Can a popular novel be badly written?

[saoir]

I think that two things are being confused. Good quality writing and a good book ...

I am NO literary reader I admit that from the off. Sometimes I am a bit embarrassed by some of the stuff that I really enjoy

But last year I read two books by Tom Clancy. HUGE sellers. OMG people, the writing is atrocious ! to get through it I had to go into a kind of suspended belief state.

However .... the story takes over. His story telling is so magnetic, so involving that you forget the writing is so $hite.

Now after the second book I drew a line and decided no ... no more. BUT I do accept that he writes great stories and people love them and his books deserve to valued as great books. Just not great writing.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by saoir

But last year I read two books by Tom Clancy. HUGE sellers. OMG people, the writing is atrocious ! to get through it I had to go into a kind of suspended belief state.

However .... the story takes over. His story telling is so magnetic, so involving that you forget the writing is so $hite.

The problem with Clancy is two-fold:

First, he's popular enough that he can require his stuff be published exactly as written, regardless of how much it would benefit from a good editor. (There were whole plot threads in the last one he wrote alone that could have been excised with no loss, as they added nothing to the story development and were dropped part way through. That's exactly the sort of thing a good editor catches, but Clancy is now editor-proof. )

Second, he's trying to make himself a franchise. Most of what comes out these days from him is by "Tom Clancy and X", where it's likely that Clancy wrote the outline and the collaborator filled in the blanks.

I tried to read the latest Clancy novel and had to stop. I couldn't isolate exactly what didn't work (without more effort than I felt like expending), but I had to actively work at reading it. It did not suck me in and drag me along. It was a "Clancy + X" book, and that was the problem.

Now after the second book I drew a line and decided no ... no more. BUT I do accept that he writes great stories and people love them and his books deserve to valued as great books. Just not great writing.

The early ones he wrote alone hold up. The recent stuff does not.
______
Dennis

[357mag]

Originally Posted by Grimm

Yes, see Stephanie Meyer and Dan Brown.

I have to agree with Grimm on this. I read The DaVinci Code first and thought that this is probably one of the most poorly written books by a popular author that I have ever read. I then proceeded to read Angels and Demons thinking that perhaps The DaVinci Code was just a fluke. Well Angels and Demons was just as poorly written.

[captkjaneway]

Originally Posted by 357mag

I have to agree with Grimm on this. I read The DaVinci Code first and thought that this is probably one of the most poorly written books by a popular author that I have ever read. I then proceeded to read Angels and Demons thinking that perhaps The DaVinci Code was just a fluke. Well Angels and Demons was just as poorly written.

I think again this is the oxymoron of what makes a book 'good'; for some it will be the quality of the prose, the structure of the sentences, the grammatical usage and the vocabulary; for others the subject/story headlines without worrying about the the technical writing issues or even the accuracy of what they are writing.

It all depends what you are seeking when you pick up a book.......is it to be entertained, it is to expand your mind, is it to be shocked/disgusted or is it just to pass away some relaxation time. Sometimes it is nice to read almost monosyllabic trash

IMHO Dan Brown is a crap author in the technical sense but for many he is entertaining and personally I would also put James Patterson and Lee Child in the Dan Brown camp - but sometimes they are a non-thinking/non-threatening easy read. (Well all except Dan Brown for me)

[Vivian]

Originally Posted by fruiter

Well - I think that there is no perfect book, so a popular book might very well have consistent flaws that are really noticeable. I've read incredibly long series that didn't make a lot of sense - but I continued reading them because I was really enthralled by one feature of theirs.

But you're OK with that? Because when I get pulled in by a book that's a page-turner but nonsensical/shallow/dishonest/devoid of characterization/otherwise a turd, I'm not happy at the end. I feel used. I feel as if I was promised something I didn't get. So I have learned to avoid poorly-written books via classical conditioning: I don't want the pain.

One of my biggest lessons was The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. I think I was well into the third book and upteenth mutant-monster battle when I said, wait a minute, this is shit. I felt tricked and foolish because I'd wasted hours of my life on this series. Not a good feeling.

By the way, I think that when you're talking about good vs bad writing you're not just talking about things like grammar and style. I recently started a book (Broken for You by Stephanie Kallos) that was quite skillfully written, but dishonest, forced, full or revolting sentimentality. I ended up abandoning it. I call that bad writing. But she did do nice sentences and metaphors and all that kind of stuff.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by teadonkey

Writing, though, is more than entertainment in many ways. It's a more active form of entertainment. Instead of having a story told to you, like in a movie or television program, you tell YOURSELF the story by reading it, and you bring to the table all of your prior experiences, opinions and personality.

yes, and some forms of storytelling require an even greater active role by the "reader".

I would say the ones that are GOOD are the ones that engaged you without you needing to put forth any effort. If you read a book and felt emotion without needing to TRY to feel it, you've read a good book, regardless of how you felt about the subject matter/type of book.

emotions, eh? I prefer books catering to the intelect...

Also comes into play the talent of storytellers to narrate events -- they can turn even the most boresome piece of anecdote some great reading.

[DanielKoehler]

De gustibus non est disputandum. ("Concerning taste there may be no dispute.")

