A lot of things, including -- in no particular order: Showing rather than telling. No infodumps. Dynamic opening scenes. Consistent characters who aren't Mary Sues and who have solid personalities. Realistic dialogue. Lack of purple prose. Keeping the tone throughout- i.e. a horror should be scary the whole way through, a romance should be filled with sexual tension the whole way through, etc. Otherwise readers will just skip to "the good parts." No cop-out endings like Deux Ex Machina or "He was really just crazy" or "It was all just a dream."
Another definition is to keep readers under the preventions of suspention of disbelief A lot of my readers find that some novels are boring because the content either has no meaning or it is unrealistic. When writing a book that triggers a reader's concern for scenes that would not actually happen in real life, the writer must ensure that the reactions of the character is real (i.e The character suddently grows wings. He or she would start flying as soon as the person finds out that he or she could fly. The character would probably be scared and go to the doctor or tell thier family about it). Another well written story is choosing the right vocabulary for your targeted audieance. A writer does not want to choose highly technical terms for a teenager, making it seem as if the book is targeted for the presidents of the country. Writing terms that requires a reader to search the word in the dictionary every ten seconds will frustrate the reader. Original writing is another way of writing a well-written book. If a writer writes a story that deals with vampires or something alternative, it may lose originality, since there are thousands of books that involve the same theme the writer is writing about.
Hmm... I thought "well written" was the euphemism for "bland, not exciting enough" or something. I got "well written" as critique from several agents and other people, but nobody wanted to publish it.
Well-written for me is if I start to let the outside world slide by, and become enmeshed in the story.
For me well written means the writing fit the intentions. That means if you writing a course book on calculus, it is well written if it really helps the students learn calculus. If you writing a hard boiled, faced paced thriller, it well written if the language fits the intention of the story. If you writing erotica, it is well written if you gotten it really hot. If you write a children book aimed at ages 6-8 it well written if you balanced the language to make it just challenging enough for that age group. If you are writing a master thesis... etc. I don't care how you do it, as long as it works with the you intentions in mind. It if takes you book where you want it, it is well written.
lol perfect I agree. Well written seems to be used as an excuse for not being published or selling fewer copies. Poorly written = bloody good story, that actually lots of people want to read. I am starting to take the latter as a huge compliment after my time on this board To me well written is a story I have sat down with and not wanted to put down.
Maybe you're right, by saying it was well written they meant it was grammatically correct. Have you looked at your story again - does it have substance - a hook - interesting or exciting characters - does it have believable dialogue and conflict - is there a shift/change of view or lifestyle. Thar's all I can think of at the moment, my seven years old grandson is pestering me to find the charger for his DS games consul. Have to go noooww!.
I think well-written means try harder! It's a back-handed complimented, really. I dont think these two words should be put together unless your aim is to make a writer feel inadequate and yourself appear condescending.
I agree with all of that, and add style to my list. I really appreciate authors who put lots of thought into how they use language.
Yes -- I love when authors have a really good mastery of how to use rhetorical devices to achieve the end they want. Active/passive voice, asyndeton/polysyndeton, parallel construction and adding impact by breaking it, those kinds of things....highly recommended, read "Elements of Style," they teach all about that.
first and foremost: exhibiting excellent grammar and basic technical skills... then: clarity, original use of words [or at least not employing a raft of trite cliches], good sentence structure, clarity, a compelling, reader-engaging/reader-friendly style and voice, effective imagery, clarity, coherence, consistency...
1. Compelling, three-dimensional characters. 2. Realistic dialogue. 3. Discernible and imaginative description. 4. Unexpected twists and turns in plot. 5. Last but not least, a gripping scenario.
Someone care to explain to me? As I've always wondered, what things in a narrative piece make it "well written" compared to something that's "badly written"? I know I'm being general, but this is confusing me quite a bit. How do you identify a piece of writing as being a "masterpiece" compared to "junk"? Is it the plot development, character development, the flow of the story? Are these things you "necessarily need" to write well? How do you know you achieved these things to a "good" degree? Are there certain exceptions? ..or am I just over thinking things a lot? Also, feel free to move this thread if this is off topic.
It is all of the above. You want a simple answer to a question that occupies a major percentage of this site.
In my opinion, there are several things to consider. First, all the basics must be in place in terms of language proficiency, unless a specific point is being made like in The Sound and the Fury for example, or Franny & Zooey. Another good example - the best I can think of is the outstanding Manon des sources by Marcel Pagnol who uses illiteracy to the most beautiful effect I have ever read. Second, yes there must be some kind of purpose to the work - plot development, characterization, etc. Finally, there must be an underlying point to the fiction - ontological, aesthetic, something that pays respect to literary theory and shows it is part of the canon. No I do not think one necessarily knows if one has achieved these things, and even if one has a sneaking suspicion (which I have never had) it is up to readers to decide if it is any good, at least a collective reader, as individuals may be biased or uninformed.
see what cog said... there's no formula for writing well... of course grammar and mechanics [spelling, punctuation, etc.] have to be within acceptable limits, but even there, an exceptionally gifted writer can get away with things a lesser one can't... it comes down to being much like what justice potter stewart had to say about hard-core pornography: 'i know it when i see it'...
Take your favorite novel out of the shelf, read it and re-read it until you find out why it is your favorite novel.
I would use the following working definition: If your storytelling grabs the reader, pulls them in, makes them care about the characters and their challenges, and keeps them up late at night because they can't put it down, then it's well written. If your storytelling distracts the reader, bores them, or confuses them, then it's not well written. In other words, forget about pleasing critics or earning your English teacher's approval. Concentrate on your relationship with the reader and don't worry about anyone else.
I think “well-written” starts with virtuosity in the use of language. Sentence variety, precise word choices, attention to rhythm, and avoidance of such things as unintentional alliteration and rhyme all contribute to virtuosity and help bolster the reader’s confidence that the writer knows what he’s doing. Note that when I talk about virtuosity, I’m not referring to showiness; I’m not talking about a writer who’s just trying to impress the reader with complicated and unusual sentence structures, an unnecessarily large and difficult vocabulary, or anything else that serves the writer’s ego rather than the needs of the story. You can hear virtuosity even in simple music in the confidence and sensitivity a really fine musician brings to the performance – sublety, control of dynamics, and control of tempo, tone, and ornamentation such as vibrato. A poor musician may try to impress an audience by playing difficult music, but he will do so badly; a good musician will impress an audience by playing simple music very beautifully. Another aspect of good writing is the intelligent and creative use of metaphor and simile. I’m talking about freshness of imagery and the avoidance of clichés. A good writer consistently surprises and delights his reader with telling, well-chosen imagery. Note as well that this imagery should be appropriate for the setting of the story. If you’re writing about the American Revolution, for example, you might say that the thunder sounded like a fusillade of artillery; you would not say that it sounded like a Harley-Davidson motorcycle roaring down the highway – Harleys weren’t invented back then, so that image would be inappropriate. Language and imagery are merely matters of technique, though. Now we come to the primary building-block of fiction: character. A well-written character comes acrosss as a real person, not as a collection of character traits.You can’t define Fred Flintstone by stating that he’s fat and says “yabba-dabba-doo.” (I just dated myself, didn’t I?) You have to go a lot deeper than that. This is the main reason I object to the attempt many writers make to define their characters using character sheets. Listing names, ages, jobs, likes, and dislikes doesn’t create characters. In my opinion, a far better approach is to put your characters into situations and write scenes about how they deal with them. That will force you to create actual people, not just snapshots of people. Also realize that the story you tell about your character will change that character – it will take him through an arc. If the story is worth telling, the character will be somewhat different at the end than he was at the beginning of the story. So don’t fall too much in love with your character as he is when the story starts. If you do, you might not let him get damaged, heal, and grow as the story progresses. In fact, this means you don’t have to define your characters to the thousandth decimal place at the beginning of the story. He can be a little bit vague when the audience first meets him, and the events of the story color him in, so to speak. As he changes, the reader gains a greater understanding of him. Now we finally come to plot. It turns out plot isn’t as important as character or even technique. There are great novels out there – classics – that have minimal plots. But they have strong characters, and are written with excellent technique, and are fascinating just because of that. You might even find that the more elaborate your plot, the more difficult it is to fully keep track of, and you’ll have to pay close attention to avoid major plot holes and other absurdities. First rule of plot, though, is: Don’t bore the reader. You could use that as a rule for writing in general: Don’t bore the reader! Be aware, though, that it’s an impossible rule, because there are so many different readers – different kinds of readers – out there in the audience. Some want horror thrillers, and if you give them a historical drama, they’ll be bored. Some want YA fantasy and if you give them a deep philosophical novel, you’ll bore them. Others will want poignant tales of love and loss, and if you give them vampires and werewolves and zombies, mixed up with plenty of gore and hapless humans screaming as death approaches, you’ll make them vomit as you bore them. There are many audiences out there, and many individual readers, and you will never be able to please all of them all the time.
