How Do I Know If I'm Any Good?

I'm afraid my eyes glazed over before I was half-way through. I have a real problem with someone who extols writing as a near-mystical Higher Art Form and then casually mentions that s/he teaches writing workshops. (And whaddaya wanna bet they're not free?)

My answer to the question would be short and sweet: When somebody buys your stuff.

I've got a few ideas about this one.
You're good when:

others read your work and are not confused about what happened in your story.

others laugh at the parts that are supposed to be funny, and do not laugh at the parts that are supposed to be serious.

others will actually read your work all the way until the end.

someone asks you if your next chapter is done yet.

someone other than your Mom says, "Hey! This is good!"

Orlando Bloom wants to option your novel.

Orlando Bloom wants to option your novel.

Click to expand...

Then my novel must be shit because I haven't even gotten a rejection yet

Good, (a)

People pay you.

Good, (b)

You make a living selling what you write.

Good, (c)

People still read your work, long after your dead.

I think Cary Tennis is the worst advice columnist ever, worse even than "Dear Dottie" from the late lamented Weekly World News.

However, this is exceptional blatherwodge even for Mr. Tennis.

Thanks for sharing, Will.

I thought the question was well framed and didn't really call for the type of 'super-rant' response. As above, agree that it could have been a more consice reply.

My response would have been - your actions, behaviours and thoughts are indicitive of what you believe.

JJ

Definition of good for me:

I am amused
I enjoy the process
I feel that I learn something about myself and/or others because of it

Definition of great:

Someone else is amused
Someone else learns something because of it

Definition of big fat tears:

We all cry when we see it in the book store

aka eraser said:

I'm afraid my eyes glazed over before I was half-way through. I have a real problem with someone who extols writing as a near-mystical Higher Art Form and then casually mentions that s/he teaches writing workshops. (And whaddaya wanna bet they're not free?)

My answer to the question would be short and sweet: When somebody buys your stuff.

Click to expand...

I'm with you there. That many "ones" in a row made my head hurt...

Blech. Is he considered a good writer? I tried. I really did. Couldn't hold my hate at bay. And now I still don't know what if the guy who asked the question will even know if he's any good or not.

I think Tennis captured the answer in a very artistic way. It's really impossible to nail down what makes "good" writing and he showed that not only in the fact that he couldn't meander his way towards anything seeming like an answer, but the fact that his opinion is paid for, which makes you wonder at the sliding scale of ability and recognition therein.

(Basically: there is no answer. Just write and see what happens.)

If you can inspire emotion with your writing. I sometimes get people to cry. I know it's morbid to want to see people cry, but if I can swing it, then it's golden.

Good is something lots of critics can't even agree on it. Knowing you're good is something else.
For me it was easy; I won a writing contest in a magazine and was published at 16 and won my college's top writing award in my senior year. My first book came out four years after graduation.
On the other hand, I started writing at thirteen and was rejected at seventeen by Seventeen magazine. This time around, it took me a year and a half to find a new agent.
So, being good is hardly enough.
But it gives you one less thing to worry about.

Well, I must be somewhere along the lines of good then.

I haven't showed my story to my parents, but I did show it to a few of my friends from school and they say it's pretty good.

From one of my friends, he says that it is a bit suspenseful, something I'm wowed about (I'm never good with descriptions, so that was pretty cool)

But, from the guys here, they say it's kinda like putting your favorite food and sprinkling some of the worst foods you don't like lightly on it. You might enjoy it, but it mostly tastes bad.

Oh, and for the link, I was led to a personality test by Starbucks on what might be my favorite type of coffee. It's ridiculous.
I like French Vanilla the best

Summonere said:

Good, (a)

People pay you.

Good, (b)

You make a living selling what you write.

Good, (c)

People still read your work, long after your dead.

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth, man.

Paid by the word, anyone?

"good" is relative.

"Ka-Ching" is real.

"Blatherwodge"--good word. Stupid blog. Dickheaded, verbose, wottever. Glance and run, never return. So much for my reaction.

I know I'm good because I write what I like to read and it works.

When a widely read beta wants to re-read for pleasure, that's good.

Summonere said:

Good, (a)

People pay you.

Good, (b)

You make a living selling what you write.

Good, (c)

People still read your work, long after your dead.

Click to expand...

By your (a) and (b) definition, author's like Piers Anthony are "good". We all know that there are author's out there who write complete trash and make a living doing it. Does that make them "good"?

