Thread: The Worst Compliment You Can Tell A Writer

This is something that I learned from my highschool Film teacher (who himself was mildly successful in the movie business) which I think should really be shared with all writers and film makers.

He said during one lecture that, the worst compliment you can say to a Film Maker, Writer, or any artist of any kind, is: "It's good"

Ironic huh? You'd think that "It's good" is a "good" compliment, but he elaborated that artists are attempting to evoke strong emotions from their audience, and "It's good" is not a strong emotion. He said that you need to make the audience feel at least something, disgusted if you have to, but if you're aspiring to be something more, then never, ever, settle for an under passionate "It's good". Because that means there was little emotion involved and that's not what you want. After all, if they wanted to experience something "good", then why not go eat a burger? play a video game? go fishing? Why do they have to go to your "art" to experience something "good" when there are so many other cheaper, more accessible "good" out there?

I wandered about the meaning of this as I tread through University, which I am even now, and always thought, well big time Harry Potter fans would say that JK Rowling's books were "good". So what about that? And I realized that any big fans of HP would say "I LOVED Harry Potter", and this lasts for a while after they've finished the series. And years later when they begin remembering little of the story of HP, the "LOVE" will degrade into a "Good". A book or a film should be graded on the impact it has on the reader, and this generally can be alluded directly to the length of time they can keep saying "I LOVED xxxx", and even further, begin discussing about the plot, characters, and etc.

With that in mind, if you ask your reader how they found your work, and they say "It's good" with little more to say right after they're done reading it, that most definitely means you didn't intrigue them any further than they would have enjoying anything else. However of course, this depends a lot on who's reading it as well, but if you keep getting a "It's good", then you know you're doing something wrong.

And this notion of passionless nod can be directly alluded to originality as well. You need to ask yourself this, "Why should someone read my work instead of Charles Dickens/Ernest Hemingway/JK Rowling, or even Stephenie Meyer?"

You need originality, and I don't just mean the premise of the story. People are reading/watching a fiction world so they can get away from their mundane real life and actually experience some emotions.

Say you're writing a Wizard story, then why should somebody pick up your story instead of Harry Potter? If you're writing a thriller, why not Tom Clancy? After all, thrillers have existed long before Tom Clancy and wizardry has been perfected thousands of times before JK Rowling, so what is it about these authors that make them stand out and etch their name on the reader's minds? It's originality, they were the first ones to do something that hasn't been done, JK Rowling popularized the idea of teenage magic with a fun atmosphere and epic-ness that hasn't been done before, and Tom Clancy was the first to write such detailed portrayal of Military in general. Even Stephenie Meyer, who herself isn't particularly a good writer, evoked strong lust from teenage girls with her passionate grasp of overt sexual desire. Ernest Hemingway had his matter-of-fact prose to distinguish him from every other writer that was out there at the time.

But don't be original for the sake of just being original. Be original in order to express yourself, be passionate and be vigorous.

One Japanese song lyrics I think sums it up the best, "There are big flowers and small flowers, but life isn't about being Number One, it's about being the Only One.

Great post. I was enlightened by reading it, and I love the song lyrics. All in all, your post was good...no...wait, I didn't mean it. Come back...Len...LEN!

Ah, don't go away mad. Really it was very good. Oh sh..Len, I swear I didn't mean it. I thought it was a great post, a superb post, the most royal post I've ever read! Len...get back in the car--please!

Seriously, though, that's sound advice.

Ed

I think it should fairly obvious that an assessment of "good" wouldn't be very satisfying to most people. I can't imagine that many people strive for "good." Seriously -- is this something you need to hear from a teacher?

Originally Posted by len_ryuka

I wandered about the meaning of this as I tread through University, which I am even now, and always thought, well big time Harry Potter fans would say that JK Rowling's books were "good". So what about that? And I realized that any big fans of HP would say "I LOVED Harry Potter", and this lasts for a while after they've finished the series. And years later when they begin remembering little of the story of HP, the "LOVE" will degrade into a "Good".

