The Success of "Just OK" Writing

[ETS PRESS]

I just finished a book that has been extremely successful. The author is another wonder of the indie world. The book is just okay. Who says you have to write a literary (or commercial) masterpiece to be successful? A "just okay" book will do. This intrigues me.

The book has a lot of five star reviews. Readers enjoyed the story. There were things I liked about the story as well. I liked it enough to keep reading, but it took me two weeks. It wasn't exactly a page turner. I didn't have a burning desire to read it. It was just okay. There were plenty of 1 to 4 star reviews as well, so I'm not alone in having a stronger judgment about the book.

The writing itself wasn't bad. I'm not a fan of head hopping, and I felt as if the writer tried to tell too many points of view, and didn't develop and flesh out the characters to any great depth. The end didn't come together very well. Two of the characters seemed rather pointless to the story when it was all said and done. In fact, I think the book definitely had plot holes. It was also kind of preachy towards the end with long monologues waxing poetic about life. It was just okay, but not a deeply satisfying read.

Yet this book has stayed on the best seller list for a long time. It bounces up and down the list, but it definitely has a strong presence.

What does this tell us about readers? What does it tell us about writing? What does it tell us about success? This book is written by an indie, but I've read a few books by trad publishers in the past year or so that had just as many problems -if not more. I recently read a book by one of my favorite NYT authors. It was a giant mess. I suspect it was rushed to publication. I'm not convinced it was read by the editor. I think this well known author was trusted without so much as a glance. The reviews suggest overall disappointment.

Have we lowered our standards as readers and writers? Is this the new norm? I recall a thread with a link to some indie's blog post where he talked about writing in quantity and not worrying so much about quality. He went on to say that he didn't worry about writing a masterpiece. He wrote well enough, so he focused on quality in order to spread out his writing and make more money. Interesting.

I'm not sure I have a point. I'm just thinking about all of this. What do you think?

[N. Gemini Sasson]

Actually, I don't think this is anything new and it happened even before the rise of indies in digital publishing. Heck, I'm sure there are TV shows, movies, music and all sorts of things that have been successful that many of us just don't get. The thing is that it resonates for somebody, for whatever reason.

[MichaelWallace]

It means there is no accounting for taste. I thought Da Vinci Code was terrible and Twilight atrocious, but Brown and Meyer are obviously reaching a lot of people.

Also, much of success in popular culture has to do with momentum. People want to read the same books and see the same movies that everyone else is reading and watching. When people become familiar with an author or musician, they keep plugging away long after they've lost interest. Read the reviews of James Patterson's latest books, for example. Lots of people say that he hasn't written a good book in years, but they keep buying the latest anyway. Why? There's no shortage of good books out there and too many great books to ever read in one lifetime. People choose the comfortable and mediocre over the unknown. Maybe you could label it the McDonald's Syndrome.

[Feenix]

This thread makes me think about the phrase:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

 

Dave King

[ETS PRESS]

Great points everyone! I suppose if opinions were universal then we'd never have wars or conflict or competition or reality TV. Opinions are just as varied and unique as humans. We all have different experiences. These experiences shape us into who we are. My opinion about any matter is based on my experiences and everything I know at this point in time in my life. All opinions are subject to change.

I think perhaps other writers, and readers with perhaps a wider lens will judge a book's writing harder than someone who just reads for enjoyment. Think of all of the people who judge romance novels as formulaic and predictable, but then ask a romance writer and they will defend the genre vehemently against the stereotype. And of course, romance sells more than any other genre. In fact, it's well known that the level of education for the average romance reader is high.

Literary fiction is the high brow genre. It's a much tougher audience to crack.

I'm pondering. Can't you tell? 

[Sean Patrick Fox]

Like others have said, this is nothing new. But you also have to keep in mind that a book that reads as "Just OK" to you might read as "Fantastic" to someone else. Not everyone understands or can identify quality writing, and simply enjoy a good yarn.

[EllenFisher]

Think of all of the people who judge romance novels as formulaic and predictable, but then ask a romance writer and they will defend the genre vehemently against the stereotype.

Also, formulaic doesn't equate to "bad writing."  Yes, romance novels generally follow a certain formula, but there are authors out there who produce excellent romances, authors who produce terrible ones, and every shade in between. Good writing matters in any genre. And yet sometimes writing that is arguably not excellent (with headhopping, excessive adverbs, sloppy plotting, and so forth) catches on, simply because readers like the story. A good story sometimes manages to shine through unpolished writing.

[Darin_Calhoun]

The resonance of a book to strike a cord within the reader doesn't always correlate with excellent craft. More often than not, it seems to me, that "Just OK" writing gains more popular appeal.

[MGalloway]

Maybe you could label it the McDonald's Syndrome.

Nice.  

Or, as the tech saying used to go, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." (Not that anybody gets fired for buying novels).

As far as fiction, both literary and commercial, I'm still debating if it is possible to effectively pull off "literary suspense".

