'Bad Writing'

Al Stevens · Feb 1, 2013

Poorly (vaguely) -defined characters
Unnamed characters who appear often enough that the narrator should know their names
Too many characters whose names and roles I am supposed to remember for later
Multiple characters who are indistinguishable from one another
Too many unnecessary bit players

Mr Flibble · Feb 1, 2013

flapperphilosopher said:
First of all, "smashed to smithereens" is not only a cliche, it's a cliche no one uses (which seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?).

I hear it quite a lot for a word/phrase no one uses....but I wouldn't say it's cliché. So, yeah, it's subjective.

But anything that pulls me out of the story, be it clunky prose or bad plotting. Though ofc what I call clunky or bad, someone else may love.

Kittens Starburst · Feb 1, 2013

leahzero said:
N"Bad writing" is subjective. We can point to objective grammatical and mechanical errors*, but aside from that, it's all opinion.

There are bad critics just as there are technically bad writers, ones who can't distinguish their personal tastes from talent that simply isn't to their liking. There's nothing worse than something getting a bad review based on someone's arbitrary likes and dislikes. I will never forget an idiot giving Motorcycle Diaries a one-star review on Amazon for being subtitled (in, ahem, Portuguese :ROFL:

), despite it being an international film, and also for there not being enough focus on motorbikes. FFS, it's like saying bananas are rubbish because you can't dig holes with them. Buffoon.

ChristinaLayton · Feb 1, 2013

Dorky said:
IMO bad writing includes bad grammar, and it goes beyond that as well.

& No. I would not finish it unless, somehow, the story was amazing enough to drag me through the rest of the story. That hasn’t happened yet.

I tried to read a book the other day, but I had to stop reading because of the bad writing. When I got it, I thought to myself, “This has about 1100 reviews and ~4.5 stars. I guess I’ll give it a try!” Yeah. No. That book was not 4-star worthy. I knew from the first page that it was bad. However, I pushed myself on to see why everyone liked it. I only got to page 15 before I gave up completely.

Since it’s still fresh on my mind, I can tell you exactly why I thought it was bad writing:

Poor pacing. Far too often, the FMC (who is narrating) will pause a conversation to explain some new thing that got mentioned. These asides are usually a paragraph each. Then the conversation suddenly resumes. This happens constantly throughout the 15 pages.

Obvious use of a “big word” that seemed to have been pulled from a dictionary (vacillate). I’m not saying people don’t use the word vacillate. It’s just that I couldn’t see the FMC using the word.

A Jekyll and Hyde-ish problem with the FMC’s voice. This is a good example of two completely different voices one right after another: “... I watched a blob of yellow land in her bowl. / It was moving. Gross. / It continued to vacillate as it interacted with the mixture...”

Grammar. Commas, em-dashes, tenses. The usual.

Bad transitions between actions and no explanation where it’s actually needed.
For example: (sneaking into a room) “My foot hit something and made a thunk sound. I dropped to my knees and clenched my hand into a fist.”
Three or four sentences later, I finally get to find out why she suddenly decided kneel down and make a fist: she was making fire.

Overuse of similes. So many of them. Everything is like-a-something. Let’s take a look at some of the ones I saw in the first fifteen pages!
Something was like: a thousand fireflies, a herd of buffalo, a water balloon with a leak, an alien, duck feet, a stealthy cat, having a seizure, an angry wolf, a spent cobra, a fat man on a bicycle, crack, Whitney Houston, red lace doily, biting into a carrot, uncooked tuna, etc.
(I actually liked the fat man on a bicycle one )

As you can see, there are lot of things that can contribute to an overall “bad writing” experience for a reader.

The worst writer in the world has a lot to learn, and this thread is a diamond. This is my favorite post. :Clap:

Ken · Feb 1, 2013

... bad writing = anything penned by me.
At least I can't help feeling so when getting back a rejection.

:e2cry:

BethS · Feb 1, 2013

WillSauger said:
I don't even turn the first page if the book isn't written well. The writing carries the story, if the writing is not up to my standard I'm not going to read it.

Yeah, this.

