It's all so arbitrary

i'm thinking that once a writer has identified their genre and have come to know and understand their audience they can hone the mechanics of writing specific to the genre / audience increasing the chance of acceptance.


i'm not going to read that back to myself because i'm not sure it makes sense.

peace

You're just frustrated, Ed.

Here. Have a bourbon and a cigar.

dern! that's what i was trying to say, haggis!

Shadow_Ferret said:

What makes for good writing? Is there a concrete set of rules to follow? How does one "improve?" I've been at this game for years, off and on, and honestly, I dont' know that I'm any better today then I was years ago. Or if I am better, I can't recognize it.

People say the more you write, the more you read, the better you'll get, But why? What about reading and writing create within you a better writer? Is it just the passage of time? Practice?

How does one recognize bad writing from good, good writing from great?

For instance, I have a query in SYW and I'm getting feedback on it, but again, it seems arbitrary. I'm not saying these people don't know what they're saying, I'm saying that I don't know why. I don't understand why their suggestions are improvements so much as just changes. I don't understand what the difference between one or the other is. Why changing this one sentence makes it better.

It's frustrating. If I was a mechanic, I can improve. I learn what parts go where, that when this part breaks, it causes this symptom and you can learn to recognize it, and troubleshoot it.

But writing? It just all seems so arbitrary. There are no rules outside of grammar that we can learn to make bad writing good, or good writing great.

You either have the gift, the talent, to recognize what's wrong and put in a new part, or you don't.

I think I'm reaching the point where I realize I can write interesting stories, but I have no clue what the trouble spots are, where it has it's weak points, or what I need to do to improve it to the point of saleabilty.

I guess I don't have a question, I'm just frustrated that I don't think I know any more about writing now, after college, after subscribing to Writer's Digest for years, after reading all the "how to" books then I did when I was started out at 15.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'm going to go colossal douche bag, so if you don't want my snobbery to infect you, back out of the goddamn thread.

I think that writing is like cooking. So ,with that analogy kicked off, here we go.

I think that there are basics to cooking that everyone needs to know.

How long should I cook chicken? How do I cook pasta? How do I trim fat from a steak?

Once you've learned how to not burn water, you learn more.. I wanna make this pasta sauce from scratch instead of a jar... Lets learn to pan sear. What does sauteeing mean?

Got that down? Whats the difference between a schnitzel and something coated in breadcrumbs and fried?

Finally you wake up one day and you've mastered all of the above and you're making proscuitto wrapped roasted sweet red peppers on asparagus for an appetizer, riced shallot potatoes and braised lamb shanks.

The problem is, most of us consider ourselves to be the guy who knows how to make that last meal, when many of us are still at the "how do I not burn water" phase.

Once you've gotten to the point that you no longer need to know that your ingredients are fresh and your cooking times are spot on, you'll have moved past the share your work section. You should have friends on here who you can trust to be your beta. So instead of piecing out portions of your meal, ("Here taste this sauce", "Is that asparagus cooked enough"), you're letting people eat the whole dinner. Thats when the real feedback starts.

There are all types of cuisines out there. French, Italian, Thai, Dutch, English, etc etc Every one of those chefs has been trained differently and each has their own flavor and distinctions.

There are just as many types of authors. Everyone of them has their own technique and mastery. What matters is not the individual components, which they have by now mastered, but the meal(book) as a whole.

So the answer is, there is no answer. (God am I frustrating or what?)

Crap. Now I'm hungry,

Haggis said:

Crap. Now I'm hungry,

Click to expand...

Maybe I should start writing about cooking.

Problem is I cuss too much and refer to phallus' as often as possible.

"The water now boiling, so grabbed for a baby carrot. She giggled at this, as it reminded her of her ex-husbands pathetically lacking manhood. She tossed it haphazardly into the pot, a satisfying splash of water launching itself onto the recipe."

(Doncha just love adverbs?)

I don't know if my explanation will make sense, but it's the only one I could come up with when some students asked me very similar questions.

It all comes down to talent. Now, people tend to get their hackles up when they hear this word; some because they feel it belittles the work they've put into their skill; some because they fear they don't have the talent, and thus would rather pretend it doesn't exist.

Lets change the word from talent to aptitude. People like the word aptitude.

Aptitude is like a totem pole; there is a bottom, and the top stretches into the sky. Because the top is in the sky, only the people who are strong enough to the climb up it, through the clouds, know what it looks like; everyone else is somewhere farther down, some more than others, and they are forced to look up.

