Bearing in mind that with only "one book" you probably wouldn't be looking for the most enriching novel as much as you would be looking for one that entertains, but also has significant literary merit? I say pick up The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon. It's only around 200 pages, and it's written quite simply...but that man does more in that slender book than lesser authors do in their entire careers.

I say "one book" because I'd like to get as many suggestions as possible from different people - and I also want to make it managable to actually do.

Anyway: I'll stick that on my list. It was the talk about Pynchon that inspired me to do this post, actually.

He's a very strange author in the way that he bridges so many different expectations of literature, and then manages to turn it all into something completely new. I suggest Lot 49 because it's probably the "easiest" of his books for someone who's never read him...it has a fairly traditional plot and some unbearably good comic timing. Not to mention what I mentioned above, about the fact that he achieves profundity with what is, basically, a tiny book.

Vineland is also probably a good starter for someone who's never read Pynchon...but I stand by Lot 49, because I think it will lead you in a more interesting direction. At least at first.

If we weren't on a Pynchon kick right now I might recommend Pale Fire, by Nabokov (another "simple" book that reveals itself to be something wonderfully complex) or Catch-22, by Joseph Heller...one of the rare books that not only redefines its genre (war literature, in this case) but also stands as a great book in its own right, even removed from its "importance" in the canon.

You should read The Time Travellers Wife by Audrey Niffenegger, Moss... I'm sure it's been recommended to you before for it's similarities to The Girl In The Fireplace but I'm hard pushed to think of a recent book that I've found so engaging and affecting.

But that aside, if I had to pick ONE book, I'd say everyone ever ought to read The Unbearable Lightness Of Being, which weaves a nice introduction to various existential theories, the political turmoil of the Czech republic (which might sound a bit dull, but trust me) and commentary on the construction of the novel and its characters into a moving, epic narrative with an enjoyably vague moral compass and lashings of cinematic grandeur. And a pig.

If you enjoyed 1984 I think you'd enjoy these two, for how they use a simple human relationship as the centrepiece to tell a much broader and richer story.

Oh and yes, The Crying Of Lot 49 is ace.

*awaits silent tristeros empire, scratches nose*

sorry, they wer eboth me. I forgot who I was posting as.

The best book I've read over the last couple of years was The Perfect Fool by Stewart Lee. Clever, funny, easy to read and very very charming. I'd highly recommend that if you haven't already read it.

I've got the Stewart Lee book. It's ok, although it didn't strike me as anything special.

I'd recommend you a graphic novel, but James and I are soon to write an article where we recommend a whole bunch of "off the beaten track" comics, so I'll save it for then.

As for a "proper" book... hmmm. Something by Neil Gaiman would of course be up there, but it's hard to know what to recommend. Neverwhere is my favourite, and if you like the idea of a book about a world underneath London constructed around tube stations, then it's well worth a read. American Gods is a slog because of its length, but is a quite rewarding read for it, an absolutely epic tale of gods old and new. Stardust is a bit weaker, but there is a movie of it in the works at the moment (with a terrific cast). And I actually think his short stories are better than his novels, in which case Smoke and Mirrors might just be his best published prose work (it contains "The Goldfish Pool And Other Stories", the semi-autobiographical story upon which I drew a lot of inspiration for the TM:YNYN "studio twats" scene). Also, given that he writes in a variety of diverse styles and genres, Smoke and Mirrors represents a great way of dipping into his work. Yes, I'd recommend that.

But if you want something closer to what's considered great literature (I know I'm breaking the rules by suggesting more than one thing here, but fuck it, I've an English degree and I'm going to use it), then I'd exhort you to read one or both volumes of Alan Bennett's magnificent Talking Heads monologues. They're deeply affecting, they're each written with an uncannily realistic voice, and they demonstrate that Bennett understands ordinary people more than perhaps any writer of the modern era. They're all available in one volume, and they're utterly essential reading (although it's worth trying to catch the TV versions, for the performances of people like Julie Walters, Thora Hird, David Haig and Bennett himself). "Playing Sandwiches", in particular, is one of the most disturbingly affecting things I've ever read, and seriously challenges a lot of preconceptions about a certain subject (to say what subject would spoil the twist). I hasten to add, though, that they're not all doom and gloom, and are blackly comical at times, although none of them work towards particularly upbeat conclusions.

Too many novels spring to mind; but for an excellent non-fiction read; 'Yes Man' by Danny Wallace.