To me, bad writing is prose that's amateurish, clunky, melodramatic, and/or overwritten to a marked degree. This includes hokey or unrealistic dialogue, repetitive words or phrases, and poor handling of POV.

But stories can also be badly structured and badly concluded.

SomethingOrOther · Feb 1, 2013

Riley said:
For me, bad writing means a lot of things. Probably thousands of things, even. Good thing it's like pornography: you know it when you see it.

Exactly. I can point to any crappy passage and explain why I think it's written poorly. But if I tried to define "bad writing" in a vacuum, detached from any concrete examples, I'd just spit out a bunch of banal generalizations.

leahzero said:
No. This is subjective.

On a semi-related note, you ever notice how it's seemingly acceptable to pile broad-strokes ridicule on what's highbrow or experimental or whatever—"Oh it's so wordy and pretentious!"; "Ugh, I don't like literary fiction. [Insert ill-formed idea of what lit fic actually is.]; "Ew [James Joyce / David Foster Wallace / whomever] is so verbose."—whereas anyone looking down on genre fiction will (rightfully) be called out for head-up-their-hindquarters snobbery? But both kinds of ridicule are two idiotic sides of the same coin. Some people just have trouble understanding that their taste isn't "better" than others', and that they shouldn't look down on something just because it isn't their cup of tea.

I like both. Mmm tea.

(This isn't directed specifically at any replies in this thread. I thought about this like a week ago, and you gave me a relevant-enough place to post it.)

Kittens Starburst said:
There are bad critics just as there are technically bad writers, ones who can't distinguish their personal tastes from talent that simply isn't to their liking.

Kitten high-five.

Atlantis · Feb 1, 2013

I can usually forgive a bad opening page and even the first few pages if it picks up or if I can see talent in the rough writing. The opening couple of chapters of the Host was like that for me. It was rough but interesting and it picked up for me a little more in.

Now JK Rowling's last book was just terrible. I had such high hopes for it and thought she could pull it off because she was so talented. But it was like reading a completely different author. Her style had changed. It wasn't the same snappy, tight, interesting, funny writing. It was like someone else wrote it. Someone with not a lot of experience. It opened with the most boring sentence in the world - that someone had a headache. I mean...what? How is that interesting to anyone JK? Do you remember the opening line to your first Harry Potter book and how good that was? And then the rest of the chapter was told, not shown, and boring as heck. And then the next chapter was just weird. And the plot? hello, plot? are you there?

I think if I wasn't a writer I wouldn't be so harsh. But bad writing is very annoying especially from someone like JK Rowling who should know better. She should stick to fantasy.

ArachnePhobia · Feb 1, 2013

SomethingOrOther said:
Exactly. I can point to any crappy passage and explain why I think it's written poorly. But if I tried to define "bad writing" in a vacuum, detached from any concrete examples, I'd just spit out a bunch of banal generalizations.

I'm jumping on this bandwagon, and if you and Jane Austin will pardon me...

"Oh! Certainly," cried his faithful assistant, "No book can be really esteemed bad, which does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A book must have thorough flaws in grammar, characterization, plot, consistency, and dialogue with all its tags, to deserve the word; and besides all this, it must possess a certain failure in its style (or lack thereof), the tone of its language (or lack thereof), its cliches and condescension to the reader, or the word will be but half deserved."

"All this it must possess," added Darcy, "And to all this it must yet add something more hackneyed, in that it must hint at the author's utter lack of reading and belief that even the oldest tropes in use are the pinnacle of creativity."

"I am no longer surprised at your having read only six bad books. I rather wonder now at your having read any."

Wilde_at_heart · Feb 1, 2013

kaitie said:
I'll keep reading a book that's badly written and potentially even enjoy it as long as it's got a great story or great characters to back it up.

I won't. I don't really see how you can have both great characters and lousy writing, though I suppose it all depends on how you define good or bad.

For me, 'bad writing' has to be really bad, not simply mediocre.

