[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.)