> But it's the sort of silliness that might evince a response that is not, you know, good.

Start by cutting out words most people don't know. I read between 3 and 10 books per week (closer to 10 lately) and I don't know what "evince" means. Start spending less time looking smart and more time serving people and you'll go much, much further in life.

Ignore this advice if you're secretly a best-selling multi-millionaire author who has inspired a lot of people who don't normally read to pick up a book instead of watch TV. In which case, carry on using the big words to bash other best-selling multi-millionaire authors who are inspiring a lot of people to read who normally don't, and entertaining them for doing so.

Dude, what does that have to do with anything? The claim was bad writers have no following. Which is not true. That's all.

I read between 3 and 10 books per week (closer to 10 lately) and I don't know what "evince" means

Happy to do my little bit broadening someone's vocabulary.

Ignore this advice

Thanks, I will. Mostly because I don't think I or any of the people I was having a discussion with were asking for advice. But I'll come back and re-read this during my next advice shortage.

Shall we call those the Good-Enough-Writers (TM)?

Seriously, truly awful anything do not ever see the daylight. Not even the children of emperors make it to public life if they not manage to make it to average (unless as posers or puppets).

The Da Vinci Code is cheesy, but otherwise well written. Dan Brown is not going to make it to the classics, but is not an idiot either.

Same can be said about Steve Yegge. His writing is opinionated, controversial, and sometimes grammatically incorrect (which I read as a token of informality rather than sheer ignorance). But the guy has a bunch of fresh ideas! You cannot have any good idea if you don't push the limits and throw some crazy shit as byproduct.

The Da Vinci Code is so poorly written, it's spawned a minor cottage industry of amusing commentary about how poorly it is written. A good place to start is here:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000844.h...

[heh, I wonder what refined consumer of English literature and fan of Dan Brown was so upset by this so as to downvote it]

Take 100 random people who has not read the book, but have seen the movie. Pay each of them to write a novelization of the movie. Take the best 5 "novelizations", and I bet the original will circle around them, with the eyes closed.

Repeat the above experiment, but substitute random people with random English literature mayors. Maybe the average "novelizations" will have fewer grammar errors than the top 5 of the previous experiment... but over all, I still expect the original to be better written than the top 5 of the second experiment.

The guy had a good idea, and executed it well enough to make a success out of it. Get over it!

Dan Brown, just to go with our example, is a terrible terrible writer, by just about every imaginable standard of good writing. Dan Brown is a bad writer with a following. Nobody will remember who Dan Brown was 50 or 100 years from now.

Dan Brown is also a tremendously successful writer and you seem to have great difficulty believing, just like the original poster, that a bad writer can be tremendously successful. You also seem to believe that there is some inherent dichotomy between Dan Brown's success and his lack of writing skill. There isn't. That's my entire point.

Dan Brown is a dreadful, highly successful author. There is nothing logically or morally wrong with that. There's no reason there should be. He's simply an excellent counterpoint to the strange notion that bad writers cannot be successful.

P.S. Just for the sake of completeness, it's English majors, not mayors.

Are you so sure about that? Let's take the most popular mass-writers from the 18th or 19th century and see if they're remembered now:

18th century (US): Susanna Rowson / "Charlotte: A Tale of Truth" - doesn't ring a bell for me, and has a very small Google Search result (60.000)

19th century (US): Harriet Beecher Stowe / "Uncle Tom's Cabin" - I think everyone has heard of it :) and it has 15 times as many results as Susanna Rowson (Dan Brown has 17 times as many as Beecher Stowe, fittingly)

I personally at least recognize most of the bestsellers from the 19th century - probably Arthur Conan Doyle's books or Alexandre Dumas could have been seen to be as bad as Dan Brown in their time (I'm not arguing that they are)

20th century: Agatha Christie - still widely read as I recall.

sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_literature , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_au... , and related Wiki articles, and googling