Reading badly-written fiction can be instructive, to help you identify why certain constructs either don't work or are at least difficult to make work. Reading both bad and good fiction helps you distinguish which is which.
This is a subject that bothers me. What makes something "poorly written" and who are we to judge? Now, the only book/series I consider TERRIBLE are the Fifty Shades, but I don't understand why people consider Harry Potter to be "poorly written." Could someone care to explain? Because if J.K. Rowling is terrible, then I must be beyond repair, and I refuse to think like that. And I have read some of J.R.R Tolkien (The Hobbit and the first LOTRs). I really liked the Hobbit, but outside of that, I was very unimpressed and found it to be a chore to read. Writing shouldn't be about trying to impress anyone with complicated plots, foreshadowing events, pretentious symbolism that only a few could understand....it is about entertaining the reader or informing the reader about something (i.e. historical event, etc)...not about the big words and the fancy prose. I find that to be utterly ridiculous. And I would rather read HP than J.R.R Tolkien any day of the week...and yes, I have read all of the HP books and found that to be excellent.
Who are we to judge? I'm sorry but if I spend a couple hours reading a 400 page novel, then I think I have every right to judge it. My time is very valuable and there's nothing I hate worst than wasting it on a poorly written novel. I once read a book so awful that I broke my policy of reading till the end and quit halfway through it. What constitutes to "poorly written" is strictly a matter of opinion. Different strokes for different folks. You like Harry Potter. I did not. I picked up the first book in the series, read through several paragraphs and determined that the book did not draw me in enough to make me actually want to read it. That's how I determine if I'll read a book or not; if the first couple of paragraphs are not intriguing enough, then I won't finish the rest. On top of not liking the book, I didn't like the movie either. Granted, people looked at me like I had grown a second head when I said that but that's just me. My personal preference. In my opinion, something is poorly written when it doesn't capture my imagination and doesn't at least half-way draw me into the world. If you tell me a book is supposed to be adult literature but it reads like its written by a 12 year old - then yeah, I'll say it was poorly written book. If the plot is too confusing or nonexistent, if the characters are not likeable, if there aren't logical explanations for why things happen - then no, I don't think it's a good book. Sometimes, I don't think its a matter of a story being poorly written but rather just something that people outside the target market will not enjoy. For example, a lot of people I know like Twilight. I think its utter trash. I also think it should be banned for making vampires glitter (some lines you just do not cross). But it was written for tweens and teenagers so I guess its appeal is probably something that they will understand better than most adults. Then sometimes, it may be that an author who is writing a series lose their direction, for example Laurell K. Hamilton. I, in fact, loved her Anita Blake series up until a few years ago when she went from awesome, supernatural mysteries to ... Mary Sue like romances and badly written porn. In a 600 page book, she gave me 400 pages of bad porn and 200 pages of actual plot. <--- That is a prime example of a poorly written book. I like writing that impresses me, especially when it has complicated plots. I do love a good surprise! I like foreshadowing events and pretentious symbolism that makes me actually use my brain to think. If I wanted mindless entertainment, I'd watch The Family Guy.
I've always believed in a wide variety of reading is best from a writer's perspective. If you read only one type of thing, then your own writing will tend towards stagnation. Similarly, I think that there are lessons to be learnt from anything. In some cases, they will be things that the author has done well, and in others things that have been done poorly. As long as you maintain a critical and analytical frame of mind, I don't think any reading need hurt you and your writing.
