More or less the only profession that seems to enjoy reading stories about itself is the writing profession. Which is quite telling.
Not true. I've noticed many professions like reading stories about themselves. Not sure if I should be insulted here or not? ;-) John Grisham is lawyer who became a writer, and his thrillers are deft takes on the legal profession. Unlike television serials about lawyers which are laughably unrealistic. The only good television series about the legal profession was The Good Wife. Although LA Law was entertaining, but I watched it prior to law school I read Grisham prior to law school and during it. Can't read legal thrillers now. And Grisham doesn't write about the writing profession. Actually the ones who do, I find rather boring for the most part. Although Stephen Kind did write a very good book on Writing, entitled "ON Writing" I think, it's mostly a memoir. As to did William Goldman about screenwriting, which is also partly a memoir and includes his screen play for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and what it was like to work on The Princess Bride and All the President's Men.
I love reading about what people do for a living, Actually what people do as profession whether it is my own or someone else's fascinates me. Maybe that's a writer thing? But I doubt it.
Why him in particular?
No real reason. Rochester just came to mind for some reason. In part, process of elimination. I don't really like many of the characters...in those novels. Rochester had a dry wit, and was a tortured hero.
I'm sure she would be much better known if she wrote a series, since people seem to like series in crime especially.
Oddly that's one of the reasons I liked Walters because she didn't do a series. I don't like series. The reason is -- I don't care about the puzzle, the setting, the world, but the characters. And mystery writers for some reason that escapes me, appear to suck at evolving their characters throughout series. They like to focus on plot mainly or the puzzle. I don't know why this is. Writers who write mysteries but not series, are quite good at character development, the others not so much. Their main character the detective often feels the same in each book. I get bored. And the plots after awhile resemble each other.
I think I may have tried Ellis Peters once, I remember reading it, but not the book or the story...just a vague memory. Was he the monk who solved crimes? Very few of the mystery series writers stick out in my head. I think my favorite historical mysteries were Umberto Eco's Name of The Rose (decent movie adaptation), Caleb Carr's The Alienist, and Gorky Park, which isn't really a historical, except if you read it now. All stand-a-lone's. I just don't like the series that much..
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2017-06-18 03:39 am (UTC)Not true. I've noticed many professions like reading stories about themselves. Not sure if I should be insulted here or not? ;-)
John Grisham is lawyer who became a writer, and his thrillers are deft takes on the legal profession. Unlike television serials about lawyers which are laughably unrealistic. The only good television series about the legal profession was The Good Wife. Although LA Law was entertaining, but I watched it prior to law school I read Grisham prior to law school and during it. Can't read legal thrillers now. And Grisham doesn't write about the writing profession. Actually the ones who do, I find rather boring for the most part. Although Stephen Kind did write a very good book on Writing, entitled "ON Writing" I think, it's mostly a memoir. As to did William Goldman about screenwriting, which is also partly a memoir and includes his screen play for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and what it was like to work on The Princess Bride and All the President's Men.
I love reading about what people do for a living, Actually what people do as profession whether it is my own or someone else's fascinates me. Maybe that's a writer thing? But I doubt it.
Why him in particular?
No real reason. Rochester just came to mind for some reason. In part, process of elimination. I don't really like many of the characters...in those novels. Rochester had a dry wit, and was a tortured hero.
I'm sure she would be much better known if she wrote a series, since people seem to like series in crime especially.
Oddly that's one of the reasons I liked Walters because she didn't do a series. I don't like series. The reason is -- I don't care about the puzzle, the setting, the world, but the characters. And mystery writers for some reason that escapes me, appear to suck at evolving their characters throughout series. They like to focus on plot mainly or the puzzle. I don't know why this is. Writers who write mysteries but not series, are quite good at character development, the others not so much. Their main character the detective often feels the same in each book. I get bored. And the plots after awhile resemble each other.
I think I may have tried Ellis Peters once, I remember reading it, but not the book or the story...just a vague memory. Was he the monk who solved crimes? Very few of the mystery series writers stick out in my head. I think my favorite historical mysteries were Umberto Eco's Name of The Rose (decent movie adaptation), Caleb Carr's The Alienist, and Gorky Park, which isn't really a historical, except if you read it now. All stand-a-lone's.
I just don't like the series that much..