Complexity vs. popularity? (should a writer have to dumb down their work?)

Chekurtab said:

The examples are to the opposite, the 'simple' stuff by JKR, James and Brown. These authors regarded as bad writers by many on this site. 'Poor writing' is about the only context Dan Brown's name comes up in many posts throughout AWWC. Look at the thread about the books people couldn't finish. Da Vinci code is mentioned many times. I believe there is a whole thread on how poorly the Twilight series are written. I don't know what those who deride the 'simple' writing produce themselves. I suspect we may not see their work published. The tastes are different, but what snobs are missing IMO is that simple writing is a skill. The best-selling authors didn't try to dumb down the prose, they worked hard to make it simple.

Click to expand...

Again, you haven't been reading the posts correctly. Simple does not equal poor. Brown and Meyers get called out for poor writing. Not simple writing.

And if you dislike our opinions so much and think we are all snobs, why have you asked for our help in QLH?

I'm interested to know why you are actually here? This is not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested.

Let me just say that, in general, no one should think they are so smart that 'dumbing down' their work is possible.

Read what you want to read. Write what you want to write. Let everyone else do the same.

Assuming we're not talking about convoluted sentences that are difficult for anyone to read, I think complexity or simplicity is a matter of taste.

If you're not satisfied with your success by whatever measuring stick you want to use, study some writers who are and see what you can learn from them. If your audience is the same as Stephenie Meyer's and you want multiple bestsellers and movie deals, it's probably time to be more open-minded and figure out why those stories connect with people. (I actually think this is a worthy exercise regardless of what you're writing.)

I'm pretty sure Stephenie Meyer and J.K. Rowling had no clue how big their books were going to become. Sure, everyone dreams of that kind of thing, but it's hard to predict. So you just have to write what you want to write, make it the best you can, and not worry about the rest.

<slight tangent>

Chekurtab said:

I had to search to dig out this quote:

Therefore since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad.

Shakespeare, "Hamlet"

Click to expand...

Not arguing your point one way or the other, but this quote is from Polonius, the least-brief, least-simply-stated character in the entire play. The quote is meant to be ironic considering his garrulousness and his COMPLETE inability to get to the fucking point. In fact, that full stop is a misquoted colon; the entire quote is this:

LORD POLONIUS

This business is well ended.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
What is't but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go.
​

QUEEN GERTRUDE More matter, with less art.

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html

Click to expand...

Notice Gertrude telling him right after this to get to the fucking point. Simpler language, more meaning, less "art" / purple prose / rhetorical meandering.

To be sure, you can still quote him ironically ("To thine own self be true" is another ironic Polonius quote, as is, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be"), since the words he said are good even if they're the opposite of his actions, but when you quote part of his speech it seems like you're indicating that he was an example of Shakespeare's "brief wit" -- which he is so, so not. His speeches are some of the longest and most convoluted in the play, and intentionally so -- in most performances I've seen, it's played for humor to great effect.

Polonius is an example of Shakespeare using complicated language that's far longer than necessary for effect, NOT simple to-the-point language. Basically the opposite of the point you were making.

</tangent>

To keep myself vaguely on topic: Though I agree with all of the objections people in this thread are making to the OP, I do find myself interested in what the OP is trying to analyze, with some caveats. Obviously "accessible" (which I'll use instead of "simple," as that's what I think the OP meant) does not imply rampant Twilight-level popularity, but it may be that only works with a certain degree of accessibility will reach that level.

I find it an interesting academic discussion. However, I think it is flat useless as any sort of guide to how we should shape our own writing, as even if accessibility is a prerequisite to rampant popularity and market saturation, it isn't what made those books popular -- what made them popular was good stories that connected with a whole lot of people (and maybe a little helping of luck to get the original critical mass of readers). Their accessibility may have allowed it, but it didn't cause it.

Not to mention:

1) That level of market saturation is not an easy thing to do. It's not even something that any writer of great talent could do just by "writing more simply."
2) Writing accessibly is not about "dumbing down."
3) Authors with slightly less accessible writing would not, IMHO, make their writing suddenly the next Harry Potter if they used fewer semicolons. The authors named as more "complicated" and "literary" could not take the same stories and apply some magic formula to get BOOM TWILIGHT.
4) They couldn't do it because there is no magic formula. No author is looking at two recipes and saying, "Well, if I make this one, I'll have billions of readers and a movie deal, but if I make this one, I won't have quite as many readers but more critics will praise my writing." Writers generally write the stories they want to write to the best of their ability, full stop. There's no "sacrifice" going on here because there's no other option.

mirandashell said:

And if you dislike our opinions so much and think we are all snobs, why have you asked for our help in QLH?

I'm interested to know why you are actually here? This is not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested.

Click to expand...

