# James Patterson: Hack or Prolific Genius?



## DB17 (Apr 2, 2015)

Lately, I've been seeing quite a few TV commercials featuring James Patterson, dressed in costumes and so forth, promoting his books, which he seems to churn out on a weekly basis. I did a litle research and found that he's worth a great deal of money and has written over 200 books. I also learned that it's been rumored that he doesn't write all his books, and that some of his peers consider him a hack at best.

I have never read any of his work, because fiction isn't my thing, but does anyone have any opinions on this guy? I am just curious.


----------



## Deafmute (Apr 2, 2015)

I haven't read him, but I just have this grating feeling whenever I see him come on TV. He must know how to appeal to at least certain audiences given his publishing record, but I am going to strike out and say his writing is probably not to my taste.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 3, 2015)

He's a workhorse in a category all his own. Obsessively driven. As far as sales go, he leaves pretty much all other fiction authors in the dust.

From this testimony of one of his co-authors, it sounds to me that he understands the craft of fiction quite well, too.

While his prose isn't my cup of tea, his success leaves me envious. :moody:

Though, really, sixteen novels a year is more than I'd want to take on. Yikes!


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 3, 2015)

He's a hack if you don't like his writing/success/him; he's a genius if you do.


----------



## Sam (Apr 3, 2015)

He doesn't write all of those books. They're outsourced to ghost writers and invisible partners, who get credit on obscure acknowledgments pages.

He does do some of the writing, of course, but he isn't some machine pumping out twenty novels a year.

It doesn't bother me whether or not he's a hack, a genius, or anything in between. He was a good writer, but never great, in my opinion. I read his first book many years ago and found it monotonous. The only good thing that came of the purchase was that I discovered the works of Jeffery Deaver when I left Patterson's book in Oxfam.

I'm still buying his novels today, but I've never looked at another Patterson novel since.

I have no inclination to change that now.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 3, 2015)

Patterson reminds me of a CEO of a company, in a way. He's moved past the role of solo creator.

Now he's moved into the realm of mass production. Having a team of writers assist him with his work makes a lot of sense, especially since he's churning out ("Crafting!" he would correct me) one to two novels each month.

James Cameron is doing the same thing with his next three _Avatar_ installments. He hired six screenwriters to help him bang out the screenplays. Though Cameron (just like Patterson) is obsessive and very hands-on; if you were to write for either mogul, you wouldn't be getting a free ride. Your writing would be criticized and challenged every step of the way.

But oh, think of the paycheck!


----------



## stevesh (Apr 3, 2015)

Can't stand the prick. He's the one who started the current fashion of decent novelists farming out work to (much inferior, and often uncredited) co-writers in order to publish more books.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 3, 2015)

He's McDonald's Hamburgers: billions and billions served. I've eaten McDonald's. I don't eat at McDonald's anymore. I'm too good  for it. They go down easy, say a half-dozen in ten minutes, and then I feel like I've eaten a half-dozen pieces of greasy cardboard.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 3, 2015)

stevesh said:


> Can't stand the prick. He's the one who started the current fashion of decent novelists farming out work to (much inferior, and often uncredited) co-writers in order to publish more books.



He didn't start it (as far as I know!). Alexander Dumas was doing the same thing back in the 1800s. That's how we got _The Three Musketeers_ and _The Count of Monte Cristo_.

What's wrong with working with co-authors, anyway? If I write with a co-author (or a team of writers), does that make me a prick, too? 

Perhaps there's a certain level of success an author must achieve before they start attracting the disdain of other writers. If you're a mid-list author, you're probably in the safe zone. Once you reach the top percentile, though, it seems people start to loathe you. :grief:


----------



## Sam (Apr 3, 2015)

It's the practice that people have a problem with. 

Imagine I hired some guy to do my job for ten hours of the day, and I only worked two of them myself, and then I took all the credit for it. Would that not make me a person of questionable character? 

He's making millions selling books that have his name on them, but he isn't writing them. Why wouldn't people feel cheated? It would be like asking for Angelina Jolie's autograph and getting one that was forged by her secretary instead. What good is that? 

If I buy a book that says James Patterson on the cover, I want it to be written by Patterson. I don't want it to be written by Patterson's sidekick for that week. If nothing else, it's false advertising.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 3, 2015)

Hack


----------



## LeeC (Apr 3, 2015)

Sam said:


> He's making millions selling books that have his name on them, but he isn't writing them. Why wouldn't people feel cheated?


Of course "some" people feel cheated, but if he's making millions doesn't that tell you something about societal tendencies? As Bertrand Russell said, "Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim."  


There are people like Aldo Leopold, whose writing people thought was inspired. Little of sound value holds sway for long though, as less than a decade later we needed Rachel Carson to remind us, and look how the materialistic interests fought her. I doubt a majority today (at least under 40) even know who either of them are. I mention this only because to me it adds credence to what Russell said in a blatant way ;-) 


Peace


----------



## stevesh (Apr 3, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> He didn't start it (as far as I know!). Alexander Dumas was doing the same thing back in the 1800s. That's how we got _The Three Musketeers_ and _The Count of Monte Cristo_.
> 
> What's wrong with working with co-authors, anyway? If I write with a co-author (or a team of writers), does that make me a prick, too?
> 
> Perhaps there's a certain level of success an author must achieve before they start attracting the disdain of other writers. If you're a mid-list author, you're probably in the safe zone. Once you reach the top percentile, though, it seems people start to loathe you. :grief:



Dumas? OK, in the modern era, Patterson (as far as I know!) originated this scam. As another poster said above, when I buy a book by Patterson (and I would only do so based on my prior appreciation of his work), I want it to be written by him, not just branded with his name. Before I stopped reading 'his' books, it was obvious who had done the writing in his 'collaborations'.

Writing with a co-author doesn't in itself make you a prick, but it should be a true collaboration (Niven and Pournelle come to mind), not just a hack job by a lesser author sporting the name of a more famous writer to attract gullible readers.

Perhaps not. The loathing usually begins when you sell out (or your family does, in the case of Robert Parker).


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 3, 2015)

There are thousands of people in hundreds of businesses who hire out workers and take credit for their efforts. Who cares? If I like the stories, I really don't care who gets credit for writing them, who collects the paycheck, or what other people call them. If I don't like the stories, I'm not going to buy them no matter whose name is on them.


----------



## dale (Apr 3, 2015)

commercialism and lack of integrity is par for the 21st century. i'm not gonna blame patterson because millions of people
 buy his books, whether he wrote them of not. i don't wanna read them. i'm not being forced to buy them. so i find the whole problem easily ignored.


----------



## LOLeah (Apr 3, 2015)

I don't think I've ever read any of his books (just not what I'm into...) and I've never heard these allegations. My only thought is that if there is any truth to them, it doesn't say much about his talent or style that his writing is so easily replicated.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 3, 2015)

I read one of his books. It had a GREAT hook. Hooks, really. The rest of the book made me feel abused. Bad start, poor characters, poor ending.


----------



## bazz cargo (Apr 3, 2015)

James Patterson is a brand? Sporge my snarblefloops.

I suspect a decent 'ghost' is probably better than Mr Patterson anyway. Lots of series are multi- authored. The Long Earth, Clive Cussler and so on. If there is money in it, it will be done.


----------



## Deafmute (Apr 3, 2015)

It sounds the difference between artistic integrity and simple entertainment.


----------



## Sunny (Apr 3, 2015)

If I'm looking for some good entertainment, and I know I always get that from a James Patterson novel, I'll continue to pick them and enjoy myself for those few hours. I don't care who wrote the book or who gets the credit. I'm buying a story from a name that I know I'm never disappointed with. If his name is on it, I can trust it. 

As a consumer looking for a good read that's all that matters to me. Does a James Patterson book deliver? Yes? Okay, I'm buying it. 

Same reason I pick up _all _of my favourite authors books. I know I can trust the name on the cover. How those words get on the paper doesn't matter to me, as long as I enjoy them.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 3, 2015)

His early books were pretty good, IMO. Kiss the Girls, Along Came a Spider, and a couple of others. Then he let the formula take over and the stories went to crap. He's a great marketer and I don't begrudge him his money, but churning out formulaic book after formulaic book is pretty much the definition of hack to me. His 'style' of writing ADD chapters with tons of white space allows him to get novel prices for novella word counts. I think that is borderline unethical. But I don't waste my money on them any longer, so I don't care.


----------



## Sam (Apr 4, 2015)

Sunny said:


> If I'm looking for some good entertainment, and I know I always get that from a James Patterson novel, I'll continue to pick them and enjoy myself for those few hours. I don't care who wrote the book or who gets the credit. I'm buying a story from a name that I know I'm never disappointed with. If his name is on it, I can trust it.
> 
> As a consumer looking for a good read that's all that matters to me. Does a James Patterson book deliver? Yes? Okay, I'm buying it.
> 
> Same reason I pick up _all _of my favourite authors books. I know I can trust the name on the cover. How those words get on the paper doesn't matter to me, as long as I enjoy them.



I can't trust the name on the cover, Sunny. 

For example: Robert Ludlum was one of the greatest thriller writers of all time. His books were translated into thirty-seven languages and sold millions of copies. Every one of them was excellent. 

