To a certain extent this one depends on how you define well-written and badly-written. If there are technical problems with the writing, but the use of language and/or the ideas are sufficiently interesting, I'm not sure I'd always call it badly-written: it might be that the good things about that use of language made up for the weaknesses or technical errors. And on the other side of the question, good enough writing will make up for just about any dislike or disinterest I might have in a topic -- or it will if you think of good writing as something that goes beyond technical competence.
It's like, there are many extremely competent fan writers who've been seduced by RPF, and write nicely-constructed, perfectly-punctuated romances about actors or musicians I've never heard of. I know this because periodically somebody on one of my flists recommends one in glowing terms, and in my more naive days I would occasionally read one of them. I don't do this any more, because well-written on that level isn't enough to make up for my howling disinterest in romances and celebrities, seperately or together.
But you can bet that if Jane Austen's ghost wrote one of these things I'd read it, and be grateful to have the chance. Because hers would have the good writing.
no subject
Date: 7 Feb 2011 04:13 pm (UTC)It's like, there are many extremely competent fan writers who've been seduced by RPF, and write nicely-constructed, perfectly-punctuated romances about actors or musicians I've never heard of. I know this because periodically somebody on one of my flists recommends one in glowing terms, and in my more naive days I would occasionally read one of them. I don't do this any more, because well-written on that level isn't enough to make up for my howling disinterest in romances and celebrities, seperately or together.
But you can bet that if Jane Austen's ghost wrote one of these things I'd read it, and be grateful to have the chance. Because hers would have the good writing.