Thread: what is BAD poetry/writing?

according to us, there are famous/popular/funny/not so funny writers and poets which means we mentally decide on what is good and what is bad and select the few amongst thousands of writers out there.
is it in our nature to be selective and therefore offer less chances/less views from other expressionists who also have a talent but not so great compared to Shakespear say?
I am wondering, editors and publishers have a lot to do with it, because they have a finall word on what is acceptable/average/excellent/poor?
subjective is one word that comes to mind.

so what makes bad/unattractive writing ?

Oh dear Nacian, you are trying to quantify the unquantifiable again. Mark Twain thought that Shakespeare was a waste of space; I don't like Dickens; and as for Voltaire, I thought Candide puerile rubbish - Does that answer your question?

no it does not.
nuances is what I am after.
you have not said why you dislike Dickens and why is Shakespear still famous and studied ,and not many actually like him.

If you believe current opinion, Shakespeare didn't write any of his work. He might just be the biggest plagiarist in the history of literature.

Charles Dickens went from telling light-hearted stories to obsessing about oppression and slavery. His novel Hard Times is a true reflection of this, but most of his ideas for it were stolen from other writers of the time: Charles Kingsley, Thomas Carlyle, and Friedrich Engels. Plus, some people find it hard to read texts over a hundred years old. It's an indictment of how much the language has changed in such a short period of time. Don't even bother trying to read Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales.

And, no, the publishers don't get the final say on what's good or not. That decision belongs to readers, and readers alone.

Originally Posted by Sam W

If you believe current opinion, Shakespeare didn't write any of his work. He might just be the biggest plagiarist in the history of literature.

Twaddle - It's a film of no historical merit, it is not current thinking.

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

Oh dear Nacian, you are trying to quantify the unquantifiable again. Mark Twain thought that Shakespeare was a waste of space; I don't like Dickens; and as for Voltaire, I thought Candide puerile rubbish - Does that answer your question?

So did Tolstoy, and to some extent, as did Turgenev. I expect with the former though, especially when one considers his public announcement of his detestation, it had something to do with testing the strength of his reputation in the literary world (slander Shakespeare successfully, and if you aren't castigated...)

Dickens, I think for most, is not necessarily disliked, per se, but has the unending ability to bore simply due to the familiarity we all have with his work. The countless theatrical, stage, film and contemporary reproduction his work, it's no wonder. It's almost akin to listening to Wizard at Christmas...

I'd say bad writing is far too broad a diagnosis to give in something as short as a forum post, though my simple definition would be something meeting the following criteria (keep in mind these are certainly not stand-alone):

- Limited vocabulary, use of metaphor, literary device, ideology, etc
- Poor exposition in character development, scene development, context
- No philosophy or message to be gleaned (King believes it unnecessary, though his caveat to that was bang-on)
- Written in a genre notorious for lacking gravitas, especially in modernity
- Little literary merit

As I said, too broad to give on definition, though I think the above, if all met, would be a pretty terrible piece of work.

It seems like most bad poetry is written by people who feel that they must adopt a lofty tone of voice and speak about grandiose things because of some warped idea of poetry in general. The poor schmuck reading this kind of stuff soon finds himself drowning in a sea of abstract words and nondescription.

Bad writing will usually contain one or more of the following elements:

Incorrect grammar, but most importantly dangling modifiers. They serve only to confuse and annoy, do not use them.
Lazily worded descriptions
Bad characterisation (e.g: Your villain is repeatedly described as a monster. The worst he is shown doing is petting kittens. This isn't intended to be ironic, the reader was genuinely supposed to consider the villain, villainous.)
Use of Dues Ex Machina and/or the Ass Pull.
Allowing the plot threads to get too complicated and get away from you.
Xanatos Roulettes.
Plot Contrived Coincidences.
Character Derailment - Where a character moves on, emotionally, or gains a new skill, which is immediately disregarded for the sake of plot. Or where said characters already existing emotional characteristics or skills are disregarded for the sake of plot.
Idiot Ball - Where a character, previously introduced as somewhat intelligent, suddenly acts like a moron for the sake of plot.
Purple Prose - This is the one which is usually variable. Purple prose can be bad, for example:

Edward in the sunlight was shocking. I couldn't get used to it, though I'd been staring at him all afternoon. His skin, white despite the faint flush from yesterday's hunting trip, literally sparkled, like thousands of tiny diamonds were embedded in the surface. He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening, pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn't sleep. A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marble, glittering like crystal.

