A Challenge: Critique 'Crap'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Birol

Around and About
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
14,759
Reaction score
2,998
Location
That's a good question right now.
There have been a great many comments lately about the "crap" that is published or becomes best-sellers. Now, it's difficult for me to believe that commercial publishers are actually accepting and publishing nothing of quality or that the reading public just accepts whatever is offered to them by marketing. So, I'd like to challenge all Writers of the Roundtable (WoR), rather than just dismissing the best-selling books out there as "crap" to offer specific criticism of the books they don't like. Why don't you like it? What is it about it that doesn't work for you? And, what about it do you think appeals to the mass market? Why do you think it has been so successful?
 

Koobie

Super Duper Member
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
748
Reaction score
182
Website
tyrovogel.com
I've randomly checked an AW member's profile one time, and got sucked into the murky depths of the intrawub (spec., her website). On it I read a negative review about a book called Heroes Die. I then went to Amazon and read the first few pages preview to see if what she (the AW member) wrote matches up to the actual book. It did.

Now, I can't outright say that the book sucks just based on reading the first few pages and someone else's review of it, but I know that I won't be buying it to find out, either.

However, maybe my disdain from what little I've read of the book isn't that it's badly written per se (Matthew Stover actually seems like a pretty talented chap), but that to me it seemed that its target audience were angry 17 year old goth kids. If you get my drift.

I'm not doing this right, am I?
 
Last edited:

Claudia Gray

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
604
ITA that there's way too much criticism of bestsellers going on that doesn't have any context or meaning.

I concentrate on what even the pulpiest bestsellers do right. I'm not going to pick up their mistakes by reading them; I have plenty of my own mistakes to work around. But I think I might pick up on their strengths, and it's a rare bestseller that has NOTHING going for it.
 

Esopha

bam pow zap.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
12,665
Reaction score
2,629
Location
Magic America
I'd gladly donate the first draft of LC to this experiment, for your thrashing pleasure.
 

SpookyWriter

Banned
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
9,697
Reaction score
3,458
Location
Dublin
There have been a great many comments lately about the "crap" that is published or becomes best-sellers. Now, it's difficult for me to believe that commercial publishers are actually accepting and publishing nothing of quality or that the reading public just accepts whatever is offered to them by marketing. So, I'd like to challenge all Writers of the Roundtable (WoR), rather than just dismissing the best-selling books out there as "crap" to offer specific criticism of the books they don't like. Why don't you like it? What is it about it that doesn't work for you? And, what about it do you think appeals to the mass market? Why do you think it has been so successful?
I think this is a great idea. I was talking to a peer at work yesterday about this very topic.

But she's a reader and not a writer. I like to talk to readers about what they like or don't like about a book because their feedback helps me better understand my future audience.

We talked a little about too much detail, not enough details, and keeping the story going. Some readers like lots of detail while other readers want the story to move without reading about the minute stuff.

Now for the flip side of your proposal. I don't believe publishers make trash available to the general readership because they (publishers) are in the business of making money from quality products.

This isn't to say that everyone is going to like everything published, but the quantity of published works does bode well for writers. Rather than a few books there are many thousands published each year.
 

JoNightshade

has finally arrived
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
4,137
Website
www.ramseyhootman.com
Generally I don't read bestsellers, hence me not being one of the people who calls them crap. :) I'm pretty good at knowing what I will and won't like to read, so it's rare that I'll pick up a book just because a bunch of other people read it and liked it and then think, "Why am I reading this? It's crap!" If it's crap, I won't get to the end and it's ejected from my memory.

Life's too short to waste on finishing bad books. :)
 

Esopha

bam pow zap.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
12,665
Reaction score
2,629
Location
Magic America
What do you consider a bad book? What makes a published book bad in your eyes?

Okay, I'll bite.

I need to like the characters. I'm still able to read more or less like a reader rather than a writer, probably because I'm young. So grammar errors and stylistic gizmos don't bug me that much.

However, when the characters in the book are so blatantly moronic that I feel the urge to reach through the pages and wallop some sense into their pathetic little minds, the book is put down.

Forever. There is no redemption.