[Kathleen Valentine]

It means there is no accounting for taste. I thought Da Vinci Code was terrible and Twilight atrocious, but Brown and Meyer are obviously reaching a lot of people.....People choose the comfortable and mediocre over the unknown. Maybe you could label it the McDonald's Syndrome.

Totally, totally agree! I see this all the time in the Amazon Discussion groups. One person will post and say they read a book and that it was "just okay" and five other people will say they are going to try it and post the same thing. What's that all about? Beats me.

Personally, I'm a picky reader and if I don't like the way a book is written I won't keep reading. I'm more inclined to read a beautifully written book with a slow plot than the reverse. It is a very individual decision.

[ETS PRESS]

Also, formulaic doesn't equate to "bad writing."  Yes, romance novels generally follow a certain formula, but there are authors out there who produce excellent romances, authors who produce terrible ones, and every shade in between. Good writing matters in any genre. And yet sometimes writing that is arguably not excellent (with headhopping, excessive adverbs, sloppy plotting, and so forth) catches on, simply because readers like the story. A good story sometimes manages to shine through unpolished writing.

I totally agree.

@Darin_Calhoun  You are so right. Now imagine when you have storytelling that strikes a cord and excellent craft...  How many times have I read books beautifully crafted, but reviewed as boring  by the general reader? How many times have we seen stories blast into the stratosphere that are loved, but the writing leaves a lot to be desired? I guess that's why we have "literary" and "commercial" books, and an audience for both. Some people just want a good story. Others want a well crafted story.

[MichaelWallace]

Also, formulaic doesn't equate to "bad writing."  Yes, romance novels generally follow a certain formula, but there are authors out there who produce excellent romances, authors who produce terrible ones, and every shade in between.

Good point. There's a formula for making an omelet, too, but the end result is anything from wonderful to "meh."

[Wren Emerson]

Something to consider is that as a writer gains more experience from writing their "just ok" will get better. It's possible that you were reading an earlier attempt by the writer and the people who were giving it 5 stars were long time fans who were already predisposed to enjoy the writing.

I dunno, I'm a terrible judge of things. Very rarely do I get the hype about huge best selling series. I bought all 4 Twilight books at once based on the raving reviews of people I trusted. I couldn't make it past the second book and even then it was painful. Harry Potter was slightly better, but it never captured my imagination and again, I quit after the second book. I did really like The Hunger Games and have read every Stephen King book ever, so I'm not a total alien, but sometimes it's a close thing.

[ETS PRESS]

Something to consider is that as a writer gains more experience from writing their "just ok" will get better. It's possible that you were reading an earlier attempt by the writer and the people who were giving it 5 stars were long time fans who were already predisposed to enjoy the writing.

I dunno, I'm a terrible judge of things. Very rarely do I get the hype about huge best selling series. I bought all 4 Twilight books at once based on the raving reviews of people I trusted. I couldn't make it past the second book and even then it was painful. Harry Potter was slightly better, but it never captured my imagination and again, I quit after the second book. I did really like The Hunger Games and have read every Stephen King book ever, so I'm not a total alien, but sometimes it's a close thing.

The book I referred to is a one hit wonder. It's the author's only book (at this time). The reactions to popular books are quite varied. Sometimes we read popular books because everyone is talking about them, but they are not the genre we enjoy. I'm a fan of historical fiction. I don't read horror (so King is out for me, except for his book on writing). I rarely read fantasy or sci-fi.

[Jon Olson]

It means there is no accounting for taste. I thought Da Vinci Code was terrible and Twilight atrocious, but Brown and Meyer are obviously reaching a lot of people.

Also, much of success in popular culture has to do with momentum. People want to read the same books and see the same movies that everyone else is reading and watching. When people become familiar with an author or musician, they keep plugging away long after they've lost interest. Read the reviews of James Patterson's latest books, for example. Lots of people say that he hasn't written a good book in years, but they keep buying the latest anyway. Why? There's no shortage of good books out there and too many great books to ever read in one lifetime. People choose the comfortable and mediocre over the unknown. Maybe you could label it the McDonald's Syndrome.

So true.

[Katy]

I'm pretty sure I know which book you mean. I've read it. It was just okay. Yeah, it had serious issues. Amateur mistakes.

I've also sampled widely among the top sellers in my also-bought list (before it changed due to my free days). I won't read most of them due to the bad writing in the samples. Yet they sell steadily.

As far as writers gaining experience and their writing getting better, that will only happen if they are actively getting feedback from beta readers, crit groups, or (good) editors. Too many indie writers are happily churning out books, and ignoring one star reviews that say the writing is bad, telling themselves, "That person is not my target audience."  (And then commenting on those reviews. "I had this proofread again to fix it. You should try my other books, too!") I've seen it.

