Can a popular novel be badly written?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I'm not convinced that writing can always be judged objectively.

To use a very coarse example, there are some who think all adverbs are bad, for example, and others who think only adverbs used to modify weak verbs are bad.

All of my writer friends disagree with me.

I think it is more subtle than that. It might be true, for someone who is not a good writer, that he should not use adverbs to modify weak verbs. But in the hands of a good writer, I would expect that such a device could be used effectively. The main thing is that the device would be used knowingly, with an objective, to achieve a particular effect.

For example, Edgar Rice Burroughs had a structural device he used, consisting of running parallel plot lines in alternating chapters, resolving in a single chapter at the end of the book. And he did it in every book he wrote, as far as I can tell. But that device did not rise above being anything other than a device. A good writer would have linked the device to something in the narrative - the Alexandria Quartet might be an example of that, linking the device to perspective.

Good writing is like anything else done well. It reflects the intentional use of known (or invented) devices deployed intelligently to achieve an artistic result. And how it works can be judged objectively, although sometimes it takes a while, maybe years or decades, to figure out what is going on.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

While I can see your point that cutting down on the repetition in her description and increasing the vocabulary she used might have improved the Harry Potter books on one level; it would also have rendered them less suitable for their intended audience, and that wouldn't have been a good thing from JKR's perspective. Even though I'm sure some of her readership could have risen to the challenge, I'm equally sure that others either couldn't or wouldn't have risen, and those were the ones she needed to keep. It's relatively easy to sell books to people who already read a lot, not so much to those who don't. Her success came from selling books to people and families who didn't normally buy books or read much.

Writing to your audience is not a sign of lack of skill.

I suppose one can deliberately write poorly, on the assumption that one's audience lacks the ability to read good writing, and might even be repelled by it. But I doubt that JKR was doing that. I think she hit a sweet spot in combining certain existing narratives which appeal to adolescents, to create an engaging story that readers of all ages could enjoy.

But that doesn't mean that her books are well written. It just means that she found an audience for whom how well a book is written is at best a secondary concern. And that's a pretty large audience.

When I was a boy, back in the 50s, I stumbled on a treasure trove of popular novels for boys written between 1910 and 1930, more or less. They had belonged to my uncles, and were in the attic of a barn. I had lots of good fattening high cholesterol reading for several months. Some of the names are probably still familiar - Tom Swift, the Hardy Boys, and, of course, Tarzan, for example. Others have disappeared, even in my memory - X Bar X Boys is one I do remember. Do And Dare is another. These books, in their day, were every bit as popular as Harry Potter. But like these books, the Harry Potter books will not be read a half century from now, not even by their intended audience. Read any good Horatio Alger recently? Of course not - there is no good HOratio Alger. But in his time & place, he was Rowling.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Okay, I kind of get that. It's why I decided to read The Da Vinci Code. (I'm still debating whether or not that was a good idea. )

Don't worry. You haven't be en aff$ected as lo8ng as y2!ou can scimblel erbig twiffle l*> thig72.

Is there a danger that someone introduced to bad writing will prefer bad writing? Better-written books are often more challenging to the reader.

I don't know the answer, but the trend is disturbing to me: When I was a kid, I used to read The Hardy Boys books. While it might be a bit of a stretch, adults reading HP and Twilight now seems akin to them reading The Hardy Boys back then.

Why am I suddenly very afraid?

I think that Steve Jobs is right - the majority - vast majority - of people don't read. Of those who do, probably the majority read for the story, not the writing. A story can be good without being well written. So those who understand and appreciate good writing are a small minority, even of those who read.

But your fear is a cogent one - I don't think there ever was a time, before this time, when adults read adolescent books for pleasure in any great numbers. (Which is not quite the same thing as adolescent books like that Code thing being written for adults...) But maybe I'm wrong - the audience for Horatio Alger books must have included a lot of adults. Same for the Tarzan novels. The more things change...

On the other hand, there are some good books targeted for adolescents here & there. True Grit comes to mind immediately, because I just saw the new movie (good, but gory.) I read the book about ten years ago, and was surprised at how good it was. I'm not even sure how I wound up reading it - I think it was a recommendation by some writer.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Harmon

... But like these books, the Harry Potter books will not be read a half century from now, not even by their intended audience. ...

Now there's an interesting bet ... I could probably get you pretty good odds on that one. At a guess I think such a statement may hold true for Twilight and its followers, but Harry Potter? Nope, I think that's around for the long haul.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by gmw

Now there's an interesting bet ... I could probably get you pretty good odds on that one. At a guess I think such a statement may hold true for Twilight and its followers, but Harry Potter? Nope, I think that's around for the long haul.