I would contend that most "big time Harry Potter fans" would not say that Harry Potter is just "good" -- otherwise they wouldn't be big time Harry Potter fans. Ask one and see what he or she says.

People rarely say that something they love is just "good." I also don't think there is any reason to take it as a given that people won't maintian their original assesment of the books. I'm sure that some people might read them as adults and not have the same feelings -- but after all, they are primarily children's books. I'm no Harry Potter fan, but what you're saying here doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Originally Posted by fleamailman

"...the good is the enemy of the best..." went the goblin borrowing that french maxim there, adding "...but a lot depends upon who is making that compliment too, for some people actually mean it while others hide their true opinion behind it, where perhaps the worse compliment is "it's perfect" because then one get fooled into thinking that it might be so here, and then either stops correcting it or writing more then...", in fact, the goblin always preferred to look at the hitcount to gage a thread's readability anyway, saying "...compliments and heckles are just that, whereas a 20hits to 1post ratio does rather cut through the conjecture..."

haha yeah, well he meant most of what he said in the context of actual physical questioning, not over an internet forum. But yes you are correct, there are much more implied meaning behind a compliment, you do have to look at body language, etc, but for the most part I believe my teacher summarized the point pretty well. If you get an honest, under passionate response... well.

Originally Posted by Edward G

Great post. I was enlightened by reading it, and I love the song lyrics. All in all, your post was good...no...wait, I didn't mean it. Come back...Len...LEN!

Ah, don't go away mad. Really it was very good. Oh sh..Len, I swear I didn't mean it. I thought it was a great post, a superb post, the most royal post I've ever read! Len...get back in the car--please!

Hahaha, that's a "good" joke haha.

Originally Posted by JosephB

I would contend that most "big time Harry Potter fans" would not say that Harry Potter is just "good" -- otherwise they wouldn't be big time Harry Potter fans. Ask one and see what he or she says.

People rarely say that something they love is just "good." I also don't think there is any reason to take it as a given that people won't maintian their original assesment of the books. I'm sure that some people might read them as adults and not have the same feelings -- but after all, they are primarily children's books. I'm no Harry Potter fan, but what you're saying here doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

You missed my point, I elaborated that they do say they "Love" the book. The only time when they say HP was "good" was long after the immediate emotional impact of the piece had gone by, this could take months, or maybe years, all depends on how much the person "loved" the book of course. What I meant when I said "After all, Big time HP fan would say it's "good" right?" I meant it in a way that I asked them years and years after they were done with the series. I'm around 20, and most of them finished HP at around 16 or so.

When I was in the U.S. for the oil spill my son and I had dinner one night with my sister. She was married for 20 years to a Sicilian and his mother taught my sister to cook, and to cook magnificently.

So after the grilled rock hen, spaghetti, roast, half a dozen vegetables, fresh baked bread, a fruit plate with homemade ice cream, all of which I knew had taken her about two days to get ready, she looks at David and I, smiles, and says, 'well, how was it?'

'Okay', I said.

'Yeah', said David. 'Okay.'

'You can both go to the Devil', she said.

Should we have said, 'it was good'?

probably a big smile and a "good" would work better than a shrug and an "okay".

of course, as I've learnt, that there is a lot going on at the body language level as well. But the way he said "Good" was trying to make a point for the striving, not for the average joe.

If you are being original to express yourself, and everyone is expressing themselves in an original way (discounting the fact that 'originality' is a lesson learned by comparing the differences in social mores and social think and applying a slanted and scrambled version of it to yourself), then does this mean that you are still original or does it mean that you're simply trying to hard?

This form of original expression is really a guise for attracting a mate. For getting laid. Can there be any other reason for it? Possibly. Perhaps we're expressing ourselves originally in order to do one over on one's neighbor. "Aha! Look how more original and how much more human I am, neighbor!" we say in our more-original-than-thou voices.

