A Good Thriller discussion

I will read or at least try all kinds of genres. Ones that I don't enjoy would be:



Shakespeare and plays
Non fiction military books
Fantasy and hard core sci fi but only because I am very logical and rational….I have a tough time letting reality go. My stepdaughter calls me Literal Lisa.
Old westerns…I love the pioneer days but not the John Wayne type westerns. I will read about Native Americans though.

Now I would try any of these if someone or a lot of someone's raved about it, lol.



I am one who does read cookbooks…I love them but I never add them to my goodreads books.

Romance. Westerns.

I suggest you look into the Sackett novels by Louis L'Amour, Lisa. At least the first four...the ones that tell the tales of the first TWO generations of Sacketts in America: SACKETT'S LAND, TO THE FAR BLUE MOUNTAINS, THE WARRIOR'S PATH and JUBAL SACKETT.

I lost interest in the series after I started reading LANDO ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... ). Found it boring, compared to the previous 6 books of the series.

Jeffrey wrote: "I tend to agree Amber! Sex in novels is rarely neccessary. I will almost always give a book a lower rating if it contains sex. I have read too many great novels that contained not a hint of sex."

Define sex. While I must confess I don't much care for descriptions of caressing and bodily fluid exchanges, we are sexual beings, and so are characters. Sometimes sex happens. Personally, I prefer that it happen "off-camera," but realism often demands that it be an integral part of the story.

To answer the original OP question (if I haven't already): Erotica and most of what passes for romance, which doesn't distance itself much from the former. Oh, and anything vampire-related (see comment about exchange of bodily fluids).

Eduardo Suastegui

" ..Fluids! Fluids! My god doesn't that make you want to die! Just die, with all the fluids that have to be involved. So much that's wet... all that saliva it's just hideous...
Spittle! ...what's so erotic about swapping spit, for gods sake.
...if I ever kiss you it will be a dry kiss. As dry as paper. Dry as sand.
...no tongue. "

-Dean Koontz

Amber wrote: "I suggest you look into the Sackett novels by Louis L'Amour, Lisa. At least the first four...the ones that tell the tales of the first TWO generations of Sacketts in America: SACKETT'S LAND, TO TH..."

OK..I will try the first Sackett novel on your recommendation. It actually looks good.

When I think of westerns I think of cowboys and the slaughter of indians. I won't read those…that would just raise my blood pressure.

E. wrote: "" ..Fluids! Fluids! My god doesn't that make you want to die! Just die, with all the fluids that have to be involved. So much that's wet... all that saliva it's just hideous...
Spittle! ...what's s..."

Ha, ha…what book was that from?

Lisa wrote: Ha, ha…what book was that from? "

It might be simpler to answer what book it isn't from...

Eduardo Suastegui

Eduardo wrote: "Lisa wrote: Ha, ha…what book was that from? "

It might be simpler to answer what book it isn't from...

Eduardo Suastegui"

I have only read a few of his books. He must be thinking of dogs.

lol.
"Dark Rivers of the Heart" (Roy and Eve)
Out of his 60-80 books there are about 5 or 6 I like. But even the crappy ones have some funny or memorable lines. The "bodily fluids" mention in the thread made that one jump to mind.

It's fun to read everyone's preferences. I don't read sci-fi or formulaic romance (like Harlequin). I also avoid books marketed as "clean suspense". And, no, I don't require profanity to enjoy a book. My problem is that I just won't support this type of marketing nonsense. Language needs to fit the content and the characters. If I'm reading about a crazed killer that is cutting off body parts, I expect him (or her) to use some strong language. I don't understand why it's okay to read about violence, providing the character doesn't say naughty words.

And now you know that I also have a tendency to jump up on my soapbox on occasion. :)

Darcia - Like your honesty. Completely with you. If the context calls for it, I'm fine with violence and language. No need to clean it up. Life isn't clean...That's what makes it interesting!