Then Ludlum passed away, and someone called Eric van Lustbader decided he would take over writing Ludlum's last book, which then became a contract to write several more, all under the name Robert Ludlum. But van Lustbader could not lace Ludlum's shoes. For instance, the highly acclaimed Bourne series, which was one of the best trilogies ever written, became a series of books under van Lustbader. None of them even come close to the least impressive book in Ludlum's trilogy. The writing in van Lustbader's series is horrible, the characters are flat, and the stories are formulaic and boring. 

So, no, I don't think buying the 'name' means you're buying the same quality that you would if you bought something written by the man behind the name.


----------



## Sonata (Apr 4, 2015)

Sam said:


> ...[snip]...But van Lustbader could not lace Ludlum's shoes. For instance, the highly acclaimed Bourne series, which was one of the best trilogies ever written, became a series of books under van Lustbader. None of them even come close to the least impressive book in Ludlum's trilogy. The writing in van Lustbader's series is horrible, the characters are flat, and the stories are formulaic and boring.
> 
> So, no, I don't think buying the 'name' means you're buying the same quality that you would if you bought something written by the man behind the name.



I always wondered why the later books supposedly by Ludlum bored the sh!t our of me.  I just did not realise they were written by a different "author".  Live and learn - I wonder why many other books I had sounded somehow wrong when reading them.


----------



## dale (Apr 4, 2015)

i do think it's kind of wrong. i mean...i can understand why TOR books did it with jordan's "wheel of time" series. 
the guy died before the series was done. but for a living author to delegate ghost writers because his name is famous enough
to turn a profit on it's own? to me? that's cheating artistic integrity in the worst way.


----------



## dale (Apr 4, 2015)

i'm a sex pistols fan, though. so i guess i can't say much about someone who likes patterson. same difference.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 4, 2015)

I don't think it's so bad. He's past retirement age. He spent years writing books on his own and doing well with them.

Now's the time of his life to spend more hours with his family. Why not let some up-and-coming authors do some of the legwork? 

He still makes all the creative decisions, still plans every single scene. Still decides what happens on every single page. He's not out of the loop yet.

His coauthors seem happy to work under his tutelage. They get their names listed on the cover. They receive royalties. Most of them develop shiny new careers because of the partnership.

His fans, also, seem happy to read his books. 

For those who aren't happy with his writing, they find new authors and all is right with the world again.

Seems to me that Patterson has a great thing going. His process definitely isn't everyone's cup of tea, I get that. But I think a lot of the negativity hurled at him is misplaced.


----------



## dale (Apr 4, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I don't think it's so bad. He's past retirement age. He spent years writing books on his own and doing well with them.
> 
> Now's the time of his life to spend more hours with his family. Why not let some up-and-coming authors do some of the legwork?
> 
> ...



lol. oh come on. he's a prostitute now. it;s not like he's some "noble ass dude" or something. well, he may be more of a "pimp" than a "prostitute".  and i'm not being hypocritical here. if patterson would ask me to ghost-write one of his commercial hooks? i'd do it. i'd whore myself out like that. no question. i've done it for $15 for elance. i'd surely do it for patterson bucks. but it's still whoring. ya know?


----------



## ppsage (Apr 4, 2015)

Read one, didn't like it much. Gun calibers and engine displacements. But I don't much care how he, or anybody, makes books. I don't expect these'll still be in the library, in 25 years though, so no real damage will be done.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 4, 2015)

dale said:


> lol. oh come on. he's a prostitute now. it;s not like he's some "noble ass dude" or something. well, he may be more of a "pimp" than a "prostitute".  and i'm not being hypocritical here. if patterson would ask me to ghost-write one of his commercial hooks? i'd do it. i'd whore myself out like that. no question. i've done it for $15 for elance. i'd surely do it for patterson bucks. but it's still whoring. ya know?



Lol. "Whore" I can't agree with. Pimp, maybe. 

I fear one day he'll turn his gaze from the publishing world to supermarkets and gasoline companies, even bottled water! He'll sign everyone to work for him. James Patterson brand everything!


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm sure all the ghost-writers - not just those _co-writers_ of Patterson's - appreciate the pimp connotations. So does this feeling of moral superiority flow to all authors who employ co-authors, ghost-writers, or contract writers - or has Patterson been specially selected for that honor? :roll:

I've read some of his books, some written solely by Patterson and some co-authored. Some impressed me, some were "meh" - and it didn't matter which group they belonged to. I don't wait with baited breath for the next book to cross my path, but I don't turn up my nose if it looks interesting. Same as any other author(s).


----------



## dale (Apr 4, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Lol. "Whore" I can't agree with. Pimp, maybe.
> 
> I fear one day he'll turn his gaze from the publishing world to supermarkets and gasoline companies, even bottled water! He'll sign everyone to work for him. James Patterson brand everything!



lol. i did read one of his books. a long, long time ago in a land far, far away......ha ha. no. i think i was in jail. it was an ok book in jail.
of course...my library was very limited. but seriously....if i wouldn't have been in jail? i wouldn't have read that crap.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 5, 2015)

I haven't seen many commercials lately. The last one I actually saw around here was one where he said something along the lines of "Buy my next book, or I will kill Alex Cross."

My thought at that point? 

Go ahead.

I have read quite a few Patterson books and, for the most part, I enjoyed them. But, it's gotten to the point where I don't read them any more because the formulaic writing got rather boring.

I won't begrudge him his success. Nor will I take issue with the way he's going about it now. It's his name. His "brand" if you will. What he does with it is up to him. If he's comfortable with the way things are going, so be it.

It's easy for us to sit at our computers, most of us having sold nothing much of any significance, and go on about how he's pimping out his name or how he has no "artistic integrity", whatever the hell that is, when most of us would like nothing more than to have even a fraction of the success that he has had.

I, myself, cannot sit here and honestly say that, given the same kind of opportunity as a result of successfully selling a whole lot of books, that I wouldn't be willing to do what he is doing.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Apr 5, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I haven't seen many commercials lately. The last one I actually saw around here was one where he said something along the lines of "Buy my next book, or I will kill Alex Cross."
> 
> My thought at that point?
> 
> ...




Actually in his latest advertisement he is hawking a children's book while wearing a superhero suit. 

I haven't had the pleasure of reading his (or any of his co-writers) books and I don't intend to either


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 5, 2015)

Some of the early Alex Cross books were quite good.

I saw someone mention his (Patterson's) use of very short chapters. I actually like that particular thing about his writing. It makes it easier to stop when you need to, rather than having to "find a good place" to throw your bookmark in. Granted, the statement seemed to be based more on the amount of "white space" in his books, but having read quite a few of his, I recall that they were written that way from the very first one. I would be loathe to assume that he started off writing that way with the thought "Well, gee. If I make the chapters really short, there will be lots of white space between them. That way, I don't have to write as many words and I can still sell it as a novel even though it won't have as many words as one normally would." I'm relatively sure that was was more of a publisher's decision than it was Patterson's.


----------



## Pluralized (Apr 5, 2015)

DB17 said:


> Lately, I've been seeing quite a few TV commercials featuring James Patterson, dressed in costumes and so forth, promoting his books, which he seems to churn out on a weekly basis. I did a litle research and found that he's worth a great deal of money and has written over 200 books. I also learned that it's been rumored that he doesn't write all his books, and that some of his peers consider him a hack at best.
> 
> I have never read any of his work, because fiction isn't my thing, but does anyone have any opinions on this guy? I am just curious.



To me, he represents the side of fiction writing that serves to supply people with mass-market entertainment, an escape from their lives, easy reading and mindless escapism. Nothing wrong with that—there are many people who love to read this kind of stuff and couldn't give a toss about 'artistic' integrity. I tried to read Daniel X once, and found it to be ridiculous to the point I abandoned ship about twenty pages deep. 

He's a genius-hack-lucky as all hell, but also an accomplished and talented storyteller. To hate on him for succeeding is pretentious by design. Keep in mind, if it weren't for the Twilights and the Pattersons and the Koontzes and the Higgins-Clarkses, we would have no appreciation for the Atwoods, the Ecos, and the Palahniuks. Yin, Yang, all that stuff.


----------



## TKent (Apr 5, 2015)

I personally see a very important place for both. I absolutely enjoy being entertained for the sake of being entertained. Atwood is one of my favorite writers. I don't read James Patterson but I read many others who so many people consider hacks. Anyway, to each his own.



Pluralized said:


> To me, he represents the side of fiction writing that serves to supply people with mass-market entertainment, an escape from their lives, easy reading and mindless escapism. Nothing wrong with that—there are many people who love to read this kind of stuff and couldn't give a toss about 'artistic' integrity. I tried to read Daniel X once, and found it to be ridiculous to the point I abandoned ship about twenty pages deep.
> 
> He's a genius-hack-lucky as all hell, but also an accomplished and talented storyteller. To hate on him for succeeding is pretentious by design. Keep in mind, if it weren't for the Twilights and the Pattersons and the Koontzes and the Higgins-Clarkses, we would have no appreciation for the Atwoods, the Ecos, and the Palahniuks. Yin, Yang, all that stuff.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 5, 2015)

Write what you love and let the haters hate. If you have fans, you're doing something right. :encouragement:

And if you're one of the most successful authors in the world? Well, you can laugh at the haters while sitting in one of your mansions. Maybe even put them in one of your stories so they can be killed off—and watch that story become another bestseller!


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Apr 5, 2015)

I don't know anything about him except one thing. They sell him in my grocery store. If my store deems you worthy of their shelves, that is not good!


