Confused!! What is 'good' writing? - Page 4 - Writers Forum

Anarkos · 09-07-2005, 07:48 PM

Yes, but if you want to be a writer, it helps to be able identify not just writing you enjoy, but good writing (or, I suppose, simply popular writing) as that should be helpful in yourself becoming a good (or perhaps popular) writer. It helps to be able to discern which writers you should look to for guidance and example and which you should avoid like the plague.

suzakugaiden · 09-07-2005, 08:21 PM

I'd rather just distance myself from professional writing and industry standards, really. I think what I was really getting at was that a person could define good and bad for themselves, but since it's not really a universal thing, it's not that major. It's good to know where you stand, and it's good to have some sort of concept about some general do's and don't's of fiction, but people are still going to have their own concepts of good anyway. And knowing what's canonical can give you ideas and stuff but you're still going to be going off of your own personal goods and bads anyway.

Or not. Why do I let myself care? Why do I bother picking this apart? There's no purpose to it. Everyone's just going to end up bitching at Ilyak again for whatever reason, and there won't be any conclusion. I think I'm just going to go back to writing confusing furry pornography.

Ralizah · 09-07-2005, 08:56 PM

Well, I can only say that the only sort of writing I truly respect is writing that is both 'good writing' and 'good storytelling,' becoming 'good literature.'

If a work has good writing but bad storytelling, I won't like it. Why should I? I read literature for pleasure. Gatsby has some great poetic language and narration in it, but the book is slow, wandering, dull, and ultimately pointless to me (The theme would have been okay if I had cared a lick for any of the characters).

If I had to choose between good writing and good storytelling (an embarassing duality which I refuse to suscribe to - I find both are equally important to me), I'd take storytelling. Of course, I don't consider something like Finnegan's Wake to be either (it's not even in English - it's a language of puns, which is fine for poetry, but it does not make good literature). The same with Gertrude Stein (that woman's bad rhyming makes her novels inpenetrable for me).

I'd never accept being either a storyteller or a writer myself, because, well, I have high standards for my fiction.

bearlily · 09-08-2005, 06:34 AM

Quote:

="suzakugaiden

Ultimately, I believe it simply comes down not to good or bad but to personal relevance.

Thank you for your reply. I think I see what you are saying.
The question was asked out of frustration and confusion at inconsistent information. I am lacking in the necessary confidence to simply not worry about rules, guidelines etc put forwad by others.
I have this urge to 'get it right' but 'right' keeps changing! So I think I am on a path to discover my own sense of right or good in relation to writing!

Many thanks for all the replies, very interesting.

Stewart · 09-08-2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarkos

I challenged Connor to reply with a set of criteria for good writing.

No, you asked. It's not as if you threw a glove in my face and shouted replies at dawn!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor Wolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarkos

By what criteria do you pick the good writing from the bad?

By experience. I can't say something is bad until I've read it.

Quote:

This effectively translates into "good writing is writing I think is good". Now, not only is that definition more than a little tautological, but it betrays something which I perceive as a clear weakness in Connor's position:

He is using subjective criteria to justify pronouncements of objective quality. It is his experience which (he believes) determines a book's value, rather than any observable element of the prose. It's not the object (the book) which determines its quality, by his argument, but the subject (the reader: Connor).

A books value to me is, most definitely, decided by reading it and comparing it with my impressions of other books. It is going to be subjective but I believe I am capable of making the distinction between good writing and bad writing because I read a variety of texts and can split the good from the bad.

A person who tells me Dan Brown, sorry to keep using him, is a good writer doesn't have that same ability. Yes, that' is subjective too, but as Orwell once wrote: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. and this rings true for our levels of subjectivity.

Quote:

Now, this opens him up very nicely to accusations of elitism. He clearly believes that his own subjective analysis of a book's quality is superior to those of, say, Steven King fans. He is therefore implicitly saying that his judgment is superior to theirs. Therefore he can be (fairly) accused of elitism.

It's not elitism. I've read King, liked him when I was younger, and moved on. I can't go back to his books because I've developed as a reader and I now realise how he isn't a good writer. Because I've read more extensively than I had when I read him I am now in a position to believe that he is inferior to other writers.

Quote:

Perhaps he is saying that objective criteria exist, but it is through the experience of reading that one determines such criteria.

Yes, through the experience of varied reading one beceomes capable of determining the obectivity. You don't have to enjoy the person's works as a friend, for example, doesn't like Gabriel Garcia Marquez but knows, having read him, that he is a good writer. Having read King he had little good to say.

selina kyle · 09-09-2005, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Yes, through the experience of varied reading one beceomes capable of determining the obectivity. You don't have to enjoy the person's works as a friend, for example, doesn't like Gabriel Garcia Marquez but knows, having read him, that he is a good writer. Having read King he had little good to say.

I love One Hundred Years of Solitude

I think you just learn, the more you read, to be able to spot what 'sounds' technically good and bad. Usually if you think 'I can do this better' it's bad writing. If you think 'I can never write like this, I'm a talentless hack' then what you're reading is very good lol

Stewart · 09-09-2005, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selina kyle

If you think 'I can never write like this, I'm a talentless hack' then what you're reading is very good lol

Ha ha! On one forum I use they have put Dan Brown in the swear filter and it gets replaces with 'Talentless Hack'

selina kyle · 09-09-2005, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Ha ha! On one forum I use they have put Dan Brown in the swear filter and it gets replaces with 'Talentless Hack'

LMFAO.

'Once there was a professor and he found seekrit things in paintings. then he worked out more things with the token girl sidekick who turns out to totally pwn people very high up in the werld. everyone makes money and i meet tom hanks. the end.'