Recently I had the privilege to engage member Baddad in a discourse, during which I utilised Joseph Wambaugh to support an argument. Upon which Baddad replied: "Hmmm.....me thinks that Joseph Wampaugh surely can and may express himself with as many vulgarities as he pleases. After all, he is not exactly churning out quality literature, but escape fiction."
Which has set me thinking; What exactly constitutes a "writer" to be deemed as "good?'
Personally I opine that for a writer to be lauded as such, he or she must be able to embody a specific person or circumstances in the manner which such
generally is perceived. That is regarding fiction. Equally so, the targeted reader must willingly stay for the duration.
Factually he or she must strictly adhere to what is geneally perceived to be the truth, without sidelining the reader.
However, how do you see it?
Prof.


Reply With Quote

). So with that it changes for everyone becuase something that I find good somebody else may find rather bad.

