Commercially Viable Products

[JA Konrath]

The man couldn't write a sentence if his life depended on it. I actually threw the book across the room. Terrible writing. And I do believe that this is not a personal opinion. It's just a matter of fact.

Boy would I love to have five million people throw my book across the room.

Of course yours is a personal opinion, unless you've come up with an objective quantifiable way to distinguish writing talent.

Criticizing a successful writer, and his audience, is sour grapes at best, deep seated narcissism at worst.

Once you sell more copies than Frey, you can make blanket statements about good and bad.

[maestrowork]

You can change the names and "identity" of the people in your memoir -- just not the actual events.

[maestrowork]

Once you sell more copies than Frey, you can make blanket statements about good and bad.

I don't buy that for a second. Critical thinking and opinions have nothing to do with whether one can out-sell another. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether one writes professionally or not.

[KTC]

Boy would I love to have five million people throw my book across the room.

Of course yours is a personal opinion, unless you've come up with an objective quantifiable way to distinguish writing talent.

Criticizing a successful writer, and his audience, is sour grapes at best, deep seated narcissism at worst.

Once you sell more copies than Frey, you can make blanket statements about good and bad.

Jesus! That's the best laugh I had all day. Thank you.

[JA Konrath]

I don't buy that for a second. Critical thinking and opinions have nothing to do with whether one can out-sell another. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether one writes professionally or not.

Are you saying that success isn't an indication that the writer did something right?

[Sassenach]

Right--or wrong--isn't the issue. There's no denying that Danielle Steel and Clive Cussler know how to produce books that please their market. I think they're especially terrible writers. Is that sour grapes? I think not.

[Bufty]

And a lot of newcomers try and emulate Danielle Steele - it's usually obvious from the long descriptive preambles, which just don't work in the hands of first-timers.

[Serenity]

Are you saying that success isn't an indication that the writer did something right?

Success doesn't necessarily indicate a well-written novel in my opinion. Take dear old Mr. Frey and his book here. I used to work at a well-known book store and, after Ms. Oprah Winfrey praised the book on national television, we couldn't keep enough of the things in stock. So, we put in a special order for a whole bunch (and I mean a couple of *hundred*) right before the proverbial s*** hit the fan.

Do you think we could sell all those books after? Not a chance. Maybe a few here and there, mainly because people were curious about all the talk. But when I quit a couple of months ago, we still had about 20 copies out on the shelves and about 75 or so in the back store room.

Truth in a non-fiction book is very important to me, even though it's not normally a genre that I go for. I was curious about Pieces before, but I honestly wouldn't spend the $16.95 for it now. Especially with gas prices the way they are. ;)

Making up a story about something that never happened to get praises and sell a book is not the way to go. But if changing a name or a place doesn't affect the true story you are telling, I don't see a problem- as long as your honest about it. (a la Dragnet: "The names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty" etc) So, if you're going to write a memoire or anything autobiographical, keep the story honest. Keep yourself honest. Because even the smallest of lies can eat at you, the big ones will normally devour you... again, though, just my opinion and personal belief.

[JA Konrath]

Right--or wrong--isn't the issue. There's no denying that Danielle Steel and Clive Cussler know how to produce books that please their market. I think they're especially terrible writers. Is that sour grapes? I think not.

I agree. You know better than the millions of people who read and appreciate their work.

[maestrowork]

I agree. You know better than the millions of people who read and appreciate their work.

You're giving a lot of credits to these "millions" of people. I for one don't take "mass media trend" too seriously.

[JA Konrath]

Success doesn't necessarily indicate a well-written novel in my opinion.

Does it in the opinion of the publisher? The fans? Which opinion counts for the most?

Taste is subjective. Getting on the NYT list isn't subjective.

It amuses me to see people discounting the writing ability of bestselling authors. Obviously someone is enjoying them.

Looking down your nose at any traditionally published book is silly, because someone thought it was good enough--hence it being published. Discounting highly successful books is lamenting a system that you want to be a part of, which makes even less sense.

Whether a bestselling book is to your taste or not, I believe the author deserves respect for doing something that few are able to do. Figuring out why certain authors have millions of fan is something that should be analyzed, not dismissed.

[JA Konrath]

You're giving a lot of credits to these "millions" of people. Millions of people do not have high school education and they probably don't know good writing from bad. Do I "know better" than them? You bet.

Then you should easily be able to manipulate these stupid folks to buy millions of copies of your book, right? Since you know better?

[maestrowork]

I believe I can. But that's not my goal to manipulate millions of people to buy my books.

I agree with you that these best-selling authors are doing "something" right -- perhaps they know EXACTLY what their target audience is and what they like. Perhaps they have the "genre" thing down pat. They know their products and they can mass produce it, over and over again. These are all valid. But that doesn't mean they're GOOD writing. It just means they find an audience and be able to keep it. Anyone who's been in business long enough knows that sales don't always equal quality. Just go to your local supermarket and you can see crap everywhere, but there are always someone who's going to buy that crappy box of cereal that you wouldn't want to feed your own children. It doesn't make it "good" -- that makes it a viable product for certain people.

I believe it's Stephen King who said (and I paraphrase): Most writers are only competent. Only a handful are actually "good."

Of course, everything is relative. Some people's crap is another person's treasure.

[JA Konrath]

I believe I can. But that's not my goal to manipulate millions of people to buy my books.

Really? You expect them to find you in a vacuum? You expect to make sales based on the quality of the work, rather than publicity, advertizing, marketing, and promotion?


I agree with you that these best-selling authors are doing "something" right -- perhaps they know EXACTLY what their target audience is and what they like. Perhaps they have the "genre" thing down pat. They know their products and they can mass produce it, over and over again. These are all valid. But that doesn't mean they're GOOD writing. It just means they find an audience and be able to keep it.

I thought that was the goal of publication. Otherwise, just keep a journal to fufill your artistic needs.

Anyone who's been in business long enough knows that sales don't always equal quality.

Who dictates quality? Awards? Teachers? The literati? The critics?

I'm going to say popular opinion trumps all. Publishers seem to agree with me, which is why they seem so intent on selling these books that they publish to as wide an audience as posisble.

Just go to your local supermarket and you can see crap everywhere, but there are always someone who's going to buy that crappy box of cereal that you wouldn't want to feed your own children.

The thing is: No one believes they're writing crap. So who decides what is crap and what isn't? I say, the public votes with their dollars.

Of course, everything is relative. Some people's crap is another person's treasure.

Agreed. So why are you discounting what other people consider treasure?

[maestrowork]

Really? You expect them to find you in a vacuum? You expect to make sales based on the quality of the work, rather than publicity, advertizing, marketing, and promotion?


You just said it, JA. A lot of it has to do with publicity, advertising, marketing, promotion -- funny isn't it: none of these have to do with the quality of writing.


I thought that was the goal of publication. Otherwise, just keep a journal to fufill your artistic needs.

You're missing my point. The key word is "manipulate." If publication is about "manipulating" the public, then I think we're in trouble. That's why there was that whole outrage over James Frey. I believe the publishing world still value integrity, for example.

