What Makes A Writer Good?

Hey, my wife never reads my stuff. That don't make it bad.

Most of the greatest writers of all time have been occasionally consumed by self-doubt. That's where most cases of writer's block come from.

Don't fixate on whether or not you're *great*, just work hard to write the best you can, learn as much as you can, and read, read, read. The more you practise (and the more you read) the better you'll get.

My simplistic take on it is that good writing is that which a readership enjoys. The best way to develop it is often to write and get feedback from appropriate people--those who read your genre. But then I am not expecting to be the next JK (dreaming maybe but not expecting). There is lot of sheer chance and unchangable innate qualities involved in becoming a 'phenomenon'.

I used to believe that good writing was displayed by the devotion of readership. Until Frey came along. (I'm sorry if I'm offending others again. Please do not start a new thread with my post...that was very uncool.) My belief that good writers rise to the top was crushed when Frey rose to the top. Like Eddie Murphy once said, "GI JOE IS SWIMMING IN THE WATER!" Sometimes Shite floats. Who knows why. I think good writing has nothing to do with interesting. Oh, people are shaking their heads at my rediculous post yet again. There must be something to the fact that good writing gets published and hits the top 10. There has to be. But it's not a steadfast rule. I have no wisdom to add to this thread. I have been completely disenchanted by the piece of floating sludge that miraculously floated to the surface. (And, again, to defend myself...this is not the green eyed monster rearing its ugly head...just disillusionment.)

I think good writing would stand the test of time. So, I'll keep writing, and you can ask me 20 years from now if I'm a good writer or not.

KTC, your an optimistic pessimist. Never met one before. I always favored Oscar Wilde's declaration that good writing is interesting writing.

Don't start confusing me this late in my life.

lol. I'm a cloud of confusion wherever I go. Confusion and contradictions. Have no fear. Soon I will be telling you the opposite of what I just said above. I have to say though, I love being called an optimistic pessimist. Or was that a pessimistic optimist? I'm sure there's a fineline difference in the two...somewhere?

Stand the test of time...I like that, Ray. Maybe that has something in it. We can hope, anyway. Let's see....shite that floats right away probably gets waterlogged and sinks...eventually? And something that sinks right away, probably becomes bouyant over time? (Scientists...please refrain from correcting me on this one!)

Akuma said:

I've been thinking. Again.

A good writer is one that weaves a story that invokes emotion, right?

Me, I may think I'm hot-stuff sometimes but I really do know that I'm not that great. I'm afraid I may not be that great a writer. My question is, how do you get to be that kind of writer?

Sure, if we all knew how to be brilliant writers, we see more "Rowling Situations" on this board, but that doesn't mean we aren't great writers, correct?

Pretty much, all I have to clue me in on how to write is a lot of reading and this board. So how do you know whether you're a good writer or not? How do you improve?
Sure, there are critique boards here, but those aren't always reliable and I'd rather have a face-to-face review with someone. Because, face-to-face, you have the chance of being brought down a notch, and that inspires a person to try harder.

Sure, a bestselling book is great, but how do you make a life-changing one if you're own parents would prefer not to read your stuff?

Click to expand...

What do your parents have to do with it? Nine out of ten people aren't going to read anything you write, no matter how great it is, and your parents are just two of the nine.

I'm not sure what it takes to be a great writer, and I think the only real test for any writer is the test of time. But I will say that while boards and forums such as this one can be very helpful, the best place to learn about great writing is in reading great writing, and in spend untold hours doing yur best to write great writing.

I do believe completely that great writing never lies on the left side of publishing. It doesn't come from what anyone says in a critique, face-to-face or otherwise. The left side of publishing prohibits the test of time, and has far too few opinions to matter.

Whether we are or are not great writers is, I think, something most of us will never know in in our own lifetimes, and probably something we shouldn't worry about. Greatness comes and goes, is written across this writer's forehead or that writer's forehead, then erased just as quickly.

Best, I think, just to read and to write, and let time take care of the rest.

I pretty much agree with the Test of Time viewpoint as one of the most "reliable", but there really aren't ANY tests which are even close to 100% accurate/reliable. It seems strange that piss-poor writing is something most people with critical thinking skills can agree on, but... truly great writing, and what makes a writer truly great, are things that there tends to be a divergence of opinion on.

I can think of numerous Pulitzer prize winners, who are virtually unknown now, and have been out of print for decades. While awards aren't an absolute judge of writing skill, it's reasonably safe to say that you need a pretty appreciable talent level (and with it comes a pretty strong following, usually) to win an award as high as a pulitzer.

In the genre of science fiction, Bernard Wolfe's "Limbo" was a dystopian classic in its day (even listed as one of Pringle's best Science Fiction novels.. though I disagree with a few of his choices). Harlan Ellison considered him a far superior writer to himself. In fairness, Wolfe is not completely (though largely) forgotten but he remains out of print. Whether or not Wolfe will remain out of print remains to be seen

Hmmmm, I'm not sure if I understand the dilemma here.

