What is good writing?

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[FatCat]

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.