Define good writing

[Infra-Man]

What do you think makes a given author’s writing good or makes for good writing in general? What makes some writing better than others?

It could be a style thing, a characterization thing, a plot thing, etc. What do you think?

[Sabrinaset]

For me, there's got to be character development of some sort, and no plotholes the size of a 747.

Oh, and nothing in the titles saying "Loeb", "Austen", or "Winnick".

:biggrin:

[stealthwise]

What do you think makes a given author’s writing good or makes for good writing in general? What makes some writing better than others?

It could be a style thing, a characterization thing, a plot thing, etc. What do you think?

The criteria I had invented a few years ago still seems to hold somewhat true nowadays (although it might be a bit limiting in some ways):

Does the writing meet the OCPM criteria?

Originality - does it stand out in any way? is it unique, or at least take older works/genre trappings/character types and make new things from them? are there innovative ways to tell the story being utilized, etc? supposedly everything under the sun has been written, but is it being told the same old way or is there something new going on here?

Connectability - are the characters worth caring about? is there something in the core of this story, a moral, message or theme that will compel the audience? are the emotions genuine and not cynical/manipulative or falsified? is there intensity to the actions of the characters, and how it is being achieved?

P... crap, I forget what P means. Predictability? That sounds about right... can you see what's going to happen next, and if so, does it at least make sense with the characters, the plot, the theme? is the writer able to twist your sense of what's happening in a good way, to upset expectations or stereotypes?

EDIT: P was actually Pacing. Can't believe I forgot about that. Does the story drag at points? Is it too brief in others? Are we getting enough information or enough time to process what's happening, and how does this affect the other aspects of the work? Beats are especially important in action pieces and/or more visual media like comics or movies.

Memorability - is this something that's going to last the test of time, something that's easily forgettable, or more than likely something in between? are there some unforgettable lines of dialogue, scene descriptions, or something else that will stand out and influence others? what makes this piece of work stand out when compared to any others in its genre/medium? what makes it a favourite of yours?

Take all that for what's it worth, but I usually keep that stuff in mind when I'm responding to a text (or not responding, I suppose).

[DavidAllred]

Good writing gives me an emotional reaction without making me feel like I'm getting played. My heart pounds, I cry, or I laugh out loud. But if I feel like I'm getting suckered into that emotion, I immediately start thinking the author was taking me down the cheap road and probably lacked sophistication to get there me there any other way.

[mgs]

In comic books?

I'd say that writing that compliments the art or vice-versa, and is, obviously 'good', in the first place. Meaning that the dialogue is true for the characters and that the story is interesting in the first place. Now in a comic, you don't even need dialogue, nor text, but a good comic book is written well no matter any of these circumstances.

In serial form, I think it's obviously harder to write good stuff for characters in the middle of other stories, etc., or other outside factors, but as long as things are held well together enough to make an issue at least coherent, enjoyable and stuff.

[Cam63]

The reader has to want more, like some poor orphaned Pommy kid circa 1840.

[dragonbat]

These are rules of thumb. Exceptions can be made for parodies, etc.

1) Characters should be believable. The more we see of them and come to know them, the more 3-Dimensional they need to be. The snooty administrator who gives your hero a hard time in one scene in chapter 6 can be an annoying prig without giving us a backstory about how she really wants to be kind and compassionate but is currently on the verge of burnout, etc, etc. Your hero? Needs to be fleshed out and fully realized.

2) O. Henry could work a story around a plot twist. He had a special gift for it. Most of the time, however, the twist isn't enough to sustain the story. It's better to rely on solid plotting where the story still holds together without the twist. The only rule for subplots I have is that if your reader needs post-it tabs and a scorecard to keep track of what's going on, you're doing it wrong. Regarding mystery stories: some people like to look for clues and try to suss out the culprit before the detective does. That's fine. However, the first job of a storyteller is to tell an engaging story. Personally, I'm a lazy mystery reader. I like watching the story unfold, but I'm content to passively watch the detective figure it out. The story has to hold the interest of folks like me, too.

3) Don't get overly bogged down in the description. I love a lot of 19th-century English literature, but I skim right on past the pages that raphsodize about the foliage of the English countryside, the minutiae of the ballgowns, etc. By all means, set the scene, but don't get carried away. Focus on one or two elements (the pink gown with too many sequins; the way the sun filtered through the leaves of the tall oak tree) and leave the rest unless it's relevant to the plot in some way. (By all means, tell me that there's aconite in the woods if your villain plans to chop it up in a salad to serve to his victim.)

