There have been several posts discussing successful books that aren't written with a great deal of skill. Marketing and sales aside, how helpful do you feel it is to read bad writing (not the particular authors from the other threads) in order to better notice when you make the same mistakes?
I picked up a book the other day, which seemed interesting, and there were 5-6 further books in the series, so I figured that it had to be pretty good. I'm about 12 pages in, and I have to say it's pretty pulpy. I'm noticing a lot of bad writing, but I may keep reading, just to notice all the poor choices in word use, dialog, pacing, and so on.
Anyone else ever keep reading something bad, just to figure out what NOT to do?
Posted by Verdant (Member # 3498) on :
Read Atlanta Nights. You'll Laugh. You'll cry. You'll sometimes wonder just exactly what is being said. Reading bad writing can help if you know what you are reading. It is sometimes helpful to ignore it as candy but I also like to look at things through the "you have to know the rules in order to break them" philosophy.
It is my general frame of mind that reading is good. Period. bad writing, good writing, any writing. If you can tell the difference, great. If you can tell why, better.
Good Writing
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 3384) on :
This book is so bad, I want to take notes. Hell, I might.
It's definitely one of those that make you think, "This guy has a whole series of books, with writing like this? My book's going to sell like hotcakes!"
Posted by J (Member # 2197) on :
This might get me burned at the stake around here, but it doesn't take great writing to make a great writer. Sometimes even authors with questionable prose can teach you how to do something right. After all, there is a reason they're published--somebody somewhere believed that their book embodied something capable of selling.
Take The Bourne Identity by Ludlum. There is no reasonable question that book has the best plot for a thriller, ever. There's also no question that the quality of Ludlum's prose is questionable.
Did I learn anything about writing from reading Ludlum? Absolutely. Can't think of a better teacher for how to build suspense, how to invest a reader into a reserved character, or how to hide information from the reader without making the reader mad. More importantly, I learned what to do from what he does well (plot) to a much greater degree than I learned what not to do from what he does poorly (style).
Posted by MaryRobinette (Member # 1680) on :
One of the writing books I read suggested editing pulpy stories to make them good. I think that is probably more useful than just reading them. I'd rather read good stuff and learn what to do right, than torture myself with the bad.
Posted by mommiller (Member # 3285) on :
ATLANTA NIGHTS
I do believe was written as a joke by a group of authors. Sort of in the vein of "Naked Came a Stranger."
Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :
I'm reading a poorly written novel write now that I'm amazed I can't put down. Why? The story is great, the writing is...not. Perhaps because there is a feeling that this story knows where it is going.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 3384) on :
The book I'm currently struggling through is "Way of the Wolf" Book one of The Vampire Earth, by E.E. Knight.
Here's a delicious slice:
quote:"Grenades," Valentine bellowed. Three of his men gathered at the trapdoor, now shooting down with pistols.
Striking matches or using the lanterns, two Wolves lit fuses on the bombs and hurled them down the square hole. Valentine grabbed the trapdoor and flung it shut. The rusty hinges squealed their complaints.
The first explosion threw the door forever off its aged fastenings, and the second boomed with an earsplitting roar. Smoke mushroomed from the square hole."
I like Mary's idea of editing the story. I would say it could use it.
Posted by Novice (Member # 3379) on :
I haven't reached that point, yet, where I read with the editor's eye. My reading is still very separate from my writing, which probably shows.
The only things I really study are when an author creates an unusually interesting character (has anyone read Robin McKinley's "Sunshine"?) or an unusually interesting world/plot. (This is where the Harry Potter books fall, for me.) I try to sort out exactly what is new and interesting, what caught and held my eye. I don't turn that kind of concentration to the writing mechanics, though I suspect I'll start doing so if I keep hanging out in this forum.
So I have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of many books I've seen listed in here in various "badness" posts. Has reading them helped my writing? Certainly, because each and every book I read makes my mind turn in a slightly new direction.
Posted by Novice (Member # 3379) on :
*sigh* Sorry, I got off on a tangent and never answered the question. I've kept reading books I wasn't enjoying, but not often, and never as a learning exercise. Maybe now I can say, "I'm studying the glorious badness of it all." Previously I've had to say, "I'd quit reading this if the OCD would let me."
Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :
Reading a bad novel is a painful way to learn!
Posted by trousercuit (Member # 3235) on :
Yes, but not only do you learn, you also build character!
Posted by Spaceman (Member # 9240) on :
I would suggest instead of editing the novel you simply critique as many short stories you can. When you hit the really bad ones, the pain is limited. Also, it gives you a variety of writing errors, whereas a bad novel probably gives you the same errors over and over.
Posted by Ray (Member # 2415) on :
I'm currently reading Ulysses by James Joyce, and it has to be one of the worst successful novels ever. There was a poll a few years ago in both England and the United States asking what was the most important literary work to come out of the twentieth. Oxford put Ulysses as number one and everybody else said Lord of the Rings. I became curious why that place would say Ulysses, so I've put myself through one of the most incredibly dry books ever. On the bright side, I've discovered a lot of writing techniques that I never considered and will be aware of to avoid in the future.