H.A. wrote: "Darcia - Like your honesty. Completely with you. If the context calls for it, I'm fine with violence and language. No need to clean it up. Life isn't clean...That's what makes it interesting!"

Darcia wrote: "It's fun to read everyone's preferences. I don't read sci-fi or formulaic romance (like Harlequin). I also avoid books marketed as "clean suspense". And, no, I don't require profanity to enjoy a bo..."



Agree with both of you. Besides I grew up in New York. Profanity doesn't faze me even though I tend not to use it…well maybe an occasional mild one, lol.

H.A. wrote: "Life isn't clean...That's what makes it interesting!"

So true!

Lisa wrote: "Agree with both of you. Besides I grew up in New York. Profanity doesn't faze me even though I tend not to use it…well maybe an occasional mild one, lol."

I read a psychological study stating that swearing is good for us. It relieves stress in a way 'clean' words don't. (Providing you don't swear constantly, in which case the stress relief is reduced.) So now you have an excuse for that colorful language. :)

Lisa wrote: "Amber wrote: "I suggest you look into the Sackett novels by Louis L'Amour, Lisa. At least the first four...the ones that tell the tales of the first TWO generations of Sacketts in America: SACKETT..."

Well, some Indians DO get killed in the early books but it's usually in the context of what at the time was considered a fair fight. It's not indiscriminate. Just the warriors involved, not the women and children like it was with the US Army at Wounded Knee or the Little Bighorn.

That said, the first book, SACKETT'S LAND, is mostly sword fights or fisticuffs in England than Indian fighting. And the sole follower of Islam in the series is actually a good guy. If I remember the events of the series correctly, you don't meet him; Sakim, until the second book.

In regards to your "soap box" comment, Darcia: Who doesn't?

Amber wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Amber wrote: "I suggest you look into the Sackett novels by Louis L'Amour, Lisa. At least the first four...the ones that tell the tales of the first TWO generations of Sacketts in Ame..."

Hmmm... dont see anything soap boxy about Darcia's comment. I swear when i hit my toe and am really ticked off.

I hate romance books. They are very predictable.

Dana, Darcia's "soap box" comment was about getting ON a soap box so I asked her who doesn't get on a soap box on occasion... .

There are only two kinds of books: good ones and all the others....Genre is pretty irrelevant.

i read it all wrong.........sorry Amber!!!

Karl wrote: "There are only two kinds of books: good ones and all the others....Genre is pretty irrelevant."

There are two kinds of books. Those that no one reads and those that no one ought to read.
H.L. Mencken, (1880-1956)

It happens, Dana. No need to apologize.

Romance or period dramas are not really my bag. I will try anything else though.

I pass on pure "romance" novels, I have never been very interested in these. I also pass on most of the classics. I read some back in the day when they were assignments for school and I did enjoy some of them but anymore I really don't go for the "period" pieces.

I am pretty much the murder mystery type and I read/listen to biographies and business type books.

Kelly, do you like to cook? If you do, I reccomend the Hannah Swensen series as well as a couple other murder mystery series that include recipes like thw Cupcake Mysteries set in Scottsdale, Az. (my old stomping grounds before I moved BACK to Illinois) and a series where the murders are solved by the New Mexico bred owner of a New Orleans high end bakery.

There's also a series of murder mysteries set at a South Carolina farmer's market.

Hannah Swensen: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Farmer's Market Mysteries: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...
Cupcake Bakery Mystery: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...
and A Piece of Cake Mystery: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

Notice how each of these is the 1st of a series?

This is an easy one Harlequin Romances. You couldn't pay me to read those books

Chris wrote: "This is an easy one Harlequin Romances. You couldn't pay me to read those books"

I'm totally with you there.

I only read romances that skew heavily to fantasy like either of the following: Naked Dragon ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... ) or Dragon Lovers ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... ).