Why do you think that's so? (I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. I'd just like to hear your reasoning.)

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Don't worry. You haven't be en aff$ected as lo8ng as y2!ou can scimblel erbig twiffle l*> thig72.



I think that Steve Jobs is right - the majority - vast majority - of people don't read. Of those who do, probably the majority read for the story, not the writing. A story can be good without being well written. So those who understand and appreciate good writing are a small minority, even of those who read.

I certainly have nothing against a good story. It just annoys me to no end that "popular" is conflated with "good" on today's book scene. It means that good writing will become harder to find, because it won't pay as well as the pablum.

And I think Jobs was wrong if you take his remarks about reading in context. When he said that people don't read, he was justifying his disdain for the Kindle. Clearly, things have worked out better for the Kindle than he imagined.

Originally Posted by Harmon

But your fear is a cogent one - I don't think there ever was a time, before this time, when adults read adolescent books for pleasure in any great numbers. (Which is not quite the same thing as adolescent books like that Code thing being written for adults...) But maybe I'm wrong - the audience for Horatio Alger books must have included a lot of adults. Same for the Tarzan novels. The more things change...

I'm not sure. I just don't recall adults reading kids' stuff (unless they had kids) when I was growing up. But the more disturbing thing to me is that these days, there doesn't even seem to be the recognition that these books are for kids. They're treated as if they're adult reading. I've had people (some close to me) suggest that I read HP as if they were suggesting an adult book.

Originally Posted by Harmon

On the other hand, there are some good books targeted for adolescents here & there. True Grit comes to mind immediately, because I just saw the new movie (good, but gory.) I read the book about ten years ago, and was surprised at how good it was. I'm not even sure how I wound up reading it - I think it was a recommendation by some writer.

I think there's a lot of good writing for adolescents. It's not a genre I pay attention to, because I don't have kids, but I'm sure there's some great stuff out there.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Why do you think that's so? (I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. I'd just like to hear your reasoning.)

A personal/opinionated answer:

I believe the Harry Potter books are well written, that they contain all the essentials of what I consider to be good writing; they are "a good experience" if you will forgive such an expression. They are not perfect, but then none of the classics held to such high acclaim here are perfect either. The important factor is whether those imperfections matter when you are reading; with Harry Potter the imperfections, to me, only exist when others point them out, they never got in the way of my enjoyment while reading. Harry Potter worked for me on many different levels, despite being well outside the target audience, so that I find it difficult to believe it will ever fade into any sort of obscurity.

I also enjoyed the Twilight books very much, but while I would not resort to calling them badly written (I think they worked too well to fit such criticism), nor could I honestly call them good writing; I would describe them as adequately written, the writing achieved its purpose. But I do have difficulty explaining why I liked these books. I don't read much in the way of romance (some Jane Austen), and will readily accept that not a lot actually happened in the stories ... but, whatever the reason, enjoy them I did - very much. The faults I can readily recognise in the books after reading them did not matter while I was reading, but the faults are such that I can see these fading from popularity over time.

An attempt at a more objective answer:

Like them or not, no one can deny just how popular Harry Potter has become (whether you attribute much of that to the movies is up to you). I also believe that the popularity is very widespread. Parents may have purchased just for their kids, but a great many enjoy the books just as much themselves. Young or old, male or female, fantasy or other, the people that have enjoyed this book seem to come from everywhere. The popularity of some of the author's mentioned by Harmon, even Edgar Rice Burroughs, I don't believe ever reached such a wide cross-section of the community (but I don't have factual data to support such a claim).

LotR: Lord of the Rings. It is now more than 50 years since publication. By no means do I want to denigrate the huge background that Tolkien developed behind that story, but I do want to use it here as a reference point. Harry Potter, is very different to LotR and HP is aimed at a much younger audience (at least to start with), but I do find elements in common. The scope and scale of both stories is larger than that of more "common" works. The journey of the main character is long and difficult and the central drive behind the story, but many other characters become important to the reader so that their progress is almost as important to you. The world created by Rowling does not have the sheer scale of Middle Earth but it does become quite large and complex, with sufficient detail to make you believe it exists while you are reading. So despite there immense differences I see the two having a similar long term effect on literature, I can see Harry Potter being a standard by which much fiction is judged in the future.

With regard to Twilight. The popularity it gained has gone beyond its target audience but I get the impression (hardly objective, but what the hell), that the audience is not as diverse. I would also say that Twilight is missing the scale, scope and complexity that mark works likely to last longer. If Twilight becomes any sort of standard it will only be for the limited genre over which it has sparked such a flurry of writing.

