Basically in an obscure essay he claims Shakespeare was a terrible writer because Tolstoy himself could not relate to him in any way. Maybe I'm being unfair, but that's the only thing of his I have read, quotations in a George Orwell essay.
I understand you, and I agree with what you've said and implied. However, I'd still contend that raw, unclear ravings-of-a-lunatic stream of consciousness could be greatly expressive. If it's expressive, then it gets in the club for me, at least, on an analytical level. Also, I was trying to get out our general value of clarity. Granted, that's answerable with some bull "empirical" science. Anyway, while I think one should strive for a certain level of clarity, I think an abandonment of it could be beneficial for expressing certain ideas. Writing about a mental collapse -- this could be benefited by writing that looks like a mental collapse.
It's easy to spot really bad writing, but there are so many different opinions about what makes for good writing. Often, I've started a novel by some "best-selling author" and wonder halfway through reading how the book was even published. The quality of writing even from the same author can vary from book to book and this may be largely due to the fact that publishers often push them to get new books out quickly. From a reader's stand point, I'd rather wait an extra few months to read a book if it means the quality will be improved by the extra time spent on revisions. As an aspiring writer, I know that everything I write will need several drafts before it is ready to publish and I am willing to put in that effort.
It's true. Tolstoy called Shakespeare's writing "crude, immoral, vulgar and senseless." Other writers who disliked Shakespeare include George Bernard Shaw and Voltaire.
The only word in that I would agree with is 'immoral' purely because Shakespeare doesn't ever seem to really pass moral judgement on his characters. Aside from maybe Regan in King Lear. Also, I hate King Lear.
JK writes a damn good story. yeah, there are too many adverbs and too much beaming, but man she writes some good characters and i have never seen someone so good at hiding the gun
Dude, you study Dante and Shakespeare. Why even deign to waste words on a children's book? That would be like a professional violinist talking smack about Kate Perry.
Harry Potter isn't children's literature (how many children under the age of 10 read 800 page tomes?) it's YA. Why else was there that silly Harry Potter vs Twilight war a few years ago? Children's literature and YA are also perfectly acceptable to study if you can find good reason for it. And isn't this comment suggesting children may as well read trash because they are just kids? I read Roald Dahl when I was a child and his books are still great fun for me now as an adult.
I still read the Adrian Mole Diaries from time to time. Have done since I was about 15 and as I'm now 41, I pick up something new every time I read them.
I don't enjoy the cutdown and simple writing favoured in most very modern novels. I like to feel a bit of meat to the writing itself so I can savour it. I hate any book that lets me read it in a single sitting or even a couple of days. Yes it must have an intriguing plot, engaging characters and good pacing, but if it lacks a definitive and enjoyable writing style then I put it down because it feels flat to me. This is entirely my personal preference and probably doesn't apply to 90% of readers out there. But I look for a good strong style in a book as much as I look for the story it contains. If the first few paragraphs don't show me the author then I dislike it even if it has an action hook, some dire circumstance or an interesting character within. I need the art as well.
Good writing for me is anything that keeps me involved with the story. If the grammar gets bad enough to distract, it's bad writing. If the characters do things that don't make sense for them or the situation, it's bad writing. If I can get past problems because the story/characters keep me wanting to move forward, it's good writing.
Good writing is not judged by anyone. it is hard to decide which writing skill is good or which is bad. Various things are required for good writing: A voice that is individually and appropriate. An organization that is logical and effective. Sentence Fluency that is smooth and expressive.
Okay, considering at lot of the time we criticise our own work, saying our weaknesses and what's wrong with them, I thought I'd do something more positive and ask people what they're good at? What do you, or other people like about your writing? Let's compliment ourselves for a change. I've been told I have good characters and set up a scene well. Not exactly bragging, but it's the best I can do.
I'm good with actual dialogue. Once I posted an excerpt from an earlier draft online for critique. Within that draft was an angry letter from one character to the next and they said they could feel the anger, the hate coming from those words. I'm able to project what a character is feeling with their words (spoken or internally.)
Easy there, Chief, why the hostility? It's OK to like reading 50 Shades of Grey. I understand, I won't tell anyone.
Did I just find a like mind? Allow me to share my favourite extract. "ooh" said Clara. "ooh" said Jake. The synchronism of their expression meant that they were synchronous. "Can I tie you up?" asked Jack. "Ooh" sad Cynthia, "Yes, make me yours". Her eyes moved to a bug on the ceiling. "Let the bug attack me, Let it! Let It!" She repeated the word more, but only Barbara Cartland would fill a book with such inanity. "Ooooh" said Joseph.
