# What makes a good writer?



## Jon M (Sep 4, 2012)

Here's a dumb question. Let's argue about it:

What makes a good writer?


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 4, 2012)

Curiosity. I don't think a person can be a good writer without wanting to explore, whether geographically or psychologically or whatever, or questioning the world around them, trying to understand.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 4, 2012)

Readers?


----------



## patskywriter (Sep 4, 2012)

It all depends. The first question we were taught to ask (when I was a technical editor) was: Who is your intended audience? Once you have your readers in mind, that knowledge will help determine the style of writing, word choice, types of plot twists, etc. Some writers might not want to put any constraints on their writing like that, which is understandable—especially if they haven't yet discovered their voices. But that's one way of getting started.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 4, 2012)

Sounds like a cop out, but it really does seem to me to be whoever garners an audience. To that audience, that author is good. Other than personal pride and satisfaction from constantly honing one's craft, that's all that really matters.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 4, 2012)

I guess I'm being contrary, but I can't agree that having an audience makes a person a good writer. Look at the writers that barely anybody read in their lifetimes, like Poe or Rimbaud or Emily Dickinson. A certain hospitality and desire to meet the reader halfway, maybe, but readers, no.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Sep 4, 2012)

Personally, I believe uniqueness is a strong asset for a writer, a creative ability to see and describe things in a new and compelling way. There are a lot of writers that can slog their way through a story, but the ones that interest me, and what I try to do (With varied levels of failure) is to try and make something that no one has read very much, and no one expects very much. The unique idea, with a unique execution puts a smile on my face every time.


----------



## Cran (Sep 4, 2012)

Readers make a popular writer. 

Mastery of the objective craft makes a good writer. Combined with -

Passion for the subjective art makes a great writer.


----------



## Dave Watson (Sep 4, 2012)

Life experience and reading a lot would be my top two factors in being a good writer.


----------



## Krzyh (Sep 4, 2012)

Patience and the ability to see that not everything you write is good. You have to be to able to look at a piece and say to yourself "Man this blows", throw it into the trash bin and continue on honing your skills.


----------



## Tiamat (Sep 4, 2012)

Depends on the definition of the word.  Literally, a good writer is one who writes well--who can put words into sentences and convey thoughts and images through those sentences.  There are a lot of good writers by that definition.

Now, if we're talking storytelling, that's a completely different beast.  Just because one is good at writing doesn't mean they're good at telling stories--building suspense, creating likeable characters, moving the story forward at the appropriate pace, incorporating themes and connecting with readers in such a way that they really get their heart vested in the piece.   There are a lot of good storytellers out there also.

A really good writer can do both.  Sadly, there aren't very many of those.


----------



## Jon M (Sep 5, 2012)

Throw my own two cents in here, then: I think sensitivity is another good quality that goes along with curiosity. Not sensitivity in a my-soul-bleeds-on-the-page kind of way, but just being in tune with everything happening under the surface, like knowing that when people say polite things or behave in a certain way it might not be genuine at all -- and nowadays there's a _really_ good chance of that -- or knowing what motivates people to do what they do. 

Attention to detail and a willingness to spend time with those details, instead of rushing on to the next plot point or whatever it is that goes _KA-BOOM!_ And not just to notice the obvious details, but the truly unique stuff -- the gesture that is there and gone in the space of a breath which nobody else notices, that millisecond when the mask comes down and you see the real person, that kind of thing. 

Good storytelling, I think, comes after all of these other qualities, and from there, readers.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 5, 2012)

Jon M said:


> Here's a dumb question. Let's argue about it:
> 
> What makes a good writer?



Practice.

It's not a dumb question but it certainly not one that can really be answered sufficiently.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 5, 2012)

Double Post.

Here's a picture of a toaster.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 5, 2012)

> Readers make a popular writer.


 This is true, however when I said readers I was implying that it is them that make the judgement, rather than that numerous readers mean a good writer. That a writer is 'good' is purely a matter of judgement, that judgement is made by those who read him/her, there are no objective criteria to be applied, a piece could, potentially, be ungrammatical and brilliant.

Love the way that toaster puts 'hello kitty' on the toast, but can't help feeling it should be in the toastily, I mean toatally, pointless thread.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 5, 2012)

A good writer can write badly.

And then write some more.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Sep 5, 2012)

The ability to keep the reader reading...


----------



## Sam (Sep 5, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> Depends on the definition of the word.  Literally, a good writer is one who writes well--who can put words into sentences and convey thoughts and images through those sentences.  There are a lot of good writers by that definition.
> 
> Now, if we're talking storytelling, that's a completely different beast.  Just because one is good at writing doesn't mean they're good at telling stories--building suspense, creating likeable characters, moving the story forward at the appropriate pace, incorporating themes and connecting with readers in such a way that they really get their heart vested in the piece.   There are a lot of good storytellers out there also.
> 
> A really good writer can do both.  Sadly, there aren't very many of those.



To further this: A good storyteller can become a great writer, but I don't believe a good writer can become a great storyteller. 

Story-telling is rooted in imagination: The ability to see the world the way it is but, at the same time, the way it _could _be also. Ordinary people look at, let's say, a queue for a cinema and see it as nothing more than an inconvenience to themselves. A writer might look at the same queue and pose a hypothetical question: What if my MC was trying to get into that cinema to escape from axe-wielding murder/police/shady government operative? The queue thus becomes a great way of building tension and suspense.

So, I believe that 'good' writers are by nature great storytellers. When you have a very active imagination, and ideas for stories come to you easily, you study your craft and hone your skills. You're always going to have that imagination. It simply becomes a matter of conveying it in a powerful way.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 5, 2012)

Another thing: Attention to language. The ability to tell which word is the right word as opposed to the obvious or the ostentatious, to create a voice and a mood. This one can probably be learned through reading and practice.

I've seen people say that they think a piece is good when they don't notice the writing itself. I don't really understand that; I guess maybe what they mean is that they want to feel that their engagement with the referent (the story, the feeling, the voice) is less obviously mediated. By that logic any photograph should be better than any painting. But the truth is everything's mediated, just in different ways. Personally I want to notice the writing.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2012)

lasm said:


> I guess I'm being contrary, but I can't agree that having an audience makes a person a good writer. Look at the writers that barely anybody read in their lifetimes, like Poe or Rimbaud or Emily Dickinson. A certain hospitality and desire to meet the reader halfway, maybe, but readers, no.



But they did have an audience - it may have come after they were dead, but it was still an audience. Many great artists (in all media) were not considered "good" (and in fact were ridiculed) during their lifetimes, and only received recognition of their talent posthumously.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 5, 2012)

Isn't that conflating the writer with the work, though? The texts produced by Poe et al. were much appreciated after their deaths, yes, and whether a text may have an inherent value or whether that value is entirely subjective and reader-determined is a debate we could have. But it's a different debate. I think the question here is more what are the traits of a good writer - not of their work.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 5, 2012)

> The ability to keep the reader reading...



It sounds like you're suggesting that a writer can only be good if they're published. I disagree.


----------



## Cran (Sep 5, 2012)

Sam W said:


> So, I believe that 'good' writers are by nature great storytellers. When you have a very active imagination, and ideas for stories come to you easily, you study your craft and hone your skills. You're always going to have that imagination. It simply becomes a matter of conveying it in a powerful way.


True enough, if all _writers_ were _storytellers_. Professionally, there are more writers who are not storytellers, but recorders of real events, compilers of information, and providers of instruction; areas of writing where an active imagination might not be such an asset. Are there, then, no 'good' writers among them?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 5, 2012)

A good writer is one that can engage the reader.  It doesn't matter if that's because of a great story, or a profound point of view, or outstanding prose; if readers can start reading a book and can't rest until the book is finished, it's because the writer has done a good job.



lasm said:


> I've seen people say that they think a piece is good when they don't notice the writing itself. I don't really understand that;



It means that every word furthers the reader's engagement with the story.  Just like awful prose can ruin a good story by distracting the reader, good prose can greatly aid a story by allowing the reader to become immersed.



lasm said:


> I think the question here is more what are the traits of a good writer - not of their work.



How do you define a writer but by their work?



Cadence said:


> It sounds like you're suggesting that a writer can only be good if they're published. I disagree.



If they're good, why wouldn't they be published? What better way to prove your worth as a writer than by the vetting of professional publishers?