By that I mean lazy writing that reads like a rough draft where:
- the author doesn't appear to have cracked open a thesaurus or even a dictionary for that matter,
- each sentence is the same length or rhythm so it feels you're being banged about the head,
- the dialogue is embarrassingly trite or corny or reads like a 60s sci-fi B-movie,
- the characters have really ridiculous names that in real life would send CPS after the parents, and
- serious errors in building up to the main 'turning point'*
- idiotic or annoying characters that are well-loved by the MC for some reason that's never made clear*
- critical plot points or dramatic scenes are expository instead of being written into action and dialogue.

However, it does take several repeated violations of the above, not just a handful.

* I put down one recently where these were the only problems. The book had a lot of potential but the entire plot hinged on the MC finding a close friend who had been abducted and she was introduced at about page 60 or something at least, immediately before the character went off to find her. If she's that important, there really should have been some buildup first - as it was, I didnt' give a crap about her and thought the MC was an idiot to risk his life for her.
- The MC's girlfriend was also a shadow - the only description of her was that she watched 'Real Housewives'. Ugh. At least give her really beautiful eyes or large breasts or an exciting career. Something.

kaitie said:
What I'm much less forgiving of as a reader is story flaws. Plot holes, moments that break suspension of disbelief, characters doing things that are good for the plot but make absolutely no sense for the character, that sort of thing.

See, for me that IS bad writing as well...

blacbird · Feb 1, 2013

Beyond straightforward grammatical mechanics, not usuallly a huge problem in traditionally published novels, things that bother me:

Pretentious verbosity. The writer calling attention to his own wonderfulness as a writer, rather than presenting a solid story I can admire for its skill in presentation.

Anachronisms, errors in commonly-known or easily-researched facts.

Unfocused, uncontrolled POV.

caw

Stacia Kane · Feb 1, 2013

Good writing is clean, no matter how verbose it may be; each sentence says something, and what it says is easily understood.

Bad writing may be pared down to monosyllables but still say nothing understandable, or which actually means anything.

kaitie · Feb 1, 2013

This thread is making me think back to the last book I read that I truly disliked (okay, I admit I recently threw Game of Thrones across the room, but this one I disliked exponentially more) which was one that several people recommended to me as brilliant, an author who was incredibly famous and supposedly a master, and so on.

What amazed me about it while reading was that the writing was (to me) atrocious. It was filled with cliches, and the dialogue was some of the most ridiculous I've read. I actually wondered if it was a satire and I just wasn't getting the joke. It came across as so unnatural it seemed that it must have been an extreme, intentional example of badness.

To make matters worse it was filled with contradictions. The characters actions in the first chapter (when he tried to commit suicide) went completely against the actions in the next (no! I don't want to die!) with absolutely no development in between. It seemed more that the author had just forgotten what he'd said on the previous pages, or perhaps that he was making the story up as he went without any regard to the character's actual thoughts or motivations.

The book was supposed to be funny, but the humor came across as juvenile. The relationship in it was completely one dimensional. Basically, it just blew my mind that someone so famous, and a series so famous that had come so highly recommended, could possibly suffer from the multitude of problems that I saw.

But the part about that that really just ruined the book for me? The idea was so damn cool. I loved the concept. There was so much that it could have been. It was like each page was a disappointment that failed to reach my ever lowering expectations.

Now that was a way to make me hate the writing, to the point that I don't ever plan to read anything else by that particular author again. And yet, oddly, so many people adore it. I guess there really is something to say for that subjectivity thing, huh?

WriterBN · Feb 1, 2013

kaitie said:
I admit I recently threw Game of Thrones across the room)

Oh, thank [insert name of deity]! I thought I was the only one. I did manage to read it through, though. As I did with Stieg Larsson's first book.

There have been others that I've abandoned after a few pages, usually due to grammatical or syntax errors.

kaitie · Feb 1, 2013

A lot of things about the book were brilliant, and I understand why people like it, but it was certainly not enjoyable for me.

Layla Nahar · Feb 1, 2013

I can put up with all kinds of "bad" writing for a interesting idea. The one thing that turns me off is writing where the writer's intention is to show off how clever they can be. I think Nabokov is pretty much the only writer I've ever read who can make this work, and even then some of his stuff gets to be a bit much. I recently read a genre novel that had all kinds of overblown word choices. I almost never put down a novel because the prose gets in the way, but this one I did.

gcsalamon · Feb 1, 2013

I recently read a book (surprisingly, all the way through) that had me wincing page after page, with disbelief that someone actually thought it was publish worthy.