I agree that there are lessons to be learned from all writers. My issue really is an imbalance that I need to correct I feel that I am reading too many books that annoy me and that cannot be good. There are great suggestions in this thread and it has been fascinating getting such a range of responses. On the HP good or bad issue. It is obviously entirely subjective and I don't mean to insult the many thousands of Potter fans - however the books are written for children not for adults - when I read the books all the flaws in characterisation and motivation jump off the page taking me out of what is a heart a jolly good romp - JK doesn't always convince me. In my opinion 'bad' writing is anything that takes you out of the story you are reading. Like the examples in my OP where instead of wondering what is going to happen next I am rolling my eyes at the repeated use of 'stark' - in HP it was more emphemeral but if you are left unconvinced by a story clearly something isn't working. If you want examples I think it will require a new thread as I would need to go back to the source material and pick out excerpts to 'show not tell'
I understand what you are saying, but I think no one is in a definitive position to be able to say what is and isn't good fiction unless they created that written language. But do you think the novel was poorly written? It is possible to not like something/find it uninteresting but still think it is well-written. LOTR is well-written, but I just didn't care for it. One can recognize good writing and not like the plot/story line. I do respect your opinion though Very subjective. It is impossible to please everyone and come up with a global definition on what is well-written. I'm in the middle of New Moon, and I have to say, for a SAHM, inexperienced author with three small children, I'm impressed she wrote a highly popular book in three months' time. This is one of the reasons I don't really plan to write a series. I feel as though authors do this to "milk the cash cow" so-to-speak. Twilight, from my understanding, is a prime example of this, but the series were not strong to begin with. Harry Potter, imo, got better as they went along. One cannot say that HP isn't a phenomenon when it has amassed such a large audience of ALL ages. Hey now, I like Family Guy! But seriously, I understand what you are saying, but reading for pleasure is always a good thing, imo....unless it is 50 shades of Grey. :shudders:
I think whenever we start talking about 'well-written', it really needs to be divided into two things - the mechanics and the story. Which is why so many stories that are 'poorly written' are good sellers, because it's the second part - the story - that's really compelling. Granted, there are some stories that are so poorly written mechanically that the good story within is lost, but otherwise it's the story that most readers are interested in. And at that point, it becomes totally subjective; what some love, others hate.
Shadowwalker has put succinctly what I have incoherently been groping towards. There are objective markers of poor writing when it comes to the mechanics, aren't there? Starting with the obvious poor grammer, spelling, poor continuity (characters mysteriously changing name, hair colour etc. time sequencing not working), all these errors I have found in (mainly kindle) books. I think those faults show a lack of respect for the readers, proper editing should highlight and resolve basic issues like the above. The last HP book was bloated and in my opinion there was a lack of editorial input surely we did not need to suffer through hundreds of pages about an extended camping trip [Harry Potter and the Gap Year!??] Or is that just too subjective to indicate a mechanical failiure - suppose you can always skip pages to get to a good bit.
Hi Hettyblue Poor grammar, spelling and poor continuity would drive me up the wall, but i think most of the books that people here are labelling as "badly written" aren't badly written at all, they're just not brilliantly written. As shadowwalker seems to be saying (I hope I've understood this correctly), authors can be divided into storytellers and wordsmiths. If we're really lucky we get something written by someone who's both, but if they're a great storyteller and I get to escape for a while then that's generally enough for me. If they're a wordsmith and can tell a good story at the same time, that's when the magic occurs. If they're pure wordsmith I find it a bit of a turn off (ever read Melvyn Bragg?). If someone just wanted to escape for a few hours I might (possibly) recommend "the shady trilogy" but I would tell the person not to expect it to change their life. If someone wanted to read something that would stay with them for a while, I might recommend something like "The God of Small Things" but I would tell them not to expect it to be an easy ride. And of course, the best thing about the huge number of "not brilliantly written" books out there is that it means you don't need to be perfect so we're all in with a chance of being published, right?!
Oh I agree lally - I was on the verge of re-editing my post to say that I was sounding unduly harsh in my criticism of JK Rowling - she is a great story teller. But I will let my post stand. Anyway there is a world of difference between poorly edited adult (sometimes very adult) genre fiction and the Harry Potter series. I wasn't really talking about Rowling et al in my original post (and I deliberately did not name any particular writers as poor initially) but the discussion took a couple of surreal turns. One day if I ever get anything published...? Well 'turn around's a bitch' I believe the phrase is. I actually read the first two of the 'shady' trilogy while ill in bed and it was perfect for that situation, cannot bring myself to read the final part though.
I wouldn't bother with the last one - it got very weird and I only read it because I hate to leave things unfinished. You managed to instigate a fun conversation and a very twisty turny thread. Very enjoyable. lally
I agree. I think people forget that one can be a great storyteller and a poor writer or a great writer and a poor storyteller. I would take a great storyteller with mediocre writing abilities than a great writer whose story leaves alot to be desired.
I think poor grammar , spelling, and continuity are lazy errors that even the most mediocre writers can avoid. But outside of proper grammar, correct spelling and consistency, how else can one measure the greatness of a writer? It has been a while since I read the last HP, but I thought that camping trip was better paced in the movies than in the books. Nearly every book will have its "slow parts", and I agree that the HP books were longer than needed.
