What is good writing?

[T.Allen.Smith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?)

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]

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]

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]

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?)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 The 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]

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]

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]

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.