[Lee Reynoldson]

There's also the 'writer' thing. Us writers are constantly delving into the craft, analysing the greats, or the top sellers in our genre, and how they do things, reading how-to books, articles, rules, articles about 'the rules', articles telling us to ignore 'the rules, articles telling us to learn 'the rules' so we can break them. Not to mention constant forum discussions about the minutia of writing. Critics have similar issues, but most readers aren't writers so don't bring that baggage to a story. Of course, some readers are very discerning and seek out what has become a genre of its own:'Literary Fiction' and readers can be discerning within any genre. For them a certain quality of prose, characterisation, exploration of theme, etc are important, but most readers are looking for a great story, a brief distraction, entertainment. For them 'clever-clever' writing would just get in the way. So we writers often look at a successful work, see it breaks all 'the rules' does everything we agree a writer shouldn't do, and scratch our heads.

[jljarvis]

I find it more noteworthy when tremendous quality and tremendous popularity converge.

That said, as far as familiarity goes, I honestly find nothing wrong with it. The same dynamic exists in so-called highbrow arts, too. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen La Boheme. I can tell  you, however, that I will continue to go to see productions of it--even though I know it so well that I know when to pull the tissue from my pocket to avoid distracting my neighbors with the inevitable tear-induced sniffling. And the next time I'm in Paris, I'll return to the Louvre and the Musee D'Orsay. And when I go home on a Friday after a particularly difficult week, I am likely to pull out a cozy romance set in Scotland, because I know where it will take me, and I'll enjoy escaping to that comfortable place. I think this is a function of what we do in most creative endeavors. I think it's a good thing. (But then I would think that, or I wouldn't be writing genre fiction.)

[4eyesbooks]

Each is entitled to their own opinion.  Since these opinions vary on everything from food to music, the key is finding the right audience for your writing.  While some may like your story others may hate it, but I write in the hopes of reaching those that will enjoy my writing and hopefully it will put a smile on their face.  Not everyone likes guacamole, but the avocado trees flourish for those that enjoy it's creamy crop!

[Mr. RAD]

People choose the comfortable and mediocre over the unknown.

A good story sometimes manages to shine through unpolished writing.

The resonance of a book to strike a cord within the reader doesn't always correlate with excellent craft. More often than not, it seems to me, that "Just OK" writing gains more popular appeal.

Great quotes.

I recall a thread with a link to some indie's blog post where he talked about writing in quantity and not worrying so much about quality. He went on to say that he didn't worry about writing a masterpiece. He wrote well enough, so he focused on quality in order to spread out his writing and make more money. Interesting.

I remember that article. Trying to find the thread with the link so I can reread it.

[Coral Moore]

Have we lowered our standards as readers and writers? Is this the new norm?

In my opinion, I think you've got this mixed up. I think the average reader has changed into something different over the years and fiction has adapted to meet that need. It used to be, not all that long ago, that only the highly educated read for pleasure. That is not the case anymore, and I think that because of that books have changed. I don't think that's a bad thing. Personally, I dislike prettily-written books. I've got no patience for pages of waxing poetic and nothing will make me put a book down faster than over-wrought description. I like interesting characters and action. There are people who disagree with me and that's fine. They read what they like and I read what I like. There are plenty of books for all of us.

[John Twipnook]

To say a book is "just okay" means the book's quality was just okay for you.

If that book sells very well, and has terrific reviews overall, that book's more than just okay for other people.

It's dangerous to create dichotomies of "good story" versus "well crafted story." It allows a poor-selling author to to think: "Of course my sales suck. My book is good. People only want cr*p... Thank goodness I don't write cr*p, I'm a real author." Dickens, Hemingway, Cormac McCarthy--they'd have some ripostes.

These premises offer a kind of psychic crutch, IMO, enabling complacency, allowing an author to sidestep a painful question: "My sales are terrible. Should I take a hard look at my work and come to terms with why?"

[EthanRussellErway]

I'm glad that "just ok" writing can do well, because I probably fall into that category more than I do "polished writing".  I'm trying to learn and make myself a better writer though.  I have gotten mostly great reviews on my Michael Belmont book, but there have been a few reviewers who have made comments on the problems with grammar.  One reviewer was very nice about it and gave me four stars, the other made personal attacks and gave the book 1 star.

As bothered as I was by the unprofessional approach of the 1 star reviewer, she had some good points and I plan on using what she said to make my work better.

[ETS PRESS]

Coral and John - I get what you are saying, and I agree to a point, but what about the general quality of writing? I'm not necessarily talking about waxing poetic either. Some books have major plot holes, awkward sentences, information dumping, conventions errors...  And they still get five star reviews. Someone still loves their book, but of course, someone else will come along and cut it to pieces. A book can be loaded with writing 101 problems, and still be successful.

I guess this is the crux of it. I find it fascinating that "just okay" writing can find an audience, and sometimes that audience is huge. In the end, I think it all boils down to connections. If the story connects with the reader on an emotional level, then it's a winner in that reader's eyes. Our life experiences often determine the effect of text to reader connections. It's a case of "everyone's right in their own minds".

[Lisa J. Yarde]

"Just ok" is subjective, same as "this is the best book I've ever read." It doesn't mean either opinion is wrong or right. I don't think readers and writers have lowered their standards, but maybe there's a focus on accessible books that aren't written / don't read like the classic tomes.