Good writing can be summed easily. First you know enough about the characters to understand them. Secondly a good writer draws you into the story till its end with those characters. I would love to read others opinions on the subject. That is why I strive to work with the best co-writers here. I think you improve your writing by working with good co-writers.
Simple Explanation of Good Writing
- Thread starter hotken51
- Start date
Handley_Page
Draco interdum Vincit
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Posts
- 78,287
and excellent idea, but not too many volunteers, I fear.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
If only it were that simple...
lesbiaphrodite
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Posts
- 3,296
There is nothing simple about writing well.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
The first post assumes that writing is only about fiction with characters and a plot.
"Writing" covers everything written, from a road sign, the words on a cereal packet, instructions for an appliance, journalism, resumes, and even this post.
First define "writing". Then define "good". Good for what? Good for its purpose, perhaps? My best writing is the first candidate for cutting on the first edit because that "best" isn't suitable for a Literotica story, no matter how erudite, or technically brilliant, the writing might be.
Is the definition of good writing to be left to the reader? With a multitude of possible readers, no writing can be "good" for everyone.
Or should good writing be the writing that is recognised by one's peers? That way lies Book Prize winners that no normal person wants to read.
Where is there an International Standard for Good Writing? Has the International Standards Organisation defined such a standard? How is it to be measured for compliance with that standard?
Or is financial success the criterion for good writing? In that case the multitude of Michael Jackson biographies produced within weeks of his death must be "good writing".
Simple? It ain't.
Og
PS: Sir Ernest Gowers stated that this is an example of good writing:
"Postmasters are neither obliged to accept change nor authorised to demand it."
He said that the sentence crystallised the dilemmas faced by sub-postmasters when a customer offers too many coins of low denomination, or offers a large banknote for a small transaction.
"Writing" covers everything written, from a road sign, the words on a cereal packet, instructions for an appliance, journalism, resumes, and even this post.
First define "writing". Then define "good". Good for what? Good for its purpose, perhaps? My best writing is the first candidate for cutting on the first edit because that "best" isn't suitable for a Literotica story, no matter how erudite, or technically brilliant, the writing might be.
Is the definition of good writing to be left to the reader? With a multitude of possible readers, no writing can be "good" for everyone.
Or should good writing be the writing that is recognised by one's peers? That way lies Book Prize winners that no normal person wants to read.
Where is there an International Standard for Good Writing? Has the International Standards Organisation defined such a standard? How is it to be measured for compliance with that standard?
Or is financial success the criterion for good writing? In that case the multitude of Michael Jackson biographies produced within weeks of his death must be "good writing".
Simple? It ain't.
Og
PS: Sir Ernest Gowers stated that this is an example of good writing:
"Postmasters are neither obliged to accept change nor authorised to demand it."
He said that the sentence crystallised the dilemmas faced by sub-postmasters when a customer offers too many coins of low denomination, or offers a large banknote for a small transaction.
Last edited:
