Well, then there is some mediocre writing that takes off like wild fire. The Twilight Series is one of those. Some books sell because they are heavily marketed. Some sell because the writer had previous success and readers want more. Those end up being either consistently good, maybe with a flop or two, or that writer ends up as a one hit wonder. When a book is really good, it can go viral. Code Name Verity is one of those. Girl on the Train is another. Where did you hear about books you've read? Word got around for those two books. Did you see an ad for Hunger Games or did someone tell you about it? Or was it a combination or both? All of that is a different subject from getting a good writing education or advice.
Get your advice from the very best writers you admire the most. Read what they wrote and look for the process behind the prose. Then pull the cork out of your imagination and interview them. Fire up your favorite word processor and write a transcript of what they would have said if you actually had an hour with them. No less than Mark Twain once gave me some great advice that way. I want to write fiction for others to read. Why can’t I tell myself a few whoppers, too? Besides, I thought Mr. Sam made some good points.
Yes. That's my take on the issue as well. A how-to book should inspire you and give you ideas and insights, not constrain you or dictate to you.
People buy books not necessarily because the writing is good, but because the idea of the story appeals to them. Or they've been told it's good, etc. (Word of mouth can be either helpful or not, but the marketers of the book are interested in only one thing ...selling it to you.) Or the cover is attractive and the back cover blurb is well-written. A book can become popular because it's easy to read, easy to grasp, or says what people want to hear. Junk food is popular too, but that doesn't make it nutritious or healthy or worthwhile. Many people who love to cook aren't interested in learning to make junk food, simply because it'll be popular. A recent example of me falling for marketing, was Girl On A Train. I had been hearing it mentioned, seeing it referred to as a bestseller. I was in Waterstone's in Glasgow, looking idly for something to read. It was front and centre on the book display, so I picked it up, read the back blurb, thumbed through a few pages to get a notion of the style, and bought it. Quite frankly, the book bored the arse off me. I thought it was mundane at best, tabloid-y and melodramatic at worst, and near the end, predictible as hell. I felt it really wasn't up to the hype it received. However, my purchase helped to boost its sales. Do I want to learn to imitate that writer simply because the book was a bestseller? No, I don't.
I disagree. If a work of fiction "takes off like wild fire" its audience, by and large, considers it good. And if a substantial amount of your intended audience judges you a good writer, so do I.
I think there can be a lack of clarity when we use the word "writing" - sometimes it means the smaller, word-by-word act of creating sentences, and sometimes it means the larger, scene-by-scene act of creating a story. I think a lot of the time when people criticize best sellers because they're poorly written, they're referring to the first meaning of writing. But really, the books are successful because they got the larger, scene-by-scene kind of writing just right for their audience. (And, of course, there's subjectivity within each category - what one person considers well-written, even on a sentence-by-sentence basis, may not do much for someone else who's equally qualified to judge.)
Words and sentences are the building blocks of scenes, so I imagine divorcing the two would prove tricky. To use an analogy, if someone admires a forest, it's safe to assume they admire enough of the individual trees and shrubs that makeup said forest. Which is why I prefer to measure the satisfaction of a book's intended audience.
Maybe we should split it into 'good writing' (aka how the words are put together) and 'good storytelling'. On that basis, for example, King (and most other best-selling writers) would be great storytellers, but not great writers. But then that may just confuse people even more.
And there lies the problem. A prime example of believing something just because people tell it to you.
Well that sounds closer to the truth. I might even agree that King is quite a good story teller, but then even that can involve good things and bad things. Presumably his plots are part of the story telling. But his plots are often full of holes. His 'stories' might also be good at appealing to the widest demographic, but not necessarily for good reasons. His 'ordinary people' are intended to connect with the readers, but for me, are too ordinary.
Another good example of how books are linked and marketed with movies (like Carrie and all of King's others). This is how people are often fooled.
Are you suggesting people lie to themselves and to others about whether or not they like a book? If so, I suggest "there lies the problem."
No, not lie. But look at what you said. You might 'judge' a book based upon someone else's judgement, rather than reading it. Can you be sure they didn't do exactly the same thing?
I wouldn't judge a book based on any individual's opinion on it; but if a work of fiction satisfied a substantial portion of the author's intended audience, then who am I to say it's objectively bad writing? I could argue why I didn't appreciate it (assuming I read it), but nothing beyond that.
I think some people do. But I suspect it's more likely to happen with award-winning books than best-sellers like King. Few people will think ill of you if you say you don't like King's latest book. It's just mass-market entertainment. But the latest award-winner? Which a panel of judges called the best book of the year? What will the Joneses think? I forget the book, but a few years back someone managed to get stats on how far people read through the ebook of the big award-winning novel of the year, and it turned out most people quit by 30% of the way through. How many of them admitted to their friends that the book bored them to tears, rather than leaving it on the coffee table to impress them?
Sort of an Emperor's New Clothes effect for critically acclaimed literature. I'm sure that happens, but as you said, not for for mass-market novels.
The value one assigns a published work is not the question at hand. The premise of this thread is, 'being published is the end all and be all'. Based on her writing, do you think Stephanie Meyer would make a good writing teacher? @jannert brings up another issue, one woman's trash is another's treasure. I loved Girl on the Train. Given taste and interest in a book vary widely, judging by the fact an author is published and has well selling books cannot be a minimum requirement of a writing teacher. If that was the requirement, how would you judge the success of the published books? I teach in my job, I know what goes into teaching. Expertise doesn't guarantee one can spread one's expertise around. Some of the best doctors and nurses have no interest in teaching and their expertise doesn't include teaching. By the same token, I provide medical follow-up for injured employees in a number of different settings. I don't have to be an experienced OR nurse or police officer or firefighter to teach occupational safety with potentially infectious materials to those employees. The person I've learned the most from has incredible talent spotting and articulating elements of writing. His critique of a beginning writer (me 6 years ago) differs from the critique he gives a more advanced writer (me now). The critique I give others has also grown from kinda-sorta-maybe having something to say, to now when I can see the bigger picture in the writing and can offer something more helpful. Sorry, I'm repeating myself. Doing and teaching are two different skills. Successful writing depends on many variables that have little to do with teaching writing or giving writing advice. I've looked a dozens of writing advice books, some which speak to me and some which don't. We're all different writers and different people and what works for one may not work for another.
I think this is hard in writing, because it's a creative art. In sciences, if an idea is widely believed by experts, its most likely (though not always) true. In the arts, everyone might tell you doing something is a really bad idea, but since its not a strict thing, it might end up being good if you do it in a certain way. I'm not saying to ignore advice that you disagree with 100% of the time, but occasionally everyone else is just wrong.
I think when people do this its usually trying to find an objective measure of greatness for art, which is almost impossible by definition.
In regards to the conversation @srwilson and I are having, it is the question at hand. To your Stephanie Meyers query, teaching and doing are two distinct skill sets, so I wouldn't know. But here's what I do know: if I desired to write a YA book aiming for Twilight's audience, I would jump at the chance to consult Stephanie at some point in my writing process.
And it might or might not be useful, depending on the insight she has into why her books were so successful, and depending on if she were able to articulate that insight and apply it to where you are as a writer. Wouldn't hurt to consult with her, mind you, if one had the chance.