Who dictates quality? Awards? Teachers? The literati? The critics?

All of the above, plus sales. I'm not discounting sales. I'm just saying that your assertion that sales alone dictates quality is too simplistic.

I'm going to say popular opinion trumps all. Publishers seem to agree with me, which is why they seem so intent on selling these books that they publish to as wide an audience as posisble.

Popular opinion is not always right. But we can agree to disagree here.

The thing is: No one believes they're writing crap. So who decides what is crap and what isn't? I say, the public votes with their dollars.

Of course not. But look at the slushpiles. People ARE writing crap.

A lot of being published have to do with luck.


Agreed. So why are you discounting what other people consider treasure?

I'm not discounting anything. I'm just saying, again, that your assertion that "sales" alone is good enough indication of universal quality is simplistic. Yes, perhaps it's all about taste, but I for one am not going to admit that that bar of Lovely Soap from Big Lot for $0.79 is quality (it's definitely a "value" which is a completely different thing -- Marketing 101), and I don't care how many people buy that.

[JA Konrath]

You just said it, JA. A lot of it has to do with publicity, advertising, marketing, promotion -- funny isn't it: none of these have to do with the quality of writing.

Do you think a publisher would spend the big promotional dollars ona book they didn't believe in? Do publishers buy books they don't think they can sell? What determines what they buy? Especially since every editor truly believes they are buying good books.

If publication is about "manipulating" the public, then I think we're in trouble.

Advertising, marketing, promotion, and publicity are all forms of manipulation. Havign an attractive cover is a form of manipulation. So is getting reviewed. Books are a commodity, meant to make money.

I'm just saying that your assertion that sales alone dictates quality is too simplistic.

I don't know of any other objective way to determine quality.

Popular opinion is not always right. But we can agree to disagree here.

Morality is dicated by the greatest number of people in any given society, and it is impossible for a country to elect a leader stupider than the majority. So I'd say that popularity is right for the majority.

Of course not. But look at the slushpiles. People ARE writing crap.

I agree.

A lot of being published have to do with luck.

Absolutely. Tough to pin your dreams on luck, though. Tough to teach luck as well.

I'm not discounting anything. I'm just saying, again, that your assertion that "sales" alone is good enough indication of universal quality is simplistic. Yes, perhaps it's all about taste, but I for one am not going to admit that that bar of Lovely Soap from Big Lot for $0.79 is quality, and I don't care how many people buy that.

You don't have to buy the soap. But if you noticed one billion people buying the soap, would you buy stock in their company?

[Euan H.]

Figuring out why certain authors have millions of fan is something that should be analyzed, not dismissed.
Right on.

[Tish Davidson]

Does it in the opinion of the publisher? The fans? Which opinion counts for the most?

Taste is subjective. Getting on the NYT list isn't subjective.

It amuses me to see people discounting the writing ability of bestselling authors. Obviously someone is enjoying them.

Looking down your nose at any traditionally published book is silly, because someone thought it was good enough--hence it being published. Discounting highly successful books is lamenting a system that you want to be a part of, which makes even less sense.

Whether a bestselling book is to your taste or not, I believe the author deserves respect for doing something that few are able to do. Figuring out why certain authors have millions of fan is something that should be analyzed, not dismissed.

A lot of best selling authors start out writing decent books, but once they get a name for themselves or get a series going, the quality declines quickly. The books sell because the author has name recognition, not because the writing is outstanding. Another example is celebrity books that are ghost written and sell because of the celebrity's name, not the quality of the writing. Also social trends propel book sales and television shows. Right now we are in a time (in the US anyway) where there is a heightened interest in the paranormal. I would never advise unpublished writers to analyze what best selling authors are writing and try to imitate it because the publishing cycle is slow and what is hot today may be boring tomorrow.
Best selling is one measure of monetarily success, but does not necessarily equal quality writing. And the NYT best seller list counts only bookstore sales within a given period, not library sales, and not other outlets. Books that sell slowly but steadily over a long period or are bought primarily by libraries and schools don't show up on best seller lists, but can be quite financially successful, too.

[MikeAngel]

Boy would I love to have five million people throw my book across the room.


Joe, I'll bet you might eventually get your wish. Me? I'll probably have the same editor throw my book across the room five million times! heh.

(DH, HANK, Mike Angel, Dave)

[Sassenach]

I agree. You know better than the millions of people who read and appreciate their work.


I suppose you also believe that the best food in the world is to be had at McDonalds.

I only know what I like, and I know better than to waste any more hours of my life reading about Dirk Pitt. I read a lot of genre fiction, but think Cussler and Steel are lousy

Something being wildly popular doesn't make something good or bad. That seems obvious, but perhaps you can't see that up on your high horse.

[JA Konrath]

Something being wildly popular doesn't make something good or bad. That seems obvious, but perhaps you can't see that up on your high horse.

I'm not the one criticizing writers, but I'm on the high horse? Interesting.

Whether I believe McDonald's is the best food in the world doesn't matter. I recognize the fact that it's the most popular food in the world, and I don't discount that offhandedly.

[JA Konrath]

Yes, it's published, yes, it's a best seller, and yes many people consider it treasure, but does that mean I have to like it? No, I haven't published a novel yet, but I am still allowed to have taste and standards!


If you desire to get published, how is thinking that many published books are crap going to help with your quest?

[maestrowork]

Whether I believe McDonald's is the best food in the world doesn't matter. I recognize the fact that it's the most popular food in the world, and I don't discount that offhandedly.

Actually I do, especially after watching "Supersize Me."

It doesn't mean, though, that I won't to be McD's once in a while. I just did, the other day, and got a "Big Breakfast" (and it was awful). And once in a while, I'd read a trashy pulp fiction and enjoy it. And I LOVE bad movies. There is time for everything. But I think I am still allowed to say, Yeah, it's bad.

People buy things for many reasons, and many of those reasons have nothing to do with quality. Take for instance, mass market novels at the airport. I've seen people simply grab something off the rack because they had a long layover and they needed something to keep them occupied for a few hours (and they've listened to the entire music collection on their iPods one to many times). They don't care what it is.

And simply saying the book must be good because it gets published or sold... well, I just don't agree. ;)


===============

And LJ, going off topic is par for the course around here. Get with the program. You don't own this thread, buddy.

[maestrowork]

If you desire to get published, how is thinking that many published books are crap going to help with your quest?

I am published, so I guess I have the right to call other published books crap now, do I? :)

[Lantern Jack]

"If you desire to get published, how is thinking that many published books are crap going to help with your quest?"

"Something being wildly popular doesn't make something good or bad. That seems obvious, but perhaps you can't see that up on your high horse."

"Of course, everything is relative. Some people's crap is another person's treasure."

I ACTUALLY STOOD UP FOR YOU GUYS. I won't be making that egregious error again. I was talking to someone off-board and he was complaining about how all you guys do is talk off-topic and attack each other's egos and whatnot.

"THIS IS JUST LIKE being back in high school. I'm asking something specific, and all of the cool kids---or the kids who think they're cool---start their own little clique and completely ignore me."