Dragon Loves is an anthology of four stories, all involving dragons somehow. The fourth story, DRAGON FEATHERS, is the only story in the book I refuse to read. Why? It's set in CONTEMPORARY SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO and it is so extremely loosely based on Aztec and Mayan folklore about the feathered dragon Quetzalcoatl its farking ridiculous!

Lots of interesting answers and food for thought here.
I'm into sci-fi, especially hard sci-fi, but not fantasy. I'm into mysteries, thrillers, and suspense (that figures). (I write all of those too.) Most romances and anything related to that huge genre (vampire romances, cozy mysteries, historical romance, erotica, etc), I'll avoid. The sci-fi, thrillers, etc can have romantic aspects, though. I'll read some historical fiction and books like Preston and Child's The Relic (hard to classify into a genre). I even read non-fiction (slogging through a bio of Churchill right now).
It's wonderful that we have so many fine authors and so many genres--always something for everyone!
r/Steve

Each to his (or her) own, Steven.

Precisely what I said in my last sentence, Amber. The wonderful thing about literature is that we have that freedom. That's why book banning is such a horrid thought (or burning a la Fahrenheit 451). We should always protect that freedom of choice to read what we damn please!
Of course, that doesn't mean that we should encourage writing that exalts exploitation of people (porn, prostitution, snuff killings, human bondage, etc). One can argue that I don't have to read that stuff, but I'm talking more about encouraging the actual acts. Still, that's a side issue and probably not appropriate for this thread!
r/Steve

@ Aaron,
Amber's comment is a propos, but bro, you've eliminated a lot of good books (a lot of King, Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, Forsyth's Day of the Jackal, all Clancy books, etc). And I wouldn't have much to read or write, in fact, but that's just me.
I'll repeat what I said above: It's great that we have this freedom to read what we want and have access to so many good books and good authors. A similar thing has happened with other entertainment media, like music. It's a wonderful time to be alive.
r/Steve

I avoid books about clowns and porcelain dolls. However, I'll set aside my discomfort if you can convince me that there is a fabulous novel out there highlighting either one.

Vy wrote: "I avoid books about clowns and porcelain dolls. However, I'll set aside my discomfort if you can convince me that there is a fabulous novel out there highlighting either one."

When I was a kid I had a porcelain doll. I also used to love staying up late watching horror movies. One night I watched one where porcelain dolls flew around and attacked people. I put my doll in my mother's dresser and never took it back out, lol.

@ Vy,
Clowns are often scary to kids (so's Santa Claus, go figure), so it isn't surprising that some people have clown phobias. An author can use this to effect. (In one of my recent ebooks, the bad guys use clown masks when creating mayhem in a company with government contracts, and their new security guard gets caught in the melee.)
I think clowns get a bad rap, though. I rather liked Willy and their slapstick antics at a circus are fun for all. Maybe the distance helps a wee bit with the potential phobias too.
r/Steve

Steven, Santa can scare kids because bad parents use him a a threat to discipline their kids: "Behave yourself or Santa Claus will bring you nothing but coal!"

@ Aaron, I wasn't criticizing. I simply made a comment. Reread my second paragraph, please. I respect your choices.
The "horror clowns" can become stereotypical, more a Hollywood problem than a book problem. I happen to like them all, but as an author, I need to beware of stereotypes and cliches. And characters don't need makeup to "clown around." For movies, consider Schwarzenegger's partners in True Lies and Erased--without them, the two movies wouldn't be as good.
r/Steve
PS. Did we just agree on something? :-)

Steven/Aaron: When people like the two of you agree with each other is when we see the truth of the Shakespeare quote, which I have partially forgotten, that usually gets translated to "The truth is stranger than fiction."

That said, there were times on Facebook that my friend John Ford agreed with me event though I was agreeing with President Obama like when his opinion about "breed specific legislation" is in actuality "bullshit legislation." John didn't believe me so I sent him the Care2.org URL for the article in question, he read it, came back to me and said (paraphrasing here) "I'll be damned." Then I told him "The truth is stranger than fiction, isn't it?"

