# Good Writing? Bad Writing?



## Kyle R

(Spelling, punctuation, and grammar aside)—is there such a thing as "good" writing?

How about "bad" writing?

Are there writing standards that can be measured? Or is writing completely subjective?

What do you think? :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D

Completely subjective, even SPaG. The only criteria that matters is the connection a writer makes with the reader. If it weren't then writers such as James Joyce, Cormac McCarthy, Stephanie Meyer, and P.D. James would be lumped together as 'bad' writers. As readers each of us has our own set of standards a piece of writing 'should' meet to be considered good. Some people will tell you Ulysses by James Joyce is the best English language novel ever written -- I wouldn't use it as a doorstop.


----------



## Bishop

To me, good writing comes when a writer has found their voice and lives within it well enough to immerse readers into their world, and bad writing is that which struggles with consistent voice and/or fails to immerse the reader. In a lot of ways, it's dependent on the reader, but even popular fiction writers struggle with voice, and while it's a subjective concept, I feel like people can pick up on a writer's failure here--even when the books still sell millions.


----------



## shadowwalker

If we toss out "structural" issues as well as SPaG, then I'd say it's totally subjective. What I mean by structural is the ability to write with at least a basic coherency, and _not _a style thing. (I've beta'd "stories" where they were, literally, just random sentences that barely touched on the supposed subject. By the end of the first paragraph, I had no idea what they were talking about. And the author had a hard time even explaining what they were _trying _to say.)


----------



## aj47

The so-called rules of writing are not intended to restrict writers, but have developed because, traditionally, they facilitate communication with readers.  As others have said, communication is what it's about.  If you write a book and no one understands it, are you really a writer?


----------



## Bishop

astroannie said:


> If you write a book and no one understands it, are you really a writer?



I believe that's called the "Finnegan's Wake Paradigm".


----------



## InnerFlame00

I think how good or bad writing in general depends on how well the author communicates and connects with the reader. If a book is an incomprehensible mess to all but the person who wrote it then I'd say they have done a poor job. Most award winning books seem to have one thing in common: they appeal to a large audience. The more people you reach with your writing the better it is.

Besides that factor it is completely subjective. What one person may find excellent another person may find completely meh. Personally, what I classify as good writing is when a story is well structured, has good dialogue, well developed characters, and a varied plot.


----------



## aj47

InnerFlame00 said:


> Besides that factor it is completely subjective. What one person may find excellent another person may find completely meh. Personally, what I classify as good writing is when a story is well structured, has good dialogue, well developed characters, and a varied plot.



Yes, because, obviously the WRITER believes their work is, at minimum, good enough.


----------



## Arthur G. Mustard

How do you really define good writing or bad writing,  if you put side all the grammar, punctuation etc, and who makes that decision?  I think you have to find your own voice and style,  actually sell your work and receive good critiques on a regular basis and give the reader an understandable plot with believable characters.


----------



## bazz cargo

There is stuff I like, and stuff I'm not so keen on. I can't tell if any of it is good or bad.


----------



## Blade

I think there is such a thing as bad writing. The author can be a windbag, condescending, flippant, erratic or overbearing to the point where continuation of the read becomes painful.:hopelessness: i.e. How much am I being compensated to endure this experience.:disgust:

Good writing, on the other hand, leaves no traces. You can flow along and not even notice the passage of time or the 'writing'. 

The difference may not be entirely objective but fortunately I can tell the difference quite readily on my own.:thumbl:


----------



## Book Cook

Terry D said:


> Completely subjective, even SPaG. The only criteria that matters is the connection a writer makes with the reader. If it weren't then writers such as James Joyce, Cormac McCarthy, Stephanie Meyer, and P.D. James would be lumped together as 'bad' writers. As readers each of us has our own set of standards a piece of writing 'should' meet to be considered good. Some people will tell you Ulysses by James Joyce is the best English language novel ever written -- I wouldn't use it as a doorstop.




There is bad writing, and there is good writing. James Joyce was a good writer while Stephanie Meyer is a vary bad writer. From what I've gathered, writers have exponentially been losing the insight into the human psyche, or at least the ability to transfer the human psyche into written word. While I was reading Dostoevsky's _The Idiot_, I've encountered descriptions that I could perfectly relate to many people I know. He described their person in incredible, deep, penetrating detail. Never have I witnessed such insights in contemporary writers. People have become too self-absorbed, too self-centered, too self-conscious, that they do not deeply care about others, nor spend a lot of time thinking--if at all--about others when they are alone (though they love to gossip). It has all become about social media and what _others_ think about _them. _People don't spend much time noticing others; the classless society has excised their empathy like a surgeon may excise an appendix. They have lost the deeper interest in others and therefore the grasp on the facets of various personalities. Good or bad writing is defined by the characters a writer creates--not their actions, but their deepest layers of psyche. What I'm mostly seeing today is a lot of character action and only a veneer of their psyche.


----------



## Terry D

Book Cook said:


> There is bad writing, and there is good writing. James Joyce was a good writer while Stephanie Meyer is a vary bad writer. From what I've gathered, writers have exponentially been losing the insight into the human psyche, or at least the ability to transfer the human psyche into written word. While I was reading Dostoevsky's _The Idiot_, I've encountered descriptions that I could perfectly relate to many people I know. He described their person in incredible, deep, penetrating detail. Never have I witnessed such insights in contemporary writers. People have become too self-absorbed, too self-centered, too self-conscious, that they do not deeply care about others, nor spend a lot of time thinking--if at all--about others when they are alone (though they love to gossip). It has all become about social media and what _others_ think about _them. _People don't spend much time noticing others; the classless society has excised their empathy like a surgeon may excise an appendix. They have lost the deeper interest in others and therefore the grasp on the facets of various personalities. Good or bad writing is defined by the characters a writer creates--not their actions, but their deepest layers of psyche. What I'm mostly seeing today is a lot of character action and only a veneer of their psyche.



Define , or quantify, for me 'bad writing'. Whatever you tell me is only your opinion and therefore subjective. There are plenty of current writers who delve into the human psyche just as deeply as did Dostoevsky, or that self-absorbed idiot James Joyce. Toni Morrison is one, Chuck Palahniuk for another (though I don't much care for his writing. To me it is bad) and the list goes on and on. Your opinions about contemporary readers are also just that, opinions. But, say you are correct and current readers have changed, there's nothing wrong with that. Culture is not static and writers who can make a connection with today's readers must e doing something right, wouldn't you say?


----------



## ppsage

This is totally a trick question because writing serves a multitude of disparate purposes and, unless you specify which, there is no basis for evaluation. Then it gets tossed into the realm of total subjectivity which is the same as deleting the distinction from the lexicon. Some writing can be good for putting hard realities into words and some of it can be good for going to sleep by the pool. Most writing is probably good for something, but even for a group as boisterously egotistical as ours there is likely to be some bit of writing that's always bad, all by itself in a vacuum. But not very much, and of dubious value to recognize. Good one Kyle, but I ain't falling for it.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Define bad writing? Spoiling the suspense. Writing confusing sentences. Leaving out great scenes. Characters that are boring or unrealistic. I could probably list 20 things. I was just today admiring how Stephen King handled the "flashback" in Mr. Mercedes -- the man is a skilled writer.

Right, there are huge differences. Clancy, King, Kinsella, Green, Runyon, Hammett, and Palahniuk are all very different in style and what they do well. But they aren't confusing, and they don't spoil the suspense, they create great characters, and they all know how to tell a story.

I am not sure grammar and punctuation are an aside, it's important that they go with a fit what you are trying to say with the words. A good writer (such as King and at least most of the above) does that really well.

(Meyer does some things really nice, just so you know; maybe we should have a separate thread for idle trashing of her.)


----------



## J Anfinson

It's subjective. Setting aside SPaG, something I think is garbage might be gold to someone else. It's whatever works for the reader.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Kyle R said:


> (Spelling, punctuation, and grammar aside)—is there such a thing as "good" writing?
> 
> How about "bad" writing?
> 
> Are there writing standards that can be measured? Or is writing completely subjective?
> 
> What do you think? :encouragement:



Clan Of The Cave Bear. Horrible writing. 

The Prosecution rests.


----------



## shadowwalker

I would venture to say that good writing is writing that fulfilled the author's intent. It may be confusing to some, it may be boring to others, it may be too much action and not enough characterization for yet another set of readers. But did it do for enough of its intended audience what the author wanted it to? If so, it was good writing.


----------



## Cran

I would venture that good writing - effective writing - is writing in which the words as strings of letters no longer matter to the reader. Good writing is writing that takes the reader away from the page and into another place, and that other place stays with the reader even when the writing is put away.

Is it subjective? Yes. Totally subjective? No. There are sufficient common elements at any time which may be considered objectively. 

Can they be set or measured? Yes, for a given time, but rarely across all times. The elements might remain, but their measure of effectiveness can and does change over time. That is characteristic of a living language.


----------



## Book Cook

Terry D said:


> Define , or quantify, for me 'bad writing'. Whatever you tell me is only your opinion and therefore subjective. There are plenty of current writers who delve into the human psyche just as deeply as did Dostoevsky, or that self-absorbed idiot James Joyce. Toni Morrison is one, Chuck Palahniuk for another (though I don't much care for his writing. To me it is bad) and the list goes on and on. Your opinions about contemporary readers are also just that, opinions. But, say you are correct and current readers have changed, there's nothing wrong with that. Culture is not static and writers who can make a connection with today's readers must e doing something right, wouldn't you say?



Yes, making a connection with today's readers means the writer is doing something right. Unfortunately, that means creating fluff for the absent-minded. 

Also, why does the Western world despise opinions? Everyone demands sources and statistics for everything. Why do you automatically dub the speaker unintelligent and demand some other speaker's article or statistic, whom you would, for some reason, find more convincing? Because, if you strip it down to bare bones, there are no facts, no objectivity. We only have individual and collective subjectivity.


----------



## stan

Even with 'Spelling, punctuation and grammar" there is no right or wrong models-See "gonzo Journalism' or experimental types of writing like 'cut-aways'etc.

It's an art.  Anything goes!!  Nothing is wrong and everything is allowed.

Well that's my two-penneth anyway.


----------



## Sam

I don't think it's all subjective.  

Rather, it's that there are so many varying degrees of writing that something can be labelled 'good' when viewed through one lens, and paradoxically labelled 'bad' when viewed through another. Academic writing is different from creative, creative different from business, business different from journalistic, journalistic different from scientific, and so on. Move one of those into the other and it becomes, by default, bad writing. 

You might counter, "But isn't the general process the same for each?" Maybe the mechanics are similar across the board, but a structurally sound piece of writing can still suck. It's reasonable to say that a grounded knowledge of SPaG and structure are essential for writing to a high standard, but by and of themselves they aren't what makes the writing good. Good writing, in my opinion, is writing that is cognisant of its intended audience. A good writer knows how to adapt their writing for each and every circumstance. 

A good writer is flexible, and good writing is perceptive.


----------



## Terry D

T.S.Bowman said:


> Clan Of The Cave Bear. Horrible writing.
> 
> The Prosecution rests.



And yet it won the National Book Award for a First Novel, and was a huge best-seller, so there were quite a few people who thought it was 'good' writing.



Book Cook said:


> Yes, making a connection with today's readers means the writer is doing something right. Unfortunately, that means creating fluff for the absent-minded.
> 
> Also, why does the Western world despise opinions? Everyone demands sources and statistics for everything. Why do you automatically dub the speaker unintelligent and demand some other speaker's article or statistic, whom you would, for some reason, find more convincing? Because, if you strip it down to bare bones, there are no facts, no objectivity. We only have individual and collective subjectivity.



Elitist clap-trap. Readers today are no less intelligent, or "absent minded" than ever before, there simply more demands on their time which necessitates a different method of communication. An author needs to remember that most of the people reading his/her work is just as intelligent as they, or more-so.

Who said anything about despising opinions? It sure wasn't me. It is precisely because opinion is so common and so varied that 'good' and 'bad' must be considered subjective.


----------



## John Oberon

I don’t think SPaG is subjective at all, else why do we have all these grammar books cataloging basically the same rules? Now I _would_ say SPaG is adaptable for different applications. For example, the rules say an adjective always comes before a noun, but that certainly is not the case in poetry. And the rules say to spell the word “for”, but in a text message, it is commonly “4”. Does that mean the rules are subjective? No. It means the rules can be adapted for sound.

I often compare SPaG or just writing in general to learning to ride a bike. As a beginner, you learn to slow when you want to turn. You hold the handlebars firmly with both hands and don’t go too fast and brake gently, because you don’t want to crash. But soon, you learn there are times when you can lean into a turn at higher speeds. You learn to ride without hands on the bars and to skid 20 feet on gravel by braking hard. Now did the initial rules become subjective or go away? Nope. They’re still there in full force, rock solid, but you’ve learned to adapt them to different circumstances as your skill and confidence increase. Sure, there are still times when you _must_ slow for a turn or brake gently, but that’s just a small part of the enjoyment of bike riding.

In the same way, we can adapt SPaG for different contexts. We can misspell words when the words come in a letter from a mentally deficient character. We can change the normal order of parts of speech to accent meaning. We can do all sorts of things, but always, _always_ it is those foundational objective rules that make those departures from the rules effective. Ignorance of how writing _ought_ to be objectively blinds us to art and skill. Without a solid knowledge in that area, we would see no difference in quality between the writing in say Fifty Shades of Gray and The Green Mile, or if we do see a difference, we have no clue why. Those objective rules answer why and help us to become better writers.


----------



## Terry D

SPaG as a component of 'good' writing is subjective in that 'good' writers often ignore generally accepted 'rules', yet their work is still considered to be good. Take Cormac McCarthy, he never uses quotation marks, treats commas as if they are as rare as diamonds, and uses sentence structures which would have had me repeating the ninth grade. If you look at his work objectively it is terrible, but it works. I'm not defending _Fifty Shades_, or _Twilight_, or _Blood Meridian_ for that matter (I'm sure many folks hate McCarthy). I'm just saying that there are many people who consider those works 'good' even though they all trample the 'rules'. In my opinion, the difference lies in the author's intent. I know McCarthy writes the way he does to achieve an effect, to create a different world where our standard conceptions are turned on their head, and it works. To me that's good writing. James and Meyers? I don't think they had a clue what they were doing when they violated accepted writing standards. To me that's very bad writing. Others will not agree, that's why I consider SPaG subjective as it relates to a 'good' book.


----------



## Bishop

Terry D said:


> In my opinion, the difference lies in the author's intent. I know McCarthy writes the way he does to achieve an effect, to create a different world where our standard conceptions are turned on their head, and it works. To me that's good writing. James and Meyers? I don't think they had a clue what they were doing when they violated accepted writing standards. To me that's very bad writing. Others will not agree, that's why I consider SPaG subjective as it relates to a 'good' book.



Agreed. People who break the rules AFTER learning and mastering the rules to achieve an effect? They flourish in these unique styles. And even then, I do think some of them fail. I can't stand Chuck P. But the authors who don't know SPaG at all, and then after-the-fact make the claim they were just 'breaking convention' (or worse, they don't think there was anything wrong with it at all) will quickly make for poor writing.


----------



## John Oberon

Terry D said:


> SPaG as a component of 'good' writing is subjective in that 'good' writers often ignore generally accepted 'rules', yet their work is still considered to be good. Take Cormac McCarthy, he never uses quotation marks, treats commas as if they are as rare as diamonds, and uses sentence structures which would have had me repeating the ninth grade. If you look at his work objectively it is terrible, but it works. I'm not defending _Fifty Shades_, or _Twilight_, or _Blood Meridian_ for that matter (I'm sure many folks hate McCarthy). I'm just saying that there are many people who consider those works 'good' even though they all trample the 'rules'. In my opinion, the difference lies in the author's intent. I know McCarthy writes the way he does to achieve an effect, to create a different world where our standard conceptions are turned on their head, and it works. To me that's good writing. James and Meyers? I don't think they had a clue what they were doing when they violated accepted writing standards. To me that's very bad writing. Others will not agree, that's why I consider SPaG subjective as it relates to a 'good' book.



I guess I don't consider popularity as a valid measurement of good writing, and I don't think it makes SPaG subjective in any way. I think popularity indicates only that a lot of people like it, and as you well know, a lot of people like a lot of awful things. Murder, meth, and Twilight come to mind.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Terry D said:


> And yet it won the National Book Award for a First Novel, and was a huge best-seller, so there were quite a few people who thought it was 'good' writing.



Don't care. It was crap.


----------



## Terry D

John Oberon said:


> I guess I don't consider popularity as a valid measurement of good writing, and I don't think it makes SPaG subjective in any way. I think popularity indicates only that a lot of people like it, and as you well know, a lot of people like a lot of awful things. Murder, meth, and Twilight come to mind.





T.S.Bowman said:


> Don't care. It was crap.



Because we all have our own criteria for deciding if a book, movie, or anything else is good. That's why quality is subjective. To the fans of what I consider garbage -- a couple of my own personal banes are, James Patterson, and Bentley Little -- their books are good. I do believe, however, that there are objective criteria for determining the evils of things like murder and meth. Books don't destroy lives if they are written poorly... well... maybe... _Twilight_... (Just kidding Sunny, just kidding).


----------



## John Oberon

Terry D said:


> Because we all have our own criteria for deciding if a book, movie, or anything else is good. That's why quality is subjective. To the fans of what I consider garbage -- a couple of my own personal banes are, James Patterson, and Bentley Little -- their books are good. I do believe, however, that there are objective criteria for determining the evils of things like murder and meth. Books don't destroy lives if they are written poorly... well... maybe... _Twilight_... (Just kidding Sunny, just kidding).



My point is that popularity is not a valid criteria to determine if writing is good. I know several people whose writing is not at all popular, yet they are excellent writers.


----------



## shadowwalker

Book Cook said:


> Unfortunately, that means creating fluff for the absent-minded.



Wow. How to insult readers and writers in one fell swoop. Impressive.


----------



## Kyle R

I don't consider popularity in itself to be a valid measurement of good writing, either—mostly because a book could be popular for reasons other than the writing alone (such as a memoir written by a notorious celebrity).

But if the book is popular specifically because a lot of readers enjoyed it? Then, yes, I consider it good writing—at least to those readers.

It's kind of like wall art, in a way. I don't see anything remarkable about Mark Rothko's multimillion-dollar paintings, but I've read that people have been moved to tears while looking at his work.






_Violet, Black, Orange, Yellow on White and Red_ — Mark Rothko

To me, it's just some shabbily painted blocks of color. But to Rothko's fans, it's brilliant and emotive and who the hell am I to say any different?

To each their own, I suppose!

Technically speaking, I think there are a lot of debatable ways we can define "good" versus "bad" writing, though I think those measurements change and adapt, depending on genre and time.

These days, a lot of readers seem to crave subjective narration. Character voice has gained great traction in the literary world.

Go back in time a century or two and subjective narration was a rarity—and would've likely been considered sloppy, lazy, or downright weird. Back then, the narrative voices of the authors themselves were (from what I could tell) preferable, and readers seemed to enjoy seeing characters from the outside rather than from the inside.

Standards evolve. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D

John Oberon said:


> My point is that popularity is not a valid criteria to determine if writing is good. I know several people whose writing is not at all popular, yet they are excellent writers.



I'm not looking to find criteria to determine good writing from bad. I'm talking about the subjectivity of that criteria. To many people James Patterson is a good writer, to me his writing is formulaic and hackneyed. There is no objective criteria everyone can agree upon, for any piece of writing.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis

Is it really so complicated? 

Good writing makes you forget that you're reading. The frayed edges of reality become distant as you forget the physical world around you. When you're not so bad of a writer that you jarr the reader out of the book. You hook 'em. 

Rules were meant to be broken.  If you suck the reader into your world- you can do whatever you want. 

The problems come when we start anticipating where a book is going to go, looking at the structure, etc...

You should never approach reading like a critic. 

Maybe that's my problem. I don't judge a book. I start reading, and If the writer isn't so terrible that I'm ejected from the page, I KEEP READING. And I finish it. 

I just think people are too picky.

But yes, that's my opinion. :cookie:


----------



## Darkkin

Good writing swallows you whole.  Bad writing has you analysing as you read, involuntarily parsing and rearranging, to make the story more palatable.

My writing...Well, that should be considered cruel and unusual punishment to all who have the capacity to read.  :thumbl:


----------



## TJ1985

In works I've truly enjoyed, I have never noted clunky grammar or problematic punctuation. Does this mean it had no commas in the wrong place? No, it means I was too engrossed in the story to notice them. To me, that's a hallmark of "good" writing. It grabs my mind by the throat and won't let me notice twiddly irrelevancies like semi-colons. 

In my mind there is only one requirement works must meet: that the readers enjoy them. If it fulfills that prerequisite, that's all that really matters. Many works do, many don't, but I'd be hard pressed to say a book is badly written and far worse than my own work when it sold half a million copies last year while I spent the morning working on a car... 

On a side note, I see writing a lot like I see drag racing: I'm in my lane, everybody else is in their lane. I have to focus on what I'm doing, because I cannot meaningfully influence what happens in the other lanes. I can learn little tricks from other lanes, but I have to focus on my lane if I want a chance of getting to the line first.


----------



## bazz cargo

Hi TJ,
good to see your still around and growing more hair.

A properly written book with accurate SPaG will correctly convey the writer's intentions/feelings/plot and so on. Otherwise it is up to the reader to guess what is going on. 

Disregarding SPaG, a good book v bad book decision will be down to the reader. Time also plays a part. A brilliant book written way back when Jazz was an outrageous modernity will probably seem so dated it will fail to engage the current reader.


----------



## John Oberon

Kyle R said:


> I don't consider popularity in itself to be a valid measurement of good writing, either—mostly because a book could be popular for reasons other than the writing alone (such as a memoir written by a notorious celebrity). But if the book is popular specifically because a lot of readers enjoyed it? Then, yes, I consider it good writing—at least to those readers.



So do you agree with me or not? I just said a lot of people can like an awful thing and think it's good, but it isn't. I'm saying popularity has absolutely nothing to do with whether writing is actually good or not. I'm saying Fifty Shades is objectively bad writing and The Green Mile is objectively good writing regardless of their popularity. That's my contention. Do you agree with that?



Kyle R said:


> It's kind of like wall art, in a way. I don't see anything remarkable about Mark Rothko's multimillion-dollar paintings, but I've read that people have been moved to tears while looking at his work. To me, it's just some shabbily painted blocks of color. But to Rothko's fans, it's brilliant and emotive and who the hell am I to say any different? To each their own, I suppose!



I don't think financial success is a valid criteria of whether art (or writing) is good either. Actually, I have a simple criterion to determine whether art is good or not: If I could do the same or better, it's not good art. I think Rothko is laughable.



Kyle R said:


> Technically speaking, I think there are a lot of debatable ways we can define "good" versus "bad" writing, though I think those measurements change and adapt, depending on genre and time. These days, a lot of readers seem to crave subjective narration. Character voice has gained great traction in the literary world. Go back in time a century or two and subjective narration was a rarity—and would've likely been considered sloppy, lazy, or downright weird. Back then, the narrative voices of the authors themselves were (from what I could tell) preferable, and readers seemed to enjoy seeing characters from the outside rather than from the inside. Standards evolve.



I disagree. I think standards for good writing remain constant, but public sensibilities DEvolve over time. The vocabulary, construction, content, and thought of even average 19th century writers far exceed those of most writers today. Look up some of the reading and writing requirements for 8th or 9th grade in the early 20th century. They would sorely tax the average undergraduate student today and probably render the majority of them incapable of success.

I think the difference in narration is due primarily to the demands of culture. In the past, most Americans lived lives of action. They worked and accomplished all day, every day. Today, people devote an inordinate amount of time to idleness. They watch TV, surf the internet, play on their phone…and typically do these things alone. That degree of self-absorption will affect how a person views life, and certainly, how he _wants_ to view it.

I don’t think the things that determine good writing have changed at all; it’s just that more and more people exchange wit for vulgarity, significance for sensationalism, and meaning for nonsense. When lots of people do that, it may seem that standards for good writing adapted or changed to suit the readership, but such is not the case. People simply devolve an acceptance and taste for lower standards, and they do it for a number of reasons. Popular today is “self-esteem”. It is not “fair” or “nice” that one writer should be told his writing is sub-par and needs correction, while another enjoys acclaim and endures little correction. Why, that would damage his self-esteem, maybe scar him for life, and turn him off writing forever! We can’t have that, so everyone does well, all get a trophy, everybody is a success.

That’s where we are today, for the most part. Years of deliberately ignoring standards have yielded a populace unable to recognize the difference between good and bad writing, and indeed, hostile to any kind of standard that would aid the recognition.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Terry D said:


> SPaG as a component of 'good' writing is subjective in that 'good' writers often ignore generally accepted 'rules', yet their work is still considered to be good. Take Cormac McCarthy, he never uses quotation marks, treats commas as if they are as rare as diamonds, and uses sentence structures which would have had me repeating the ninth grade. If you look at his work objectively it is terrible, but it works. I'm not defending _Fifty Shades_, or _Twilight_, or _Blood Meridian_ for that matter (I'm sure many folks hate McCarthy). I'm just saying that there are many people who consider those works 'good' even though they all trample the 'rules'. In my opinion, the difference lies in the author's intent. I know McCarthy writes the way he does to achieve an effect, to create a different world where our standard conceptions are turned on their head, and it works. To me that's good writing. James and Meyers? I don't think they had a clue what they were doing when they violated accepted writing standards. To me that's very bad writing. Others will not agree, that's why I consider SPaG subjective as it relates to a 'good' book.



I think from a practical standpoint, McCarthy had to know how to write _with_ the standards before he knew how to break them. That's the difference between deliberate misuse of SpaG and unintentional misuse. Perhaps the same rule applies across the board.

Also, for those saying that writing has somehow devolved, it hasn't. The English language simply cannot keep up with the amount of new influences. Also, the _amount_ of literacy compared to even fifty years ago, _especially_ with the English language, has increased simply due to demand. Sure, literature is created for the lowest common denominator in some places, but that has always been the case. Across the board, it's increased as reading has increased.

I'm not so convinced that all writing was _better_ as a _de facto_ result of the necessity of letter-writing. I suspect it may be a case of certain individuals' commodities and, for example, comparing a beginner's writings to a magnum opus, the pinnacle of a certain writer's whole lifetime.

If I got anything totally wrong, feel free to correct me.


----------



## LeeC

Long, long ago, there were only two persons in the world: Old Man and Old Woman. Once while traveling about the Earth, Old Woman said to Old Man, "Let us come to agreement on how people shall live when we create them on Earth."​​
"The only agreement we need," said Old Man, "is that I have first say on everything."​​
"Agreed," said Old Woman, "that is if I have final say."​


Good story writing is simply communicating in a manner that engrosses a reader in a tale. All else is less to a given reader. Where it gets complicated is varying individual subjectiveness, and thus we opine ad infinitum  

For example, though I seldom find fantasy (among other) stories interesting, I enjoyed JustRob's supernatural short story "Another Degree of Freedom." In a style I liked, he put the reader into the character's shoes and environment without distracting excess, and draws them along in a smooth flow to imagine a reality they might otherwise balk at. That without resorting to the all to common gimmicks that turn me off. 

But, what rings my chime (is good writing to me) is obviously not necessarily the same as another, as I was the only one commenting on the piece. A writer needs to read extensively over time, carefully studying those writings that draw them in. Then they may be able develop their own writing to a point where seeming "good" to them, it may also seem so to enough others. 

Patience and extensive effort aren't the norm though, so we look for quick answers and/or opine. Been there (obviously still am to a degree), and formal educational dogma isn't an end-all either.


----------



## Terry D

John Oberon said:


> So do you agree with me or not? I just said a lot of people can like an awful thing and think it's good, but it isn't. I'm saying popularity has absolutely nothing to do with whether writing is actually good or not. I'm saying Fifty Shades is objectively bad writing and The Green Mile is objectively good writing regardless of their popularity. That's my contention. Do you agree with that?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think financial success is a valid criteria of whether art (or writing) is good either. Actually, I have a simple criterion to determine whether art is good or not: If I could do the same or better, it's not good art. I think Rothko is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think standards for good writing remain constant, but public sensibilities DEvolve over time. The vocabulary, construction, content, and thought of even average 19th century writers far exceed those of most writers today. Look up some of the reading and writing requirements for 8th or 9th grade in the early 20th century. They would sorely tax the average undergraduate student today and probably render the majority of them incapable of success.
> 
> I think the difference in narration is due primarily to the demands of culture. In the past, most Americans lived lives of action. They worked and accomplished all day, every day. Today, people devote an inordinate amount of time to idleness. They watch TV, surf the internet, play on their phone…and typically do these things alone. That degree of self-absorption will affect how a person views life, and certainly, how he _wants_ to view it.
> 
> I don’t think the things that determine good writing have changed at all; it’s just that more and more people exchange wit for vulgarity, significance for sensationalism, and meaning for nonsense. When lots of people do that, it may seem that standards for good writing adapted or changed to suit the readership, but such is not the case. People simply devolve an acceptance and taste for lower standards, and they do it for a number of reasons. Popular today is “self-esteem”. It is not “fair” or “nice” that one writer should be told his writing is sub-par and needs correction, while another enjoys acclaim and endures little correction. Why, that would damage his self-esteem, maybe scar him for life, and turn him off writing forever! We can’t have that, so everyone does well, all get a trophy, everybody is a success.
> 
> That’s where we are today, for the most part. Years of deliberately ignoring standards have yielded a populace unable to recognize the difference between good and bad writing, and indeed, hostile to any kind of standard that would aid the recognition.



So, the standards are objective if you agree with them? One of the definitions of objective standards is that they can be applied by more than one observer and achieve the same result; in this case a decision about the quality of a work. You say The Green Mile is a good book based on objective standards? Well, a good many literary critics (supposedly objective observers) disagree with you. Many consider King a populist hack. Poe was ignored by the critics of his day. Objective standards for writing? I don't think so.


----------



## Jon M

John Oberon said:


> Actually, I have a simple criterion to determine whether art is good or not: If I could do the same or better, it's not good art.


Doesn't matter if you can create a better work of art if the idea never occurs to you in the first place.


----------



## Pluralized

John Oberon said:


> Years of deliberately ignoring standards



Adhering to 'standards' when it comes to art cannot possibly yield anything new, exciting, nor is resisting change productive in the least (whether it's your favorite brand of evolution/devolution or not). To bemoan these magical lost 'standards' is indicative of stunted cultural compatibility, at least in the circles I run in. Your choir probably sings a different hymn.

Poor writing is so much more than spag, so much bigger than mechanics. Poor writing can also be tired ideas and stubborn storytelling methodology. Good writing makes you forget about writing altogether and just _be part of the story_.


----------



## John Oberon

Jon M said:


> Doesn't matter if you can create a better work of art if the idea never occurs to you in the first place.



Sorry...Rothko did not have an idea; he just needed to clean his brushes.



Pluralized said:


> Adhering to 'standards' when it comes to art cannot possibly yield anything new, exciting, nor is resisting change productive in the least (whether it's your favorite brand of evolution/devolution or not). To bemoan these magical lost 'standards' is indicative of stunted cultural compatibility, at least in the circles I run in. Your choir probably sings a different hymn.
> 
> Poor writing is so much more than spag, so much bigger than mechanics. Poor writing can also be tired ideas and stubborn storytelling methodology. Good writing makes you forget about writing altogether and just _be part of the story_.



I think I made it pretty clear that we need not adhere to standards. However, it is only by those standards that a person can determine whether something is good or not. If a standard is broken, you can know if it was broken skillfully and to good purpose only if you know the standard in the first place. And when I say "standards" I mean much more than SPaG and mechanics. There are all kinds of rules for things like plausibility, characterization, logic, consistency, accuracy, precision, etc. All may be broken, but you must first know the rules before you can break them artfully. Otherwise, you typically do more harm than good.



Terry D said:


> So, the standards are objective if you agree with them? One of the definitions of objective standards is that they can be applied by more than one observer and achieve the same result; in this case a decision about the quality of a work. You say The Green Mile is a good book based on objective standards? Well, a good many literary critics (supposedly objective observers) disagree with you. Many consider King a populist hack. Poe was ignored by the critics of his day. Objective standards for writing? I don't think so.



No, the standards are objective because they exist regardless of whether anyone agrees with them. I was simply asking Kyle if he agreed with _me_ that such a thing as objective standards exist.

I would argue that literary critics reach different conclusions because their conclusions are based almost entirely on bias and opinion and _not _objective standards. Most literary critics that I've read do not discuss the writing at all. They discuss how they personally felt about the story, how it compares to other stories they've read, whether they feel there's any good twists, how they liked the characters, what they found interesting or boring, whether it will sell, etc. I cannot remember the last time I read a critic who discussed the _art_ of writing and explained _why_ something in a book was exceptional or awful. You just never see it. It's all personal opinion.


----------



## Terry D

So, once again we come back to these objective standards being what you think they are and not agreed upon qualities available for anyone to apply. Where can I find these standards that tell me that War and Peace is good and Fight Club is bad? How do objective standards apply equally to Great Expectations, The Old Man and the Sea, Slaughterhouse Five, The Road, and Fifty Shades of Gray? I have no problem telling you what I think of each, but it would just be my (subjective)  opinion.


----------



## joshybo

John Oberon said:


> I cannot remember the last time I read a critic who discussed the _art_ of writing and explained _why_ something in a book was exceptional or awful. You just never see it. It's all personal opinion.


Opinion is a decidedly cheap and turbulent currency.  Invest in it if you like, but mind the consequences.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

shadowwalker said:


> Wow. How to insult readers and writers in one fell swoop. Impressive.



And he/she didn't even need to write a book to do it.  Lol


----------



## EmmaSohan

To try to be objective, The Color Purple, Fight Club, Twilight, The Old Man and the Sea, Stephen King, James Rollins, and James Patterson have things that are good and things that are bad. Won't that be true for almost every successful story?

The good parts of some of those books then fit into what I like reading; for some of the others, the fit wasn't good.

I ask if the bad parts were necessary. For example, to me there is a trade-off between amount of action and plausibility. So if an author sacrifices plausibility (which I like) for action (which I am lukewarm about), I don't call that bad writing.  When something is implausible and there was no need for it, then I call that aspect of the book bad writing.


----------



## Kyle R

John Oberon said:
			
		

> We can do all sorts of things, but always, _always it is those foundational objective rules that make those departures from the rules effective. Ignorance of how writing ought to be objectively blinds us to art and skill. Without a solid knowledge in that area, we would see no difference in quality between the writing in say Fifty Shades of Gray and The Green Mile, or if we do see a difference, we have no clue why. Those objective rules answer why and help us to become better writers._



Speaking with the broadest of generalizations, I believe:

— *Beginning* writers tend to be ignorant of these "objective rules"—and the discord is often pointed out to them as the reason for their awkward writing.

— *Intermediate* writers achieve competence with (or even a mastery of) these "objective rules"—and their writing shows significant improvement as a result.

— *Advanced* writers experiment and stray past the boundaries of these "objective rules"—and learn that the "objective rules" can be twisted or broken to suit the needs of the work.

— *Expert* writers have strayed past the boundaries of the "objective rules" often enough to recognize that the rules aren't objective at all, but _subjective_. They learn that straying from them isn't a matter of "knowing when to break the rules" but "realizing that such rules can safely be unlearned, forgotten, and ignored."

And from that, the *master* writer, curiously enough, re-enters the realm of the *beginner*, writing without concern for rules, restrictions, or "objective standards" to be met.

The difference is, the master has climbed the mountain and found their voice along the way.

Just the way I see it. :encouragement:


----------



## John Oberon

Terry D said:


> So, once again we come back to these objective standards being what you think they are and not agreed upon qualities available for anyone to apply. Where can I find these standards that tell me that War and Peace is good and Fight Club is bad? How do objective standards apply equally to Great Expectations, The Old Man and the Sea, Slaughterhouse Five, The Road, and Fifty Shades of Gray? I have no problem telling you what I think of each, but it would just be my (subjective)  opinion.



Not agreed upon qualities available for anyone to apply...Tell me, have you ever actually _read_ books on writing? I have, and they ALL say the same things in different ways. You _really_ think good writing is just a crapshoot determined by what someone else thinks of your writing? There's really no objective rules out there that if you follow them (for the most part), they improve your writing, and if you disregard them (for the most part), your writing starts to accumulate suckage? And you can't use these same rules to judge whether writing is good or not?

Go try to please somebody then, I guess. Probably best if it's yourself, I guess. Actually, if you please yourself, you don't really _need_ to improve, do you? Yes, that's probably best. You're right, Terry. I think this is the way you should go. If there are no objective rules, there's no way to tell whether you're improving or not anyway, so why not? Good luck.

