What is Considered 'Good' Writing Anyway?

gingerwoman said:

Every writing contest I know of or have entered has had a rule that you can't put your name anywhere on the entry (only on the entry form) or else you have to use a fake name on the entry. This is to ensure that the name a person has does not influence the judges and that the work is judged solely on its merits.

Click to expand...

Same with the Writer's Guild of America Awards. I respect an award that actually tries to judge a piece on the actual merits of the writing. So many awards today are based on reputation and appeal.

My two cents:

I'm reading The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles these days. It's hailed as a classic. It's boring me to tears, and half the reason is the writing style. They say you need to know the rules to break them. Paul Bowles breaks certain rules, but it feels like he's breaking the wrong ones. The result is boring writing riddled with what I perceive as mistakes.

Perhaps someone else would disagree. I'd love to hear what they love about him. But it does sometimes frustrate me to read work like that. There must be some element I'm missing, I keep telling myself. If I crack that, maybe it'll be the next step in becoming a better writer. But still it eludes me...

Brett Marie said:

My two cents:

I'm reading The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles these days. It's hailed as a classic. It's boring me to tears, and half the reason is the writing style. They say you need to know the rules to break them. Paul Bowles breaks certain rules, but it feels like he's breaking the wrong ones. The result is boring writing riddled with what I perceive as mistakes.

Perhaps someone else would disagree. I'd love to hear what they love about him. But it does sometimes frustrate me to read work like that. There must be some element I'm missing, I keep telling myself. If I crack that, maybe it'll be the next step in becoming a better writer. But still it eludes me...

Click to expand...

I love everything about Paul Bowles. I love his writing style, I love his stories, I love his characters, etc. I do think his short stories are better than his novels, but I think his novels are still very good.

Mnay things are just a matter of taste. Some writers you like, some you do not, but Bowles taught me an awful lot about writing short stories, if not novels.

Jamesaritchie, I'll have to check out some of his short stories, then. I'll also reserve judgment on The Sheltering Sky until I'm through it.

"Good" depends on who you ask! Everybody has a different idea of what makes good writing. Few people agree.

I could take Mark Welsh's slant and add, what image erupts if I suggest: car salesperson? Most of the world obviously likes it that way, because that style works most of the time. Talent shows, wrestling and feeding those with different religions to the lions. This the world generally likes - has always liked.

Numerous are adverts on methods of impressing publishers. They are like clubs - cliques. Letters after one's name is just such a club and as James Ritchie inclined, you get more chances with letters after your name.
And quoting from the Wizard of Oz: "they have no more brains than you. But they have one thing you haven't: a diploma.

So to be published you'll need the equivalent of shiny teeth and a winning smile. Where talent comes into it who can say. Probably like most talent shows where judges are the equivalent of publishers - many of whom appear to struggle with the quintessential concept.

But of course most publishers aren't up-front 'judges,' dear me no - a retinue of slush pile persons do that and pass what they think worthy to their superiors.

On the other hand publishers are only human. As such, the winning smile and shinning teeth equivalent will always catch their eye.

An interesting debate that makes me want to share something I read recently:

"If there is one reason above others for taking a writing course, it is to go through the agonizing but indispensable recognition that one's own [story], so clear, so beautiful, so powerful, and so true, so definite in it's meaning or so well balanced in its ambiguity, has become a hundred different things for the other writers present. Even the teacher does not get your buried symbols, or, worse, does not like them. Being a writer in such a course can bruise the psyche as much as being a novice in the Golden Gloves can hurt your head. There is punishment in recognizing how much more punishment will yet have to be taken. Yet the class has its unique and ineradicable value. For you get to see the faces of those who like your work, you hear their voices, and so you gain some comprehension of the perversities of an audience's taste..."

-Norman Mailer, The Spooky Art, Some Thoughts on Writing

The Cooler is the best virtual "classroom" I've encountered anywhere on the Internet--and not just because it's free. Although we don't get to see each other's faces we certainly grow to understand (and eventually learn to respect) artistic intentions between the lines.

Jen

Mark Welsh said:

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?

Click to expand...

I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Typically, what is published in magazines is what their editors like and think their readers would like.

If you think that the writing in a given journal/anthology/magazine/whatever sucks, probably you shouldn't write for it/try to submit to it. Why? Because this means that your taste and the tastes of those who are enjoying it are so radically different that almost anything you write (and like) isn't going to match what they like.

Try finding journals that you like and respect. You might have better luck submitting your writing to them.

Writing and storytelling can be very different and I believe that storytelling is often far more important.

I think its a common complaint that many people don't see where they are going wrong.

Here are a few ideas I've had on what makes a good piece;

Demonstrate a skill with writing (usually subtle without overwriting)

Demonstrate knowledge of a world that is unfamiliar to the reader i.e. Afghanistan in "A thousand splendid suns" or Gatsby

Demonstrate a unique character that people either identify or would wish to identify with

Sometimes demonstrate an ability to write in a particular style

Start at the right point - with action and conflict that is symptomatic of the main theme

Avoid backstory

Click to expand...

Try not to get too frustrated. Maybe you need to learn from those authors even though they aren't your favorite. Hemingway came up with his own style, obvious key to his success and Heller created a new word for the English lexicon that was badly needed. In each instance the author contributed to the Zeitgeist and therefore established themself.

Voice has a lot to do with it for me. Yes, I like a good story, but if the I don't like the voice, the style, then I'm sorry but I'm going to put the book down.

E. Hemingway is a frikkin genius. He makes fishing a supernatural experience. I read him in H.S. without knowing I was supposed to like him... But of course, he's controversial because he's so minimalist. Good writing is something you just can't explain.

I don't mean to be too critical here, but if you are finding fault with Joseph Heller, Hemingway, and other journal stories, then I think you may be approaching this literature with the wrong perspective--which might help to explain why you are having trouble with your own stories.

Not necessarily true. "I don't like the way these guys write" is a perfectly valid opinion, even if you write in the same genre. I mean, literary fiction has Heller and Hemingway on one end of the spectrum and Nabokov and Joyce on the other, and there are all kinds of stops in between. Just because somebody really, really doesn't like one end of the range doesn't mean he is approaching literary fiction in the wrong way.

I'm really not a fan of Hemingway, either. His style just doesn't appeal to me. I read him and study him because I think there are valuable things to learn from his writing, but I don't like him. That doesn't mean I'm wrong or that I'm approaching literature incorrectly.

Mr. Orange said:

I don't mean to be too critical here, but if you are finding fault with Joseph Heller, Hemingway, and other journal stories, then I think you may be approaching this literature with the wrong perspective--which might help to explain why you are having trouble with your own stories.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Finding faults with Joseph Heller or Hemingway doesn't say anything. It just means that he doesn't like absolutely everything about those authors. There are faults with every writer whether the reader finds them or not. I personally don't know of any faults with Hemingway or Heller, but I've never read anything from either one.

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...

IMO, in order to get published, you need to have a healthy respect for those who've come before you.

I'm not saying you have to like Hemmingway (he's not my favorite either.)

I am saying that fishing in a stream is never just about fishing in a stream, and if that's all you're getting from Hemmingway, then you're missing the point.

When I was seventeen, I wrote a short story that I thought was brilliant. Really great stuff. I submitted it to a literary mag, and got rejected. She told me my writing felt "sophomoric." I was pretty sure I knew what sophomoric meant, but looked it up anyway, and then got properly offended. I told her that the story she had up on the site right now, well, I didn't see what was so great about it. I told her it was just about sex.

But that's the thing. A great story about sex is never just about sex. It's about love, intimacy, biological imperatives and survival, procreation, manhood, womanhood, commitment or lack thereof--at the most basic level it's about the relation of two human beings to one another.

I could not see that, because at the time, I was not mature enough.

Again, I'm not saying you have to like everything that's published or acclaimed as great (I loved what I read of Catch 22, btw, my only objection is that it is a bit repetitive and seems to be going nowhere. Absolutely hilarious though.) I am saying you have to do your best to respect such work, and try to understand why people regard it the way they do.

