# What constitutes as bad writing?



## Xitra_Blud (Nov 9, 2013)

In your opinion, what constitutes as bad writing and what constitutes as good writing?


----------



## Bruce McKnight (Nov 9, 2013)

Bad writing is not using Oxford commas!

It's totally subjective, but if it makes me keep reading, I consider it good. I've read a lot of different things that I thought were good. I think world consistency and characters who behave consistently are the biggest starting points.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 9, 2013)

Bad writing isn't always necessarily bad to me. I've read badly written stories that have had more of an effect on me than stories that are well-written. 

Bad writing doesn't bother me most of the time. Bad storytelling does. Actually, scratch that, mediocre storytelling does. One thing I don't ever want to be accused of is being mediocre. I rather someone hate my writing than think it's just middle of the road.

But yeah, bad writing probably means a lot of different things to different people. 

I wrote a story in Japanese one time. It was badly written, but it was weird and quirky so I enjoyed it.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 9, 2013)

There are many different kinds of bad. Here are just a few:

The cluttered story. This story can actually have very good worldbuilding and characterization, but it's so densely packed that it becomes incomprehensible. Sentences run long, paragraphs become unbreachable walls, and every page feels like a marathon.

The baby-talk story. Rather than choosing the perfect word for each situation, the author repeatedly chooses the simplest word whose dictionary definition fits what he intends. Although denotations are perfect, connotations simply don't fit, to the point that the emotions intended for each scene are severely undermined. In addition, since all characters use the simplest words possible, they all have the same voice and are essentially indistinguishable. In theory, opposed to the cluttered story, but one story can actually be both!

The quantum-characters story. Whenever the author needs the story to proceed a certain way, the characters act in just such a way as to send it down that path. Rather than having a single characterization, each character has a cloud of characterizations he switches between each time he's observed, feeling less like a complex human being than like a plot delivery vehicle. These stories can be very subtle--I often find myself thinking that I'm overreacting, and what seemed to be out of character wasn't really out of character, until eventually I'm halfway through the book and someone does something so blatantly out of character that I give up in disgust.

The categorizing story. Rather than having individual personalities, characters are grouped into categories. There's a bit of distinction in personality between category members, but no category member will ever be able to act in a way that doesn't fit with the general behavior patterns of that category. Any scene that might lead to a category member growing and developing in such a way as to no longer fit the category will inevitably be glossed over. (This is most common and obvious with sexist stories, but it can happen with quite a variety of groupings--for instance, an "urban" category and a "rural" category.)

The author tract. If you agree with the author, you're a developed character. If you don't agree with the author, you're evil or incompetent. Unlike the categorizing story, characters _can_ change their minds, but they then immediately start or stop being evil or incompetent.

I'm sure it would be easy to list many more types.

Edit: I should note that I think any writing that isn't some kind of "bad writing" is good writing. It may not be spectacular writing, and it may not be memorable writing, but it's writing that's readable, and it's writing that can be improved with constructive criticism.


----------



## Ireth (Nov 9, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Whenever the author needs the story to proceed a certain way, the characters act in just such a way as to send it down that path. Rather than having a single characterization, each character has a cloud of characterizations he switches between each time he's observed, feeling less like a complex human being than like a plot delivery vehicle.



I may be wrong, but aren't developed characters *supposed* to be complex and multifaceted? Having each character have only one trait seems one-dimensional to me. Certainly people are going to act differently when varying situations put them in different light.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 9, 2013)

Ireth said:


> I may be wrong, but aren't developed characters *supposed* to be complex and multifaceted? Having each character have only one trait seems one-dimensional to me. Certainly people are going to act differently when varying situations put them in different light.



That's why I said "less like a complex human being." The switches aren't based on any clear context, they're just based on convenience. (For instance, let's take a character who has issues with romance but is currently in love. As a complex human being, he'll switch between "romance is bad" and "I'm in love" according to the situation he's in and his own emotions. In a quantum-characters story, he'll switch whenever the author needs him to do something to steer the story in a certain direction, even if that doesn't feel plausible given his previous behavior.)