Everyone starts at the bottom. Some people climb faster than others. Some people spends years exercising before they start, others adhere to the climbing-is-the-best-way-to-learn-to-climb philosophy. Either way, they all work hard at it.

As they get closer to the top, they discover the air is thinner. Some people are capable of going higher, while others begin suffering from hypoxia. Those suffering from hypoxia can't go any higher, even though they worked just as hard as everyone else; it biological and out of their control.

That's my view of talent. Now, lets take someone who made it all the way to the top of the pole. To them, words are like music. They are the Mozart of writing. They don't read words, they *feel* them. While a hundred people may be able to listen to a piece of music and find no faults, this person at the top, this Mozart of sorts can feel when something isn't as good as it can be--not wrong, just not the best option, and thus they can make the piece better.

Someone at a lower level of skill cannot feel this, however; it is an intangible. It is a skill. It is aptitude. It is talent.

How can a person know when they've climbed as high on that totem pole as possible, when they've achieved everything they possibly can?

They can't. They have to keep climbing. They can, however, look at those above them, realize that that person has been where they are currently trying to go, and ask for advice. With that advice, they climb higher; they become better. Things that weren't obvious to them before suddenly make perfect sense.

It's not that your words are wrong; its just that maybe someone sees a way for them to be better.

Pesimisticus said:

I don't know if my explanation will make sense, but it's the only one I could come up with when some students asked me very similar questions.

It all comes down to talent. Now, people tend to get their hackles up when they hear this word; some because they feel it belittles the work they've put into their skill; some because they fear they don't have the talent, and thus would rather pretend it doesn't exist.

Lets change the word from talent to aptitude. People like the word aptitude.

Aptitude is like a totem pole; there is a bottom, and the top stretches into the sky. Because the top is in the sky, only the people who are strong enough to the climb up it, through the clouds, know what it looks like; everyone else is somewhere farther down, some more than others, and they are forced to look up.

Everyone starts at the bottom. Some people climb faster than others. Some people spends years exercising before they start, others adhere to the climbing-is-the-best-way-to-learn-to-climb philosophy. Either way, they all work hard at it.

As they get closer to the top, they discover the air is thinner. Some people are capable of going higher, while others begin suffering from hypoxia. Those suffering from hypoxia can't go any higher, even though they worked just as hard as everyone else; it biological and out of their control.

That's my view of talent. Now, lets take someone who made it all the way to the top of the pole. To them, words are like music. They are the Mozart of writing. They don't read words, they *feel* them. While a hundred people may be able to listen to a piece of music and find no faults, this person at the top, this Mozart of sorts can feel when something isn't as good as it can be--not wrong, just not the best option, and thus they can make the piece better.

Someone at a lower level of skill cannot feel this, however; it is an intangible. It is a skill. It is aptitude. It is talent.

How can a person know when they've climbed as high on that totem pole as possible, when they've achieved everything they possibly can?

They can't. They have to keep climbing. They can, however, look at those above them, realize that that person has been where they are currently trying to go, and ask for advice. With that advice, they climb higher; they become better. Things that weren't obvious to them before suddenly make perfect sense.

It's not that your words are wrong; its just that maybe someone sees a way for them to be better.

Click to expand...

To be fair to the OP, I've seem some crits that were pretty god awful and those ppl were definitely not high on the totem pole

lucidzfl said:

To be fair to the OP, I've seem some crits that were pretty god awful and those ppl were definitely not high on the totem pole

Click to expand...

I didn't read the crits Yes, some people at the bottom yell advice up. I recommend pissing on them.

lucidzfl said:

To be fair to the OP, I've seem some crits that were pretty god awful and those ppl were definitely not high on the totem pole

Click to expand...

To be fair to the critters, many of them are spot on. Even if they're not, the individual posting for critique has the ultimate responsibility of accepting or not accepting the advice.

Pesimisticus said:

I didn't read the crits Yes, some people at the bottom yell advice up. I recommend pissing on them.

Click to expand...

I recommend thanking them for their time, then moving on.

lucidzfl said:

Ok, I'm going to go colossal douche bag, so if you don't want my snobbery to infect you, back out of the goddamn thread.

I think that writing is like cooking. So ,with that analogy kicked off, here we go.

-snipped for space-

Click to expand...

