Are these statements necessarily congruent, though? I consider myself pretty well-read, on the whole, and in fact many of the classics of literature are among my favorites. However, I also think that being entertaining alone is sufficient to make a good book if that's the goal, and for many writers here who want to break into big market, popular fiction, that's the aspect of their work that is going to matter
I want my writing to take readers out of their world and into mine. If that makes me some kind of "lesser" writer, so be it. At least I have some respect for readers, even if they "only" want to be entertained (as if that's a bad thing).
I think readers should be looking at why the book was entertaining. What worked and what didn't? Was it the characterization? The way the author writes particular scenes? If I ask someone why they think a particular book is good and they say, "Because I was entertained," that's not really helpful. That doesn't in any way make me want to go out and buy the book.
Just to throw out some examples, my favorite novel is The Brothers Karamazov. Close behind that is Lolita. Two books I've read more than once because I like them so much. Moby Dick goes into that category as well. Other favorite authors include Conrad and Joyce (Dubliners is wonderful). For more contemporary authors, I enjoy William Trevor and Alistair MacLeod (two great short story writers). I think most people would say the literary chops are there with those authors. At the same time, I enjoy urban fantasy. Lately, I've had a lot of fun with Seanan McGuire. Pure entertainment and escapism. Contrary to most people's opinions, I think the writing in Twilight was fine. It was mediocre, on a technical level. Competent but not stellar. The book isn't my cup of tea, but there's no denying that Meyer did a wonderful job of connecting with her target audience (in fact, she got my daughter back into reading). So I don't think appreciating fine literature and appreciating purely entertaining fiction are mutually exclusive. Both have their merits.
I don't think readers should be expected to do that, nor do I think most of them will do it. If you're going to be a writer, those things are important to do, but just as a reader? I don't think so. If your goal in reading is pure entertainment, why analyze it. You were either entertained or you were not. Sure, that might not make you want to go read the book, but is it the reader's job to do that?
You're right when you say that your average reader won't be thinking deeply about the text in any way, and I certainly don't expect him to. Which is why I don't value his opinion. This may sound elitist, but I only take book recommendations from well-read people. That's just the way it goes.
You keep saying "well-read" but I don't think that means what you're implying. Well-read means informed/knowledgeable through reading - for example (straight from the dictionary), well-read in history; it doesn't mean these folks analyze novels for writing depth. Myself, I don't see that someone who likes a book and spends time analyzing why has any worthier opinion than someone who likes the book, period. They both enjoyed it. If someone I know recommends a book because they enjoyed it and think I'd like it, I don't care why they enjoyed it - I could have an entirely different reason; maybe just because I was entertained.
Right. I'm talking about people who know a lot about literature as a result of extensive reading. I assume such people read a lot more than your average reader and can thus give better, more informed opinions.
Do they read about literature or do they just read a lot? Because if they read about literature, you could end up with some really boring books on your shelf. If they just read a lot, well, that in itself means nothing because you'd have to look at what they're reading. And most people will, as Steerpike illustrated, read a variety of books for a variety of reasons. So you're now looking at people who read only specific types of books and thus have a very narrow view of 'literature', or you're looking at people who read all kinds of books and you'll get all kinds of recommendations depending on who you ask and when. Best bet - ask your friends who have similar tastes in books. Forget the analyses.
Both would be ideal. But I believe that the more you read, the more you come to know about literature. So given a choice, I would go with the latter (read a lot). How do I know reading a lot helps you know more about literature? From my experience with talking to other readers. I've found that people who read a lot could give me informed opinions of what worked and didn't work in a particular book. They could also tell me that I would be better off starting with another book from the same author because it's more accessible. Or that it might be better if I read some relevant background material. Stuff like that. I've never had conversations like that with the casual reader, which is why I don't put much faith in their opinions/recommendations. Again, this is all just from my personal experience.