----------



## Sam (Apr 5, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I don't think it's so bad. He's past retirement age. He spent years writing books on his own and doing well with them.
> 
> Now's the time of his life to spend more hours with his family. Why not let some up-and-coming authors do some of the legwork?
> 
> ...



This is my problem with much of what's happening in the world right now. You can't have an opinion that goes against the majority without being branded 'negative' or being told off for 'misplaced negativity'. 

Who are you to tell me that my opinion is negative or misplaced? Who is anyone to tell me I'm pretentious for wanting the product that is advertised and not some second-rate novel by this week's ghost writer? 

Stop trying to ostracise people for having negative opinions towards writers. We're entitled to whatever opinion we want.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 5, 2015)

> His fans, also, seem happy to read his books.



My question is simple: how is he going to develop his art if he's losing more and more control of it?

I'm only interested in artists who are interested in making themselves better artists over time. Sure, his stories might be nice, but do I care about the author behind them? What's going to happen once I've turned the last page if there's nothing about the artist worth considering?


----------



## Folcro (Apr 5, 2015)

It's an interesting element, this "he's not the only one writing the book" route... then again, the director isn't the only one who makes the movie, not the technical designer the video game, and rarely the singer the song. As far as I have seen, and I've seen quite a bit, James Patterson's work is enriching, engaging and inspiring on zero level, at zero angle. The prose is dry, intense scenes are rushed through and copped out, the story designs are straight out of a mass market formula book, his characters are one-dimensional. Everything about him is predictable, except for _maybe_ one or two ideas which I would wager his agent was the one who actually came up with and he said "well, mkay."


----------



## Sunny (Apr 5, 2015)

Sam said:


> This is my problem with much of what's happening in the world right now. You can't have an opinion that goes against the majority without being branded 'negative' or being told off for 'misplaced negativity'.
> 
> Who are you to tell me that my opinion is negative or misplaced? Who is anyone to tell me I'm pretentious for wanting the product that is advertised and not some second-rate novel by this week's ghost writer?
> 
> Stop trying to ostracise people for having negative opinions towards writers. We're entitled to whatever opinion we want.



No where did anyone tell you to stop. You have always voiced your opinion just like everyone else on these threads. If any one person is seen as being negative or positive or just somewhere in between, it came from their own mouths. Everyone makes their choices of how they wish to be perceived. They do so on their own accord with their own words, by their own actions. 

We all have our own opinions and we're all free to share them, whether they are agreed with by the masses or not, everyones opinions are valid. To them at least.


----------



## LeeC (Apr 5, 2015)

Cadence said:


> My question is simple: how is he going to develop his art if he's losing more and more control of it?



You're getting warm   Stop and think about what all you see wrong in this world, and why it might be so. Near the end of my visual arts career I was pretty much fed up with art not being about art. At one extreme there are those that will accept almost anything on economic principles, and at the other there are those that have a measure of idealistic integrity. Put the two camps together and this is the kind of discussion you get


----------



## TKent (Apr 5, 2015)

Has James Patterson claimed to be an 'artist' of the type some are referring to in this thread? An author does not necessarily equal artist. It is possible for someone to author books because they enjoy writing and want to do it commercially. They don't give a flying flip about anything except telling a good story for their readers (of which he has many). Not everyone is Rembrandt and thank goodness for that.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 5, 2015)

TKent said:


> Has James Patterson claimed to be an 'artist' of the type some are referring to in this thread? An author does not necessarily equal artist. It is possible for someone to author books because they enjoy writing and want to do it commercially. They don't give a flying flip about anything except telling a good story for their readers (of which he has many). Not everyone is Rembrandt and thank goodness for that.



The blue is an artist, the red is James Patterson.


----------



## TKent (Apr 5, 2015)

Folcro, I feel certain that there is an author who writes commercially who chose that field over all of the others because he/she enjoys writing. I enjoy painting, will never be a Rembrandt, and yet if I could find a way to do it and make a living, I would probably do so. So I have to disagree that only _artists _write because they enjoy it. Enjoying something doesn't mean you are going to a.) be a Rembrandt, and b.) want to be a Rembrandt.  Anyway, we all have our opinions, that's what makes the world an interesting place to live


----------



## Folcro (Apr 5, 2015)

TKent said:
			
		

> Enjoying something doesn't mean you are going to a.) be a Rembrandt, and b.) want to be a Rembrandt.



Precisely: You could be a hack. Like James Patterson.

It just seems to me that in the _particular _case of Mr. Patterson, that if the man enjoyed writing he would, you know, do his own writing? This is why I'm separating the "love of writing" aspect of an artist with the "commercialization" in his case. I can respect pursuing both aims. I'm not a huge fan of Stephen King, but the guy will cut out of social events because he needs to go home and write. And write. And write. As corny as his stuff can be, he doesn't care. He does it because he loves it so much. James Patterson doesn't care either, but for a different reason.

Just because one is an author does not mean they love writing. Thomas Harris openly admits he hates it. He just wanted to get that story out of his head (and I'm glad he did). Is Patterson in that category? I can't say for sure, only that he seems to be.

And that he's a hack.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 5, 2015)

> An author does not necessarily equal artist. It is possible for someone to author books because they enjoy writing and want to do it commercially.



'Artist' isn't some fancy term for the English Lit class to mull over; anyone who makes a work of art is an artist. A novel is always a work of art. So an author is always an artist. 

Do they have to care about their artistry? No, they don't. But if they don't, I see no reason to care about them any more than I care about the person who laid down the pavement outside my house.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 5, 2015)

Cadence said:


> 'Artist' isn't some fancy term for the English Lit class to mull over; anyone who makes a work of art is an artist. A novel is always a work of art. So an author is always an artist.



Understood, but the connotation when using the word "art" with the same weight I think we are here relates to _high _art, which of course is subjective, but not as cut and dry as "everybody is an artist", which is true from its own perspective.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 5, 2015)

OMG - here we go again - if you want to make money, or you make a lot of it, you're a hack, not an artist. Good grief. Spare me from the _artistes _of the world - especially since so many of them can't write anything comprehensible.


----------



## Phil Istine (Apr 5, 2015)

I've never read any of his stuff and after reading this thread, I probably never will.  There's something about this business that leaves me feeling like he is extracting the urine from his readers.  To me, it's not like other work where something can be subcontracted out or where employees can be used to do the work.  To me it would be like buying a Picasso and then discovering that Joe Bloggs down the road mocked up a fake in his lunch break.  It might be libellous to call someone a charlatan - so I won't  .


----------



## bazz cargo (Apr 5, 2015)

If I had a chance to ghost for James or anyone else, with the caveat that I can refuse if I want to,  I'd take the money.


----------



## Sunny (Apr 5, 2015)

It's not like the guy is shackling people up in a dark dungeon and only feeding them water and mouldy bread until they put out the novel he wants to put his name on. 

These writers are not ghost writers. They are either best selling authors themselves collaborating with Patterson or they are some very lucky writers that get offered the opportunity to work with someone who outsells the bestsellers. 

These are very accomplished writers, and have to prove themselves to write for James Patterson. I don't think he's taking advantage of anyone and laughing with an evil intent to doupe the public. He's giving MANY writers a gift. He's giving them the chance of a lifetime. My gosh to write with someone like that would make your career, or at least start it when we all know how painfully hard it is to just get an agent to look at you when you have no credentials to back you up! Who the heck wouldn't want that credential. 

There are a million more fans that love his work than the thousands that complain of how his books get onto paper. 

To write with a such a big mogul would be a gift for almost any aspiring writer/artist.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 5, 2015)

Folcro said:


> Precisely: You could be a hack. Like James Patterson.
> 
> It just seems to me that in the _particular _case of Mr. Patterson, that if the man enjoyed writing he would, you know, do his own writing?



He does his own writing. He writes his _Alex Cross_ novels on his own, while he's writing his other novel series with co-authors. Busy man, that guy!


----------



## Folcro (Apr 5, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> OMG - here we go again - if you want to make money, or you make a lot of it, you're a hack, not an artist.




He's a hack because he's not a good writer.

Why is he not a good writer? Is it lack of passion or lack of talent? Perhaps it was a mistake to try and take it further, but he is not very good--- that's what it comes down to for me.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 5, 2015)

Folcro said:


> He's a hack because he's not a good writer.
> 
> Why is he not a good writer? Is it lack of passion or lack of talent? Perhaps it was a mistake to try and take it further, but he is not very good--- that's what it comes down to for me.



He's not a good writer to you. Many others apparently think he is, since, as has been pointed out several times, he's made a shitload of sales. Now, we could go down the path of "readers are stupid", but it would probably be best just to state that _you _don't think he's a good writer and keep it in the realm of opinion. (I dare say there are more than a few writers you thoroughly enjoy that I could call 'hacks' - or I could just not buy their stuff.)


----------



## Folcro (Apr 5, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> He's not a good writer to you... _you _don't think he's a good writer



Oh... I thought my opinion was asked for. 



			
				Shadowwalker said:
			
		

> Now, we could go down the path of "readers are stupid"



Eh?


----------



## ppsage (Apr 5, 2015)

I thought everybody knew that ALL popular books are written by secret cabals of publishers and demographers abetted by armies of hireling editors and mercenary agents. There's nothing to see here.


