I was re-reading Asimov’s “Robots & Empire” the other day, and as I was reading I realized it was pretty paint by the numbers hack writing. I used to think this stuff was a masterwork. What happened?
You ever re-read an author and suddenly realize that even if they could tell a compelling tale, stylistically is seemed as if you could see all the clunky clockworks behind the story.
Asimov was always an idea writer. That said, the average published writing skill in the field increased, and the style has changed considerably.
Piers Anthony, on the other hand, is a hack.
The “Sweet Valley High” books were popular when I was a young lass. I read a couple of them because all of my friends did, but never liked them. A couple of months ago, I was at a used book sale and saw one on a table. I picked it up and read a page or so and then had to wonder how I ever managed to get through it, even when I was a kid.
I’ll nominate William Gibson for Neuromancer; it impressed me the first time I read it, but later re-readings just revealed it to be a confusing mess.
I’m almost tempted to nominate Robert Anton Wilson for Illuminatus!, except the books in that series are so trippy I just know he’s doing it deliberately. 
I don’t mean to stir the pot, but Ayn Rand always comes to mind with this type of thread. Fountainhead should be read when you are 17 - but don’t go back to it, 'cuz then you realize how hackneyed, arrogant, and written-from-a-17-year-old’s know-it-all perspective it really is. And her other stuff just shouldn’t be read.
I second Piers Anthony.
Mercedes Lackey too. Tho reading her is still a guilty pleasure of mine.
Stephen King
Kurt Vonnegut
Anthony Burgess
I got a lot of enjoyment out of Piers Anthony when I was younger. He kept me entertained. But I’m scared to go back and read him now.
I loved Frank Baum’s Oz books when I was a kid. I still do, but I can see a fair amount of hackiness in them.
I read quite a few of the Hardy Boys books when I was a boy, but I’ve never even tried re-reading them, and I’m sure it’s best that way.
On the other hand, there are the books we read and liked in our youth without fully realizing how good they were. For example, I read and liked Charlotte’s Web as a kid, but when I re-read it as an adult, I was struck by how very well written it is.
Poppy Z. Brite, especially her first two novels (“Lost Souls” and “Drawing Blood”). When I was 16, it was life-changing stuff - she really got it, man! How could she write such a sprawling, beautiful, insightful novel at the tender age of 18?
I tried re-reading recently (10 years later, at age 26) and my face was literally blushing and burning with embarrassment as I read the horrifyingly pretentious and humiliatingly teen angsty prose.
Franklin W. Dixon was not a hack.
He was several hacks.
Anne Rice. I liked her stuff when I was 13. The folly of teenagers. At least I quickly realized she was a hack after the one where Lestat goes to heaven and speaks with Jesus. Oy.
I felt that way the last time I reread Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land. Part of it, I think, is that he was trying to be edgy and controversial and that since he wrote it, society has caught up and in some cases surpassed him. But there is some crappy writing in it too.
On the flip side, I recently came across a reprint of Bertrand Brinley’s The Mad Scientists Club and, in spite of time marching on with regards to technology, it still is a fun read.
Yeah, some I’d forgotten (mercifully; thanks a lot guys): Anne Rice and Poppy Z. Brite. I’ll also agree with Piers Anthony, although he had a much shorter shelf life for me. I found the first book I read a hoot, but by the fourth or fifth I was more than finished.
I have a lot less admiration for Jack Kerouac, Richard Brautigan and Hunter S. Thompson than I had as a teenager. Mary Shelley, too. And Ray Bradbury makes me cringe. The pioneers of literary movements don’t represent those movements’ apexes.
Sweet Valley High was likewise the work of numerous writers, including a very close friend of mine.
Oh yeah? Neat! Please tell me, though, that your friend didn’t write the one where the Chinese girl (Jade, I believe her name was) wasn’t allowed to dance in public because her father said it was against their religion. That one was truly awful (I gave it a mention in a paper in library school).
Piers Anthony was the first to pop into my head too! I thought he was the greatest author in the world when I was a teen. I spent many a hard-earned babysitting dollar on my paperback collection. I was so proud.
Not too long ago after recommending this genius to my teen daughter I picked up one of his books, thinking I’d relive my youth. ICK! It could have been something written BY my teen daughter.
Ditto on The Hardy Boys. From the ages of 7 to 12, I read 165 of those books (including the Casefiles). After I hit 13, and ever since, I wondered what the hell I was thinking back then.
King I can understand, but Vonnegut? I’m not telling you you’re wrong but I wonder why you feel that way. What books of his did you find to be hack writing?
Good point, Argent Towers. King, Crichton, Grisham - those are things like that could be considered guilty pleasures.
But Vonnegut? Christ, his works were among the best of the 20th century!