Favorite author?

[The Burgomaster]

Of all time:

* Charles Dickens

Of the past 100 years (in no particular order):

* E.L. Doctorow
* James Clavell (probably my favorite of the "modern era" . . . too bad he died)
* David Mamet
* William Goldman
* Jack Kerouac
* Stephen King (at least his older stuff)
* Stephen Hunter
* Michael Crichton

[AndyC]

I would add Michael Crichton to my list, but only what he wrote in the 70s and 80s. Jurassic Park and earlier.

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I would add Michael Crichton to my list, but only what he wrote in the 70s and 80s. Jurassic Park and earlier.

I agree!

[Nightowl]

Stephen King, only author I ever read.

[Couchtr26]

I've never been much of Stephen King fan.  Read The Stand and a few others thinking I would enjoy and his writing style never appealed to me. 

I liked

HP Lovecraft
Agatha Christie (Not much for mysteries but like Poirot in particular)
Clarke Ashton Smith
Jeff Sommers
Jack London
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Read Holmes alot when I was younger but not much lately)
Turgenev
Dumas
Timothy Zahn

[Mofo Rising]

H.P. Lovecraft is always going to make my list.

When I was a teenager, Robert Anton Wilson topped my list. I wouldn't say he tops my list these days, but I got a lot out of his books.

I'd write up Thomas Pynchon, because of my high admiration for the book Gravity's Rainbow. I haven't read enough of his other work to really say much more than that, though.

I can easily list off some comic writers:

Alan Moore is the venerable old man of comics. He's probably better than he gets credit for, and he gets credit for a lot.
Grant Morrison is a drug-crazed Martian, and one hell of a writer.
Garth Ennis gets a lot of attention for the extremity of his stories, but he doesn't get near enough attention for his ability to write characters so strong that they will stick with you for years.

All three of those writers are also hilarious, a characteristic I value very highly.

[AndyC]

I've never been much of Stephen King fan.  Read The Stand and a few others thinking I would enjoy and his writing style never appealed to me. 

I find some of King's books require an actual effort to get into. His stories can take a long time getting up to speed, but pay off in the long run. That's just my experience, of course. There is something to be said for King's slow, rambling buildup, but I did wonder about listing him as a favourite when I feel like putting his books down after a few chapters, but ultimately get a good read after forcing myself to press on.

[Couchtr26]

I find some of King's books require an actual effort to get into. His stories can take a long time getting up to speed, but pay off in the long run. That's just my experience, of course. There is something to be said for King's slow, rambling buildup, but I did wonder about listing him as a favourite when I feel like putting his books down after a few chapters, but ultimately get a good read after forcing myself to press on.

I find his twist interesting at times.  However, I can't stand how he writes.  It seems as though he rambles to create filler to me.  For people that enjoy him, I'm not saying he is terrible just not what I enjoy to read.  I like him in short stories.  He does best there in my opinion. 

[bob]

For me it's Edgar Allan Poe. I've been a big fan of his since I was a kid.

[RCMerchant]

I find some of King's books require an actual effort to get into. His stories can take a long time getting up to speed, but pay off in the long run. That's just my experience, of course. There is something to be said for King's slow, rambling buildup, but I did wonder about listing him as a favourite when I feel like putting his books down after a few chapters, but ultimately get a good read after forcing myself to press on.

I find his twist interesting at times.  However, I can't stand how he writes.  It seems as though he rambles to create filler to me.  For people that enjoy him, I'm not saying he is terrible just not what I enjoy to read.  I like him in short stories.  He does best there in my opinion. 

I enjoy Stephan King. But I do agree,his short stories are much more to the point. HP LOVECRAFT was a story teller-not a novelist. BUT I do think that King is pretty good. When he does do novel length stories that work (some dont) he's trying to get you into the psyche of the main charecters.But I dont get into his epic horror. I would  call it epic horror. Not personal horror,like Lovecraft or Jackson or Poe- Thats very personal horror Which is my favorite. Most of Kings novels involve too many people. I DO like the Shining-because it centers on Jack's slow fall into insanity-and-well-s**t. I like most of his books. But I do like his short stories better.
OK-I couldnt finish the STAND,or DREAM CATCHER. IT took forever to read. Wouldnt that great. Pulp fiction. Dont get me wrong-I like pulp fiction. But not 300 pages of it of one story. King has a talent,and a good one,of taking pulp sci fi or horror and streching it out and making it interesting to some people by making his charecters interesting. I dunno. Some times it works-some times it dont. Hes a great horror author-sometimes he approches classic-but I cant compare him to  Jackson,Lovecraft,Bradbury...King reminds me of a later day Robert Bloch. Gimmick. Sorry to Bloch fans-he has some fun stories-but litature he's not.
I can go on forever about authors I enjoy. But Im talking about  MY best...If it turns you on-READ! I'm just happy that some of us still read at all in this digatal age. personally-you could toss my computer,my cable -I could watch old movies and read books. Some young'ns dont recall the day when all you had was 4 channels on uhf and comic books.Books are a very important part of my life. I have a big collection of books and mags.I LOVE to read.

