I'd say well-written is when your work has (for the most part) everything it needs and nothing it doesn't need (which is also just when everything is important). But, how figure out what a story needs and doesn't need? I'd think that's too general.
It must make you turn the page. Even if your language is horrible, your plot is bland, your characters are blander and you break every rule of writing known to man, if the reader wants to turn the page, it's well written. (This is why I am a supporter of Twilight.)
Simply said it is well written if you can feel yourself inside the character, that even though you know their problems are just insignificant and part of a universe that you are not actually a part of, and you still care for the character and see their problems as real and you even become concerned with them as they were yours, then it is truly well written. But personally I think it all comes down to the reader. Perhaps dozens of thousands of people will say something is well written but if you yourself do not find yourself in the writing, then it will just seem like junk. If we're putting examples on the table, take Catcher in the Rye as an example. I really do not know how many people have stood on this issue but it seems as though half the world praises it and half does not. I think this is because some have really synced with the character and other have just found it as garbage. But do not put me on sides here, I actually have neutral feelings for the novel, slightly going to the side that thinks it's garbage. But the principle stands. You yourself find if a piece is worthy being called well written. Even if it has amazing plot development, outstanding characters, beautiful metaphors and a spectacular conclusion; You can still find it bland and boring.
The last point I made in my post above said there were many different readers and different audiences. The kind of writing you describe here makes me want to slam the book shut and toss it into the fire. I'm sure many others would have the same reaction. Your reader who wants to turn the page has different standards. He likes it, I don't, but it's the same piece of writing. Is it well written for him but badly written for me? How can one piece of prose be both well written and badly written at the same time? This is why I don't find your criterion useful. There has to be more to writing well than just making a given reader turn the page.
I think good writing starts with efficiency and ends with virtuosity. It's better to get as far as efficiency and no further, than to try to do it the other way around.
even if the writer tells all the time rather than shows and even if their historical inaccuracies are wrong all time, then the reader can and has before overlooked them for a fun and easy to follow story with likable characters. Thats what makes a well written story, not describing every paragraph, abusing the theasaurus but a fun and easy to read tale.
i agree with minstrel that simply enjoying the reading of something does not mean it's 'well-written'... the term refers more to the mastery with which words are used, than to it just being an engaging story/novel/article/whatever... what are 'good reads' to millions can be poorly written, as witness the schlocky, yet bestselling gluck churned out by chris paolini, stephanie meyer and dan brown, among all too many others... while to be 'well-written' a work must be good both technically and in content...
I second that. I also think that we can all give you our own answers to what we feel is well-written but at a certain point it comes down to personal preference. Of course, there are stories that people will all agree are well written but that don't necessarily appeal to all audiences.
Not that I would argue for or against Twilight but there were significantly more than a given reader that enjoyed that series. I think pythonforger's cirteria is very sound. Anyone can pick something apart but we don't get to choose what others like or consider well written. And Twilight has a pretty large group that enjoyed it.
I agree with Mamma's agreement with Minstrel -- "Well written" is probably the most over-used term with respect to authored works. The frequency of its use has lessened its meaning. Ultimately, I think it means that the author successfully conveyed the thoughts, ideas, and story that was in his or her head into the words on the paper (computer). And that the true depth of those thoughts and ideas were conveyed -- not just a shallow sprinkling of those thoughts and ideas. A well-written piece should also be free of repetition and words that are used merely to show the erudition of the author, rather than the underlying idea. There is a current best selling book out there now that I was forced to read for my book club. The story involves a gimmicky hook, rather than a truly great story. Basically, people love it because the hook is that it is told from the POV of a particular animal. The idea is if you love this animal, you'll love this book. How could you not? It's told from the POV of this beloved animal. If you don't love this book, you must not like this animal. You are therefore horrible. Well, I read it. I love this species of animal. But I utterly despised the book. I found it to be horribly written. Successful? On a commercial level, absolutely. As far as conveying what I suspect was in the author's head, which was a love of this animal, plus an alleged portrait of a guy whose wife dies, not so much. That plot was pretty much handled as: Wife dies. That sucks. Too bad. But this animal is here. So, lots of people loved this book. Good for them. They were entertained, and that is a valid purpose for a book. But as far as "well written?" I'd have to say no way. I have a similar feeling about a current erotic blockbuster. "Well written?" No way. Extremely repetitive. Unrealistic plot. Ludicrous dialogue. Entertaining? Heck, yeah. But I have less distain for that author because the book never pretends to be anything other than a fun escape. In the first part of my definition, this book would be closer to "well written" than the animal book. But it was needlessly repetitive and full of words that the author put in just to show us she knew them. (This was obvious -- the use of a 'high level' word doesn't make a story badly-written. If used correctly and it is the very best word to convey what the author is trying to say, the use of a less-common word makes something well written. If, however, it's used just because the author wants to use that word, then it falls the other way.) So, in a long-winded way, I suppose mostly what I'm saying is that "well written" is a successful, efficient communication from the writer to the reader.
I don't think Twilight is particularly well-written. But it is a very unique take on an old archetype and theme--which is why it did so well with its targeted audience. For that it deserves respect. But the writing (just like the first few Harry Potter's) is not masterful by any stretch of the imagination. With that said, I think "success" and "well-written" are two different beasts. One can easily be a huge success while just being a master story teller (Twilight, Harry Potter, The Hunger Games). You don't need to be a literary (well-written) paragon to achieve it. I am personally at the moment writing a YA novel and trying to fuse "success" and "well-written" together. It is very hard. What I mean by that is I am: - Using almost no adjectives (definitely none that are redundant with nouns) - Using almost no adverbs (definitely none of the "ly" variety) - Using no "to-be" verbs - Using almost no prepositions to start a sentence - Using no "was's" (for an active voice) - Using almost no "had's" or "hadn't's" - Making sure I don't overuse words that I naturally lean towards - Plus many more small things As you can see my post is littered with the above mentioned things--writing a story without them is rough. But my writing has increased tenfold after re-writing my manuscript with these things in mind. It is much more concise and fluid. I also cut out about two thousand words of fluff just by writing in an active voice.
