# Quality in Writing



## LeeC (Oct 13, 2014)

Something I've been wrestling with in my mind, with a nod to Terry D's catalyst . This little discussion is intended to involve at least those who have read R. M. Pirsig's first book, specific to writing (through the middle of his first book where he's teaching rhetoric) and not to the whole metaphysics of quality of life he expands on through a second book. 

Some of the thoughts here are relative to the idea of quality of writing as taught in our rote based educational system (authoritarian, didactic teaching), versus what subliminally 'clicks' in an individual's mind (nurturing creative thought). An example might be two writings of the same or similar story, one by a highly educated writer and the other by a self educated writer not as concerned with the intellectual system's rules, both having reader followings. This of course is pertinent to creativity and intuition seemingly coming from nowhere, which we know little about, and to differences between individuals as to how they approach a discipline such as writing.

A compounding issue is how reading has changed with the internet. That with so much more material available to the individual, choices are purportedly made more often by scanning for keywords, whether consciously or unconsciously (see WP post here and google 'keyword scanning reading and the internet age' for further examples). Here I don't want to get into how society as a whole may be seeking more immediate gratification, beyond digital versus the traditional novel.

I'm not putting this up to argue any specific perspective, but rather because I'm interested in the different ways in which a community of writers may think. 

Thank you,
LeeC


----------



## InstituteMan (Oct 13, 2014)

This is a big topic. 

I can't stand authoritarian anything, and that distaste has made a few of my writing efforts fall flat. Sometimes an authoritarian approach is necessary, but I invariably feel better taking an authoritative approach. Even quality authoritarian writing will leave me cold.

I think the Internet has placed a premium on pithy brevity more than anything else. That is a not exactly the equivalent of quality, but it's rapidly becoming a proxy for quality, it seems.

I am eager to se what others think.


----------



## LeeC (Oct 13, 2014)

Thanks IM. I'm just a country boy that's read widely to try and understand affecting issues from all sides. As to this thought, tonight it occurred to me to ask a community of writers with obviously varying approaches, styles, and critiquing perspectives. I have no expectation of any consensus, but rather one of improving my understanding. 

Personally, I've never been a big fan of our educational system, especially later in life seeing it used to credential, shall we say, sub-standard professionals. While working with a large computer corporation in the 60's, I was part of a team that interfaced with Dr. Van Allen (U. of Iowa). Once I asked him if his technical assistant was a doctorate candidate, and he said his assistant only had around a year of college credits, and he didn't believe they had anything to teach him. There's quite a few other stories I could relate, but I don't want to distract this discussion with such. 

The reason I prominently mentioned R. M. Pirsig is because of his direct references to the issues I'm thinking about.


----------



## hvysmker (Oct 13, 2014)

As I wrote in another thread today,  my first experience in writing fiction was with a local professional writer. She owned both a small book store here as well as the three-story building it resided in, paid for by writing formula romance stories.

She offered a few classes on writing for a small fee. Taking them showed both of us that I had a degree of talent.  Anyway, I brought up the idea of taking creative writing classes at a local community college. It was one where she'd once taught such classes.  She advise me NOT to take such classes,  personally believing it would stunt my growth as a writer.  That it was  too stylized, trying to force  students into formal ( is that the word?) writing styles, those of already famous writers.  She said I'd do better by finding my own identity, my own style and  genre.

Charlie


----------



## LeeC (Oct 13, 2014)

*hvysmker*,



hvysmker said:


> She advised me NOT to take such classes, personally believing it would stunt my growth as a writer. That it was too stylized, trying to force students into formal ( is that the word?) writing styles, those of already famous writers. She said I'd do better by finding my own identity, my own style and genre.
> 
> Charlie



So your saying, I think, that even as an a former academic she had the wherewithal to think the formal classes there might be stifling. I can respect that perspective, but know there are some in teaching positions (as in all walks of life) that can come closer to bringing out individual creativity, and attune students to recognizing and achieving quality in their writing, without insisting on all the formal rules and prescriptions. I wondering what their ideas might be. 

Of course I'm too old to go back to school (even if I could find the right place), so I'm thinking more about how to learn to recognize real (not prescribed) quality of writing if I accidentally do some. 

