How would you describe 'good writing'?

File: Ernst Klimt - Pan TRSTET Psyche.jpg (890KB, 1024x1394px) Image search: [Google]

890KB, 1024x1394px

>>7986481
Enjoyable. Primarily.
My satisfaction is what counts, though I'll let a reputation direct me, so on occasion acclaim should be considered.

It's a lot like the way that painting looks.

>>7986481
sweaty, fast paced, thought provoking and intensely heart breaking

>>7986494
It might be the reason why I chose that image to accompany the opening post.

If the author uses clear and direct voice, places impetus and drive behind the words, and pays homage to what's come before while also rearranging elements into original configurations, I would call the writing 'good.'

>>7986751
is that a painting of the lady of shallot ?

Grasping and profound.

>>7987406
>If the author uses clear and direct voice
gonna vom, tom.

>>7987440
yep

>>7986481
"it sounds good and makes me think" is maybe what I'd say

>>7986481
'good writing' employs a great understanding of language and technique, including diction, rhythm etc., to deliver a fully considered idea in the most appropriate and entertaining manner to its audience.

>>7986481

The opposite of that painting.

>>7989471
What do you dislike about it?

>>7986492
this

>>7989479

I don't like the thematic material, though the execution is brilliant. It was one of my favorite paintings during my late teens. Though I used to enjoy romantic art/music/poetry, I find it does very little for me nowadays, it's like a high fantasy of the emotions, so little of it to be found in a world that is nonetheless brimming with (other kinds of) intensity, its orientation hopelessly adolescent, especially in its vision of romantic love.

>>7989526
So basically you got your heart wrekt?

>>7989439
This is probably as close as I could get to a proper definition, too. "Good writing" is so difficult to define because the best works tend to break generally accepted storytelling rules. Shakespeare didn't show his understanding of language by following the rules, he showed it by constantly breaking them and still ending up with a good story. Determining writing quality means you have to take into account context and audience and author intent as well as audience interpretation and any given work can break every storytelling convention known to man and still be hailed as one of the greatest works of all time. It's all well and good to say a work needs to be clear and direct, or that it needs to make you think, but there are some stories that intentionally avoid clarity and directness, or that are just there to entertain rather than to make you think, and it doesn't make them bad.

tl;dr subjective etc

>>7989617
>"Good writing" is so difficult to define because the best works tend to break generally accepted storytelling rules.
Good writing has nothing to do with storytelling. They are completely independent skill sets.

>>7986481
I love the way Sapkowski write. especially his short stories where main protagonist feels like passive observer who from time to time makes seemingly unimportant decision which has far-reaching consequences in the end.

>>7989483
Huh?

>>7986481

cromulent

>>7986481
Sumthing that is not bullshit

>>7986481

There are several things that indicate good writing to me:

>mastery of vocabulary, full competency of words/idioms used and proper deployment for the task at hand
>artistic creativity demonstrated in the construction of sentences/clauses, full awareness of phrase length developed for precise effects
>demonstrates familiarity with existing literature, illustrates a competency and respect for this by imitation, continuation, response, parody etc.
>avoids a superficial attempt to illustrate the above with cheep references or simple theft of technique
>possesses a meaning behind it which illustrates deep, sincere and convincing thought which guides the aesthetic and is reflected in it