And I don't care if you people are used to rudeness and being off-topic here. It's still rudeness and being off-topic. Being published doesn't give people the right to do what they want whatever they want.

[JA Konrath]

And simply saying the book must be good because it gets published or sold... well, I just don't agree.

But you have to agree that somebody---perhaps many somebodies---thought it was good.

I'm saying that personal opinion should be weighed against the popular vote, and that disagreeing with the majority isn't helpful when the majority is your demographic.

[JA Konrath]

I am published, so I guess I have the right to call other published books crap now, do I? :)

Only the ones that you sell better than. ;)

[maestrowork]

Of course "someone" thought it was good... but people make mistakes, including agents and editors. Or they publish certain books for whatever reason (rush to market, etc.) Just look at all the bad movies being made each year (if you don't believe there's such a thing as bad movie, go watch "Freedomland"). JA, didn't you say so yourself on your site, that 4 out of 5 books fail and not because of lack of market?

[JA Konrath]

I think that a lot of crap gets published. But I don't think I'm above the crap---I admit to being part of it.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I'm not sure anyone's really qualified to state what is published "crap" and what isn't... I mean, I may not like this particular author's works, but I can't stand up and declare it to be crap because *I* don't like it. I simply state that it's not my cuppa tea and move on.

look at romance novels. There's a TON of money in those, but I'd never call them bad writing - there's obviously a demand for them and authors fill those needs and are chosen by the publishing houses to sell to the public. Just because I may or may not read or like romance novels doesn't give me the right to call them all junk or claim that they're "easier" to write than other genres. It's just not right.

LJ - welcome to real life.

:)

[MikeAngel]

I suppose you also believe that the best food in the world is to be had at McDonalds.

I only know what I like, and I know better than to waste any more hours of my life reading about Dirk Pitt. I read a lot of genre fiction, but think Cussler and Steel are lousy

Something being wildly popular doesn't make something good or bad. That seems obvious, but perhaps you can't see that up on your high horse.

Joe's horse may be high, but it's a thorougbred and well fed at that. Probably a "mudder" too! Listen, I don't think you guys truly disagree. No one person can be the ultimate judge of quality, but for practical purposes, IF you wish to be published, then the editor you submit to IS that person. Joe isn't saying that popular stuff is all great--there will always be scads of us who've sworn off Big Macs, or Cussler/Steele stuff. What he IS saying is that two-bit writers like us shouldn't put top selling stuff DOWN. And the tendency is to put down a lot of popular writers of the day for whatever reason. A simple "I don't care for King" or whomever, will suffice. Another way of looking at this is that there are simply too many wonderful writers whom you CAN wax eloquent about and praise.

Different tastes in literature is what makes a horse race. Even success must be defined personally, but recognition given for success that is defined culturally. In other words, it ain't an either/or deal, boys.

[JA Konrath]

What he IS saying is that two-bit writers like us shouldn't put top selling stuff DOWN. And the tendency is to put down a lot of popular writers of the day for whatever reason. A simple "I don't care for King" or whomever, will suffice. Another way of looking at this is that there are simply too many wonderful writers whom you CAN wax eloquent about and praise.


That's exactly what I'm saying. But where's the debate in that?

[Sheryl Nantus]

I think you *should* respect those who have managed to get published, whether you love or hate their work. I don't care much for King myself but I adore "On Writing" and "Dance Macabre" as fine pieces of writing away from his usual stuff.

It's just plain impolite to dis another author, says I. Of course, I'm Canadian and that's sort of ingrained in our DNA.

:D

[emeraldcite]

This is the portion of the Lantern Jack memoir thread dealing with commercial viability.

Open for business.

[Danger Jane]

I don't think it's fair to put an author down...yes, they did do their homework and they did get published. And I wouldn't begrudge him his sales. But at the same time if the writing is mediocre, I don't mind saying so. There's a difference between the writing and the writer. Publication isn't a sudden barrier that protects the writing from criticism.

[Jamesaritchie]

Really? You expect them to find you in a vacuum? You expect to make sales based on the quality of the work, rather than publicity, advertizing, marketing, and promotion?



You'd better expect to make sales because of quality. All the publicity, advertizing, marketing, and promotion in the world doesn't turn bad into good, and won't make a book a bestseller. I'd say nine out of ten bestselling writers became successful in a total vacuum. It's the norm.

Most bestselling writers, teh great majority of bestselling writers, from King, To Clancy, to Rowling, to Rice, to you name it, became bestselling writers with no more publicity, advertizing, marketing, and promotion than any first time novelist automatically receives. Publishers aren't stupid, and they guard their pennies carefully. It's only afte rthe public shows interest in a book that the money starts to flow.

I think the confusion here is one of writing versus story. There are many fairly bad writers who are successful, but there are almost NO bad storytellers who are successful.

When people complain about the writing and toss a book across a romm, they may be right and they may be wrong, but they are always missing the point. There ARE objective ways to judge the quality of the wriitng itself. There always have been. Some of the most successful writers out there do not, in all honesty, write very well by any objective measure.

And it doesn't matter a bit. Just as there are objective standards for good writing, there are also objective standards for bad writing, and truly bad writing will get you rejected no matter what you do. But writing does not have to be very good to make one a bestseller. It merely has to be competent.

James Frey, Clive Cussler, and Danielle Steel and not terribly accomplished stylists, but not one of them is a horrible stylist, either. Compared to at least 90% of what arrives in the slush pile, they're all masterful writers.

Compared to many other pros, however, their writing styles are not terribly good. And it doesn't matter a bit.

Being able to write a really good sentence, being a great stylist, can make you a more lasting and a more critically aclaimed writer, but only rarely will it get you published and make you successful.

I believe Ray Bradbury is one of the best writers in teh world. No one else ever has written the sentences he can write, and no one, anywhere, uses langauge the way Bradbury does. This is a wonderful bonus in his writing. But not even Ray Bradbury is successful because of style, because he can write a great sentence. He's been so successful because of what he has to say in his stories, because of the characters he builds, and because of what these characters have to say.

James Frey, Clive Cussler, and Danielle Steel are not very good stylists, but all three of them do what any writer who wants to be successful must do. They tell a story many readers want to hear, they fill the story with characters that hold the interest of many readers, they write decent dialogue, and they have a writing style that's competent, if not great.

There are objective standards for both good and bad writing. Thinking there isn't makes it darned near impossible to write well enough to sell anything. But writing only need be competent to make one a bestseller. It's story and character that readers buy, whether it's Clive Cussler, Danielle Steel, or whoever you want to name, if they're selling millions of copies, it isn't because of pubicity, promotion, marketing dollars, or any other such silly hoo-ha.

It's because, whatever deficiencies their writing styles may have, they're telling stories and building characters huge numbers of readers are willing to buy.

[KTC]

Boy, make one flip comment about a bozo like Frey and it starts a new thread. We really don't have anything better to do, do we?

[zornhau]

This is actually quite an interesting topic.

