no one has yet answered my question of "what is meant by 'better'?" same goes for 'best'... the answers to the op's question i see here seem to be dealing with 'most successful' or 'most popular' not 'better' or 'best' in re quality, which is what those 'b' words mean, unless qualified...
Mammamaia, As the question is subjective, members are writing and generally qualifiying what they deem as better with respect to the two choices initially offered and why. As each individual writer has different writing goals and aspirations, each will view the question a bit differently. That's what part of the discussion is about. Terry
I'd say the book read by a greater amount is better. The object of writing is, after all, that someone will read your work. Hey I just noticed your name is Terry W. Ervin II. I'm Thom O. Ervin II.
Entirely subjective. Some would say better (or best) to mean what book sells more, more popular. To others it is quality writing. Still others would say it means what the reader enjoys more. Subjective.
there's a point she's trying to make and I think it's what do people consider better? Are they looking for one where the craftsmanship is good or one that people buy a ton of? If i know maia like I do, she's looking for someone to say the craft and usage of language is the category they're looking for...
I think the best book is one that moves millions and continues to do so. I do not believe the better written book is the better book, not if it doesn't captivate the hearts of many readers. I defer to the dictionary for the meanings of the words best, and better.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it popular. I think there's is a difference. A book is better than another if it is in fact better (and opinions will vary on something as subjective as literature). I've read horribly written books filled with plot holes and completely lacking in sense in my time, and many of them very popular for reasons beyond me. While other good books seem to go by the wayside and just get unnoticed. There's just too many books in the world really. We just don't have time for them all and which ones get that time strikes me as completely random and pure chance. Sometimes a book just explodes like a ten megaton nuke out of no where and makes millions. At the same time another equally well written and entertaining novel just goes by the wayside in it's wake, not because it's worse or not as good, just because there isn't the time or the money in the consumer market for both. Maybe one was better advertised than the other, or maybe one had Oprah's name attached to it. Oh yeah. Oh yeah I went there. I went there... The popularity of a novel has no bearing on it's quality or how good it is in comparison to another. It just says that book had more success than another did. It doesn't make it better. Again I say: Judge the book by the content of it's pages not how many rabid fanfolk it can rack up on its author's website. I wouldn't necessarily claim the better written book is better by default. I merely think that the better book is the one that is well written, organized, structured, entertaining, and moving or any other mix of important factors that matter in a written work. The quality of the writing is only one factor in what makes a piece good.
This thread uis slightly schizoid. The thread title asks which is the better novel, but the thread starter post asks: This reveals the original poster's position, because of the implied equivalence about those two formulations. But it also makes it harder to answer, because they really are two distinct questions.
It is possible to have the Nebula and the fan base. Look at Ender's Game. It also got the Hugo. In the king run, though, I think what matters is writing something that you enjoy and makes your audience happy, however big or small it may be. Thought it would also be great to have a good income from it. Why get a real job if you don't have to. I met the son of the original Hardy Boys author once. Those books were popular in their day, but the author's son said he didn't like them very much. He got paid 200 for each book, and no royalities. Not sure why he kept writing them. Maybe it was the best source of income he could get, but I have a hard time believing he was happy doing it.
So... even if someone wrote the greatest book in the world - a book that virtually anyone could pick up and say "that's the best book ever!!" - but left it unpublished... then it's a lesser book? It's not the 'better' book until it's sold millions of copies? I don't even comprehend that thinking... the book is as good as it is... It's like saying that the sweetest oranges in the world aren't sweet because they haven't been reproduced and sold by the million yet. The orange is what it is... If you're saying that the ratio of people who enjoy a book vs those who hate it, dislike it, or 'don't get it', is more important... then at least your statement would be comprehensible, to me. Is that what you've been trying to say? If you're saying that popular opinion is what defines the better book, then you must take into account the opinions of those on the other side... the 'haters', if you will, of which Twilight has many... Popularity in terms of sales is meaningless in this industry. A writer's success depends on luck as much as anything, and I fail to see how getting lucky can make one's writing better.
