Can a popular novel be badly written?

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

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

I get what you're saying (I think), but my point with The Hardy Boys was that back then, that was considered children's (probably boys') books. Adults didn't read them. That's why I find the HP phenomenon (Or is it phenomena? I never remember.) so odd and disturbing. If it broadens peoples' horizons, that's great, but a lot of what I'm seeing is people waiting for the next installment of HP, or failing that, "the next HP".

And I think the problem is based in movies. By their very nature, movies center around visual sensations, rather than plot, and often at the expense of dialogue. Reading a book like you're watching a movie (if you know what I'm saying) gives someone only a surface assessment of the work, and the culture seems to be encouraging that kind of thing.

But then again, maybe I'm full of crap.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I get what you're saying (I think), but my point with The Hardy Boys was that back then, that was considered children's (probably boys') books. Adults didn't read them. That's why I find the HP phenomenon (Or is it phenomena? I never remember.) so odd and disturbing. If it broadens peoples' horizons, that's great, but a lot of what I'm seeing is people waiting for the next installment of HP, or failing that, "the next HP".

Why is that bad? I know a number of adults who are huge Harry Potter fans. (Several of them are published writers.) HP transcends age brackets, and tells a story accessible by all ages.

Wanting more of the same isn't age specific. Consider the popularity of fantasy inspired largely by Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy. An awful lot of fantasy got published that trod firmly in LoTR's footsteps, because that's the sort of thing people wanted to read. But because fantasy got established as a popular category, various stuff that wasn't an LoTR clone got released as well.

There are endless "me too" products in any art, but it's largely inevitable and part of the process.

It's why I don't join the chorus unhappy with publishers publishing more of the crap they don't like to read. Well, it sells, which mean large numbers of people don't think it's crap. I may not like it, but I'm not arrogant enough to presume my tastes are superior and they shouldn't like it either.

Publishers publish what they think will sell, based on what is selling. Fine by me: the money they make on that stuff funds the publication of the stuff I do like to read.

And I think the problem is based in movies. By their very nature, movies center around visual sensations, rather than plot, and often at the expense of dialogue. Reading a book like you're watching a movie (if you know what I'm saying) gives someone only a surface assessment of the work, and the culture seems to be encouraging that kind of thing.

But then again, maybe I'm full of crap.

Some books simply don't translate to film. Think of things that have, say, interior monologues. Visual art isn't necessarily simplistic, and there are things you can convey in film that you can't convey in a book, as well as vice versa.

But I'm not sure how you can "read a book like you're watching a movie" in most cases, given the differing nature of the mediums.
______
Dennis

[gmw]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

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.

You need to be careful with this sort of thing though:

• Some of the criticisms listed on this thread can also apply to some classic fiction. Errors happen even with the best of writers. In dictionary.com I found this article about Jane Austen's writing that may be of interest to those following this thread and/or are interested in the importance of editors.
• Sometimes the misuse of words like "literally" are specifically included in dialogue because real people do (mis)use it. Pratchett highlights such misuse in one of the Tiffany Aching novels, Tiffany takes a keen interest in words and their meaning.
• The meaning of some words and phrases does indeed change over time. For this reason some people like to have annotated versions of some historical works (something I think I should have considered when I read Moby Dick recently, I would have really liked someone to tell me - in plain, modern English - what some of his digressions really meant).

Decimate is a word that has changed, and is still changing, in its accepted meaning, see dictionary.com. Of course the main point that you make is still correct, an author's choice of words is important, but it is sometimes relevant to check that your own understanding is not outdated.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by gmw

You need to be careful with this sort of thing though:

• Some of the criticisms listed on this thread can also apply to some classic fiction. Errors happen even with the best of writers. In dictionary.com I found this article about Jane Austen's writing that may be of interest to those following this thread and/or are interested in the importance of editors.
• Sometimes the misuse of words like "literally" are specifically included in dialogue because real people do (mis)use it. Pratchett highlights such misuse in one of the Tiffany Aching novels, Tiffany takes a keen interest in words and their meaning.
• The meaning of some words and phrases does indeed change over time. For this reason some people like to have annotated versions of some historical works (something I think I should have considered when I read Moby Dick recently, I would have really liked someone to tell me - in plain, modern English - what some of his digressions really meant).

Decimate is a word that has changed, and is still changing, in its accepted meaning, see dictionary.com. Of course the main point that you make is still correct, an author's choice of words is important, but it is sometimes relevant to check that your own understanding is not outdated.

All good points.

With "literally", I was thinking more of speech than writing. And in writing, I think it's hard to tell sometimes if the writer actually knows the difference, or if that "I'm just writing the way people talk" thing is really just a cover. I get suspicious about things like that when the rest of their dialogue doesn't show any sign of dialect or idiomatic speech. I kind of think an author needs to show his/her chops before that kind of usage can be given the benefit of the doubt.

As for errors: Yeah, I agree with you. We all make them. I think a good writer makes a grammatical error sound like the way you should say things, though. (To be honest, I still can't bring myself to say things like "It is I", rather than "It is me" or "It's me". I don't care if it's grammatically correct. It's just wrong, damn it! )

I understand about "decimate". That's why I conceded I probably needed to get over it. (In my defense, though, Merriam-Webster (at least online) lists the common usage definition third out of three. )

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I understand about "decimate". That's why I conceded I probably needed to get over it. (In my defense, though, Merriam-Webster (at least online) lists the common usage definition third out of three. )

The problem is that we have plenty of perfectly good word for "destroy completely" (annihilate, demolish, eradicate) but no word to replace "decimate" in either its precise meaning of one in ten, or its imprecise one of a lot but not all. Concede nothing, stand fast!