----------



## cullmeyer (Sep 5, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> But they did have an audience - it may have come after they were dead, but it was still an audience. Many great artists (in all media) were not considered "good" (and in fact were ridiculed) during their lifetimes, and only received recognition of their talent posthumously.



This illustrates my thoughts on the subject. IMO, a good writer is someone who is willing to think outside the box, and push the proverbial envelope. And yes, this takes an active imagination. Often times, that mindset is difficult for the reader base of that time to digest. Years later, being praised for their ground breaking work. I believe the term is, "Ahead of its time."
I don't know if reading a lot is necessary. Obviously, some reading is pretty much a requirement. But lots of reading? I'm not so sure. I don't read more than one or two books a year. Mainly because I can't seem to find anything that I really enjoy. So I guess I would say that it would be more of a knowledge and creative use of language.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 5, 2012)

> If they're good, why wouldn't they be published?



As proof, fine. Publication is proof. It doesn't *make *a good writer, though.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2012)

Cadence said:


> It sounds like you're suggesting that a writer can only be good if they're published. I disagree.



They have to be published in some form or another or the only judge of their ability is themselves.


----------



## Sam (Sep 5, 2012)

Cran said:


> True enough, if all _writers_ were _storytellers_. Professionally, there are more writers who are not storytellers, but recorders of real events, compilers of information, and providers of instruction; areas of writing where an active imagination might not be such an asset. Are there, then, no 'good' writers among them?



You didn't read what I wrote. 

Yes, there are good writers. Great writers, even. Anyone can become a great writer. All it takes is a passion for the craft, a will to learn and hone your skills, and a pair of eyes to read.

A great writer need not be a great storyteller, however. There are some exceptional writers in my degree class (from which I graduate this Friday). They have a remarkable ability to analyse and interpret everything, giving thought-provoking answers to questions -- answers I know for a fact I couldn't begin to write. Yet our marks are invariably similar. I'm graduating with a first-class honours degree and so are they. However, ask them to write a 100,000-word novel and it's a whole new ball-game. There's a difference of day and night between academic and creative writing. Being a great writer is half the battle, no doubt, but having a great imagination and being able to write a story that an ordinary Joe Soap can read and enjoy - that's the art of being a great storyteller. After all, how many average people will ever read formal writing (e.g., _The Origin of Species) _for fun?


----------



## Jeko (Sep 5, 2012)

> They have to be published in some form or another or the only judge of their ability is themselves.



It's not about judgement; that's off-topic. The question is not 'Who decides who is a good writer'. The question is 'What *makes *a good writer?' And if the only answer is 'what other people think'... 

We are not made up of other people's opinions. We are made of much greater things. Ideas, opinions, passions, strengths, weaknesses, you know what I mean. I am talkign about qualities, and the though they are usually defined by another, they are not *made *by another. You didn't start being good at football because someone said you're good at football. You were good at football. That's why they said it.


----------



## Cran (Sep 5, 2012)

Sam W said:


> You didn't read what I wrote.


yeah, I did; even the double negative bit - _don't believe a good writer can't become a great storyteller._

You followed on (as stated in the post) from *Tiamat*, who made the distinction between _writers_ generally, and _storytellers_ specifically. 

You opened with the statement of distinction, then deliberated on storytelling, then returned to the distinction - 
_So, I believe that 'good' writers are by nature great storytellers._

It's a plain, definite statement - *good writers are great storytellers* - and I questioned it in the context it was originally and subsequently proposed. 

Now, you've reversed that stated position - 


> A great writer need not be a great storyteller, however.


- which suggests that not only did I read what you wrote, I was right to question that part of it.


----------



## Sam (Sep 5, 2012)

Cran said:


> yeah, I did; even the double negative bit - _don't believe a good writer can't become a great storyteller._
> 
> You followed on (as stated in the post) from *Tiamat*, who made the distinction between _writers_ generally, and _storytellers_ specifically.
> 
> ...



No, I made a mistake. That wasn't an intended double negative. The "can't" was supposed to be "can".


----------



## Susanmuse (Sep 5, 2012)

A good writer creates a lasting impression upon the reader.  Perhaps the character who follows us through the day.  The image that keeps us awake.  The anger that seethes from a description of injustice.  Writers absolutely must write for themselves first.  Writing is the ultimate expression of self absorption.  Write well and the readers will follow.  Good writers also understand that writing does not appear by magic.  One has to write in order to become a writer!


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 5, 2012)

The good writers I seek are the ones who have the ability to change the way I perceive the world; to expand my consciousness, if even only for the duration of their written work; to deepen my appreciation for the human condition; to imbue in me the ability--and the desire--to recognize the profundity of life, and the potential depth of every moment in it.


----------



## Jon M (Sep 5, 2012)

Kyle of Colorado is very wise.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 5, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> The good writers I seek are the ones who have the ability to change the way I perceive the world; to expand my consciousness, if even only for the duration of their written work; to deepen my appreciation for the human condition; to imbue in me the ability--and the desire--to recognize the profundity of life, and the potential depth of every moment in it.



On the one hand, I agree as a reader. On the other - scheiss, that's a tall order. And doesn't this depend hugely on the reader, that person's openness and ability to - well, to pick up what's being laid down, so to speak? Or even (as a person who is often told she reads too much into things; it's my job fer chrissakes) might not what you get out of a text have nothing whatsoever to do with what the writer wrote? That's not to devalue your reading experience, only to say that to a certain extent, you get out what you put in, and that's beyond the writer's control.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2012)

Cadence said:


> It's not about judgement; that's off-topic. The question is not 'Who decides who is a good writer'. The question is 'What *makes *a good writer?' And if the only answer is 'what other people think'...



If no one sees your work, if you don't distribute it some way or another, all that says one is a good writer is ego. If the only person who says "I am a good writer/player" is you (generic you) and no one else has seen your writing or watched you play - how does that have any meaning or validity? "What makes a good writer?" cannot possibly be more subjective; it's all opinion, all judgement. I don't know of any High Authority who determines, objectively, what a 'good writer' is. But I think it's pretty obvious that a bad writer is someone whose work no stranger wants to read.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 6, 2012)

"If any man were to ask me what I would suppose to be a perfect style of Language, I would answer,that in which a man speaking to five hundred people of all common and various capacities, idiots or lunatics excepted, should be understood by them all, and in the same sense which the reader meant to be understood."
Defoe

In other words the quality of the writing is judged by its effect on the readers, 





> The question is not 'Who decides who is a good writer'. The question is 'What makes a good writer?' And if the only answer is 'what other people think'...


 This is a canard. People apply it to the Question "What makes a good man" because there is supposedly a higher authority, God, but He does not judge literature. You have subverted the question, most of us would understand it to mean "What are the _qualities_ that make a good writer", it going without saying that 'good' is a subjective and judgemental word. To assert that a question asking "What is good" is not asking for a judgement is a nonsense, 'good' in this sense is not an absolute, objective value, even if the judgement is God's it is still a judgement. 'Good' when applied to football is different, there are objective criteria that can be applied, such as 'How many goals did he score this season?', even then it won't stop people arguing. To my mind the nearest writing can come to something objective to judge it by is in Defoe's quote above, and it is all about the understanding of the reader.

As an aside 





> You didn't start being good at football because someone said you're good at football. You were good at football. That's why they said it.


 This would seem to imply that nothing makes you a good writer, you simply are one, my response is that you don't start by being a good writer, you start illiterate and progress, and when someone looks at a child playing football and says 'He's good' they mean he is better than most and has potential, not that M.U. should field him next week. 

Good, bad, ideas, opinions, passions, strengths, weaknesses; all slippery words, you possibly know what you mean by them, but don't assume that others will mean the same things, or even know what you mean.


----------



## robephiles (Sep 6, 2012)

I was a philosophy major in college and during one drunken discussion after class we turned to this topic.  We ended up breaking it down into four categories.  

ONE:  Mastery of language  (style)  

TWO:  Ability to express and explore ideas  

THREE:  Humanistic connection with an audience  

FOUR:  Mastery of story structure.  

All of these have been mentioned in this thread but when people have this conversation they tend to think that one category trumps another.  Different people value these four categories differently, but I think that most people would have to agree that a writer must excel in at least one in order to be considered "good."  

I personally have read writers that I think are mediocre stylists but still know how to tell a great story.  I think Issac Asimov is neither a great stylist nor a great storyteller but he has great ideas and conveys them well.  William S. Burroughs is a  great stylist and his work has a deeply personal dimension but they are intentionally structureless.  You can mix and match these as much as you want.  For a writer to be good they have to have at least one of them though, and in fact I'd say at least two of them.  But there are plenty of writers who are considered "great" who are utter failures in at least one of the categories.  

