This is an excellent point. Joyce is not to everyone's taste; he's experimental and often nearly plotless. Still, his focus was on the use of the English language, and in that area it's pretty hard to deny his greatness. But your point is, of course, that no "great" writer appeals to all experienced readers - literature is not that narrow a field. Some scholars hate Hemingway, others hate Faulkner, still others think Dickens is twaddle. It may be that defining great literature is impossible. But it may be possible to define bad literature. I tend to think of bad literature as that which attempts very little: the characters are paper-thin, the plots are laughably unrealistic, the prose is lame, structure and pacing are clumsy, theme is practically nonexistent. This kind of literature gets by on violence, sex, cheap scares, dumb jokes, plain old wish-fulfillment fantasies - in short, anything the writer can throw in that will keep the reader turning the pages. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to have a bomb (actual or metaphorical) going off on every page. This is the kind of literature any diligent hack can churn out in short order. Note that I'm not saying people who enjoy reading bad literature are idiots or are uneducated. Reading dumb page-turners can be relaxing, especially if one has been reading a lot of difficult literature and needs a rest. My sister took her university degree in English and classical studies, and spent four years reading and analyzing the Great Books of Western Civilization - you know the ones I mean - and when she graduated, she read nothing but Mickey Spillane crime thrillers for months. For her, it was a release to do so after all that heavy stuff. She wasn't claiming that Mickey Spillane was great literature; she freely admitted that his work was trash. But she did enjoy it, at least for a while.
I disagree. The claim that most people are morons can be irrespective of what is selling well. One can simply posit the following two premises: 1. majority is stupid. 2. majority determines what is popular. Therefore, what is popular is crap. This might not have applied several hundred years ago, say, when the majority couldn't read.
This this very very true. Often I think the only real test of what is great literature is the test of time. Great literature isn't timeless, a lot of the literature on the Great Western Canon is specific to a time and place, but there is something else about it that makes it still enjoyable despite this. Often it's enjoyable because it's so alien to our modern contemporary world. We can call Seamus Heaney a great poet, and canonize his works, but it doesn't mean anything if he'll be forgotten about within the next 200 years.
The first posit is what is judgmental - obviously one cannot determine if the majority of people are stupid/morons/idiotic - all terms which are judgmental and negative. He then goes on to say what authors people should read - which would supposedly change their mental abilities to something akin to his own. And nowhere does this address those who read both Twilight and Dickens. I suppose those are the half-wits. I find it extremely distasteful when anyone resorts to name-calling because someone else doesn't care for the same things they do, and purports to know what's best for those other people, particularly when it comes to artistic or creative areas.
I would argue that these are all subjective criteria (even though I agree with most of them). For example, an unbelievable plot for one person may be a believable plot for another. So I think that both "good" and "bad" in the context of literature are subjective terms. Also, I think defining good literature is, in some ways, like a democratic process (as in, majority rules). At the academic level, a writer becomes popular if enough people talk about his/her works and engage in discussion/criticism about them. I'm sure there are professors who dislike Joyce, but I feel that there are far more professors who like him (or pretend to like him (the effect of peer pressure perhaps?)), which is why his works are so popular at the academic level. And if these works are discussed over and over again throughout the years, they become a part of the canon. It's interesting that people in academia are basically the ones who decide what becomes part of the canon and what doesn't. There are some great authors/books that I think have been excluded from the canon because of this.
Also people read for different reasons. I have a friend who has a PhD from Oxford, is extremely intelligent, speaks more than one language fluently and has a very demanding job. But she chooses to read crap: stuff that doesn't challenge, because she is challenged in all other aspects of her life. She even won't watch programmes with subtitles because it is too challenging. She reads and watches TV to relax and unwind.