Sorry, Kyle. A master writer is always concerned about the rules because he knows they never change, they never go away, and they always threaten to impinge upon the quality of his writing. A master writer develops the ability to navigate the rules skillfully and use them to best advantage to create art.


----------



## Kyle R

The difficulty of talking about the *master* writer is, it probably takes one to know one.

Unfortunately, I've been a *grandmaster* writer for so long, it's hard to remember way back to when I was a lowly master. :distracted:


----------



## Kevin

> if you please yourself, you don't really _need_ to improve


 Yes, I guess so. You could write something that you are satisfied with. And, it could actually be very good.  You could also just as easily never be satisfied with what you write, however good it is, always self-critiquing, always striving for 'improvement'. 



> ... (you can) use these... rules to judge whether writing is good or not


 No. Maybe if you are judging at a middle school level. At some point they sort of become irrelevant, not that they don't apply, but that they become a minor thing and automatic. You could write something technically 100% correct and yet it still sucks in that no one wants to read it, so I don't think 'rules' is the answer; just a beginning.


----------



## Terry D

John Oberon said:


> Not agreed upon qualities available for anyone to apply...Tell me, have you ever actually _read_ books on writing?



Yes, I have. As many as you have I'd be willing to wager -- unless all you do is read about writing and then criticize those who are willing to put their work on the line.



> I have, and they ALL say the same things in different ways. You _really_ think good writing is just a crapshoot determined by what someone else thinks of your writing? There's really no objective rules out there that if you follow them (for the most part), they improve your writing, and if you disregard them (for the most part), your writing starts to accumulate suckage? And you can't use these same rules to judge whether writing is good or not?



Where did I say anything about writing being a crapshoot? That's a very subjective interpretation of my posts in this thread, but that's to be expected. You can apply every 'rule' gleaned from however many books you choose to pick from, and it would be no guarantee that the resulting work would be considered a good book. Just as any merchant can tell you, a product is only worth what a buyer is willing to pay. The same goes for writing, a book is only as good as the readers feel it is. I think most of the people who condescend to readers, who feel that the majority of readers are vapid, bovine, mouth-breathers, take that stance because they are afraid to admit their own limitations as creators. You still haven't told me which objective standards the works of Dickens, Poe, Melville, James, Palahniuk, King, Vonnegut, McCarthy, and Joyce share. My bet would be their differences outweigh their commonalities, save one: they created a connection with their readers, each in his/her own unique way.



> Go try to please somebody then, I guess. Probably best if it's yourself, I guess. Actually, if you please yourself, you don't really _need_ to improve, do you? Yes, that's probably best. You're right, Terry. I think this is the way you should go. If there are no objective rules, there's no way to tell whether you're improving or not anyway, so why not? Good luck.



Thanks for your permission to do what I've always done as a writer; connect with (please) my readers. But where did you get the idea that I'm somehow against improvement? That's an absurd suggestion. I'm constantly working on my craft, honing the techniques I choose to use (not always the same ones for each story or book). If I do it right, I receive the most important quality feedback of all, my reader's opinion of my work. Then, of course, there are the royalty checks and story sales.

Now, all that being said, my writing is pretty conventional, for the most part. I use (and sometime over-use) punctuation in a traditional manner, and I don't try to impress anyone with convoluted structure, or odd syntax. I can also assure you that I would not hesitate longer than it would take a gnat to fart to dump any convention if I thought the result would be a 'better' story. 

My luck is running just fine, thanks.


----------



## shadowwalker

Terry D said:


> I think most of the people who condescend to readers, who feel that the majority of readers are vapid, bovine, mouth-breathers, take that stance because they are afraid to admit their own limitations as creators.



Yes - either they haven't dared put their work out for the public, or they have and bombed found a limited audience. There are exceptions (people who are making excuses to their friends for writing what they like instead of what those friends think they should), but they're few and far between.


----------



## joshybo

John Oberon said:


> Go try to please somebody then, I guess. Probably best if it's yourself, I guess. Actually, if you please yourself, you don't really _need_ to improve, do you? Yes, that's probably best. You're right, Terry. I think this is the way you should go. If there are no objective rules, there's no way to tell whether you're improving or not anyway, so why not? Good luck.



Are you suggesting that we not bear our audience in mind when we write?  If so, then that seems much more like a writer only writing to please himself than what you seem to be implying toward Terry.  This particular suggestion is confused at best and absolutely counterproductive to the goals of this site at worst.


----------



## Allysan

The tension in this thread is palpable. What you good people need is some comedic relief.


----------



## Bishop

joshybo said:


> Are you suggesting that we not bear our audience in mind when we write?  If so, then that seems much more like a writer only writing to please himself than what you seem to be implying toward Terry.  This particular suggestion is confused at best and absolutely counterproductive to the goals of this site at worst.





shadowwalker said:


> Yes - either they haven't dared put their work out for the public, or they have and bombed found a limited audience. There are exceptions (people who are making excuses to their friends for writing what they like instead of what those friends think they should), but they're few and far between.





John Oberon said:


> Go try to please somebody then, I guess. Probably best if it's yourself, I guess. Actually, if you please yourself, you don't really _need_ to improve, do you? Yes, that's probably best. You're right, Terry. I think this is the way you should go. If there are no objective rules, there's no way to tell whether you're improving or not anyway, so why not? Good luck.



As a writer who only submits his work for the purpose of feedback for improvement, I am generally writing solely for myself. It's my craft, my creative outlet. I'm not looking to please anyone but myself and better myself at what I do.

And I like that. This is my hobby, first and foremost. Yes, I've had people poke me and ask why I've not published, or tried to publish (usually people who know nothing of the hell that is the publishing industry/self publishing) and I just shrug. It's not why I do it. I do it to get better.

But reading this thread, I actually asked myself how am I measuring 'better'? Oberon suggests there's some objectivity to the idea, that I'm honing some set of ineffable rules or standards that craft a greater tale. On the other hand, others in the thread are saying it's measured by reader response--something I have in a very, very limited supply. And then--the idea that doing it solely for my own gratification is counter-productive, that writing for myself, I don't NEED to improve... that's not entirely true also, because I feel the need to improve, even when I read over my own work.

When I finish a book, I have... maybe two people who read it. My father, a voracious reader, always takes a look and gives his thoughts. My uncle, a similarly voracious reader, does the same. That's about it. I look forward to their feedback, and then, I move onto the next novel. I know I'm getting better. I can see it in my work, I can tell that the prose is flowing better, is more natural. Fewer SPaG errors. More vivid, yet compact descriptions, deeper characters... but I have no way of truly measuring that. There's no yardstick of 'good story'. Similarly, aside from the idle comments of my family members and maybe the members of this site offering critique, I have no one telling me any specifics to improve upon, no sales numbers to measure my growth as a writer, no fan letters or hate mail to similarly act as a barometer for what I've done. There's a personal satisfaction that comes from that moment, when, after letting my work sit for a few weeks,  I pick it up again and begin to read through it with as fresh a mind as I can manage... and something truly floors me. There's never more than one or two of these moments--where I actually impress myself with something I've written. Where I look at what I've said, ignorant of my own ability to have even conjured that thought, that image, that character... And it happens with greater frequency the more I write, while the intensity of that feeling wanes each time. The moments of personal surprise are more frequent, but less surprising--because, I feel like the prose AROUND those moments is slowly catching up to the quality of those moments.

Or maybe I'm just full of myself. I'm just masturbating words out onto paper and making a neat little tale that will forever be on my flash drive and only proud little me will get to play with it. Either way, I grow each time I put my fingers to the keys, and I know that as I grow, so does my prose. 

Is it _good_? I don't care; this thread has made it clear that one man's good is another man's Fifty Shades... BUT is it better than the last time I put words on the page? You bet your ass. And THAT'S what matters to me.


----------



## Phil Istine

As a beginner, I will focus on this from a reader's perspective.
If a book takes me out of my own head for a while and I find it difficult to put down for a break, that, to me, is good writing.  Perhaps I've oversimplified, but there some some highly acclaimed classics that haven't done that for me, and there are lesser known works that have.  It's only in more recent times that I've started to piece together the 'why' of this conundrum.  Previously I just assumed that it was about the subject material, but I now know that there is so much more.

This thread reminds me of 40+ years ago when I first started work.  Although I didn't follow through with it, I started out by learning bricklaying.  One day I was working along with an experienced bricklayer and copying his actions.  The trainer saw me and asked why I was working that particular way.  I explained that I was trying to do things the way the other guy did them.  He told me not to.  When I queried this he came out with the immortal line:  "Because he _knows_ how to do it properly."  I've never forgotten that.


----------



## Caragula

Is George Martin better than Steven Eriksen?  Why does one epic fantasy series so dominate another in the eye of millions of people?  There are a lot of subjective opinions that align for one rather than another.  So it's about what you define as 'better'.  Better writing connects with the populace more than poor writing, in this case I'd say it was to do with characterisation.  Yet George Martin's prose is quite ordinary compared to Thomas Pynchon.  I think we all 'feel' these distinctions similarly, but more importantly, we don't have a single scale for that reason, because characterisation, plot, the quality of the prose as written, all have different levels of importance for each person.

In this respect you could never arrive at an unarguable formula.  But if you choose your domain, e.g. characterisation, then we feel on surer ground with regard to Tyrion Lannister against...well, I don't remember any characters in Gardens of the Moon.

This approach would then suggest that you might get a book that has great characters, great plot and great prose.  Wolf Hall for example.  It's both challenging, clever and readable.  It might fail the objectively better test with another book because to some readers it's not their thing, e.g. it's 'boring history'.  Here then for me is the decisive argument for subjectivity.  The subject matter is what will skew any attempt to establish the primacy of one book over another.  If you can compare books that attempt to do the same things, I think you have grounds to establish one as being objectively better than another.

In my example above, ASOIAF and the Malazan books, we might arrive at an objective view because both are similar in subject, the telling of epic tales in imagined worlds, i.e. the epic fantasy genre.


----------



## Kyle R

Caragula said:


> Is George Martin better than Steven Eriksen?  Why does one epic fantasy series so dominate another in the eye of millions of people?


I believe exposure plays a role.

For example, Martin's _Game of Thrones_ series began in the late 1990's. It won a few literary awards but remained otherwise out of the public spotlight for over a decade.

Then it was announced that HBO was to start a series based on the books. Media hyped the upcoming event over a year prior to its release. As a result of the media hype, the _Game of Thrones_ books reached the New York Times Bestsellers list for the first time, though they still didn't reach the #1 spot.

After the show premiered, though, the show attracted an even larger surge of readers, and the book series finally reached #1 on the list, fifteen years after its original publication.

If you can get your novel or series made into a television show or a movie? Oh, boy! Expect your readership to skyrocket. (I get excited just thinking about it.) :emmersed:


----------



## shadowwalker

Kyle R said:


> I believe exposure plays a role.



There are soooo many factors into what makes a gargantuan best seller versus a slow but steady income producer versus a book that yelps and dies. Which is why, no, one can't look _only _at sales as an indicator of good writing.


----------



## Kyle R

shadowwalker said:
			
		

> Which is why, no, one can't look _only at sales as an indicator of good writing._


I agree—sales, to me, aren't a reliable measuring stick of anything, really, other than marketability.

Though, if I were pressed to define a single attribute of the writing itself that determines quality? To me, it'd be compelling characters. I can forgive most flaws in the writing if the characters are compelling.

But, again, that's my subjective criteria. To some readers, characters aren't as important as a page-turning plot. Or buttery prose. Or teeth-gritting conflict. Or bullets, lots of bullets! Or love triangles to fantasize about. Or alien planets to imagine exploring. Or . . .


----------



## Phil Istine

One only has to look at daily newspapers to see whether quality and sales are linked.


----------



## shadowwalker

Kyle R said:


> I agree—sales, to me, aren't a reliable measuring stick of anything, really, other than marketability.
> 
> Though, if I were pressed to define a single attribute of the writing itself that determines quality? To me, it'd be compelling characters. I can forgive most flaws in the writing if the characters are compelling.
> 
> But, again, that's my subjective criteria. To some readers, characters aren't as important as a page-turning plot. Or buttery prose. Or teeth-gritting conflict. Or bullets, lots of bullets! Or love triangles to fantasize about. Or alien planets to imagine exploring. Or . . .



Exactly. A good book is any book that fills the reader's desire _at the time_. Which is another reason why denigrating readers is a mistake. The same reader will love "50 Shades" one day and devour Dickens the next.


----------



## David Gordon Burke

> _I think most of the people who condescend to readers, who feel that the majority of readers are vapid, bovine, mouth-breathers, take that stance because they are afraid to admit their own limitations as creators._



Does it really strike anyone as strange that a lot of writers today are disgusted with potential readers?  Is it that the writer has a fault or is it just that he says publicly what many if not most writers are thinking?  I mean really, over 125 million sales of the 50 Shades of Grey series? If that doesn't give you pause, I don't know what will.  Seems if there is any doubt whether good or bad writing exists and whether it is all just 'objective - subjective' this book / series ends the arguement.  

What does that represent in my opinion?  Well it tells me that 125 million readers are not in it for anything that I will ever be able to provide.  That other thread 'What do you want readers to take away from your writing?' .... I noticed that nobody's answer was "I want my readers to have a cheap thrill."  

Da Vinci Code / 80 Million sales
Flowers in the Attic / 40 Million sales
Angels and Demons / 39 Million sales
Twilight (series) / 120 Million sales
Dirk Pitt (series) / 120 Million sales

Much has been written on the quality or lack thereof within the aforementioned titles.  I can think of almost nothing redeeming to say about them other than Dan Brown's second hand exposure of the corruption within the hated Catholic church.  Still, under no circumstance would I put any of these books into the same 'bottom of the barrel scaping, prose destroying, fake, inarticulate, insipid, over-hyped, over-rated tripe' as 50 Shades.  

The idea that a serious writer's opinion/rejection of 50 Shades fans is a indication of some hidden charcter flaw is ludicrious.  Ever hear what Keith Richards thinks about Rap fans?  Tone Deaf he states.  Why is that at all relevant you ask ...... Keith is Rock and Roll and Rap is Rap .... they are two different things.  My point exactly.  50 shades is not literature, it's not a novel, it's not prose.  It is a laundry list of nasty fantasies from someone so absolutely butt ugly, he/she couldn't get lucky with a German shepherd if he/she were wearing a Prime Rib necklace.  

And this is the serious writer's main competition.  
To address the quote - not the majority of readers.  Just that 125 million and their ilk.  
[video=youtube;XkLqAlIETkA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkLqAlIETkA[/video]

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Terry D

David Gordon Burke said:


> Does it really strike anyone as strange that a lot of writers today are disgusted with potential readers?  Is it that the writer has a fault or is it just that he says publicly what many if not most writers are thinking?  I mean really, over 125 million sales of the 50 Shades of Grey series? If that doesn't give you pause, I don't know what will.  Seems if there is any doubt whether good or bad writing exists and whether it is all just 'objective - subjective' this book / series ends the arguement.
> 
> What does that represent in my opinion?  Well it tells me that 125 million readers are not in it for anything that I will ever be able to provide.  That other thread 'What do you want readers to take away from your writing?' .... I noticed that nobody's answer was "I want my readers to have a cheap thrill."
> 
> Da Vinci Code / 80 Million sales
> Flowers in the Attic / 40 Million sales
> Angels and Demons / 39 Million sales
> Twilight (series) / 120 Million sales
> Dirk Pitt (series) / 120 Million sales
> 
> Much has been written on the quality or lack thereof within the aforementioned titles.  I can think of almost nothing redeeming to say about them other than Dan Brown's second hand exposure of the corruption within the hated Catholic church.  Still, under no circumstance would I put any of these books into the same 'bottom of the barrel scaping, prose destroying, fake, inarticulate, insipid, over-hyped, over-rated tripe' as 50 Shades.
> 
> The idea that a serious writer's opinion/rejection of 50 Shades fans is a indication of some hidden charcter flaw is ludicrious.  Ever hear what Keith Richards thinks about Rap fans?  Tone Deaf he states.  Why is that at all relevant you ask ...... Keith is Rock and Roll and Rap is Rap .... they are two different things.  My point exactly.  50 shades is not literature, it's not a novel, it's not prose.  It is a laundry list of nasty fantasies from someone so absolutely butt ugly, he/she couldn't get lucky with a German shepherd if he/she were wearing a Prime Rib necklace.
> 
> And this is the serious writer's main competition.
> To address the quote - not the majority of readers.  Just that 125 million and their ilk.
> [video=youtube;XkLqAlIETkA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkLqAlIETkA[/video]
> 
> David Gordon Burke



So, let me get this straight, because 50 Shades was a mega hit, and is generally regarded as being a poorly written book, all those readers are worthy of disgust? That's one of the lamest stances I've ever read on these forums. I've read excerpts from the series and I agree that the writing fits my definition of bad, but to say that anyone who enjoyed it is somehow a threat to the future of literature is foolish. Shadowalker nailed it when she said, "The same reader will love "50 Shades" one day and devour Dickens the next." 

I think it may be that your well documented struggles with finding a readership has tainted your perspective on readers. P.D. James targeted a niche market with a series that doesn't claim to be anything more than it is, and she hit a home run. Her market doesn't define the entire market. Volkswagen built a crappy little economy car and targeted it to a market of people looking for cheap economy cars who didn't care much about luxury and quality. The Bug was an enormous success, but that didn't mean every car buyer was looking for the same formula of small and cheap. Although I'm sure there were shortsighted folks in the auto industry who thought car buyers had suddenly become a bunch of drooling morons.

I'm really not sure what possible significance there is in mentioning P.D. James appearance (she looks rich to me). That says far more about you than about her. And, finally, about what writers want readers to take away from their writing; my goal is to entertain. I often compare my writing to a carnival at an old-time county fair. Colorful, loud, with rickety, clunky thrill-rides, and nothing to eat but junk food. Yeah, cheap thrills work for me.


----------



## joshybo

I'm not a fan of Justin Bieber, but his commercial success can't be denied.  Maybe he's a sellout pandering to a demographic of love-stricken teenage girls, but he's making millions and his fans are paying him those millions because they appreciate and enjoy the product he is offering them.  Our personal opinions of the quality of the work of others matters much less than the opinions of their fans/readers/customers, what have you, when considering how to measure the success of an artist.  It's all relative, in a way, as there is no set definition of "good" from one person to the next.  All we can do is produce the best work we can to fit our own definitions of what we view as "good" or "bad".  Sure, we're free to form our own opinions of those characteristics, but to discount the opinions of others when they conflict with your own is just an exercise in vanity and will do little to actually improve the quality of your own work.  If you don't want to write 50 Shades, then don't.  I most certainly don't want to, but I'm not going to claim that the author doesn't deserve her success.  She produced a product that her fans enjoyed.  How limited the endeavor of artistic expression would be if we all only produced what we felt would be palatable to the wide range of tastes of all of our potential critics.