[Allhallowsday]

I enjoy Stephan King. But I do agree,his short stories are much more to the point. HP LOVECRAFT was a story teller-not a novelist. BUT I do think that King is pretty good. When he does do novel length stories that work (some dont) he's trying to get you into the psyche of the main charecters.But I dont get into his epic horror. I would  call it epic horror. Not personal horror,like Lovecraft or Jackson or Poe- Thats very personal horror Which is my favorite. Most of Kings novels involve too many people. I DO like the Shining-because it centers on Jack's slow fall into insanity-and-well-s**t. I like most of his books. But I do like his short stories better.
OK-I couldnt finish the STAND,or DREAM CATCHER. IT took forever to read. Wouldnt that great. Pulp fiction. Dont get me wrong-I like pulp fiction. But not 300 pages of it of one story. King has a talent,and a good one,of taking pulp sci fi or horror and streching it out and making it interesting to some people by making his charecters interesting. I dunno. Some times it works-some times it dont. Hes a great horror author-sometimes he approches classic-but I cant compare him to  Jackson,Lovecraft,Bradbury...King reminds me of a later day Robert Bloch. Gimmick. Sorry to Bloch fans-he has some fun stories-but litature he's not.
I can go on forever about authors I enjoy. But Im talking about  MY best...If it turns you on-READ! I'm just happy that some of us still read at all in this digatal age. personally-you could toss my computer,my cable -I could watch old movies and read books. Some young'ns dont recall the day when all you had was 4 channels on uhf and comic books.Books are a very important part of my life. I have a big collection of books and mags.I LOVE to read.

I used to read STEPHEN KING.  I gave up after The Tommyknockers which perhaps had moments, but I didn't like that book very much.  I thought the first chapter of It was perhaps his best piece of writing up to that point.  The novel is however so bloated, overlong, and indulgent (published at the height of his popularity, KING was paid "per word"  ) it got just ridiculous.  Pet Sematary was always overrated and KING's swift switch on publishers shows (from Viking to Doubleday, I think.  He went back to Viking, no?) 
I read The Stand three times!!!  I read 'Salem's Lot three times, too!!  I like the miniseries of both, too, but I think the book is better with the latter one.  I do think KING comes out better on screen than his novels or stories (there are exceptions).  THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION movie for example is much better than the novella "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" with some of the best parts added by screenplay (don't believe me? Go back and read the story again!)  I also think STANLEY KUBRICK improved The Shining with his movie (and the movie is more violent).  My favorite STEPHEN KING book has to be The Dead Zone, also made well into a film.  I loved that book best of all, but I think KING's best book (that I've read and I've not read The Green Mile or Dolores Claiborne, both fine films) is Misery.  Adapted perfectly to screen, it's one of the rarest of exceptions in KING's case where the book may be even better than it's film adaptation. 

[RCMerchant]

I agree,John,that the SHINING and MISERY were great films. I cant understand why King thought Kubricks movie sucked. Ever seen the King apprived TV movie adaption of the Shining? Bad. And not a good Bad. I enjoyed the Tommyknockers book...but it dragged out tooo much-as you said. Most of his novels could have been tightend into short stories.
But-I read most of his novels while doing time in jail-so it was good to drag time...thats all you have in jail-time-and a limited number of books in County jail. Need to read,or play cards,or sleep. He's good jail house reading.

[AndyC]

I think King does achieve something by taking as long as he does to get anywhere. When things finally do start to move, the reader is prepared. Reading IT, I had formed a very vivid mental image of the setting and the characters, knew what made everyone tick, and had a good grasp of the significance of what was happening, not to mention getting into the frame of mind of a small-town kid. It increased the tension and excitement when things did happen, and made the climax more climactic. The question is whether it's worth the effort of slogging through the slow parts. And does it have any overall advantage over books that have as much character and plot development, but spread the excitement out more? There comes a point when building up to a big payoff becomes pointless, because people give up before they get there. And if they do stick it out for the long haul, most of the time they spent on the book was more work than pleasure.

I kept reading IT because I knew it would be good in the long run, and I hate to leave a book unfinished, but it was an effort. I agree the book did not need to be anywhere near 1100+ pages.

[lester1/2jr]

Andy C- I read "a case of need" a while back it was really good.


Also my favorite non fiction author is Robert Murphy. He is the leading market anarchist (it's like a libertarian) author/ thinker. His book lessons for the young economist is incredible. You can read the whole thing for free there on PDF.

[InformationGeek]

I would add Michael Crichton to my list, but only what he wrote in the 70s and 80s. Jurassic Park and earlier.

I agree!

I dunno, I thought Prey was pretty damn good.

Michael Crichton and Stephen King are mostly the only authors I read for the normal stuff.  On the comic side of things, I love Geoff Johns' work.  I collected all of his Green Lantern run and parts of his Flash, Justice Society, and Teen Titans run as well.  Great stuff.