Where your book store owner took a commercial(?) route to writing, I simply want to say something in a way that future generations might find interesting enough to read. One of those old man last hurrah things 

Thank you for adding your thoughts. It looks like she helped you


----------



## hvysmker (Oct 14, 2014)

I  know what you mean, LeeC.   Later, I took into account that she'd once taught that class at that particular community college and quit.  Probably because of the administration's rules, I'd think.  Also, there's the fact that she was working with formula romance.  I don't think I'd like such a job, even though it paid good.  She might have been jaded about the job. I imagine formula writing would be boring after awhile.  All conjecture, of course.

In any case, I learned grammar and then turned to these sites, eventually gaining a measure of expertise.  The more you write and the more attention you spend listening to critiques, the better you get.  That's a truism.

Charlie


----------



## Sam (Oct 14, 2014)

I'm highly educated, but I come from a background of self-education where writing is concerned. Everything I learned about the written word, I taught myself through constant reading and writing. But the spark doesn't come from being educated either way. It comes from being creative. A highly educated person will not automatically be creative, because creativity in academia is almost taboo. It's not nurtured and it's not encouraged. Academia has strict rules on structure, language, format, layout, etcetera. It's difficult to come away from that and write a compelling story that isn't stiff and stilted with those rules in mind, but it is possible. However, the self-educated person will be free of those shackles from day one. For that reason, my money is on them to write the better story. 

There are some hybrids (freaks, if you must) who can do both. I happen to be one of them. I had a first across the board in my English literature degree, and I am a traditionally published author, but as I said above: I taught myself the language before I ever set foot in a classroom.


----------



## InstituteMan (Oct 14, 2014)

Sam said:


> But the spark doesn't come from being educated either way. It comes from being creative. A highly educated person will not automatically be creative, because creativity in academia is almost taboo. It's not nurtured and it's not encouraged. Academia has strict rules on structure, language, format, layout, etcetera. It's difficult to come away from that and write a compelling story that isn't stiff and stilted with those rules in mind, but it is possible. However, the self-educated person will be free of those shackles from day one. For that reason, my money is on them to write the better story.



Sam hits on a lot of truth here. I am quite thoroughly educated myself, and while that has its benefits in terms of work and impressing people, all of that training is often more a hindrance than a help for writing something interesting and entertaining. Just between you and me and the Internet, however, I am also too creative for my own good professionally, and that creativity caused me no end of trouble when I was in a Big Law setting (not academia, but my wife was in acadamia for a spell, so I know our experiences were similar in some regards). Creativity is pretty much the worst thing you can bring to the table in acadamia or Big Law, areas where what has been done before is best precisely because it has been done before. There's little wonder that the self-educated seem to be better writers.


----------



## dale (Oct 14, 2014)

one of my favorite books. so do you think the romantic mind or the classical mind is more conducive to "quality writing"?


----------



## LeeC (Oct 14, 2014)

hvysmker said:


> The more you write and the more attention you spend listening to critiques, the better you get. That's a truism.
> 
> Charlie



I'd certainly agree 

---------------



Sam said:


> But the spark doesn't come from being educated either way. It comes from being creative. A highly educated person will not automatically be creative, because creativity in academia is almost taboo. It's not nurtured and it's not encouraged. Academia has strict rules on structure, language, format, layout, etcetera. It's difficult to come away from that and write a compelling story that isn't stiff and stilted with those rules in mind, but it is possible. However, the self-educated person will be free of those shackles from day one. For that reason, my money is on them to write the better story.



That's in good part what Pirsig was alluding to.

I think what you're saying in part is one can't judge a book (nor potential) by its cover, and I completely agree. At least I hope so in my case  I also think 'quality' as undefinable as it is, is a subjective thing. Maybe, my thinking about how to recognize quality in my own writing is a bit 'dependent' and it's something that will 'click' with me if I ever see it. 

My daughter is one of those that excelled at Bard College (Annandale-on-Hudson, NY), spent a decade waiting tables struggling to be an artist, then settled down to teaching rhetoric at the high school level. She must be doing something right (system-wise) as she's been named best teacher by the students at her school three times. The one time she was put forward for the state's best teacher, she told me the panel remarked on a tattoo on her arm, and she's refused further nominations. Anyway, we're too close for her to be that much help with my writing. Kinda the meeting of the classical and romantic minds as Pirsig would put it ;-) 

Thank you for the meaningful comments. 

