Can a popular novel be badly written?

[gmw]

Various very popular books have received quite interesting criticism here and in other places: "their writing is awful" or "can't write worth a darn" etc etc. Such comments are not offered in the personal opinion manner of: "I didn't like that" or "that didn't do it for me". Rather, they seem to be put forward as inarguable fact.

I would contend that a popular novel, by definition, cannot be considered to be badly written.

Why? Because the purpose of writing is communication. If a novel is written well enough to reach and be enjoyed by many thousands of the intended audience, then describing such as badly written seems to be a contradiction in terms. The writing achieved its goal - in some cases much better than other apparently well written (and dare I say it, Literate) works.

(Note: I am specifically referring to books that are popular in and of themselves. Such books as Twilight and the early Harry Potter books, that were popular before the movies. I exclude from this books that are popular for external reasons, for example novels and biographies that sell widely simply because their author or subject is now famous. Note that I use Twilight merely as a relatively recent and well known example, I specifically don't want to start another vampire-books-are-bad thread so please try to keep clear of aspects better discussed elsewhere.)

Oh sure, marketing etc. all come into it. I am not trying to claim that the converse is necessarily true: that being popular makes the work well written, it may merely be adequate. However, it is true that the writing style has to be something that is well accepted by the audience - so a big audience suggests a very acceptable writing style. It doesn't have to be strictly correct, however much certain glitches may bother some of us. You may argue that the plot is not very sophisticated, if it exists at all, or that the characters are very shallow, but if thousands upon thousands enjoyed reading the book, just who are you to judge the writing as bad? (Not liking something does not necessarily make it bad, merely bad for you.) A parallel that I think works here is with our modern system of justice. The laws change over time to reflect the standards of the community, and this being the case, the same must hold true over what we consider to be good and bad writing.

A.A.Milne writes of The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame: "When you sit down to it, don't be so ridiculous as to suppose that you are sitting in judgment on my taste, or on the art of Kenneth Grahame. You are merely sitting in judgment on yourself. You may be worthy: I don't know. But it is you who are on trial."

There are very few books to which I would apply such a stark appraisal, but I do believe there is an element of truth that extends to all books that gain widespread popularity. If you think there is something fundamentally bad or wrong with such a book, perhaps it is time you reviewed your standards. Again: Not that I expect you to actively enjoy every popular book (I certainly don't), but to sit in harsh judgment on such works, enjoyed by so many others, suggests an arrogance or blindness that may be out of place.


(PS. I have been guilty of inappropriate statements about books myself, so please don't take my phraseology as being directed to/against specific individuals. It's just the way it came out as I wrote.)

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by gmw

...

Why? Because the purpose of writing is communication. If a novel is written well enough to reach and be enjoyed by many thousands of the intended audience, then describing such as badly written seems to be a contradiction in terms. The writing achieved its goal - in some cases much better than other apparently well written (and dare I say it, Literate) works.

...

Wat I right in this post will reach U, so comunication take place wit sum degree of efficincy.

Has I write good?

Yes, I doesn't.

[Maggie Leung]

Of course a popular novel can be badly written.

A book can have a compelling storyline, engaging characters, etc., and still be badly written -- with clunky sentences, notable inconsistencies, structural problems and such. Despite problems, books can still entertain and grab people.

It takes talent to write a book that can engage many people, even a badly written one. Good editors can help fix bad writing, but the heart of a story must come from the writer.

Who am I to judge? I'm a reader and can judge whatever I want, as you can. I try to avoid knocking others' book choices, though. Whatever they read and enjoy, more power to 'em.

[TGS]

I think the point that is implied by the OP is that every judgment of literary quality is a judgment against some standard. So long as the standard against which a judgment is being made is made explicit there is probably nothing wrong with such judgments.

Why? Because the purpose of writing is communication.

Sometimes it is not only that.

Wat I right in this post will reach U, so comunication take place wit sum degree of efficincy.

Has I write good?

Yes, I doesn't.

Have you read Illywhacker by Peter Carey? A much praised novel in which this quote would not be out of place.

[Saffina Desforge]

Me too, I agree. If one reader enjoys a book, who is to say it is badly written? (Yes, it may be technically, but if someone reads and likes it, then what the h*ll.)

I don't think it helps anyone to be slated, especially by a felllow writer. The buying public have a right to do so, but a fellow author...??

Saffina
[Promotional links deleted - MODERATOR]

[MovieBird]

Are we talking about just the way words are put together, or are we including the story arc and characteristics of characters as well?

I just finished reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and didn't like it. But I can't decide if it was badly written. The sentences flow fairly well, but the book needed help in the story department. In my eyes, it was a standard down-on-his-luck older guy, who gets even with the big bad nasty corporation. Oh, and he gets to sleep with his superwoman talented hacker of a sidekick who's half his age. The sadistic elements of the story were just so over the top, with no real bearing on the story. It seemed like they were just thrown in a the drop of a hat (not really tied in or referenced), and thus, felt out of place.

But it's an extremely successful, translated, piece of work.

[Doug Huffman]

No one has ever gone broke for underestimating the lack of intelligence of their market or for debasing a product for wider appeal.

Maybe a formulaic book series is an illustration. I'm happy reading the sequels until I first wonder, "Have I read this before, it seems so familiar?" That author has lost me. Thee?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by gmw

I would contend that a popular novel, by definition, cannot be considered to be badly written.

Yes, the evaluation of an artwork involves subjective judgments. Yes, there is no objective or "true" or "inherent" value to a given work.

