What do you consider good writing?

[IceBrand]

I always see people complain about a character being one dimensional, flat, underdeveloped etc. But other times I see another character doing the exact same thing but getting praised. Is this an example of good writing or just favoritism?

Edited April 9, 2015 by Advance Gamer

[Dual Dragons]

I would say execution is a major component of any piece of writing.

You could have the same topic or same events but one could be executed better than the other.

It could be favoritism but I try not to say that until proven.

[Bluedoom]

If the one dimensional, flat, underdeveloped character is used as a plot device and had less screen time or served a very specific purpose like comedy, then it's acceptable.

[Kiseki]

Yes, that would be an example of good writing. The character's personality alone doesn't dictate the reception they get from people; it's the writing that goes with the character that does so.

If it was favoritism, you would get what can be compared to a good number of people who have only played FE13 and believe in "waifus" and stuff like that. They believe that character to be so "perfect" in their eyes that they will deny any flaws that existed.

[eclipse]

Premise, setting, events, characters, interactions. . .all of these must be taken into account. For example. . .

Premise - Meet fiancee's parents

Setting - A house

Events - Fiance doesn't listen to fiancee's father about certain things, which leads to property damage

Characters - Most are only shown having one primary point, though secondary points occur later

Interactions - Fiance and fiancee's father don't get along

Sound stupid? Nope, that's a comedy movie (or what little I remember of it), and it works because everything works with each other. Good writing will take the ingredients and make a smoothie. Bad writing will break the blender.

[Zasplach]

Sound stupid? Nope, that's a comedy movie (or what little I remember of it), and it works because everything works with each other. Good writing will take the ingredients and make a smoothie. Bad writing will break the blender.

Sounds like a Ben Stiller move for that matter.

But in all seriousness, medium must be taken into consideration as well when we're talking about 'good writing'. If we're talking about novels, no author more comes to my mind than someone like Hemingway; Robert Jordan from For Whom the Bell Tolls sticks out in my mind. His internal anguish manifesting between his idealistic thoughts about this 'people's revolution' and the actual execution of this war is incredibly well crafted.

If we're talking about a more limited medium like movies or video games, I always found good writing, especially in terms of characterization was more about a medium sense of depth. Obviously when talking about video games, few characters are going to be extremely well rounded, in so much as the audience won't be able to understand all of the character's motivations. So a good character in a limited medium form is given some sort of generalized motivation, like altruism, ie saving the world, and they are presented with some sort of barrier or block to achieving that goal. Now because this particular character can't have all of his motivations revealed to the audience, mostly due to time, he must be interesting enough that the audience can imagine, and in some ways, come up with their own 'interesting' explanation as to why the character does what he does.

So basically, good writing in a limited medium, in my opinion at least, requires the audience to do some of the imaginative work because the character is interesting enough to be intriguing, but not so overdeveloped as to become banal.

[--------------------]

Usually the question I ask is "What is the point?".

For the lack of a better example, lets take tsunderes. If you have a tsundere for the heck of having a tsundere character, I would consider that to be a "bad" character, since the archetype is so overused it becomes trite and annoying in a story. On the other hand, say if the tsundereism does have a large impact on the story, such as an exploration of said character's past/motives and how they ended up that way etc would make him/her a "better" character.

This is true in other ways as well. If you had a one dimensional boring character whose point is to just forward the plot, or add depth to *another* character, I would consider the boring character to be a 'good' character as well, since there was a point.

Imo anyway.

[Bluedoom]

Also if the story's narrative is such that it can be seen easily in your everyday life/ borderline biographical, its bad writing because I don't need to invest my time on reading something like that when I can see a lot of it in real life.

[B.Leu]

What I would call bad writing ? Easy question.

Plot-holes, and things that doesn't make any sense. Especially if you can see them right away.

What I would call good writing ? Hard question.

I think that there is some stories, that are just way too long, and unnecesary complicated, it's important for a story to go straight to the point, without being too complicated, yet without being too not complicated;

And not being too long or too short, if you got a book with a story like 'A prince got to save a princess from a Dragon' that have 1000 pages, I hope that the author is a badass. Cliche ? It doesn't matter much as long as it's not too stupid and it stick well with the storiy.

In other word, you got to find somekind of balance. Or be lucky. That depends.