I guess we each have to realize that the majority of us just arent gonna become great writers. Just like the majority of us won't become great football players, or rock stars, or movie stars or any one of a million things in life.

Maybe its' because I'm a little older and am more comfortable with who I am and where I'm going - but i have never despaired I might not become a great writer or wondered how to become one.

I don't really think along the lines of whether I'm gonna be great or if my writing will become great.

The only thing I worry about is being able to do justice to my story - whatever it is I am writing at the time.

Yes, there are times I might see a particular author's writing and think - "Man, I wish I could write that good." But I've never let it stop me or discourage me.

And while I'm not where I want to be writing-wise, I have no doubt that I'll get there as long as I keep on plugging away.

But I really have no interest in becoming great or going down in history as the greatest writer or my book standing the test of time blah, blah, blah. I'm just a simple guy. All I wanna do is tell a tale, amuse a few people, captivate them and transport them to my own little world for a while. No biggie.

That's all. No great aspirations or dreams of grandeur.

I don't really think along the terms of whether I'm great or if I ever will be.

Anyways, to answer your question as for how you get to becoming a good writer - as far as I'm concerned, the answer is the same for writing as it is for anything else:

You keep doing it over and over and over and over.

You devote your time and energy to improving your game and getting better at your craft. (You sit down and write. Regularly scheduled butt in chair.)

You devise checkpoints or waystations to record your progress and use any and all feedback to help you get better. (You develop a network of fellow writers and beta readers. You submit your material to markets. You join writer's groups. Anything to get feedback so you're not working in a vacuum.)


You sometimes make sacrifices and sweat and suffer and give it all you've got. (Don't watch TV instead or go drinking with the buddies. Write and finish what you write - even though you'd rather now write something else.)

Just do it and stick to it.

After that, only time will tell...

BuffStuff said:

I can think of numerous Pulitzer prize winners, who are virtually unknown now, and have been out of print for decades.

Click to expand...

And then you have those writers who became much more successful posthumously. Although Melville wasn't an "unknown," Moby Dick was not regarded as highly in his lifetime as it is today.

I used to think it was passion.
Then I was convinced it was story.
Then I went to new plots and characters.
Later I was told it was style and technique.

Lately, I'm thinking luck.

BuffStuff said:

I pretty much agree with the Test of Time viewpoint as one of the most "reliable", but there really aren't ANY tests which are even close to 100% accurate/reliable. It seems strange that piss-poor writing is something most people with critical thinking skills can agree on, but... truly great writing, and what makes a writer truly great, are things that there tends to be a divergence of opinion on.

I can think of numerous Pulitzer prize winners, who are virtually unknown now, and have been out of print for decades. While awards aren't an absolute judge of writing skill, it's reasonably safe to say that you need a pretty appreciable talent level (and with it comes a pretty strong following, usually) to win an award as high as a pulitzer.

In the genre of science fiction, Bernard Wolfe's "Limbo" was a dystopian classic in its day (even listed as one of Pringle's best Science Fiction novels.. though I disagree with a few of his choices). Harlan Ellison considered him a far superior writer to himself. In fairness, Wolfe is not completely (though largely) forgotten but he remains out of print. Whether or not Wolfe will remain out of print remains to be seen

Click to expand...

Piss-poor writing is something almost anyone can see, whether they have any expertise or not. The trouble with recognizing good writing is that most people can't separate personal opinion from objective fact. "It's lousy writing" usually means "I don't like it." I"I don't like it" is always meaningless on an individual level. So is, "I like it."

Both these phrases, as well as "It's good or it's bad," also nearly always discounts public opinion and time, and both are truly stupid things to do.

As for awards, I wish they took talent and greatness to win, but I've seen no evidence at all that they do. Most awards, particularly the Nobel, but also the Pulitzer, have extremely strong political components, and many, many awards, including the Pulitzer and the Nobel, are awarded to novels that have pretty much zero following. Any following comes after a win, more often than not, and then the following isn't for the novel, but for the award.

And neither talent, nor good writing, is the same thing as being a great writer. A great writer is simply a writer who has a good story to tell, tells it well, and who has something to say in a way that keeps readers coming back generation after generation. Of all the components, being able to tell a story people want to return to is the most valuable.

When this occurs in a Pulitzer or a Nobel winning novel, it's more a coincidence than anything else. People impressed with such awards should read up on why the judges usually make the selections they do.

Moby Dick

PastMidnight said:

And then you have those writers who became much more successful posthumously. Although Melville wasn't an "unknown," Moby Dick was not regarded as highly in his lifetime as it is today.

Click to expand...

The test of time again. I think it's the only reliable indicator there is.

Jamesaritchie said:

Many, many awards, including the Pulitzer and the Nobel, are awarded to novels that have pretty much zero following.

Click to expand...

Whew! So I still have a chance.....

A.REX said:

I used to think it was passion.
Then I was convinced it was story.
Then I went to new plots and characters.
Later I was told it was style and technique.

