# Good writers writing bad



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

How do you explain when a best selling author makes fundamental mistakes?

I don't want this to be a criticism of hugely commercially successful writers--I always find that a bit smug. But I was reading a Grisham the other day( a writer I like a lot)...and the book when on and on and on with exposition--supposedly a huge no-no in story telling. 

It didn't work for me and seemed so blatantly wrong I couldn't understand.

(I mention Grisham's name only because I'm guessing he'll survive my criticism.)

Is it a breaking of the rules to do something out of the ordinary because their success says they can? Is it being sloppy or lazy? Is it arrogance?

Thoughts?


----------



## Cathymw (May 27, 2010)

I think a lot of what you're seeing is probably just a sign of the lack of editing.

Whether it's due to the mass layoffs of editors that many publishing houses have done, or attitudes of "Oh, well, it's John Grisham and people will buy him anyway", or even "It's John Grisham, one of our best-selling authors, let's not piss him off", there seems to be less thorough editing being done. (And I, like the OP, am not picking on John Grisham. He's just an example.)

So perhaps the authors have always been guilty of certain fundamental mistakes (admittedly, we all have some personal and consistent writing issues) and you're only seeing it now because of the absence of a good editor.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Shouldn’t it be "Good writers writing badly"?     


Mike


----------



## StevenSavile (Jun 23, 2010)

One thing I think is worth considering is the 'mass appeal' of a writer isn't based upon the highest common denominator in terms of his readership but the lowest - guys like Grisham, Pattersson etc sell so incredibly well because they write a particularly accessible style - and that means to hell with 'the rules' in favour of excitement. They're not claiming great literature in terms of the 'cannon' they're writing popcorn. Sweeping generalisation time: the only people who care about adverbs are writers. The only people who care about exposition are writers.


----------



## theraven (Dec 30, 2009)

I think the issue is that there really aren't any hard fast rule that publishers or readers use to determine good writing from bad writing. It's all subjective. Most of the 'rules' seemed to have come from writers trying to help other writers figure out why they weren't getting contracts with publishers and/or selling a lot of books. What one person considers bad writing another attributes to personal style or voice of the author. Also, what is consider 'bad writing/breaking of the rules' changes from time to time. What was considered good writing a decade or two ago would be seen as bad writing now.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Cathymw said:


> I think a lot of what you're seeing is probably just a sign of the lack of editing.
> 
> Whether it's due to the mass layoffs of editors that many publishing houses have done, or attitudes of "Oh, well, it's John Grisham and people will buy him anyway", or even "It's John Grisham, one of our best-selling authors, let's not p*ss him off", there seems to be less thorough editing being done. (And I, like the OP, am not picking on John Grisham. He's just an example.)
> 
> So perhaps the authors have always been guilty of certain fundamental mistakes (admittedly, we all have some personal and consistent writing issues) and you're only seeing it now because of the absence of a good editor.


I've noticed this "phoning in" of books by well established authors. This is especially true of writers that have suddenly started 'co-writing'.

Now I'm assuming that David Baldacci has actually done some decent writing, but the only book I have read of his didn't inspire me to read more of his. So many things about _The Whole Truth_ screamed 'first draft' that is was annoying. There was an entire fight scene described that had a magic shirt (first it is ripped open, then it is whole again to be sliced open, then it is whole again to be.........) and there was a preponderance towards poor grammar, all things that should have been picked up in editing, not by a consumer of a professionally published novel.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I wonder if once you achieve some level of sales and fame, if the author then acquires a veto power over the editors, and things s/he was doing before but which the editor was editing are now being pushed through unchanged by the author? And as others have mentioned, maybe the publisher feels the time/money for a full editing cycle is not needed since people will likely buy it anyway?


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I think Cathy and Steven have it. Publishers aren't bothering to edit anyone who's already a bestseller, plus they know that David Baldacci's or James Patterson's audience doesn't care much about the prose style, because they aren't "word people" -- they're looking for the equivalent of a summer popcorn movie on a page, not lucid prose or well-rounded characters.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

I'd guess as well that with a writer like Grisham (who I don't like but many others obviously do) has certain strengths as a writer, and as long as he generally plays to those strengths it'll get him through the weaker bits.

Whereas for a more average writer, the weaker bits seem even worse.

