While I had problems with Wolfe when I read him, it wasn't because I thought the writing was bad. It was just of a very . . . different . . . style from what I'm used to- which isn't necessarily a bad thing -but one that also didn't compel me to read more.
I do think people need to realize that there's a difference between
bad writing and writing that just doesn't do it for
them. There are some authors who
I don't like, but can admit to either their promise (as I believe Mieville has) or the fact that the ideas are interesting (Bakker) who still do little to nothing for me. I might classify them as "worst" for
me, but not as genuinely
bad books.
I'm just very utilitarian in what I like the books to do: I don't dislike the flowery flourishes in sentences, I think it can be an amazing element to a tale, but when that ends up taking the center stage and pushing aside considerations of plot... well, watch my attention wander out the window
That said: I probably made a big mistake in my reading of Wolfe in that I read 3/4ths of Shadow & Claw, and then jumped feet first into "The Fifth Head of Cerberus." The "Latro in the Mists" idea fascinates me, but . . .
"The Fifth Head..." made my brainmeats
hurt...
.david
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"- Kurt Vonnegut