----------



## Kyle R

David Gordon Burke said:
			
		

> My point exactly. 50 shades is not literature, it's not a novel, it's not prose. It is a laundry list of nasty fantasies from someone so absolutely butt ugly, he/she couldn't get lucky with a German shepherd if he/she were wearing a Prime Rib necklace.
> 
> And this is the serious writer's main competition.


Unless I'm writing in the same genre as _Fifty Shades_, I probably won't have to directly compete with it for readers.

And even if I _am_ writing in the same genre, I'd consider it a blessing. Once fans finish a book or series they love, they tend to look for similar books and authors.

It's win/win, in my opinion.

I also don't see a point in fuming over the success of another's book, or lashing out at some author simply because he or she made it big. To me, that's a lot of energy that can be better directed toward one's own creative output.

Talking about the writing's flaws from a technical standpoint? I'm game. But insulting readers or authors is another territory entirely.


----------



## John Oberon

Terry D said:


> Thanks for your permission to do what I've always done as a writer; connect with (please) my readers. But where did you get the idea that I'm somehow against improvement? That's an absurd suggestion. I'm constantly working on my craft, honing the techniques I choose to use (not always the same ones for each story or book). If I do it right, I receive the most important quality feedback of all, my reader's opinion of my work. Then, of course, there are the royalty checks and story sales.
> 
> Now, all that being said, my writing is pretty conventional, for the most part. I use (and sometime over-use) punctuation in a traditional manner, and I don't try to impress anyone with convoluted structure, or odd syntax. I can also assure you that I would not hesitate longer than it would take a gnat to fart to dump any convention if I thought the result would be a 'better' story.
> 
> My luck is running just fine, thanks.



Don't mention it. I like bestowing my permission, especially when it makes people feel better. You're welcome.

I didn't say you were against improvement. I said it's impossible for you to _know_ if you're improving. You have no objective standards to gauge improvement. But hey, if you could write another Twilight or 50 Shades and get a lot of people pleased and make a lot of money, I'm sure that will please both you and your audience and without doubt, your writing will...exist.

You know, I wonder why we give advice around here as if there were objective rules. It is odd...


----------



## joshybo

John Oberon said:


> You know, I wonder why we give advice around here as if there were objective rules. It is odd...



If all anybody wants is a cut and dry explanation of a technical grammar rule, Google is a much more readily available resource.  If what we want is the subjective feedback of our readers, then it makes sense to post your work and listen to the feedback of your potential audience to see how the work might be received.  Everything written in The Little, Brown Handbook is technically sound, but it doesn't make for a very emotionally-engaging read.


----------



## J Anfinson

We give advice to help people increase their chances a publisher or agent will accept their work. Agent/publisher standards are geared toward marketability and traditional methods of writing (though there are obviously exceptions). However, it's the readers who have the real say of what's enjoyable. A novel rejected by publishers may be released on Amazon and make millions. Does it make it good? It certainly does to the people who enjoyed it.


----------



## shadowwalker

Readers are morons unless they're reading my stuff. [-(


----------



## ShadowEyes

shadowwalker said:


> Readers are morons unless they're reading my stuff. [-(



How do I fit the money into the computer?


----------



## Olly Buckle

> Actually, I have a simple criterion to determine whether art is good or not: If I could do the same or better, it's not good art..


Apart from the implied assumption that nothing you write is any good ... better according to whom? This is something of a circular argument, 'I think it good if I think it good'.

Surely context has some bearing, I think most of us would agree that a certain series of books about young love and vampires are not great literature for example, however they appeal to a certain type of teenage female audience and get them reading in a way that great literature probably would not. Given that this helps that audience acquire the reading habit, and that they will mature and their tastes develop, are they not doing a useful job getting them started?


----------



## John Oberon

Olly Buckle said:


> Apart from the implied assumption that nothing you write is any good ... better according to whom? This is something of a circular argument, 'I think it good if I think it good'.
> 
> Surely context has some bearing, I think most of us would agree that a certain series of books about young love and vampires are not great literature for example, however they appeal to a certain type of teenage female audience and get them reading in a way that great literature probably would not. Given that this helps that audience acquire the reading habit, and that they will mature and their tastes develop, are they not doing a useful job getting them started?



Well, no...I directed that comment at Rothko's "painting", his "art". My point was that Rothko's painting required no skill, no thought, no consideration. All it required was some brushes that needed the paint cleaned out of them. He cleaned his brushes on the canvas. That's exactly what it looks like.

I suppose you could make the case that those books helps develop a reading habit, but a habit for reading what? Have you read some of these books? The grammar is atrocious, it's riddled with misspellings, and the relationships presented make you want to slit your wrists. To tell you the truth, I would prefer my kids read nothing at all than to feed their minds with that tripe.


----------



## Sam

John Oberon said:


> Don't mention it. I like bestowing my permission, especially when it makes people feel better. You're welcome.
> 
> I didn't say you were against improvement. I said it's impossible for you to _know_ if you're improving. You have no objective standards to gauge improvement. But hey, if you could write another Twilight or 50 Shades and get a lot of people pleased and make a lot of money, I'm sure that will please both you and your audience and without doubt, your writing will...exist.
> 
> You know, I wonder why we give advice around here as if there were objective rules. It is odd...



You think a person can't tell if they're improving at something? 

That's one of the most inane things I've ever read. If you could bottle that kind of nonsense and write a novel from it, you'd be a best-seller. 

Apparently.


----------



## Kevin

> that comment at Rothko's "painting", his "art". My point was that Rothko's painting required no skill, no thought, no consideration.


 You can't know that. I'm not a fan, but certainly there was considerable 'consideration', thought or contemplation, and possibly skill. Others recognize it. I do not, but that does not mean it's not there just because I can't see it.


----------



## aj47

John Oberon said:


> I didn't say you were against improvement. I said it's impossible for you to _know_ if you're improving.



This statement is false. Education--the idea that a student can learn something--is based on the fact that the student can, in fact, recognize improvement.  If you personally, cannot tell when you've gotten better at something, then it's pointless to try to teach you as you lack the ability to learn.



> You know, I wonder why we give advice around here as if there were objective rules. It is odd...



This is what I'm talking about.  If you're teachable, then advice given can be incorporated into self-assessment and you can gauge when you're doing better.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Sam said:


> You think a person can't tell if they're improving at something?
> 
> That's one of the most inane things I've ever read. If you could bottle that kind of nonsense and write a novel from it, you'd be a best-seller.
> 
> Apparently.



I would have to agree. 

When I started work on my WIP, after a 20 (or so) year hiatus from writing, my prose was rough to say the least. But about who words in, I could see it getting better. Things flowed more easily and it just read much better than the earlier parts.

It was not only noticeable to me. A person here, who read the early chapters, made mention that the last few that I sent him were getting stronger. 

Most writers can tell if their work is getting better as they progress.


----------



## Ariel

I also would have to agree with the assessment that writers can see when they're becoming better writers.  It's been almost a year since I started judging the fiction LMs and _I_ have noticed several repeat contestants whose writing has improved, among them Mr. Goepner.  I'm proud of the fact that we help each other improve around here.


----------



## Terry D

John Oberon said:


> Don't mention it. I like bestowing my permission, especially when it makes people feel better. You're welcome.
> 
> I didn't say you were against improvement. I said it's impossible for you to _know_ if you're improving. You have no objective standards to gauge improvement. But hey, if you could write another Twilight or 50 Shades and get a lot of people pleased and make a lot of money, I'm sure that will please both you and your audience and without doubt, your writing will...exist.
> 
> You know, I wonder why we give advice around here as if there were objective rules. It is odd...



Most of us who give advice don't give it as if there are objective rules beyond basic SPaG (and even those are flexible), so it's not odd at all. I think most of the posts above have said what needs to said about our ability to gauge our own improvement. If you don't posses that inner editor to aid you with your improvement, then I understand why you need clearly delineated criteria to measure yourself. 



John Oberon said:


> Well, no...I directed that comment at Rothko's "painting", his "art". My point was that Rothko's painting required no skill, no thought, no consideration. All it required was some brushes that needed the paint cleaned out of them. He cleaned his brushes on the canvas. That's exactly what it looks like.



The only visual art I know of which has the sort of "objective rules" you claim for writing were the paint-by-numbers kits I had as a child. I could easily follow the instructions, but the result was... uninspired. By the way, that Rothko posted earlier looks remarkably similar to your avatar in the way the colors blend and contrast with the simple black element. So, apparently, you can appreciate those elements on some level.


----------



## Jared77

My writing:  Good.

Everybody else:  Bad.

I'm not really this arrogant, just thought it would be fun to type. :icon_joker:


----------



## David Gordon Burke

Terry D said:


> Shadowalker nailed it when she said, "The same reader will love "50 Shades" one day and devour Dickens the next."



Two birds with one stone.  I honestly think that is the most idealistic notion I have heard.  Show of hands.  How many people honestly believe that even 1% of 50 Shades fans are going to gravitate towards Dickens within one year?  Within two years?  Highly unlikely bordering on impossible to surreal.  The fact that one is able to write something down doesn't make it a reality.  

You might notice that I stated 





> _Does it really strike anyone as strange that a lot of writers today are disgusted with potential readers?_


  My disgust is less directed at the reader as it is toward a system and marketing that lumps all writing into the same boat.  Whether for quality reasons or for moralistic, I think there should be a separate market for readers whose interest is finding a book they can read and hold up with just one hand.  

Amazon has gotten into trouble over this issue a few times.  Within the last few years they were in the news due to claims that the ebook market was largely XXX.  And then there is this case - from WIKI.
On November 10, 2010, a controversy arose over the sale by Amazon of an e-book by Phillip R. Greaves entitled _The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct_.  Readers threatened to boycott Amazon over its selling of the book, which was described by critics as a "pedophile guide". Amazon initially defended the sale of the book, saying that the site "believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable" and that the site "supported the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions". However, the site later removed the book. The _San Francisco Chronicle_ wrote that Amazon "defended the book, then removed it, then reinstated it, and then removed it _again_".
Of the 125 Million copies of 50 Shades, I'd doubt there are many that believe it to be anything other than what it is - a cheap thrill.  The die-hard fans are obviously not my niche (unless they happen to pick up one of my books looking for dog collar advice)  So be it.  

On another note .... I mentioned P.D. James?

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Deafmute

> Two birds with one stone. I honestly think that is the most idealistic notion I have heard. Show of hands. How many people honestly believe that even 1% of 50 Shades fans are going to gravitate towards Dickens within one year? Within two years? Highly unlikely bordering on impossible to surreal. The fact that one is able to write something down doesn't make it a reality.



I dunno I enjoyed them both. I wouldn't consider myself a bad literary critic.


----------



## J Anfinson

Haven't read Dickens, but I have read quite a few other classic authors. Haven't read Fifty Shades either, but I'm sure some things I've read are comparable. Who's to say readers  can't enjoy a wide variety of literature?


----------



## joshybo

Agreed.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

David Gordon Burke said:


> Two birds with one stone.  I honestly think that is the most idealistic notion I have heard.  Show of hands.  How many people honestly believe that even 1% of 50 Shades fans are going to gravitate towards Dickens within one year?  Within two years?



Such a harsh generalization of the reading public.

To have so little faith in readers seems...not right to me.

I am as big a cynic as anyone you will meet. But I hope to never reach that level of cynicism.


----------



## EmmaSohan

In my opinion. There is a trade-off. Ideally an author packs his action book with action while maintaining plausibility. In practice, plausibility usually gets sacrificed. That doesn't make the book bad (for the action junkies). People sacrifice the quality of their book to get good starts.

Hmm, not sure how to say this. The things we are taught are sometimes wrong. It's always been that way. You have to look at what _works. _I just reread the first two chapters of _Twilight _and they are well-written. Objectively speaking. I do not often give that praise. I'm confused.


----------



## shadowwalker

When I was in grade school, I read the Hardy Boys. Practically knew them by heart. I also read Dickens (unabridged) and couldn't wait to save enough to buy another (used though they were). I have and will read anything that happens to catch my interest _at the moment_. I don't give a rat's behind what some other dude says I _should _read. And most of the readers I have known over the last 60 years - and I've known a few - were of the same mind.

So what - some days we were stupid and some days smart? :-k


----------



## Bishop

EmmaSohan said:


> In my opinion. There is a trade-off. Ideally an author packs his action book with action while maintaining plausibility. In practice, plausibility usually gets sacrificed. That doesn't make the book bad (for the action junkies). People sacrifice the quality of their book to get good starts.




So... what about action in a book lowers the quality? Sure, breaking the barrier of suspension of belief can make a reader sigh... but the same can be done within literally any genre with its own elements.


----------



## Phil Istine

I want to address this issue regarding self-improvement in writing.
The idea of 'only writing to please myself' and 'striving for self-improvement' appear to be spoken of as mutually exclusive.
So, what if seeing improvement in one's own writing actually is a way of pleasing oneself?

Apart from the odd challenge on here, so far, the only people who have seen my offerings are myself, a couple of schoolteachers and the odd friend (carefully selected for their blunt honesty).  I derive great pleasure when I feel that have made progress in the quality of my writing.
Whatever level of writing I am at currently, I know that it's better than even a year ago.  It's certainly much better than twenty years ago.  Yes, I actually dusted off some old print-outs recently.  They were so old, they had been written with Locoscript on an Amstrad PCW.  I read, I cringed, I resolved to do better.  It looked like I had this belief that English consisted of adverbs, plus a few other words and that sentences had to be a minimum of twenty words.  The general ideas were fairly sound, but my ways of expressing them were much more clumsy than recent efforts.
My belief, and I may be wrong, is that once I have learned to write in a way that pleases me, I may then become ready to write to please others.  If I dislike my own writing, I'm fairly certain that will be picked up by a reader.


----------



## Sam

EmmaSohan said:


> In my opinion. There is a trade-off. Ideally an author packs his action book with action while maintaining plausibility. In practice, plausibility usually gets sacrificed. That doesn't make the book bad (for the action junkies). People sacrifice the quality of their book to get good starts.



Ever heard of Tom Clancy? 

His research was so incredibly in-depth and plausible that it landed his first book on the desk of a high-ranking official in the Pentagon's E-Ring and, later, the President himself. 

So, no, one does not have to sacrifice plausibility when writing action.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> I suppose you could make the case that those books helps develop a reading habit, but a habit for reading what? Have you read some of these books? The grammar is atrocious, it's riddled with misspellings, and the relationships presented make you want to slit your wrists. To tell you the truth, I would prefer my kids read nothing at all than to feed their minds with that tripe.



Yes; I have two daughters, I read some of them aloud. As a teenager Jane Austen wrote Elinor and Mariianne and First Impressions, they are the eighteenth century equivalent of 'Twilight' and such, complete with mis-spellings, melodrama and implausible romanticism. As an adult she re-used the basic plots to write Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice. We are what we are at any stage in our life, if you try and suppress that in your children it will lead to  rebellion and grief, give them encouragement and let them see there is a progression. One of my two little girls is founder and director of a company for which she recently turned down a six figure offer; the other has a first class honours degree in classical music and teaches, their teenage reading does not appear to have damaged their chances in life.


----------



## Ariel

I _have_ read Dickens but not "50 Shades."  However, I did read the Beauty trilogy that Anne Rice wrote.  I also have a "guilty pleasure" reading habit of reading urban fantasy.  Then I'll turn around and devour Shakespeare, Stephen King, or really whatever has caught my eye.  I am a discerning reader and, honestly, a good reader/writer can learn a lot from poorly written novels.

Heck, I haven't read "50 Shades" and I have learned something from it--don't write a rapist and abuser as a romantic love interest and don't write a weird passive idiot of a girl as the protagonist love interest.


----------



## popsprocket

amsawtell said:


> Heck, I haven't read "50 Shades" and I have learned something from it--don't write a rapist and abuser as a romantic love interest and don't write a weird passive idiot of a girl as the protagonist love interest.



:shock:

_There goes my current manuscript..._


----------



## Ariel

That's something else I think was good about "50 Shades" I have seen a lot of discussion online about abusive relationships and rape sparked by victims of either/both reading the books and being outraged that they glorify both.


----------



## John Oberon

Kevin said:


> You can't know that. I'm not a fan, but certainly there was considerable 'consideration', thought or contemplation, and possibly skill. Others recognize it. I do not, but that does not mean it's not there just because I can't see it.



Of course I can know it, and so can you. You see, I have zero skill in painting, and so long as I had some brushes and the same paint colors, I could reproduce his "art" without consideration or contemplation. What that means is skill, consideration, and contemplation are not invisible, but non-existent. I guess some people like to pretend though; I'll always be the boy who says the Emperor has no clothes.



Sam said:


> You think a person can't tell if they're improving at something?
> 
> That's one of the most inane things I've ever read. If you could bottle that kind of nonsense and write a novel from it, you'd be a best-seller.
> 
> Apparently.



Somebody already did. The book is called _Atlas Shrugged_.

I did not say people can't tell if they're improving at something. I said without an objective standard to measure improvement, people can't tell whether they're improving or not. Wouldn't you agree with that? I mean, seeing that it's an obvious fact and all.



astroannie said:


> This statement is false. Education--the idea that a student can learn something--is based on the fact that the student can, in fact, recognize improvement.  If you personally, cannot tell when you've gotten better at something, then it's pointless to try to teach you as you lack the ability to learn.
> 
> This is what I'm talking about.  If you're teachable, then advice given can be incorporated into self-assessment and you can gauge when you're doing better.



I agree...IF you have an objective standard to measure improvement. In your scenario, the advice given is the objective standard by which to assess improvement. However, Terry says no objective standards to judge whether writing is good or not exist; it's just a matter of opinion. I said if that is true, then he has no way to determine if he is improving or not.



amsawtell said:


> I also would have to agree with the assessment that writers can see when they're becoming better writers.  It's been almost a year since I started judging the fiction LMs and _I_ have noticed several repeat contestants whose writing has improved, among them Mr. Goepner.  I'm proud of the fact that we help each other improve around here.



Fine. What is the objective standard you use to judge improvement? Or is it just your opinion based on your feelings?


----------



## TIG

John Oberon said:


> I said it's impossible for you to _know_ if you're improving. You have no objective standards to gauge improvement.