Then there are people follow everything in a cookbook (or writing guide) to the letter, because they haven't learned the reasoning behind it and are too nervous to experiment and see whether the instructions in the recipe are the best or only way to do things. There's nothing wrong with this, as it helps beginners get a taste for how cooking works, but if they keep cooking this way, they will never be able to develop their own recipes.

Of course, there's always the people who think reading a cookbook or talking to chefs will teach them all they need to know, and become the people who chop the ends off a roast without realizing that the ends only need to be cut off when the pan is too small.

Rebekah7 said:

Then there are people follow everything in a cookbook (or writing guide) to the letter, because they haven't learned the reasoning behind it and are too nervous to experiment and see whether the instructions in the recipe are the best or only way to do things. There's nothing wrong with this, as it helps beginners get a taste for how cooking works, but if they keep cooking this way, they will never be able to develop their own recipes.

Of course, there's always the people who think reading a cookbook or talking to chefs will teach them all they need to know, and become the people who chop the ends off a roast without realizing that the ends only need to be cut off when the pan is too small.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. See how kick ass my analogy was?

I'm confident enough to experiment with my recipes and cook my staples. But if someone who I recognize as a true chef offers opinion, I shut up and listen.

When someone crits me and their statements make no sense, like they just either don't get, or aren't following the story, I ignore it.

When they point out specific things which need fixing: "You're being too passive." "Less back story in your first chapter." "The ever dreaded show don't tell". Well thats basically telling me "This has too much salt" "This is overcooked" "Mine is cold".

Those are basics that absolutely need to be addressed, regardless of where on the Totem, they came from.

taking Lucidzfl's analogy to the next logical turn in the process:

Even after you've learned all there is to know about your style of cooking, when you present the plate, you are still presenting it to an individual palate, at a particular place, subject to the moods, economic and material conditions of that person and that day.

So, yeah, it's very arbitrary.

My question? Does that particularly clever or subtle turn of phrase still give you a joy that you can't explain to somebody who has never experienced it?

Shadow_Ferret said:

What makes for good writing?

Click to expand...

Good writing tells a story in a way that is pleasing to the reader.

Not that that's really helpful, I know, but that's the only definition I know that really works.

You can write beautiful prose, stick to the rules of grammar, but if all of that doesn't add up to an enjoyable reading experience, it fails as good writing IMO.

Is there a concrete set of rules to follow?

Click to expand...

There's as many sets of concrete rules as there are people to follow them. Most every writer can spout off something they absolutely cannot break or they're doomed for all eternity. The problem is when other writers start thinking those personal rules are universal and start preaching them as such and suck unsuspecting new writers into the tangle.

I seriously hate writing rules. That's why I'm an anarchist.

How does one "improve?"

Click to expand...

1. Learn the techniques and other skill sets as best you can.

2. Connect to the story inside yourself without outside filters.

3. Trust the story inside yourself--and the fact that you CAN tell it.

4. Get the story down onto paper as best as your skill allows you to.

5. Repeat, making whatever adjustments needed for each unique story you have to connect with.

People say the more you write, the more you read, the better you'll get, But why? What about reading and writing create within you a better writer? Is it just the passage of time? Practice?

Click to expand...

Awareness.

Sit down and read a story as a reader. Don't think about writerly stuff like description, dialogue, conflict--just READ the book. Note when you have a strong emotional reaction (good and bad) to what you're reading.

AFTER you've had the experience, go back with your writer's cap on and look at that passage, the chapter, the set-up and see if you can figure out just HOW that author achieved giving you that emotional response.

Take what you've just figured out and see how you can incorporate it into your own story telling style.

Practice makes perfect--but only if it's focused practice aimed at actually improving a specific target. Rather like Tiger Woods practicing putting--one specific action, one technique that should become second-nature and just allow the action to be effortless and graceful.

How does one recognize bad writing from good, good writing from great?

Click to expand...

Because writing is an art, and not just a follow-the-directions thing, "bad" writing is whatever doesn't give you the experience the author wanted to protray. It's very subjective that that regard. "Great" writing would be those stories that gives that experience to a very large number, generations of people. IMO.

Still, there is the technical definitions of "bad", "good" and "great" writing--how sentences are constructed, the prose strung together--and that counts. Truly good to great writing is a synthesis of both technique and art.

It's frustrating. If I was a mechanic, I can improve. I learn what parts go where, that when this part breaks, it causes this symptom and you can learn to recognize it, and troubleshoot it.