----------



## LeeC (Apr 5, 2015)

Love the way you say more than you say ppsage


----------



## Folcro (Apr 5, 2015)

LeeC said:


> Love the way you say more than you say ppsage



Whoa, did a subtle Bible joke go over my head again?


----------



## LeeC (Apr 5, 2015)

Not that I know of Folcro ;-)


----------



## Terry D (Apr 6, 2015)

Just because he makes a lot of money, and lots of people buy his books doesn't mean he's not a hack. It just means he's a very successful hack, and that's okay. I lost all interest in him (after buying a number of his early books) when I struggled through _Big Bad Wolf_. The plot was inconsistent, the writing felt rushed and haphazard, and it ended with three, or four revelations of the identity of the killer. It's this guy! No, it's this guy! No,no, it's this woman! Maybe. It remains one of the worst books I've ever read.

He's McDonalds, not prime rib. He's Coke, not fine wine. He's a Ford Focus, not a Ferrari. He's the guy who paints motel landscapes, not Rembrandt. He obviously writes to generate as much money as possible. A goal at which he has succeeded dramatically. That's his choice and I'm fine with it, for him. But, please don't try to tell me that he's a good writer because he's successful. Those two characteristics are not reciprocal in nature. If you want to eat junk food, eat junk food, but don't try to convince me it's lobster.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 6, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Just because he makes a lot of money, and lots of people buy his books doesn't mean he's not a hack... If you want to eat junk food, eat junk food, but don't try to convince me it's lobster.



Like I said, we could go down the "readers are stupid" road, but I had hoped we wouldn't. Hopes dashed again...


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 6, 2015)

Terry D said:
			
		

> If you want to eat junk food, eat junk food, but don't try to convince me it's lobster.


But it works the other way too, Terry.

If you want to call what you read lobster, call it lobster, but don't try to convince me that what I read is junk food.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 6, 2015)

I don't know what you read, Kyle, but Patterson is junk food, and I think he'd be the first to tell you that.


----------



## Sunny (Apr 6, 2015)

Fact and opinion..... Two very separate things.


----------



## Sam (Apr 6, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> But it works the other way too, Terry.
> 
> If you want to call what you read lobster, call it lobster, but don't try to convince me that what I read is junk food.



If it looks like a duck . . .


----------



## Terry D (Apr 6, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Like I said, we could go down the "readers are stupid" road, but I had hoped we wouldn't. Hopes dashed again...



Bullcrap. I never said or implied that readers are stupid. I would never say that. That's you making that distinction. I never said people were stupid for reading his stuff--just as I never said people who eat at McDonalds are stupid--I said success doesn't mean he's not a hack. It has nothing to do with his readership. From Miriam Webster:

*a* *:* *a person who works solely for mercenary reasons* *:* hireling <party_hack__s_>
*b* *:*  a writer who works on order; _also_ *:* *a writer who aims solely for commercial success*

I don't think there's much doubt that Patterson fits that. And that's okay. He is what he is--a brand.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 6, 2015)

Sunny said:


> Fact and opinion..... Two very separate things.



So, what's your point? Every post in every forum on this site is opinion, not fact. Including yours. But, I'd be very interesting in knowing what anyone gets out of a Patterson novel other than a brief diversion (which is fine). There sure as hell aren't any deep themes, transcendent writing, or extraordinary character insights in his work. If it's just a pleasure read, then how is that not junk food for the mind?


----------



## Jeko (Apr 6, 2015)

> Fact and opinion..... Two very separate things.



Fact: James Patterson is a very successful author.
Fact: I don't care about him.
Fact: There are plenty of stories I would rather read over his.
Fact: There are plenty of stories I would rather see other people reading over his.
Fact: Stephen King would agree.

It doesn't really matter in the end if his work is intrinsically good or bad; what matters is the fact that I'm going to recommend against reading it, and there's no reason why I shouldn't.


----------



## Sunny (Apr 6, 2015)

Cadence said:


> Fact: James Patterson is a very successful author.
> Fact: I don't care about him.
> Fact: There are plenty of stories I would rather read over his.
> Fact: There are plenty of stories I would rather see other people reading over his.
> ...



Oh so many things to reply with and oh so little time in life for stuff like this.  

These conversations always lead to the same discussions with the same people, don't they? 

I hope you and everyone else has a pleasant day! The fact is I really do think this thread is repeating what was said before a million times. 

Factual opinion!!


----------



## Folcro (Apr 6, 2015)

It only gets repetitious when we have to have that philosophical tangent where we talk about what is and is not opinion, which I think we're all smart enough to know anyway so let's get back on topic.

James Patterson is a hack. (BTW DB, I really am grateful you gave me the opportunity to say that more than once in a single thread.)


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 6, 2015)

As writers, we should understand the nuances of the words we choose. Calling any writer's work "junk food" is demeaning. Don't try to say it isn't. And saying that people prefer "junk food" writing is just as demeaning. Say you (generic) don't care for the writer, for the writer's work, for the methods employed - but when you make a blanket statement (such as "His writing is junk food"), you're stating it as a fact, not an opinion. Stringing words together is supposedly our specialty. Perhaps some need to practice more.


----------



## KellInkston (Apr 6, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> He's a workhorse in a category all his own. Obsessively driven. As far as sales go, he leaves pretty much all other fiction authors in the dust.
> 
> From this testimony of one of his co-authors, it sounds to me that he understands the craft of fiction quite well, too.
> 
> ...



Damn, I'll settle for 5 a year tyvm


----------



## Monaque (Apr 6, 2015)

Come on guys, artists claiming ownership for works done by people who worked for them, or were trained by them, has been going on for centuries. It may not have been the literary field but it certainly went on in the visual arts. An artist obtains a good name and then gets an apprentice, or trainee, maybe several. When the apprentice is good enough they start producing works that the "master" deems worthy, he puts his name to it and claims the majority of the money. But eventually they emerged from under their masters wings and did their own thing. It was a way of establishing themselves in the market. It`s up to the writers working under Patterson to emerge and do their own thing, unless they are content to just take the money and go home. For some this is all they want, they`re content to just take a check.
Otherwise why don`t they just do their own thing from the start, everyone else has to.

I haven`t read a Patterson book and don`t really want to. His books don`t appeal. Not that I`m against reading that type of novel, I`ve read lots of Lee Child novels and loved them.

Another subject touched upon is the point about keeping your books fresh. How do you, as an established author with a popular protagonist, keep your books fresh?
Of course that might be the subject of another thread.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 6, 2015)

> These conversations always lead to the same discussions with the same people, don't they?



They do if people complain about the discussion while adding nothing to it. At least you didn't try to refute the facts I stated as opinions.



> but when you make a blanket statement (such as "His writing is junk food"), you're stating it as a fact, not an opinion.



No, it's an analogy - you take your impression of the facts (mass production, mass reception and complaints from various sources about the quality) and find an equivalent in another field of industry. 

I'd rather call it 'fast food' than 'junk food' though, because books like Patterson's are easy to get hold of and easy to get into, and you may want to keep coming back for more. King is another brand of fast food, but I like him more, just as I like KFC over McDonald's - but if I was interested in the art of cooking, I wouldn't say that I'm interested in the culinary goings-on in either establishment, while I could be interested in, say, a Michelin-star restaurant.



> It`s up to the writers working under Patterson to emerge and do their own thing, unless they are content to just take the money and go home. For some this is all they want, they`re content to just take a check.



Right; I have no interest in Patterson, but the writers working for him might be trying to develop their artistry through the experience, so I might be more interested in them


----------



## Terry D (Apr 6, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> As writers, we should understand the nuances of the words we choose. Calling any writer's work "junk food" is demeaning. Don't try to say it isn't. And saying that people prefer "junk food" writing is just as demeaning. Say you (generic) don't care for the writer, for the writer's work, for the methods employed - but when you make a blanket statement (such as "His writing is junk food"), you're stating it as a fact, not an opinion. Stringing words together is supposedly our specialty. Perhaps some need to practice more.



How's this for practice: I used the words I chose to use. Thanks, but I don't need a lesson on word choice.

Steven King called his own work "the McDonald's of the literary world", there's nothing pejorative about it unless you choose to see it that way, and that's not on him, or me. It's no different than calling a movie a 'chic-flick', or another type of writing a 'pot-boiler' or 'pulp-fiction'. Again, I never said anything about people preferring 'junk food'. You keep trying to imply that I have little regard for readers and that's simply not true. So I would ask you to stop putting words in my mouth to suit your agenda. 

I have little regard for James Patterson as a writer. I don't think my opinion--however it is stated--is going to hurt his feelings.


----------



## Monaque (Apr 6, 2015)

Cadence said:


> Right; I have no interest in Patterson, but the writers working for him might be trying to develop their artistry through the experience, so I might be more interested in them


Then it`s up to them to decide if that`s all they want. They can emerge if they want to, do their own thing if they want to. But unless they do they will always be associated with James Patterson.
Perhaps they are biding their time, guess we`ll find out.

Someone did mention Eric Lustbader, but you can tell because it`s clearly printed with his name on it, and he only wrote after the third Bourne book. Ludlam only ever intended to write three, it clearly finished then.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 6, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Steven King called his own work "the McDonald's of the literary world" . . .



:shock:

Mr. King yawns and cracks his knuckles. Forty-two pages since lunch. Hell, he used to do that in an hour. He glances out the picture window of his lakeside mansion and eyes the rippling lake water. His gaze settles on a thin layer of ice as it crumples and stretches along the shore.

His cellphone rings. A tinny version of Lady Gaga's latest hit reverberates through his study. He frowns, flips the phone open, and holds it to his ear. "What is it?"

The voice on the other end of the line squeaks through the earpiece, androgynous and timid. "Sorry to disturb you, Mister King," the voice says. "But you've been mentioned on another writer's forum. This time on a James Patterson thread."

Mr. King's eyes widen. He leaps from his seat, knocking his replica typewriter to the wooden floor. "Damnit!" he yells. "I'm so strapped for cash! I can't afford another one!"

But there's no time to waste. He sprints to his computer room—another oversized study, where another picture window overlooks the icy lake water—and flips open his laptop. As his cursor blinks in the URL bar, his fingers hover over the keys. But damn! The pipsqueak on the phone didn't say where this discussion was! How will he ever find it?

He logs onto WritingForums.com. The writers there always have something interesting to say. Maybe one of them has linked to the discussion about him.

He clicks the mouse. He moves the mouse. His eyes scan down the computer screen.

And there it is. A writer named Terry D, talking about _him_. 

"Oh boy, oh boy," Mr. King says. He slurps from his vanilla milkshake, which has magically appeared in his hand, due to the lazy writing of the author writing this. "What are they saying about me?" he mutters. He likes muttering to himself. It makes it easier on the author to convey his thoughts. "Good things, I hope. My ego is fragile, and I haven't experienced enough success yet to become overconfident."

And then, Mr. King's eyes go wide. He highlights a portion of the text. He squints, rubs his eyes, and reads it again.

"Steven King," the words say. Steven. King.

Mr. King leaps to his feet again, because he tends to do that. His vanilla milkshake crashes to the floor, but although he can't afford a new one, Mr. King doesn't complain. How can he complain about milkshakes in a time like this? For he is the great _Stephen_ King! How _dare_ someone call him _Steven_!

He yanks his phone from his pocket and thrusts it to his face. Miraculously, the phone dials for itself. "Androgynous pipsqueak," he yells into the receiver, "get me my driver at once!"

"I'm sorry, Mr. King," the voice squeaks back, "you fired your driver last week. You said something about not being able to afford him."

Mr. King throws his phone to the wooden floor. "Damn!" he yells. "Curse me and my poverty!"


----------



## Jeko (Apr 6, 2015)

I don't know why the above story is parodying Mr King as a pauper; McDonald's is a very, very successful business.

I also don't know why some people feel the need to defend successful authors who couldn't care less about what people say about them online. Since there's nothing to debate because, as Sunny pointed out, it's all 'opinion', all some of us are being told is that we shouldn't express our opinion, and that's just wrong.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 6, 2015)

Cadence said:


> I don't know why the above story is parodying Mr King as a pauper


That's part of the silliness. 



			
				Cadence said:
			
		

> I also don't know why some people feel the need to defend successful authors who couldn't care less about what people say about them online. Since there's nothing to debate because, as Sunny pointed out, it's all 'opinion', all some of us are being told is that we shouldn't express our opinion, and that's just wrong.


Not exactly. If you read shadow's posts carefully, you'll see that she's pointing out the difference between opinions expressed as such ("I think Patterson is a lousy writer") and opinions expressed as fact ("Patterson is a lousy writer").

It's an issue of wording. Subtle, but the distinctions are clear, and the implications can be huge.

If you say you _think_ Patterson is lousy, you're taking ownership of your criticism and limiting it to your own sphere of perception.

If you say Patterson _is_ lousy, you're making an authoritative statement that extends well beyond your sphere of perception, one that not only involves the author, but one that involves the author's readers as well.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why people might get offended in the latter case. :encouragement:


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Apr 6, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> That's part of the silliness.
> 
> 
> Not exactly. If you read shadow's posts carefully, you'll see that she's pointing out the difference between opinions expressed as such ("I think Patterson is a lousy writer") and opinions expressed as fact ("Patterson is a lousy writer").
> ...




That was excellently said my friend.

Now my own two cents. I can't say my own opinion is that he's terrible. I have a taste for incredibly unique and wild things and that's not what he writes.

So yes I cannot absolutely say he's a bad writer.

But nor can I say his readers have good taste. 

Most of his work is simply topics I abhor.

Typical flood of police things. Investigations.. Ooh, mystery...not really. Too many of those in the world already.

I actually read a bit of Daniel X and Maximum Ride. Interesing premises but disappointing executions. Bleh.

Teenage and young adult novels. Need I say anything?

Lots of murder. Lots of arson too. A lot of heat based wording... 

And witches and occult mentionings scattered here and there. NO thanks there either.

AND THEN--- Children's books. Sure, let me give my child something from that man's mind. Hahah. 

I don't think he's a bad _writer,_ but maybe not the most original. You've got the process down, and apparently you can write a novel for breakfast...

So stretch those muscles! I'd read it if it was unique! 

My sources: He has a website with lists of his work. Hm. I didn't buy anything. Haha. 

So pick up my pennies or leave them. Either way I leave my two cents here.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 6, 2015)

> It's an issue of wording. Subtle, but the distinctions are clear, and the implications can be huge.
> 
> If you say you _think Patterson is lousy, you're taking ownership of your criticism and limiting it to your own sphere of perception.
> 
> If you say Patterson is lousy, you're making an authoritative statement that extends well beyond your sphere of perception, one that not only involves the author, but one that involves the author's readers as well._



I don't know where this perspective comes from, but it isn't healthy for the forum.

'Fact' mutually exists because it is recognised as being so by a larger body than the one spouting it; wording has nothing to do with it. If I say Patterson is a lousy writer, it's my opinion. It's also my opinion that it's a fact. But for someone else, it may not be their opinion, and it may not be their opinion that it it is a fact. That would also be their opinion.

Just because I can't _prove _to you that Patterson is a lousy writer doesn't mean I can't say it. It's my opinion. No member should have to be policed for not putting 'I think' in front of their views. If you don't agree with me, see how long it would take to edit every post so that every member prefaces what's obviously their opinion with 'I think', and see how few people care.

The only 'implications' are the one's you're creating in order to fuel an argument that only diverts from the main purpose of the thread.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 6, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> If you say Patterson _is_ lousy, you're making an authoritative statement that extends well beyond your sphere of perception, one that not only involves the author, but one that involves the author's readers as well.
> 
> It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why people might get offended in the latter case. :encouragement:



I've always been one for word efficiency: say what you need to say as simply and direct as possible. 

We all learned in kindergarten, maybe first grade, what an opinion is and what a fact is; so I don't see why I should have to tag every opinion I give with a disclaimer, especially when my opinion is asked for. I can see the appeal in doing so, it can give a more welcoming tone. I don't see how saying "I think so-so is a bad writer" and "so-so is a bad writer" will change the implications of what I think about so-so's readers (which you're reading a little too deep to see, in my opinion). It would be like saying "You're stupid, in my personal opinion" instead of "You're stupid." Not very useful difference.

But honestly, if you're going to be offended by someone boldly proclaiming their opinion, and not using just the right choice of words... maybe the internet just isn't for you. :encouragement: (the general "you" of course)

And James Patterson's a hack.


----------



## Sunny (Apr 6, 2015)

Cadence said:


> They do if people complain about the discussion while adding nothing to it. At least you didn't try to refute the facts I stated as opinions.



Oh Cadence, I don't feel I need to refute any such facts. I understand what you were trying to tell me. And I found myself having a ton of things to say back to you. I wrote and deleted and wrote and deleted. I decided to leave my deletions there for a reason. 

I find I get annoyed sometimes with these silly conversations and the pissy feelings that they make people (me) feel. I don't like to get wrapped up in this sort of stuff. 

I know there are a lot of people that like to state their opinions and will do so long after they've stated them a ton of times, but I'm not very good at that to be honest. 

I don't like feeling how these threads sometimes make me feel, so I'd rather say nothing at all instead of allowing myself to say things or behave in a way that I would rather not. I don't like when random strangers on the internet get me worked up over stuff that has zero importance in my life. 

I have too much going on in my own little world. I don't need negative feelings following me around from opinionated people that have nothing to do with my everyday life. It's too easy to get pulled into silly little arguments and I don't like to be upset with myself for joining in on second grade nitpicking at one another.


----------



## J Anfinson (Apr 6, 2015)

​Play nice or the thread gets locked.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 6, 2015)

Cadence said:


> I don't know where this perspective comes from, but it isn't healthy for the forum.
> 
> 'Fact' mutually exists because it is recognised as being so by a larger body than the one spouting it; wording has nothing to do with it. If I say Patterson is a lousy writer, it's my opinion. It's also my opinion that it's a fact. But for someone else, it may not be their opinion, and it may not be their opinion that it it is a fact. That would also be their opinion.
> 
> ...



^This actually made my head hurt a little. LOL

Once I took a couple of aspirin and figured it out, I would have to say that I couldn't agree more. 

The way I see it, if I say someone is a lousy writer, in my own mind, based on my opinion of their work, it is a fact.

I have said many times that I despise Jean Auel's work. It is a _fact _that it is horribly wordy and intensely boring. There are those who disagree with me and may take umbrage with me saying that her writing blows donkeys in such a factual way, but still, to me, it's a fact.