---------------

Amen IM, so where do I buy a bag of creativity  

Seriously, thank you for adding those pertinent thoughts.

---------------



dale said:


> one of my favorite books. so do you think the romantic mind or the classical mind is more conducive to "quality writing"?



Happy to see someone that's 'waded' through Pirsig, and probably was interested because of wider philosophical reading.

As to your question, that's not how I'm framing my thoughts. What I do know is that with a math/natural sciences mind, I'm having trouble conveying my fictional thoughts in writing in an interesting way. That despite vicariously living the storyline I have in mind. I'm just trying to get a grasp of this subjective 'quality' thing. I do think part of the problem is being so out of touch with the younger (<70s) crowd, and being more at home in nature than with the human bubble I'm trying to communicate with. My sister (sadly passed on) was a psych major that went off into eastern religions and philosophy, so I wonder about where the mind takes us and why. Is real 'creativity' just a happenstance, and in part the ability to convey such to a wider audience? Nurturing must take some part in the latter. 

Thank you for the catalytic comment.

---------------

In appreciation,
LeeC


----------



## InstituteMan (Oct 14, 2014)

LeeC said:


> What I do know is that with a math/natural sciences mind, I'm having trouble conveying my fictional thoughts in writing in an interesting way. That despite vicariously living the storyline I have in mind. I'm just trying to get a grasp of this subjective 'quality' thing. I do think part of the problem is being so out of touch with the younger (<70s) crowd, and being more at home in nature than with the human bubble I'm trying to communicate with. My sister (sadly passed on) was a psych major that went off into eastern religions and philosophy, so I wonder about where the mind takes us and why. Is real 'creativity' just a happenstance, and in part the ability to convey such to a wider audience? Nurturing must take some part in the latter.



The interface between science/technology/engineering and the more artistic types of creativity is fascinating. I have spent most of my life straddling that boundary in one way or another. 

My unscientific conclusion pre-WritingForms was that a small fraction of pure scientists are profoundly creative artistically--not necessarily talented, mind you, but creative--while the fraction of even mildly creative engineers (in the artistic sense) is vanishingly small. That may have been harsh, and I was likely biased in favor of the pure sciences, but that was my observation in "real life." 

WritingForums has changed my opinion on the creativity of pure scientists vs. engineers somewhat, as there are many engineers amongst our members with considerable creative brilliance. I don't know if the sample in my "real life" was skewed (likely) or if the sample here is skewed (also likely), but I no longer discount engineers as potential creative types. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a small intersection between the scientific/technical mind and the artistically creative mind. 

FWIW, I think that you sit in that intersection quite nicely, small though it may be. Both the science and the creating is hard to do, is all. I do think that very few can be competent in both broad areas.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 14, 2014)

If we are not going to pursue a definition of literary quality based on Pirsig's laborious ruminations than I suppose we have to fall back on the old standby, personal preference. A rock to founder any thread, upon which no consensus has yet been discovered. Among my preferences for fiction, the works I deem to possesses quality, a slim but definite preponderance of the authors have heavy and continuing academic affiliation. This is something I have regularly checked for many years, as the anti-academic position arises so frequently in forum discussion. It's proponents are apparently attracted to WF like blowflies to carrion, so a majority vote will doubtless sustain the thesis, but I think objective research will reveal little support for the proposition.


----------



## spartan928 (Oct 14, 2014)

I believe that creativity is such a personal phenomenon, it's perhaps dangerous to a beginning/ amateur writers' sensibility to suggest what they should or should not be doing. There are hundreds of successful authors who have thrived through formal academics, and many who simply sat down with pen and paper one day and started cranking out riches. Taming the mechanics of creativity is like pinning down a hummingbird on crack. It's incredibly elusive. To me, considerations of quality, audience and such serve to dampen creativity. It's too much pondering about why or how instead of just doing. And aside from that, the path to really finding one's creative voice is very personal. Again, my opinion but I do think dabbling in anything and everything for the beginning writer is a great thing. It helps lead people down a path of their own making. Plus, having confidence in what the writer feels is quality is paramount to integrating that emotion and knowledge into their own work, whether that quality is their writing or the works of others. The answers ultimately lie within.


