The writosphere is aflutter after Stephen King said, in an interview with USA Weekend: “The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.”
After some further thoughts on Erle Stanley Gardner (King: “terrible”), Jodi Picoult (good), Dean Koontz (good and bad) and James Patterson (bad), King said further:
“People are attracted by the stories, by the pace and in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it’s very clear that she’s writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It’s exciting and it’s thrilling and it’s not particularly threatening because they’re not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that’s a shorthand for all the feelings that they’re not ready to deal with yet.”
The whole situation is not without its irony. After Stephen King won a National Book Foundation award for “distinguished contribution” to American letters (and surely books as well), the critic/professor Harold Bloom wrote in the Boston Globe:
“What [King] is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis. The publishing industry has stooped terribly low…”
Aside from putting books in the news, which, hi, doesn’t happen very often, this whole spat raises some interesting questions. Or rather one interesting question: who decides what is good anyway?
Is it the readers? After all, if Meyer is so successful she has to be doing something right. And in this world of American Idol, everyone fancies themselves an expert. But surely there is some difference between commercial success and artistic merit, right? Are we ready to crown the most successful books the “best” books?
Is it the critics? Should we leave “good” to the people who devote themselves to sifting through the books and movies and decide what’s good and bad? Surely there’s something to be said for expertise, right?
Is it the writers? Who knows better than the people who are actually writing the books, right? Or do they?
Is it the scholars? Yesterday’s potboilers are today’s classics. Yesterday’s drivel is today’s unappreciated genius.
What do you think?
Anonymous says
A good writer for YA will NOT use a lot of big words, they lose focus on the story for the younger world. It is not how a child talks therefore you cannot expect them to want to read it. I don’t know about you, but I can’t stand it when I call a company and get a foreigner trying to help me fix my computer. It is the same thing. A little bit of an accent is okay, I can make it through the conversation. Give the kids a few words, and even adults, they are okay with it, but too many and you miss the point; which is telling a story. I have NEVER read a book to learn new words, although I do learn new words as long as I read the book.
Anonymous says
Oh, no. I foresee the topic of our next “You Tell Me.”
Would you rather be a Great Writer (Michael Chabon) or a Great Story Teller (Stephenie Meyer)?
Of course half of blog responses will cop out and say (wide-eyed and full of wonder): Both!
Denise Eagan says
The readers decide. They’re the ones who pay the money, they’re the ones whose money keeps books on the shelves. We should be writing for them.
Jenny says
Even now, a hundred years away from the pop writers of Dickens’s day we still don’t know what we like or what the ‘important’ literature is. The fight over who is a ‘good’ writer and who is a ‘bad’ writer is not healthy for a writer to think about while creating. You can’t think of who/what will criticize you. Even King said in “On Writing”–you can’t worry about being brilliant, just tell the story.
After the story is told, however (with the ‘door open’), your work is fair game and you’d better hope to heaven that you’ve had a wonderful and honest team…and that you’ve taken their brilliant advice!…so that you know when the criticism comes up, you know what you did and why. Then the criticism doesn’t sting as much.
I think Meyer has probably done that, I don’t think King could really hurt her feelings, and he is well within his right to speak up…all of the writers he comes out and talks about put their work out there to be, well, talked about.
Anonymous says
Jenny,
When I write it is not for the critic who writes horror to badmouth me because it wasn’t to his standards. I have never had that in my mind. It has always been for my target audience, and unless you are that target audience you are not going to connect with it. Obviously SK is not. What he has now done (and you can see it on this blog)is give a false impression of a book, and made some of the people who have not read it yet get the idea it is not worth reading. IMO keep your mouth shut about what you don’t know, and obviously SK is not a teen, but is a popular author therefore influential. Sure ther are some people here who will borrow it from someone they know out of curiousity, (because SK gave them the impression is not worth buying, but they are going to be prejudice before they ever start reading it). When I read a book I try to do it for enjoyment first, then the business side comes into play, but I would never criticize a fellow author (not that anyone would care yet). If I did say anything publicly (which I feel is bad form)I would say it wasn’t my kind of book, not that someone was a bad writer.
Anonymous says
King’s comments on Rowling and Meyer are funny. I’ve read all of their respective series books and Meyer, technically, is much the better writer. My biggest critique is she is slow to action and dwells on teenage angst ad nauseum. Though that’s simply a personal preference. Rowling is not a very good writer/stylist. In fact, she’s rather plodding in that direction. What she does do exceedingly well, is tell a compelling story. And that brings me to King. I remember reading The Stand many years ago. I kept putting it down because I found his writing amateurish. But I kept picking it back up. Why? Because the story was so damn compelling. Just like Rowling. King has developed over time into a fine writer to go along with his unparalleled ability to tell a great story. Rowling got better as a writer as she went along, but she’s hardly a strong writer. Meyer, in my opinion, has exhibited a much stronger writing ability than either King or Rowling at this stage of their writing careers. It’s my take and I’m sticking to it.
Ulysses says
Further thoughts on who judges:
Scholars? Nah. Scholars are like forensic scientists. They’ll wait for a piece to become accepted as “good” then they’ll tear it to pieces in an attempt to explain why.
Writers? Are you kidding? If the people who produce the words could determine which ones are “good,” then every one of them would be, and we’d never have progressed beyond the forty-seven variant meanings of “Ugh!” No. You don’t give the monkeys keys to the zoo, and you don’t let the producers decide the definition of “quality.”
Critics? Maybe. But critics have to have an example of “good” before they can compare it to something that is “not good.” They can measure, but someone has to set the mark. Of course, once they’ve offered their opinion, they have to have a sufficiently large audience agree with them before their judgement can be considered even an occasionally reliable indicator of quality. Whenever I ask someone, “who listens to critics?” the answer I get is either “other critics,” or an attempt to change the subject.
Readers? That bunch of uneducated bums? The ones who hated poetry and Shakespeare in school, and who only read D.H. Lawrence because they heard there were dirty bits? Are you kidding me? Reader popularity has propelled the success of such hacks as Stephen King and Jacqueline Susann! But here’s the thing: unlike the other classes listed, this group is willing to vote with both their time and with their money. Critics and writers and scholars may try to determine what’s good, but it’s the readers who determine the tastes of the times against which all such measurements are made. The others may try to point out why a particular book deserves to be considered “good,” but it’s the readers to whom they are trying to point it out.
Is this the best way to determine “good?” Probably not, but money talks and the readers are the only ones saying anything with it.
Anonymous says
I have to disagree about JKR; I liked her first book the best, same with SM. Something is lost when other hands get into the picture.
Anonymous says
Honestly, wildy popular now or great writing 100 years from now? I’ll take the present, bad writing and all.
Anonymous says
I’m confused. What makes Stephanie Meyer such a horrible writer? I think I saw a reference to the overuse of adverbs…what else is lacking?
Anonymous says
I love this blog.
Anonymous says
Anon 7:44 —
“…I’m confused. What makes Stephanie Meyer such a horrible writer? I think I saw a reference to the overuse of adverbs…what else is lacking?…”
Mostly, people criticize that fact that her books have very little plot, that all the emotions are repetitive to the point of eye rolling, and that the MC — Bella — is a Mary-Sue type of character. She has no flaws, and is in total lust with the perfect Edward, who also has no flaws. In other words, they are two, one-dimensional characters who are in love with themselves and each other. The sacrifice nothing. They don’t make mistakes.
The plot itself lacks a freat deal of focus and intent. The writing seems to wander off and look at shiny things a lot, mainly to express how perfect Edward is and how much Bella wants him.
I thought the first book was fine, but the subsequent ones completely unfocused and all over the place, again, with very repetitive writing.
This may be in part because the “series” was initially only supposed to be two books, but the publisher wanted three (and ended up with four). To me, perhaps it was a case of, instead of forming plots that carried over three books, what little “action” there was felt as if it was for the sake of cramming some “action” in, and was in no way important. It didn’t mean anything. Why waste all the time in Italy with mean Jane, etc… in Eclipse, if no real battle is going to come from in in book three, or book four?
Also, the fourth book seems to have brought out a lot of hatred (and also lots of adoration) Why it’s gotten panned? There are arguments that she ignored her own canons. That the characters do about-faces on everything from personalities to dialog.
Just my opinion. Though lots of girls love them, so in the end, you know, so what?
Anonymous says
Excuse my typos, I’m not awake yet.
Nathan Bransford says
Look, anon, “worse writer ever” is neither grammatically correct nor constructive.
This discussion has been really great, let’s not mar it with crude swipes at either author.
Anonymous says
I listened to all of the HP books and all of the Twilight books. I thoroughly enjoyed HP on audio, I skipped two and three chapters at a time of the Twilight audiobooks because it was too slow moving for me and not that interesting. Why I continue to listen to all four of them? Simple. I’m a writer, and I need to research what sells. I want to know what attracts people books. Doesn’t mean I’m going to copy it, but it makes sense for me to know what’s selling.
Anonymous says
‘Worse’ was obviously a typo, Nathan and simply an opinion.
Nathan Bransford says
Well, it’s not a particularly constructive one. I think you can do better if you want to describe what you find lacking in a way that’s fair and respectful.
Anonymous says
Got it…
The point: technically the T-series isn’t well-written if we’re talking about grammar, sentence structure, word usage. Want darn good writing using the above criteria, read Philip Roth. That was not to say that the T-series it’s commercial, and we all know commercial is what sells millions. It is what it is. No I don’t like the T-series, but do I get the appeal.
Eileen Wiedbrauk says
It’s … it’s … SUBJECTIVE!
Yep, that about sums it up. The fact that Nathan can provide us with four plausible options states this question’s subjectivity as well as anything else.
Mira says
Anon 8:01
I agree. This is a great blog.
It’s totally addictive.
Kudos to you, Nathan!
Anonymous says
“In general: if a work has merit to someone, it has merit. Scholars, critics, and the public are never going to pick the exact same selection of works, because the criteria by which they judge is so different.”
I agree with the second sentence, and strongly disagree with the first, if by “merit” we mean, “Claim or title to commendation or esteem; excellence, worth.” Some art is better than other art, and it is possible to ignore popularity and make reasonable, critical judgments. Harold Bloom, while he certainly has his eccentricities and can be as blinded by his own current tastes as the next person, is still pretty well-qualified to talk about value in writing. (Though to be fair, his book on Hamlet was madness.)
One of the worst things happening in public discourse about the arts is that there appears to be an attempt to bring criticism down to the level of mere opinion, with the further claim that everyone’s opinion is equal, and that all opinion is “just opinion” and nobody’s opinion is more valid than another’s.
This false conflation of criticism with opinion and the misguided egalitarianism in which it’s wrapped is leading to the death of informed criticism, which is being drowned in a sea of uninformed opinion.
While readers deserve entertaining stories, we also deserve well-written entertaining stories, because on some level, writing is about felicity with language and use of words. Meyers can sell a billion books, but she is still not a good writer. Though her fans are legion, it remains important that writers (and artists in all fields) be held to the highest standards, because excellence in the arts remains important. “An entertaining tale” is not the same as “a well-written book,” and it’s important to recognize that, and important to say it out loud, often.
smcelrath says
I think much of this debate comes down to intention. As a reader, are you looking for great literature, or an escape? As a writer, are you looking to write a literary piece, or entertain the masses? Your approach to the text differs based on your intent.
