Can a popular novel be badly written?

[Redcard]

I don't think many people noticed about Rowling one key fact.

Her first book was written at the age level of the student at the same age as Harry Potter. Each book , as Harry traveled through school, was written to a higher and higher grade level.

These were kids books, after all. The first book was written for 11 year olds.

And the truly amazing thing, in the US, that first book challenged fifteen and sixteen year olds.

The last Potter book was written for those original 11 year olds, now 18 year olds.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

You might be right about this, but really, it makes me just about want to roll off a cliff. Writing for people who don't like to read is almost as pointless as composing a symphony for the deaf. Hopefully civilization will collapse quickly and we won't have long to worry about it.

That's a very arrogant viewpoint.

Writing for people who don't like to read is one of the best ways to write for people who WILL like to read.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

You might be right about this, but really, it makes me just about want to roll off a cliff. Writing for people who don't like to read is almost as pointless as composing a symphony for the deaf. Hopefully civilization will collapse quickly and we won't have long to worry about it.

That's a sad way to look at the world. I think it’s a good thing. People can LEARN to enjoy reading...especially by starting at places like "Twilight." (I've always considered books like Twilight and Eragon as "Fantasy for Beginners: 101")

And a lot of deaf people can feel music, I know my cousin can. Many deaf people dance professionally. I think it’s a little rude to say that a deaf person can't enjoy a symphony - especially if it was composed especially for them.

[OtterBooks]

Speaking of bad popular writing, I just read a book in the Doc Savage series of pulp adventure novels written in the, er, 30s? Maybe 40's. He's often credited with being the world's first superhero in the modern sense, and that may be true. Among other things (all things, really), he is the world's greatest athlete, scientist, and brain surgeon. People crash their cars when they see him walking down the street, due to his awesomeness being so apparent. He doesn't have a bank account; when he needs money he sends a telegram to some Mayans who then send a shipment from their city of gold. I recommend it, if only for its absurdity.

Here's a paragraph out of the book. Note I say paragraph.

"And then something dangerous happened!"

Really.

Also he lives in what he calls his "Fortress of Solitude." This was years before Superman, a character likely based on Savage.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

And a lot of deaf people can feel music, I know my cousin can. Many deaf people dance professionally. I think it’s a little rude to say that a deaf person can't enjoy a symphony - especially if it was composed especially for them.

I apologize. It was a poor analogy. I'm handicapped myself, and my best friend's legally blind. I really didn't realize that a deaf person could enjoy a symphony.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

That's a sad way to look at the world. I think it’s a good thing. People can LEARN to enjoy reading...especially by starting at places like "Twilight." (I've always considered books like Twilight and Eragon as "Fantasy for Beginners: 101")

I don't doubt that people can learn to enjoy reading. The question is, can you enjoy literature when you're used to reading crap? (Define crap any way you want.) The more writers that write down to their audiences, the more this will become the norm -- especially if that's where the money is.

If writers are producing books for people who don't like to read, the quality of writing and reading both suffer. I don't see any way to avoid that conclusion.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Redcard

Writing for people who don't like to read is one of the best ways to write for people who WILL like to read.

But writing for people who don't like to read is not going to produce people who like good books. It's just going to produce people who like easy reads.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

But writing for people who don't like to read is not going to produce people who like good books. It's just going to produce people who like easy reads.

Let's just get more people liking books first. I'd rather have a kid captivated all weekend reading bad books than one playing video games and watching TV all weekend.

Then we'll work on getting them to like good books

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Redcard

Let's just get more people liking books first. I'd rather have a kid captivated all weekend reading bad books than one playing video games and watching TV all weekend.

Then we'll work on getting them to like good books

Well, I would never want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, as I think the saying goes. I'm not saying that kids reading easy reads is bad. The trend I'm starting to see, though (and if I'm imagining it, someone let me know) is books meant for younger audiences appealing to older and older readers. (Harry Potter and Twilight being the two that spring to mind).

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I apologize. It was a poor analogy. I'm handicapped myself, and my best friend's legally blind. I really didn't realize that a deaf person could enjoy a symphony.

Accepted!

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I don't doubt that people can learn to enjoy reading. The question is, can you enjoy literature when you're used to reading crap? (Define crap any way you want.) The more writers that write down to their audiences, the more this will become the norm -- especially if that's where the money is.

If writers are producing books for people who don't like to read, the quality of writing and reading both suffer. I don't see any way to avoid that conclusion.

If course you can enjoy “literature” when used to reading crap. You can tell the difference between flank steak and filet mignon, right? My husband isn’t a big book reader. He prefers financial magazines and periodicals to books, but as a favor to me he read quite a few of my trashiest male orientated fantasy novels: Druss the Legend, et al. After that he went to the Pelican Brief (more trash), some really horrible thrillers/murder mysteries, and a few tales of Professor Moriarty. He’s currently reading Starship Troopers (which is nothing like the movie and won the Hugo Award). I think he’s progressing nicely.

