Here's an interesting discussion point from the Guardian blog. Many authors are known for one book - but write better ones that aren't as popular or as acclaimed.
Not sure I can comment on any of the authors mentioned here, but it is a cute parlour game. The Dickens I loved the best was Dombey and Son, but it often gets overlooked on the best of lists. Similarly, Tender is the Night, hardly unknown mind you, was so much better than The Great Gatsby.
Of course there is no rule to this. Often writers become known for one book simply because that book is very good - and their other work not quite of the same level. I wouldn't complain too much. Better to write one great novel and ten not so good ones than not to write at all.
The only problem with that post is that the author seems to really despise the fact that certain books have 'made' the authors and, in my opinion unjustly, bashes them. I loved Slaughterhouse 5, Catch-22 and Never Let Me Go. That isn't to say they're actually the author's best books and perhaps do have their faults, but they're well-known for a reason!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tender is the Night, thought I love Gatsby and I'd suggest Anthony Burgess and A Clockwork Orange. Now, I've only read two of his books, and of the two A Clockwork Orange was the stand-out but I know he was unhappy that it was that book that was always mentioned as his masterpiece (well according to the intro/bio in my copy of ACO).
I agree, there is that 'if only' assumption that the public got it wrong, and the Special Reader got it right...
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of uni when my classmates would poo-poo Stephen King or J.K Rowling purely because they made money from their writing and therefore couldn't possibly be contributing anything of literary value.
ReplyDelete