'nother Mike (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mbarker) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
writercises2019-03-06 01:47 pm
mbarker) wrote in writercises2019-03-06 01:47 pm
Entry tags:
TECH: Is It Good? (Another moldy oldie!)
Original Posting Dec. 30, 2017
Writer's Digest, January 1994, had an article by Nancy Kress on pages eight, 10, 11, with the title, "Is It Good?" The subtitle was, "That depends on who's doing the judging – and on these four criteria."
Nancy starts out by pointing out that it's a really good story, her book wasn't very good, he's a good writer, and similar judgments all have that word in them: Good. Just what do we mean by that? Why does one person thinks something is good all another person thinks it's mediocre or even worse? What, if anything, ties being good and being published? For that matter, how do you judge if your work or somebody else's is good? Well…
Nancy suggests that there are various definitions. You need to be aware of at least a few of the major ones. For example:
Judging by texture. "This is the literary criterion for judging fiction." Texture? Well, it's hard to define, but not too hard to recognize. Prose with a high level of detail. Details that create an interlocking set of symbols that conveys meaning, related to the voice. Usually, the details, symbols, and all that is used to explore subtlety of characters. Details, emotional reactions, motifs, voice…
Or maybe judging by plot! Yes, some people don't care about texture. Instead, they want a fast-moving plot, plenty of incidents, unexpected developments, danger, overt conflict. Excitement, action! This actually tends to be the commercial definition, because these books sell a lot of copies. They may or may not have interesting texture and well drawn characters. But what people are looking for is the action! Action, fast pace, danger, lives at stake, a clear-cut resolution to plot complications, and characters that your readers can root for.
Or, judging by scope? Within the realm of commercial, plot-driven fiction, some are better than others. What's the difference? Nancy says it's scope. The background, carefully researched, and portrayed. "It's about an entire era: its hopes, ambitions, briefs, fears, selfishnesses, heroisms." Scope and depth! "Genre work transcends its genre by aiming for – and achieving – a complex setting that takes on a life of its own."
Or perhaps, judging by emotional response? Bland texture, tired plots, stock characters, little scope – but still a bestseller? Well, "such books fill an emotional need. They reaffirmed for readers whatever they already believe or want to believe…" Emotional reassurance and hope. Romances that let them feel love, war stories that let them feel victorious, adventure tales and let them feel tough, and so forth. The readers get something they value, and they consider such books good.
So, texture, plot, scope, emotional response? If someone says your work is or is not good, try probing a little bit to find out which value system they are using.
"Finally, some stories have it all. Textured, individual prose. Compelling plot. Complex characters. Scope of background. Timely emotional satisfaction. We call these books classics."
Understand the criteria which you are using, and which other people are using to evaluate your fiction. Then decide whether you're going the right direction.
And have a good time writing!
Practice? Well, I suppose you could take your work in progress or maybe some of your favorites, and tried judging them by the various criteria that Nancy has described. Does it have great texture? How about the plot? Scope? Or is it provoking an emotional response? You might even consider trying to modify your work to push one or more of these little bit higher!
Just write!
Writer's Digest, January 1994, had an article by Nancy Kress on pages eight, 10, 11, with the title, "Is It Good?" The subtitle was, "That depends on who's doing the judging – and on these four criteria."
Nancy starts out by pointing out that it's a really good story, her book wasn't very good, he's a good writer, and similar judgments all have that word in them: Good. Just what do we mean by that? Why does one person thinks something is good all another person thinks it's mediocre or even worse? What, if anything, ties being good and being published? For that matter, how do you judge if your work or somebody else's is good? Well…
Nancy suggests that there are various definitions. You need to be aware of at least a few of the major ones. For example:
Judging by texture. "This is the literary criterion for judging fiction." Texture? Well, it's hard to define, but not too hard to recognize. Prose with a high level of detail. Details that create an interlocking set of symbols that conveys meaning, related to the voice. Usually, the details, symbols, and all that is used to explore subtlety of characters. Details, emotional reactions, motifs, voice…
Or maybe judging by plot! Yes, some people don't care about texture. Instead, they want a fast-moving plot, plenty of incidents, unexpected developments, danger, overt conflict. Excitement, action! This actually tends to be the commercial definition, because these books sell a lot of copies. They may or may not have interesting texture and well drawn characters. But what people are looking for is the action! Action, fast pace, danger, lives at stake, a clear-cut resolution to plot complications, and characters that your readers can root for.
Or, judging by scope? Within the realm of commercial, plot-driven fiction, some are better than others. What's the difference? Nancy says it's scope. The background, carefully researched, and portrayed. "It's about an entire era: its hopes, ambitions, briefs, fears, selfishnesses, heroisms." Scope and depth! "Genre work transcends its genre by aiming for – and achieving – a complex setting that takes on a life of its own."
Or perhaps, judging by emotional response? Bland texture, tired plots, stock characters, little scope – but still a bestseller? Well, "such books fill an emotional need. They reaffirmed for readers whatever they already believe or want to believe…" Emotional reassurance and hope. Romances that let them feel love, war stories that let them feel victorious, adventure tales and let them feel tough, and so forth. The readers get something they value, and they consider such books good.
So, texture, plot, scope, emotional response? If someone says your work is or is not good, try probing a little bit to find out which value system they are using.
"Finally, some stories have it all. Textured, individual prose. Compelling plot. Complex characters. Scope of background. Timely emotional satisfaction. We call these books classics."
Understand the criteria which you are using, and which other people are using to evaluate your fiction. Then decide whether you're going the right direction.
And have a good time writing!
Practice? Well, I suppose you could take your work in progress or maybe some of your favorites, and tried judging them by the various criteria that Nancy has described. Does it have great texture? How about the plot? Scope? Or is it provoking an emotional response? You might even consider trying to modify your work to push one or more of these little bit higher!
Just write!