----------



## LeeC (Oct 14, 2014)

*IM*,

Actually, as I mentioned to dale, I've discounted the weight of a romantic/classic distinction because in my reading I've encountered to many exceptions (as in rhetoric rules). I do think that our educational approach can stifle creativity though, if there's a kernel there that needs to be brought out, and if the instructors aren't all that creative themselves. There's a dogma to our educational approach, from grade school up, that one needs to have the creative strength to get beyond. But here to, exceptions abound. 

I was once asked to develop a mathematical model for a meat packing plant to forecast which cuts/sausage mixtures/etc. to concentrate on. After factoring in all we could come up with, they asked me to state a degree of accuracy that could be expected from the forecast. They weren't happy when I replied "who knows." I went on to explain the butterfly effect (chaos theory) and how it's not just what we don't know, but what we don't know we don't know that throws a monkey wrench in the best laid models. I took a lot more explanation, but you get the picture. 

I've seen what struck me as exceptional pieces of writing here on WF, but I've seen a lot more wannabe (IMHO) writing (including mine). I'm leaning towards that being expected, because in a writing community we're mostly here struggling to improve our skills towards whatever objectives we have in mind. One potentially controversial thought I have is that run of the mill formal educational writing dogma, and little true creativity, coupled with strictly commercial/self-promoting objectives is a deadly mix, but no doubt there are exceptions here to. 

So I'm back to wondering how I might recognize subjective quality in my own writing if I ever happen to create such. There's a big difference, to me, between admiring someone else's writing that I've read one to several times, and my own which I've gone through so many times I get numb. And, as I become aware of more aspects of writing, it only heightens my sense of what I don't know I don't know. I know, that's the "Apollonian and Dionysian thoughts vying in synapses," or if you wish the romantic/classic clash, which may just be where 'quality' writing comes together. Oh God, another tangent to my thoughts :-(


*ppsage*,

What I hope is apparent in the above, is that I'm not concerned with whether the academic or anti-academic perspective reigns supreme, but rather in focusing on just that what we're missing. Someone once asked me how I could carve a bust so realistically, and I told them I didn't really know beyond seeing it in my head and paying attention to the detail. No one taught me, but that doesn't mean someone who had beed formally taught couldn't do as well or better. The relevance is that I 'knew' when I got it right, and I'm struggling to find that 'knowing' in writing. 

As to my comments about the dogma of formal education (in general), I've known many learned people that would agree. Maybe such is for the better, in constructing a high enough hurdle for the really creative mind ;-) The other side of the coin, that I believe easily substantially verified, is that an absence of formal training is no benefit to 'quality' writing either.

Good to hear from you 


*spartan928*,

You make some good points, but I'll have to reread them. I'm out a fuel now and these old bones need a nap  Thank you. 

-------------------------

In appreciation (you truly are helping me get a handle on this), 
LeeC


----------



## jenthepen (Oct 14, 2014)

The actor, Michael Cain, talking about acting, said, “If you see something you admire, copy it. By the time it has been processed through your own style it will be completely your own.” 

This advice has helped me to add layers of technique that I saw and stole from writing that I considered ‘quality’ (whatever that means).

In the end, I think it comes down to telling the story the best you can. Trying to read it with the eyes of others never works – not for me anyway. I never feel confident that anything I write is ‘good’. I content myself with writing and rewriting until I can’t see any way to make it any better. When you’re laying out your own ideas, passions and emotions for others to see, I can’t see anyway to stand back far enough to know how it will feel to others.


----------



## dale (Oct 14, 2014)

LeeC said:


> ---------------
> 
> 
> 
> ...



maybe you just need to find your creative niche in genre or subject. you could take your classical mind interests and create stories around them.
such as doyle did with the sherlock holmes mysteries. or grisham did with his courtroom/lawyer dramas. you could do this with basically any subject
which interests you. you'll know it's "quality" when it becomes alive in your mind while writing it.


----------



## LeeC (Oct 14, 2014)

*spartan928*,

Reread your comments and pretty much agree. When I first started putting up pieces of my book effort, I thought it was pretty good naïve as I was. I even resisted many of the comments I received. Some of the same points kept coming up though, so I worked on them in my own way. Guess what, I thought it was a hell of an improvement. Maybe you all are a lot less dense than I am, but I only saw what I wanted to see at various stages. 

