NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a time when Michael Crichton was my favorite author, but as time passed I eventually realized how horrible he is with characters. This summer I picked up "Prey" just for shits and giggles, the dialogue is terrible, hell I'm horrible with dialogue, and this stuff is baaaaad. The incredibly literal transition between each characters lines, and the utterly wooden and pretentious feel to what they say, almost as if there's no emotion (it's not just the way I'm reading it either.) His character development is also pretty crummy, he has the main character, Jack, being a thoughtful brilliant type. With ethics to boot. Quite a cliche character in my personal opinion. And he goes out of his way to tell the reader all of these things right at the beginning of the story. Beyond that, whenever he wants to introduce a character element in the story, he has broken off into a bizarre sort of aside by Jack, where he highlights stuff about himself. For example, he was talking to his sister about how he was afraid his wife was cheating on him. His sister calls him passive and then the conversation transitions to this explanatory paragraph. Where he talks about how he views himself as thoughtful, not passive, and how he views his sister as pushy. His utter inability to handle forshadowing at all is also annoying. All of these things even a second grader could pull out of the dialogue from the previous paragraph with ease, but he spends half a page on it. For all his faults though, he does tell a good story, albeit a flawed one. At times it got really tough to keep on reading in the book and I came close to giving it back to the library at about page ten, as well as page fifty, but I kept trudging through. His scientific facts are decent, but, blah. Don't bother with Prey, it's just not the same as when I read Jurassic Park in elementary school.

Of course, when you talk about Michael Crichton when dealing with science, you have to bring up his counterpart in the quasi-religious area, Dan Brown. Whose characters are somewhat better, as is his dialogue. He's also a good story teller. But some of the same problems exist. He still uses a stock character. Like he came in a box off of a shelf. A professor in an obscure field, who keeps getting attention attracted to himself for various reasons. And his heroine is also some sort of stock character, with a secret of some sort or another. As well as some sort of tragedy to kick off his books. In a way his plots are kind of like Mad libs, where you get a story and you have little lines to fill in certain words to make the story make sense. Sort of. But he tells a good story. But as compared to Crichtons semi-accuracy, Brown just pulls a lot of stuff out of nowhere. Things like the Roslyn chapel bit, or the existence of the Priory of Scion. Or God forbid when he attempted to do a bit with science at the beginning of Angels and Demons. No idea of anything.


And what is this discussion without the Queen of Wizardry? J.K. Rowling, whose content has somewhat matured, but whose writing style is the exact same as it was five books ago. Ach, whatever, we all know enough about Harry Pouter and the Ace of Spades (my idea for a harry potter book where he becomes a drunk, chain smoking compulsive gambler! Woohoo!) Irregardless, I've rambled, soon I'll hop to some other thing that probably doesn't deserve my criticism (damn that shakespeare and his use of the cliche separated lovers story!) Now it's time for me to take my medicine and the nice men in the white coats will take me back to my padded room. Toodles!

el bump

Shut your mouth or be cruxified. I am reading Angels and Demons right now and I don't want a word revealed.

Ahahaha, I won't cruxify you! I have people for that. :sniper: But still, I am reading Angels and Demons (reveal not a word), and for the most it is very good. Plus theres Vittoria. 'Nuff said. Anyways, Im not letting any of my knowledge of science and physics get in the way of enjoying the book itself. For crying out loud, its fiction!

I agree with most of the books that are cranked out these days, but I don't care. They don't affect me. In any case, JK Rowling is a literary genius IMO. The plot came from left field, and as the novelty began to wear off, she replaced it with substance. Her latest book is a masterpiece. Obviously, the characters are well developed. But she deals with the issues of our world today, like love, infatuation, hatred, poverty, and even a few toughies like ethnic cleansing, and does it in a way where each issue reinforces the others in unexpected ways. And of course, I don't believe that there has ever been an author that took all of the teenage years at once, tried to tackle it, and came out alive.

Dan Brown is evil. Umberto Eco is a true literary genius. His books, even translated to English, are so beautiful and exquisite I cannot describe it. What you will learn is equivalent to a few years' studies, even if it is tough since you have to research on the side to fully understand what he's talking about. But it is sooo rewarding. I can't even explain it. Well... I kind of tried, didn't I? :p

Crichton? A great writer? WelllllllNAH. He has a problem with completion. He spins a great story but it feels like he gets bored and rushes to finish.