I was recently dating another writer who considered category one the most important.  I often found writers she liked to be beautiful stylists but to be dull, sometimes shallow and not very engaging.  She said writers I liked were "simple", which she meant stylistically.  Most of the writers I liked dealt with much weightier themes then the ones that she liked but she considered this irrelevant.    In fact, she even said of my own writing that it was the ideas that were the best element but that I did not have a natural ability to produce beautiful prose.  (I found it amusing that she assumed this was an ability you are born with but that is a whole other discussion altogether.)


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 6, 2012)

lasm said:


> On the one hand, I agree as a reader. On the other - scheiss, that's a tall order. And doesn't this depend hugely on the reader, that person's openness and ability to - well, to pick up what's being laid down, so to speak? Or even (as a person who is often told she reads too much into things; it's my job fer chrissakes) might not what you get out of a text have nothing whatsoever to do with what the writer wrote? That's not to devalue your reading experience, only to say that to a certain extent, you get out what you put in, and that's beyond the writer's control.



Hi Lasm.

Great point! I agree with you to some extent. A lot does depend on the reader.

Although, what I was referring to specifically was the writer who _intentionally _attempts to deliver deeper truths in their writing.

J.K. Rowling's _Harry Potter_ series, for example, qualifies, at least in my opinion, as something that resides heavily in the "entertainment" realm of reading, though I wouldn't exactly say it is full of profound wisdom or deep insights.

At the other end of the spectrum you have the writers who use their stories to deliver philosophical punches that make you think about life in general, and perhaps about your own, specifically. For example, an excerpt from one of my favorite short story writers:


_Your father left us because he was in a bad way_, my mother used to tell me. 

_Tek’s father left us because he is a bad man_, she tells everybody now. She says it again and again. She’s snowing down a new past for Mr. Oamaru, a tough rock of ice in a sea of time. A new memory for our family to stand on. _Tek’s father is a bad, bad man_. It was hard enough to lose my father the first time. Now I can’t even hold on to my memory of him as a basically good person. Mr. Oamaru has taught me that loss isn’t just limited to the present; it can happen in any direction. Even what’s done and vanished can be taken from you. Other, earlier memories that we made of my father sink and revert to water. The past shifts its crystals inside me.

- _Accident Brief_, Karen Russell


----------



## Jeko (Sep 6, 2012)

I'm not talking about how the audience judges the writer's work. That doesn't _make _them good. It declares them good. It verifies that they are 'good', as 'good' is a word of opinion. And once that is done, we ask - how did they get there? Why do we think this? The answers to such questions are what _makes _a good writer.

Anyway - how is 'get people to like you' a useful answer to the question?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 6, 2012)

Cadence, why should there be "a useful answer to the question", what is it's utility, and who will decide? As has been said words like 'good'. or 'useful', are not absolutes, they are matters of individual judgement, unless you follow a Holy Book, the specific meaning then varies according to which book.


----------



## Cran (Sep 6, 2012)

Sam W said:


> ... I made a mistake...


Well, *Sam*, irrespective of our positions on what makes good writers, 
this bit of writing is a simple and powerful illustration of what makes a good person. 

I bow to you on that score.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 6, 2012)

> why should there be "a useful answer to the question"



No, you're right. We should just discuss this meaninglessly and get to the same kind of nowhere we began with.



> what is it's utility



If someone comes up to you and asks, 'How do I become a good writer', all you would say is 'get people to like you.' All they would say in response is 'how would you do that?' That is what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about judgement. I'm talking about the things that cause the judgement - things to be judged. Qualities.

If you are published, then you can probably say that you are a good writer. You can not say however that you were not a good writer before then. You can say that you didn't know  you couldn't percieve how good you are, but you could have still been a good writer.

You are talking about proof and opinions. But what is proof without what must be proven? And if what must be proven in this case is whether one is a good writer or not, then yes - the proof is opinion and variable, debatable judgement. But the materials that build that which is judged are not based on opinion, not based on judgement, but on the qualities of the writer themselves.

Before someone can say 'you are a good writer', you must have the qualities for them to say that. Their opinion of you is a response to what you are. the opinion doesn't make you what you are. You make that. Then you know it is such because someone has said 'you are a good writer.' Qualities and opinion are two halves of the same walnut. We have qualities, so we get opinion. We get opinion, we know qualities. But the qualities are the substance that _make _a good writer.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2012)

Cadence said:


> Before someone can say 'you are a good writer', you must have the qualities for them to say that.



So what about the books/authors that so many other writers like to pan? And yet, those books/authors are selling like hotcakes. One group is saying these are bad writers - the buyers are saying they are good. Take any book on the shelf and you will find people who hate it and people who love it and people who just shrug. So is the writer a good writer? _It depends on who you ask_ - and that makes the whole thing a judgement call. Even a story that has never been published but has had betas or others read it - whether the writer is good depends on the _opinion _of those who have read it. Who else can make that determination?


----------



## Cran (Sep 6, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> So what about the books/authors that so many other writers like to pan? And yet, those books/authors are selling like hotcakes. One group is saying these are bad writers - the buyers are saying they are good. Take any book on the shelf and you will find people who hate it and people who love it and people who just shrug. So is the writer a good writer? _It depends on who you ask_ - and that makes the whole thing a judgement call. Even a story that has never been published but has had betas or others read it - whether the writer is good depends on the _opinion _of those who have read it. Who else can make that determination?


I'm going to agree with *Cadence*. 

Your argument is based on equating good with popular. Popular writers can be good, bad, or indifferent at their craft, and people can love, hate, or ignore them (as they do). 

Your argument, and *Olly*'s, is based on the premise that judgment of writing quality is purely subjective and personal. There's nothing subjective about assessing the craft of writing - spelling, grammar, structure, and all those other aspects that fill textbooks and style guides, and not a few of the discussions in this forum. 

Your argument, therefore, is that a writer cannot be a good writer unless someone reads what is written and decides it is so - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, the tree did not make a sound, the cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box, and Pluto did not exist until Clive Tombaugh discovered it in 1931.

So far, none of these arguments have shifted my original view -

Readers make a popular writer.
Mastery of the craft (objective) makes a good writer. 
Combine that with passion for the art (subjective) and you have a great writer,
regardless of who knows about it or when.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 6, 2012)

I think the mark of a good reader is being able to construct a story so well that decades after your death people still read it and recommend it and then scholars laud it and teach it in schools and NOPE IT'S ACTUALLY JUST PRACTICE.

Practice makes a good writer.
Someone says they're a writer. You ask them, okay, how many times do you take time off to write in a week?

If they say "maybe one or two times, try to get a thousand words in I guess" then it's highly likely they're a good writer if they've been doing it for a while.

If they say "well I mean I write in, I guess short bursts? every now and then, but I'm _really into it_ when I do it" or something along those lines, they probably don't have enough practice yet. Doesn't mean they're not a good writer, though, just that you're going to want to read the first guy's stories if you have a choice.

If they say "ELEVEN TIMES A WEEK" then you have a psycho on your hands and you need to take out the pepper spray.

EDIT: I write about 2-4 times a week, but in tiny increments of about half an hour, and I've only been keeping that schedule off-and-on for about two months. I don't consider myself to be a good writer yet. I need more practice.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 6, 2012)

> No, you're right. We should just discuss this meaninglessly and get to the same kind of nowhere we began with.


I am right, there may or may not be a useful answer to the question, regardless of who defines the utility.

You appear to be tying youself in a bit of a knot, the qualities within count for very little, if they did a person would be a good writer when they had written nothing, obviously ludicrous, it is on the writing that the judgement is made, and it is a judgement, one person's good writer is another's chick lit. trash, or out dated verbose Victorian drama, there is nothing that everyone agrees is good writing and no-one that all agrre is a good writer.

If you wish to pose the question more meaningfully try "What are the qualities that, in your judgement, make a good writer?" A good writer is not an objective thing, it is a subjective judgement. The same goes for the qualities that might causes people to describe them as such, they are the qualities percieved by the reader.



> I'm not talking about judgement. I'm talking about the things that cause the judgement - things to be judged. Qualities.


Saying I am talking about qualities needed to get people to make judgements in their favour is still talking about judgements, you have merely obscured that.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 6, 2012)

^You're hardly understanding what I'm saying, so I'm hardly going to reply any more. I need to do some writing, anyway. My new undead demon-slaying superhero needs some attention, or he'll have one of his outbursts at me again.

