I have a problem when reading "bad" writing.
It's not that I can't tell (or decide) if some writing is bad, but I can't explain or articulate in an intelligent manner why I find it so terrible.
When I discern bad writing it comes as something intuitive, like eating bad food and immediately 'knowing' that it tastes horrible.
What should I do read to hone in my articulation when it comes to literary criticism?
>>8284749
Smells like Sumeria in here xD
>>8284749
>What should I do read to hone in my articulation when it comes to literary criticism?
Literary criticism.
>>8284779
yes but which ones specifically.
I would have thought /lit/ would be good at reading comprehension.
>>8284749
Suck a dick lol
>>8284791
yours or mine
i used to think mushrooms tasted bad, now i like them
read literary theory, then begin to realise how little you know about literature, then lack the ability to do comparative studies of approaches to literature and shill one approach since you think you solved everything, then MAYBE read other approaches and be able to recognise the merits and faults of each, then finally know enough to know you still need to read more but you are at least humble and honest about the limits of your knowledge but can still adequately apply theory to your arguments
good luck getting past the first stage. most read just to say they read
>>8284749
Read books that do something interesting with language, that push barriers and explore new territories. Burroughs, as much as he is vilified on here, did so, as did Joyce or Shakespeare or even Wolfe - then compare how these authors USE their prose to how "bad writers" do, and you'll most likely begin to see the difference, its effects and how it originates. I know, shit advice but it's how you learn how to discern these things on your own and not using a prepackaged method.
>>8284749
John Gardner's The Art of Fiction had some interesting ideas.
James Wood How Fiction Works is interesting as well
main lessons, stay away from cliches, stale writing and needless obfuscations
>>8284749
Its as simple as reading good stories so you instinctively know how many others are shit.
>>8284808
Now that I've read your reply and re-read the OP I can see why you wrote what you did.
It comes across as smug, know it all, arrogant and I really didn't mean for it to be read that way. What I mean is, I've read novels and writing that get a bad reception and while I agree on a sort of intuitive level I can never explain or assess it in my head in a coherent manner.
It's like when you watch a schlock film, you know it's bad but you can't articulate why it's bad in the language of film.
You can't really "hone" your tastes.
Just admit you have subpar taste when it comes to literary criticism.
>>8284881
I have subpar taste when it comes to literary criticism.
Now explain to me why Dan Brown's writing is terrible
>>8284889
Things just "are" terrible. Explaining "why" is kind of where you get stupid.
>>8284896
I want to explain it to myself, is more the point.
Consider the inverse, if you can't explain why something 'is' 'bad', then how can you explain why something is good?
>>8284898
Your problem is asking "why" over and over again is the mindset of a child. Your questioning attitude has not matured, if indeed you are no longer a "child."
>>8284907
I gotta say, I was really not expecting that kind of reply.
>>8284923
soup rise!
>>8284944
Your "why" assumes the statement is valid enough to ask why. kek
>>8284951
Why is it not valid?
>>8284955
Thanks for assuming my statement as valid.
>>8284955
can you please ignore him
>>8284962
I would but his arguments are so compelling!
>>8284823
the problem isn't discerning per se, it's justifying to myself why I found certain writing to be bad
>>8284978
It's not that mystical. Obviously some writing are bad.
>>8284980
explaining why it's bad, unpacking the mechanism and structure of the writing is however difficult.
>>8284995
Useless, too. A hobby to some.
Explaining why "good" literature is bad--now that's the challenge.
>>8285003
Posturing is tolerable as long as it doesn't shit up a thread. You're not fit to lick the dirt off the boots of greater men, men whose works defy time.
Laughable that you put "good" in quotations.
>>8285016
This is bad writing and not worth my criticism.
>>8284978
It involves a rather deep study into how fiction works as a craft in itself. The guys who say "lol it just works" obviously aren't very knowing of the subject.
The one anon who recommended John Gardner's book and How Fiction works made a good call. I'll also drop a line for Lajos Egri's books.
>>8285099
Your stance is more of a "pretending to know."
>>8285112
If only you could have one thing of substance in this entire thread.
>>8285123
If only you criticism were of substance.
>>8284995
Is it overwritten? Does it use big words to sound more intelligent then it is. Is it packed with superfluous descriptions that could easily be cut without any loss to meaning, character or narrative? Is it filled with cliches? Is it heavy handed and tries to tell you the meaning of the work opposed to showing you? Does it rely heavy on Deus Ex Machina, or just bring guns out the last act without any set up to their threat previously?
If you understand some of the basic pitfalls of writing it's easy to explain why something is bad.
>>8284749
Borges' Selected Non-fictions might prove to be helpful. Sometimes he discusses when specific techniques are ineffective. Having nearly finished the book, I still struggle with the same problem as you though. Would like to know more about this as well.
