Is there a "good" self-published book?

[Ice]

IAs for Matthew Reilly - ah yes, that great artist, who names his favourite book of all time (after regretfully whittling down Nabokov, Fitzgerald, Chekhov and Chaucer) as Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton.

Not too sure I see your point here. He's not saying the book is a literary masterpiece, all he's saying is that it happens to be his favourite book and why not?

 

[Shade]

Because if that's his favourite book then it suggests that he's a crap writer - because good writing comes from good reading. And yes I have read Jurassic Park and know whereof I speak!

 

[Ice]

So have you read Reilly's work? I will concur that they are not literary masterpieces, but they are enjoyable. Why does one have to always read so called 'good' books to be able to write their own? How do you know he hasn't read them? Who are we to define a 'good' book - ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers - not everyone has the same reading habits, likes or dislikes.

 

[Shade]

So have you read Reilly's work? I will concur that they are not literary masterpieces, but they are enjoyable.

I haven't read Reilly, which is why I refrained from explicit comment on his work. I have however browsed his stuff in the bookshops and I agree that they are not literary masterpieces. As to whether they're enjoyable, obviously that depends what you're looking for. For me the primary - dammit, the only - test of a writer is how they use language, and I don't believe Reilly measures up.

Why does one have to always read so called 'good' books to be able to write their own?

I think that's self-evident: how do we learn but by example? You won't find out how to write intelligently, imaginatively and elegantly by reading Dan Brown.

How do you know he hasn't read them?

I don't, but if he has, and Jurassic Park is still his favourite book, then he's an idiot.

Who are we to define a 'good' book - ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers - not everyone has the same reading habits, likes or dislikes.

True, but ultimately, time decides. The Matthew Reillys of the 1930s are forgotten - though you can still see the ads for their identikit thrillers on the backs of old paperbacks - but Waugh and Greene and Fitzgerald (say) have survived. Even popular thrillers and adventure stories which have survived a century or so - say, Arthur Conan Doyle or H.G. Wells - are written by men with a rigorous literary knowledge and practised feel for language. No clichés clog their plots.

And as for the ten different answers: as I argued in this thread (to general agreement, I think), not all of those answers will be equally worthy of attention.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Because if that's his favourite book then it suggests that he's a crap writer - because good writing comes from good reading.

I fully disagree with this statement. Good writing can come from a wide variety of places, such as good teaching or good plays/movie scripts. Good reading does not always equal good writing - my friend reads a lot of what is considered by many to be "good" writing, and yet she regularly gets a Not Acheived in English (our equivalent of an F) - and so therefore bad reading does not always equal bad writing. Reading books is /not/ the only place where we get an idea of what is "good" and what is "bad", and so your choice of reading does /not/ dictate your level of writing ability.

Also, just because Jurassic Park is his favourite book does not mean that he does not read what you call "good" books. He may read "good" books all the time and would therefore be able to write well, if your statement of "we learn by example" is correct. It just happens that his favourite book is Jurassic Park. We all have different ideas of what our favourite is, what we see as good and what we see is bad, and maybe using language functions correctly is not a must for him to enjoy a book.

I don't, but if he has, and Jurassic Park is still his favourite book, then he's an idiot.

Again, just because Jurassic Park is his favourite does not make him an idiot at all. I'm sure that you still have a soft spot for some of the books that you loved as a kid - does this make you semi-idiotic? Just because this book is his favourite it does not mean that he thinks that it is a literary masterpiece.. he may just like the story.

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[Stewart]

Among such self-publishers - eg Sean Wright, Garry Charles; see link in my sig for more on those two chancers - there's a belief by them that the only reason their books don't get picked up by majors is that they're too 'edgy' or 'out there' or 'uncategorisable.' Then when you read them - and I confirm this is most firmly the case for the two I have mentioned - it turns out their books are easily categorisable, as complete shit, and that's why they weren't 'properly' published.

The thing I find more comedic is Sean Wright's attempts at promotion: self-written Amazon reviews, signing other authors' books at their book signing, and pretending to be a fourteen year old girl on the internet. The most amazing thing is his book signings where he always seems to sell completely out of whatever tripe he's offering yet, when you google, there's nobody discussing these books. In fact, there's nobody reading them...other than Shade, of course.

He seems to have the belief that his books are collectable although fails to see that there needs to be a market in them in order to be deemed collectable.

 

[Shade]

Good writing can come from a wide variety of places, such as good teaching or good plays/movie scripts.

Good plays/movie scripts are good writing. Writing means anything that uses words, be it prose, poetry, drama or whatever.

Good reading does not always equal good writing - my friend reads a lot of what is considered by many to be "good" writing, and yet she regularly gets a Not Acheived in English (our equivalent of an F) - and so therefore bad reading does not always equal bad writing.

This is a logical fallacy, though I'm not sure if you were doing this deliberately just for the devil's-advocate fun of it. Good writing comes from good reading, but that doesn't mean that reading good books magically infuses you with the ability to write - you still need to work hard at it. There is no logical connection between the three sections of your statement: you're mixing correlation and causation.

Reading books is /not/ the only place where we get an idea of what is "good" and what is "bad", and so your choice of reading does /not/ dictate your level of writing ability.

I don't follow. If we don't get our ideas of what are good books and what are bad books from reading books, where do we get them from?

I don't dispute, by the way, that there can be differences between what we know to be good and what we personally like. For example I know Saul Bellow and Gabriel García Márquez write well - use language well - but their books aren't to my taste. I admire them but don't like them. But the books I do like are still well-written. Jurassic Park isn't, and nor, on the evidence of extracts I've read, are Matthew Reilly's. I suggest there's a connection there - then again, I too could be confusing correlation and causation.

And yes I do have fond memories of books from my childhood, but I wouldn't call them my favourites now. Our tastes develop as we get older, in books as well as in other things (food, films) and we can - and should - appreciate more complexity.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Good plays/movie scripts are good writing. Writing means anything that uses words, be it prose, poetry, drama or whatever.

My apologies, I was under the impression that you were meaning that good writing was developed from reading good /books/ and therefore by thinking of Jurassic Park as his favourite book it somehow reflected a lack of writing ability. Seems I was mistaken

I don't follow. If we don't get our ideas of what are good books and what are bad books from reading books, where do we get them from?

We get them from being taught the fundamentals of writing. There is no way that a child without any education (apart from being able to read, of course) could pick up a book and then determine weither the writing was "good" or "bad". They may like/dislike the storyline, but they have no standard to measure the quality of the writing in that book against.

Reading is one way to /develop/ your writing skills, yes, but it is no way to /learn/ the basics of writing, nor is it the /only/ way in which to increase your writing ability. Upon picking up a book, people are not suddenly enriched with the knowledge of how to write a "good" metaphor or similie, nor on how to structure sentences effectively or how and when to use adjectives in order to add more to your writing. We are /taught/ these things.

The main point, however, is that although his favourite book is Jurassic Park, this in no way shows that he does not read other "good" books, and therefore in no way suggests that his writing ability is only up to the standard of Jurassic Park if we truely do learn only by the type of writing that we read, as was your arguement earlier.

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[Shade]

My apologies

Apology accepted!

We get them from being taught the fundamentals of writing.

No - we get taught how to write from being taught the fundamentals - we learn how to write well from reading books (or plays etc.) that are written well.

Reading is one way to /develop/ your writing skills, yes, but it is no way to /learn/ the basics of writing, nor is it the /only/ way in which to increase your writing ability.

I never said you learned the basics of writing this way. I've been talking throughout about good writing; how to write well. But anyway, what are the other ways to increase your writing ability, other than by example?

Upon picking up a book, people are not suddenly enriched with the knowledge of how to write a "good" metaphor or similie [sic], nor on how to structure sentences effectively or how and when to use adjectives in order to add more to your writing. We are /taught/ these things.

This is precisely wrong. I was never taught these things in school, but I do know something of them now, all through reading lots of books. And it would be facile to suggest that on reading one book, people are suddenly enriched - it takes a lot of wide reading to separate the good from the bad: which is why there are people in the world like Matthew Reilly who think Jurassic Park is great. Let me refer to Rick Gekoski:

The Harry Potter books are wildly popular. But this does not necessarily mean they are any good. Are the books, [her critics] argue urgently, literature in the honorific sense of the term? I don't want to argue here about what literature is, because an ostensive definition will do. The Hobbit is literature, and The Famous Five is not. Enid Blyton is part of our cultural heritage, not our literary one.

And where would one place J.K. Rowling? (And: does it matter?) I do not believe that such decisions are merely matters of taste. If you like Enid Blyton better than Tolkien, that's fine with me; if you think she is a better writer than Tolkien, you're either a very unsophisticated child, or an idiot.

You learn to make such discriminations, I think, by reading a lot, and by placing one thing beside another. I have, for instance, changed my view of the Harry Potter books since reading Philip Pullman's surpassingly brilliant trilogy, His Dark Materials. The Pullman series, like that of Rowling, has at its centre the question of the fate of the universe. The battle between good and evil is, in both books, ultimately to be decided through the strength and faith of child protagonists. But if you put the two authors side by side, there is no doubt that Pullman is better, deeper, richer and more demanding. His Dark Materials is a classic of our literature, and the Harry Potter series, I suspect, is not.

The main point, however, is that although his favourite book is Jurassic Park, this in no way shows that he does not read other "good" books

Of course it doesn't 'show' it. I never said it does; I said it suggests it.

and therefore in no way suggests that his writing ability is only up to the standard of Jurassic Park

Absolutely. On what I've read of him, Reilly couldn't hope to achieve those giddy heights.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

No - we get taught how to write from being taught the fundamentals - we learn how to write well from reading books (or plays etc.) that are written well.

I disagree. We /can/ learn how to write well from reading, although if you are taught well enough then you could write well without reading. Reading is merely one of the many ways in which you can develop your writing.

But anyway, what are the other ways to increase your writing ability, other than by example?

Again, by teaching, attending writing camps, seminars etc. Reading is not the /only/ way to learn how to write well.

This is precisely wrong. I was never taught these things in school

I am actually studying this very thing in English at the moment - just a difference in our educational systems I guess.

Of course it doesn't 'show' it. I never said it does; I said it suggests it.

Excuse me, wrong choice of word. Please replace the shows with suggests and you will have my arguement. It does not suggest it in any way. I still have some of Roald Dahl's childrens book in my list of favourite books, but I still read "good" books.

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[Stewart]

argument. It was getting to me.

 

[Shade]

if you are taught well enough then you could write well without reading.

If this is true (which I don't think it is), then it's still the case that you would write better with reading.

It does not suggest it in any way. I still have some of Roald Dahl's childrens book in my list of favourite books, but I still read "good" books.

I think Roald Dahl's books are extremely well written and deserving of a place on any list of 'good' books. But to return to Reilly: if we accept (for the purposes of argument) that Jurassic Park is not a well-written book, and that (for the purposes of argument) he has also read Lolita which is a well-written book, but prefers Jurassic Park, what does that say about him in your opinion? I suggest it says either he doesn't know good from bad, or doesn't care.

Let's take your list.

Top Three Books:
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
The Darkfall Series - Isobelle Carmody
The Hobbit by J.R.R Tolkien

I don't know anything about the Darkfall Series, but I know that The Hobbit is a well-written book (a 'good' book) and that The Da Vinci Code is a badly-written book (a 'bad' book). Do you like them both equally? Do you think they're both equally good books? Do you think The Da Vinci Code is as likely still to be on your list in ten years' time as The Hobbit is?

You're 17. I'm almost twice that. At your age I had barely read any good books (bar Roald Dahl and Douglas Adams, plus set books at school), but I had had a highly academic education. I would consider myself far better able to judge the worth of a book now than I was then, all because of the number of books I've read - put beside one another, as Rick Gekoski said - in the intervening years. Maybe we should continue this discussion in 15 years to see if you still feel the same way... if the Book Forum is still going, that is!

 

[Shade]

I had a look through some more of Matthew Reilly's website, by the way. He's not an idiot at all in fact (sorry Matt), and seems to have his head screwed on and know that what he's producing (what Stephen King called the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries) should really just be a stepping stone to better books:

I'm not vain enough to think that my books are the best literature ever to hit the earth - but I do know that they are fun and fast and filled with action, and it's fun books that get young people reading. Give them the classics later, just show them that reading is fun first.

Anyway. Ice and MonkeyCatcher have pointed out that Reilly didn't say he thought Jurassic Park was the best book he's ever read, or even a good book: just that it was his favourite book, which is fair enough. (Even I don't want to stop people liking books that I don't like. Well, not for long anyway.)

I did find some more objective assessments by him here:

...along with The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, it is without a doubt one of the best books I have read in the last 5 or 10 years.

The Da Vinci Code, one of the best books he has read. Jeez. (The other book he was allying it with in quality was Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, which I also thought was terrible, but I know it has some sincere and serious defenders as a work of literature, unlike Da Vinci, so we'll leave that to the side.)

And the list of authors he most admires - Michael Crichton, Stephen King, Tom Clancy, Jeffrey Archer - are pretty much my Rogues Gallery in full of people who should never be allowed access to writing implements again.

 

[Stewart]

You missed out Dean Koontz.

 

[Shade]

Ooer - I spoke too soon, Reilly is an idiot after all. Just read his diatribe on his site about the term 'popular fiction.' Too ugly to reprint here. God the man's bitter.

 

[Stewart]

Can you post the link? I can't find anything on that shoddy little website other than his five pages of FAQs.

 

[mehastings]

I'm sure it's within there somewhere. Tried to take a look to see what you guys were raving about. All that tiny little type without anchor tabs makes me aggrivated.

 

[Shade]

Even better, here's the whole thing - with my annotations.

4. WHEN LOSERS CLAIM TO BE WINNERS: THE TERM 'POPULAR FICTION'

Finally, a short word on a term that I really dislike: 'POPULAR FICTION.' In fact, it is one of the few things in the publishing industry that really makes me angry.

The term 'popular fiction' (which is often used in relation to my novels) must have been coined by some really bitter author who wrote some serious book which just didn't sell.

'Must have been'? Any evidence for this, Matto?

The only way to justify this failure

Sorry, what failure? Oh yes, the imaginary bitter author with the made-up serious book which hypothetically didn't sell. I'm with you.

was to say that the book was too good, that the masses were just too stupid to appreciate it. And so the term 'popular fiction' was used to describe, in a negative sense, those books that do succeed

In a negative sense? Or could it in fact be a neutral term meaning 'popular' (defn: er, popular, widely read, selling in large numbers) 'fiction' (defn: invented stories)?

- to degrade books that have mass appeal, and thus justify the failures of those who write material that, frankly, the greater public doesn't want to read. It is the mediocre asserting some kind of superiority over the successful (by insulting the intelligence of the general public!).

Jeez Louise, Matto, what's eating you? We're still on your imaginary derivation for the phrase 'popular fiction', right? Or is this actually a cover for some bitterness that's been eating away at you over some accolade you didn't win because people thought your books weren't good enough? And I take it by 'mediocre' and 'successful' you're using those terms in the sense of not popular and popular - because those are the only things that matter in literature, right? That's what makes the News of the World the world's finest newspaper, I guess.

As someone who reads ALL kinds of books (from Grisham to Ondaatje to the noted biographer A. Scott Berg),

And you still prefer Crichton, Clancy, King and Archer? Idiot.

I find it a terrible shame that this distinction exists.

What, the one you just made up? OK, carry on.

We have a broadsheet newspaper here in Sydney that has pretensions of literary credibility, and every year it puts out a 'Best Young Australian Novelists' list, and every year they dismiss the so-called 'popular fiction' authors and decry the state of publishing generally.

Ah! Now we get to the crux of the matter. You didn't make the list, did you, Matto?

Ultimately, it seems, this newspaper's judges are impressed by authors who use similes ('I am like the raven...') and personification ('the cliffs reach for the sky, yearning, outstretched...'), as if that is the only form of writing worthy of praise.

Forgive my derisive laughter. This exemplifies perfectly Matto's stunted sense of what 'good' writing is about, and why he will never be a good writer himself. Similes, personification? What is he on? Good writing cannot be prescribed - if it could, everyone would be doing it by formula. No, the reason your books are not respected by these people are because you don't care about the writing, just the pace and the action and the story.

It is okay to have an opinion on what is good - that is everyone's right - it is another thing entirely to say that your opinion is the only correct one.

Sorry, did they say that in the newspaper article? That their opinion was the only correct one? But let's not forget that not all opinions are of equal worth.

There is no shame in reading for enjoyment. After all, that's what 90% of the population do.

Is this a typo? Surely 100% of the (reading) population read for enjoyment?

 

[Stewart]

He has made himself out to be a complete arse with that, especially the hidden subtext of I didn't make a list, boo hoo!

I've been reading some of his other monthly posts and some of the crap he has to say - from writing tips through egostroking TV viewing to getting published where he asked the legendary Fran Bryson of The Bryson Agency in Melbourne for some tips. Legendary?

 

[Shade]

Yes, and - what a coincidence - the Sydney Morning Herald Best Young Novelists awards are made in May each year - and that entry from Matto is in May 2001. Hilarious!