Popular bad writers: A question

I think even though they do write "poorly" then they have a style of writing and a story to tell that captures the masses imagination. Most readers aren't as picky as writers who are readers. Because we are training ourselves to watch for these things and endlessly scouring over our work to eliminate these things so when it happens in other's work, it jumps off the page.

However, even though such authors are looked down on, they do have a way to pull in the average reader and not let go. All the marketing in the world wouldn't keep people reading unless there was something in it that the reader wanted. With the attention spans these days, they are doing something right. And no book was meant to be loved by everyone, your favorite book is going to be hated by at least a million other people, possibly for the very reason why you loved it.

There are vast numbers of readers who care more about the experience of a book than the author's ability to stay in POV.

Those guidelines are merely tools to help us write more approachable stories. A story can be captivating whether or not those tools are used. All an author really needs is to provide an experience that the reader wants to have.

Icerose makes a good point. All the well-rounded characters and fancy marketing campaigns in the world won't save a book if the author DOESN'T provide such an experience.

Story trumps all, whether you like it or not.

many of them start out well, read their first books and see but then they get sloppy because their agnets are selling their books like hotcakes and they have deadlines like 4 books in a year and they dont have the time to mull over prose so much of their stories actually come out like first drafts or outlines and no editors are going to argue with them and tell them their writing sucks because they are superstars and the worst is that people keep buying them so theres asbsolutely nothing wrong about their writing and they are pretty much critic proof by that point - and yes story trumps everything in popular fiction

aghast said:

many of them start out well, read their first books and see but then they get sloppy because their agnets are selling their books like hotcakes and they have deadlines like 4 books in a year and they dont have the time to mull over prose so much of their stories actually come out like first drafts or outlines and no editors are going to argue with them and tell them their writing sucks because they are superstars and the worst is that people keep buying them so theres asbsolutely nothing wrong about their writing and they are pretty much critic proof by that point - and yes story trumps everything in popular fiction

Click to expand...

And yet their writing is still better than 99.99% of the slushpile.

true and thats rather sad fact that many people who think they are writers cant write, at least creatively but still it bugs to always see so many mistakes in someone like pattersons book as if his editors fell asleep through the whole editng process or the book went straight from draft to print

Yeah, that really is a shame. It bugs me to see obvious typos and thing that are just plain wrong in a published book.

I personally find it difficult to complain about someone else's published book because they are published whereas I am not.

There are books I don't like though but I think it's more to do with the story itself. Although I did read some book that I couldn't get past chapter one because the writing was so horrible. It made me want to cry and laugh. It was a fantasy which is not one of my favorite genres.

I also read a mystery and figured out who the killer was by reading the novel blurb. The writer is a well known mystery writer and her book really disappointed me. I do not read mysteries and thought it would be a lot harder to figure out who the killer was.

aadams73 said:

Yeah, that really is a shame. It bugs me to see obvious typos and thing that are just plain wrong in a published book.

Click to expand...

I agree. There just really, really, really is NO excuse for that. I mean, how many hands does a ms pass through before being a bona fide book?

As to the OP - I agree with Scribbler - story trumps all. And many (most?) readers are willing to suspend a huge amount of disbelief to read a good story. I can read a lot of stuff with nary a raised eyebrow if you make me believe it. But a typo will rip me out of a story faster than a bloodcurdling scream from the neighbor's house.

I can't believe I found this thread this morning. Here is a perfect example of what ya'll are talking about. When I got serious about writing, my taste in reading changed drastically. I have always loved reading thrillers, but after learning a bit about the craft, I couldn't concentrate on the story because the lack of good writing kept getting in my way. I wasn't happy about this turn of events, I missed getting lost in a good thriller, a ride of who did it, etc.

Anyway, that was three years ago and last week I broke down and picked up a book called The Righteous Men by Sam Bourne, which is similiar to The DaVince Code, and about on the same level writing wise. But I couldn't put the damn thing down, it was the story he weaved, and even though I could see all his devices he used as clear as day, and there was so many things that were typical and pat in his writing, the story held me until the end. I even got about half mad at myself toward the last few chapters, wondering why I couldn't stop reading the book, wanting to finish it so I could start a book with literary meat.

It was a guilty pleasure, and I see that this is exactly what the masses are seeking, as was I when I was reading this book, a good story to escape into.

I feel like such a sell out, and I also feel like I am destined to live a life of obsurity as a writer because I just couldn't write formula fiction, it would make me feel as if I were compromising my integrity. I want to write the best prose I possibly can, and my dreams have changed from wanting to be rich and famous to being known in literary circles and respected. Those are not the people that make the big bucks. But I sold advertising for 10 years and made good money and quit because I felt as if I were living a lie, selling people something that was doing them no good, lying, wasting their money, and when I started writing I swore I'd be true to myself.

DeniseK said:

It was a guilty pleasure, and I see that this is exactly what the masses are seeking, as was I when I was reading this book, a good story to escape into.

I feel like such a sell out, and I also feel like I am destined to live a life of obsurity as a writer because I just couldn't write formula fiction, it would make me feel as if I were compromising my integrity.

Click to expand...

It's a guilty pleasure to enjoy a book? I thought that's what they were for. If the writer pulled you in and didn't let go, just enjoy the ride. That's what writers are supposed to do. Whether it's formulatic or not, as long as you enjoyed it, the writer did their job. Our job is to entertain invoke thought, give pleasure, if we fail, then we aren't very good writers, in my opinion at least.

Boy I must really miss the mark because that's why I read. I don't care if the writer has faults, as long as they can put a story forward in a digestible manner that I can enjoy, thumbs up for them. That's what it's all about for me. Escaping into a fun and exciting and scary world, to be swirling in the furthest reaches of my imagination and dappling in worlds created by others. That's what makes it great.

So why feel guilty?

At the moment I am begiining to think its my current book!!!

Denise, don't ever feel guilty about liking a particular book, even if the writing isn't totally stellar. Read what you like. I do, and I make no apologies for what I read or like.

I think we need to realise that what is good for us is what we enjoy reading. What is good in general is what a lot of people enjoy reading. Popular books are good books because people like to read them.

You can then set up other standards based on qualities like technical writing skills, complexity, deeper themes and meanings. But you can't tell people that what they enjoy is not 'good'. People eat fast food because the enjoy it, gourmet is a whole different game.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I truly enjoy reading the most are books that are well written as well as having a great story to tell, but finding those are like finding a needle in a haystack. I don't have money to buy books often, so I go to the library. I can come home with 5 books and maybe read 2 all the way through. And I can get just as lost, probably even more so because the lack of writing skill is not distracting me, in a book of literary short stories as I can in a formula fiction book.

But the book I just finished, the one I was talking about, actually had such a compelling story that the writing didn't stop me from enjoying it. That was my point.

Writers, while studying the technical aspects of writing, often forget that they are practicing an art, not a science. Thus, the perspective can be skewed and the concept can be abstract, and it can still work to capture one's imagination.

In the end it is the story that sells the book, more than the craftmanship.

janetbellinger said:

In the end it is the story that sells the book, more than the craftmanship.

Click to expand...

I'd argue the exact opposite.

Crappy writers don't sell books. Good writers with an understanding of what works and what does not sell books. You can break the rules all you want once you know what those rules are.

Bartholomew said:

Writers, while studying the technical aspects of writing, often forget that they are practicing an art, not a science. Thus, the perspective can be skewed and the concept can be abstract, and it can still work to capture one's imagination.

Click to expand...

This is the reason why I never aspired to become an OBGYN.....

but if the craftmanship sucks it wouldnt hold your interest or keep you in that story - so many good stories go to waste because of poor execution, obviously published authors are capable enough to at least tell the story effectively but when your skills are to below the mark it doesnt matter if you have a great story

Well, I don't consider anybody who can sell a book to be a crappy writer. They might not be what I consider to be strong with their literary style. But if an author can tell a story in a way that makes people want to read it, that in my mind makes her a good author.

Bartholomew said:

I'd argue the exact opposite.

Crappy writers don't sell book. Good writers with an understanding of what works and what does not sell books. You can break the rules all you want once you know what those rules are.

Click to expand...

Here's what I think. And I apologize if it's already been covered by someone else.

I think writers who are "bad" (a very subjective determination, to be sure) are popular because the people who are labeling them as "bad" are the people that read stories for the subtleties of writing, for the Craft of writing. Those that make them popular are the readers who read for the sake of reading or for a bland story to read and pass time.

I read for the experience, to get involved in the lives of rich characters, for the twists and subtwists in plots and subplots. I read for symbolism, theme, motif, and social commentary.

A perfect example is my father, who couldn't get through The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger because he "didn't get it." He told me he doesn't want to think when he reads something. He just wants to read it, get it, and be done with it.

IrishScribbler said:

Here's what I think. And I apologize if it's already been covered by someone else.

I think writers who are "bad" (a very subjective determination, to be sure) are popular because the people who are labeling them as "bad" are the people that read stories for the subtleties of writing, for the Craft of writing. Those that make them popular are the readers who read for the sake of reading or for a bland story to read and pass time.

I read for the experience, to get involved in the lives of rich characters, for the twists and subtwists in plots and subplots. I read for symbolism, theme, motif, and social commentary.

A perfect example is my father, who couldn't get through The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger because he "didn't get it." He told me he doesn't want to think when he reads something. He just wants to read it, get it, and be done with it.

Click to expand...

You nailed it.

You know, for someone who bills himself as an up and coming editor, I sure do make a lot of typos... hm...