Right, I didn't mean that it was a bad voice. For what it was, it was great. I tend to prefer a more biased, characterized voice. The difference between, he didn't like the man's clothes. The guy dressed like crap. Okay, lol, that is a bad example.
To me, Jeff Lindsay's Dexter would be the best example of voice + story = deserving success. It would never have been so appealing without both. The voice was essential to success, but I don't think I would have read past the first book if the story wasn't also interesting. Describing a slum district: “Every major city has a section like this one. If a piebald dwarf with advanced leprosy wants to have sex with a kangaroo and a teenage choir, he’ll find his way here and get a room. When he’s done, he might take the whole gang next door for a cup of Cuban coffee and a medianoche sandwich. Nobody would care, as long as he tipped.”
Hum. I think I'm going to repeat myself. I have no idea what everyone here is discussing. The original question, as I understood it, was to choose between having a large fanbase and being despised by critics or being praised by critics and remain unpopular with the masses. What I gather from the last pages of conversation is "Popularity doesn't make a novel good," which is obviously true. However, I don't think that was the point of this thread. I think we're being asked here something that has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with popularity. Rei: While I agree with you that society in general is uneducated, lazy, etc., I still believe that most (if not all) writers will try to make their product of the highest possible quality, something that they might sacrifice in certain cases (rushed deadlines, executive meddling, censorship, etc.). However, I sustain that quality was never a topic of discussion in this thread. To me, anyway.
Check Cogito's post. There were two very different questions asked by the OP - the first in the title, and the second in the post itself... My attempts to nail down what the heck the OP was asking have resulted in today's conversation.
Dexter is hard not to like, even if you really don't want to enjoy it because the MC is a serial killer. And how in the hell did end up hoping he survives?
which is why i asked what was meant by 'better' way back on the first page of this long thread... so, have we ever heard back from the op on those issues?... or did he just plop down this ambiguous thread and then go off and hide in the bushes to watch everyone go bananas? ;-)
Forgive me for laughing out loud, but the irony was just too hard to resist. architectus (the guy who posted right before you) is the OP!
Maia my answer was I differ to the dictionary for the definitions of better and best. I posted that a while back. My opinion remains the same. The better novel is the one that captivates the hearts of many people and continues to do so. If it also manages to be literary, that is cool. If it also manages to be written well, fantastic. If a novel is written well, but does not capture the hearts of many, it is not the better novel, IMO. But like Kas said, some great novels never get the chance to be read so that it can capture the hearts of many. I don't know what those novels are until they do.
One more thing. I want to make this distinction. What I think is the better novel is not centered around popularity, or the number of sales, but that the novel wins over the hearts of many. I think there is a difference between a large group of people loving the hell out of a novel, and a novel simply being popular.
Very true, but he never really answered the question directly. I suppose his later responses DO verify that he doesn't consider the questions in the original post distinct. That being the case, the question, as he asked it, is moot. Any answer other than agreeing that the volume of sales defines the best novel is therefore nonresponsive. EDIT: I was writing this post as he wrote his two preceding posts. I maintain that the way it was phrased eliminates any real discussion. It's not so much a question as it is a statement of opinion.
I've tried to clarify my position in other post. Hopefully, the last one removes any confusion. I understand other's disagree, and I respect their views. Some believe the better novel is the one that is written well, even if it doesn't have any magic in it that causes many readers to love it, even if it was read by many. For example, suppose a Nebula award winning novel was read by 200,000 people, but not many of them thought it was a magical novel. It is not a novel they will ever read again. They enjoyed it, but that was all. It wasn't a novel that won their hearts over, as Twilight has done for many people. To me that Nebula winner is not one of the better or best novels. I am more than willing to change my view if the argument is persuasive enough,
It's not so much about what the writer attempts to achieve as which things the editors choose to include and the ones the marketing people choose to put more effort into promoting. Though definitely deadlines and a pressure to meet the demands of the market do effect writers too. And again, I was not making a generalization about society, just pointing out some of the paralells between eating junk food and people buying bad books and movies.
