# What is good writing?



## FatCat (Sep 19, 2015)

Very vague topic, yes, but I'm interested in what you think a good writer does. Is it making a fantastic world, compelling characters, great flow in terms of tension? What distinguishes great from amateur writers? 

Everyone on this site loves fantasy, but what makes a great story? More importantly, how do you achieve a great story? With ideas a dime a dozen and execution reigning supreme, what puts a mediocre story over the edge?


----------



## FifthView (Sep 20, 2015)

Ok, yes, a vague question, but it's one I like thinking about.

I myself am _not_ a great writer.  But when I'm reading, I like to see, pretty much in this order of importance, these things:


*Great prose.*   The prose can be relatively simple or complex with respect to word choice, sentence and paragraph construction, but in either case, it flows smoothly, it gets its ideas across without becoming muddled, overcomplicated, overwrought.  It is vivid—whether in description or in thought processes.  Smooth prose can be rather deceptive, because when it's great, it can seem very easy to do.  But just in this last year, I read one author who used spliced sentences throughout, often leading to unfortunate ambiguity and confusion, and another who seemed to begin every few sentences with "And" during action scenes as if that could heighten tension.  Very annoying.

*Character development.*  I like characters who are nuanced, who change or develop throughout a story, and who remain both plausible and internally consistent.  I do _not_ like main characters who are one-note, characters who will suddenly do something out of character for no discernable reason, or characters who always magically make the right choices when nothing in the preceding prose foreshadows their ability to make those choices.  I like characters who are a product of their worlds:  the world in general, their society, their family and friends have influenced who they are.  I like characters who are shown to experience the try-fail cycles of their lives, whether before the plot or in the course of the story.  (I.e., they have a history, and now they have a new history being made.)  I like characters who _can_ and _will_ be proactive even if they are often in the position of having to react to things.

*Pacing.*  This one's a lot like #1, great prose, in that I like pacing that is smoothly done.  Every chapter has a reason for being and pulls me in.  Every scene, too.  When transitioning from a scene or chapter to a new one, I like feeling as if it's a valid transition:  It ties into what I've just read or promises to tie what I've just read to whatever is coming later, and all these in a row deliver.  There's always a sense of progress, even when a chapter is more character-focused than plot-focused.  I like ample foreshadowing, surprises, and a variable rhythm to the development—so, although it is smoothly handled, the pacing is not tediously regular like soldiers marching in formation.  It also doesn't just jump ahead in the final couple chapters to suddenly wrap things up.

*World building.*  I like internal consistency in fantasy worlds and, again that word, plausibility.  I like unexpected features that are novel to the novel, new twists to old tropes.  I like seeing how every feature of the world affects every other feature.  For instance, one of my big pet peeves is when a science fiction movie introduces some futuristic invention but draws the rest of society as if that ubiquitous invention would have no or little effect on everything from the economics to social interactions and political institutions.  Same thing goes for fantasy worlds.

*Plot development.*  No _deus ex machina_, please.  Everything needs a reason for happening, and most of that reasoning will be in everything that precedes the event—or else will unfold as the repercussions of that event push characters to act.  These reasons often will not be clear until they become clear.  A plodding plot is a lot like an over-regular pacing, without surprises and developed as if according to a recipe.  At the same time, an over-coy approach to plot that uses multiple false flags, excessive secrecy, and so forth leaves me feeling like I'm being toyed with when that approach becomes obvious.  I'd much rather have most plot developments _seem_ apparent, and characters reacting "in good faith" to them, even if the characters are in error and I as reader am in for a surprise, than have an author purposely withhold information because she thinks that constant confusion is serving the plot.  This last point ties into character development, because there's little I like less than having a whole novel (or movie) where the MCs do nothing but constantly react to surprises in a state of constant confusion.

For characters, world building, and plot development:  I can't stress enough how much I appreciate new approaches.  A piece of advice I picked up somewhere was to go with your third or fourth thought about any of these.  I.e., when considering what your character will be like or some aspect of your world or how to move the plot along, whatever pops in your head the first time or second time should be thrown out, because it's likely clichÃ© or a common — or, _easy_ — idea.  If I had to pick out the one common mistake in amateur writing, it would be this stopping on the first or second idea, repeatedly, and these ideas often become those metaphorical "darlings" that should have been killed.

As for the order of the above...all these features are important, and I think that any one of these areas handled very badly would ruin a book for me.  However, it seems to me that the first three are possibly the most difficult.


----------



## ThinkerX (Sep 20, 2015)

Anymore, something that holds my interest.


----------



## cupiscent (Sep 20, 2015)

When I start busting out the five-star ratings on GoodReads for a novel, it's because the author's satisfied me in two very different ways: intellectually and emotionally. I've enjoyed engaging with a story that's interesting, that _matters_, that has something to say or something to explore about humanity or the world, and that has done it well; _and_ it's pulled me into and made me enjoy being with and care about its world and characters through excellent language use and emotional engagement, and it's delivered the punches it promised (be it romance or tragedy or justice or hard lessons).

I've read books that do one really well without managing the other, and they're interesting or fun (respectively) but they're not _great_. So, for instance, _Three Body Problem_ hooked me completely intellectually, but there was no emotional involvement. But, say, _Daughter of Smoke and Bone_ was a book I wallowed in luxuriantly, but ultimately it didn't have the intellectual involvement for me to continue with the series.