----------



## stevesh (Apr 7, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> If you say you _think_ Patterson is lousy, you're taking ownership of your criticism and limiting it to your own sphere of perception.
> 
> If you say Patterson _is_ lousy, you're making an authoritative statement that extends well beyond your sphere of perception, one that not only involves the author, but one that involves the author's readers as well.



Sez the guy who posted this, above:

"He still makes all the creative decisions, still plans every single  scene. Still decides what happens on every single page. He's not out of  the loop yet."

[citation needed]


----------



## Jeko (Apr 7, 2015)

One thing I will say about Patterson is that I like him as an advert for fiction. He's done good work in promoting the need for bookstores, libraries etc. and sales of his stories have helped keep the Good Ship Literature afloat. 

I would rather a more inspiring writer do what he does, but we get what we get. I'll thank him for what he's done, advise my close friends to look for better stories than his, and leave the rest of the world to keep filling his pockets.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 7, 2015)

"In my opinion" and "I think" are the dialogue tags of forum posting. Once you've established that your posts are, in fact, opinions they don't need to be used every time. Readers are intelligent enough to understand opinions for what they are. At least I think they are. Apparently others feel we need to hand-hold our readers (and those who read our posts here are readers) and treat treat them as if they read at remedial levels.

I won't do that. Readers do not need to be protected from my opinion.

All this consternation just because I used a 'junk-food' metaphor about Patterson's work? If you don't agree, prove me wrong. Show me the elements of his work which go beyond quick diversion. That's all his work is intended to be. He's not trying to enhance the human condition, or evolve the language, or explore the depths of his character's personalities. He's giving readers a quick, fun, read.* And that's okay*. But, how is it not analogous to grabbing a bag of popcorn, or a Big Mac, or box of Thin Mint Girl Scout cookies?


----------



## Monaque (Apr 7, 2015)

Sadly this thread seems to have veered off topic, it should be about the writing model shown by Patterson surely. About whether writing under another writers name is a valid reason to write. 
Wasn`t this what the guy who started it wanted to know?


----------



## Kevin (Apr 7, 2015)

M- I think it was  'What do you think of Patterson?' 


> how is it not analogous to grabbing a bag of popcorn, or a Big Mac, or box of Thin Mint Girl Scout cookies?


 Those at least don't rot your brain. 
And Sunny, I'm worried about you. 

I don't know that I'd call him a hack. I think of a hack as someone that does a poor job. I think he achieves exactly what he sets out to.


----------



## Pluralized (Apr 7, 2015)

All the stuff disparaging Patterson's work (and directly the man, like 'hack') could be directed at any number of mass-market authors, insults lobbed by any one of the high-brow literati that frequent this site. You know, the same group that like to say things like 'Tell the Damn Story' when arguing the other side of the issue... 

But then again, there are any number of readers and writers on this site that could hurl the same kind of invective against the dry, stuffy legends of literary history, like Joyce and Dickinson, talking about how readers 'just want to be entertained and to hell with all the purple prose!'

Of course, they're all opinions and should be viewed as such, which I thought went without saying.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 7, 2015)

Terry D said:


> All this consternation just because I used a 'junk-food' metaphor about Patterson's work? If you don't agree, prove me wrong.


From Patterson's fans:

"My favorite Author."
"HE IS GREAT"
"Best mystery writer there is."
"Thank you. Best author ever keep the stories coming"
— https://www.facebook.com/JamesPatterson

From other bestselling authors:

"It's no mystery why James Patterson is the world's most popular thriller writer: his uncanny skill in creating living, breathing characters we truly feel for and seamless, lightning-fast plots. I do this for a living, and he still manages to keep me guessing from the first to last page. Simply put: Nobody does it better." — *Jeffery Deaver*, author of the _Lincoln Rhyme _series

"Behind all the noise and the numbers, we shouldn't forget that no one gets this big without amazing natural storytelling talent--which is what James Patterson has, in spades. The Alex Cross series proves it." — *Lee Child*, author of the _Jack Reacher_ series

The way I see it: it's all a matter of personal taste.

Sure, we can call Patterson (or any other successful author) "junk food" or "garbage" or "lousy", or whatever terms we feel apply, and we have all the freedom in the world to believe it and say it—just as long we're okay with the fact that there will always be others who may disagree with us, and their opinions are equally valid. :encouragement:


----------



## Kevin (Apr 7, 2015)

After reading all this (most all of this) I think I've been convinced: Prolific Genius, at what he does.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 7, 2015)

Cadence said:


> 'Fact' mutually exists because it is recognised as being so by a larger body than the one spouting it; wording has nothing to do with it.



Oh my. So the world really was flat for all those years...


----------



## Pluralized (Apr 7, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Oh my. So the world really was flat for all those years...



It's worked well for Religion for a long time!


----------



## Jeko (Apr 7, 2015)

> The way I see it: it's all a matter of personal taste.



And the discussion stalls again.

We know everyone has a different opinion. What some of us are asking for is a discussion into why certain opinions are more valid. So validate Deaver's opinion. Validate Child's. Validate those random fans.

I'm doing history coursework at the moment, and one of the skills we have to use is critical evaluation. That doesn't mean simply referencing that someone said something - like, for example, 'Hitler was a weak dictator'. It means going behind-the-scenes and working out where that view came from and whether it's valid or not.

 I can, for example, notice that Child's and Deaver's views are used as advertisements for Patterson on his books and website. Authors are often happy to advertise one another; hence the hyperbole of 'nobody does it better'. No author, however, would say that no-one does it worse. Stephen King just thinks he's just a 'terrible' storyteller; no comparison or exaggeration. 

The fast-food analogy is also furthered by Patterson's own view on his craft:

_Patterson, who now lives in Florida, makes no claim to literary pretension, just good storytelling. “The sentences [in his previous work] are superior to a lot of the stuff I write now,” he told the Times about his first novel, “but the story isn’t as good.”

_Likewise with good fast-food - the style isn't anything too special, but it fills you up when you need filling up.

The same article from which the above is quoted also notes that _'that approach has earned him a readership as devoted to his “brand” as someone is to a favorite ice cream flavor' _- just another opinionated analogy, yes, but it demonstrates that we aren't the first to liked him to consumer culture in the food industry.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 7, 2015)

> Oh my. So the world really was flat for all those years...



No; the world accepted an incorrect perspective as fact. Just as children incorrectly accept the view of humans only having five senses as fact when they're first learning about how the body works.


----------



## Sam (Apr 7, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> From Patterson's fans:
> 
> "My favorite Author."
> "HE IS GREAT"
> ...



Okay, so let's flip the coin: 

"Absolute tosh. Very disappointed. If I could get  my money back I would. Can't believe two people were involved in  writing this book. My 11 year could have done a better job." ~ TinaB, Amazon Verified Purchase. 

"No real story. Too mishmash and doesn't go anywhere at all. Seems to have be written just to get cash. UTTER RUBBISH". ~ Mick, Amazon Verified Purchase. 

"Utter rubbish from start to finish -(which there wasn't either of)...no  clear plot just a few sub-plots that developed into nothing ...seemed  like the author eventually just finished it like he couldn't work out  what to write next..I am a big fan of Patterson's books but this was  probably the worst of his novels to date,,if not one of the worst books  of fiction full stop". ~ Mr Stuart A. Taylor, Amazon Verified Purchase. 

"Please, Mr Patterson. Give up writing, or else  try a different genre. This is the most absolute tosh and is really  badly written. Alex Cross's reactions and behaviour are completely  incredible and the plot is absolutely fatuous. I am not an expert on the  geography of the USA, but it seems to me that many of the plot twists  are also impossible. A genuinely nasty little book". ~ A.W. Skinner, Amazon Verified Purchase. 

"I thought this was absolute drivel. The plot was  so badly construed, the story so poorly told, that I gave up after 4  chapters. Really disappointing". ~ Bob, Amazon Verified Purchase. 

"A terrible writer". ~ Stephen King. 

"They used to say that fifty million Elvis fans couldn't be wrong, but the same can't be said for James Patterson". ~ Tom Clancy. 

"A genuinely rubbish writer whose success is the result of a keen marketing mind and absolutely zero talent". ~ Clive Cussler.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 7, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> From Patterson's fans:
> 
> "My favorite Author."
> "HE IS GREAT"
> ...



You do realize those authors are paid for those endorsements? And you know as well as I do that I could post comments by other bestselling authors condemning his work, but that is not, and never has been my point. You seem to feel calling his books 'junk-food' is somehow demeaning. It is not --I know I was told not to disagree with that, but que sera, sera -- it is simply a classification.


----------



## LeeC (Apr 7, 2015)

Cadence said:


> We know everyone has a different opinion. What some of us are asking for is a discussion into why certain opinions are more valid.



Opinions, by their very nature, are valid only to those that hold them. It's as simple as that


----------



## Folcro (Apr 7, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Apparently others feel we need to hand-hold our readers (and those who read our posts here are readers) and treat treat them as if they read at remedial levels.


 Interesting correlation between supporters of this style and supporters of James Patterson, the hack.

Yeah, Patterson's good at what he does, I really don't think the OP intended to ask that, I think he was asking what I thought of him as an artist. As an artist, I think he's a hack. That's not at all an affront to him or his readers. He likes making money, his readers like giving him money. He's a money maker, not an artist. So maybe it's not fitting to run up to the man and call him out on his bad writing, but if you _ask_ me where I put him on the art scale (and there are ample reasons to do this), and you give me the _option _of genius or hack, my answer will be the same every time: number two.



