Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 20 May 03 - 11:54 AM I am impressed by the talent liberated by the form on that thread, SRS. A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 May 03 - 11:39 AM You might want to peruse this thread for some appreciation of poetry. It's the discussion of sonnets. SRS |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 20 May 03 - 10:53 AM Poetry has places it wanders where no song could survive, where prose just buckles and collapses, and where no-one knows music yet. What makes it so is a certain fling with insanity or at least wildness, maybe divinity, that knows how to break the machinery of minds in order to let some light into their innards. A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Peter T. Date: 20 May 03 - 10:29 AM "Day One. At sea." (repeat ad infinitum) (Two Years Strapped to the Pen). Curious reversal, Kim. I couldn't write a song to save my soul, but poetry comes pretty easy (i.e. incredibly hard, but it makes sense doing it). Poetry is like the shift from graphite to diamonds. It requires a lot of pressure (the pencil of the great poet is 100H), from the stanzaic form, or the need for a rhythm, or just the recalcitrance of words. There are poems that I have written that are absolutely perfect except for one word which will not come, and for which English does not provide. Drives you crazy. (Auden said poems are not finished, just abandoned). That being the case, non-rhymed verse (actually the bulk of verse in humankind)is very, very hard to write, much harder than rhymed verse, which gives you a default system of pressure within which to work. Just putting down words does not "signify" anything. In non-rhymed verse you usually are trying to "foreground" something that is not usually paid attention to -- for instance in stance -- as soon as I split the word "instance" up it foregrounds the strangeness of the word's elements, which your eye passes over the first time around. A poet can do this with all elements of language (e.g. concrete poetry made up of punctuation marks). Doing that while making a larger statement is where you edge into good poetry, rather than just futzing around. Ezra Pound was pretty good when he said that poetry is news that stays news. yours, Peter T. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Sam L Date: 20 May 03 - 10:00 AM I'm not much of a reader of poetry, usually prefer fiction, but one respectable point of view is that metaphor is the main element of poetry, and that rhymes and meter and all else are secondary. There isn't really a hard line between prose and poetry. I 'found' a poem once in the clues and solution to a jumble-puzzle. But the intent of a poem signals that it's meant to be read with aesthetic attention, the way a book of fiction signals that it's not a history or memoir or something. I think the intent is all one can go by. usually. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Kim C Date: 20 May 03 - 09:40 AM What I want to know is, what constitutes good poetry? How does someone get to be a "poet"? How is modern, non-rhyming poetry different from prose, aside from the fact that it's written in lines instead of paragraphs? Why would I, a songwriter, be in such a quandary about poetry, when songwriting is a cousin to it? (some people may say it's the same, and in some ways it is, but in my mind it's different) |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 May 03 - 12:37 AM Hrothgar, yes, that's it. I think I read the novel 30 years ago at least, so I was doing pretty well to remember any of it. The guy was a tinkerer with minature engines. Fred, forming opinions is what we all do, and we form opinions about things we like and from there figure out what we dislike. How we refer to what we dislike is the question here--whether we see the like/dislike comparisons as total opposites (binary) or by degree. I think the binaries exclude and/or include too much, so I prefer the sliding scale for comparison. I don't want to try to extend this out any further--I have certainly expressed my likes and dislikes over the years via Mudcat--and it's easy enough to contradict yourself in regular conversation, let alone in a site where it is all archived! SRS |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Sam L Date: 19 May 03 - 07:07 PM S.R.S., I'm not sure I meant that the way you took it. I just mean that although there's not any objective way to support it, one can still give themselves permission to feel sure of a few things. It may just be your opinion, still you can maintain it, wholeheartedly. We're all grown-ups, except for the kids, and don't have to always mouse around with open-ended evasions and polite shrugs. Many people prefer some kinds of art, which they don't really care very much about anyway, to other kinds of art, that they actually hate. Given this, it's not such a bad deal to validate your own values, despite that people may disagree. At least it introduces some charged positive energy into things. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 19 May 03 - 07:02 PM Typographical accuracy is the result of a totally different sort of training and thought than excellent craft in writing. It is quite possible to master both but they really are different ways of being before the page. And thereby hangs a great tale -- "Ten Years Before the Page -- A Writer's Confessions", which i shall ask Peter to write. A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Kim C Date: 19 May 03 - 03:38 PM I am currently reading "The Artist's Way" by Julia Cameron, and while I am enjoying it, and finding it helpful, I can't help but notice there's a TON of typos in it! ;-) |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Peter T. Date: 19 May 03 - 01:41 PM I don't know. F. Scott Fitzgerald couldn't spell worth shit. He never seems to have learned. yours, Peter T. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 19 May 03 - 01:21 PM Both good and great writers learn the importance of proofreading, if not by themselves, then by knowledgeable proofreaders. Or preferably both! And THEN mistakes almost inevitably show up. Dave Oesterreich |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Kim C Date: 19 May 03 - 12:59 PM Well, I kinda figured that, but what the heck. It makes for good conversation! Leaving out letters is the mark of a poor typist - not necessarily a poor writer! ;-) |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: John Hardly Date: 19 May 03 - 11:56 AM disguise. Omission of letters -- mark of a poor writer! Kim, I was only half serious about happy endings (and less than half about the rest of my list) ;^) |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Kim C Date: 19 May 03 - 10:40 AM John, I disagree about happy endings. Great writers do write happy endings, but the journey to the end is usually fraught with chaos. Moby Dick is probably not a good example, as it was a colossal failure during Melville's lifetime. His own audience didn't consider it great writing. What constitutes good writing to me is, whether or not I believe what the author is telling me. Tolkien makes me believe that hobbits and elves and black riders are all Real. Anne Rice, on the other hand, does not at all convince me of the existence of vampires. I know she is a Popular Writer but quite frankly, I think a high school senior who knows the difference between a noun and a verb could do just as well. I have a dear friend who is a writer and an English professor, and once he wrote to me, "The creative act is a holy thing, and God asks only that you speak true and honest." I believe it's that honesty in a writer that makes for great writing. It's very evident when an artist of any type lets their spirit shine through their work. I know for me, it's the sincerity of that spirit that draws me in. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: John Hardly Date: 19 May 03 - 10:20 AM Good writing wins Pulitzer Prizes. Great writing gets chosen for the Oprah book club. Good writers hardly ever use bugger or fart humor. Great writers never do -- except for Dave Barry. Good writers occasionally write happy endings. Great writers never do. Good writers masterfully disuise their cliche's. Great writers invent them. Good writers walk among us. Great writers are dead. Critics suck. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Hrothgar Date: 19 May 03 - 05:25 AM SRS, that Nevil Shute book is "The Trustee from the Toolroom" and it was a boat that was wrecked, not a plane. Good yarn, though. Some of Shute's stuff is magnificient, like "Round the Bend" and "A Town Like Alice." A lot of the rest of it was far-fetched garbage - IMHO. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Doug_Remley Date: 19 May 03 - 04:01 AM A gallery manager who was quite intelligent mentioned that Mark Twain had said (though I am not sure)..."strike out every third word." It certainly does help readability. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 19 May 03 - 01:27 AM I'm, like, "Great!", Dick! Like, I hear what you're saying and its reeely reeely very very good, like. I'm like, ya know??? I'm like, there! A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: dick greenhaus Date: 19 May 03 - 12:42 AM Rick- As I'm sure you realized, I think that good writing, good guitar playing, good painting and good any other artistic endeavor have similar considerations. In any of these, there's a component which is an art and one which is a craft. "Good" anything is when the craft is adequate to express the art; "Bad" is when there's too much or too little of the craft. That said, the ideal proportions of "art" and "craft" depend upon the one who's reading, or listening or looking. I suspect that in most works you encounter, there's too much craft and not enough art. As far as "Great" is concerned, I suspect the language would be better off if the word were banned. Something like "very". |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 May 03 - 12:37 AM Fred, I'm enough of a postmodernist to resist the lost $20 analogy about judging art. Much of what a reader understands about a work is based on what they already understood before they even picked up the new book. What they bring with them to the text means that every book can be subjected to many different readings, and that while some people understand a great deal, others might miss much of the action. "The song is very short, because we understand so much" is what Maria Chona told Ruth Underhill, when anthropologist Underhill asked Papago Chona about the songs she was singing, and why there was so little to them. The cultural literacy and/or baggage makes a difference to understanding songs or novels. Some things are best when aimed at the lowest common denominator, others suffer for it. SRS |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: GUEST Date: 18 May 03 - 06:31 PM Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see, Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be. In every work regard the writer's end, Since none can compass more than they intend, and if the means be just, the conduct true, applause in spite of trivial faults is due. Pope |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Rapparee