Matthew Reilly

[Dizzy]

I've read Contest and Ice Station. And I started reading Area 7 today!

also on the site the previous poster gave the link to, Hyperstorm, there are a bunch of Mathew Reilly's short stories. I haven't read any, but i remember reading on the inside of one of his books somewhere. Go check it our if your interested!

 

[phil_t]

The short stories are really good actually, I enjoyed them all - they were originally published in various Australian magazines and newspapers.

As for Hover Car Racer, I didnt enjoy it as much as his other stories as it was aimed a bit young for me, but I love the way he released it free first on the internet and later published the complete serialisation - how many authors are prepared to do that these days!!

Phil

 

[Hyperstorm]

MR short stories

Hey Dizzy, i have already read all of them but thanks anyways

check out the mine, it has a quite a twist

 

[Shade]

Here's the proper Matthew Reilly thread, which my later posts on the self-publishing thread should probably have gone into.

I did take the opportunity to read one of his stories on his website, "Altitude Rush." Now I know I will never agree with some other members on the board about what makes a book good or bad, and I know that tastes differ ... but there are some basic requirements for good writing: and some prominent features of bad writing. Reilly's story has all of the latter: tautology ("pointed peak"), feeble descriptions ("fashionable Fifth Avenue"), clichés ("blasted the window to smithereens," "small and wiry and compact"), Dan Brown-style clunking explication - ("Grauss pressure cases are all but impossible to break open. They are protected by four pressure-sealed locks which can only be opened using a high-pressure air-valve release unit - a machine the size of a small refrigerator. Such machines are rare and very expensive" - yeah, tell don't show, that's the spirit!), laughable strainings for effect and subtlety ("Their cases are known to be used by the US and British governments, nearly every major office at the UN, and not a few billionaires who like to accumulate socially ... unacceptable ... collectibles"), not to mention attention-deficit style (most paragraphs only a line or two long) and no concept of narrative integrity (one minute speaking in the protagonist's internal monologue, next addressing the reader omnisciently - "You see..."). The plot itself is a pointlessly contrived Speed-style race, and the backstory a frankly repellent libel against a dead man who can't answer back.

The question is: is Reilly doing the best he can? Or is he deliberately writing at a uniquely low level? Either is a pretty unattractive prospect.

 

[Rogue]

I really like some of Reilly's books. I know that they are predictabel and not really good. It's like watching "Terminator" after having been to the opera.

But sometimes that's what I need, although Reilly lost me with his last books "Scarecrow". I tried to read it (in translation) but it was so badly written, I had to quiet soon enough and get my hands on some good literature. Maybe it was the translation that did it. As English isn't my mother language, everything written in English sounds more fascinating to me.

Furthermore I found out that Reilly is making a movie out of "Contest". He is producing and directing that thing, and not to forget starring as the leading character. That guy is nuts and we can surely assume, that the movie will be crap.

 

[Shade]

Yes I noticed from the Amazon reviews, Rogue, that a lot of people - Reilly fans - felt he had really lost it with Scarecrow.

 

[Rogue]

I love this review, especially the "Shakespearian by comparison".

...
A weak plot is excusable, if balanced by interesting characters and engaging dialogue. Regrettably, against the paper-thin character development and discourse that is more suited to a cartoon bubble, the plot is Shakespearian by comparison. Interspersed within the silly dialogue and inane action is an outlandish conspiracy that should embarrass even the most diehard black helicopter disciple. To make it worse, Reilly peppers about every-other line with italicized phrases - I guess to convey some sense of wonder in his pedestrian prose. About the only saving grace was the killing off of some of the annoying good guys in Schofield's entourage along the way. The irony: this book is so bad that with only some minor tweaks, Reilly could have turned this into an absolutely hilarious parody of thriller/suspense novels. It is almost bad enough to be funny. Unfortunately, Reilly is dead serious about his subject matter, complete with a sanctimonious closing "Interview with Matthew Reilly: The Writing of Scarecrow."
...

 

[wilderness]

Hey, i havent actually read his books, but I saw his new one (thats in Australia) today and its very very thin compared to his other novels.
But I'm seeing him in 2 two weeks at the Melbourne Writers Festival. I just want to hear him speak!
Lani

 

[Shade]

That's good, Rogue. Still, his plots may well be Shakespearean in comparison - Shakespeare's plots weren't exactly all that, full of ludicrous coincidences and unlikely things...

