The Cull continues . . . when you only like one of an author's works.

[sartorias]

So I've been thinking about what happens when you really love one of an author's works, or maybe two, but none of the rest.

Why is that?

Or am I the only one this happens to?

Comments

[thomasyan]

Have you noticed any patterns, like the one(s) you love being written earlier in their career?

I really loved Patrice Kindl's first two books, and at most merely liked her later ones.

[sartorias]

Yes--the "first book is their best" syndrome?

Sometimes I suspect it's because the first one got edited well and rewritten tightly. But sometimes the author is rewriting the same story over and over. And sometimes a frothy, light, adorable story sparks the deadly "Now that I am writing great literature, I must write Important Things," and the books turn to lead.

[rosefox]

I love Gene Wolfe's short stories and struggle with his novels. For me he works best in short length.

I like N.K. Jemisin's even-numbered books better than her even-numbered ones--if you put all her books on a list in publication order, I like books 2, 4, and 6 better than 1, 3, and 5. (I suspect 7 will break this rule but I haven't read the final version.) I don't know why. I don't dislike the others (except for The Kingdom of Gods, where I found the narrator unbearable), and the ones I like more don't have anything particular in common that the other books lack. It's just how I happen to interact with her work.

I frequently like the first book in a series much more than the other books in the series; it's rare that an author can make later books interesting enough to make up for the lack of novelty.

[sartorias]

I mean to try Jemison's next--I was underwhelmed by the first, but people say they keep getting better.

Agree on Wolfe's short work. (I also feel that way about Gaiman)

[rosefox]

Whoops--I meant "better than her odd-numbered ones"!

I think The Fifth Season is Jemisin's best work by far, but it's really grim. You might do best with the Dreamblood books.

[sartorias]

Okay, noting that down. Thanks.

[kalimac]

There are authors I've avoided reading other books by, for fear either that I wouldn't love the other books as much as I loved the one, or - just as bad in its way - that I would.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a favorite childhood book, but I've never read anything else by Dahl. Ever.

Richard Adams was one I did read most everything he'd done, but nothing measured up to Watership Down, least of all its benighted sequel. With one exception: his nonfiction memoir, The Day Gone By. I loved that book.

[asakiyume]

These are great examples.

[sartorias]

Oh, yes, re Adams.

[steepholm]

Watership Down had a sequel?

[athenais]

That happens to me all the time. Often it's their first book I like and the next ones don't have the same magic.

[sartorias]

Series? Or just whatever they write next, whether or not it's related?

[athenais]

Typically series. Sometimes, though, they start out with the book of their heart, then start to write "what will sell" (for which I certainly do not fault them!) and it's just not the same.

[sartorias]

Yeah, or they get seduced into writing more by their editor and success.

[asakiyume]

I've definitely had it happen that the thing I read turns out to be an outlier and not representative of the author's main work--maybe they mainly write a whole other sort of story. I'm trying to think of an example! It's kind of like liking a head-banging band's one ballad.

[sartorias]

Oh, the music metaphor is perfect.

[houseboatonstyx]

I Capture the Castle ... Greenwillow ... Cold Comfort Farm ... The Wicked Enchantment....

[padawansguide]

Stephen King - The Eyes of the Dragon.

I am not a fan of King but I love The Eyes of the Dragon. It's very very different than his other books - I think I had heard he had written it for his kids? It's not a kids book per se, but it's stylistically different than his other stuff and far less violent/disturbing, while still having gravity to it.