The Greatest Living Authors

Da Shins Kelly

Who are among your favourite living authors? I used to hate Cormac McCarthy - found his work way too tough to read, to the point of being slightly boring. Gave him a few more goes and I've come to love him. He's a great writer, and probably my favourite of those who are living.

Any others?

Bodhidharma

I would say Haruki Murakami, Cormac McCarthy and John Irving are head and shoulders above everyone else. Elmore Leonard is truly great at what he does but its more throwaway.

Denerick

Umberto Eco is definitely my favourite living author.

George R.R. Martin is a pretty cool guy too.

dots03

I would second Haruki Murakami and also add David Mitchell, Michael Chabon and Iain M Banks to the list

Sergeant

Gabriel García Márquez is still knocking around.

MagicMarker

Stephen King?

Corkfeen

MagicMarker wrote: »

Stephen King?

King's flaw is that he kept producing books which lowered the overall quality of his work. Still read far too many of his books though.

Toby Take a Bow

Margaret Atwood. Although I personally think there's been a dip in quality in some of her recent works. Still a wonderful author though.

complicit

Kazuo Ishiguro

Roorah

I'm a fan of Iain M Banks stuff. Partially because I think the fact that he changes between Iain Banks and Iain M Banks for different genres is really handy.

Also a fan of Stephen King. He's written some amazing books and some ok books. But you've a hell of selection anyway!

eclectichoney

Don Delillo, Richard Ford or Paul Auster for me!
I think it is hard to beat American writers tbh.

JM Coetzee is a writer for the ages, I think. Another American I'd rate is Philip Roth.

D-FENS

Corkfeen wrote: »

King's flaw is that he kept producing books which lowered the overall quality of his work. Still read far too many of his books though.

I don’t believe not knowing when to quit tarnishes your early work if it was good (Unless your name is Phil Collins)
Despite King’s best work ending in the 90’s, he still has about a dozen outstanding novels which for me are the best of the horror genre, and I’m not including the Dark Tower in that (Shakey ending, but still an impressive overall body of work considering he started it in the 70’s) or his short stories (I’d welcome anyone’s view on a better example of a short form storyteller).
And Under the Dome and 11/22/63 were a pretty good return to form I think.

But Personally I’d go for Irvine Welsh.

kylith

Mark Z Danielowski. You can't beat him for innovation, IMO.

Sergeant

D-FENS wrote: »

I don’t believe not knowing when to quit tarnishes your early work if it was good (Unless your name is Phil Collins)
Despite King’s best work ending in the 90’s, he still has about a dozen outstanding novels which for me are the best of the horror genre, and I’m not including the Dark Tower in that (Shakey ending, but still an impressive overall body of work considering he started it in the 70’s) or his short stories (I’d welcome anyone’s view on a better example of a short form storyteller).
And Under the Dome and 11/22/63 were a pretty good return to form I think.

But Personally I’d go for Irvine Welsh.

I doubt that even King himself would regard his work as being that of the world's greatest living author.

MagicMarker

Sergeant wrote: »

I doubt that even King himself would regard his work as being that of the world's greatest living author.

Whether he thinks he is or isn't has no bearing on whether he actually is or isn't.

Kinski

Sergeant wrote: »

I doubt that even King himself would regard his work as being that of the world's greatest living author.

Oh, I'd say he does. He seems to have a fairly high opinion of himself.

King's a dumb writer. In his book On Writing, he relates a famous anecdote about James Joyce:

“A friend came to visit James Joyce one day and found the great man sprawled across his writing desk in a posture of utter despair.

James, what’s wrong?' the friend asked. 'Is it the work?'

Joyce indicated assent without even raising his head to look at his friend. Of course it was the work; isn’t it always?

How many words did you get today?' the friend pursued.

Joyce (still in despair, still sprawled facedown on his desk): 'Seven.'

Seven? But James… that’s good, at least for you.'

Yes,' Joyce said, finally looking up. 'I suppose it is… but I don’t know what order they go in!”

In the same chapter, King expresses bafflement that the likes of Joyce produced so few works, asking why a gifted writer would squander their talent - completely missing the point of the little tale he opened the chapter with. He seems to think that producing a lot of work is in itself something to be proud of.

Maybe, Stephen, the reason the back catalogues of other, more respected writers are less prodigious than yours is because they didn't write down every last thing that popped into their heads.

PurpleBee

Yeah I agree with Kinski, reading King's own introduction to Salem's Lot gives the impression that you have something special on your hands. Reading Salem's Lot doesn't.

Cherry Blossom Girl

+1 for American writers.
I've recently discovered Toni Morrison and I'm now a big fan of hers. Her novels really are something special.

