Can Plot Save a Horrible Book?

This thread was inspired by this blog post.

Basically, two editors got into a debate on "whether a book with a good plot and bad mechanics can still be deemed good". In this post, the author makes the argument that, despite having a great plot, the other elements (sentence structure, pacing, character, point-of-view, etc.) made the book objectively bad.

While the book in question had some four and five-star reviews, it had a lot more one-star reviews.

Here's the discussion question: Can a good plot save an otherwise bad book? Or is there a certain point when the plot can't save a story?

Yes to both. It's possible for any mostly-bad work to have some redeeming feature that is actually done well, but while I generally believe most fiction is subjective there is a minimum level of quality that it has to meet.

I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as objectively bad art. That being said, there are things that I've read/watched that were pretty terrible, but the plot was cool enough that I kept going anyway, although I can't think of any examples right now.

But basically, yes, yes it can.

I'm with Chocolate Cotton on both counts: that there's no way to say "this work is objectively bad" and that a good plot can be interesting enough to get me to stay with an otherwise badly written work.

On the second one, I'll go further: any single element can conceivably be done well enough to counteract all the other elements being poorly done, for some section of the audience.

edited 12th Oct '12 2:07:37 PM by Madrugada

I honestly think this is a dangerous mindset to have. It's often seemed to me like many of the people on here go too far in the other direction when avoiding the "True Art" mentality - while it's certainly wrong to create whole categories of fiction that are inherently better than others, to say that there is no such thing as bad fiction really creates room for ignoring all criticism on the grounds that "it's just your opinion".

I don't think a single well-done aspect can make up for poor execution of everything else in terms of quality. If I had dinner with awful appetizers, dirty dishes, and poor service, it would have been a terrible experience whether the steak was nicely done or not.

Depends on what of the other stuff is bad and how bad it is. If a book has already gone through editing and been accepted for publishing, its mechanics should be at least at an acceptable level. As long as its mechanics are fine, I can forgive poor characterization, point-of-view, and pacing if the plot is good. On the other hand, I'd probably put down a book immediately if it had poor sentence structure, grammar, and descriptions.

edited 12th Oct '12 4:35:22 PM by shiro_okami

Yeah, it depends on too much stuff. I've certainly read and enjoyed things that were pretty terrible in all kinds of ways, it can sometimes even give them a certain kind of charm, and the main deciding factor in whether they're charming or terrible is whether the story has an engaging sense of life to it. But it's all bound up together and obviously there's a point where it's just not worth it.

And even if there's no such thing as objectively bad art there's certainly such a thing as art that everyone objectively thinks is awful and stupid and more importantly art that the artist thinks they can improve. There's no need to get all metaphysical.

I agree with the comments saying, "It depends on what's bad and how it's bad." I tend to be the sort who can enjoy seriously flawed things so long as there's one shining gem amidst the flawedness, but it really depends on the context and circumstances. If a book has a dumb plot and clumsy writing, but great characters, I'll probably stick with it. If the characters are shallow but the plot is compelling, I can roll with it. I think characters are usually the single biggest determining factor for me, personally, though.

I'd also like to add that even if a work is bad to most people, it can still mean something or be useful to its creator in some way, such as offering them catharsis or helping them practice and hone their craft. So there's that.

Works that are solely meant for the author's benefit really shouldn't be presented to an audience.

edited 12th Oct '12 9:54:25 PM by nrjxll

I agree that there is no such things as objectively bad.

edited 12th Oct '12 10:42:27 PM by FallenLegend

If it's possible to objectively screw up it's possible to be objectively bad. Since it's possible to objectively screw up on at least a few levels (raw bad editing for grammar and spelling, for starters; it's also possible to objectively screw up on tonal issues which is why people will go back and claim stealth parody or troll), it's also possible to be objectively bad.

Should we let this deteriorate into another discussion of objective artistic value? It's sort of on-topic but not really the original function of the thread.

Hm, I think I disagree. Even if what you've written is masturbatory fluff, there's probably someone out there who will enjoy it and there's nothing wrong with giving them that opportunity.

Interesting point about screwing up, but it sounds like you're begging the question by defining 'screwing up' as 'doing something that leads to objectively bad art'. If we define it as 'failure of the work to match the author's intentions for it', I don't think that leads to any objective values. Not to mention that lots of works have been successful because the author 'screwed up' in that way.

edited 13th Oct '12 1:29:52 AM by Kesteven

And lots of works that hit the tone they were going for and it was a massive mistake to do so. It's really not relevant. We have a widespread belief here that a single part of the work can bring the rest down if handled badly enough. Once you also admit the possibility of objective failures in the work (if nothing else a serious case of bad editing), you are admitting that a work can objectively fail as a whole because one part of it has objectively failed.

Unless you're building a doublethink wall between the two concepts.

Since the rest of the book delivers the plot, I would have to say that no- digging through a terrible book to salvage the plot is not something I would do.

Of course, one's tolerance for, and perception of "bad" is absolutely subjective. There's no point arguing that. I've certainly enjoyed my share of things that had sub-par bits to it.

But I would make the case that any work is a sum of its parts, and that if the quality of so many aspects is bad then the plot isn't good anyway, because it's being impeded by the other elements.

And that's my 0.02 USD

edited 13th Oct '12 3:17:26 AM by CleverPun

Ah, I misunderstood then. If the argument is just that if a work can fail objectively in part it can fail objectively in whole, I agree. Obviously therefore I don't believe there can be objective failures in part. There's just stronger intersubjective consensus about what's 'good' in certain areas.

Pun may be right, there might be no point discussing it since people either believe in objective value or they don't.

Let me put that another way: if a work meant solely for the author's benefit is shown to a wider audience, then the fact that it was meant solely for the author can't really be used in its defense.

Leradny: I don't think a single well-done aspect can make up for poor execution of everything else in terms of quality. If I had dinner with awful appetizers, dirty dishes, and poor service, it would have been a terrible experience whether the steak was nicely done or not.

I agree with everything Leradny says.

However I think our subjective enjoyment of books changes over time. As a kid I thought Eragon was an okay book, not great but okay. Now if I were to pick up Eragon I'd probably not enjoy it as much, because I have read a greater amount of better books than I had previously. Plus the dwarves don't have any advanced tech.

I agree, but it depends what you mean by 'defence'. If someone says 'I didn't enjoy this' and the writer says 'That doesn't bother me, because my objective wasn't to please you' I think that's fair enough. They can both nod and go about their day. But if someone responds with something like 'My objective wasn't to please you so you're wrong and your criticism is invalid', that's just silly. Just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not a valid point to make.

I'll have to agree with Leradny as well — even if the plot is fantastic, it's not enough to convince me that the rest of the book, or any part of it, is good. (One would think that the primary cause of a book's failure would be its plot, but whatever.) That said, I think that at the very least I can pinpoint good parts of a book if need be. If the book has a fantastic and all-around memorable character, I'd be able to say something like "Yeah, it was a bad story, but at least it had Character X." That'd be my takeaway, and help me believe I hadn't wasted time/money.

Honestly, though? If both the book at large and the characters — or even just the characters in general — are weak, then I consider it an automatic failure. It's harsh, I know, but I put a lot of stock in characters. If a book can't give me people I want to follow, then it might as well just pack up and go home. (At least if books COULD pack up and go home...)

Your right, but those things refer more to the mechanics of a book rather than its "artfulness". A book may be subjectively considered to be a good work of art but objectively bad for the above reasons. In other words, some things, like art, may not be objectively good or bad, but other things are.

edited 15th Oct '12 7:30:57 PM by shiro_okami