Worst bestselling/bestseller authors? (And why?!)

[BrainGlutton]

A well-meaning friend once lent me a military-thriller novel called Nimitz Class by Patrick Robinson. It was so bad, so cheesy and hamfisted, the characters so clunky and one-dimensional, that I still can't understand why the first prospective publisher who saw the manuscript did not arrange to have the author killed. And I have an even harder time understanding why Robinson is apparently a best-selling author with several other titles published.

What bestselling/bestseller* authors do you think are the worst? And what explains their success?



In this thread I was surprised to learn that in the modern publishing industry, a "bestseller" is not simply a book that sells many copies but a book in a defined "bestseller" genre. I'm asking about writers who qualify under either definition, as Robinson apparently does.

[pinkfreud]

I nominate Robert Ludlum. I found that after I'd read three or four of his spy novels, all the rest were just ripoffs of the earlier ones. The plots weren't surprising, the action was all thud and blunder, and the characterizations and dialogue were stiff and uninteresting.

[Governor Quinn]

Clive Cussler and WEB Griffith. Both suffer from roughly the same problems: wooden prose, characters of marginal interest and poor development, and a tendency to repeat themselves. In addition, Cussler suffers from a streak of ridiculousness in plot.

As for success, I assume that it is due to subject matter, as I can't think of any other explanation.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

In this thread I was surprised to learn that in the modern publishing industry, a "bestseller" is not simply a book that sells many copies but a book in a defined "bestseller" genre. I'm asking about writers who qualify under either definition, as Robinson apparently does.

To clarify: I'm asking about authors who are "bestsellers" either because their books made the bestseller lists, or because they write in the "bestseller" genre; not necessarily writers who (like Robinson) qualify under both definitions.

[Clockwork And Candy]

Here I go, once again, making more friends.

Stephen King, Dean Koontz and Dan Brown. They're great for what they are; fluff. The kind of stuff you can read in one sitting and put your brain on autopilot for. Fantastic for after work when all you want to do is vegetate. Also, anyone who thinks that the Da Vinci Code is non-fiction should die. Now.

This, of course, is just my opinion. Please don't eat my face for expressing it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Lahaye and Jenkins are the worst on the planet. Not even close.

[LiveOnAPlane]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Lahaye and Jenkins are the worst on the planet. Not even close.

I really cannot disagree with you on this, but please take some time and read "Deception Point" by Dan Brown. Perhaps you will then include him in the Top Three.

[Savannah]

Robin Cook? I read a "novel" by him that so wretchedly awful that I kept reading it, marvelling how it could have been published.

Also, I literally (not figuratively, but literally) rolled my eyes so often while reading it, they began to hurt.

And I kept laughing aloud at the "prose" it contained.

[LiveOnAPlane]

Originally Posted by Savannah

Robin Cook? I read a "novel" by him that so wretchedly awful that I kept reading it, marvelling how it could have been published.

Also, I literally (not figuratively, but literally) rolled my eyes so often while reading it, they began to hurt.

And I kept laughing aloud at the "prose" it contained.

Well, yeah, that one too. Unfortunately, I now hat to PIT you for bringing this up, after thousands of dollars of psychotherapy to erase Cook from my brain.

[pinkfreud]

The perpetual success of Mary Higgins Clark just baffles me. I used to work in a used bookstore, and the Mary Higgins Clark stuff was in constant demand. The buyers seemed to have brains, too. Dunno what's the appeal. Dull, poorly written, repetitive, unimaginative pap, it is. But that's just me. Millions of folks obviously feel differently.

[SpazCat]

Originally Posted by pinkfreud

The perpetual success of Mary Higgins Clark just baffles me. I used to work in a used bookstore, and the Mary Higgins Clark stuff was in constant demand. The buyers seemed to have brains, too. Dunno what's the appeal. Dull, poorly written, repetitive, unimaginative pap, it is. But that's just me. Millions of folks obviously feel differently.

I second this whole-heartedly. I stopped reading her books when I was nineteen because I figured out the clue to all her shocking twist endings.

For those of you who don't want to figure it out, here's this handy little spoiler box.

SPOILER:

It's always the guy closest to the main female character.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Lahaye and Jenkins are the worst on the planet. Not even close.

That's what I opened this thread to post. Jenkins a greater bad than LaHaye.

