• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

What is good writing?

FatCat

Maester
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?
 
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 cliché 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.
 
Last edited:
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

Troubadour
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Staff
Article Team
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.
 
C

Chessie

Guest
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

Myth Weaver
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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?"


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

Myth Weaver
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
...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

Myth Weaver
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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?!?

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

Myth Weaver
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.
 
Top