My previous post about how subjective book-liking is and whether or not there is objective criteria for books is one of my finer ones, I think. However, there are some spots where my thoughts or opinions may have been unclear (oh no!) and I wanted to follow up on them before anybody gets the wrong idea.
One of the musings I used about book-liking is that even “bad” books have fans. Some people like them just because of how awful they are, or some people like them for the few “good” things that may be in the book. For example, the Fifty Shades series is atrociously written. However, it is a very popular book, therefore it must have some good qualities to some people.
The issue with this representation is that I appear to conflate objective writing qualities with whether people like them or not. This is inaccurate and I did not mean to do so. Whether people like a book or not is subjective, and this was more of an explanation of how people can like certain things that other people hate. This does also happen with qualities that appear to be “objective” markers of a good book. Some people like long-winded descriptions while others abhor them. Is one objectively better than the other? Not really, as long as both styles of writing are well-written.
What does well-written mean? This is a hard thing to define because those of us who are well-read can often tell when a book is “well-written” just by reading it. It becomes more of a feeling than something one can easily describe. I think a well-written novel generally follows the basic writing conventions. Things like proper punctuation, elevated language, varying sentence structure, etc. are fairly objective markers for good writing. Then, there are some slightly less objective markers that may vary by genre. Fantasy is often marked by its thoroughness and dedication to its make-believe world. The conventions become less important as the depth of the novel and intensity of the plot take precedence. In other cases, typically with more literary works, the markers may be on characterization, social commentary, and insight.
Some of these markers seem objective in that whether you like the style or not, it’s objectively good. Don’t like Steinbeck? Well, his characterization is off the charts and has been widely acclaimed; therefore, if you do not like it you are the one who is wrong. It is objectively good.
I find it hard to describe things this way because I don’t think any book is objectively good or bad. Many books are good because of the context in which they were written. The beat-writers were so popular because they essentially created counter-culture. They said “screw these conventions” and wrote about life in a way that was so antithetical to the type of writing that was going on at the time. Today, many may pick up a book like On the Road and find it not particularly well-written (there’s that word again) or think that it’s the story of some guys partying it up without recognizing the significance of the work. The fact that context and timing matters so much to a book’s merit makes these qualities highly subjective to me.
I do want to take a moment here to talk about flouting conventions as well. All of the writers I’ve mentioned have done writing faux paus and were still wildly successful. That does not necessarily mean their writing was top-notch. Dune, while being a fantasy classic, is not particularly well-written from a creative-writing perspective. I know some who would also argue that Hemingway should have just used some periods in For Whom the Bell Tolls.
These writers were able to get away with this because they had something to say, and the traditional conventions didn’t matter quite as much in how it was said. We’re taught these conventions to make our writing smoother, to elevate it, and to make it easier for readers to follow along. It’s a good thing. We also sometimes use these tips and tricks to cover up the fact that we don’t always have much to say, or to hide that what we are saying is pretty insignificant.
It’s easy to get away with mediocre writing if your story is fascinating. It’s easy to get away with lack of punctuation if people are engrossed in the cadence and diction of your prose. Superfluous writing can be annoying, but if it tells a good story many will overlook it. On the other hand, some writers (like J. K. Rowling, for example) are known for their lack of description in their writing. Both are fine when there are larger concepts to consider, however not all writers employ these larger concepts effectively.
I am not advocating that conventions are wrong and I’m not advocating that people should not learn or follow them. Quite the opposite, in fact. Learn them, follow them, break them, preferably in that order. Just make sure that whatever you do, you’re not using beautiful or conventional writing to cover up the fact that you’re really not saying anything worth reading. Although, some people are into that as well, so what do I know?
That’s why this whole “objective” thing is really difficult. Whether or not people like a book does not mean it is a good book (though often times books are popular for a reason, don’t be a hipster about it), but it is also difficult to determine a good book basted on objective qualities because those themselves are not as objective as we think. Certain traits and qualities are upheld because of the time or context in which they were written, and some were really praised just for being “new”. Styles of writing cycle, and there are books right now (I’m looking at you, contemporary) that are praised for their ingenuity with writing yet will likely soon be criticized for the very same thing.
There is very little objectivity when it comes to what makes a book good or bad, which is why we often rely on subjectivity. And the subjectivity of book-liking is very hard to pin down indeed.
The Lit Wiz