Poorly written but good story

[Alchemist]

I've been reading Mitchell Hogan's Crucible of Souls which combines poor to mediocre writing but a good story.

So here's the thread topic: What poorly written books have you kept reading because the story was too good to put down? I imagine that if I had read it for the first time in recent years, the Dragonlance Chronicles would fit the bill.

As a side question, for those that have read the Hogan books, does the writing improve with book 2? It isn't awful, but it is very amateurish - everything is spelled out, the dialogue is awkward, etc. But I'm very much enjoying the story as it harkens back to a more traditional fantasy vibe. So I'm going to at least read the entire first book and re-evaluate after I finish it.

 

[N. E. White]

Well...this is a little scary! Who's going to admit to reading crappy books?

Apparently, you did, so I guess I can, too.

With that said, I'm not going to list books I thought were poorly written. To be honest, I can't think of a time when the story trumped poorly written prose. It might trump mediocre prose, but not poorly written.

I will name one that I thought used a terrible literary device: the annoying narrator.

The Map of Time by Felix J. Palma. I loved the story (stories, really), but I wanted to kill the narrator whenever he purposely interrupted at the worst times. If I hadn't been reading on my eReader, half way through, I probably would have burned the book. But I did finish it, just because I wanted to see how it all tied together in the end.

 

[phil_geo]

Monster Hunter International struck me this way. It felt like fan fiction almost, but hey, monsters! I enjoyed it.

 

[PeteMC]

For me prose has to be a certain standard of decent to be readable. Not high literature, sure, but not so bad you find yourself wincing at it while you're reading.

I'll cut older stuff a lot more slack - I adore Lovecraft but some of his sentences just make my head hurt, if you know what I mean.

I won't quote any specific examples out of respect for their authors but there have been one or two books I've bought in the last year that just made me wonder if their editor is still employed, but where the story was compelling enough to just push through and read it anyway. I don't think I've ever found a commercially published book where the prose *and* the story was bad.

 

[Contrarius]

You'll find a lot of indie books with bad prose regardless of the actual story quality. And the same goes for romance.

I'd say the book I'm reading right now -- The Serpent Sea by Martha Wells -- has fairly low-quality prose. Since I'm listening rather than reading, I can't say much about copy-editing issues, but the language is pretty basic stuff -- a junior-high or younger student could easily cope, and there is little or no poetry to it. But she does tell an interesting story.

 

[DJ94122]

I'm having a hard time thinking of an example, but I do think bad writing can destroy a good story.

 

[Manbot3000]

I feel this way about Brandon Sanderson, but to be fair he doesn't write poorly his prose is just pedestrian.

 

[J.O. Hunt]

This is all subjective, "one mans treasure" and all; for me, Robin Hobb and Tad Williams were a grind to read. Two amazingly popular and successful authors but to me they are both tedious with detail. Neither authors write poorly, but they're writing styles and my taste don't sync.

 

[Ryan Mueller]

For me, a certain standard has to be met (basically, the prose isn't so bad it pulls me out of the story). Beyond that, the story takes over. Most of my favorite authors would never be mistaken for literary giants, even within the fantasy field.

As a side note, I didn't find any issues with Hogan's writing. Maybe there were problems, but I was enjoying the story so much I didn't even think about the prose.

 

[Alchemist]

Well...this is a little scary! Who's going to admit to reading crappy books?

Apparently, you did, so I guess I can, too.

With that said, I'm not going to list books I thought were poorly written. To be honest, I can't think of a time when the story trumped poorly written prose. It might trump mediocre prose, but not poorly written.

Well to be fair, any book put out by a big publisher is, almost by definition, no worse than mediocre in terms of prose. I think fantasy (scifi) have different standards because the prose mostly has to be transparent - that is, not get in the way of the story by being glaringly amateurish. In other words, the writing only needs to be good enough to convey (and not distract from) the story. To be fair, Crucible of Souls isn't as much poor as it is mediocre and clearly a first novel. I'm probably more critical than most casual readers would be because I am an aspiring author.

 

[Alchemist]

This is all subjective, "one mans treasure" and all; for me, Robin Hobb and Tad Williams were a grind to read. Two amazingly popular and successful authors but to me they are both tedious with detail. Neither authors write poorly, but they're writing styles and my taste don't sync.

I think style preference is mostly subjective, but prose quality not as much.

 

[Davis Ashura]

I think style preference is mostly subjective, but prose quality not as much.

I'm not sure if there is much of a difference in style vs presumed quality. Style is what it is, but quality in prose...I'm lost on that one. How would you define prose quality? Also, wouldn't quality have to change depending on what is needed for the story?

 

[phil_geo]

Come on, there is such a thing as bad writing. Read any writing forum for hundreds of rules to increase the quality of your prose. That's one thing that bothers me about some forums where everyone is afraid to say a book is bad. Yes, sometimes dislike for a book is preference ("I don't like dragons") but sometimes a book just has bad writing, which is not up for debate and can be confirmed by any English teacher.

 

[Contrarius]

I'm not sure if there is much of a difference in style vs presumed quality. Style is what it is, but quality in prose...I'm lost on that one. How would you define prose quality? Also, wouldn't quality have to change depending on what is needed for the story?

Since people pay me to edit their books, I can say from experience that there's a big difference between style and quality. Good quality can encompass both snappy and languorous styles, but it never includes bad copyediting or clunky phrasing or dangling modifiers or any of a bazillion other hallmarks of poor quality writing.

 

[Davis Ashura]

Good quality can encompass both snappy and languorous styles.

In my own stupendously dense way, this was what I was getting at. But I'm still not sure what is meant by pedestrian prose. Again, isn't that dependent on the author's intent? Some authors strive to make their prose as invisible as possible; they want the plot to be the center of the book. They don't care if anyone is impressed by their use of poetic devices in the prose. Such prose is common in thrillers and simple enough structurally, but I wouldn't say it's poor quality because in those type of books, that type of prose may be exactly what is needed for the storytelling intended.

Upthread, you (Contrarius) pointed out that The Serpent Sea has 'fairly low quality prose'. Is that because it has clunky phrasing or some other issues?

 

[Contrarius]

In my own stupendously dense way, this was what I was getting at. But I'm still not sure what is meant by pedestrian prose. Again, isn't that dependent on the author's intent? Some authors strive to make their prose as invisible as possible; they want the plot to be the center of the book.

But to be invisible, prose needs to be competent and smooth -- and that requires a certain level of quality.

In terms of the Wells book, it's a little hard for me to explain since I'm listening instead of reading it visually -- but yes, clunkiness has something to do with it. Clunky phrasing, simple sentences, small vocabulary, a lack of complex ideas or imaginative descriptions, telling instead of showing, a lack of subtlety, no reading between the lines. When I read The Cloud Roads last year, my review said "The prose is simple, plain, unsubtle, and blunt, making the book feel YAish at times" -- and that pretty much covers this book as well.

I don't want to say that Wells's prose is bad -- it isn't -- but I'd maybe call it pedestrian or mediocre. And despite the prose, I'm still enjoying the story and her imagination. I gave The Cloud Roads a 4-star rating (3.7, rounded up) despite the prose, and this one will probably be in that range as well.

 

[Davis Ashura]

In terms of the Wells book, it's a little hard for me to explain since I'm listening instead of reading it visually -- but yes, clunkiness has something to do with it. Clunky phrasing, simple sentences, small vocabulary, a lack of complex ideas or imaginative descriptions, telling instead of showing, a lack of subtlety, no reading between the lines. When I read The Cloud Roads last year, my review said "The prose is simple, plain, unsubtle, and blunt, making the book feel YAish at times" -- and that pretty much covers this book as well.

It's funny, but other than the clunkiness part, I would describe the books in much the same way. However, I judged the prose differently because I suspected the books are written as they are in order to reflect the characters themselves. Moon et al are simple. They are direct. They don't lie. They have a very direct notion of what they want, and they say what that is. Quite bluntly. Even the tense moments between queens, the ones where smooth politicking is needed, isn't all that subtle. For me, to be able to match the prose of the text to the persona of the characters is either luck or skill.

 

[ArtNJ]

Night Angel series. Its not so much that I though the story/plot was "good," but rather that I found it more than exciting and fun enough to paper over my annoyance with the writing and plot holes.

 

[Contrarius]

I They don't lie.

They actually lie a lot. In fact, they even remark on Moon's ability to lie at one point, and they frequently mistrust each other because of the possibility of lies. And I wouldn't call them "simple" at all -- they are constantly politicking with each other, and politics is not a sport for simple people.

Nonetheless, I get your point in general -- but you can write descriptions and dialogue for simple characters without having simple and unsubtle prose throughout the whole book.

 

[budgie]

So here's the thread topic: What poorly written books have you kept reading because the story was too good to put down? I imagine that if I had read it for the first time in recent years, the Dragonlance Chronicles would fit the bill.

I didn't think it was terribly written, just not really written for adults.

For me there was this psuedo fantasy about vikings that I read 20 years ago and it was at least fifteen years old then. Done in a half fairy-tale way with very little dialogue: elves and stuff and a mix of Nose myths.
r
Can't remember title, main characters, or author...