Russell Kirkpatrick's Journal
I've been talking with other writers recently as well as reading widely on the Internet. What I've been wondering is this: many people seem to be arguing for an almost inverse relationship between book sales and quality. That is, the better-written a book is, the fewer copies it seems to sell. The inverse is implied; that if a book sells very well, it must be poorly written.
Now, I've been wondering about this, and here are my questions for you.
• what do we mean by 'well written'? Does it have anything to do with authorial facility with language, beauty or economy of expression? Or is it about character, plot or the originality of the ideas? Or are we drawing a distinction between entertainment and education - that is, the purpose of the book?
• does anyone see any similarities with other entertainment industries? The two that come to my mind are the movie and music industries. Can much the same be said about them?
• is this all about stuck-up, intelligent people despising the unwashed masses, and thereby separating themselves from the majority? Or is there really some objective way of quantifying what comprises a 'good book' and 'crap' writing? How many people have to express an opinion before it becomes 'fact'?
Just wondering ...
Writing is only one factor in this. Marketing, PR, name recognition, how easy a book is to ourchase, and that particular book touching on exactly the right themes for a particular group of readers are also factors. I bet tehre are other factors I missed, too. It's *complex*.
It bugs me when my favourite authors don't have mass followings, and I am inordinately pleased when other favourite authors *do* have mass followings.
And all this is a round-about way of saying that I'm not sure what makes good writing and what makes good writing visible to others. I can look at a writer and say "If they did such and such their writing would work in this way rather than in that way" but that's a different matter.
I can't put absolutes on culture today. Maybe tomorrow.
Also: I think a bestseller always has to have something brilliant about it. It might not be the grammar of the characterization or the insight - it might just be the skill of the author as a teller of stories, the "and then, and then, and then," factor. Think of the old guy yarning, whose grammar may be awful, but we still listen because he tells a good tale.
I certainly don't think that all bestsellers are "poorly" written. Never. Even the ones about which I wonder why they sold so well.
I think TV/film was changed things. People expect fast paced plots and lots of entertainment from fiction now in ways they didn't in days gone by. The general public are less inclined to like being made to think by fiction - if they want that, then they go to nonfiction or the news channel... The section of the reading public who does like to be made to think is growing proportionately smaller, but however I would back that statement with evidence, I have no idea.
I hate even to think about your last point, it raises so many issues...
In the meantime:
where's a piccy of your new cover???!!!????
Been meaning to post a comment on this one. If I had a cent fot every time I have heard or seen those two words "well written" I could buy ice creams and get fat :) Often when I have heard them they were not meant as a compliment, but said along the same lines as "the writing's competent", which is saying it is technically all right but the story leaves much to be desired.
The authors of those not so "well written" books, that have everyone wondering at their popularity, have found that "something missing", I think, and it's so much simpler than we like to believe. The author has found "her" voice. And, having found her voice relaxes and writes with passion. It may not be a literary work, it may be poo-pooed as poor writing by "the experts", but the public senses the author's passion and they love it.
My twomence worth :)