I'll use Twilight as an example. Good writing. Very good, in fact. The characters are tangible, real people. Unfortunately, after Edward told Bella that even though he was no good for her to hang around, he still wanted to be friends/drive her somewhere/stalk her obsessively, I wanted to grab him by the head and slap him silly.

Hun, if you're going to be no good for the girl of your dreams, grow up, stomach it, be a responsible person and pull yourself away from the relationship. Especially when you're a centuries-year-old vampire. You should know better.

And Bella? You should realize he's no good for you, after he's been an enigmatic ass for the last two chapters.

These characters get on my nerves. I will not read the book.

And now I'm leaving this thread before it systematically implodes. Ta-ta.
 

SpookyWriter

Banned
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
9,697
Reaction score
3,458
Location
Dublin
What do you consider a bad book? What makes a published book bad in your eyes?
I will take a short stab at this question.

When I pick up a book, and a genre I don't normally read, I don't have exact expections so I can read the first couple of paragraphs before deciding if I like the way it is written.

In other words. I read a lot. I read a lot. Hmmm...English writing means so much more than a sentence or two.

As a typical reader, I want to become involved with the story fairly quickly. I don't want to open the first page and get filled with too much back story or poorly constructed structure (meaning a bad opening sentence or paragraph).

I can open a romance novel and get lost in the prose so that I don't mind the inconsistencies of plot or story development. Maybe editors realize this and will forward a poorly constructed novel for approval?

It's the good read theory.

Even poorly plotted novels that are entertaining and easy enough to follow will become published.

Bad writing is still bad writing.

What is "Best Seller" material is a push up from the average style and plot to something (work of art) that is enjoyable to read and satisfies a consumer demand.
 

Koobie

Super Duper Member
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
748
Reaction score
182
Website
tyrovogel.com
Hun, if you're going to be no good for the girl of your dreams, grow up, stomach it, be a responsible person and pull yourself away from the relationship.

We (men) don't grow up. We just are. :tongue
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
???

Generally I don't read bestsellers, hence me not being one of the people who calls them crap. :) I'm pretty good at knowing what I will and won't like to read, so it's rare that I'll pick up a book just because a bunch of other people read it and liked it and then think, "Why am I reading this? It's crap!" If it's crap, I won't get to the end and it's ejected from my memory.

Life's too short to waste on finishing bad books. :)

How can you possibly know what you will or won't like before you've even read it? Pick a hundred bestseller, and you'll have a hundred different books. You will, in fact, have every kind and type of book there is.

Life's also too short to judge books without giving them a fair chance.

Saying you don;t read bestseller is the same thing assaying you only read books almost no one thinks are any good.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
Bestsellers

Darned few bestsellers are crap, except in the minds of those who have no idea at all what good writing, or good storytelling, actually are.
 

Will Lavender

Everything is what it seems.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
355
Location
Louisville, KY
I don't often read bestsellers, either, but I did read a James Patterson recently.

Hated it. Felt it was derivative, silly, poorly written, yada yada yada.

I think what happens sometimes is that these people get on deadlines, they are pressured to write (by their fans; by their publishers; by themselves) so that their novels conform to the same script that made them millionaires, and they write books that are derivative of both their own work and the work of a thousand other writers before them.

Sameness. I don't care for it in in literature. This is what makes a pretty drab (and oft-times "crappy") read, for me.

Problem is, I don't think the buying public is that interested in the new and fresh. Although I agree with James that the idea that there's "crap" chocking the bestseller lists is wrong (and sour grapes), there's definitely a lot of derivative work lining those lists. You look at the bestseller lists in 2007 and the lists in 1977, and you'll see very similar books written by very similar writers. Doesn't make these books crap, but it's not really a ringing endorsement for those particular writers, either.
 

Carrie in PA

Write All The Words!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
1,078
Location
in my own little world
What do you consider a bad book? What makes a published book bad in your eyes?

I don't generally trash bestsellers. Hell, I loved the DaVinci Code, subjecting myself to ridicule on more than one occasion. Oh freaking well.

