Criticizing the Published

[Legendary Sidekick]

Twilight was horribly written and was only successful because it marketed to tweens and bored housewives.

My objection is:

A. I think that the author of such statements miss what Twilight did well, which was connect with the audience. I only wish I could connect to a reader as well as Meyer did with me (and I'm not a housewife or a tween).

B. It makes the author of the statement sound, to me, like a bit of a jerk by implying that tweens and bored housewives don't have the ability to discern good writing and that only his definition of good writing is valid.

Yeah, I think when people gripe that Meyers doesn't deserve success, that's sour grapes. When I think "critiquing," I think of it as an honest assessment of a work's strength and weaknesses. Who the writer is and how much the writer made should not be relevant.

 

[BWFoster78]

Who the writer is and how much the writer made should not be relevant.

I don't quite understand how the work's success can be separated from a discussion of its strengths and weaknesses.

Writing skill is highly subjective. I tend to judge the merit of writing based on how well it engaged me and how emotionally attached I became toward the characters. I couldn't care less about description. Other writers/readers are the opposite. How much they experienced the setting is more important than anything about the characters (I think, anyway, after reading opinions from people who view things in such a way).

I think there's a very simple equation we have to consider: if a book rose above all the other options out there, there has to be some reason for it. What is that reason and can we learn anything from it?

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I don't quite understand how the work's success can be separated from a discussion of its strengths and weaknesses.

Writing skill is highly subjective. I tend to judge the merit of writing based on how well it engaged me and how emotionally attached I became toward the characters. I couldn't care less about description. Other writers/readers are the opposite. How much they experienced the setting is more important than anything about the characters (I think, anyway, after reading opinions from people who view things in such a way).

I think there's a very simple equation we have to consider: if a book rose above all the other options out there, there has to be some reason for it. What is that reason and can we learn anything from it?

I think legendary is saying that the amount of money made and the name of the author shouldn't color our perception of whether a book is good or not. And I have to agree with this. I shouldn't like or dislike a book based on name, I shouldn't also believe that sales mean the book is good. Sure, short term sales might mean an initial public interest and a surface enjoyment. But continual sales and having the book enter the culture's lexicon and making it a book for the ages those are the marks of a truly good book.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think legendary is saying that the amount of money made and the name of the author shouldn't color our perception of whether a book is good or not.

I think it should certainly color our perception of what it takes to make money in today's publishing environment.

I shouldn't also believe that sales mean the book is good.

Define "good."

If the readers are telling their friends to buy it because they enjoyed it, who are we to say it isn't "good." Is our opinion more valid somehow that the readers who spent their hard-earned money to buy it?

Sure, short term sales might mean an initial public interest and a surface enjoyment. But continual sales and having the book enter the culture's lexicon and making it a book for the ages those are the marks of a truly good book.

By your measure. By my measure, a book is good if it entertained me. Why is your measure of a "truly good book" more valid than mine?

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I think it should certainly color our perception of what it takes to make money in today's publishing environment.



Define "good."

If the readers are telling their friends to buy it because they enjoyed it, who are we to say it isn't "good." Is our opinion more valid somehow that the readers who spent their hard-earned money to buy it?



By your measure. By my measure, a book is good if it entertained me. Why is your measure of a "truly good book" more valid than mine?

In the short term? Nothing. But tell me, will Eragon or Twilight be remembered for as long as LOTR, GoT, The Chronicles of Narnia, or any of the other classics? No. Why? They're not that good. Success and the value of the book, or anything really, is measured in short term and long term. Look at some movies. Back when you first saw them they were awesome (like the original Batman by Burton). Watch them now and they haven't aged well. Same with books. You could re-read a book that was great when it first came out but upon further review it's just not that great. It doesn't age well. So while the entertainment factor is great for the short term it is not necessarily the best measure for longevity, and longevity is a valuable measure for whether a book is good or not.