>You should read The Time Travellers Wife by Audrey Niffenegger

I was very disappointed by this book, actually. It had an excellent plot...but nothing else. Add to that the fact that the novel turns very formulaic after the first hundred pages or so--it becomes far too easy to play the author's "game" before she does, so that you connect the dots well in advance...and you end up with the author over-explaining things that actually didn't need explaining (at all) in the first place.

Very flawed. It's not not worth reading...but it is very flawed.

Too many novels spring to mind; but for an excellent non-fiction read; 'Yes Man' by Danny Wallace

I was going to recommend one of "that sort of book"s, but I thought the one to go for would be Are You Dave Gorman? With the dual writing style, it's a good way in to the whole concept, and you get a feel for the writing of both Dave and Danny from which to then go on and explore the other books. Yes Man is much, much better than Join Me, though. Interesting how film versions are being planned of both books - I strongly doubt the Jack Black Yes Man will ever turn out to be more than a pipe dream, but I'm intrigued by the prospect of Frank Cottrell Boyce writing Join Me...

One book? Okay, then it has to be "Lanark" by Alisdair Gray. It's a mixture of dystopian fantasy and disguised autobiography, told in non-linear order(it starts at Book Three before going back in time to Book One). It tells the story of the life and death of an impoverished young artist in Glasgow(partially based on the author himself), his subsequent rebirth in hell and his journey to find some kind of happiness.

I wouldn't say it's exactly an easy read - it's almost unbearably bleak in places, but always redeemed with an Ivor Cutler-esque sense of humour. In any case, I think it's a brilliant and moving piece of work, and I wouldn't hesistate to recommend it.

Great question, my top book would have to be the first HHGTTG, but then, I dont read much serious stuff...
James Herbert is about the closest I get, great horror writer.
How do you lot get time to read books?

Top recommendation, 'Little Miss Naughty' by Roger Hargreaves...

How do you lot get time to read books?

If I'm on my own, I won't get on a train or bus for a journey longer than about ten minutes without a book in my bag. I don't tend to read as much in the evenings as I used to (especially when Rachel's not around and I'm just on the computer), but I spend about half an hour a day on the bus (more at weekends, lately, since I keep going into London), so that gives me a good chunk of time. I'm currently rereading Roald Dahl's collected short stories.

Oh, and there's always the shitter, of course ;-)

I'm loving Augusten Burroughs at the moment. Go for Running With Scissors, a painfully psychotic, but hlarious, memoir.

By the same author, and also very good: Dry, Magical Thinking, and his only fiction novel to date, Sellevision.

How do you lot get time to read books?

I currently have a 'delightful' 3 hour per-day commute too and from London, so I have stacks of time. I'm currently going through my Red Dwarf books at quite a pace.

Ooh, just to break the rules once more, I was just reminded of another "must read" - Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.

"I was going to recommend one of "that sort of book"s, but I thought the one to go for would be Are You Dave Gorman? With the dual writing style, it's a good way in to the whole concept, and you get a feel for the writing of both Dave and Danny from which to then go on and explore the other books."

"Are You Dave Gorman?" is great (specifically for the dual-writing style) and it's obviously the inspiration for the various 'lifestyle/adventure' books that the two went on to write seperately. [Incidentally, it's getting increasingly harder to believe that they're unwilling participants in the mayhem that they orchestrate.] However, both 'AYDG?' and 'Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure' lack a nice flowing structure. It's very easy to dip into various chapters and just read them as short stories rather than being involved in the ongoing narrative. For, that reason 'Yes Man' has the edge. I don't mind Join Me though.

Novel? Probably American Psycho. Or Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers. Although John might have read that one already...

Best book I've read recently though is "Everything I Know I learned from TV" by Mark Rowlands.

Incidentally, it's getting increasingly harder to believe that they're unwilling participants in the mayhem that they orchestrate.

Given the sort of thing that Danny has been doing in the past couple of years, I'd be inclined to agree - he never comes off as anything less than a nice bloke, but he also seems a little publicity-hungry. As for Dave, though... well, the fact that he went through a nervous breakdown during the Googlewhack thing, and only did the live show and book to pay off the insane amount of debt he accrued during it, and the fact that he's not done anything similar since, suggests to me that it's not so much the case!

Notice how you never hear the pair of them talking about each other these days, incidentally? They seem to have had a bit of a falling-out - I don't know the precise details (or even if they really have - maybe they've just drifted apart), but I do know that the "Lizzie" of Yes Man is none other than Greta, who was Dave's girlfriend at the time of Dave Gorman's Important Astrology Experiment...

