Oh, forgive me, I wasn't trying to express disdain. I'm not judging anyone. I see that in trying to simplify my description of the readers I sounded disrespectful. I am not a parent, so I am not as sensitive to the subject. Again, sorry
Well, to clarify. I went with an extreme comparison. I said "one you can't understand" in the context of not even being able to comprehend the writing, as in the grammar is so poor that you can not even understand the actions or emotions. Verse that against something you loved. Since the concept is quality I was saying if the grammar is that bad, or as Steerspike put it, the baseline is that bad. Then it is objectively worse. Here is the thing, if you want to bring mathmatical facts into the argument, it sort of doesn't mean anything. Let me quote Steven Hawkings. He said it good one time. "Take the premise of the Matrix. That we are all a computer program. That is a working model of the universe. One to which we can't really disprove, yet taking that position doesn't help you. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. So there is no reason to take that position." Yes, the laws of story structure as I see them may not be as objective as mathmatical law. But they still exist. A site like this exists pretty much because of that structure. You could say the lines are more blurred in our case, which is valid, but they exist is my point. Saying they are an opinion or could be flawed, sure, that could be true, but it brings nothing to the table. Nothing more to discuss. Unless you are trying to revolutionize our way of thinking with some deep insight saying that doesn't help. Like this. Let me add on to it. Newton's theory of gravity worked for a long time. Until we discovered a part that didn't. So for that whole time, it was a fact until it wasn't. It took someone else to fix his small mistakes. So maybe 1+1 can equal 3 once we learn more than we know now. Some alien or new scientist could discover something new that completely redefines our definition of science and math and they will laugh at the time in history us idiots believed in 1+1=2. Could it happen? Sure. But currently, it is a waste of breath to talk about. Until we have some clue into that world it brings nothing to the discussion to treat it that way. For now 1+1=2 and the basic laws of decent grammar and story structure are things we can measure. The point I was saying is that people mistake liking something for being good story structure. People tend to think if they like something, it is therefore good. I think this concept is innately a poor way of thinking about the world.
I think there are huge differences between good writing, a good story, and a good book. Good writing is fluid, succinct, lacking in grammatical errors and possessing proper punctuation. A good story speaks to the human condition, evokes emotion, possesses a sense of place, and draws the listener in. What constitutes a good book is open to debate since good writing and a good story are things that are completely independent of each other.
I know. I didn't draft my reply well. I was speaking in general terms about people's viewpoints. I thought your post was clear that you were commenting on a stereotype and not expressing personal disdain
Oops I was trying to use math only as a means to portray difference in people. Got reprimanded for that one.
Sorry. I didn't mean for my post to be ... aggressive. I don't see how math could be used to portray different people there though? I thought you were saying. "Writing is art. Art is subjective. Thus there are no standards for quality. Your standards of quality is based on an opinion. As opposed to math. Math is objective." Did I miss something?
Sorry, you weren't aggressive, I was just bantering. You were fine That's pretty much it. I do not express my opinion, I just to deepen the complexions. It's funny that we debate around the topic of opinion, but that is exactly what I'm trying to do here. I want us to raise up conclusions. Math. Um.. I was trying to say that one person might believe 1+1=2, while the other 3. What I meant is that one's logic, not opinion, might not be another's logic. Thus "rules" based on "truth" are also dubious, because now even "truth" is subjective.
Simple answer: Lots of pompous and pretentious people on here. Only a handful of people on here actually make some money on the side from their published works.
Contribution to the conversation is the third major factor in how I determine whether work is good or not. Beyond the technical (which I agree has rules both for bending and breaking) and the subjective/evocative (made me laugh/cry/horny, all valid and important reactions, even if only in what they tell you about yourself), there is the context of the work to be considered. The technical is the how, and how can be revolutionary, considering, say, the advent of post-modernist narrative. But if you don't feel like revolutionizing the way words and symbols convey meaning, no worries. The subjective "this made me feel something" is a gift from the author to the reader that the author has no control over. Sure, a book about teenagers with cancer is unlikely to provoke other emotions than tears, but still, the level of those emotions aren't the author's responsibility. Even the very best work, while it might evoke an exploration of the self in spite of a direct, shared identification with the story, ultimately gives control over feelings and like/dislike to its audience. Which is actually a great thing to know, as a writer, not that you're off the hook for guiding your reader, but that your novel will grow in the hands of its audience, a beautiful collaboration occurring after your work is done. But the third point must be the work's context when compared to other works and in the context of our society. First, against its genre: Does it add to the conversation or does it not? Some types of stories need to be blown to bits and rearranged, they've become so stale, others only require a few new ideas to lift them back into creative relevance again. As writers we should always strive to add to our creative community with the stories we tell, to innovate and expand. This goes beyond technique and emotion. Take Danielewski's House of Leaves, a book that reads unlike any other (two stories, one told through footnotes on the other), both creepy and erotic...but ultimately, it was so massively derivative of Borges' Labyrinths that I decided (years later, having read what I consider its source text) it was a flashy/edgy book, but not a good book. SFXs won't save you, as well any moviegoer knows. Beyond genre, is it a work that enriches historical conversation? Is it a work that explores the social questions of our times? Is it anchored in progress? That is, if you aren't striving to advance society through your fantasy novel (not every one is nor should be), is it at least relevant or conscious of its biases? I think it matters and makes the difference between good and bad books: The most gorgeous prose, the most moving action fail beneath the weight of dated social norms. This isn't a statement about my values versus anyone else's. I know I don't have the same opinions as everyone else in the world, so too much example here is likely to stop folks at the evocative, rather than the merit of the argument. My object lesson is one much discussed here, the 50 Shades books. Technically sufficient? Check. Erotic/entertaining? Depends on the person. Widely regarded by members of the kink community as harmful, an ignorant mining of a subculture for monetary gain? That's where I get into whether or not it's a good book. We all contribute to the conversation, our books become voices in the world. It matters so much what we say when we write, and if you're not being conscious of your biases, your research and the ramifications of what you write you run the risk of history itself deciding you have't written a good book, no matter how popular.
