Critique is not always pretty, and that's a good thing.

No, I'm refusing to shift the thread topic which is about said objective measures existing or not existing. It's not a debate about what is or is not skilled writing.

 

Sure. I think his writing contains deep truths about the human condition. Others say that it's just over-masculine garbage. I don't care.
Simply said, they don't like that his sentences are short. They also don't like that he writes about war and bull-fighting so much.

 

But that's clearly absurd. You want to debate whether the measures exist, but you won't explain what you think think the measures are? How can that be a meaningful conversation?

 

Those criticisms would not be things I would identify as hallmarks of skilled writing.

If you read reviews of books by political figures you will find the inevitable good or poor reviews based on agreement with the political position. I don't consider those actual critiques on the writing.

 

Take a deep cleansing breath.

Our brains are running on separate tracks. We can only talk past each other if you don't make an effort to understand the concept I am talking about.

Are there or are there not observable describable writing skills? Is there such a thing as grammar? Is there such a thing as showing? Is there such a thing as exposition?

Or are there only subjective opinions and preferences?

 

Well, it's funny you should say that, because when this thread started yesterday and I sat watching it in amusement for hours, I was thinking, 'what hypocrites, talking about accepting blunt and harsh criticism when they can't even accept criticism of their own methods.'

I didn't post here because it got to me, I posted here simply because you people are fucking dim sometimes and needed things putting in perspective. There is no answer to skilled writing. How does one compared the Mona Lisa to a Picasso? How does one compared Nirvana's Smells like Teen Spirit to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata? Is there a skill difference? Maybe in the technical side to things, but ultimately it just boils down to certain factors, like talent, originality, getting lucky with a gap in the market, catching the media's attention, and so forth.

Ultimately, though, anyone can learn all the tricks and methods to writing: all the scene transitions, sentence structures, fancy crap like 'showing vs. telling,' which most people are already subconsciously aware of, they just didn't know the technical lingo for it. But once you sit down at that keyboard or typewriter, then those skills will only help you to create, but what you create is a different story. Writing can't be taught; not the tricks and methods, I mean actual content. But even those who don't understand how to craft prose properly will still show signs of skilled writing; by looking behind the poor sentence structure and flow you will see rich characters and scenery - the stars: their beauty. Ever heard the saying, 'they are empty words.' Well, you could have someone who's a master at writing mechanics, but if his doesn't possess any heart or soul, then I would say that's unskilled writing, and others might disagree.

 

I'll be back tomorrow and hopefully that will prevent the pissed off pink unicorn god of locked threads from appearing.

 

That's not what this thread is about, and you know it.

You're not making the case you think you are.

I don't appreciate that at all. And considering you've been on the forum for less than two months, you're not exactly merging in here. You can whine about how there are no techniques, but your experience in the field is limited to say the very least. You're like a first semester philosophy student, who thinks an acid trip qualifies him to debate the professor.

 

Did you read it?

 

Brilliant. #REKT

 

Seriously, go back and read what you just posted.

Have you read it? Good. Now read it a-fucking-gain.

"We can only talk past each other if you don't make an effort to understand the concept I am talking about."

So, for clarity. Our failure to agree is due to my failure to make an effort to understand what you're talking about?

Nothing about our failure to agree being due to your failure to read the multiple times I've said different critiques might work for different people?

How about you make an effort to understand what someone else is talking about? Is that even possible?

I've said several times that the idea of observable, describable writing skills doesn't make sense to me. You asking me again if these skills exist is... well, it's standard GingerCoffee, I guess, but it's not good discussion.

Still, to play along with your nonsense - yes,there's such a thing as grammar - it's a tool that can be used in a variety of ways to create different effects in different readers. There's such a thing as showing, although you'll have a hell of time getting two writers to define it the same way, but it's not in any way a concrete, independent determinant of quality writing. There's such as thing as exposition, but... what the fuck does that question even mean? Are you suggesting that exposition, or the lack thereof, is somehow an indicator of effective writing?

