[JEV]

Isn't Patterson the author who hires a team of writers to write the chapters to his outlines? Am I thinking of the correct author?
Jen

Yeah. It's factory work.

 

[patrickt]

I read James Patterson a few years ago an enjoyed his books but I seem to grow tired of series before the author grows tired of writing them. So, I quit reading Patterson before his books became "Patterson and ??". The constant partnering would have probably turned me off, anyway.

 

[ChadWilliamson]

Personally, I LOATHE Patterson. Like "white hot passion"-level loathing. I think he's the worst sort of pop writer (though Nicholas Sparks is running neck-and-neck there). He produces books the way Warhol produced art: assembly line. It's not that it's formula so much as it's BAD formula. No imagination, no inspiration, just outlines he passes off to other writers.

And I know he says he does very detailed outlines and he'll rewrite some of his collaborators, but the fact that he sells himself as "an idea man" rather than a writer is insulting to those of us who stare at blank screens every day and try to create something of our own.

I've gotten into BIG fights with his fans, and I'm not ashamed to say that as soon as someone says "Oh I LOVE his books," yeah, I start re-evaluating how much I want to associate with this individual. I've read more than my fair share of crap, sure, but his stuff is just such garbage from word one than it boggles my mind how people can tolerate his brand of swill.

So yeah, don't care for him LOL 

 

[kaotickitten]

I don't think it is all the publisher.  I think partly its the family, and fans when a particular author has died.  Yet when the original author is no longer writing the story just the idea's or outlines you do miss that particular story telling.

Wow Chad to reevaluate wither to associate with someone based on their likes of ligature is kinda harsh isn't it.  I mean everyone has their own opinions.  Some of us like the stories.  Even if they aren't literary genius, they do what we paid for.  Which is to take us away from our own lives for a moment.  Plus what is crap to you is genius to others and whats genius to you could be crap to others.

 

[bordercollielady]

My big question is: Why do people like this stuff so much? Maybe that's like asking why do people eat at McDonalds.

Since you ask... I liked his earlier books because they moved fast (I enjoy that pace in a book) and because I also enjoyed the Alex Cross character (Psychologist/Detective) - as portrayed by Morgan Freeman in Along Came a Spider. And yes - I also enjoy McDonalds every so often.

I've been on this board for a long time - and sometimes - I sense that some posters look down at the mainstream (NYT Best Sellers) book market. I spent too many years in Graduate school reading books I had to read.. Once I got out - I decided I was going to read what I wanted to read and would enjoy. No apologies for that.

 

[kindlegrl81]

I've been on this board for a long time - and sometimes - I sense that some posters look down at the mainstream (NYT Best Sellers) book market. I spent too many years in Graduate school reading books I had to read.. Once I got out - I decided I was going to read what I wanted to read and would enjoy. No apologies for that.

MTE

And as for Chad...deciding to no longer associate with someone because you find out they like a book you do not just seems childish and stuckup to me.

 

[Geemont]

I've been on this board for a long time - and sometimes - I sense that some posters look down at the mainstream (NYT Best Sellers) book market.

There is also a crowd who pooh-pooh the Booker Prize as pretentious tosh. So it works both ways. I've read Booker Prize winners and Patterson. I'll probably read more Booker Prizes in the future, but the chances of reading more Patterson are slim to none. I gave him a shot, sort of enjoyed them for what they were, but it's hard to get real enthusiastic about his works.

 

[bordercollielady]

There is also a crowd who pooh-pooh the Booker Prize as pretentious tosh. So it works both ways.

And to that group - I would also respond negatively. But right now we are discussing this thread and this subject. Maybe its the way I was raised - but I just don't understand - even if one feels that way - the need to state it on a public forum. It only serves to upset people and - in my mind - reflects negatively on the poster. Lets get back to discussing the subject at hand - rather than the worth of anothers' reading choices.

 

[Geemont]

Maybe its the way I was raised - but I just don't understand - even if one feels that way - the need to state it on a public forum.

The title of the thread is "Like him? Love him? Or Hate Him?" so, in my mind, that gives free reign to pile on Patterson if you're in the less than favorable camp. There are some who say "If you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all" and that's all well and good, but when it comes to book or author reviews, you should be honest. If you think the book and/or author is no good, then speak your mind. It's not like anything one is saying Patterson is a bad man because he writes bad books. He may be partly responsible for the bad trend of turning books into near identical commodities, but that, too, is fair game for criticism.

 

[bordercollielady]

If you think the book and/or author is no good, then speak your mind.

I'm going to write one more thing.. and this is my last post on the issue.. its one thing to write about your thoughts about a book and/or an author ( which is what this thread was all about) and its a different thing to write "Why do people like this stuff so much. Maybe that's like asking why do people eat at McDonalds" - that is condescending. And that is my last post on this thread.

 

[Mike McIntyre]

I think he's good at what he does, which is write an entertaining book that has the ability to keep people interested, but I certainly don't feel that he should be considered great. I think great should be reserved for a select few like that of James Joyce. I mean comparing Along Came a Spider to something like Ulysses is like comparing apples and elephants, but that's just my opinion.

I sometimes prefer James Patterson to James Joyce the way I sometimes prefer Gossip Girl to Downton Abbey. But I enjoy them all, even if all of them are not "great." Sometimes I just want to be entertained. Like JL said: Whatever gets through the night...it's alright.

 

[Geemont]

its a different thing to write "Why do people like this stuff so much. Maybe that's like asking why do people eat at McDonalds" - that is condescending.

Sorry you see it that way.