I read his short story The Mine yesterday - I know I shouldn't have, but it was a sort of literary equivalent of picking at a scab. You can read it on his website under Extras or Exclusives or something like that. I have to say it was genuinely I think the worst piece of prose fiction by a professional writer I have ever seen. The flaws the Amazon reviewer identifies in Scarecrow were all there, not least the peppering of italics, in the mistaken belief that this enhances emphasis rather than detracts from it. As well as this, he also developed an addiction to exclamation marks - the last refuge, in literary terms, of the scoundrel. And I don't mean in his dialogue - exclamation marks in his third person narrative, fer chrissakes! Like that!

 

[Stewart]

Too many people want to be writers but don't know their tools. Too many readers don't know the tools either and so the writers get away with it.

 

[Stewart]

I read his short story The Mine yesterday

Bravo! I just opened it up there and was immediately bored. When I think of short stories I tend to think of a short, uninterrupted narrative with a point to make or a twist to tell. The Mine read like a first novel by a ten year old: hundred word chapters and a lack of decent storytelling with all manner of irrelevant toss thrown in for "good" measure.

 

[Shade]

Yes, he really does have this attention-deficit thing to a dangerous degree - forty chapters (each with a separate title) in a seventeen-page story. And when he uses italics in dialogue, he doesn't even do it right:

"Oh Christ! My legs! Look at my goddam legs!"

Either legs rather than goddam should be italicised, or both, or neither. It just doesn't read right with goddam emphasised and legs not.

The man's legs had been completely and totally flattened.

Double marks off here, for italics in the main narrative and for use of the word totally - not just because it's redundant but because the only people who say totally are American teenage girls and Dave Spart type agitprop wankers.

Here's his idea of characterisation:

In front of her sat her diminutive dig partner, Kenneth W. Georgeopolous. Kenny was all of five-foot-two, with hair brushed up into an Elvis Presley pompadour. He was known about the site as 'Little Kenny G.'

Give me strength. Anyone who uses the word diminutive should be shot. Another piece of deft characterisation is "eccentric billionaire chairman." Wow, he's just come to life, hasn't he?

And so on and so on. Oh yes and his use of 'nanosecond' as a realistic description of time - also seen, it seems, in Temple, apparently one of his better books, of which this is a review from Amazon:

I read Ice Station, and while amateurish was reasonably well written. I suspect that the editors rewrote that one to make it readable. For Temple, they probably either thought that Reilly was successful enough to allow it through without editing or they couldn't find editors willing to undertake the task. I don't blame them. I have never read a professionally published novel that was so badly written in my life. It reads like a 12yo wrote it, with exclamation marks on every second sentence, cartoonish "BOOM, CRASH, BANG!" descriptors (the best one is YECCHHH), repeated use of unrealistic words like nanosecond ("a nanosecond before it happened..."), and totally unbelievable scenarios. Other reviewers have described some of the idiotic plot devices used, so I won't go into them here. Suffice to say that if your tastes run to Green Goblin and The Incredible Hulk comics, you might like this book. Otherwise go with Clancy or Forsythe. Or get a lobotomy.

And another:

As many other reviewers have stated this is essentially an action movie in book format. I'm not sure if Mr. Reilly is trying specifically to write something that can be translated into a movie but if so I think it is too bad Roger Corman and Ed Wood are no longer around to make it.

Or this:

Aside from his limitations in character development, Mr. Reilly can't even do any decent research on his books. If he did, he'd realize that there are no such thing as Jesuit monks, people don't play baseball in New York in January, and a plethora of other details that prove that Mr. Reilly doesn't care to let basic research stand in the way of a story.

He does seem to know a lot about weaponry, however, which I suppose is an accurate reflection of his mindset. Be advised.

Or:

Any author who describes something as being "a great big huge thing" desrves the contempt of any reader over the age of six. Any writer who can pen the following paragraph and expect us to take him seriously needs counselling. I quote:

"Strangely, there was only one Nazi on board the Rigid Raider behind him. It was the boat that he had assailed with gunfire earlier, killing all its occupants bar one."

Matthew Reilly is such an author.

I have just this minute thrown his book into the trash. It deserves a worse fate.

I append these purely for your entertainment, you understand. There are others, even some good reviews, like this one:

Oh, and if you're one of those girlyboys who whines about 'character development' and $@#%! like that, you are most definitely looking at the wrong book.

Or this:

Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to go supersonic. With a plot that moves at the speed of light and enough over the top action sequences to make Arnold Schwartzenager [sic] do a double take, Reilly's third novel is testestosterone [sic] central.

Anyone framiliar [sic] with Matt's writing style will be plesed [sic]to see that he has once again made excellent use of his formula: Fast, plot driven, 2-D characters.

Oh, yeah, by the way "blah blah blah bad character developement [sic] blah blah blah who cares its a blah-ing action thriller."

And of course:

I picked up "Temple" during a Clive Cussler hiatus, and I was not disappointed.