James


----------



## Mel Comley (Oct 13, 2010)

Actually that's the reason I stopped reading Grisham books. Also, I noticed Patricia Cornwell tryng to change her style a few years back and I totally went off her work, she went through a strange phase of overusing AND for some reason!

Not sure what her new novels are like because I think once you've lost your audience it's dificult to get them back.

Mel


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I remember reading a certain very long YA book that had been hyped to the sky. The poor boy MC was trapped in the woods for WAY TOO LONG! I'll bet they could have cut a hundred pages out of that puppy without a problem. 

I wondered what had happened to her editor - I suppose she turned him/her into a frog. 

I think that the 'rules' apply more to newbies than to the famous. Once you sold your first million books - who cares?


----------



## Jeff Tompkins (Sep 17, 2010)

It all depends on how it's done.

Generally, it's a good thing for writers to follow one of Elmore Leonard's rules of writing: Leave out the boring parts.

I'm of the opinion that the story and/or the character (character is always more important to me) should be advanced on every page. Even if it's just a little. Make it all mean something, somehow.

However, some very good and very entertaining writers can pull off pages of exposition and back-story. Carl Hiaasen comes to mind. In my opinion, he might be the master at it.

When you find this done poorly in a book by a best-selling author, I think it's probably the result of two things: 1) they're not great writers to begin with and most of their early stuff was heavily edited for commercial appeal; 2) now that they're selling huge numbers of books, the publishers have gotten lazy and they know having a certain author's name on a book will make it sell. Ever notice how their names are almost always in a larger font than the title on the cover?


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

I love J.K Rowling's books and think she has a genius for imaginative detail and I would not suggest she ever writes badly - but I did itch to edit her books four and onwards. I think by this stage the publishers thought that every word that fell from her pen was pure gold - which was pretty much true - but I think the books would have been even better if the editors had felt they could have had some say.


----------



## Chris Culver (Jan 28, 2011)

I think this is an interesting discussion.  My gut feeling is that once a writer starts hitting the best seller lists regularly, the process from writing to printing gets truncated.  You have to go on multi-city book tours, you have to go to conferences, you have to do all the exciting things mega-selling writers do.  Of course, all of that takes time from your writing. On top of that, deadlines are probably much more important because a publisher's quarterly balance sheet might rest on one or two blockbuster books.  Unfortunately, that might mean a book is released before an author and his editor have had a chance to really go over it like it deserves. 

My other thought is that once you've sold a few million books, you might start getting a big head on your shoulders.  Take Terry Goodkind, for instance.  He wrote an epic fantasy series called The Sword of Truth.  The first book was just fantastic.  The writing was taut, the characters were well-developed, the story was strong.  The second and third were pretty good, too.  After that, things just went way down hill.  By the time the series concluded, the main character seemed to be little more than a mouthpiece for the author's own philosophy.  The final book was almost unreadable.  The characters stopped having conversations; instead, they had multi-page monologues espousing the author's objectivist philosophy while other people happened to be in the room.  It was sad to see a good story teller succomb to his own ego.  

I think the real lesson to draw here is that publishing is a business.  Grisham, Patterson and some of the other bestselling writers get away with writing drek because people still buy their books.  Just a few thoughts.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Ego is always a threat, especially if no one will tell you no. I have no problem with characters having a point of view, but if it becomes hamfisted, I may switch to a different author.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> I have no problem with characters having a point of view, but if it becomes hamfisted, I may switch to a different author.


Yeah, I muffed that one in my first book. Got a bit overboard - oh well, the next book is always better.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

StevenSavile said:


> One thing I think is worth considering is the 'mass appeal' of a writer isn't based upon the highest common denominator in terms of his readership but the lowest - guys like Grisham, Pattersson etc sell so incredibly well because they write a particularly accessible style - and that means to hell with 'the rules' in favour of excitement. They're not claiming great literature in terms of the 'cannon' they're writing popcorn. Sweeping generalisation time: the only people who care about adverbs are writers. The only people who care about exposition are writers.


Yes, this, exactly.

Now can someone please teach me how to unlearn everything I know about pacing, structure, subplots, character development, research, and careful editing so I can duplicate their success?