[Gordon Urquhart]

I can think of three best-selling writers whose lack of characterization skills really made me regret reading them: David Baldacci, the aforementioned Robin Cook, and Steve Alten (whose Meg had more personality than any of the human characters in the book).

In the horror genre, I will never again waste time reading a Bentley Little book.

[KlondikeGeoff]

Originally Posted by Clockwork And Candy

Stephen King, Dean Koontz and Dan Brown.

Ah, Clockwork, you're a brave one for listing King, but I absolutely agree with you about him, Koontz, Brown, and almost all the others that were posted.

There's so much bad writing it's scary. One reason I re-read so many classics.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by Gordon Urquhart

In the horror genre, I will never again waste time reading a Bentley Little book.

I agree. Stephen King says Little is the best horror writer writing today (in a recent Entertainment Weekly column). "Best" has to be relative. Compared to the others, maybe Little is the best. How sad.

[PoorYorick]

I tried to read a Danielle Steele novel, I really did. I'd always turned my nose up at them, but I figured, what the hell, they're best sellers, how bad could they be? I'm just being a snob. I mean, I used to look down my nose at mystery novels and found out that a few of them were some of the best books I'd ever read.

Oh, man. I got up to about page 30 and just couldn't take it anymore. What a cookie-cutter, fill-in-the-blanks, formulaic piece of crap. Don't talk to me about Stephen King or Dean Koontz. These guys are Ernest Hemmingway and Eudora Welty compared to Danielle Steele. At least they can write well formed sentences.

I've never read LaHaye, and from I've heard, he may be the new nadir or bestsellers.

[PoorYorick]

Jeez Louise.

"I've never read LaHaye, and from what I've heard, he may be the new nadir for bestsellers."

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Jenkins are the worst on the planet. Not even close.

It's really Jerry Jenkins, not Lahaye who really writes the Left Behind books.

It seems very unfair that Lahaye gets co-credit just for telling him what will happen "apocalypticaly".

[Boulter's Canary]

Chris Ryan, Piers Anthony and Jean Aul are the worst authors I've encountered.

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by Boulter's Canary

Chris Ryan, Piers Anthony and Jean Aul are the worst authors I've encountered.

Egads, you need to read some of the others mentioned in this thread. I actually tried a Danielle Steele book. Once.

No way that even the most formulaic Xanth, or Ayla book can match that. None. (Well, okay - not the worst ones of each author that I'd read. I can't speak for their most recent volumes.)

[BrainGlutton]

So, why are so many bad writers so popular? Does anybody have a theory?

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

So, why are so many bad writers so popular? Does anybody have a theory?

I think a large part of it comes down to this one fact: AIUI the Average American buys one book a year.

Because of that, so much of the book-buying is done by people who don't read often, and regularly. Thus you've got two factors that lead to people buying books that many regular readers would think weren't worth a moment's notice: first, a bestseller is a book that others will be talking about - more than that, it's on a list, in most bookselling outlets, that shows it's popular - ergo it must be good; second, if one only buys one book a year - why not buy a book by an author one has read before and liked? So you'll get a known product.

And, as someone who tends to read certain authors above others, I can't fault that second reasoning. I just wish that they'd look at other authors.

[volvelle]

The only thing I've read in this genre is some book by Stephen King abour a writer who finds a spaceship buried in her back yard. The premise was OK, but you could actually watch him run out of ideas as the book progressed, until he just gives up and throws in an Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World ending. It was, quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read, and I've read all of Ayn Rand's "novels".

As a side note, if the book you are reading has a full-page glamour photo of the author on the back cover, you are rading a bad book.

[volvelle]

...about a writer..

...you are reading a bad book.



There's nothing more annoying than trying to be all snobby about bad literature and littering your post with typing mistakes.

[elelle]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

So, why are so many bad writers so popular? Does anybody have a theory?

I think it's a lot like fast food; easily available, easy to consume, nicely packaged, and offers a bit of sustenance whilst deteriorating the system designed to appreciate what's entering it.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I am trying to read an alleged bestseller by James Patterson, Big Bad Wolf. My best friend said she couldn't put it down, but it's setting my teeth on edge.

Tell me if it's just me:

LIZZIE CONNOLLY FELT LIGHT-HEADED and she wondered if her quirky blood sugar was acting up again.