----------



## goldhawk (Sep 20, 2015)

Good writing is transparent writing. It's when the reader remembers the story but not the words. When the reader is so immersed in the story, the words become invisible.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 20, 2015)

I don't agree with Goldhawk. I like stories just fine that have transparent writing in the sense described above, but those are likely at best to get four stars from me. The best works and best authors, in my view, are those where there is something special about the prose itself. That can't exist when it is transparent.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 20, 2015)

If we're just talking about "good" writing, it just needs to be interesting and clear.

If we're talking about "great" writing, it needs to be interesting,clear, and provocative in some way. That can be accomplished through character, plot, even setting. A provocative story can change the way I think by altering the way I view the real world or real issues, or simply approaching a familiar notion from a fresh and powerful angle.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 20, 2015)

To me, it must entertain and engage. How ever the writing does that, I don't care. What ever mixture of characters, plot, world, prose, etc., that happens to come together and works to achieve entertainment and engagement is good writing to me.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 21, 2015)

For me, good prose is a big factor. I didn't love the story of name of the wind, but Patrick rothfuss' style of prose kept me enthralled.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 21, 2015)

I think a good writer communicates effectively, with clarity and proper flow to the best of their ability. But it's all subjective anyway. I've read some awful prose with interesting stories, and well structured prose that bored me. Either way, good vs bad depends on whether the audience for that particular story connects with it or not (for the most part).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 21, 2015)

I think you have to define "good" in terms of the writing's goal.

If you want to write something that keeps your reader turning pages late into the night, your writing is good if readers keep turning pages late into the night.

Likewise, if your goal is to make your readers think, the writing is good if it accomplishes that.

There are too many disparate goals to create an overall definition of "good."  Additionally, there's a degree of subjectivity when it comes to writing.  Let's say you and I compiled a list of all the books both of us have read and ranked our 10 "best" and 10 "worst."  I can pretty much guarantee that some books in my top 10 would land in your bottom and vice versa.

So, essentially, perhaps defining "good" isn't all that helpful.  Better, I think, is to ask, "What's the best way to achieve _this_ goal?"


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 21, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think you have to define "good" in terms of the writing's goal.
> 
> If you want to write something that keeps your reader turning pages late into the night, your writing is good if readers keep turning pages late into the night.
> 
> ...




Yep. And even for an individual reader there may be a variety of definitions of "good" depending on the work. Right now, I'm reading "Mrs. Dalloway," by Virginia Woolf. It is quite good. It typically appears on lists of the best English-language novels ever written. Page turner it is not. It's good because the writing is interesting, and unusual (Woolf likes to play around with prose). It touches on a variety of themes, but really it is the writing itself that carries it.

I also recently finished a Jack Reacher novel. It was good as well. The prose is lean and it is built purely to get the reader to turn the page to see what happens next. 

If I read a Reacher novel because I wanted to admire prose or to think, I'd be disappointed. If I approached Woolf wanting a page-turner, I'd likewise be disappointed (heck, for Mrs. Dalloway, I believe the entire novel takes place over the course of a single day of the character's life).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 21, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Yep. And even for an individual reader there may be a variety of definitions of "good" depending on the work. Right now, I'm reading "Mrs. Dalloway," by Virginia Woolf. It is quite good. It typically appears on lists of the best English-language novels ever written. Page turner it is not. It's good because the writing is interesting, and unusual (Woolf likes to play around with prose). It touches on a variety of themes, but really it is the writing itself that carries it.
> 
> I also recently finished a Jack Reacher novel. It was good as well. The prose is lean and it is built purely to get the reader to turn the page to see what happens next.
> 
> If I read a Reacher novel because I wanted to admire prose or to think, I'd be disappointed. If I approached Woolf wanting a page-turner, I'd likewise be disappointed (heck, for Mrs. Dalloway, I believe the entire novel takes place over the course of a single day of the character's life).



Exactly.

You and I have discussed John Ringo before.  I wouldn't put him up as an example of following all the rules of writing, but sometimes I just want to  read about a character who kicks butt and takes name.  John Ringo delivers that in spades (though, truthfully, I couldn't get into his Zombie series.  I think it's because he doesn't focus on a viewpoint character who sees the big picture, and the whole thing becomes kinda repetitious.).

It's all about expectations and whether those expectations are being met.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 21, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> You and I have discussed John Ringo before.  I wouldn't put him up as an example of following all the rules of writing, but sometimes I just want to  read about a character who kicks butt and takes name.  John Ringo delivers that in spades (though, truthfully, I couldn't get into his Zombie series.  I think it's because he doesn't focus on a viewpoint character who sees the big picture, and the whole thing becomes kinda repetitious.).
> 
> It's all about expectations and whether those expectations are being met.


 

Yep. He's another good example. It doesn't make sense to criticize Ringo for not being "literary," (however you want to define that). He doesn't intend to be. The thing I like to see in literature is a wide variety. I have some friends who are into writing "serious" literature (again, however you want to define that) and they deride popular commercial fiction. That doesn't make sense to me. Not liking it is one thing, but there's no reason to denigrate it. 

