On the Facebook ALA Think Tank Page, this thread was posted. Librarians can’t seem to agree on WHY they don’t like how James Patterson makes them feel.
What I found most interesting is those willing to defend him simply because he donates money. Other defenses were that I was “elitist” for not liking him, presuming I didn’t like him because he “writes” (major quotes here) genre literature and not “High Art”–which is far from the case, being a hardcore SF fan. And the least surprising argument for me was the “there is nothing wrong with collaboration” argument…which is the part of the defense I should have tackled first, as it drives home the sad reality of publishing (see the end). Here are some highlights:
My main comment and its sub comments:
In which it is argued Patterson is not good nor evil, though still admitting he is part of a problem (undeniable):
Saying that anyone who is against him must be a snob proves not the case:
The “But he does give credit!” argument:
The “admitting that we do agree in some parts” portion & the “but he’s just collaborating!” argument:
Why the collaboration argument doesn’t work for James Patterson: