At the risk of sounding somewhat pretentious, what you read also merits a mention. An eclectic mix of the classics and good (I know, it's subjective) modern literary fiction, as opposed to, for example, the entire Mills and Boon back catalogue. To coin a well worn cliche, it's the quality, not quantity - of the literature you read - that really matters and it's this more than anything else, I would suggest, that will influence the kind of writer you become.
Thanks @GingerCoffee and @Lemex for the information on audiobooks. Audiobooks are hard to come by here, but as long as there is an audiobook, I should be able to get it I often obtain the eBook and the audiobook, so depending on my mood I can switch between the two, since eBooks are generally quicker to run through but of course, not suited to multitasking. I would've never finished The Hunger Games without it. (I know, YA, but it was better than being coerced into reading Harry Potter.) I broke the cycle when I tried reading/listening The Stand by Stephen King, I just couldn't get hooked. :/ Guess I'll try a different book. Well, that's actually encouraging, because I guess I'm a hail of fine literature away from fine writing. Hypothetically, anyway. I guess @Andrae Smith has a point here--I would be smart to read more of Agatha Christie and Sherlock Holmes. Thank you @Mans and @qp83, I appreciate the advice.
This is basically my exact philosophy. And to extend that thought: there is no such thing as a "good writer". There is not even such a thing as a "good book". There are books worth a given reader's time and there are books not worth a given reader's time. There are books that get the message across effectively to a given reader and there are books that struggle to get the message across to a given reader. There are poetic books (meaning books that take advantage of the aesthetic properties of language) and there are books that deliver their value solely in what they communicate. The foundation of writing fiction worth reading is having a story to tell that people want to hear. Reading is just one of many ways to inspire the imagination, along with listening to stories, watching stories being acted out, and even experiencing true stories.
Shout out to @GingerCoffee for sharing http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/ I'm listening to A Princess of Mars By Edgar Rice Burroughs right now.
Clarity? Expression? Innovation? Storytelling? Flow? Individuality? I find this question to be a lot more difficult than it should be. Many would argue that there are plenty of examples of bad writing, even among famous authors (especially among famous authors, some might say). But what do you consider to be good writing? It's all so terribly subjective. And so I pose the question: What writers, works, or characteristics do you feel epitomize good writing?
I generally praise writing that lets me forget I am even reading. It helps to write with consistent diction and with clear prose that never makes me work too hard to figure out what thought is being communicated. I sometimes speed-read, often with the aid of rapid serial visual presentation, so I appreciate when the author makes that task easy for me by presenting things in a nice, simple, linear fashion that does not have me pausing every 30 seconds to reread a paragraph. I can also appreciate more complex and nuanced usage of language, especially when it is necessary for communicating a complex and nuanced thought, but if I had to choose any quality of writing to idealize -- one that I strive for by default unless a special circumstance calls for something else -- it would be the quality that makes it easy to speed-read.
I agree with @daemon, and of the six characteristics you listed, I would put flow at the top, followed by clarity. I read mostly for pleasure, and I don't want to have to work to discern what the author is trying to say. Needless to say, proper grammar and spelling are paramount.
I do not think you will find any consensus on this question. Jacqueline Susann thought "a good writer is one who produces books that people read . . . So if I'm selling millions, I'm good." Of course, she thought, after reading Portnoy's Complaint that Philip Roth was a good writer, "but I wouldn't want to shake hands with him." One professional writer, Garry Provost wrote in the 1987 Writer's Yearbook: "Good writing is writing that you can get published and paid for. If nobody will buy it, then it's not good."
*Warning: I seemed to have spewed bullshit from my mouth-hole. So, don't expect much direction. Yes, I could've edited it. I'd rather demonstrate myself in a bad light. To sound like a vague asshole, expressivity. Experimentation is good too. As well, I'd say that on a certain level there's that slightly subconscious part of it, wherein one simply is biased to one's own outlook and whatever supports that outlook is favored. Also, genuineness. As an extremely horrible self-made example to demonstrate what I haven't specified as what I'm trying get at: {asd-= '';. ~~(CONnnstTa_T-$$ 8===D FUCK SSSsssssssh()l|_|_ovv The above, while utter shit in its current get-up and context, could be a fantastic way to express something (assuming there was something to express and it was done in a way that favored the expressed). It's not conventional, either. It's raw, though. It communicates on an entirely different level. Most would thing it doesn't communicate at all. Whatever. You know, I'd have a better example, but I find unfair to post. Regardless, I think (bullshit) I am trying to say that "good" writing isn't defined merely by some yardstick, or at least, a yardstick. As you said, it's all subjective shit (bad paraphrase), but any one attribute can't express the full range of human experience. In my opinion, writing, as any art, is present to express something human -- and I mean this in less of a bipedal Homo sapien way than a highly self-aware relatively intelligent creature sort of way. I guess, "good" writing just captures something honestly, accurately, and powerfully. It does this through the freed interaction with medium.