Plus, many such people have the misconception that there isn't any serious, literary-type fiction in fantasy, which also isn't true. There is that kind of fantasy as well as the commercial kind.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 21, 2015)

I should note that as a reader of genre (SF/F/Horror &c.) I find more often than not when it's a literary v. commercial argument, it's because someone is characterizing the genres as inferior. That's irritating.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 21, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> I should note that as a reader of genre (SF/F/Horror &c.) I find more often than not when it's a literary v. commercial argument, it's because someone is characterizing the genres as inferior. That's irritating.



...or upset with an author's financial success within speculative fiction, all the while wondering why their literary preferences may not enjoy similar success. Usually, I've seen that reaction as snobbery.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 21, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> ...or upset with an author's financial success within speculative fiction, all the while wondering why their literary preferences may not enjoy similar success. Usually, I've seen that reaction as snobbery.



Oh yeah. Meyer, Rowling, Brown, Collins...someone hits it big and then even within genre circles people get out the knives.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 21, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Oh yeah. Meyer, Rowling, Brown, Collins...someone hits it big and then even within genre circles people get out the knives.



Something about all those books caused fans to read them in droves.  I can't help but feel that every piece of writing advice I've ever read failed to explain what that element was.

It's not like we, as authors, are learning the wrong lessons from these successes. It's like we're not learning any lessons at all.

I don't think any of it is pure chance. I think that, somewhere there is a key, that if we could just master these elements and combine with those other elements, we can create something that compels and entertains.

How do I write _Twilight_, darnit?!?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 21, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Something about all those books caused fans to read them in droves.  I can't help but feel that every piece of writing advice I've ever read failed to explain what that element was.
> 
> It's not like we, as authors, are learning the wrong lessons from these successes. It's like we're not learning any lessons at all.
> 
> ...



I agree. I've started discussions on various forums asking what those books got right that engaged so many readers (who tend to be smart people). Most of the responses are dismissive or insulting of the readers, rather than looking deeper to see what those writers clearly did so right.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 21, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> I agree. I've started discussions on various forums asking what those books got right that engaged so many readers (who tend to be smart people). Most of the responses are dismissive or insulting of the readers, rather than looking deeper to see what those writers clearly did so right.



Of all the Twilight books, I've read _Midnight Sun _the most times.  The thing that struck me about the writing was that every line seemed to be emotionally filtered through the viewpoint character. 

That element combined with a great first person character voice and good tension is what, I think, really draws me to that story.

One thought I had on the subject:

There are many different techniques one can use to capture a reader's attention (tension, emotion, voice, humor, etc.).  The most captivating books tend to combine a bunch of these elements.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 21, 2015)

Truth is, no one knows why they were smash successes. There's far too many variables involved to boil it down to some sort of success road map. 

In the end though, they had a story that appealed across markets (YA & Adult), they contained elements readers found appealing (romance, action, mystery, etc.), and readers flat out enjoyed them.

I read a lot of those books, simply because I wanted to know why they were such smash hits. One thing I found in common is they all were easy reading. That's part of the reason people scoff at their readers and writers, talking about the "horrible writing". Is the prose on the level of Nabokov or Tolstoy? Certainly not, but if someone thinks writing so that reading is easy and unaffected is simple or banal, they haven't a clue. It's damn hard work to write so the reading is easy. I believe a large portion of readers, those that wish to be entertained primarily, truly appreciate easy reading. That factor can serve to heighten enjoyment because it's not work, while at the same time deepening immersion.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 21, 2015)

Meyers is good at building reader empathy. You want the characters to succeed, and for things to work out. You want to keep reading to see if it does. I thought she did that particularly well in The Host. Better than in Twilight.

I agree about the reading level, and about it not being as easy to do as some assume.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 21, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Meyers is good at building reader empathy. You want the characters to succeed, and for things to work out. You want to keep reading to see if it does. I thought she did that particularly well in The Host. Better than in Twilight.
> 
> I agree about the reading level, and about it not being as easy to do as some assume.



For some reason, _The Host _didn't resonate with me nearly as well as with_ Twilight_.  I haven't ever re-read it to try to figure out why, however. Maybe I should.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Sep 22, 2015)

Good writing depends on a lot of things ranging from the reader and their expectations to the writer. However, there is one common thread in all good writing; it must be clear. That doesn't mean the prose needs to be simplistic, I have read some complex prose that was clear. It also doesn't mean that the themes need to be simple, complex themes can come across in a clear manner if handled correctly. What I do mean is that the writer has communicated his or her own intentions to the reader so that there is little to no question what the writer is saying.

Writing clearly can be achieved in manner different ways. One such way is through the no-style way. John Grisham does this well. His prose is barebones, it only conveys so much information, and there is a lot of telling. But his stories are generally good. This comes from the author knowing himself. He is legally trained. Legal writing is generally lackluster in terms of style. And that is putting it mildly. Grisham didn't fight that, he embraced it. For that his writing is better and is all the clearer. I enjoy it. I never wonder what is happening in his books. Because of that I can think about the characters and the stories in ways I can't when I am trying to figure out just WTH happened.

Another way is the more prose heavy way. There are many writers that do this. Rothfuss is a good example of this. His prose is wonderful, much prettier than Grisham's. But he still communicates clearly. Rothfuss I feel knows his skills and is using them to the best of his ability. It's beautiful when he embraces his voice and allows the words to flow from mind to page. But it's still clear and I like what he does. Sometimes his prose carries his story. That's another example of good writing.