[JackNolte]

If only we could all write as badly as J.K. Rowling and Stephanie Meyer. I'm sure they just weep at night that they're considered bad writers. Of course, they're weeping while on board their massive yachts docked on their own private islands in the Caribbean . . .

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by gmw

A personal/opinionated answer:

I believe the Harry Potter books are well written, that they contain all the essentials of what I consider to be good writing; they are "a good experience" if you will forgive such an expression...

This is one of the big problems with a thread like this - nobody bothers to define terms. But implicit in the opening post is the idea that "popular" does not equate to "well written." Nor the reverse, for that matter. A good reading experience is not necessarily the result of good writing. It's actually more a function of who the reader is, and what the reader enjoys. So a "good reading experience" does not strike me as a good definition of "good writing." But if that *is* one's definition, then I can understand your position.

I'm an elitist, myself. I believe that things can be done well or done poorly, and that these are things that can be identified by a person who is educated. I have no question whatsoever that Beethoven is better than the Beatles. Anyone who thinks differently is simply not educated, musically. It doesn't mean that they are stupid, just that they lack the knowledge to make a proper judgment. I think that the same thing is true of writing.

I think that your observation that someone can write a popular book based on what you call "adequate writing" is absolutely correct, though.

...I don't read much in the way of romance (some Jane Austen), ...

I suppose Jane Austen's books can be considered romance novels. But they are much more than that. For one thing, they are character studies. For another, they are social commentary. And yet again, they reflect moral judgments in the context of a particular social arrangement. And they are lessons in how to use words.

Like them or not, no one can deny just how popular Harry Potter has become (whether you attribute much of that to the movies is up to you). I also believe that the popularity is very widespread. Parents may have purchased just for their kids, but a great many enjoy the books just as much themselves. Young or old, male or female, fantasy or other, the people that have enjoyed this book seem to come from everywhere. The popularity of some of the author's mentioned by Harmon, even Edgar Rice Burroughs, I don't believe ever reached such a wide cross-section of the community (but I don't have factual data to support such a claim)...

Let's compare the Potter novels to those written by a different author who wrote for a similarly wide audience - Dickens. Dicken's novels were without question as popular as Rowlings' novels. Dickens has lasted. I doubt that Harry Potter will, and a comparison with Dickens will show one reason why. Dickens created real human characters. Not merely good or bad ones, but real ones. I know that people tend to think of Dickens' characters as caricatures, but if you step back a moment, and consider how Dickens would see your friends, or strangers on the street, I think it becomes immediately apparent that - as Chesterton observed - Dickens draws from life.

Rowling, OTOH, draws from stereotypes. Her characters are superficial, and draw their power mainly from the reader's adolescent identification with Harry, or I suspect in many instances, Hermione. But not because they are like anyone you actually know, just because they are like what you would like to be. Or to have been.

LotR: Lord of the Rings. It is now more than 50 years since publication. By no means do I want to denigrate the huge background that Tolkien developed behind that story, but I do want to use it here as a reference point. Harry Potter, is very different to LotR and HP is aimed at a much younger audience (at least to start with), but I do find elements in common. ... So despite there immense differences I see the two having a similar long term effect on literature, I can see Harry Potter being a standard by which much fiction is judged in the future....

LotR is a first class story, but it's second rate writing. Better than Potter, though, for the reasons you mention, and also because Tolkien was better educated than Rowling, with a vocabulary that dwarfs hers (and yours & mine, of course) and a deep knowledge of language. But still, he lacked command of a lot of the tools of a writer. Basically, both he & Rowling are not writers, but rather, storytellers who happen to tell their stories on paper.

I don't see Harry Potter surviving as a character, nor the stories surviving more than a generation. But I'm too old to take any bets on it, except on behalf of my grandchildren!

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by JackNolte

If only we could all write as badly as J.K. Rowling and Stephanie Meyer. I'm sure they just weep at night that they're considered bad writers. Of course, they're weeping while on board their massive yachts docked on their own private islands in the Caribbean . . .

Have you turned on the radio lately? There's a big difference between being popular and being good -- especially where art is involved.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Harmon

This is one of the big problems with a thread like this - nobody bothers to define terms. ...

Blame me, I started it. I could perhaps argue that my definition of good writing was implicit in that original post, with some clarification in additional posts since, but I guess I always knew that people would read their own definition into the term whatever else was said.

I noted Jane Austen's books as romance because her writing is typically listed as that way in most descriptions I've seen, but I read her books for the richness of the language.

