Can a popular novel be badly written?

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I think Stephen King can write a paragraph as well or better than anyone else alive. Where I think he falls down is in his endings. They often don't hold together at all well. (I think James Clavell had the same problem, particularly in Shogun.)

Yes, but he is the master of short stories The Moving Finger still gets to me sometimes in the deep dark of the night.

[Doug Huffman]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

since already the word "popular" indicates the masses (grey mob for me) ...

Demos is a fine word from the Greek and not a double entendre.

[hidari]

Have enjoyed the thread thus far..... The popular books always tend to remind me of the lemming effect...on books, film etc... Everyone is buying it so it must be good!?????

Then, the writer or director churn out film after film or book after book and always have a hit?!.... I guess by that point you are a brand name

I remember reading somewhere how Doris Lessing released a book under a pen name and the book got panned, yet anything that she wrote under her name was praised... goes to show....

[issybird]

For me, the difference between Stieg Larsson and Dan Brown is that I couldn't get past the first few pages of DaVinci Code, but I finished the Larsson trilogy. That kept me turning the pages, but I still think it was lousy. Preposterous in plot, with wooden characterizations, lots of clunky exposition, and absurd dialogue. So yes, it was badly written. I have no issue with dipping into cheesy stuff, whatever floats your boat. But I start to get judgy when the cheese is all someone reads and s/he can't discriminate between "worthwhile" and "crap, but entertainment." It matters.

If someone never reads junk, I think they're boring (or a liar). But someone who reads only junk is equally tedious.

[gmw]

I can't hope to reply to all these wonderful responses. Thanks everyone, there is definitely some food for thought in amongst it all.

Just a couple of general responses:

Communication is the goal, the hoped for end result. There are many ways (means) to communicate (books, movies, lectures, etc etc) and many sorts of things that a person may want to communicate (entertainment, religious message etc etc). A novel represents one form of communication and if lots of people successfully receive that communication then it has succeeded. It seems churlish to describe such a success as inherently bad just because I didn't like it.

A novel is much more than the technical or grammatical correctness of it's writing. If the book becomes very popular it seems (to me) to suggest that it managed to get the mix right. It may be a stretch to call such a work "good writing", but I also find it a stretch to call it "bad writing" - such an accusation seems to be missing the obvious: it worked. Indeed a more formally correct writing style may even reduce the impact of the novel on the audience.

A book's ability to communicate does vary with time. Some stories work over the long term, some don't. In an interview John Irving said that he got his publisher friend to admit that "Setting Free The Bears" (his first book) would probably not be published now. Having recently re-read it I can see why. It was very much a book of it's time (late 60's). But that doesn't (or shouldn't) take away from the books success at the time it was released. Effective communication is often time sensitive.

[Andrew H.]

A popular book can be badly written. As many others have pointed out, the actual "writing" is only one element of a book. I think that Dan Brown is a bad "writer," but I found the Davinci Code to be a poorly written page turner. By which I mean I was annoyed by the writing and the characterizations, but I kept wanting to see what happened despite that.

Just as popular =! well written, unpopular =! badly written. I doubt that there are many people who would claim that an unpopular novel can't be well written.

[GraceKrispy]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Of course a popular novel can be badly written.

A book can have a compelling storyline, engaging characters, etc., and still be badly written -- with clunky sentences, notable inconsistencies, structural problems and such. Despite problems, books can still entertain and grab people.

It takes talent to write a book that can engage many people, even a badly written one. Good editors can help fix bad writing, but the heart of a story must come from the writer.

Who am I to judge? I'm a reader and can judge whatever I want, as you can. I try to avoid knocking others' book choices, though. Whatever they read and enjoy, more power to 'em.

In reading the responses, Maggie's really seem to hit exactly what I was thinking. I have read many series that were badly written, but were engaging enough in plot or characterization that it kept me coming back for more. In every "popular" series, there is just something that attracts the readers and keeps them there. The type of book I have trouble reading has more to do with excessive grammar or spelling errors. I am then easily distracted (proofing in my head), or I am confused by the misused words or punctuation. If I have to stop and say "huh" and it wasn't an intended plot device then...

[NVash]

Yes they can. Look at Twilight for a perfect example. Question is how do they become popular novels when they arent very good?

[gmw]

Regarding Writing: I see a distinction between the words and the story - or as Milne put it, "the art". When you first start a novel all you have is the writing, there is nothing more (unless you are reading a graphic novel). It is up to the writing to take you beyond the words and into the story. The writing either compels, engages or intrigues you into involvement in the story ... or it leaves you out, cold and lost with just the words. And words are never perfect. If all you have left are the words then all you have left are the faults - and this, I believe, is what leads to categorical statements like "the writing was awful".

