talkmagic.co.uk

Is it me or does at least some of the blame for subjectively poor quality writing land on the doorstep of the publishers? I often wonder how many authors had one or maybe even two wonderful books worth of tales to tell and were lured or pressured by the publisher to write more. Did JK Rowling set out to write so many books about Harry Potter or was she made an offer she couldn't refuse? Judging by her vast income, I'd bet on the latter.

Take Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series as another example. I really enjoyed it until book four, which bored me to tears. I have re-read the series twice now and never get past the halfway point in book four. At first, I thought it must be me, but trawling various review sites and forums, I began finding others who were in the same position. So, I'd suggest Mr Jordan probably had a decent trilogy in his head, which turned out to be so popular, the publisher offered him lots more money to keep writing ad nauseum. I'm sure anyone who reads a great deal could think of an example like this.

Harry Potter has been said to be poorly written by many, but does it really matter? If you're well educated and well read, with the likes of Shakespeare and Chaucer under your belt, Rowling does probably read like a penny dreadful. But, to others who are more concerned with the story rather than the grammatical structure of the prose, it's just pure escapism. I read to be entertained and to escape, so although I may think the standard of writing is bad, I'll still continue to the end if I like the story and characters.

I read all the Harry Potter books, although towards the end, I became aware of the fact that I was only reading them because I'd read the others and didn't want to leave the story half-told. They got steadily worse - more contrived with each installment.

That said, they did bring in issues, plot points and ideas which were quite bold for children's literature. I was especially glad that characters weren't all clearly labelled as 'goodies' and 'baddies', for example. And that the baddies were driven by an ideology rather than just being mustache-twiddling villains.

So they weren't junk - they just got flabby and samey as they went on.

And kids loved them.

Seriously - seven-year-olds were sitting reading books of over 600 pages, with no pictures or large type... That's some achievement from JK Rowling.

As for lesser-known-and-better books, they're still there to be discovered. But unless kids get into the habit of reading, they won't be discovered.

Just my thinks.

Pete

A J Irving wrote:I don't think it's all subjective. Could you find anyone who could come up with a really good argument as to why Katie Price's 'Angel' is a superior work of fiction to Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'? I don't mean to sound snobby but there's trash fiction, and then there is Jordan. I would post quotes from it, but all the best lines would be taken out by the websites censor!

It appears I am not making myself clear (as usual!); my apologies. I'm not talking about comparisons here, but rather how books stand on their own in the eyes and opinion of the reader alone. Since you mentioned Katie Price's Angel, let's use that to illustrate my point.

No matter how bad you think that book is, there is someone out there who has read and enjoyed it (possibly more than one person, too!). They thought it was a good book. They don't need to come up with an argument to justify their opinion. It's not necessary or, indeed, relevant to the discussion. Perhaps that same person has also read Orwell's 1984 and thought it was complete and utter rubbish. Again, it's their opinion.

I will be the first to admit that trash fiction is out there in abundance, but any judgements I make on that wide-sweeping genre, are mine alone. If someone else reads nothing but trash fiction, enjoys it and finds it an entertaining piece of escapism from the daily rat-race, then good for them.

At least they are reading and getting enjoyment out of it, regardless of the material they happen to be reading.

There is no right or wrong here. Of course, there is no doubt that there is a wide spectrum of literature out there; some of it is widely considered to be classic, well-written stuff. And some it, not to put too fine a point on it, is most definitely not. I'm not disputing that, but it's not the point here. I was just stating that it can only be a good thing that kids (and indeed, adults) are reading more. That's all. Hope that's cleared things up.

Replicant wrote:There is no right or wrong here. Of course, there is no doubt that there is a wide spectrum of literature out there; some of it is widely considered to be classic, well-written stuff. And some it, not to put too fine a point on it, is most definitely not. I'm not disputing that, but it's not the point here. I was just stating that it can only be a good thing that kids (and indeed, adults) are reading more. That's all. Hope that's cleared things up.