The point I'm trying to make is that we have to be introduced to reading before we can appreciate good writing.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I don't doubt that people can learn to enjoy reading. The question is, can you enjoy literature when you're used to reading crap? (Define crap any way you want.) The more writers that write down to their audiences, the more this will become the norm -- especially if that's where the money is.

Sure you can, but first you have to enjoy reading.

I certainly didn't start with great literature as a kid. I started with the sorts of things kids read for fun. I grew to appreciate better writing as I got older and gained experience, and started to get a feel for what made plots work, characters compelling, and prose good.

I was helped by the fact that I always liked to read, but appreciation of literature is a learned skill. If you don't like to read in the first place, you are unlikely to invest the effort needed to learn it.

If writers are producing books for people who don't like to read, the quality of writing and reading both suffer. I don't see any way to avoid that conclusion.

I can't think of anyone who intentionally "writes down" to a perceived audience level, save for folks writing Juvenile/YA books. And there, the restrictions are likely to be on unfamiliar vocabulary or adult situations a kid might not be expected to grasp. (And writing good Juvenile/YA work is hard.)

I doubt that Stephanie Meyer, for example, thinks she's writing down to her audience and intentionally writing crap because it will sell. She's striking an emotional chord and is wildly popular, but writes for an audience that hasn't yet acquired the experience to have any meaningful standard of comparison.
______
Dennis

[OtterBooks]

But writing for people who don't like to read is not going to produce people who like good books. It's just going to produce people who like easy reads.

I also take issue with the "at least they are reading" idea. I haven't quite decided if I agree with it, but it seems to me that simply reading is not as important as what is being read.

There are better options for introducing people to books. There are accessible, delightful classic works of children's lit, but it's not limited to those; there's excellent modern children's fiction as well. The difference between those and Potter is a difference in exposure and marketing. It's the parental equivalent of letting your kids learn what to eat from TV commercials. Hey, at least they're eating.

Start a child with Harry Potter, and they may venture into better work. I think it's just as likely their progression would be something like Harry Potter-->Twilight-->Confessions of a Shopaholic. If you wean them on mass market product literature, with no guidance, there's no reason to expect them to stray from it.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

The trend I'm starting to see, though (and if I'm imagining it, someone let me know) is books meant for younger audiences appealing to older and older readers. (Harry Potter and Twilight being the two that spring to mind).

I can see your point, but a lot of these adults were not readers for entertainment to begin with. My boss' wife & her best friend loved the Twilight saga and tried to get me to read it (their first foray into fantasy, SMH, Fantasy for Beginners: 101). I *gag* at the thought of twinkling vampires, so I had to decline. But I was able to give them suggestions for the next read.

When my sister in law decided she wanted to read Twilight, I encouraged her to also pick up copies of Ten Little Indians and Kushiel's Dart (personal favorite). I call that a score! (Me: 2, illiteracy: 0)

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Start a child with Harry Potter, and they may venture into better work. I think it's just as likely their progression would be something like Harry Potter-->Twilight-->Confessions of a Shopaholic. If you wean them on mass market product literature, with no guidance, there's no reason to expect them to stray from it.

Agreed.

But there are entire sites built to guide people towards good books. Right after you get someone hooked, buy them a copy of Nancy Pearl's Book Lust.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Start a child with Harry Potter, and they may venture into better work. I think it's just as likely their progression would be something like Harry Potter-->Twilight-->Confessions of a Shopaholic. If you wean them on mass market product literature, with no guidance, there's no reason to expect them to stray from it.

This is assuming that you are not going to steer your child's development at all. I would compare this to the parent who gives their child no direction in school as well... all of which is bad. But it's important to get them reading, period. And considering that I know people who can't have a conversation unless they are talking about a video/computer game, I'm just glad they're reading.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

If course you can enjoy “literature” when used to reading crap. You can tell the difference between flank steak and filet mignon, right? My husband isn’t a big book reader. He prefers financial magazines and periodicals to books, but as a favor to me he read quite a few of my trashiest male orientated fantasy novels: Druss the Legend, et al. After that he went to the Pelican Brief (more trash), some really horrible thrillers/murder mysteries, and a few tales of Professor Moriarty. He’s currently reading Starship Troopers (which is nothing like the movie and won the Hugo Award). I think he’s progressing nicely.

The point I'm trying to make is that we have to be introduced to reading before we can appreciate good writing.

I think your husband might be a different case. At least periodicals have the potential of being written to be read and enjoyed (as opposed to the utilitarian nature of financial magazines, for example). He's also got you to encourage him to broaden his view of reading. I tend to think that left to their own devices, the majority of people will follow the progression that OtterBooks laid out...