The thing about good writing is that while you can identify some of its elements, it's ultimately entirely subjective. What it comes down to is a relationship between the author (or the text) and the reader. The writing can be objectively impeccable, perfectly formed, but if it doesn't work for the reader, that's that. Of course, that's not very helpful, because the reader is always changing, too, and more than once I've revisited a book I'd found impenetrable and ended up loving it (also the other way around), and as I read more I find that I'm able to better appreciate more (and better appreciate what *doesn't* work for me, and what I'm not interested in, regardless of how great Everyone insists it is).
I'm not done with this thought but I have to go. I'll return.
I think too many people use the "ultimately entirely subjective" as an excuse to say that what they like does NOT have to be measured against exterior standards and possibly found lacking in something. Too many people treat "subjective" as if it were not a scientifically reproducible experience.
The problem with that is that if it were true, then literature would not endure through centuries, or music, or art. That simialr responses to the work would NOT result from multiple people encountering the work. But all we have to do is look around and realize that's not true. People share subjective experience all the time. Therefore it should be possible to evaluate things on some sort of standard -- while still allowing for the individual tastes to possibly create unique responses. The difference is not in the quality of the work, but in the nature of the brain/mind responding to the work.
Yes...in a lot of ways it's like a relationship with a person, isn't it? Or we'd all be in love with the same person? (Of course sometimes we're all in love with Mr, Darcy...)
Huge groups of people whose purpose seems to be to have a single emotional reaction in support of the plot, or the hero, or villain, is problematical for me.
This is different from a mob--crowd psychology is a different thing, volatile as wildfire--I mean the chorus of grinning dolls. "Everybody grinned. EVerybody howled with laughter. EVerybody gasped."
Good versus bad... yeah, it's a tricky thing. I once offended a friend who made me read a book of SF short stories by her fave SF writer. I found the stories to be just another take on many motifs that have shown up in SF, and the prose itself something on the pedestrian side. But they were otherwise competent. So, when I returned the book to her, I said that I thought he was a fair journeyman writer, but that I had read better. I admit that her snit of "Well, that's just your opinion," bugged me -- because, after all, I did learn a few things about good writing in the pursuit of my English degrees
( ... )
Very much worth pursuing. I guess I get obsessed about the objective/only subjective discourse because I do writing coaching as a sideline (very side at the moment, though). Because it's about communicating something, and if the writer I'm trying to help doesn't know what reaction he wants the reader to have, I can't help him craft the work to get the reader there. After that, how well he does it becomes his business.
Bad writing is, among other things, writing that comes between me and the story, between me and the characters, between me and the journey. Good writing has surprises in it; in bad writing any surprises are so broad, telegraphed, and emphasized become an irritation, not a delight. Bad writing is wearing and distasteful. Crackfic is bad writing that makes me feel vaguely icky afterward (the degree of self-loathing generally has to do with how successfully vacuum-like it was).
Bad writing is, among other things, writing that comes between me and the story, between me and the characters, between me and the journey.
That is a definition that works exceedingly well for me. It does not state an absolute, but it's instantly recognisable and relatively easy to evaluate.
Comments 93
I'm not done with this thought but I have to go. I'll return.
Reply
The problem with that is that if it were true, then literature would not endure through centuries, or music, or art. That simialr responses to the work would NOT result from multiple people encountering the work. But all we have to do is look around and realize that's not true. People share subjective experience all the time. Therefore it should be possible to evaluate things on some sort of standard -- while still allowing for the individual tastes to possibly create unique responses. The difference is not in the quality of the work, but in the nature of the brain/mind responding to the work.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
This is different from a mob--crowd psychology is a different thing, volatile as wildfire--I mean the chorus of grinning dolls. "Everybody grinned. EVerybody howled with laughter. EVerybody gasped."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Bad writing is, among other things, writing that comes between me and the story, between me and the characters, between me and the journey. Good writing has surprises in it; in bad writing any surprises are so broad, telegraphed, and emphasized become an irritation, not a delight. Bad writing is wearing and distasteful. Crackfic is bad writing that makes me feel vaguely icky afterward (the degree of self-loathing generally has to do with how successfully vacuum-like it was).
Reply
That is a definition that works exceedingly well for me. It does not state an absolute, but it's instantly recognisable and relatively easy to evaluate.
Reply
Leave a comment