Can a popular novel be badly written?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

My peeve is the word chagrin!

You think they should be chagrined at their lack of understanding? Or perhaps they deserve to be beaten with shagreen ?

[Vivian]

Talk about veering off-topic.

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

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

Bet if you ask Britney Spears she'll pick popular.

Popular = money

I have read many books that were considered poorly written that I enjoyed, Battlefield Earth for one, and I have read some "Contemporary Classics*" that I couldn't finish, The Color Purple comes to mind. I think it all comes down to what we like and what we don't.

I personally wouldn't be caught reading a romance novel, but by the same token there are a lot of people on this forum that wouldn't be caught dead reading classic science fiction. It all comes down to tastes or opinions, and as me mammy always says, opinions are just like assholes, everyones got one.

*I won't bring up Shakespeare who wrote some excellent work, but I always found them a little boring, probably because I had to read them in class.

I just looked up the word decimate, the definition I saw was the one I was taught 40 years ago, whats the current meaning you keep eluding to? I would have known that I finished reading the posts, sorry.

[Vivian]

What we like and what we don't is definitely significant, and certainly there are things that I don't "get" and don't like but still have artistic value (abstract art?). All the same, I don't think art is entirely subjective. There's got to be some kind of line one can draw and say, this is quality, that isn't. It may be a fuzzy line, but it exists. Can't we agree, for example, that Arthur Conan Doyle was a better writer than Dan Brown?

(I'm not really satisfied with this example. It's so much easier to call people geniuses after they've been dead a hundred years. I'll try and think of a better one.)

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by Vivian

What we like and what we don't is definitely significant, and certainly there are things that I don't "get" and don't like but still have artistic value (abstract art?). All the same, I don't think art is entirely subjective. There's got to be some kind of line one can draw and say, this is quality, that isn't. It may be a fuzzy line, but it exists. Can't we agree, for example, that Arthur Conan Doyle was a better writer than Dan Brown?

(I'm not really satisfied with this example. It's so much easier to call people geniuses after they've been dead a hundred years. I'll try and think of a better one.)

No, I really can't go with that.

Sure , Doyle's finished novels were good, but I don't think I can say he was better than Dan Brown. I also can't say he was worse than Dan Brown. They were different, certainly.

I think people forget that most the writers we view as "classic" , Dickens, Doyle, Twain , Shakespere, were writing for "common folk." They would appear, one chapter or story at a time, or a play, and people would pay for it.

Take your Dan Brown Novel, divide it into 50 chapters. Release the first through fourth chapter in month one.. then the remaining chapters two a month until the last four, and finish it in another four chapter release. That's the serial. That's how popular authors of the day were released, in tawdry little monthly magazines, paid by the word.

Our favorite authors then were basically equal to soap opera writers, or JK Rowling, or Dan Brown, or James Patterson, etc.

So better than? Worse than? Nah. Just different methods for delivering popcorn fiction to the masses, only with time, we've made them more nostalgic.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Vivian

What we like and what we don't is definitely significant, and certainly there are things that I don't "get" and don't like but still have artistic value (abstract art?). All the same, I don't think art is entirely subjective. There's got to be some kind of line one can draw and say, this is quality, that isn't. It may be a fuzzy line, but it exists. Can't we agree, for example, that Arthur Conan Doyle was a better writer than Dan Brown?

(I'm not really satisfied with this example. It's so much easier to call people geniuses after they've been dead a hundred years. I'll try and think of a better one.)

The issue is that there isn't a single over-arching standard you can judge by.

You can certainly draw a line, but before you do so, you need to be able state what the line is, and why you are drawing it where you are. You need to make the criteria by which you are judging clear.

The criteria which are meaningful to you may not be meaningful to someone else, or may apply only in specialized circumstances.