Click to expand...

I loves ya, Ed, but it's comparing apples and organutans here--mechanics IS a "follow the directions" occupation. There is no art involved, so of course it's easier and far less subjective than writing is.

You either have the gift, the talent, to recognize what's wrong and put in a new part, or you don't.

Click to expand...

There's so many talents that can play into any human endeavor. There's talent for recognizing problems--and there's a different talent for knowing how to fix said problems. They don't always walk hand-in-hand. Fortunately, experience will help a great deal in either of these areas, since both are facets of writing where I believe honed skills can be just as good, if not better, than natural talent.

I guess I don't have a question, I'm just frustrated that I don't think I know any more about writing now, after college, after subscribing to Writer's Digest for years, after reading all the "how to" books then I did when I was started out at 15.

Click to expand...

*huggles* on the frustration. Believe me, I know where you're coming from.

There is no secret to "good writing". You can't learn it from a textbook, or from being lectured about the finer points of prose. Good writing is the same as any other writing, only more admired. There are certain tips and pointers that can help you avoid falling into being a terrible writer, but to go from competent to good requires an intuitive understanding of what you're doing. That connection can be made by reading more, or writing more, but the connection is strongest when you come to it yourself. At least that's what I think.

Just to throw some gasoline on this fire, one person's opinion about what good writing is can be the complete opposite to another. A very smart friend on mine loves Marg Atwood; I can't stand her. She thinks Robbins is a genius; me- eh.

lucidzfl said:

I think that writing is like cooking.

Click to expand...

You may be right. I have a friend who makes the most awesome cinnamon rolls. I have her recipe, I use all the same ingredients, use the same technique but mine just don't taste like hers. Probably writing is much the same. I may have the same 'recipe', use the same 'ingredients' and even 'technique' but darned if I can write as well as authors I admire. There must be an elusive extra ingredient to really great writing.

I believe the path to being a confident, professional writer starts with learning all the common techniques and avoiding the common pitfalls. Mr. Ferret, if you don't recognize what people who critique your work are telling you, then that means you're probably missing knowledge that you need to gain. When you stop learning, you stop progressing.

Quote: There are no rules outside of grammar that we can learn to make bad writing good, or good writing great.

I disagree strongly with that statement. There are plenty of "rules" that can make you a better writer. I've been writing for a long time, and yet I continue to learn new techniques that make my work more polished. When I have stuff critiqued, I don't let anything get past me. If I don't understand something, I research it until I do understand it. If you ask certain people who've attended workshops, such as Clarion, they will say it has had a dramatic impact on improving their writing. In other words, they learned techniques that made them better at the craft.

When you get better at writing, it goes along with learning. You learn, you apply the knowledge, and you see it reflected in the writing. The instincts get sharper, and the "feel" for what works or doesn't work comes easier.

Certainly, some have an easier time grasping the concepts of good writing than others. But hard work usually can bridge the gap.

This is just my take on it. If I missed your point, I apologize.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I don't know that I'm any better today then I was years ago. Or if I am better, I can't recognize it.

Click to expand...

You may not recognize improvements in your own writing because they can creep in so gradually that you're not aware of it happening.

Pick up a story you wrote a few years ago and haven't looked at for just as long. Read it now. Do you see things you did then that you wouldn't do now? Would you not do them now because you've found a better way? Even if you don't know why you wouldn't do it now, odds are the answer is because you've changed and grown.

The cooking analogy made me think of another. Say you're in a class learning a foreign language. There's always at least one person in class asking "why?" Why do you conjugate verbs? Why do you have to do the grammar that way? Why why why. They need to know the answers, to make sense of it all. Then there are the people who don't need to know why, they just need to know how. The latter may grasp the language more quickly, but that doesn't mean the "Why?" group doesn't also have the capacity to learn and even become fluent. Persevere!

lucidzfl said:

Ok, I'm going to go colossal douche bag, so if you don't want my snobbery to infect you, back out of the goddamn thread.

I think that writing is like cooking. So ,with that analogy kicked off, here we go.

I think that there are basics to cooking that everyone needs to know.

How long should I cook chicken? How do I cook pasta? How do I trim fat from a steak?

Once you've learned how to not burn water, you learn more.. I wanna make this pasta sauce from scratch instead of a jar... Lets learn to pan sear. What does sauteeing mean?

Got that down? Whats the difference between a schnitzel and something coated in breadcrumbs and fried?