Lack of perfection does not (or should not) equate to bad. People (myself included) have this tendency to think of their favourite books as well written and their worst books as badly written, but it doesn't take long on this forum to see just how much people's tastes do vary. A little more humility wouldn't go astray sometimes.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by hidari

Have enjoyed the thread thus far..... The popular books always tend to remind me of the lemming effect...on books, film etc... Everyone is buying it so it must be good!?????

I think it is more a case of: Everyone is buying it so I am missing out on a massive cultural movement if I don't also buy it. Being good isn't the key factor, it's the loss of being left out if you don't participate.

Most people want to belong to and share the moment. The book/film/song doesn't have to be exquisite to be satisfying that way. I would say that this makes it even closer to the lemming effect, as it is based more on herd instinct than bad taste.

I thought it was bizarre at the time that Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" sold so many copies but was read by so few people. "Why are they buying it if they don't read it?" I thought. It makes more sense to me now.

[HistoryWes]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Wat I right in this post will reach U, so comunication take place wit sum degree of efficincy.

Has I write good?

Yes, I doesn't.

Thanks! I really needed that belly laugh!

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by TGS

I think the point that is implied by the OP is that every judgment of literary quality is a judgment against some standard. So long as the standard against which a judgment is being made is made explicit there is probably nothing wrong with such judgments.

Right on, TGS, and I would go further - the standard is always personal and subjective. And very seldom made explicit.

I'm reminded of a comment by Liberace, a tv personality of the fifties and sixties, who played a grand piano complete with candelabra, dressed in full evening dress. I thought he was a good pianist, and I liked his choice of music but he was reviled by the critics, possibly because he played the popular semi-classical pieces, and possibly because he was as close to being an open homosexual as one could get in those days. The comment I liked was, after a particularly severe criticism: "I cried all the way to the bank." (It might be someone else's but I associate it with him.)

I'm also reminded (by another post in this thread) of P T Barnum's famous comment, and I thought of the abysmal level that main-line tv has reached nowadays. But Barnum was talking about passive entertainment and I think that reading is so much of an active, intellectual pursuit that perhaps Barnum's thesis doesn't hold to the same extent, and possibly not at all.

And at the other end of the scale, one has the Nobel prize in literature, supposedly the ultimate accolade for an author. The Nobel committee has the incredible talent of choosing authors who, for the most part, at least in recent years, one wouldn't give shelf-room to - so much so that, in the reading circle I belong to, we view the Nobel prize as the kiss of death, and were pleasantly surprised this year to find that they had chosen an author who could tell a tale.

And that's the point I think the OP was trying to make. There's a difference between being an author and being a teller of tales, and personally, I prefer the latter. I don't think you can or should apply "The Chicago Manual of Style" to a book by a teller of tales. I've read some Barbara Cartland with enjoyment. My favourite authors are Jane Austen, the Barbara Cartland of her day, and Marianne Fredriksson, whose books set in biblical times turn biblical heroes into mundane, fumbling mediocrities, and their wives into heroines. I've read some indie novelists who would never find a publisher, and others who should have been able to, in a just world. For me the interesting thing is the story, and a misplaced comma or two, a heavy reliance on clichés and even shaky formatting can't get in the way of a good story.

So how do I stand on the OP's thesis? I agree.

[alyxie]

Well written as defined by language is relative. A lot of the classic English literature today started out as penny awfuls and the English language is still changing. There was a time that "Come with?" was grammatically incorrect but now it's considered correct in everyday English.

That being said seeing the aforementioned phrase still makes me want to reach out and touch someone today with a very large old fashioned grammar book to the head.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by gmw

Lack of perfection does not (or should not) equate to bad. People (myself included) have this tendency to think of their favourite books as well written and their worst books as badly written, but it doesn't take long on this forum to see just how much people's tastes do vary. A little more humility wouldn't go astray sometimes.

I distinguish between good writing and good storytelling, even among books I like.

As for taste, mine is the best -- for me, lol.

As for humility, I could use more of it, but not in distinguishing between good and bad writing.

[BenG]

Take the Fionovar Trilogy by Guy Gavriel Kay. It's an excellent story with good characters, and it's not really badly written but I can see that his writing has much improved in his later books, even if I didn't enjoy some of them as much.

As for "popular", it too often equals "the lowest common denominator."
Having said that, I enjoy a lot of books that aren't great writing but I feel no need to make them (or my taste in books) seem better than they are.