How do you recognise writing ability?

Urm. It is absolutely not quantifiable.

Everyone can agree whats horrible but not everyone agrees on whats just bad or just ok, or what's great.

I can't stand poetry in any form or fashion, nor erotica... I am not qualified to judge those. Lots of people malign the popular (see: Rich) authors, but they obviously have mass appeal, so who is to say.

That said, I think my writing is total shit... That much I can identify.

... when it comes to getting pub'd ability alone ain't enough to do the trick. Person can have plenty and still never make it onto the shelves. Gotta have discipline, too, and a number of other such like things to get pub'd. Give me a writer with hardly any ability to speak of, but who has plenty of drive and determination and I'll wager they'll come out on top more surely than a lazy loafer with ability galore.

That's simple. If I like it, it's good. Especially if I'm impressed.

My criteria and tastes are infallible, so all you have to do is check with me.



Although seriously, that's pretty much the attitude of a lot of critics, professionals and amateurs alike.

LuckyH said:

Is it purely a numbers game? Are the authors who sell the most books the best writers?

Click to expand...

No. Oftentimes they are merely mediocre writers who appealed to the greatest audience for whatever reason. (Exposure, word of mouth, etc.)

If you turn to the academics for the answer, you only get academic gibberish. Are journalists qualified to give an answer? Are journalists even writers, or mere recorders of facts?

Click to expand...

You are asking questions of ancient rhetoric philosophy, dearest.

If you breathe writing, if you think about it every waking moment and plot in your head in the moments you have to yourself; if you are willing to go through the pain and endless torment of birthing and caring for and disciplining the fickle child that is your writing, then you are a writer. If you have the capacity to be a god and devil to the world you created all at the same time, if you can live with the crushing burden of determining every fate and turn of grass, then you are a writer. Everything rests on your shoulders. Everything.

There is only so much technical hoo-ha academia can teach you. Academia teaches us to study other writers, their lives, to perfect our syntax and diction and grammar.

You do not go to academia to become a good writer. You go to yourself.

No more, no less. Writing is suffering with rare bits of joy. All writers are masochists. Not all masochists are writers, however.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

A spark.

ex_machina said:

Writing is suffering with rare bits of joy.

Click to expand...

I'm only now finally starting to realize this.

At the end of the day, it's subjective. For all the rules of grammar and story structure (which I value), it boils down to personal taste. If I love it, someone else will think it's crap. If I think it's crap, someone else will love it.

Write what you love. Respect the rules and take advice. Make your work the best you can make it. There are a billion audiences out there. If you have writing ability, someone somewhere will probably enjoy it.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

LuckyH said:

Not glibly, I would say that I recognise it when I see it, but that doesn’t answer the question I’ve never been able to find a satisfactory answer for.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how you define "best writer". What aspect of writing are you talking about? The ability to convey a story in words? The ability to use words prettily? What does "best writer" mean?

I think that's why it's impossible to quantify what it is because the meaning is entirely too broad and too personal to be judged. There are many people who think Dan Brown is one of the best writers because they greatly enjoyed his books, whereas to others, he's an abmonination against all things literary. Depending on your definition, which side is closer to the truth.

We can’t leave it to the average readers, what do they know?

Click to expand...

I actually found this statement to be mildly insulting. What they know--what any of us, even writers, know--is what works for them as an individual. Since the definition of what "good writing" is completely centers on the individual, I can't see how their opinions can be so off-handedly dismissed.

I think we can pretty much agree that the purpose of writing fiction is to share a story/experience with someone else. Any writing that fulfills that purpose, however challenged or faulty or beautiful or poetic, and gives the reader the author's desired experience is "good writing". Any writing which fails in that purpose is "bad writing".

It's all totally individual, just like any other artform.

ex_machina said:

Writing is suffering with rare bits of joy.

Click to expand...

No wonder my writing is so bad. I've never suffered for my art. I rather enjoy writing.

Suffering is the waiting process that is getting your book published, the writing part is where the joy comes from.

When I read something and forget I'm reading, when my brain stops trying to see what would be a better way to write that sentence, when I cease to care about sentence structure or style just so I can find out what happens next...then I know that whoever wrote this had ability.

