels did not work for me at all; some that are hardly known I admire immensely. I'll even admit that sometimes the quality of her writing was uneven.
But when she was at her best I can think of no one better; and I can think of no one at all who was so prolific and so good at the same time. The number of awards and nominations she received would indicate that many, many other readers also think she was great. However, just as writers are under no obligation to please everybody or to write to everyone's tastes, readers are under no obligation to admire a writer just because others do. There are many writers who are considered great by the majority of readers who consistently leave me absolutely cold. I imagine, however, that despite my failure to see what others see in their writing, they were nevertheless extremely talented at doing something that just doesn't work for me.
