On my last post, Maverick asked me if I know of an author who is truly versatile. I started composing a reply, but it turned out quite long [Books is the only subject I can talk endlessly on ;-) ], so that it converted into this post.
Frankly speaking, I have never wondered, or perhaps cared, about the versatility of authors. With some of the authors it feels that if you have read one or two of his books, you've read them all [the strongest case in point being Robin Cook]. But usually, find that even though there is a "specialization" in an author's domain, the content is significantly different. For example, works of Agatha Christie (murder mysteries), Erle Stanley Gardner (murder mysteries + courtroom dramas), and Jeffery Archer (stories of personal triumphs) follow one theme, but most of them are significantly different to keep one interested. Similar is the case with Suspense thriller writers like Alistair MacLean, Fredrick Forsyth and Ken Follet. But even amongst thriller writers, there are some who have chosen a wide range of subjects, for eg,
o Arthur Hailey - Airport (air traffic control), Detective (espionage), In High Places (international politics), Moneychangers (stock market), Wheels (automobile industry)
o Desmond Bagley - Bahamas Crisis (politics/espionage), Spoilers (drug trafficking), Vivero Letter (treasure hunt)
Perhaps I'll call them versatile, because their works are very well researched in the concerned domain, and provides you an insight into the working of a field you know little about. Then there are fiction writers, whose work I find difficult to put in a particular genre:
Eric Segal - Acts of Faith, Love Story, Class
Nevil Shute - On The Beach, A Town Like Alice, Requiem for a Wren
Perhaps I can call them versatile, even though these are mostly human interest stories. But primarily it will perhaps depend on what we call as versatile.
As for myself, for most part, I have a few favorite genres, and few favorite authors in each of them, and grab unread works by them :-)) And time to time, I read books that are highly recommended by friends or media. :-)
Frankly speaking, I have never wondered, or perhaps cared, about the versatility of authors. With some of the authors it feels that if you have read one or two of his books, you've read them all [the strongest case in point being Robin Cook]. But usually, find that even though there is a "specialization" in an author's domain, the content is significantly different. For example, works of Agatha Christie (murder mysteries), Erle Stanley Gardner (murder mysteries + courtroom dramas), and Jeffery Archer (stories of personal triumphs) follow one theme, but most of them are significantly different to keep one interested. Similar is the case with Suspense thriller writers like Alistair MacLean, Fredrick Forsyth and Ken Follet. But even amongst thriller writers, there are some who have chosen a wide range of subjects, for eg,
o Arthur Hailey - Airport (air traffic control), Detective (espionage), In High Places (international politics), Moneychangers (stock market), Wheels (automobile industry)
o Desmond Bagley - Bahamas Crisis (politics/espionage), Spoilers (drug trafficking), Vivero Letter (treasure hunt)
Perhaps I'll call them versatile, because their works are very well researched in the concerned domain, and provides you an insight into the working of a field you know little about. Then there are fiction writers, whose work I find difficult to put in a particular genre:
Eric Segal - Acts of Faith, Love Story, Class
Nevil Shute - On The Beach, A Town Like Alice, Requiem for a Wren
Perhaps I can call them versatile, even though these are mostly human interest stories. But primarily it will perhaps depend on what we call as versatile.
As for myself, for most part, I have a few favorite genres, and few favorite authors in each of them, and grab unread works by them :-)) And time to time, I read books that are highly recommended by friends or media. :-)
5 comments:
Exactly !!
They are all versatile within their own frameworks. Initially I also thought (after reading Coma) that I won't read any other book of Robin Cook but no, they are different. Only thing is one can expect a certain amount of familiarity. That's all.
BTW, so many times I have said in the past. Chalo ek baar aur sahi...
You've mentioned almost all the authors of my choice. :-)
thx for such a long reply to my comment :) yeah as you say everyone has their own genre in which they are good and provide us with a variety of work. What i meant was i've never seen a good romance and a good suspense thriller written by the same author. But may be that's for good, bcos this way if u want to read a suspense u know whom to go to.And thx for all the names, the next time i have time to get started on a book, i know whom to seek for advice :)
@Cuckoo: Well, I agree in general, but I beg to differ about Robin Cook! I find his works hopeless alike, I've read four or five of his novels (Coma, Fever, Fatal Cure, Mortal Fear), and they followed exactly the same track. Not so with others, I must have read at least 30 titles by MacLean, but they dont fail to interest me :-)
@Maverick: Get the books first, and then you can find time to read :-) Wouldnt work well the other way round - if you try to find books when you have time, by the time you manage to find something to read, you'll run out of time :D
i like nevil shute ..and I agree regarding Robin Cook .
@Backpakker: I am glad to find someone who has also read Nevil Shute. Have you read his "requiem for a wren" (also published under the title"the breaking wave") - I feel that is his best!
Post a Comment