Who are "we"? Whom do you represent? I'm here representing myself. I think Brown, Collins, and E.L. James are good writers. I not talking on behalf of the millions who read and enjoyed their books. I'm speaking for myself here. I've read and studied Da Vinci code, Hunger Games, even Fifty shades of Grey. I can see the mechanics of their writing and I would recommend the books to anybody as an example of a good writing and a good read, some shortcomings notwithstanding.

willietheshakes said:

You're fairly new here, so I'll just say you perhaps need a refresher on Respect Your Fellow Writer, and the distinction between "simple" and "poor".

Click to expand...

I'm not here to offend anybody. I haven't mentioned any one by name. I haven't criticized any one's writing. There is a difference between critiquing and criticizing. The blanket poopooing of any one's work is a snobbery in my books. If you take it personally, I apologize.

Chekurtab said:

I'm not here to offend anybody. I haven't mentioned any one by name. I haven't criticized any one's writing. There is a difference between critiquing and criticizing. The blanket poopooing of any one's work is a snobbery in my books. If you take it personally, I apologize.

Click to expand...

You did imply that those who criticize Meyer and Brown and James are just a bunch of unpublished nobodies.

I am an unpublished nobody. I'll stand by my belief that Meyer and Brown and James are objectively bad writers. That doesn't mean their books aren't entertaining. It certainly doesn't mean they aren't bestsellers. But their writing is terrible. That they sell better than I ever will is irrelevant. They also sell better than any dozen Nobel prize-winning authors you could name.

Chekurtab said:

Who are "we"? Whom do you represent? I'm here representing myself. I think Brown, Collins, and E.L. James are good writers. I not talking on behalf of the millions who read and enjoyed their books. I'm speaking for myself here. I've read and studied Da Vinci code, Hunger Games, even Fifty shades of Grey. I can see the mechanics of their writing and I would recommend the books to anybody as an example of a good writing and a good read, some shortcomings notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

And that is your opinion. Which you are entitled to. As is everyone on this board.

I am one of the AWers who think Brown is a bad writer. One of the ones you called a snob because you don't agree. That is why I said 'we'.

And that will be my last post to you. From long experience on this board, I reckon you are just looking for a fight. And I'm too old for this shit.

I'm out.

Chekurtab said:

I'm not here to offend anybody.

Click to expand...

And yet...

Chekurtab said:

I haven't mentioned any one by name. I haven't criticized any one's writing. There is a difference between critiquing and criticizing. The blanket poopooing of any one's work is a snobbery in my books. If you take it personally, I apologize.

Click to expand...

Here's a hint - when you refer to a whole group of writers on this board as snobs, and as unlikely to get published, because of their stated opinions regarding the writing of others, you are failing to respect your fellow writer.

Note the bold - the writing of others. Not the writers themselves, the work.

You insulted a whole group of writers; you did not critique their work.

See the difference?

Amadan said:

You did imply that those who criticize Meyer and Brown and James are just a bunch of unpublished nobodies.

I am an unpublished nobody. I'll stand by my belief that Meyer and Brown and James are objectively bad writers. That doesn't mean their books aren't entertaining. It certainly doesn't mean they aren't bestsellers. But their writing is terrible. That they sell better than I ever will is irrelevant. They also sell better than any dozen Nobel prize-winning authors you could name.

Click to expand...

You don't need to put the words in my mouth to make your point. I know what I implied. Your are entitled to your opinion. I like your "objectively bad writers." Keep the objectivity up.

willietheshakes said:

And yet...



Here's a hint - when you refer to a whole group of writers on this board as snobs, and as unlikely to get published, because of their stated opinions regarding the writing of others, you are failing to respect your fellow writer.

Note the bold - the writing of others. Not the writers themselves, the work.

You insulted a whole group of writers; you did not critique their work.

See the difference?

Click to expand...

I don't criticize the work of others and I sure made no comments about any one's prospects to publish. That would be snobbery. I'm not a judge or an expert to decide who's a good writer and who's not. That's why I used 'IMO' instead of "objectively" if you noticed.

mirandashell said:

And that is your opinion. Which you are entitled to. As is everyone on this board.

I am one of the AWers who think Brown is a bad writer. One of the ones you called a snob because you don't agree. That is why I said 'we'.

And that will be my last post to you. From long experience on this board, I reckon you are just looking for a fight. And I'm too old for this shit.

I'm out.

Click to expand...

I didn't call you a snob. You decided I was talking about you. I can care less if you like Brown. And so does he. But he is not a bad writer because you don't like his writing. By the way, me liking him doesn't make him a good writer. There are way too many writers who know "objectively" what's good and what's bad.
Feel free to respond. You are not gonna offend me. I hope I haven't offended you again.

I think the most popular material of all is both well-written but appeals to a lot of people.