But it can be good, for example:

The bouquets of brilliant anemones undulated ceaselessly in the invisible current, twisted shells scurried about the edges, obscuring crabs witihin them, starfish stuck motionless to the rocks and each other, while one small black eel with white racing stripes wove through the bright green weeds, waiting for the sea to return.

There are more things that are usually included in bad writing, but I can't be arsed to go through them all.

Originally Posted by Nacian

why is Shakespear still famous and studied ,and not many actually like him.

really??? trust me, i used to work for the Royal Shakespeare Company. i think you'll find he has his fans...

A few clues to bad writing:

- dialogue and thoughts unrealistic to the character its attributed to. i.e - a five year old who uses big words in correct contexts and has a sophisticated understanding of adult behavior and issues.
- an overuse of abstract nouns and pompous, unnecessary adjectives causing overwriting and shades of pretension - 'the fatuous fraternization exhaled a plumage of morose impassibility into the languor of the moment as she perambulated in somnambulism through the dark chasms of the exalting coitus.'
- similar to the above; the tendency to overwrite and use large words when smaller ones will do: 'he journeyed to the eminent source of the water' instead of 'he went to the lake'.
- overuse of ad-verbs, particularly connected to dialogue - 'you've got a nice butt, lady,' tom said cheekily. 'thank you tom,' replied the woman, huskily.
- cliches, or really obvious and/or unimaginative similes and metaphors. 'the sun shone like a ball of fire'. 'the child laughed like a hyena', 'the town was a hive of activity'.
- avoid any of the following to be the focus of your plot under almost all circumstances: two friends making a blood pact and then something happening to challenge the friendship, a love affair between two members of otherwise warring factions (the romeo and juliet story has been done so often, and well, that there's almost certainly no way of repeating it without putting in some serious imagination), haunted houses, vampires, a quest for a magical or legendary object (lord of the rings, king arthur, etc), rags to riches stories (again, unless you're going to put a seriously original spin on it) or the death of one or both parents. actually the parent dying thing still has mileage insofar as a plot event (its kind of embedded in the human psyche that way) but there's only so many renditions of 'bambi' and 'star wars' that can be repeated. as with all of the above, use with caution.

Originally Posted by philistine

Limited vocabulary, use of metaphor, literary device, ideology, etc.

I'm curious about this one, especially concerning metaphors. Are we referring to metaphors in general ("time flies like an arrow") or metaphors in the book (The Old Man and the Sea)? I don't use too much of either, simply because I don't have the imagination for good original ones in-text and I'm too direct in my thinking to make my book have any "hidden meaning." How much of a problem is this?

Originally Posted by Chirios

Bad writing will usually contain one or more of the following elements:

Incorrect grammar, but most importantly dangling modifiers. They serve only to confuse and annoy, do not use them.
Lazily worded descriptions
Bad characterisation (e.g: Your villain is repeatedly described as a monster. The worst he is shown doing is petting kittens. This isn't intended to be ironic, the reader was genuinely supposed to consider the villain, villainous.)
Use of Dues Ex Machina and/or the Ass Pull.
Allowing the plot threads to get too complicated and get away from you.
Xanatos Roulettes.
Plot Contrived Coincidences.
Character Derailment - Where a character moves on, emotionally, or gains a new skill, which is immediately disregarded for the sake of plot. Or where said characters already existing emotional characteristics or skills are disregarded for the sake of plot.
Idiot Ball - Where a character, previously introduced as somewhat intelligent, suddenly acts like a moron for the sake of plot.
Purple Prose - This is the one which is usually variable. Purple prose can be bad, for example:

Someone's been on TVTropes...

If I can't get through it--poem, story, article, whatever--I don't like it.

I quit reading the Harry Dresden series after the book where Harry didn't realize the silver pentacle he got from his progenitor (I forget mother or grandmother) counted as "inherited silver". I knew on page in the teens and he was well past 200 to figuring it out. If he were an idiot, I could accept that but he's not. I honestly don't remember if I finished it even.

An example of bad poetry is the would-be poet who uses "thee/thy/thou" but doesn't know the proper (what is it for pronouns, declension?). I'm not an expert on what's correct, but it seems easy to see missteps in that kind of thing. Also, people who don't know what colors are. Vermillion is not, for instance, a shade of green.

Of course the obvious of bad grammar and punctuation. No one is perfect on either score, but when a work is rife with errors--it's bad. It's bad. You know it.

Originally Posted by astroannie

... but when a work is rife with errors--it's bad. It's bad. You know it.

One of the things that stops me right away. I won't read something when it is clear the author hasn't bothered making it presentable.