> I do know that the "Lizzie" of Yes Man is none other than Greta, who was Dave's girlfriend at the time of Dave Gorman's Important Astrology Experiment.

Ahh - just like what happened with Rob and Doug.

(Kidding!!)

Thanks for all this, BTW - I didn't expect all these suggestions when I woke up an hour or so ago! (I'm on a night-shift, leave me alone.)

Keep them coming, and I'll compile a list.

Stephen King's 'IT' is probably still my favourite book. Of course, being of epic proportions as it is, it isn't really suitable for a lighter read. Of more recent stuff I'd recommend 'Angels & Demons' by Dan Brown, and there's a book I read a while ago called 'Chasm' by Stephen Laws that was great.

Last year someone nagged me into reading Harry Potter. I thought 'OK, let's just see what the first book's like' and, what do you know, I'd ripped through the whole series. I'd recommend them to anyone, or if you just wanted to read one it would be 'Prisoner of Azkaban'.

>How do you lot get time to read books?

It's no easier or harder to find time to read books than it is to find time to watch television, play video games or go see a movie. Just a matter of preference, I guess.

John, whatever you do, don't read a Dan Brown book. You'll never get back the time that you could have spent reading something well-written instead.

Hmmm, I suppose I'm restricted by having to drive everywhere and always seem to be busy til about this time at home.....I'm off for a week soon camping and plan to chill out with a couple of Robert Llewellyn books (no TV, no internet etc).

>John, whatever you do, don't read a Dan Brown book. You'll never get back the time that you could have spent reading something well-written instead.

If ever Seb Patrick could be accused of reaching into my head and echoing not only my sentiment but also the exact words I would have used to express it, it is now.

Well I fucking enjoyed Angels & Demons, and that's swearing. I could understand why people wouldn't like him though as his characters are non-entities. And you'd never read one of his books again because once you know what happens there's no point. The Da Vinci Code movie was one of those occurrences where I wish they'd thrown the book out the fucking window and injected some LIFE into it, rather than sticking to it strictly.

However, I'd like to know what some people decree 'well-written'. One man's pussy is another man's...penis, or whatever.

> However, I'd like to know what some people decree 'well-written'.

Whichever way you slice it, I think it's pretty clear that Dan Brown writes prose the way a cat plays the piano. His dialogue's ghastly, his descriptions self-indulgent non-sequiters, his characters bland and his resolutions misguided. BUT - the man knows how to structure, and he knows how to research.

Da Vinci fuss aside, all four novel to date are real page-turners and I enjoyed them all. Somewhat identikit, but generally riveting.

His success may not be proportionate to his taent, but since when does THAT happen? Joss Whedon's latest series and movie flop, Uwe Boll cntinues to earn a living. C'est la vie.

Monkey, given that in attempting to defend him you've just listed a load of reasons why he's crap, I think you've answered your own question ;-) Perhaps the most damning is this : And you'd never read one of his books again because once you know what happens there's no point. Sorry, but a good book, a really good book, should be one you look forward to re-reading as you read it. One that enables you to uncover something new every time you go back to it. One where getting to the end isn't a matter of just rushing through as quickly as possible so that you can find out what happens - but one that you can truly savour.

I've no objections to trashy books. I also don't consider myself a literary snob. And heck, I spend most of my life reading comics. But Dan Brown's writing style is an insult to any decent person's intelligence.

Hear hear.

Reading Dan Brown is like eating a donner kebab when you're pissed. Relatively satisfying during, wholly forgettable following, and certainly not something you should be doing in the cold light of day.

Ooh, and I thought Andrew had got Analogy of the Day there, but you snuck in and grabbed it!

I'm not defending him, why else would I have said he can't write characters? I'm just saying I liked Angels & Demons. It probably helped that I read it before all this bullshit about The Da Vinci Code happened. Now it's the in thing to slag Brown off, despite the fact that there's approx. 3 million writers who are just as hacky as him, and many that are worse because the subject matters they use are boring as fuck. The thing is, Brown found mass popularity with mediocre writing, which a lot of people can't handle. It reminds me of the music industry. It's the hype, not the quality, that makes for a popular artist (most of the time).

>Now it's the in thing to slag Brown off, despite the fact that there's approx. 3 million writers who are just as hacky as him, and many that are worse because the subject matters they use are boring as fuck.

One hundred percent agreed, but the fact that Brown is so much in the spotlight (as opposed to the rest of those 3 million authors who write worse) is why he's open to widespread critique...and why it's important to critique him.

