Anyway, I could care less about what other writers do in their books. If they do a good job at it, then who cares if they used some word somewhere. Now if, like in your case, the book is garbage overall, then those four adverbs only add to the book's poorness of quality, but are not the cause.
I guess my point is this: Poor books fade away for a thousand reasons, but never just one like a weak word here or there.
And yes, I've had things hit me about bad writing while reading published works. I work in a bookstore, and I get to open a goodly portion of our shipments. Since a lot of the books have to be security tagged, I often glance at a paragraph or two in the middle of a book. Cheesy dialogue abounds, even among very well regarded authors.
I also regularly read the first few paragraphs of books that are laying around. Probably the closest thing to an epiphany like you're talking about came from the first couple of pages of a book (I'll leave it nameless as well; it's sold respectably, but I don't think it's a best seller) that Mystic would have probably hated. For the first page or two, the MC was simply described as "she," "her," or "the girl." Then we were suddenly told her name. As best as I could tell, there was no reason whatsoever for not giving us her name in the very first paragraph -- aside from a desire to create suspense by leaving the reader with completely unnecessary questions.
2. It is incorrect to say "I could care less." If you can care less, then whatever it is matters to you. The correct form is: "I couldn't care less." I've seen this error in published writing; it drives me bonkers.
3. It seems to me an overall healthier attitude not to ask, "How in the hell did this piece of crap ever get published?" but, rather, "Despite its flaws what makes this work salable and not mine?" Then you might actually learn something useful.
[This message has been edited by Garp (edited March 12, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by Garp (edited March 12, 2006).]
Leaf II, you are absoluteLY 
right that sometimes a good way to understand why people advise against something is to see that something in use and experience why it doesn't work. When something works, it's harder to notice, but when it doesn't work, it can be extremeLY easy to see.
The trick is to learn when it's a good idea to use something and when it's not a good idea to use it. Bad writing can certainLY help to show poor usage, but it's not the onLY way.
haha
...anyways
good show with the -LY... laughed extra
Also... just for further clarication, I will be sure to put Leaf II in the front of my novel if/when it sells *(pray pray pray hope hope) just so you all know. ...psh... HS girl. yeah right.
Oh well...
-leaf
p.s.. for those who do not get it... just to save 15 posts aruguing about it... this particular post = sarcasm... mostLY
quote:
I could care less...
I've noticed this phrase before around here and thought it was a mistake too. I realise now it is just different in the US.
We say 'I couldn't care less...' in Australia. I suspect Garp may hale from a commonwealth nation... maybe not.
Do any Americans say 'couldn't care less?'
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited March 13, 2006).]
I've heard them both used and I think that they’re both used in the States. However, I’m not sure. I’ve been living in Korea for ten years now and spend a lot of time with teachers from other English speaking countries.
But I will suggest one thing about reading to writers...stop reading with the rule book in your hand! Seriuusly, I'm not saying that there aren't bad bad bad things out there, but I find that writers are harder than they need to be on so many things and one "error" will kill a story for them.
u know it.
Of course, there is a limit to such usage. I have noticed a tendency in sports commentary for "literally" to be used as an emphatic, which frequently results in it's meaning being precisely reversed into "figuratively". I have been known to look up at the screen when a commentator says "This game has literally exploded into life!", expecting to see roiling smoke and the aftermath of a massive detonation. No such excitement, of course.
And just today I was browsing discussion boards on the subject of the "V For Vendetta" movie and noticed people arguing (very heatedly) about "graphic novels" and how "Graphic" meant "with pictures". As a student of ancient Greek, I was taught that "graphein" was the verb for "to write". That one clearly mutated a long time ago (think of "graphs"). But it also has more than one meaning - one poster joked that a "graphic novel" should have "explicit depictions of sex and/or violence". Depressing to report, nobody else appeared to get the joke.
It's a travesty, to be sure. Just think of all the orphans and starving children that could have been saved if we'd only used that phrase properly.
And yes, I was among the pedants who would make exactly that point to people who would say that they couldn't care less about something.
Of course, the proper, complete phrase should be, "I could care less, but then I wouldn't care enough to let you know how little I care." But generally this isn't said, because the people who really mean it don't care
Sadly, it's probably just because when people say they couldn't/could care less/more, they really just don't care which they're saying, and say whichever is easier to say.
Which is why "like I care" is supplanting both phrases 
Personally, I hate poor grammar,spelling, punctuation. Awkward phrasing. Trite phrases used as "good" material.
After all the above obvious flaws, what really turns me off is "dense" writing. By that I mean when the text is so tightly packed with ideas and description that I have no space in which, while reading, to visualize stuff on my own. I hate it when the author is determined to force me to see EXACTLY what he saw. Give me some room to create the town, world, character on my own within the parameters given. If I see the tavern sign as green and the author sees it as red, unless the color is important, let me add my imagination to what is written. If I can participate in little ways, I am more likely to sink deep into the story.
At least, that's how I think I feel about dense text. The art is to select the right details for the framework and let me, the reader, fill in the rest. To evoke the city from the depths of my imagination rather than force me to try and build an exact duplicate.
Does that make any sense?
If someone can't learn, then maybe that's a "bad" writer.
Writing is a form of communication. An effective writer communicates with the reader. An ineffective writer fails to do so. The moral or intellectual quality of what the writer is communicating is up to the writer, not to the writing. But the moral and intellectual quality of what the text communicates exists in its own right. If that makes no sense...it's because I'm making a distinction that may contradict my usual strict textualism.
In other words, I have to judge writers qua writers by their writing. But I've come across too many instances of writings that say something that was in no way matched any possible intention of the writer to believe that my judgement of a writer as a person is accurate based on their writing. And writers are people first, and sources of text only secondarily.
I believe that anyone can learn to write better, and that means that a present lack of skill as a writer doesn't preclude writing really well in the future. Which is why my textualism goes both ways. I'll criticize your writing as ferociously as I like, but that doesn't mean I'm saying anything about you. And whatever my opinion of you as a person, that shouldn't affect my judgement of your writing.
Or more simply, bad writing is bad, but it doesn't make you a bad writer or a bad person