We’ve all said it at one time or another. Some novels are just plain badly written – yet doing quite well in the bookstores. That’s confusing to the ambitious newcomer who’s trying to trying to evaluate what she’s struggling to learn vs. what she sees hogging the bestseller lists.
The confusion was expressed to me years ago by a novelist friend, talking about the notoriously “bad” but fabulously successful best-sellers by Harold Robbins. “Harold Robbins says he’s the greatest novelist because he’s made more money than any novelist in history,” he said, “And I’m not sure he isn’t right.”
Maybe he wasn’t, but I was. He was only right if you define “greatest” as making the most money. If not, then he was wrong.
My frank opinion on that confusion is that it’s a false issue, made so by an unfortunate mingling of “good” and “money-making” as defining concepts. There should be no confusion: a good novel is good, no matter if it sells only 500 copies; a bad one is bad–even if it dominates the market.
Here’s my quick definition of bad fiction….
It is fiction that is all head, no body.
Why would fiction like that sell? For one thing, it’s easy to read. Like this: “he was attracted to Jane, and at the end of the evening, decided she was a lot more attractive that Karen.”
Simple, clear, you know what he’s saying–but not exactly what you’d call a rich reading experience.
Contrast it with this: “By the end of the evening, Jane’s scent hadpulled him toward her, and he couldn’t take his eyes off her stunning teeth, with the slight sensual gap in front. Karen had no scent. She projected plain solidness, gave no reason to keep your eyes on her.”
Also simple and clear, but richer: you can feel the sensual pull of Jane; Karen, made specific, is an obvious contrast to Jane; and the narrator’s cold-blooded analysis contains clues that define him–a calculating, most likely unpleasant character.
There’s a caveat, of course: you have to visualize what it says – actively visual it – and draw meaning from what you “see.” Does that make it harder to read? In a sense perhaps. But if that sense becomes our standard, all stories will have to read like “see Spot run.”
As for the publishing marketplace, here’s an analogy:
Bad food (over-processed, undernourishing) dominates the grocery marketplace in this country. Good food (organic, fundamentally nourishing) finds it hard to compete, but is prized by those who truly
love the highest quality eating experience.
Why does “bad” food dominate? Convenience is a big part of it. It’s just too easy to microwave a box or drop into Burger King.
We seem to have gone that way as food-consuming public, so don’t be confused or dismayed if the same values are carried over into our reading life and a book you don’t respect sits on the best seller list for weeks on end.
It’s no more significant than Twinkies outselling the finest creme brulet.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