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Concede nothing, stand fast!

I have a major pet peeve with dictionaries that include incorrect usage. People look up a word to determine the correct meaning, not to learn how people are misusing it.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I have a major pet peeve with dictionaries that include incorrect usage. People look up a word to determine the correct meaning, not to learn how people are misusing it.

In theory at least, dictionaries are supposed to document the change after it has happened, they are not supposed initiate the change. (At least that is my understanding of their role.) Dictionary.com for example mostly agrees with Harmon's definition of decimate (not citing as an example of perfection, just as a site I find useful and generally reliable), my earlier post was aimed at highlighting that the imprecise definition existed, not just the precise.

Language is a constantly moving target which, I suppose, is one of the reasons why we have had so much difficulty on this thread - but the fact that it is always moving is one of the reasons I think my OP still has (at least some) validity.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The problem is that we have plenty of perfectly good word for "destroy completely" (annihilate, demolish, eradicate) but no word to replace "decimate" in either its precise meaning of one in ten, or its imprecise one of a lot but not all. Concede nothing, stand fast!

Hey, you're right! Screw that!! (Now where was that windmill I was tilting at...? )

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by gmw

In theory at least, dictionaries are supposed to document the change after it has happened, they are not supposed initiate the change. (At least that is my understanding of their role.) Dictionary.com for example mostly agrees with Harmon's definition of decimate (not citing as an example of perfection, just as a site I find useful and generally reliable), my earlier post was aimed at highlighting that the imprecise definition existed, not just the precise.

Language is a constantly moving target which, I suppose, is one of the reasons why we have had so much difficulty on this thread - but the fact that it is always moving is one of the reasons I think my OP still has (at least some) validity.

You're obviously right, but I think Harmon's point is a good one: One of the ways writing is getting debased is that precise words are being either replaced with imprecise ones or themselves neutered. Sort of Orwell predicted in 1984. If you can refer to anything as being "decimated" (or "awesome", for that matter), then why even bother? If precise words keep getting clear-cut from our language, it'll become hard to describe anything well (which is probably one of the reasons why mediocre books can prosper).

[gmw]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

You're obviously right, but I think Harmon's point is a good one: One of the ways writing is getting debased is that precise words are being either replaced with imprecise ones or themselves neutered. Sort of Orwell predicted in 1984. If you can refer to anything as being "decimated" (or "awesome", for that matter), then why even bother? If precise words keep getting clear-cut from our language, it'll become hard to describe anything well (which is probably one of the reasons why mediocre books can prosper).

I don't have the expertise to give good examples ... but I presume that even the classics referenced on this thread were guilty of using words according to the definitions current at the time they were writing - rather than only definitions that had been completely acceptable for 150 years. Indeed my limited understanding of the situation is that the problem was potentially worse then because language tended to be more localised.

[hidari]

Language is an ocean not a canal. words and definitions are constantly changing over time... Should we not use the word 'nice' because it had a different meaning 1000 years ago? Spelling is very arbitrary, etc... a healthy dose of linguistics defrocks most anal retentive people's view on the use of language...

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

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.

I would love for my son to read Harry Potter. Right now it's either "Diary of a Wimpy Kid", Pokemon graphic novels, or non-fiction. At least he's learning stuff from the non-fiction. He knows stuff about astronomy that I never knew.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by gmw

I don't have the expertise to give good examples ... but I presume that even the classics referenced on this thread were guilty of using words according to the definitions current at the time they were writing - rather than only definitions that had been completely acceptable for 150 years. Indeed my limited understanding of the situation is that the problem was potentially worse then because language tended to be more localised.

That's true, but it doesn't really address the nature of my objection regarding "decimate".

1) The original definition of "decimate" is still recognized as standard (see Merriam-Webster online, for example).

2) Using "decimate" in alternate ways debases the language, because it uses a very precise word (for which we have no alternate) in a very sloppy, imprecise way.

(I have the same issue with the words "ironic" and "tragedy", but that's probably a debate for another day. )

[gmw]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

That's true, but it doesn't really address the nature of my objection regarding "decimate".

1) The original definition of "decimate" is still recognized as standard (see Merriam-Webster online, for example).

2) Using "decimate" in alternate ways debases the language, because it uses a very precise word (for which we have no alternate) in a very sloppy, imprecise way.

(I have the same issue with the words "ironic" and "tragedy", but that's probably a debate for another day. )

I don't doubt that there are books out there that use decimate (and other words) incorrectly, but there are situations where decimate can be used and be indirectly related to complete destruction. For example armies can be decimated (reduced drastically in number, without being completely destroyed) and yet their ability to retaliate or defend can be completely destroyed as a result. In such a case as this the use of decimate may be considered strictly correct. (I am not trying to defend truly incorrect use, just trying to highlight that sometimes the accuracy or relevance of a meaning can be obscured.)

I like the decimate example because it shows how words do change over time. According to both Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com the word decimate also has (had) a mean of to take one tenth from (nothing about killing or destroying) - dictionary.com marks that definition as obsolete, both mark it as the origin of the word. We then move on to killing one in ten, and eventually only to a great proportion or "to reduce drastically especially in number". So the word has moved on quite a way from where it started, these things happen whether we approve of them or not.

[GA Russell]

My peeve is the word chagrin!