How do you know if you suck? - Writers Forum

Bob Loblaw · 08-05-2006, 04:15 PM

I've been avoiding writing for awhile now because my last project was--well, I dumped it after three months because it felt stupid, but I thought it was because I was trying another genre. But then I began on another story, in my usual "style" (if I ever had one to begin with), and it doesn't feel the same. I literally feel like kicking myself in the nuts, but I'm not that flexible anymore. Then, on top of this, I flunked by A.P. English tests and now need to take English101, which is basically for people who can't write well and clearly enough yet.

So my question is: how do you know if you suck at writing?

StephenP2003 · 08-05-2006, 05:37 PM

Let other people on the forum tell you. It's the Internet; they won't hold back, especially those who've been here a long time and have worked hard to establish themselves as a blunt tell-it-like-it-is type of person.

Hakeem · 08-05-2006, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

So my question is: how do you know if you suck at writing?

Well when you fail your English tests and have to re-take them again.. That is the international standard measurement...

Bob, no English test poses as a measurement to your writing abilities. I don't think you are asked in the test if the characters are two dimensional or not! (Do they?!

)

The test measures your ability in comprehending the grammar basics and the language principles. It does not by any mean define your writing abilities, otherwise all English teacher are writers!

Don't put yourself down because you haven't passed a test or you failed at writing a story, no my friend, we have to try and try and keep trying until we can successfully write.. even if we write a single paragraph, we still wrote something. And hey, every writer sucks at first!

Just keep your hopes up and everything will work out fine...

Mike C · 08-05-2006, 06:17 PM

You suck if:

a) You believe you suck, and give up, or;

b) You can't get published.

And you don't get published if you don't try.

On line critiquers are notoriously crap at separating suck from success. The only opinion you need to be interested in - even more than your own - is that of the agent/editor.

cacafire · 08-05-2006, 07:50 PM

Well Said, Mike!

Even if you do suck, that doesn't mean you'll always suck. Still, you failed your English AP's?!? That's just sooo sad...

-Cacafire

aliceedelweiss · 08-05-2006, 07:54 PM

I'm only posting to agree with Mike.

Kane · 08-05-2006, 07:57 PM

Quote:

b) You can't get published.

I move to strike this, as there are many sucky writers who have been published, and many good writers who have not been published.

aliceedelweiss · 08-05-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

I move to strike this, as there are many sucky writers who have been published, and many good writers who have not been published.

I agree with this also.

I think "sucking" is a personal opinion. Write for yourself, not for other people. and if you think you suck? Just keep writing, till you find your Niche where you do your best, and keep writing. I used to suck...I won't say I'm good, or the best, but I have improved over only a year. So just keep at it.

cacafire · 08-05-2006, 08:13 PM

Think of it this way: If you suck, then hopefully your talents of persuasion are good, cause that's what it takes to get published.(Don't take my word for it, though...eheheh...)

I'm pretty sure you don't suck, though. I suck at grammar, but I can write fairly decent P)
...
...
I think.

FrankBlissett · 08-05-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

It's the Internet; they won't hold back

Depends on the site. There are many sites out there where the members seem to be in the "all they need in encouragment" school of writing. Fortunately there are sites like this one out there.

Quote:

Write for yourself, not for other people

Why does the BL have to write primarily for himself? Why can't he write to persuade others? Or for the enjoyment of others? Or to role the dice at making money at it?

It's convienent to tell developing writers that their ability to communicate is irrelivent, but what it they WANT to communicate with others? Are we going to tell them that's a bad thing and pigeon-hole them into only writing for themselves?

-Frank

aliceedelweiss · 08-05-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Why does the BL have to write primarily for himself? Why can't he write to persuade others? Or for the enjoyment of others? Or to role the dice at making money at it?

It's convienent to tell developing writers that their ability to communicate is irrelivent, but what it they WANT to communicate with others? Are we going to tell them that's a bad thing and pigeon-hole them into only writing for themselves?

Perhaps I should have better explained myself. What I mean is, don't write what people want you to write, and don't do what they want you to. If you aren't happy with what you're writing, don't do it. Primarily an author should write for themselves, I think, and for the audience secondly. I don't see how one could enjoy being a published author if they are not happy with they're own work. Does that make more sense?

Your work can be for others to read all you want.

cbrmale · 08-05-2006, 08:48 PM

There are two ways I can think of to tell if your writing is okay. First, obviously, is to get published - because published works must reach a certain minimum standard. Ultimately this is not a great test, because quite a few published works aren't very good.

Second is to get someone you respect as a good writer, but don't know personally to read your work and comment on it. This depends on the circles you travel in as to whether you can pull this off. If you can, it can be quite a revelation to get positive and negative feedback on your entire work.

Kane · 08-05-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

There are two ways I can think of to tell if your writing is okay. First, obviously, is to get published - because published works must reach a certain minimum standard. Ultimately this is not a great test, because quite a few published works aren't very good.

Obviously, if quite a few published works aren't very good, then published works do NOT have to reach a certain minimum standard, unless the standard is subpar. In either case, being published is not a valid method of telling whether your writing sucks or not.

Atom · 08-05-2006, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenP2003

Let other people on the forum tell you. It's the Internet; they won't hold back, especially those who've been here a long time and have worked hard to establish themselves as a blunt tell-it-like-it-is type of person.

IMO most people on this site tend to give more encouraging/nice feedback then what others deserve. I've never heard someone plain say that another is a bad writer, but like i do myself, we hint at it.

Aevin · 08-05-2006, 10:09 PM

I have to agree with Kane. Publishing shouldn't be seen as the ultimate benchmark of writing quality. Publishers take what they think will sell--usually, things that are proven successful and appeal to the widest audience. Some of my best writing is utterly unpublishable, but appeals strongly to certain minorities.

Given some of the unimaginative, cliché-ridden pieces of crap that do get published, and some of the fabulous work here that never can be ... well, there's more to it.

It's easy for published writers to feel superior in saying, "If you publish, you're good, and if you can't, then you suck." But it's simply not true.

Keep working. Put your heart in what you're doing. Write for yourself, and you'll find others who like it, too.