I don't know about good writhing. <::: Writhing might demand knowledge and skill beyond my abilities (maybe even hula hooping! ) When it comes to writing, for me, is the ability of the author to depict a scene and transpose the reader (me) in the action and make me learn and understand and overall, see the world through different eyes, not just whatever I find similar to my POV. To generalize, most men are visual and audio/ they respond to words like "picture the water glistening on her bare skin," or "he heard a loud thunder coming from the base of the sky," while women are more kinesthetic (which explains the popularity of books like 50 shades or twilight) and also audio " She gasped when he touched her, she felt his caress"... etc etc. That is to generalize and be very vague because of course, each individual relates to certain aspects from your above list. I choose flow, expression and storytelling. Heck, even if one has 2 out of 5 I say, has mastered acceptable writing skills. Innovation, well thats very hard to achieve since all subjects and all plots and all characters, more or less, have been described in prose at one point or another. Individuality, I do not understand perhaps what you mean by that, since of course, when one writes, one writes from his own perspective (regardless of first or third or whatever POV in the book)
For me, it's all about style and the use of language. This is what separates the great writers from the good ones.
Honestly, it is all of these things. Eloquence is more than just expression, flow, and clarity, it is the clarity of thought which also usually means clarity of story telling. And while innovation is by far the least important to me, it is a big bonus if you can do it. How to write good writing and have it be still your own is very hard to do, and to do this you must regularly read not only good writers, but the best writers, and the worst writers to see how you can get it so right, and how you can get it so wrong. For the terrible I recommend anything by Ayn Rand, Dan Brown, or James Hurbert. For the Great there are too many to name.
Here is the moment where I lose all credibility forever: Ayn Rand had terrible and evil ideas, but I don't think her writing was the worst thing ever. The Fountainhead was kind of an interesting story, and if you completely ignore what she was actually trying to say and impose your own interpretation on it, I think it's got some interesting points. I never read Atlas Shrugged though, so maybe it is worse, but based on wait I've seen Ayn Rand is nowhere near as offensive as, say, Janet Evanovich.
Read Atlas Shrugged. It's one of the worst novels I've ever read. Everyone is a 2D character, either an objectivist and the sun shines out their arse, or a collectivist and the most evil person on the planet. Also, the dialogue is dreadful 'Hello Dangey, you are the most influential woman in the world, how do you sleep at night' kind of awful. The story may be mildly interesting, but she doesn't answer the very obvious question with her 'strike', why didn't the next generation of competent young go-getters take up all the powerful positions? Atlantis isn't described as a very big place. Her philosophy may be interesting until you realize that it is just Nietzsche if you strip him down to the barest essentials and misunderstand him a little bit. And really, it's not even that rational or well-thought out. Let's just face it, humans are social creatures. Ayn Rand is the worst writer I've ever encountered, and I'll stand by that statement even despite the Dan Browns and J.K Rowlings of the world.
Well that does sound pretty atrocious. Say what you will about J.K. Rowling, but we cannot deny her mastery of and abiding commit to the aptronym. Who else would dare to name their "Minister of Magic" character "Pious Thicknesse?"
Atlas Shrugged is ahistorical too, it claims Socialists are so stupid they ram trains into walls. It's just caricatures and silliness. And yeah, J.K Rowling is a writer I have serious problems with, but maybe calling her one of the worst is going a bit too far. xD
She's very good at what she does. If she weren't making childrens' books I'd probably have some beef with her writing and with the unsubstantive, shallow escapism of her stories, but she is writing childrens' books so she gets a pass. Although I do find it problematic that a lot of supposedly adult books really aren't that much more nuanced in their morale framework. I guess that would be kind of like your criticism of Atlas Shrugged.
Instead of defining what's good, I simply look for what isn't. If it manages to run the gauntlet of criticism and come through unscathed, it's good. Generally, good writing tends to be simple and clear. It is efficient in delivering it's message and inciting emotion without using any more words than necessary.
@daemon - I generally praise writing that lets me forget I am even reading. @stevesh - I don't want to have to work to discern what the author is trying to say. I agree with both of those (partial, taken out of context) statements. I appreciate thinking about what the author's theme or slant might be AFTER I've finished reading. In fact, the best characters, themes and topics have stayed with me for a lifetime, and I have certainly re-read the books that gave them to me. But I don't want to be sidetracked by an author's prose while I'm actually reading, and I certainly don't like having to stop or backtrack to figure out what is going on. It takes me out of the experience. I accept that other people read differently, but that's my preference. I strive for clarity in my own writing, and expect to find it in the books I enjoy most.
I would say that, for me, good writing communicates an idea worth expressing. Personally, I am all about the message. I can and will forgive stylistic errors, but cannot forgive a lack of substance.
I am in no means trying to derail anything, but does anyone have any thoughts as to why we value clarity so much?
Ayn Rand is writing books for children? Damn, dude, that's cold, but I love it! You and I are going to get along well. I see your point!
