I presume your idea of a "discussion" only allows for people who agree with you, as it is the only rational explanation as to why you would mud sling about the amount of attention a stanger to you desires, and about how much that person has going on in their life. I'm truly sorry that your idea of "fiction" equals careless, deteriorating writing, but if someone such as myself points out that in fact that does not equal fiction in my opinion-nevermind GOOD fiction-try not personally attacking them.
I only post in response to someone addressing me directly, such as yourself today, as you called me out by name. It's hardly "going on about it" if I am merely responding to someone talking to me personally, which is what I have done here. Most people would do the same. If you yourself tends to ignore those who post directly to you in a rather rude way then you would probably be an exception.
Commenting on a post from a reader critiquing the author's ability to remember his character's names...There is one particular book that you can't remember...yet you are commenting on Woods' memory? Enough! If you cannot logically argue, then get off the cross-we need the WOODS! Bazinga. P.s. I 've had editors completely change my chapters after noting errors...went to press their way...don't blame author for final published offering, you boob!
I shouldn't remember his characters better than the author himself, he created them, you boob. And if his editors are completely changing people and entire scenes to the degree that they no longer make sense (in more than one of his books, mind you) then he needs a new team reading them before they are printed. I am aware no one is perfect, I've seen mistakes in other writers books, that isn't my point. Woods' errors are often huge and WAY WAY WAY more than the occasional screw up here and there. I will concede, however, that he seems to have gotten better about this is his last two books.
I am wondering why this is such an issue for you. As others here have advised; if the mistakes take the joy out of your reading, simply don't buy or read his books. Stuart Woods is clearly no Steinbeck or Hemingway. He is a clever writer able to create engaging characters, and he is able to use them over and over in his novels without boring people. His books are light reading, and really quite entertaining. I really don't understand why this is so upsetting to you.
It's an issue because I DO think he is an entertaining writer, and have enjoyed-very much-some of his earlier books. As I mentioned recently his last two books have contained fewer errors, for which I am grateful, but on the whole his novels go above and beyond what I find acceptable in terms of mistakes and sloppy editing. His individual book reviews here reflect that I am far from alone in noticing this! For example, (I can't recall which Stone novel in particular this was) in one Stone Barrington book Stone reveals some big news to someone, then several pages later he wonders how he will ever "break this news" to the same character he has already broken the news to! Then another scene follows where he finally tells her this news, AGAIN, to which the character reacts entirely differently! That not being caught by someone before it was published was ridiculous. That is far worse than the ever present mixing up of his characters names and is frustrating as the reader.
If you enjoy Stuart Woods (or even if you used to haha) try Casino Shuffle new to Amazon 99 cent eBook. I'm a big Stuart Woods fan, I've read them all from way back in the day when I picked up Chiefs and thought "Hm what's this?" Seems like a long time ago now. And yes, his books aren't as thick as they used to be, in content and in quality, but I still like them. Sometimes I don't mind having just an appetizer with my drinks, instead a full rich meal. His books aren't entrees anymore.
Just had to add this to my rant: Ahem...The character of Jane Grey, Holly's former secretary in the novel Orchid Beach was KILLED in that book. Did Stuart Woods really bring her back from the dead to resume her former job in the book Hothouse Orchid, or has he gone senile and forgotten she has been dead for years (and that he himself, the "writer" killed her character?) I'm going with the latter. He ought to be ashamed of himself. How are we to take this sloppiness seriously? This isn't just poor editing, a writer actually forgetting he has killed off a character a pretty big no no in the world of writing.
What did you think of DC Dead and the omission of his signature first line in the novel? I've always been a Woods fan, have never jumped ship or complained, and find them all entertaining - even when he resurrects characters and has them zombie-walk around. Doesn't bother me at all. I just went back and read the very first Stone novel, NY Dead. It was interesting how much I disliked Dino in that novel.
Oh my. Bonnie, you have missed my point entirely. I presume you are one 14 people who favorably reviewed "Son of Stone" here on Amazon, as opposed to the 127 people who trashed it, and pretty much unanimously said Stuart Woods has lost it. And PS? I wasn't even one of the reviewers, so I suppose I could make it 128...
I think the real problem with Woods' plotting is that there is no real-world tension in it. In Stuart Woods' universe there is no effort to solving a problem. Just make a phone call and it's done. Once upon a time in books like "Chiefs" and "Under the Lake" Woods used to create gripping tension and real drama. Now, he has just become a lazy, book writing machine. In his world, money is easy to come by and it will solve everything. Kill off a major character and the grief lasts two pages before the characters are back to their old selves. Stuart Woods seems to be content to put his writing on cruise control.
Other writers such as John Sandford who match his yearly output still manage to create great stories with lots of tension and suspense.
I've read an interview with him in which he responds to this with, loosely quoted, "People don't want to read about poor people struggling with paying their bills, it's more interesting to read about wealth" He also goes on to mention that in earlier books Stone Barrington did have a hard time paying his bills. I do recall him having to move money around in order to have cash on hand, or some such, but yes I have to agree with you. Additionally most people don't keep inheriting huge elaborate properties and airplanes in the real world. What has he got now, 3 homes and no mortgages? Yes it is fiction, but people can only be expected to suspend disbelief only up to a point.
To L.L. McCroskey: you obviously haven't read enough of this discussion to make an intelligent comment. Ms Hinds has been trying for a very long time to make her point that Stuart Woods has been consistently declining over recent years in his ability to keep the names of his characters straight and the story lines running smoothly. Many people have similarly commented in their book reviews. I believe Mr. Woods needs a better editor. One of you is a boob; I think it is not Ms. Hinds.