Can a bad story be good?
The Typology of Detective Fiction posed a very interesting question: What defines a good story? Is it one that conforms perfectly to the rules of a genre or one that breaks all of them? The answer is probably somewhere in between, but this made me think about what stories I enjoy the most. There is a certain satisfaction in reading and understanding a complex work that you've never seen anything like before. However, there is certainly enjoyment in reading a predictable fiction novel as well. The same applies to movies. The Fast and Furious franchise has had huge monetary success providing fans with exciting, albeit predictable action. Despite the widespread popularity of these films, none of them have received significant awards or praise from movie critics. On the other side of the coin, barely anyone sees the nominations for prestigious film festivals, yet critics label them as revolutionary and brilliant.
I would argue that the purpose of detective fiction is to entertain, and that conforming to the genre makes for an enjoyable read. Obviously, there should be differences between detective novels, but the basic formula can remain the same and not detract from a work. Critics will seek out new elements that they can identify as new and exciting and pretend everyone else is a tasteless philistine, but I believe the customer is always right and if people enjoy a detective novel, then it is a successful and "good" story.
I would argue that the purpose of detective fiction is to entertain, and that conforming to the genre makes for an enjoyable read. Obviously, there should be differences between detective novels, but the basic formula can remain the same and not detract from a work. Critics will seek out new elements that they can identify as new and exciting and pretend everyone else is a tasteless philistine, but I believe the customer is always right and if people enjoy a detective novel, then it is a successful and "good" story.
I think there are different types of success with regards to literature or any creative work. It can be generalized into to two broad groups, like you pointed out, the difference between what is "successful" for movie critics and the public (and I suppose, really, the movie directors/production staff). These two groups have different criteria on what makes a movie successful, and when these overlap, it gives the world something really awesome. Ultimately, like the original purpose, the meaning of any creative work, I think it depends on both what the author wants of the audience, and what the audience wants of the author. John Green has a good discussion on this on his Youtube channel.
ReplyDeleteI do have a question, however, if anyone would like to continue with this. Are the tropes and mainstays of the detective/mystery genre what makes those books/works enjoyable?
(And, why is it always the damn butler?!)
I agree with a lot of what you said about how sometimes the most entertaining books are the ones that fit a predictable mold, but that made me think about what makes some books better than others? For example, why are Sherlock Holmes stories and Agatha Christie novels so much more famous than a lot of other detective stories? They fit the described mold for the most part, but there has to be something more that makes for memorable stories.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of your points, but the same old predictable thing does get boring after a while. Innovation is necessary in order to continue with sales and that is where authors deter from the generic mold of their genres.
ReplyDelete