Buy you really need to take it in context. The article I quoted beforehand was about how Patterson turned books into a commodity like brands sold at a supermarket. And it takes readers buying his stuff like a jar of Skippy -- or lunch at McDonalds -- to turn him into a big bestseller author. So maybe it is condescending in the short run, but not apropos of nothing, to ask why readers are happy buying books like they're grocery products. That's the Patterson phenomenon.

 

[rubymatthewserotica]

I'm personally much more of a John Grisham fan as opposed to Patterson's Alex Cross. 

 

[George Hamilton]

If James Patterson offered you $250,000 per annum to write his novels based on his 50 page synopsis, but you had to abandon all your own books for the next 10 years, would you accept? If not $250k, how much would entice you? Authors and readers are welcome to contemplate this.

 

[StephenLivingston]

I don't know him
Best wishes, Stephen Livingston.

 

[ChadWilliamson]

Wow Chad to reevaluate wither to associate with someone based on their likes of ligature is kinda harsh isn't it. I mean everyone has their own opinions. Some of us like the stories. Even if they aren't literary genius, they do what we paid for. Which is to take us away from our own lives for a moment. Plus what is crap to you is genius to others and whats genius to you could be crap to others.

And I know someone else said it seems rather stuck up that I'd judge someone based off of their like of Patterson.
I know it does seem stuck up, and by my own admission it's not like I'm sitting around all day just reading Camus and Foucault and obscure, heroin-addicted hipsters who write nothing but internal monologue; my bookshelves are filled with King and Robert Parker (who wrote a hell of a lot of formula of his own) and tons of what would generally be deemed "pulp" or "escapist." I'm way more likely to read the new Charlie Huston novel than I am something that won the Booker.

The thing with Patterson, though, is just how calculated everything he does feels to me. I know that as a writer, I can't wait for inspiration to happen; I have to sit down and write. I doubt I'll have even the thinnest SLIVER of his success, and I don't begrudge him for it; what I do dislike is the rote nature of his writing, and how nothing is written so much because it's a story I think he HAS to tell, this thing burning inside him, so much as it is to fill a particular marketing niche. He's a former ad man, and his books and his career definitely show that.

So with those who read his books, it's simply discouraging that they've been taken by what is essentially his book-length sales pitch that he generated and then handed off to someone else to write. I'd have less issue with Patterson if he actually wrote the books himself, because that would show that he has an interest beyond simple salesmanship.

I'm sure I've dug myself a deep grave with this, and I apologize to anyone I've offended; I'd invite you to check out my Kindle list and my bookshelves and ridicule my choice in reading (I'll even give you the first one: The Bride and I own all but the last of the Sookie Stackhouse novels). This is just my opinion, though, and I acknowledge to each their own.

 

[jackz4000]

To the OP: Who knows what readers will read in 50 years? JP's work will surely be very dated by then. JP is an entertainer and marketer supreme, afterall he was in advertising for 20 some years and was quite successful. He has taught the publishing industry many lessons on branding and marketing. I've only read a dozen of his books, mainly the Alex Cross books, of the others--some are worse than others.

Some people complain about him and some are jealous of his sales and call him a terrible write etc. He sells alot of books, millions read them, they are easy reads, short chapters, his books encourage people to read--anyone who can get more people to read is Ok in my book.

For the ages? Who knows? Shakespeare's plays were very popular during his day and yet for many years no one though of publishing them until some friends (actors) decided to dig them up and publish them. I think it was 10-20 years after Bill had died. So, history....who knows?

 

[A.D.Seay]

To the OP: Who knows what readers will read in 50 years? JP's work will surely be very dated by then. JP is an entertainer and marketer supreme, afterall he was in advertising for 20 some years and was quite successful. He has taught the publishing industry many lessons on branding and marketing. I've only read a dozen of his books, mainly the Alex Cross books, of the others--some are worse than others.

Some people complain about him and some are jealous of his sales and call him a terrible write etc. He sells alot of books, millions read them, they are easy reads, short chapters, his books encourage people to read--anyone who can get more people to read is Ok in my book.

For the ages? Who knows? Shakespeare's plays were very popular during his day and yet for many years no one though of publishing them until some friends (actors) decided to dig them up and publish them. I think it was 10-20 years after Bill had died. So, history....who knows?

I have to agree. No one can see 50 years into the future. However I think one way to tell if a book has the makings of a potential classic is simply whether it compels you to read it again and again over the course of several years. For example, I could read "Of Mice and Men" once a year for the next 20 years and I would still love the book. However, most books are enjoyable the first time through but are destined to gather dust on the bookshelf once you're done. Is this a foolproof method of determining whether a book is destined to be a bonafide, unanimous classic? Certainly not. However, a book that absolutely demands to be reread is a book that speaks to the heart of the reader, and any book that can do that is a classic in my opinion.

 

[Judy Powell]

I read one of JP's books and it hooked me from the beginning and I did not want to put it down after that.  The opening line was "You're dead."  It had lots of twists and turns that kept me slightly off balance, which is good.

I thought I would therefore love all of his books and so I tried two more.  I did not get through either one of them because one was futuristic (not my favorite read) and the other started off with a brutal murder (had me shuddering).

Although I did not manage to get through the other two books I think he is good at what he does.  He certainly has a following.

 

[David Swinson]

He pays people to write for him. Also, if you're going to write about something, please get your facts straight. It drives me crazy when authors get things wrong. Write about what you know! Patterson writes about Washington, DC and doesn't even know that the Shaw area of the district is in NW, not SE.