Denerick

I'm reading Freedom by Jonathon Franzen at the moment and while its quite good, I've got to question all the fanboyism and hype that marked its publication. Enjoyable and well written, but he's no Dostoevsky.

D-FENS

PurpleBee wrote: »

Yeah I agree with Kinski, reading King's own introduction to Salem's Lot gives the impression that you have something special on your hands. Reading Salem's Lot doesn't.

Was this introduction on the anniversary edition? I don’t remember much of one on the original. As for the book, I thought it was one of the most frightening, atmospheric horror novels ever, and one of the very best vampire stories.

I would agree King has a less than humble opinion of himself, placing himself in the Dark Tower books is all the proof needed for that, and he definitely talks a lot of waffle at times. But for his contribution to the horror genre, and it’s a big genre in literature, I think he’s better than his greatest influence Lovecraft, or Poe or Barker and at least deserves a mention when discussing the greatest living author.

PurpleBee

Yeah it was a 2006 edition that I read which comes with a new introduction by the author.

It reminds me of Ray Bradbury's reflective introduction to fahrenheit 451 which reminisces on how unaware he was of his own genius at the time of writing one of the worst books I've ever read.

stick girl

Milan Kundera, and absolutely Gabriel García Márquez.. two of the best writers on the planet!

page turner

I would have to say Phillip Roth, Jose Saramago and Gabriel Garcia-Marquez

Corkfeen

PurpleBee wrote: »

Yeah I agree with Kinski, reading King's own introduction to Salem's Lot gives the impression that you have something special on your hands. Reading Salem's Lot doesn't.

While I don't consider him to be one of the greatest authors, Salem's lot is a bloody fantastic novel. Plenty of terrible material out there but Salem's lot cannot be considered an example of such.

Anky2930

In my opinion the greatest author is Mr.chetan bhagat,I like his every book very much,His every book is very inspirational.

Valmont

Sergeant wrote: »

I doubt that even King himself would regard his work as being that of the world's greatest living author.

Have you read The Shining? It's a masterpiece. King is very underrated.

Valmont

Kinski wrote: »

King's a dumb writer.

If he is so dumb I suppose he sold 350,000,000 books by accident, then?

MagicMarker

Having now read some of King's work, I wouldn't rate him as a great writer but a great storyteller.

PurpleBee

Corkfeen wrote: »

While I don't consider him to be one of the greatest authors, Salem's lot is a bloody fantastic novel. Plenty of terrible material out there but Salem's lot cannot be considered an example of such.

Salem's lot is the only King I've ever read mainly because it's supposed to be one of his best novels. He just doesn't have the delicate touch of a great writer, everything is too blatant with him. Salem's Lot is pretty good though despite its problems.

Toby Take a Bow

Denerick wrote: »

I'm reading Freedom by Jonathon Franzen at the moment and while its quite good, I've got to question all the fanboyism and hype that marked its publication. Enjoyable and well written, but he's no Dostoevsky.

I was very disappointed by that book, mainly because I was expecting so much from it (due to me stupidly half-believing the hype). Funny thing is, had a similar experience with The Corrections, his earlier 'masterpiece'. I thought it was entertaining, but there were some really badly written parts and characters.

dr gonzo

PurpleBee wrote: »

Salem's lot is the only King I've ever read mainly because it's supposed to be one of his best novels. He just doesn't have the delicate touch of a great writer, everything is too blatant with him.

Stephen King quoted from Cell wrote:

He was naked except for a pair of what looked like brand-new Nikes with bright red swooshes. His cock swung from side to side like the pendulum of a grandfather clock on speed. He hit the far sidewalk and sidewheeled west, back toward the Common, his butt clenching and unclenching in fantastic rhythm.

I know nobody here is going to argue that cell is anywhere near the guys best material (at least I assume not) but I will never forget reading this and being blown away by its utter inanity. This paragraph has all the literary maturity of a school assignment.

Admittedly The Shining was excellent, but every other attempt I've made to read King has been wasted time.


Back on topic: Maybe a little controversial perhaps but Neil Gaiman...?

apsalar

I quite like Pat Conroy myself. For sheer beauty of language he's right up there with Salman Rushdie for me... Tim Winton is the best I've read from Australia and Annie Proulx is also excellent. Boy, I could go on..there are a lot of great writers out there who are very good at their craft.

Barbara Kingsolver is on a par with Margaret Atwood for me and I also like Haruki Murakami. I find Philip Roth boring, but that's just me. Stephen King may not be the best but for me he is the finest story-teller out there. I think his short stories bring out the best in his talents and horror aside, he's entertaining..and what do I open a book for but to be entertained?