It's also self-evident that bestselling authors are doing something right. However, it's worth asking whether that rightness:

Was witting?
Happened in the past?
Relies on existing reputation?
Some authors are just lucky lemmings - they write the right thing badly, but at exactly the right time. Some are living off their creative capital, e.g. people read them because they got hooked on a series back when it was good. Others have earned the reader's trust, so can afford e.g. slow build-ups since we know there'll be a pay-off.

IMHO, all of the above should be emulated with care. For wannabes like me, the people worth studying are actually the newly established novelists.

[SJB]

Looking down your nose at any traditionally published book is silly, because someone thought it was good enough--hence it being published.

So, popular = good?

That's like saying of Hitler or Bush or any other despot, <i>Looking down your nose at any constitutionally elected Chancellor is silly, because someone thought he was good enough-- hence him [sic] being elected.</i>

You go ahead and put John Grisham on a par with Dickens (I happen to enjoy both, by the way), if you like... I prefer to retain my critical faculties, thankyousoverymuch.

[Sassenach]

So, popular = good?

That's like saying of Hitler or Bush or any other despot, <i>Looking down your nose at any constitutionally elected Chancellor is silly, because someone thought he was good enough-- hence him [sic] being elected.</i>



Godwin.

Thus endeth the thread.

[omega12596]

Great googaly-moogalies, Sassenach, I hope so.

[writeorwrong]

I read Frey's book long before Oprah. If it had been marketed as a novel instead of a memoir I probably would never have picked it up, and I bet I'm not the only one. There are a lot of people who prefer one type of read over another.

So there's a good argument that the original buzz on A Million Little Pieces was created by a false premise: here's this badazz addict, and his experiences.

When I found out it was largely fiction, the first thing I thought (after being P.O.'d that I'd been had) was that as a work of fiction, it could have been a lot better. If you want to see an example of such a memoir done right, read Augusten Burroughs' Dry, or Running With Scissors.

[RGame]

Once you sell more copies than Frey, you can make blanket statements about good and bad.

So using this logic, the person with the highest IQ should be the president and no one can complain about it until they can prove they're smarter.

[MikeAngel]

This is the portion of the Lantern Jack memoir thread dealing with commercial viability.

Open for business.

Okay, so I'm slow of foot and of brain. It took me several days to find this discussion, and I got lost a couple of times in some briar patch with pissy poets, arguing about what I'd implied instead of simply written. Oh, well. Newbies R Us. Newbies R fun, eh?

Now, I'm going to lurk and every now and then get gastric upset and also every now and then comment. I cannot guarantee, however, that these two happenings won't be simultaneous. But, what the heck, if I get out of line you can lock me, split me, move me and rename me. That'll show me!

[LightShadow]

Like it, criticize it, throw it across the room. Who cares, as long as you buy it.

[FolkloreFanatic]

But you have to agree that somebody---perhaps many somebodies---thought it was good.

I'm saying that personal opinion should be weighed against the popular vote, and that disagreeing with the majority isn't helpful when the majority is your demographic.

...

There are SO many substitutions I could use on that last sentence (particularly the phrase "isn't helpful") to show what a terrible idea that line of thought is. Sadly, most of them would be political, and I'm not even going to *go* there.

Instead, I will merely say this: I don't mind entertainment for entertainment's sake. What I will NOT do is claim that success is measured solely by the lowest common denominator.

[willietheshakes]

But you have to agree that somebody---perhaps many somebodies---thought it was good.


Not necessarily. All it requires for a book to be published is that someone consider it saleable.

I'd venture to guess that more novels are declined because of limited marketability (despite being of high quality), than the reverse (low quality but high marketability).

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm curious when we, as a society, started confusing popularity with quality.

[Kasey Mackenzie]

Blame it on American Idol. *snicker*

[veinglory]

The only way to avoid confusing popularity with quality if to assume one is better than most people--and that the goal of populist literature is anything other than to make money.

A pulp thriller that makes the best seller list is obviously a high quality pulp thriller, it may not be a great literary novel, door stop or mouse trap, but then it probably wasn't trying to be any of those things.

Of course of the authors of said populist thriller tries to make like he's the next Hemingway then all bets are off.

[Celia Cyanide]

I read Frey's book long before Oprah. If it had been marketed as a novel instead of a memoir I probably would never have picked it up, and I bet I'm not the only one. There are a lot of people who prefer one type of read over another.

That is true, but I think that if Frey's book had been marketed as an autobiographical novel, which it actually was, the same thing would have happened. We, as writers, would probably not have cared as much, because we are more aware of the difference between autobiographical novel and memoir.

In a memoir, the reader can assume the events are true to the best of the author's memory. In autobiographical fiction, you don't know what all is true, and you are left to wonder about it. The author is allowed to embellish and exaggerate and expose himself or keep himself hidden as he sees fit.

But many people read "autobiographical" work because they believe it to be true. When something is "based on a true story," some people still expect every word to be literally true. So I think that there still would have been an uproar about James Frey, no matter how his work was marketed.

[Tirjasdyn]

Sigh.

Popularity by dollars as a meter for what is good is a false assumption. You are not taking into account the following:

School sales: plenty of bad books are sold to students who have to buy them for class. Extremely true for college students.

Plenty of bad book are bought for book clubs. I've run one or two and while popular vote will get the book read there was a great deal of those books the whole club regreted reading afterward.

Sales...as in being on sale...last week the DaVinci Code sole 1.5 million copies. (NPR-Market Place) but there was no mention that entire Kroger food chain (Includes Kroger, City Marke, Mini Mart, and King Soopers plus more) had the book, all copies including paperback, tradeback, and hardbacks on sale for 40% off the cover price. That's why I finally picked up a copy and does account for increase in sales. Of course this week sales will pick up because Brown one his court case.

Published does not equal good. The readers get to decided not the dollars. Books are generally bought on word of mouth or impluse. Penty of us have spent good money on the book only to be disgusted afterwords. We feel as if we wasted money, even though the sales still count.

That's why the used book store still thrives.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I enjoy populist trash as much as the next guy, maybe more since I'm actually anti-intellectual (made this way by years in college listening to the elistists in academia -- and being asked why I write fantasy), and as much as I love Clive Cussler, or Laurell K. Hamilton, I have never confused that with Literature (Capital L, prounounced with nose in the air "Lit-tra-chur").

I'm more than positive my stuff will never be confused with anything Hemingway or Faulkner ever wrote.

Given my druthers I'd be more than happy to sell millions of books and be slammed by critics and universities alike.

But just as Britney Spears isn't Bethoven despite selling millions.

And just as "Star Wars" isn't "Citizen Kane" despite selling millions.

Neither are all books that sell millions well-written books.

[veinglory]

Perhaps the crux is to say what we mean by 'well written'?

I generally mean 'written so that its *intended* audience will enjoy it'.

I suppose another meaning might be 'free of objectively measureable flaws such as poor grammar, poor spelling and inconsistencies of characteristaion and plot'?

However I suspect most of us treat 'well written' as an 'I know it when I see it' quality highly correlated with 'it fits my unique and refined tastes rather than that bozo Joe Public' -- which does edge towards elitism.

[willietheshakes]

The only way to avoid confusing popularity with quality if to assume one is better than most people--and that the goal of populist literature is anything other than to make money.