For instance, one factor on which mysteries are judged is the skill of the author in concealing the evidence. The reader should have all of the information available to the sleuth, and be able to make the same deductions and come to the same conclusions. The skill of the author is in providing all of that information in such a manner that you don't realize what it is when you read it, and may smack yourself on the head and say "How did I miss that?"" when the detective reveals his reasoning and exposes the killer. (Agatha Christie was the acknowledged master at this sort of misdirection.)

In SF, a ground rule is that you can speculate all you want about stuff we haven't discovered yet, but you have to get what we do know right. So the Mars books of Edgar Rice Burroughs are still popular, but considered science fantasy these days. We are well aware the Mars he postulates doesn't exist. As SF, Burrough's Mars books fail because we know better.

Neither of these rules will be applicable to mainstream fiction, but other specialized rules may apply. Whatever rules you are applying, you have to be able to explicitly state them to have any meaningful conversation.
______
Dennis

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

In SF, a ground rule is that you can speculate all you want about stuff we haven't discovered yet, but you have to get what we do know right. So the Mars books of Edgar Rice Burroughs are still popular, but considered science fantasy these days. We know better, and are well aware the Mars he postulates doesn't exist. As SF, Burrough's Mars books fail because we know better.

That's a definition that I don't think I can agree with. Would you equally postulate that Heinlein's "Space Cadet" is "Science Fantasy" rather than SF, because it portrays a Venus that doesn't exist (tropical jungles, etc)?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's a definition that I don't think I can agree with. Would you equally postulate that Heinlein's "Space Cadet" is "Science Fantasy" rather than SF, because it portrays a Venus that doesn't exist (tropical jungles, etc)?

Now? Yes, because we've learned better. Space probes have peered under the clouds and we know the surface of Venus is certainly not a tropical jungle. Similar comments apply to Henry Kuttner's "Clash by Night" (published under the pseudonym Lawrence K. O'Donnell), and the novel _Fury)_ in the same setting: a Venus where man lived in domed underwater cities, because unconstrained solar radiation made the surface an area where every living thing was at all times attempting to kill and eat anything around it. The postulated biology was nonsense, even back when it was written, but for all we knew back then, there could be oceans under the clouds. I'm extravagantly fond of Kuttner's work, and especially those stories, but I don't have a problem calling them science fantasy now.

I certainly don't blame Heinlein for not being prescient and foreseeing the Venus we now know exists. Back when he wrote _Space Cadet_, a tropical jungle under the clouds of Venus wasn't that far fetched a speculation. But time and knowledge have caught up with the book. Like I said, we now know better.

Would you call Edgar Rice Burrough's Mars, Venus, or Moon series SF? I wouldn't. The same for the Pellucidar books. Back when it was written, we already had a pretty good idea the Earth wasn't hollow, even though some folks still tried to claim it was. But back when Burroughs was writing those books, the idea that "You had to get what we did know right" was not yet generally accepted as a standard. I suspect, though I can't document it, that the notion was a by-product of John W. Campbell's tenure at Astounding/Analog, and his insistence on a certain level of rigor in stories he published, based on an assumption that the primary audience for Astounding/Analog were scientific/technical folks.
______
Dennis

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Would you call Edgar Rice Burrough's Mars, Venus, or Moon series SF? I wouldn't.

No, I wouldn't; I'd call them Fantasy. But there's a fundamental difference. As you very rightly say, when Heinlein wrote "Space Cadet", he was making a plausible extrapolation of the future. It's SF. But when Burroughs wrote "A Princess of Mars", I'm 100% certain that he didn't actually believe that there were princesses on Mars. To me, it's the intent of the author that makes the difference between SF and Fantasy. Heinlein was trying to write a plausibe story about space travel; Burroughs was writing a fantastical adventure story. It doesn't matter that Heinlein got the science wrong; it's still SF to me.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

In SF, a ground rule is that you can speculate all you want about stuff we haven't discovered yet, but you have to get what we do know right. So the Mars books of Edgar Rice Burroughs are still popular, but considered science fantasy these days. We are well aware the Mars he postulates doesn't exist. As SF, Burrough's Mars books fail because we know better.
______
Dennis

Some people believe that Hard Science Fiction is only that. But not everyone.