 

[BWFoster78]

First, I don't know if I agree with you at all about Twilight. I'd much prefer to reread that series than LOTR or GoT or The Chronicles of Narnia.

Second:

longevity is a valuable measure for whether a book is good or not.

Who says? Do all of us have to strive for books that become literary classics? I hate literary classics. Why would I want to write such?

Am I somehow inferior as a writer because I don't share your opinion about longevity?

 

[Trick]

By your measure. By my measure, a book is good if it entertained me.

Nuff said. Your definition of "good" insofar as books go, is different than his. And mine. One is not better than the other, necessarily. The fact of the matter is, this is a discussion of two different topics. I find many movies "entertaining," mostly in a fleeting manner. Some movies, however, I will watch again and again. Does that make the fleetingly entertaining movie "not good?" No. It makes it fleeting in it's value for me. Is this because it is lesser quality? I think so. Apparently you don't. Therein lies the difference of opinion.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I think there's a very simple equation we have to consider: if a book rose above all the other options out there, there has to be some reason for it. What is that reason and can we learn anything from it?

You're not asking about the merit of the work in this case, but why it sold.

There are things that successful authors do well outside of writing that contribute to their success.

I'm under the opinion that these are separate discussions. (Valid, but separate.)

For example, if I want to write a good web comic, I read web comics and find out what's working for me. If I see someone at my level, artistically, making money, I want to know how. What's the cost of hosting, advertising, etc? What resolution do I scan at so I can sell a year's worth of strips in print? What extras to I offer to make the print version attractive to fans? I won't list all my questions, but there's a lot I want to know about the business end, and I'm clueless because I've never hosted a web comic. Books on the craft give me ideas for pacing, level of detail depending on the type of work (goofy = sketchy is fine; serious = gotta learn to draw realistically), and how many strips/pages should be ready to upload prior to launching the first. So in recent weeks, I've read a little about the business end—how to make money as a cartoonist. And I've learned to hone my craft so I can be a better storyteller through this medium.

As for the content of my work—here's where I need to know well what I like and dislike, and make sure I'm not creating the same stuff I'd hate as a reader/viewer. This is where I think honest critiquing is important. No sour grapes, but also, don't just look at the big sellers and assume that makes them the best storytellers. Just take a brutally honest look at a work, and how it's pros and cons apply to my work. I can look at what, for example, Skadi is doing well, and think, "Yeah, I like sending a barbarian girl on bloody, humorous adventures, but damn, that one where she rips the leg off a pixie? None of that crap in my comic."

Why do I separate the critique of the works merit from its ability to sell? Two reasons: #1, an unknown or starting comic may be the best thing I've ever seen in three panels. The artist's failure to market the work is irrelevant if I'm reading her little gem and loving it. Maybe the comic isn't making big bucks due to failure to advertise, lack of merchandizing or sporadic updates.

#2, what will I do with the information if I fail to see the genius of a successful work? I'm not going to emulate something I think is crap, even if it sold because the rest of the world loves it. I have to believe in my work. I'm also not going to emulate the content of the super-successful if I totally appreciate the genius but it's just not something I'd write. Me making Nickel Arcade won't earn me Penny Arcade's fame and fortune.

 

[BWFoster78]

You're not asking about the merit of the work in this case, but why it sold.

There are things that successful authors do well outside of writing that contribute to their success.

If the reason is something other than "merit," then perhaps there is not much we can learn from it. It seems silly, however, to claim a book has no merit simply because one doesn't personally like it.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Good point. I should have said "quality."

Or maybe "my opinion," since that's really all I'm looking at when I critique: what works for me, and what doesn't?

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

If the reason is something other than "merit," then perhaps there is not much we can learn from it. It seems silly, however, to claim a book has no merit simply because one doesn't personally like it.

But no one here is saying that Twilight or Eragon has no merit. I'm stating that their merit is based not in the ability to write but to tell a story that appeals to a certain audience. And look, let's be honest, there are much better books out there than Eragon and Twilight. GoT, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Vampire Diaries, Stormlight Archives, Dragon Riders of Pern, Harry Potter, etc all of these are better on a technical level, story telling, and characterizations. I know you don't agree, but history will play out and Eragon and Twilight will be largely forgotten and at least one of these will become something generations of people will enjoy for years to come.