I think I've found the best answer to the question of this thread:

Who cares?


----------



## dale (Sep 6, 2012)

as far as creative fiction...the ability to transcend others into the world you've lost yourself in writing it.
if you can take them to relatively the same place you were in your mind when writing your piece, you're a good writer.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2012)

Cran said:


> Your argument is based on equating good with popular. Popular writers can be good, bad, or indifferent at their craft, and people can love, hate, or ignore them (as they do).
> 
> Your argument, and *Olly*'s, is based on the premise that judgment of writing quality is purely subjective and personal. There's nothing subjective about assessing the craft of writing - spelling, grammar, structure, and all those other aspects that fill textbooks and style guides, and not a few of the discussions in this forum.



I've seen writers who have grammar, spelling, structure, etc down to a "T". And their writing is about as interesting as a piece of lint. If you are saying they are "technically" a good writer, then I would have to agree with you. But people don't read just technically good books. They want more than that, and it's the more that makes a "good writer" versus a good "craftsman". If that means equating good with popular, why not? Who are we to say that readers don't know what good is? Unless, of course, we're of the view that readers are generally dumb sheep and wouldn't know a good writer from a fly on the wall...


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 6, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> I think the mark of a good reader is being able to construct a story so well that decades after your death people still read it and recommend it and then scholars laud it and teach it in schools and NOPE IT'S ACTUALLY JUST PRACTICE.
> 
> Practice makes a good writer.
> Someone says they're a writer. You ask them, okay, how many times do you take time off to write in a week?
> ...



All you have there is supposed correlation.  If I somehow wrote 1000 words per week when I was in third grade, a year later all I'd have is garbage.  You know why? Because no one wants to read what a third grader has to write.  And let's face it, there are some people who have the writing skills of a third grader.

Because of that, the mark of a good writer truly is how well their work is received.  Some people can write well out of the gate.  Some people can write well with practice.  Some people can't write well at all.  Since that's the case, why should practice define how good of a writer someone is? The best you can say is, "This person writes a lot, so she should PROBABLY be a good writer."


----------



## Sam (Sep 6, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I've seen writers who have grammar, spelling, structure, etc down to a "T". And their writing is about as interesting as a piece of lint. If you are saying they are "technically" a good writer, then I would have to agree with you. But people don't read just technically good books. They want more than that, and it's the more that makes a "good writer" versus a good "craftsman". If that means equating good with popular, why not? Who are we to say that readers don't know what good is? Unless, of course, we're of the view that readers are generally dumb sheep and wouldn't know a good writer from a fly on the wall...



My sentiments exactly. 

Having sentence structure, grammar, and spelling down to a T makes you a good/great writer. Being able, however, to craft a story that someone can't put down because of sheer enjoyment, that makes you a weaver of good yarns, or a good/great storyteller. Sometimes the two are married to create an exceptional author. 

But have you ever heard someone say, after reading the instruction manual for a Bosch dishwasher, that the writing had them on tenterhooks? Of course you didn't. That's not to say the writing wasn't technically sound, because it was. It's just different. Different style, different voice, different objective. Instructional writing is meant to convey the proper use of a piece of equipment, with the least amount of confusion possible. Academic writing is meant to convey an answer to a posed question, by postulating with arguments and counter-arguments. 

But creative writing is a world onto its own. It's designed to take a reader away from the real world for a couple of hours, to entertain them like nothing else can, and to give them a character or objective to root for. You can have your sentences perfect, your grammar faultless, and your spelling flawless; none of it matters if the story doesn't entertain the reader. That's the difference between a great writer and a great storyteller. Anyone can be a great writer. All it takes practice and a will to improve. But you can't teach creativity; you can't teach imagination; and those two are the hallmarks of great storytellers.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 6, 2012)

By definition, a writer is a person who writes.

So, I think, as long as someone is writing, that makes them a good writer. Even if its total third-grader paff. As long as they are writing, they are practicing and going somewhere with it all.

Good writing is different to being a good writer. To be a good writer, just write. A bad writer doesn't write much, or at all. They complain of 'writer's block' and other things. A good wrtier writes.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 6, 2012)

> *​Sam W: *Academic writing is meant to convey an answer to a posed question, by postulating with arguments and counter-arguments.



This is really field-dependent. It's true that academic writing has a different style and is constructed around an argument, is trying to say something specific, but there are some amazingly creative academic writers out there, too, at least in my lit field. Look at Derrida or Barthes, or Sontag, or Agamben. 

I'm not that sold that a novel should be escapist entertainment that makes you forget your life, either, to be honest. I like a novel to make me think and feel reality differently (like Kyle said, I guess), not obscure reality. I don't want to get lost, I don't want to forget myself - I want to think about the text and how I interact with it, what it says to me and how. That's what reading is to me.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 6, 2012)

Cadence said:


> By definition, a writer is a person who writes.
> 
> So, I think, as long as someone is writing, that makes them a good writer. Even if its total third-grader paff. As long as they are writing, they are practicing and going somewhere with it all.



If I weighed 400 pounds, it wouldn't matter how many times I went along a 100m track.  I would still be an awful, awful sprinter.

Why would you make a this an argument about quantity over quality, anyway? When has "good" ever meant (in discussions like these) "a lot of"?


----------



## Cran (Sep 6, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I've seen writers who have grammar, spelling, structure, etc down to a "T". And their writing is about as interesting as a piece of lint. If you are saying they are "technically" a good writer, then I would have to agree with you.


 Good, that's settled then. 



> But people don't read just technically good books.


Sure they do, not usually for entertainment, but for information and instruction. Welcome to the wider world of non-fiction!



> They want more than that, and it's the more that makes a "good writer" versus a good "craftsman". If that means equating good with popular, why not?


Because writers can be bad and still be popular; enough people are sufficiently perverse to make popular those whom they love to mock, even hate. Because quite often scandal sells more than skill. And because when it comes to broad popularity, the diverse world of writing is once again reduced to little more than storytelling. Nobody else matters because they have to deal with stuff that's as interesting to the majority as a piece of lint. 

If, however, the piece of lint was meant to be entertainment, then the failing is on the other requirement: passion for the art, which as I've indicated before, _is_ purely subjective.  



> Who are we to say that readers don't know what good is?


Who are we to say anything? We are people, too. We are readers. Some of us are writers. Some of us are even editors - that often hated breed who must apply both objective benchmarks and subjective assessments to every piece of good, bad, and indifferent writing that is placed before us. Yes, I am one of those arrogant ones who do say that people in general can be poor judges of quality. Exhibit A: _Reality TV_.


----------



## Tigerbunny (Sep 6, 2012)

I believe the distinction between a good writer and a bad one is the ability to immerse the reader in the story - whether its about fairy dust or the myriad uses of camel dung in a desert community.  Its all about what's of interest to the reader that makes it worthy of reading.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 6, 2012)

> "a lot of"?



I didn't mean that. I just mean that good writers keep writing. they don't have to wrtie a lot. They just keep writing.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2012)

So basically we seem to be looking at:

1) A good technical writer. Objective. Includes nonfiction but is not totally adequate for fiction.

2) A good story teller. Subjective. Strictly fiction.

3) Anyone who keeps writing. Not sure what this means except perhaps that they behave the way a writer is expected to. ???

For #1 and #2, I would still stick with my definition - whoever has the audience. Nonfiction is covered here as well - someone who writes badly will not have an audience (even writers of instruction manuals will lose their job if they do a poor job of explaining things, and thus not have the audience).


----------



## Terry D (Sep 6, 2012)

Jon M said:


> What makes a good writer?



Parents.

Or, did you mean; "What makes a writer good?"


----------



## patskywriter (Sep 6, 2012)

Way back in post #4, I said that the first question to ask was "Who is our intended audience?" I believe that, because the word "good" is so subjective, a good writer can be one who first determines his or her audience and then serves it well.

I'm  a journalist and I really enjoy the process: doing the research,  interviewing people, crafting the story, etc etc. I do this on a  consistent basis and have lots of readers, even apparently in the  Philippines! I work hard at what I do and believe that I'm a fairly effective writer. I dispense information, people read it, and when they pass it around or act on it, then I know I'm achieving my goal.

