Because bad is subjective. For example, I dislike F. Scott Fitzgerald's prose, and completely hated The Great Gatsby,whereas I loved 1984 by George Orwell. I'm one of those people who hate authors that take pages to describe something that could have been described in one sentence. This is part of the reason why I like minimalist authors for the most part.
I'm only on the first one, so I have no opinion. I do hope so, though. I've got many others to go. And I do give her credit. She certainly told a story that resonated with tons of kids and got them excited to read. I also like her personally, insofar as I've seen her on talk shows, and love her outlook with respect to taxes. She's genuinely grateful for her success and wants to give back to her community, so I have a lot of respect for her personally. Whether I think she's a great or even a good writer, I don't know, yet.
Some people should consider why some authors write the way they write. Some do it for their own style, but others struggle with money. J.K Rowling probably wasn't too worry about the way she wrote her first novel. She needed the money to survive, although it took her a while to get a publisher to publish her book. Since the book is aimed to young kids, who are first learning how to read, probably explain how her book became a bestseller.
It's interesting the impression upon reading the Harry Potter series. I heard the whole thing as an audio book (great for entertaining one's child on a long drive and we were going back and forth to OR frequently). We even listened to one of the books on the 22 hr plane trip to Japan. Read by Jim Dale, it sounded great. I didn't notice any bad writing at all (except the book where Harry was whiney).
You can't say that she is a terrible story teller because she uses adverbs, because there is a lot more to story telling than mere word choice. I'm not sure what stuff Lemex is referring to when he says she "made stuff up as she went along." Of course, all writers of a series have to improvise along the way, but her backstory is sound, and continuity errors (which are inevitable for series) are relatively rare in insignificant. The arc of the 7 books is impeccably crafted. I didn't really think so until I read through the entire series in a few months. Each book is it's own stand-alone story, and that story fits into a brilliant 7-book arc. Is Harry Potter overrated? Of course. But that doesn't mean it isn't great.
Certainly not. But when they're used in almost every sentence, and used so frequently that they're noticeable, then that's problematic. Also, I never claimed that she was a terrible story teller. I said I founded surprisingly poorly written. There exist a lot of good stories that aren't written well. Writing and story-telling are not the same skill.
Hey, I definitely agree that most people just want a good story, and the writing itself is secondary. It's the same way with music, too. The songs that top the charts aren't those written by the virtuosos of the world, they're the ones that the majority of people can digest in 3 minutes. Most people aren't interested in pushing the boundries of the respective art/craft so much as just soaking up the tale. Not that there's anything wrong with that necessarily, it's just that art and commerce are generally seperate interests.
Interesting......Explain dirty little tricks. I found myself editing at times, going back, meshing, making sure comments and events flowed as they should. Finishing actually made this easy as I research and gave thought to events and conversation. For example, I started with Stripe Bass far upriver then decide on Largemouth Bass. It changed the entire fishing event. Many characters are involved and several chapters. A line of dominoes had to be fixed. And that makes me think of something else. Kinda neat, a visual difference. I type on MS Word and the page is what it is. But when I load something here it's different. The page is so wide and Wa-La! I can see more clearly. Errors jump out or I read that turbulent flow and know changes need to be made. Seems like a good way to edit and fix with two different perspectives. Sear in one pan.... sauté in the other. Yeah Baby! I'm a-cooking in Crisco now.
Really.......I thought "Never Get In A Stranger's Car Unless He Offers You Really Good Candy" was worse.
I think the secret behind the great selling of bad literature is in the very core of the word: It's BAD literature. And as one has said and many have said again, bad publicity is better than no publicity. And that's the thing, people are actually so in love with reading something bad and spreading rumors of it that it indeed becomes fast-selling. A case can also be made for such books reaching for the audience's thirst of some particular thing; however, that case can be made for most books, even those that don't sell well or at all, for that matter. I'd honestly pick up a Joyce book which is covered with tons of symbolism than read about sparkling vampires. And that's the thing with a lot of writers, we tend to write of deep, symbolic, meaningful things, and we are out-shined by Twilight, who, admittedly, might have an interesting plot, but is utterly bland in terms of meaningful elements. I honestly can't give a concrete answer as to why that happens: I honestly would think that people in general would not want to stoop to such measures just to get published, but I suppose I am mistaken. All I can say, if disregarding blatant anger and favoritism for meaningful literature, I have to give props to the "bad" literature for managing to sell that much.
I've been thinking about this over the past few days while reading Inferno by Dan Brown on and off. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this might be the best purchase of the year for me, I absolutely love this book precisely because it sucks so much! This is, easily, the worst thing I've ever read in my life. Nothing about this novel is good, barely anything about it even works in it's own terrible little sphere. Seriously, everyone, read this novel - it's abysmal. Maybe that's why bad literature sells so good too, because it's such nonsense. It's like a bad movie you love anyway, or fast-food. It's a guilty pleasure. That improvisation, and you can just tell it when you see it, is exactly what I was referring to. As a writer Rowling is pretty poor in my opinion.