Edited April 9, 2015 by B.Leu

[eclipse]

Also if the story's narrative is such that it can be seen easily in your everyday life/ borderline biographical, its bad writing because I don't need to invest my time on reading something like that when I can see a lot of it in real life.

This is highly dependent on the writer. If they can make the mundane really interesting, then I don't consider it to be bad writing.

[Chen]

This is highly dependent on the writer. If they can make the mundane really interesting, then I don't consider it to be bad writing.

a good example is king of the hill

they make the most mundane things hilarious

[Bluedoom]

a good example is king of the hill

they make the most mundane things hilarious

If mundane things are written in a comical context that's good writing of course. I was merely talking about writing where the plot is predictable and it doesn't interest you in any other matter as far as the emotions you feel while reading through the stuff goes.

I suppose quirks go a long way in garnering interest, however.

[Czar_Yoshi]

I consider good writing to be anything other than this. Any amount of badness present in ordinary writing still pales in the face of infinity.

That said, a major trait I look for in good writing is to have plot twists that are unpredictable, but also make perfect sense within the context of the world. Foreshadowing done around this isn't done in a "drop hints and see who figures out what they mean first" way, but by building the world in such a way that the plot twists make more sense. A deus ex machina happened and something came out of nowhere to save the heroes? Not actually such a big deal (and sometimes even a good thing) if your world is conditioned to accept it.

A healthy dose of self-awareness is also required, of course. Self-respect is optional depending on whether the work is a full comedy or something else, but the author should at least be aware of whether it's important or not.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Czar_Yoshi

[Party Moth]

Execution is everything.

One example I find works well as a comparison: Puella Magi Madoka Magica versus Day Break Illusion. While, at their core, the ultimate goals of both shows are not the same, there is a clear motive shared between the two: To shock the viewer and differentiate themselves from other magical girl shows while expressing their knowledge and versatility. Both also have an emphasis on fate. Both take radically different approaches to this.

Day Break Illusion decides to take the shock factor route. The characters are stick-thin and disgustingly cutesy, contrasted with intense violence and blood. The magical girls are associated with tarot cards (further tied to the Sephirot), and there are two animals, a talking cat and crow, who are named Schrödinger and Laplace. Problems immediately begin to arise: going the Higurashi route only serves to disgust the viewer with base violence, and Schrödinger the cat is cute but hardly conveys any real understanding of the actual "Schrödinger's Cat" concept. The tarot card information is interesting and accurate but the naming of characters and such is forced (Luna? Wonder which tarot card she falls under...). I won't spoil the plot, but it borderlines on all the brutality and beatings of self-esteem that just gives too many rape undertones for one to sit through the final few episodes comfortably. In the end, it comes off no real different from most magical girl animes save for its brutality.

Madoka Magica, on the other hand, decides to tackle the magical girl genre and reconstruct it. There is a very clear tone, and the show itself is manipulative and versatile without resulting to bloody brutality. There is a clear inspiration from Faust here, and the show approaches the concept with carefully placed allegories, symbolic imagery, and true darkness. These magical girls face the darkest aspects of their own humanity, and this leads the viewer to merely watch as characters move along paths carved for them by their own inability to face themselves. The art, writing, and music are all cleverly crafted and push the viewer to the show's conclusion. The Faust comparison begins evolving into something far more troubling on a philosophical level, explored further in the sequel film Rebellion. There is a reason this magical girl anime is lauded by critics and fans: It is carefully crafted so that every action, every scene, every piece of music, every line of dialogue pushes the viewer to the next limb of the story. The fanbase clasps uselessly at how it could have gone, but the fact of the matter is that there was no other rational outcome. It is silly to argue that a character should have done something else because by their very nature they were never going to. All of this gives the show a constant motion, a notion of fate that can't be stopped, can't be undone without sacrifice.

Both shows attempted to shock and engage their audience. One succeeded. Execution is everything.

[Emeraldfox]

Iunno

[Knight]

There are a bunch of things. I'm writing a novel right now and I'm personally trying to analyze and construct a methodology for good writing. Some of the stuff I know so far is...

Characters: Your characters don't necessarily need to be both round and dynamic, those are just things that help make them interesting. An interesting character is what you want, especially with your main, prominent side characters and the villain (if there even is one). A character can be interesting because of many other different things. For example; what if one character is unknowingly holding a nuclear device in his garage. There's nothing in that description that makes him round or dynamic, but you've already made him interesting.