4) If the only way for your plot to work is for your character to be too stupid to live, your plot cannot work. There's a difference between "I can't believe I forgot to turn off the stove before I left" and "The baby was starving and I was in a rush so I just grabbed some of the mushrooms that I found growing on the lawn and gave them to her as a snack".

5) Research. If your reader can spot your mistake after 5 minutes on Google, you're doing it wrong. There are specialty websites, research communities, and online experts. Most are free. Use them.

6) Use humor with caution, particularly if it's political. You might end up alienating readers who don't share your politics or your idea of funny. That doesn't mean don't use it. I tend to have better luck with letting my characters banter a bit, especially to defuse tension, than with trying to write a mile-a-minute laugh riot.

[dragonbat]

Sorry for the double-post!

[friginator]

Oh, and nothing in the titles saying "Loeb", "Austen", or "Winnick".

Winnick can be good. Jeph Loeb used to a great writer. Then he was a good writer. Then he was a bad writer. Then he went to Marvel.

It's almost poetic.

[friginator]

.................................................. ..........

[Larry Dixon]

Solid plot, good research, no glaring science mistakes, etc. are a given.

I teach that it is vital for a writer to write the book that only they can write. This means something that possesses the qualities of that particular person's experience, point of view, skill and passion.

So similarly, for me, good writing has characterization that possesses what only that character would say and do.

Granted, thousands of characters might say X or do Y in a given situation. Yet, when a bit of dialogue following or preceding X or Y has a quirk that only that one person would say, it's gold.

(See the script for Pulp Fiction as an example of "throw-away dialogue" that tells more than Riveted Iron Character Exposition)

These past couple of years, Spider-Man dialogue has been like that from several writers and I've simply beamed at it. The "Anyone want a soda? I saw a 7-Eleven back there..." line, while all the super-magic-demon-sorceror types have a confab, just floored me. Perfect.

----------

Also make it contemporary to the setting; when you shave the serial numbers off of old material, and change a few names, you can tell. I rejected a novel from someone a few years ago that was supposed to be set in Florida in 2006, but a tension point was someone trying to find a quarter.

For a pay phone.

In a high school.

With a basement.

In Florida.

- sigh -

(the character also had a brand new Camaro from the showroom floor. Must have been sitting there since production stopped in 2002.)

I'm just sayin'.

[lexid523]

Also make it contemporary to the setting; when you shave the serial numbers off of old material, and change a few names, you can tell. I rejected a novel from someone a few years ago that was supposed to be set in Florida in 2006, but a tension point was someone trying to find a quarter.

For a pay phone.

In a high school.

With a basement.

In Florida.

- sigh -

(the character also had a brand new Camaro from the showroom floor. Must have been sitting there since production stopped in 2002.)

I'm just sayin'.

My God. You seriously disappointed some 60-something who thought they were all "with it".

[JKCarrier]

A good story is when:

a) I don't know what's going to happen next, and
b) I can't wait to find out.

[Ghost]

What do you think makes a given author’s writing good or makes for good writing in general? What makes some writing better than others?

It could be a style thing, a characterization thing, a plot thing, etc. What do you think?

I think good writing comes down to two skills an author should possess.

The first skill is the technical crafting part: the wordsmithing, creating good prose, putting together sentences, planning out the structure of the plot and so on.

The second skill is the storytelling part. It comes down to telling an entertaining or at the very least emotionally engaging story that the readers find stimulating, using drama, suspense, humor, character interaction etc.

These two skills sometimes intersect but aren't mutually inclusive: it's possible to be a horrible technical writer and still write a fun story that a lot of people find enjoyable, and being the most skilled technical writer in the world is no guarantee your story won't bore the readers to tears.

[stealthwise]

Edited my response above.

[ryerye17]

For me, there's got to be character development of some sort, and no plotholes the size of a 747.

Oh, and nothing in the titles saying "Loeb", "Austen", or "Winnick".

:biggrin:

how dare you i love winick

[stealthwise]

how dare you i love winick

Heh, a gripping counter-argument. I don't think most people can deny that Winick has some definite flaws to his work, particularly in terms of character and plot.

[Beacon]

Heh, a gripping counter-argument. I don't think most people can deny that Winick has some definite flaws to his work, particularly in terms of character and plot.

Maybe but stuff like Exiles, Green Lantern, and Barry Ween were good enough that Judd doesn’t deserve to be listed alongside Austen.

