ok retards, give me a proper definition of what is good writing,

>>8313182

Good writing is too varied to narrow it down like that.

>>8313198
so it seems you don't even have a personal definition of what you consider good writing.

it seems you don't read as much.

>>8313204

I do read a lot. Any big reader knows that great literature has a huge variety of styles and different areas of focus. Maybe a certain inevitability to how sentences are formed, what words are used, so everything is in its right place? But I've read different versions of translated works and enjoyed and learned from them all.

The only thing I can think of that's common to all great writing is that after reading it, I feel like I've learned more about the world and its people, including myself. Writers do this in many different ways, and I can't think of any distinct thing in common to all of them.

>>8313259
so even after all that time you can't even formulate a proper definition of what you consider good writing?

hilarious.

File: DFW5.png (121KB, 250x310px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 250x310px

>>8313259

>using question marks on sentences that are not questions

KYS? Wow, I really respect the opinion of someone who writes like a sarcastic teenager?

>fiction helps you learn about real life people

Here, I just wrote a book about how women commonly pee in tea cups and then sip on it on warm days. Great, you've learned so much about this world and the people in it.

You should read more and post less.

>>8313300
>Here, I just wrote a book about how women commonly pee in tea cups and then sip on it on warm days. Great, you've learned so much about this world and the people in it.

I said great literature helps us learn about others. Shitposts don't do that sort of thing at all.

Everyone knows about those studies showing that heavy readers have more empathy for others. That's because hearing other people's stories do help us understand them. They may be fictional characters, but that doesn't mean their stories don't speak great truths about the world we live in.

There are exceptions like Thomas Pynchon, whose characters are mostly cartoons, but whose vision is so unique that you do learn about the world and get new unique ideas from him.

>>8313318
this thread is about prose, not the contents of what the writter masturbated to some philosophical or religious spiritual BS.

you clearly can't define what makes a piece of text good.

When the language is used in a style that makes me think "wow, this is impressive"

>>8313366
how do you even define that?

use of grammar, figures of speech, metrical prose, flow of speech?

come on niggers, you're not even trying.

>>8313325
>you clearly can't define what makes a piece of text good.

Okay, I do amdit that I can't. But until I do get an agreeable answer from you, I can't help but believe that great writing is hugely varied and has no common characteristics.

I've read writers who do wonders with long ornate sentences, and others who are very effective in short succinct sentences. There are great writers who areusing heavily metaphorical language, and others who are rather literal. Some use a high level of diction, others are pretty casual. Some are forceful, and others lighthearted. If using whatever techniques fit the story or themes or just whatever's effective counts as a definition, then you can count that as my answer.

>>8313380
music is also extremelly varied yet music theory exists.

we could define good music in terms of music theory.

same way, writing has rules, such as grammar, figures of speech, style, flow of speech, how arguments are presented.

sure, there could be writers who are radically diferent, but both can be analized using the tools I mention.

This is my problem with lit faggots, you always masturbate to writing but can't even give proper definitions and though about the techniques.

you always think of writing as some magical mystical deep BS.

>>8313373
When the grammar and words are goodly used

>>8313398

>we could define good music in terms of music theory.

But you can't though. You can use music theory to describe why something works so well, but it's not a checklist. Different composers do many different things with melodies and harmonies and some of them even break their rules.

And great writing is never about following a checklist. They can use rhetorical and literary devices in masterful ways, but it just isn't a strict list of things you need to do. You can always disprove me by giving me a strict definition, but you haven't done that.

>>8313449
>checklist
wow nigger, I didn't have a clue.

you seem to ignore is not a checklist, is something like a videogame score points.

the more techniques you use, the more points you have.

holy shit nigger, you're telling is impossible to define good art.

>>8313373
Maybe nobody is trying because you're not actually trying to come to an answer yourself, you just want to be argumentative. What are your own ideas on what makes good writing? Maybe if you share your own ideas, people could actually have a discussion. Here are mine, but they aren't all-inclusive.

It would start with basic mechanics. Is the writing grammatically correct? Are words used correctly? Do the sentences have clear meanings? Flow might also belong here. Are sentences varied in length to avoid repetitious sounds?

Then, imagery. The imagery has to be unique and evocative. You can't just use simple analogies and descriptions which thousands of other writers have used before, you have to be creative with it. If you can think of a creative way to communicate a dull action, thought, or image, it's likely that you're writing well.

At the highest level, you have the narrative. Is the plot realistic? Do the characters act realistically? Do the scenes have a narrative arc? More importantly, do the scenes contribute meaningfully to the whole? Also, does each sentence contribute meaningfully to each scene, or are some repetitive or irrelevant?

Then, it seems that these general rules are more like guidelines, because the rules can be broken in order to create certain effects, at least in fiction. At the same time, it seems easy to tell when a person is breaking them for effect, or breaking them because they simply don't know the rules.

>>8313325
Prose prose prose prose
Prose in my toes
Prose in my nose
The only thing that matters is prose.

I don't care how deep you are, a sentence too far and you're subpar!

Nobody cares what your characters say, if the sentence isn't poetry it's not ok!

Plot is entirely for the plebs, books are supposed to be poetry I guess!

You ask me why I don't read poets, and it's because its hipster trash, I can feed my ego well by pulling Shakespeare from my ass!

I hate you fucking faggots who think that prose is all a book is. That's called poetry, and you cancerous faggots stink up lit with your one dimensional views so much that there should be another containment thread next to the Ssfg thread.

It was a clear steel-blue day. The firmaments of air and sea were hardly separable in that all-pervading azure; only, the pensive air was transparently pure and soft, with a woman's look, and the robust and man-like sea heaved with long, strong, lingering swells, as Samson's chest in his sleep.
Hither, and thither, on high, glided the snow-white wings of small, unspeckled birds; these were the gentle thoughts of the feminine air; but to and fro in the deeps, far down in the bottomless blue, rushed mighty leviathans, sword-fish, and sharks; and these were the strong, troubled, murderous thinkings of the masculine sea.
But though thus contrasting within, the contrast was only in shades and shadows without; those two seemed one; it was only the sex, as it were, that distinguished them.
Aloft, like a royal czar and king, the sun seemed giving this gentle air to this bold and rolling sea; even as bride to groom. And at the girdling line of the horizon, a soft and tremulous motion -- most seen here at the equator -- denoted the fond, throbbing trust, the loving alarms, with which the poor bride gave her bosom away.
Tied up and twisted; gnarled and knotted with wrinkles; haggardly firm and unyielding; his eyes glowing like coals, that still glow in the ashes of ruin; untottering Ahab stood forth in the clearness of the morn; lifting his splintered helmet of a brow to the fair girl's forehead of heaven.

>>8313470
nice, finally we're having our own arguments.

I'll add this.
You twinks confuse a plot structure with the prose.
Plot has things like arcs, characters, character arcs, character development, tropes, goals of the story, lore, worldbuilding.

That's the structure.
It's very important and can get really complex.
Vital part of good stories and not just prose masturbation over irrelevant stuff.

Then you have the prose or use of the language.
This is very diferent than storytelling.

I consider good writing in terms of how much techniques and knowledge of such techniques you're aware of.
These techniques can be:
- use of proper grammar
- use of long compound sentences
- use of vocabulary
- use of vocabulary as character expressive power, like using slang
- use of figures of speech
- amount of figures of speech per phrase
- flow of speech, similar to how rap works
- rythm and general poetry metrics
- strenght of the figures of speech (visual imaginery)
- use of citations to other autors
- knowledge about literature, having expressions of classical works
- how well the ideas are presented
- how logical they seem to be

I'm sure there are other ideas, but I think those are enough to analize.