My sister, on the other hand, is a _fabulous_ writer, at least in my opinion.  But she rarely writes. Every blue moon an occasion will come along where  she'll write something. Earlier this year, she wrote a satirical piece  for her college alumni magazine. She wrote a _wonderful_ article in the  voice of Shakespeare off the top of her head, without needing to do any  research whatsoever. Through the years I've tried to prod her to do more  with her talent; she has a fertile imagination and could write circles  around _any_ writer *if* she had the desire. 

So who's a "good" writer—someone  with innate talent but who decides to ignore it, or  someone who writes plainly but who at least gets what she puts out in  front of a large number of readers on a consistent basis? Technically speaking, I'd consider my sister, who's wildly creative, has a larger vocabulary, and the ability to weave a world out of words, the _better_ writer _skillwise_. But if I follow my own definition, I'd say that I'm also a good writer because, even though I'm straightforward and plain, I still serve my audience well and my readers look forward to reading my stuff every month.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 6, 2012)

Jon Dough forged cheques, his forgeries were so good that the signatories often couldn’t tell if that really was their signature or not, he was a good writer.
Due to an unrelated event Jon was caught and sent to prison, he was a bad writer.
Whilst in prison he spent his entire waking hours working on his auto biography; he was a good writer.
Unfortunately, like so many of the criminal community, he had paid no attention at school, his grammar and spelling were atrocious, he was a bad writer.

However he did have a keen eye, a knack for telling a tale and a life story that was interesting enough to transcend these shortcomings, and even make them appear stylistically superior in their appropriateness to the content, he was a good writer.

As he was leaving prison a vindictive guard took all his work and destroyed it, Jon had an identity crisis, he had served his debt to society, he could think of himself as a good writer, he had written an exceptional book, another reason to think of himself as a good writer, but with all his work destroyed, was he a writer at all?

Depressed he forged a cheque to buy booze, he had not lost the knack; he was a good writer.
But the police were not fooled, having arrested him previously they knew just who to look for and quickly caught him, he was so drunk he could barely hold the pen to sign the charge sheet and scrawled his name, he was a bad writer.

Back in prison he re-created his manuscript and passed it to the prison chaplain who got it published for him, he was a good writer.

When he got out he found he had a fortune in royalties and proceeded to indulge in drink, drugs and loose women, he was a bad writer.

When word of this looked like getting out in the News of the Globe and killing his book sales he bribed a corrupt journalist to suppress the story, so, by those who did not know him other than through his writing, he was still judged a good writer.

Hmmm, would that make good and bad subjective judgements? Was Jon a schizophrenic? Was he judged on objective or subjective criteria? Or both? And which of these were valid judgements?  Please do not attempt to answer these questions for me.


----------



## patskywriter (Sep 6, 2012)

Well done, Olly. *Well. Done.*  :applause:


----------



## Bilston Blue (Sep 7, 2012)

> What makes a good writer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Parents?

If parents was the answer, the question would be WHO makes a good writer? I'm not sure if that makes you a bad writer or a bad reader, Terry. irate:

How about posing the question, Who makes a writer good?


​*ducks and runs for cover*


----------



## Cran (Sep 7, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> So basically we seem to be looking at:
> 
> 1) A good technical writer. Objective. Includes nonfiction but is not totally adequate for fiction.
> 
> ...


Perhaps - but the opening question was *What makes a good writer?* -
The steering (I won't call it hijacking) into _what makes a good storyteller_ was someone else's idea, supported by those who know better but chose to continue that line. 



> For #1 and #2, I would still stick with my definition - whoever has the audience. Nonfiction is covered here as well - someone who writes badly will not have an audience (even writers of instruction manuals will lose their job if they do a poor job of explaining things, and thus not have the audience).


Well, if you want to define what makes a good writer by the consequences of what happens to poor writers, so be it. That argument falls over the minute a poor writer self-publishes and gains an audience - how many is an audience, by the way? If you want to make it a numbers game, then good marketing makes a good writer.


----------



## coolomi (Sep 7, 2012)

Jon M said:


> Here's a dumb question. Let's argue about it:
> 
> What makes a good writer?



Some creative ideas and techniques of writing make you the good writer. You must be tricky some time to attract you audience.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 7, 2012)

Cran said:


> Well, if you want to define what makes a good writer by the consequences of what happens to poor writers, so be it.



I'm not defining good by what happens to bad. I'm defining good and including the "antonym", just as dictionaries do. 



Cran said:


> That argument falls over the minute a poor writer self-publishes and gains an audience - how many is an audience, by the way? If you want to make it a numbers game, then good marketing makes a good writer.



Good marketing _might _make a temporarily good writer under that convolution. But just like a lousy pianist might start out with a hall full of listeners, if they all leave during the concert, he no longer has an audience. So it's not a numbers game as much as a time game. Which also addresses those artists who were ignored/berated during their lifetimes but are now recognized as being great.

Good writers will, over time, gain an audience and keep that audience. Bad writers won't. And I think that goes for fiction and nonfiction, trade and self-published.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 7, 2012)

I really need more of these dumb questions. They're great for forums...


----------



## patskywriter (Sep 7, 2012)

I actually think that a bad writer can sustain a readership. We don't all read for the same reasons, and some people might find bad writing quite delicious when they're in the mood to read it. I'm a part-time deejay. Although I play lots of great songs, I sometimes drop in a really bad song (by "artists" like Mrs Miller or Walter Wanderley). At first I get puzzled looks, followed by grins. 

If the reader has a certain type of humor, he or she might be delighted by occasional bad writing. Not everyone has that outlook; I think it really depends on the individual.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 7, 2012)

patskywriter said:


> I actually think that a bad writer can sustain a readership.



But they aren't really sustaining a readership as much as maintaining their position as the butt of jokes.


----------



## patskywriter (Sep 7, 2012)

One day I was visiting a local bookstore and having a conversation with the owner. A woman entered the store and the owner called out, "We don't have that book!" The woman looked puzzled, and I was puzzled as well. She hesitatingly asked, "Do you have [name of book]?"

The owner said, "No, ma'am, we don't carry that book." The woman turned around and walked out, still looking confused. I asked the owner why he was so rude to that prospective customer, and he explained that he could tell at a glance who likes to read trashy books. He had great pride in the fact that he only carried well-written, sophisticated books for serious readers. I told him that reading should be encouraged and that he was wrong to be so judgmental and arrogant—although I could see that he'd think he was "selling out" if he carried "lesser" books. We went back and forth for a while, but he stood his ground and insisted that he knew what's best for the people in his community.

That bookstore closed a couple of years ago, and it was quite a loss. It had been the gathering place for many forward-thinking people in the neighborhood—people are still lamenting its demise. I still wonder whether the owner could have found some type of compromise. I really don't know what to think. I suppose that many writers would agree with the owner, but I wonder if the exclusive nature of the shop (and the owner's attitude) led to its unfortunate closing.


----------



## patskywriter (Sep 7, 2012)

patskywriter said:


> I actually think that a bad writer can sustain a readership. …





shadowwalker said:


> But they aren't really sustaining a readership as much as maintaining their position as the butt of jokes.



No, I really think that some people can enjoy and seek out what "we" might call bad writing. We don't all share the same standards. We writers might smirk and roll our eyes at the "bad" ones, but some people are finding pleasure in their work. Some readers might enjoy an occasional wallow in a poorly written book, and I'd say that they're "getting the joke"—but others might not know any better and believe, however wrongly, that they're reading something really good.

Even I like to listen to Walter Wanderley for pleasure. His music is really corny (some say it's horrible), but I find it endearing and cute in small doses. Sometimes I feel that taking in an occasional bad book or song can make one appreciate the good stuff even more (not that everyone *has* to do so).   :highly_amused:


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 7, 2012)

patskywriter said:


> No, I really think that some people can enjoy and seek out what "we" might call bad writing



Oh, I thought you were talking about bad books that people sought out strictly for a laugh. But certainly (and I think that's part of this whole discussion) what constitutes 'bad writing' is subjective. I've read and highly enjoyed books that professional critiques have burned in effigy.


----------



## garza (Sep 7, 2012)

Olly pegged it once and for all so far as good and bad. The classification scheme presentedby shadowwalker is also a good way of looking at the question. 

I'm glad I saw the other responses before I answered because my first thought was, 'Anyone who can type or has a legible handwriting.'


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 7, 2012)

Also key to note: "What makes a good writer?" is a different question from "What defines good writing?"

The way I see it, you can produce bad writing and still be a good writer--if you consider that the definition of a good writer is not only defined by the quality of the work he or she produces.

