Come back after you’ve finished it.
That wasn’t the point of the example, though.
And that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean all books are equally good. Are we to believe that Brown and Rowling are the two best writers in the world right now?
The healthiness of the food isn’t part of the analogy. The point is that it’s simply not very good food. It’s quick, and convenient, and cheap, and maybe even a little tasty, but it doesn’t compare to a meal from a four-star restaurant. Dan Brown is a Big Mac. Salman Rushdie is a Kobe steak.
But at some point, you’re going to start getting diminishing returns. If you’re into weightlifting, but you only ever lift ten pound weights, while you may arguably still be improving to some degree, the degree of improvement will be so small as to be unnoticable. The same with reading: if you only ever read the same hack novelists, eventually whatever benefit you’re getting from it won’t be significant. Besides which, the point is that even if reading Dan Brown is, in some manner, improving your language skills, you aren’t improving them to nearly the degree you would if you read John Steinbeck. Humorous hyperbole aside, calling folks like Dan Brown a hack isn’t the same as saying no one should ever read them, it’s just pointing out that there’s better stuff out there to be read, stuff that will be more rewarding in the long run.
I spent my childhood reading nothing but Archie comics in my spare time. I was also the first person in my class to read a novel. I picked up a biography of Nintendo in Grade 7 and haven’t stopped reading since. My Anne Rice phase was the same time I won an English subject award at school.
It doesn’t matter what you read, as long as you read! My English teachers and I used to talk about how they loved classic lit the best, but I liked fantasy the best, but it was still okay because I had a good grasp of the English language.
The problem is that a book is not just the words on the page, but the construction of the story itslef is just as important. I have not read Dan Brown at all, but you cannot show someone is a hack, necessarily, by pulling out random excerpts. Hemingway wrote very plainly, yet he was compelling because of what he wrote about, not particularly how he wrote about it.
If that had been the entirety of my remarks, you’d be right. He wrote a story with a plot that moves along pretty briskly. But as I said, he can’t write dialogue and has zero ability to create characters. Most of the book’s dialogue is just Character X or Y voicing the next piece of information that the reader needs to know to keep the mystery moving. A better writer could create actual characters and still keep the story moving. Instead, all the dialogue feels like exposition. “Of course, Sophie, you remember that the ancient Egyptians venerated cats as symbologic representations of the sacred feminine.” That kind of thing.
So Brown can absolutely keep a potboiler going. I stand by the fact that those sentences are awful, however. Brown has a bad habit of trying to stuff too many words in each sentence. I think it’s his way of dressing up his prose. Tell me the attempt at mysterious contradiction in that middle sentence didn’t make you grin. Or that the adjectives and adverbs don’t clog up the other two. If you can find anything that bad in Hemingway’s work, please do post it. 
It’s funny you should say that, because I was going to comment on King and cite the Dark Tower as his hack side. “Song of Susannah” is, in my humble opinion, one of the worst books ever published. In includes this line, which I swear I’m not making up:
*
He moaned like a person having sexual intercourse in a hot climate.*
I mean, that’s just bad, bad, bad prose. The series started going downhill in book IV, and all the final three are just terrible crap. By the 1,500,000th time his Designated Mystical Negro - Susannah, in this case - said “honeychile,” I was ready to shoot someone.
King is a perfect example of why the same person can be both talented a hackish. He has written many fine books; The Dead Zone, for instance, or Different Seasons. He’s also written really horrible crud for money. He clearly does have a lot of talent, but sometimes contractual obligations seem to get in his way.
Much as Dan Brown’s syntax makes me want to jam a chopstick through my eye, isn’t there something to be said for sheer storytelling power? What’s vaulted this guy to bestselling super-god is the fact that he knows how to build a ferociously compelling tale. That doesn’t necessarily elevate him above hack, but it does command a certain modicum of respect as a craftsman. Edgar Wallace comes to mind by way of comparison. Not in terms of sheer volume, of course–Wallace was a machine–but just in terms of popularity-to-critical-scorn ratio.
And ya know, as far as who’ll be reading who in a hundred years. . . there are people still dig The Four Just Men. 
Mal Adroit and The Gaspode both mentioned The Story as being critical.
I have a theory, probably not original, that readers of fiction can be broken into three categories depending upon what they value most:
- those who like plot driven fiction
- those who like character driven fiction
- those who simply appreciate good writing
I also think that this list is in descending order of how many people fall into that particular category. Dan Brown and Stephen King can clearly tell a good story (plot driven), and usually do so. I think that is the reason for their mass appeal. It doesn’t matter if they can tell a story well or not, because the story is the core reason for its popularity.
Full disclosure: I tend to like plot driven fiction myself, and will forgive poor writing if the plot is good. For example, Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code I enjoyed, but hated Digital Fortress. Another example is I enjoyed Jurassic Park, but hated Prey. It’s all about the story.
It is a rare thing to find a writer who can be good at all three. A writer can have a wide variety of quality of output though, so perhaps naming individual works rather than the author would be more appropriate. A couple of recent examples for me that I’d nominate are Case Histories by Kate Atkinson and The Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Zafon.
But I’m getting too far afield from the OP.
Remember, about half the country is below average.
“Best-seller” doesn’t prove much about intellect or quality of writing. Lots of people can and do enjoy iffy writing just fine and they get whatever they want from it. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying reading plot driven things written in a very accessible style and the style has its own merits and I enjoy some good pop fiction now and then-- just don’t argue that it is equivalent to other works. There’s no need for leveling. If you like Dan Brown, that’s cool. But the next person who tells me that if I liked Foucault’s Pendulum or Tlon Uqbar Orbis Tertius that I’ll love the da Vinci code, because it’s JUST LIKE ECO or Borges or Calvino or whatever, is going to get pointed at and laughed at. I’ve read too many pieces of shite that were called “the next Name of the Rose” that . . . let’s just say that they weren’t. If this makes me a snob, fine.
Plus I’ve been teaching Italian Renaissance classes and I got 4 papers about obelisks this term and 3 students asked me whether John the disciple in that picture’s isn’t really a girl and it’s getting old.
Part of the problem with this kind of discussion is defining what we’re talking about. Are books only good if they’re (sticks nose in the air) “litrachure”?
There are some books that I really like which were written by people with modest (at best) writing skills. Why do I like them? The content. They teach me something. They tell a great story. They have content that matters to me.
Some books aren’t about content or writing skill at all. They’re about entertainment. I enjoy the classics as much as the next guy, but when I’m stretched out on a beach chair working on my third margarita, Janet Evanovich is just fine.
The “popular is bad” meme is all over our society. This author hit the bestseller list, so he must be a hack. This musician had a hit record, so she “sold out.” This piece of electronic gear is the most popular, so everyone who uses it must be a sheep.
You didn’t see people lining up to call Dan Brown a hack after Angels & Demons came out. If it had hit the bestseller list on its own instead of being propelled there by the popularity of Da Vinci Code, there would have been people waiting to jump him.
Making the bestseller list doesn’t make you a good writer, but it doesn’t make you a bad one, either.
Of course making the bestseller list doesn’t make you a bad writer, but that’s not the point I’ve seen anyone post…
For one thing, unless you’re actually in the publishing/writing business you probably don’t understand that bestseller is as much a category/type/genre as science fiction or mysteries. There are ways that bestsellers are standardly written that are different from the ways other types of novels are. Search Amazon for titles like “writing the bestselling novel.” You’ll find the “secrets” of writing bestsellers. (Most of them are meaningless things like writing short chapters, from a variety of points of view, and driving the plot.)
Obviously these aren’t sufficient or anybody could do it, right? Wrong. Anybody can write a bestseller-type novel. Many people do. You’ve never heard of them because they don’t sell enough copies, but they are structurally and stylistically identical. (How do I know about them?: because after each new person becomes a bestseller, a horde of novels as exactly alike as possible as touted as the next so-and-so. Check the ads in any book publication for the imitation Dan Browns you’ll never hear of next year.) Many bestseller writers are like Dan Brown, somebody whom lightning struck. He’s been writing the same way for a while, but suddenly he caught fire.
The other strange dirty secret of bestsellerdom is that once lightning strikes, it takes an almost willful attempt to lose that aura. Bestselling authors keep on being bestsellers even after most of their devoted fans agree that their latest books are utter crap. But the diminishing returns take a very long time to diminish. Habit is a difficult thing to break.
Publishing is a business. Bestselling writers are businesspeople, giving the consumers what they want. I don’t fault them for this for a moment, but I’m in the business and I recognize it for what it is.
There are good writers who sell very well. Always have been, and hopefully always will be. But they are simply a different part of the business than bestsellers.
What this all reminds me of is the quote from a baseball player after a tough series of negotiations with the owners. It went something like, “Every time we said that baseball was a sport, they said it was a business, and every time we said it was a business they said it was a sport.”
Bestsellers are like sports. Totally unimportant in the greater scheme of things, but people’s lives revolve passionately around teams. Does that make sports terrible? No. Can we wish that people would put some of that passion into politics or the environment or charity? Certainly. (Some do both.) We should all be at least self-aware enough to recognize the place and value of all the aspects of our lives, and not make false claims about how everything is of equal value.
All books are equal but some are more equal than others.*
*A literary allusion. If you don’t get it, find out the book it came from and read it now. Its better than a bestseller. 
(In a rush, pardon me if this has been mentioned)
Very apt comparison, in light of the fact that in a Time magazine interview about 20 years ago for the release of IT, it is mentioned that Stephen King has referred to his own writing as “the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries”.
Nicely done.
Now there is an example of a excellent book that is both short and easy to read. It didn’t have to be full of big, purple prose and bad metaphors to be both poignant and well written.
I don’t think its a very good analogy then. Reading what a hack author wrote can do you no harm, and I contend a lot of good. Eating at McDonald’s can do you harm.
It certainly has those connations however. Calling someone a hack can only be taken in a derogatory manner. Being derogatory to someone or something does not encourage others to pick up that someone or thing. An author who is able to get people to pick up their book, and actually read deserves our respect and admiration, not to lift our noses in the air and saw “pshaw, its nothing but hackneed crap, and he is a hack”.
Reading of any sort can do little harm (I say little because I suppose extreme racist texts might cause some harm), and oodles of good. Anybody who does good can hardly be a hack in my book. I suppose YMMV however.
I also never considered the fact that great works of literature inspire people to become writers, and contribute to the broadening of literature. Thanks for pointing that out (whomever did, I can’t remember, it was early though), nor do I disagree that great writers potentially contribute more, and that you can get more out of reading 1984 then you could out of Angels and Demons. That does not equal Dan Brown as a hack however.
An analogy does not have to conform on every point with the object being discussed to be valid. If it did, it wouldn’t be an analogy of the object, it would be the object itself. No one is suggesting that reading bad books is going to harm you, so it doesn’t matter if the analogy fails on the issue of health.
Of course it’s derogatory. I describe Tom Clancy (I’ve never actually read any Dan Brown, so I can’t really comment on him as a writer) as a hack because his books are awful. That’s my opinion, obviously, and I don’t particularly care that other people enjoy him, but just being a succesful author does not make him immune to criticism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Iif there’s a discussion about the relative quality of an author I don’t like, I’m going to describe his works in ways that are derogatory.
Calling someone a hack is derogatory, but it’s not any sort of a moral judgement. I don’t think Tom Clancy is a bad person, just a bad author. I don’t begrudge him his success, but he’s written books and put them out for public consumption, which means that he’s open to criticism both positive and negative. One of the great things about literature - about any art - is the dialogue it can engender. And that dialogue cannot be complete without allowing space for all viewpoints at the table, pro and con.
That was me, and you’re welcome. But no one ever said that Brown was a hack just because there are better authors out there. I think Steinbeck is a better author than Orwell, but that doesn’t mean Orwell is a hack. Wether or not Dan Brown is a hack is dependent on his own failures as a writer. Comparisons to other authors only serve to show how the same things could be done better.
Actually, I am in the business, and I’ll have to disagree with you on this one. There may be a style that you consider the “bestseller style,” but I really doubt that style was used for The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (97 weeks on the Book Sense paperback fiction bestseller list), The Devil in the White City (112 weeks on the paperback nonfiction list), Freakonomics (a year on the Book Sense list and currently Amazon’s #1 bestseller), or Dragonology (over a year on the children’s list). Bestseller lists are filled with books that don’t fit your stereotype. I just skimmed Amazon’s bestseller list, and the only book in the top 10 that might fit your “bestseller genre” is Da Vinci Code.
Only two out of seven of the New York Times bestseller lists even include novels (three if you include “children’s chapter books”). Ditto for Publisher’s Weekly and Book Sense.
Then perhaps I misunderstood your post near the beginning of this thread:
You certainly do seem to be drawing a correlation there, and it’s a correlation I disagree with. Please pick a reputable set of bestseller lists (e.g., NYT, Book Sense, PW…) and tell me what percentage of the books on their current set of lists are written by people you’d consider “hacks.” I’d be astounded if it was a majority.
NOTE: I understand that there are people who make the bestseller lists because of their names, when they have no literary skills whatsoever (I might mention Madonna). There are charlatans and frauds on the lists (Kevin Trudeau and James Frey). There are writers trying to hitch a ride on someone else’s success (the Da Vinci debunkers). I will definitely grant you that some of these folks are “hacks,” but you’ll note than none of the ones I mentioned here fit your “bestseller genre.”
First, we are talking about bestselling novels here, not nonfiction. Not a single poster has mentioned nonfiction that I remember. And when I point someone to a book on “writing the bestselling novel”, I assume that they understand that novels are the subject.
Now if you want specifics, go immediately to the current New York Times hardback bestseller list.
How many of those books are written in the bestseller style? Without having read any, I would venture to guess 14 of the 16 mentioned. Christopher Moore is fairly eccentric to be a bestseller, from what I understand, and the Elizabeth Berg novel at #16 appears to be literary in intent.
The others are all thrillers, mysteries, or romance novels.
And note what I said about Dan Brown imitators:
Next, let’s examine the New York Times paperback bestseller list.
Again, we have 13 of 15. The Kite Runner appears to be literary. The Five People You Meet in Heaven is an outlier, an inspirational novel rather than a literary work. The others exactly mirror the hardback list.
QED.
The only unusual aspect of these lists is the absence of any horror, science fiction or fantasy titles. There’s usually one, either from the Usual Suspects (King, Koontz, Straub, Robb) or a franchised tie-in. Otherwise you can look at any fiction list for the past umpteen years and find the same pattern. Lots of thrillers, a few straight mysteries, some romance, some f&sf, and the rare literary work that pops up into the lower reaches of the list, which I remind you, I made specific mention of earlier, so don’t throw Curious Incident at me and think that you’ve scored a point.
I don’t know whether any of these writers are hacks, because I haven’t read these books. I will bet large sums of money that with the exceptions indicated, they write in the bestseller style. Bestseller writers do tend to be hacks, though, because that’s what sells.
If you’re in the business and don’t understand this, may I suggest that another career may fit better with your talents.
I think you might have something here. I’m definitely a plot-driven guy. After suffering through high-school lit class, I decided that one of the key requirements for being “great literature” was that the novel must be devoid of any discernible plot. Books like The Great Gatsby and To Kill a Mockingbird just kinda ramble on for a while, before the author arbitrarily decides to wrap things up at the very end. The books that I did like, like The Old Man and the Sea and The Pearl were the ones that had a central conflict and some semblance of a story arc.
Are you seriously suggesting that To Kill a Mockingbird is lacking plot? You might want to re-read it. There’s an incredibly intense main plot with about 6 or 7 sub-plots swirling around underneath it.
Which brings me to my criticism of the plot < character < writing heirarchy. I can agree that there is a distinction between plot-driven and character driven novels. I can think of wonderful (and awful) examples of each. But I think a good novel must be one or the other. Writing that doesn’t involve plot development or character development is empty, no matter how stylistically sophisticated it is. Beautiful language is just farts in a windstorm if you don’t have a story to tell.
The best novels do all three. They have compelling plots as well as three-dimensional characters who are affected in realistic ways by the events in plot. Both plot and character development are handled artfully.
I’m no Stephen King fan, but I will give him his due. Some of is stuff is good to very good. I think he clearly fails when it comes to creating three-dimensional characters, which is a big turnoff for me. But his plots can be great and some of his ideas are terrific.
Brown, on the other hand, is just lousy. I’ve seen better character development in episodes of Speed Racer. Come to think of it, I’ve seen plot lines better done there too.
But are they hacks? Here’s my definition of a hack: someone who writes a work solely to make a buck and has little or no literary or artistic ambition. Hack-ness has little or nothing to do with the quality of the work and can vary from piece to piece. You could argue that Shakespeare was a hack at times. Other quality hacks, by this definition: Dickens, Asimov, Twain, Wodehouse.
By that definition, I don’t know whether Brown is a hack or not. I don’t know enough about the body of his work to say. I will say that I think he is a crappy writer. Did he write The Davinci Code solely because he thought he could make a million bucks from it? I don’t know. But it’s a steaming pile whether he did or not.
Shakespeare, on the other hand, may have cranked out Hamlet with the basest of motives, but that has no bearing on the quality of his work.