Most times, I'll personally consider a book trash if I hate it. My reasons for hating a book are as wide and varied as the books themselves. Sometimes it's that the characters are flat and lifeless. Sometimes it's the dialogue that is either so lame it lulls me into a stupor, or so complicated it makes my head spin. Sometimes it's because the plot is so unbelievable that I roll my eyes so hard I see my own brain, like waaaaay too many coincidences that either work out for the MC, or waaaaay too many pitfalls that hinder the MC.

Other times, it's not the book, it's me. If I pick up Jane Austen when I'm actually in the mood for a medical thriller, I'll hurl the book in disgust and insist that it sucks, when it's just my perception at that time.

{sidenote: In that vein, sometimes it's because the MC doesn't follow the accepted formula. I know, this is a dirty little secret because formula is supposed to be evil, but if I pick up a romance and the MC doesn't end up with the leading man, it pisses me off. I pick up certain books to have certain expectations met.}

To me, books are like anything else. One man's trash is another's treasure.

Beyond the story itself, I cannot stand, tolerate or abide by books with multiple typos, errors and other such nonsense. That is trash, pure and simple, and I can find absolutely no reason, excuse or justification for it. I can live with a stray comma or a typo, but when they are littered through every chapter (or, heaven forbid, every page) that's unacceptable. (Disclaimer: Although perfection would be nice, I don't expect it. I do, however, expect a published book to at least appear as though it's been edited and proofed.)
 

Soccer Mom

Crypto-fascist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
18,604
Reaction score
8,039
Location
Under your couch
I'll drop my .02 into the plate.

I don't like James Patterson. I've tried. My parents have all his books and are among his devoted fans. Usually, my parents and I like the same books. But we'll have to disagree on this author.

I just can't bond with his characters. I don't like them and I find them wooden and unrealistic, especially his female characters. I'm not hooked by his plots, with the exception of The Jester, which hooked me, but then lost me.

I don't like the cruelty in his books, especially against women and children. The women and children in his novels exist to be killed or tortured in order to provide motivation for the male characters.

Those are the reasons that I can't stand Patterson. But all of that is my subjective opinion. My parents are avid readers and they love him and they obviously aren't alone. That's why he is always on the best seller list. It's why they sell both chocolate and vanilla (and strawberry for the oddballs ;) )
 

Sean D. Schaffer

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
1,433
Darned few bestsellers are crap, except in the minds of those who have no idea at all what good writing, or good storytelling, actually are.


And that, I think, hits the nail right on the head. If it's a bestseller, it means a lot of people think it isn't crap ... whether I do or not is irrelevant.
 

TrainofThought

A flowering bud of bitchiness
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
6,179
Reaction score
6,835
Location
Land of Bier
Website
www.authordenisebaer.com
There have been a great many comments lately about the "crap" that is published or becomes best-sellers. Now, it's difficult for me to believe that commercial publishers are actually accepting and publishing nothing of quality or that the reading public just accepts whatever is offered to them by marketing. So, I'd like to challenge all Writers of the Roundtable (WoR), rather than just dismissing the best-selling books out there as "crap" to offer specific criticism of the books they don't like. Why don't you like it? What is it about it that doesn't work for you? And, what about it do you think appeals to the mass market? Why do you think it has been so successful?
I normally try not to bash a book or author, but since you’re offering, I may as well take the bait. After watching the movie Where The Heart Is, I decided to buy Billie Letts’s National Bestseller Shoot the Moon. It has been a long time since I read it so I apologize for any discrepancies. The one thing I disliked about the book, which completely ruined it for me, was dialogue. I believe dialogue is an important aspect for a novel and expect it to be real to life. The main character, Nicky Jack Harjo, said things that I couldn’t imagine a California veterinarian to the stars would say (sorry I can’t give examples because I gave the book away). It drove me nuts and I wondered how anyone could like the drab and unrealistic discussions throughout the book.

