What is Considered 'Good' Writing Anyway?

Breaking new ground isn't always as much of a plus as people think. In general, people like reading the same thing (as in a favorite genre, not derivatives), which is why "you've never seen anything like it" is something writers aren't encouraged to add to queries.

"Good" writing is subjective in the extreme, but usually, it means something that is grammatically clean, flows well, has a set rhythm, and holds the reader's attention. Also keep in mind that any short story Hemingway wrote was done in a different era when the public's preferences were different as well.

This is also why comparing yourself to any other writer is a really bad idea. Writers aren't comparable to each other.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I read Catch 22 when I was about 13. I had no idea that it was famous or critically acclaimed, I just pulled it off the shelf in the living room and read it. I remember it was summer break and I don't think I put it down for however many days straight it took me to finish it.

I haven't read the Hemingway book you mention, but I just relayed the "boring topics" to DH and recognized it. He said it was "glorious".

So now I'm curious, what do YOU consider good writing? What DO you enjoy reading?

ernest hemmingway is not my cup of tea, but if there's one thing you can learn from him, it's dialogue. Yeah, from a certain point of view, you could argue his stories haven't got much going on. But there's a lot under the surface. Hills Like White Elephants is just a disagreement between a couple sitting in some resturaunt, if I remember correctly. But the entire conversation is about abortion, though neither of the characters outright say this. Again, I'm not a big fan of Hemmingway, but I can understand why he is held in high regard. His stories are subtle. He doesn't hit you over the head with stuff. Catch-22, while a little pointless after a while, is also pretty hilarious, and I doubt people here would tear it apart unless they just didn't get it.

I can sympathize with the frustration, of course, but the simple fact is that editors publish what they like and what they feel is suitable for their publication. If you're not getting accepted, it means they either don't like your stories enough, or the stories don't meet their needs/aesthetic/whatever, or both.

Any writing can be critiqued, and nothing's going to be universally loved. Name any book you want, from Lord of the Rings to the Bible and beyond, and there are going to be people who thought it sucked, or people who would murderize it in a line-by-line critique.

You don't need a MFA to get your writing accepted--a good deal of AW writers manage just fine without initials after their names--what you need is a strong story that catches a reader's attention and holds it till the end, and that matches the needs of the publication you're sending it to.

Write that, and it'll get accepted.

Of course, it's easier said than done. I sympathize with your frustration.

Mark Welsh said:

Recently I was at the library reading a collection of short stories by Ernest Hemingway and most of them were, in a word, terrible with bland writing and mundane subject matter (fishing in a stream, hiking through the woods etc.) but were still considered literary 'classics'. Even 'Catch-22' was 'Catch Zero' for me it was so badly written. I bet if I put an excerpt up here and pretended it was something new that I wrote, AW reviewers would tear it to shreds - not knowing who actually wrote it.

Click to expand...

Oh, boy...

Hemingway may not be to your taste, but to dismiss him because of "mundane subject matter" tells me you're reading him in a superficial way. Were there not enough explosions for you?

Your criticism of CATCH-22 is so vague as to be meaningless.

I don't know why your writing is being rejected. Do literary journals show favoritism to MFA students? Yes, of course--they're produced by and for MFAs. Is that why you're being rejected? We don't know; we can't tell you. But your attitude towards successful, venerated writers may provide a clue.

mark,

Good writing is to some extent subjective; the girl who loathes hemingway may adore dan brown.

that said, you first panned a number of the stories in the lit journals and then a couple major authors; this sounds more like bitter vitrol than an actual question.

If you haven't made it yet, you aren't going to get there faster by bitching and moaning about a rigged system; as shocking as it may seem, many of the folks you apparently look down your nose at came through the same unfair system, without MFAs--they just chose to keep working when others pissed on their work, and make it better, instead of pissing and whining about how everyone else got an unfair break.

We all rant, but I'm also thinking you need a call back to earth. Writing is hard--if it isn't for you, so be it, but if you honestly fail completely to see WHY Hemingway and Vonnegut became majors (you don't have to like, just understand) then you're missing some major points that might serve you well in your own attempted career

Mark Welsh said:

And, when all is said and done, shouldn't the actual story be what really counts?'

Click to expand...

Of course it should be what really counts, and it often is. That's how Catch-22 got accepted for publication in the first place. Joseph Heller was a complete unknown when he wrote it, no credentials whatever. It was fresh, damn funny, and pertinent. And still is. You missed something pretty badly in your reading of it.

leahzero, blacbird, and quicklime make excellent points.

I'll only add that you sound terribly frustrated and upset over your rejection. You're among more people than you know who have felt the very same thing - so you're in the right place.

Now that you've gotten the rant out of your system, it's time to stop looking at what these places are accepting, and go back to your basics. Go back to your story. Take a look at what you've got on the page and what you are trying to say. How you are saying it.

Bring it over to SYW - there are pleanty of great lit critters over there who will give you all the help you'll ever want.


EDIT: I went and looked and found you have things at SYW and it looks like you are getting pretty good crit there already. Good start - keep going.

