What does it mean when a novel's fault is its "transparent writing"?

Question

A critic recently commented on about a contemporary novel, stating that although the story was interesting to read, the writing was transparent. Is this jargon of literary criticism, or what?

Answer 1

That the story was predictable and the author "telegraphed" the story too much along the way. Say for example the book was a mystery and the author gave too many clues along the way as to who the killer was. That would be transparent writing. The better you bury clues and tiny details, the more intriguing the story and the ending becomes. Think about how you would call a person who was really obvious about their agenda transparent. It's the same thing. C.

Answer 2

I would definitely call it literary cant.

It probably means that the literary devices used are too overt. The writing is too obviously trying to do things that aren't necessary.

But it is all ultimately ironic, because it's very transparent that the critic is using transparent writing to critique the contemporary novel.

It's kind of disgusting, I think.

Answer 3

Your holding the book, looks interesting. Too bad the cover is see through and you can see the ending. This is average literary jargon to answer your question.

Answer 4

I guess they probably meant that the story was too predictable. There wasn't much to it. The author must not have left much up to the imagination, or they used too many cliches. I guess it's only one person's point of view, though.

Answer 5

It means the plot is so pedestrian that you can figure out the resolution before you finish.