NYT bestseller lists
1. THE CLOSERS, by Michael Connelly
2. 4TH OF JULY, by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro
3. TRUE BELIEVER, by Nicholas Sparks
4. BROKEN PREY, by John Sandford
5. THE MERMAID CHAIR, by Sue Monk Kidd
1. ON BULL----, by Harry G. Frankfurt
2. FREAKONOMICS, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
3. THE WORLD IS FLAT, by Thomas L. Friedman
4. BLINK, by Malcolm Gladwell
5. A LOTUS GROWS IN THE MUD, by Goldie Hawn with Wendy Holden
I've only read Broken Prey off that list. I can't stand James Patterson, so I won't be reading that one. I might have to pick up The Closers.
and on the non-fiction list, I'm really eager to read "Freakonomics". The guy was on the Daily Show, and was pretty interesting. "On Bull----" is a tiny booklet containing this guy's essay he wrote many years ago. And "The World Is Flat" doesn't interest me at all - it's about the flattening of the world as far as economies go.
Anyone else read or want to read any of these?
I've heard of The Mermaid Chair. I've read The Closers. (See thread.) I'm lukewarm to James Patterson, although I liked the film version of Kiss the Girls--almost as much as I liked The Silence of the Lambs.
I have heard of and am interested in The World is Flat after reading an interview with Friedman...somewhere. MSNBC.com? Don't remember.
Wow, have to admit I'm not a Lucas Davenport fan at all, after the two I've read in the ...Prey series, but I know you are, John.
Originally Posted by John
As for giving The Closers a try, :yay! I would love the chance to discuss The Closers with you in the thread. (P.S. Even if you haven't read the other Bosch books, it's not a bad jumping-on point, come to think of it.)
My problem with Patterson, in every novel I've read (he may have changed since then, but at least his first 3):
1) He introduces the guy who "did it"
2) He spends the entire novel trying to convince you that everyone BUT the initial guy "did it"
3) In the end, he reveals that the initial guy really did "do it"
It's really quite annoying.
It's a technique that sometimes works, but sometimes doesn't, John. I think if it's overused, then obviously, no, it fails as a "shock technique."
Originally Posted by John
You had me thinking, though, about how various writers handle the "guy who did it" in their books. Really, a few ways to go about it:
1) You, the reader, knows the guy (or gal) who did it ("TGWDI"), and the investigator doesn't, spends the entire book hunting him/her.
2) You don't know TGWDI, and neither does the investigator.
3) The writer wants you to think you know TGWDI. It doesn't matter if the investigator knows or even suspects the identity of the TGWDI. What matters is that the ending is a "stunner" when TGWDI is revealed to you, the reader. (Philip Margolin is the master of this technique, although it grows a little stale over time.)
There may be more ways to approach it, but those are the ones that came to mind immediately.
Sometimes #1 can be fun, as you read about the investigator "catching up" with you, sometimes #2 can be fun if you put it together like a puzzle, and sometimes #3 can be fun...only if it's not overused.
I can't wait to read The Mermaid Chair and The Closers and I love living in Sweden, where all the new English langauge releases are out within a second.
I bought Freakonomics for my brother, John, as the author's controversial arguments/analogies are right up my brother's alley. I read an article about it on cnn a couple of weeks ago and it just sounded very interesting, so I am dying to read it when he's done.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.