[DanielKoehler]

...evoke an emotional response in the observer.

The art doesn't have to be orthodox or even literate, only unique. Edgar Rice Burrough sold tons of books with his sub literate hero, Tarzan. And I loved them.

It's a de gustibus issue. Who knows why we like what we like? Should we have to take a Myers-Briggs personality assay before we know if we will enjoy a book?

Fiction is an art form, like a painting; film; music. What grips us is entirely subjective. Bodice-rippers may be considered inferior literature compared to Finnegan's Wake, but is the pleasure they evoke in millions of readers inferior to that which a few learned readers receive from Joyce's puns in Homeric Greek? Is Mozart superior to Bach but inferior to Stravinsky?

The only thing that make sense to me is that "good" art taps into something "universal" in us. At least, that is what my friends in the film biz tell me. Lol.

The question, I think, is not whether art is "good" or "bad," but rather, "Is the art incompetently rendered." For example, incompetent writing, it seems to me, fails to make itself intelligible and therefore is unable to evoke any emotion (other than bewilderment).

With the advent of ebooks, the traditional gatekeepers, the agents, editors, and critics, take a backseat to the true arbiters, the readers at large. I say "Bravo!"

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DanielKoehler

"A purpose of art is to..."...evoke an emotional response in the observer. ...

Thank you for your post, I like that line of thought ... despite being unsure what it says about my OP

[Valentino]

Originally Posted by gmw

You think they should be chagrined at their lack of understanding? Or perhaps they deserve to be beaten with shagreen ?

Chagrin is pretty bad, but when I read a review that says delicious or romp in it, I almost get sick.

Brent Weeks Night Angel Trilogy seems to be popular but is the most terrible writing that I've seen in a long time.

[RolandD]

Definitions... that's really what it comes down to.

In this entire thread, no one really defined 'good' writing. Is 'good' writing just grammatically correct? Properly punctuated? Staying power? Entertainment value?

I'll give you MY definition of 'good' writing, and then you can rip it to shreds.

I take a pragmatic view. A writers job is like a teachers. To get the information across to the reader/student in a clear, concise, understandable, and entertaining, manner. For me, 'good' writing equals entertainment received, minus effort involved.

Examples:

Harry Potter is a series written for adolescences that has been embraced by adults. My wife went to a used book store with a friend, many years ago. She came home with the first two HP books, because they sounded good and thought our first-grade daughter might enjoy them in a year or two. I had heard about them, she hadn't, and decided to see what all the fuss was about. I read both in five hours, my wife read them over the next two days and my six year old daughter read them in the next two weeks. We were all entertained well beyond the effort we put into them. To me, they are very well written and I believe they will become classics in the years to come.

The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are a good example of how an authors writing skills improve over the years. In my opinion, the Hobbit is hard to read, but its entertainment value makes up for that. Lord of the Rings, written years later, is much easier to read.

Another example of this, is Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire. Lestat was much better written.

Stephen King has been bashed for bad writing, but I consider him to be a good writer and find his style similar to another favorite of mine, John Steinbeck.

I found The Descent by Jeff Long hard to read, but entertaining enough that I want to read the next book. If I have to keep rereading paragraphs to figure out what is going on, then the plot and story have to be very engrossing.

Good writing is a combination of a number of things, and is subjective to the individual reader. I think that in many instances popular does equal 'good writing.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by RolandD

... I take a pragmatic view. A writers job is like a teachers. To get the information across to the reader/student in a clear, concise, understandable, and entertaining, manner. For me, 'good' writing equals entertainment received, minus effort involved. ...

Well I like your definition ... I do particularly like the contrast of entertainment vs effort - I think that idea works very well (at least it fits my idea of good writing). Of course my opinion is probably biased by the fact that I agree with your examples (but have not read The Descent), others here do not.