She made a mental note to pick up Trudie Styler's cookbook -- she kind of admired Trudie, who was cofounder of the Rainforest Foundation as well as Sting's wife. She seriously doubted she would get through this day with her head still screwed on straight, not twisted around like the poor little girl in The Exorcist. Linda Blair, wasn't that the actress's name? Lizzie was pretty sure it was. Oh, who cared? What difference did trivia make?

What a merry-go-round today was going to be. First, it was Gwynnie's birthday, and the party for twenty-one of her closest school buddies, eleven girls, ten boys, was scheduled for one o'clock at the house. Lizzie had rented a bouncy house, and she had already prepared lunch for the children, not to mention for their moms or nannies. Lizzie had even rented a Mister Softee ice-cream truck for three hours. But you never knew what to expect at these birthday gigs -- other than laughter, tears, thrills, and spills.

After the birthday bash, Brigid had swimming lessons, and Merry had a trip to the dentist scheduled. Brendan, her husband of fourteen years, had left her a "short list" of his current needs. Of course everything was needed A.S.A.P.S. which meant as soon as possible, sweetheart.

After she picked up a T-shirt with rhinestones for Gwynnie at Gapkids, all she had left to buy was Brendan's replacement dop kit. Oh, yeah, and her hair appointment. And ten minutes with her savior at Parisian, Gina Sabellico.

She kept her cool through the final stages -- never let them see you sweat -- then she hurried to her new Mercedes 320 station wagon, which was safely tucked in a corner on the P3 level of the underground garage at Phipps. No time for her favorite rooibos tea at Teavana.

I'd think this inner monologue of a vapid stereotype, who's easily distracted by shiny objects, is satire, but it's clearly meant to make us sympathize with and like the gorgeous, rich, (need I say) blonde chick who (it's on the back cover of the book, but)

SPOILER:

is about to be kidnapped into white slavery!

That said, it's nothing on Danielle Steele - couldn't read that garbage even when I was 12 and enthralled with stuff like Mary Higgins Clark.

Oh, and to paraphrase Stephen King himself, King, Koontz, Auel, and many others write good crap, whereas Steele, Jenkins, et. al. just write crap crap.

[Morbo]

Originally Posted by LiveOnAPlane

I really cannot disagree with you on this, but please take some time and read "Deception Point" by Dan Brown. Perhaps you will then include him in the Top Three.

I was reading that one on vacation by the pool, and set it down to use the bathroom. When I came back the wind had blown it into the pool. I left it there.

[hawksgirl]

Originally Posted by Dooku

I was reading that one on vacation by the pool, and set it down to use the bathroom. When I came back the wind had blown it into the pool. I left it there.

You sure it was the wind and not an informed bookworm trying to rescue you?

[Morbo]

Originally Posted by hawksgirl

You sure it was the wind and not an informed bookworm trying to rescue you?

No, but if the situation were reversed, I would've set it on fire, then thrown it into the pool.

[AuntiePam]

AerynSun, you're being charitable, calling that satire. He uses a lot of words to tell us that Lizzie's busy, but he's told us nothing about Lizzie.

But I can see the appeal. There's no need to think while reading that.

I get the Pattersons mixed up. I think the other one, Richard North Patterson, writes some decent stuff.

[SpazCat]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

I think a large part of it comes down to this one fact: AIUI the Average American buys one book a year.

AIUI? I thought I was up on my internet abbreviations until I came across that.

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by SpazCat

AIUI? I thought I was up on my internet abbreviations until I came across that.

AIUI - As I Understand It

[SpazCat]

Originally Posted by AerynSun

I am trying to read an alleged bestseller by James Patterson, Big Bad Wolf. My best friend said she couldn't put it down, but it's setting my teeth on edge.

Tell me if it's just me:

Holy gods of Valhalla, that was like trying to follow the thought process of a sugared-up eight-year-old with ADD who hasn't slept in a week. Were they going for product placement in that thing or did that have an actual coherent point?

[OpalCat]

Dan Brown, Dan Brown, Dan Brown, and Dan Brown are a few names that come to mind...