Can there be a reason to express myself in an original way to better my inner self, to hone my soul, regardless of who's watching? "Look, self, look how original I am right now! Yippee Skippee!" I say to myself in such a refreshing, original voice. My self replies, "Gee... I already know that. You're unique. Whoop-dee-f***ing do."

I really want to say "eff off" to someone who slaps me in the face with this 'be original' bullcrap, but that wouldn't be very original of me, now would it? Or sporting, for that matter. Hmm...

Originally Posted by len_ryuka

You missed my point, I elaborated that they do say they "Love" the book. The only time when they say HP was "good" was long after the immediate emotional impact of the piece had gone by, this could take months, or maybe years, all depends on how much the person "loved" the book of course. What I meant when I said "After all, Big time HP fan would say it's "good" right?" I meant it in a way that I asked them years and years after they were done with the series. I'm around 20, and most of them finished HP at around 16 or so.

What you're saying is based on some assumption that people will rethink the Harry Potter books some time after they've read them and have a different opinion. There's no basis for that assumption. Of course it could happen -- but so what? Many people will still love them based on their initial experience, regardless of whether or not the books might elicit the same response if they read them later from the perspective of an adult -- or if their tastes have otherwise changed.

What difference does it make? What was your point -- good isn't good enough? Yeah -- OK.

And don't be original for the sake of being original. Wow, keep 'em coming.

You also have to consider the fact that a fair-sized chunk of the general population are incapable of expressing emotion, even if they might feel it inside.

Let's keep everything civil in here, folks. You may not like someone's opinion, but that doesn't mean you can't address it in a respectful manner.

Originally Posted by fleamailman

"...the good is the enemy of the best..." went the goblin borrowing that french maxim there

I couldn't agree more.

This is such a good (now we will be paranoid to use this word at all) thread . I guess it's really about how one let's people define them.
Ox, amen!
Some people feel inadequate to comment honestly to a painting or a story or anything creative.
Even if they love it, some people are conditioned not to show emotion, and I'm sorry if this offends anyone but men are conditioned that way most.
Other folks are afraid that a very favorable comment will elevate the artist because somewhere in their head it puts them down in their own eyes... crazy but true.
I guess I'm a gusher... I like to encourage people. It does my soul good!

^ True. The thing is, writing is supposed to be but a catharsis and a learning of sorts. I write because stories are a way for me to say what I feel of many things, plus it gives me a sort of escape from the real world. In my stories, I can do anything, and this gives me some sort of freedom, however short and unrealistic it may be.

Back to topic: I don't think telling a work is "good" is a bad thing in its entirety. After all, "good" is a word that exists whether or not we use it. The point is not in the compliment, but in the sincerity of it. While it is true that we have to give people a pat in the back sometimes, we are always to make sure that this pat is followed with a friendly reminder, or rather an encourager, saying, "This is really good. Now, we make it great."

Great is good!

Originally Posted by JosephB

What you're saying is based on some assumption that people will rethink the Harry Potter books some time after they've read them and have a different opinion. There's no basis for that assumption. Of course it could happen -- but so what? Many people will still love them based on their initial experience, regardless of whether or not the books might elicit the same response if they read them later from the perspective of an adult -- or if their tastes have otherwise changed.

Again, you're not getting my point. I'm making this quite clear, but I'll say it again so it's less parse-able . "Love" degrades(keyword here) in to a "good" after a long period of time when the reader begins forgetting about the emotional impact they felt back then. No, they did not "reconsider" or "re-assessed" their likings of a book, what they did do however, was attempt to remember the impact the book had on them.

If a reader REALLY loved a book, they can say they "Loved it!"(not exactly with those words of course) for a very long time. However when some people begin to forget about the book, they may begin to say "It's good" because they can't immediately pull out their emotional experience. It has nothing to do with reassessment of themselves.