Another book I read, as part of a book club, was True Believer by Nicholas Sparks. I’m not a big Nicholas Sparks fan, so that may have influenced my dislike for it. The storyline was disappointing because I was expecting him to uncover the truth about the ‘glowing graveyard fog’ instead; it was much of what you expected throughout the book. In addition, the character development was poor and I didn’t feel the sexual tension brewing between the two main characters, Jeremy Marsh and Lexie Darnell. Of course, they fall in love and he leaves the hectic life of New York, which he loved, to live in a small town with Lexie. To me, if there isn’t any tension and character development to show characters’ attraction, how can I as a reader believe one of them would make such a drastic change in their life.

Two cents from someone in the mood to complain about books she purchased and didn’t like. :D
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
I did talk about two James Patterson "romances" that I found poorly written, and I thought he should just stick with suspense. I say this not because I can't stand love stories/romance -- I actually read them... I think, for example, The Time Traveler's Wife was very good except for the middle that drags a little, and I like Nick Horby. But in Sam's Letter to Jennifer, the book opens with a really cliched scene. The writing is stilted (and I hate to assume that's the way romances are written), and the dialogue cheesy. The scene made a present to past tense switch midway and I was horrified -- neither Patterson nor his editors caught that?

That said, I can see why Patterson is a master suspense writer because within that few pages he laid down some questions that, if you're inclined, you would want to find out. But nothing really happened. I just found the writing poor that I didn't want to read on. It's not because I don't read love stories -- I actually do. And he does write really good suspense novels.

In Suzanne's Diary to Nicholas, which a friend recommended to me -- because I was writing a "love story" at the time -- the writing was better. The book begins with an intrigue -- what is the diary? Who are these people? The story unfolds in diary form... the problem I found was that nothing much happened. It told us who the protagonist was, what she did, how she met the hero, how they fell in love and got married... there was hardly any conflict or drama. It's mostly telling and not much showing. It was dry. I kept saying "oh, that's nice... how cute... but where is the drama and conflict?" I was seriously getting bored until the last pages when a twist turned the story around -- but I did wonder, was it too late? And I found the ending incredibly manipulative (and the denouement cheesy at best) -- yes, it did sucker punch me in the guts with the revelation, but I immediately resented it. Patterson set the whole thing up so he could pull the rug from under the readers in the final few pages. While I don't hate the book, I do resent it.

If these weren't written by Patterson, but by a new writer, I really doubt they would see publication at all -- at least not in their current form.



ETA: Here's a link to the original discussion (wow, has it really been three years? I just remember, it was a great discussion... ) -- there were some really good line-by-line analysis! Start here: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6710&page=105
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
I'll bite, though this may become my most unpopular post *ev-ah*.

I can't stand Laura K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series.


<<<<<GRAPHIC SEXUAL CONTENT>>>>>>

Why don't you like it?

1) I don't like the MC.
2) As the series progresses, she keeps getting stronger. She begins as a reasonable character, but in each book she picks up new powers until she becomes some sort of super-duper-nigh-unkillable-freako-of-doom. I know that this isn't unheard of within the genre, but I think that it goes WAY too far in the Anita Blake series. There's just not as much suspense when the MC is the biggest, baddest mug on the block and no one can do crap about it.
3) As the series progresses, it becomes less about the MC's problems and more about her sex life. In fact, many of the problems that come up seem to be nothing more than shallow excuses for the sex scenes.
4) Speaking of sex scenes, in one of the books, she has TWO CHAPTERS devoted to ONE SEX SCENE and nothing else. The first chapter describes the man's body and the foreplay; the second chapter has the actual sex. There is nothing else in these TWO CHAPTERS. Why would you even do that? Why break a sex scene into chapters? WTF?!
5) Based on the descriptions in the books, you could list Anita's lovers by penis size. Generally, they get bigger as the books go on. She's with guy A, then guy B comes along, and Oh, My God, he's *even bigger*. Then comes guy C, and WOW, he's even bigger! And don't get me started on guy D...
Why is this necessary? And isn't it a little condescending? Which brings me to...
6) Everyone seems to get reduced to a series of apetites, especially the MC, who doesn't even like many of the men she sleeps with. That brings me to...
number 7, the summation: I get that the series is basically paranormal erotica, but I wish that there were more plot...I mean more action, but also more reason why she wants these guys around. Yeah, yeah, she HAS to have sex all the time and these guys are all great lovers, but the "I want to have sex with him/I want to kill him" dicotomy gets old after a while and there's just not enough of *anything* else. The series is all style and sex and no substance.