Hi Amber,
One of the quotes running across the top of my website is from Tom Clancy: "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to makes sense." I guess that's another way of saying the same thing, but it's also good advice for writers. We can and do tolerate unbelievable realities, but we're often less tolerant about our fiction. Some genres (sci-fi, fantasy, vampire romances?) are expected to be unbelievable, though, so nothing's black and white here--just fifty shades of gray...or more.
r/Steve
PS. I don't actually think it's weird that Aaron and I found something to agree on. I usually can find something and cover a lot of different opinions in my ebooks. Exceptions would be an ISIS commando or the shooter in that South Carolina church, but I won't try to reason with monsters.

Interesting quote, Steven.

And I don't try to reason with monsters, either.

@ Amber, it's "Fiction has to make sense" actually. My touch-typing seems to get ahead of my brain sometimes.
The difference between Aaron and you and 99.99999% of the people here on Goodreads and monsters is an immense chasm, thank God. While we have to try to understand what produces monsters in order to prevent the crimes they commit, they're so far away from the norm that it's questionable whether we can call them human. What's intriguing is that so many of them can rationalize and justify their actions. Moreover, nowadays they can do tremendous damage. Food for thought....
r/Steve

Aaron(Retrobeat) wrote: "Sci-Fi. I won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Or books on politics or religion."

I do like some sci-fi, but I agree with you on the politics and religion. Also no romance, at least not as the main topic.

@ John,
Politics and religion are like romance--they're part of human activity--but I prefer they not be the main theme. Unfortunately, crimes can also be politically, religiously, or romantically motivated, so they get into the story.
In my fiction, I try to treat themes that most people don't approve of and want to stop--terrorism, child porn, sexual exploitation, arms and drug trafficking and their egregious effects on people and their families, etc. Many people don't like to read genre fiction with those underlying themes, and I can respect that. But that's what I write.
r/Steve

Steven, we're in agreement. I said no romance as the main topic. I wouldn't read a book from the romance category or one with a bodice-ripper cover, but that's not to say that I object to a little romance as part of the story. Same goes for politics and religion. I don't mind a thriller where the bad guy is motivated by religion or politics, but I would not read a book where those topics were the main subject.

Steven wrote: "@ Amber, it's "Fiction has to make sense" actually. My touch-typing seems to get ahead of my brain sometimes.
The difference between Aaron and you and 99.99999% of the people here on Goodreads and..."

Thanks.

Yes they CAN do tremendous damage but so can people who aren't monsters. But they do it simply by being idiots.

John: Then you probably WOULDN'T like the Knights Templars series by Michael Jecks. It's a series of 31 murder mysteries set in 1300's Devonshire England solved by a former member of the original Knights Templars and Simon Puttock, the bailiff for the Abbot of Tavistock Abbey. Since the knight is a former warrior-monk and the bailiff serves the abbey there's lost of religion and politics involved, even though the primary premise is solving murders in the 14th century.

A listing of the full series is here...if you want to look into it and see if the series is good enough to change your mind: https://www.goodreads.com/series/4053...

I'm on the last book (so far) of the series, unless you count the 32nd book, TEMPLAR'S ACRE, as a prequel to the whole series. The 31st book is called CITY OF FIENDS.

There is some romance in the series but def. NOT the main topic.

Hmmm... I do love historical mysteries. As long as the politics and religion are secondary to the mystery story I'll take a look. I'm also into genealogy and that time period in England is of interest.

Then it might be worth looking into for you though maybe you should read TEMPLARS ACRE first rather than wait until you've read CITY OF FIENDS.

I added the first book of the Knights Templar series to my To Read list. The reviews on the first book were mixed, but there were enough good reviews to make it worth a try. Thanks for mentioning it, Amber.

You're welcome.

I don't read ghosty reads
fantasy
sci fi
lovely dovey romance
erotica