And why would you be? I looked through these five-star reviewers' other reviews to see what they thought of the classics of the 20th century - yer Waughs, Greenes, Fitzgeralds, Nabokovs and the like - but they don't seem to have reviewed them. Odd.

 

[Ice]

Shade - the only two of his I have personally read are 'Temple' and 'Ice Station'. I would say Temple was the better of the two but that was probably because I preferred the plot. Yes they are predictable and are not literary masterpieces, but for someone wanting an enjoyable read they certainly fall into that category (and I am not getting into a debate about what different people find enjoyable).

Why don't you try reading a couple of his novels rather than giving an opinion based on speculation and the reviews of others? I see you have read one of his short stories - I haven't bothered with these as they are not the type of thing I would enjoy, but each to their own.

 

[Ice]

I looked through these five-star reviewers' other reviews to see what they thought of the classics of the 20th century - yer Waughs, Greenes, Fitzgeralds, Nabokovs and the like - but they don't seem to have reviewed them. Odd.

I thought we have already established that different people like different types of writing - why should they have to review, or even read books by these authors. Some people are secure in the fact that they are reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent and don't feel the need to have to prove it constantly. I actually feel sorry for literary 'snobs', where by they decide what books are good and feel that anyone who doesn't read them are somehow inferior. This is a notion I completely disagree with. I think it is a shame that people try and prove their intelligence by constantly dropping into conversation the 'masterpieces' they have read. I think people have to accept that some people read purely for enjoyment, for escapism and don't really care if the book is a masterpiece or not. As long as it is enjoyable with few glaring errors, then this satisfies most people.

Again this is slightly out of place here - you are commenting on the literacy of reviewers not the actual books themselves.

 

[Shade]

Briefly - no, really - I of course made the comment about 20th century classic just to provoke, but there is a serious point behind it. There are standards, some books are better than others, and the only way we have of objectively testing this is the test of time: what lasts? When Reilly's apologists pre-empt criticism of his books by saying "It's not supposed to be the kind of book that has proper characterisation, realistic plot, good use of language or plausibility," then how do we know to take their praise seriously, to respect their views, if they haven't read anything that does have those things? How do we know they would know a good book if it stood up in their soup?

Some people are secure in the fact that they are reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent and don't feel the need to have to prove it constantly.

Lucky them eh! Maybe it's reading Matthew Reilly that confers these magical powers of confidence. You're right, I should give him a go. (I mean, more of a go, apart from the two terrible stories.)

I actually feel sorry for literary 'snobs', where by they decide what books are good and feel that anyone who doesn't read them are somehow inferior.

Me too: as any fule kno, reading bad books doesn't make you inferior, it just makes the books you read inferior. And as for good books, well, we know what they are, but you're right, you don't have to read them - as mentioned before, I know Saul Bellow, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Toni Morrison are good - I can see it there on the page as clearly as I can see that Reilly is bad - but I don't find them enjoyable.

I think it is a shame that people try and prove their intelligence by constantly dropping into conversation the 'masterpieces' they have read.

Me too - God, I hate that! Why don't they stick with what I do, and just talk about all the books they've read (it is a book forum, after all!), masterpieces and non-masterpieces?

I think people have to accept that some people read purely for enjoyment

I'm not sure I follow. I don't know anyone who doesn't read purely for enjoyment. Do you?

When Oscar Wilde, over a hundred years ago, wrote "Books are either well-written, or badly-written. That is all," he wasn't joking, you know. That is all.

 

[wilderness]

sorry i havent read the previous posts so I'm off the current discussion...but i saw him two days ago at the Melbroune Writers Festival. I have never read him but thought I would go listen. He was quite inspiring and very interesting to listen to!! If anyone is interested in what he had to say, PM me and ill tell you about the interview

Lani

 

[Stewart]

i saw him two days ago at the Melbroune Writers Festival.

Did you punch him?

PM me and ill tell you about the interview

Why not just post it here? It is, afterall, this "author"'s discussion thread.

 

[cabrasopa]

Personally Temple's my favourite, the way he's integrated the past and the present appeals to me.

I agree, 'Temple' was the frist book of his i read and the most enjoyable along with 'Contest', i have also read 'Ice Station' and 'Area 7' but i've yet to read 'Scarecrow'.
I tend to treat M Reilly as Throw away reading don't take it seriuosly and just enjoy it for what it is, easy to read, fast paced, action packed, far fetched nonsense, ideal for some light relief.

 

[Shade]

I tend to treat M Reilly as Throw away reading

Does that mean you throw his books away after you read them?

 

[cabrasopa]

Does that mean you throw his books away after you read them?

Over my shoulder straight out the nearest window