What I gained from reading that bad book: if this person could make money off this tripe, where's my piece. Anyway, I didn't learn anything other than there were books that qualified as horrible and I got motivated to find out why.
@Cogito absolutely! And frankly, twenty years ago I would've really 100% agree that "there is no such thing as bad (book/music/alcohol/political party/neighbor/drug/architectual plan/sex technique/rhyme/chicken soup)" and that it's all about "what is good for you"... Unfortunately, as you move away from minimal life experience of a pre-teen, your expectations and standards (should?) grow (significantly?) higher... Not to mention the fact that you become more sensitive and more capable of smelling the crap from safe distance. No need to get food-poisoning if you can smell a bad egg right away, right? No need to read that book cover-to-cover to know it sucks. And how and where and how much it sucks. And what exactly would you do with it to un-suck it... The universe of bad writing is actually rather finite. There is not so many things that separate bad from mediocre writing. Language. Some structure. A plot here, a witty remark there. Maybe some characterization, or a moderately succesful thematic development. Feeling the rough edges of the genre. Understanding literary tradition. But going from mediocre writing to literature - that's something else. Anyone with more than 10 books in his library should be able to tell you which one he likes better, and anyone with more than 10 years of reading experience should be able to tell which one is simply bad. Some may even be able to tell you why. But what makes a book great? What makes a narrative stick out, what makes it a classic, or just simply "awesome"? I believe that this is a far more important question. So sure, I would certainly recommend reading some crappy books during your formative years - purely in pedagogical purposes.
A question for you all then, if there really is such a thing as a book that is better, how come we don't all hail one book as the greatest of all time? Preference of course, is what determines our perception of "good". I would be very hesitant to call any book bad, so much as not to my liking. Never forget that a book is simply a string of words until we give it our own emotions and meaning. While I may wish that certain books could be obliterated from my memory and life, I would never begrudge someone their love of a book. So if someone says a book is bad, respect why and that they don't like it, but in the end always keep your own counsel.
The question isn't a matter of the book itself being bad, but the mechanics. A book with a boring story, but good writing, isn't bad, just ineffective. A book with a good story, but mediocre writing isn't bad, but the writing may stink (and I'm talking about proper use of language, not personal style). A book with a plot that is poorly constructed isn't bad in itself, but it may be called badly constructed if the plot makes no sense or if there is no plot. Mechanics can be good or bad, as measured by how effective they are at conveying meaning without making a reader cringe (unintentionally). An over abundance of -ly adverbs becomes annoying after you read powerful writing that hardly uses them. Dialogue tags with all kinds of replacements for said is mechanically bad unless your goal is to draw attention to your vocabulary instead of the story. This is connected to, but not the same as style. One may prefer to write very elaborately, which may tire some readers and thrill others. What makes this type of writing good or bad is how effective it is at clearly conveying its meaning while retaining its eloquence. Are the words in their best order? Do the words you chose support eachother? Do they flow smoothly and bring meaning out of eachother? Are the clauses, and phrases in an order that brings about variety, yet do not distort the meaning? Does every detail chosen to be elaborated contribute to the overall knowledge or enhancement of the point? Is the grammar correct (e.g. punctuation, subject-verb agreement, etc.)? These are the questions I consider before judging a style as "good" or "bad" as oppose to simply being or not being my preference. For example, Milton's Paradise Lost is written simply beautifully, but it's certainly not my style because it takes some work to get through all the classical references and dated vocabulary. The story is also well-constructed. Another example is Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. It's an important book, and the writing is sound. But I can't stand it. The story bores me, the themes bore me, and the writing is dry to me. It feels monotonous and detached. But it's still a well-written and meaningful book. One last example is Paolini's Eragon and it's sequels. They are critiqued as bad books. To me, the mechanics certainly need work, but overall, they were sound enough for me to enjoy at a time. These days I still have fond memories of the series, but I do see the flaws. So bad book? No? badly written? Comparatively yes. Alright I've talked enough. In sum, I don't call a book itself good or bad based on style or content. Those are a matter of preference for me. However, I will assert whether its mechanics are.
