Does the writing actually matter?

[Jude Hardin]

I have read fairly widely in the thriller genre, mostly bestsellers, and one thing I've noticed is a wide disparity in the quality of the prose. Writers like Nelson DeMille and Gillian Flynn are fine wordsmiths, in my opinion, while a couple of NYT bestsellers who come to mind couldn't write their ways out of paper bags. Starting every third or fourth sentence with a dependent clause, for example, is not only bad form, it's just plain annoying. Of course, as I noted in my previous discussion, this is only my opinion, but it does seem that quality prose is in no way, shape, or form, a prerequisite to bestsellerdom.

Thoughts?

[Brian Hoffman]

Did I just fall into a pit of angry grammar teachers?

Are we the only occupation that eats our young (or successful)?

The real problem with this discussion is that it is a generalization (except the reference to Patterson).  Name the specific problems and in the specific books.

All these rants are saying: "Because I catch your errors, I'm better than you."

Stop it.

Write a better book.  If we all do, the general level of writing will be improved.

[I. J. Parker]

Oh, that was a good giggle.  As for the Colin Cotterill thing, yes, I am better than that.  I do not screw up my who and whom.  Typos are absolutely forgiveable.  I make those all the time.  But in this case, the blame falls primarily on Soho Press for not copy-editing or using editors who don't know their grammar.

 

Mind you, I think knowing the basic rules is a requirement for becoming a professional writer, but that's just me.  There are other aspects to writing that aren't basic and must be mastered. Those are the tricky ones we work on all of our lives.

 

And here's another thought: bad writing proliferates.  If no one cares, why should the writer?

[Eric Christopherson]

I really don't see the problem, Brian, with an honest discussion about the state of the genre. Nor do I accept that other occupations are somehow free of criticism from within.

[John McFetridge]

Well, "better" is the question. It's like music, no one's ever going to say anyone in The Ramones is a great musician but they've sold a lot of records and filled a lot of concerts because there's a market for them - not for their great musicianship but for their... Well, I personally don't know what for, but there is a market. Some people just love the Velvet Underground but no one ever calls them great musicians.

So what I understood Jude to be asking is does the writing matter to a bestseller any more than the musicianship does to a pop hit?

The problem is what we want to be is The Beatles and what we are is The Merseybeats on a bad day.

;)

[Jude Hardin]

Name the specific problems and in the specific books.

I don't name names, because I have a personal policy against bashing fellow authors in public. No matter how much I think they suck.

And if I review a book, it's because I liked it. I never give less than five stars.

All these rants are saying: "Because I catch your errors, I'm better than you."

Nobody's talking about grammatical errors. Even great writers make those, occasionally. That's what editors are for. And of course if you know the rules, you can break them for stylistic purposes. We're talking about bad prose. There's a big difference.

[Brian Hoffman]

Weak.  You're hiding behind a personal policy.  Write a better book and get it published.  Whining about books written by others is not helpful.  How can anyone learn from that and Isn't exact examples the way we all learn?

I'm not saying you can't be critical of other authors.  I think Fifty Shades of Pornography or whatever is a book that doesn't appeal to me.  It does to others.  I just envy the sales numbers.

If you never give less than five stars, your reviews are useless.

[Jude Hardin]

Weak.  You're hiding behind a personal policy.  Write a better book and get it published.  Whining about books written by others is not helpful.  How can anyone learn from that and Isn't exact examples the way we all learn?

Sometimes I point out factual errors to writer friends, along with typos, etc., but unsolicited advice, where the actual writing is concerned, is just bad manners, IMO. If anyone wants to post the first few pages of their book for public critique, I would be happy to offer my opinion.

[J.M. Garlock]

You're right. Many if not most NYT best selling authors are heavily edited. It's not so much about the writing but more about the concept of creating a best seller, of convincing the buying public that a particular author is a good writer. Of course all writer's are edited to an extent. One of the reason I read very few best selling NYT authors is that I don't sense the passion in their writing. It's dead. Once a NYT best selling author reaches a certain status then it is just a matter of transforming what in most cases is an outline into a book.

J.M. Garlockhttp://www.actionmysteries.com

[I. J. Parker]

I'm intrigued by this.  I think it's absolutely correct:  the passion isn't there.  It probably never was.  The book is a construct.  But people are so used to constructs.  TV programs are all constructs, and so are many movies.  They read for the story.  Hence the ultimate praise:  it's a page turner!

[Karen Dionne]

Jude wrote: "but it does seem that quality prose is in no way, shape, or form, a prerequisite to bestsellerdom."

 

I agree. Bestsellers aren't about the quality of the writing, they're ALL about the story. Something in the story resonated with a GREAT many people. They told their friends, who told their friends, who told theirs, and voila - you have a Da Vinci Code or a Fifty Shades of Gray - both titles that most people agree aren't stellar examples of good writing, but that sold an outrageous number of copies.

 

I'd posit that not every great storyteller will become a bestseller, because there are just so many factors at work that are outside the author's control, but every bestseller is a great storyteller.

[I. J. Parker]

I don't know about the "great story teller".  Sometimes all it takes is a series of sexual encounters.  Hardly what I would call a story, and sex scenes never required originality of plot or any great surprises.  Certainly characterization plays no part in it.  Da Vinci Code operates on sensationalism based in religion (always a seller), feminism, (a large part of the reading public), anti-Catholic sentiment (shared by huge numbers of people), and cheap thriller stuff (like albino monk assassins).  The really irritating stuff in that novel is the pseudo-research, but folks like that.  It impresses.

[Dana King]

It's about which buttons get pushed in how many readers. Story will do for most. Brown hit the Exacta by combining a potboiler with everything you mentioned above. He lost my interest in the first chapter, but, like I said above, I--like so many of us here--am an outlier.