I'm just a bit in love with you right now, Bimber. I was professing the same elsewhere in the forum and was astounded at the umbrage taken at my opinion on the literary value (or lack thereof) of such writing. One would think I had urinated on the Torrah. I think it comes down to what the reader is looking for in the read and at what level the reader has decided they are willing to analise a story. HP is utterly lacking in literary nutrition, but it's fun, not unlike a McDonald's Happy Meal. McDonald's is wildly popular when compared to more nutritive fair because it's insidiously tasty, not because it's good for you. Fact is, I find HP and the aforementioned 'sparkly vampires' to be a form of pornography. There are all kinds of porn other than sex porn. Porn is nothing more than media to access and attain the otherwise unattainable or withheld, usually in a lurid fashion. The works that you cite are little more than a fantasy shell for the reader to inhabit where invisible girls get the beautiful guy and little nerdy boys pwn the baddies. Porn. But, again, there is great popularity in porn in all of its guises. When looked at from that perspective it becomes easy to see that the conundrum has it's root in what is being compared to what. Though they are both technically cinematic productions, one would not compare a porno flick with something from say, Merchant Ivory Films. P.S. Lemex, I swear I had not seen your fast food analogy before I wrote my post! We just both came to the same clear and obvious analogy.
The American population continues to buy and read vast amounts of crappy literature because the world is full of morons. People are idiots and they aren't looking for a classic and well developed books to read, analyze and truly enjoy. People want to read stories that they don't need to think about. Something that will entertain them, but that they won't have any trouble reading. The world is getting dumber and dumber and unfortunately that means the people want the less developed and less creative literature that their small minds can comprehend. That's why Twilight was big, that's why Hunger Games was big, and that's why Harry Potter was big. I'm not saying that if you enjoyed these that your a moron, but that you really need to step back and really think about what your reading. If people read more Steinbeck, Hemingway and Bradbury the world would be a better place.
I heavily agree with Twilight, but not with Hunger Games or Harry Potter. That's just stretching it. Harry Potter is a long saga filled with vivid tales, if you think that's simple literature i have no idea what led you to believe that.
Yep. Which is one reasons I force myself to read all kinds of novels, even romances--though it is kind of hard getting through some of them--so that (hopefully) I can avoid becoming so hardened in my view of what is good literature that I effectively disappear up my own word-hole.
I would never presume to assert that people who don't read what I do are idiots and morons. Still, I find that life is too short to spend time reading stuff I'm not interested in just to keep myself from disappearing up my own word-hole. Forcing myself to read what I don't enjoy is a waste of time. Nee, do you say a skilled skier who chooses to ski the black diamond runs has disappeared up his own ski-hole because he doesn't ski the bunny hills? I doubt it. Is a concert pianist elitist because he practices the Beethoven "Appassionata" sonata rather than "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star"? I don't think so. I think he's just taking on a more difficult piece for the entertainment of those who enjoy that kind of thing. I'm not saying I'm an expert skier or a concert pianist. But I do aspire to excellence in writing, even at my relatively advanced age. I'm not there yet (at least, not consistently), but I'm trying to get there, and the way to do that involves reading and appreciating more difficult (if you like, read: more boring) novels than the typical low-end thriller or horror book. I don't think I'm being elitist for reading that kind of thing, or for trying to write it. I'm just trying to improve, and that means challenging myself. I'll never be Tolstoy and I'll never be Joyce, but I also don't want to be made to feel like an "elitist" jerk for trying to get as close as I can to their stature.
I read over 60 novels and listen to another 80 or so audio books a year, so I figure I'll be Nee deep (yuk yuk) in one that I'll enjoy the next day anyway, so I look at it as one more way to keep honing my writing skills; because you can learn from a bad example as well as a good one. Ray Bradbury told me a long time ago that if I wanted to get good at writing, I should read everything I can get my hands on. And he was right.
No, Shadowwalker, that's not "in other words." Your interpretation is entirely different from his. In what you quoted, he's saying that most people are morons, a statement we'd have to test. And therefore, since "most people" determine what is popular, crappy books will dominate. You're proposing that because people don't like what he likes, he assumes them to be morons. That's a possibility, yes, but certainly no more valid than the original statement.
Nice post, and your maritime excerpt was pretty good, better than most pieces here, which tells me you might be on to something with your way of thinking.
There's also the issue of defining good and bad literature. After a certain point it boils down to personal opinion. For example, not all experienced readers think Joyce is good. Defining good and bad in literature is tough to do, and chances are that there isn't going to be a consensus even among readers who have the same tastes. Still, I think it's necessary to define those terms for the sake of this discussion.
Why do children suffer? Why is the sky blue? Why did Mike and Ike split up? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? Some things the world may never know. Bet you somebody will answer all of these.
I don't know of any other way to interpret what he said. He's deciding what bad literature is, and that because his definition of bad literature sells well, most people are morons. If the books he considers good literature were selling as well, then people would not be morons. Seems pretty plain to me.