Mechanics cannot be good or bad, only different. Again, if they were, every "great" author would write with the same mechanics. They do not. Mechanics only apply as far as they improve communication, and for some authors the reality is that they do not. Hemingway will drown you in repetition and "and... and... and... and..." which many people will frown upon. He is still an amazing author. If there were such a thing as immaculate mechanics, there would not be any variance in them, the simple fact being that there is. A challenge to any who say certain ways of writing are more beautiful than others: what makes it so? The only thing that makes it better is someone saying it is. If there were a population wide consensus that the Twilight books were the greatest pieces of literature ever written then they would be. While the thought makes me, and many others cringe, it is true nonetheless. Writing, it's mechanics, and even language are only good as far as we decide they are. Otherwise, would we not still write in old English? Or in dactylic hexameter like Virgil did? We evolved past as a matter of preference.
@ This doesn't make much logic if you think about it. Definition of a "great" author would usually include "good" usage of narrative techniques (mechanics, if you prefer). Thus, a "great" author would not be using a technique "badly". Something else is in question here: not the quality of a technique, or validity of its implementation, but whether the author knows what he's doing, and as you said, what does his choice do for the narrative (for communication, if you like). Do you ever say "Sugar is sweeter than sea salt"? Sweetness is not a property of sea salt, so salt can't be compared by the level of its sweeteness. Two items need to "have" a certain property in order for the levels of that property to be measured. So a book needs to be good at something (usage of language, mostly) in the first place, if you want to compare it with another and say "This one is better". And yes, when it comes to that level, it becomrs almost impossible to separate personal preferences from objective reasoning, knowledge from feeling etc. But sadly, when you see a badly conceived plot point, a cliche, a blatant grammatical error, you are going to notice them. You should be able to notice them - if you can't, after a few years of reading practice, I trully believe you should reconsider switching from writing to a different creative activity. Painting, dancing, cooking, whatever. This is not a question of style - not being able to use proper grammatical tenses is a different thing from deliberately choosing to make a mess; randomly switching from one character to another because you don't know how to keep a fixed focalization is way different from choosing to present your story through variable focalization. With some practice, these errors (bad usage) become very, very obvious. And with some more practice, you will learn NOT to relativize it with "it's different". A chair you can't sit on is a badly crafted chair, not a "different" chair. We don't actually evolve "past" something (check your Darwin for the real meaning of this often mis-used and abused word). And language certainly didn't evolve because we "liked" it better this way. Language changes through a complex process involving economical, ethnographic, historical influences. Nothing personal, but it's way, way more than "preference". For that mattrr, some people try and prefer to write in hexameters...
Regardless of how you dress it up, perception is reality. Whatever people decide is good, is good. This is the basic fact of all art, it is subject to human perception. To borrow your analogy of sea salt and sugar, sweetness is not the relevant question, it is whether the flavor is appealing. To some people sugar is less than delightful, to some it is fantastic. Also, great authors are only called such because people decide they are. Again, if everyone called Stephanie Meyer a great author then she would certainly be. Furthermore, dactylic hexameter is no longer the prose of choice is my point. Since you seem to be unaware of the definition of evolve, I will copy and paste you the definition according to the oxford english dictionary, which I would consider to be the authority rather than Darwin. verb 1develop gradually:[no object]:the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturerthe Gothic style evolved from the Romanesque[with object]:each school must evolve its own way of working (with reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection:[no object]:the domestic dog is thought to have evolved from the wolf 2 [with object] Chemistry give off (gas or heat):the energy evolved during this chemical change is transferred to water As should be obvious, this word was not "mis-used [or] abused. Language evolves as a matter of use, language that is used continues to survive, language that is not will die out. You may, again, dress this as you like but it comes down to preference in the end. To summarize, perception is reality, and our preferences shape our perception.
that means to keep your opinions to yourself and not let anyone else know what you think about the subject... is that what you meant?... if so, why would you advise not giving one's own opinion, if someone else is doing so?
@O. Snow John, my dear... First, I really don't see the point of shoving a definition of "to evolve" down my throat, not to mention the "you seem to be unaware so I'm gonna teach you" attitude. No third-graders here. And, it's not very pedagogical even in third grade. If you go back to your post, then read my post again, you'll see that I reacted not on the word "evolve" but on the usage of "evolve past" something; which, as I understand, from your post, means to "change into next, better form, leaving the previous behind". If this was not your meaning, than I am trully sorry. Secondly, I don't see the point of you discussing anything with anyone if you are simply going to claim the "I've seen the absolute truth"-card. I care to completely disagree with the "it's all as we perceive it" and "it's all as we declare it is" attitudes because I have seen them roll down into meaningless solipsism too many times. But you are free to believe just the oposite. But I still don't get what you gain from entering a discussion on that terms?