			
				LeeC said:
			
		

> Opinions, by their very nature, are valid only to those that hold them. It's as simple as that



I have to disagree: I hold valid the opinion of every person (and Patterson-loving alien) who has posted here.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 7, 2015)

Cadence said:


> No; the world accepted an incorrect perspective as fact. Just as children incorrectly accept the view of humans only having five senses as fact when they're first learning about how the body works.



So you're agreeing that your statement "'Fact' mutually exists because it is recognised as being so by a larger body than the one spouting it; wording has nothing to do with it." is incorrect. Just because someone - or many someones - say something is fact does not make it so. Saying "Patterson is a hack" does not make it a fact, and in a discussion should not be stated as one. 

Why is it so repugnant to folks to include two little words - "I think" - when stating their opinions? Why is it necessary to make it a pronouncement of supposed fact? It's not just this discussion when this happens. I've seen it in dang near every discussion of methods, about publishing routes - writers seem bound and determined to force their opinions on others as fact, and get so upset that anyone dare call them on it. It's mind boggling that people who should know the power of words just don't get it.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 7, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Why is it so repugnant to folks to include two little words - "I think" - when stating their opinions?



IDK, why's it so repugnant not to?

And it's not so much that it's repugnant, I just find it annoying and even a little condescending.


----------



## LeeC (Apr 7, 2015)

Folcro said:


> I have to disagree: I hold valid the opinion of every person (and Patterson-loving alien) who has posted here.


I understand your point Folcro, but see it as Clintonesque. You, in your opinion, hold valid all the differing opinions, and I see that as admirable in its tolerance. Still it doesn't distract from the simple fact that opinions, by their very nature, are valid (i.e. have a sound basis in logic or fact) only to those that hold them, and that only by virtue of our subjective being. 


Peace bro


----------



## Jeko (Apr 7, 2015)

> Opinions, by their very nature, are valid only to those that hold them. It's as simple as that



I'm still baffled by where these perspectives come from.

I have disagreed with many opinions that I find valid. Validity is a matter of extent, not a binary scale. I disagree with valid opinions because I hold my opinion to be more valid.

Saying Patterson is a good writer is a valid opinion. I could support that if I wanted to. But saying that his artistry can't be likened to fast-food is, to me, not valid - or, at least, yet to be validated by anyone here.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 7, 2015)

LeeC said:


> I understand your point Folcro, but see it as Clintonesque. You, in your opinion, hold valid all the differing opinions, and I see that as admirable in its tolerance. Still it doesn't distract from the simple fact that opinions, by their very nature, are valid (i.e. have a sound basis in logic or fact) only to those that hold them, and that only by virtue of our subjective being.



Patterson's a hack.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 7, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Why is it so repugnant to folks to include two little words - "I think" - when stating their opinions? Why is it necessary to make it a pronouncement of supposed fact? It's not just this discussion when this happens. I've seen it in dang near every discussion of methods, about publishing routes - writers seem bound and determined to force their opinions on others as fact, and get so upset that anyone dare call them on it. It's mind boggling that people who should know the power of words just don't get it.



Because it simply isn't necessary. If someone asks me, "What do you think of this picture?" and I respond, "It's ugly." My opinion was asked for, so my response can be assumed to be what 'I think' without restating it. I don't understand why that is so difficult to comprehend. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my understanding the power of words; I think we all understand that here. 

From the OP: "I have never read any of his work, because fiction isn't my thing, but does anyone have any opinions on this guy? I am just curious."

Opinions were asked for, opinions were given. There's no damn need to keep stating "In my opinion" or "I feel" or "I think". Any statement made about a subjective topic is, by definition, a subjective response. No thinking person would view it as a 'statement of fact'.


----------



## Sam (Apr 7, 2015)

I've written hundreds of academic essays, across three different levels (BA, MA, MRes), and in every paper I've ever written, I've had professors, doctors, and lecturers stroke out any occurrence of the words 'I think', 'in my opinion', and 'it could be said' from my work. 

Why? Because when you write something and put your name to it, as we do with every single post here, it is taken as a given that the words contained therein are your opinion and not fact. It is therefore a waste of words, and an exercise in redundancy, to include 'in my opinion' every single time you want to put forth your opinion. 

For words to be fact, they have to be backed up by sources. You cannot state fact without offering proof. Since no one here has offered any sources, every word in this thread is opinion. 

Writing 101.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 7, 2015)

Sam said:


> Why? Because when you write something and put your name to it, as we do with every single post here, it is taken as a given that the words contained therein are your opinion and not fact. It is therefore a waste of words, and an exercise in redundancy, to include 'in my opinion' every single time you want to put forth your opinion.
> 
> Writing 101.


----------



## Boofy (Apr 7, 2015)

Sometimes 'I think' and 'In my opinion' can be applied as a gentle reminder in a social situation (the same can obviously not be said for academic papers, as Sam said). I know I make use of clarifying phrases like that. I dislike conflict and sometimes it's nice to just demonstrate that you don't think your opinion is fact by stating such before you begin. Words, though powerful, are easily misconstrued without being able to apply the tone of voice or body language you're using whilst stating your opinion.

Having spoken to people on numerous occasions who have taken my words to heart, I now feel it appropriate to tag them with either 'I think' or 'In my opinion'. It isn't meant in a condescending way. It's a means to assure that a conversation remains smooth and non-threatening to both parties. Sometimes discussions get heated and to avoid them escalating, a reminder doesn't hurt, 'specially in a fairly casual setting. I've found people can forget they asked for opinions at all when they are upset ^^;

These are my opinions of course ;3

UPDATE: Patterson's a hack. I just wanted to un-derail a little there, 'cause I ain't helping uhm... re-rail... with the rest of my words. Aw, this is a reet train wreck, isn't it? ^^;


----------



## LeeC (Apr 7, 2015)

Cadence said:


> I have disagreed with many opinions that I find valid.



If I may beg to respectively point out, if one considers the accepted meanings of the words, to me your sentence is akin to possibly saying the sun isn't shining when you know it is. 

validity (noun): the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.

In turn:

cogency (noun): the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity.

All in relation to:

opinion (noun): a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Thus I added the caveat above that opinions may be valid only by virtue of our subjective being. 

Peace Cadence


_"Life is judged with all the blindness of life itself." ~ George Santayana_


----------



## Jeko (Apr 7, 2015)

> It's a means to assure that a conversation remains smooth and non-threatening to both parties.



Yes, we don't want discussions to get too heated, but we don't want them to get too frozen either.

If everyone's telling everyone that all their opinions - which they believe to be facts - should have no consequence on anyone else's, all we'll do is share our respective views and then the thread will die. There'll be no exploration of depth or breadth for any issue unless someone wants to expand on someone else's view to support it - but why would they if no-one who doesn't hold that view cares?

There's a happy medium that I've seen many times on this forum, and it's yielded exciting conversations from insightful members who disagree and want to explore why. But when people stop focusing on the topic and start focusing on how discussions should be made, or try to throw water on the fire before it's even a spark, we get threads like this.

I express my opinions as facts because I want people to become more factual in how they express their opinions. Every 'fact' we universally accept today started as an opinion. Fire is hot - is it? Isn't that just your opinion? Let me stick my hand it the - argh! You were right!

But no-one's being factual in how they're refuting the claim that Patterson's business can be likened to a fast-food outlet, which is a shame, especially since I have plenty of fact-based arguments that I could use to weaken the claim. 



> So you're agreeing that your statement "'Fact' mutually exists because it is recognised as being so by a larger body than the one spouting it; wording has nothing to do with it." is incorrect. Just because someone - or many someones - say something is fact does not make it so. Saying "Patterson is a hack" does not make it a fact, and in a discussion should not be stated as one.
> 
> Why is it so repugnant to folks to include two little words - "I think" - when stating their opinions? Why is it necessary to make it a pronouncement of supposed fact? It's not just this discussion when this happens. I've seen it in dang near every discussion of methods, about publishing routes - writers seem bound and determined to force their opinions on others as fact, and get so upset that anyone dare call them on it. It's mind boggling that people who should know the power of words just don't get it.



I'll rewrite that for you, then:

_So I think you're agreeing that your statement "'Fact' mutually exists because it is recognised as being so by a larger body than the one spouting it; wording has nothing to do with it." is incorrect. I think that just because someone - or many someones - say something is fact does not make it so. Saying "Patterson is a hack" does not, in my opinion, make it a fact, and I believe that in a discussion it should not be stated as one. 

Why is it so repugnant to folks to include two little words - "I think" - when stating their opinions? Why is it necessary to make it a pronouncement of supposed fact? I don't think it's just this discussion when this happens. I believe I've seen it in dang near every discussion of methods, about publishing routes - I think writers seem bound and determined to force their opinions on others as fact, and I think they get so upset that anyone dare call them on it. I think it's mind boggling that people who should know the power of words just don't get it._

Much better (I think). Can we get back to talking about Patterson now?


----------



## Pluralized (Apr 7, 2015)

Whole new level! Congratulations guys. 

Fact: Some like Patterson. Fact: Some don't. 

Opinion: this thread has little chance of enhancing our community.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Apr 7, 2015)

If we're getting back on the Patterson, I'll simply defer to my ages old statement.