Lately, I'm thinking luck.

Click to expand...

I wish luck did play a bigger part, but it doesn't. Unless you count luck as being born with talent, and with hard work. In writing, luck seems always to favor the writer who works the hardest. What luck tehre is in publishing usually comes after you're published, not before.

Passion helps, I suppose, but passion, like luck, is usually touted loudest by those who can't get published. It isn't just story, it isn't merely plot (Plot, in fact, will probably get you nowhere.), it's seldom only characters, though characters are what the vast majority of readers remember the longest, and style and technique will take you only so far.

If there is any luck on this side of being published, it comes in the form of being lucky enough to have the intelligence and insight to know what kinds of stories, what kind of characters, what kind of dialogue, and what kind of style readers really want, of having the talent to give it to them, and of having the work ethic to get the million words of garbage out of your system so you can give it to them.

I remember a professor in a writing class telling us this story about a renowned writer--may have been Kafka, or similar ilk. A man stopped him on the street and said, "Sir, I'd like to shake your hand. I've read everything you've written." The famous writer blinked at him and said, "Oh, so you're the one!"

As most of the posts above have said, most writers suffer self-doubt and there isn't a special test that can be applied to anyone's writing today that will let you know if people will still be reading it decades from now. But I do believe that one of the things that separates the okay writers from the really good ones is that the good ones didn't give up even when they thought they stunk--and they kept getting better.

Katya

Jamesaritchie said:

Many, many awards, including the Pulitzer and the Nobel, are awarded to novels that have pretty much zero following.

Click to expand...

What did you mean but "pretty much zero following" ? Sequels?

It isn't so much the test of time...

it's more whether the publishers keep a book in print and that's because academia has taken up with the book or someone with clout has talked about the book and kept it in people's minds.

We used to have a strong feminist argument (Dale Spender reasoned it well, I think) that so many more male authors were regarded as classic writers because their female counterparts were allowed to sink into unpublished and forgotten without strong male and/or academic sponsorship. I believe it was silly old Prinny, the Prince Regent who gave Jane Austen her boost to fame and kept her famous all his life. Then her family kept her work in print. Shakespeare survived throughout the centuries, but an equally popular female playwright did not until rescued by the 20thC.

Akuma said:

I've been thinking. Again.

A good writer is one that weaves a story that invokes emotion, right?

Me, I may think I'm hot-stuff sometimes but I really do know that I'm not that great. I'm afraid I may not be that great a writer. My question is, how do you get to be that kind of writer?

Sure, if we all knew how to be brilliant writers, we see more "Rowling Situations" on this board, but that doesn't mean we aren't great writers, correct?

Pretty much, all I have to clue me in on how to write is a lot of reading and this board. So how do you know whether you're a good writer or not? How do you improve?
Sure, there are critique boards here, but those aren't always reliable and I'd rather have a face-to-face review with someone. Because, face-to-face, you have the chance of being brought down a notch, and that inspires a person to try harder.

Sure, a bestselling book is great, but how do you make a life-changing one if you're own parents would prefer not to read your stuff?

Click to expand...

The way I know it is when I read something I wrote 10 years ago. I improved so much since. Whether it's enough or not, I'll just have to see.

My husband doesn't read my novels.

KTC said:

I used to believe that good writing was displayed by the devotion of readership. Until Frey came along. (I'm sorry if I'm offending others again. Please do not start a new thread with my post...that was very uncool.) My belief that good writers rise to the top was crushed when Frey rose to the top. Like Eddie Murphy once said, "GI JOE IS SWIMMING IN THE WATER!" Sometimes Shite floats. Who knows why. I think good writing has nothing to do with interesting. Oh, people are shaking their heads at my rediculous post yet again. There must be something to the fact that good writing gets published and hits the top 10. There has to be. But it's not a steadfast rule. I have no wisdom to add to this thread. I have been completely disenchanted by the piece of floating sludge that miraculously floated to the surface. (And, again, to defend myself...this is not the green eyed monster rearing its ugly head...just disillusionment.)

Click to expand...

I agree that there are some cr**py published books out there. How did they ever got into print?

Anya Smith said:

I agree that there are some cr**py published books out there. How did they ever got into print?

Click to expand...

That was a market for them.

I am well aware of the extremely heavy political component to many book awards, especially the Pulitzer & Nobel, but, at the same time, I haven't read too many books to win these awards that sucked in terms of either the writing or the story they told. Granted....I didn't think most I've read to be particularly deserving of the award either.

There are quite a number of books that have been around many, many years, and will continue to be around after I'm old and gray, that simply aren't very good. Likewise, there are quite a number of superb authors whose works have been out of print and their names virtually forgotten for many years now. There are often too many variables involved to simplify the matter into saying that great works stand the test of time. Generally speaking, yes, many great books and authors do stand the test of time, but it's just as true that many great books and great authors don't and won't. But, I agree that the time test is probably the most reliable test we have.