Even the later MacLeans were somewhat readable. The later Edsons weren't - I wouldn't even borrow them from a library.
-- srs (blackberry) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sender: [email protected] Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:55:08 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [silk] JT Edsons Or Alistair MacLeans? Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone -----Original Message----- From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:52:51 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [silk] JT Edsons His earlier works are very good pulp - tightly plotted, fast moving, lots of (not particularly accurate, but believable) detail .. The later ones had frayed plots, filled up with verbose recycling of character backgrounds and random right wing rants, not to mention very badly written sex .. Kind of like a worse version of the later heinleins ------Original Message------ From: Udhay Shankar N Sender: [email protected] To: [email protected] ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: [silk] JT Edsons Sent: Jan 30, 2012 21:31 On 30-Jan-12 8:18 PM, Vinit Bhansali wrote: > Have almost every L'Amour book. Never got around to JT Edson. > How does their writing quality/style compare? Louis L'Amour is a far better writer than Edson - but for some reason, Edson's earlier works are a guilty pleasure for several people, myself included. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) -- srs (blackberry)