As far as the SPAG and sentence structure and writing style, he's not necessarily a *bad writer,*

*I just find that Police, Murder, and Investigation stories are works of drama that are read for an effect upon the body, rather than being ori**ginal or high quality.

The same reason people read Romance novels. Of which there are too many to count. 
*
That being said, I actually enjoyed some of his work that was on other, less common subjects. <3

Also, I think he is both a hack and a genius. 

Should've read the last post too. Well said.


----------



## LeeC (Apr 7, 2015)

Aw Plur, but it's more fun now


----------



## Sunny (Apr 7, 2015)

Kevin said:


> And Sunny, I'm worried about you.



Hi Kevin! 

I'm okay. Thanks for worrying about me.  

I guess I'm not really cut out for discussions such as these. What I want to say and what I allow myself to say are two different things. 

Cheers.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 7, 2015)

> Opinion: this thread has little chance of enhancing our community.



Opinion: this thread _had_ a good chance of enhancing our community.

Fact: Some of us want to get back on topic.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 7, 2015)

Pluralized said:


> Opinion: this thread has little chance of enhancing our community.



I think a lot of people on this thread have put a lot of thought into their posts, and some of it, if you read it, I opine you will find enlightening.

For example: James Patterson's a hack.

Doh, maybe this is getting old.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 7, 2015)

Sunny said:


> What I want to say and what I allow myself to say are two different things.



Trust me, many of us feel the same way.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 7, 2015)

Cadence said:
			
		

> I'm still baffled by where these perspectives come from.



I'd clarify for you, but as you said here:



			
				Cadence said:
			
		

> I disagree with valid opinions because I hold my opinion to be more valid.


It's clear to me that any attempt at clarification will likely result in more disagreement, so I'd rather not bother.

So, I'll bow out of this conversation with these final opinions:

- I think a lot of people consider Patterson to be a bad writer.
- I think a lot of people consider Patterson to be a great writer.
- I think some people have deluded themselves into thinking their opinions on this matter are more valid than the opinions of others.

I won't be reading this thread anymore, but feel free to respond to me in any manner you wish so that others may read your response/rebuttal/et cetera. Or PM me if you'd like to continue the conversation in private.

Adieu! :encouragement:


----------



## Jeko (Apr 7, 2015)

I'm getting tired of people posting to say that they're not going to post something.



> *I just find that Police, Murder, and Investigation stories are works of drama that are read for an effect upon the body, rather than being original or high quality.*



There seems to be different levels of every genre - I always like to think of artists as either 'stationary' or 'developing'; a stationary artist has found what they want to do and know it works, so they do that. A 'developing' artist has found the same thing, except they want to 'go the extra mile'.

Patterson, I would say, has been developing his sales strategies - Harvard even teaches a course on them now. He has not, however, been developing his artistry in any way that makes me want to recommend him to anyone.


----------



## Blade (Apr 7, 2015)

Cadence said:


> There seems to be different levels of every genre - I always like to think of artists as either 'stationary' or 'developing'; a stationary artist has found what they want to do and know it works, so they do that. A 'developing' artist has found the same thing, except they want to 'go the extra mile'.
> 
> Patterson, I would say, has been developing his sales strategies - Harvard even teaches a course of them now. He has not, however, been developing his artistry in any way that makes me want to recommend him to anyone.



As one who had not even heard of this guy let alone read him I must say that I have seen nothing in this thread that has provoked any interest in my doing so.:sleeping: Normally popularity coupled with prolific output would, in itself, be a sufficient red light. 

Any evidence around indicating a 'must read'?:scratch:


----------



## Terry D (Apr 7, 2015)

Blade said:


> As one who had not even heard of this guy let alone read him I must say that I have seen nothing in this thread that has provoked any interest in my doing so.:sleeping: Normally popularity coupled with prolific output would, in itself, be a sufficient red light.
> 
> Any evidence around indicating a 'must read'?:scratch:



As I said early on, some of his early works were quite good. _Along Came a Spider_, _Kiss the Girls_, _Jack & Jill_ and the early Women's Murder Club books are some of my favorites. Later I saw his work getting unoriginal and repetitive.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 7, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Trust me, many of us feel the same way.



I would get banned, or at least reprimanded, pretty quickly if I allowed myself to type everything that comes to mind when I read stuff around here.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 7, 2015)

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> *I just find that Police, Murder, and Investigation stories are works of drama that are read for an effect upon the body, rather than being ori**ginal or high quality.
> 
> 
> *



I would contend that it would be dependent on which writers of that type of story you are reading.

While Patterson's work is good for a "quick fix", I find the Lincoln Rhyme series to be decently high quality and relatively original in it's character model.


----------



## JamesR (Apr 8, 2015)

As others have said, he gives a lot back to the writing industry. Even though he may not write everything on his own, he gives other up-and-coming writers the opportunity to shine, and like a fancy designer brand, his name alone is enough to bring them all the notoriety they could ever desire. That I appreciate. The writing industry is much like the hip-hop industry. So many, yet so few who actually make it. Do you honestly think that Dr. Dre writes the lyrics for his iconic albums? Not at all. Rather, he allows other up-and-coming artists to shine and in turn he places his label/name on the product. It's giving back to the industry. If the music industry can do that, why can't Patterson with the writing industry? Is it that most readers are stupid, uninformed, and don't appreciate true art? WHAT ELSE IS NEW? Everyone has known that since day 1. The mainstream is always a joke. But if you wish to make it big, you must appeal to it at least every once in a while. And Patterson gives an opportunity for that.


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 8, 2015)

> *James Patterson: Hack or Prolific Genius?*



As a reader, I'd say I don't care. If it's an enjoyable book, I know all I need.

As a writer, I'd say I don't care. I'll write how I write, but would hope one day to be as well known a name as him.

===

As an aside, I'd say it's a little uncomfortable how some of these discussions appear to heat up. A few opinions felt overstated by a small group of familiar people. They felt more like wielded weapons leaving me, as a less skilled debater, fearful of expressing my own thoughts. I know as an individual I'm of marginal importance at best, but it was one of the main reasons I became less active on this site. At times the atmosphere felt a little... toxic.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 8, 2015)

Gavrushka said:


> As an aside, I'd say it's a little uncomfortable how some of these discussions appear to heat up. A few opinions felt overstated by a small group of familiar people. They felt more like wielded weapons leaving me, as a less skilled debater, fearful of expressing my own thoughts. I know as an individual I'm of marginal importance at best, but it was one of the main reasons I became less active on this site. At times the atmosphere felt a little... toxic.



I grew up hearing how stupid my opinions were, so I have a very low tolerance for people being condescending when expressing theirs. The thought that you feel you're "of marginal importance at best" is upsetting to me - no one should feel that way. As to the toxicity, I have noticed that for quite some time, and yes, it also causes me to be less active for periods of time. One can only take so much... :icon_silent:


----------



## Monaque (Apr 8, 2015)

Gavrushka said:


> As a reader, I'd say I don't care. If it's an enjoyable book, I know all I need.
> 
> As a writer, I'd say I don't care. I'll write how I write, but would hope one day to be as well known a name as him.
> 
> ...



I have to say I agree with you, I`d like to unsubscribe from this thread because I`m tired of receiving alerts from a thread I am no longer interested in. 
People like different things, period. That`s what art is all about, it`s highly personal. There are no right or wrongs here just art.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 8, 2015)

Monaque said:


> I`d like to unsubscribe from this thread because I`m tired of receiving alerts from a thread I am no longer interested in.



If that's the only reason, you can turn that off...


----------



## dale (Apr 8, 2015)

so how was everyone's easter?


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Apr 8, 2015)

The problem with toxicity is a problem with human nature. Our tendency to argue. This seems to increase tenfold over the internet, where opinions and arguing become much easier.The only time it seems such is when people assume that someone is 'taking a tone.'Let it also be said that facial expression, tone of voice, and attitude cannot be judged over blocks of text, and we should not assume everyone states these opinions in an aggressive nature.

I will say I have seen no such negative attitude, either here in this thread, in any critiques, or otherwise throughout WF. I have a rather thick skin and do not enjoy assuming others have bad attitudes. I write pretty much every post here on WF with a smile on my face, and as far as I can tell so does everyone else. As it was previously stated, people put a lot of thought into their posts, and this thread in particular has actually been enlightening.

Edit: My Easter was amazing! <(^...^<)


----------



## dale (Apr 8, 2015)

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> The problem with toxicity is a problem with human nature. Our tendency to argue. This seems to increase tenfold over the internet, where opinions and arguing become much easier.The only time it seems such is when people assume that someone is 'taking a tone.'Let it also be said that facial expression, tone of voice, and attitude cannot be judged over blocks of text, and we should not assume everyone states these opinions in an aggressive nature.
> 
> I will say I have seen no such negative attitude, either here in this thread, in any critiques, or otherwise throughout WF. I have a rather thick skin and do not enjoy assuming others have bad attitudes. I write pretty much every post here on WF with a smile on my face, and as far as I can tell so does everyone else. As it was previously stated, people put a lot of thought into their posts, and this thread in particular has actually been enlightening.
> 
> Edit: My Easter was amazing! <(^...^<)



i like "heated discussions", too. but for some reason james patterson just doesn't get me all hot and bothered enough to argue about.


----------



## J Anfinson (Apr 8, 2015)

This thread has been deemed no longer beneficial and has been locked.


----------

