Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This is interesting.
I realize I never 'loved' any author as such. Just the books they write, so it would mean I stuck to 'Genres' rather than any one particular author.
Somehow classics never loose their sheen, and I gave up reading paperback mysteries to accommodate grown up tastes that included 'Murakami' as soon as I could afford them!
That was a great article by the way. Reminds me of how I read my first real novel 'Gone with the wind' when only 14, a borrowed, tattered piece available for one night only between two of us friends.
She read the first half, tore off the few pages that weren't already off the binding, allowing me get to it while she finished the rest before running down in the middle of the night to hand it over! I met her halfway in between both our homes.
An adventure not unlike Butler's riding through war torn Atlanta.
Would I still read Margret Mitchell, if she were alive and churning out war novels that ran up to 500 or more pages? Can't really say.

I think we "fall out of love" with authors when either we or they change. There are several ways an author can "change." They may start out with great writing and great stories but over time the pressure to be commercially successful becomes a detriment to both. Tom Clancy and Robert Ludlum are examples of that kind of change. If your first read by an author is one of his or her more recent works, you may read an earlier book that is disappointing because the author hadn't yet developed the style or storytelling ability you enjoyed in your first read. Some authors do better with one genre or style than with others. I love David James Duncan's fiction (novels and short stories) but his essays leave me cold even though they're, at heart, about the same things.

If we are reading well, our reading should change us. If we allow the books we read to "converse" with each other and with us, we grow and "conversations" we once enjoyed begin to seem a little childish. That doesn't mean those earlier "conversations" have become unimportant or have lost any of their value. It just means they're now part of the memories that make up who we've grown into.

I've definitely fallen out of love with authors before. Most of them fall into the category of trashy fantasy novels that I have no interest in reading or rereading anymore. I still love the classic fantasy stuff from my childhood that made me fall in love with books (Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc.), but authors who pump out one poorly written novel after another don't do it for me anymore (Terry Brooks comes to mind, he used to be a favourite). I guess when I was younger I used to love fantasy for fantasy's sake and now I need more substance? I dunno.

And this is kind of the opposite, but I've fallen MORE in love with Margaret Atwood recently. Her last couple books have been really different from her older stuff and they've made me think she's even more awesome than I thought she was before!

But unlike the person from the article, once I I've decided a book is my favourite, they don't ever get demoted. My favourite books from when I was a kid are still my favourite books and from time to time I reread them for kicks.

I have definitely fallen out of love with some authors. Off the top of my head, I can think of:

Laurell Hamilton
Patricia Cornwell
James Patterson
Nora Roberts
Janet Evanovich

I'm sure there are others. In the first two cases, I believe the fault is with the authors. Their fundamental style changed from the first books. Hamilton decided that sex sells and basically changed her main character from a kick-ass vampire killer to a sex-crazed nympho. Not what I was buying when i started the series. Same with Cornwell - I loved Kay Scarpetta in the beginning. But the lastest books in the series have been torture. She was eliminated from my reading list years ago, though I will still read/reread her older books.

I just plain outgrew Patterson and Roberts. Patterson has no appeal for me. I think his writing style is childish and it annoys me that he keeps partnering with authors to get more books out there to make more money. I think I am just past the straight-up romance phase in my life for Roberts. That was high-school, and I had read EVERYTHING she had written up to that point, but am mostly done now.

Evanovich...just too repetitive for me now. I am up to 14, but they dont hold much joy for me anymore. I'll probably keep reading, but I find myself irked by the characters instead of amused. There has been no growth in 15 books and you could basically interchange any of the plots between books. they are all the same.

*hi5s Bridgit* I'm the same about Laurell K. Hamilton! She did it to her Anita Blake series and then butchered her Meredith Gentry series. Why? It's sex after sex after orgy. I wish she went back to her first books. There was more plot then!

Nora Roberts - repetitive. I will re-read all her older books but I'm done with trying her newer books. Seems far too stale.

Tanja wrote: "*hi5s Bridgit* I'm the same about Laurell K. Hamilton! She did it to her Anita Blake series and then butchered her Meredith Gentry series. Why? It's sex after sex after orgy. I wish she went back t..."

That happened to Robert Jordan's WoT series and Clan of the Cave Bear too...I wonder what's up with long series taking the long road down to smutville.

My tastes have definitely changed. I used to read a ton of mysteries and suspense novels (Jonathan Kellerman, Harlan Coben), a habit I think was influenced by my dad. I read quite a bit of chick-lit, too. Somewhere along the line my tastes changed tremendously and now I don't read, nor particularly enjoy, either of those two genres anymore. That's not to say I wouldn't pick it up again, I've just found myself moving towards general fiction and heavier literature.

Jayme wrote: "Tanja wrote: "*hi5s Bridgit* I'm the same about Laurell K. Hamilton! She did it to her Anita Blake series and then butchered her Meredith Gentry series. Why? It's sex after sex after orgy. I wish s..."

I think Authors can learn an important lesson from some of today's popular television series (Sopranos, The Wire, Lost) Have an endpoint in mind and write until you get there. Just writing and writing and writing more books for a series when the plot doesnt justify it is only going to piss off your loyal readers.