[scotandrsn]

Here's my semi-obligatory best-seller post (forgive me if you've heard this one)

I worked in a bookstore about 15 years ago. The really popular book while I was there, the one that we never seemd to be able to keep in stock and seemed to be on permanent backorder, was Possession, by A. S. Byatt. Meanwhile, for weeks on end, the NY Times bestseller list showed Bridges of Madison County as the bestseller in fiction the entire time I worked there, and I'd guess in that time we sold one of the roughly 25 copies we had on hand in that whole time. I also saw books on the list that had not officially gone on sale yet (we'd gotten copies and display material with instructions to set it up on a certain date. Surely THAT many stores were not releasing early?!?)

I asked my manager about this apparent discrepancy, and she informed me that the NY Times bestseller list (a that time, at least) was calculated based on the number of books shipped by the publisher, rather than the number bought at the counters, the logic being that the then-nearly-impossible to calculate demand at the stores would be reflected in the easy-to-track shipments. (Soundscan was just barely coming online for record stores at that time, so for all I know they use something similar for books in the brick & mortar stores now).

It was an open secret in the industry that you could manufacture a bestseller before a single book had sold simply by requiring the purchasers to buy a certain minimum. This is not hard to do, as most large book chains ordered from Ingram. So the publisher would tell Ingram, "you want one copy of this book, yhou take ten thousand", Ingram would do something similar to the bookstores to clear out their warehouses, and Voila! a bestseller no one has bought and read yet, a hit pre-ordained.

Obviously Amazon goes by actual sales, so I'm sure the dynamic for the rest of the industry has changed since the early 1990s. But it helps explain why there is a "bestseller" genre of books.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by volvelle

The only thing I've read in this genre is some book by Stephen King abour a writer who finds a spaceship buried in her back yard. The premise was OK, but you could actually watch him run out of ideas as the book progressed, until he just gives up and throws in an Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World ending. It was, quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read, and I've read all of Ayn Rand's "novels".

Tommyknockers. In King's defense, he produced this one during the height of his cocaine addiction; I doubt he even remembers writing it.


Myself, I'd like to nominate Michael Crichton. There may be worse writers, but none of them enjoys the veneer of intelligence and sophistication that Crichton has inexplicity acquired. The man can't write involving plots, he can't write characters, and he doesn't have an idea in his head that wasn't thought up by a better writer 40 years ago, or ripped off of an article in Scientific American. The man's a genius, yes, but brains don't equal talent.

I mean, I recently read Timeline and I have to say, of the hundreds of time travel stories I've read or seen in my life, that one was undoubtedly the worse. It made Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure look like All You Zombies.

There are much better science fiction writers out there. Why is HE the best selling one? Is it because he doesn't admit to being a science fiction writer? If that's it, there's one more reason to despise him.

[Annie-Xmas]

My #1 pick is always Sue Grafton. She simply cannot write.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

IIRC, Stephen King has said publicly that he had a period where he was so mired in alcohol and drug addiction that he can't even remember writing The Tommyknockers, which is easy to believe for anyone who's read it. It's probably his most incoherent and poorly written book. It's not a good book to judge his whole body of work on, though. King does have talent and is capable of some quite compelling storytelling, but he's hit and miss. He's also in a position where he can publish every single thought that comes into his head without ever being edited and that has hurt his body of work in the long run. A lot of his stuff could be better if it was stripped down and edited right. Some other stuff just never should have been published.

Speaking of bloated, self-indulgent books badly in need of an editor, has anybody mentioned Ann Rice?

[bup]

Originally Posted by Mahaloth

It's really Jerry Jenkins, not Lahaye who really writes the Left Behind books.

It seems very unfair that Lahaye gets co-credit just for telling him what will happen "apocalypticaly".

Agreed. Although I hate the whole concept, I must admit that the 'story skeleton' should be a compelling read, and the story is LaHaye's. But Jenkins writes like the collective Franklin W. Dixon, and doesn't seem to be able to keep details straight, or even see the scene in his head.

[cmkeller]

BrainGlutton:

So, why are so many bad writers so popular? Does anybody have a theory?

Because the average reader doesn't want great literature, they want escapist fantasy. And that means predictable pap like Danielle Steele.

[AuntiePam]

Slightly OT, but I'm reading something predictable now -- The Rift by Walter Jon Williams. Not pap though. It's better than it needed to be. The characters are stock but not cardboard stock, the author did his research, and the dialogue is realistic.

But it's a simple, easy read, and might have been written to fit into the best seller genre, sub-genre apocalyptic.