Date: 18 May 03 - 03:49 PM When people started communicating with others, whether to provide information or entertainment, I suspect that embellishments crept in. Not "the sun came up" but "rosy fingered dawn" since it made the tale more appealing to the minds of the hearers. There's nothing at all wrong with making a good yarn entertaining (and/or informative). Perhaps greatness is just something achieved by the very best tale-tellers. (I've always said that there are no good books in a library, 'cause nobody reads a bad book, so all the good ones are always checked out.) |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Frankham Date: 18 May 03 - 03:34 PM Rick, I think there's a connection between great writing and great music. Now that doesn't answer the question, what is it? To me great music and great writing includes great editing. Everything that needs to be said is said. Nothing else. A walk down a path..interesting scenery (maybe something you've never seen before)...makes you feel something...it's memorable...makes you think..and doesn't have distracting trash..... Great words paint great pictures. A character comes to life with a few word-strokes. Example: (EB White. Great writing.) Warning on bottle: What's considered great in one generation may not be so in another. A word is like a note or a chord. In great writing, each means something special. My 2 cents Frank |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 18 May 03 - 01:44 PM I had (mis)remembered this as a Mark Twain quote, but a Google search corrected me: Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out. -Samuel Johnson- Dave Oesterreich |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 18 May 03 - 01:12 PM Above a certain (pretty low) threshold we can't spare anybody. This leaps out (in my view) as a really Great Thought, Clint. Thanks! A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Sam L Date: 18 May 03 - 12:59 PM S.R.S., I suppose so, but that so many people disagree as to greatness doesn't really change my idea about it. People are wrong. Having an opinion about art is like misplacing a twenty dollar bill somewhere--there's no authority to appeal your case to, no re-imbursement of the value you may feel you've earned. It's just a matter of what we find convincing. But the idea I tried to illustrate helps me understand why some stuff continues to matter, despite so many weaknesses, whereas other smoother and cleaner stuff passes with fashion. The meanings in greater works are more deeply rooted in the form and conception and raw material of the work, and not simply talked about in whichever form and manner was adopted, uncritically, as the way an artist is "supposed to do it". In great work, what the work actually is matters more than whatever it says. I suppose I'm a formalist. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Peg Date: 18 May 03 - 11:32 AM well, this writer is coming late tot he thread, and hasn't had enough caffeinated libation this morning...but I do want to say I have enjoyed this immensely over the last several days. I want to echo a point made earlier and try to get under its skin. I personally love that feeling that sometimes arises when one is reading a great piece of writing (usually a novel) wherein I am simultaneously appreciating the writer's craft, and also remaining drawn in by the story and eagerly anticipating the next place it will go. When the writer errs on the side of overdoing the verbal gymnastics or technique, or manipulates that moment too far, I am lost. It is a VERY fine line...I am sure others hear woudl agree. But that fine line of course differs for all readers. I think I notice this most with novels because this form can (and is designed to) sustain one's interest for an extended period. This also makes the potential dive into showboating more likely...although I also want to say the short stories of Elizabeth Bowen create the same pleasurable, thrilled reaction in me. Such grace, art and finely-tuned emotion... Novels (off the top of my head) which I have enjoyed for the reasons stated above: Possession by A.S. Byatt The Secret History by Donna Tartt Perfume by Patrick Suskind (translated from the German) Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins In the Land of Winter by Richard Grant Children of Light by Robert Stone American Gods by Neil Gaiman The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood Friends and Family by Anita Brookner (though lately her books bore me to tears) I do NOT enjoy the overly-literate, footnoted, postmodernesque style that seems in vogue just now, the sort of hyper-verbose Kerouac-inspired stuff by those guys with three names that are selling big now...a big yawn. Reading shouldn't be so much work...and it's pretentious to the extreme to write this way since the author must know only a handful of readers will "get it" all...I forget the authors' names, but books like Infinite Jest, etc. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 18 May 03 - 11:08 AM Bowing down to Wittgenstein was an error in judgement. A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Peter T. Date: 18 May 03 - 10:38 AM Somebody also once made a distinction between genius that is the epitome of an art, and genius that is something unheard of in that art. Not sure about that, but in philosophy, for instance, Bertrand Russell was a genius epitomizing a kind of skill far beyond anyone else's capacity, while Wittgenstein (his pupil) did things that were unheard of. Even Russell bowed down to W. Tolstoy as a writer is the epitome of a standard kind of style -- vast canvas, extraordinarily detailed descriptions of characters, compelling narrative, etc. Dostoyevsky is like something from another planet, completely undisciplined, hurling you into realms you never imagined, his books are baggy crazed monsters. Both great writers, probably the greatest, completely different in every way. No accounting. yours, Peter T. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Rick Fielding Date: 18 May 03 - 10:22 AM Dick there probably are a few good answers to "what makes a good guitar player".....but I'm the last person who should try and answer the question. A good guitar player is definitely someone who makes ME feel secure that they're not going to destroy a song with some instrumental stupidity. ....and yet there are many here who think it's how fast you play a bunch of notes. I have a sneaking suspicion that good writing has no "in stone" definition either. Would anyone (who recognizes the name sans 'google search') think that Harvey Pekar is a great writer? I do. I'm really enjoying this. Thanks for the response. Rick |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 May 03 - 01:59 AM Fred, I think it must be a sliding scale on which "good" and "great" reside, and a quite nimble scale, because so many people would place different works at varying points of that scale. To describe the works (or music) as we have on a binary like night or day would set up the argument of good/not good that many of us don't intend to construct. SRS |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Rapparee Date: 17 May 03 - 09:57 PM My boy scout days would have been far poorer without "The Cremation Of Sam Magee" recited (correctly) when the fire burned low. Or Kipling. Or any number of others. Heck, I've even turned my hand to it for the amusement of my neices and nephews (but I don't claim more than that). Without night, how would we appreciate day? And sometimes the dusk before sunrise or sunset is just as wonderful as the day or night. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 17 May 03 - 09:45 PM someone said that the talented artist makes the best of all his abilities, but the genius does what he must. And the genius, presumably, does the great work while he talented does the good work. I don't know that that's much help, but there's something to it. On the other hand, there's the Great Works -- Lear, Finnegans Wake, whatever you choose-- but we'd be poorer without the Shooting of Dan McGrew and the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Above a certain (pretty low) threshold we can't spare anybody. clint |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Rapparee Date: 17 May 03 - 09:02 PM Mastery of an art, it seems to me, also requires discipline. Discipline of self, of technique, and of what is desired to accomplish in each work. Undisciplined, self-conscious, ennui-ridden art of any sort might have a vogue to a brief time, but without discipline it won't last. This is true for both great art and good art. At least, in my opinion. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 17 May 03 - 07:25 PM One reels. A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: GUEST,wants to stay anon Date: 17 May 03 - 07:17 PM One supposed the comments about one's writing might suffice as one answer, as it was about the writing and its effect; which in this case was obviously considered good. One realizes it is not a comment on the nuts and bolts, yet this one, at least, prefers the reader to be transcended beyond such minutiae. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 17 May 03 - 07:02 PM Dear Anon: Well. I'm just jealous. High praise indeed. But it doesn't answer the question, as it seems to be as much about you and your art as it does about the book. I do not mean this unkindly -- I am jealous. :>) But I hope you will forgive me making this slight but important distinction. A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: GUEST,mudcat member wants to stay anon. Date: 17 May 03 - 06:59 PM Perhaps this, taken from a letter to me, about a small book of mine from an older, well-read woman might be one answer? When I started reading it, I was unable to put it down...then, I decided I should make it last; so now I'm finishing it by reading when I take my breathing treatments. They are every four hours so don't know if I gained much or not, but believe me, I am thoroughly devouring every word. You have a tremendous command of words. I feel as though I'm right there with you. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Sam L Date: 17 May 03 - 06:11 PM I agree with the idea that good and great are qualitatively different, not points on a grey scale of goodness. Great art often contains dirty details, poor work, unclear muddled areas, sloppy bits. But I think of the difference not in passion about ideas or ideals or worldly opinions, but in terms of seriousness about the art itself. A great artist is serious about what they are doing, not about what they think everyone else in the world ought to do. A minor artist can accept that we write made-up stories about made-up things, and do a good job of it, within an accepted frame of reference. A great artist has to concern themselves simply and directly with why we do it, how we do it, and what if anything is worthwhile in it. And their work has to try to seriously try to answer those basic questions, in the way they make a story. If you look at Shakespeare's really great pieces, the first thing that happens is what the thing is all about. A guard comes to take the place of another, a king took the place of another, an actor takes the part of someone else, these upstart actors take the place of the older troupe, we're digging up old bones to bury the new dead, the entire kindom is replaced by another. It's all about the same kind of thing--signs, symbols, substitutions, language, writing, acting, art. It's so centered and fundamentally direct that it would take a quite a lot of messy details, bad writing, and dirty folios before it ever burned out as an engine of artistically significant meanings. Great artists are concerned with art itself before other matters. It's the job. But when it becomes merely intellectual, art musing about art, it's just a dead exercise. People may disagree about exactly when that happens. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Amos Date: 17 May 03 - 05:43 PM Any art must perfect its technique to the level needed to communicate. Technique beyond the need of the intended communication -- no matter how refined it gets -- is techica gratis technica, a non-starter. IMHO. A |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Little Hawk Date: 17 May 03 - 04:56 PM Oh, Peter, you have done it now! :-) Watch out for bricks through your windows and stuff like that... dick greenhaus: This is what constitutes good guitar playing... Equal parts of both technique (being in tune, picking and chording accurately and smoothly, controlling volume, etc.) and feeling. - LH |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Peter T. Date: 17 May 03 - 04:33 PM Interesting. I would have used The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings to argue that a book like The Hobbit has a kind of excellence by limiting itself; while the Lord of the Rings is pretentious and a failure. The movie of the Lord of the Rings, so far, is superior to the book, because at least you don't have to read the thing, and can concentrate on the story.br> yours, Peter T. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 17 May 03 - 04:27 PM Good writing: The Hobbit, (Tolkien) Great writing: The Lord of the Rings, Leaf by Niggle, and many others by Tolkien. Dave Oesterreich |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: katlaughing Date: 17 May 03 - 04:16 PM Shute's best book is Round the Bend, IMO. Here's a blurb about it: Tom Cutter, tired after World War II and the loss of his wife (he blames himself for her suicide), comes to the Persian Gulf to begin a small-scale aviation business. He throws himself into the business and makes a success of it. The business really takes off after he hires childhood friend Connie Shaklin as chief engineer, and soon after, Connie's sister Nadezna, as his secretary. But Cutter soon notices--Shaklin is giving semi-religious talks as he works, which are attracting attention and support not only from his co-workers, but from the Arab population, as they previously did in Cambodia, and when Shaklin is forced to go to Indonesia, again, he attracts attention and support, somewhat to the confusion of Cutter, who nevertheless is unfailing in his support of Shaklin, who seems to be beginning a religion that crosses religious boundaries. Shute's most thought provoking of novels, as a new prophet arises in the form of an aviation engineer who adamantly denies he is a prophet, somewhat to the confusion of his friend and his sister. Even the small characters (a gunrunner who, in seeing Shaklin and his work, is reminded of the small town and church in the Midwest where he grew up, for example) are finely drawn. And Shute often gets rather subtle--Cutter, whose first name is Thomas, three times denies Shaklin's divinity in a talk with the British officer, Captain Morrison. |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 May 03 - 03:13 PM Nevil Shute wrote some wonderful novels. On the Beach goes along in its Everyman way and scares the shit out of you! I read a wonderful little novel of his about a tinkerer who goes to the South Pacific to retreive an airplane being flown by his sister. They had converted their money into diamonds. The plane crashed, he had to go retrieve the engine because the money will go to their child who is still in England. Along the way, he has these marvelous minature motors. I don't remember much more about it, but it was fascinating. What goes around comes around--my practice with my kids is what I experienced as a child. My parents were both voracious readers; my mother was a fan of Nevil Shute's, and had the novels there in the house. I think she told me he was good, but left it to me to discover his magic. SRS |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: Cluin Date: 17 May 03 - 02:43 PM When nobody gets hurt. Oh! You mean the other Rick?... |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: dick greenhaus Date: 17 May 03 - 02:03 PM Rick- What constitutes good guitar playing? |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: GUEST Date: 17 May 03 - 01:05 PM i like books that give you characters that you could know some where...the ones who could be like your ates in the pub...or yourself...the darker or lighter side...and especially how they face extraordinary events...like the fellows in Nevil Shute's On The Beach or a Town Like Alice... |
Subject: RE: BS: What Constitutes Good Writing? From: GUEST,PEGLIGHT Date: 17 May 03 - 12:44 PM As a children's librarian I have to select books for the children of the community. I also have to answer to the needs and tastes of the community. So I invite you all to read one of the Junie B. Jones books and then one of the series about Captain Underpants. Then tell me how to express the difference between the two. |