Why does bad literature sell so good?

I know i'm going to earn couple of hate mail and demands "off with his head" with this, will give you some examples that go in the series as bad writing, wont go into full detail as thats not the point of this thread, as for sales it made millions which brings us back to my question, why did it make millions if critics agree it was poorly written? does she set a good example other writers should follow or was she just lucky like HP...

Plot cheats:
Two terms are often used for this, shaggy-dog(when the story cheats,the cheat can range from a total failure to resolve the attendant conflict (ex., 'It was all a dream') to resolution of the conflict by forces outside the protagonist's control)
Deus ex machina("god from the machine" is a plot device whereby a seemingly insoluble problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved, with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object)Wiki also gives an example of literature that use often deus ex machina the Potter series...

A few examples were it was used: Book2-the car gets mad at Ron for driving so long and tosses them out in the forest and disappears only to come back at the last min and save them from spiders, another cheat that can be found in this book is Ron's wand that was broken and we see him go through a series of mishaps throughout the story, and at the end it saves the day as it backfired on Lockhart when he tried to use it on them with a spell... instead of using skills or intelligence they seem to be just lucky boys.
Book7 we see many deus ex machina to cover for stuff that was never explained like Harry's wand that mysteriously acts of its own accord to protect him, or how he and Hagrid survived a fall from a great height or how Harry survives V's killing spell for the second time. To top it all we end the series with knowledge that Harry didnt defeat V but simply that when V tried to use his wand it didnt want to kill Harry and backfires on him, with the explanation that the wand chose Harry as its master.

Character development:
Harry is pictured as your average jo, he has no great skills in magic or intelligence so that people can relate to him easier, but considering he never did anything and was extremely lucky no matter what happened to him we simply get used to the idea that he will get out of it by some miracle, at which point we can no longer relate to such character as no one is that lucky. And as many critics say he went from "the boy that lived" to "the boy who lucked out in everything"

Ron was introduced in first book as intelligent 11 year old with skill and courage and instead of developing further he later becomes simple minded and clumsy and becomes sort of a comical relief as Harry's sidekick.

Snape has many unresolved psychological problems that bring to question how was he allowed to teach and not mention he was even later shown as D's righthand man who he chose as his confidant

Sadly there are many examples were i could go on such as adults that get killed so no one takes the spot light from Harry, and many characters are inconsistent which makes them hard to relate to and understand their motives.

There are many reviews that can tell you more on the net, dont look at this as me bashing Rolling but as writers discussing other writers work, is this the correct way to write since she sold so many books or is it wrong?

 

Agree with you on The Kardishians. I've only ever seen the adverts and wouldn't bother watching them. But, everyone to their own. It's that free world you wanted - the right to do what you want, when you want without anyone calling you stupid, basically.

For mediocrity you sometimes have to read 'fairness'. You may well have been punished at school and it may have been fair - but I've also seen punishment meted out at school which now be called abuse for the very reason that it was abuse.

You are generalising. I don't know if you've noticed, but you do that quite often! Parents don't, in general, phone a lawyer - fact.

'Criticism' as you see it? You don't actually strike me as someone who reads critiques on other people's work. I would say that you are more interested in expressing, quite strongly, your own point of view than reading someone else's work and offering helpful feedback.

For someone whose posts are very often little more than rants, it seems a bit hypocritical to call other, more successful, writers' works 'crap'. But then your opinion is the right one - isn't it?

 

No, I said it's elitist to suggest that some books not up to your exacting standards are of a lesser literary importance and somewhat below you. If it makes you feel better to twist the story into one of healthier kids then feel free to do so.

Not sure where all that came from. Most of us here are ammateur and/or unpublished writers. Some are brave enough to bare their souls here for genuine critique and others are genorous enough with their time to help out. No argument there Minstril but again twisting and turning is becoming a habbit...

New relevant arguments needed here

Well I suppose it depends on the bookshop and I'm sure there are none as vast as the Amazon library.

I wondering where is thr choice of a good browse, with Amazon you need to search for a certain book or writer, when you find it you'll get a choice from a computer generated default "people who bought this also bought these" What I meant by "Where is the choice" is that exactly. You can't spend an hour or so looking through shelves, simples.