Seeing this range we can also assume there is a great deal of middle ground, which is true. There is a lot of play between prose heavy and the no-style mentioned above. To be a good writer you need to find out your strengths and use them to the best of your abilities. Once you have figured that out your writing will be clearer, which will make it more impactful and that in turn will make your readers like what you write even more.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 22, 2015)

I don't agree that good writing has to be clear. Sometimes, a book makes the reader work for it. Some great works do that. Take Joyce and Woolf, for example. Their prose certainly isn't always clear. Sometimes you have to go back and piece things together, particularly given Woolf's penchant for head-hopping without any kind of break, and sometimes mid-paragraph even more than once.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 22, 2015)

I will add another example to Brian Scott Allans examples of clarity… 

I LOVE Hemmingway, who writes in a very sparse way. His narrators are almost totally stoic with very little (if any) emotion. I read a quote once that said he didn't need to explain the emotions, because he hoped that his writing would create the emotion in the reader, who could then apply them to the narrator… very challenging thing to do. He has almost entire pages of dialogue with no actions or descriptions in between, and yet it is absolutely crystal clear what is happening. There are MANY parts of Hemmingway stories where he makes the reader work for it. Where he will give a scene, and you think you have a firm grip on what is happening, and then in the next scene one simple line, or one simple silence on the part of a character will blow it all apart. It is genius! 

On the other hand, Margaret Attwood, who wrote The Handmaid's Tale, has such beautiful prose that sometimes I want to read her lines over and over and over again because her word choice is absolute perfection. She describes things much more abstractly, but her message is still crystal clear. 

I guess good writing just resonates with you, for whatever reason. Whether it is a children's story, or an YA, or an adult fiction, whether it is sci-fi, or fantasy, or Literary fiction or non-fiction… it just has a message that hits your heart and stays with you. I literally slogged through GOT because everyone kept telling me how good it was… I kept going and going and going because I started to like some of the characters… and then Jaime Lannister saved Breinne of Tarth and I was hooked. The possibility of redemption became crystal clear to me, and I realized what GRRM had been trying to get at the entire time.. that there is no evil or good, beside what is in ourselves, and that message has kept me turning the pages every since.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 22, 2015)

Ok, Ok, tell me to shut up any time…  

Going back to what I was saying about good writing is 'meaningful' to the reader… 

When I teach Gr 9 english and we read The Hobbit I always ask my students "What is this book about?" At the beginning they have answers like "It is about a tiny guy who goes on a quest to find a dragon." "It is about a wizard and some dwarves who have an adventure…" etc. 

After we are finished, and they know a bit more about what makes "good" writing, the answers look more like: 

"It is about never really being able to go back home." 
"It is about how even the smallest in society have a role to play"
"It is about nature vs. the industrial revolution" 

etc. So long as they can back up their response with adequate examples than they are right, because it means whatever it means to _them._

That is good writing.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 22, 2015)

Which makes it obvious why Twilight was so successful (I think). 

Mix together the most popular story of all time for teenagers (Romeo and Juliet) with a common fairy tale (Beauty and the Beast… Bella? Belle? Seriously?) 

And throw in a dash of the one thing on every teenagers mind (Sexual tension) 

And it doesn't matter how bad the writing is, you have a recipe for a hit. 

What kid doesn't identify with sitting next to "that" person in science class and getting all hot and bothered, but totally unable to act on it? What Meyers did right was she made it a fantasy. She removed it far enough from reality that it became OK for kids to get into it, without it being so close to reality that it was uncomfortable (Degrassi High anyone? Judy Blume?)


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 22, 2015)

Good comments here. I'd like add another element - timing.

There's cultural timing -- what was a good (popular) book in one decade or century may not be so regarded in another. This probably applies across space as well as time. 

But there's also personal timing. I've encountered books that I loved as a kid that seem poor to downright embarrassing to me now. There are books that carried deep personal meaning to me but don't seem to connect with many other people with whom I otherwise share many likes in common. 

This leads me to believe that there are more variables that just the book in play here. There's circumstance and individual as well. Sure there are some books that are widely regarded as "great" by a wide variety of people consistently over decades. Maybe that's what the OP really meant by "good" writing. To assess that takes me well out of my comfort zone into the boggy swamps of literary criticism and cultural analysis.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 22, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Which makes it obvious why Twilight was so successful (I think).
> 
> Mix together the most popular story of all time for teenagers (Romeo and Juliet) with a common fairy tale (Beauty and the Beast... Bella? Belle? Seriously?)
> 
> ...




I think you're missing out on an important aspect regarding its success. Adult readers were a huge reason that series became a commercial success. It wasn't just teen readers.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Sep 22, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> I don't agree that good writing has to be clear. Sometimes, a book makes the reader work for it. Some great works do that. Take Joyce and Woolf, for example. Their prose certainly isn't always clear. Sometimes you have to go back and piece things together, particularly given Woolf's penchant for head-hopping without any kind of break, and sometimes mid-paragraph even more than once.