You're equating "popular" with "well-written," and that's precisely why pythonforger's criterion is not useful. It doesn't make the necessary distinction. Not everything that is popular is well-written, and not everything well-written is popular.
I would be very careful with this, as it can be dangerous. These are good rules to learn and follow, but if you become too dogmatic and rigid in your approach with them, the writing can end up awkward and confusing. These rules have evolved because they have a lot of underlying validity, but you also have to recognize when they are better off disregarded. I've seen a few writers go through a piece with these rules in mind and had disastrous results.
I have to agree with chicagoliz. I'm far from mastering English, and these rules only make my writing confusing. Sure, I don't use adverbs with -ly a lot, because they don't really explain anything and I do avoid repetitions of words and sentence structures, and everything, but... It makes my writing really stiff, when I police my words like that. I personally don't like it, but what can I know?
Your rules worry me. These two particularly worry me, because they're often the result of incorrect advice. For example, the following is passive voice: The dogs were groomed by the children. But the following is not: The house was shabby. The people who try to simplify passive voice as being about the word "was", or sometimes as being about "to be" verbs have, IMO, a lot to answer for. I am firmly opposed to passive voice in almost all circumstances, but "was" is not a reliable signal of passive voice, and other "to be" verbs certainly aren't. A resolve to use _no_ "to be" verbs will, IMO, likely lead to some very awkward prose.
Passive voice and passive verbs are not the same thing. Passive verbs are the couch potatoes of action. They breathe, they occupy space, but they don't do any heavy lifting. Avoiding passive verbs and passive voice excessively weigh down a story, but they have their place. Well-written fiction uses rules and guidelines, but with intelligence. A master of the written word understands the why behind each rule of guideline, so he or she also know when and why to go against it. For example, when you want a dragging, static scene, you might pepper it with passivity. Also, passive voice is a tool when the actor of an action is unknown, or you wish to conceal it. Blind adherence to advice won't give you great writing, although it can elevate horrid writing to passable. Blind ANYTHING won't result in great writing. Rules and guidelines are most useful for "writing on autopilot." They are a good default mode to develop basic writing instincts, and will nearly always give better results than blind rejection of rules. No writer writes every sentence with painstaking attention to detail, so developing good default writing habits is a must. I hope this puts the entire topic of rules and guidelines in perspective.
I define a well written story as a story in which a reader can eaisly understand and read without confusion, regardless of how "boring" or how "good" the story in itself is. If I wrote the passage, "Once upon a time, a man went upstairs. He changed from his work clothes to his Pajamas. Then he went to bed. The End. As long as everone understand that passage, to me, I think that passage is a well-written story, even though it may be boring to read.
You actually said the magic word already. "Simple", that is. A seriously good writer doesn't need to decorate his or her text with excessive phrases or emphasise the role of style. A good writer is so good that he doesn't need to use all of his energy on designing sentences and polishing different expressions. For him, words exist only for the sake of telling stories. Thus, his text is effortless and also easy to read. I used to be all about verbiage, but have already got over that period in my life. This new kind of effortlessness has come as I've gained more and more experience. Now I'm all about stories and developing realistic characters. This is just my oppinion, but to be honest, can we expect our readers to have the energy to work their way through a verbal jungle every time they just glance at a text we've written?
I agree with the points made above, about the "passive" question not being that simple. In response to people who dislike guidelines, I think the best way to train the mind is to allow yourself freedom during the first draft, when the creative mind is busy, and then have a very separate revision stage when you deal with all the things you have on your checklist. It's easier to see how things affect the writing then, and whether or not it's a good idea to follow the guideline in that instance, and it doesn't mess with your creative flow. And gradually you will learn better habits. (I think it's more painful and destructive to try to alter your writing habits up front.)
Well, as I stated, I said, "almost no," I am by no means cutting out every single thing I mentioned. Except for the "was's" and "ly" adverbs. I cut all of those out in favor of an active voice and better wording. And my results are far from disastrous. In fact, I would say the work was disastrous before the changes (do to my own failings, not because of the use of the things I mentioned; I am not trying to say people are doing something wrong by using them). Also, don't get me wrong. I didn't post that to try and tell people what to do. I was just giving some insight on what I am currently trying to tackle. All my favorite authors whom I respect greatly write with all those things I mentioned. I took out every "to-be" verb, which means I took out every "were" and "weren't." I would write that passage this way: The children groomed the dogs. I would even write the second without the "was" regardless. With something like this: He smelled the shabby house. or He walked through the shabby house. But, I agree that I should have explained myself better for taking out every "was," I am not taking it out just for an active voice. I am taking it out because I also prefer to write around it with the ways I just mentioned above. I find my writing less confusing with these changes.
This is an excellent point. I banish my inner critic at the inception of a creative process. It's no different than woodworking: First you cut to shape, then you do fine-trimming, and lastly you sand before finishing. It makes no sense to sand your piece, knowing you still have cuts or carves to make.
"The house was shabby." "He walked through the shabby house." Except now the meaning of the sentence is completely changed. Apples and oranges now. This sort of tying-oneself-into-knots-over-a-word reminds me of similar bad advice about the word 'had'. Some people will tell you never to use it, or only very rarely, and these people are idiots who have never heard of past perfect. I see sentences like "The house was shabby" in stuff that has won the National Book Award. I'd say that is as good a yardstick as any.