A good writer could be a person with good writing _habits_, persistence, a willingness to learn and improve, et cetera. This person may lack good writing _ability_, but if they work diligently at their craft, they still fall into the "good writer" category, in my opinion.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 7, 2012)

> Also key to note: "What makes a good writer?" is a different question from "What defines good writing?"
> 
> The way I see it, you can produce bad writing and still be a good  writer--if you consider that the definition of a good writer is not only  defined by the quality of the work he or she produces.
> 
> A good writer could be a person with good writing _habits_, persistence, a willingness to learn and improve, et cetera. This person may lack good writing _ability_, but if they work diligently at their craft, they still fall into the "good writer" category, in my opinion.



I completely agree.


----------



## squidtender (Sep 7, 2012)

A good writer is someone who can keep me up late at night because I can't put it down. They can make me forget the miserable day that I just had, or make me wish for a rainy day so I can stay inside and curl up on the couch with their book. They craft a character so well that I feel I know him or her, and years later can still be able to tell you everything about them. They create a world so real I can smell the campfires in the woods, or see the sunrise on a distant planet. They make me believe that heroes still exist, true love is possible and monsters really do live in my closet.


----------



## Cran (Sep 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> So it's not a numbers game as much as a time game. Which also addresses those artists who were ignored/berated during their lifetimes but are now recognized as being great.
> 
> Good writers will, over time, gain an audience and keep that audience.


Ah, now we're getting closer. 
So, is the good writer good only after that audience is gained and kept? 
Or is the audience gained and kept because the writer (or writing) was good?


----------



## Cran (Sep 8, 2012)

garza said:


> Olly pegged it once and for all so far as good and bad.


 Rubbish. *Olly* got it half right; the rest was having fun with definitions of the catch-all words _good_ and _bad_. Due to his request, addressing the post itself would be a waste of time; making it an amusing comment from the gallery. 



> The classification scheme presented by shadowwalker is also a good way of looking at the question.


 Yes, it is. 



> I'm glad I saw the other responses before I answered because my first thought was, 'Anyone who can type or has a legible handwriting.'


Well, even that is a valid, if limited, answer to the opening question.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 8, 2012)

Cran said:


> Ah, now we're getting closer.
> So, is the good writer good only after that audience is gained and kept?
> Or is the audience gained and kept because the writer (or writing) was good?



A bit of the chicken or the egg, I think. A good writer will gain an audience and keep it - thus verifying that s/he is, indeed, a good writer. On the other hand, an audience will find and keep reading an author, thus making the determination that the author is, indeed, good. :lol:


----------



## Jeko (Sep 8, 2012)

> So, is the good writer good only after that audience is gained and kept?
> Or is the audience gained and kept because the writer (or writing) was good?



I've been arguing the latter. 'Good' is dictated by opinion, but originated by qualities.

Good is formed by both dictation and origination. It's the origination that _makes _it good.


----------



## Bachelorette (Sep 8, 2012)

I'm just going to throw this out there as part of the "Does having a large audience, a following, make one a good writer?" argument.

Let's say after Emily Dickinson's death, a rather narrow-minded and unimaginative relative found all the poem packets she had in her desk, read through some of them, and thought, "Good lord, this is _rubbish_." And burned them all so that Emily's terrible, terrible poetry wouldn't shame the family or Emily's memory.

Does that mean, then, that Emily was a bad writer? Because her audience of one - the relative - deemed her poetry to be rubbish, does that mean it was? If that did happen, the majority of people who could only base what they knew of Emily's writing on the four poems she had published during her lifetime, and on the opinion of the relative, would likely say that Emily was a poor writer, or at best, a mediocre one. 

Which brings me to another question: why, then, did Emily write? If she only had four poems published in her lifetime, could it be that she wrote for the sheer joy of it? Did she "know" that after her death, her poetry would be revered, and so she kept writing for that reason alone? Of course not.Perhaps she entertained the hope that it would happen, but she did not know for a certainty that it would. Does that make her a bad writer?

A large audience, a following, is simply not a prerequisite to being a good writer. Sylvia Plath, before she killed herself, knew that the Ariel poems she was writing would "make her name." Granted, she had been published before. But it was equally likely that critics and readers would have panned "Ariel." She was no seer. She died before she saw the book published. Does that mean that Sylvia's own opinion of her poetry, that it was brilliant, meant nothing?

What I'm trying to say is this: an undiscovered writer, toiling away in anonymity, writing for the sheer joy of it, or because she is compelled to by inner forces she herself doesn't understand, who has zero desire for the possibly of fame or fortune, who shudders at the idea of traveling the country to attend press conferences and book signings to promote her work, who doesn't have the kind of assertive personality needed to get a book published by traditional means... does that automatically make her a bad writer?

Again, I grant that such a scenario may be a rare one. Most writers want to be published. They want the money and the success so they can keep doing what they love. They want to share what they've written with as big an audience as possible. But there exists a small minority of people who don't care for that sort of thing. Maybe a wife whose husband makes enough so that she doesn't need to earn a living. Maybe a blue-collar worker who enjoys construction and would never give it up, but in his free time writes soul-searing experimental love sonnets he's too embarrassed to show to anyone. Maybe a lot of things. Their lack of a large audience does not dictate whether or not they are good writers.

I've talked way too much already, I know, but let's take it just one step further, and compare writers to musicians. Can a person be a good musician without having a large audience, a following? I think of Nick Drake. He suffered from extreme stage fright and could not go on tour, so during his short lifetime he sold very few records. Now let's say he had never recorded any of his songs professionally, so that only a few people, probably friends and family, ever heard his songs. Would that make them any less brilliant? He's regarded as a genius now, after all. But if circumstances had contrived to keep him from ever finding a wider audience, does that automatically revoke his genius-license? I think not.

But, you know. IMO and all that.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 8, 2012)

When I say a good writer has an audience, I'm basically saying that without one, without some outside source looking at the writing, the only one who can say someone is a good writer is the writer him/herself - and that really isn't a reliable source. Once one has that outside source, you have an audience - if it grows or maintains itself states (pretty clearly IMO) that the writer is good. If the audience dwindles and dies - not a good writer. It's like anything else - what people consider good, they will buy and buy more of. What they consider bad, they may try once but never again.


----------



## Bachelorette (Sep 8, 2012)

I'll grant that many writers - myself included - are not the best judges of their own work. And I do see your point. However...



> If the audience dwindles and dies - not a good writer.



Why, though? Maybe the writer simply changed his style or her subject matter, and lost an audience that was expecting more of the same? Audiences are fickle - and not all of them are very good judges of what is "good". That doesn't make them unintelligent, I should add, but they may be ignorant because of not having been exposed to quality writing, or not knowing what to look for. Or, they may know that what they like is crap, and not care. So does that mean a writer who writes crap but has an audience who doesn't mind reading crap is "good"?

I guess, going back to my first example, you could argue that, if the writer is "good", he or she will gain a new audience that appreciates the new style or subject matter. But what if the new audience he gains is smaller than his first audience? Does that make him LESS of a good writer? I don't think it does.


----------



## Cran (Sep 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> A bit of the chicken or the egg, I think. A good writer will gain an audience and keep it - thus verifying that s/he is, indeed, a good writer. On the other hand, an audience will find and keep reading an author, thus making the determination that the author is, indeed, good. :lol:


No; more of the cart and the horse, or if you prefer - cause and effect. The effect (gaining an audience) is not the cause (what makes a good writer). 

Something to consider: whether or not a writer is _known_ to be a good writer will _always_ happen after the fact; how long after the fact is immaterial. The argument that a writer is good only after the writing is known is to say that the cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box and looks, after which it will only be one or the other.

Retrospective verification is only that; it doesn't make a good writer, it only confirms it. 

If a tree falls in the forest, it will make a noise; someone hearing that noise only confirms it. Hearing the noise did not make the tree fall.


----------



## squidtender (Sep 8, 2012)

Cran said:


> that the cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box and looks, after which it will only be one or the other.



Strange. . . not even noon and that's the second Schrodinger's cat reference I've heard today


----------



## Cran (Sep 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> If the audience dwindles and dies - not a good writer. It's like anything else - what people consider good, they will buy and buy more of. What they consider bad, they may try once but never again.



I see. So Homer, Pliny, Burns, Dickens, Wells, Wyndham, et al are not good writers because their audiences have dwindled and died. For Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, sales have dropped off lately, so they are not good composers. 