I understand there is pressure from the publisher, but sometimes it really is better to end a series on top, when your readers still value you. I will never pick up another Cornwell or Hamilton series becuase they have so turned me off as a reader on their existing series.

Get out while the going is good. Leave your readers before they leave you.

I was a huge classic reader, but mostly because it was for school (a million years ago) then I got into Stephen King...then fell out of love. Then began getting into the Tom Clancy...then fell out of love. James Patterson...then fell out of love.

I then read Steinbeck's East of Eden and felt completely different than when I was reading Of Mice & Men for school - I loved his writing style!! Around the same time I fell hard for Pearl S. Buck(and then further explored the similar genre with Lisa See & Amy Tan).

I've ventured away with some book list books (some of which have been excellent, ie. The Help), but seem to always come back to my love of Steinbeck & Buck.

IMO, the "falling out of love" with King, Patterson, Clancy, etc. was because they seemed to crank out the books to pacify the masses (and probably their pockets). I was no longer taken to an unknown place with need-to-know characters on a symbiotic adventure, but instead felt like I was visiting a close friend, over & over & over.

I never liked Murakami's novels when I was reading them. Only after I finished Wind Up Bird Chronicle and looked back at all the mystery and music references and alienation etc. etc. I felt like I haven't wasted my time on reading an obscenely long book. Dunno, I was really crazy about magic realism two years or so ago, now that's calmed down. I also tended to avoid 18th-19th century books, but now I enjoy reading older wordier books almost more than contemporary..fun novels. I also read a lot of depressing novels and oh God I had this drugs-related novels phase in 9th grade or so.

I feel like I fell out of love with reading at one point. In college, and especially in law school, my priorities shifted. The book that brought me back was Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides. I needed to be reminded that picking up a book means leaving my stressful world and experiencing someone else's life for a little while. My relationship with reading (as opposed to a specific author or genre) has been a journey of re-discovery.

F1Wild wrote: "IMO, the "falling out of love" with King, Patterson, Clancy, etc. was because they seemed to crank out the books to pacify the masses (and probably their pockets)."

I can't speak for Clancy or Patterson (because I've never read them, although I have heard that Patterson will pretty much slap his name on anything to make a buck), but I can tell you that King is one of my favorite authors. He doesn't churn out books simply to line his pockets, he writes because that's what he lives for. He has always written, even as a little boy, and I hope he keeps going until he can't any longer.

I have a goal to re-read as many of his books as I can this year (fitting them in between other books), and I love his new stuff just as much as the older stuff that I've read a dozen times or more. And Stephen King is absolutely one of those authors that have grown and changed both in their real lives, and in their writing lives.

I can't see myself ever falling out of love with Stephen King. Perish the thought!

To the point of the article, I've never read Murakami. I guess I'm not a fan of magical realism. So far I've disliked every magical realism book I've ever read. It just doesn't do it for me. But then it's possible I haven't read the right one yet either. *shrug*

You would say that. :P

Maybe I'll have to give one a try... one day.

Great topic - I remember loving "The Firm" - it seemed so original and exciting and then what a big letdown when nearly every book afterward had the same exact ending - run off to the Cayman Islands. Some other authors I fell out of love with are: Patricia Cornwell, James Patterson, and Stephen King. But I only broke up with Stephen King temporarily because I'm back in love.

Tammy, was "The Firm" the first Grisham that you read? I was actually kind of disappointed with that one on the whole. My favorite of his is "A Time To Kill" and then "The Rainmaker". If you haven't read those, you should give them a try. :) (Steer clear of "The King of Torts" though. It was boring and repetitive and just... bad.)

I did love "A Time To Kill" I thought it was his best and wish he wrote more like that. I have "An Innocent Man" and "The Testament" sitting on my shelf to read. I'm a sucker, I know. I'll also try "The Rainmaker".

Becky wrote: "Tammy, was "The Firm" the first Grisham that you read? I was actually kind of disappointed with that one on the whole. My favorite of his is "A Time To Kill" and then "The Rainmaker". If you haven'..."

Tammy wrote: "Great topic - I remember loving "The Firm" - it seemed so original and exciting and then what a big letdown when nearly every book afterward had the same exact ending - run off to the Cayman Island..."

I totally fell out of love with Patricia Cornwell after I read a piece about her in biography magazine. Bleh.

Rosemary, that's funny/interesting that a biography could make you fall out of love with someone's writing! What was it in particular?

I've never had that happen with someone I already loved, but I did decide never to read Twilight because of an interview I saw with Stephanie Meyer.

She used/ruined people for her own success without remorse.

Rosemary wrote: "She used/ruined people for her own success without remorse."

Actual people, or characters?

Tammy wrote: "I did love "A Time To Kill" I thought it was his best and wish he wrote more like that. I have "An Innocent Man" and "The Testament" sitting on my shelf to read. I'm a sucker, I know. I'll also..."

Tammy, "A Time To Kill" was his first book, and I also agree it's his best (well, so far, anyway. I haven't read all of them). "The Rainmaker" is a close second, and then "Runaway Jury". "The Pelican Brief" is also supposed to be really good, but that's one that I haven't finished yet.

