I have developed a mental list of things to keep track of when

>>8174731
This isn't a bad list of things to avoid when writing. I don't think there's much to dispute.

i disagree with separating style from substance, the imposition of interacting with 'big questions', like that's a real thing, and the 'nothing is learned' thing, that's preference.

File: 1446564487913.jpg (156KB, 991x679px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 991x679px

>-Being female

>>8174794
This is just a nightmare
But soon I'm going to wake up
Someone's gonna bring me around

>>8174731

I don't think any of those necessarily make bad writing. There's ways of doing those well. Not really sure what you mean by moral code either. I've never read a novel and been worried that it didn't have a 'moral code'.

Mine would simply be:

BAD WRITING

Style:

-Boring (uninventive, mundane, etc)
-Meandering (not to the point)
-Not enough nouns
-Overly derivative

Substance:
-Boring (mundane)
-Faking profundity.

>>8175578

I'll also add: Crippling self-consciousness, but even worse is obvious arrogance.

Write however the fuck you want you retard

Who are you writing for? If you're writing for you, write however the fuck you want

If you're writing for the public the best selling books are shit and do the things you say don't do

If you're writing for a tiny little clique of autists who actually study literature, ok be autistic about writing

File: 1465834167738.png (318KB, 498x774px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 498x774px

>>8174731
-fails to utilize full potential connections between diction, imagery, characters, and themes (efficiency is the foundation of aesthetic imo)
-descriptions and events are not realistic, not in substance but in practice
-no tension
-flat
-doesn't come from a truth the writer has earned
-pacing not consistent with themes (the castle is a great example of the opposite of this)

Here's a little extra for you guys

>>8175585
To write whatever you want, you need a foundation. I agree that creavity is central, but foundation ultimately allows you to properly express that creativity.

>>8174731
Lists like these are useless without long lists of explained examples.

>>8175585
Why are you so abrasive, bro? This post hurts my eyes.

-Main character blatantly represents the author's political views, and already has answers to all the moral questions and quandaries they encounter over the course of the story

>>8174731
>Overuse of adjectives
>Too many similes, metaphors
Shakespeare is a bad writer?

>>8175578


>not enough nouns

how does that even happen

>>8175955
Shitty "gotcha" question but I'll answer it anyway.

There are exceptions to everything; nothing is 100% set in stone.

I should clarify that I am talking mainly about prose here, not verse.

Shakespeare lived centuries ago and that matters. I can appreciate Lord Byron's poems, but any contemporary poet who wrote like him would be a massive twat.

Shakespeare's strengths outweigh any weaknesses.

File: laughing-child[1].jpg (27KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 320x320px

>>8176015
>Answers his own question.
>MFW

>>8176015
Well, basically my thought on this is similar to OP's 'not too many adjectives' rule, except that I sort of think adjectives are okay so long as you have more nouns to even it out, instead of a really verby/adverby sort of thing. It isn't an absolute rule. There are, of course, plenty of passages that work with an abundance of descriptive and doing words and phrases.