Simmons vs. Pierce?

Which is the Flyweight, and why?

 

Simmons. Read their work.

 

I'd rather be a flyweight with a boatload of cash. Just saying.

 

I have. No argument that Pierce is a better writer but to call Simmons a lightweight is silly. He may not be the best writer and is certainly not popular with other journalist but he has been extremely successful with what he has done. If everybody could be such a lightweight.

 

Not lightweight. Flyweight. It's a designation of character in this case, not stature.

The death blow:

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/pierce/2010/12/blog_fight_blog_fight.html

 

Tim LaHaye is an extremely successful author. But nobody puts him alongside Hemingway, Faulkner or even King or Grisham.

 

As my dad used to say, "Don't send a boy to do a man's work"

 

I'm a huge fan of Pierce's work. I also enjoy Simmons (in small doses and at times).

Sad to say, but Simmons is the much better known of the two writers just about everywhere other than this site. Dismissing him as a lightweight is foolish. It's like comparing John Grisham to Don DeLillo.

 

Pierce fires back again.

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/pierce/2010/12/blog_fight_blog_fight.html

 

I'm not all that fond of Simmons.
But Pierce's piece wasn't a critique of the work. It was a critique of a person he doesn't like. "Get the fuck over yourself?" That's in a book review?

Simmons is right. It comes off like he's a jilted lover. At least now I understand where Pierce's disdain came from. Didn't know Simmons cut him out of the paperback version.

 

If Pierce is sending emails to Simmons criticizing his writing, he's every bit as at fault as Simmons is.

You have to love writers who like telling other writers that they're wrong.