[Red Jack]

It's a crap shoot; ever was, ever shall be.

The job of every fiction writer, "good" or "poor" is to take the images ("story") in her head and transfer them to yours in such a way as to create pre-described responses in you that are, essentially, under her control. You think and feel only what se wants (within reasonable parameters) at the times she dictates.

The "better" the writing, the more effective the transfer and emotional/experiential response. The most successful writer in the English language is William Shakespeare but can he be said to be "the best?"

Yes, to some; no, to others. To those others it may be Hemmingway or Bukowski or Langston Hughes. Is HOP ON POP more poorly written than FINNEGAN'S WAKE?

The audience for every story and its response to that story is too diverse and variable to allow simple binary descriptions such as "good" writing or "poor" to be meaningful. Even "successful" and "obscure" have little meaning in the larger scheme as what is incomprehensible or opaque to the audiences of one era or region may be delightful, even transformative, to those of others.

In short, this is one of many aspects of Art that cannot be coded or truly deconstructed in the way the question implies. Like Faith Art defies Science.

Moveable feasts rarely succumb to binary paradigms or technical modeling.

[LewisH]

good writing is anything I read that succeeds in adding to my knowledge base and/or entertaining me. Bad writing is anything I attempt to read for one of those purposes but fails.

[section 8]

Paint the picture inside the reader's skull, then inspire them to turn their eyes around.

[jesse_custer]

Might as well keep this simple as hell.

Good writing is when the first page makes me read the rest of the book.

(Of course, not all good writing is in book format.)

[ryerye17]

Excuse me, Winick is a great writer. He has his flaws, of course, I mean who doesn't?

Like at Comic-Con, I bought a Green Arrow book, entitled "Enter Speedy", which was I think Mia's first appearance as Speedy. And the first four pages were basically a lecture on AIDS. WHich is fun, you know.

And of course the famous Green Lantern book which was a lecture on homosexuality

[AaronJ]

For me, there's got to be character development of some sort, and no plotholes the size of a 747.

Oh, and nothing in the titles saying "Loeb", "Austen", or "Winnick".

:biggrin:

Well, you're in luck with that last one, since "Winnick" hasn't ever, to my knowledge, been on the cover.

"Winick" on the other hand ....


As to what's good, it's impossible to say. I was going to ramble on about a bunch of stuff, but Red Jack basically said what I was going to try and say, and did it better than I could have.

If we're talking about comics, there's still such a huge range of what creators are attempting to do.

[RobertTidwell]

I like it when a writer can make me care about something, make me think about something, make me react to something and trick me. I don't want to know what is going to happen next, but i don't need nonsensical plot twists either.

[Samy]

What do you think makes a given author’s writing good or makes for good writing in general? What makes some writing better than others?These are 100% questions of taste, of course.

With that caveat:

"What do you think makes a given author’s writing good"
I enjoy Kurt Busiek's work because of his attention to continuity detail and intactness.

I enjoy Peter David's work because of his skillful addressing of mature topics.

I enjoy Chris Claremont's work because he captures characters' voices right.

"makes for good writing in general?"

* Surprises. These are big for me. I need to turn a page and be blown away and go, "holy crap I can't believe he did that!" A story that I anticipate is a story I might as well not read.

* Consistent continuity and characterization. Nothing drops me out of a story harder than "hang on a sec, wasn't it a plot point just two years ago that Chartreuse Lantern's ring doesn't work against metal and here she is using her ring against metal! wtf!" Or "hang on now, Doctor Pacifica just three years ago had the brilliant issue where she made a speech against killing your enemies and now she's killing them left and right without even a thought bubble! wtf!" For me, it's not enough to keep consistency with your own run -- this is a serial format, and consistency has to be kept with all preceding runs.

* Distinctly different characters. Every character has to have their own distinct voice. Speech bubbles shouldn't be interchangeable. What characters say and think should reflect their personalities, upbringings, accents, history, political opinions, everything.

* Meaningful moral choices. Not just the easy way out so that the characters can always choose to do the right thing and everything turns out all right. Characters have to make hard choices, make sacrifices, and get pyrrhic victories sometimes. An easy choice is an uninteresting choice to read about. It places no pressure on the characters and is dull to read about.

* Subplots. An issue that doesn't juggle at least half a dozen different subplots is a worthless issue. Protagonist's powers changing. Protagonist's sidekick's love life. An old enemy hatching a scheme in the background. A former home getting a new mayor. Whatever it takes. But there must be other things than just the main plot.