It's not so much keeping to the 'rule,' it's understanding why the rule is in place. In other words, understand what a semi-colon is for, and don't be afraid of it. See what adverbs can do for you, and also where you can go wrong if they become a habit. Employ filters only if you need to create that distance. Play around with what you're writing and try lots of different approaches to create the effect you want. I think a lot of new writers keep looking for shortcuts to excellence. They grab hold of a set of rules and assume these rules work in all instances of writing. Always do this, never do that. Some of these 'rules' have been set up by authors who want to sell books on writing. They promise you success is easy if you only follow their formula. I'd beware of that approach. A picture is easy to create if it's a jigsaw puzzle you're putting together—first find all the edge pieces, then separate the sky pieces from the ground pieces.... It's not the same thing as creating a picture from scratch. I honestly don't think there is a shortcut. Writing is a craft that takes time, vision, trial and error, and a hell of a lot of work. I'd say a 'good book' is one you like. As in, "I just read this really good book. It's called ____" And 'good writing' is writing that expresses what you want to express, or, if you're the reader, conjures up an experience that means something to you. Fashions in writing styles and certain kinds of stories come and go, so timelessness is an interesting idea to explore. A story that is wildly popular today (and popularity is the way some people judge a 'good book') will not necessarily stand the test of time. Is that a bad thing?
I think good writing is an author that creates fresh insight or fresh delight out of something that is really old hat. And you can't mistake freshness for fad.
But what if that freshness is stale? What if the topic at hand is uninteresting, although properly conceived and expressed? It seems to me like good writing as expressed in critiques is something much more specific. My own opinion in short is that any writing has something in it to hold if you are creative enough as a reader. Most that I ask don't share this opinion. I really want to see someone take the same scenario in two stories and explain why a' is good while b' is bad. Um... angry much? I don't want to assume. Could you kindly elaborate?
I'm assuming the question is good story writing. Not good academic writing. A text book has good writing if the reader can understand and learn from it. If we're talking good writing storywise then I kinda stand on my freshness stance. If the story is stale - what difference does it make if the writing is perfect? - A story isn't a text book it requires two things - story and grammar. And are we talking good or good GOOD? As in excellent? Cause it's not to say a stale but good ( not GOOD ) story can't get published, in fact many probably do. But they usually don't get reprinted or talked about. They don't shake anyone up. And no offense to anyone who loves or reads or writes Harlequin ( cause I've read and liked Harlequins ) but it can have some of the dullest, stalest writing ever and it's all nicely plotted and expressed. Trouble is there is nothing fresh about a Harlequin. It is what it is - an adequate romance.
Hm... okay, then I'll assume. Do you mean to say that getting paid for our writing skills can serve as a stamp of adequacy, while the others, with all their fancy talking (including myself) are only theorists without the ability to back up their words?
No, I meant that you're on point with your thoughts and that quite a lot of people on here think they know all the answers, but they can't quit their day job. Not that money determines how well you write, but these people can sometimes discourage others and are only trying to incite a comment war.
There is much variety in how one evaluates good writing, be it the story draws you in or the writing is superb. One has to define the criteria you are judging by. Some books will be recognized as good writing across all areas of judging criteria. Some will be more narrowly appreciated. Same with bad writing.
I see, sorry for assuming. Well to be honest, when thinking about this thread's creation, I kinda expected an explosion of comments. It is a debated topic after all. It's not a bad thing necessarily, as long is doesn't turn out into a real "war". Right now it's still on the arguementary (is that a word?) level.