 

[BWFoster78]

But no one here is saying that Twilight or Eragon has no merit. I'm stating that their merit is based not in the ability to write but to tell a story that appeals to a certain audience. And look, let's be honest, there are much better books out there than Eragon and Twilight. GoT, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Vampire Diaries, Stormlight Archives, Dragon Riders of Pern, Harry Potter, etc all of these are better on a technical level, story telling, and characterizations. I know you don't agree, but history will play out and Eragon and Twilight will be largely forgotten and at least one of these will become something generations of people will enjoy for years to come.

Your crystal ball is aparently much better than mine.

My question though: why is the ability to "write" more important than the ability to tell a story?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Your crystal ball is aparently much better than mine. My question though: why is the ability to "write" more important than the ability to tell a story?

Answer: It's only more important to writers. You know, those people like us for whom writing is more difficult that it is for anyone else.

 

[BWFoster78]

Good point. I should have said "quality."

Or maybe "my opinion," since that's really all I'm looking at when I critique: what works for me, and what doesn't?

Again, I have absolutely no issue with someone saying, "This book did not work for me." That is a completely unarguable statement. Only you can say what did or did not work for you.

 

[BWFoster78]

Answer: It's only more important to writers. You know, those people like us for whom writing is more difficult that it is for anyone else.

I am much more concerned, at the moment, with my ability to tell a story than with my ability to write.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I am much more concerned, at the moment, with my ability to tell a story than with my ability to write.

Me too, which is both frustrating and reassuring at the same time.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Your crystal ball is aparently much better than mine.

My question though: why is the ability to "write" more important than the ability to tell a story?

It isn't, that's why you see Twilights and Eragons making it as big as they do. But, to be a classic to be something that is beyond entertaining, to have that lasting power I mentioned before, the book must be written well. It must be clear, well edited, and be above average in all of the technical aspects of writing. It needs something more than just a good story. Amazing characters are required to be beyond entertaining. There is also an x factor. It's different for every book. But that x factor needs to be there. For LOTR it was the transcendent nature of the tropes Tolkien created for fantasy. Harry Potter had its charm and poignant discussion of life and death. GoT has people in situations that are more than shocking, they are challenging.

Telling a story is just a factor in the analysis of a book. There are many other things that go into making a book good, writing is another and a huge one for writers and those well educated in writing and literature. Characters are also huge, in many ways the most important factor. Then there's that x factor.

 

[Mindfire]

A. I think that the author of such statements miss what Twilight did well, which was connect with the audience. I only wish I could connect to a reader as well as Meyer did with me (and I'm not a housewife or a tween).

Then my question is: why and how in the blazing inferno of hell did Twilight connect to you in a meaningful way because such a happening utterly defies my very comprehension. The mind boggles. I just... can't. Like, it's not the anti-life equation, but it's pretty darn close. Please explain to me the arcane mystery of how you found value in a story that compares unfavorably in my estimation with Disney's Princess Diaries* (which I despise, just to be clear). How can you enjoy it? It is like unto some kind of horrible Lovecraftian secret that I must not know, and yet I am compelled to try and understand it.

First, I don't know if I agree with you at all about Twilight. I'd much prefer to reread that series than LOTR or GoT or The Chronicles of Narnia.

*goes mad from the revelation*

 

[Russ]

I am much more concerned, at the moment, with my ability to tell a story than with my ability to write.

I am not sure the two are really different things.

Is not the ability to write just the delivery tool for telling the story?

I think the ability to write just allows you to deliver the story better.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

For me the story always has to come first. I might read a truly terribly written book about a subject I love with a great plot - and then complain about the editing. I will absolutely never read the best ever written book about paint drying.

Cheers, Greg.