Did this suddenly become the debate forum? Seems to me the discussion could be a little more respectful toward one another and less argumentative in tone.
@Burlbird I suppose this discussion could have been handled a little more politely, however I suppose I found your prior post to be rather condescending. Perhaps this was not your intent, perhaps it was, either way I'm sorry that I reacted negatively. You may rest assured that nobody played as you put it an "I've seen the absolute truth" card, and it seems that what we are both saying has been lost somewhere in the mess of communicating via text. Despite my seeming argumentative, I do appreciate you sharing your perspective, as it's always nice to hear what somebody else thinks. However, I think that it would be best to simply agree to disagree as neither of us seems at all convinced by the others argument. So, I tip my imaginary hat to you, and thank you for sharing your opinion with me.
Folks I would be grateful for you thoughts here, I am a bit disoriented. If you are in a hurry you can skip tothe last para. In my younger days I mostly read philosophy, biographies, science, and history. More recently, the past 3-5 years, I started exploring the world of fiction in earnest. I do enjoy the freedom and creativity inherent in writing novels, and I aspire to write short stories some day (I have been all along, on an amateurish level). But how can I aspire to such thing when I really seem to enjoy only a handful of books from the many I started reading? I wonder whether in fact I like fiction. When I read Vonnegut I am mesmerized, intrigued, when I read Nabokov, I feel I am forcing myself into it. It seems I am just choosing the wrong books/writers for me. I tell friends how much I liked Vonnegut style, including his short stories, and they keep suggesting "similar writers" that I fail to appreciate. I do not seem to appreciate the descriptive details that are common to most novels. That is the major issue. I get bored to tears even within the space of a short story. Elegant descriptive text seems to be the common thread of almost all fiction writing, But that is not what draws me into reading. Further it seems that some contemporaneous writers have taken the task to further bore readers like me by making elaborate and convoluted descriptives a standard. As I said, I do not apprciate, I take it as a failure from my part; this is not a criticism. Long story short, can I get some reading recommendation from you folks? I love short stories but also like novellas and novels. I need to read stories written by someone who is lucanic when it comes to the extra details. I think I would like social critics, or writers who tend to make you think hard. Maybe my requirements are too general? But maybe one of you get exactly what I am talking about? Manythanks in advance
Can you give us the names of some other writers you appreciate and don't appreciate? It's hard to give recommendations based on just Vonnegut and Nabokov. Also, it's perfectly OK to enjoy some writers but not others. After all, everyone's tastes are unique.
Hi If it's short stories you like, and are wondering what authors besides Vonnegut might appeal to you, I'd suggest getting hold of some anthologies that contain offerings from many different authors. Either buy them, or visit your library. There are plenty of anthologies out there, including some by genre, some by time period, etc. Read them and take note of the authors whose stories you like. I'm not particularly a short-story reader myself, and I LOVE long, involved descriptions as long as they are interesting. However, like @thirdwind said, everybody's different. Good luck!
Writing preferences are a very individual choice. Some ideas to get you going: The Old Man and the Sea - Ernest Hemingway A Passage to India - E.M. Forster My Life and Hard Times - James Thurber Silas Marner - George Eliot The Caine Mutiny - Herman Wouk The Story of Beautiful Girl - Rachel Simon Major Pettigrew's Last Stand - Helen Simonson The Little Prince - Antione de Saint-Exupery Tales of the South Pacific - James A. Michener Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury A Canticle for Leibowitz - Walter Miller The Novel - James A. Michener To Serve Them All My Days - R.F. Delderfield
I'm not sure how much you're into comedy/romantic comedy, but if you like simple description and a fast pace you can try any of Sophie Kinsella or Madeline Wickham's books: Remember Me? The Undomestic Goddess I've Got Your Number Wedding Night Confessions Of A Shopaholic (This is a series including Shopoholic & Baby, & Sister, Takes Manhattan, Ties The Knot, and Mini Shopaholic.) Tea For Two Can You Keep A Secret? Twenties Girl The Wedding Girl Sleeping Arrangements Swimming Pool Sunday Cocktails For Three 40 Love The Gatecrasher A Desirable Residence
His style doesn't appeal to all, but Edgar Allan Poe's short stories are excellent, in my opinion, and you can read most of them for free online, I'm sure. Look at a few and then if you like them, purchase a collection from Amazon, because it's super cheap for what you get.
