Is John Parker really a bad author?

Your prof, like most of his ilk, gets his rocks off by telling himself he is a contrarian. It is SO 2001.

English lit senior wrote:

I mean I don't think writes award worthy fiction, maybe a sports writing award or something, but I'd rank him in the top 10% of American fiction authors. My prof who happens to be a decent marathoner thinks Parker's Once a Runner and Again to Carthage are trash. Who's right?

Parker is in the top 5% of authors. But the gap between the top 5% and the top .1% is fricken huge. In track terms: Parker is a 14:30 runner. His performance is at a level most people can't comprehend. But when he shows up against the top people, he gets lapped. Your prof is used to studying the top people. Not the very good ones.

English lit senior wrote:

I mean I don't think writes award worthy fiction, maybe a sports writing award or something, but I'd rank him in the top 10% of American fiction authors. My prof who happens to be a decent marathoner thinks Parker's Once a Runner and Again to Carthage are trash. Who's right?

No, but you are a really bad writer yourself. Please diagram the sentence "I mean I don't think writes award worthy fiction" for me.

I can't believe that you are an English lit major. Oh, sorry, yes I can believe it, given what's happened to our educational institutions.

About Parker, "Once a Runner" is very well written, and I say that not as a running junkie, but as someone who reads a huge number of books, and who actually could pass English class.

LRC MB Grammar Police wrote:

About Parker, "Once a Runner" is very well written, and I say that not as a running junkie, but as someone who reads a huge number of books, and who actually could pass English class.

Good writing does not a good book make. OAR, like many books, appeals to a small group of people. Other people do not like it because the story is not interesting, meaning the plot doesn't work for them. Good grammar will not fix that.

Many of the top selling authors make grammar errors. Top editors can often tell who an author is by reading a single chapter of a book. The author's writing is like a signature: their grammar and style give them away.

A Real Story wrote:

LRC MB Grammar Police wrote:

About Parker, "Once a Runner" is very well written, and I say that not as a running junkie, but as someone who reads a huge number of books, and who actually could pass English class.

Good writing does not a good book make. OAR, like many books, appeals to a small group of people. Other people do not like it because the story is not interesting, meaning the plot doesn't work for them. Good grammar will not fix that.

Many of the top selling authors make grammar errors. Top editors can often tell who an author is by reading a single chapter of a book. The author's writing is like a signature: their grammar and style give them away.

I think your comments are true for genre fiction, where readers get through a book because they like the content, not because it's particularly well-written. I've never read "Once a Runner," so I'm not sure if it fits into a typical sports-struggle type book. In general, though, I think you are wrong. If people aren't interested in the subject matter, it doesn't reflect on the quality of the book. Most non-genre editors never read more than a page or two if the writing is not "good," and it's impossible to make a judgement on the content or plot in that short of a time.

thejeff wrote:

Your prof, like most of his ilk, gets his rocks off by telling himself he is a contrarian. It is SO 2001.

This ^^^. Plus they know damn well that pop fiction is not literature.

Don't confuse "writer" with "storyteller." JLP Jr. is a good STORYTELLER -- he captures and distills some essence of what it is to be a runner in a way that those of us who can only WISH to be at that level can understand, and we are grateful.

Writer? Well, he does have an over-love for adjectives, esp. fancy ones. Indeed, in reading ATC I kept thinking "I forgive you, JLP." But so what? You got something *better* in the genre of "running fiction?" Nah, didn't think so.

No it's not.

thejeff wrote:

Your prof, like most of his ilk, gets his rocks off by telling himself he is a contrarian. It is SO 2001.

A Real Story wrote:

Good writing does not a good book make. OAR, like many books, appeals to a small group of people. Other people do not like it because the story is not interesting, meaning the plot doesn't work for them. Good grammar will not fix that.

Many of the top selling authors make grammar errors. Top editors can often tell who an author is by reading a single chapter of a book. The author's writing is like a signature: their grammar and style give them away.

It is true that a good plot can cover a variety of sins. But good writing is much more than good grammar. You can observe all of the rules of grammar and write badly. As someone mentioned, too many adjectives is bad writing, even if each adjective is used correctly.

I enjoyed Once a Runner but have never been interested in reading the sequels, seems like dragging it out too long. Lots of people enjoyed the book though, so I would say he is objectively a good author.

authors aren't rankable in %tiles. Once a Runner is a very good read if you are a young runner. It's not Thomas Pynchon or James Joyce.

Once a Runner was the first book that I just couldn't put down. I hated reading as a kid and never was one to sit and read for pleasure. I read that book in a weekend my sophomore year and it really changed my perspective on reading for pleasure. I've read it probably 15 times over the years. Not sure about his author ability but I don't care. That book was the shiznit.

English lit senior wrote:

My prof who happens to be a decent marathoner thinks Parker's Once a Runner and Again to Carthage are trash. Who's right?

Why exactly do you like the books? Because they tell a good story? Because they tell the story well? Because they are deep and insightful, or funny, or the capture a world you know? Or because they have style and flare?

Did you ask him what he thinks makes those books trash? It's often interesting to find out exactly what standards other people use, especially when they disagree with you.

Who knows, you might even learn something.

Bettingfool wrote:

I read that book in a weekend my sophomore year and it really changed my perspective on reading for pleasure. I've read it probably 15 times over the years.

Sound like it opened your eyes, and changed your life. It's hard to ask for more than that from a book.

Interesting that it's held up well over the years. Any idea why?

TrackB0t wrote:

English lit senior wrote:

I mean I don't think writes award worthy fiction, maybe a sports writing award or something, but I'd rank him in the top 10% of American fiction authors. My prof who happens to be a decent marathoner thinks Parker's Once a Runner and Again to Carthage are trash. Who's right?

Parker is in the top 5% of authors. But the gap between the top 5% and the top .1% is fricken huge. In track terms: Parker is a 14:30 runner. His performance is at a level most people can't comprehend. But when he shows up against the top people, he gets lapped. Your prof is used to studying the top people. Not the very good ones.

14:30 is generous. Parker, and OAR, do not break 15:00. But that wins most hobby jogger events, which is where he belongs. OAR is the great American hobby jogger novel.

I agree with the person you think is wrong. OAR has a very limited audience. As a longtime runner it didn't appeal to me at all. The book is not very good. To each their own.

assume wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Your prof, like most of his ilk, gets his rocks off by telling himself he is a contrarian. It is SO 2001.

This ^^^. Plus they know damn well that pop fiction is not literature.

I majored in English and one thing I noticed immediately was that if a book was popular it was almost always considered trash by the English profs. When the Harry Potter books were hot the Chronicle of Higher Education occasionally published articles from academic types critiquing the series and again, none had anything good to say.

It seems that one of the criteria academicians use to decide if a book is "good" or not is ponderousness. If you don't feel like reading the book is hard work it's probably "trash." Parker tells good stories about a subject that appeals to a very specific population. He's not going to get a Nobel Prize for literature but if he weren't good at what he writes he wouldn't have so many of us enjoy his books.

Sound like it opened your eyes, and changed your life. It's hard to ask for more than that from a book.

Exactly. I really just enjoyed the story. I was just getting serious about track and training when I read it. Smarter folks may not think it was a literary masterpiece but for me it was gold. Shit, the books your professor probably thinks are great would probably make me quit reading again. I'm trying to be entertained not put to sleep.

Good story but the writing isn't particularly good.