While in search of something else on the big ol' Web, I found this, from Richard Nordquist's consistently useful
website. The very short article attempts to answer the age-old question, "What is the difference between a good writer and a bad writer?"
If you are so inclined, please click, read, and comment:
http://grammar.about.com/od/advicefr...tersandbad.htm
P.S. Numbers 1-9 aside, yours fooly has #10 down!
This 'would-be writer' doesn't believe anything anymore. Or how about human consciousness runs toward daylight and according it to something tangible ties its legs together.
As for the link, a cut more interesting than most such lists in this category. Thanks for posting it.
J
re. #8
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
The trouble is, all your personality has gone.
Last edited by prendrelemick; 04-13-2011 at 03:54 AM.
Didn't you post this before? Is that a sign of a bad writer or just a bad memory??
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
Re: If by "your" you meant yours fooly, then I don't doubt some folks would see that as a "consummation devoutly to be wished."re. #8
The trouble is, all your personality has gone.
Well, Delta, I harbor no illusions contrary to the fact that I may already be showing signs of premature senility-- not so "premature" at that!-- but I think I know which previous thread you mean, which does share some similarities:Didn't you post this before? Is that a sign of a bad writer or just a bad memory??
73 Ways That Might Make You a Better Writer (but ProbablyWon't)
Last edited by AuntShecky; 04-13-2011 at 02:29 PM.
Not sure what number I am within the list.
English my native language and have characterizes of dyslexia.
Copyright (C) 2011, Zoolane
I have pass by English Exam.
Tee Hee. I like the lean on editors comment. There have been some hurt feelings on lit-net due to sensitivity. I'm attached to my writing like I am attached to my body. It doesn't mean it is perfect though since there is always room for improvement. One simply needs to keep working on it till it is in better shape!
Is there a number that says a writer does not need to be learned in all technicalities of writing to the point that they can enter into prolonged discussions on the matter? I often feel that informed technicians are simply a substitute for lack of natural flair.
Last edited by Delta40; 04-13-2011 at 05:49 PM.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
Aside from #2 and #5, I'm impressed by the summary. Particularly:
- A bad writer is a writer who always says more than he thinks.
- Their inattentiveness to the detail of their prose is part and parcel of their inattentiveness to the detail of the outside world.
- A good writer does not fake it and try to make it appear, to himself or the reader, that there is a coherent and probable whole when there isn't.
From the list of 73, I could only glean:
- Rethink what is 'normal'.
- Take risks - don't be afraid to shock. You are not who you think you are.
"Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself"
I read somewhere that a good writer and a bad writer actually churns out the same quality of writing on a day to day basis. The difference between them is that a good writer is able to discern his good writing from his bad writing, where a bad writer cannot, and filter most of the bad writing out by his final draft.
there are also the basics right?
1) story arch
2) Unique Selling Proposition USP
3) characterization
4) overall thesis
B.S. it's not that simple.
I aim to break all the rules, even the good ones. Language is unlimited is a special fantasy of mine.
William Wordsworth is a very good poet. But entering his poetry is like entering a dense forest with weeds and dead wood everywhere and fruit trees too scanty to be seen at a glance. He has written two or three dozen fine poems but they are inacessible to the reader owing to the hundreds of inferior poems surrounding them. Had he written only a few, all of them good like Thomas Gray's, it would have been easier to appreciate him. So it is not unnatural for good writers to sire very bad writings. Suppose a person happens to come across and read only his inferior poems: he will begin to think that Wordsworth is a bad writer which in fact he is not. So there are not good writers and bad writers but only good writings and bad writings from a writer. Perhaps someday one of his good writing may come our way, or someday he may write a good piece of literature. All good writers who create much and publish them too without distinction will certainly leave behind a number of bad writings. A writer who is stamped as bad most often may come up with an immortal work which has happened. Inexperience and fame are the two things that are responsible for bad writings.
It is a matter of liking...
www.sparkling-markets.com/VladDracula.html
Good writers are true to themselves. Bad writers? Not so much.
"We look at the world, at governments, across the spectrum, some with more freedom, some with less. And we observe that the more repressive the State is, the closer life under it resembles Death. If dying is deliverance into a condition of total non-freedom, then the State tends, in the limit, to Death. The only way to address the problem of the State is with counter-Death, also known as Chemistry." -- Thomas Pynchon, Against the Day
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