As a librarian in a middle school and high school, I’d much rather have a book the kids are excited to read (as in, I keep buying more copies because the waiting list is so long) than one that is of great literary value, but sits on the shelf. Hopefully the books students study in Language Arts classes teach high literary elements and standards.
Anonymous says
Anon 9:37 —
“…One of the worst things happening in public discourse about the arts is that there appears to be an attempt to bring criticism down to the level of mere opinion, with the further claim that everyone’s opinion is equal, and that all opinion is “just opinion” and nobody’s opinion is more valid than another’s…”
I get what you are saying, but the book buying public isn’t generally concerned with criticism as an “art form.” They actually do want the “opinions” of those they trust. That may be their sister or mother or someone in cyberspace with their same taste.
In the end, the only opinion I actually care about, as I read, is my own. Because I’m buying the book and spending my free time reading it.
And, again, well-written IS subjective. Tastes are allowed to grow and develop. My 14-year-old niece loved SM’s books. She might very well look back at them some day and wonder why, but that makes her opinion no less valuable at this present time.
Angela says
Wow. It really makes me sad to think that in this brutal, lonely art we have to battle our own sense of inadequacy and self-doubt, but also other artists in the same endeavor.
Because of this, I can’t help but think that some context is missing from King’s comment. It may be true that Meyer’s name may never sit between those of Wolfe or Steinbeck or McCarthy, but it will always be in the archives of the NYT Bestseller’s list.
And what does that say for the multitude of us, the unpublished and unknown, who still aspire to be dissed by the likes of Stephen King?
Just asking.
WrdVer as commentary: OK Rat
Rick Daley says
Nathan,
What’s the record for number of comments and duration of active commenting on one of your blog posts?
I bet this one is a contender!
Anonymous says
Anon 9:54:
Again, here’s the difference between “a book my niece likes” and “a well-written book.” They are not the same thing, and I don’t know why it is considered rude to say that, while Stephanie Meyers is a successful entertainer of young girls, she’s still a bad writer.
The opinions you refer to are of the “hey, you’ll like this book” variety (valuable comments to readers, certainly); those sorts of comments are not the same as critical statements about the level of craftsmanship in the author’s use of language.
I watch “Legend of the Seeker” on hulu, and enjoy it. I also know that it’s an awfully-written show. Really, truly bad dialog and contrived plotlines and I don’t happen to recommend it to anyone else because I know it’s not very good. Still, I watch it.
Anonymous says
Do you expect a 1st grader to read a classic or listen to one?
Do you expect a 6th grader to?
You may, but you are going to make them dislike reading.
How do I know? It happened to me. I was in my twenties before I picked up a book again. It was historical romance (totally slutty). I only did then because someone recommended it, otherwise I may have never read another book. If I hadn’t liked it, I may have never read another. You can tell a person they should read only “good” writing, it won’t happen or you can let them get hooked on a good story. Eventually they may agree with all of the professionals about what they THINK good writing is, but you have to get them to read first! “GOOD” writing is only going to appeal to a certain small group of people, if good writing isn’t about the story.
Anonymous says
Rick,
I was wondering that myself.
Anonymous says
I like Meyer for two reasons:
1. After reading her books I knew I could not only write YA, but I could write it better than her. It was a stimulus for my own writing, which I desperately needed at the time.
2. If you want to talk about authors who had horrific writing skills and needed an editor, let’s go to some of the greats:
Jane Austen — the queen of TELL, who never seems to grace us with an actual scene if she can help it… instead she just tells us about how it all went down. No SHOW for this amazing author.
J.R.R. Tolkein — never in the history of the book did someone need an editor more. I mean, if the characters never step foot on or near the mountain range, I don’t really need a 14 page expository on the history of the mountain, how it was named, and what grows there in the spring. OH HAI WANDERING PROSE OF DOOM!
The list goes on, really. But the truth is some of the greats who have earned shrines on our bookcases to their greatness had issues of their own. So why are they so exalted?