I understand. It would be a boring world if everyone liked the same books or art or music and I think it's these differences that encourage people to push themselves when they create.

It is a little sad though when someone is awarded a publishing contract purely because of their reputation rather than their writing ability and then start describing themselves as a published author, whilst at the same time other more talented writers are overlooked. She doesn't strike me as someone who will continue pushing her own literary boundaries and that can only lead to her literary career drying up and her fans retiring from reading. What was so great about the Harry Potter books was kids would come in to the book shop with their parents and ask for books that were similar and therfore they discovered new authors and continued to read when there were no new HP books. I really can't see Katie Price as being a way of exciting people about reading in the same way that authors who've had to fight to get published would.

As I said though most people "like" Jordan do not write the books, they give a rough synopsis (apparently) of what the story is about and someone else writes it (ghost writers). These are probably the poor unpublished authors that resort to this because they cannot get their own works published.

Then again they may just be awful.

The problem of people reading "this" kind of work is apparent in the comments on Amazon. Review after review of barely comprehensible gibberish from someone lauding it as amazing.

Twilight and Harry Potter had their faults - but at least the spelling and grammar was acceptable.

As for series' getting out of hand for the sake of money, I often wonder how many are written by the original author. Terry Brooks' Shannara series seemed to go on for an eternity and there was a distinct point (although it evades me now) where the writing style changed noticeably as did the story content.

A_n_t wrote:As I said though most people "like" Jordan do not write the books, they give a rough synopsis (apparently) of what the story is about and someone else writes it (ghost writers). These are probably the poor unpublished authors that resort to this because they cannot get their own works published.

Is it really so widespread? It's ironic to think someone who can't get their own work published goes a long way toward making the fortune of someone else. I guess this is literally a case of "you pay for the name".

Wishmaster wrote:

A_n_t wrote:As I said though most people "like" Jordan do not write the books, they give a rough synopsis (apparently) of what the story is about and someone else writes it (ghost writers). These are probably the poor unpublished authors that resort to this because they cannot get their own works published.

Is it really so widespread? It's ironic to think someone who can't get their own work published goes a long way toward making the fortune of someone else. I guess this is literally a case of "you pay for the name".

Very much so unfortunately, with all manner of people.

It used to be a case of people who had a story to tell and no writing ability compiling the notes together with someone who would happily write the story as a kind of collaboration, or alternately the author would write it and give credit to the person who supplied it. These were generally real events eg. war stories, incredible events, etc. but the celebrity madness that seems to be saturating the world got their evil polished claws in to it and it goes something along the lines of;

Right in MY story, I want this woman called Chardonnay, who's a stripper right, to meet the man of her dreams. He's a businessman but looks like a model and barely works throughout the entire book. Oh and she should also fancy this other guy because like that will be tense in it.

And the ghost writer will look at them, mentally sigh, smile sweetly and say;

Sure. No problem.

=(

EDIT: It also happens with music compilations. None of the Lisa Lashes Euphoria Albums were mixed by Lisa, Ingo did one, Amadeus from the Tidy Boys did one of the others. She just chose the records.

Wishmaster wrote:Is it really so widespread? It's ironic to think someone who can't get their own work published goes a long way toward making the fortune of someone else. I guess this is literally a case of "you pay for the name".

Having flicked through a couple of her books and seen the quality of the prose, her ghost writer ain't an undiscovered literary giant! They probably earned a few pounds for their efforts though and paid work is paid work.

To quote Tool: 'All you read and wear or see and hear on TV is a product begging for your fatass dirty dollar'

Never even crossed my mind when it came to Reading them in that they are little other than Fad Material that appeals to those "kids" that started on Harry Pothead years back and now need a darker fantasy course. Then too, Twilight seems to target teenage girls because of the paperback romance feel to the plots.

