principle of poor writing.

[delebartholomew]

the principles of poor writing that must be avoided are
! Be vague aod verbose.
2 be ambiguous
3 do not revise your work.
4 ignore the reader.

[YesNo]

I agree that all of those characterize poor writing whether prose or poetry.

[Ecurb]

If someone wrote a brilliant, evocative poem, but didn't revise it, would the poem be an example of "poor writing"? It seems to me that this list is a mish-mash. Editing and revising one's writing and ignoring the reader involve the PROCESS of writing and authors can write well in different ways. For most of us, revision is vital. For some, it may not be. In either case, however, to judge a piece of literature based on the process by which it was written is silly.

"Ignore the reader" is another example of judging a piece of writing as "poor" based on the process by which it was written. "Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self," said Cyril Connolly.

"Vague and verbose" is, at least, a literary quality rather than part of the process of writing. Nonetheless, aren't some great works of literature "vague, verbose, (and) ambiguous"? Aren't Gabriel Garcia Marquez's novels "ambiguous"? Isn't Joyce occasionally vague and verbose? After all, the last sentence of Ulysses goes on for page after page. It can surely be considered verbose.

[Marbles]

This thread is an opportunity for members to lay down what they think are the 'principles of poor writing'.

So what are they?

For me, for one, lack of imagistic content in any piece of writing, (not to be confused with abundance of metaphors), renders it average and banal. Which is to say, even the most simplest sentence should release in your mind images and thoughts which a reader can capture without having to be told so. Chekhov, Flaubert, Nabokov, Broch etc are some examples of the type of writing I never tire of.

[Eiseabhal]

Being vague can irritate the reader / listener but is sometimes people elevate it to a principle. Being verbose can be fun for the writer and reader (They don't all have to write like Chandler) Nothing wrong with a bit of deliberate ambiguity now and then (She said) How on earth would you know if a piece of writing had been revised a lot/ a little/ at all. Not all writers need metaphors. Good prose comes in a variety of forms for a variety of needs and purposes. Ignore the reader - always. He's just an opinionated ar&? anyway.

[YesNo]

I see poor writing as writing that does not have an effect upon a reader (which could be the writer in the role of reader at a later date).

So, not respecting the reader is the same as not respecting the writer who will likely be one, if not the only, reader.

Not revising one's work implies, to me at least, that the writer is not focused. Not being focused enough to revise is a sign the readers will not stick around long enough to be affected by the writing.

Being vague, verbose and ambiguous (unless there is entertainment value in all of that) will just annoy the reader. This is fine if one has influential academics or critics pumping up the quality of the drivel as great, but that is not very likely to happen.

But it does happen. Because of that, it is more likely than a bunch of monkeys with typewriters composing the works of Shakespeare which, as I calculate it, has a probability of 0 even given infinite time. You won't be able to get many monkeys to waste their time typing more than a few characters.

[cacian]

the principles of poor writing that must be avoided are
! Be vague aod verbose.
2 be ambiguous
3 do not revise your work.
4 ignore the reader.

I don't get number four.
how does one ignore one?
I don't agree with one and two. I think one can write whoever way they wish as long as it odes not infringe on one's well being. it is up to the reader to figure out what the writer is up to.
if he or she cant then that is just that. life is too short to worry about why one did not get what one has read.

[ennison]

Some people would say that Mr Joyce moved from being a good writer to being an atrocious writer but some would say he got better. I don't think principles is the right word here. Features might be a more suitable word. In writing like cooking one man's meat is another man's poison. It is probably more profitable to look for the features of good writing than the features of bad writing. Revision cannot play a part here. I guess successful thriller writers are very aware of their readership and give them more of the same but some writers who are also successful probably do not even envisage the type of reader they are writing for because their writing is a necessity for themselves

[YesNo]

Another way to write poorly is to go it alone and not listen to your muse.