Can a popular novel be badly written? - Page 2

DMSmillie · 12-22-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

But in order for you to be entertained, stimulated, etc, some form of communication must have taken place. If there was no communication, you would be staring at a page full of unintelligible marks which mean nothing. The words are the author's medium for communicating with the reader. Communication is far more than simply relaying information.

Catlady · 12-22-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Unless there's a real reason for it, you shouldn't notice grammar. It's the underpinning and shouldn't call attention to itself. But when you have to stop and reread a sentence because the pauses aren't clear from punctuation, or a misplaced modifier skews the meaning the first time, it's a problem.

Grammar doesn't kill creativity, it enhances communication.

JSWolf · 12-22-2010, 11:44 AM

Laural K. Hamilton's Anita Blake books are a nightmare of technical errors despite how popular they are.

DixieGal · 12-22-2010, 11:52 AM

Can you say "ten million copies sold?". The davinci Code is wretched but popular.

tompe · 12-22-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

But in order for you to be entertained, stimulated, etc, some form of communication must have taken place. If there was no communication, you would be staring at a page full of unintelligible marks which mean nothing. The words are the author's medium for communicating with the reader. Communication is far more than simply relaying information.

Yes. But communication is a mean and not a purpose.

Penforhire · 12-22-2010, 01:05 PM

Dan Brown is the poster child for this. I mostly enjoy his books but I have to overlook endless heinous writing issues that were noted in the other Dan Brown thread. His books would not be worse if they were written better. They would be, um, better. I'm not talking about using words that John Q Public won't follow so the books would be just as popular, if not more so.

So I disagree with the OP's premise. Yes, a popular book can be poorly written. Language (English) evolves. I get that. But at any particular time there is an acceptable standard that should be maintained unless you are actively bucking the standard, such as Cormac McCarthy. Dan Brown isn't blazing new trails. He is lazy.

Lemurion · 12-22-2010, 01:56 PM

Yes, a best-seller can be atrociously written. Popularity and technical merit are totally different things.

Twilight has become immensely popular despite the writing, not because of it. Regardless of the writing, the book itself struck an emotional chord with its readers and they bought it in droves. It's essentially a wish-fulfillment fantasy, and it met enough people's wishes that they catapulted it to the top of the best-seller charts.

It's also very common to rag on Dan Brown, and yes, his work doesn't show a lot of technical merit. However, there are many skills involved in writing a novel, and he's a master of page-level pacing. Even though the writing may not be that good, he hooks the reader so they want to know what's on the next page.

Stephenie Meyer and Dan Brown succeed not because they write well on a technical level, but because they do other things exceptionally well; and their readers respond to those things they do well.

It's also why so many people denigrate their work. If you're not someone who responds to what they do well, you're probably not going to be able to get past the sub-par writing and will throw the book across the room.

ardeegee · 12-22-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmw

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

I would contend that you couldn't be more wrong.

Freeshadow · 12-22-2010, 02:20 PM

since already the word "popular" indicates the masses (grey mob for me) my question is why not. it's a question of majority not quality - just look at the music market and repeat thew question in mind. why should it be different with books?

v1k1ng1001 · 12-22-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Read to the third novel and it becomes more much more interesting. I'm sad that he wasn't able to continue his work because the third novel reveals a trajectory which retrospectively critiques the relatively shallow reading that the first novel invites.

v1k1ng1001 · 12-22-2010, 02:34 PM

Stephen King has an intensely powerful imagination but he is a horrible horrible writer.

Lemurion · 12-22-2010, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by v1k1ng1001

Stephen King has an intensely powerful imagination but he is a horrible horrible writer.

I think Stephen King can write a paragraph as well or better than anyone else alive. Where I think he falls down is in his endings. They often don't hold together at all well. (I think James Clavell had the same problem, particularly in Shogun.)

whitearrow · 12-22-2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

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?

When I read the first post, I thought it would be at least 10 replies before someone mentioned Twilight

Quote:

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)

IMO, these aren't even close to the biggest problems with this book. Vampires in high school can be just fine, or even great, if the story has interesting characters and a strong point of view.

For me, the biggest problem in Twilight is a lead female character who seems to have absolutely no agency and gets dragged from plot point to plot point by the men in her life. Writing a character like this in a 17th century setting may be okay (if boring) but in a contemporary novel it's awful and a terrible message to be sending to young women.

But yes, I agree -- books can be both popular and bad.