Another quick anecdote--during my sophomore year in college, I took a philosophy seminar on Wagner. Very quickly I realized that opera was not for me. And Wagner certainly wasn't for me. We had weekly response papers to operas that were screened every Friday, and one week, about halfway through the semester, it was really late and I was tired and I just decided to make a joke of it. For two pages, I made fun of Wagner, and his opera, and made my distaste for the material clear--so much so, that the Prof suggested I drop the class.

In the end, I got an A. How? Well, I had to adjust my thinking. I had to force myself to look for the merits of the work. I had to force myself to find stuff to like. It wasn't easy. But I did find stuff to like.

My point is simple. We're all guilty of being close-minded sometimes. But if you want to succeed, you need to try to overcome that.

Mark Welsh said:

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).

Click to expand...

It's an industry. Social connections and past credits are huge, as is luck. I keep quoting Nathan Bransford, but submitting writing is like gambling. Even potential prize winners don't get published. It's very easy to get pissed off about the market. Open up a book you find at Wal-Mart and chances are you'll wonder what's so special about it compared to yours. It could be you're better (or worse) than them, but it's nothing personal.

This is just my opinion. I've read some bestsellers that bored me to death with their rambling, lack of plot, horrific style, etc. Some of those are sitting on shelves in the buildings below me right now and have movie deals. Still, the industry is subjective and all writers, even the purportedly shitty ones deserve their success. They had the patience to write books, the understanding of what might sell, the good fortune to get them published, the drive to perhaps tour and all that.

I'm no success, but let me say this. Write a story because it's something you might like to read. If you think it's going to be the next big thing, it's probably not. Rejection isn't personal in art. You need to give it to the right person at the right time, and there isn't much we can do beyond submitting to those who might be interested in our work.

Late to the party, and I don't know where you're submitting but all the little lit mags I submit to (the ones essentially replacing "little magazines" in the post-post-modern or whatever this era is), don't ask for a degree or publishing credits. Some even say outright "we don't care about your prior publications." It seems most "literary" zines I've submitted to value experimentation and spiritual/psychological characterization over other qualities of storytelling. But that's just a generalization from my experience, and I'm not the most experienced.

I do agree that college literature circles are pretentiously obsessed with modernism and freud and the whole elite "literary" style. I adopt the "literary" style as a matter of experimental freedom but don't value it as superior to other genres or styles. But you can find a ton of little lit mags that don't give a squat if you're a new author or not.

Oh, and the only thing I think good writing does is maintain its own illusion, play by its own rules, operate as a whole machine rather than disconnected bits and cogs. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know... If you are going to trash Catch 22 and Ernest Hemingway then it makes me think you might try reading them too briskly and superficially. Did you read Hills Like White Elephants? What did you think of that?

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...

+ 1

Also, Hemingway had a box full of everything he wrote over four years LOST. Completely GONE. Can you imagine that? But he didn't let that stop him. Of course he did get very lucky as far as meeting the right people, about as lucky as anyone can ever get really, but it doesn't matter too much since he was extraordinary.

If you're going to be bitter about a writer having success, please be bitter about Twilight or something. Ernest Hemingway and Joseph Heller? That's a bit absurd.

I would say good writing is not subjective. If you compare writing to people, there will always be people you like, and others you just cannot get on with. It would be foolish to suggest the people you don't get on with are somehow lesser people than you. Rather their personalities don't mesh with your yours and so you don't like them. I think the same is true with writing. After a certain level of expertise, it becomes a matter of taste. Unfortunately there is no accounting for taste.

I can't define it, just recognize it and cite those who pull it off really, really well: Vonnegut, Chabon, Chomsky, Dostoyevsky, Hesse, Turgenev, and so on.

I felt a lot better about rejections after reading "Myrtle the Manuscript". It's posted on the web in several places.

A story may be rejected only because something similar was published within the last year or two. Or the MC has the same first name as two other stories already in this issue. Or any of a host of reasons that are not direct critiques of your story.

From my experience reading books, I don't think there is an objective criteria for good writing. Comparing stories with say, the things that people say that "good writers do," I've found that much of the most popular authors contradict these standards with much success.

All I can really say is calm down, and if you like a book, you like it.