What does it matter if an author nobody reads writes a crap book? It happens all the time. But when an author nobody reads writes a crap book that becomes a worldwide phenomenon, of course there's going to be backlash from the literary community. It's the way it works. A bad writer is achieving widespread success at the expense of many great authors who remain unread.

And it is the same thing in the music industry, you are right. Willie Nelson albums go out of print and Britney Spears albums go triple platinum. You really can't say somebody's out of line for calling the bluff here. No more than anyone should be upset that Brown is subject to scrutiny. It comes with fame. His talent does not nearly equal his income. And I think you'll agree that's always an upsetting situation.

> And I think you'll agree that's always an upsetting situation.

Not always. You can win the lottery just through using your ability to say 'can I have a Lucky Dip, please' to someone behind a counter. This yields a massive income through a display of little to no talent. And it's not upsetting. For the person that wins. Now, the Arctic Monkeys....where was I...? Derren Brown.....Jordan.....Jamie Cullum......Lucas/Walliams.....The Darkness.....all of these people have something in common, and it's related to this subject but I can't be arsed to explain it right now. I'm not saying they're all shit. It's pretty easy to figure out. Actually, Jamie Cullum is fairly talented, I'll give him that. I'll get my coat.

It doesn't piss you off when a talentless/workshy chav wins the lottery and then proceeds to spunk the money on drugs etc? {Aherm, Michael Carroll)

Oh, and Derren Brown is a legend.

>You can win the lottery

Right, but I think pretty clearly that wasn't my point. We're talking occupational income. You wouldn't be distressed by a shit doctor raking it in hand over fist? What about a bad mechanic? A lousy teacher? An ineffective policeman? A corrupt judge?

The same applies--and rightfully so--to those who profit from their art.

> The same applies--and rightfully so--to those who profit from their art.

It's not quite the same though, is it? A corrupt judge has chosen to reject much that he/she stands for for financial gain. You may not like Brown, but I don't think anyone can say that he doesn't put every effort into his books (okay, not to be ORIGINAL, but that's not an automatic requirement). Nor can you say that he doesn't entertain.

Again, a bad doctor kills patients. But if a bad writer is still entertaining readers, isn't that their job? An artist is not obliged to better others in his/her field, nor to withstand comparrisons. They're obliged to try and communicate to an audience, and entertain them. And Brown IS achieving that - suggesting that, in fact, his talent IS equal to the rewards.

Don't like it? Don't read it. Don't support the books. You're not obliged to. But I'm keen to read his next one - flaws and all - and that entitles the guys to a few quid of my money next time. It is, surely, the most reasonable reward system out there - we give cash up to those who entertain us (or, at least, who entertained our friedns and we bought on recommendation).

While I weep for Whedon's recent lack of financial success, the sad truth is that audiences weren't bothered by a quirky SF movie of lower budget starring people they'd never heard of. Audiences vote with their wallets. It's kinda fair enough.

There are creatives I consider brilliant, but a mass audience will find dull, pretentious, whatever. The rewards go the guys most able to reach the most people. That's democracy. Yes, it's also lowest-common-denominator, but who decides what is 'good'?

Publicity does its part, but suggesting that artists should only make money if they fulfill some set of critical critera is downright offensive in its desire to regulate. Like Big Brother or The Fast and the Furious, it's fair and right that you are able to critise. But it's also fair and right that, as entertainers of millions, they rake in the appropriate cash.

They ARE doing their job well, and are seeing democratic wallet-voted rewards for it.

Right.

Of course with quailfied jobs like Judge, Police or Doctor, they would have had to have a level of competence to reach the position they are in, bad habits would set in later. Incompetence or under handed behaviour can and are often found out, but not always.
On the other hand, writers, musicions and other 'art' based occupations are based on popularity, if you stop selling books or records, you lose your contract. You also have to impress the publishers first to get a 'deal', even the 'Beatles' were turned down at one stage.
There are probably hundreds of good writers out there who have never had the chance because a small number of people in power didn't like their stuff, there are very few qualified Judges and Doctors out there who havn't had a chance, it's a cut throat world out there........

Of course with quailfied jobs like Judge, Police or Doctor, they would have had to have a level of competence to reach the position they are in, bad habits would set in later. Incompetence or under handed behaviour can and are often found out, but not always.
On the other hand, writers, musicions and other 'art' based occupations are based on popularity, if you stop selling books or records, you lose your contract. You also have to impress the publishers first to get a 'deal', even the 'Beatles' were turned down at one stage.
There are probably hundreds of good writers out there who have never had the chance because a small number of people in power didn't like their stuff, there are very few qualified Judges and Doctors out there who havn't had a chance, it's a cut throat world out there........