Come on. You gave a critique, someone else disagreed with the critique, and you got bent out of shape. It's okay for you to disagree with other people, but not okay for other people to disagree with you!

Get over it. I'm out, for the foreseeable future. Enjoy your delusions.

 

Okay, I thought I was out, but... Is GingerCoffee the professor in your little allegory? Seriously?

 

Yes, yes, and yes. But that proves nothing. When I'm critiquing, I'm not really looking for any of these things (well, except maybe correct grammar, but that's really only if the writer intended to use correct grammar in the first place, which, to be fair, most writers do). Good or bad writing isn't defined by having good grammar, a proper ratio of showing vs. telling, etc. So I'm not really seeing your point.

 

I admire the honesty of saying "Okay, one more post!" Roflcopters.

 

Well actually it was, until everyone shifted it to writing 'skills.'

Aren't I? Prove it.

On the contrary, I'm not the one bashing peoples work and branding under 'good criticism approaches.' I'm not merging in? You mean I'm not submitting myself to the whim of the disciplinary committee? Because I challenge other peoples thoughts in a more unorthodox style? Everything I've said makes sense, and it's true whether you and others like it or not. If it's not, then please shoot holes in it, but please do it more with one off analogies like others have tried in the past.

How do you know what my experience is? From what I've seen on this thread, there is a lot of people debating like they are the professor when they have barely anything of substance to go by.

 

No, the body of academic work on writing composition is the "professor" in this situation. I look forward to seeing you leave again now.

 

There is such a thing as grammar. That is objective. There is such a thing as showing - but there is also a debate about how much to use and when and whether telling is bad or useful or... There is also such a thing as exposition - but there are also divisions of opinion on how much to use, at what point does it morph into an info dump...

There are terms and phrases for techniques but there is no well-defined skill set for using those techniques. Some techniques or combination of techniques will work well for a certain genre or even for a certain book, but will fail miserably with another.

IMHO, a 'skilled writer' is someone who can engage his/her readers. They will have used Technique A, B, and C well enough to do that - but another writer who engages their readers equally successfully would have used Technique X, Y, and Z. And a lot of readers will think they both failed miserably.

 

I almost feel a need to get involved with this discussion. Almost, but not quite.

 

You're a smart cookie. I made the mistake of being entrapped, but then I was able to wriggle loose of the real conversation. How's the weather where you live?

 

I can't prove your optics. Again, that's something you should know if you're going to start an argument. Suffice to say, getting combative over allegations of thin skin doesn't really convince anyone.

No one is feeling challenged here, sorry.

You've pointed out yourself that you have none. And many of the people you're "debating" have spent a lot of time an energy researching writing techniques. I'm sure you can imagine that telling them those techniques don't exist, based on idiotic parables about looking at stars, is not a very effective argument.

 

When do you start university, Lew?

(I know that's off topic, but this whole thread seems like a junk yard now, anyway)

 

Well when I saw in the thread title "not pretty" I thought it was about me.

August 24th or thereabouts depending on which school I go to. Then I'll need some ugly critiques on some non-fiction papers and essays.

 

Only because you can't back up any of your claims, or debate intelligently. Please stay on topic for this room.

 

You're on a hot streak. I'm spamming dat like button. It's like making it rain in a club.

 

Oh, that's hilarious.

I can see the writing techniques oozing out of this thread: it's about ... high school level? I've researched and studied tons of writing techniques -- if you can even call them that -- but that's basic stuff; anyone can learn it. Try looking a bit deeper, because what I'm talking about seems to be on a higher level, which is probably why you're incapable of comprehending it, and 'not feeling challenged.'

Wonder when I pointed out that I had none ... must have been when I didn't start spouting off irrelevant crap like 'elements in stories' or general aspects of word mechanics. I'm sorry to tell you, but that doesn't qualify you to comment on what defines skilled writing. You have to look WAY deeper than that to get any kind of thorough answer, which I was doing by talking about what's behind the words, rather than how articulate a sentence is written, or what a story genre is, which is all I've been reading on here so far.