How can you tell whether or not a book is poorly written? People say pic related is written very well, and I can see how, but would not have been able to make that judgement on my own as I thought nothing of the writing as I was reading the book. People also say that A Song of Ice and Fire is poorly written, but again, unless I see a specific passage singled out to be bad, I wouldn't know if it was poorly written.
By paying attention and ignoring what people say. A lot of ASoIF is adequately, if unexceptionally, written; a lot of the Great Gatsby is poorly, however elaborately, written.
>>8160928
>The Great Gatsby is poorly written
Oh, come on
>>8160919
It's something you recognize immediately if you have any understanding of language. Someone will post that passage from one of the ASoIaF books about Dany shitting in the field. Look at that and you will understand what bad writing is.
Poor writing can also have to do with the plot, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about.
>>8160944
It's just if someone were to ask me if a text was poorly written, I wouldn't be able to tell
>>8161000
Try reading a variety of different texts and genres for a while and see if it changes.
>>8160928
>A lot of ASoIF is adequately, if unexceptionally, written
This part is at least true. It's not bad prose. But when loads of people think something adequate is the best piece of literature in the world, ever, you kind of get butthurt and over-contrarian.
>>8160944
Memer.
>>8161056
It's not that bad. It's just about someone shitting in a field. It's not the highpoint of fantasy, let alone literature, but it's not something that's going to show you what bad writing means.
>>8161056
>the more you read
Agreed. I read Gatsby in highschool and didn't understand why it was praised. It wasn't until I got out of high school and started reading grenre fiction and fantasy that I realized the difference in language, and what makes a book "literature". OP if you keep reading more you'll develop your own tastes. And it's not a sin to enjoy a book even if the writing isn't that great, as some may imply.
>>8161244
This, in all honesty. It's kind of like how all east Asians look the same. If you're not used to something, the basic features all stick out at you and you can't work out the more subtle (although not necessarily actually subtle) differences. But if you've lived in east Asia for a decent time, you can easily tell the difference. Same with reading, or most other things.
There's also the fact that, if all you've ever eaten if McDonalds, you won't know McDonalds is shit-- you have nothing to compare it to.
When I was a kid I used to love Earthsea and Eragon equally -- later, when I'd read way more stuff, I still loved Earthsea but hated Eragon. And it continues.
I do think there are some things which pretty much everyone can notice, though, regardless of experience. Not prose, but complexity of themes, and of course plot. I think anyone would notice that Macbeth is more interesting than Game of Thrones. Although they might mistake it for plot, which everybody seems to be able to evaluate.
>>8161268
Mac Beth is better than GOT (even though I enjoy it more) due to the fact the stories are complex but not convoluted and the characters don't need 6 books of text to make them interesting...
Also
>It's kind of like how all east Asians look the same.
XD D'fuq was your point anon?
>>8160919
read an essay by Martin Amis called "The War Against Cliche"
or just read the title. bad writing = cliche
>>8162550
Concise plotting isn't necessarily a good thing in and of itself. One cannot know if it is to short or if it is bloated if one does not understand the purpose that the plot is to fulfill.
Yes Macbeth is better that GoT, and yes GoT is terribly bloated while Macbeth is lean. The problem (among many, many others) is that it takes six books towards no purpose. We don't care how many thousands of pages Proust's great work is because it merits it.
What makes Macbeth better than GoT is that Shakespeare is the premier stylist of the English language and provides an exhaustible font for aesthetic contemplation.
>>8161217
What's wrong with this passage?
>>8163680
it produces too much laughter.
>>8162550
>D'fuq was your point anon?
>If you're not used to something, the basic features all stick out at you and you can't work out the more subtle (although not necessarily actually subtle) differences.
Also
>due to the fact the stories are complex but not convoluted and the characters don't need 6 books of text to make them interesting
I'd say it's because Macbeth actually runs on --and explores -- a bunch of complex themes, and uses its prose/poetry to show this. The story isn't its main draw (a guy kills some other guys and then dies, spoiler), and the characters -- aside from Macbeth and the Lady themselves, who are God-tier, and Macduff, who has some stuff going on for a bit -- are not amazingly interesting in themselves. It's the dealing with tyranny, and perception, and morality, and free will, and more that separates it from GoT.
>>8161217
vulgar
How can you not recognize if writing is good or bad? Are you retarded or something?
Gatsby is great, regardless of what would be contrarian hipsters say.
ASoIaF is generally bad, but even there Martin manages some very redeeming chapters. A Ghost in Winterfell was compelling, in fact all of the Theon chapters when he returns to the North in Ramsay's thrall are exceptional. You genuinely feel his tortured and haunted frame of mind, everything from the events to the setting to the exposition gives the plot a power and a magic that is normally absent from Martin's world. But these flashes of brilliance do exist.
But why is Gatsby considered well written?
The style is merely a succinct balance of prose and poetic seasoning, and otherwise a vanilla quotidian arrangement of diction and emotional cues. Perhaps it was innovative for its time?
I don't feel that every writer needs to be a Faulkner, but still.
>>8161217
Come on, the man is trying to make a living by selling books. Can you blame him?
>>8160937
Are you trying to tell me the amount of redundant adverbs in that book was good writing?
Not saying Gatsby's poorly written necessarily, but it's not perfect. Dialogue, for example, is fucking fantastic in that book
>>8164144
>has never actually read but will comment on the book
fuck off
u
c
k
o
f
f
>>8164245
>has no argument but will comment on a post
I swear, nine out of ten people trying to defend a book here can't step beyond "nuh-uh you haven't read it". Damn, even something about yo momma would be an improvement.
>>8163680
>daily reminder that literature and modern language has fallen so far that people actually can't tell that is bad writing
>>8164260
>say book is bad
>people say it's good
>no, it's bad, saying it's good isn't an argument
:^)
>>8164260
When your description of a work is completely at odds with said work, what can one do but assume you've not read it?
>>8160919
You typically judge a book in a few obvious ways, but the importance of them is subjective to the individual
If you read you can judge by comparisons, you get to know what is the average level of writing and who goes above and who goes beyond it
>>8164268
No one's actually answered it.
I read thisbook my 11th grade year honestly my teacher was high on X so ima sum up what she was trying to get across; The story is fact and faction because in some parts they had twick to make it sell.
