Book Review: Remarkably bad writers

[Mel L]

I don't know whether to feel depressed or encouraged by the fact that a trad-published (Bloomsbury), NYT best-seller book is so bad. Remarkably Bright Creatures, which I picked up because, hey, an octopus is the narrator, is filled with POV wobbles, too many characters, proofreading errors, and an overall lack of sharp editing. Okay, there are bits of really good writing in between. But this is the holy grail of trad publishing? Sheesh! (smacks head)

 

[Nikky Lee]

I don't know whether to feel depressed or encouraged by the fact that a trad-published (Bloomsbury), NYT best-seller book is so bad. Remarkably Bright Creatures, which I picked up because, hey, an octopus is the narrator, is filled with POV wobbles, too many characters, proofreading errors, and an overall lack of sharp editing. Okay, there are bits of really good writing in between. But this is the holy grail of trad publishing? Sheesh! (smacks head)

Have definitely had those moments. I like to think of them as a sign of my growth. First because I'm recognizing the craft issues a bestseller has, and second, because if that's the benchmark, then there's hope for me yet.

I remember one of these moments vividly in my 20s. I was reading one of the fantasy greats and thinking, "I could have written this better." Not so much in terms of the ideas and premise, rather more in the word for word execution of the story. That was a bit of a light blub moment for me.

 

[Hannah F]

I don't know whether to feel depressed or encouraged by the fact that a trad-published (Bloomsbury), NYT best-seller book is so bad. Remarkably Bright Creatures, which I picked up because, hey, an octopus is the narrator, is filled with POV wobbles, too many characters, proofreading errors, and an overall lack of sharp editing. Okay, there are bits of really good writing in between. But this is the holy grail of trad publishing? Sheesh! (smacks head)

Gee Wiz! A Goodreads Choice Award and other awards nominee! (Though, unless it's a HUGE aquarium, I suspect an octopus wouldn't be happy there.)

 

[Mel L]

Gee Wiz! A Goodreads Choice Award and other awards nominee! (Though, unless it's a HUGE aquarium, I suspect an octopus wouldn't be happy there.)

He's not. Keeps trying to get out, ha ha. TBH, the parts with the octopus were quite good but too few and far between.

 

[AgentPete]

1) While the world outside is scary, bleak and depressing, this story is cosy, comfortable and optimistic (“uplit”).

2) Octopuses are cool.

So…

This was originally published by Harper US, picked up by Bloomsbury UK later, presumably when they had some sales data from the US to show it had organic growth potential. So the issue isn’t really why Bloomsbury picked it up, it’s why Harper did initially.

On that, it’s bang slap in the middle of the imprint’s remit (Ecco). Good fit. Presumably they know their readership pretty well, and figured this would suit.

But yes. The writing is… immature, to put it kindly. The author has a way to go before they’ve really mastered all the basics. It plods. And that’s just me looking at an extract on Amazon, heaven knows what the pre-edited ms must have been like.

My fear for this author is that they may turn out to be a one-hit wonder. Their pathways to success I can see include:

1) This book will build a vast, appreciative readership that will buy whatever the author feels like writing next (but don’t leave it too long);

2) The author gets lucky next time with the right animal/human emotional combo… how about a naked mole rat and an orphaned Nazi skinhead? Or maybe on second thoughts…

3) The author really brushes up their chops and hones the craft a lot. Not awfully likely, I think, after a #1 bestseller.

Failing one of the above options, I’d not bet the farm on their next book, sadly.

 

[Mel L]

1) While the world outside is scary, bleak and depressing, this story is cosy, comfortable and optimistic (“uplit”).

2) Octopuses are cool.

So…

This was originally published by Harper US, picked up by Bloomsbury UK later, presumably when they had some sales data from the US to show it had organic growth potential. So the issue isn’t really why Bloomsbury picked it up, it’s why Harper did initially.

On that, it’s bang slap in the middle of the imprint’s remit (Ecco). Good fit. Presumably they know their readership pretty well, and figured this would suit.