Lemurion · 12-22-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitearrow

When I read the first post, I thought it would be at least 10 replies before someone mentioned Twilight

IMO, these aren't even close to the biggest problems with this book. Vampires in high school can be just fine, or even great, if the story has interesting characters and a strong point of view.

For me, the biggest problem in Twilight is a lead female character who seems to have absolutely no agency and gets dragged from plot point to plot point by the men in her life. Writing a character like this in a 17th century setting may be okay (if boring) but in a contemporary novel it's awful and a terrible message to be sending to young women.

But yes, I agree -- books can be both popular and bad.

It doesn't help that Edward hits every one of the signs for a stalker boyfriend to be avoided.

Every single one.

greencat · 12-22-2010, 05:31 PM

Sad to say that both J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown come to mind as popular but badly written. Their early books were not too bad - but the Lost Symbol is awful as was the last Harry Potter. Both were in real need of a decent edit but I guess the success of the authors must have intimidated the editors.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Adventures of Joe Nobody and the Badly Formatted Epub	mklynds	Sigil	44	01-30-2013 03:43 PM
Unutterably Silly How To Write Badly Well	Madam Broshkina	Lounge	4	11-04-2009 09:26 AM
Badly proofed e-books	ficbot	News	77	08-13-2009 01:15 PM
battery question (I let it drain really badly)	rheostaticsfan	Bookeen	5	11-01-2008 04:21 PM
Bricked iLiad after badly done reflash ?	Pode	iRex	6	05-19-2008 04:42 PM

12-22-2010, 11:44 AM	#18
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 80,782 Karma: 150249619 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	Laural K. Hamilton's Anita Blake books are a nightmare of technical errors despite how popular they are.

12-22-2010, 11:52 AM	#19
DixieGal Hi There! Posts: 7,473 Karma: 2930523 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Ft Lauderdale Device: iPad	Can you say "ten million copies sold?". The davinci Code is wretched but popular.

12-22-2010, 01:05 PM	#21
Penforhire Wizard Posts: 2,230 Karma: 7145404 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern California Device: Kindle Voyage & iPhone 7+	Dan Brown is the poster child for this. I mostly enjoy his books but I have to overlook endless heinous writing issues that were noted in the other Dan Brown thread. His books would not be worse if they were written better. They would be, um, better. I'm not talking about using words that John Q Public won't follow so the books would be just as popular, if not more so. So I disagree with the OP's premise. Yes, a popular book can be poorly written. Language (English) evolves. I get that. But at any particular time there is an acceptable standard that should be maintained unless you are actively bucking the standard, such as Cormac McCarthy. Dan Brown isn't blazing new trails. He is lazy.

12-22-2010, 01:56 PM	#22
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	Yes, a best-seller can be atrociously written. Popularity and technical merit are totally different things. Twilight has become immensely popular despite the writing, not because of it. Regardless of the writing, the book itself struck an emotional chord with its readers and they bought it in droves. It's essentially a wish-fulfillment fantasy, and it met enough people's wishes that they catapulted it to the top of the best-seller charts. It's also very common to rag on Dan Brown, and yes, his work doesn't show a lot of technical merit. However, there are many skills involved in writing a novel, and he's a master of page-level pacing. Even though the writing may not be that good, he hooks the reader so they want to know what's on the next page. Stephenie Meyer and Dan Brown succeed not because they write well on a technical level, but because they do other things exceptionally well; and their readers respond to those things they do well. It's also why so many people denigrate their work. If you're not someone who responds to what they do well, you're probably not going to be able to get past the sub-par writing and will throw the book across the room.

12-22-2010, 02:20 PM	#24
Freeshadow temp. out of service Posts: 2,818 Karma: 24285242 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Duisburg (DE) Device: PB 623	since already the word "popular" indicates the masses (grey mob for me) my question is why not. it's a question of majority not quality - just look at the music market and repeat thew question in mind. why should it be different with books?

12-22-2010, 02:34 PM	#26
v1k1ng1001 Addict Posts: 378 Karma: 1624276 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South, South Texas Device: Pocketbook 620	Stephen King has an intensely powerful imagination but he is a horrible horrible writer.

12-22-2010, 05:31 PM	#30
greencat Freebie finder Posts: 907 Karma: 2046472 Join Date: Jul 2009 Device: Sony, Kindle	Sad to say that both J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown come to mind as popular but badly written. Their early books were not too bad - but the Lost Symbol is awful as was the last Harry Potter. Both were in real need of a decent edit but I guess the success of the authors must have intimidated the editors.