50 Shades of Grey.

[Imagination Theory]

Oh, it is so poorly written! I hate it. It reminds me of Harry Potter, so much hype for such shit. There are well written erotica books out there. You'd think 50 shades was the first and only one. Fucking Christ.

[SafeAsMilk]

I thought the writing for Harry Potter was decent, though I only read the first one. Might've read the series if I could bring myself to give a rat's ass about wizard kids.

50 Shades, on the other hand, has some of the worst writing I've ever seen. And I read Phillip K. Dick and Edgar Rice Burroughs!

Also, to the Lovecraft haters: you don't geddit

[epepke]

[quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2051675"]I thought the writing for Harry Potter was decent, though I only read the first one. Might've read the series if I could bring myself to give a rat's ass about wizard kids.[/quote]

Harry Potter, at least, is for kids, so a lot of the clichés and repetitiveness can be justified. It was also the first time that an English public-school story broke into the US.

[Imagination Theory]

The first Harry Potter is okay, nothing too bad as it is for children, but there are much better books in that genre out there, the rest were exactly the same though. Exactly. That is shitty writing.

[Imagination Theory]

[quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2051675"]I thought the writing for Harry Potter was decent, though I only read the first one. Might've read the series if I could bring myself to give a rat's ass about wizard kids.

50 Shades, on the other hand, has some of the worst writing I've ever seen. And I read Phillip K. Dick and Edgar Rice Burroughs!

Also, to the Lovecraft haters: you don't geddit [/quote]

Who doesn't like Lovecraft!? Nasty folks.

[SafeAsMilk]

[quote="Imagination Theory";p="2051681"]
Who doesn't like Lovecraft!? Nasty folks. [/quote]
The Lovecraft hate is happening in a different thread I think, but this seems like as good a place to draw the line as any

[quote="Imagination Theory";p="2051681"]The first Harry Potter is okay, nothing too bad as it is for children, but there are much better books in that genre out there, the rest were exactly the same though. Exactly. That is shitty writing.[/quote]

When I think of shitty writing, I think of unskilled draftsmanship. A person could still be skilled at the art of writing and turn out repetitive dreck. This is the case with many genre writers. But the 50 Shades author just straight-up has no idea how to write. I like Phillip K. Dick because his story ideas are so interesting, even though in terms of skill he's a terrible writer.

[epepke]

[quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2051686"]When I think of shitty writing, I think of unskilled draftsmanship. A person could still be skilled at the art of writing and turn out repetitive dreck. This is the case with many genre writers. But the 50 Shades author just straight-up has no idea how to write. I like Phillip K. Dick because his story ideas are so interesting, even though in terms of skill he's a terrible writer.[/quote]

Awesome. My thoughts exactly, about Dick that is. I've wondered, however, if he made a decision to forego good writing in order to get the ideas out. Man in the High Castle shows some chops, at least with the use of language to reinforce the cultures. However, I didn't really enjoy it a lot, compared to some of his less well written but much more interesting books.

He does sometimes manage to get it incredibly right, but his flashes are brief.

[SafeAsMilk]

[quote="epepke";p="2051689"][quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2051686"]When I think of shitty writing, I think of unskilled draftsmanship. A person could still be skilled at the art of writing and turn out repetitive dreck. This is the case with many genre writers. But the 50 Shades author just straight-up has no idea how to write. I like Phillip K. Dick because his story ideas are so interesting, even though in terms of skill he's a terrible writer.[/quote]

Awesome. My thoughts exactly, about Dick that is. I've wondered, however, if he made a decision to forego good writing in order to get the ideas out. Man in the High Castle shows some chops, at least with the use of language to reinforce the cultures. However, I didn't really enjoy it a lot, compared to some of his less well written but much more interesting books.

He does sometimes manage to get it incredibly right, but his flashes are brief.[/quote]
Agreed. I suspect his drug problem was at least partly responsible for his sloppy work, though I think in general he just wasn't very good. I remember him getting better in later stuff like VALIS, but still...not great. Too busy spitting out amazing ideas and changing the face of sci-fi literature to really spend the time on his craft. Really is part of the character of his writing though, I wouldn't change it for anything.

[epepke]

[quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2051698"]Agreed. I suspect his drug problem was at least partly responsible for his sloppy work, though I think in general he just wasn't very good. I remember him getting better in later stuff like VALIS, but still...not great. Too busy spitting out amazing ideas and changing the face of sci-fi literature to really spend the time on his craft. Really is part of the character of his writing though, I wouldn't change it for anything.[/quote]

Possibly, but a lot of the stuff that he wrote in the 1950s was pretty badly written, too, and he didn't get really druggified until later.

I think his ever-increasing collection of exes who got money from him making him have to crank out the stuff like gangbusters may have had something to do with it.

VALIS was pretty well written, but I do notice that the other two, Timothy Archer and Divine Invasion, had very different styles. Divine Invasion, in particular, was very Dickish.

[Varangian]

An author who names her heroine "Anastasia Steele" got to be a bad writer.

[VazScep]

[quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2051675"]Also, to the Lovecraft haters: you don't geddit [/quote]I am more than happy to put up with Lovecraft's Cyclopean metaphors. At least the guy makes a fucking effort.

[Varangian]

[quote="VazScep";p="2051727"][quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2051675"]Also, to the Lovecraft haters: you don't geddit [/quote]I am more than happy to put up with Lovecraft's Cyclopean metaphors. At least the guy makes a fucking effort.[/quote]
50 Shades of Colors Out of Space.

[Calilasseia]

Please don't hit me for necromancing this thread, but by way of redemption, I offer you this ...

Are these quotes from Christian Grey or a serial killer?

Have at it.

Purely through guesswork I scored 11/15. Which apparently makes me creepy according to this quiz. Oh deep joy.

[SafeAsMilk]

I got them all right, which gave me "Probably a serial killer". To be fair, it was a combination of the quotes being incredibly obvious -- clearly fiction, poorly written/not at all evil-sounding -- and the fact that I've read about a lot of serial killers

[epepke]

[quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2197115"]I got them all right, which gave me "Probably a serial killer". To be fair, it was a combination of the quotes being incredibly obvious -- clearly fiction, poorly written/not at all evil-sounding -- and the fact that I've read about a lot of serial killers [/quote]

A Facebook meme puts it thus: The only thing that makes 50 Shades of Grey "romantic" is that Grey is a billionaire. If he lived in a trailer, it would be an episode of Criminal Minds.

(Scare quotes mine.)

[NamelessFaceless]

[quote="SafeAsMilk";p="2197115"]I got them all right, which gave me "Probably a serial killer". To be fair, it was a combination of the quotes being incredibly obvious -- clearly fiction, poorly written/not at all evil-sounding -- and the fact that I've read about a lot of serial killers [/quote]



I missed the first three, then I remembered your tip for looking for the poorly written ones and got every one right after that!

Thanks! Now I'm "probably a serial killer . . . "

[HelenBromberg]

I gave up on the 16th page, it was too stupid

[BlackBart]

The 16th page was too stupid?