Right.

>suggesting that, in fact, his talent IS equal to the rewards.

This is the crux of the argument, I admit Andrew. Because it's entirely a matter of opinion. But responding as an artist myself, and not necessarily as a reader, it's a different perspective, and I'm gauging him on a whole other scale. Surely there are people who believe the talent is equal to the rewards...I'm not disputing that. Only that I, as somebody who disagrees that his talent equals the rewards, am pretty distressed by the fact that thousands of authors who handle their craft more deftly go unheard while he rolls in dough. I'm looking at you, too, Stephen King.

It's an artist's perspective...and a distressing one. The audience may well enjoy it. I won't take that away from them, if they really think his talent justifies it. But with an art as refined as literature, I can't in good conscience recommend anything he's done.

Phil, to be clear - I don't dispute your opinion, nor the right to that opinion. What concerns me is the implication of what is 'deserved'.

> I, as somebody who disagrees that his talent equals the rewards,

But the 'talent' you're talking about isn't the gauge the world uses. You can't say 'the talent doesn't equal the reward', because we have the sales figures. By 'talent' you mean a set of critical critera - and that gets paid off in critical opinion, in reviews, in what people say in situations like this. 'Popular ability' is what brings sales and cash, and he has that in spades. You're talking about a reward that isn't related to what you call 'talent'.

The ability to entertain a mass audience put him on bestseller lists. He then gets paid for the books sold. Fair enough.

What you're saying is 'he isn't a good enough writer to deserve his popularity'. But, again, 'deserve' isn't up to you; and artistic control SHOULDN'T be in the hands of a critical minority. You can say he's a lousy writer, of course, but it's crazy to suggest he's not entitled to the sales (which he didn't create, the public did) or the money from them.

> am pretty distressed by the fact that thousands of authors who handle their craft more deftly go unheard while he rolls in dough.

But since when is that his fault? Say you write/paint/draw/whatever it is you do. You get some popularity. What if I don't like your stuff? Do you then hand back your money, give your contract to a better artist? Or do you press on, knowing that thousands (in fact a majority) DO like what you're doing, and also feeling that you still have things to express in your art?

You talk like he mugged a collective of potential Booker winners to get the gig. If any writer is likely to make money, they'll get a job, sooner or later. That's publishing, and again not the fault of any writer. He hasn't taken the place of someone else. (Indeed, with book-buying numbers diminishing, he's responsible for more momeny going into publishing. Which creates oppotunities for new writers.)

If your problem, really, is that the media industries fuel 'popular' over 'artistic'...well, okay. I agree, it's not a great situation for those of us who like 'god stuff', but it IS democratic. Enforcing 'only approved art will be produced' is positively fascistic. (Making no comment of yourself, Philip; just hypothesising from the initial stance, taking it to the logical extreme.)

Slate his writing, have an opinion, it's fine. Maybe you'll put some people off giving over their money for the next book, too. All that is fine and right and as it should be. But talk of what he 'deserves' can't be related to critical opinion, only to ability to reach an audience.

> I'm looking at you, too, Stephen King.

Hey, don't be dissing da King! The last decade aside, he's produced too many brilliant, entertaining novels to be just dismissed - books that DO speak to people. (Yeah, okay, I'm a fan.)

Hey, look, I'm a writer. I get frustrated at the system, of course. "I can do better than this" syndrome is rife. But art is supposed to be its own reward. Popularity and success is controlled by the will of the people, not the edicts of internal ability.

If this were my Andrew-controleld state, Scorsese would have is Oscar, Gilliam would never have trouble finding funding and Aaron Sorkin would never been allowed to leave The West Wing. But, rightly, that's not how it works.

> god stuff'

Despite the fact that The Da Vinci Code qualifies under this heading, that should have read 'good stuff'.

> If this were my Andrew-CONTROLLED state, Scorsese would have HIS Oscar...

Me and typing. For fuck's sake...

>You talk like he mugged a collective of potential Booker winners to get the gig.

I do, don't I?

I assure you I'm not nearly as bitter as I sound...it's just the way in which I decided to make my point. Regardless, it is how I feel--or a slightly exaggerated version of how I feel--and I'm glad to see it actually got a pretty good debate going.

I'll always prefer a book that speaks to my mind rather than to my emotions or my senses of excitement or fear...and when an author comes along who really focusses on entertainment over substance...well...I become the metaphorical old man trying to shoo the kids off his lawn.