It's your choice and by all means your right to be less ambitious than somebody else who not only wants to get published but to sell 50 million copies ending up with a movie blockbuster. If you are happy to sell a genuine piece of classis literary art to the top tier of laureates barely enough in numbers to cause embarrassment then you may put your own label on that.


It would be refreshing if contributors took an argument here in it's entirety rather than excerpts to be twisted out of context

 

First, the example isn't about you as the writer - it's about you as the reader, and it could have been anyone. Again, stating someone who likes a particular book is stupid is conceit. Stating why one doesn't like a particular book is opinion. It has nothing to do with being thin-skinned. It has everything to do with thinking one's opinions are worth so much more than other people's that one has a right to belittle them as people, rather than disagreeing with their opinions.

 

Actually, this criticism is wrong in many ways. First of all, the car itself was a character (it was sentient), so you cannot say that the spider scene was resolved without the help of a character. Secondly, both resolutions were properly set-up through Harry's actions, so you cannot say that he just bumbled through them without any control over their outcomes.

I have not read book seven, so I cannot criticise your criticism of it, however, I do suspect that you are using the term deus ex machina incorrectly. I suspect this, because most people use the term incorrectly and, even without having read it, your accusations sound suspect.

 

twice you have attacked my posts sounding more like an angry fan than someone who aspires to be a writer, in the first you didnt even bother to reader all that was said but took things out of context and now you accuse me just because it sounded suspect to you... now what does that tell me about you? but unlike you i will give you benefit of the doubt.

I feel quite sure that they are correct terms as most of them were pointed out by famous writers and critics, so i can not claim i found these as they are already well known, but i can however offer you some more explanation...

The reason why the car is considered a cheat is simply because she broke her promise she was making to the reader, two boys lost in woods fighting to stay alive and get to safety, we watch them struggle as they work together and than when she wrote herself into a dead corner instead of the boys coming up with some bright idea to get out of it she uses a quick fix and make the car save the day...so we dont get the satisfaction of seeing them do themselves, now why would it come back for them, if they were saved by let say Haggrid who was sent by D cause he felt something was going on in the forest that would have been more believable.
And for the sake of the argument could you point to us your understanding of the cheat terms with examples after all we are here to learn from one another

 

Your accusation is unwarranted, for I attempted to keep my tone civil and my mind free of bias. Furthermore, I have never read book seven of the series and even stated so; in that light, suspecting me of being a fan is a bit contrived. Lastly, your 'giving me the benefit of the doubt' is a questionable grace, considering that you give it in the same breadth as the accusation.

As far as 'plot cheats' go, I googled the term, as well as the terms 'literature cheat' and simply 'cheat,' but found nothing pertaining to a proper literary term. So, in the absence of a proper definition, I can only go by the one that you've given me. Based on your definition, I do not see how the spider scene in Harry Potter is guilty of being a plot cheat. I think that the actual term you're attempting to ascribe, is plot device. Both the car and the wand serve as plot devices, objects and characters which serve to advance the plot, and you feel as though they're contrived. Well, that's fair enough, it is a matter of individual taste, not objective truth, so I cannot argue over it. However, I will say that I do not share your taste and that I consider both plot devices serviceable and imaginative.

 

The "intellectually stimulating" shows you didnt give me benefit of the doubt as you didnt read the rest of the post and saw i didnt praise it but said it was trash, sorry if my post sounded rash i didnt mean it that way, the reason i picked HP is cause many have read it and its easier to discus something when everyone knows it, death gate series is another good example of good story told in a bad way but dont think many hear read it (wich in a way is a good thing!)

Now we could go on and on about if this is matter of taste or simply some people believe more in somethings than others, like some people believe in god, ghosts, aliens and such while others dont, and i can understand that some readers took Rollings explanation and believed in it. I use logic and my experience in real life and cant agree with her choices.

As for the terms the shaggy-dog term i heard was used in lectures by writers and the explanation for its meaning they give "its like deus ex machina but without the deus, so quick fix to a problem that a writer cant solve so uses forces outside of his MC's control".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

A deus ex machina : is a plot device whereby a seemingly insoluble problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved, with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. Depending on how it's done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, or to bring a happy ending into the tale.

