[ezchaos]

Something I've noticed over the past few years is how people seem to be porlarized in regards to some fantasy authors. Jordan, Goodkind, Martin, Feist, Eddings, the list goes on. Either people absolutely LOVE the authors' works, or they HATE them with a passion. There doesn't seem to be an in-between.
Case in point: I was just reading the reviews of Goodkind's books on this site. It seems that maybe 60% of the reviewers loved his books. In fact, many said Goodkind's books were the best they've ever read. The other 40% said the books were absolute rubish. There didn't seem to be any grey-area reviews.
I'm facsinated with how some authors can cause this reaction in their readers.
Is this polarization caused by readers' age differences, differences in education, etc?
What are your thoughts on this 'polarization'?

[Rob B]

I think part this is a combination of age and exposure to different authors. There is more to it than that, though...

[Vitriol]

I think that the better the author is (or is perceived to be), the more polarisation you will get. Those who love the books will rave about them constantly, so anyone who diodn't enjoy the books will feel much more let down. They will also be more likely to disparage the author, to counter the endless flow of praise for their devotees.

Does anyone hate Martin?

[JohnH]

It might be even more simplistic. There are probably a huge proportion who are in the grey area. But passion and belief intertwined are what drives us to state and defend an opinion. It is the extremes that are heard. Not the mediocre or the so-so. The stronger my feeling is towards something the greater chance I will respond or get involved. I think that holds true for anything, doesn't it?

Actually I know several people who absolutely despise his current ongoing series. I like his work but hardly consider it worth the priase many others give it.

[ChrisW]

""

http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[SusF]

I have to be in the grey area for all of the above, though I didn't care for Goodkind at all.

Arguements happen when there are strong feelings on each side, for and against. Most of the people who thought xxx author was good but not great are not going to comment as often or as strongly.

Susan

[saintjon]

I think it may be the nature of the forum itself that brings out that strength of opinion in some cases. I mean, I bet a lot of people who are just sort of indifferent could be drawn into a more black and white opinion, simply from encountering some of the other opinions on this site. I mean, maybe something that just seemed like it could have been better becomes absolutely contemptible to you after you hear someone say how it was their favourite part of the book.

Also, it could be a trick of perspective. Where someone mentions something they don't like about a story, without mentioning what they did like (which could be many and varied), it could seem like that person really didn't like the story at all. I know this happens because a while ago, after I made some postings about Dragonlance novels a bunch of people got the idea that I hate all role-playing novels. What's really weird about that is that the Dragonlance novels in question were ones that I really enjoyed.
Go figure.

[Crysania]

Yeah, I noticed that too. For the most part I'm in the grey area about Jordan. Sometimes I'll read a book/series and think man, how annoying is Jordan! Sometimes I'll read a book/series and think, Jordan is sooooo much better than I give him credit for. So I yin-yang. And I do adore the first five books in WOT.

As for Goodkind, I've given the man several chances since I respect the opinions of others, but I just think it's crap. And they more hyped up crap gets, the more venomous towards it I become. Like if Britney Spears just had two hits, I'd still hate the music but I wouldn't hate her as much as I do now -it's the hype. The marketing. The brainwashing, in general, I link to things of mediocre talent being revered and praised as god/goddesses when they are sooo not. Thus the venom.

Just me...

[Mamb]

I've only read Redemption of Athalus by Eddings and that was excellent. however, i still suppose it is a dark grey area, as i can't say it is the best book i've read

As for Feist, his work is entertaining and fun to read and action packed, but somehow i do not find him sophisticated enough so definitely a grey area here. His world and characters just aren't deep enough.

I am yet to read a crap fantasy book but then i am quite picky in choosing a book that guarantees satisfaction...

[Hereford Eye]

If I say out loud that I like it, then I have to defend my opinion. How can I possibly like Spell for Chameleon or anything else Anthony wrote? He's such a pain in the ass! So, I have to make up defensible reasons and you have to point out the unsophisticatedness of my reasoning and I have to show you that my opinion is based on sound reasoning, logic, and the ultimate truth and you, of course, have to de-program me.
I read Passion Play by Stewart first and came away rapt in the power of the writing so I read everything he wrote. Nobody's Son didn't do anything for me yet I kept coming back because Passion Play convinced me he is good. I was treated with Night Watch and Clouds End and struggled through Mockingbird and was re-enthralled with Galveeston. The good, the bad, and the indifferent. But how can I say go read Stewart and not defend the whole output?
I suspect the problem exists with any prolific author: Heinlein, Asimov, Steinbeck, Card. I know it's true for Tolkien but I console myself that J.R.R. didn't think everything after LOTR was worth publishing.