Perhaps I should elaborate on my comment more. I divide my criteria for a novel into two separate categories: storytelling and writing. I recognize that this strict division has some overlap with each other but to keep it simple let's just assume the two categories have a bright line of separation. Storytelling includes plot, pacing, characterization, themes, and other things that tie into telling a story. Writing deals with sentence structure, syntax, word choice, grammar, clarity, and other technical aspects or, put another way, the method whereby the storyteller conveys the information to tell the story.  A good work combines good storytelling and good writing. However, oftentimes great storytelling can overcome poor writing. So, I cannot say for sure but I bet Woolf and Joyce have some aspects that fit in the storytelling camp that overcome this lack of clarity. However, to me that means that the work is good, not necessarily that the "writing" is good.

Note that I am not saying that Woolf is a bad writer _per se_, I haven't read her works. What I am saying is that the clarity aspect is clearly deficient as it applies to you and that there are other aspects of the work that overcome this, in my mind, significant hurdle.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 22, 2015)

Woolf was a brilliant writer. She and Joyce are usually mentioned among the most important writers of the 20th century. They wrote the way they did on purpose. Both were capable of more clear, conventional writing - the both did it very effectively early in their careers. But those aren't the works that led them to be counted among the greats. The lack of clarity in prose, structure, and the like was purposeful, not something storytelling had to overcome. If that's what they wanted, they could have continued in the same manner as their early works (Joyce's Dubliners, which is quite clear, has some wonderful short stories). Sorry, I think you're way off base, probably from not being familiar with the works I'm talking about.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Sep 22, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Which makes it obvious why Twilight was so successful (I think).
> 
> Mix together the most popular story of all time for teenagers (Romeo and Juliet) with a common fairy tale (Beauty and the Beast… Bella? Belle? Seriously?)
> 
> ...



_Twilight_ is complicated to me. I personally hate it. But I understand how some like it. Part of it is it's wide demographic appeal and another part of it is the story, it certainly is not the writing. No, as has been hashed so many times, it's not the writing. But it spoke to people, it spoke to a lot of people for various reasons and that I think makes the work a good work. But, as noted in a prior post, it is not good writing as I personally define it.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Sep 22, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Woolf was a brilliant writer. She and Joyce are usually mentioned among the most important writers of the 20th century. They wrote the way they did on purpose. Both were capable of more clear, conventional writing - the both did it very effectively early in their careers. But those aren't the works that led them to be counted among the greats. The lack of clarity in prose, structure, and the like was purposeful, not something storytelling had to overcome. If that's what they wanted, they could have continued in the same manner as their early works (Joyce's Dubliners, which is quite clear, has some wonderful short stories). Sorry, I think you're way off base, probably from not being familiar with the works I'm talking about.



Ah, then that changes the analysis if the lack of clarity is a deliberate choice. As with all things writing the rules (like clarity) are meant only for general guidelines and when broken knowingly and with purpose can make a work great. And I am not saying Woolf or Joyce nor their works necessarily are bad. I don't know. I haven't read them. And to be honest I don't plan on doing so any time soon. However, most of the time when I read an unclear work it is because the lack of clarity was not done with a purpose or was lackadaisical and so broke the immersion. This can be overcome with good story, but it is a hurdle.

These categories I have created for me aren't perfect. I use them to help me analyze a work, besides that clarity isn't necessarily the end all be all of good writing. I find it important for me because I don't really enjoy reading obtuse works unless I am in a certain mood and that is rare. This conversation goes to show that enjoying a work and believing what is "good" is inherently subjective.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 22, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Ah, then that changes the analysis if the lack of clarity is a deliberate choice. As with all things writing the rules (like clarity) are meant only for general guidelines and when broken knowingly and with purpose can make a work great.



_Can_, perhaps; but often, won't.  As with many things.


----------



## psychotick (Sep 23, 2015)

Hi,

For me good writing is about the story. It's about me feeling for the characters, living in the world build, my heart beating with the twists and turns of the plot, and losing myself completely for a time. The prose is secondary. Good prose is basically prose that knows enough to get out of the way of my enjoyment of the book. Sometimes I appreciate great prose - Tolkein - but even then if it distracts me from the story it's a mixed bag. A really good book has me reading through the night unable to stop until I know how it ends.

Then come the brownie points. The things that elevate a really good book to a great one. And sometimes these might include elements of the prose. Turns of phrase that come back to me after I've finished the book. Often enough in sci fi it's the implications / thought provoking stuff that lingers after the story is over. Think Gormenghast - well written and a massively strange yet entertaining world. But after going through the first two books I found myself constantly asking one simple question - is Steerpike a villain or a victim? That's the question that lingers for me and which makes a good read an even better one.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 23, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Ah, then that changes the analysis if the lack of clarity is a deliberate choice. As with all things writing the rules (like clarity) are meant only for general guidelines and when broken knowingly and with purpose can make a work great. And I am not saying Woolf or Joyce nor their works necessarily are bad. I don't know. I haven't read them. And to be honest I don't plan on doing so any time soon. However, most of the time when I read an unclear work it is because the lack of clarity was not done with a purpose or was lackadaisical and so broke the immersion. This can be overcome with good story, but it is a hurdle.



Yes, I think this is right. As with any rules or guidelines for writing, when an author understands them and deliberately breaks them, they may end up with something good (if they know what they're doing). If they break them through lack of knowledge, it's a lot more likely to be a mess.

I think of Woolf and Joyce like Picasso, in a way. Have you ever seen Picasso's early realist works? He was very good, particularly at human sketches. He did this when he was 17 years old:








Whether you like the piece or not, he clearly knew how to paint. But of course what made Picasso famous are his cubist works, and opinions on those are going to be heavily divided among viewers of art (I'm not a huge fan of cubism).

Joyce and Woolf knew how to write in a conventional style. In fact, they were both so good at it that their early works were very well received. Joyce's _Dubliners_ still has one of the best short stories in it (The Dead). Woolf's _The Voyage Out_ was hailed by some critics as one of the best novels in around 75 years. Those works are both written in straightforward manners.

But what made Joyce famous were _Ulysses_, and _Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_, and _Finnegan's Wake _(the latter of which is largely an impenetrable fog to me, but people who know what they're reading can make sense of it). For Woolf, it was works like _To The Lighthouse_, and _Mrs. Dalloway_, and _T__he Waves_.  These are intentionally written in an manner that puts clarity in a distant back seat to style. Woolf will at time change points of view in a single sentence, or three or four times across the course of a paragraph (though she doesn't do it too often).

We can quibble about whether or not it is good writing. Here's Mrs. Dalloway at Project Gutenberg. I suspect you'll hate it (I like it, for the record): MRS. DALLOWAY

But when we talk about Meyer, we talk about sales and audience, and I think it is also right to talk about staying power. Most books that are published are forgotten shortly thereafter and fall out of print. The same was true in Woolf's time. Yet each of the works of hers I mentioned above is sitting on the shelf at Barnes & Noble right now. I just saw them there Sunday. Some 85-90 years after publication, they're still in print and selling, people are basing their own novels off of them, there are movies being made of them and so on. 

So, I submit, there is a reason for that (just like I always try to tell people who denigrate Meyer that there is a reason she became so successful - she's a great storyteller), and in Woolf's case I think it is her style and structure, the striking quality of the prose itself, and the way she tackles theme. 

Doesn't mean that any given person has to like any given work, but I don't like labeling writing as 'bad' just because you or I might not like it. There's bad writing, of course. But there's good writing that I don't think necessarily meets the tests set forth in this thread.


----------



## Incanus (Sep 23, 2015)

I initially didn’t post in this thread because I thought the question to vague to be very useful.  But now here I am.

Steerpike, you are obviously very well read and have more knowledge of literary history than most.  (I’m trying to figure out the best way to get into the modernist writers, but so far I don’t care for them much; need to find some that doesn’t employ stream-of-consciousness.)  Your points are often very well thought out and balanced, a rare and wonderful thing these days.

But I’m just not understanding why Meyer gets what appears to be a free pass here.  For me, it’s not that I think it’s bad because I don’t like it, but rather, I don’t like it because I consider it bad.  As far as I can tell, this opinion seems to make me automatically arrogant or jealous.  This set up is a false dichotomy to me, but I can live with a few people here and there making incorrect assumptions about me.  That’s life.

I think it’s funny that no one ever questions the motives of someone giving this work empty-headed praise, but it is ever so wrong (to some anyway) to consider it bad for almost any reason.  The popularity of a given work of art tells me absolutely nothing at all about its quality.  It tells me much more about society than it does about art.  Many things of questionable quality become popular all the time, and this is no different.  I see no reason give such works respect, though I can easily respect individuals who like them, or who create them.

I’m a pretty positive kind of guy, but if this makes me some kind of curmudgeonly ogre, then I guess that’s what I am.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 23, 2015)

Incanus said:


> The popularity of a given work of art tells me absolutely nothing at all about its quality.  It tells me much more about society than it does about art.



Thank-you.  I don't even feel the slightest bit an elitist for approving your observation, because I think you've hit the nail almost on the head.  By using "almost," I mean to signal my own ambivalence, because at the end of the day pleasing an audience ought to be an important, significant positive quality for art.  But at the same time, I don't think that shooting for the lowest common denominator in order to reach the greatest number of audience members is automatically a signal of great artistry.  (Nor, the perennial appearance on a bookstore's shelves.)

But I wonder if the subject might be muddled by the use of that word, "art."  Prose fiction is not the same thing as music, painting, and so forth.  It's not even poetry—most of the time.  Does it need to be?  I don't think so.  Personally, I consider prose fiction to be a lesser art than many other types of art, although I do think the rarest writers are capable of elevating it to the level of any other art form.

One funny thing I remember:  Ralph Waldo Emerson's chief criticism of Shakespeare, despite adoring the man, was that he employed all his genius in creating _entertainment_.  Of course, that was drama, not prose fiction.  But it's something related.


----------



## Incanus (Sep 23, 2015)

And I'm also ambivilent.  I have opinions, but I'm an open-minded individual--I will happily change my tune if presented with a compelling argument.  I know perfectly well I've not thought of every side of this issue.  I think it's pretty complicated.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 23, 2015)

Incanus said:


> And I'm also ambivilent.  I have opinions, but I'm an open-minded individual--I will happily change my tune if presented with a compelling argument.  I know perfectly well I've not thought of every side of this issue.  I think it's pretty complicated.



I don't think there is a problem with thought-out criticism, or thought-out praise. If either one is empty-headed, it's not good. When it comes to Twilight, I think a lot of the criticism, particularly by authors, is a knee-jerk reaction to its popularity. That doesn't mean all of it is.