A pulp thriller that makes the best seller list is obviously a high quality pulp thriller, it may not be a great literary novel, door stop or mouse trap, but then it probably wasn't trying to be any of those things.

Of course of the authors of said populist thriller tries to make like he's the next Hemingway then all bets are off.

One can certainly criticize writing without "assuming one is better" - that's a ridiculous assertion. Some books are better than others, even within a particular genre, and it's silly to say that one can't note that.

The criticisms levelled against The Da Vinci Code, for example, were not levelled against it owing to it failing to measure up to Faulkner. They were levelled against it because it failed to measure up against other thrillers. Its characterization was weak, its integration of material was weak (ie, page after page of info-dumps), it was so unrealistic as to risk forcing readers out of their willing suspension of disbelief, etc, etc, etc. Nowhere was it criticized as not being literary - it was being criticized as a thriller, and one with definable weaknesses. The fact that it sold a kajillion copies merely demonstrates that there was a compelling idea to the book, and a good marketing campaign that could both stoke and respond to public interest in that idea.

[maestrowork]

How about this: It is a "good" book if it meets and exceeds the expectations of its TARGET audience. Now if the book reaches BEYOND its target audience (e.g. Mystic River), then it's probably a very good book, maybe even a classic that stands to the test of time.

(p.s. I agree w.r.t. Da Vinci Code or James Frey. I wasn't comparing them to Hemingway or Dickens. But I've read a lot of thrillers, and the DVC is a weak thriller if not for its fascinating topic/premise. I've also read many memoirs and Frey, regardless whether he's written a memoir or fiction, is no Augusten Burrough, David Sedaris or Frank McCourt.)

[veinglory]

The criticisms levelled against The Da Vinci Code, for example, were not levelled against it owing to it failing to measure up to Faulkner. They were levelled against it because it failed to measure up against other thrillers. .

But the thing is it did measure up for those countless of millions of people who rave about it--making the critics at bets a minority and potentially an elite. Personally I never got past page one but then I just assumed I was not in that target audience and neither is much of the 'thriller reading' demographic. Da Vinci Code seems much more in the pot-boiler saga tradition where technical writing skills were never a great asset in comparision with the abilitiy to string a reader along.

[maestrowork]

But the thing is it did measure up for those countless of millions of people who rave about it--making the critics at bets a minority and potentially an elite. Personally I never got past page one but then I just assumed I was not in that target audience and neither is much of the 'thriller reading' demographic. Da Vinci Code seems much more in the pot-boiler saga tradition where technical writing skills were never a great asset in comparision with the abilitiy to string a reader along.

I have not met one person who RAVES about it. Most people I know are merely fascinated by the topic and the premise; they read it, they either "liked it" or "hated it," but they never raved about it.

Don't get me wrong. Brown is a competent writer. And as Uncle Jim said, a competent, workman-like writer with a killer story always outsells a great writer/stylist with a poor story. The DVC has a great premise and concept, but its plot is thin and characters flat, and the "mystery" in it is laughable and predictable (I guessed the bad guys and the conspiracy almost immediately). Most people I know really like the story behind the story. As I said before, what Brown does well is follow the 1-2-3 steps of writing thrillers to the T, and is able to string a reader along using tricks like cliffhangers, suspense (I know a secret but I'm not going to tell you) and a central theme that is very interesting (the secret of the Holy Grail).

[emeraldcite]

I'm curious when we, as a society, started confusing popularity with quality.


The average reading level of the masses is not high, somewhere between a fifth and seventh grade reading level.

If you wonder why great writing does not always float to the top, you have to consider this.

Much of the best seller list is exciting and easy to read.

Not all of our entertainment is challenging. Also, although the prose is easy in Brown's novel, the ideas are, from some perspectives, challenging. It makes people feel smarter without that hard reading and understanding part.

Is this bad? Should all entertainment be both challenging and difficult?

Oh yeah, and the public is fickle.

[veinglory]

I wish I had your luck, Dawno. Everyone around me takes turns between berating me for not reading Harry Potter and for not reading Da Vinci code--commonly mentioning that I do read YA fantasy and supernaturally themed thrillers.

Neither grabbed me in the slightest. But as I result I never read them so my response it 'meh, not for me thanks' not 'that was terrible'.

Critics get my attention if they say explicitly what fell short in their estimation--when they do I often wonder why they ever expected to find that quality in the book. Otherwise they are just setting themselves up as absolute arbiters of quality, which is ambitious.

[Zolah]

I agree. You know better than the millions of people who read and appreciate their work.

How many people was it who panicked and stampeded after the broadcast of War of the Worlds on US Radio? How many people in Germany believed Hitler was the best thing since sliced bread? How many people believed the sun revolved around the earth, and that people who said otherwise were heretics who should be imprisoned and tortured?

When the trendy new lemming fashion comes in and people start jumping off cliffs, are you going to do it too, just because millions of other people are? I don't think so.

Lesson: Just 'cos lotsa people believe it, doesn't mean it's actually true.

I'm a writer, but I'm also a reader, and as a reader I am passionate about books. I love them. I'm constantly searching for new books to love, and new books to recommend to friends. And I do not measure those books against my own work - I measure them against everything else I've ever read. The idea that I would say a book is crap through sour grapes is laughable. If a book I love gets to No. 1 on the bestseller charts I jump up and down and tell all my friends. In the bookshop, I face out books I love because I want them to do well. But when a book I don't like is successful, I don't like it, because I know a lot of other writers who I think deserve it more.

If those millions of other people have opinions that are valid, so do I, and I have the right to express them. I have the right to scream: THIS IS CRAP from the rooftops, because I love books, I love reading, and I love writers. My opinion as an individual is just as worthwhile as the opinion of a million other people - and let me tell you that when we all start thinking we have no right to our own opinions, and that daring to be different and individual is somehow wrong or disrespectful, we are on the top of a very slippery slope indeed.

And by the way - you will never produce anything worthwhile if you don't respect yourself and your work. Calling yourself and other people here 'two-bit' is an insult to the whole forum, which is full of people struggling day after day against unbelievable odds to produce something they believe in. It's an insult to them and to their work. I don't care if the people here never get published or sell a single copy. You keep talking about respect for best-selling authors? Have some respect for ALL authors, including the ones here, and they might actually listen to you. You can bet your *** that Dan Brown never called himself a two-bit writer - he believed in himself and he was rewarded. I still think his writing is crap, but good luck to him.

[Shadow_Ferret]

When I speak "well-written" I do mean elitist high-brow literature.

I mean exactly what it was we all learned in HS and college, what constitutes "art" and how one analyzes fiction to see if it reaches the level of "art."

As I said, I love quick, easy reads that most of the populist books are. They are the equivalent of, what's the term? Popcorn movies? It's fun, exciting, and has the depth of a crepe.

But I'm not going to confuse it for "art."

And in many cases, it IS bad writing. Why are we afraid to say that?

My calling Dan Brown a bad writer is not sour grapes or jealousy or anything. I admire the heck out of his ability (or luck, or marketing geniuos, or what have you) to sell millions of books. I admire Clive Cussler and Danielle Steele that they can do the same. I'd hope someday to have even just a small percentage of their fame and fortune.