Dan Brown is ok. I find it fascinating that sooooo many of the faithful has ot correct his story.

HELLO? It's a novel!

:D

I think it depends on what you pick up the book for. I've read some Umberto Eco, and loved it, even though it took me nearly three times as long to read it as some other materials!

If I just want to escape, (and believe me if staying home with two small children doesn't make you want to escape, I don't know what will) then pop literature has it's place as well. Do I respect it as much? nah, but what will I turn to when I want to relax and unwind? Will I pick up 'Ulysses'? Or will I pick up 'Cryptonomicon'?

Not to entirely support JK Rowling, because I hate Harry Potter, but she did write a large portion of the stories at the same time. That would explain why she hasn't really changed styles at all.

Mmm, Creighton's stuff is thought-provoking in an abstract way... if you stop to think about it and look at it, that is it doesn't just jump your throat and make you think, Sphere being the example I'm thinking of. Dan Brown/The Da Vinci Code is similar but stronger... I found the whole thing fascinating, and even if it everything isn't true, certainly elements of it could be true.

JK Rowling was refreshing at first, but everything is kinda rehashed now... but I still like it, because even unfresh stuff can be entertaining... andthe local bookstores always overstock and end up selling it (on opening night even!) for like three times less than I could find the hardback later. Harry Potter title I most want to see in the future: Harry Potter and the Stoned of Hogsmeade.

Harry Potter kind of hit its peak in the fifth one, Phoenix something.
For escapist fare, I generally read more obscure things (obscure meaning that I hadn't heard of the books until I am stalking someone through the bookstore and trying to look unobtrusive) such as The Eight by Katherine Neville. So yeah, conspiracies are great.

Oh no! Dan Brown made stuff up?!! How shocking for a book of FICTION! :D

Shut your mouth or be cruxified. I am reading Angels and Demons right now and I don't want a word revealed.

The ending is insaaaaaaaaaaaaane! :D Very entertaining.

Dan Brown a good writer? Pleeee....eeeze.

I finally got round to reading 'DaVinci code' the other day and I found his writing incredibly contrived.
For example: when the main guy (whassiname) wakes up cause of the phone call and for some reason spends a page and a half remembering how he was introduced to an audience earlier that night. Said introduction consisted of the person quoting verbatim from a journal article on him.
Luckily he spent that time remembering, as it completely filled us readers in on exactly who he is and what he does.

Now is there a more contrived way you can do when trying to introduce your main character? I don't think so.

And the main villian being a crazed Albino giant. Like no-one would notice him wandering the streets.

I found the bits about the history/architectures/biographies inserted into the text more a showing off of Dan Brown to impress us as to his immense knowledge (or rather his excellent research assistants).


Too contrived, and quite obviously written with a movie deal in mind, imo. Not that I saying it wasn't bad, but it's definitely not the book I'd use as an example of good writing.

Crichton does research everything very well, and Jurassic Park was a great thriller, but I don't think any of his other books live up to it. Still, you have to give him credit for Jurassic Park, The Lost World, The Great Train Robbery, ER, Sphere, Congo, Westworld, The Andromeda Strain which all made it into TV. Rising Sun was boring and anti-Japanese: a thriller-that-wasn't.

And I'm refusing to read Dan Brown, mainly because everyone is so obsessed with it.

Davinci code is written really well if you're 12 years old.

Dan Brown is ok... Da Vinci was entertaining, but Angels and Demons dragged, not to mention the ending...

Crichton, well, I lost ALL respect for him when I read The Lost World, if it wasn't a book that was written just for the express purpose of being made into a move sequal, and then the movie (which also sucked) was better than the book.

Rowling... has my respect. Harry Potter seems like the same book over and over again (though Half Blood Prince threw me), but it has gotten more children reading, which in and of itself is a minor miracle.

I still prefer to cuddle up with the heavy stuff, with Pratchett mixed in for fun during the summer months.

Really? I hate Rowling: I think she's a talentless, self-publicising hack. Does anyone know any 17 year-olds who actually speak like Harry Potter?

I like Rowling's Harry Potter, but the master of pop fiction is still Stephen King. His writings rarely have any literary merit, but when it comes to mindless entertainment, no one does it better.

I enjoyed The Green Mile, what other Stephen King would you recommend?

I enjoyed The Green Mile, what other Stephen King would you recommend?