----------



## Addison (Nov 9, 2013)

In my experience, as writer and reader, there are a few things that constitute bad writing. 

1. Deus Ex Machina. 

2. Stick-figure characters. No one can connect and root for a doodle. 

3. A single-layered plot. There's always more than one thing going on in the story. Whether the other things only last a few chapter or from beginning to end, sub plots exist to aid the story and character. 

Everything else is the author's voice. Most times I find they have a great voice but the story itself needs work. There have been a few instances where the voice was as bad as the story. 

What constitutes a good story is the opposite of the above; A satisfying, character-resolved story. 3D or even 4,5,6,7 D characters. A full, layered plot.


----------



## Ireth (Nov 9, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> That's why I said "less like a complex human being." The switches aren't based on any clear context, they're just based on convenience. (For instance, let's take a character who has issues with romance but is currently in love. As a complex human being, he'll switch between "romance is bad" and "I'm in love" according to the situation he's in and his own emotions. In a quantum-characters story, he'll switch whenever the author needs him to do something to steer the story in a certain direction, even if that doesn't feel plausible given his previous behavior.)



Ah, that makes sense.


----------



## ALB2012 (Nov 9, 2013)

If I enjoy it then it's good. Even if structurally or technically the writing is lacking if the characters and plot are engaging then I'll continue reading. A perfectly written book might still be a pile of poop if its weak.

Good:
Consistent, convincing and engaging characters.
Consistent, well built world. If you create a world then CREATE it, and tell me so I can believe in it. Plausibility is good as well. Willing suspension of disbelief only goes so far. Gravity is still gravity, iron is still heavy etc. If you muck about with the plausibility do it well.
Interesting plot, even an unoriginal plot can be fun if it's told in an original way.
Decent knowledge of grammar and punctuation - although I am quite forgiving on this.

Bad:
Weak characters/inconsistent characters. If I don't care I won't carry on reading.
Repetition - characters behaving the same way in every situation, repetition of phrases.
No/poor world building.
Implausible situations.
Abrupt endings - that feeling when it seems the author suddenly realised they were up to a word limit and fudged the ending.
Confusing plot which meanders/doesn't go anywhere.
Stupid endings - Deus ex Machina.
Pointless character death.


----------



## The Dark One (Nov 9, 2013)

At the risk of sounding appallingly glib, I might say that bad writing is everything that isn't good writing. But what is the question really asking? If you are asking (more pertinently to these boards) what sort of writing doesn't make the grade? Then I would suggest the following:

Unimaginative, formulaic writing following old paths with little or no invention.

Wooden or impenetrable characters who don't seem to be motivated by anything. Too many characters without apparent purpose or reason to be invented in the first place.

Stories which never go anywhere.

Stories which overvalue an idea and expect readers to believe motivation based on that  idea. 

Too many complicated or quirky sentences that distract the reader from the flow of the story.

Stories that don't conclude in a satisfying way after starting well (so much commercial fiction starts well but runs out of ideas).

And finally, writing that hasn't paid it dues - ie, where the writer hasn't yet found his/her natural storytelling voice.

I firmly believe that should be your first goal in trying to become a writer - find the storytelling voice with which you narrate most comfortably.


----------



## The Dark One (Nov 9, 2013)

Thought I might amplify my first point about unimaginative, formulaic writing.

I think too many writers (especially fantasy writers) come up with a good premise / motivating incident, but that's where the originality ends. The fact that they are so imbued with story paradigms means that there's a sort of plot gravity that naturally draws their story along the well trodden paths. It takes a lot of concentration, invention and sheer will power to keep coming up with fresh ideas to prevent your story being told in a comfortable, done-before fashion, but which still makes sense. (Cliches are clichÃ©s for a reason.)

If you can maintain the momentum of a fresh story and conclude it in a satisfying manner, you may well have created a classic.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 10, 2013)

Point for the Dark One. I always call originality "water purity": perfection there doesn't matter much, but the first thing you need to learn is to not let the story get gunked up with what you've already seen.