I respect your opinion and if you accept her way of telling the story, which is the point of this thread for us that want to be one day published(or not) to learn from other published authors, so is her example of writing good and should be followed or not?

 

Personally though, I do think education does need to be brought into this. When have you ever walked into an English class that was excited about books? Very rarely. And when do you see English classes actually ask questions and have critical thinking? Very rarely. I was one of those weirdo kids though that thought YA novels were baby stuff, I wanted to sink into more intellectual and more adult novels. I only remember having one class that I remember that actually did something for English. It was middle school, seventh grade. The best teacher in the world. Instead of our homework being read Edgar Allan Poe The Raven at home as homework. We read it in class. The teacher asked us what we thought he meant, where he was, etc. We dissected the poem into its parts and used critical thinking to decipher the poem. Does my understanding of it now that I am adult change, yes. But we don't educate children children into getting excited with books. We often tend to make it a chore. It was that one class I remember that did that. All the rest of my class, just read it and do a book report. Reading became a chore and if a student didn't understand it then there wasn't much diving into it. As a writer and as a reader. I love characters that live and stories that breath life. The very few books I didn't finish in school were because of style or simplicity.
The reason bad books sell, I think wholeheartedly falls back to education and getting people excited. And giving them the tools to read and decipher books.

 

To my mind, it sells so well because

a) It's usually easy to digest and fast-paced and targets a much broader market than, for example, a great work of high-fantasy or something along those lines.
b) It's relatively quick and easy to write. Quick turnaround from a publishing house's standpoint equals profit.
c) Marketing. For whatever reason, big publishing houses like to get behind an author whose works are written in simple, plain English and have broad marketing appeal. So they'll invest big bucks in TV and radio commercials, cardboard displays in prominent positions in book stores and airports to catch the eye of the casual reader. Case in point being a writer whose name rhymes with Stan Crown.

 

Additionally, I think there's something to be said for plain old luck. That, or a case of networking. Maybe an author has a friend who owns/works at a large publisher and makes things happen for that author.

And it's worth noting that not every author who sometimes writes objectively bad literature is a terrible author. I think that sometimes as a creative person it pays to swallow your pride and aim to produce something that would have huge marketing appeal.

 

Bimber's post is a paraphrasing of Destiny Unfufilled: A Critic of the Harry Potter Series, which uses the term "shaggy dog" completely differently to the widely understood definition.

There's no single definition of "plot cheats", as cheating refers to a range of devices that an author might use (intentionally or not) to cover plot holes. The Bad Writing Index on TV Tropes, particularly those listed in the folder "poor plotting", show a great many examples.

For a more specific example, TV Tropes has pages for the books, though this includes all tropes, not just the ones that make the writing "bad".

 

Right!

 

I think as long as the book comes full circle with the story and that people "get it" when they finish it, they will like it.

 

You know, fairness and equality aside, there really is such a thing as poor writing, regardless of whether it, or its author, is popular. I think it's just fine to be generous and kind, but crap is still crap, and some writing will make your garden flourish.

To say no one can judge writing as bad is herd logic. We have minds, and we learn to use them to make judgements. No apologies needed.

 

I have the same problem with bad literature, but I certainly understand that it sells and that it is popular. I do not want to be a snob, but I haven't read and do not plan to read HP or the Twilight series. Recently, for some project, I had to read Hunger Games and had the most terrible experience reading it. I thought the book was idocracy. Then I had to watch the movie. It was pure torture for me, and to think they're coming out with a series.

But I do read popular literature for enjoyment. I've just finished Michael Connelly's "The Fifth Witness" - author of the successful "Lincoln Lawyer." I found the mystery, detective story, enjoyable and also instructive. I have a couple of story projects involving the mortgage mess and I wanted see not only how he characterized the economic downtown, but also how he described the businessmen behind it.

This morning, I read a few pages more of the Brothers Karamazov. It's an ongoing project and every few years, I return to reading Dostoevsky. What a satisfying experience. It took the full capacity of my mind as I read and analyzed how Dostoevsky presented and dealt with the agnostic believer. He wrote of male and female agnostics. I went carefully over the words he used to describe their arguments and how the priest responded to both in a way while drawing out and supporting each one’s personal confidence. I realized that Dostoevsky was speaking clearly of people I know today and in remarkably credible ways. During one of his down periods, his wife had taken him to such a popular priest for his ability communicate and understand personal problems of the laity. I realized how powerful was the mind of Dostoevsky. He had written the priest into his work and delivered an effective account of methods, abilities and his analytical powers. He could only have done this by imagining he himself as the priest, the woman, the man, and then as all the individual appealers/supplicants. Incredible.

There's a passage where a French detective describes the religious socialist as the most dangerous rebel he could imagine. Later his description was easily dismissed. But Dostoevsky was certainly that character who spent years in prison for his beliefs. It was funny. In two paragraphs, he covered and dismissed beliefs that had, I assumed, deeply moved him. Then there was the most interesting discussion of prison, rehabilitation, the state and the Church. There was just too much interesting material, and, gratefully, in a non-minimalist style. Surely Dostoevsky stands on genius ground.

I can't expect others to read him in such a way. I can send email about the passages to like minded friends. But, in a shopping mart, I would simply perhaps say that I found Nora Roberts very good. I read the latter to find out what her winning writing style was. All I can say is that it was smooth soap opera. There is a function for this type of literature, surely.

For another project, I reread Crane's The Red Badge of Courage. I had read this work quickly in college. Reading it now, I was quite surprised. Last year, I had read his short story Maggie and was similarly surprised. This reading of Red Badge astounded me. The personal study of a young soldier who changed his feelings from war as romance to disgust and then emerged through cowardly actions to finally color bearer and fighting exemplar of his regiment was powerful, remarkable, another great reading experience. A college kid - me, years ago - could not appreciate it.

How? What? How do you describe such appreciation to a reader of Nora Roberts? Where do such works stand in relation to each other? Do I any longer care that others miss such deep experiences with literature and bemoan their lost? Hardly. I do have to keep it to myself, which is not good. Maybe some of those experiences will seep into my own writing.

My goal is to write like Roberts and make money. I cannot help it if my writing aims deeper. Then I should cut it off unless sufficient skill as in Crane can produce, warrant the change. Sorry for the long write. Geeze. It gave me one of the few opportunities to speak of my favorites. But I guess one can talk of vampires and wizards in the same way, hey?

 

I have found, amazingly enough, that the same people who pick up Dickens over and over will also pick up Harry Potter - and enjoy both.

 

I actually enjoyed reading it and agree with many things you said, guess that is what led me to think about all this is "where is this all going".

Lets say we can agree that some books that sell well set a bad example to new writers, than in the long run the quality of literature in the future will drop, but then some people will say among all the crap some of it will be good... yes i agree and each has its own audience and readers.

But now lets look at the movie industry, over the last years more and more movies are made that just make money but have little artistic quality, yes even i watch most of them and enjoyed them but most are movies i will watch once and never again. What made me angry was the comment made by one movie studio that said the movie industry now cant make just any movie they want, as it costs money and they can no longer do couple of movies each year so they have to pick the script that will make the most cash to make it worth it, and thats where my fear is, who can say how many good books were never published cause the publisher feared it wouldnt sell that much and that probably had smaller targeted audience.

I might sound paranoid but thats how i see the future everything is about the money now, so who's to say how much its already affecting literature.

 

I hate when I hear this

I wasnt even going to register for this site until reading this post.

There is no such thing as good writing or bad writing, it is completely subjective. There is only reading you enjoy, or reading you dont enjoy.

I wrote a post on it here http://th-jackson.tumblr.com/post/39593448977/people-who-say-writing-is-bad-are-insane

Anyway, who makes the rules? How can anyone say that writing is bad, I just dont get it.

 

Someone has pointed out, no doubt, a thing sells "well" not "good"?

 

Of course there's 'bad' and 'good' writing. You may need to specify the criteria you are judging by at the moment, but surely we can say that something is well or poorly written.

I'll try to read your tumblr later.

 

Actually if you ask people to go read your post there than you can return the favor and read what people here said as many good points were made that i saw you didnt address in yours.