I don't take all the comments to heart, like correcting homespun spellings I think fit better, and I've begun to get a feel for source (e.g. the whizz-bang crowd, though well-meaning aren't seeing what I'm trying to accomplish with subtle depth because they have differing perspectives). We all have different adopted 'mentors' such as me liking (in part) Samuel Clemens, Garrison Keillor, Willem Lange, Tolkien, V.S. Naipaul, Thoreau, Aldo Leopold, and Pirsig (how many here would read Pirsig for pleasure?). 

It's not creativity I'm trying to understand, but how to recognize quality in my own writing I can live with down the road, like I did with my sculpture. I'm probably over-thinking it, but that happens when there isn't that much road left. 

Thank you for the thoughts 


*jenthepen*, 

I like the way you think  and what's quality to me is how it'll stand. I'm just trying to get over that threshold where I'm prepared to live with what I write. From what you say, I guess that's just more of what I'm already doing till I feel comfortable.


*dale*,

Oh, I've found the creative niche I'm happy with. I have the whole book in my head, as I said vicariously living the storyline in my head, using familiar settings, times, and cross sections of people I've known, all as a vehicle for a subtle (hopefully), underlying, natural world tread. And I guess I'll just keep trying to find that 'quality' aspect I'm comfortable with.

Thanks again 


PS *ppsage*,

If you think about it formal education, like all our institutions, is built on dogma, which is the antithesis of creativity. But dogma and creativity, like oil and water, make for many fine dishes 

---------------------

My sincere appreciation,
LeeC


----------



## ppsage (Oct 15, 2014)

I've spent my life on at least the periphery of the plastic arts. I've made a couple score of major pieces and a couple hundred minor pieces each year for thirty some years, conservatively. Each entirely individually crafted and each entirely from raw material. I work in metal and stone, and I have no doubts when something is good. The marketplace inevitable confirms the subjectivity of my judgement. What I know seems to be really what I like, although now I have reliable reasons for my taste. I have it fully rationalized in this narrow field. 

I often create objects about which I have my doubts. I felt moved to try something, but, in the end, I can't seem to rationalize the object aesthetically. The market inevitably confirms the subjectivity of my judgement. If I put it out there long enough, every piece eventually finds a taker.

So, after all this time, my confidence as a maker of small, decorative metal-and-stone objects, in a very narrow style, is very high. When I read the life of this or that acknowledgedly successful fiction writer, which I do frequently, on average I would say the first million words or so words are simply discarded, and perhaps six or eight years are spent seeking editorial acceptance and reassurance, which, when it finally comes, seems quite short-lived and pertaining only to the current work. I have not read the life of a single acknowledgedly successful fiction writer who does not agonize over the quality of the current WIP. 

Apparently, it is not the same animal, writing and object-making.

(My concentration on acknowledgedly successful fiction writers results from the paucity of material pertaining to unacknowledgedly etc. So I know there are uncontrolled variables in my study: a disadvantage to living in a time of mass society, where the only generally successful mediation is commerce.)

For me, making sculpture is a thousand times easier than making fiction but is at least a hundred times less meaningful.

Extremely few acknowledgedly successful fiction writers seem to have taken up the craft very late in life. 

I hypothesize that a person who has a half dozen reworked sketches of tolerable length and quality and content might easily profit from seeking an audience outside the general writing community. This could certainly be done without eschewing that community's future critical benefits. 

My tiny burg has a historical society, based on the county though, I wonder if Rocky Ford, Colorado, does? 

This organization, _a watering hole for creative writers, avid readers, and thoughtful people who are passionate about the West, _has readings, and probably others do too. 

There are people out there who will care about the message and not a whit about the vehicle, and I hypothesize that their reaction will go much further towards finally answering questions about relative quality, than a bunch of critiquers, however useful the latter may prove educationally.

I totally agree that considerations of educational methodology are completely outside the arena of this problem and wonder why that particular preamble was thought essential? pp


----------



## LeeC (Oct 15, 2014)

*ppsage,*

Never heard of Rocky Ford, Colorado before, but one of the google links about such is actually a link to a porn site so I quit looking.