It probably is just some character-flaw of mine that makes me overprotective of the art of the written word, but despite a few hollow frustrations with certain authors (Brown, King and David Sedaris about exhaust that list) I do believe that ANYTHING that gets people reading is, at least in some way, a positive force.

There. That's about as positive as I'm ever going to get about Dan Brown. We made progress today. :-)

I have to say this 'art for art sake' and 'critical acclaim' business leaves me a bit cold, there's clearly a place for it, but in reality, money makes the world go round...
A lot of these awards etc simply smack of back slapping and seem to involve a smallish circle of like minded people. The mercury music prize for instance, never ceases to wind me up as some obscure act is selected who invariably vanish further into obscurity soon after.
As an 'artist' I have to ask, which you would prefer, a million sales or slap on the back from one of your peers?
Like everything, there are exceptions to the rules, but I would say, the truest bench mark of success is a bulging bank account.
Mind you, I tend to read the Sun rather than the Guardian etc :-)

P.S, Dont knock Jordan, She only got where she is today thanks to her Knockers....

King is a fucking genius. Or at least he was up until around '97. You CANNOT put him in the same category as Brown. King actually deserves his popularity. Read 'Different Seasons' which is 4 short stories (or novellas, or whatever) of his, and that's just stratching the surface of King's work.

Just about to compile a reading list.

So, if anyone has any further suggestions, now is the time to make them...

'Five Go Off To Camp' by Enid Blyton.

You know, it's a shame Austin is away...I'm sure he'd have a book or two to recommend.

I've already read Five Go Off to Camp. It's a good book. I like Enid Blyton. The Five Find Outers (and Dog) are my favourites.

I'd thought that too, Phil - but I talked to him a while back and he recommended me some, so I'm going to stick one of those on the list as well.

>The Five Find Outers (and Dog) are my favourites.

It's many years since I read any of them but I can state for the record that 'The Mystery of the Invisible Thief' is far better than anything set at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

_One_ book???

I guess Catch-22.

Shit, I can't believe I missed this conversation. In short: Dan Brown and Stephen King are both shit, and I'm in total agreement with Phil on just about all points. (They both get a lot of people reading, which is good; but it starts them off in the shitter, which is bad. And people tend to read the same thing over and over again, which is how our most popular authors got where they are today; by writing the same goddamn thing over and over again.)

Go read More than Human by Theodore Sturgeon. It's a good'un.

Oh, and for the love of god, go read The Sandman.

> In short: Dan Brown and Stephen King are both shit

Your wrong about Stephen King. Yes, he has written some crocks of mediocrity but apart from that he is a god. Up yours.

>he is a god.

God is a bit much for a man who's been coasting on fumes for the past two decades or so.

I'd never say he isn't (well, wasn't) a creative man, nor would I ever say he doesn't know how to captivate an audience. But the substance just isn't there...flat out. He can keep you spellbound for 600 pages. Does that take talent? Yes, of course it does...but at the end of the day you realize, quite simply, there wasn't anything behind it. No substance. It was hollow all along and you're no more fulfilled at the end than you were at the beginning.

"Wait," I hear you cry, "if the book keeps the audience amused, isn't that enough?"

Maybe enough for some people...certainly enough for people who don't read much...but I could easily rattle off a hundred books or so that would amuse on every page and ALSO deliver a great deal of substance behind the text...something that really would open your eyes to the world around you, within you, behind you, above and below you...something that would convey maybe not the deepest secrets of life, but certainly get you a little closer to understanding them.

And a truly great author does that while entertaining, not instead of.

You can have one, or you can have the other. Right? I suppose. But why pick and choose when there are so many books that offer both?

> But the substance just isn't there

I disagree that his stuff is categorically without substance. While the last decade has been messy and disappointing, Carrie, The Shining, Misery...these all have something going on upstairs. And that's just the horror stuff - The Body, Apt Pupil and Shawshank are genuinely great pieces of fiction, and some of the Bachman stuff (specifically Rage and The Long Walk) is exemplary.

No, he's not usually massively profound, nor is he a god, but he never claimed to be anything more than the literary equivalent of McDonald's. And sometimes he IS more than that.

Once again, we, the public, elevate him to bestselling author. That's down to us. At his best he touches readers - a great many readers - in a visceral place, and he does hit on key emotions and situations we can all relate to. His stuff is incredibly accessible.

That, to me, makes him a great author. Consistently? Of course not. But undeniably worthwhile.