Can a popular novel be badly written?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I can't agree that accessibility can be a measure of the quality of a book's writing. Let's take as an example the original versions of Stieg Larsson's "Millennium Trilogy" books. They are completely inaccessible to me, because I don't read Swedish. Is my lack of knowledge of Swedish really a factor by which one can judge the quality of the writing of the books? I don't personally think that it is. A book can be well written, but yet completely inaccessible to me if I don't speak the language in which it's written.

If Stieg's target audience were English-only readers then I would say the books were extraordinarily badly written ... but that seems unlikely. As Maggie Leung pointed out, writers have a different target audiences and the accessibility of writing is usually measured according to the target. Some books, like Harry Potter, manage to be easily accessible even outside their target. A writer has to choose their style and their words, and even their story content, appropriately to make to it accessible their target audience - and this requirement makes me wonder and why you won't accept it as a measure (albeit one of several) of a book's quality. If they managed to make their book accessible to their target audience haven't they fulfilled at least one of the criteria of "good writing"?

As is probably obvious, I consider accessibility to be a very important part of good writing. What would be the point of writing if your novel is not accessible to your target audience?

[OtterBooks]

I think the most one can say is that popularity is independent of quality. Since the word "popular" itself is generally defined in terms of quantity, the only thing it does by definition is illustrate the quality of marketing and/or consumer desire. If those two things are inherently related to quality, then McDonalds is quality food.

Yet it doesn't mean the work is bad. Many writers of popular fiction were given little respect in their time, then went on to garner respect from the literary community. Raymond Chandler is an example, whose work was considered trashy pulp at the time of his popularity. Now he's accepted as a great writer. Add to that list names like Edgar Rice Burroughs and Jules Verne.

Almost all Charles Dickens works were originally published as short magazine-like installments, devoured as serial soap operas by working class readers. It was one of the first instances of literature being purely marketed as product. Even today some literati view it as little more than that (I don't agree).

Similar treatment is being done to Stephen King (though not quite to the same degree), who was referred to in a previous post as a horrible writer. I'm not really a fan of King, but horrible writers usually don't receive an O.Henry Award, and even fewer get asked to serve on its committee as a guest editor, a distinction shared by John Updike and Flannery O'Connor.

Still, Twilight sucks imo.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Almost all Charles Dickens works were originally published as short magazine-like installments, devoured as serial soap operas by working class readers. It was one of the first instances of literature being marketed as product. Even today some literati view it as little more than that.

And one can say exactly the same of Shakespeare of course. He was writing the "mass entertainment" of his day. Plays for the mob; certainly not "high art".

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And one can say exactly the same of Shakespeare of course. He was writing the "mass entertainment" of his day. Plays for the mob; certainly not "high art".

True. I figured someone would bring that up. A lot of people still see Dickens as weak literature. I've had several professors who believed Tale of Two Cities was the only good thing he ever wrote (I think it was the only one actually written as a novel, rather than in serial form). That isn't an opinion I share, as I'm rather fond of Dickens.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I think the most one can say is that popularity is independent of quality. Since the word "popular" itself is generally defined in terms of quantity, the only thing it does by definition is illustrate the quality of marketing and/or consumer desire. If those two things are inherently related to quality, then McDonalds is quality food. ...

I don't think the McDonalds analogy works. There are scientific (even if sometimes still debated) assessments that can be made with regard to the nutritional value of food. (I guess you could try to run something like nutrition vs education and taste vs good-writing or something ... but that gets messy, those pickles will drop out. ) There is no equivalent with writing or other such art.

It took considerable prodding some posts ago before I finally accepted that people talking about good and bad writing here really are talking about their opinion no matter how it is expressed. There is, it seems, no accepted standard of quality with respect to writing. There is what will get you a pass at school, but that will vary from teacher to teacher. There is what will get you a pass from various grammar experts, but even that will vary with person and time. And there is what will reach your intended audience, but that only gets you popularity and not credibility among critics.

I do like your noting of Dickens' popularity at the time he was writing - didn't someone some posts ago equate popularity with mediocrity? It could be curious to wait another 100..150 years and see which of today's popular authors are considered to have written classics and great literature.

[Harmon]

Harry Potter. Poorly written but obviously popular. Any Tarzan novel. The Thin Man.

[italianReader]

If you presume that bad or well written is just a matter of taste I think that the right questions should be "can a novel that is popular among certain people be badly written for those people?". In this case I suppose the answer is No.

[ZombWii]

[QUOTE=gmw;1287410]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.
[/I]

[Lemurion]

[QUOTE=ZombWii;1294262]

Originally Posted by 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.
[/I]

I disagree.

Popularity is a completely different measure than the quality of writing; a popular book can be well written or it can be poorly written or anywhere in between. All it needs is for the book as a whole to appeal to a large number of people. It doesn't need to be well written or poorly written; in fact that metric is almost irrelevant as it's almost always factors other than the quality of the writing (good or bad) that cause a book to take off.

Neither good writing nor bad writing is an indicator of popularity. Popularity is almost always due to an idea or character in the book catching the public attention and taking off. The writing is just along for the ride.

A runaway bestseller is usually a book about something many people one wanted to read about, but most of them didn't know it.

That doesn't mean poor writing is simply a matter of opinion. Many people do conflate poor writing with writing they don't like, and in that case yes, it is a matter of opinion. However, that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as objectively poor writing and that some bestselling authors aren't guilty of it.

Overuse of adverbs, poor control of POV, focusing on unnecessary details in description while ignoring important ones, shifting to indirect rather than direct discourse just at the emotional payoff of a scene - thereby weakening the entire piece; these are just a few examples of objectively poor writing, and most of them can be found in some popular books.