----------



## CJArcher (Jan 22, 2011)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> Yes, this, exactly.
> 
> Now can someone please teach me how to unlearn everything I know about pacing, structure, subplots, character development, research, and careful editing so I can duplicate their success?


Lol. I agree. I've learned a lot about the craft of writing in the last few years that I worry I've forgotten how to tell a good story. Story always should come first - if you want to be popular.

Some of the most popular writers of today seem to have gotten away with murdering the craft in their books. For example Twilight breaks so many writing "rules" and yet it's hugely popular because the people reading it and loving it don't care that there's too much exposition, telling instead of showing or that the heroine isn't pro-active.

Just my humble little opinion. For the record, I definitely don't get the Twilight thing but I respect that it appeals to a vast audience. Actually, forget respect and insert envy.


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

I think once some writers get past a certain point of fame/money, they either don't like to be edited or everyone is afraid to edit them. So they do whatever they want, including backstory dumps and head hopping, and they get away with it. Many readers will keep buying the books just for the name, hoping to find the magic again.
L.J.
The Suicide Effect (now $.99)


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> Yes, this, exactly.
> 
> Now can someone please teach me how to unlearn everything I know about pacing, structure, subplots, character development, research, and careful editing so I can duplicate their success?


I've found scotch helps. Usually in large quantities.


----------



## RDaybell (Jan 31, 2011)

tim290280 said:


> I've found scotch helps. Usually in large quantities.


Bourbon is better. I've found that it can actually do some of the writing on its own. Which brings up the thought: Are the Koontzes and Grishams even doing their own writing anymore. I remember hearing that James Michener who started off as a good writer (Tales of the South Pacific) employed an army of writers (locked in a windowless room) when he wrote Caribbean and probably some of his other later works. Maybe these superstars have just become corporations.


----------



## Wintings (Feb 16, 2011)

jmiked said:


> Shouldn't it be "Good writers writing badly"?
> 
> Mike


Good point!


----------



## Chris Culver (Jan 28, 2011)

> Which brings up the thought: Are the Koontzes and Grishams even doing their own writing anymore. I remember hearing that James Michener who started off as a good writer (Tales of the South Pacific) employed an army of writers (locked in a windowless room) when he wrote Caribbean and probably some of his other later works. Maybe these superstars have just become corporations.


I wonder this too, especially with James Patterson. I don't mean to pick on him exclusively, but he's the most obvious in my mind. When he's by himself, he's okay; he's not producing great literature, but it's usually an okay story. When there's a cowriter, though, it's almost always garbage. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I wonder if Patterson has even read some of the things he's 'co-written.'


----------



## Mark Feggeler (Feb 7, 2011)

Daphne said:


> I love J.K Rowling's books and think she has a genius for imaginative detail and I would not suggest she ever writes badly - but I did itch to edit her books four and onwards. I think by this stage the publishers thought that every word that fell from her pen was pure gold - which was pretty much true - but I think the books would have been even better if the editors had felt they could have had some say.


I agree! There were times when I found myself skimming ahead because I felt the books were mired down in their own detail. Popular artists of any medium might enjoy having their egos stroked, but the ones who continue to offer quality work typically are the ones who seem to be surrounded by a strong team that helps them realize when they are straying.


----------



## Shayne Parkinson (Mar 19, 2010)

Arts & Letters Daily had a link to a relevant article recently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/11/lost-art-editing-books-publishing

I found it interesting reading, including many of the comments.


----------



## Mark Feggeler (Feb 7, 2011)

Shayne Parkinson said:


> Arts & Letters Daily had a link to a relevant article recently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/11/lost-art-editing-books-publishing
> 
> I found it interesting reading, including many of the comments.


Excellent article. Very much on topic for this discussion.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

RDaybell said:


> Bourbon is better. I've found that it can actually do some of the writing on its own. Which brings up the thought: Are the Koontzes and Grishams even doing their own writing anymore. I remember hearing that James Michener who started off as a good writer (Tales of the South Pacific) employed an army of writers (locked in a windowless room) when he wrote Caribbean and probably some of his other later works. Maybe these superstars have just become corporations.


I was reading an author biography recently that stated he was a ghost writer for a bestselling thriller author. So I have no doubt that several of the big names have someone at least helping them to pump out a book by a deadline.


----------