But whether you think Twilight is good writing or not (and to me it depends in part on how you define "good writing; on a technical level, I think the writing is merely competent; when it comes to storytelling, I think she's pretty good), when faced with a work that has the kind of broad-based success of Twilight, you can say one of at least two things:

1) Readers are mostly stupid and don't know not to like bad books; or
2) Readers are generally fairly smart, so Meyer must have done something right even if I didn't like it.

#2 makes more sense to me. Personally, Twilight wasn't my cup of tea. When the books came out, though, I was working for a big firm and it seemed like half the place was reading it. Secretaries, other administrative staff, educated professionals, men and women from around 18 years of age to 60. To me, that's empirical evidence that Meyer did _something_ very right. The other bit of empirical evidence is that Twilight, before being published, was the focus of a bidding war between publishers who desperately wanted it. That war got Meyer a $3/4 million advance as an unknown author with no prior novels. 

That doesn't mean Twilight is immune to criticisms for bad writing, but I think the level of criticism it gets, as though nothing about the book was done well, doesn't seem reasonable to me given the facts. Rather, it seems to me that given the writing is merely at a baseline level of competence, she must have done other things really right to still succeed the way she did.


----------



## Incanus (Sep 23, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> you can say one of at least two things:
> 
> 1) Readers are mostly stupid and don't know not to like bad books; or
> 2) Readers are generally fairly smart, so Meyer must have done something right even if I didn't like it.



I certainly noticed you said 'at least', and such things are not lost on me (people often ignore my use of words like 'seems' and 'appears'.)

Still, there has to be more nuance.  As written, I reject both premises, or accept a part of each.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 23, 2015)

I just don't understand treating Meyer as a _model_ for automatic success.  When a book gets that big, there's an element of viral popularity to it: something that has to do with the market at the time, the vector of advertisement, a critical mass of popularity, etc.

Are there things about her writing/storytelling/characterization that led to the series's success?  Absolutely, I think that's been demonstrated.  The narrator, the first person POV, the love triangle, the safe/dangerous romance, the mixture of real life and fantasy, etc etc. Is the reason the series became so incredibly popular due exclusively to the qualities of its writing?  I really don't think so.  Meyer's work found the best possible niche at the best possible time.

This, I think, is why her many imitators--even those who could be said to be identical to her in tone, subject matter, characterization, etc--found modest success, not extreme success.  Because there is something appealing about the qualities of that writing, and that will get you to the point of modest success...but not to a four-movie deal.  And I don't think it was the inherent merit of Meyer's writing _alone_ that got her to that point.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 23, 2015)

I think, the more I think about it, that Brian Scott Allan is on to something about the clarity point… 

This is NOT particularly literary savvy of me, but the one thing that Woolf, Meyers, Rothfuss, Tolkien, Hemmingway, and King all have in common is that their prose flows and keeps you immersed in the story. You follow along, almost blissfully unaware that you are reading anything because the prose is so clear and concise that the story is the centre of your focus. There is no weird, jarring grammatical errors, poorly structured sentences, or strange use of jargon that doesn't belong. They use the perfect words for their voice and style and it all comes together so perfectly, as a whole, instead of a hundred thousand (or more) parts… 

I'm an amateur. I write essays, and non-fiction papers for my job… Fiction is a totally different game. When I write my short stories, or my very embarrassingly poor first draft of my first novel I notice that it doesn't flow. It stops and starts and sentences get confusing, and more clarity is needed, and too many words cloud the point I'm trying to make, but not enough words make it too boring and abstract. 

Good writing is clear and flows and works as a whole. I guess more like Monet than Picasso… (Though I LOVED the Picasso example). Monet put ten thousand spots on a board and it created an image. I put ten thousand spots on a board and it still looks like ten thousand spots. Hopefully, eventually, I can get a painting out.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Sep 23, 2015)

I don't think the writers here are giving Meyer a free pass. I don't there are plenty wrong with the books that could have and should have been fixed--like missing on obvious geographical issues. But, I agree that the animus directed at Meyer is uncalled for and stems from jealousy or from an elitist attitude that readers are idiots.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 24, 2015)

@Nimue:

I think all those things you mention played a role, but I still think something about the work itself makes the most sense as a primary explanation. A lot of the factors you mention are good at explaining the success of the work after publication, but less effective at explaining why multiple publishers were bidding on a work by an unknown author and one of them ultimately ended up paying out three-quarters of a million dollars in advance to get the book. 

I don't believe that they thought they were buying a bad book that they were just going to market into a success. If that were possible, publishers would do it all the time. But heavily-marketed works can flop, and $3/4 of a million is a lot of money to pay to a completely unknown first author on the chance that you might be able to market a bad book into a success. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Likewise, the critical mass of popularity, finding the perfect niche at the perfect time, etc. That kind of stuff isn't easily predicted, by editors or by authors. That's why these things strike like bolts out of the blue - no one is able to predict those elements ahead of time with any great degree of accuracy. 

I have yet to hear any reason as to why multiple publishers would be in a bidding war over Twilight, and one of them would win that war by shelling out three-quarters of a million dollars to a writer no one had ever heard of, that makes more sense than the idea that the editors at these various publishers read the book and said "Wow, we have to get this."