However, "quality" and "popularity" are two very distinct concepts. On the simplest level, people can thoroughly enjoy something that they know is terrible and of minimal value, perhaps even because it is bad. More importantly, the quality of a book will be based mostly upon criteria that do not relate to a book's popularity. One of those may be the clarity of the author's communicative skills -- or, conversely, on the author's ability to introduce and exploit the ambiguities of the text.

And how does one rate a book whose popularity is fleeting? Is the book only "good" at the height of its popularity, and its merits as a communication fade as it loses that popularity?

If Twilight sells more copies than Ulysses, should academics switch to studying this wondrous communicative work of popular literature instead of one of the most technically accomplished and influential books of the 20th century?

Or, what if a book sells well and is widely read, but is disliked by its readers?

Originally Posted by gmw

The purpose of writing is communication.

It can also be entertainment. I don't think James Patterson is trying to "communicate" to his audience, he's trying to keep them occupied and engaged.

Originally Posted by gmw

Note: I am specifically referring to books that are popular in and of themselves. Such books as Twilight and the early Harry Potter books, that were popular before the movies.

Aside from the fact that these two particular books were wildly popular prior to being movies, you cannot exclude them from your analysis on the basis of fame.

One major issue highlighted by your attempted exclusion is that the mark and mechanics of "popularity" involves large numbers of people purchasing or borrowing the book before they receive the "communication." By the time the 3rd or 4th books were published, the Potter books had massive pre-sales orders, i.e. the book was popular before anyone knew what it was actually going to contain. Was it a "good communication" before anyone read it?

Originally Posted by gmw

A.A.Milne writes of The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame: "When you sit down to it, don't be so ridiculous as to suppose that you are sitting in judgment on my taste, or on the art of Kenneth Grahame. You are merely sitting in judgment on yourself. You may be worthy: I don't know. But it is you who are on trial."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he's defending its quality, not its popularity or abilities to communicate. Nor does it make sense to view popularity as the primary evaluative criterion, and then attempt to substitute the judgment of an authority figure (a famous writer) as a whole new criterion.

What can I say, I reserve the right to call Twilight "crap" if it turns out to focus on trite concepts (vampires) in a ludicrous setting (undead attending high school) with technically inferior writing. If people enjoy it, that's their choice. I for one am not going to conflate sales figures with a book's quality.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

In my eyes, it was a standard down-on-his-luck older guy, who gets even with the big bad nasty corporation. Oh, and he gets to sleep with his superwoman talented hacker of a sidekick who's half his age. The sadistic elements of the story were just so over the top, with no real bearing on the story. It seemed like they were just thrown in a the drop of a hat (not really tied in or referenced), and thus, felt out of place.

I thought the story was the detective story and the sadistic element was part of the theme of all books. The get even thing I saw as a rather unimportant thing that gave some more depth to the real story.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by gmw

Why? Because the purpose of writing is communication.

I do not agree with that at all. Communication of what? I do not read novels to have something communicated to me. I read then to be entertained or to stimulate my thinking etc.

[rhadin]

Considering we live in the Twitter Age where literacy is not considered a highly prized skill to be acquired, I think yes, a book that is popular can also be very badly written. It is like popular music. In my day, Woolly Boolly by Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs was a number 1 hit. I doubt anyone would consider it a particularly well-written or well-performed song. Similarly, Sgt. Barry Sadler's song The Green Berets.

OTOH, several Beethoven symphonies were not well received when first played. Critics in the premiere days often wrote about how badly the symphonies were composed and/or conducted and/or played, yet today we consider them masterpieces.

Why should one view popular books any differently than popular music?

[patrickt]

In my opinion, a book I'm reading can be carried by the story in spite of poor writing. Or, a book with a poor story can be carried by interesting writing. Sometimes, it's characters that carry a book in spite of less than stellar writing and story.

I am not sure why but sometimes a story in which I find no redeeming value is popular for a short time. I think it's possibly simply marketing or connections in the industry. Oh, and who the writer is. If a certain person writes a book some will buy it regardless and announce it as a masterpiece.

[Fastolfe]

Loose adherence to grammar rules doesn't bother me much in any writing, to a degree. I'd rather have a lively, interesting text than a stuffy one that's correct because the author didn't split infinitive or make sentences without a verb. At some point, too much grammar kills creativity.

However, I intensely dislike bad spelling and really childish grammatical mistakes: yes, the main message is conveyed across, but the text constantly delivers another message, which is "the author didn't bother to learn English", that simply detracts from the pleasure of reading.

Unless of course it's done on purpose. The narrator in Feersum Endjinn from Iain M. Banks, for instance, is dyslexic, and the text is written as if written by somebody with dyslexia. The first pages are truly atrocious to read, but surprisingly, after a while, it gets easier and easier until the reading almost flows naturally again. Interestingly, the book works, which is another proof that Iain Banks is a genius

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Fastolfe

.
Unless of course it's done on purpose. The narrator in Feersum Endjinn from Iain M. Banks, for instance, is dyslexic, and the text is written as if written by somebody with dyslexia. The first pages are truly atrocious to read, but surprisingly, after a while, it gets easier and easier until the reading almost flows naturally again. Interestingly, the book works, which is another proof that Iain Banks is a genius

It did not work for me. I could not finish the book because of this. I have friends with similar reasons for not finishing the book.

[boswd]

One of my friends who was an English Lit major used to say as much as she loved the Harry Potter books, the grammatical and punctional mistakes used to drive her bonkers.
I've never read them so I can't comment.