But McDonalds is good food.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 8, 2012)

Cran said:


> I see. So Homer, Pliny, Burns, Dickens, Wells, Wyndham, et al are not good writers because their audiences have dwindled and died. For Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, sales have dropped off lately, so they are not good composers.
> 
> But McDonalds is good food.



Look at the example I gave - the pianist who started out with the full house but they left. It wasn't because the pianist quit playing - it was because he was a lousy pianist.

And yes - McDonalds is good food because it serves the purpose for which it was made - fast and convenient food for people in a hurry.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 9, 2012)

I think the OP nailed it. It's a dumb question.


----------



## Cran (Sep 9, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Look at the example I gave - the pianist who started out with the full house but they left. It wasn't because the pianist quit playing - it was because he was a lousy pianist.
> 
> And yes - McDonalds is good food because it serves the purpose for which it was made - fast and convenient food for people in a hurry.


Sure, and even if he was a great pianist, the people would still leave the hall when the concert or recital ended. So, again, in your stated position, he is no longer a good pianist. 

And you dodge the other examples, why?
Your words - _If the audience dwindles and dies - not a good writer._ _It's like anything else._

McDonalds is crap, by the way - people don't buy it because it's good; they buy it because it's there. Their market share falls wherever a competing product is introduced, so what does that mean - not good anymore?

And you still have not addressed your ongoing contention - the circular logic fallacy - that *the effect is the cause*.


----------



## Cran (Sep 9, 2012)

JosephB said:


> I think the OP nailed it. It's a dumb question.



Not at all. A simple question; a common question, yes, but one which never fails to bring out a multitude of both general and limited viewpoints.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 9, 2012)

A writer publishes a book. People buy it. People keep buying it. They buy his/her next book. They keep buying it.

This is a good writer.

A writer publishes a book. A few people buy. Nobody else does. The next book comes out. Nobody buys it.

This is not a good writer.

A writer writes a book and never shows it to anyone. 

No one will ever know if this writer is good or not.

Seems pretty simple to me.

But yeah - the OP definitely nailed it.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 9, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> A writer publishes a book. People buy it. People keep buying it. They buy his/her next book. They keep buying it.
> 
> This is a good writer.
> 
> ...


But you're not really answering the question in the OP. You're saying how you determine that a writer is good (and identifying one metric: sales). This doesn't say anything about the act of writing itself - what was it about the person producing the work that made it good? Or what about his/her writing process made the work good? You'll answer that we can't know that, and that it's all subjective, but subjective knowledge still counts for something, and certainty isn't necessary.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 9, 2012)

lasm said:


> This doesn't say anything about the act of writing itself - what was it about the person producing the work that made it good? Or what about his/her writing process made the work good? You'll answer that we can't know that, and that it's all subjective, but subjective knowledge still counts for something, and certainty isn't necessary.



Do you think you can become a better writer by knowing something about the writer or how they work? In other words, what exactly is the practical application of that "subjective knowledge?"


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 9, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Do you think you can become a better writer by knowing something about the writer or how they work? In other words, what exactly is the practical application of that "subjective knowledge?"


Didn't realize we were looking for something with a practical application. That said, yes, I think that considering how a good writer works might conceivably help a person improve their own product by providing some basis for comparison and self-reflection. And there are enough threads on this board about variations of the writing process to serve as evidence that people think it's a useful topic for discussion.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 9, 2012)

lasm said:


> But you're not really answering the question in the OP. You're saying how you determine that a writer is good (and identifying one metric: sales). This doesn't say anything about the act of writing itself - what was it about the person producing the work that made it good? Or what about his/her writing process made the work good? You'll answer that we can't know that, and that it's all subjective, but subjective knowledge still counts for something, and certainty isn't necessary.



Well, first, I think I did answer the question. Several times. Second, knowing what that 'something' was about the author that made their work good will not necessarily apply to other writers, or be of any real value. How does one determine what it _really _was about the author that made their work good in the first place? And their writing process may be the worst process for another writer. Or their writing may have turned out good _despite _the way they wrote it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 9, 2012)

lasm has a good point shadowwalker, one last attempt to address the initial question then, though it is ambiguously phrased. I shall take it as meaning what is it about the man and his writing in the present that makes the writing good, rather than what were the processes and events that lead to this position.

The ability to express him/herself in a way that conveys the concepts he has, clearly, and to a wide audience.

The ability to express themselves in an original manner that remains attractive and readable.

The ability to take into account the mindset of the reader.

The recognition of the imperfection of language and avoidance of attempts to over polish and refine it which lead to absurdities and abuse.

Writing to the purpouse without lazy filling, that is using the right words to express meaning without any superfluity.

Using words and phraseology familiar to the reader, this is a variation on Mark Twains warning against using ten cent words when five cent ones will do.

Choosing the _mot juste_, precision avoids ambiguity.

Controlling words such as justice, liberty, democracy, or glory which are useful but inclined to multiple interpretation and confusion.

Correctness, 'if language is not correct what is said is not what is meant', Confucius said that, this means good grammar and punctuation

To sum up, words convey thought, the writer translates his thought into words, the reader translates those words back into thought, the closer the relationship between the original thought and the ultimate one the better the writer in one sense. If this can also be done in a manner that makes the text attractive to the reader the writer is also achieving excellence in another sense, but both qualities are necessary to be a really good writer.


----------



## Cran (Sep 9, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Well, first, I think I did answer the question. Several times.


No; mostly you rephrased your fallacy of circular logic several times, and admitted the odd grudging concession. 



> Second, knowing what that 'something' was about the author that made their work good will not necessarily apply to other writers, or be of any real value. How does one determine what it _really _was about the author that made their work good in the first place? And their writing process may be the worst process for another writer. Or their writing may have turned out good _despite _the way they wrote it.


Few others have had so much trouble pointing to general principles. 
How about something like a good writer knows what words are? 
A good writer will use words that the writer understands? 
A good writer can put words together in a way that a reader will appreciate? 
Even, a good writer can read?


----------



## Cran (Sep 9, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Do you think you can become a better writer by knowing something about the writer or how they work?


No, but I believe I can be a good writer by knowing as much I need to about writing. And I believe I can become a better writer by developing my craft and building on my passion for the art.  

That's the point - it doesn't matter who is or isn't a good writer in anyone's opinion or whether anyone else knows; that is not the question that was asked here. That question is somewhere else in the forum; something about _Published Writers_ is my guess. 



> In other words, what exactly is the practical application of that "subjective knowledge?"


It's irrelevant.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 9, 2012)

Cran said:


> No; mostly you rephrased your fallacy of circular logic several times, and admitted the odd grudging concession.



Well, you call it a fallacy because you disagree. So be it. It's all just opinion anyway, regardless of who says what or how.


----------



## Cran (Sep 9, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Well, you call it a fallacy because you disagree. So be it. It's all just opinion anyway, regardless of who says what or how.


It's a widely-held opinion with a long history.


> *Circular reasoning* (also known as *paradoxical thinking* or *circular logic*), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".[SUP][1][/SUP] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid  because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will  not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because,  if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be  doubted.[SUP][2][/SUP]


-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

In the case you posit: 
Q. what makes a good writer? A. Sales. 
Q. How do I make sales? A. Be a good writer. 
Q. But how do I get to be a good writer? A. Make sales. 

There are only so many ways that someone can point out *the effect is not the cause*.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 9, 2012)

Cran said:


> It's a widely-held opinion with a long history.
> -Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the case you posit:
> ...



But I didn't say that. I said getting sales determines who is a good writer. How do you make sales? You put out a book and people decide they like what you've written. _They _decide you are a good writer. So the answer to your question #2 - get your book out where people can find it and hope they like it.

Anyway, I've explained my position more than enough times, to the point where this whole discussion is circular. Each of us has our own opinion of what makes a good writer - but that's all they are. Opinions.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 9, 2012)

I see two arguments going on here, which might explain the lack of agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I'm getting:


Shadowwalker is talking about how to _identify_ a good writer--through her sales and public success.


Cran is disagreeing because he's searching for the answer of what _creates_ a good writer--similar to asking, "What ingredients go into making this dish, _before_ it is put to the fire?"


----------



## Kryptex (Sep 9, 2012)

In my opinion, anyone that thinks whatever they write is complete rubbish is good. If a writer thinks the world of their works, it's likely they are in reality, not very good.