This Latin quote implies this question of "bad" writing has been addressed quite acceptably a couple of millenia ago.


The trick word is "badly". Very subjective. If a work has unintended grammatical, syntactical, or temporal errors, that is "bad" writing, IMO, i.e., it fails to be understood.

Other than that, it is all a matter of style and taste. Faulkner won a Nobel prize and his sentences go on for pages. Is that "good" writing? Beats me. Hemingway wrote in short sentences and he won the Nobel, too. Literary purists make me sick! As if anyone could be deemed to have the last word on matters of style and taste. The market is the arbiter. I imagine that, back in the day of Jules Verne, who used the passive voice ad nauseum, if anyone would write in first person, active voice, that writer would be denounced as a "bad" writer.

[Keryl Raist]

A popular book can be badly written. It can't be bad at fulfilling whatever entertainment need it meets.

Think of it like McDonald's. They don't make great burgers. They make mediocre to okay burgers at a specific price point and speed that people want. They do that extremely well.

Twilight doesn't make great literature, but it targeted a specific audience and gave them exactly what they wanted. It's great entertainment for that group.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by DanielKoehler

De gustibus non est disputandum. ("Concerning taste there may be no dispute.")

This Latin quote implies this question of "bad" writing has been addressed quite acceptably a couple of millenia ago.


The trick word is "badly". Very subjective. If a work has unintended grammatical, syntactical, or temporal errors, that is "bad" writing, IMO, i.e., it fails to be understood.

Other than that, it is all a matter of style and taste. Faulkner won a Nobel prize and his sentences go on for pages. Is that "good" writing? Beats me. Hemingway wrote in short sentences and he won the Nobel, too. Literary purists make me sick! As if anyone could be deemed to have the last word on matters of style and taste. The market is the arbiter. I imagine that, back in the day of Jules Verne, who used the passive voice ad nauseum, if anyone would write in first person, active voice, that writer would be denounced as a "bad" writer.

I have to admit I hate Faulker's sentences. I frequently have to go back and re-read them.

[Vivian]

Originally Posted by DanielKoehler

Other than that, it is all a matter of style and taste. Faulkner won a Nobel prize and his sentences go on for pages. Is that "good" writing? Beats me. Hemingway wrote in short sentences and he won the Nobel, too. Literary purists make me sick! As if anyone could be deemed to have the last word on matters of style and taste. The market is the arbiter. I imagine that, back in the day of Jules Verne, who used the passive voice ad nauseum, if anyone would write in first person, active voice, that writer would be denounced as a "bad" writer.

Thank goodness for the magical hand of the market. Humans need have no brains or judgment; the market will do everything for them. That's why the U.S. economy is doing so well.

Judging from your post, you've read nothing that came before it and will read nothing that comes afterward, so there's no point in me repeating what's already been said. Sorry you're feeling sick; hope you get better soon.

[DanielKoehler]

<<"Humans need have no brains or judgment; the market will do everything for them. That's why the U.S. economy is doing so well.?">> So...that's it? The big point of your post? That's the case cracker that puts this whole issue to rest, eh? If so, I don't care for either your point or your tone. However, your sophomoric sarcasm actually serves to prove my point.

First, Vivian, we are not here to discuss the US economy; the thread topic is "good" and "bad" novels. It's been in all the other posts you say I have yet to read. Perhaps you just missed it?

But since you brought it up, the American economy is doing quite well, thank you very much. It's the strongest in the world. There is no point in debating that fact, even for an NB economic sage such as yourself.

Abstract thinking may not be your forte. The market is we "humans."

You make the mistake of reifying the "market" as something existing apart from its constituents. You are confusing the map with the territory. The market can't "do everything for them," as you so cunningly put it. It's an collective abstract construct for the decisions of millions of readers; it is not itself a sentient being. Humans, however, are sentient beings and know what they like in lit.

My point is simply that readers' independent decisions are better proxies for good or bad lit than the preferences of a cabal of editors. Gatekeepers aren't needed to tell thinking individuals what is good or bad lit. If readers have access to a wider sphere of authors as is the case now with ebooks, I believe they are quite capable of deciding for themselves merely by scanning the jacket copy and a couple of chapters.

Second, <<"Judging from your post, you've read nothing that came before it and will read nothing that comes afterward">> is an ad hominem attack to discredit an opinion with which you disagree. To promote such an obvious logical fallacy serves as evidence of a serious deficiency in your education. The fact is, Vivian, you have no earthly way to know what I have read or will read on this thread. So, instead of coming off as clever, you instead appear arrogant and mean-spirited.

Vivian, you and I constitute but two voices on the thread. Neither of us has any right to speak for the thread or censure other voices. I must say, however, I think you have been most disingenous and your hauteur is quite frankly not in keeping with the spirit of the blog. Your post to me added nothing to the discussion IMO. You would raise your stock considerably in my eyes (and presumably in the eyes of other people of good will who participate constructively on the thread) if you were to refrain from demeaning it with your sarcastic scorn.

Finally, thank you for your concern as to my health, and yes, I do feel better now. Then again, I probably shouldn't. To paraphrase Le Boeuf in True Grit, "What really has one accomplished by besting a fool?"

If my reply has offended anyone, I do apologize. But if attacked, I will defend.