I disagree. In fact, I think that as a sweeping statement, it's rather blinkered.

Yes, there will be people who cannot see if they're improving or not. There will be some who are deluded enough to think they're better than they are. There are also some who might think they're worse than they really are. 

However, most people who are self-critical and put effort into what they do will recognise their weaknesses and work on them, and will also spot where they've managed those weaknesses.

Thinking that everyone needs an objective standard is a nonsense. Some people have intelligence and perception, and can make judgements without the need for an external gauge.


----------



## John Oberon

Terry D said:


> Most of us who give advice don't give it as if there are objective rules beyond basic SPaG (and even those are flexible), so it's not odd at all. I think most of the posts above have said what needs to said about our ability to gauge our own improvement. If you don't posses that inner editor to aid you with your improvement, then I understand why you need clearly delineated criteria to measure yourself.



Tell me what standard your inner editor uses to improve your writing. No standard? If so, why edit? You have plenty of criteria by which you edit and judge improvement. You just haven't the drive or calculation the consider what they are.



Terry D said:


> The only visual art I know of which has the sort of "objective rules" you claim for writing were the paint-by-numbers kits I had as a child. I could easily follow the instructions, but the result was... uninspired. By the way, that Rothko posted earlier looks remarkably similar to your avatar in the way the colors blend and contrast with the simple black element. So, apparently, you can appreciate those elements on some level.



Really. There are no objective rules for color, lighting, perspective, framing, genre, medium, tools, materials, and a host of other aspects of art. None at all. I suspect you don't know much about art. I am the son and grandson of artists. I've been around it all my life. I can tell you art fairly bristles with rules.

I must've missed the black element in Rothko's painting. I also must've missed the colors blending. To me, it looks like he cleaned out one brush, then cleaned out the next brush on the next patch of white canvas, and so on until all his brushes were free of most of the paint so he could clean them thoroughly with thinner. I'm about 95% certain that's what happened. Then some pointy-headed elite walked into the studio, saw the canvas, and said, "Oh, is this your latest oeuvre? It's deep, penetrating, so...so..._visceral_." Rothko, not wanting to embarrass the man, simply thanked him.

I wouldn't appreciate Rothko's painting as a background, let alone a piece of art. At least my avatar background actually blends, though I use only two colors.


----------



## Kevin

Thank you, John O. This is a very thought provoking thread and I am enjoying it.


----------



## Ariel

John Oberon said:


> Fine. What is the objective standard you use to judge improvement? Or is it just your opinion based on your feelings?



Firstly, please edit your posts instead of spamming the thread.  There's a nifty button on the bottom right corner that will allow you to multi-quote people.  

Secondly, you have no need to be condescending.  I'm not basing my standard of improvement on my _feelings_.  I have a degree in English, specifically in creative writing.  I look at plot structure, how logical the story happens to be, and at character development.  I _think_ about what the writer was trying to say and whether they were successful in saying it.


----------



## Mike C

Things I like are good writing, thinks I dislike are bad. And that's a totally objective view.


----------



## Kevin

> what standard is your inner editor uses to improve your writing (?)


 It's typically comparative, to the previous attempts...





> You have plenty of criteria by which you edit and judge improvement. You just haven't the drive or calculation the consider what they are.


 Yes, correct... I do not have the drive to quantify them. It seems a long, arduous task, better suited to those who are more interested in doing such explaining.


----------



## shadowwalker

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at this 'discussion'. I need objective standards! I can't decide on my own! :nightmare:


----------



## Sam

John Oberon said:


> Somebody already did. The book is called _Atlas Shrugged_.
> 
> I did not say people can't tell if they're improving at something. I said without an objective standard to measure improvement, people can't tell whether they're improving or not. Wouldn't you agree with that? I mean, seeing that it's an obvious fact and all.



Apparently you know more than anyone about this 'objective standard'. 

Pray tell what it is. What's the objective standard that I (seemingly unbeknownst of myself) have been using to measure my improvement in writing over the past twenty years?


----------



## Kevin

I don't see anything wrong with it. Teachers do this quantifying all the time. I have my opinions about efficacy, in particular when it comes to language skills, but it is done...


----------



## Kyle R

John Oberon said:
			
		

> What is the objective standard you use to judge improvement? Or is it just your opinion based on your feelings?





			
				amsawtell said:
			
		

> . . . you have no need to be condescending. I'm not basing my standard of improvement on my feelings.


I judge much of my writing (and the writing of others) based on my feelings.

At least when it comes to fiction, I believe the main goal is to elicit emotions in the reader. That's why I read, at least—to be moved by the story. 

Thus, I gauge how the writing makes me feel. Is this part exciting? Am I bored here? Has confusion settled on me like a dust cloud? Am I so enthralled that I'll ignore a pot burning on the stove?

After that, it's a matter of looking for ways to hone (or preserve) the desired emotional impact.

In the final stage, I do consider prose (which is what I find a lot of writers are indirectly referring to when discussing "good" or "bad" writing).

As far as prose goes:

— I like sentences that tend to vary in length and rhythm (unless repetition or similarity serves a purpose).

— I like trimming away unnecessary words—but not to the point of making the writing sound sterile.

— I like subjective narration, and seek to destroy as much objectivity from the narrative as I can.

— I dislike filtering, and tend to scrub it from my prose.

— I like to unpack most adverbs.

— I like to avoid narrative summary if possible, and focus mainly on writing scenes with breaks, screenwriting style.

— I like the impact of narrative triplets, and tend to avoid duplets or quadruplets. 

The list goes on and on. But these things are all subjective preferences, really. I know several writers who have completely different preferences regarding prose. Does that mean they're right and I'm wrong? Or that I'm right and they're wrong?

Are we all wrong? Or all we all right?

Where's a Philosopher's Smiley when you need one?


----------



## Terry D

John Oberon said:


> Tell me what standard is your inner editor uses to improve your writing. No standard? If so, why edit? You have plenty of criteria by which you edit and judge improvement. You just haven't the drive or calculation the consider what they are.



I hope you aren't really as dense as you sound from that corner you've painted yourself into. The criteria I use to judge my improvement are subjective. How do I feel about this story compared to others I've written? Does this story, or chapter, or scene create the effect I envisioned? Does the language flow and have the pace I want? I could create a thousand pages of technically perfect writing and still miss all of those criteria, and o the ultimate judges -- my readers -- those are the most important criteria of all. My "drive and calculation" are on display in the novels and short stories I've written. Where are yours? Where is your fiction, John?

If you are looking for a genre in which to start, might I suggest fantasy? Your baseless speculation about Rothko's painting is a good start. And, no, I'm not an art expert, but I do know that the ultimate goal of any piece of art is to have an emotional effect on the viewer. A subjective emotional effect. And I know the best artists bend the rules to their will rather than being pedantically enslaved to them.



Sam said:


> Apparently you know more than anyone about this 'objective standard'.
> 
> Pray tell what it is. What's the objective standard that I (seemingly unbeknownst of myself) have been using to measure my improvement in writing over the past twenty years?



I wouldn't waste your time asking, Sam. I've already asked for the criteria a number of famous authors share, folks like Dickens, Vonnegut, Joyce, King, McCarthy, and a number of others. John has steadfastly ignored my request. In fact, he hasn't mentioned one 'objective' measure for good writing (SPaG not withstanding as it was excluded from the OP).


----------



## shadowwalker

Terry D said:


> I wouldn't waste your time asking, Sam. I've already asked for the criteria a number of famous authors share, folks like Dickens, Vonnegut, Joyce, King, McCarthy, and a number of others. John has steadfastly ignored my request. In fact, he hasn't mentioned one 'objective' measure for good writing (SPaG not withstanding as it was excluded from the OP).



Hey, it exists because he said so. Why should he have to prove it?

(Yeah, I've decided to laugh. )


----------



## joshybo

The more I read over this thread, the more I find myself getting caught up on the ideas "objectivity" and "subjectivity".  It's ironic in a way--John is so quick to discount the validity in any approach to writing which excludes his idea of an "objective" standard that he doesn't seem to realize that that also constitutes a subjective opinion.  The fact that, to him, "good" writing has to be based on his adopted objective criteria is an opinion he's formed over time based on his personal taste and distaste with certain authors, artists, and their creations.  From such experience, he's developed a model for what suits his sensibilities and drawn from those a self-proclaimed objective standard of good writing, i.e. an opinion.  There's no other valid explanation for what's going here and _that_ is the objective, empirical, immutable, undisputed truth in my opinion.


----------



## Mike C

Mike C said:


> Things I like are good writing, things I dislike are bad. And that's a totally objective view.



You want an objective standard? There it is.

Example: Bukowski, Good. Meyer, awful.

The waters get muddied when other people apply their own objectivity; I've heard that some people actually like the Twilight books enough to pay actual money for them and worse, consider Bukowski to be a mealy-mouthed pissant. But they are wrong, I am right. I must be -  I'm totally objective.


----------



## LeeC

Bravo Josh!

As I've said before, human objectivity is mired in subjectivity, as it is with all life forms having more than rudimentary mental capacity. We banter around words like objective and subjective simply as extensions of good and bad, In the natural world there is no good or bad, only consequences, and those we too often don't relate to actions ;-)

Don't take such as condemnatory, but rather see it as recognition of the fact that individual reactions are essentially emotional (i.e. subjective), that are fostered by individual experiences. As per example, I'm not keen on my MIL because she points out my shortcomings overly much 

Even one's stated opinion doesn't overtly reflect a position one takes on an issue, as there are many hidden motivational aspects. 

The world is awash with superficial issues that wouldn't exist if we were truly objective. But, our subjectivity is a means of coping with physical life, a mechanism that has intensified as more and more conflicting individuals struggle to get by. 

You like A while I like B, so what. Write/read what you enjoy. If others share your perspective revel in the moment. If you find those that don't, which you surly will, move on.


----------



## ShadowEyes

LeeC said:


> In the natural world there is no good or bad, only consequences, and those we too often don't relate to actions ;-)



Woah, woah, woah, relativism alert. Watch where you're pointing that thing! :b



> Don't take such as condemnatory, but rather see it as recognition of the fact that individual reactions are essentially emotional (i.e. subjective), that are fostered by individual experiences



I think, however, that if this were true, a lot of science would never have been accomplished. Humans are _always _trying to find answers, even if they end up being false. We try to form the other arts around principles, so it's only fair to try to form writing around it as well. Even highly logical topics such as mathematics were bandying with philosophical questions of truthiness and absoluteness in the mid-20th century.



> Even one's stated opinion doesn't overtly reflect a position one takes on an issue, as there are many hidden motivational aspects.



I think people should be given the benefit of the doubt, though.



> The world is awash with superficial issues that wouldn't exist if we were truly objective. But, our subjectivity is a means of coping with physical life, a mechanism that has intensified as more and more conflicting individuals struggle to get by.



I think you're trying to say that humans aren't completely logical, which is true. However, this subjective opinion appeals to further subjective and superficial issues. For anything to mean anything, there _has_ to be objective standards, or else there's no way to even form words, sentences, syntax, grammar, etc. For some reason these seem to be the indisputable foundations of writing. Yet, because writing is based on human behavior, human experience, and human action (to portray it as a sliding scale between full truth-to-life-ness and straining credulity) we can form _some_ objective standards. For instance, it's generally considered bad to use _deus ex machinas_. It's generally considered bad to have characters with inconsistent motives. Can these things happen in real life? Sure. Should they happen in stories? Probably not. Truth is stranger than fiction.



> You like A while I like B, so what. Write/read what you enjoy. If others share your perspective revel in the moment. If you find those that don't, which you surly will, move on.



I think a lot of writing is, perhaps, writing what we do not enjoy, though. I mean, how fun are exercises? You can say, "Write a prompt about a man whose desire is for the sea, yet his conflicting desire is for his booming textile trade industry." Would we find it interesting? Maybe not. Would it improve our writing? Probably. It's about expanding and being open, not categorizing and closing off. I dunno if this bit made as much sense...

EDIT:  That said, while there are artistic writing standards, they are more like "guidelines." Not just based on proving a point by breaking them with satire, but also mutable while in the writing process. They go from consciousness while plotting (to whatever degree) to unconsciousness while writing. The duality of an author's creator/editor mind. I could say, "Always plot." But it's not true. I form my ideals for the story, they sometimes don't work, I end up with two-characters-in-one. I revise the story, split the characters up, and then re-write. I think writers are always re-writing and re-vising their stories _even while writing them_. 

For instance, I believe this is how Tolkien wrote. He'd plot, then write, then go back and compare plots to what he wanted, then re-write. I believe Diana Wynne Jones only plotted short little bits. Stephen King never plotted. It's variable for each author. However, the standards, such as "Sort out inconsistencies" are always there.


----------



## John Oberon

amsawtell said:


> Firstly, please edit your posts instead of spamming the thread.  There's a nifty button on the bottom right corner that will allow you to multi-quote people.
> 
> Secondly, you have no need to be condescending.  I'm not basing my standard of improvement on my _feelings_.  I have a degree in English, specifically in creative writing.  I look at plot structure, how logical the story happens to be, and at character development.  I _think_ about what the writer was trying to say and whether they were successful in saying it.



<GASP> Y-you mean...you can't mean...you use _objective standards _to judge whether someone's writing is good or not? <DOUBLE GASP>

lol.



Sam said:


> Apparently you know more than anyone about this 'objective standard'.
> 
> Pray tell what it is. What's the objective standard that I (seemingly unbeknownst of myself) have been using to measure my improvement in writing over the past twenty years?



Well, Sam, first of all, it's "they", not it. Second, if you really don't know them, there's lots of colleges you could attend or books you could purchase to learn them. I think you would benefit from it.


----------



## Ariel

As I said before John, there is no call to be condescending or rude.  Also, please use the multi-quote function.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis

John Oberon said:


> Well, Sam, first of all, it's "they", not it. Second, if you really don't know them, there's lots of colleges you could attend or books you could purchase to learn them. I think you would benefit from it.



Again, you make no mention of whatever these magical standards are. 

For all we know, they're as real as unicorns and faeries. 

I also like how you assume that Sam has no education or experience in writing, despite being one of the best wordsmiths I've ever seen. 

But, of course, why would you take the time to learn anything before responding quickly? And again, in a double post, ignoring Ams entire first sentence.


----------



## John Oberon

joshybo said:


> The more I read over this thread, the more I find myself getting caught up on the ideas "objectivity" and "subjectivity".  It's ironic in a way--John is so quick to discount the validity in any approach to writing which excludes his idea of an "objective" standard that he doesn't seem to realize that that also constitutes a subjective opinion.  The fact that, to him, "good" writing has to be based on his adopted objective criteria is an opinion he's formed over time based on his personal taste and distaste with certain authors, artists, and their creations.  From such experience, he's developed a model for what suits his sensibilities and drawn from those a self-proclaimed objective standard of good writing, i.e. an opinion.  There's no other valid explanation for what's going here and _that_ is the objective, empirical, immutable, undisputed truth in my opinion.



Well, I haven't discounted anything that I can see. I've only stated that without objective standards to judge writing, there is no way to tell if writing is good or bad, and no way to gauge improvement from one revision to the next. Without objective standards, all a person can say is "I like it." or "I don't like it.", and the next person could say the opposite with equal validity. But with objective standards, you can point to specific areas in a story and say, "This is good, and here's why." or "That's awful, and here's why.".

So...I just want to get this straight. All those objective writing rules and techniques I learned in school were really subjective. It was all just some writing apocrypha that the teachers happened to like, right? Never mind that they all taught the exact same apocrypha - that was just coincidental, right? When I first learned letters, that teacher just drew the letters as she thought best, right? And when I learned words and how to spell, it was just happenstance that I landed with a teacher that taught me the letters fell that way. And Webster filled the dictionary with his personal ideas of what he thought those words should mean, right? And when I learned the parts of speech and how to use them effectively in a sentence, that was just subjective, huh? And when I learned various ways to organize thought into paragraphs, there were no rules to that, just the teaching of opinion, right? And when I learned of plausibility, logic, sequence, characterization, consistency - why it was just all random subjectivity from various teachers from start to finish - nothing at all to explain the difference between good writing and bad, but just opinions expressing heartfelt feelings, right? And other teachers would teach different rules, though I've never found any that do, but they're out there somewhere, right?

Right?


----------



## joshybo

John Oberon said:


> Well, I haven't discounted anything that I can see. I've only stated that without objective standards to judge writing, there is no way to tell if writing is good or bad, and no way to gauge improvement from one revision to the next. Without objective standards, all a person can say is "I like it." or "I don't like it.", and the next person could say the opposite with equal validity. But with objective standards, you can point to specific areas in a story and say, "This is good, and here's why." or "That's awful, and here's why.".
> 
> So...I just want to get this straight. All those objective writing rules and techniques I learned in school were really subjective. It was all just some writing apocrypha that the teachers happened to like, right? Never mind that they all taught the exact same apocrypha - that was just coincidental, right? When I first learned letters, that teacher just drew the letters as she thought best, right? And when I learned words and how to spell, it was just happenstance that I landed with a teacher that taught me the letters fell that way. And Webster filled the dictionary with his personal ideas of what he thought those words should mean, right? And when I learned the parts of speech and how to use them effectively in a sentence, that was just subjective, huh? And when I learned various ways to organize thought into paragraphs, there were no rules to that, just the teaching of opinion, right? And when I learned of plausibility, logic, sequence, characterization, consistency - why it was just all random subjectivity from various teachers from start to finish - nothing at all to explain the difference between good writing and bad, but just opinions expressing their heartfelt feelings, right? And other teachers would teach different rules, though I've never found any that do, but they're out there somewhere, right?
> 
> Right?



That about sums it up, yes.


----------



## John Oberon

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> Again, you make no mention of whatever these magical standards are.
> 
> For all we know, they're as real as unicorns and faeries.
> 
> I also like how you assume that Sam has no education or experience in writing, despite being one of the best wordsmiths I've ever seen.
> 
> But, of course, why would you take the time to learn anything before responding quickly? And again, in a double post, ignoring Ams entire first sentence.



I didn't assume Sam has no education or experience. How could I? I don't know the man. I only said IF he doesn't know any objective standards to judge writing, he could attend a college or purchase a book and learn them. You could too. It's not like they're a big secret or anything. Sheesh, buy a book. Is it that difficult?



joshybo said:


> That about sums it up, yes.



Well, can't argue with an opinion, especially one based in unreality.


----------



## joshybo

John Oberon said:


> I didn't assume Sam has no education or experience. How could I? I don't know the man. I only said IF



I Googled the definition of "if" for giggles.

