Standards of writing ( some minor spoilers for Ulysses and LOTR)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 142987

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > As an editor and a former English teacher, I have to 
> > disagree. There *are* objective criteria by which to 
> > judge good writing. In the case of fiction, they includ
> > a fully developed plot ...; clear, concise sentences ...;
> > precise, concrete diction ...; realistic, natural-sounding
> > dialogue...; and (most important) memorable and distinctive
> > characters. 

 
> Alla:
> 
> Carol, I had been thinking about this topic for a couple days
> because at first I was inclined to agree with you more than I
> was with Lupinlore ..., but now I am afraid I am back to my 
> agreement with Lupinlore, well, at least partial agreement. :-)
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> I guess I have to say that I DO think that there are quite 
> common signs of genuinely BAD writing and by BAD writing I
> mean, I don't know - some of the very crappy fan fiction, 
> .... When I, non-native speaker, ..., think that I could 
> write ... better than some fan fiction writers ...
> 
> BUT when we go into the world of published writing, I think 
> that the things get VERY subjective, very fast. ...
> 
> You listed several criteria of the good writing, but my 
> question to you would be who determines those criteria 
> and who determines whether certain writer's work fits those 
> criteria?
> 

bboyminn:

Writing can be judge in a number of ways. Writing can be technically
correct, but still tell a bad story, or writing can be technically
incorrect and still tell a whopping good tale. 

However, there is a foundation for good writing that, within the
limited and obscure bounds of the English language, is clearly defined
and precise. This technical aspect of good writing is clearly defined
in 'Stunk & White's - Elements of Style' and in 'The Chicago Manual of
Style' as well as other similar books.

I remember reading a fan fiction that told a good story, but the
writing technique was so flawed that reading became immensely tedious
and confusing. It was a struggle to read what I could see was a good
story. I wrote the author and told him his story would improve
immensely if he cleaned up the writing style. Unfortunately he was one
of these lazy authors who felt that this is the way the story came to
me, so this is the way it should be published. A very unrealistic veiw
of publishing if you ask me. 

So, there is a concrete, or as concrete as the English language can
be, standard for good writing. There is a further somewhat more
abstact standard by which writing can be measure, and Carol itemizes
several of those.

BUT, and that is a big BUT, there is no accounting for taste. There
are many New York Times Best Sellers that I couldn't plod through if
you paid me. Still, they were good enough to get published, they were
good enough to make it to the best seller list; someone somewhere must
have objectively judged them as good. But no matter how 'good' they
are, I personally could never find them appealing. 

So, good writing technique can be held to a objective standard.
Though, the English language contains so many acceptions to its rules
that authors can affectively break the rules and still come out right.
For example, a technically good writers never uses parenthetical
asides  (if you see what I mean). But that is a general rule, JKR does
just that and to very great effect. So, productive and effective
acceptions to the rules are allowed.

> Alla:
>
> You list "fully developed plot" as first criteria. Several
> months ago I attempted to read James Joyce " Ulysses" (...it
> was quite painful for me :-)) ... So, yeah, if you ask me what
> do I think about " Ulysses" ... My answer to you would be that
> I SO wasted my time reading it. ...
> 
> ...
> 
> Now I actually agree with you a lot as to JKR's writing. Here would 
> be a good time to thank Steve for his wonderful essay and to say 
> that I agree with the most of what he wrote.  I think it is very 
> good, because we can visualize the world and the settings, and 
> especially because I can " feel" the characters, it touches me on 
> very deep level.
>

bboyminn:

Steve humbly bows and is elated to know that someone is actually
reading his posts.

> Alla:
>
> At the same time, there are those who  think that her 
> characters are often sacrificed in favor of the plot 
> development. ... 

bboyminn:

I think that criticism has come about with the addition of the most
recent book, and to some extent it is a valid criticism. But we have
to consider that JKR has a wealth of characters, almost too many. In a
sense, she has done such a wonderful job of creating her world that
her world actually over extends her plot. While having a plethora of
characters, she truly is running out of plot. The story must end, and
she is force to /force/ the story toward that end; there's no way
around it. Things have to happen in order to reach the end, and that
means that achieving that end, or at least the prelude to that end,
dictates how much time and room there is for characters to develop.