I don't thin people should ever actively 'dumb down' their own work to appeal to other people though.

Chekurtab said:

I don't criticize the work of others and I sure made no comments about any one's prospects to publish. That would be snobbery. I'm not a judge or an expert to decide who's a good writer and who's not. That's why I used 'IMO' instead of "objectively" if you noticed.

Click to expand...

I've had just about all the selective responding, obfuscation and patronizing I can handle.

I'm out.

sohalt said:

Another thing: I really don't think that someone like Stephenie Meyer set out to write the dumbest possible story to appeal to the lowest denominator. I had to give up after a couple of paragraphs, but I'm utterly convinced that every word of that drivel comes from the bottom of her poor, misguided soul. And it shows on the page. If you copy her without her conviction, you will fail.

Click to expand...

I agree. Someone can be a bit of a hack or under-developed writing wise, but really in tune with their potential audience. In Meyer's case, a mopey teenaged girl. And what sort of person is likely to read a vampire romance?

A mopey teenaged girl. Or someone who used to be one. And I don't think it is about writing towards a particular audience but writing something that will resonate emotionally with them.

Not so much 'what this type of person likes', more like 'if I was this person, I...'

sohalt said:

that drivel comes from the bottom of her poor, misguided soul.

Click to expand...

Ummm...RYFW and all that.

Chekurtab said:

The examples are to the opposite, the 'simple' stuff by JKR, James and Brown. These authors regarded as bad writers by many on this site. 'Poor writing' is about the only context Dan Brown's name comes up in many posts throughout AWWC. Look at the thread about the books people couldn't finish. Da Vinci code is mentioned many times. I believe there is a whole thread on how poorly the Twilight series are written. I don't know what those who deride the 'simple' writing produce themselves. I suspect we may not see their work published. The tastes are different, but what snobs are missing IMO is that simple writing is a skill. The best-selling authors didn't try to dumb down the prose, they worked hard to make it simple.

Click to expand...

as mirandashell noted, the nicest thing about posts like this is, if you find them in advance, they give you a fair heads up who's pissing away your time when you go working with folks in QLH. Btw, a good number of folks I've worked with there...you can find published, dearie.

*facepalm.

follows miranda, willie, christ knows who else, since I only read the last 1.5 pages of the thread, out....

Originally Posted by Chekurtab :
The examples are to the opposite, the 'simple' stuff by JKR, James and Brown. These authors regarded as bad writers by many on this site. 'Poor writing' is about the only context Dan Brown's name comes up in many posts throughout AWWC. Look at the thread about the books people couldn't finish. Da Vinci code is mentioned many times. I believe there is a whole thread on how poorly the Twilight series are written. I don't know what those who deride the 'simple' writing produce themselves. I suspect we may not see their work published. The tastes are different, but what snobs are missing IMO is that simple writing is a skill. The best-selling authors didn't try to dumb down the prose, they worked hard to make it simple.

Click to expand...

Okay, this thread has been pretty well thrashed out, but . . .

First of all, Rowling doesn't get quite the same amount of flack as the other two.

Second, the other two get flack not because of the simplicity of their prose, but because of various flaws (lack of clarity, repetitiousness, plot holes, disturbing themes).

This seems to be the sticking point on this thread. You seem to think it's the simplicity that's being dinged here at AW, but it isn't. Your use of "dumbed-down", additionally, is confusing. By using that phrase, you seem to be passing judgment on "simple" works--but then you call people snobs who criticize works that you deem "simple". And to be clear, I couldn't call HP simple. The plot, themes, and characterizations are all quite complex.

Third, even those of us who are unpublished are capable of critiquing and assessing other people's work. [Full disclosure: I've never said a bad word about any of the named authors, or any other.]

I don't understand what "dumbing down" means.

I mean, I do, generally and theoretically, but if someone came up to me and asked me to dumb down my writing, I wouldn't have the faintest idea about how to do that in any concrete terms.

Possibly, all my writing is already at max-dumbness.

I try to take my readers on adventure and along the way teach them a few things they did not know. I try to make my plot challenging but exciting and eminently credible to follow.

Seems like the point of the OP has been shifted a little. I think it was just about how writers like Meyers, while successful, write in a way that some would call bad writing and yet they are wildly popular. I read Twilight and I loved it for what it was.

I watched the movies and it was the same.

I don't think that makes me dumb. I also don't think that makes her writing targeted for 'dumb' people.

Some people can read a book with big words and complex themes and some people can't. The ones that can aren't smarter than the ones that can't.

But I don't think it was something set out to insult the readers either. I simple inquiry into why those kinds of things are more popular...

I'd also like to point out that nowadays books are made into movies, thus making them even more popular than before. I didn't even know of Twilight as a book until I saw the first teaser trailer and I bought the book.