While writing is a form of art, it has vastly different rules and concepts from the visual. For instance writing uses only words/language to tell a story based upon the ability of the writer and their mastery level of said words/language. Seems now a days, there is more that would rather read things that are so similar to something else. This is similar to taking a photograph and printing it on a canvas. Anyone can take a picture, as well as print it on a canvas. The problem with this (at least for me) is that it is a lazy, and unimaginative/uncreative way to be an artist. It does not show the artists talent beyond capturing a moment with out putting any of themselves into it. Back to my point is that there is no imagination weather it is the photo canvas, or the book that is basically ripped straight from another (with few minor differences). Then there is the safe writer, that follows the easy tried and true route. There are multiple tropes (the chosen one for instance), because they are either to lazy or afraid to explore new ideas and concepts. In some ways this is a lot like the abstract artist throwing paint, or other media on a surface and telling you to see what they see. It works as a simple (simple minded), and some what lazy artistry. Round about to the laziness of playing it safe, and writing on the safe and easy route. This form will always be around because who doesn't like the ultimate underdog that saves the f********* day, even though they can never lose no matter what. Mainly due to the convenience of the writers whim to not actually put them in a no win scenario. There are other tropes similar to this, just not as used. We come to the wordy and those who like to use complex words (i.e. things that have to be looked up in a dictionary to understand). The former spends way to much time trying to describe one particular object, or scenario that it actually dulls out the story over all. The latter tends to try and be overly confident in using 'intellectual speak' with less common terminology, thus making their writing rough to read due to the comprehension level of the reader. Both tend tobso be off putting in their respective ways by presenting obstacles to the reader, making it difficult to want to continue following the story. Yes overall, writing is an art. But then again anyone can just as easily pick up a brush and say they too are a painter, as one could claim the same by picking up a keyboard/typewriter and be a writer. As the OP points out it is subjective, and is based upon the observer. From my understanding it is best to be on both sides. To be both observer and writer/artist. It gives you both sides, the observation and the how it is done perspectives. Art reflects the artist, and so should the writings of a writer. There is no right or wrong in either case (as far as the way and the means of creating either). In conclusion it all falls upon the ability of the writer/artist to display their skills and creativity in their own unique way (some more so than others). And as always: practice, discipline, and time will help in developing/honing these skillsets.
Not to say whether I agree or disagree, but this comment was the most to-the-point. Inasmuch as we revolve around opinions, there is a clear, unreserved attitude to critique, which notes the particulars and their faults and errors. I don't see the same attitude here, we are on a more theoretical ground than practical. I don't mean to say that we're blabbering - we're not, theory is important - I just wish to take us to the next level of discussion. Let's compare between what's good and what's not, use examples, be less tame about our judgement, for the sake of understanding what we regard a quality work.
Trust me I could be far meaner in my interpretation. Take for example 50 Shades Of Grey (I know it is beaten to death). The wording and characters are lack luster and drab. As well as at one point there was a word in the first chapter that I had to look up, because it was out of my comprehension level (and I have a fairly decent comprehension level). Another would be JRR Tolkien's Simerillion. He spent an excessive amount of time (about 3-4 pages) just describing how green the grass was. Perhaps the 5th Harry Potter book, and whiney teenage Harry. I know this is to reflect some kind of realistic quality, but at the time it was just too on the nose within my age bracket. It came off as off putting to finish the book, let alone the series. Side note that it followed the old standard of the chosen one trope, which as a mature adult now find to be the safe and easy route (or tried and true, depending on how you look at it). Andrea Norton is a mixed bag for me. I like a few of his series, but disliked the Nine Princes in Amber. It was boring due in many ways (maybe because I was a child when I read some of his books). The same could be said for Piers Anthony. I enjoy the Bios of a Space Tyrant series, and detest his Xanth series (partly due to the fact that I enjoy Sci-Fi over Fantasy, and I found the Xanth series to be a little to all over the place in some ways. Perhaps a little convoluted). Anne Rice and her Vampire series, is boring because it drags it's feet. Though I have to give credit for keeping the old rules that apply to the Vampires. Unlike the new age crap that throws the rules out the window. Suppose I am kind of old-school and like my supernatural creatures to have limitations and foundational rules. R.L. Stines Goosebumps books are in the camp of: I like some of them, and others just sucked. Possibly to due to the vast amount of them, there were bound to be those in it that were not as well written as others. Clive barker does Horror wonderfully, but his Fantasy doesn't work for me. Timothy Zahn is a favorite of mine when it comes to Sci-fi, but he tends to be a bit lengthy with a lulls in the middle of his books that I push through because he is a decent author. But again I think the books tend to be valleys, coming on strong at the beginning and ending. The middle tends to be the rough patch and a little lacking in luster. Ray Bradbury's short stories collection, is either hit or miss for me. Though that could be said of any authors shorts collection. Patricia Cromwell is another mixed bag for me, with her Scarpetta series. It tends to be a swiss army knife of genres, part drama, thriller, mystery, and romance. At times it is like ridding a really bumpy road, as at points feel clumsy within the overall stories. I hope this is a more critical perspective with a personal take on what you are looking for. This is just one man's take across a few different genres and authors.