Finally you wake up one day and you've mastered all of the above and you're making proscuitto wrapped roasted sweet red peppers on asparagus for an appetizer, riced shallot potatoes and braised lamb shanks.

The problem is, most of us consider ourselves to be the guy who knows how to make that last meal, when many of us are still at the "how do I not burn water" phase.

Once you've gotten to the point that you no longer need to know that your ingredients are fresh and your cooking times are spot on, you'll have moved past the share your work section. You should have friends on here who you can trust to be your beta. So instead of piecing out portions of your meal, ("Here taste this sauce", "Is that asparagus cooked enough"), you're letting people eat the whole dinner. Thats when the real feedback starts.

There are all types of cuisines out there. French, Italian, Thai, Dutch, English, etc etc Every one of those chefs has been trained differently and each has their own flavor and distinctions.

There are just as many types of authors. Everyone of them has their own technique and mastery. What matters is not the individual components, which they have by now mastered, but the meal(book) as a whole.

So the answer is, there is no answer. (God am I frustrating or what?)

Click to expand...

You're just marketing for your naked cooking blog aren't you?

I just wanted to add my two cents here. I have often been accused of writing well, but this does not lead to success as a writer. However, that being said there are many different things you can do to perhaps help punch up your style.

Firstly, just write. I am currently blocking on all of the different pieces I am writing right now, and I came over here just to keep putting words on screen SOMEWHERE. Also, I was almost kicked off the forum today, so I thought I would enjoy it while I still can. By just typing here, I hope to keep the fingers fresh in case the inspiration strikes again. Writing, just typing, can help loosen up the fingers so that they sync with the mind in the way that makes the writing feel "good" to you.

Hunter Thompson typed The Great Gatsby over and over when he was younger so he could feel the rhythm of good writing. If it worked for the Doc, it's worth a shot.

When Dickens was alive and publishing, someone thought he was a hack. Write so that YOU think it is good and then take the suggestions of those who have your best interests at heart (editors, agents, writer friends).

These are the things that instantly spring to my mind. There is no set formula for art, that is why the math nerds hate English and vice versa. (How can I solve for x, if x isn't even sure who x is, how did x get to where x is today? What were x's experiences?)

Beginning writers, and intermediate writers, make too much of the Objective Rules that they can hold up for what good writing should and shouldn't be. Like... you shouldn't use "was" in a beginning, right? Because it's too passive?

Well, I pulled down half a dozen of my favorite recent YA books, and they had "was" in the opening paragraphs. They had static description, they had (rare) passive constructions. This is not to say that it doesn't matter. This is not to say that there aren't any rules. It's to say that as you master your craft, you dispense with the rules. It stops being a matter of "don't do this, do that" and starts being about what kind of effect you get if you do this, what kind of effect you get if you do that. It's about matching your writing, not with some platonic rule-book idea of good writing, but with your vision for the story.

The books that I admire most, in the end, are the ones where you can take just a paragraph, and have that paragraph line up with what the book is trying to accomplish thematically, and how the viewpoint character sees the world. They're the books where not a single sentence seems accidental or careless.

It's about learning to control your craft, at a much deeper level than "don't use passive voice" or "show, don't tell."

And if someone gives you a platitude, feel free to ignore.

Fillanzea said:

Beginning writers, and intermediate writers, make too much of the Objective Rules that they can hold up for what good writing should and shouldn't be. Like... you shouldn't use "was" in a beginning, right? Because it's too passive?

Well, I pulled down half a dozen of my favorite recent YA books, and they had "was" in the opening paragraphs. They had static description, they had (rare) passive constructions. This is not to say that it doesn't matter. This is not to say that there aren't any rules. It's to say that as you master your craft, you dispense with the rules. It stops being a matter of "don't do this, do that" and starts being about what kind of effect you get if you do this, what kind of effect you get if you do that. It's about matching your writing, not with some platonic rule-book idea of good writing, but with your vision for the story.

The books that I admire most, in the end, are the ones where you can take just a paragraph, and have that paragraph line up with what the book is trying to accomplish thematically, and how the viewpoint character sees the world. They're the books where not a single sentence seems accidental or careless.

It's about learning to control your craft, at a much deeper level than "don't use passive voice" or "show, don't tell."

And if someone gives you a platitude, feel free to ignore.

Click to expand...

I believe the point you're making here is that you must first understand the rules before you can intentionally break them--and that's a great point.