Also, just because it manages to be a bestseller for a few years doesn't mean it will be remembered ten years later. If it's really that good, it's not going to be forgotten, but some bestsellers are.
i'd suspect most are... and i wouldn't be at all surprised to find that most of the longest-remembered ones were not the best bestsellers... which is where quality trumps popularity!
Yeah, but anyway, longevity really is the test. There are plenty of books and movies that people did not respond to well when they were first released, or went unnoticed. But after a while, people realize that they are pretty darn good. And it's the same for awards. Like I said earlier abotu Charlotte's Web. It's considered one of the top children's books, and while it did get a Newberry Honour, it didn't win it, or any other awards.
Actually, I think that's not what the OP was talking about. I didn't think it was refering to quality at all. If it was, of course I would pick quality. I can hardly believe anyone would purposefully mass-produce garbage. I understood the question as "Would you prefer that your book was loved by lots of ordinary people, or by a select group of knowledgeable people?" To me, I'd rather be loved by ordinary people simply because I don't think I have the skills or formation needed to produce something that knowledgeable people would love.
Of course they would, if they knew that it would sell. Food companies continue to sell garbage that does little for us but cause diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, because we continue to buy it. Why should it be different with any other product if they knew it would sell?
Because writing is an art, and you don't see mass-produced paintings of something awful. Mass-produced copies of masterworks? Sure. Same goes for music and theatre. And while I consider gastronomy to be a form of art, it is sadly true that people will simply gulp down something as long as it doesn't taste bad. However, we all MUST eat. We don't need to read, so we can afford the luxury of looking for quality.
So just because it's an art, if the public shows that they are more willing to pay for what we would consider garbage, it shouldn't be mass produced? Companies produce what sells. Nobody is going to mass-produce prints of even the best paintings unless they know it's going to tell. They hope what they produce is going to be the best, but they care just as much about profit as they do quality. If they can't make money, they can't continue to do what they do. The reason people eat garbage is often the same reason they read/watch garbage. They are uneducated, lazy, or can't afford it. Don't want to make the effort to eat well, or don't understand what is good for them. With books and movies, they are either don't know enough about quality work to see the difference between good and bad, or they don't want to work their brain too hard. While cost is hardly relevant with books and movies, since tickets cost the same no matter what it is, it can be with theatre tickets and visual art.
I think that's a wee bit harsh Rei. I don't think it has anything to do with being uneducated or lazy. Some people just aren't as into it as others and have a lower standard of what they find entertaining. Nothing wrong with that (it actually probably makes life less stressful XD). You can still enjoy garbage writing as much as a garbage movie or junk food. Maybe they don't care enough to be critical about quality. If it entertains that's enough for them. They are the casual readers. They do it for fun and care little about it as an art form. Nothing wrong with that, though it does usually help to take in garbage with moderation. It might be as much fun as a five course meal at a five star dining facility but garbage is garbage .
This thread actually put me in mind of Stephen King's Misery right from the first... I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it. In the story Paul Sheldon is a famous author... who wrote crap, and he knew it. He wrote garbage romance novels. He hated them so much that he killed the main character off, ending the series, and took up a more worthy project, in his eyes. No need to ask Annie Wilkes which is the better book, though. Naturally, Paul wrote garbage for money. I'm sure that even King deliberately produced garbage for financial reasons when he was starting out, before he became popular enough to write what he really wanted to. Many, many writers do, which is why Paul Sheldon is yet another realistic and interesting SK character. King does create believable characters, if nothing else. When I read the OP's questions I can't help but translate: (and I keep coming back because it's just too funny) Which is the better book - the one you want to burn along with your house and ID and everything you own and move to the Amazon where nobody knows you wrote that ridiculous book? Or the one you're actually proud of?
I was not making generalizations about why people read/watch bad stuff. Only saying one of the reasons why it compares to eating unhealthy food. I am fully aware of other reasons. Besides, even rich nutritionists must indulge sometimes.