I guess my point is that books written to a formula have different levels of quality. The Left Behind books are at one end of the scale, The Rift is on the other.

I don't mind formula books, even predictable ones, as long as the writing is competent. I just wouldn't want to read them all the time.

[whole bean]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

I think a large part of it comes down to this one fact: AIUI the Average American buys one book a year.

Because of that, so much of the book-buying is done by people who don't read often, and regularly. Thus you've got two factors that lead to people buying books that many regular readers would think weren't worth a moment's notice: first, a bestseller is a book that others will be talking about - more than that, it's on a list, in most bookselling outlets, that shows it's popular - ergo it must be good; second, if one only buys one book a year - why not buy a book by an author one has read before and liked? So you'll get a known product.

And, as someone who tends to read certain authors above others, I can't fault that second reasoning. I just wish that they'd look at other authors.

Actually, if the average American only buys one book per year, then it's possible that most of the book buying is done by the small number of people who buy more than one book a year. I don't think the Ludlums, Left Behinders, Rice, King, et al. are making it on one book a year people.

[Scissorjack]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

AerynSun, you're being charitable, calling that satire. He uses a lot of words to tell us that Lizzie's busy, but he's told us nothing about Lizzie.

I'm going to be the fly in the ointment and say that the excerpt was a perfectly good piece of writing: it may tell us nothing about the character, but just by itemising her day's itinerary it shows a great deal about her. Admit it, by the end of those paragraphs you have an excellent mental picture of the character - who she is, what she does, what she cares about, even what she looks like - and yet the author has done it all by a glimpse of her thought processes. Nowhere, by the way, does it indicate that we're meant to like her or sympathise with her: no authorial omniscience here. It's not Elmore Leonard, sure, but the technique isn't a million miles away.

[ITR champion]

I have to give the crown to LaHaye Jenkins, two authors who, in this millenium, are apparently unaware that the phrase "Things are going haywire" is no longer part of common, everyday speech. Of course, I'm not considering Terry Goodkind to be a contender for this award, because though he may be a bestseller, he's not an author. Authorship requires the creation of material, not merely photocopying from the work of a real author.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

Christine Feehan - She has a whole series of buttheyreallyaren'tvampire books. Plah!! Enough story line to fill a comic stip, used to glue together badly written "romance/sex" scenes. The woman doesn't even have a large enough vocabulary to write a good sexy scene.

[Sam Lowry]

Originally Posted by scotandrsn

<snip>
(Soundscan was just barely coming online for record stores at that time, so for all I know they use something similar for books in the brick & mortar stores now).
<snip>

There is actually something similar to Soundscan now - Bookscan. It's not perfect but I guess it is slightly better than the old method. Here is a recent Slate Magazine article that tells more about Bookscan that you might be interested in reading.

[dangermom]

I once read a Danielle Steel novel. (At the time, I was 19 and babysitting a newborn cousin, and spent a lot of time on the couch with a sleeping infant on my chest, and it was the only book I could reach. It was there because my aunt (who would never have had it in the house voluntarily) had had the book given to her by a relative who told her she couldn't just reject an author without ever reading her.)

So anyway. It was so, so, so bad! The writing was painful. Her favorite word was 'incredibly.' Every so often, she would throw in a long word and use it three time in two pages, evidently having looked it up in a thesaurus so she would seem smarter. The word would then disappear, never to be seen again. And I couldn't believe how shallow it was, either.

I don't care for any of the other authors listed here, but all of them look good compared to Danielle Steel. And, amazingly, Joan Collins is supposed to be worse!

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Speaking of bloated, self-indulgent books badly in need of an editor, has anybody mentioned Ann Rice?

I've only read Interview with the Vampire, but AIUI Rice is in a class all of her own just for that toys-out-of-the-pram incident where she said anyone who didn't think some book or other of hers was worth the money could mail it straight to her for a refund...

[China Guy]

Ted Bell. Oh my fucking gawd is this shit awful. Run screaming if you see his name. Assasin. Bleech. It's worse than a mindless 23 hour flight entertainment piece of dreck. Arghhhh. I'll fucking kick his ass if he ever is in the same physical space for torturing me on a transpacific flight.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

I think a large part of it comes down to this one fact: AIUI the Average American buys one book a year.

Cite?