1 a :in the event that
b :allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

That's from Webster, whom you referenced to me in that diatribe up there.  He seems to feel that "if" applies an assumption.  Of course, that may just be my subjective interpretation.



John Oberon said:


> Well, can't argue with an opinion, especially one based in unreality.



Sure we can.  Now all we need is an objective definition of "reality".  I'll defer to you on that one.


----------



## aj47

John Oberon said:


> Fine. What is the objective standard you use to judge improvement? Or is it just your opinion based on your feelings?



Not speaking for anyone but me, but acceptances and publications TO ME indicate that I'm improving. That isn't about what I think but what an expert thinks.


 

I'm surprised someone who is as knowledgeable as you cannot understand how to use it.


----------



## J Anfinson

This thread is getting entirely too personal, and so I'm locking it for 24 hrs. The mod team will discuss if other action will be taken.


----------



## J Anfinson

I'm going to re-open this thread now. From this point forward all discussion should be about the topic, not individuals. If this warning is ignored then the thread will be permanently locked. If you cannot refrain from getting personal then I suggest you do not post here. 

And so, you may continue this discussion.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Sam said:


> Ever heard of Tom Clancy?
> 
> His research was so incredibly in-depth and plausible that it landed his first book on the desk of a high-ranking official in the Pentagon's E-Ring and, later, the President himself.
> 
> So, no, one does not have to sacrifice plausibility when writing action.



This is actually a great example of what I was trying to say. Comparing the start of Brown's _The Da Vinci Code_ to Clancy's _The Cardinal in the Kremlin_ is -- to an action junky -- like comparing heroin to chamomile tea. Brown has a priest being murdered and a threat to the world in the first page or two. After pages of backstory, Clancy has a helicopter being shot down in a minor skirmish in Afghanistan.

I put down Brown, say ugh, and find another book.

Rollins' Excavation has four times the action of _The Cardinal in the Kremlin_. Really, the amount of exciting action is incredible. I set it Rollins down and could not think of a reason to resume reading.

Am I saying this right? Instead of action, Clancy spends time on characters, explanation, building drama, and all of the things that are normally considered good writing.


----------



## shadowwalker

EmmaSohan said:


> Brown has a priest being murdered and a threat to the world in the first page or two. After pages of backstory, Clancy has a helicopter being shot down in a minor skirmish in Afghanistan.



And yet, although I do read Clancy, I actually only read about half of the books because I skim over his pages of backstories and infodumps and technical/political discussions (realizing that I'm probably missing a gold nugget or two along the way). I haven't read Brown but if that's what's in the first couple pages, I just may pick it up.

This illustrates precisely why "good writing" as per the OP is subjective. 

Or, as my mother used to say, "Each to his own, said the maid as she kissed the cow".


----------



## Bishop

EmmaSohan said:


> Am I saying this right? Instead of action, Clancy spends time on characters, explanation, building drama, and all of the things that *are normally considered good writing.*



There are people whose sole idea of good writing is the amount of descriptions of plant life.

Sure, they're botanists, but that's the point. People like different things out of writing, and Tom Clancy might be a poor example, as Shadow said... the guy was obsessed with military procedure and technology, so a very large chunk of his novels had little to do with story, and everything to do with naval shift rotations on a submarine.

Do you really think people read 50 Shades for the characters? No. They read it for the sex. Do people read Brown for priest murders? No, they read it for the mystery and suspense.

I feel like you're treating novels like movies. We're not talking about Apocalypse Now versus the Expendables here... and even if we were, I love both of those movies _for different reasons_. I like Starship Troopers (the novel) despite the fact that it's 90% discussions on futuristic governmental structure and civil service. But I ALSO love Planet of the Damned, because it's a rush of excitement and well-written combat. *The writing in both of them is good, the authors just focused on different things to immerse and entertain the reader. *Which, incidentally, is also a good argument against some mythical "objective standards" of good writing. The reality is that art in all of its forms is so highly subjective, even if someone tries to place rules or guidelines or say what makes a good book, there's ALWAYS at least a thousand examples of people doing the exact opposite of that and finding their way into history. Clancy overwrites. I'd bet a good editor could cut his novels by 30-50% in some cases and lose NOTHING. That isn't to say he's NOT a master. His books are phenomenal, and millions of readers think that. Hemingway underwrites, and I don't think it needs to be said that he's stood the test of time and audience. So which is right? Which is adhering to the standard? Neither. And they're both great. What makes Monet better or worse than Picasso? What makes David Bowie better or worse than Metallica? Is the David better than the Winged Victory, and why? What rules dictate what makes good music? Sure, you can adhere to syncopation, time signatures, chord structure, key signatures... but in the end, people are still listening to Snoop Dogg, and he's not exactly playing the same stuff as Beethoven's 5th.


----------



## Olly Buckle

/\ /\ Bang on, writing has to appeal to the reader or it won't get read, ergo, good writing is that which appeals to  its intended audience. One could progress from there and say good writing also leads the audience into new pastures, but that is getting on dodgy ground, propaganda does that.


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> Rollins' Excavation has four times the action of _The Cardinal in the Kremlin_. Really, the amount of exciting action is incredible. I set it Rollins down and could not think of a reason to resume reading.
> 
> Am I saying this right? Instead of action, Clancy spends time on characters, explanation, building drama, and all of the things that are normally considered good writing.


Rollins' writing is more engaging to me than Clancy's, not necessarily because of action, but because of the writing voice. I find Rollins has a more fluid, energetic narrative style. Clancy's reads as dry, stiff, and robotic (to me).

I also like how Rollins plunges the reader directly into the scene, while Clancy's slow boil struggles to hold my interest. 

Different strokes for different folks, it seems! :encouragement:

(Just curious: What do you think about Crichton?)


----------



## bazz cargo

Hi Kyle,
kinda mission creep, but it is your thread so what the hell.

Critchton, I enjoyed some of his stuff, others were a bit bleh. Jurassic Park was fun.

It is remarkable how many made decent movies.


----------



## LeeC

Ah, nice, we're starting to get on a more even keel of just sharing opinions 


To me, good writing reads fast and light, with discernible depth. Though the craft of it can be taught, and even well employed by some, too few writers really capture my attention. For example, one thing I notice in dialogue stretches, is how little characters are brought out. I think that if a writer really thinks about their characters, they subtly develop distinctions to where in a dialogue stretch few if any speech tags are necessary. 


What really turns me off is warmed over versions of the same ol same ol. That isn't to say that a writer need discover a truly unique story (if there is such a thing), but whatever is written should seem like a fresh and engrossing story to me. 


May the pen be with you.


PS: On the other hand I also enjoy reading natural sciences tomes, so I guess I'm also a contradiction.


----------



## Darkkin

People are as diverse and complicated as grains of sand, to try and find an exact set of parameters to define good and bad writing, will be tantamount to finding the Theory of Everything and proving it beyond all arguable doubt.  

Some books resonate with readers, others don't.  (Of those that resonate...) some will do so for the right reasons, others for all the wrong reasons.  Guilty pleasure books generally have atrocious writing, but readers return to them because they are bad.  

We, as readers and writers, to a certain extent, are products of our environments and circumstances.  Consider what you grew up reading, or even if you read beyond what was expected.  Many people don't.  I was lucky, growing up in a family of readers, it honed the edges of my prism, so I have a more concrete idea of what I consider good writing.  Being exposed to a massive breadth of literature, gave me a more rounded insight, but I can't see through other readers' eyes so, my POV is entirely subjective, thus voiding its validity.  I know what I like, and that is the standard, at least for me.  Being my own quantitative measure, I've learned to glean and delve accordingly.

Edit: This post, this is a prime example of bad writing...Ground zero...er, subzero, maybe absolute zero, as far as _bad_ writing goes.

- D. the T. of P.B.


----------



## J Anfinson

If it plays like a movie in my head, so that I don't feel like I'm putting effort into reading it, it's good writing to me. If not, it could either be meh or worst case scenario it gets tossed across the room.


----------



## Bishop

J Anfinson said:


> ... or worst case scenario it gets tossed across the room.



Look, I know my novel was bad, but we didn't need to resort to physical violence, J. I would think, at most, all I'd warrant is disdainful sigh as you put it back on the shelf. Geez.


----------



## bazz cargo

Lois McMaster Bujold is an interesting read. Her Sci fi universe is well constructed, history and all and her characters are exceptional. The stories are a bit stretched in places.


----------



## Darkkin

bazz cargo said:


> Lois McMaster Bujold is an interesting read. Her Sci fi universe is well constructed, history and all and her characters are exceptional. The stories are a bit stretched in places.



I've had lunch with her; she was the guest speaker at one of our RWA meetings.  Smart lady and a deft writer.


----------



## bazz cargo

^I am very, very jealous.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> ... tantamount to finding the Theory of Everything and proving it beyond all arguable doubt.



That sounds like a worthwhile project, perhaps someone could get us started.


----------



## EmmaSohan

One nonfiction entry supported a conclusion I did not like, so reading it was mostly ugh. But as I judge, I thought I was supposed to ignore that and look at whether the writing was good and bad. So -- to me, those are two different things.?

That entry also had a rule-breaking PaG, but I thought I was supposed to go beyond that and ask if the odd PaG seemed to create a good effect.

And of course the first thing I noticed in the fiction contests was that I liked entries in my genre. Aren't judges supposed to try to ignore that?

So, to me, there is something in between just following the rules and whether or not I liked it, which I call either good or bad writing. And it's kind of objective and kind of subjective, but very useful to do.


----------



## Darkkin

Where does one even begin with a medium such as poetry...It would be interesting to see how perspectives change with the mediums under discussion.


----------



## shadowwalker

Darkkin said:


> Where does one even begin with a medium such as poetry...It would be interesting to see how perspectives change with the mediums under discussion.



And time periods. There is a lot of poetry I enjoyed/loved/remembered - but most of the poets who wrote them are long dead. Modern poetry - well, eventually I just quit trying to find any that interested me at all. Times and styles changed, but alas, I did not.


----------



## Olly Buckle

EmmaSohan said:


> One nonfiction entry supported a conclusion I did not like, so reading it was mostly ugh. But as I judge, I thought I was supposed to ignore that and look at whether the writing was good and bad. So -- to me, those are two different things.?
> 
> That entry also had a rule-breaking PaG, but I thought I was supposed to go beyond that and ask if the odd PaG seemed to create a good effect.
> 
> And of course the first thing I noticed in the fiction contests was that I liked entries in my genre. Aren't judges supposed to try to ignore that?
> 
> So, to me, there is something in between just following the rules and whether or not I liked it, which I call either good or bad writing. And it's kind of objective and kind of subjective, but very useful to do.



As an atheist I have the same sort of trouble with staying objective and judging the Godly on their writing, rather than their beliefs. You are right , it is interesting making that mental separation between the subject and its expression, and a useful skill to acquire.


----------



## JustRob

Bishop said:


> There are people whose sole idea of good writing is the amount of descriptions of plant life.



I saw the film 2_0,000 Leagues under The Sea i_n the cinema when I was young and the story remained a favourite with me. Not long ago I read the original by Jules Verne. He really liked listing things. There are long lists of the undersea flora and fauna and things that can't decide which they are. A modern day reader has to skip over these parts but in his day no doubt readers would have been fascinated by a world about which they knew very little. As readers we have to understand the context within which a work was written to appreciate it properly.



LeeC said:


> To me, good writing reads fast and light, with discernible depth. Though the craft of it can be taught, and even well employed by some, too few writers really capture my attention. For example, one thing I notice in dialogue stretches, is how little characters are brought out. I think that if a writer really thinks about their characters, they subtly develop distinctions to where in a dialogue stretch few if any speech tags are necessary.





J Anfinson said:


> If it plays like a movie in my head, so that I don't feel like I'm putting effort into reading it, it's good writing to me. If not, it could either be meh or worst case scenario it gets tossed across the room.



Someone with enormous experience of literature told me that my work read like watching a play with the dialogue flowing naturally. He clearly thought that to be important so I agree with these sentiments.




shadowwalker said:


> And time periods. There is a lot of poetry I enjoyed/loved/remembered - but most of the poets who wrote them are long dead. Modern poetry - well, eventually I just quit trying to find any that interested me at all. Times and styles changed, but alas, I did not.



I do wonder whether poetic licence is too liberal nowadays. Sometimes I struggle to see where the author put any effort into their creation. I assume that I just don't understand modern poetry as I can't work out what_ isn't _considered to be poetry any more.



Olly Buckle said:


> As an atheist I have the same sort of trouble with staying objective and judging the Godly on their writing, rather than their beliefs. You are right , it is interesting making that mental separation between the subject and its expression, and a useful skill to acquire.



I agree entirely. The extreme cases that I've encountered have been in the restricted group here tackling writing about sex. One has to consider quite separately the normal criteria for good writing and the subject matter. As works of this type can be posted nowhere else in WF it is only fair to appraise them fully in respect of the writing issues and then quite separately address the issue of whether they cross any boundaries in the subject matter. Some people may write mild sexual innuendo badly while others may write pornography brilliantly. Quality and content are entirely different aspects to be addressed. Good writing has many dimensions in which to be good and some are subjective from the reader's viewpoint.


----------



## shadowwalker

Olly Buckle said:


> As an atheist I have the same sort of trouble with staying objective and judging the Godly on their writing, rather than their beliefs. You are right , it is interesting making that mental separation between the subject and its expression, and a useful skill to acquire.



There's also genre problems. I've beta'd for a couple writers in romance (both m/m and f/m) and I wasn't all that familiar with the current 'customs', but they knew that and handled genre-specific comments accordingly. That way we could focus on plot holes, awkward phrasing, etc.


----------



## ppsage

Can/should story-telling be separated from writing in our analysis here? Can a good story-teller be a poor writer? Can good writing fail to tell the story? This is of course in terms of the narrow arena of prose fiction, mostly longform, to which our thread seems mostly to pertain. My answer has always been yes, at least to a considerable extent: the writing is an element of the prose fiction work. One which connects to the bulk of literature. But the idea that it can be judged merely good or bad I find ruinously simplistic. The quality of the writing can be objectively analysed and discussed, but usually not definitively determined. The reaction to the work is more generally subjective.


----------



## bazz cargo

Interesting. Andy Mitchell can tell a good story, trouble is he is as dyslexic as they come so trying to read it is more detective work than a pleasure.


----------



## Conundrum

I read a lot myself. I have Orwell next to Crichton, King next to Koontz, Patterson next to Faulkner. I am of the opinion that the line between good and bad fiction is quite subjective. 
I love Orwell's _1984_; both it and Thomas Harris's _Red Dragon _are works that made me want to become a writer in the first place. 

Faulkner was a rare bird that's been emulated, but never topped. 

King and Koontz are two popular fiction figures, in my view, who use genre fiction as vehicles to express ideas or themes that normally would be contained in more high-brow literary works. Crichton did this well for awhile, but after _Jurassic Park_, I feel he went the route of Oliver Stone and began writing tracts rather than stories. 

Patterson's fiction, I think, is slick. His stories are fast-paced and flashy, but if you're looking for substance, go somewhere else. I'd compare him to Michael Bay. I have absolutely nothing against Patterson or even Bay. They've achieved success by telling stories that are both bombastic and unapologetically commercial.

Writers can only send their offspring out into the world to be judged. One user in this forum said one reader's treasure is another's _50 Shades of Grey._ I couldn't agree more.


----------



## shadowwalker

ppsage said:


> Can/should story-telling be separated from writing in our analysis here? Can a good story-teller be a poor writer? Can good writing fail to tell the story?



I'm not sure a good story-teller can be a poor writer - if you can tell a good story, doesn't that mean merely writing down the same words to be a good writer? On the other hand, I could see someone who has a good grasp of writing techniques being unable to write an interesting story - an inability to have empathy with the characters, for example, or simply not having an even semi-plausible plot.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> I'm not sure a good story-teller can be a poor writer - if you can tell a good story, doesn't that mean merely writing down the same words to be a good writer?



'A good story teller' could mean different things in itself.  If it means that you are good at constructing a story line, then maybe you could, 'merely write it down', though I am not sure it is as simple as that sounds. If on the other hand you are good at telling a story orally, taking an audience with you, that is a very different art from the written word, some of the techniques, such as repetition of certain key phrases for  example, are the opposite to those usually used in writing, and the story itself can be highly predictable and obvious. Think of it as being a bit like the difference between poetry and song writing, orally requires instantly obvious, there is no going back to check.


----------



## shadowwalker

Good points.


----------



## LOLeah

This thread gave me a headache. Very good points made all around.

Without being too long winded or convoluted, my personal opinion is that there is such a thing as bad writing, yes. If 9 out of 10 people read someone's work and determine that the voice is weak, the characters are flat, the plot is nonexistent, etc...it's bad. The 10th person not finding it so (because it is, in fact, subjective) doesn't negate the majority and make it good writing or even arguably good writing. If you only write for yourself then I guess you're the most brilliant writer ever lol because who is to say otherwise?


----------



## Kevin

'moral relativism'


----------



## shadowwalker

Yeah, I'm not sure I'm ready to concede to the judgement of the majority. I've lived in the US too long for that...


----------



## Mike C

Indeed, let's not forget, in the rush to cover all bases (subjectively and/or objectively) that yes, there really is writing out there that stinks like the corpse of a dead dog's arse and really should never be allowed to see the light of day.


----------



## shadowwalker

Mike C said:


> Indeed, let's not forget, in the rush to cover all bases (subjectively and/or objectively) that yes, there really is writing out there that stinks like the corpse of a dead dog's arse and really should never be allowed to see the light of day.



But again, if you toss out SPaG, and the issue of basic coherency, then ...


----------



## Phil Istine

Mike C said:


> Indeed, let's not forget, in the rush to cover all bases (subjectively and/or objectively) that yes, there really is writing out there that stinks like the corpse of a dead dog's arse and really should never be allowed to see the light of day.



I'm trying to figure out if arses have corpses or corpses have arses - but I take your point  .
Nice to see arse written the Brit way.


----------



## bluemidget

Mike C said:


> Indeed, let's not forget, in the rush to cover all bases (subjectively and/or objectively) that yes, there really is writing out there that stinks like the corpse of a dead dog's arse and really should never be allowed to see the light of day.



great, I see you found my notebook


----------



## Mike C

shadowwalker said:


> But again, if you toss out SPaG, and the issue of basic coherency, then ...



Even with perfect spag and an assumed level of basic coherency, some writing is just bad.