Character
Story
Innovative Thinking
Honestly, Literary Fiction usually makes me groan inwardly. There’s a reason why that was the first thing cut back on in this economic crisis of ours. The prose may be beautiful, but the books are a grind to read through sometimes… and I want something I can devour. Give me Holly Black, Melissa Marr, Charles de Lint, and, yes, even Stephenie Meyer ANY day.
Nathan Bransford says
Rick-
The record number of comments was for the last contest thread, which was like 1,300 or something. This probably tops all the discussion posts though, or at least it will if it beats the 298 comments on the “one or two spaces after a period” question.
Anonymous says
SO all of you “GOOD” writers need to thank the “BAD” writers, eventually maybe those readers will want to read “GOOD” writing.
Anonymous says
Do you expect a 1st grader to read a classic or listen to one?
Do you expect a 6th grader to?
You may, but you are going to make them dislike reading.
Certainly I read a lot of books when I was a kid that were not “classics”, though there are “classics” of children’s literature, and certainly not all children’s or YA is created equal. Reading adventure stories or trashy science fiction got me hooked on the pleasure of reading, but I still thinks it’s perfectly fine to acknowledge that I read a lot of badly-written books when I was a kid. Some people never make the transition into reading lots of well-written books. Some of those people don’t realize there is a difference.
I have no idea at all why people seem so afraid to acknowledge that there are such things as badly-written books on their shelves. I read the Iain Pears “art mystery” books, all of them, as quickly as I could once I discovered them, and I wish there were more of them. They are not well-written, either, on the level of craft (and, really, the last one just sucked even as a mystery).
Why do people seem to be intimidated by the idea of “great writing” and defensive of “bad writing?” It’s OKAY to enjoy badly-written books, but let’s just come out and admit that the books are badly-written. Who does that harm?
WitLiz Today says
I think someone should’ve stuffed a bar of soap in SK’s mouth as soon as the words, (and I’m paraphrasing), ‘SM is a gosh darn bad writer,’ came bubbling out.
And I love SK. I think he’s a wonderful storyteller and writer. But he had one of those icky human moments that required instantaneous and drastic action. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.
Consequently, the shot fired around the internet hit SM right in the keester. And for that I’m saddened, because she didn’t deserve to be publicly humiliated like that. Whether you like her writing or not, it behooves us all to be gracious when the opportunity arises.
I honestly wouldn’t know how to judge ‘good’. As a reader, I read what I’m most interested in. As a writer, I try to see the ‘good’ in all that I read. Because I truly believe that every writer has something ‘good’ to say. Or they wouldn’t spend an infinite number hours writing. Is it publishable? Well, that’s determined by the agents of publishing, at first, then by the readers thereafter.
But whether a writer ends up traditionally published or self-published, the work they do ought to be respected, and not degraded by anyone. And certainly not by a writer of SK’s stature.
But I think we can all learn from this, (although maybe SK should be the first one standing in the ‘I learned my lesson and I won’t do it again line’.)
Lady Glamis says
I just got back from a week’s break from blogging. Wow… this post is getting a lot of attention!
I suppose I’ll add my opinion to the pile:
The reader decides, plain and simple. It was great for King to share his opinion. Opinions are opinions, but I don’t feel they should be stated rudely or without justification. King at least justified and explained why he has the opinion he does.
This kind of goes along the lines of who decides what goes in the golden canon of great literature. I believe there are certain aspects of art that puts it in the canon, but that will take a whole post on my blog to explain. And once again, it’s all an opinion. 🙂
Roland says
King has made more money than any author in the history of the written word, and even though I love how he plays with structure in his earlier books, that fact will remain a mystery for the ages. I don’t think anyone has ever made the claim that he’s the best writer that ever lived. So why has he made more money than any other writer living or dead?
Obviously his income from stuff like film rights helped fill his pouch, and I am talking entirely about money, not books sold. There are some romance novelists that must have sold more physical books in their lifetime. Right?