But that still doesn't make it "art" nor does it suddenly make it great writing. It is what it is. A heluva lot of fun.

But you are never going to find those books discussed in depth in Higher Centers of Learning as you would "Moby Dick," "Heart of Darkness," or even "1984."

[DamaNegra]

suspense (I know a secret but I'm not going to tell you)

Urgh! He overused this so much I just... *bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep*

Erm... threw the book across the room :)

I don't believe Dan Brown is a good writer. He just read about the formula and followed it so step-by-step the spontaniety of his work was lost and it became tedious after a while. Just read all of his other novels, they're always the same.

[Tirjasdyn]

This reminds me of why I read Harry Potter. I was forced to read the first book for YA Lit course. I didn't hate it, but found it to mediocre writing with a semi-interesting premise. Good for Kids because type of thing.

When the second movie came out my mother sent me the second book. I figured why not, it won't hurt. Then I was hooked and part of the salivating majority.

Now I can go back to the first book to see how her writng grows and how well she planned her world. The forshadowing is tremendous.

As for Dan Brown...why does no one speak of his second book?

Another example: Rambo...First Blood was written by David Morrell. Very popular at the time, made a movie etc etc...but none of his other books (lots of other books) are of note...

Because they are exactically the same book, with slight name and place changes.

I wish I had your luck, Dawno. Everyone around me takes turns between berating me for not reading Harry Potter and for not reading Da Vinci code--commonly mentioning that I do read YA fantasy and supernaturally themed thrillers.

Neither grabbed me in the slightest. But as I result I never read them so my response it 'meh, not for me thanks' not 'that was terrible'.

Critics get my attention if they say explicitly what fell short in their estimation--when they do I often wonder why they ever expected to find that quality in the book. Otherwise they are just setting themselves up as absolute arbiters of quality, which is ambitious.

[willietheshakes]

This reminds me of why I read Harry Potter. I was forced to read the first book for YA Lit course. I didn't hate it, but found it to mediocre writing with a semi-interesting premise. Good for Kids because type of thing.

When the second movie came out my mother sent me the second book. I figured why not, it won't hurt. Then I was hooked and part of the salivating majority.

Now I can go back to the first book to see how her writng grows and how well she planned her world. The forshadowing is tremendous.

As for Dan Brown...why does no one speak of his second book?

Another example: Rambo...First Blood was written by David Morrell. Very popular at the time, made a movie etc etc...but none of his other books (lots of other books) are of note...

Because they are exactically the same book, with slight name and place changes.

I follow your train of thought, but it doesn't apply to Brown in the slightest. The Da Vinci Code was his FOURTH novel, not his first. And many readers who have read all four find it to be the weakest of the four. (Having only read two, I can only go so far as to say TDVC is the weaker of the two...)

[willietheshakes]

One of the factors that has not been brought up with regard to both Million Little Pieces and The Da Vinci Code is the low reading rate of the American public. Most Americans read one or fewer books per year. Sad fact, but true. When books like TDVC and MLP (and the Harry Potter titles) start to pick up steam and develop word of mouth (for their ideas, as a rule, not their quality), it allows people who only read one book a year to attach themselves to the train. They can participate in the dialogue having read only one book, which in turn creates more sales among people who are only going to read the single book... I'm guessing that for a whole lot of the 30 million people who bought TDVC, that was the only book they bought that year...

[MikeAngel]

I find many of the ideas an individual takes on these issues of popularity and quality to be intriguing. While it's undeniably true that even wildly popular (DaVinci Code) does not mean "quality literature" or even "well-written," it's also true that popular does not mean "bad pulp" or "hack writing."

So, what elements go into one's estimation of good/bad fiction? What have our posters here put forth as deciding the issue? What do others say?

1.For some, it's sales (success means the collective votes of the total reading audience, OR wild success means BAD writing, since "the masses are ignorant.")

2.For others, it's awards (A Pulitzer Prize winning book can't be bad!)

3.For others, it's what schools have taught them (Schools teach what good writing is; we learned what high "litrahchur" was in school; We read Faulkner; therefore Faulkner is high literature.)

4. One has to choose each piece of writing as good or bad; One must make one's own determinations.

5. There is no objective way to determine good writing or good literature; everything about writing beyond mechanics is subjective (moral relativists tend to think this way.)

Success at the bank isn't always success for the writer or the reader. I teach writing at the college level. We look at purpose, tone and audience. I favor teaching students to ignore audience while drafting and to consider audience while revising. We learn that removing all errors from a piece of writing may be like picking flies off a dead man--the man is still dead. We learn a lot of things that go into good writing. What's chosen for the canon involves a great many things, from current events to fashion to accident to a big name championing that writer's cause. An individual may choose one or more of the above ways to judge what they read. I enjoy well written pulp fiction that makes me forget I'm reading, writing where I don't see or notice the writer but am totally immersed in the story. For me what lingers long after the read are the great characters--Hester Pyrnne, Captain Ahab, Huck Finn, Phillip Marlowe. For me, the difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction evokes, teaches emotion--the human condition--while non-fiction conveys information.

I enjoy hearing the views of others about what makes for good writing. Whenever I visit a huge bookstore, I leave feeling that life is too fleeting to get a proper perspective on all the books out there worth reading. I'm tempted to give up TV, because a couple years from now I won't recall who won $252,000 on Deal or No Deal, but I will have a vivid memory of Pip and Miss Haversham.

[maestrowork]

One of the factors that has not been brought up with regard to both Million Little Pieces and The Da Vinci Code is the low reading rate of the American public. Most Americans read one or fewer books per year.

That's true. I was just speaking to a friend who came to my signing, and she admitted that she only read one or maybe two books a year -- who's got time with work, family, kids? But she read DVC. Of all the books to choose from to fill that 1-2 slots in her TBR list, she chose DVC. Why? Because that's the "most talked" about book.

Same with AMLP. If you're only going to read one book a year, and Oprah happens to tell you this is a must-read book, it's very likely that you're going to pick it up. So Oprah being "duped" was a big deal, no matter how much you think it's not. And that's why every writer dreams of going on Oprah.

[maestrowork]

So, what elements go into one's estimation of good/bad fiction? What have our posters here put forth as deciding the issue? What do others say?


It's always about taste -- let's get that out first.

But for me, it's about the collective quality of work, and not not the popularity of just one book.

Stephen King is considered a great writer by many because of his entire body of work, and not just one or two books. Sure, Carrie and Salem's Lot were highly popular, but they didn't make Stephen King a "great writer." They made him a best-selling, popular writer. JK Rowling's first couple of HP books sold very well, too. But it wasn't until her fourth (I think) that made her a phenomenon, and everyone would agree that her later books are much better.

Most writers improve over time -- they don't win the Pulitzer with their first books. Some writers are one-book wonders.

Dan Brown has written four books already, and before DVC became such a phenomenon, he was a mid-list author and not many people knew who he was. And the fact that a lot of people think DVC is actually his worst "writing" out of the 4 he's written probably means something. Only time can tell if Brown can sustain this kind of popularity.