----------



## Mike C

Phil Istine said:


> I'm trying to figure out if arses have corpses or corpses have arses - but I take your point  .
> Nice to see arse written the Brit way.



It's a stolen quote from a Ben Elton book - on that subject, I think his writing is poor and even if it was great, I'd condemn him for a couple of crap musicals he's been involved in wringing the profits from. But I like the quote, even if his book _stinks like the corpse of a dead dog's arse_.


----------



## shadowwalker

Mike C said:


> Even with perfect spag and an assumed level of basic coherency, some writing is just bad.



Well, again - criteria? And then, criteria that everyone agrees with? I mean, that's what this whole discussion is about.


----------



## Terry D

There can be a huge difference between good writing and a good story, or book. Some authors can write nearly flawless, lyrical prose, but I still don't like their stories. Two that come to mind (for me) are Pat Conroy, and Larry McMurtry. On the opposite side of the hall are writers like Dan Brown, who many say is a 'bad' writer, but I like his books. Whatever limitations he has with the craft do not pull me out of the story. I often compare writing to carpentry, or furniture making so I'll leave you with this photo of a very well crafted chair, but a very bad chair.


----------



## Kevin

...and interesting chair. lol.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Some "bad" story mechanics (in my opinion) are:

1.  Tricking a character in a story. It's like a cartoon character sending another to his death. Doesn't reveal character motive in a way that is a true conflict.

2.  Tricking the reader with a _deus ex machina _or having a story resolution that is inconsistent with the plot.

3.  Unlikely coincidence or improbability.

These kind of plots fail to pass the "Turing test," if you will, of writing. They may appeal to people who are not interested in complex plots or deep characterization. Please don't kill me for thinking this.  A machine would connect motive to action. Humans, rather, are unpredictable, and thus boring.

One could even say that bad writing includes "not being able to find sufficient story ideas." Unless you believe ideas are not part of the story-crafting process.


----------



## Bishop

Terry D said:


> .... so I'll leave you with this photo of a very well crafted chair, but a very bad chair.
> 
> View attachment 9797



How'd you get into my house to take this photo?


----------



## Terry D

Bishop said:


> How'd you get into my house to take this photo?



I have my methods...


----------



## shadowwalker

ShadowEyes said:


> Humans, rather, are unpredictable, and thus boring.



Are you sure that's what you meant to say? Because it seems rather the opposite to me - humans are unpredictable and thus interesting/intriguing/surprising/etc...


----------



## ShadowEyes

shadowwalker said:


> Are you sure that's what you meant to say? Because it seems rather the opposite to me - humans are unpredictable and thus interesting/intriguing/surprising/etc...



I'll admit it's a working theory. "Illogical" would have been a better word choice. Humans are often illogical, and so having a character act "out of character" is seen as weak plot development. For instance, the book I'm reading now shoehorned in a scene between two characters with the motive being they were bored. Their being bored is never brought up again, but the coincidence is that the characters now have access to a library. It simply strikes me as weak drama and lazy storytelling.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis

ShadowEyes said:


> I'll admit it's a working theory. "Illogical" would have been a better word choice. Humans are often illogical, and so having a character act "out of character" is seen as weak plot development. For instance, the book I'm reading now shoehorned in a scene between two characters with the motive being they were bored. Their being bored is never brought up again, but the coincidence is that the characters now have access to a library. It simply strikes me as weak drama and lazy storytelling.



If no one ever acted out of character, that would be denying the fact that humans change as our life experience changes.

We begin making different decisions because our character literally becomes different. 

That's the reason I'm not the same as I was when I was 12 years old.

If no one ever changed, or acted out of character, within fiction, I would stop reading altogether, with me stereotyping every character and saying 'I know exactly what he's going to do!' That would be truly boring.

Humans are complex, and tend to defy characterization. That's why even psychological experts are still confused about exactly why humans behave the way they do.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> If no one ever acted out of character, that would be denying the fact that humans change as our life experience changes.
> 
> We begin making different decisions because our character literally becomes different.
> 
> That's the reason I'm not the same as I was when I was 12 years old.
> 
> If no one ever changed, or acted out of character, within fiction, I would stop reading altogether, with me stereotyping every character and saying 'I know exactly what he's going to do!' That would be truly boring.
> 
> Humans are complex, and tend to defy characterization. That's why even psychological experts are still confused about exactly why humans behave the way they do.



First, you bring up a good point:  psychologists don't know how humans act in all circumstances. It's a relatively new and amorphous science, as far as I know. This is why subjects such as "good" and "bad" are so ill-defined. However, broadly, we can submit that story-telling is based off human experience conveyed in a way that is entertaining.

Second, this means that because stories are made to be entertaining, they do not stay true to life. If they did, they would have to account for seemingly random and unsatisfying endings. This means that characters, as they are presented in stories, are embodiments of idealized human traits. Anger, pathos, greed, devotion, etc. This allows characters to relate to the maximum amount of audience members. By expressing their traits to the highest (and thus most dramatic degree), they become idealized. And thus entertaining.

However, third, while characters are idealized, this doesn't mean that they do not change. It simply means that they change in dramatic and highly motivated ways (in order to maintain the entertainment factor). Real-life humans change in slow, ill-defined, and very "clumsy" ways. Characters in stories develop in structured, logical, and easily-accessible ways. That's the difference between real life and stories. That's why plots should move only to satisfy character motives and not the other way around.


----------



## Sam

shadowwalker said:


> I'm not sure a good story-teller can be a poor writer - if you can tell a good story, doesn't that mean merely writing down the same words to be a good writer?



A good storyteller is not necessarily by extension a good writer. 

An example would be the Australian Matthew Reilly, a great storyteller who writes high-octane thrillers that one reads through their fingers. But he's not a great writer. You're never going to remember a turn of phrase, or a passage of prose, that blows your mind. You're never going to re-read sentences and paragraphs because of how awesome they are. 

Robert Ludlum -- who, incidentally, also wrote high-octane thrillers -- is an example of fantastic storytelling married with great writing. _The Bourne Identity, _for instance, is a magnificent story, but read it, then go read something by Dan Brown or Matthew Reilly, and tell me they're on the same level as a writer. I think not. Ludlum is a far superior wordsmith. 

Iain M. Banks was a great sf storyteller, but he's not in the same league as a writer as Philip K. Dick or John Brunner or Harlan Ellison, who are also great storytellers. That isn't to disparage any of those people as writers. They're all brilliant in their own way, but you don't become a great writer by virtue of being a great storyteller. They're two disparate entities that we should all aspire to, but being one doesn't automatically make you the other as well.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis

ShadowEyes said:


> First, you bring up a good point:  psychologists don't know how humans act in all circumstances. It's a relatively new and amorphous science, as far as I know. This is why subjects such as "good" and "bad" are so ill-defined. However, broadly, we can submit that story-telling is based off human experience conveyed in a way that is entertaining.
> 
> Second, this means that because stories are made to be entertaining, they do not stay true to life. If they did, they would have to account for seemingly random and unsatisfying endings. This means that characters, as they are presented in stories, are embodiments of idealized human traits. Anger, pathos, greed, devotion, etc. This allows characters to relate to the maximum amount of audience members. By expressing their traits to the highest (and thus most dramatic degree), they become idealized. And thus entertaining.
> 
> However, third, while characters are idealized, this doesn't mean that they do not change. It simply means that they change in dramatic and highly motivated ways (in order to maintain the entertainment factor). Real-life humans change in slow, ill-defined, and very "clumsy" ways. Characters in stories develop in structured, logical, and easily-accessible ways. That's the difference between real life and stories. That's why plots should move only to satisfy character motives and not the other way around.



I agree with moving the plot. 

But not every character nowadays is straight from a tragedy story.

Many now are written in an underwhelming way, with subtlety rather than tragic flaws and in-your-face drama. 

At least, unless that's the genre. Mystery or romance or what have you.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> I agree with moving the plot.
> 
> But not every character nowadays is straight from a tragedy story.
> 
> Many now are written in an underwhelming way, with subtlety rather than tragic flaws and in-your-face drama.
> 
> At least, unless that's the genre. Mystery or romance or what have you.



Might just be the difference between novels and short stories... Novels have more time to build up. Plus they are arranged by materials. Short stories are arranged by effect.


----------



## shadowwalker

ShadowEyes said:


> I'll admit it's a working theory. "Illogical" would have been a better word choice. Humans are often illogical, and so having a character act "out of character" is seen as weak plot development. For instance, the book I'm reading now shoehorned in a scene between two characters with the motive being they were bored. Their being bored is never brought up again, but the coincidence is that the characters now have access to a library. It simply strikes me as weak drama and lazy storytelling.



Okay, I'm confused as to what your 'for instance' has to do with illogical humans, but as to characters acting ooc, this happens a lot. The thing is, if we've been properly introduced to the characters, we know there's a reason they're acting that way - we just don't know what it is _yet_. And that's what keeps us intrigued (ie, we keep reading). That reflects real life, where someone we know who is normally gentle and calm suddenly goes into a rage. "That's just not like him!". We want to know what caused this, and eventually we find out and can understand why, even if it still seems illogical.

The problem arises when the character simply morphs into this "other person" and remains there, despite what the author has already given us. This becomes a disjoint - the author has apparently decided that Character A should now be Character B and there is no reasoning for it. For example, the author has written a loner, self-absorbed, never do anything unless there's money to be made. Suddenly they decide to build a library in the ghetto. Okay, we (the reader) are thinking there must be something in the character's history that caused this decision, or some nefarious self-serving goal. No. The author simply needed the character to do this to move the plot. And maybe that's the kind of thing you were talking about. And I would agree, that's not a good thing to do.


----------



## ShadowEyes

shadowwalker said:


> Okay, I'm confused as to what your 'for instance' has to do with illogical humans, but as to characters acting ooc, this happens a lot. The thing is, if we've been properly introduced to the characters, we know there's a reason they're acting that way - we just don't know what it is _yet_. And that's what keeps us intrigued (ie, we keep reading). That reflects real life, where someone we know who is normally gentle and calm suddenly goes into a rage. "That's just not like him!". We want to know what caused this, and eventually we find out and can understand why, even if it still seems illogical.



I agree with your second paragraph, so I won't respond to that one.

I would say the problem is more of an illogicality of presentation of material rather than an illogicality of character development. Characters, like you said, are generally understood to have motives. Material doesn't. A character can be brash. But the character being a male, for instance, doesn't tell me much about the character _as a character_. Being male can be a prospective dramatic situation, say, for instance, if all men in a certain tribe were to be killed. But to have that situation dictate it's own resolution for the sake of a resolution ("Oh, not _this_ male; he's special.") is a cop-out. The story wouldn't be resolved based on the character brashly trying to escape. It'd be resolved based on external circumstances.

Now these external circumstances are more important to development, in my opinion, in novels than short stories. Short stories simply don't have the time to offer more than one external dramatic conflict of material. Therefore, they're more focused. The confusion might arise when a writer has to formulate a dramatic situation based strictly on material which gathers character motives and yet doesn't cop-out with that material. Bringing in material for material's sake. So to answer the illogicality question, the illogicality comes from putting the material cart before the motive horse. The way the material is presented rather than whether or not the presentation is motivated properly. That's a whole other problem.


----------



## shadowwalker

ShadowEyes said:


> IThe way the material is presented rather than whether or not the presentation is motivated properly. That's a whole other problem.



So, you're saying the 'why' of putting material into a story can be a problem if the author doesn't have a logical/reasonable reason for putting it in? And you're no longer talking about illogical character action?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really difficult time figuring out what you're trying to say here.


----------



## ShadowEyes

shadowwalker said:


> So, you're saying the 'why' of putting material into a story can be a problem if the author doesn't have a logical/reasonable reason for putting it in? And you're no longer talking about illogical character action?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I'm having a really difficult time figuring out what you're trying to say here.



I just wanted to say that character motives ought to be backed up by story materials. And that for novels, this is especially true because novels are grouped together by materials rather than effect.


----------



## shadowwalker

ShadowEyes said:


> I just wanted to say that character motives ought to be backed up by story materials.



Agreed 



ShadowEyes said:


> And that for novels, this is especially true because novels are grouped together by materials rather than effect.



And now you lost me again


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis

There is such a thing as overthinking it. ;D 

You can disregard any and all guidelines/rules if your skill exceeds them.

The only real requirement is making the reader care.

When I read, I don't care if the motives and goals of the M/C are clearly defined. Nor do I care if any development is logical.

As long as the MC doesn't make a bomb out of toothpaste, a paperclip and a piece of gum, I'm not gonna go into Spock-mode and say 'WAIT A MINUTE, THAT WAS ILLOGICAL!' I just don't read that way. 

 For a LONG time in the Wheel of Time series, there was no obvious goal, point, or development whatsoever, simply hints and inklings, mentioning of names and different events going on in the town. Otherwise, nothing was clear. But guess what? I didn't care, because I liked reading it. I enjoy reading details, because I only read to see unique ideas placed in a world. I honestly hardly pay attention to a plot. 

And I've read some short stories that had amazing complexity. Again, it's a skill thing.


----------



## JustRob

I think that Crowley has something there. There are no absolutes in writing because it's the chemistry between the writer and reader that matters. I won't make any comparisons to sexual relationships but they are possible. The writer can only provide the chemicals but the reader creates the reaction. Talking about good and bad writing makes little sense to me unless one also considers good and bad reading. I regularly correspond with someone who teaches English literature in America. He struggles to train his students to see the things that he sees and loves in every variety of literature, even astonishingly in my work. Maybe for the comparatively passive reader my work does not appear that good, but for anyone willing to read it with a more active mind it changes character. Maybe I have been very selective in envisaging my writing/reading partners but that doesn't make my work inherently bad, just not mainstream.

I believe that this aspect is the crux of the matter and the reason why there is no simple formula for "good" writing. It is a means of communication with two ends and we can achieve little here by overthinking just one end, as Crowley rightly says. Who do we write for, that English literature lecturer with his profound understanding or his frustrating students, many of whom only attend his courses because they rate so many credit points towards a degree and they think it'll be an easy win? Ultimately each writer's standard for good writing is the one that achieves the objective that that writer wishes to achieve. I don't believe that there is any absolute.


----------



## Terry D

ShadowEyes said:


> I just wanted to say that character motives ought to be backed up by story materials. And that for novels, this is especially true because novels are grouped together by materials rather than effect.



Could you explain for me what "material" means? Are you talking about the events which take place, the narrative itself, or something different altogether? I've been writing and studying writing for a long time and haven't come across this concept of 'material' before. It's hard to have a productive discussion when we aren't speaking the same language.


----------



## InstituteMan

Crowley for the win:



Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> You can disregard any and all guidelines/rules if your skill exceeds them.



There are so many 'rules' around how to write, but the supposed rules are really just guidelines. Follow them or not, it's really up to the writer. 

The risk to not following them is that if your skill isn't up to the work you're trying to create, the result might confuse, mystify, or just generally lose your reader. 

In my experience, the way I have been able to find (what I judge to be) success in breaking the 'rules' is by thoroughly learning them first. The times I have tried to break the 'rules' and (in my judgment) failed were times I when my craft wasn't up to my work.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> There is such a thing as overthinking it. ;D
> 
> You can disregard any and all guidelines/rules if your skill exceeds them.
> 
> The only real requirement is making the reader care.



I agree. I can think of people reading _The Wheel of Time_ as they might read a history of the medieval period. Or a book on how to make a bow and arrows. (However, there's the idea that if these facts are interesting, then the story is more interesting for its facts rather than fiction.) There's also a certain amount of trust that the reader gives the author based on how much research/interesting facts that he/she provides, as well as how much patience the reader has with the books series. I suppose you can call all of this "window dressing." It's a different style from "complete transparency" which pretty much requires a clear plot.



Terry D said:


> Could you explain for me what "material" means? Are you talking about the events which take place, the narrative itself, or something different altogether? I've been writing and studying writing for a long time and haven't come across this concept of 'material' before. It's hard to have a productive discussion when we aren't speaking the same language.



I suppose we're talking about both because materials determine the form of narrative. I'll let Thomas H. Uzzell try to explain it better. The book I'm referencing is _The __Technique of the Novel_, 1964. His prior book, _Narrative Technique_, was recommended by A.E. van Vogt, but Heinlein hated it. "That durn book near ruined me!" It's also interesting that Uzzell hasn't written any fiction of note.

The book says,



> "Human attention is held by variety within unity, or by a change in the patterns of the same subject matter. All students of psychology are familiar with the textbook experiment of the little dots. If you gaze at the dots on the page, they retain their pattern for only three, or four, seconds and then rearrange themselves, or seem to, in a different pattern. The _fixed_ stimulus here is the dots, the varying stimulus is the pattern of the dots. One can attend steadily to dots, in other words, as long as they are presented in different patterns.
> 
> "When we turn to narrative, the equivalent of the dots is the material of the story. The effect, let us say, is the pathos of a small boy whose dog has been killed. The narrative is simply a description of the boy crying with the lifeless dog at his feet. The possibilities of arousing the effect stated by this one scene and no other would soon be exhausted if this one scene were continued beyond the point where the reader felt its full poignancy. When he begins to weary, we have an illustration of the limits of the use of a single, concentrated scene to produce a single effect. These limitations, in fact, govern the lyric poem, and the principles involved are the controlling principles of that form of poetry.
> 
> "The limit of the length of the short story, in other words, is reached when the reader wearies not only of the incidents of the story but of the effect.
> 
> "Mark this, however:  the short story does not become a novel if, instead of adding squares, crosses and triangles to the round dots you add, say some turkeys or submarines or a sense of sin. There must be homogeneity, some harmony, among the materials to be used in a novel. The effect of the novel differs from that of the short story in degree but not in kind. The general nature of any narrative effect, of the effect of any graphic art, in fact, is the same; it is always an impression of life. The differences are in degrees of comprehensiveness and strength.
> 
> "Ask any novelist in trouble with his plot what he intends the effect to be and he will answer something like this:  'I intend to show that love between two such people is impossible.' This is material, not effect. Effect would be, say, the pathos or tragedy felt by the reader in a narrative about two people vainly attempting happiness in marriage. Amateurs in any art talk in terms of materials; professionals, in terms of effects.
> 
> "Unity in narrative, short or long, is attained by selecting and shaping materials to produce an effect. If no unifying effect is preconceived by the writer, his task is more hopeless with the story than with the novel...
> 
> "My belief is that a novel is too long when its materials outweigh its effect."



(71-72, 72, 73, 74)​What do all of you think? Agree, disagree?

EDIT:  Typing all of that was awful. Can I play outside now?