Kinski

Valmont wrote: »

If he is so dumb I suppose he sold 350,000,000 books by accident, then?

I said he was a dumb writer, who writes dumb books. The DaVinci Code is a dumb book too, and it still sold by the bucketload. And King's impressive sales can't be attributed soley to his "genius." He owes a lot of the publicity he's had to the many film and TV adaptations of his work, which have often been changed substantially during adaptation.

Take The Shining, for example: there's a story that during production Stanely Kubrick once woke King with a phone call in the early hours of the morning. "Stephen, do you believe in God?" the director asked. "Yes," King replied. Kubrick responded simply, "Thought so," and hung up. Kubrick felt that the heavy emphasis on supernatural phenomena in the novel would only frighten religious sorts, so he downplayed that in the movie, preferring to craft a narrative that was as much a psychological horror as a ghost story.

In you want to read an extended (and very harsh) critique of King's work, I'd recommend the chapter on him in S.T. Joshi's The Modern Wierd Tale.

He was naked except for a pair of what looked like brand-new Nikes with bright red swooshes. His cock swung from side to side like the pendulum of a grandfather clock on speed. He hit the far sidewalk and sidewheeled west, back toward the Common, his butt clenching and unclenching in fantastic rhythm.

Da Shins Kelly

With regards to Stephen King, while I don't think he's very lyrically gifted or anything, I do think he's great at what he does. He's probably the best writer of a horror story you're going to find. He knows how to build up tension and create an atmosphere, and some of the plots are so painfully straight-forward and yet effective. Sure, he's no Cormac McCarthy when it comes to language usage, but he tells a great story, and he's the master of his field. Cannot be touched with regards to horror, I don't think. Pet Sematary is easily his best work, for me.

theginsandwich

Orhan Pamuk is definitely one of the greatest alive today. "My Name is Red" is incredible. Or Gunter Grass. As well as "The Tin Drum" he wrote a novella called "Crabwalk" that is perfect in the sense that you couldn't add or take away a single word (perhaps it being a translation should be taken into account though?). "Everyman" by Philip Roth also had that same perfection, though I found some of his other books, such as "The Plot Against America" and "Portnoy's Complaint" to be of lower quality; the latter in particular was a great disappointment given the hype that surrounds it.

I remain unmoved by Jose Saramago. Perhaps it is the translation, but I found his books turgid, boring, and difficult to follow, in particular due to his idiosyncratic punctuation.

Definitely not Stephen King. He's a great storyteller, but is lacking in other necessary qualities. Though I found his book "On Writing" very entertaining, Joycean anecdotes included.

D-FENS

You're right, his choice of words sometimes..

He was naked except for a pair of what looked like brand-new Nikes with bright red swooshes. His cock swung from side to side like the pendulum of a grandfather clock on speed. He hit the far sidewalk and sidewheeled west, back toward the Common, his butt clenching and unclenching in fantastic rhythm.

Can't believe he chose Nike over Adidas

Dibble

Deleted User wrote: »

JM Coetzee is a writer for the ages, I think. Another American I'd rate is Philip Roth.

Not to be pedantic, but I think JM Coetzee is South African.

Valmont

Kinski wrote: »

I said he was a dumb writer, who writes dumb books.

If your only argument against Stephen King's genius is that he is a 'dumb writer who writes dumb books' then I'll have to ask that you go and read The Shining and come back to us. Otherwise your argument just reeks of unfounded snobbery.

apsalar

How could I forget Gunter Grass? Thank you theginsandwhich

MungBean

What about Rushdie ? Midnights Children and Satanic Verses are already considered classics of the highest order.

Kinski

Valmont wrote: »

If your only argument against Stephen King's genius is that he is a 'dumb writer who writes dumb books' then I'll have to ask that you go and read The Shining and come back to us. Otherwise your argument just reeks of unfounded snobbery.

I've already provided an example of him writing something dumb in one of his books (in the book in which he lays out his ideas about writing, no less). If you want more, then here you go. (the Joshi on Google Books, but you might not be able to access much, if any).

And it's nothing to do with snobbery - some of my favorite novels are science fiction, an oft-derided genre.

eire4

I am a big fan of Morgan Llywelyn for historical fiction, Tim Pat Coogan for history and John Connolly for crime fiction. I also like a lot of Anne Rice's and Issac Asimov's work among others.

Killer_banana

Valmont wrote: »

Have you read The Shining? It's a masterpiece. King is very underrated.

I have a love/hate relationship with Stephen King and The Shining falls definitively on the hate side. I liked the last quarter but overall I found it boring and drawn out.

I think when Stephen King gets it right it's brilliant but he has got it wrong a huge number of times.