To me, I would say that any writing that creates an emotional response within a large group of your readers is "good". When people can connect with your writing, you are good.

maestrowork said:

"good" is relative.

"Ka-Ching" is real.

Click to expand...

Yes indeedy!

soleary said:

Definition of good for me:

I am amused
I enjoy the process
I feel that I learn something about myself and/or others because of it

Definition of great:

Someone else is amused
Someone else learns something because of it

Definition of big fat tears:

We all cry when we see it in the book store

Click to expand...

Love it!

James81 said:

By your (a) and (b) definition, author's like Piers Anthony are "good". We all know that there are author's out there who write complete trash and make a living doing it. Does that make them "good"?

Click to expand...

Artistic merit and popularity are not always the same thing. Thus (c). But I should think that if authors sell as well as Piers Anthony, then they are undeniably good at something. Which brings us to this...

James81 said:

To me, I would say that any writing that creates an emotional response within a large group of your readers is "good". When people can connect with your writing, you are good.

Click to expand...

Doesn't Piers Anthony do that?

I measure my success by how many readers I can get to pee their pants. Though really, losing control of any bodily function will suffice.

Nicole

James81 said:

By your (a) and (b) definition, author's like Piers Anthony are "good".

Click to expand...

Piers Anthony is quite good at what he does, which is writing wacky fast-paced fantasy page-turners. Is he the next Dostoevsky? No, but he doesn't pretend to be, either.

And the plural in English is formed by adding -s or -es, not by adding -'s. -'s is the possessive.

Summonere said:

Good, (a)

People pay you.

Good, (b)

You make a living selling what you write.

Good, (c)

People still read your work, long after your dead.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who get paid to write and indeed make a living at it who I would never, ever classify as good writers. Since she's dead, I'll pick Barbara Cartland as my example of this. She sold millions of copies of her novels in many countries and made a lot of money from it. But she had no notion how to construct a sentence or a paragraph; her descriptions were bland and repetitive; her characters were stereotypes; her plots nonsensical. She clearly found a niche in the market that met some kind of need. But I can't think of any criteria by which you'd describe her actual writing as good.

For me the criteria is something like this: Does your work move people? Does it affect their heart? Does it change their mind? Is it worth something?

That's what I want to aim for - to write something good. Something that matters to readers, not something that's instantly forgotten. And yes, it would be fabulous to have people reading it long after I'm gone.

And for me, all that is more important than churning out stuff that sells. I'll pay my bills another way, I think.

SPMiller said:

Then my novel must be shit because I haven't even gotten a rejection yet

Click to expand...

Have you submitted it yet?

James81 said:

By your (a) and (b) definition, author's like Piers Anthony are "good". We all know that there are author's out there who write complete trash and make a living doing it. Does that make them "good"?

Click to expand...

Yes.

girlyswot said:

For me the criteria is something like this: Does your work move people? Does it affect their heart? Does it change their mind? Is it worth something?

Click to expand...

Do not underestimate the value of entertainment for entertainment's sake.

And for me, all that is more important than churning out stuff that sells. I'll pay my bills another way, I think.

Click to expand...

You know, to me, this sounds rather elitist. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but there are tons of writers whose work does not move people, whose writing does not affect their heart, or does not change their mind, yet it still has value.

A very good friend of mind writes educational newsletters for a living. By your definition, her work is trash and worthless and is "churn[ed] out...", but you know what, she lives the writer's dream. She makes her money from her words and the educational newsletters allow her to work on projects that she truly loves PLUS they help children learn. That's worth something, don't you think?

There is work out there that just makes people smile, that just makes them laugh, or just gives them a few minutes of down time during the day. Yet it still has value.

And, in this, we're only talking about fiction. What about journalists or textbook writers, who write to inform, who write to educate, but not to touch people's souls or change their minds? Do you think their writing is trash, that it has no value? What academic books, that seek to enlighten or explain or reveal? There are numerous examples of writing that does not move people, that does not touch their soul, that has value.

Furthermore, suggesting that anyone who makes a living out of writing has "sold out," which is really what you're inferring, is to demean all writers who have chosen to make a living out of their craft. Most individuals don't have the luxury of being able to write without getting some type of material return for their time. They have to eat, they have to put a roof over their head. Perhaps you do have that luxury, but please do not demean those who do not have such freedom of choice.