And, what about it do you think appeals to the mass market? Why do you think it has been so successful?

Sex sells. The series is edgy, and has a girl who is a necromancer/were-several-things having theesomes with Vampires and then splashing through bloody scenes and then getting it on with someone else. It has a strong female protag that doesn't get all sappy and weepy over things.

Several of my close friends passed this series around a bit (ERG...must...resist...snarky...pun...) and so I got to know far too much about it and even read portions. I also got to know what worked for those who liked the series.

One of those friends was skipping the sex scenes...then, at a certain point, he realized that skipping the sex scenes was basically the same as skipping the book...there was no more non-sexual action to drive the story (urg...drive...pun...).

OK, I have to stop writing now. Just *writing* about that series has got my mind in the gutter. And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why I think the series sells.
 

SpookyWriter

Banned
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
9,697
Reaction score
3,458
Location
Dublin
ETA: Here's a link to the original discussion (wow, has it really been three years? I just remember, it was a great discussion... ) -- there were some really good line-by-line analysis! Start here: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6710&page=105

Believe me, it's all been discussed before. Here's my take in 1999 of a similar premise:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc...0cb9b2ef317?lnk=st&q=&rnum=8#cee450cb9b2ef317

We predate Absolute Write and all web based forums by many years.

-----

A story is the recollection of what happened that is presented to the
reader in a series of scenes. The structure comes from a logical series of
events that the reader believes happened as you told them.

The story should be convincing enough for the reader to believe it as fact.
The structure comes from the belief that what you told the reader really
happened. There are other definitions of structure, but in a fictional piece
the events should be consistent with what could happen and did happen.

The construction of a house is a structured process as is writing. I do not
believe that a reader would find it very plausable that a roof can be put
up before the walls. The walls come after the foundation and so on. As
with fiction it is necessary to build a story that is believable and structure
is a part of the building process. A house with walls made of straw and a
roof of brick may have structure, but it is not believable. It is the writers
job to make it believable and there is the trick.

We have a structure that is not well designed, but appears to meet the
minimum requirements for a house.

Outlines and storylines are always good tools to use for starting with a
blueprint of the story.

This doesn't mean that the final product will actually stand on its own
though.

So, there is a lot to structure that extends beyond the use of building
tools to include the right materials and in the right sequence. As I said
earlier, a story will be successful when the reader believe it really
happened. All the structure in the world will not help if nobody believes it
could or did happen as you told it.

J.L. Campbell -- Never mind the truth. It is the lie that we often believe.
 

RG570

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
105
Location
British Columbia
I'm actually very forgiving, and don't often deem any book "crap". Honestly, I just like reading, and reading stories of all types, and seeing how another person views things. I might not like certain styles, but I can overlook minor issues. For sure, I never judge a book before reading the entire thing. Sometimes I've been surprised, thinking that it would be terrible early on based on critique group based logic, but ended up liking it.

The only published author I really can't stand is John Ringo. He can't write his way out of a paper bag. His books are filled with questionable grammar, very clunky prose to the point that even I can't forgive, and utterly despicable views. He can't even do the job right when Baen teams him up with another mediocre but readable author in order to turn out something a bit more respectable. Watch On The Rhine reads like an amateurish first novel from someone in the forties. And he exalts the SS!

That's the only reason anyone ever gave Ringo any shelf space, because he's deliberately trying to piss "libs" off. If there is such a thing as a truly bad published novel, there it is--it relies solely on effect and banal shock value. It's not particularly entertaining, so it's hard to find anything good about it.


Exploitation of political tension without anything meaningful backing it up, hell, exploitation of anything for the sake of effect, to me is a recipe for truly bad writing. I might not like all of the bestsellers, some of them are completely ridiculous to me, but I can see the value in them, in that they're in most cases at least imaginative, which is the whole point.

Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, but sentences like this just scream laziness. Maybe not ineptitude, but it just seems like he doesn't care about his work.