That is a good question. I don't even remember who the op was, since I haven't looked at the first page in a bit.
The problem with your posture, architectus, is that it is highly subjective. You're basing it on concepts such as "magic" and "capturing the heart" and basically it all boils down to emotions. I don't think you'll be able to get an objective opinion when you place yourself on a subjective position. For example, you claim that "popularity" and "claiming the hearts of many" are not the same thing. I ask you, if a novel manages to capture the hears of many, is it not popular? And if a novel is popular, doesn't it mean that a large amount of people like it? What's the objective difference between really liking a book and being captured by it? How can you tell if your book belongs to one category or another? Personally, I'd have no idea how to discuss this subject. It seems like it's a melting pot of concepts, which are getting harder and harder to tell apart.
OK, here's the definition of better: better 1.of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech. 2.morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves. 3.of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action. 4.larger; greater: the better part of a lifetime. So, then, either the Nebula award winning novel or the best-selling novel can be described as being better, BUT you have to tell everyone what you're basing it on (like maia was saying). So for SUPERIOR QUALITY, the Nebula award novel is the "better" one. And for SUPERIOR DESIRABILITY AND ADVISABILITY (in other words, loved by many/sells well), the best-selling novel is the "better" one.
I will give an example of a novel that could be popular but not because it is loved by a massive audience. A novel that is hyped by controversy. It becomes instantly popular because of the controversial topic and the attention it got on the news and such. In the end the popularity fades because it was not a novel that many love. It ended up selling half a million copies. In the end it doesn't have a huge fan base that love it to death and spread the word of its greatness.
You keep appealing to emotions and comparing popularity to sales. Yes, if a novel is popular, it is logical that it will have a lot of sales, but they are not codependent factors. Your controversial example was not a popular novel, it was simply that, controversial. Of course controversial books will sell, since people will want to read them to see what the hype is about, but that doesn't make it popular. From Dictionary.com: Popular means that the populace likes it. If the people buy the book but don't like it, it's not popular, it's infamous.
You have made a good point here. I don't think the bestselling novel is necessarily the better novel even by the second definition, but the one that is loved by many is. Superior in quality is a more difficult one to tackle. First I believe the definition of quality referred to is: character with respect to fineness, or grade of excellence: food of poor quality; silks of fine quality. Is food of poor quality, food that doesn't give the body a lot of what it needs, and is bad for the body such as fast food? And is quality food, food that gives the body what it needs? Or is quality food, food that is considered great because chiefs say so? Even if that food is bad for you? Is a chocolate éclair quality food? So with the novel, what is the novel of superior quality? The one that tickles the fancy of professional critics because they love the metaphors and use of literary mechanisms? Because it has just an okay story, which they don’t seem to care so much about. They care more about the characters. The novel can be confusing at times, especially to younger readers. Yet this novel wins the hearts of many. What about the novel that is written in such a way that it confuses hardly anyone, and most every person that reads it is able to visualize each scene and is moved by the characters? It might lack the metaphors that critics love, but it is an enjoyable story that many love. It might have grammar issues, and it wouldn’t hurt if an editor reworked it. It might even have a few plot holes. Perhaps superior quality is the novel that nails every aspect that makes a good story, even if it lacks the awesome metaphors that critics love. It might even be redundant in word usage at times, but it has well developed and lovable characters, a great plot, and a life changing theme. Some people that read it might get lost because it can be confusing at times. In the end it is loved by millions. It freaking changed their lives. To me the novel of superior quality is all three of those examples because each novel won the hearts of many. If any of those three types could not win the hearts of many, I do not believe it is of superior quality. A novel that is all three of them is a master piece that will never be forgotten.
Paul, you are correct. I was confusing popularity with sales. If a novel is popular then yes it is loved by many, and if it is loved by many then it is one of the better novels. So rather I should have said, if a novel is purchased a lot, that does not necessarly make it one of the better novels. It must be popular, loved by many. Oh, and as my original post says, it must continue to be loved by many.