Dickens was a truly great writer in a way that makes it difficult to find any modern comparison. But I remain unconvinced that this takes anything away from more modern achievements and their long term expectations. The world is a different place now, it is appropriate that the writing should also be different and I think history will judge accordingly.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by gmw

The world is a different place now, it is appropriate that the writing should also be different and I think history will judge accordingly.

The world is certainly different than it was in Charles Dickens's day, but I think that only justifies so much. Sure, the vocabulary changes, social norms change, and absolutely it would have an effect on science fiction. But word choice still matters (even if the words are different) and things like sentence structure, grammar, etc., still matters. To cite one example that drives me nuts in modern language: the abuse of the word "literally". e.g.,

"He was literally burning with rage."

Um, no, he wasn't -- unless his rage somehow caused him to spontaneously combust. For some reason (and I admit this is something I probably need to get over) it annoys me when people use the word "decimated" to mean "destroyed". To "decimate" means to kill 1 out of every 10.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Well, assisting in visualization, I'll give you. As far as vocabulary, etc., that definitely depends on the writing. A 30-year old reading a book geared towards teens (hopefully) isn't getting their vocabulary broadened.

Oh, sure they will. You can assume a book geared toward teens will at least try to get current slang right, and the 30 year old may not be aware of the usage. ("Is that what the kids are calling it these days?")

Whether this increase in knowledge is a good thing will depend on the point of view of the reader.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Is there a danger that someone introduced to bad writing will prefer bad writing? Better-written books are often more challenging to the reader.

I don't know the answer, but the trend is disturbing to me: When I was a kid, I used to read The Hardy Boys books. While it might be a bit of a stretch, adults reading HP and Twilight now seems akin to them reading The Hardy Boys back then.

You may have answered your own question. Do you go back and reread the Hardy Boys now? If you do, what do you think of them?

We learn to read as young children, and the stuff we learn to read is stuff the folks who wrote it assume a young child can read and understand. Do we get stuck there because that's where we started?

Appreciation of literature is a learned skill, and like all other skills, it's gained by practice. I appreciate stuff now I wouldn't have appreciated as a teen or even as a young adult. I had the vocabulary, even then, to understand what I was reading, but lacked the experience and knowledge for it to connect with me. As I grew older and read more, I gained an understanding of what made a plot work, what made a character meaningful, and what made prose good.

I can read and enjoy works now I didn't care for when younger, because I've learned ways to approach it - hooks to hang my interest on, if you will - so that I can appreciate the work.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I think that Steve Jobs is right - the majority - vast majority - of people don't read. Of those who do, probably the majority read for the story, not the writing. A story can be good without being well written. So those who understand and appreciate good writing are a small minority, even of those who read.

It might help to define what you mean by "reading". If you mean it as "read books for pleasure", Jobs is likely right. Most folks don't read. I think of the comment a VP at a bank I used to work for made: "I haven't read a book since I got out of college!" He wasn't stupid or ignorant - you don't get an MBA from the Wharton School if you are - but his reading wasn't books for pleasure. I suspect it was less a case of lack of interest than lack of time. He was a future Captain of Industry, who wound up as a CEO at a Fortune 500 company, and I suspect he read very little he didn't see as directly related to his career.

But pretty much everybody reads for pleasure, if you expand you definition of reading. I think of a friend who is a web and print designer and a content producer. He reads incessantly, but most of it in online, in the form of blogs and articles. The shorter forms are more easily digested when he has a few minutes here and there, and he's dyslexic, so while he can and does read books, it takes additional effort.

But your fear is a cogent one - I don't think there ever was a time, before this time, when adults read adolescent books for pleasure in any great numbers. (Which is not quite the same thing as adolescent books like that Code thing being written for adults...) But maybe I'm wrong - the audience for Horatio Alger books must have included a lot of adults. Same for the Tarzan novels. The more things change...

Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote for adults. His work was published in the pulp magazines, beginning in a period when if you were a kid, you might just try to hide the pulp so people didn't know you were reading it.

And Burroughs is still popular today. (Take a look at the download count for Burroughs titles in the MR Library as one bit of evidence.) You can make arguments about how well it's written, but the stories are still compelling.

On the other hand, there are some good books targeted for adolescents here & there. True Grit comes to mind immediately, because I just saw the new movie (good, but gory.) I read the book about ten years ago, and was surprised at how good it was. I'm not even sure how I wound up reading it - I think it was a recommendation by some writer.

Lots of stuff intended for kids became popular with adults. Consider C. S. Lewis's Narnia books back when, or Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" now.

Being written for Juvenile/YA audiences doesn't mean adults can't enjoy them, and the best such work transcends age brackets, like Lloyd Alexander's _The Chronicles of Prydain_.
______
Dennis