I take a functional approach. I think books that meet their goal are "good". I realize that books are inanimate objects and don't have goals per se, but their authors did, and I think these goals can usually be detected in the books themselves. (Sometimes they can't - but this rarely happens in books that anyone considers good). So, was Twilight good? I've never read it. But I'm pretty sure it met its goal of moving readers, giving them characters to get invested in and enough plot twists to keep them reading. So was Twilight good? By my standards, it was great. Same with 50 Shades (which I also haven't read!). Are books that focus more on the beauty of the language or the uniqueness of thought, but that don't effectively catch the attention of a lot of readers, good? I think they have a different goal, so I think they should be judged by different standards. So if they meet their goals, they can be good, or great, too. But obviously this is a much more subjective scale, since we're trying to judge "beauty" and "uniqueness". To some extent, I think it's useful for writers to read critically and strive for greatness. But I think it's also important that we keep our own goals in mind. I don't aspire to write great literary novels, so when I read literary novels, I do so mostly for enjoyment, not as a way to improve my writing. I'm not saying there's no value, but it's more subliminal. So I think a discussion of "good" writing only makes sense within certain boundaries.
There is way too much reason and far too little "pretentious git" in your post. This is a writing forum!
Maybe it has little to do with the writing and much to do with why that particular person reads that particular book at that particular time.
Great comment me fella Troll But let's get more specific. What you have noted is a combination of faults both related in actual use of language, as well as the storytelling or characterization. What (I at least) seek for us to share is the effective criticism of sentences, words, and their relationship to the story and its relay into the reader's comprehension. Granted, we still bound by individual opinion, but at least we get a clearer, fuller picture of judgement. Example: Sentence one Vs Sentence two: the reason one is better delivered than two is yada yada yada. Whereas in one x is y and z is x, such and such and etc... The flow of words in x is better than y, the word z is not fitting for the situation, etc... I want us to be picky, let's remove theory from the board and be honest; how do we judge a writing's quality, step by step? I would agree that it's part of the deal, but I can't leave it as the one factor. People criticize words, there is no doubt about it. Some are more open, some are less, but judgement is inevitable. I want us to reveal our separate interpretations of good and bad.
I think you need to specify that you are asking about writing, especially the technical aspect, and not about novels or stories.
Right. I was refering at first to theoretical writing for stories, and I still wish to stay within the realm of stories. But yes, I'll update in the first page. Heads up people, we are talking about what makes storytelling writing good.
No matter how good/bad a book is, it all boils down to opinion in the end. PS: It also depends on the genre of the book written.
That's a big jump from your original question. The two statements "This is bad writing." and "If you read this, you're not intelligent." are absolutely NOT equivalent statements. I like Hostess Ding-Dongs--you know, those cheap low-quality little chocolate cakes? I know that they're bad, bad pastry. I like them anyway. That doesn't make me stupid, or unable to appreciate better things. I like them because I loved them in childhood, because I like the freaky way the square edge of chocolate crunches under my teeth, because...yeah, it's probably mostly about childhood associations. People very often like something based on grounds other than sheer objective quality. That doesn't make them unintelligent.
This has been covered implicitly, but I would like to make it explicit. "Good writing" is not a simple conjunctive concept. I.e. there isn't just one definition of good writing. As people say, different books are written for different purposes, and read by different people. So whether or not writing needs to have one characteristic, or another, depends on what writing it is. E.g. people who read motoring magazines probably aren't too worried by some of the niceties of grammar. (They may not even notice them.) And certainly they won't be expecting too much in the way of carefully crafted imagery. A literary journal specialising in 19th century style fiction on the other hand... So, writing is good if it meets one set of requirements OR it meets another set of requirements OR it meets another set of requirements OR ...
Oh no no no I didn't mean to proclaim that reading this = unintellegence, sorry, I was presenting a specific branch of opinion expressed by many reviewers. It was just for the sake of it. I don't believe that myself. I agree. I must nonetheless carry on with the question based on that - as I said before - there is that shamelessness in critics that does indeed represent some kind of "central" expected quality, a set of rules, etc... You may write within a certain context of a genre and its etiquette, and yet the readers of that genre will come and judge your work. Sometimes a single opinion will loom over the others. There is no denying that this opinion belongs to some sort of a norm within the critics' line of thought. What I ask is to unravel this cognitive process on practical examples. Right now no one seems too comfortable with that, I wonder why...
I'm not sure what your winky face means... are you suggesting there's some sort of conspiracy afoot? We're refusing to answer because... we're complicit, or afraid of angering the review gods, or...? I think people aren't answering because most of us don't agree that it's a valid "cognitive process". This is starting to feel like you have a direction you want things to go in or a point you're trying to make. Obviously the Socratic method is not getting you where you want to go, so maybe you should just say what you're trying to prove, straight out?
I've nothing to prove. I do want us to in a certain direction - again, sharing the "cognitive process", which I think does exist. No conspiracy, no nothing.
I kinda get what you're saying, like, why don't they just write a book on the corpus of their criteria and everyone will buy it and be successful. But things are constantly changing, like new seasonal fashion directions out of Europe or whatever. If you read enough reviews, you'd get a sense if they contradict themselves, which wouldn't surprise me, like other soup de jour journalism, but if not, they seem to be operating out of a system, that's the only way you'd get a sense of what they're after.
In terms of examples, do you mean examples from books or examples we make up ourselves? It's easy to make up examples of bad writing. Our ability to make up examples of good writing is more limited. I'm hesitant to label things written by others as bad writing. I'm reading a book now where I don't like the writing style at all. In fact, I'm sort of forcing myself to finish the story. But I wouldn't want to name it and say I think it's objectively bad. I've read criticisms of "50 Shades of Grey" and suspect that I will strongly agree with their critique of the writing. But, it clearly filled a niche. An example of good writing I've been using on this forum for a while is the introduction to "White Fang" by Jack London. I like the level and type of description. I like the way it progresses from paragraph to paragraph. I think it's excellent. But, I haven't yet read the entire book! As an example of bad writing:
But critics often disagree with each other, readers often disagree with critics, critics in one genre use completely different standards than critics in another genre... there's no single process. Or, if you're sure there is, maybe you could suggest what you think it is?
Using published authors' bad\good writing as examples would be great. No worries, I mean, it's your opinion, nothing to be ashamed of as long as merely explain why you personally find so and so to be such and such. You brought an example, terrific! Now take a chunk, a sentence, whatever you want, and explain why by your mindset one is bad and one is good. Analyze. Thank you This is a step forward. What you say is true. However, amid those people of differing opinions there does exist a certain agreement. Take an awful example of writing, I mean awful awful, and tell me that almost 100% of readers won't call it bad writing.
Are Alicia and Anita the same person? I didn't think it was too bad till paragraph three, when I got a pre-pubescent lesson in sexual attraction.
Good, this is it on the basic level. I mean it's not full-blown analysis, but there we go. We need more of those comments and on a larger scale of interpretation. Thank you
The example I wrote is deliberately bad for the following reasons. I personally like the first paragraph in some ways. But, the story is going to have Anita become a sophisticated man-eater, so the reference to her 'bottom' is out of place, and ruins the feel IMHO. (Same for 'buttocks' later on). Note the conspicuous absence of 'derriere'. Anita is meant to despise men, being a bit of a rip-off from Dickens' Estelle from Great Expectations. Being chased, called names, and pinched is probably not enough of a justification for a strong dislike of men in adulthood. Compare that to Miss Havisham's machinations. So, the first paragraph doesn't really achieve its purpose. Note that since I made up this example, the rest of the book doesn't exist. But, I have an idea in my head what it would be. Once we have Anita in front of her mirror, there is too much detail and repetition. Instead of giving us a few details to show the image she's going for, the reader is beaten over the head with it. Surely, most readers will be screaming "GET ON WITH IT" at some point. If not, add a detailed description of the room until they do. Finally, after paragraphs, we find out she's going to some sort of event where she plans to make some sort of a play for Carl Everhoven III (how would that be said in inner monologue?) We don't even know what sort of event it is. We don't know of Anita's longer term plans. Shouldn't we know these things in preference to knowing what underwear she has on? I didn't write this to be as bad as possible, obviously it could be far worse. I wanted to aim for a level of badness that might be found in actual books. Though, not very good ones. Couldn't this story be started later on, as Anita enters the party. She sees the look on Carl Everhoven III's face and inner monologue tells us some background, and how he's going to pay for what he did to her sister? Not that this would be the type of plot I would want to read or write. Whoopsie!!!! That was a mistake. The name should be consistent all the way through. In paragraph three, both Alicia and 'the men' are adults. There shouldn't be any pre-pubescent sexual attraction in there. The later paragraphs are meant to be ridiculous, however. But Alicia should be in her 20s. Is this not clear? If not, that's more accidental, rather than deliberate, bad writing. As I mentioned. I actually like the first two sentences. I got into 'bad writing' mode after that. E.g. the crude mention of 'bottom'. The problem is that they are the wrong setup for the story that follows. Compare this to the excellent start of White Fang. There is definite movement from the start, rather than paragraphs stuck in front of a mirror. The first few paragraphs in White Fang each tell us something different, building on each other. The reader, well me at least, is drawn forward. No mentally screaming "GET ON WITH IT" there.
It was clear. I just felt like it was being explained to me as you would to a child -- not that I'd explain attraction to a kid. In my own writing and in others', I can't stand little psychological inserts, but that's just me. You're right about too much detail even though I was patient enough for this example, but in the book American Psycho I stopped reading because it seemed like forever about how they're living the Manhattan yuppie existence, which I can relate to when I was living in a big city but it dragged on. Didn't finish it.
Yet American Psycho was quite popular and got some pretty good critical reviews. So we're back to... there are no universal rules!
For sure, but I take responsibility for my impatience to an extent, just seemed like an unnecessarily long set up without any insights or significant "relatables."
Independent of it being an example of bad writing, I'm not sure how I would use that sort of sexuality in a story. I don't think I 'd want to, nor be able to, write a femme fatale. I'm going to have to think of how I would do that. Does anyone know any good examples?
Sorry, that made me laugh. In real life most of my buddies are about twenty years older than me and divorced at least once, myself never married. Kinda a neighbourhood thing I guess. But, yeah, they tell me lots of stories about femme fatales. lol
When I was in my 20s, I was on the receiving end of an Alicia style thing. But, I don't think I really understand what things are like from the other side. Nor would I know how to describe it. Even though I read widely in terms of short fiction, I haven't come across much like that. Though, I know it exists. I mean a good written example. Fiction