What got me the most was the unnatural dialogue. That alone was enough to ruin it.

Kittens Starburst · Feb 2, 2013

Wilde_at_heart said:
I won't. I don't really see how you can have both great characters and lousy writing, though I suppose it all depends on how you define good or bad.

I think of writing as having two main parts: the concept and the execution. Some fiction writers are terrific at dreaming up plots, characters, themes, and so on, but can't string a decent sentence together. Others have the opposite problem. Good writing is where it all comes together.

kaitie said:
This thread is making me think back to the last book I read that I truly disliked (okay, I admit I recently threw Game of Thrones across the room, but this one I disliked exponentially more) which was one that several people recommended to me as brilliant, an author who was incredibly famous and supposedly a master, and so on.

George R R Martin is a fabulous plotter and character writer, but his description is so ugly. He doesn't work it in at all, just trowels it on, and it's so bland. I've only read GOT, mind you, still summoning the nerve to jump back in. The worst bit was when he broke a writing 'rule' with a main character (yay!) and held up the crucial action for several pages to tell us in minute detail how every character was dressed (aaaargghhhh!). I also missed an important clue at another crucial moment because I'd sped-read the description of some guards' uniforms. Had to backtrack.

kaitie said:
But the part about that that really just ruined the book for me? The idea was so damn cool. I loved the concept. There was so much that it could have been. It was like each page was a disappointment that failed to reach my ever lowering expectations.

This is a killer. I felt exactly the same way about Tolkein, who ruined everything with his yawnsome 47-page diversions, with the songs that celebrated every burp and fart, and, oh, the stupid yodelling Tom Bombadildo. I felt similarly about HG Wells, with every single book. How I adore his ideas! I can't put my finger on why he disappoints me, except that in the Invisible Man he didn't explore the concept as thoroughly as he could have. I'm certainly not suggesting he's a bad writer, though. My dislike is purely subjective.

bearilou · Feb 2, 2013

Bad writing is stuff I don't like.

Good writing is stuff I like.

I know it when I see it. There can be strengths in one area of the writing that will carry it for me so I am able to overlook the weaknesses in others. That varies from book to book, author to author.

I don't read bad writing and I won't make myself finish a book with bad writing.

Shadow_Ferret said:
So you don't believe we can quantify "bad writing?" Because I do agree that it is all opinion, but there's are differences between the quality of the opinions. You can probably find some who are of the opinion that say Hemingway is a bad writer. But their opinions are in the minority. The majority of opinion is that he was a good writer. That's how judgements are made between things being good and bad. Is it subjective? Sure. What isn't subjective outside of math?

I was going to call attention to the bold and say, knowing I probably shouldn't, Twilight and The Da Vinci Code. Majority opinion says...? Seems to me that their popularity indicates that more people thought that was good writing and not bad. I mean, if we can so easily spot objective good writing, those books would not have hit the way they did.

And yet they did. Or is it that the majority's opinion is not considered of quality to count? I'd certainly be interested in knowing what these hallmarks are for opinions of quality.

Then I reread this part.

Shadow_Ferret said:
When we analyze fiction there are agreed upon rules, standards, and conventions that we look for to determine if a piece works or fails. Now some works might "artfully" break these rules, but that's an accepted convention, too. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a skilled writer playing with the language and an unskilled writer blindly stumbling along.

So literary criticism may be "subjective" but it's a judgement made from special knowledge. We can dismiss one or two claims of "bad writing" as "just opinion" but when it becomes the opinion of a majority, then its the accepted prevailing viewpoint.

I'm not a literary critic. I'm just a reader and a writer. I know what I like and I know what I don't like and I wasn't aware that I had to be reading everything with this 'literary critic' in mind. Just what I thought worked and what I thought didn't work.

Someone tell me that what Stephanie Meyer, Dan Brown or even EL James wrote didn't work and I'll point to sales numbers (a majority, by the way) that would beg to differ.