Will is right, though. It's a painful way to learn.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
I think that if you can put up with bad writing, you're in danger of imitating it unconsciously if you read too much of it. If you can't stand the stuff, then the question of whether you would benefit from it is irrelevant.
Try to read literature equal to what you want to write.
Posted by Mig (Member # 3318) on :
You can learn from reading good or bad writing. But I think you learn more by reading the stuff that works than the stuff that doesn't if you know what you're looking for. It think any beginning writer should have a well stocked library of how to write fiction books, and read some of the monthly writer's mags like Writer's Digest. We, as writers, should always read with a critical (and educated) eye. I think the bottom line is to just read as much as you can, good or bad.
Posted by Verdant (Member # 3498) on :
ATLANTA NIGHTS was writting by a bunch of sci-fi/fantasy authors as a sting operation and was deliberately done poorly. It is, quite literally, an object lesson on what NOT to do when writing. That is what makes it so good. Try to find all the ways the suthors misuse conventions and insert errors.
Reading is good, even if the work is bad. Lord of the Flies was not written very well, but everyone loved it. Moby Dick is a snoozer, but is considered a classic. Suffering from insomnia? pick up War and Peace. I like Willa Cather's stuff - not fantasy or sci-fi, but good writing.
What amazes me is that everyone has their own ideas of what makes good writing. That is why there is such a wonderful market for writers. One person's treasure is another's trash. Read it all and decide for yourself.
Posted by Sara Genge (Member # 3468) on :
I never keep on reading something I don't like. Life is too short, and to hell if I don't improve my writing.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I remain fond of the work of one Emile C. Schurmacher. Probably you've never heard of him...but, either way, I like most of his stuff that I've encountered...and you'd never mistake any of it for "good writing"...
Posted by Silver3 (Member # 2174) on :
"Bad writing" for me encompasses two things: bad style, which is where an editor would have helped greatly, and bad story.
I'll put the bad stories down soon after I've started them, because life's too short for me to waste reading time on those. However, I can tolerate bad style. The story had better be good, though.
I'm with Spaceman here, and in total agreement with both of his reasons. There is no way I am trudging through an entire novel with an editor's eye to spot horrible mistakes. Again, life is too short.
Posted by Ray (Member # 2415) on :
I think I should clarify my point: reading bad literature has its advantages, but they're limited. The first is a confidence boost. If dreck like this can be published and even be considered a classic, I got a shot! However, this is often short-lived once you start putting words to paper.
The second reason is more practical, and that is to find out why you don't like it. Saying a story sucks is fine, because it probably does, but what value does that have if you can't give a reason for it? There aren't many things to appreciate from reading dreck, but if you gleaned a little knowledge, at least it wasn't a complete waste of your life.
The danger is making a habit of reading wretched literature. Several have pointed out that life is too short. But beyond that, it profits you nothing. Given the choice, I'll read good literature over crap any day, not only because it's easier on my mind, but also for learning what works in writing. It's much better to learn that two plus two is four, rather than being told that two plus two isn't three, five, or a pepperoni.
[This message has been edited by Ray (edited June 24, 2006).]
Posted by Swimming Bird (Member # 2760) on :
Unless you're a fairly good writer in the first place, I doubt you'd recognize bad writing if you were reading it. A lot of people LOVE The Da Vinci Code.
I suppose that's a sign in and of itself.
[This message has been edited by Swimming Bird (edited June 24, 2006).]
Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :
I think that the only bad writing you should read is your own, and just to tell you that you are improving. If you are enjoying yourself go for it.
But as Survivor said Garbage in Garbage out.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
The writer I named was at least published...
On the other hand, in my, ahem, Internet Fan Fiction period, I read a lot of, well, badly-written stuff. Short of a stint as a slushpile reader, I doubt if I could surpass the volume of it.
On the other hand of that, I found I enjoyed a lot of it even though it was badly written---nearly always, there was something in it, some new idea or angle on the series, that made me appreciate the work in question.
So I got to thinking that good writing might not be the be-all and end all of it...at least for me. Whatever I'm looking for in the written word, well, the ill-defined quality of "good" must not be it...
Posted by MaryRobinette (Member # 1680) on :
Bringing up the slushpile makes me think of something. At Shimmer we respond to all of the submissions, even the truly dreadful ones. I think that just reading bad fiction isn't useful, but reading it and analyzing what works and what doesn't can make the flaws in ones own fiction easier to spot.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I think reading "bad" Internet Fan Fiction, and often critiquing it for the writers, helped me figuring out what was bad in my own writing. Or at least that's the theory I've been operating on...
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Belatedly I remember a comment I made a few weeks ago in a quick reply to an article posted at the American Spectator site. The article concerned the slide in the quality of writing, owing to the Internet and other factors.
I pointed out that it was like Gresham's Law---bad writing drives out the good.