It’s just really odd to see him go after a young writer, no matter how true his statement was (very), when his own success was a total crap shot that required luck and timing, not craft.
The 70’s was a time when people were ready for good, adult horror, and King got to the flag first. Meyer seems to have found success the same way, blind luck. It’s something that a certain demographic wanted, and she was there at the right time, regardless of how many times you can read about a “smile that doesn’t quite reach his eyes.”
The readers decide what’s successful. What’s good hasn’t mattered since Carrie was published.
Roland says
Actually, is it worth it to mention that Shakespeare was regarded as low brow shlokum in his time, or that Henry Miller was considered a smut peddler for a good part of the last century?
Maybe the reader decides what’s good as well in the long run?
Michelle H. says
I’m curious on whether the generation gap has a play in what’s seen as good or bad writing?
Do young readers flock more to young authors because it relates to them and vice versa?
Do the young people denounce the older generation because they are stuck to their old ways while the older generation see the younger authors straying from what they believe is a set way of writing rules that are being broken?
Hmm…
Anonymous says
You have a good point Michelle. Maybe that is part of what is wrong with the publishing industry. Expectations of what people should read and what they do read are two different things, possibly because of generation gap and/or education difference? Not to say readers are dumb, but they are not reading to learn, but for entertainment.
Roland’s mention of Shakespeare was very interesting also.
Anonymous says
Someone said that readers don’t read to learn? Well, I, for one, do enjoy reading to learn. I don’t read a lot of fiction, and the fiction I do read tends to be more literary (i.e., neither Meyers nor King). And many of my friends ALSO read to learn. I don’t think anyone can generalize.
lauren says
I’m wary of jumping into the discussion this late, but I do want to address a few of the comments that mentioned that because TWILIGHT was YA, it didn’t need to be as “good” as other novels. No! There’s so much YA these days that is absolutely stellar in terms of writing (precise wording, lyrical sentences, great rhythm, layers of meaning, etc.) as well as in terms of story. M.T. Anderson’s OCTAVIAN NOTHING books blew me away, as did Jenny Downham’s BEFORE I DIE (a beautiful, romantic story that’ll make you weep buckets), Meg Rosoff’s HOW I LIVE NOW, Peter Cameron’s SOMEDAY THIS PAIN WILL BE USEFUL TO YOU, and John Green’s PAPER TOWNS. And there’s so much more — plenty that doesn’t fall into the “literary” category, but plenty that does.
Also, re: Anon 11:32
Not to say readers are dumb, but they are not reading to learn, but for entertainment.
Can’t we have both at once, though? I tire of the idea that “entertainment” must be defined as something that doesn’t require the person using it to think or be challenged in any way. To me, the novels of James Joyce and Virginia Woolf and William Faulkner are absolutely entertaining literature. I love the linguistic puzzles they present, and the way they present a completely different look at the world, and an attempt to represent human consciousness. I don’t get that in the Real World, so, to me, Ulysses is the ultimate in escapist literature — it takes me to a completely different place, and I love it. And every time I read it, I’m not sitting there secretly wishing I was reading Confessions of a Shopaholic.
Scott says
I really don’t want this to sound elitist in any way, but I’m not sure I want SM’s book buying demographic to dictate what is good writing simply because they’ve voted with dollars in numbers. One of the anons said it well: can’t we just agree its bad writing but like it anyway?
Words are thoughts and we can’t think without them. If I’m going to identify a culture that can think, I’m going to look to authors like Tartt and Disch, not Meyers or even King. He may have been calling the kettle black a bit, but I still think he made good points and was speaking for more ambitious fare that don’t sell a zillion copies to kids learning about their bodies or adults steeped in romantic nostalgia.