What is bad and what is good is based purely on someone's personal opinion. Same can be said for films and music. Sure, there are books that I have read and will yet read that I will not like. But I find from a reader/writer's persepctive that even when I read a book I am not happy with I have still learned something from it. My mother fancies Dan Brown 'Inferno' for her birthday. I dislike Dan Brown novels, could possibly label his stuff as 'bad literature', but that doesn't mean my opinion should dissuade her or anyone else from reading him. What I like doesn't necessarily mean someone else will and vice versa. I remember though, reading Da Vinci code and ended it with dissatisfaction but I learned how a book I wasn't fussed on can still keep you turning the pages. There is no deffinate answer to 'why bad literature sells so good?', people dislike James Patterson and wonder why his books fly from the shelves? yet you will have the fans say 'well, why shouldn't his books fly from them?'. Same can be applied to any author, any book.
Not purely. Certainly there's plenty of room for differing opinions, but there certainly are some works nearly everyone will agree is crap, and other works nearly everyone views as brilliant. There are elements that appear frequently enough in "poor" writing and rarely if ever in "good" to be strong indicators of poor writing. Conversely, other indicators exist for good writing. It's like discussing the quality of art. There's an oft-expressed sentiment, "I can't define what makes art good or bad, but I recognize it when I see it." As far as I'm concerned, trying to deny there is such a thing as good or bad [writing|art|music] is a cop-out.
I think if a piece is flawed both technically and in its story-telling properties, then yes, that would be 'bad literature'. But if one or the other is done well, that's where the personal preferences come in, and defining a book as good or bad then becomes problematic.
It is not a cop out. I doubt very much EVERYONE around the world will agree that something is crap or good. Most people hate Mein Kampf but there are those who adore it like the Bible. People see Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as a masterpiece where others see its only use as toilet paper. I am not denying there is crap out there but if you find people over the world who will universally agree that a particular book is crap and that it has no supporters, large or small, I'll change my tune. I also agree with Shadowwalker about the defining a good or bad book being problematic with personal preferences.
This is a really interesting thread, which I've been reading through. Not quite got to the end yet, but feel I'd like to add my 2-cents' worth. The person whose comments came closest to my own feelings on this issue were JennyM's, when she said: I am not as concerned as I probably should be about 'dumbing down,' even though I'm an older person with a BA in English. What concerns me is the current tendency, driven by technology, for everybody to be herded like sheep in a single direction. The tendency for one format or medium to eliminate another. This happens FAST. Suddenly, what used to be a nifty way to listen to music while jogging or out and about (iPod, MP3 players) is now the way we are all supposed to consume our music. Never mind that some of us have built up large collections of CDs, which must soon be abandoned as CD players are gradually disappearing from sales rooms. Never mind that the musical quality from iPods and MP3 players is vastly inferior to older media. Why shouldn't an iPod co-exist happily with other forms of recorded music? Same with books. Suddenly, if you don't read everything on a Kindle or iPad, you're in grave danger of eating everybody's dust. Kindle is a great way to take books on holiday, but it's a bit quick to think it's the only way to read. And yet, there are books out there which are ONLY available electronically. This bothers me. Surely, in a world such as ours, with so much available so easily, we should have MORE choices, not fewer! "Bad" literature can certainly exist, whatever your definition of 'bad' might be. But it should be one of many choices, not the only one available. I hate to see our choices eroded, and driven by numbers and profits, and built-in obsolescence. Short, fast literature is manna to publishers BECAUSE you read it quickly AND BUY MORE. Surely there is more to life (and reading) than that.
