disagree
Christine,
I'm sure there's going to be chaff in any era, that's not to which I refer. I tend to see words as jewels to be seen and used. When I say books are being less well written, it includes this idea. When I hear readers won't go to the dictionary to look up a word that was used in the days I started reading, it means the audience is missing an opportunity. I see a dumbing down of storytelling because the audiences don't want to put in any effort whatsoever (okay, I'm being a bit facetious) because learning something new is no longer on a list of 'gotta haves'. I didn't exactly like the spelling tests in school when I was growing up but if I'd not have been asked to learn new words, I'd never now know a richer way to express myself and in turn, have expression in like terms toward me. THAT is the opportunity I think is being missed. If I judge a book's value strictly on the story, I think I'm missing out on that nuance of which I speak. There's more to a story than just the plot and for me at least, the ability of the writer influences the depth of said story.
I think that in story telling, you'll always have those great/good ones and the chaff we referred to above. But, it is in the expression that I'm making my argument. As I read in another thread; it doesn't matter how many syllables (or I might say too, how many more unusual words in a sentence/paragraph) the word has, it only matters if it conveys the idea. Simple can be fine. I think complex is fine as well. But I don't want to read simple diction just like I don't want to read simple storylines for any length of time. I find writers that know their vocabulary and can use it, along with simple diction too, are the best reads. But in my opinion, the readers want MTV like entertainment with as little personal effort as possible because they don't see such effort as worth their while. THAT is what is missing, imo, and so we have a society (American) that wants visual titillation at the expense of the intellectual variety, they want more feelings and less mind. All in my opinion, of course, because I think you need both.
The penchant is for less, and that is what I'm seeing. And from the books I ever read and bought, I still know those which were chaff and those which were less so. I've ditched very few books from that era, but compared to the books of today, I'd have to say the majority are not 'keepers'. It is only by comparing the books I used to read with today's offerings, that I find there's a difference. And it's not a good difference.
Ymmv
btw, I'm not speaking of books I read before I was aware enough to know good writing from bad; I'm speaking of books I can remember reading that were mainstream novels in the same way I'd go and rifle through a shelf at the bookstore today. So, I'm not one of the 'good ol' days' types. I'm speaking more about the audience than the writer/novel, but I'd say art is following culture in this case and the culture is lacking, imo.