[My-Immortal]

Could the popularity of a book be in part the desire for the masses to fit in (in regards to DVC)? If as you say many people only read a couple of books a year, and a majority of the people around you are talking about pretty much just one book (DVC), if you want to fit in (and join the conversation), don't you also need to read that one book? It's like high school all over again, isn't it? LOL

Actually, in a way, that's why I am reading DVC. So many people are talking about it (here and in the real world around me), I felt like the only way I could hold a conversation about it, was to actually read it. I haven't read far, but already I've noticed the massive info dumps and the off-putting way the suspense is 'built' in the story. But then, I wonder, if I'm prejudiced by the way I read because I also look at the craft behind the book. Is it possible that as writers, we're ruined toward some books because we know what happens 'behind the scenes'? We notice the things that may go unnoticed by general, non-writing readers? Do you think if you weren't a writer, some books would become more appealing to you?

Just curious...

Take care all -

[PastMidnight]

Is it possible that as writers, we're ruined toward some books because we know what happens 'behind the scenes'? We notice the things that may go unnoticed by general, non-writing readers? Do you think if you weren't a writer, some books would become more appealing to you?


I think so. I recently went back and reread a paperback on my bookshelf that I read years ago and remember enjoying. This time, though, I couldn't help but notice the head-hopping and unnecessarly long descriptions. I was a little disappointed. When I read, I just want to lose myself in a good story, but sometimes now (that I am writing seriously), I can't help but look just at the sentences on the page.

[omega12596]

Past Midnight, I agree wholeheartedly!!! OMG, I thought I was the only person suffering from this and its been driving me crazy, LOLOL. I haven't been able to read anything but my own creations for more than six months, and when I finally had time, every book I picked up ended up gettting tossed down for just that reason. I was 'seeing' the outline of the book, knowing what would come next, blah blah blah and I couldn't get into anything.

Thank you for making me feel like I haven't lost my mind, ROFL!

[Celia Cyanide]

When you learn more about an artform, at first, you are able to enjoy it more. But I think there comes a point at which the more you know about said art form, the less you will enjoy it.

[maestrowork]

I know a lot about filmmaking, but I still enjoy movies, A LOT. Probably even more than ever, but I AM more critical as well.

Same with reading. It'll take a really good book to hook me, but when it does, the experience is incredible, and I can truly appreciate great writing. Sure, I can still pick nits and no ms. is perfect, but when a story actually sucks me in and keeps me there, it's a marvel.

What it means is that I won't settle for anything run of the mill anymore.

[SJB]

Godwin.

Thus endeth the thread.

Ha! I was wondering if anyone would catch that one.

You've made my day, Lowlander.

[omega12596]

I get what you mean, Celia and maestrowork, LOL. Both of you are right. I don't want run of the mill anymore, and I am enjoying it less because of that.

Funny, in an ironic sort of way, if I'd known I wouldn't be able to enjoy "junk" books as much BEFORE I started writing full time, I wonder if I would have chosen to write full time.

Do any of you think that as well? Ever?

[victoria.goddard]

When you learn more about an artform, at first, you are able to enjoy it more. But I think there comes a point at which the more you know about said art form, the less you will enjoy it.

I'm going to go along with Maestrowork and disagree with this point, at least by adding on, "and then you learn to enjoy great works even more". Admittedly, they have to be great.

I'm willing to go quite far on behalf of a good story, even to resigning myself to such flaws as POV-hopping, even infodumps (though they happen to be one of my great pet peeves), and so forth. It doesn't mean I'll read the book again, mind you; but for me, the story trumps all.

But when, as Maestrowork says, you get one that really is good, the experience is quite extraordinarily. It makes me despair of my own writing (though many things make me despair of my own writing; and still, I persevere!), and then go back to it and say, well then, can I make it that little bit better? What makes it that good?

Learning how to write has made me much more critical, but also much more appreciative: now I understand how hard it is to get right, and how much harder to make it look so simple that anyone could do it. And the more we read and the more we write the better we learn to do both, and the more, I think, we learn to enjoy the great examples of our craft; and indeed, I should say, also the great examples of other crafts.

But I still do my best to give attention to story, even when the subtler aspects of a novel perhaps leave something to be desired.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I completely disagree with the concept that learning and understanding an artform makes you enjoy it more.


We're all individuals and blanket statements like that just don't wash. You might APPRECIATE great works more because you understand the amount of craftsmenship that goes into it, the difficulty or the mastery of it, but that doesn't mean you'll ENJOY it more.

I've taken fiction classes, learned to analyze things, all that, but I certainly don't ENJOY the greats now because of that, I simply APPRECIATE what they did. In many instances I still find their work a bore.

A greater education doesn't guarantee enjoying anything.

Personally, I get a heluva lot more ENJOYMENT out of old pulp fiction writers like Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, H.P. Lovecraft, Delaney, Derleth and the like than I've ever gotten from Faulker, Steinbeck, or Hemingway.

[victoria.goddard]

Actually, I have another question that I've been wanting to ask, and think that perhaps this is a good thread on which to ask it (if not, let me know, and I'll move it somewhere else).

I imagine a number of you are also students of one sort or another, many of literature of one kind or another. Do any of you find creative responses to literature bleeding into your academic, critical, responses?

I've been finding all this year that I respond to the things I read as a writer (and an apprentice one at that!), sparking my imagination and giving me grist for my self-critical mill. Then I read an essay by TS Eliot on the difference between the creative and the critical responses to literature (he was referring to the lamentable difficulty of critics to differentiate between their proper function as critical, and their frustrated desires to be creative, writers), and thought, aha! my problem is the reverse. I set out to write a research paper on, say, theories of Medieval rhetoric, and I end up fixing a flaw in the structure of my novel.

After six years at university you'd think I'd be over this by now, but no, it gets worse. Honestly, you'd think that one's response on learning how to do textual criticism (establishing an edition for texts in their original language, in my case Medieval Latin) would not be much ground for anything but a critical, academic, scholarly approach . . . but no. If you will allow the example, I look at it and think, aha! the concept of a palimpsest (when one scrapes off the original writing on a piece of parchment and writes something else on top) is a wonderful image for that character with amnesia I've got . . . especially as sometimes the original writing bleeds through and reappears years, decades, centuries, after it was erased . . .

I hope you don't mind me bringing this up here, but I would really like to know if anyone else has this--shall I call it one?--problem. And if so, what do you do about it? (my answer has been--write more! which might not be the most effective response)

[victoria.goddard]

Shadow-ferret,

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I'm sorry to make a blanket statement--I try not to do that (and I surely don't like it when someone makes a blanket statement that I disagree with), so my apologies. I should have made it clear that, for me, both my appreciation and my enjoyment are greater with understanding the how and the why than they were before. And that this does not necessarily relate to everyone else's responses to reading; but it is mine.