A book can be popular and well written, a book can be unpopular and well written, a book can be popular and poorly written, or unpopular and poorly written. However, what should matter most to the reader is whether you like the book your reading, popular or not, poorly written or not.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Harry Potter. Poorly written but obviously popular. Any Tarzan novel. The Thin Man.

Tarzan novels? In what way were they poorly written? The style may be a bit stiff by today's standards, but I think it was normal for its time.

[Sydney's Mom]

I don't think a popular novel can be badly written, if you mean gramatical errors, holes in the plot, etc. There are certainly a lot of popular novelists whose writing style I don't care for, but their grammar is fine and their plots are good. Scott Turow comes to mind. I haven't read a book of his in years, because the last one I read, I felt the style was overly lyrical. Obviously, that is just me, because he is hugely popular.
I read a lot of books with not great writing, where the plot doesn't depend on reading every word. I just skip the boring parts.

Last book read "The Slap" by Christos Tsiolkas

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I don't think a popular novel can be badly written, if you mean gramatical errors, holes in the plot, etc. There are certainly a lot of popular novelists whose writing style I don't care for, but their grammar is fine and their plots are good. Scott Turow comes to mind. I haven't read a book of his in years, because the last one I read, I felt the style was overly lyrical. Obviously, that is just me, because he is hugely popular.
I read a lot of books with not great writing, where the plot doesn't depend on reading every word. I just skip the boring parts.

I think there are actually a lot of books with huge plot holes that are nonetheless popular. Dan Brown has made an entire career out of entirely nonsensical, ridiculous plots (even inventing a discipline, "symbology", to make his plot make some kind of sense).

Speaking of Dan Brown, I think one other thing that goes into good writing (and is absent in bad writing/bad writers) is originality. There are tons of books that are just rehashes of the plots of other books. (Once you've read one of Brown's books, you've essentially read them all, with minor variations.)

Sorry to pick on Brown, but he's really the best contemporary example I could give of a terrible writer who writes very popular books. (Others may prefer to use Stephanie Meyer as an example, but I haven't read any of the Twilight books.)

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I don't think a popular novel can be badly written, if you mean gramatical errors, holes in the plot, etc. There are certainly a lot of popular novelists whose writing style I don't care for, but their grammar is fine and their plots are good. Scott Turow comes to mind. I haven't read a book of his in years, because the last one I read, I felt the style was overly lyrical. Obviously, that is just me, because he is hugely popular.
I read a lot of books with not great writing, where the plot doesn't depend on reading every word. I just skip the boring parts.

Last book read "The Slap" by Christos Tsiolkas

To answer your second point first: I don't read Scott Turow, either; though as it's been about 20 years since I picked up one of his books I couldn't make a judgment on how well or poorly he writes. I do remember that the last book of his I picked up was in present tense, which I rarely like, but that really is a personal judgment.

As for your first point, I think one of the problems that's come up in this thread is just what does badly written mean? Clearly it means different things to different people, and some do use it simply to mean not to their taste. On an objective level, it generally refers to one of two things, either errors in basic grammar and spelling, or issues of technique directly related to the craft of fiction. The first kind of objective error is very rare in commercially published books, and when it does occur it's often a clearly deliberate choice to represent a relatively uneducated point-of-view character. The second is more common, as quality of craft is not usually the main determining factor in the success of a book.

When I talk of poor writing in popular novels, I'm specifically referring to the second case; many popular novels do show a lower than average level of craft. They become popular because they compensate with a much higher than average level of some other factor, and that's what drives sales.

[OtterBooks]

I don't think the McDonalds analogy works. There are scientific (even if sometimes still debated) assessments that can be made with regard to the nutritional value of food. (I guess you could try to run something like nutrition vs education and taste vs good-writing or something ... but that gets messy, those pickles will drop out. ) There is no equivalent with writing or other such art.

A pastry chef would take issue with the suggestion that his work is not an art-form. A chocolate eclair made at a French patisserie has no real nutritional value. But is it a "well-made" dessert? I guess that depends on the patisserie, but you get the point. What about the pie-pockets at McDonalds? They're certainly popular, and sell in the millions. Are they well crafted baked goods?

Britney Spears, well crafted music? Her albums outsold Chopin.

The difference is art value vs. product value. Sales are an indication of product value, and in that sense Twilight is a well crafted product. Maybe even a well-written product, if the writing was done with mass consumption as its primary intent. If product value is a primary function of literature and an acceptable measurement of quality, then I suppose you would be correct.

If product value is removed from evaluation, is it well written literature? That's a different question, one that takes into account subjectively measured but commonly accepted criteria of literary craft. But that's the point: it's a different question, and even if your answer is "Yes," then sales figures are not part of that answer.

I contend that it should be removed, which means popularity is independent of "bad writing" or "good writing." It can be a result of those things, or it can be a result of marketing, or popular psychology; but it is not inherently related. So the answer to "Can a popular book be badly written?" is yes, of course it can. Doesn't mean it is, or isn't.

But I could be wrong. Honestly I'm rather dumb and usually talk out of my butt.

[Redcard]

Probably retreading common ground here, but my opinion is that popular and well-written are something that we cannot judge fairly now. Future generations will have their says on the Twilight and Harry Potters and Millenium Trilogy/etc.

People considered Dickens (as mentioned before) and other serial writers like Doyle, etc, as so much garbage back in the day. The higher art forms were dedicated to studying Greek and Latin.

Now, suddenly, we study Dickens, and Shakespear, and others.

Maybe future generations will study Rowling and Clancy and Crichton. Maybe not. But popular does equal quality at least to some degree.

The issue here, I imagine , is one of technical prowess vs ability to tell a story.