My favorite is The Shining, but its very difficult to go wrong with Stephen King. Just pick one out that sounds interesting to you and chances are very high that it will be a great read.

If I just want to escape, (and believe me if staying home with two small children doesn't make you want to escape, I don't know what will) then pop literature has it's place as well. Do I respect it as much? nah, but what will I turn to when I want to relax and unwind? Will I pick up 'Ulysses'? Or will I pick up 'Cryptonomicon'?

Got to be Pratchett for a mindless unwind. Cryptonomicon was awesome though. I've just started the Baroque Cycle - looking good so far.

And I'm waiting for the next Alastair Reynolds too (Century Rain in paperback - I'm too stingy to buy hardbacks :D ). The problem I have is, like you, two small children. Doesn't leave a lot of time for 600 page novels...

There was a time when Michael Crichton was my favorite author, but as time passed I eventually realized how horrible he is with characters. This summer I picked up "Prey" just for shits and giggles, the dialogue is terrible, hell I'm horrible with dialogue, and this stuff is baaaaad. The incredibly literal transition between each characters lines, and the utterly wooden and pretentious feel to what they say, almost as if there's no emotion (it's not just the way I'm reading it either.) His character development is also pretty crummy, he has the main character, Jack, being a thoughtful brilliant type. With ethics to boot. Quite a cliche character in my personal opinion. And he goes out of his way to tell the reader all of these things right at the beginning of the story. Beyond that, whenever he wants to introduce a character element in the story, he has broken off into a bizarre sort of aside by Jack, where he highlights stuff about himself. For example, he was talking to his sister about how he was afraid his wife was cheating on him. His sister calls him passive and then the conversation transitions to this explanatory paragraph. Where he talks about how he views himself as thoughtful, not passive, and how he views his sister as pushy. His utter inability to handle forshadowing at all is also annoying. All of these things even a second grader could pull out of the dialogue from the previous paragraph with ease, but he spends half a page on it. For all his faults though, he does tell a good story, albeit a flawed one. At times it got really tough to keep on reading in the book and I came close to giving it back to the library at about page ten, as well as page fifty, but I kept trudging through. His scientific facts are decent, but, blah. Don't bother with Prey, it's just not the same as when I read Jurassic Park in elementary school.

Of course, when you talk about Michael Crichton when dealing with science, you have to bring up his counterpart in the quasi-religious area, Dan Brown. Whose characters are somewhat better, as is his dialogue. He's also a good story teller. But some of the same problems exist. He still uses a stock character. Like he came in a box off of a shelf. A professor in an obscure field, who keeps getting attention attracted to himself for various reasons. And his heroine is also some sort of stock character, with a secret of some sort or another. As well as some sort of tragedy to kick off his books. In a way his plots are kind of like Mad libs, where you get a story and you have little lines to fill in certain words to make the story make sense. Sort of. But he tells a good story. But as compared to Crichtons semi-accuracy, Brown just pulls a lot of stuff out of nowhere. Things like the Roslyn chapel bit, or the existence of the Priory of Scion. Or God forbid when he attempted to do a bit with science at the beginning of Angels and Demons. No idea of anything.


And what is this discussion without the Queen of Wizardry? J.K. Rowling, whose content has somewhat matured, but whose writing style is the exact same as it was five books ago. Ach, whatever, we all know enough about Harry Pouter and the Ace of Spades (my idea for a harry potter book where he becomes a drunk, chain smoking compulsive gambler! Woohoo!) Irregardless, I've rambled, soon I'll hop to some other thing that probably doesn't deserve my criticism (damn that shakespeare and his use of the cliche separated lovers story!) Now it's time for me to take my medicine and the nice men in the white coats will take me back to my padded room. Toodles!

I haven't read Michael Crichton, but I agree about Dan Brown (good story, but horrible with factual accuracy) and Rowling, except that you give her too much credit for "maturity". Rather, she has made some kind of attempt to make her main character more "mature", her idea of which seems to involve an excess of OUTBURSTS OF EMOTIONAL RAGE IN CAPITAL LETTERS!
Calling her the "Queen of Wizardry" makes me choke.

Oh no! Dan Brown made stuff up?!! How shocking for a book of FICTION! :D

But putting a page with FACT at the top, which also contains made up shit?

Dan Brown a good writer? Pleeee....eeeze.