Definitely read "The Rainmaker" though. It's really good. :)

Becky wrote: I can't speak ...King is one of my favorite authors. He doesn't churn out books simply to line his pockets, he writes because that's what he lives for. "
Oh don't get me wrong, I love King also - so maybe I should have been a wee bit more specific. When he started the series of books under the Richard Bachman name, by his own admission, he did this only as an experiment to see if he could replicate his success. This really turned me off. Honestly, I think he is now back to doing what he started decades ago - great writing again. When I placed his name on my "falling out of love" list I'm sure you couldn't imagine why, but as I said, it was his Bachman experiment as it made its way into my own personal reading journey.

I used to love Harland Coben, Lee Child, and John Grisham, but found myself bored with them after awhile. Grisham lost his edge, but I'm not sure what happened with Coben and Child. Familiarity breeds contempt? I'd now rather read a multitude of books by different authors than work my way through one author's entire work.

actual people that she later put in to her stories.

Hmm... I don't think I've fallen in love with an author before. Though I sure did with some books.

F1Wild, I never interpreted his "Bachman experiment" like that. I saw it as him trying to see if it was the King name that was selling or if it was his work that was selling. You know what I mean? His Bachman books are different than his regular stuff (inasmuch as anyone can apply "regular" to his work, :P), so I don't really know how those results would have been quantified, but someone spilled the beans on his pseudonym anyway, so there's no way to know.

I don't think he was writing under Bachman to try to get more and more money or fame... if that was his intention, he could've just published those books under his own name - they are certainly popular books. By that point he was the "undisputed master of horror" and people would have bought them up like hotcakes. :)

Becky wrote: "F1Wild, I never interpreted his "Bachman experiment" like that. I saw it as him trying to see if it was the King name that was selling or if it was his work that was selling. You know what I mean? ...I don't think he was writing under Bachman to try to get more and more money or fame..."
I agree completely with you - the Bachman books were not just a ploy to make money (I doubt he needs that). My beef is with the premise of the writing.

I know you love King and I love his earlier work myself - just not this collection as it doesn't seem to be, IMO, much different than an author writing just to complete obligations to a contract. I want to read a book by an author writing from his/her heart and soul, NOT to see what the audience will think. That is backward.

You may need to just agree to disagree with me on this one - as our points are both valid.

I have "fallen out of love" with the book The Wind in the Willows. It was my favorite book in high school. I tried to read it a little while ago and just couldn't get into it at all.

We can agree to disagree, F1Wild. ;)
I can't say why King chose to publish under a psuedonym (I have my theory, which I mentioned before, but I can't say for sure *shrug*) but from what I understand, most of the early Bachman books were actually written before he was ever published at all.

So that they were written from the heart or soul or whatever it is in a writer that makes them write, I'm fairly certain. Part publicity stunt? Maybe. Part experiment? Possibly, I dunno! :)

Interesting discussion though. :)

Becky - Indeed.

I have recently come across an author who did not offer a Kindle version of her bestseller. I have no problem with that, as it's a decision - BUT then a disabled friend of mine who is only able to read e-formatted books asked about this via email. She claimed that her books would only be accessed through physical books. She went on to discuss her love of the smell of books, the written page, libraries, etc. Then her book became a movie.

What's up with that?

I dunno... I would maybe guess that she's concerned with the future of publishing and bookselling and that she wants to support actual bookstores rather than virtual and impersonal marketplaces, but I can't say with any certainty as I don't know anything about the author (or even who she is) or what was said other than what you've just told me.

I think that writing (and publishing to a point) are near and dear to authors' hearts, and their reasons for doing something are going to resonate with some, and baffle and annoy others - even if they're explained, which they aren't always.

I personally don't mind much about the publishing thing... Someone is always going to be unhappy with a decision, and you can't please all the people all of the time. That author you mentioned didn't want to go the e-book route, and that's understandable to me, even if I don't know their reasoning behind it. Stephen King decided to release "Ur" only for Kindle, and "The Plant" only as an e-book online. I couldn't say why, but it doesn't bother me. The book is out there, published in some form, and that's what matters to me because I love the author and want to read more and more! :D

As far as the movie goes, I can't really speak to a decision about that... I'm generally NOT a fan of movies adapted from books, especially books that I love, so if I was an author, I would probably not want my book to be made into a movie. Or, I say that now. Movie audiences are completely different audiences, and despite the fact that many many authors write for the love of it, they still need to support themselves.

*shrug* I'm just happy when I have something to read by an author I love. :)

In terms of my personal journey the one author I really remember outgrowing is Lurlene McDaniel. I really liked her books as a middle schooler, but read one a few years ago and just didn't care for it.

i hate it when you "fall in love" with the book, or a certain character. And then they die, or the when the book id finished, you feel so... sad.
it always happens to me, and i hate it! but, i suppose, that is what happens when you walk down the book readers path...
i have always wondered how the authors feel when one of the main characters die... are they prepared for the 'death' or are just as sad as the reader?