From "Ghost":

"She'd probably puked at all the blood and been choking on that, and that sort of choke could take your voice away pretty quick."

And this is pretty much what you get during the entire book. His character goes to university and is apparently an expert in history, so I can't pass it off as a conscious effort to capture an inarticulate character's voice.

Then he interrupts action scenes, which alternate between being really good and impossible to visualize, with little character sketches of the people his hero is going to kill a paragraph later. I read one review that thought that making up bogus, stereotypic histories for each of these terrorists meant that the book was "balanced", but it's obviously tacked on, meaningless, and probably insulting to the reader's intelligence.

I'd find more quotes from the book, since this thread is about doing a critique on these books, but I'd rather not. If I have to be reminded of this traumatic experience, I might puke at it and choke on that, and that's a bad way to go at that, being that choking on that is bad and all that.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
154
Reaction score
48
Location
Raleigh, NC
Critiquing "Crap" is a lot more difficult than critiquing what mainstream readers/viewers want to buy.

The idea that just because a lot of people like something that it must be good is pretty stupid. There have been a lot of abominations that are extremely huge best sellers, and likewise, there have been some pretty spectacular works that received very little attention at all. Quantity of audience does not equate to quality of work.

Firefly would be a great example. It's arguably the best science fiction television show ever made, but it only lasted eleven episodes before it was pulled off the air. By a lot of your definitions, this must mean that it was a bad show. But that's stupid.

Alternatively, if you look at the top ten TV shows going on currently, three of them are CSI. Regardless of the quality of that show, I think we can agree that, of the hundreds, maybe thousands of shows available to watch every week, the fact that three of them are basically the same thing shows that people follow trends more than quality. House is basically a medical version of CSI (although with better characters), and is #8 on the list. Of the other six? We've got two "The Power of Ten's," which is a game show. The last four are, Two and a Half Men, Criminal Minds, Big Brother 8, and Rules of Engagement.

Two are comedies, one's a reality TV show, and the last one is a Criminal Drama, which isn't that far of a stretch from CSI.

In other words, people get into a certain mindset and we keep producing similar products to appease them. That doesn't mean that these products are quality, it just means that people go with trends.

Reality TV is huge right now, but most of it revolves around putting people in a room together and watching them argue, and the rest usually are about doing competitive or difficult things around each other, so that we can vote them off and watch them argue. Reality TV is about as shallow as it comes, but it's all the craze.

The fact that CNN doesn't report the news anymore, but instead lets us know what Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan are up to is probably the biggest slap in the face to back up my claims. CNN wouldn't do this if it didn't sell well, but anyone who disagrees that Paris Hilton's life is not newsworthy is a shallow idiot.

There are plenty of things that goes on in the mainstream that will make people buy your stuff. Graphic torture is one of them, made popular by 24. There are very few "intense dramas" out there now that don't have at least a few episodes of torture in a season. It's not because "torture" equals "quality" by default. It's because people are shallow and torture sells by default. Lesbian kissing was big about a decade ago, as was nighttime soap operas like Melrose Place and such.

Books aren't really that much different than TV and movies, except that people generally have to be slightly more intellectual and/or imaginative to get into them. They're less accessible too, so you can sell say, 20,000 copies of a novel and still be capable of getting another book deal out of it, whereas if a TV show only gets 20,000 viewers, that show usually gets canceled. And if 20,000 people go see a big-budget movie, that director is usually out of a job, and it hurts the actors and writers too.

JK Rowling has been a blessing and a curse to writers. On the one hand, there are much more people reading books now than there were a decade ago, because of her. On the other hand, her books have sold so ridiculously well pretty much every major publishing house is trying to reproduce that kind of success, so any writer who fails to get major sales with their first book are less likely to get a second one.

Because of that, books are now going the way of TV shows and movies, where everybody is trying to write the same book, to copy what others have done that has sold well rather than doing something intelligent and original on their own, in order to sell well rather than write a good book.

The idea that only good books sell well is pretty ridiculous. I'm not saying you can be incompetent or incoherent and sell well, but the ability to write well and the ability to form a spectacular book are two completely different things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.