I'd mosey down ta the ol' waterin' hole ta jaw 'bout my yarns with the old cowpokes, but all they wanna gab on's the weather. It's a heap more fun ta listen in on the womenfolk jawin' 'bout the old men  

And I guess for a following sketch I could bring it up at the Veterans center, then further on maybe run it by the younger generations that are necessarily preoccupied with just getting on. 

Actually the underlying thread is intended to subtly superimpose the human bubble on the natural world [did you read my NF Fire, Wind, Water, and Life piece in the workshop] in an even handed way to hopefully foster better understanding. Other out of the mainstream writers have managed to find a varied audience, like for example Pirsig after being rejected by 121 publishers. 

I'm simply struggling on with my own last hurrah, understanding the misunderstandings generated and distracting tangents entailed, respecting, and hopefully learning from, all perspectives. As an example I didn't mean my analogy of sculpture with writing to be taken quite so literally, so I need to be clearer in what I say. 

I value your thoughts, and I place great store in this community. 

Peace and appreciation,
LeeC


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 15, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> WritingForums has changed my opinion on the creativity of pure scientists vs. engineers somewhat, as there are many engineers amongst our members with considerable creative brilliance. I don't know if the sample in my "real life" was skewed (likely) or if the sample here is skewed (also likely), but I no longer discount engineers as potential creative types. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a small intersection between the scientific/technical mind and the artistically creative mind.



I'm a writing engineer, but I admit I'm on the softer side of engineering and the harder side of writing.  While I enjoy solving problems, I don't actively look for problems to solve like many more fanatical engineers do.  And while I'm creative, I don't have the "gotta create something, anything, all the time" mindset of the extremists on that side of things (and in fact hold mild disdain for that way of thinking).

I think the reason I do well enough in writing is that I approach it analytically, I learn well, and I've chosen good role models to follow.  As long as you're willing to put in the work, the rest will follow.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 16, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I'm a writing engineer...



That's a perfect description for an author.


----------



## midnightpoet (Oct 17, 2014)

I hardly ever realize quality in my own writing.  What I think is pretty good may be smashed by the next editor I come across.  So i just keep writing until I get a good report.  I think a well rounded education is important, and every writer I believe needs he basics of good grammar, even if it's self taught.  A lot of being a successful writer is attitude.  You can go through school, even University, with a rotten "I hate this crap" attitude or you can have a positive attitude and use the moribund curriculum to spur your own creativity by being well read and use your own interests to your advantage.  I admit i learned more after my university experience than I did while I was in there.


----------



## voltigeur (Oct 18, 2014)

As I read these posts I’m reminded of something my high school English teacher told me. “Writing is communication.  If you are not communicating clearly you are not writing well.”  This is probably the core rule of my writing.  Everything else is a technique or principle to get to that rule. 

I remember a former member of the forum here.  He announced on one post that he was a “rule breaker!”  Problem was he didn’t know what the rules were that he was so determined to break. 

Since he no longer comes here I can be honest and say his stuff was just sh**.  It had no cohesiveness to it. It was obvious he was still in high school and probably writing about being a super hero after this week’s beat up session. Everything was superficial, failing miserably to garner any sympathy for his characters.  I never made it past 4 lines of this guys stuff. 

On the other hand there are stories I have read that were just not my genre. Having said that I got the characters, I understood why the events mattered. The prose flowed well and evoked a general feeling and atmosphere for the story to take place in. I considered it very high quality. 

I have never found the “rules” to be so restrictive that you can’t be creative.  But having rules the frame the context of how we talk about the craft of writing and how we communicate standards. So not always a bad idea.


----------



## LeeC (Oct 18, 2014)

voltigeur,

I like your broader perspective.


----------



## Apex (Nov 25, 2014)

Quality in Writing:
I believe the subject is held more as a theory than fact. Each generation has it’s own fact of quality in terms of literature. It will remain a fact until the next generation of readers decide to stand apart from the passing generation.
How do publishers view quality? Simple$$$$…How big is the market?
Write a story you love. Stay with your voice, and let it develop…what you write might turn out to be a best seller of quality...it will depend on the readers once your work is published.


----------