I'd call bad writing "whatever doesn't work, for creating... whatever." It's all about finding the target you want: thrills, humor, grandeur, a certain age range or theme, whatever combination it is.

I sometimes class bad writing as either:


Not pushing hard enough: not using enough good stuff (from concept to wording) to build momentum for what the story is. It's too easy to be ordinary.
Pushing the wrong way: letting in events, phrases, anything that might not be lackluster but doesn't fit with the story.
Not showing the push: letting the marketer (meaning you, of course) muddle what kind of story it is.


----------



## Malik (Nov 10, 2013)

I'm a serious grammar, spelling, and usage nazi. If you can't write a coherent sentence without breaking elementary-school grammar and usage rules, do not publish. 

I don't want to get into the whole "rules" discussion again; I'm not talking about stylistically breaking rules. (See? I did one there. And now I'm doing it again. And again. I have no problem with people breaking usage rules as long as, you know, they adhere to a deliberate form and voice. Go nuts.)

I mean for all intensive purposes when an Author doesn't know, there not supposed to abruptly change you're "point of view" and etc. than it effects me as a Reader and I loose interest cause you know they could of done it an other way.

If that sentence read fine to you and you think you should self-publish, you are killing the craft. 

This is a snarky post, but market research for self-published fantasy is making me insane. I wanted to track down the author of something I was reading last night so I could carve the Strunk and White second chapter table of contents into his back with an ice pick.


----------



## Helen (Nov 10, 2013)

Xitra_Blud said:


> In your opinion, what constitutes as bad writing



Story doesn't flow. Uninteresting.


----------



## Morgyn (Nov 12, 2013)

Wanting, needing to beat your forehead on a kitchen counter, yes, that would be bad writing.  (Not being figurative here.  Joined a critique group and one of the submissions was so freakin' bad, even after four tries, I opted for the granite.)


----------



## Scribble (Nov 12, 2013)

Xitra_Blud said:


> In your opinion, what constitutes as bad writing and what constitutes as good writing?



Good writing is not boring.

Bad writing is boring.

What makes for boring and not boring is highly subjective, but for *me*, I get bored if the writing is _uninspired_. The origin of the word _inspiration_ as you _writerly _people are sure to know, means to "breathe life into". 

If the work is not tickling my mind with some interesting or profound idea, if I don't feel it flowing out of the words, then I'm not going to waste my time. I generally don't watch television. I find the low-caliber of vidiotic televised snack foods shrink-wrapped for our mental consumption to be lacking in all essential minerals and vitamins. I will watch supremely well written shows, like Breaking Bad. I will watch movies, but I would re-watch a classic before watching most of the drivel that comes out of Hollywood. I can't sit through most of it, I lose interest. Flashy action sequences might capture my attention for a short while, but it wears off. If the writing is formula, staid, uninspired, uninteresting, then I'll dump it.

I'll forgive structural problems, even typos. It's a sign that you don't care enough about what you are producing, but if it is inspired, then I might give it a pass. John Myers Myers Silverlock isn't the most well written book of all time, but it had an essence of inspiration. After I was done reading it, I felt like Myers cared a lot about this. He loved this work so much, he put huge furious effort into it, and I could sense that. He had a vision, and he worked it like a shaman to take me on a spiritual journey through his vision, so I could go to the spirit world and come back with some wisdom, some realization about myself and the universe.

I want to feel like I am reading someone's vision. Something that haunted them enough that they worked to create it in words so that they could tell someone about it.

That might sound like a tall order, but I only have one life, and if I am going to give to a writer a chunk of that time to explore their inspiration, I want it repaid in my own inspiration. I think that is a fair trade. If the writer lets me down by taking shortcuts, playing it safe, not pushing hard enough, not working hard to make sure my time is not wasted - then I become bored with their work.

That is not to say I won't read any of their work, but it lowers the possibility. I loved Stephen King's Dark Tower, and some of his short stories, but I couldn't finish most of the other things I read of his. 