But yes. The writing is… immature, to put it kindly. The author has a way to go before they’ve really mastered all the basics. It plods. And that’s just me looking at an extract on Amazon, heaven knows what the pre-edited ms must have been like.

My fear for this author is that they may turn out to be a one-hit wonder. Their pathways to success I can see include:

1) This book will build a vast, appreciative readership that will buy whatever the author feels like writing next (but don’t leave it too long);

2) The author gets lucky next time with the right animal/human emotional combo… how about a naked mole rat and an orphaned Nazi skinhead? Or maybe on second thoughts…

3) The author really brushes up their chops and hones the craft a lot. Not awfully likely, I think, after a #1 bestseller.

Failing one of the above options, I’d not bet the farm on their next book, sadly.

Very insightful, thank you!

 

[E G Logan]

filled with POV wobbles, too many characters, proofreading errors, and an overall lack of sharp editing

Not to mention horrific 'Scotch' dialogue written by someone who knows nothing about Scotland or the Scots and not much about dialogue.
It smacked to me of being very much edited – the 'many hands' approach – and the author's acknowledgements seemed to bear this out.

 

[Barbara]

I think one thing we sometimes forget is that we (us lot in writing groups) read as writers. We see the bad techniques, the flaws, the bad writing, all the wrongs. Then we compare them to us: how come they get published and I don't? How come Harper took it?

I'm fairly certain that the majority of the general public reads differently to us. They read and the sentence is ... gone, over, on to the next one, forward forward forward. They don't necessarily scrutinise things as they go; not the way we do. They accept some stuff doesn't work. They read on, keen to see where the story is going, and anyway, they've paid for it. The non-writing readers are much more forgiving. Just look at book reviews. You can usually tell which ones were written by writers (or highbrow readers), and which were written by a reader who just likes to read. The ones written by writers often mention craft, plot, etc, and sometimes sound like sour grapes. In simplistic terms, a non writing reader generally just says stuff like, 'Loved it. Thrilling read.', or 'Hated it, boooring.'

Goes without saying there is a basic minimum skill that needs to be met.

I recently read a thriller by one of the biggest thriller authors in the UK. I'm a fan. Still. There's a MASSIVE plot hole in that book. Moooosive. It renders the whole story impossible. But that plot hole doesn't come to light until the end when all the strands are closed off. But by then, I had finished and (most importantly) enjoyed the book. Too late.

When I see a badly written book, I try to see WHAT EXACTLY it is that made it a seller. There will be something. It might be the theme, the story, something immersive, escapism, something will have engaged the reader ....

Us here, we all want to write well. We want to write fab books and be the best we can be. And we should!! But maybe we need to concentrate more often on what sells. Concentrate on reader experience. Despite our 'writing weaknesses' (and we all have them), we can create a good read. But I don't know.

 

[Jake E]

I think one thing we sometimes forget is that we (us lot in writing groups) read as writers. We see the bad techniques, the flaws, the bad writing, all the wrongs. Then we compare them to us: how come they get published and I don't? How come Harper took it?

I'm fairly certain that the majority of the general public reads differently to us. They read and the sentence is ... gone, over, on to the next one, forward forward forward. They don't necessarily scrutinise things as they go; not the way we do. They accept some stuff doesn't work. They read on, keen to see where the story is going, and anyway, they've paid for it. The non-writing readers are much more forgiving. Just look at book reviews. You can usually tell which ones were written by writers (or highbrow readers), and which were written by a reader who just likes to read. The ones written by writers often mention craft, plot, etc, and sometimes sound like sour grapes. In simplistic terms, a non writing reader generally just says stuff like, 'Loved it. Thrilling read.', or 'Hated it, boooring.'

Goes without saying there is a basic minimum skill that needs to be met.

I recently read a thriller by one of the biggest thriller authors in the UK. I'm a fan. Still. There's a MASSIVE plot hole in that book. Moooosive. It renders the whole story impossible. But that plot hole doesn't come to light until the end when all the strands are closed off. But by then, I had finished and (most importantly) enjoyed the book. Too late.

When I see a badly written book, I try to see WHAT EXACTLY it is that made it a seller. There will be something. It might be the theme, the story, something immersive, escapism, something will have engaged the reader ....

Us here, we all want to write well. We want to write fab books and be the best we can be. And we should!! But maybe we need to concentrate more often on what sells. Concentrate on reader experience. Despite our 'writing weaknesses' (and we all have them), we can create a good read. But I don't know.

You're absolutly right.

I'm currently working through the Witcher books, and I have to say, they are not very well written (Some of it might be because it's translated from Polish to English)
Just read a section about six or seven pages long that is all about the history of a nation a character is visiting. I'm expected to belive that this character is thinking all of this while they ride a boat into the city. Its boring, it's there for exposition, and I can think of several ways in which it could've been done better (This is also not the authors first offense of this type in the serise and I doubt it will be the last)

Why do I keep reading?
Because I want to know if Geralt finds Ciri.
I want to know what happened to Yennifer.
I want to see if Cahir survives.

Story, story, story.
If your story is good, your writting can be a little bit shit.

 

[Hannah F]

You're absolutly right.

I'm currently working through the Witcher books, and I have to say, they are not very well written (Some of it might be because it's translated from Polish to English)
Just read a section about six or seven pages long that is all about the history of a nation a character is visiting. I'm expected to belive that this character is thinking all of this while they ride a boat into the city. Its boring, it's there for exposition, and I can think of several ways in which it could've been done better (This is also not the authors first offense of this type in the serise and I doubt it will be the last)

Why do I keep reading?
Because I want to know if Geralt finds Ciri.
I want to know what happened to Yennifer.
I want to see if Cahir survives.

Story, story, story.
If your story is good, your writting can be a little bit shit.

And I really enjoyed Christopher Paolini's Aragorn quadrilogy even though it received a lot of shtick from critics (and he was only 16 when he wrote the first one). I might even consider reading his sequel, Murtagh because Murtagh was my favourite character. I do presume though that, all these years later, he's improved his craft.

 

[E G Logan]

When I see a badly written book, I try to see WHAT EXACTLY it is that made it a seller.

Sometimes you have to just accept that it must have had a huge promo budget thrown at it.

There is one 'bestseller' – yes, really, to my total amazement – in particular, out of several psychological thrillers I read for research, where I found myself ticking off the flaws on my fingers.

Totally ridiculous plot (and more so as it went on), tick. Paper thin, cliche characters, tick. Unconvincing relationships, tick. Thin, episodic writing, tick. Text inconsistencies where editing changes haven't been fully worked through, tick. MASSIVE plot hole that makes the eventual denouement impossible, never mind improbable, tick. That last may also be related to savage editing, but it could have been easily stitched together in a couple of explanatory sentences. Should have been.

And there's actually a sequel to this tosh. If anyone wants to know the name, I'll tell them, but not in public.

The only ??redeeming feature was the galloping pace the author kept up, presumably to stop readers thinking too much about, 'but how did he/she manage to...?' This was a common feature of the books in my, admittedly small, survey, much the best of which was Apple Tree Yard. Recommended.

Even ATY doesn't bear too much plot analysis: I thought the speed it careers at in fact took away from the impact SPOILER of gradually realising the narrator is not in fact 'a nice lady'. She's somewhere between a concealed hard nut and an actual psycho, but you only fully get that at the twist, which comes as more of a wrench. You could almost miss her strangeness because of the pace.

And Barbara is so right, we do read as writers. I wish I could switch off sometimes. I'm reading Cat Jarman's River Kings (Vikings, anyone?) which is narrative non-fiction, I suppose, and I found myself identifying the devices she's taken from genre fiction to keep readers breathless for more. Like? Cliffhangers at the end of chapters, for one. Good, though, and very interesting. A map would have been useful for all those long-gone countries/kingdoms. Recommended.