Suddenly, what used to be a nifty way to listen to music while jogging or out and about (iPod, MP3 players) is now the way we are all supposed to consume our music. Never mind that some of us have built up large collections of CDs, which must soon be abandoned as CD players are gradually disappearing from sales rooms. Never mind that the musical quality from iPods and MP3 players is vastly inferior to older media. Why shouldn't an iPod co-exist happily with other forms of recorded music? Same with books. Suddenly, if you don't read everything on a Kindle or iPad, you're in grave danger of eating everybody's dust. Kindle is a great way to take books on holiday, but it's a bit quick to think it's the only way to read. And yet, there are books out there which are ONLY available electronically. This bothers me. Shouldn't bother you. Music was once only available if there were musicians, then it was magnetic variations on a piece of wire and so the progress, or change, if you prefer, went on. I have all of my, and my children's, I'm sad to say, music on my phone, which hooks up without my interference to my car stereo or my home stereo. I have forty year old Steely Dan albums, and I have them on my phone. The phone is by far the most preferred, by convenience and by sound quality. I also have tickets to SD on their current tour, so I can't say that recorded music, regardless of the format, is the best option, but I would go broke hiring Becker & Fagan and their band every day or so. Things change. One of the basic tenets of biology is that 'Organisms change their environment'. Music, literature -- and everything else -- is either being improved or corrupted, according to your point of view. As a writer, you have to know POV is extremely important.
Maybe it shouldn't bother me, but it does. After buying the music I love (lots of it is classical) on vinyl, then on tape, then on CD ...and now I'm supposed to buy it AGAIN to put on a phone? Which will probably be obsolete in another 5 years? When does this stop? A total waste of resources. Again, I don't mind having things like music and books available for downloads. It's the fact that the people who sell these formats have a vested interest in getting rid of all other formats (forcing an upgrade, in modern parlance), so they can make money off you by selling you old rope. It's got nothing whatever to do with OUR convenience as consumers. Convenience is a CHOICE of formats. Which is the point I was making in my post. It's choice I want. I'm not trying to stifle new developments.
I mostly agree with you AchiraC That was a story inside those books (Harry Potter) that made the kids take off this world, and land in a world of magic... Call it whatever you like. But that book series alone put millions of kids all around the world to read. Who knows? maybe that started the reading habit of many. Regarding the writing quality of the books, I really can´t give my opinion. I haven´t read them myself (Just a few pages).
A lot of the bad lit that becomes popular is due to very, and I mean very, clever and insidious marketing methods. It's not just people in office blocks drawing flashy cover art and writers doing public appearances. This applies to marketing in general: They use sophisticated psychological techniques to make you want something you don't need without you realising what they're up to. It's a method pioneered by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud. It's worth looking into. It's fascinating. Look up the work of documentary film maker, Adam Curtis for a primer.
I hate to be a prat and this thread is just about at the end of its life, but... Bad literature does not sell good. It sells well.
I wanted to say this myself, ever since I saw the title to this thread, but I was SO afraid of sounding like a prat...
To add to this thought, I don't mind admitting that in my own childish, cretinish sense of humor I've always jokingly read the title of this thread as 'Why does bad literature smell so good?'
What are we qualifying as bad literature? Are we singling out Harry Potter, a children's book, or are we extending this to other writers? Are we including Game of Thrones? Is this, according to the general consensus, bad literature? What about Steven King? Is he bad literature, since he sells in such high numbers? Tom Clancy? Michael Chrichton? James Patterson? At this point are we actually talking about bad literature or are we talking about popular literature? Or are they one in the same? In short they sell because they're entertaining. Because the majority of people don't care about some snobby sense of superiority. They simply care that they just worked an 8 hour shift which passed like the seasons and all they want to do is cuddle in their bed next to their spouse and find out if their main character managed to get out of the grasp of their nemesis. However, at the same time that I do not consider bad literature what you do (as a child I thoroughly enjoyed Harry Potter) I do know what you mean. I recently have purchased 5 novels on the best sellers list for fantasy. The Outlander series, Red Country, The King of Thorns, Bitter Seeds, and The Alchemist of Souls. The Outlander series I did not even finish reading. I could only ask myself "where's the plot?" so many times before I put it down out of boredom. Red Country is actually earning a full read, though I find the characters shallow and the plot could use some spicing up. Both of these received top marks from readers. Publishers will publish what people want to read, period.
There's a gem hiding underneath the entirety of this thread and I think this paragraph comes closest to touching it.