CHV

Mark Welsh said:

Having had all my short stories rejected by a number of 'literary' journals and periodicals, I can never seem to understand what the industry criteria is for acceptance and publication.

I say this because the stories I've read that have been accepted by the above don't impress me much at all either in terms of content or style. None that I've seen and read break new ground or have any kind of novel or interesting 'edge' yet such stories win contests, receive accolades.....Why? Is it because the authors already have a 'reputation' or respected position in society? Almost always, if I read the blurb in italics at the end of successful submissions (the little paragraphs that give some information about the authors in question), they almost always describe them as MFA's with majors or minors in Creative Writing. Does that automatically qualify them for publication?

Recently I was at the library reading a collection of short stories by Ernest Hemingway and most of them were, in a word, terrible with bland writing and mundane subject matter (fishing in a stream, hiking through the woods etc.) but were still considered literary 'classics'. Even 'Catch-22' was 'Catch Zero' for me it was so badly written. I bet if I put an excerpt up here and pretended it was something new that I wrote, AW reviewers would tear it to shreds - not knowing who actually wrote it. I'd also bet that if you strip away the blurbs about an author's 'credentials' or their MFA designations and re-submit their work somewhere else, it would surely end up right in the wastebasket (along with stories by people like me).

I think the question many in my position ask is 'Why is my writing considered crap if I don't have a 'reputation' or the letters MFA after my name? Why should these credentials even matter at all? And, when all is said and done, shouldn't the actual story be what really counts?'

Click to expand...

Stop concentrating on these people and concentrate on people that have succeeded without MFA after their name. They did it, I can do it, you can do it. Thing is to do it

Mark Welsh said:

If my work gets repeatedly rejected, that's not my loss.

Click to expand...

It might not be your loss, but with the best will in the world, it's also not the loss of the publishing world. Change your attitude and see if that improves your publication record.

quicklime said:

mark,

Good writing is to some extent subjective; the girl who loathes hemingway may adore dan brown.

that said, you first panned a number of the stories in the lit journals and then a couple major authors; this sounds more like bitter vitrol than an actual question.

If you haven't made it yet, you aren't going to get there faster by bitching and moaning about a rigged system; as shocking as it may seem, many of the folks you apparently look down your nose at came through the same unfair system, without MFAs--they just chose to keep working when others pissed on their work, and make it better, instead of pissing and whining about how everyone else got an unfair break.

We all rant, but I'm also thinking you need a call back to earth. Writing is hard--if it isn't for you, so be it, but if you honestly fail completely to see WHY Hemingway and Vonnegut became majors (you don't have to like, just understand) then you're missing some major points that might serve you well in your own attempted career

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I dislike Hemingway, and his writing, but I do recognize that he was a good writer and the way he wrote influenced a lot who came after him.

Mark Welsh said:

Regarding the issues I have with MFA's I have never been able to accept the idea that writing can be 'taught'. But what I do suspect is that some beginning writers take this route only because they feel it is a short cut to publication - which it is.

I am not resentful nor bitter but somewhat 'peeved'. I've been writing for over twenty years, mostly for my own amusement. I don't think being peeved or resentful 'says a lot about me'. If anything, it motivates me to work extra hard, think hard, agonize over sentences and imagery, re-write, then re-write again and again.

'Good for you' some might say and I say, yes it is. If my work gets repeatedly rejected, that's not my loss. Maybe I'll miss out on some ego gratification but I don't need 'accolades' nor do I have 'anything to prove' nor, frankly, do I need the money. I really couldn't give a sh-t. I simply don't believe an MFA qualifies anybody for anything -- and shouldn't.

Click to expand...

You say writing can't be taught...but what do you think you were doing while you were agonizing over those sentences? I'd call it teaching yourself how to write. The M.F.A. is not a short-cut to publishing from where I'm standing. I'm in an M.F.A. program, and half the time I'm afraid it's going to hinder my chances, because I write genre fiction rather than literary. I hesitate to put those three letters in my queries, because the bias goes both ways, and I don't want my degree overshadowing my fiction, just like you don't want your lack of degree doing the same to you.

You don't seem to like literary fiction, so why are you sending your stories to literary journals?

Hi Mark,

I've read some of your stuff in Literary SYW and it's nothing like the kind of stuff I see in literary journals. Hemingway and Heller are irrelevant, they're not submitting to these journals, they're not contemporary.

I left a comment, but not a critique, on one excerpt you posted. You said you knew the plot needed fixing, the story needed more clarity and tightening, but you also said you didn't feel like making the effort, so you just posted it. If you want to benefit from the feedback in SYW you really should polish it first, fix the things you know need fixing and let people catch the things that you can't see for yourself. Another piece that you posted, you asked people to be gentle. If you think you're not getting into these places because you don't have an MFA, I think you're making excuses.

Maybe literary journals aren't your thing? Besides, little of the stuff posted in Literary SYW that I've seen is what I'd call literary. Notwithstanding the fact that the term literary fiction is itself not clearly defined, those who like literary fiction tend to recognise it when they see it. Perhaps try casting your net a little wider and see if you have more success.

Good luck though.

