I think we're definitely not using "writing quality" in the same way. You seem to be equating it with complexity, which doesn't make sense to me. There are lots of writers who are celebrated for their writing skills who are not writing with complex language. Again, this is where your lack of reading experience is a drawback - you don't know these authors, so it's hard to discuss them with you. But, yes, I think the idea of a good writer being someone with a big tool box and the wisdom to know which tool to use is a good one. Many of the authors cited in the article are not fancy writers. They just know how to write well.
Glad we clarified that. However that means (and assuming WSJ means "Tool Box + effective use of tools") then even a badly written book can be pretty good if the story is good. Technically it just means, assuming they're both at least decent, that beyond that point story becomes critical. However it might not be indicative of the first line I wrote ("even a badly written book can be pretty good ( sold well) if the story is good") as I can't be sure when Tool Box trumps Blueprint.
Wellington absentmindedly grasped the catheter bag strapped to his leg. The device was full and cool against his skin, telling him he’d taken too long to make his next move. Taken too long to avoid the inevitable. He moved a pawn, not even trying to bolster his flaccid defense. Loser bought drinks. “Blast,” he said. “Stiffed again.”
There are books where the language is the main appeal. Good books that are worth reading and that lots of people want to read. You seem to be trying to find an absolute truth? I don't think that exists. Some books are good for one reason, other books are good for other reasons. There's not one master secret to it all.
Not the point. The point is whether story is truly preferred more than writing quality. Since it appears to be so, at least on the high end, it makes sense to prioritize creatively constructing a good story. That's the potential lesson.
No, I'm trying to extract a lesson from the data which indicates that story is more important than writing quality. I don't know if the importance-ratio is 60-40, 70-30, 90-10, or 55-45. However it clearly states (though I do have to take the article's word for it since I haven't read most of the books nor collected other data) that story is apparently more valuable than writing quality. However it could just be the interpretation of one author, and perhaps in reality the popularity-rates are actually affected by different variables. I mean, I've never heard of Philip Roth but I know of J.K. Rowling, George Martin, the lady that wrote Fifty Shades, etc so I can make comparison with how they wrote (not Fifty Shades since I never read it but I at least know the name) and the fact I know them as a casual reader and try to extract "why" I know them, and not say Roth. It could just be a matter of taste. Maybe the ones I know just satisfying my preferred tastes more. I'm sure I know some niches are popular with my taste-group but unknown outside of that.
You made it the point when you argued for broken English being OK. The writing must be good enough. And “good enough” is not a trivial accomplishment.
No I didn't. What you chose to interpret, what I said, and what I meant are different things. And good enough may or may not be trivial, as I can't say if I'm "good enough". If I am, then it is. If I'm not, then I will find out the hard way. It's easy for a tall man to reach a high cabinet, it's a struggle for a midget.
But your book is not the publishing market. No single book will please every reader. The article mentioned that The Corrections sold over 3 million copies... those are some pretty good sales numbers and I expect you'd be pleased to sell in that neighbourhood, right? And there's nothing wrong with the story in The Corrections - it's pretty good. But I think the appeal is definitely in the wit and breadth of the writing, and it's generally classified as literary writing. Honestly, I couldn't tell you what the plot of that novel even is (although it's been a while since I read it and probably knew the plot at some point!). So my point, I'd say, is that you should write what you're drawn to write. Don't take the "lesson" of this article as any damn thing unless you're, for some reason, interested in mass averages of the publishing industry. Books that focus on writing and language have always been published and will always (I expect) be published: some of them sell well while many others languish. Books that focus on story have always been published and will always (I expect) be published: some of them sell well while many others languish. And I think you're right to say that there's nothing all that "data"-esque about the article...
Dude. If you're positing that what you said and what you meant are different things, then it's going to be really hard to have a meaningful discussion with you. Can you at least say that if what you said isn't what you meant, that's a problem on your end, not on the reader's end?
I mostly agree with you, I just like to check the data since--while I know I could get a nice niche if I do right by my ambition--I naturally have a fear of doing the wrong thing lol. Know what I mean? I love what I'm doing, but I like to be sure I'm doing it right. Or, at least inform myself so I can have realistic expectations about the potential popularity of what I'm writing. After all, my first goal is just to make rent! 3 million sales? That translates to 30 million dollars (at least)! That's gigantic success. Smart use of the money could mean never having to worry about money again. Of course, I doubt a writer can actually make that money without doing good. Really good. For its own sake, I'd assume. But it's still a tasty ideal!
I already said earlier we misunderstood what "writing quality" even meant. Anything I said earlier has to be taken with THAT into consideration. My big failure was not being clear with what I meant by "writing quality" and discerning what the author of the article meant. Beyond that, I cannot force a horse to drink.
Well, 3 million sales probably means about 3 million dollars for the author, give or take. The author doesn't get all that much of the cover price. But, yes, it'd be lovely money. Again, though - I think you'll have better success if you give up on the idea of doing something "right" across the board. Publishing really isn't that monolithic, and I don't think writing is, either.
Of course. However that doesn't mean I can't be uncertain about myself. After all, for all I know my writing is shit and anyone who tells me otherwise is a liar or extremely niche in their preferences. I don't know, I doubt that's true. But it could be, theoretically.
What do you mean? "Yeah, we all make mistakes"? If so, thanks since that was a pretty basic one! Before arguing, establish definitions. Otherwise it's pointless. If not, I dunno what you mean.
Honestly, it probably is true. Not shit, hopefully, but... yeah. If you haven't been reading, and you haven't been getting feedback from outside sources (like, not friends and family) on what you've written, then your writing is probably not going to be nearly as effective as it could be. As it will be if you work at it. I truly believe that the idea of natural talent is overrated. There are lots of tools to add to your toolbox, and without them you're working at a definite disadvantage. Luckily, you're young and you've come to a writing forum, hopefully because you're interested in starting to learn that stuff. It would be great if you started reading more, but even without that, there are still lots of things you can learn.
Thank you. I can't say for sure (not all the people I tested with are friends, but the ones that gave the most detailed feedback was) though. However, obviously, it's hard for you to know without seeing lol. After all, I said little of what I've actually written and you'd have to stalk me to even know what little I said. And I'm pretty sure I said nothing specific, let alone anything general. Of course, there's always room for improvement.
Now i'm even more confused. Are you telling me another way of saying what you said? If so, I disagree. Better to get the definitions out of the way since there was no guarantee either of us would have questioned what we were each talking about. I can't come up with any other possible meaning, so I'll assume the above.
Absolutely. I have no knowledge whatsoever of your writing, beyond what you've said and written in this thread.