One thing for certain THEY ARE NOT Literary Classics by any stretch of the imagination... not even the Anne Rice novels gained that esteem and they were hugely successful for many other reasons. Same can be said for the DiVinci Code.

But no, this kind of stuff is simple composed for the sake of crass commercialism. It's fun fantasy but I just can't see how its more than that. But like I said, I've not read them, just heard about them and seen the one movie (which was actually quite fun, even with the chick-flick feel... and yes, I want to see the next one because of the Lykin)

As to Potter... again, never read them though I am certain I'd enjoy them (I just don't have time for casual reading). I love the films though the last one left you kind of hanging and uncertain about things. While they have inspired more people to read, I'm not certain as to their extended value; possibly on par with the Wizard Oz and Tolkien materials

So, nobody is denying that some books are objectively better than others?

Gary Dickson wrote:So, nobody is denying that some books are objectively better than others?

I don't suppose anyone could be completely objective about literature. We all have our favourite books and authors and conversely those we don't like.

But, you need to define the word "better". Better prose? Grammar? Plot? Characterisation? Genre? Dialogue? Binding? Edition? Even that word will mean something different to everyone.

Wishmaster wrote:Is it me or does at least some of the blame for subjectively poor quality writing land on the doorstep of the publishers? I often wonder how many authors had one or maybe even two wonderful books worth of tales to tell and were lured or pressured by the publisher to write more. Did JK Rowling set out to write so many books about Harry Potter or was she made an offer she couldn't refuse? Judging by her vast income, I'd bet on the latter.

She's always said she's planned seven books from the start. Seven is a pretty important number in the Potter world.

If you dislike a book, then that's fair enough. But in my opinion I don't think Potter and Twilight doing so well is such a bad thing. As said loads of times before, they get peoples imaginations going, which is the important thing. Who knows, Potter might be considered a classic in a generation or two's time

It's a sad fact of life that publishers will select only those titles which they think will sell. It might be good, it might not. At the end of the day (I hate that cliché!) they are a business and businesses need to make money. And if that means overlooking or rejecting a promising new author for more "trash" fiction, then that's the road they'll take. It's about money. It's always about money.

While I'm on, I don't think there is such thing as an objectively good book. A book can be very highly regarded amongst its readership, critics, etc. but that doesn't make it objectively good. As Wishmaster pointed out, there are just too many variables involved.

To use a rather extreme example: let's assume I've written a magnificent book (!) and it tops the best-seller list of every civilised country in the world. Hugely successful. I'm now a multi-millionaire and living life in the fast lane with even faster women. I've got several young and nubile women at my beck and call...

Sorry. I digress. (Daydreaming again).

Anyway, you get the gist. For my book to be objectively good, every person who has ever read it and every person who will come to read it in the future, will have to like it and sing its praises. That's impossible. Not even the bible has achieved that. (Not even close, in fact).

As I remember, the first Harry Potter book was a surprise hit. A lot of genuine 'sensations' tend to be.

As for the 'greats' and 'classics';, it's important to remember that what makes them so is their ability to withstand the test of time. Nobody has arbitrarily decided that Treasure Island is a Great Book, but the fact that it's still being read and enjoyed and appreciated says everything that's needed.

So, leave Twilight and Hairy Porter another fifty years or more and see how its popularity stands next to established classics.

So you are lumping two things together I disagree with.

First of which is that the Harry Potter Phenom did something that no one had done in the recent past. That is create a story that both adults and children found engaging enough to share and discuss.

This is a huge deal when talking about those 6's to 12's which was the first books target audience and parents reading to them.

Twilight was aimed at teenage girls and while it was popular enough to cross over it didn't really have that I can relate to my kids over this story quality.

So I voted both because on one hand you had the potters which allowed adults to relate to kids (even me with my nieces and nephews!) but then there is twilight which was sensational standard dime store book story fair.

Neither of which can hold a tiny inkling of a candle to something like Huck Finn or The color purple.