* Connections to other things. Self-containedness feels too antiseptic and too neatly wrapped for me. References to things that happened three writers ago. Guest appearance from a character that hasn't been seen in five years. Reference to something happening in another book. Feeling like a part of the big overall story of the universe instead of being wrapped in a separate plastic package.

[Flying Saucers Over Oz]

If I knew what good writing was, would I be here?

:biggrin:

(KIDDING! I'M KIDDING! Honestly, couldn't resist...)

[Infra-Man]

Given the issue over the use of "good," I'll throw this out since this other word is perhaps less loaded:

What do you think makes a given author’s writing effective or makes for effective writing in general? What makes some writing more effective than others?

[Flying Saucers Over Oz]

What I can't stand is when I can feel the writer behind the scenes doing the story.

It's what turned me off Peter David. Every time there was a clever plot twist, I could hear him going, 'Aha, weren't expecting that, were you?"

[Corrina]

Basic technical skills: spelling, grammar, punctuation.

Sentences that make sense when read together.

Yes, these would seem to be basic but they're not.

Every word matters and is there for a reason.

Beyond that......characters who feel real and make decisions based on what has been presented as their personality within the text. But plot-induced stupidity may just be a pet peeve of mine and not everyone else's.

I know there is some excellent writing not for me because the writer is not for me. Cormac McCarthy, for one, whose virtue seems to be in the picture he's painting with the use of language and the flow of his pieces rather than any kind of straightforward storytelling.

It's very amorphous, beyond that.

If you want to know what pieces of writing inspire incredible emotional response, go look at fanfiction. net. Writing that inspires other writing--the initial writing may not be perfect but you can be sure they pushed a whole lot of buttons the right way.

Which is why Twilight fans are so interesting ot me. What's the trigger there? I say it's teenage girls working out their massive fears of dating these unknown mysterious and possibly dangerous beings called boys--and then the devil they're afraid of turns basically into a love puppy. Quite reassuring, in many ways. I'm scared...but...look, he's harmless! Cool. This would be way the stalker behavior gets excused because many girls perceive stalker behavior from many boys in high school and it's reassuring to learn that this stalker would never hurt them.

Whether this is realistic or not, well, hum. But I think that's the issue being worked out over and over.

[AaronJ]

Given the issue over the use of "good," I'll throw this out since this other word is perhaps less loaded:

What do you think makes a given author’s writing effective or makes for effective writing in general? What makes some writing more effective than others?

I think it all comes down to being interesting, to me. It could be straightforward and simple, or utterly bizarre and experimental, character-study, plot-driven (though, I'm not big on plot, frankly), or whatever you want.

If it's interesting, I'm in. And "interesting" can, at times, include being infuriating or difficult or all sorts of other things. It can be stylized or grounded, it can be fully based on structure, or it can be just a good story.

So, I'm open to all sorts of different approaches and ideas and styles.

[stealthwise]

Maybe but stuff like Exiles, Green Lantern, and Barry Ween were good enough that Judd doesn’t deserve to be listed alongside Austen.

I read the first book of Exiles and it was mediocre. His GL run was pretty lame in terms of shoehorning random homosexual issues into it, and Barry Ween... Barry Ween was fucking awesome. I'd love to see Judd writing that kind of stuff again.

[Calybos]

"Good writing" is anything I like. "Bad writing" is anything I don't like.

A lot of people like to pretend that there are other, more objective criteria, but they're kidding themselves.


.

[Infra-Man]

What is it you like about writing you like, and what is it you dislike about writing you dislike?

[jesse_custer]

What do you think makes a given author’s writing effective or makes for effective writing in general? What makes some writing more effective than others?

Narrative. If the narrative isn't interesting, the writer has almost no chance of winning me over.

[Calybos]

What is it you like about writing you like, and what is it you dislike about writing you dislike?


Speaking on a purely personal level, I like several things.

Clarity: A clear, straightforward narrative is better than symbolism, metaphor, and meta-narrative irony. "Deconstruction" is a warning bell I watch out for in reading reviews; it's a sign that I'll absolutely hate the story.

Good ideas: Ideas and plot matter more to me than feelings and soap-opera angst. Give me a heroic adventure story over whining and betrayal any day.

Intelligence: Smart characters who fight with their heads are more appealing to me than brooding, swaggering ultra-violent thugs.

But that's just me. Others may have other preferences. Heck, some people think James Joyce is a better writer than Isaac Asimov! And maybe he is--to them.


.

[Ghost]

Which is why Twilight fans are so interesting ot me. What's the trigger there? I say it's teenage girls working out their massive fears of dating these unknown mysterious and possibly dangerous beings called boys--and then the devil they're afraid of turns basically into a love puppy. Quite reassuring, in many ways. I'm scared...but...look, he's harmless! Cool. This would be way the stalker behavior gets excused because many girls perceive stalker behavior from many boys in high school and it's reassuring to learn that this stalker would never hurt them.

Having read about half of Twilight so far, for the expressed reason of trying to figure out what all the fuss is about... I find it to be a pretty classic romance fantasy. We've got your main girl who's somewhat insecure yet way more attractive then she thinks she is, and she meets this gorgeous bad boy who is mysterious and very dangerous but would never hurt her and them being together is dangerous and forbidden but their love is too strong so they don't care.

I mean, it ain't rocket surgery. Pretty basic stuff when you get to the bottom of it. (Though the vampire stuff helps, of course, because Vampires Are Awesome And Sexy.)

[jerrymcl89]

* Surprises. These are big for me. I need to turn a page and be blown away and go, "holy crap I can't believe he did that!" A story that I anticipate is a story I might as well not read.

That certainly helps. But the really good writing is the stuff that contains surprises that seem inevitable in retrospect, as opposed to just random unexpected stuff happening left and right. If you still "can't believe he did that" after he did, it's not an especially good thing.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

But that's just me. Others may have other preferences. Heck, some people think James Joyce is a better writer than Isaac Asimov! And maybe he is--to them.


.

I'm one of those people--but I'm fairly certain that Asimov was, as well.

After having tried to do a 'metatext/magic realist' superhero murder mystery for an easily confused audience as the fan base for a much maligned company, I'm at a loss as to whether I suck as a writer, or that the fans of that company are 60% not interested in working their brain. Ron Fortier and Mark Ellis loved it, but I have to assume most readers don't think like people I consider good writers. Catch-22. Nobody else bought it, because it was AC Comics. I'm guilty of living by the credo 'What would Steve Gerber do ?', and use his Defenders as the '101' in the back of my head on how to write comics. So--I'm either a stereotypical mad scientist, or an imbecile.

Is this all I've got to look forward to? I'm in the fucking bottom of a hole, right now--but it's not like it's gonna stop me from doing it, and I've already started on my next projects, plural.

Just ruminating, Calybos--no offense--and more to do with me than you. Just saw the movie Gigantic, and loved every freaking minute...it gave me hope.

[Infra-Man]

As a full disclosure about why I started this thread awhile back, school’s coming up soon and on top of doing my 700 words a day (or editing/reworking/salvaging for a few hours) and reading as many “I should have read that one already” books as possible, I’ve been reading a lot of author interviews, literary essays, writings about writing, etc. in order to gain multiple perspectives on ways to approach writing, storytelling, craft, and even the approach to reading someone's writing in general.

It doesn’t really matter to me what type of writing is being discussed as there is a lot of perspective to be gained whether it comes from avid readers, unpublished authors, or published authors (and the latter two are usually avid readers anyway), or people speaking of writing in comics, in prose, in verse, or through dialogue.

Thanks, everyone, for your various perspectives on this. Please keep them coming.

[DavidAllred]

Which is why Twilight fans are so interesting ot me. What's the trigger there? I say it's teenage girls working out their massive fears of dating these unknown mysterious and possibly dangerous beings called boys--and then the devil they're afraid of turns basically into a love puppy. Quite reassuring, in many ways. I'm scared...but...look, he's harmless! Cool. This would be way the stalker behavior gets excused because many girls perceive stalker behavior from many boys in high school and it's reassuring to learn that this stalker would never hurt them.

I've wondered the same thing about Twilight, but my experience has been through my wife's friends and ladies at church being really up on the book. Most all the really positive vibe and fan craze came from 30-something women, and I guess if I'm going to be totally honest, every one of the women high on the book had been divorced. That got my brain churning, so I started taking quick reads through it before my wife was finally pressured into reading it. I've not gotten it back from her yet.

My wife didn't care for the book at all, but seemed to at least understand the appeal some of her friends had. All I could really take away from the little I skimmed (and the movie) was the sort of "vengeful protector man" theme. I do see the stalker connection now that you mention it. As to why that would resonate so much with the women I know personally, I can't say I really understand.

Look forward to finishing the series.