Bittercon --why we love bad writing

[sartorias]

Why We Love Bad Writing. In the Guardian, writer Edward Docx bemoaned the popularity of such writers as Stieg Larsson and insisted on a qualitative difference between “literary” and “genre” fiction. Critic Laura Miller, writing in Salon, disagreed with most of Docx’s assumptions, but wondered what it is that makes the books of Larsson or Dan Brown

Comments

[j_cheney]

I've read Twilight, and considered exactly this throughout. I suspect, in that case, the author created a blank form into which young female readers could insert themselves. (Which gave me a lot to think about).

I wonder if that's always that case....that the reader can insert themselves into a favored character, and therefore the quality of the writing becomes immaterial.

[sartorias]

In the case of Twilight, I think she also pegged the emotional maturity of a young teen perfectly. I would have LOVED that book unreservedly at age thirteen . . . I would have thought those pages and pages of Bella thinking about herself, and obsessing about creepy Edward, absolutely riveting, every word.

[marycatelli]

Aristotle observes that we like characters who are as good as we are, or a little better. "Good" in this encompasses more than morality; good judgment and maturity would certainly be included as well.

[j_cheney]

And that's possibly one of those things that makes the book so distasteful for me...I never was that girl.

[jennifergale]

Hm.

I can read incredibly BAD fanfiction just to soak up more of character type X and character type Y. I can read really, truly horrible manga if the general plot follows a trope I love. Same principles apply to the bad novels I devour. If the story is a mix of favorite tropes and favorite characters, I'll absolutely re-read it, no matter how painful the prose

[sartorias]

I think that's an important element, that 'more of the same X'

[jennifergale]

lol. Yup! Or... "More of the same X, but a little different." :)

[marycatelli]

It's like going to see a Shakespeare play. You want them to do something different with it but you still want the play.

[athenais]

I am so deeply addicted to plot that I skim right over certain kinds of bad writing. I don't reread that kind of book. It's summer reading, pure entertainment, brain turned off. I treat that kind of book like a meal: you enjoy it once, it would not be wise to revisit it.

This means I sometimes miss the beauty of good writing if the plot is insufficiently shiny. I badly misjudged the appeal of one author until I heard him read aloud from his novel and had an epiphany. After that, I read with care and enjoyed his work. It did not suffer from poor plotting, it just wasn't a fast enough ride for thrill-addicted me.

[nancylebov]

Which writer was that?

[sartorias]

Yeah, I have tried to figure out where I fit along the writing plot axiom, but really it so depends on each situation. Like, the voice, or if there is humor. (If something makes me laugh, I will stick with it way, way past something better in all regards, but more lugubrious in tone.)

[padawansguide]

Really interesting post! I think what you like as a kid is often different as an adult because of what you say - your imagination fills things in so readily when you are young. No idea if this is the case as an adult, but it is funny how your perception of something being good or not can be so different when you view it as an adult or as a child. I used to LOVE Land of the Lost as a kid - I saw it as an adult and it was HORRIBLE. But I think my imagination loved the idea and made it something better in my head than it was

[sartorias]

Oh Brown's abysmal "research" is another post, yech

[padawansguide]

It's probably my main problem with him, really. :-)

[houseboatonstyx]

This makes me wonder if his books are reread by any of those millions--revisited for insights one might have missed, different takes on scenes.

This was Lewis's test in AN EXPERIMENT IN CRITICISM, in which he talked about many of the same issues you mention. In A PREFACE TO PARADISE LOST he defended Homer's use of epithets as a way to keep things moving.

Imo, 'badness' alone does not suffice to make a best-seller. There needs to be something positive that the utilitarian presentation allows to be seen.

My own tastes range from, oh, say Elinor Wylie and Henry James on the one hand, to Nancy Drew and Perry Mason. In Rowling I found her adverbs and speech tags and such an encouraging signal, that this is going to be a fast reading book that ignores current style taboos. Rather like an architecture so large and complex, that you had better begin with a sweeping look from chapter one to the last chapter, or you'll lose the larger patterns.

[swan_tower]

In A PREFACE TO PARADISE LOST he defended Homer's use of epithets as a way to keep things moving.

Do you recall it well enough to unpack for me what he meant by that? I'm wondering if Lewis was aware of the oral-formulaic theory or not.

[houseboatonstyx]

Something like that. Though he didn't mention any of those researchers or those metric details