RobJ said:

You said you knew the plot needed fixing, the story needed more clarity and tightening, but you also said you didn't feel like making the effort, so you just posted it.

Click to expand...

If this is literally what the OP said, then I don't think we need to look any further as to why his subs aren't working.

seun said:

If this is literally what the OP said, then I don't think we need to look any further as to why his subs aren't working.

Click to expand...

Posted an excerpt in SYW. Not sure if you think I meant posted it, as in subbed.

RobJ said:

Posted an excerpt in SYW. Not sure if you think I meant posted it, as in subbed.

Click to expand...

No, I meant general submissions as they described in the original post.

There's your problem

ETA: @ Mark

Mark,

Keep writing, keep submitting. Get rid of the bad attitude and take rejection as being part of a writers life. Really, ALL writers get rejected. Oh, and make sure to submit to the proper markets- read and study their magazines, research what they want.

Good luck!

Mark Welsh said:

Recently I was at the library reading a collection of short stories by Ernest Hemingway and most of them were, in a word, terrible with bland writing and mundane subject matter (fishing in a stream, hiking through the woods etc.) but were still considered literary 'classics'. '

Click to expand...

Right there's your problem. It isn't the writing you're reading, but the fact that your taste doesn't match that of the huge majority.

If you believe Hemingway's stories are about fishing in a stream, or hiking through the woods, you're never going to get it.

His stories simply are not about these things at all. They have depth and meaning few writers have been able to touch, and the writing is wonderful. Mundane subject matter. You really need to read those stories again. There's nothing mundane about anything Hemingway wrote, and this is triply true for his Nick Adams stories, the ones you call fishing in a stream and walking in the woods stories. Nope, not hardly.

Not one of his stories is about fishing in a stream or walking in the woods.

If there's a better American short story than Big Two-Hearted River, in depth of meaning, or in writing style, I haven't read it. You'd probably think it was about fishing, too. You'd probably believe the writing to be mundane. You'd be wrong, completely wrong, on both points.

And you think Catch-22 was badly written? There's your second problem. It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, badly written.

On top of this, what it has to say would make it a classic, even if it were badly written, which it isn't.

I'm not sure why you're trying to sell to literary magazines. You don't like most of the writing, and you don't understand that literary writing has almost all the meaning beneath the surface, not floating on top. So does most good genre fiction, for that matter.

But when you believe the subject matter of Hemingway's stories is fishing in streams and walking in the woods, you just don't understand what literary fiction is. Not one of his stories has fishing in streams or walking in the woods as subject matter.

You seem to be concentrating so hard of writing style that you're missing the entire story.

You're trying to write for magazines filled with writing you don't like, and stories you don't understand. Why?

And, yes, literary magazines tend to favor MFA writers because that's where they get the best writing and the best stories. Got news for you. Genre magazines and publishers also tend to favor writers with degrees because that's where they get the best writing and the best stories.

But whether you want to believe it or not, these writers would do just as well, even if the editors had no clue about an MFA. And they very, very often do not because they learn about the MFA after they read the story, not before. About ninety percent of those who do have an MFA still get rejected, and still lucky to sell anything, anywhere, ever. As in most fields, however, the top ten percent or so are just flat good. They tell stories editors love, stories readers love, and your taste aside, they usually tell them extremely well.

And it's hard to take you seriously when you say such magazines don't publish anything novel, or with "edge". This is exactly what such magazines are known for, but I also suspect you want that all floating on the surface, too.

If by "stories by people like me" you mean writers without MFAs, they do just fine at literary magazines. But they're up against writers who are better educated, and generally just better in every way. Primarily, they're up against writers who actually like the magazines and the stories they publish, writers who like the writing style, the subject matter, and writers who understand that Hemingway did not write stories abut fishing in streams or walking in the woods.

So most writers without an MFA are going to fail. So are most with, but those without are usually beating their heads against a stone wall. Only a tiny few are in the same league as those who sell regularly to literary magazines.

Sadly, you're probably right about AW reviewers. They probably would shred such stories, which is why I'm eternally grateful such writers do not post stories of AW.

Mark Welsh said:

I'm glad you raised that point. That, in itself, says alot. I also suspect that Hemingway would never have got The Sun Also Rises published if Scott Fitzgerald hadn't helped him write it and got Maxwell Perkins to accept it.

.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you know less about Fitzgerald and Perkins that you do about Hemingway.

Good writing is what other people want to read. What you think is good and want to write doesn't factor into the equation.

If you're writing for a market, you have to write for the market, not for yourself.

Who would you name as an example of good writing?

I can't imagine considering Hemingway and Catch-22 outright bad writing. You don't have to like it, but surely you see what they were going for and how hard that is to do?

"Good" writing is subjective in the extreme, but usually, it means something that is grammatically clean, flows well, has a set rhythm, and holds the reader's attention. Also keep in mind that any short story Hemingway wrote was done in a different era when the public's preferences were different as well.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'd I've said.

It's all subjective.

That's why I don't enter writing contests anymore. It's too subjective to actually mean anything, whether I win or lose (mostly lose).