It’s that time of the week again, thank goodness! Among other things, that means more Left Behind critique over at Slacktivist.

Religion? No. Nothing to do with religion. Well, I mean, yes, Fred Clark critiques the theology and ethics promoted by the best-selling series, but that’s not my point. My point is writing.

These books are full of really, really, really bad writing.

And if you’re a writer, there’s a lot you can learn from an ongoing critique of really, really, really bad writing. Seriously. I mean, whole classroom lessons have been written using Atlanta Nights as a teaching tool. The Left Behind books are a similarly rich source of negative example. In terms of Mark Twain’s famous and quotable essay, “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses,” authors Jenkins and LaHaye are found guilty of violating rules 2, 5, 6, 10, 14, and 15. There’s a lot of tasty, tasty schlock in there, entertaining howlers demonstrating what not to do, such as:

How not to impress a writer with the bad guy’s persuasiveness: If he’s able to gosh-wow-gee mesmerize an international audience by, essentially, reading the phone book, this had better be because he’s exercising some sort of supernatural influence, and not because you expect readers to believe that he’s just that cool.

How not to show a character moving from point A to point B: We don’t need to have every step of MapQuest’s directions described in full detail. But if we must have every step described, they need to be the directions MapQuest would give in the universe where the story is ostensibly set.

How not to convincingly portray human reaction to global disaster: When a whole bunch of adults and every child under, what was it, eight? suddenly disappear, the remaining characters need to figure out why in a believable way, i.e. not by reading the book jacket blurb. Also, the remaining characters need to give a damn.

and, of course, How not to both adhere to a premillenial dispensationalist checklist and still create a believable, enjoyable plot.

These are the sorts of things that Fred Clark blogs about on Fridays. And Fred Clark is an enjoyable read. He has a knack of pointing things out in a way that makes readers say “That is so true” while laughing their paints off.

Here’s the thing, though. These books are best-sellers. Millions of U.S. citizens have plunked down their money for very badly written books. It’s enough to make a writer wonder whether writing well matters anymore.

One way to respond to this dilemma is to recognize that Jenkins and LaHaye are selling a religious viewpoint that appeals to a huge religious base. Not only do these books act as affirmation of that viewpoint, but they also invite readers who share that viewpoint to feel smugly superior to those fictional nonbelievers who meet bad ends. Readers will put up with–or simply fail to notice–a depressingly minimal standard of writing if the message makes them feel good.

The problem with that response is it buys in to the myth of the stupid consumer. It encourages despair in some, and smug superiority in others, neither of which is good for the soul. A better response, I feel, is to get angry. You know that people are smarter than that. They deserve better. Hell, your story deserves better.

So do better. A lot better. Remember, “Crap plus one is not a valid goal.” Learn from the crap, and then blow it out of the water.