Most anyone can do those things, though, as long as you're not looking for "writerly" terminology. They can tell you why the characters did or didn't work, where the plot seemed to go off-track or how it was so complex it kept them riveted; they can give you the same recommendations about which of the author's books you should read, or in which order. I'm just not finding anything in your comments that indicates any "expertise" needed that the 'average' reader doesn't have.
I'm of the view that the average reader is pretty bright. Writers should have that view in mind when they are writing, in my opinion.
I guess the best explanation I can give is using cars as an analogy. I am more likely to consider the opinions of an experienced mechanic over the opinions of an amateur car enthusiast. A mechanic, having worked with many cars, can tell you more about the way a car works or why there's a problem than an amateur car enthusiast can. It's much the same in the reading world. A person who has read a lot is more likely to give me a more informed opinion about a particular book. Besides, there are some books I don't see your average reader ever picking up, like The Sound and the Fury. This limits the kinds of books I can get recommendations on.
Well, therein lies part of the problem. Modern mechanics have a basic knowledge of all cars - but they go to special schools to learn how to work on Fords, or Chevys, or Saabs, etc. So yes, a mechanic who works on Fords could tell you the intimate details of their functioning, but could tell you very little about Saabs. So choosing only to listen to the "expert" would mean you never try Saabs - only Fords. And maybe only Fords that that particular mechanic liked. If you talked to a Saab owner, and learned what they liked (or disliked), even without the technical jargon, you would be able to decide better if you wanted to try one. Listening to only a "select group" just seems very limiting to me.
Isn't this a simplistic approach, and trivially easy to refute with as many examples as could ever be desired? So you're claiming that my own ability to distinguish between good and bad writing somehow varies according to the number of people who buy my latest book? That wasn't said. You seem to be confusing the "average reader" with "most of the people in this forum". Did you perhaps misread what you were quoting? It isn't easy to imagine that you could really equate those two groups? It seems you don't know about me, either: I've often learned a lot from people who agree with me. I'm extremely surprised by some of the assertions made in this thread.
That good writing is marketable? Who would you have judge, a professor of literature? The idea is to please your target audience. I'll buy the idea that some genre's have larger audiences, and specific sales numbers of a romance, a genre responsible for fully half the fiction sold, don't make it better writing than sales in another genre. But sales as compared to others in the genre do matter because they indicate that the writer hit the target audience effectively. Selling well enough to make a profit for the publisher is the goal, because it keeps the publisher in business and us in print. Do things slip through the cracks? Sure. And since success feeds on itself an indifferently written book that somehow gains a following can do better than another book that's written with greater skill. But tell me that someone who does not sell enough copies to pay for the cost of printing is better than someone who consistently does and you'll have a hard time convincing me that the one failing is a better writer. In the end each individual reader decides if a given book is "good." And each opinion is valid for that person. People who hate science fiction will insist that a given science fiction author is not nearly as "good" a writer as any those laboring in the genre they approve of. Does that effect the real world, where the object is to make the reader enjoy our story? Do we get better or worse depending on a critic or academic's opinion. No. So what's left other then the writer's ability to successfully target people who have to pay money they had to earn in order to read their work?
I guess when you talk about good writing it comes in two different kinds: (and I think this is where some of you disagree) The stories that engage and entertain the reader, and the ones who are beautifully written and have a deeper meaning. The very best novels probably have both. But couldn't both categories be considered good writing? Even though in different ways? I guess this is where the entertainment quality and the literary quality comes in.
you are reading a book that was recommended to you by an acquaintance... it's full of errors in grammar, etc., the story is inane and the characters are TP cutouts... the person who recommended it to you and many others who regularly read books of that quality loved it... does that make it 'good writing'?
Of course not. I value a well written story as much as most people on here. But I think it's not always that either/or. Even books that are not considered "High Literature" (if there is such a term) can be written without bad language and poor editing etc. The books that are usually snubbed by literary critics but have an awful lot of readers, like many of todays bestsellers. They will probably never win any awards, but many people love these books. Besides, I think that is a close related subject: how much of poor language etc can we forgive, if the story is really good and even important?