And the question was what we thought, as individuals. If the individual is a literary critic or enjoys engaging in literary criticism, then their opinions are going to differ from each other and from casual readers who will also differ from each other.

But I suppose...my opinion is not of sufficient quality to matter?

stray · Feb 2, 2013

Tonight I have to go to a restaurant and order a meal. Friend's birthday. If that meal is of a better quality than I could have cooked up myself then it is a good meal. If the meal is better than I could ever make than it is excellent. If the meal is so bad. So very bad I almost puke, then, I won't be back.

What is bad cooking?

So many things. laziness to commit to the task at hand, ignorance of the tools in the kitchen, disrespect of the customer, throwing in the wrong spice at the wrong time. Lack of creativity. Not enough time in the kitchen. Conflict with the waiting staff. On... and on... and on...

So for me there are many ingredients that cook up a badly written stew. Difficult to list all of them but you know them when you taste them.

And chefs and writers can and do improve. The main thing is they have to want to.

As for the 'badly written' works that sell? I guess they weren't that badly written.

BethS · Feb 2, 2013

kaitie said:
okay, I admit I recently threw Game of Thrones across the room

Giving into my curiosity.

Why?

Ken · Feb 2, 2013

... the novel Twilight is often cited as an example of bad writing.
So are books by some current bestseller, mentioned here a lot.
But there are many readers who beg to differ.
Or at least say the stories are very good even though the prose might not be.
So opinions on what qualifies as bad writing are somewhat subjective, like lots of things.

archerjoe · Feb 2, 2013

How many TV shows has Paris Hilton had? Didn't she have also record some music? There are many under-appreciated actors and singers who are much better but never had the same opportunities. One cannot judge quality by the public's taste, only popularity.

Wilde_at_heart · Feb 2, 2013

bearilou said:
Someone tell me that what Stephanie Meyer, Dan Brown or even EL James wrote didn't work and I'll point to sales numbers (a majority, by the way) that would beg to differ.

While they may be lousy writers, they each struck a chord with a particular zeitgeist...

Vampire romance
'Kinky' romance along with some catchy memes like 'inner Goddess'.
Vatican Conspiracy

To do the same thing you have to be far better than they were though. And who knows how many are bought by people who are otherwise non-readers and therefore have fairly low standards?

There's always been popular dreck that is huge at the time but nobody reads it decades later - Valley of the Dolls for example.

bearilou · Feb 2, 2013

Wilde_at_heart said:
While they may be lousy writers, they each struck a chord with a particular zeitgeist...

Vampire romance
'Kinky' romance along with some catchy memes like 'inner Goddess'.
Vatican Conspiracy

To do the same thing you have to be far better than they were though. And who knows how many are bought by people who are otherwise non-readers and therefore have fairly low standards?

There's always been popular dreck that is huge at the time but nobody reads it decades later - Valley of the Dolls for example.

So...that gives the opinion more weight?

I'm mostly objecting to the quality of the opinion part of his discussion, I'm not arguing that the writing is or isn't better or worse, or that it will or will not stand the test of time.

'Many people think Hemingway is a good writer' to which I say 'many people thing Meyer/Brown/James is, too'. As to whether they have low standards or not, we start to get into the discussion about why their opinion is now given less weight than someone who likes Hemingway.

'Bad Writing'

Al Stevens

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Kittens Starburst

ChristinaLayton

Ken

BethS

SomethingOrOther

-

Atlantis

ArachnePhobia

Wilde_at_heart

υπείκωphobe

blacbird

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective

kaitie

With great power comes

WriterBN

kaitie

With great power comes

Layla Nahar

Seashell Seller

gcsalamon

Gina

Kittens Starburst

bearilou

DenturePunk writer

stray

BethS

Ken

archerjoe

Wilde_at_heart

υπείκωphobe

bearilou

DenturePunk writer

'Bad Writing'

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

-

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

Girl Detective

With great power comes

With great power comes

Seashell Seller

Gina

DenturePunk writer

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

DenturePunk writer

υπείκωphobe

υπείκωphobe