Also keep in mind that JKR has /space/ limitations. Her publishers are
not going to allow her to write a 1200 page tome. She has to keep the
things that need to happen contained into the length of a common
reasonable sized novel. I think the key to this whole story (HBP) is
that Draco has reluctantly gone over to the dark side, and Snape must
kill Dumbledore. JKR starts with that seed and must weave a novel
around it. That's not an easy task. I remember in one chapter of my
fan fiction, I simply needed one character to make one statement that
represented a clue for another character, but how to weave that
clue/statement into my story. Well, it took me a chapter of 10,000
words just to get that character to make that one statement. I think
it was a good chapter, and the bulk of it was simply a chain of
circumstances that lead to a conversation. So, my point is that, like
it or not, sometimes the plot really must drive the characters. JKR
simply doesn't have time or space to wander off on tangental
characters, Draco must 'step in quicksand' and Snape must kill
Dumbledore and everything that happens must lead to that end. That is
the reality of this book. 

Still, think of the latest, and by some regarded as the poorest, book;
HBP. Then conpare the latest book to the standard 'best seller' fair
that is out there and tell me how it stacks up? No, it doesn't measure
up to the best of JKR's work, but I think it holds up nicely when
compared to other books by other authors. 

Again, relating back to what I said previously, whether a book is well
written is completely independant of whether you like it or not. I'm
speaking of professionally published book here, so the technical
process of writing has already been dealt with.


> ...edited...
> 
> Carol:
> <snip>
> > If I could do so without abandoning professionalism, I would
> > quote you some genuinely bad writing from a manuscript I'm 
> > currently editing--extremely wordy sentences, the same phrases 
> > over and over, pompous diction, unrealistic and unnatural 
> > dialogue, stereotyped characters, unbelievable situations
> > ... extended descriptions in purple prose. This is not merely
> >  my opinion of what constitutes bad writing. >

> Alla:
> 
> I guess I have to ask again. Whose opinion is it then? 
> Literary critics? Why their opinion should count as more 
> objective than mine for example? :-) 
> 
> I want to go back to " Ulysses" for example. I think it has 
> extremely wordy sentences, pompous diction, unrealistic  and  
> unnatural dialogue. Do you think it is bad writing? I am quite 
> serious here.
> ...edited... 
>
> JMO obviously,
> 
> Alla, ...

bboyminn:

I'm reminded of what a Supreme Court Judge once said about
pornography, (paraphrased) I can't define it, but I know it when I see
it. First of all, the measure of good writing is the tedium and
struggle that the author puts the reader through. I am simply not
going to wade through pages of 'bad writing' on the off change that
there might be a good story there. That exactly why I don't read
Shakespeare. I know the story is good, but I simply can't wade through
the tedious and difficult dialog. 

Which brings to to an important point and back to 'Ulysses'; what are
the odds that Shakespeare or 'Ulysses' could get published today? I
would say ZERO. Great as Skakespeare's his work might be, it is simply
out of touch with modern day writing and reading. 

So, without a doubt there really is a subjective element to good
writing, but before you can even get to that subjective part, you have
to wade through the very objective aspects of technical writing, and
of basic standard story construction, plot and character development.
Once you have overcome the objective technical aspects of it all, then
you must ask, is this technically correct story worth reading?

One last point, we know that several publishers rejected JKR's first
book before one agreed to publish it. Does that all mean that they
either objectively or subjectively thought it was bad writing? I don't
think so. I suspect that their rejection was purely a marketing
decision. They didn't ask whether the story was well written (at least
not in the end), they asked themselves whether there was a profitable
market for this book, and decided there wasn't. Not all writing is
accepted or rejected based on quality, some is simply accepted because
the publisher thinks the mindless consumer drones will eat it up;
purely a marketing decision.

I'm not sure I've actually added anything. I do believe that there are
indeed objective standards by which writing can be judged, but that
doesn't eliminate the fact that there is also indeed a subjective
element to it all. Again, I think people are taking an all-or-nothing
appraoch, black and white, when in reality the world is filled with
shades of grey.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn