There appears to be a flurry of writing threads in these parts. I wanted to start something that would bring together these disparate albeit similar parts in a practical manner to form a more coherent group so that we may all learn from one another instead of holding up signs with the dire want of acknowledgment.
This is a discussion thread hosted by Gantic (and the nonexistent Author's Guild). This will not be a discussion about a particular piece of writing by a writer but more generally about writing and the writer. I am hoping to get some productive discussion from writers here on Armor Games.
Discussion will be on various topics and may changed weekly, biweekly, however long a discussion needs. This will mostly (or most likely) be about prose but other forms of writings may also be discussed.
To start off: Why do you write? What do you want from writing?
The question is not "Why do you like to write?" Rather, it is "Why do you write?"
Please keep posts relevant. Posts should be relevant to the current discussion or a previous discussion.
Responses should be constructive. While we'd all like to be frank, there is a line between tactful and blunt. Keep in mind that not everyone is of the same disposition or age.
Also keep in mind that we're all amateurs here unless someone is writing professionally. Nevertheless, each opinion carries the same weight regardless of whether you disagree or not or how much you admire or despise someone. Please consider how something applies to you and not blindly accept or reject advice or opinion. An opinion is never a fact even if everyone thinks the same thing.
If you have any ideas for future discussions, leave a comment on my profile. Meanwhile, consider, discuss, learn!
I can definitely see the idea of momentum in writing; I have a ton of unfinished stuff. I think, though, that motivation and ideas are on the whole separate ideas. Ideas will stick for a long time without fading, and when they do, that's only because they are being replaced by newer, brighter ideas. The entropy of motivation is significantly greater than that of ideas.
Agreed with Parsat. Something I find and something I commonly find with other people is that when writing, we'll go so far as to make plans until it seems that all that remains is execution. Then the motivation tends to fade.
However I'm fully aware that projects can change and evolve should the process continue (currently rewriting a novel from the ground up- the idea remains the same but the story is nearly completely different), so I tend to stick to my projects simply because they're so long term. The ones I drop are the ones that I've concluded have completely unviable ideas.
Let's change it up a little and focus more on the writing. Strop the Mind Reader probably already knows what this will be about. Writing takes some amount of skill. It is impossible to objectively gauge our own skill but it is easier to gauge the skills of others.
We know good writing when we see it, but the question is: What is/makes good writing?
Good writing is writing with flow and purpose. At a technical level, not spamming adverbs to modify weak nouns and having vibrant sentence structure makes it technically good(of course, this is near impossible to perfect quickly. It takes years to sharpen your pencil enough, so to speak.). At a more representative and purposeful level, making the writing have some sort of point is imperative. Writing about nothing is hollow and boring- and such hollowness will begin to show at a certain point. At a purpose level, having some sort of point, no matter how silly or stupifd it end up being, fleshes out the piece much more.
I don't think that there is a true answer for what makes good writing, because isn't the preception of wether it is good or not decided opon by the reader. A new reader would like books that are simple, easy to read and understand, but more experienced readers would want books that are very in-depth and really put their opinion out there in sophisticated discribing words that most poeople probably don't even know the meaning. But, to me, what makes good writing is something that will make me laugh, keep me in suspense, or that feature that i think is quite undiscribable that won't let you put down the book. To me good writing is something that has nice flow and doesn't skip around unless it is a flashback. A piece that uses a nice amount of adjectives to clearly describe it's surroundings and it puts a clear image in your mind like your watching a film.
As I wander through fanfiction.net, I realize that good writing and popular writing is not synonymous. :P
As thisisnotanalt mentioned, there are different levels to what makes writing good. I view good writing from the reader's perspective as a pyramid. There are technical levels of syntax, vocabulary, and rhetoric that act as a foundation to good writing. Foundationally, it is imperative that the prose is capable of evoking and communicating the emotions and the tone of the piece to the reader, which is the next tier of the pyramid.
An expository text or a scientific article is written proficiently in a technical sense, but we do not consider it good writing because it lacks what I call the "human quality." Emotion and tone are human qualities evoked in writing; it's this subjectivity that goes next on the pyramid of good writing. To me, what sets humans apart is their ability to be different. In the natural world, if an animal attempts to go outside of its ecological niche, it cannot survive. But humans are capable of living in a subjective existence, not living for merely life itself. So this human factor differs among different readers.
The individual sense leads us to the top of the pyramid, the theme, or the message that links us all. It's what we get out of writing and its ultimate meaning to ourselves and to others that makes good writing good. Writing can be technically good, and it can have emotion, but by these two definitions alone good writing can manifest itself in the form of a cheap romance novel or a demagogue.
An expository text or a scientific article is written proficiently in a technical sense, but we do not consider it good writing because it lacks what I call the "human quality."
I'd actually beg to differ on that, depending on the level of rigor of article you're talking about. If you mean a paper submitted to a journal, those are generally dry by mandated standards. If you mean an editorial, journalistic or popular science article, those have much room to evoke, not necessarily an emotional response but what I'd call an inspiration.
To me, what sets humans apart is their ability to be different. In the natural world, if an animal attempts to go outside of its ecological niche, it cannot survive.
I'd also beg to differ on this, but this is not the thread to discuss such. More broadly speaking, it should explain why I use phrases such as "human quality" differently to you.
Hm. Parsat's response reminds me of Maslow's pyramid of self-actualisation :P And I'm not going to criticise the content.
I know what I'd rather not call good writing, though. But I get the very discomforting feeling that where I'm going with this takes me in the direction of Leo Tolstoy, and that's a place I'd rather not end up.
Writing about nothing is hollow and boring- and such hollowness will begin to show at a certain point.
What is writing about nothing? Seinfeld is a "show about nothing". Does it have a point? Is it hollow and boring?
"In no uncertain terms" is a sticker I consider using as a qualifier, "do you think" is another. Both phrases heavily imply subjectivity and this questions is subjective. I think difficulty presents itself when specific definitions make pigeonholes or generalizations leave things wishy-washy, which is where I have difficulty "defining" good writing.
Consider: How much distinction is there between good (fictional) writing and a good idea? Does a good book necessarily contain good writing?
Sometimes, perhaps rarely, I make the distinction between good writing and entertaining writing. It is clear that popular fiction, that with a captivating story, may not be entirely "good writing". This is where "overrated" gets thrown around. Thus, I can't say something that pulls the reader along is always good writing, but is it necessary for good writing to be entertaining?
We also know bad writing when we see it. We can say clearly what is bad. But what is bad?
I consider prolixity (verbiage, wordiness, whatever you want to call it) to be the foremost indicator of bad writing, but sometimes there is a need for subtler or rhetorical forms of prolixity. The inclusion of varying degrees of prolixity is a meter for how "good" the writing is. If it can caption the essence in as many (or as few) words as sufficient then I would consider it good.
Copywriting is a format that would cover succinct and clear writing although it may also include visual and auditory aspects. Can an advertisement be considered good writing?
Also, can bad writing with the intent of bad writing be good writing or is that a good idea?
Many of us facilely refer to a work as terrible but entertaining. Flash trash, no-brainers, boofheaded romps and exploitation flicks.
It's as if there's a culture of "engaging one's cerebrum" in the judgement of what makes good writing.
I wanted to use an adaptation of Rushdie's motto on the mission of the writer, "good writing provokes discussion", but given the events surrounding the popular culture icon Twilight, I'm reluctant to subscribe.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much discussion here with only five having replied.
There is some merit to the motto though. There is writing out there that touches upon (controversial) issues that generate a lot of discussion, but the writing itself generates nothing, like terrible 4-hour tv movies/miniseries that stick a billion storylines around a topic. Terrible stuff. If writing is bad enough I don't think even a good idea can redeem it. They aren't entertaining either since good actors are wasted by bad writing.
It's as if there's a culture of "engaging one's cerebrum" in the judgement of what makes good writing.
I think it's a reaction against genre fiction or anything that's not literary. But Harry Potter says different.