I definitely still find some 'great' books bores--Frankenstein comes to mind, which I've never liked, though I do appreciate it after studying it than I did before--but in that case I think the story gets lost in the way it's told. There are many books that I have enjoyed very much that I'm not sure would repay the kind of sustained in-depth study that others can stand, and I have no intention of ignoring them because I find something else better. But the ones that do repay re-reading and reading on different levels and much pondering and study--on top of being good stories (which as I should insist upon again, in my opinion is the most important feature of a novel)--are all around better works of art.

And as such having learned how to look at them more deeply makes me appreciate them more and makes me enjoy them more. You may respond differently, and I have no qualms with that. I don't think formal education is necessary for enjoyment of reading at all--otherwise what were we all doing as children, anyway?--all I'm saying is that, for me, I find it helps me enjoy certain things more, because it lets me appreciate them on different levels. I loved The Lord of the Rings when I was eight, it was the first adult novel I ever read, and I've read it many times since then. And the more I learn, the more I find in it. In fact it was one of the things that led me, like many others, towards what I do now academically. But do you think having studied Old English and having read some of the Norse sagas makes me enjoy parts of what he does better? You bet it does!--It made my day to realise that Theoden means 'king' in Old English. That indeed may make me an incorrigible geek, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that it helped me enjoy The Lord of the Rings more.

And I don't like Hemingway much, either. (Sadly, I haven't read the others you mentioned; but surely they've done something very well to be read with such enjoyment, and so would repay being read for their technique as well as their story? I've heard good things about HP Lovecraft's ability to write, at the least.)

[maestrowork]

I completely disagree with the concept that learning and understanding an artform makes you enjoy it more.


We're all individuals and blanket statements like that just don't wash. You might APPRECIATE great works more because you understand the amount of craftsmenship that goes into it, the difficulty or the mastery of it, but that doesn't mean you'll ENJOY it more.


I can only speak for myself. I didn't make a "blanket statement." I only told you about my experience. I can only tell you that I DO enjoy movies and great books more. You can't disagree with me on THAT, because you are not me.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Nope. And I wouldn't ever pretend to be you. (Unless, of course, you're very attractive and have to beat off the women with a stick, in which case, I'd be willing to try being you for a day. ;) ) You did say in a previous post that it is all about taste and I agree with that.

[maestrowork]

Yup, it's all about taste. No among of education or studying or exposure to the art form is going to make you love Hemingway or Faulker or Joyce if you prefer King or Patterson in the first place. I enjoy many different things from the profane to the profound. But my better understanding of the art form and the craft that goes into these books and movies does elevate my enjoyment when they're really well made. I guess "appreciation" and "enjoyment" go hand-in-hand for me.

[DamaNegra]

I completely disagree with the concept that learning and understanding an artform makes you enjoy it more.


We're all individuals and blanket statements like that just don't wash. You might APPRECIATE great works more because you understand the amount of craftsmenship that goes into it, the difficulty or the mastery of it, but that doesn't mean you'll ENJOY it more.

I agree with Ferret on this one. No matter how well-crafted something is, I can only appreciate it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy it. Think about all the great-written classics. Do you enjoy them all? Or do you appreciate them and read them in awe like 'wow this guy WAS genious'?

[maestrowork]

Do you enjoy them all? Or do you appreciate them and read them in awe like 'wow this guy WAS genious'?

Some, not all. "All" is a heavy word. One of the reasons why I loved the show Six Feet Under was the writing. The more I understood great writing, the more I enjoyed the show -- I thought it was one of the best-written show on TV, and I wasn't being snooty. There are certainly "well-written" works I couldn't stand...

Knowing more about the craft and art form doesn't make you automatically enjoy something you never did before, or suddenly think what you liked before is trash. I do think that the new, heightened sense of appreciation enhances enjoyment, at least for me. I certainly enjoyed movies and music much more after I took some "music appreciation" or media classes in college. They somehow opened my eyes and ears. My crap o'meter has turned up a notch, but I'll be dishonest if I say I don't enjoy good movies or writing or art more. But what is "good" is still subjected to individual taste. That's the point.

[Mike Coombes]

Joining the thread late...

Personally I thought Frey was great. Haven't read the book, don't intend to.

He exaggerated or misrepresented his memoir. Big deal. Nobody's ever done that before, right?

Before he got caught out, everyone was making a big fuss about how great he was. Oprah and her team wept over his book.

The moral indignation that has followed his being caught out has nothing to do with his writing skill and everything to do with self-important people getting egg on their faces.

I agree totally with Konrath's original statement; crapping on published authors is sour grapes. There are books you enjoy, and books you don't, but it's a personal thing. For example, I think that Stephen King and JRR Tolkien are (or were) hacks. There are several million people who disagree, and they've both sold quite a few books between them.

Now, the day I've sold more books than the two of them combined, I'll expect to come in here and state categorically, as a fact, that they are hacks. Until then, I'm just another wannabe with a chip on my shoulder.

[Celia Cyanide]

Joining the thread late...

Personally I thought Frey was great. Haven't read the book, don't intend to.

He exaggerated or misrepresented his memoir. Big deal. Nobody's ever done that before, right?

Before he got caught out, everyone was making a big fuss about how great he was. Oprah and her team wept over his book.

The moral indignation that has followed his being caught out has nothing to do with his writing skill and everything to do with self-important people getting egg on their faces.

I agree, but I wonder what do you mean when you say Frey was "great"?

I agree totally with Konrath's original statement; crapping on published authors is sour grapes. There are books you enjoy, and books you don't, but it's a personal thing. For example, I think that Stephen King and JRR Tolkien are (or were) hacks. There are several million people who disagree, and they've both sold quite a few books between them.

Now, the day I've sold more books than the two of them combined, I'll expect to come in here and state categorically, as a fact, that they are hacks. Until then, I'm just another wannabe with a chip on my shoulder.

The reason I don't agree with that is because some people don't write at all and don't intend to, and still love literature. If only best selling authors were allowed to judge something good or bad, how would agents decide what to reject? They're not best selling authors themselves, but they still care about the quality of the work, and they know a few things about it.

I see how crapping on published authors may be percieved as "sour grapes" by unpublished authors, or authors that don't sell well. And it some cases, it may be. But every writer also likes to read, and has writers s/he loves and writers s/he hates. I would love to sell as many books and be as well known as VC Andrews, but not if my writing had to be like that. I just don't like it.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I agree Celia.

If someone who has never written, never intends to write, just enjoys reading says, "Dan Brown is a hack," is that sour grapes? It's just someone giving their opinion.



So why, if a writer says it, does it become sour grapes?

That seems like a double-standard.

[detante]

It has been a long time since I last visited the Water Cooler. I see somethings haven't changed. Gives the place a cozy feel. :)

[maestrowork]

Personally I thought Frey was great. Haven't read the book, don't intend to.

You haven't read the book, but you think he's great. I think you just lost your credibility here.

The whole argument that if you haven't written or published a book and if you haven't sold millions and millions, then you have no right to criticize any published work... is pure bull crap. It has nothing to do with sour grapes, cuz I enjoy plenty of published and best-selling authors and would be the first to tell people how great they are, so no sour grapes here. It has to do with critical thinking and knowing what basic standard of quality is. Otherwise, we're just sheep.