Writing... held above all interest, ...why?
-
@hosikuzu said in Writing... held above all interest, ...why?:
I mean...the writing is literally all there is?
In a novel there is no plot, no premise, no character, no setting, nothing that isn't presented to the reader through the writing.
True and this brings up the crux of the issue which what are we including under the term "writing" in this context? I think most people are probably thinking about just the quality and flow of the prose, but I think that is a bit narrow since you can have a very poorly written story that has excellent prose, but is badly written due to its overall structure having issues like gaping plot holes, inconsistent characters, dangling plot lines etc.
-
Writing is a process, and there’s a lot of points where it can go horribly wrong. Language mastery, consistency/continuity, depth, format, engagement, wrap-up... It’s almost certainly easier to figure out ways to screw up each step than to spell out how to do it right. But as far as reviews by fans go, “bad writing” is a decent enough warning to fellow readers. An editor would need to be more specific if they are looking to provide constructive feedback, but if they’re in a position to reject a work, they may still use that shorthand to avoid the extra labor.
At the same time, “poorly executed” doesn’t automatically mean “not entertaining.” God knows some of the movies I enjoy are absolute travesties, but oh well. Sometimes that’s the charm, even.
-
@empactwb When it comes down to it, how much do people like “good” and “bad” written content? “Bad execution, writing, plot holes” come up so frequently, that it’s occurrence overshadows good writing or ‘masterpieces’ I assume. I’ve thought about it and the primary cause seems to be “why?” Rather, there’s the respondent (the reader) who gripes at the poorly written work and questions why the author has it so, and then my theory, is why do people complain about such things because what they get is what they get, regardless how it could of been improved?
I know some movies are like that In which they’re “bad” subjective and objectively, such as Twilight, but can still be enjoyed for the motifs and other things that the series offers.
The Juxt of this is why do some literary goers have a go at such things if there are other aspects of a series to treasure, such as character role and themes? This is where a phrase “Don’t like it, make it yourself” can come in, but it loops again around again to the creator doing something wrong that readers don’t like. So why is this the case in our societies? -
@sevennations said in Writing... held above all interest, ...why?:
@empactwb When it comes down to it, how much do people like “good” and “bad” written content? “Bad execution, writing, plot holes” come up so frequently, that it’s occurrence overshadows good writing or ‘masterpieces’ I assume. I’ve thought about it and the primary cause seems to be “why?” Rather, there’s the respondent (the reader) who gripes at the poorly written work and questions why the author has it so, and then my theory, is why do people complain about such things because what they get is what they get, regardless how it could of been improved?
I know some movies are like that In which they’re “bad” subjective and objectively, such as Twilight, but can still be enjoyed for the motifs and other things that the series offers.
That's going to vary from person to person. For example, I read eight of Stephen King's novels before I decided that I just hate his work. It's not that his books are badly written, it's just that he doesn't write the kind of stories I enjoy. At the same time, I'll gladly spend a couple of hours watching The Last Dragon or Big Trouble in Little China, which are fun movies despite the facts (or maybe because of them) that the plots are goofy, the writing is all over the place, and the effects are dated if we're being polite.
One thing I will say: I don't think one can really call something poorly written a "masterpiece." If someone collects all the finest ingredients to prepare a fancy dinner, and some of it comes out underdone while other bits are overcooked, one wouldn't consider that haute cuisine. In the same way, having all the components of a good story but failing to communicate them well just means the work could have been good. The author didn't master the medium in which they were working (or at least didn't demonstrate mastery), so it's just a piece.
The Juxt of this is why do some literary goers have a go at such things if there are other aspects of a series to treasure, such as character role and themes? This is where a phrase “Don’t like it, make it yourself” can come in, but it loops again around again to the creator doing something wrong that readers don’t like. So why is this the case in our societies?
We as a society have good reason to expect that professionally-presented commercial goods (which published books certainly are) will be of higher quality than we ourselves could produce, so we tend to hold them up to rather high standards. I certainly wouldn't trust myself to build a car. But if I bought one so bad that I thought "even I could do better," I'd probably complain to anyone who would listen. By that same token, if I'm reading something and noticing the errors, I make the assumption that I would have noticed them if I were the writer. (My English teachers will assure you that this assumption is incorrect, but it is the way I tend to feel.) This leads to dissatisfaction with the work as a whole, since any other parts I dislike seem that much worse paired with the poorly written bits.
An example: I'm a huge fan of Terry Brooks. The first book of his I ever read was The Wishsong of Shannara, and I loved it so much that I started collecting every book I could find. When I later found his first novel, The Sword of Shannara, it may have been the most disappointing thing I'd ever read. Not just for the bad writing (between plot holes and poorly used cliches, there was plenty of it), but also because it felt like something I'd have written if my silly brain dared to try writing high fantasy. It came off like he was just mimicking other popular writers instead of writing his own story (a trap I'm pretty sure I'd find myself in). I've never stopped thanking my lucky stars that it wasn't my first exposure to his work. If it had been, I'm pretty sure I'd have never touched anything with his name on it ever again. If it had been a well-written rehash of other stories, would I have minded it so much? I don't believe so.
The important thing to remember is this: if you want to enjoy something, go for it, whether it's well-written or not. If anyone calls you out on it, I recommend retorting with the MST3K Mantra ("If you're wondering how he eats and breathes, and other science facts, then repeat to yourself 'It's just a show, I should really just relax.'") and/or Sturgeon's Revelation/Law ("90% of everything is crap.") before going right back to reading.