James D. Macdonald said:

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Click to expand...

I degustibussed just last night. But I'm feeling better this morning.

caw

You should still see your doctor, blacbird. You could relapse.

IdiotsRUs is right, for the most part. Much good writing is transparent, a sleek vehicle for story or idea

Some writing, legitimately, is more about the words and the syntax and the rhythm, the beauty of language itself. Poetry is the ultimate example of such writing. However, good poetry still conveys a whole greater than its parts.

You recognize ability when you read something and say to yourself, "you know what, I couldn't have done that better myself."

LuckyH said:

Yonks ago (an example of my writing ability), an editor of note revealed that his publishing house had a system to assess writing ability which seemed surprisingly simple.

They counted any words of three syllables or more against a set sample of writing. I was so impressed that I tried it on bestsellers of the time.

I can honestly say that it worked.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the Flesch-Kincaid test. I think it's what schools use to determine the grade level of a library book.


Here's my formula for recognizing writing ablitity:

me + entertained = good writing
me + bored = bad writing

You do not go to academia to become a good writer. You go to yourself.

No more, no less. Writing is suffering with rare bits of joy. All writers are masochists. Not all masochists are writers, however.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear. So No. If you don't enjoy it don't do it. It's not a good job but it is a fun one. It is wonderful to be paid for making things up. It would be even more wonderful if we got paid more but it is what it is. I am soooo bored of the suffering artist trope.

timewaster said:

You do not go to academia to become a good writer. You go to yourself.

No more, no less. Writing is suffering with rare bits of joy. All writers are masochists. Not all masochists are writers, however.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Click to expand...

Oh dear. So No. If you don't enjoy it don't do it. It's not a good job but it is a fun one. It is wonderful to be paid for making things up. It would be even more wonderful if we got paid more but it is what it is. I am soooo bored of the suffering artist trope.

Click to expand...

There's a suffering artist trope? Kidding.

I forgot to mention that I(and many others) enjoy the hell out of it. It is simply difficult. But rewarding in its own small ways.

Of course it always boils down to a matter of opinion.

Some opinions however are better argued than others. I still won't agree, not matter how well your opinion is argued, if we don't share the same basic assumptions. But if you argue well, you will make those basic assumptions transparent, which will enable me to determine, if I agree or not. We might not reach a consensus, but we can take the opportunity to refine our own positions. If you don't argue well, I cannot even do that and the entire discussion is useless.

So I think that there is definitely merit in thinking about ways how to talk about the quality of literature.

One possible approach would be to always judged people based on their own objectives:

If your objective is to make your readers rush through the pages and hold their breath, and your writing achieves that, it's good writing.

If your objective is to make your readers pause, and chew on things a little and your writing achieves that, it's good writing too.

Different objectives might require very different stylistic choices. You judge them based on how well they achieve what they are meant to achieve.

People, who read a lot and think a lot about writing, tend to be in a better position to do this, because they have a better overview of the myriads of different objectives people can pursue in their writing and the myriads of different stylistic instruments they can use to achieve them.

Journalists, academics and writers are usually people who read a lot and think a lot about writing. So yes, I do give more weight to their opinion (even if I wouldn't mind them using less jargon when expressing it either) than say, to the opinion of my friend, who is a very lovely person, but who reads only two novels a year on vacation.

So that's one possible approach and I think it's not the worst one.

Of course you can find fault with it too.... Personally, I get more out of ambitious failure than out of well-made mediocricity. And I think that literary criticism should not be reduced to guessing the author's intention. The author is dead. But we are already veering dangerously close to the territory of academic gibberish here, and I sure don't want to bother you with that.

I can't believe no one has said this, the title of the thread is "How do you recognise..."

I would say it starts with spell checker, since the word you're thinking of is "Recognize"

lucidzfl said:

I can't believe no one has said this, the title of the thread is "How do you recognise..."

I would say it starts with spell checker, since the word you're thinking of is "Recognize"

Click to expand...

Not if you recognise British spelling.

LuckyH said:

I don't wish to be harsh, but you're wrong.

Click to expand...

You can never be harsh to a man that used a smiley in his post!

Put that in your fur'ner pipe and smoke it!