Plot: The plot should have a consistent tone, all the events of the story should have some sort of outline before you start writing (at the very least, you should know all the important characters). A plot twist, a developing character, the anticipation for an exciting event, something needs to be in the story to justify its existence. The story can't be go from point A to point B; conflict resolved. All the characters actions and motivations have to make sense.

Setting: The setting itself is not too important, it can be left vague (vague city, vague forest) but if made explicit, then it should serve some purpose to the story or atmosphere. If the story is set in the fantasy capital of "Generica," then you have to meet the king, or do something that justifies it not being just a generic castle. If it's set in NYC, why not point out some of the landmarks.

[-Cynthia-]

Sometimes people seperate writing from plot and characters, in the sense that writing is just how good it is on a technical level, the prose etc. So something can be well written but lack an interesting plot or characters or vice versa. Most people are referring to the narrative as a whole when they talk about writing though.

[Phoenix Wright]

when there's no fluff, and everything is given purpose. i abhor writers who put words in just to put words in. it's not impressive.

however, "fluff" is defined on a case-by-case basis for me as well. moby-dick and heart of darkness both have little fluff, if any at all. it depends on a lot of factors.

bad characters = bad writing. "good will hunting" is a fantastic movie not because of its plot (which is really stupid imo), but because its characters were well-developed and interesting. when we read books, we want stories about people, not about "things," generally speaking. therefore, getting the characters right should be a writer's highest priority, or at least high up on the list.

atmosphere is important too.

for me, the plot could be 100% nonsensical, but if the characters work and the atmosphere/setting is well-written and cool, i'm interested.

[Ansem]

jarly

[Loki Laufeyson]

In terms of structure:

Bad writing is excessive use of said bookism, purple prose (over-description), choppy dialogue, inorganic plot flow, etc. You will see ALL of these in 99% of fanfiction. Too little description is also bad. (like Stephenie Meyer is guilty of both purple and too dull prose. Mostly in the same chapter.) The lack of world building (even in a story that doesnt take place in a totally made-up world) is bad. The reader needs to understand the environment the story is taking place in. In a made-up fantasy world, one needs to be clear how the laws of that universe function. Part of the brilliance of the Harry Potter was that its in our world, but not. And yet that corner of it had all these different rules and structure. It felt so real. Same is said for A Song of Ice and Fire, the world of Hunger Games, etc.

Characters as a device: While sometimes a pretty basic character does the job just fine (see Captain America). In order for him/her to carry the weight of the whole story, they must have some support. If their supporting characters are really bland too, thus the story is going to be uninteresting. And the characters forgettable. Even if your character isnt terribly layered, they must evolve somehow. If they remain static, the reader will lose interest in them. If they supposed to remain static, the story itself must evolve. (see: plot twists, point of view shift, etc)

Your villain(s)/antagonists need to have clear motive. Bad writing is when a villain is a villain for the sake of it. (see: Validar) If your villain has a lot of reasons to be villainous, it makes more sense, and can actually be a very interesting character. (see: Tywin Lannister, Loki of Marvel, Darth Vader, etc.) Even if a villain isnt all that interesting, as long as motives are clear and concise, it works. (see: Voldemort, Ganondorf, etc)

when there's no fluff, and everything is given purpose.

Actually, fluff does have a purpose when positioned correctly. It acts as a rest or breather in between plot points. It also adds to the environment depending on the nature of the fluff. (or it could be really funny. Thor tossing a coffee cup down and shouting "ANOTHER" , is fluff. But its there for a reason. To show the start of his character arc in that environment.) Fluff is bad when it goes on too long and becomes self-indulgent.

Another thing is when characters are written as utter self-inserts. Escapist characters are not a bad concept. This is why super heroes (and Lestat) exist. We all love to dive into a character and walk in their shoes as they do a bunch of cool shit. But when the plot itself revolves entirely around them instead of moving naturally, its bad. Also characters who orbit just to feed this character. This is Suedom. Avoid at all costs. That character begins spouting stuff acting as the author's mouthpiece, or is just wish fulfillment for the author, not the reader. Bleagh.

Good writing is when these pitfalls are avoided. Good writing is structured well enough to where it makes sense. Even if the premise is weird as fuck. (Being John Malkovich)

[I'm gay dabadeedabada]

Usually the question I ask is "What is the point?".

For the lack of a better example, lets take tsunderes. If you have a tsundere for the heck of having a tsundere character, I would consider that to be a "bad" character, since the archetype is so overused it becomes trite and annoying in a story. On the other hand, say if the tsundereism does have a large impact on the story, such as an exploration of said character's past/motives and how they ended up that way etc would make him/her a "better" character.

This is true in other ways as well. If you had a one dimensional boring character whose point is to just forward the plot, or add depth to *another* character, I would consider the boring character to be a 'good' character as well, since there was a point.

Imo anyway.

This is pretty much the only thing that needs to be said on the subject. Each and every word should have a reason it's there. As long as the entirety has a reason to be there, it's good writing, as far as I'm concerned.

[General Banzai]

omit needless words is a schoolkid catechism

99% of the words in any kafka are completely pointless but that's the point a complex labyrinth of meaningless semi-bureaucratic jargon in painfully ungrammatical sentences and yet it's some of the most frenetic intense and absorbing literature available

writing is ideas first and execution second

I don't care how concise and lean your prose is if nothing you are saying is new enough to titillate my jaded palate

Madoka Magica, on the other hand, decides to tackle the magical girl genre and reconstruct it. There is a very clear tone, and the show itself is manipulative and versatile without resulting to bloody brutality. There is a clear inspiration from Faust here, and the show approaches the concept with carefully placed allegories, symbolic imagery, and true darkness. These magical girls face the darkest aspects of their own humanity, and this leads the viewer to merely watch as characters move along paths carved for them by their own inability to face themselves. The art, writing, and music are all cleverly crafted and push the viewer to the show's conclusion. The Faust comparison begins evolving into something far more troubling on a philosophical level, explored further in the sequel film Rebellion. There is a reason this magical girl anime is lauded by critics and fans: It is carefully crafted so that every action, every scene, every piece of music, every line of dialogue pushes the viewer to the next limb of the story. The fanbase clasps uselessly at how it could have gone, but the fact of the matter is that there was no other rational outcome. It is silly to argue that a character should have done something else because by their very nature they were never going to. All of this gives the show a constant motion, a notion of fate that can't be stopped, can't be undone without sacrifice.

lets be real tho the best part of madoka is in episode 3 where one of the cute magical girls gets her head bitten off by a monster in a shocking brutal and pointless way

madoka is a perfectly constructed show and yeah it has faust allusions but the faust allusions are not what makes madoka great

Edited April 10, 2015 by General Banzai

[Party Moth]

lets be real tho the best part of madoka is in episode 3 where one of the cute magical girls gets her head bitten off by a monster in a shocking brutal and pointless way

madoka is a perfectly constructed show and yeah it has faust allusions but the faust allusions are not what makes madoka great

Considering how much thought and overanalysis you've put into things such as FE7, I'm surprised to hear you say that.

How is Mami's death pointless?

[Kiseki]

lets be real tho the best part of madoka is in episode 3 where one of the cute magical girls gets her head bitten off by a monster in a shocking brutal and pointless way

That was totally not pointless. Do you even know what happens after that? That was the start of when sh*t started getting real and edgy and it sets the course for that tear-jerking grim reality.

[General Banzai]

Considering how much thought and overanalysis you've put into things such as FE7, I'm surprised to hear you say that.

How is Mami's death pointless?

By pointless I mean the death itself didn't happen for any meaningful reason in-universe. i.e. She's not fighting some important villain or buying time for someone to escape or any of the usual ways stories make us at least somewhat okay with character death. From a tonal perspective the death is a masterstroke, I didn't label it the "best part" of Madoka for no reason. But in terms of the plot, it's a major character being horrifyingly killed off for real by a one-note monster that shows up only in that episode and is pretty easily dispatched after it does its business. That's pretty pointless. The pointlessness of it becomes the point later on, but at that moment the death is pointless from a completely in-universe standpoint.

Also don't rag on my analysis of Madoka I literally watched it for the first time like a week ago I'm new to this okay??? (It's really fucking good though, I give it my English Major stamp of approval)