Most Over-Rated Author

[Nick Seymour]

Personally I admire any writer who can get published. And it's not nice to put someone down, especially when it reeks of jealousy. But let's face it, some writers you wonder how the hell they got their tripe through to print. So being as cruel and/or honest as you like, who have you read that get highly praised but you personally think is only average at best? Or perhaps just plain shithouse?
Bring me the heads of J.K Rowling, Dan Brown, and that Twilight wench.

[Jon Loomis]

I love everybody.

[Dana King]

I've heard that about you. ;-)

[D.R. MacMaster]

I don't resent anyone of their success, because most writers, even ones I whose books I may not particularly enjoy, work really hard to write them.

Plus, I'd love to have people resent me because I outsell them. I'd hold special parties where people can complain about me being overrated while I laugh at them from a high throne made of money.

[I. J. Parker]

J.K.Rowling is fine. You may have the rest. :)

I've just come across a book that is so abominably badly written as to make my hair stand on end. Still, it found a major publisher and an elegant hardcover edition. I checked the author's background to see if perhaps there were links to publishing, but nothing of the sort. It's a totally unimpressive background that doesn't even hint at writerly interests. So, what happened there?

[Dan Coleman]

Don't know if I'd continue criticizing writers I don't care for, without sounding like a broken record( 'cause I've done it and they don't really deserve it from me), but some of the longest lasting, biggest selling writers, I've noticed, author works I wouldn't take for free if I could sell them at a huge profit(shows my business acumen). Stuff like the Little House On The Prairie b.s. my wife consumes in masses, Janette Oke, et al. But you have to agree these folks must be making huge amounts of money writing for their readers and not looking back, people who're intellectually dull, emotionally starved, or doped on nostalgia. Or they just like to read the stuff. True, they probably couldn't write a great novel, even if they wished it, but they probably don't care, either. It's like the guy who goes to college for years, struggling to get his Ph.D. or law degree, then starves to death, while his brother went to trade school a couple years and makes eighty grand a year working in a shop, making our doctorate friend highly pissed.

Doesn't seem fair to the ones not making it, but it's the way it's always been in North America, with its market forces.

[I. J. Parker]

Quite right. But there's always one's self-respect. :)

[Dana King]

I've changed my opinion about the whole "PhD working in Wendy's" debate. I used to think it was terrible. Then I got older and met a lot of PhDs and came to realize it may be the most overrated distinction we have. What we always forget is even a successful PhD needs someone to fix his car or wire his house or make the tools these other craftsmen need to do those things.

Just as writers, musicians, artists, athletes are not owed a living by their choice of profession, neither is a PhD in History entitled to make a living from it. Sometimes you just have to get a real job. (Written by the holder of a Masters of Music degree working as an IT consultant because, frankly, I just wasn't good enough to work at the level of gig I wanted to work at.)

[I. J. Parker]

Actually, I think it would have been a lot easier to become an auto mechanic, and work as an auto mechanic, and the pay would have been a great deal better, than being an English professor. And that goes double for being the CEO of a company.

[Jon Loomis]

In another life, I'd be an electrician. Those guys make around $85/hour in these parts, with time off for Packers games, fishing, and turkey and deer seasons. That works out to roughly three times my salary, with no papers to grade on weekends.

[B.R.Stateham]

I'm not going to say really bad things about any author. It's a tough racket to be in--so the ones who find a formula to succeed have to be applauded. But. . . . Dan Brown and James Patterson, two of the biggest success stories out there. It's not that their books are bad. Just (for me) very . . . bland.

For the life of me I couldn't see what was all that interesting or controversial about The Da Vinci Code. Stories covering the themes Brown wrote about have been floating around for years. But somehow this one takes off.

Patterson is an okay writer. But there are far more interesting writers out there who haven't seen a crumb of success thrown their way. I don't know whether to admire those who succeed more than I should admire the publisher/marketing groups who are pushing those authors.

[REID JACKSON (pen name)]

You Know I'm published and I wonder how the hell I got published!

[Nick Seymour]

Wow, you are all obviously much nicer than me. I suppose the question is really about how certain authors are lauded even though they might be pretty average. So not necessarily the author that is to blame. Then again some writers just grate on you as a reader.
Good example for me is Peter Carey, Australian writer praised to the moon for books that are as pretentious as they are impenetrable. Why should a book have to give you a headache to be good? Still some people like him and he's made a great living for himself so good for him. For me he's not that big a deal. And yes, I am jealous of his success, but that doesn't mean he can write.