Experience comes into play, as does connections, sources & knowledge. If you have experience, you detail it well. If you have connections, you can bring something new to the work that not everyone knows. If you have sources, you can (partially) verify your work for others to see. And if you have knowledge, well, let's just say it's much, MUCH easier to picture what you want, then write it, and then view how others perceive it - which is incredibly important when it comes to writing.

Personally, I've not been writing long, but I've learnt that your opinion is worthless. If you read it from another persons view, you're more likely to improve. If you base it on your own opinions, you will go back and forth more times than a traffic light.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Sep 9, 2012)

> this whole discussion is circular. Each of us has our own opinion of what makes a good writer - but that's all they are. Opinions.



This is the only really true thing that anyone on this thread has said, including me.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 9, 2012)

> This is the only really true thing that anyone on this thread has said, including me.



Including that?

Hmm...


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Sep 9, 2012)

Cadence said:


> Including that?
> 
> Hmm...



I should have said 'including my post on this thread, the one where I gave my opinion on the question'.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 9, 2012)

Cran said:


> That's the point - it doesn't matter who is or isn't a good writer in anyone's opinion or whether anyone else knows; that is not the question that was asked here. That question is somewhere else in the forum; something about _Published Writers_ is my guess.



If it doesn't matter, then why bother asking the question in the first place?


----------



## Jon M (Sep 9, 2012)

JosephB said:


> If it doesn't matter, then why bother asking the question in the first place?


To start fires. :devilish:


----------



## Cran (Sep 9, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I see two arguments going on here, which might explain the lack of agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I'm getting:
> Shadowwalker is talking about how to _identify_ a good writer--through her sales and public success.
> Cran is disagreeing because he's searching for the answer of what _creates_ a good writer--similar to asking, "What ingredients go into making this dish, _before_ it is put to the fire?"


That's right - the OP question is *what makes a good writer?* 

The question *Who is a good writer?* is somewhere else on this forum, 
and those who are hung up on that aspect are welcome to continue there. 
If grasping the distinction is too hard for anyone, 
perhaps a refresher course in word comprehension?


----------



## JosephB (Sep 9, 2012)

lasm said:


> Didn't realize we were looking for something with a practical application. That said, yes, I think that considering how a good writer works might conceivably help a person improve their own product by providing some basis for comparison and self-reflection.



Conceivably. If you’re talking about a specific writer and his work. Not likely if it’s just the kind of amazingly vague, general stuff we’re seeing in this thread.



lasm said:


> And there are enough threads on this board about variations of the writing process to serve as evidence that people think it's a useful topic for discussion.



Looking at most of them, I'd say very few are all that useful. They're mostly about people looking for formulas and easy answers to problems that are most often solved with practice and by trial and error.


----------



## Cran (Sep 9, 2012)

JosephB said:


> If it doesn't matter, then why bother asking the question in the first place?



Well, that's something only you or *shadowwalker* can answer; 
I couldn't care less why you ask or answer that question in this thread.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 9, 2012)

I'm going to lose a lot of sleep over that.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 9, 2012)

Cran said:


> If grasping the distinction is too hard for anyone,
> perhaps a refresher course in word comprehension?



Or maybe some people just need to chill... Just because someone else holds a different opinion doesn't mean they don't get it. It means they have a different opinion.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 9, 2012)

I'm more with Homer Simpson on this one -- just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.


----------



## Cran (Sep 9, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Or maybe some people just need to chill... Just because someone else holds a different opinion doesn't mean they don't get it. It means they have a different opinion.


We don't have a different opinion - my opinion on _who decides if a writer is good?_ is the same as yours.

But, that is _not_ the question asked by the OP. It never was the question, and answering the _who decides_ question doesn't answer the original question. _Who decides_ was introduced by another poster in a reply, effectively hijacking the thread. 

*JosephB*, I have no problem likening you to Homer Simpson, if that is your wish.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 9, 2012)

Yes, that’s my wish, *Cran* -- and given some of the arguments here, I think I’m coming out way ahead. Like the OP said, it’s a dumb question – and I agree. Not sure what that says about someone who’s posted 15 times trying to answer it or clarify what it’s supposed to mean.


----------



## Cran (Sep 10, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Yes, that’s my wish, *Cran* -- and given some of the arguments here, I think I’m coming out way ahead. Like the OP said, it’s a dumb question – and I agree.


And yet, here you are.



> Not sure what that says about someone who’s posted 15 times trying to answer it or clarify what it’s supposed to mean.


It says that someone is willing to try, which is after all one of the reasons the forum is here.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 10, 2012)

Cran said:


> And yet, here you are.



And yet, I wasn’t trying to answer the question or tell anyone else how they should answer it.



Cran said:


> It says that someone is willing to try, which is after all one of the reasons the forum is here.



Trying in and of itself is pointless if there’s nothing of value to be gained from the effort.  But that doesn't seem to stop some people, as we’ve seen here.

Later.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 10, 2012)

If this thread gets to 10 pages, I'm going to cry.

I mean literally: I think it's injustice that such a dumb question (no-one argue, it is a dumb question) would draw so many attention, and the problems of other people on other threads remain to mostly get a dozen or so replies and then fall steadily into the abyss.

Every minute I spend on this thread I lose... I'm going to stop this post now, to preserve the time I have left in my life for something better.

As JosephB said, later.


----------



## Cran (Sep 10, 2012)

Good. Now that those distractions are out of the way, we can wind up back on topic. I fully agree with the following posts - they addressed the original question and provided genuine answers.



Olly Buckle said:


> one last attempt to address the initial question then, though it is ambiguously phrased. I shall take it as meaning what is it about the man and his writing in the present that makes the writing good, rather than what were the processes and events that lead to this position.
> 
> The ability to express him/herself in a way that conveys the concepts he has, clearly, and to a wide audience.
> 
> ...





Tiamat said:


> Depends on the definition of the word.  Literally,  a good writer is one who writes well--who can put words into sentences  and convey thoughts and images through those sentences.  There are a lot  of good writers by that definition.
> 
> Now, if we're talking storytelling, that's a completely different beast.   Just because one is good at writing doesn't mean they're good at  telling stories--building suspense, creating likeable characters, moving  the story forward at the appropriate pace, incorporating themes and  connecting with readers in such a way that they really get their heart  vested in the piece.   There are a lot of good storytellers out there  also.
> 
> A really good writer can do both.  Sadly, there aren't very many of those.





Staff Deployment said:


> Practice.
> 
> It's not a dumb question but it certainly not one that can really be answered sufficiently.





Sam W said:


> ...   Anyone can become a great writer. All it takes is a passion for the  craft, a will to learn and hone your skills, and a pair of eyes to read.
> 
> A great writer need not be a great storyteller, however. There are some  exceptional writers in my degree class (from which I graduate this  Friday). They have a remarkable ability to analyse and interpret  everything, giving thought-provoking answers to questions -- answers I  know for a fact I couldn't begin to write. Yet our marks are invariably  similar. I'm graduating with a first-class honours degree and so are  they. However, ask them to write a 100,000-word novel and it's a whole  new ball-game. There's a difference of day and night between academic  and creative writing. Being a great writer is half the battle, no doubt,  but having a great imagination and being able to write a story that an  ordinary Joe Soap can read and enjoy - that's the art of being a great  storyteller. After all, how many average people will ever read formal  writing (e.g., _The Origin of Species) _for fun?





dale said:


> as far as creative fiction...the ability to  transcend others into the world you've lost yourself in writing it.
> if you can take them to relatively the same place you were in your mind when writing your piece, you're a good writer.





Sam W said:


> My sentiments exactly.
> 
> Having sentence structure, grammar, and spelling down to a T makes you a  good/great writer. Being able, however, to craft a story that someone  can't put down because of sheer enjoyment, that makes you a weaver of  good yarns, or a good/great storyteller. Sometimes the two are married  to create an exceptional author.
> 
> ...





patskywriter said:


> Way back in post #4, I said that the first  question to ask was "Who is our intended audience?" I believe that,  because the word "good" is so subjective, a good writer can be one who  first determines his or her audience and then serves it well.
> 
> I'm  a journalist and I really enjoy the process: doing the research,   interviewing people, crafting the story, etc etc. I do this on a   consistent basis and have lots of readers, even apparently in the   Philippines! I work hard at what I do and believe that I'm a fairly  effective writer. I dispense information, people read it, and when they  pass it around or act on it, then I know I'm achieving my goal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Notquitexena (Sep 11, 2012)

Practice!


----------



## TinyDancer (Sep 12, 2012)

^ and confidence and instinct


----------