----------



## Nimue (Sep 24, 2015)

You make a good point.  But I'm unconvinced that it was Meyer's writing itself that sold the book; rather, the story, the premise, the romance, the wish fulfillment. I read the first Twilight book as a teen, having read a lot of YA lit, and was completely unimpressed by the writing and the style.  It didn't stand out to me as much different from other first-person YA books.  What did stick with me was the extent to which it hit on teenage-girl fantasies (and by extension people who had been teenage girls at some point).  It really mirrored what the audience wanted to read, to the point that it was completely transparent in its wish fulfillment--but that's absolutely what a lot of readers want.  Everybody is looking for that, to some extent.  See also Harry Potter's magical world, Eragon's dragon/power fantasy, even the Hunger Games--the teenage dream of starting a revolution and changing an unjust world.

That's just why I'm kind of surprised to see Twilight cited so highly in a thread about good writing--not good storytelling, the distinction that you make.  I don't think it was Meyer's prose in isolation that made her popular or coveted as a new author.  It was what she was writing about and who she was writing for.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 24, 2015)

Nimue said:


> You make a good point.  But I'm unconvinced that it was Meyer's writing itself that sold the book; rather, the story, the premise, the romance, the wish fulfillment. I read the first Twilight book as a teen, having read a lot of YA lit, and was completely unimpressed by the writing and the style.  It didn't stand out to me as much different from other first-person YA books.  What did stick with me was the extent to which it hit on teenage-girl fantasies (and by extension people who had been teenage girls at some point).  It really mirrored what the audience wanted to read, to the point that it was completely transparent in its wish fulfillment--but that's absolutely what a lot of readers want.  Everybody is looking for that, to some extent.  See also Harry Potter's magical world, Eragon's dragon/power fantasy, even the Hunger Games--the teenage dream of starting a revolution and changing an unjust world.
> 
> That's just why I'm kind of surprised to see Twilight cited so highly in a thread about good writing--not good storytelling, the distinction that you make.  I don't think it was Meyer's prose in isolation that made her popular or coveted as a new author.  It was what she was writing about and who she was writing for.



Oh, yeah, I totally agree. I view Meyer's writing as competent. Most traditionally-published work reaches a minimum level of competency to get published. In Meyer's case, the writing itself doesn't stand out in and of itself as anything special. I think it is the combination of all the other elements - the storytelling (which she's good at), premise, romance, and all of the things you mentioned. Those are definitely the important elements, in my view. They're part of what make up the work as a whole.

When it comes to commercial success, I think if you have to be either a great writer or a great storyteller, the latter is going to be much more likely to translate into success. Hopefully, one can be both


----------



## psychotick (Sep 24, 2015)

Hi,

But read the OP. This thread isn't about simply what good prose is. It starts off from the outset talking about "making a fantastic world, compelling characters, great flow in terms of tension" It asks "what makes a great story?" So all this waffle about how good the prose of Meyers is, is a red herring. Prose is only one part - and in my view a small part - of what makes good writing.

If the thread had been about what makes good prose, what would we be talking about? The correct use of the apostrophy? Verbal imagery? And how many people even on a writing forum like this one would have bothered to respond?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 24, 2015)

I will admit to not having read the OP or the earlier posts; I found the initial question very vague.  But I was replying partly to Heliotrope's post:


Heliotrope said:


> the one thing that Woolf, Meyers, Rothfuss, Tolkien, Hemmingway, and King all have in common is that their prose flows and keeps you immersed in the story.


And partly with an earlier Twilight discussion in mind where I believe BW was talking about how much he liked Meyer's prose and style specifically.  Also, I had the impression from the last bit of conversation about Joyce and Woolf that we were talking about style.  Ah well, take my comments as rambles out of context.  I'm not very good at broad forum discussions


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Sep 24, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> But read the OP. This thread isn't about simply what good prose is. It starts off from the outset talking about "making a fantastic world, compelling characters, great flow in terms of tension" It asks "what makes a great story?" So all this waffle about how good the prose of Meyers is, is a red herring. Prose is only one part - and in my view a small part - of what makes good writing.
> 
> ...



I feel this is partly my fault. I wanted to discuss this but decided to address a narrower focus and pick specifically on the general rule that writing needs to be clear. Because, unless your work fits within the exception I mentioned above, your story will suffer. It will suffer because no one will understand what on earth is going on. It will be a muddled mess and no matter how intriguing you plot or engaging the character your readers won't see it and put the book down.


----------



## Incanus (Sep 24, 2015)

We went off on a tangent, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## FatCat (Sep 24, 2015)

I think a lot of people brought up great points. Great writing is a hard thing to define. Critics have exalted great writers (steer pike mentioned Joyce) and judged seemingly "trend" writers like Meyers. The reason I made this thread is because I've done a lot if soul searching, wondering why certain success happens. 

I got into fantasy because Terry Goodkind. No measure of a great writer by any means, but that was my introduction to fantasy. But that series opened up a whole new world for me. So was he a great writer? Was he published to a point where I felt the need to read him? No.

I think a great writer takes you on an adventure you didn't know you wanted to go on. Sometimes great prose like dotrevsky and revolutionary ideas like Tolstoy can take you there, but other times it's something as simple as a story you've never encountered. 

Other times maybe it's just success and word of mouth. But of all this I think what really gets to me is a certain emulation of works that draws my interest. As writers we want to write great things, to be remembered as someone who changed someone's idea of great writing. But maybe chasing greatness as an idea is counter-intuitive. Maybe it's just about making a story that you love, that you love writing and maybe, just maybe, someone will love it as much as you.


----------

