Sorry. I’ve written about them recentl;y on this Board. Thought bit weas here.
Fanthorpe never had anything on a best seller list*, but he had a surprising amount of stuff published. It’s all of it amazingly, jaw-droppingly bad.
*that I’m aware of. If he did, it would surely be a cosmic disaster. All the people and books suggested in this thread – Dan Brown, James Patterson, the author of The Celestine Prophecy, Richard Bach, even L. Ron himself cannot begin to approach the awfulness of Fanthorpe in full flower.
Some years ago, I tried reading a Dungeons and Dragons novel…I don’t recall the title. It was awful. The writing was childish and naïve. It read like a high school student had written it.
Nope: one of R.A. Salvatore’s, and on the best seller list. I was so disgusted I tore the book apart.
I’m with Cal: Battlefield Earth is the worst novel I’ve ever read, and it’s probably the worst novel I ever will read. It’s the novel that taught me that yes, it really is acceptable to pick up a book and then to discard it a few chapters in, because I really should have done so with it.
To put this in perspective, the only two bits of science Hubbard actually got right in that book, his stopped clock moments, were:
Herbal tea is good for a stomachache.
Horses operate on principles unrelated to teleportation.
You could probably find Harlequin romances that make for better science fiction than that.
Ahem, lots of men really like The Handmaid’s Tale, too. In fact, lots of people in general like it because it is an excellent book and deserves to be mentioned nowhere near this thread.
there’s a difference between someone who’s a good writer and someone who can tell a good story. King may have a few good stories in him, but his writing isn’t particuarly good. He may know how to start writing, but he doesn’t always know how to stop or edit or to create relatable characters. Crichton is one of the most overrated writers I’ve read. I mean The Andromeda Strain was fun, but nothing else of his that I’ve tried reading was very good at all. Occasionally he has a good idea, but his research sucks and he clearly doesn’t understand his subjects (or doesn’t really care). Clancy knows his subject, but he can be unreadable at times (Red Storm Rising anyone?).
Michener was invited to talk at my university graduation after he wrote Space, and all I could think of while reading it is “what a trashy embarassment”. I couldn’t believe that someone actually read that novel and then decided that he should talk to any graduating class.
Anyway, you might like the books – I like a lot of books that I know are not especially good. And so much that appears on the best sellers lists are simply trashy novels. Because people love trash. And the average person is not particularly discerning.
I hate this when it happens. Some of my favorite British mysteries are the Miss Seeton books, which make gentle, silly, fun of Miss Marple mysteries. I think there were 4 or 5 of them written by Heron Carvic and then dozens more written by people with pen names like Harry Carter, so that at first glance (and usually with “Heron Carvic’s Miss Seeton” printed at the top) you could easily mistake these amateurish scribblings for the real thing.
Finally bought the whole set so that I never will be fooled again.
As for much of Asimov’s output being by committee, having research assistants is part of that, and honestly, even though he claimed to type 80wpm, it is not possible for a person to publish that prolifically on their own, on that wide a variety of subjects. It just isn’t.
I’ve read a lot of Asimov nonfiction. At least 100 titles, across many subjects. They all sound exactly like Asimov.
He had an essentially eidetic memory and wrote 12 hours a day, seven days a week.
And not only don’t I remember that he had research assistants I can’t find any mention of them online. I don’t mean I can’t find a name; I mean I can’t find a reference that he ever used a research assistant on anything he wrote.
From all I’ve read, as well, Asimov wrote all of his own stuff - tirelessly, prodigiously, impressively… but personally. Doubtless he had research assistants.
DrDeth, that’s a book of collected interviews with Asimov published thirteen years after his death. It’s edited by someone named Carl Freedman and published by the University of Mississippi Press. Freedman teaches at Louisiana State University. He wrote the introduction, which is what you’re quoting from. He’s thanking his assistants at the university.
I have. It’s not as good as some of Rushdie’s other novels like The Moor’s Last Sigh or The Ground Beneath Her Feet. It’s not bad, mind you, it’s just not my favorite of his works (that would be Moor, btw.)
.