I don’t like James Patterson, and here’s why, in four long-winded personal reasons that most Patterson fans will simply write off as nit-picking, pettI don’t like James Patterson, and here’s why, in four long-winded personal reasons that most Patterson fans will simply write off as nit-picking, petty, or just plain wrong, but whatever:
1) Nobody can convince me that he actually writes his own books anymore. I have no actual proof that he doesn’t, but I’m fairly certain—-based on the circumstantial evidence that I’m about to lay down—-that he does NOT, in fact, write his own books. I’m sure, early in his career, he actually did his own writing. Now, though, I’m pretty sure that he shops his book ideas around to other writers, which is why you never see a James Patterson novel with just his name on it anymore. There is always a co-writer’s name on the cover, usually in half the font size below Patterson’s giant-fonted size name. I’m sure these co-writers are getting a pretty penny in royalties, while Patterson is getting the main credit, but these co-writers are probably doing all the writing. And, I’m sorry, but no writer can single-handedly write the number of books he seems to churn out in a month without the help of a co-writer or a ghost writer getting co-writer credit. Unless, of course, Patterson is on a cocktail of meth, cocaine, and No-Doze. Which could explain the next reason…
2) His writing sucks. He tends to write at a fourth-grade level, which is probably insulting to most fourth-graders. I often can’t tell if his intended audience is young adult or people who think Donald Trump is a genius. To be fair, I’ve read plenty of young adult authors who are far better wordsmiths than Patterson. Listen, I’m not putting down Patterson simply because he writes at a fourth-grade level. It’s also what he writes. The sentences are sloppy. The details he includes tend to be extraneous, while he, on more than a few occasions, leaves out significant details. His notoriously short chapters may make the story seem to go by quicker but it does nothing to improve the actual story. Patterson seems to live by the motto “less is more”, but, in some cases, “less is just less”.
3) I read “The Murder of King Tut”, which claims to be nonfiction (it says so on the cover), but for a book which claims to be nonfiction and, supposedly, full of factual information, there is not an iota of an attribution, credits, footnotes, endnotes, or sources anywhere in the book. The parts set during Ancient Egyptian times (14th century) read like sections from a novel, which is what they are, because I am sure that there is no way Patterson knew what the hell King Tut ate or wore on any given day or who Tut slept with. I could be wrong. Patterson may very well have a time machine, was able to go visit Tut, interview him, talk to his servants and relatives and concubines and the Egyptian man on the street. But I doubt it. If Patterson had simply called his book a “novel”, I wouldn’t be complaining. Okay. Yeah, I would. It would still suck. Sadly, Patterson isn’t just ruining his own reputation with this, he’s also hurting the street-cred of his co-writer, Martin Dugard. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s the co-writer for Bill O’Reilly on all his “Killing” books.) My guess is Dugard did all the hard research and fed it all to Patterson, but Patterson didn’t feel the need to share all the hard work that went into the research. Why not? Because Patterson didn’t do it himself, so it doesn’t matter.
4) Patterson annoyingly interjects himself into his own narrative in such a meaningless and distracting way, that, even if the book were in any way interesting (which it’s not), it actually makes the book more stupid. I don’t need Patterson to tell me, three times, that he knows who murdered King Tut. Especially when, in the end, he essentially leaves the reader hanging with the worst cop-out ending. It worked in the movie “Clue”, but it doesn’t work here. Note to writers: don’t keep telling the reader you know who the killer is and then—-bam!—-get to the end and surprise them with “Ha! Just kidding! I don’t really know who the killer is! Just speculation!” Besides pissing off the reader, you’re actually killing your own credibility. Why the fuck would I ever want to read another Patterson novel after this one? Answer: I wouldn’t....more
Loading...