>>8285182
This would apply to Game of Thrones-tier "literature."
>>8285199
Is criticizing books on criticism meta?
>>8285201
kek why not move your goalposts out of this thread
>>8285216
They're too hard for you to reach, I know.
ITT: 90% of replies are "hurr you just know or you have no taste"
Discerning bad from good literature is easy. A child can do it. "This book is dumb" is something a ten year old can say.
Why writing is bad (or good for that matter) is however nearly impossible to answer in an abstract way. Bad (and good) writing have so many faces. Let's take two decent writers first because you'll be familiar with them. Hemingway and Kafka. Pretty much anyone on /lit/ agrees that their short stories are great.
Hemingway has simple prose devoid of flowery language and complicated constructions. The beauty of his sentences is that they seem universally true and on point. They're short, they get their meaning across.
"Women made such swell friends. Awfully swell. In the first place, you had to be in love with a woman to have a basis of friendship. I had been having Brett for a friend." is one of my favourites. The short half sentence "Awfully swell" perfectly captures the bitterness and pain in having a friendship with a woman you loved. You feel it before you read about the love part. The beauty of the prose lies within it's direct, no-nonsense nature.
Kafka on the other hand has complicated, interlaced sentences which seem to have no end. His vocabulary is sometimes unwieldy. One of my favourite stories, a sudden walk uses a structure of constant repetition. It's essentially describing a certain situation by stringing together loads of if clauses. The writing is impersonal, cold, devoid of emotion.
Both of these are very different yet great. It's the same with bad literature.
The fault often lies in the particular work. With things like "My inner goddess is doing the Hula" it's easy. The imagery is off. Then there's shit like "And from a very tiny, underused part of my brain – probably located at the base of my medulla oblongata near where my subconscious dwells – comes the thought: He's here to see you." It's obvious this is just to show off "Hey I know the word medulla oblongata! I'm smart! You know it too dear reader, yay!" The probably is also horrid. Using an exact scientific term together with probably is just wrong.
Other writing is bad because things are straight up told instead of shown. Think again of Hemingway, how he implies all the pain in the example above. Here comes Dan Brown. "Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery." Literally the first word in the fucking novel makes the entire sentence shit. This is material for a newspaper if some famous person died, not a novel.
Then we have constant overuse of adverbs. "he said jokingly" - He jested. "She said threateningly" She threatened. "He walked silently" - He sneaked. Too many of these make prose seem weak, passive.
There's also lenght of sentences, cacophonic combinations of words and loads of other things but you get the point. You need to work with a concrete piece of literature to tell why exactly it's bad.
>>8285834
Starting a post with "hurr" hardly lends to giving yourself any credence, despite what meme-logic tells you.
>>8285834
Good post anon. And I think you're a bit too smart to fall for that retards bait.
>>8285850
Trolls bait. Retards shitpost.
>>8285834
Thank you, I appreciate it. Would be great if you could share more.
>>8284749
Write a short story.
Recognizing your writer's voice and your/a reader's voice is very helpful in articulating what you like and don't like about literature.
Try describe Bateman's face in your OP, and recognize how many different ways you can tackle the problem.
Maybe the first thing you try is just getting the specifics of the face down. He looks determined, has a scowl, stoic, etc. For you, the words I just said (has a scowl) are being judged by your reader's voice. Trying to write will help with articulation about why you dislike them (or like them, who knows). Consider: "Scowl is too basic and too strong for what his face is expressing", or "His face does not need three descriptions. There are more important things going on in the story. One correct and brief description will be good".
The first writer likes to write about faces and wants something better than a vague word like scowl, the second doesn't like writing about faces and would rather let the reader's imagination do the work for what is going on in the face. Neither is right, but these two writers can articulate what they like and dislike.
Also focus on the writers you like. Actually reread over and over sentences in order to understand their rhythm, their focus, what they highlight, how they create patterns if any, how straightforward they are with their reader, etc.
>>8285834
This is good.
>>8285212
borges would know
>>8285834
>This is material for a newspaper if some famous person died, not a novel.
>The deafening claps of thunder and the dazzling flashes of lightning which lit up the ghastly scene testified that the artillery of heaven had lent its supernatural pomp to the already gruesome spectacle.
>>8286048
>dazzling flashes
>ghastly scene
>gruesome spectacle
After his Hellish job, the sad man walked home to his decrepit abode.
>>8285834
good post, thanks for the contribution m8
>have to get quints on /lit/ to add it to my list
>see random Bateman thread for some reason
Welcome to my quints collection.
>>8288888
i was trying for this in another thread.
>>8288888
>quints on a dead board
>>8288888
Nice.
Very nice.
>>8288888
i'm convinced this cunt is mot and he only posts here to steal our gets. nice get