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis

ShadowEyes said:


> I suppose we're talking about both because materials determine the form of narrative. I'll let Thomas H. Uzzell try to explain it better. The book I'm referencing is _The __Technique of the Novel_, 1964.



...I would only recommend reading books about writing published more recently...

As the long discussion in this thread prior has noted, standards change over time. 

Writing has become more experimental, and readers have become more accepting of this. 

But, as always, write as you wish.

Edit: Although I do agree we should definitely still think about the effect upon the reader.

However, still, if you're skilled enough, you can do whatever you want to achieve the desired effect.


----------



## shadowwalker

So, don't put stuff in that doesn't add to the actual story?

(I think I can understand why Uzzell hasn't written any fiction. I also think I'm glad...)


----------



## Terry D

ShadowEyes said:


> What do all of you think? Agree, disagree?
> 
> EDIT:  Typing all of that was awful. Can I play outside now?



Yes. Absolutely. Take the book outside with you and throw it in the nearest river. From this excerpt, it would seem Uzzell's book is the sort of book which gives writing instruction books a bad reputation. I better understand now where you are coming from with the term 'materials', but I still think it is a terrible word in this context. It's like saying a painting has too much paint.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Terry D said:


> Yes. Absolutely. Take the book outside with you and throw it in the nearest river. From this excerpt, it would seem Uzzell's book is the sort of book which gives writing instruction books a bad reputation. I better understand now where you are coming from with the term 'materials', but I still think it is a terrible word in this context. It's like saying a painting has too much paint.



Is there anything in particular that you think is off-kilter? Otherwise, I'm just going to continue going on with this method to my long-belated and inevitable doom. I'm just saying because I read both books and I found them generally pretty helpful in coming to a steady ground of what defines certain elements in literature, things which, unfortunately, I hadn't learned in post-modern academia.

One of the things I most liked about the original 1923 book was that he offered exercises at the end of each chapter to actually write and practice what he taught. It was refreshing to find a writing textbook in that manner.

Rambling EDIT:
I think, also, that not everything has to be taken as a system. For example, when I read of van Vogt's experience with the book, he only took a few key concepts from it, which is, really all one can be expected to remember.

If anyone wants to peruse the contemporary germination of these particular story-writing ideas, there's a book in the public domain by Prof. Walter Pitkin here:
https://archive.org/details/artbusinessofsto00pitkrich


----------



## Terry D

ShadowEyes said:


> Is there anything in particular that you think is off-kilter? Otherwise, I'm just going to continue going on with this method to my long-belated and inevitable doom. I'm just saying because I read both books and I found them generally pretty helpful in coming to a steady ground of what defines certain elements in literature, things which, unfortunately, I hadn't learned in post-modern *academia*.



The excerpt you posted read like a lecture. It seemed that the writer was more interested in putting his own spin on the concepts than in creating any real understanding in the reader. I don't think you can learn much useful about writing by reading a generalized analysis of writing. Each book, or story, is a different creature and needs to be studied by itself to understand why, and how it works. What Uzzell did is akin to a high school biology teacher dissecting a frog in front of the class and implying that all animals are built the same way. It was also, IMO, terribly overwritten, but that's likely an artifact of the times. He seems to be a person who tries to make fiction writing far more complicated than it really is.



> One of the things I most liked about the original 1923 book was that he offered exercises at the end of each chapter to actually write and practice what he taught. It was refreshing to find a writing textbook in that manner.



Practice is always good. Any reason to write is a good reason.



> Rambling EDIT:
> I think, also, that not everything has to be taken as a system. For example, when I read of van Vogt's experience with the book, he only took a few key concepts from it, which is, really all one can be expected to remember.



That's the best way to treat anything written about writing. Take from it what makes sense to you and disregard the rest.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> ... read like a lecture. It seemed that the writer was more interested in putting his own spin on the concepts than in creating any real understanding in the reader.


I know this feeling, when I start to write about something I care about usually. It is a pain, I know I am creating instant barriers, sometimes I find a way round it, sometimes I don't.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Terry D said:


> The excerpt you posted read like a lecture. It seemed that the writer was more interested in putting his own spin on the concepts than in creating any real understanding in the reader. I don't think you can learn much useful about writing by reading a generalized analysis of writing. Each book, or story, is a different creature and needs to be studied by itself to understand why, and how it works. What Uzzell did is akin to a high school biology teacher dissecting a frog in front of the class and implying that all animals are built the same way. It was also, IMO, terribly overwritten, but that's likely an artifact of the times. He seems to be a person who tries to make fiction writing far more complicated than it really is.



I'm of the impression that a lot of writing in the early 20th century attempted to codify with the science that they had. And I don't disregard them for it. For example, I find much of G. K. Chesterton's writing onerous and long-winded, but the meat of the matter is usually brilliant. In fact, I consider him to be the best thinker of the 20th century. And that, to me, seems to be what's lost in the post-modern age:  real attempts at literary science. Everything seems to be a _laissez faire_ appreciation of all attempts without any grit to sand out the imperfections. But the root of the matter, Edgar Alan Poe's criticism, seems to be of the same genre. And yet he is still a highly respected artist. As he wrote, he criticized, and I wonder, "Where are all the brilliant literary scientists?"

EDIT:  Sanderson writes a lovely rule for magic, and everyone loves him; contrariwise, my mentor hates the fact that magic is ruled. He misses the easy magic of Conan. He doesn't quite get that his version of magic, "soft" magic, has a place in Sanderson's system.
http://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/

But then I think as Devil's Advocate:  if Tolkien spent months in-between his drafts, surely there must be some magic to that method. Surely, if Diana W. Jones could write without a real technical flourish, she must have something right. But I'm not sure what. When you say that certain books are different from one another, that's true. But it doesn't lead in to your next statement:  therefore, that all literary criticism is bunk because nothing is written/presented the same way. Couldn't it also be said that different writings are differently bad for different reasons, but similarly good for the same reasons?

I was just reading the link that I posted, the heady and horrible Pitkin's work. He mentioned Sinbad and how all of his adventures were concoctions of mere happenstance. Pitkin concluded that this is unsatisfying literary drama, even if it is skillfully written:  "Now a skilfull writer might weave such adventures so deftly that they would hang together like a well-fashioned garment. But mere coherence would not elevate them..." And then to Poe:  "Practically, we may consider a plot as of high excellence when no one of its component parts shall be susceptible of _removal_ without _detriment_ to the whole." So an economy of words, he means.



> That's the best way to treat anything written about writing. Take from it what makes sense to you and disregard the rest.



I try.


----------



## Bishop

I would say all the literary scientists are dead. Writing that pushes so much to the academia and over-complication you're describing often doesn't sell, except to literature students who then later become IT workers and spend their afternoons impersonating Snake Plissken on writing forums.

Literary criticism is a wonderful thing... when trying to teach new readers about the potential depth of fiction. But these days, allegory becomes less and less and entertainment takes a center stage. Theme waters down some as people lunge toward suspense, and writing becomes more about story than... well, writing.

Even more than that, though, I firmly believe there is no 'science' to writing. I studied British Literature, and literature in general, for four years and didn't become even a competent writer as a result. I find that a lot of the literary journals I read, where stuffy academics point fingers at books and analyze them on a deep, deep level... they miss the point. Also, they're often completely unable to write fiction themselves. It's very easy to point at something and say why it's bad, or what works. It's very hard to create it. Because when it comes down to it, I doubt Hemingway gave half a thought to historical criticism, deconstruction, reader response... I think he just wrote a story he wanted to tell. 

Yes, what works for one writer doesn't work for another, and if that truly helps you write a better story, then don't stop. But I'd be cautious of it, especially given its date of inception. Literature as a whole changed drastically with the advents of technology in the last thirty years alone. And while that's not the end-all-be-all, it's something to consider.


----------



## Terry D

ShadowEyes said:


> I'm of the impression that a lot of writing in the early 20th century attempted to codify with the science that they had. And I don't disregard them for it. For example, I find much of G. K. Chesterton's writing onerous and long-winded, but the meat of the matter is usually brilliant. In fact, I consider him to be the best thinker of the 20th century. And that, to me, seems to be what's lost in the post-modern age:  real attempts at literary science. Everything seems to be a _laissez faire_ appreciation of all attempts without any grit to sand out the imperfections. But the root of the matter, Edgar Alan Poe's criticism, seems to be of the same genre. And yet he is still a highly respected artist. As he wrote, he criticized, and I wonder, "Where are all the brilliant literary scientists?"



Science can define and enumerate many facets of the arts -- for instance certain spatial relationships and size/positioning ratios in painting and sculpture -- but it can do very little to codify how to create a painting, a piece of music, or a story that works for an audience. There is a wide gulf between criticism and instruction. 



> But then I think as Devil's Advocate:  if Tolkien spent months in-between his drafts, surely there must be some magic to that method. Surely, if Diana W. Jones could write without a real technical flourish, she must have something right. But I'm not sure what. When you say that certain books are different from one another, that's true. But it doesn't lead in to your next statement:  therefore, that all literary criticism is bunk because nothing is written/presented the same way. Couldn't it also be said that different writings are differently bad for different reasons, but similarly good for the same reasons?



I never said criticism is bunk. Criticism is a good thing (usually), but trying to scientifically 'teach' writing is something else altogether.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis

'Science'

'Technical'

To me, words that do not belong inside a creative realm. Aside from sci-fi. Even then... the focus is not the technical aspects.If you read and write thinking about those aspects, you will only ever see those qualities, and begin to judge writing solely based on them. 

I read a book to be immersed in a world. Not to analyze the technical aspects and say 'wow that was sure intelligent.' 

In fact, to the opposite degree, if I feel like a writer is trying to assert his IQ, I stop reading. It's pretentious.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Dudes, I am just _worn out_! I'm gonna go read a book or something. I'll keep all of your lovely comments close to my heart.


----------



## InstituteMan

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> 'Science'
> 
> 'Technical'
> 
> To me, words that do not belong inside a creative realm.



I've got to stand up for the creativity of scientists and inventors here, Crow. It's just not always fun to read the fruits of that creativity. That's a discussion for another thread, though.


----------



## shadowwalker

I don't think one can codify or "technicalize" creativity (yes, I just made up that word but I like it so there! :devilish - but I do think creativity can be activated and implemented via such things. It's like knowing how cancer develops and grows, and using that technical knowledge to say, "Well, what if..." and finding a cure or new treatment. Finding out about different techniques or styles can give writers new ways to _express _their writing, new things to _experiment _with, and yet, the creativity itself remains within each individual writer.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis

shadowwalker said:


> I don't think one can codify or "technicalize" creativity (yes, I just made up that word but I like it so there! :devilish - but I do think creativity can be activated and implemented via such things. It's like knowing how cancer develops and grows, and using that technical knowledge to say, "Well, what if..." and finding a cure or new treatment. Finding out about different techniques or styles can give writers new ways to _express _their writing, new things to _experiment _with, and yet, the creativity itself remains within each individual writer.





InstituteMan said:


> I've got to stand up for the creativity of scientists and inventors here, Crow. It's just not always fun to read the fruits of that creativity. That's a discussion for another thread, though.



Exactly. Use the brain when you're writing, but a book that's not a medical textbook shouldn't be a lecture about brain function.

Nor should a science fiction book be a lecture about the function of spacecraft. 

It's a controversial mention, but, Moby Dick may as well have just been a book about whaling, as the story seemingly took a backseat as he needlessly included entire lectures about whales for no reason. 

Again, if you're a good writer, you CAN pull it off, as you can pull anything off.

However, I feel that the number of people who attempt to include these details is high, and the percent of them that succeed in making it interesting, low.


----------



## Mutimir

If we knew what made writing "good" we probably wouldn't be here would we? 

If you you are still here..........kudos.


----------



## Kyle R

ShadowEyes said:


> Sanderson writes a lovely rule for magic, and everyone loves him . . .


I'm currently reading _Steelheart_. I think Sanderson's a polished writer, though I'm having trouble connecting with the narrator at the moment, who feels more like an empty shell than an actual character. Kind of like a hollow first-person spectator for the reader to slip into.

If there's one glaring weakness in Sanderson's writing, judging from what I've read so far, it's the lack of depth of his first-person narrator. The character feels subdued, flattened, diluted. Contrast Sanderson's narrator in _Steelheart_ with Isaac Marion's _R _(from _Warm Bodies_) and, to me at least, the difference is obvious. With Marion, the first-person narrator has a distinct voice. His internal landscape is continually explored. He feels alive (well, as alive as a zombie could be) and he actively participates in, and drives, the story. With Sanderson in _Steelheart_, the first-person narrator feels more shallow and reactionary, observing the story and being pushed around by it, without any real weight or gravity of his own.

It's a narrative choice, I'm sure, but one I'm currently not a fan of. I think Sanderson has both polish and skill, but I also feel his writing is a bit detached and theatrical. Less about _feeling_ the story and more about _witnessing_ it, if that makes any sense. Maybe my opinion will change, though, as I read further into _Steelheart_. :encouragement:

Onto the idea of everyone loving him? As far as I know, there's no author in the world whom everybody loves.

Sanderson, like all other writers, will inevitably have readers who aren't fans. Some even make comic strips about it. :emmersed:






(http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/09/30)

You know you've made it big when people start making comic strips about you.


----------



## Terry D

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> Exactly. Use the brain when you're writing, but a book that's not a medical textbook shouldn't be a lecture about brain function.
> 
> Nor should a science fiction book be a lecture about the function of spacecraft.
> 
> It's a controversial mention, but, Moby Dick may as well have just been a book about whaling, as the story seemingly took a backseat as he needlessly included entire lectures about whales for no reason.



If you are writing 'hard' science-fiction, or Clanceyesque techno-thrillers, the technical details are very important. Readers of those genres are looking for the details and will lose interest quickly if details are glossed over, or are incorrect. Of course they have to be presented in an interesting manner, just as any other component of the narrative -- characters, plot points, setting, etc. -- must be interesting, but what constitutes 'interesting' is different for readers of different genres. Someone reading a medical thriller by Robin Cook would likely be very interested in the technical details of brain function. Just because those details don't interest you, doesn't mean there's not an audience for them. After all, Moby Dick is considered a classic because it has appealed to a lot of people for a long time.



> Again, if you're a good writer, you CAN pull it off, as you can pull anything off.
> 
> However, I feel that the number of people who attempt to include these details is high, and the percent of them that succeed in making it interesting, low.



The same can be said for any aspect of writing from dialogue to description to character generation. I admire writers who write technologically accurate and detailed books. It adds verisimilitude to their work, and I respect their willingness to put their knowledge and understanding on the line. Writing about magic, or the supernatural, or space-opera where stuff "just works" is far easier -- not worse, not better, just less restricted by reality.


----------



## ShadowEyes

Kyle R said:


> It's a narrative choice, I'm sure, but one I'm currently not a fan of. I think Sanderson has both polish and skill, but I also feel his writing is a bit detached and theatrical. Less about _feeling_ the story and more about _witnessing_ it, if that makes any sense. Maybe my opinion will change, though, as I read further into _Steelheart_. :encouragement:



1.  I stopped half-way through _Words of Radiance_ simply because nothing interesting was happening. It's a very slow boil type of book. But I'll admit, even though the action at the end was rather ... overdone, in my opinion, it was still a nice payoff, if only for the plot revelations.

2.  I believe Sanderson has said that he didn't like _Elantris_, his first work, because it only had one _denouement_. Everything was revealed at the same time, instead of a more proper pace. And yet he also said that lots of people liked that book more simply because it was simpler.

3.  He _does_ write with the viewpoint of complete transparency. It's made to seem like an action movie. I think the detached first-person perspective was also done in _A Farewell to Arms_ to awful effect. The characters, particularly Catherine, you lifeless, boneless, chickenless egg, are so boring. In his other books, he does third-person, which I think is his best by far.

4.  All of that said, he does third-person mystery very well. So my favorite book of his is _The Rithmatist_.

But sheesh, if I can't get sucked into the Cosmere, there's a problem.


----------



## ppsage

There's an issue that came up in this thread which was totally off topic, but which I feel discussion about might be useful. Maybe here, maybe somewhere new, I don't necessarily get how that decision is made, and am pretty sure I never will. I bow to authority (in the sense of knowingness, not power. If those are different here.) 

People have suggested in this thread, maybe around the second or third page, that forum etiquette favors using the plural quote reply method over separate responses. Doing the latter was, with definition, deprecated. I could learn to do this, but I rarely come up with pertinent response compositions to more than one post at a time. My attention span, in compositional mode, would not see the point in continuing the effort. I am likewise not in the least inconvenienced in reading separate responses, and have in fact, never considered it before, it was such a non-issue. I would and have use/d the plural quote thingy when the logic of the response benefited, and personally found it somewhat cumbersome. Mostly in composing and revising around the sections. I'm sure lots of people are aces at it, but I'd find it handier not to have to accustom myself.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Is there such a thing as an expert opinion? What about an informed opinion?

I'm a judge this month. We skip right over the issue of whether or not there is good writing and jump straight to deciding who has it. Anyway, I read a story twice, then the third time I GOT IT! Once I did that, I could admire the writing. So -- to me -- it's has some really good writing, and I don't care about the opinion of people (like me) who read it once and didn't understand the metaphor.

I admit, I am endlessly frustrated by expert opinion that I think is wrong. I have reminded people more than once that the Twilight they are criticizing was not only a commercial success, but also beloved by many. So -- hypocritically -- I am perfectly willing to use popular opinion when it's on my side. But I also started reading Twilight a second time and kept going just because I enjoyed reading it as a writer and seeing how she created her effects. And the reason I don't like The Great Gatsby is that it was worse on the second reading than the first.


----------



## shadowwalker

ppsage said:


> I would and have use/d the plural quote thingy when the logic of the response benefited, and personally found it somewhat cumbersome. Mostly in composing and revising around the sections. I'm sure lots of people are aces at it, but I'd find it handier not to have to accustom myself.



I don't like using it, mainly because, as you said, it's cumbersome, plus half the time (actually more often) I can't get the thing to work anyway.


----------



## shadowwalker

EmmaSohan said:


> Is there such a thing as an expert opinion? What about an informed opinion?



There are people who get paid to voice their opinions; there are people who are widely read; there are people who have degrees in English, Composition, or Creative Writing. They can, in their own 'expert/informed' arenas, make intelligent comments/critiques. But they will always _only _be opinion, not fact (again, staying within the parameters set by the OP). One may decide to agree based on their credentials, or one can disagree, reminding oneself that every profession has people who just barely passed their classes...


----------

