It's actually 'well', as in 'Why does bad literature sell so good?' = 'Why does bad literature sell so well?' !! I hate to be the pedant, but if we're going to sit around slay such authors as Jonathan Franzen, then we'd better get our English in order.
You seem to have found an old thread and are being pedantic to a user who was only active between January 2013 and May 2013, so chances are they'll never read your correction .
Since 2013 or whatever it seems I haven't matured. I still can't not see 'Why does bad literature smell so good!'
We'll just have to put you into a charred oak cask and leave you for another ten years. After that, you will have matured. We will then bottle you and serve you on the rocks.
I saw this thread on the front page and also came here specifically to say just that. Now that this thread has been necro'd, I wonder how many others will be lured in by this particular piece of bad grammar like moths to a flame.
I took the title to be deliberate bad grammar, a stylistic choice to draw on the bad vs good dichotomy. Hard to judge for sure when it's such a short passage, especially since the OP's grammar isn't exactly stellar in the rest of the post. "So well" is used in the first sentence, though, suggesting that the OP was aware of the correct grammar? Who knows? It's a mystery lost in the sands of time...
I think because 'bad literature' is paced better. I think if more literary minded writers could pace there opus' better they'd sell better. I think that's why Anne Tyler has always done well, why Cormac McCarthy does well and Chuck Palahniuk.
I think of bad literature like junk food. It's quick, easy, and satisfying when you eat it even if you pay for that later. And sometimes, you want something inane and bad for you, as long as its fun. Sometimes, you want to have an unbelievably perfect character who solves all your problems even if those people don't exist in life. As long as it satisfies something for you, it doesn't matter if it's not written so well and when you go in knowing what it is, a plot hole or two won't disappoint you.
Most of the "bad" literature that sells well isn't really bad. It is different from literary fiction, but that doesn't make it bad. I suppose you can sit around and lament the stupidity of readers if you want to, but that really misses the mark.
If only good literature sells, then writing a story will be tougher. And there won't be a lot of good writers. Good fiction is rare and we should be glad that anything can be published.
Readers buy what they want to read, not what authors think they should read. People think for themselves. Reading is entertainment for many. If you want to sell a bunch of books, study what people are buying.
I am of the opinion that any book on the shelf has its merits--they found an agent, editor and publisher for a reason.
I've found that the more a writer strives for "deep and meaningful", the more likely they'll end up on my "won't buy that author again" list...
That is very much the case. You can see it in movies or any other art form too. It reminds me of what was said of Hank Williams "He didn't mean to be a rebel real ones never do".
If a book is good, I don't mind buying more from the same author. I think it's a good thing to buy books that might be good. If it's bad, I don't.
Exactly. The really good writers - IMHO - are the ones that let the meaning and depth float through the story and into the reader, rather than using a bulldozer to clear the path in an attempt at "literature".
I tend to think if you read enough good literature, you will be able to distingish easily between what has real merit and what is rubbish - pretentious or otherwise.