Thanks all for your responses. I have written my post very late at night (early in AM), and I have given very little details to help you help me. Thanks Alesia but I do not like romance or romantic comedy Thidwind, jannert, and Ed, thanks for your suggestions let me clarify what I am looking for: - modern novels/short story collections (1960+) -Topics: I like fictions that approach the following topics: Society, "pop" philosophy, war, history. (this is very broad but that to some extent rules out thrillers and romantic novels I hope ). -Styles I like: satire, dark humor, terse writers who do not want to impress with beautiful descriptions that do not necessarily advance the story or enrich the theme/idea, (I really do not care about how delicately Mary sipped on her cup of water and the light reflections in the cup, and how this strangely brought memories of her shimmering bed sheets when she used to be a young princess) - Things I like in a writer/novel: satire, dark humor, social commentators/critics, "pop" philosophy, war, history. -Things I have read and enjoyed: I read a lot of old classics. I am french educated (now fully moved into English) so I read french classics (Rousseau, Voltaire, Hugo, Sartre, Camus,...), and Russian (Dostoevsky mainly), American (Hemingway, Bradbury, Poe, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald...), and others. I like Hemingway's simple (yet hard to emulate) style. But I find myself currently more interested in modern or contemporary writers. I picked few randomly over time and that is why I mentioned Vonnegut as someone whose style and content I enjoyed. For example I recently picked White Noise by Delillo and I sort of liked it. I also read a month ago tinkers (a sad and melancholic theme, which I also like) but I had troubles with the descriptive that at some point lost me. It seems that Salinger and Palahniuk should be on my list, I haven't read yet. I know there is a world of possibilities, I hope I gave you a better idea of what I enjoy, and I am grateful for your suggestions. Many thanks
You can try James Patterson novels as well. Most of his fall in the genre of mystery/thriller/crime. The pace moves relatively fast and the descriptions are bare minimum, so they might be worth a look.
@Thomas Kitchen Damnit you beat me to Edgar Allen Poe! oh well, Ariane et la Minotaure and La Petit Prince are a couple id reccomend if you want something in french (likewise to you @Stampingchimps im french educated as well) or if you want something a little longer La Cercle des Loups is another
Okay, that narrows it down, some. Rachel Simon's book is a description of the revolution in the care for people with developmental disabilities from institutionalized care to community-based care. Other suggestions: Dialogues With the Devil - Taylor Caldwell. Begins with a letter from Satan to God. Exodus - Leon Uris. Historical novel about Israel. Very compact, given the subject matter. The Winds of War/War and Remembrance - Herman Wouk. Arguably the definitive World War II Novels. Wouk is not terse by any means, but the length is owing to both the massive size of the undertaking and Wouk's attention to historical detail. Recessional - James A. Michener - deals with end-of-life issues. Advise and Consent - Allan Drury. An excellent portrayal of the US Senate, and less polemic than all of Drury's novels that followed. You may want to skip the large segments of backstory. Worked in 1960, doesn't work today. Starting Out in the Evening - Brian Morton. The story of a writer writing about another writer. Also deals with issues of aging. Lisa Bright and Dark - John Neufeld. Mental illness seen through the eyes of a teenage girl. Interesting because the narrator is of a different gender than the author. As a side note, during my college years, my bedroom was a portion of our finished basement, and the entire basement became my own apartment. Every single girl I brought there picked this book off the shelf. Goodbye, Columbus - Philip Roth
did you mean 'laconic'?... as in 'terse/concise/succinct'? if the above suggestions don't fit, i suggest you spend a few days in your local library, sampling the various sections that appeal to you... and have a chat with the librarian, who may be able to steer you to authors you may find more to your taste... alternatively [or, in addition], you can browse amazon's 'look inside' listings, to check the authors' writing style... i have to congratulate you on appreciating the benefits that reading offers to those who want to learn how to write well... it bodes well for your reaching that goal... love and hugs, maia
Man, do you realize what you just did to me? I couldn't breathe for like ten minutes. @ED: I'm lovin' your taste in literature...awesome suggestions!
A couple of my modern favorites: The Things They Carried - Tim O'Brien, read it here. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas - Ursula Le Guin. Read it here. A favorite book is "Midnight's Children" by Salman Rushdie.