Honestly, I have never been one to really follow the masses. My own library at home is stocked with classics – Hemmingway, Austen, Brontë, Shakespeare, Twain, Frost, Spruce, Lewis, Tolkien, and Montgomery … not much of anything that would be considered popular reading today. So I guess I would prefer for critics to enjoy and praise my work. Who cares about the flavour of the month book – those are too easily forgotten. A time honoured classic is what I would aspire my novel to become.
Kas, listen to how Stephenie Meyer talks about Twilight. She is proud of it. She knows it can be better, but every author knows their novels can be better. It would make me more proud if my novel touched millions of readers in such a way they become obsessed with my novel. I would also be proud if it won a literary award, but not as much. Many people adoring the novel mean more to me than a few judges. I don't consider Twilight garbage because it has captivated many hearts. Only a good story can pull that off. It might have sloppy sentences, but woven throughout is magic. I know first hand. I read Twilight only to see what teen girls were into right now, and I ending up feeling the magic and reading the whole series. Not many novels can do that for me. Many award winners simply failed to do that. I am also captivated by Lilith's Brood. Octavia Butler has won awards. So what I have been saying is that I think the good novel is the one with that kind of magic, regardless if it pleases a group of judges or not, regardless if it uses literary devices well. And Twilight doesn't have magic because it is a teen, vamp romance because many such books do nothing for me. I expected to have to struggle and force my way through Twilight. I believe Stephen King is a master at writing characters, but his novels do not have that magic, not for me. Not like Dean Koontz', Fear Nothing, and Seize the Night. Not like Anne Rice's Tale of the Body Thief, and Memnoch the Devil. Not like Dune. I can read these novels again and again. Although I enjoyed Salem's Lot, I don't ever care to re-read it.
The best is not a term that applies to art, or at the very least it shouldn't. It's supposed to be a product brought forth out of your mind and emotions and put into words, paint, film or music. And who's arrogant enough to say whos mind and emotions are the best and most worthy? Well, of course you can judge grammar and acting and special effects but in the end that's just a shell for the idea. Books can be edited, new actors can be hired and special effects get better with time and rising budgets. But the idea stays the same. Personally, I'd say the better book would be the one that contained the idea that appealed to the most people. And while this could manifest as a one shot bestseller, it could just as well manifest as the inspiration for other authors, directors and even painters. What I mean is, look at for example Lovecraft. He didn't sell well at all during his life, and wasn't at all wealthy. He wasn't a popular author. But in the modern world of horror he has been a huge inspiration to a whole bunch of authors and directors. Without Lovecraft, no Stephen King, no The Thing, no awesome game called Dark Corners of the Earth. , and then all the other awesome things inspired by Stephen King wouldn't be here either. And of course, Lovecraft was inspired by previous horror authors and so on and so on. Same with Tolkien, I don't THINK he was a bestselling author at the least, but without him no blockbuster movie trilogy, no Eragon, no DnD, no fantasy genre at all really, not as we know it today. Basically, what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if a novel receives universal critic praise or sells like a blockbuster. The best novel is still the one that inspires the most people. Nevermind if it is weeks after being sold or two hundred years after publication. Or if it's a draft found in the cellar of some dead guy.
Architectus - the magic you describe is entirely personal. There are millions of books that could have that kind of magic for different people. There are also hundreds of thousands of books out there just as likely to become the next big thing, if only they were marketed properly. Which really just comes down to luck. There are many books you can reccomend to a friend where nine times out of ten they will absolutely love it. And yet the book is unpopular - because nobody knows about it. I agree re the magic on a personal level. But the books that captivate me and inspire intense emotions in me may not do anything for you... So based on that, you can only really say what is the better book for you, and not in general... Everyone has their favorites. I did not feel the magic in Twilight. And there seem to be just as many people who hate it as like it. Consider that special unknown book which nearly everyone loves - if they read it - and compare the love/hate ratio to that of Twilight. Perhaps you'll see why sales don't mean so much. I'm no great mathmetician but 9/10 beats 5/10 every time. If you would say *that* is the better book, then I'd agree with you completely. Because such a book is usually appealing on both levels - entertaining and literary. There are many more of these around than you might think, but you'll never know if you just look up the bestseller list.