Sometimes, people have a vision, and they work hard to make it into art. Sometimes, people just show up at the office and punch the buttons. Most of us are mortal, and we do a lot of button pushing, and the result is... to me at least, uninspiring. I want to read only the good stuff. The rest bores me.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 12, 2013)

Bad writing - Stuff I don't like.
Good writing - Stuff I like.
The trouble is I have no idea what the criteria are for getting in to either of those two categories is... everyday it changes.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 12, 2013)

Malik said:


> I'm a serious grammar, spelling, and usage nazi. If you can't write a coherent sentence without breaking elementary-school grammar and usage rules, do not publish.
> 
> I don't want to get into the whole "rules" discussion again; I'm not talking about stylistically breaking rules. (See? I did one there. And now I'm doing it again. And again. I have no problem with people breaking usage rules as long as, you know, they adhere to a deliberate form and voice. Go nuts.)
> 
> ...



Da Rules:

1. Have something to say.
2. Say it well.
3. Make sure you said it well.
4. Check it one more time.
5. Get an objective person of editing skill to make sure you said it well.
6. Fix all that stuff you didn't say well.
7. Check it again, you are human.
8. One last time.
9. Publish.


----------



## senseiseth (Nov 12, 2013)

Xitra_Blud said:


> In your opinion, what constitutes as bad writing and what constitutes as good writing?



There are two words that I can speak that epitomize the greatest quality of bad writing: The Room. Nuff said.

But seriously here; no depth to characters, a rocky storyline, bad dialogue, no real direction of the story, those are the cardinal sins of story telling.


----------



## Devor (Nov 12, 2013)

I think the worst stories are the ones where the concept is ultimately incomplete.  You've got an awesome idea to open the story, just enough to get you hooked, just enough to make you think the story has potential, but it ultimately goes nowhere and just wastes your time.  It's a good origin story with a weak boring plot.


----------



## Chilari (Nov 13, 2013)

Seth: I had hoped to forget that movie forever. Curse you! *shakes fist* However, it is a very good example of bad writing. And bad acting. And bad direction. And possibly a cautionary tale against drug use, because I can't imagine everyone was sober making that.

I struggle to read stories which don't flow and which don't appear to have any direction. A lot of the stories I put down after a chapter or two are stories where I have little idea of the goals of the character or what antagonist is to be combatted. Stories that begin with characters just doing things, but with no indication of why they're doing it or what end they are working towards. More so when the story begins with a prologue in which either nothing happens at all, or in which the actions of the characters don't appear to have any impact on anything at all. And I'll drop a book even sooner if the flow of the narrative is poor - uneven pacing, head hopping, awkward or inaccurate phrasing, changes in narrative voice for no reason and so on.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Nov 13, 2013)

Bad writing is writing that doesn't effectively convey the story to the reader.

Good writing is writing that effectively conveys the story to the reader.

Okay, I guess you'd have to define "effectively" but that goes along with good vs. bad. It's subjective.


----------



## Quillstine (Nov 13, 2013)

I think Phil The Drill really hit the nail on the head. For me whats more pertinent is whether it's a good or bad story. I have read novels were I find the writing just a pinch above terrible. But I read it from cover to cover because I want to know what happens, I like the characters and I like being in their world. 
I have also read what I find to be novels full of eloquent sentences and perfect paragraphs. But I stop half way through them because the story is just not at all interesting. I hate the MC and plot arcs and stop because I want to put myself out of the misery that is reading it!
Of course good writing with a good story....no that's just like a big cup of earl grey on a winters morning!


----------



## Ayaka Di'rutia (Nov 18, 2013)

Xitra_Blud said:


> In your opinion, what constitutes as bad writing and what constitutes as good writing?



Bad writing: 

Bad grammar and/or when the author does not convey a meaningful message across in their prose, and when the prose is confusing as to characters and plot.

Good writing:

Opposite of that above, especially the meaningful message and the characters.


----------

