Welcome back to another round of Bookish Debates! We hope everyone's year is going well. This month, we asked our Dreamers to share their thoughts on what it means to find enjoyment in the books they read. Specifically, do the works we consume need to be perfect to be truly enjoyed? Read on to discover what they had to say! 

Note: As always, we welcome everyone to share additional thoughts in the comments! However, we kindly ask that everyone maintain respect and patience as opinions may differ, and not everyone may be fully familiar with this topic.

---

Questions posted on 10th August 2024

Our question for both readers and writers: Does writing have to perfect in order to be enjoyed? Does it have to be perfect in order to justify it being well-loved or popular? Specifically, do you think that it is possible to say that, categorically, writing is either good or bad? 

---

All answers are slightly modified for grammar and structure.

Winning answer by High_Priestess_Elena

So as soon as I read this, I remembered a comment a fellow student made while I was in University studying literature. It wasn't so much a comment as it was a long monologue about what literature was worthy of being studied and analysed at university. Literature such as chick-lit and detective stories was not deemed worthy by this person. Neither was children's literature because of its lack of complexity. My university has quite a lot of people focusing on studying children's literature, and that was also my area while at uni, so I was just sitting there waiting for the lecturer to challenge this person's beliefs. Instead, another student jumped in to agree with the first one, and I was sitting there seething (though feeling way too awkward to speak up unfortunately) because one of my favorite books to talk about is a picture book consisting of 26 pages and 75 words. I can with ease monologue about that book for at least half an hour, going into the foreshadowings and theme of it. But this person obviously had a very strong opinion about what is good and what is bad literature, and I'm certain they would also make a claim that perfection is something that matters for if a book is bad or not. I've also been a part of writing critique circles where you were praised if you wrote convoluted and difficult to understand (sometimes rather impossible to understand) metaphors. While if you wrote more straight forward, your writing was called simple. I did not stay in that group for a particularly long time. 

So yeah, I've heard plenty of people argue that books need to have a certain quality to have worth and would consider anything written to entertain as a major motivator to be bad and not worth reading. It always makes me kind of sad for them when I hear that because, in my opinion, that means they're missing out on a lot of great literature. Plenty of the books I've read, enjoyed, and gotten me thinking about different things would be far from considered perfect. And, in all honesty, even if you look at the great classics, plenty of them have plot holes and similar. Like, are you really telling me that the monster in Frankenstein actually learned how to read and write by looking into a cottage through a crack in the wall? And sorry, but Tolkiens descriptions are so complex and hard to understand that there's plenty written about all the mistakes made in the first few translations of it to Swedish (my native language). 

What I honestly think is the case with literature, perfection, good and bad writing, is that we all have different tastes, we all notice different imperfections, and we all can forgive different types of mistakes made. Trying to define good literature, therefore, becomes rather impossible because we'll all have different opinions about what is important to us. And trying to chase perfection will likely lead to your hair turning gray before you finish writing your book. 

For me personally, a good book is one with characters I'll root for, a plot that keeps me engaged, and grammar that is fine enough that I'm not constantly noticing the mistakes. 

Second place (tied) answer by Dramaqueen1o1o

I'm a recovering perfectionist, learning to embrace the imperfections!

Just like in life, perfection is overrated. I don't believe there's such a thing as a perfect book, and searching or waiting for one almost always brings disappointment! I also feel that even "good writing" is a completely subjective term depending on the reader/writer.

For my personal reading enjoyment, glaring and constant grammar mistakes, poorly developed characters, and unrealistic or unsatisfying plots/storylines give me the ick. But an occasional inconsistency, even a litany of spelling mistakes, and redundant plot and dialogue—all things fixable with some longterm editing—won't stop me from a story.

I don't have the same patience for traditionally published stories where there were significant resources involved, but on Wattpad I love a story that's rough along the edges! Isn't that the point?

I know that my writing is far from perfect, but my goal is to spark imagination and joy—to let my readers feel something. The rest is up to them, and I'm going to keep writing even if I don't think what I share on Wattpad is anything close to my "best" or sometimes even "good."

One of the reasons I joined this community and started posting on Wattpad is because I wanted to fight my perfectionism. It keeps me back and stops me from moving my stories forward! Like I said, it's overrated. 

Second place (tied) answer by WrenMorgan

Short answer: No, no, kinda. Long answer: "Perfect" is a tall order. Writing only needs to be entertaining in order to be enjoyed. And it only needs enough people to enjoy it to become well-loved and popular. I don't think any further justification is required.

I do think there is a technical craft to writing that can be evaluated. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation are the most obvious examples that's about as close to objective as you can get. When it comes to evaluating an entire work, there are different arguments about how best to do that. "Did the writer achieve what they set out to achieve?" is one possible starting point. "Did it move the audience?" is another.

As an aside, if anyone is interested in this topic, I would recommend looking up the philosophy of art and aesthetics. Then ask yourself this question: Do you consider "trashy" fiction to be art? If so, why? If not, why not?

Second place (tied) answer by PathSojourner

What does the definition of 'perfect' even mean? Does it mean no typos? Satisfying endings? Beautiful descriptions? What makes writing good or bad? Depending on your answer to those questions, the "perfect" writing may not even exist. But as for my definitions:

Because of the difficulty of classifying writing (or any art) objectively, I tend to rate it first by craftsmanship and my own preferences second. Therefore, good writing has good grammar, clear sentences, fluid prosody (or pleasingly disjointed prosody), consistent character development (or flat character used well), a logical plot (at least by whatever logic the story/world runs on), consistent worldbuilding, some form of voice, and a poignant theme. Bad writing will have elements that actively distract from enjoying the story, whatever elements they may be.

My own preferences then weigh into the story: bonus points for good worldbuilding, character development, intricate plots, and captivating voices. Particular tropes like time travel (delicious worldbuilding possibilities) get bonus points as well. Certain kinds of characters and themes aren't what I want to read, so they subtract half or whole points.

All that said, by no means do books have to be perfect to be enjoyed, or even popular! 99% of books I enjoy I can also actively point out flaws in the writing, and finding and understanding the why behind these flaws and how I can look past them is part of my enjoyment of the story in the first place. Most people aren't looking for perfection; they're looking for enjoyment, so a book doesn't have to be perfect to be popular—arguably literary criticism supports my preference, and having good-but-not-perfect writing can actually enhance its popularity.

Some kinds of bad writing are easier to enjoy than others, and some things I just can't stand (editor brain hates misspelled words or missing punctuation), but I think tolerance for each kind of bad writing varies from person to person. I have noticed that bad characters are one of the fastest turn-offs, though. If you don't care (NOT don't like) about the characters, why read the story? People's standards of quality will differ, even from genre to genre. I tend to selectively read better-crafted books but tolerate much worse fan fiction, for example. But better writing is less likely to turn people off.

In summary: perfection can be an ideal, but it shouldn't be a minimum requirement! You can evaluate perfection by craft standards, but beyond that, you'll get into subjective territory.

---

That's all for now! We appreciate all that those took a moment out of their lives to participate in this discussion and congratulations once again to all the winners! We hope to see you all next round!