There’s nothing wrong with the Twlight series, we just need to call it what it is: a series of yarns to pass the time and ignite an adolescent swoon. Hopefully, libraries and schools will see how it gets kids away from the computer and the TV, but also how it puts them in a position to slide something else in front of them, as well.
phydront n. 1. slang term referring to the excessive draining of sweat during strenuous physical exertion, specifically exercise or sex.
Hilary says
I’m somewhat appalled to find that people consider JK Rowling to be a bad writer.
To me, writing is about character. Is there depth of character and emotion? Does the situation and character response resonate emotionally?
I recall a scene in HP 5 where McGonagall and Umbridge are, on the surface, arguing about whether Harry will be able to pass his courses and get the job he wants, but underneath they’re arguing about the nasty politics dividing the Wizarding community. Yes, they’re arguing about magic, but the emotion resonates–we’ve all started stupid arguments because we feel we can’t say what we’re really upset about. It’s a lovely job and she’s making the words work hard for characterization and emotion.
I’ve never read Stephanie Meyer’s books, so I don’t feel qualified to comment, but if she manages to make her character resonate emotionally for teenage girls, then I’d say she’s probably a good writer.
Anonymous says
Sorry ANON 11:51
It wasn’t meant thet all readers do not read to learn, but I and a lot of other readers do it for entertainment. I have learned long ago not to believe everything you hear or read. I do learn some when reading, but it is not my goal every time I read. There seems to be nothing that is not subject to opinion.
Anonymous says
Lauren, have you read Twilight?
You can have both, but do we all have to have it every time we read because certain people say we do? Is that the only reason a book is good. I don’t think so.
I am over 10 years SM’s senior. I really don’t care to have her teach me anything, but I do enjoy entertainment.
D.A.A. Price (aka Elgin) says
It’s obvious (or at least it should be) there are different levels of writing each serving a different purpose. Readers of the Twilight books are not necessarily looking for something with the depth of, say, an Alice Walker novel. Stephen King should know better than to criticize an author, when many of his books certainly don’t fall into the ‘literary masterpiece’ category themselves.
The other point I would like to make here, is that a writer is not going to read a book the same way as an average reader, much the same way a film critic or an actor watches movies. I spent many years as a book compositor, typesetting books. When I see a lousy typesetting job done on a book I’m reading I notice. But unless the flaws are beyond horrible, I doubt the average reader gives it a second thought. Same goes for writers reading other authors works.
lotusgirl says
I thought of another good “you tell me” for you. This is another thing that has been bugging the daylights out of me, so I know I can’t be the only one.
Does too need to be set off with commas or not. This seems to be a generational thing, too.
or should that be “a generational thing too” for writers?
I read something from one agent who says the comma before too is plain wrong, but that’s not what I was taught in school. What’s a girl to do? Who’s right? Or is it just a matter of style?
Allison Brennan says
FWIW, I often speak to high school kids and I always ask what they’re reading. The last class I spoke to, about half the kids were reading a book for pleasure; there was a wide variety of genres represented, but the only two authors that more than one student was reading were Stephen King and Stephanie Meyer.
DCS says
Mr. King, meet the kettle.
lauren says
Anon 12:23 —
Yup, I’ve read Twilight. It was one of the few YA novels I read last year that I didn’t find to be particularly entertaining.
My point above was that “entertainment,” along with “escapism,” seems to be too narrowly defined. I know that a lot of people find Meyer’s books entertaining, and that’s fine. I certainly don’t have the last word on what people should find pleasurable to read. But it annoys me when people (not you; folks in general) insist that literary writing, that novels with layers and layers of meaning, that challenging books are strictly “take your medicine” literature and can’t be escapist entertainment. To me, they are. And I’m not an English Ph.D or a critic or a scholar — I’m just a reader. Tackling the linguistic puzzles and layers of meaning within a difficult book IS my pleasure reading.
Joe Iriarte says
Bah. I read for entertainment. Any learning I do is a happy accident. (And I’m a pretty knowledgeable guy for all of that, if I do say so myself.)
Reading is not medicine, darn it!