I finally got round to reading 'DaVinci code' the other day and I found his writing incredibly contrived.
For example: when the main guy (whassiname) wakes up cause of the phone call and for some reason spends a page and a half remembering how he was introduced to an audience earlier that night. Said introduction consisted of the person quoting verbatim from a journal article on him.
Luckily he spent that time remembering, as it completely filled us readers in on exactly who he is and what he does.

Now is there a more contrived way you can do when trying to introduce your main character? I don't think so.

And it isn't the only time that fairly crap technique is used, about half the book is made up of flash back's.

Though the most annoying thing I found about the book is that the protagonist, Langdon, is such a Mary-Sue character. (That and the junk history which is only rivalled by the junk science in A&D. But being a historian, it is the history that annoys me more.)

I found the bits about the history/architectures/biographies inserted into the text more a showing off of Dan Brown to impress us as to his immense knowledge (or rather his excellent research assistants).

Well I'm sure they would impress us if they were accurate in the slightest. But they weren't, they were practically word for word copies of discredited theories presented in books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Templar Revelations (And a few more).


And I'm refusing to read Dan Brown, mainly because everyone is so obsessed with it.

Well you are hardly losing out. I would also recommend Umberto Eco, especially The Name of the Rose and Foucault's [sic?] Pendulum.

Her latest book is a masterpiece. Obviously, the characters are well developed. But she deals with the issues of our world today, like love, infatuation, hatred, poverty, and even a few toughies like ethnic cleansing, and does it in a way where each issue reinforces the others in unexpected ways. And of course, I don't believe that there has ever been an author that took all of the teenage years at once, tried to tackle it, and came out alive.

You give her too much credit. The characters are well developed? Sure, Harry might have grown up a little, and Ginny has become a younger, female version of the twins, but Ron is exactly the same as in the first book, and Hermione has gone from Smart!Self Insert! to Lovesick!.

At least Draco has become 3D as of this last one. -__-;;




Everybody read Pratchett instead! XD

I finally got round to reading 'DaVinci code' the other day and I found his writing incredibly contrived.
For example: when the main guy (whassiname) wakes up cause of the phone call and for some reason spends a page and a half remembering how he was introduced to an audience earlier that night. Said introduction consisted of the person quoting verbatim from a journal article on him.
Luckily he spent that time remembering, as it completely filled us readers in on exactly who he is and what he does.

Now is there a more contrived way you can do when trying to introduce your main character? I don't think so.

I completely forgot about that sequence. Maybe I ought to lower Dan Brown's characterization rating a little bit...

Got to be Pratchett for a mindless unwind. Cryptonomicon was awesome though. I've just started the Baroque Cycle - looking good so far.

And I'm waiting for the next Alastair Reynolds too (Century Rain in paperback - I'm too stingy to buy hardbacks :D ). The problem I have is, like you, two small children. Doesn't leave a lot of time for 600 page novels...


I think Neal Stephenson did a George Lucas with the Baroque Cycle: he hangs too much significance on tiny little details that appear in Cyrptonomicon (which is a hell of a read, by the way). Those books are a slog to get through.

Alastair Reynolds did a pretty good job with his books set in the Inhibitor universe. One section of one of the books featuring a shootout between two spaceships travelling at 95% of the speed of light was done really well, which shows what SF can be like when it is written by someone who really knows some physics.

Terry Pratchett... too funny :D .

Really? I hate Rowling: I think she's a talentless, self-publicising hack. Does anyone know any 17 year-olds who actually speak like Harry Potter?

I do :D Daniel Radcliffe is a 17yr old who speaks like Harry Potter! :D My neighbour was in the same class as him at City of London school :p

The worth and substance in Crichton's good stuff is not the characters or dialogue, and he doesnt pretend that they ought to be, but plausible and original scenarios based in the cutting edge of contemporary science. Dinosaur cloning, brain implants, airplanes, diseases and (though ive not read 'prey') nano bots are all very intriguing fodder for the imagination, and most of what he writes about is, or is becoming, technically plausible. Thats why he's fun to read. He's almost a modern day Jules Verne or Mary Shelly.

Hard to tell just why the da vinci code became so popular, Brown is an extremely competent writer of page-turners, and I imagine the authoritive tone with which he weaves the fictions of 'the davinci code' combined with the real-life art, names, and places he uses are fundemental in creating a slight nagging in readers that he just might be telling some profound truth.